Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Rick Santorum and the Partial Birth Abortion Decision [an abortionist lover disses conservatives]
vanity ^ | April 17, 2007 | writeblock

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.


TOPICS: Your Opinion/Questions
KEYWORDS: offhismeds; partialbirth; santorum; specter; toomey; trollvanity
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-150151-200201-228 next last
To: Cyber Liberty
"Well, no then. You are engaging in hyperbole. He's still in the game, and will be a good vote I hope when the Pubbies get the house back."

I am not asking you for your opinion. I am simply stating a fact about my Conservative Congressman. He's a limp-dick in a sea of Democrats. His agenda is done. Border security? Pfffffffffttt! Finito! Nada! Zip! This is happening now, in real time.

101 posted on 04/18/2007 11:15:43 AM PDT by avacado
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 97 | View Replies]

To: kevkrom; writeblock
Those are opinions, not facts.

Indeed. Writeblock's "Italian vote" argument has been debunked, but he keeps making it. It's one of the things that makes me sure he's a troll.

You see, if someone comes onto FR and posts on only one subject (without exception!) for months on end, I just figure they're obsessive.

If they come into threads and repeatedly spout half-truths to support their guy, I figure they're just a jerk, or their logic unit was damaged by the public schools.

If they spend ALL their time on FR spouting half-truths about one subject, then that means they're a troll.

102 posted on 04/18/2007 11:17:18 AM PDT by Mr. Silverback (A pacifist sees no distinction between the arsonist and the fireman--Freeper ccmay)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: Petronski
"Of course you did. It's the immutable import of your words."

Enough of you. You are just making crap up and refuse to answer a simple question. Like talking to a liberal, you are all over the place.

103 posted on 04/18/2007 11:17:52 AM PDT by avacado
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 98 | View Replies]

To: writeblock

If Hillary suddenly switched to the Republican Party and “could win big”. I still wouldn’t vote for her liberal a$$.

Neither will I vote for the current Republican Liberal.


104 posted on 04/18/2007 11:18:11 AM PDT by Leatherneck_MT (Won't vote for a liberal in the democrat party, won't vote for one in the Republican party. Ever)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: avacado
I hear ya...mine's Jeff Flake.

You have a Pubbie...so hold the fort and keep his feet to the fire. Many districts need to get a "win" next year.

105 posted on 04/18/2007 11:18:29 AM PDT by Cyber Liberty (Don't ask.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 101 | View Replies]

To: writeblock

I live in PA too and people were furious over the housing situation and the schooling. So don’t blame pro-lifers or conservatives. You can’t say that supporting Specter was the reason he lost. There was a long list of reasons, but you have to use the Specter ticket. Why?


106 posted on 04/18/2007 11:19:24 AM PDT by napscoordinator (.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: writeblock
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.

Ass one of Italian descent, I find it a bit offensive that you'd assume I'd vote for someone based on his last name.

107 posted on 04/18/2007 11:19:41 AM PDT by jmc813 (The 2nd Amendment is NOT a "social conservative" issue.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: avacado
Like talking to a liberal, you are all over the place.

I'm right where I am, right where I have been, pointing to Rudy's stated positions and extrapolating.

If you think his stated positions and political record are not a predictor of his future behavior, why on earth would you consider supporting him?

108 posted on 04/18/2007 11:20:34 AM PDT by Petronski (FRED!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 103 | View Replies]

To: writeblock

The sad fact is that on the abortion issue, Rudy is to the left of many Senate Democrats. The is certainly to the left of Justice Kennedy. So that ius the sort of SC candidate he give us. Or worse. It could be a Souter.


109 posted on 04/18/2007 11:20:48 AM PDT by RobbyS ( CHIRHO)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Cyber Liberty

He’s from Distric 7 here in Houston. That district is Bush 41’s old district. As for hold the fort, well, I would have much rather have seen the fort advance: border security, social security, etc. But that’s over with for now — because the conservatives are busy “teaching” the Republicans a frikin’ lesson! Pffffffffffffffttt that!


110 posted on 04/18/2007 11:21:44 AM PDT by avacado
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 105 | View Replies]

To: Retired COB

“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.”

What was in it for Santorum except political trouble? But he risked his career to protect the GOP majority in the Senate—in order to get men like Roberts and Alito through the nomination process. You refuse to accept that he acted from the highest motives. You do this in order to deflect blame from where it really belongs—with the pro-life ingrates who voted him out of office simply because they were ignorant of how power-politics is played. Read some of the posts on this thread. It’s the same sort of political naivete at play. And believe me, it’s dangerous. It only helps the Democrats.


111 posted on 04/18/2007 11:22:20 AM PDT by writeblock
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: writeblock

No here are the REAL Facts.

1. Gungrabber
2. Abortion supporter
3. Flip Flopper
4. Illegal Alien supporter (by default bad for security)
5. Because of number 4. No different than Hillary.


112 posted on 04/18/2007 11:22:52 AM PDT by Leatherneck_MT (Won't vote for a liberal in the democrat party, won't vote for one in the Republican party. Ever)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: writeblock

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.

