Posted on 04/18/2007 10:04:30 AM PDT by writeblock
There is a political lesson behind today's Supreme Ct decision on partial birth abortion that some of you who now oppose Rudy Giuliani need to think about.
Back in 2004, Pat Toomey challenged Arlen Specter in PA for the nomination to the U.S. Senate. Both Rick Santorum and George Bush backed Santorum. They did so for three reasons. First, they believed Toomey had little chance to win in the general election whereas it was virtually certain Specter would win if nominated. Second, the Senate was too evenly divided between Democrats and Republicans to risk losing even one seat--which would mean losing control of the Supreme Ct. nominating process as well. It was no time for risk-taking by backing a conservative like Toomey who was a long shot to win in a state trending leftward. Third, they made sure Specter would cooperate with the President if he ascended to the chairmanship of the Judiciary Committee in the next Congress.
Specter, as expected, won in the general election and the Republicans kept control of the Senate by a narrow margin. Specter kept his word and ushered-through his committee the two Supreme Court nominees, Roberts and Alito. The rest is history.
I mention all this because Santorum--the real unsung hero behind today's Supreme Court decision--paid a heavy price for his backing of Specter--even though he was the main impetus behind the new law banning partial birth abortions. Ungrateful social conservatives, vowing to seek revenge for his failure to back Toomey, took it out on him in 2006 by voting him out of office. Santorum took the hit for taking a course of action that was wise both politically and morally--and far more principled than the peevish social conservatives could appreciate at the time.
A similar situation is going on regarding the candidacy of Rudy Giuliani. Many conservatives understand that we must win back the Congress for us to be successful in achieving our principles in the long run. They appreciate that only Rudy Giuliani promises to win states that are now either trending left or wholly in the Democratic column. And they appreciate that he stands the chance of winning big, thus returning the Congress to the GOP. But as was the case with Santorum, a core of disgruntled social conservatives are out to sabotage Rudy's candidacy at any cost. This is myopic--and not unlike their reading of what Santorum was doing back in 2004 when he supported Specter. They fail to appreciate that the name of the game is to win elections. If we lose them, we lose everything, including any hope at all of furthering our principles in the long run.
Now I know you're living in fantasy land. The whole rationale for saying Rudy is electable is that he appeals to liberals and moderates -- why would these voters vote for considerably more conservative House and Senate folks if it takes someone as liberal as Guilaini to get them to vote GOP at all?
Besides, just looking at the seats up for re-election, it would take a miracle (which Pelosi may yet provide in her incompetence) for the GOP to regain control in 2008 because way too many of those seats already belong to Republicans.
That's not a fact, real or otherwise.
Name recognition polls do not a victory make.
Rudyphiles spew this scary story all the time. That does not make it true.
Those are opinions, not facts.
“The Trouble is the threat to the Traditional Family unit that Guiliani represents. Currently democrats do not support the traditional family unit of father, mother and child. They do not acknowledge that marriage is between one man a one woman. I don’t think Guiliani would support that definition and bent to the alternate family crowd.”
This is false. He is against gay marriage but is willing to recognize civil unions.
The facts are:
The first primary/caucus isn’t until January, 2008, over 7 months away. Your queen Rudie is only leading because the advertising campaigns have not begun. As people find out where he really stands, his numbers drop. Just look here at FreeRepublic, he dropped from a double digit lead to under 10% just on the hint of a Fred Thompson candidacy. He is a pandering, lying, cross-dressing, gun-grabbing abortionist.
See #29 -- Rudy in his own words saying that he opposes the PBA ban.
I take Rudy at his word. Are you saying I shouldn’t?
I must admit that I find it somewhat amusing that there are still FReepers who think ushering in a senate full of Lincoln Chaffees and a house full of Chris Shays would be a good thing, if there’s a confirmed RINO in the White House. Hell, meet my handbasket.
What you say is partly true. I dislike Specter intensely, but he did shepherd those two supreme court appointments through the Senate successfully, as he promised to do, even if he was talking out of the other side of his mouth to the press while he did it.
Personally, I think Bush and Santorum were mistaken to have backed Specter. But I also think it was a grave tragedy that conservatives let Santorum be defeated as a result. He made ONE MISTAKE, and otherwise has been a very reliable pro-life conservative. Casey voted pro-life in the recent stem cell vote, but I don’t trust him to be as reliable as Santorum, and he will vote with the Dems on most issues.
Letting a Democrat win because Rick made one mistake was a very stupid thing to do. We lost one of our best senators with considerable seniority as a result, all because people’s noses were out of joint.
That pre-supposes that Giuliani will have strong support among those states that are teetering on the edge between red and blue. It's not clear that the 'moderates' and independent voters would support Giuliani over the Democrat candidate, but it's clear that he wouldn't have as much conservative support, and to win as a Republican you have to have the MAJORITY of conservative support no matter how much other support you may get.
You’d take a politician at his/her word? Have you learned nothing?
I’d rather usher in those types instead of DEMs so good guys like my congressman, John Culberson, don’t get f%cked and can have support doing their job.
No Kidding!
You have not backed up your statement that Rudy will repeal the ban. That’s all I am asking you to do. So far, you are only telling me what YOU think he’ll do and have provided no facts that Rudy plans to repeal the ban.
Rudy's a NARAL fundraiser. His actions back his words. He's their boy.
Incidentally, his campaign would no doubt get a lot of their blood money.
Your contempt for social conservatives reflects poorly on your candidate, Rudy.
If you'd like to be a FRedHead let me or Howlin know.
CAUTION: This is a very high volume ping list. You may receive between 5 and 10 pings a day. If you'd rather not receive so many pings, let me know and I'll only ping you once a week.
“I’m sure the fact that he was #1 on the liberals’ hit list had NOTHING to do with his loosing. Nope, it was those darn ‘peevish’ social conservatives.”
You are naive if you don’t think the Democrats deliberately backed a pro-lifer solely to split the pro-life vote and win a seat in the Senate. They knew Santorum was vulnerable because the social conservatives considered that he had “betrayed” Toomey. They knew you guys don’t really understand power politics—that you can’t see beyond the noses on your faces. The split of the pro-life vote was enough to allow the abortionists to take over the Senate by a single seat. You can thank your fellow pro-lifers for being stupid enough to fall for the oldest political trick in the world—divide and conquer—just as you guys are falling for the hate-Rudy b.s.
That does not support the earlier statement that Rudy will REPEAL the ban. Please provide proof of Rudy's position that he will repeal this ban. That's all I am asking you to do. Prove it.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.