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.
This far ahead of Primaries is not the time for the "A vote for anybody but my guy is a vote for a Democrat" argument. Now's the time to vote for somebody good.
Do you think I would trust him not to change his mind?
If you think I shouldn’t trust him, I’ll take that under advisement.
I failed to see the sarcasm tag, old FRiend...
No the name of the game is not “win at any cost” it is NEVER EVER EVER COMPROMISE your PRINCIPALS. Rudy is NOT a conservative. RUDY is NOT good for the conservative movement. And RUDY will NOT get my vote.
“, they believed Toomey had little chance to win in the general election...”
This is complete nonsense.
Joe Ho, AKA Joey Hoeffel, is a stupid, stupid man. I know him personally and I can say that with complete confidence.
Toomey, had he been given a chance, would have spanked him so badly, he would have slunk back to his home in Abington and spent the rest of his life in Romeo’s tavern.
Our fellow pro-lifers?
You're not pro-life?
Your logic is twisted at best. Here’s fact. My Congressman, (R) John Culberson, just got screwed by the 2006 elections — and screwed good. And when good Conservatives in Congress get screwed, YOU get screwed.
I have to say that the Senate with Lincoln Chafee was a lot nicer than the Senate without him.
Yup, we're just too dang stupid to "get it". Just a bit of advice- if you're trying to get social conservatives to vote for Rudy you might not want to preface it by insulting them. Believe it or not, we actually have very good reasons for voting the way we do, and resorting to calling us stupid really doesn't help your case.
You have not proven your original statement that Rudy will repeal this current ban. That’s all I am asking you to do.
It's not about hating Rudy, it's about hating his liberalism. When you call it "b.s.," you should point out what part is b.s.
“No sale. Rino Rudy is so far to the left a rat win would not matter.”
This is a politically stupid statement.How does giving the election over to the party of abortion and treason support your principles? For those of you too dense to realize it, a winner at the head of the ticket, whether he leans to the left or the right, would mean a BIG WIN for conservative values in the long run. Only the politically naive don’t understand this or resent it. Politics is a game of the possible. No matter how much you may prefer a Hunter or a Thompson, the name of the game is victory at the polls—or else you lose everything, the legislature, Supreme Court nominees, the Dept. of Justice, the war on terror—you name it. The stakes are too high to risk supporting losers.
The Rudybots love to trot out the anti-social conservative line...
However, it’s not just social issues where Rudy’s a liberal. He’s pretty much a liberal on EVERYTHING. Gun control, TAXPAYER funding of abortion (which is both a social AND fiscal issue) as well as a host of other issues...he’s basically a statist.
Got it.
I mean, I suspected it, but now I have proof.
Apparently you are suggesting every other declared or possible candidate in the field, other than Rudy, is a loser and not fit to lead the country. I and many others believe otherwise, including the vast majority who visit this forum. All you have done since joining the discussion here at FR is serve as a sounding board for the Giuliani campaign. It might help if you joined some unrelated discussions on this forum to learn a little more about Free Republic and its goals, and stop pimping for the Giuliani campaign. Better yet, join the campaign yourself where you might do some good.
You made a definitive statement that Rudy will REPEAL this current ban. I simply want you to prove this statement.
The stakes are too high to risk supporting LIBERALS.
Considering that he has repeatedly spoken against the PBA ban, to the point of endorsing Clinton's decision to veto it, not to mention his 100% NARAL rating, I think our assumptions are pretty safe. Today's statement praising the USSC decision pretty much means that Guiliani thinks Congress has the right to pass the law, not that he agrees with it.
If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, assume it's a duck.
If you are so certain that he wouldn't sign a bill overturning the PBA ban, why not contact his campaign to get a statement to that effect?
How does turning our own party over to people who are no different support our principles?
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.