You must be looking at life differently than I am. Both Chambers? How do you suppose picking Rudy is going to give us the Senate for instance. Democrats have 11 seats to our 22 seats to reelect. Please explain that one. And how you think the almighty Rudy will do this.


113 posted on 04/18/2007 11:23:05 AM PDT by napscoordinator (.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: The Blitherer

It is better for conservatives to have a liberal democrat in office then a liberal Republican. By voting a liberal Republican into office we basically skew the entire political spectrum to the left. The ideals of the conservative movement would no longer be represented by either party.

Well said! I have said before that if my choice is between Souter and Scalia, I will take Scalia, and I do not care if they get another Ginsburg. There simply is not that much difference between Souter and Ginsberg for me to bother crawling out of bed!

114 posted on 04/18/2007 11:23:34 AM PDT by beancounter13
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 87 | View Replies]

To: writeblock
...with the pro-life ingrates who voted him out of office simply because they were ignorant of how power-politics is played.

Ah, but you still have that proof problem.

It only helps the Democrats.

"Power politics" are about democrat v. republican. "Principle politics" are all about CONSERVATIVE V. LIBERAL, and your boy is the liberal.

115 posted on 04/18/2007 11:24:36 AM PDT by Petronski (FRED!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 111 | View Replies]

To: avacado
I don't put a lot of stock in what the Media's been telling us about the '96 election.

Personally, I think a lot of people just didn't bother to vote because they didn't see a dimes worth of difference between the candidates. I don't think there was a lot of "That'll teach 'em!" going on, as much as just no reason to vote, period. Americans stay home at the drop of a hat.

116 posted on 04/18/2007 11:25:01 AM PDT by Cyber Liberty (Don't ask.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 110 | View Replies]

To: writeblock; indylindy; Liz
"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."

What principles? Abortion? Gun-Control? Total disdain for the Constitution? Open Borders? Please, we would love to know just what principles the Rudybots hold!!

117 posted on 04/18/2007 11:27:17 AM PDT by TommyDale ("Rudy can win the War on Terror!" Perhaps, but for whose side?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: writeblock

We’re NOT going to elect an abortionist to the presidency from the conservative party. Might as well get that nonsense out of your thick skull now!


118 posted on 04/18/2007 11:28:27 AM PDT by Jim Robinson
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: kevkrom

“Guiliani is not going to be good for pro-lifers. Period.”

Santorum was good for pro-lifers—and they stabbed him in the back. So I would put it another way: single-issue social conservatives are bad for the Republican Party. Nor would their preferred candidates win any blue or purple states. It’s time to start thinking outside the box.


119 posted on 04/18/2007 11:28:59 AM PDT by writeblock
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: Jim Robinson

I’m hoping the realities of the Primaries knocks the BS off the liberal big-city Mayor that wants to be president. How on Earth anybody could confuse him with any kind of Conservative has me awed by the power of the media.


120 posted on 04/18/2007 11:31:52 AM PDT by Cyber Liberty (Don't ask.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 118 | View Replies]

To: writeblock
Single issue social consertives?

The POTUS is about ONE issue: SCOTUS nominees. Who do you really think Rudy would choose as his “model”: Souter, Ginsberg, or Scalia?

If you say, “Scalia”, then I would like to see your proof.

121 posted on 04/18/2007 11:32:12 AM PDT by beancounter13
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 119 | View Replies]

To: writeblock
Santorum was good for pro-lifers—and they stabbed him in the back.

You keep spraying this claim, but no proof.

122 posted on 04/18/2007 11:32:48 AM PDT by Petronski (FRED!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 119 | View Replies]

To: writeblock
It's hard to get so much wrong in the span of four short graphs, but you managed to pull if off.

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.

Clearly you meant that they supported Specter - an innocuous error, but a portender of more egregious ones to come.

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.

Nonsense - do you even know who the 'Rats offered up? "Awful" Joe Hoeffel, so far left (ACU rating of 7) he would make Marx blush. Awful Joe would be going against a candidate who had won three terms in congress (by successively larger margin each time)in a democrat majority district in eastern PA, supported enthusiastically by an energized GOP base. Thus, Toomey would have owned the T, the West and the Northeast - even swamping the GOP in Philly would not have been enought to save Awful Joe.

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.

Nonsense as well - everyone knew the GOP was going to gain seats that election cycle. Go back and read the FR threads on the subject at the time. If the GOP had 65 senators, we would hear the same argument from your ilk that we can't risk any seat when the veto-proof 67-seat majority is in sight.

Meanwhile, the GOP continues its leftward drift into obscurity...

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.

This argument, already debunked above, shows you to be either 1) not a conservative, or 2) a person with no moral compass. Either way, you are part of the problem for the GOP, not part of the solution.

Third, they made sure Specter would cooperate with the President if he ascended to the chairmanship of the Judiciary Committee in the next Congress.

The biggest whopper of them all - your suggestion is that the GOP, after supporting a RINo over a conservative to begin with, forced Specter to do this out of some fealty to conservative principles. Rather, they did it because the GOP grassroots FORCED them to, and for no other reason. Let me explain...

