The kind of people who ride Rudy's coattails would repeal.
And I doubt he would want to go there anyway.
Yeah, we'll take your word for it.
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.
Excuse me, this should read “both Bush and Santorum backed SPECTER.” Sorry.
Prove it.
Meanwhile, I note that a President Rudy (heaven forbid) would sign a repeal of the ban on partial birth abortion, making this decision moot.
There's the flaw in your reasoning.
I disagree completely- I think stands a chance of LOSING big to Hilliary
The name of the game is to ELECT CONSERVATIVES.
Um....how many lower court Judges were locked up in Specter’s committee when he ran it? A bunch, IIRC, and they’re gone now.
Are you aware that the guy who beat Santorum — Casey — ran as a pro-lifer?
“Meanwhile, I note that a President Rudy (heaven forbid) would sign a repeal of the ban on partial birth abortion, making this decision moot.”
First, Bush would never sign such a repeal. Second, the Supreme Court does more than affirm this law. It allows the states to pass similar laws—which many will do pronto.
Thats right kids liner up and support our center left overloards so the GOP can pick up seats...
Get a load of this garbage.
We are talking about who will replace Bush. Your boy Rudy would sign the repeal.
Since he supports partial birth abortion, I'm sorry, I cannot support him.
I think the Republicans need someone outside that current field that will stand on the truth and not bend with the wind. That's my two cents.
Please don’t confuse the Rudybots with facts.
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.
No sale. Rino Rudy is so far to the left a rat win would not matter.
Thanks for the correction...I thought I was in OZ for a moment...
FMCDH(BITS)
The flaw is the stubborn unwillingness of some conservatives to believe in hard facts. Bush lost PA, for example, even though the pro-lifers backed him to the hilt. And this was even though even the Amish—who rarely vote—came out in record numbers to support him. To think Toomey, an unknown, would have done better than Bush in PA is wholly unreasonable.
How you can use it as proof that we need to elect a pro-abortion President is beyond me.
As a JulieAnnie apologist--your skewed logic is nothing more than GROPING for reasons to support a liberal.
This was one of the more pathetic postings I have seen on here in a long time.
Rudy is ahead of Hillary in many blue and purple states—in NJ, PA, CT, RI, FL, MI—and has a good chance of winning CA. Together with the mountain states and the South, he’d win in a landslide. That would translate into a GOP Congress, with Boehner and McConnell at the helm instead of Pelosi or Reid. For those of you who fail 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.
PROVE IT!
I disagree.
Santorum compromised his principals for political expediency. I am convinced that the longer an elected official stays in office - the more they "grow" leftwards. It's probably as good an argument for term limits as can be made.
If you exchange your principals for political power you are a loser.
I hope Senator Santorum has learned a valuable lesson from this, repents his sins, and returns to the political arena as a "No Compromise" Conservative.
The stakes are too high to risk supporting pro-abortion gungrabbing LIBERALS.
He favors partial birth abortion and has said so. He has a 100% rating from NARAL. He would even pay to have his own grandchild delivered intact until the head lodged in the cervix, at which point the fetal skull would be punctured and the child killed.
“The name of the game is to ELECT CONSERVATIVES”
You elect a conservative Congress by putting an attractive candidate at the head of the ticket—somebody who can win blue and purple states. Otherwise you lose everything—and keep control in the hands of Pelosi and Reid. Reread my post. Start looking at the big picture.
“I’m pro-choice. I’m pro-gay rights,” Giuliani said. He was then asked whether he supports a ban on what critics call partial-birth abortions. “No, I have not supported that, and I don’t see my position on that changing,” he responded. - CNN.com, “Inside Politics” Dec 2, 1999
Guiliani is not going to be good for pro-lifers. Period.
You can call a turd a rose all you want, it's still a turd.
You elect a conservative Congress by putting an attractive CONSERVATIVE at the head of the ticket.
How very deceitful of you. Prove that conservatives voted Rick out of office.
The Democrats’ successful filibustering of the District Court and Appellate Court judges took place during the Judiciary Chairmanship of Sen. Hatch, not Specter. Maybe Hatch isn’t really a conservative either ?
“Are you aware that the guy who beat Santorum — Casey — ran as a pro-lifer?”
Of course I’m aware of it. I live in PA. It’s a good example of what I’m talking about. Pro-lifers never forgave Santorum for backing Specter—though it was the smart thing to do politically and morally. It made Roberts and Alito possible. But pro-lifers split their allegiance—even though Casey could have no political influence whatsoever on his party in terms of stopping abortions whereas Santorum had a strong record of fighting hard for pro-life legislation. But many ungrateful social conservatives—people who can’t see politically past their own noses— abandoned Rick because of his backing of Specter.
“Thats right kids liner up and support our center left overloards so the GOP can pick up seats...”
...and maybe win back the House and Senate. The alternative is to stick with Gingrich or Hunter or Thompson—and lose everything.
I didn’t even read the article, it’s not the story.
This is the story:
Thank you, former Republican Congress. Thank you for passing the partial birth abortion law. Thank you President Bush. Thank you for signing the law, and appointing conservative judges who have upheld the law.
This is the first victory for the pro-life side in a long time.
And, it’s Bush’s “fault.”
“Don’t count your Hatches before the’re boobied” we used to say. I try not to go around and slap “not a conservative” on people, at least not Hatch. He was, however, ineffective and prone to folding like a cheap suit when the Democrats complained. Doesn’t speak one way or another about his conservatism.
“We are talking about who will replace Bush. Your boy Rudy would sign the repeal.”
There would be no repeal if Rudy’s elected—because he would win back one chamber of Congress for the GOP at the very least—probably both. And I doubt he would want to go there anyway.
I'd rather lose with Thompson than win by betraying virtually every principle I have. If Guiliani wins, it will "prove" once and for all that conservatives can be taken for granted and that the GOP is free to embrace liberalism. I'd rather wander in the wilderness, so to speak, for a few years than submit to that kind of cultural war defeat.
The kind of people who ride Rudy's coattails would repeal.
And I doubt he would want to go there anyway.
Yeah, we'll take your word for it.
“Please don’t confuse the Rudybots with facts.”
What facts? I’m waiting. Here are the real facts—Rudy’s the only candidate who can win blue or purple states. His favorables are higher than those of any other candidate in either party—and he has the backing of the Italian-American vote which is 10% of the electorate and is located on either coast and in mid-Atlantic states. Those are my facts—what are yours?
Judging from the way you've forgotten that, I'd say it worked like a charm for some people.
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.
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.