Posted on 03/29/2005 6:40:35 AM PST by Conservative Goddess
Here's the political calculation you don't seem to remember or understand. There was no guarantee that the GOP would pick up or retain its numbers in the Senate. So from President Bush on down it was thought best to support every GOP incumbent.
With Arlen voting with the GOP caucus, we have control of the apparatus. With a Senator Hoeffel and a few other losses, we have a tied or diminished Senate.
You all are operating under the assumption that Toomey would win in the general election. That's not a given in any way, especially with Rendell and the Philly machine.
You also operate under the assumption that it doesn't matter what party controls the Senate. You can disagree with 20/20 hindsight that Specter's seat was a "must hold" for the GOP, but in the political reality of the campaign season, to forfeit a seat you control is foolish.
Bush and Santorum calculated that the pro-life cause would be furthered with GOP control of the Senate, including a Specter who was in some way indebted to them, than they would be by impaling themselves in order to please the base.
You are short sighted.
SD
LOL. Reasonable people can disagree. I'm tired of the party telling me that Ricky is the uber conservative...when clearly, he is not. They even dispatched Ken Mehlman to proclaim: "He's a man of convictions." I nearly fell out of my chair laughing when I read it. I was duped for a very long time by his words....I'm only pointing out the fact that Ricky's words and deeds are incongruent. If you chose to vote for him simply because he's the lesser of the evils, great, so be it.
My point is simply this: If we continue to tolerate conservatism when convenient, then we'll get more of it. I've voted pragmatically for years, waiting, patiently for them to start acting like conservatives who are in the majority, instead, we've seen explosive growth in government. As a limited government, Libertarian/conservative, I can no longer hold my nose and vote for the lesser of the evils.
If you want to be effective, then oppose the heretic in the primary. That is the proper place for that. Going third party or sitting on your hands is not a viable option.
If you are dissatisfied with the GOP (and who isn't sometimes?), then work to change it. Don't gripe and moan and place unrealistic yokes on its members. If you think Santorum has betrayed you cause he supported his president and senior senator, then find someone in the primary who is better.
Helping to elect a democrat is not the answer.
SD
"You all are operating under the assumption that Toomey would win in the general election."
I operate under no such assumption.
EVERY prognostication that I read or heard in the run-up to the primary indicated that we were likely to pick up seats in the general. This was a PERFECT time to cull a rino, even if you assume, arguendo, that we would have lost the seat to Hoeffel (unlikely in my view).
That Rick allowed the party to dictate his endorsement of Arlen over idealogical soulmate Toomey, is unforgiveable. Demonstrates a comlete lack of, well, I'll be kind and say, SPINE!
And John Kerry was winning in the early exit polls, too. You don't count your chickens...
This was a PERFECT time to cull a rino, even if you assume, arguendo, that we would have lost the seat to Hoeffel (unlikely in my view).
There is never a good time to forfeit control of a Senate seat. You are unreasonable. The time to "cull a rino" is in the primary, and we darn near did it. I voted for Toomey. But I understand why Bush and Santorum did not support him.
That Rick allowed the party to dictate his endorsement of Arlen over idealogical soulmate Toomey, is unforgiveable.
You would rather there be no purebred conservative senators rather than accepting that there are some political realities that must be faced. One of them is supporting the reelection of fellow members of your own party.
Just don't complain when Casey beats Santorum and Specter dies and Rendell appoints a second democrat senator for us.
We would not have forfeited control of the Senate and I believe that Toomey would have won the statewide election. We would have been infinately better off if Santorum had bothered to stand on his professed principles. If Arlen behaves, moves all nominees out of committee, then I'll eat crow. But I'll bet you dollars to donuts that he'll find an obscure provision in Scottish law that will give him a reason to BORK a nominee or two or three. Time will tell, but it is much to early to give Ricky a pass for his complicity in allowing Arlen to ascend.
There's control, and then there's control. Every extra seat gives us more leeway.
And if you think Toomey would have won statewide, you are seriously optimistic. He might have had a chance, but I don't trust much of anything that happens in Philly. Specter, for what little else he is worth, has the support of the Philly labor machine. That ain't nothing.
Time will tell, but it is much to early to give Ricky a pass for his complicity in allowing Arlen to ascend.
The complement to your assuming Toomey would win is more bizarre notion that Santorum "allowed" Spectre to win. I am not convinced that Spectre would not have won regardless of Santorum's actions. Santorum is scertainly not the gatekeeper over Arlen's career.
SD
I don't deny that Santorum is better than the leftists....but I just can't abide the duplicity any longer. When he turned on his pro-life base, that was the last straw for me. I don't know if you've read the entire thread, so please forgive me if this is mindless repetition, but you should probably know that prior to teh release of the Arlen ads, Rick even called some of the people who'd worked tirelessly for him precisely because of his pro-life stance. He did not call me personally, but he called one of the Committee women in my county. He clearly knew and understood that what he was about to do would wound his base severely. That we are angered to the point of refusing to support him should come as no surprise. That we are holding him accountable should likewise come as no surprise. We worked for him because we thought he he shared our principled pro-life views, and that those principles would NEVER be compromised.
I guess the duplicity would be easier to abide if Rick hadn't played the part of "St. Rick" for so long. The fall from grace was swift, and the landing will be hard.
If you want to see REAL damage to the pro life side, imagine this: three SCUSA absences filled with Souter clones. Which is exactly what you'll get out of the Senate if the Dems filibuster tactic isn't stopped. Electing another Dem Senator would insure that reality.
That may be true, but I owe allegiance to my own conscience and I'll not betray that and I'll not reward Santorum with re-election. The English, it is said, get even, very even. Kind of a variation on "He who laughs last".....only in this case, it's "She who laughs last, laughs best."
morning read
Many single issue types (or all political flavors) have convinced themselves that 'sleeping better at night' is preferable to making positive change. It remains unclear how a series of good restful nights moves the status quo in a direction that they want.
Then again, if I were cynical I would just suggest they prefer to talk a mean game rather than actually doing something positive. If you never make change, you can never take a political hit.
But, they can sleep soundly.
PIFFLE
Amen..I am sick of if I can't get everything I want ..I am going to allow a true liberal leftist to take over..That'll show em!
You sleep well and allow the left to take over..
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.