One day after Arlen dispatched of "Awful" Joe Hoeffel in the general, he did an interview with the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette that was basically a shot across Bush's bow, in effect warning him not to send anyone to the committee that would support overturning RvW. He inferred that he would give any such candidate the Bork treatment. There clearly was NO agreement with the GOP to confirm conservative judges at this point.

Conservatives everywhere, but especially in PA feeling the sting of Toomey's loss, went bananas. Every member of the Senate judiciary committee was flooded with faxes, call and emails, urging them to deny Specter the chair (which he was in line for) and give it instead to Jon Kyl from Arizona, #2 in line and an ardent pro-lifer.

In the end, Specter cut a deal - a very quiet one - with Bill Frist. He would keep the SJC chair only on the condition of pushing through any BUSH SC nominations.

It's a good example of how the conservative grassroots can positively affect public policy through old-fashioned activism. The same thing happened after the Miers debacle - RINOs of FR swore up and down we could never get a true conservative like Alito on the court - you saw how good their advice was then.

Therefore, he did not make a deal to get elected, but rather to keep the SJC chair which was going to be denied to him, due to a conservative uprising.

The lesson is clear - the only way RINOs move to the right is when forced. The GOP is finding that out now in the '08 runup

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.

Unfortunately, it is revisionist history, as explained above.

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.

Santorum is a good man who unfortunately contracted a good case of Potomac fever, and thus supported party over principle despite being continually warned what the ultimate outcome would likely be.

That being said, seeing as how he lost in a 60-40 landslide, it wasn't disgruntled conservatives that sent Rick packing. He likely would have lost anyway even if he had supported Toomey, simply due to it being a down GOP year, a year when a popular 'Rat governor turned out the Philly vote in record numbers, and facing a 'Rat candidate with huge name recogntiion thought by most PA voters to be pro-gun and anti-abortion.

In Bob Casey Jr., Santorum was faced against a candidate whose namesake father is probably the most famous ardently pro-life Democratic policitian of the past quarter century. I'll bet in PA, where the senior citizen population is much larger than most states. many thought they were voting for the old man. Bobby Jr. is not his father (he'll vote however Dingy Harry tells him to vote), but his father's good name with social cons in this state certainly didn't hurt him.

Onward...

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.

Hack liberal writing at its finest, filled with complete contempt and derision for the GOP base. Again, completely debunked above.

And now to the meat of the issue...

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.

Not a chance. None.

If Giuliani is the GOP nominee, it virtually guarantees a third-party challenge by a social conservative - splitting the GOP vote and handing the Presidency to the 'Beast. All pro-Rudy polls showing him winning CA/NY/PA/OH, etc. are based on a static two-party analysis, which I guarantee will not take place if he is the nominee.

The conventional wisdom of the Rudy supporters is 180 degrees backwards. The only way President Rodham is elected (with negatives in the 40% range - only Newt is higher among national pols) is for the GOP to split via one of the RINO candidates.

You want to defeat HRC? So do I. The ONLY way it happens is to keep the GOP coalition together (fiscal cons - social cons - war hawks - libertarians - country clubbers) while fielding a candidate with crossover appeal. Actually, a conservative nominee could help us by pulling a RINO like Bloomberg, who (IMHO) will draw more from the 'Rats than the GOP, into a three-way race.

At this point, Fred Thompson is the one candidate who can save the GOP from itself. If he decides not to run, the GOP is doomed in '08 - one way or the other.

But as was the case with Santorum, a core of disgruntled social conservatives are out to sabotage Rudy's candidacy at any cost.

LOL - quoting Rudy's actual statements and history is "sabotage". Too funny...

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.

With all due respect, you are not the ideal individual to be writing about "principles" on this site. Best wishes.

123 posted on 04/18/2007 11:33:37 AM PDT by Ogie Oglethorpe (2nd Amendment - the reboot button on the U.S. Constitution)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: writeblock

This is a conservative site. Buh bye troll.


124 posted on 04/18/2007 11:33:42 AM PDT by Jim Robinson
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 119 | View Replies]

To: writeblock
So I would put it another way: single-issue social conservatives are bad for the Republican Party.

It's just as well that Guiliani is wrong on virtually every issue. As such, all of the single-issue folks will join together to prevent the liberal scumbag from ever representing the GOP as it's nominative leader.

125 posted on 04/18/2007 11:34:50 AM PDT by kevkrom (Al Gore is to Global Warming as L. Ron Hubbard is to Scientology)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 119 | View Replies]

To: writeblock

The updated title is a vast improvement in truthiness.


126 posted on 04/18/2007 11:36:41 AM PDT by Petronski (FRED!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Jim Robinson

Hah!

Gosh am I lame. “Writeblock” —a cute play on “Block the Right”. It didn’t hit me until I saw your post!

I guess him we can ignore!


127 posted on 04/18/2007 11:37:16 AM PDT by beancounter13
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 124 | View Replies]

To: writeblock

It’s time to start thinking outside the box.


I agree. In fact I agree 100%.

For that reason, I completely and wholeheartedly support the draft Fred Thompson movement. THAT is something no one has done in years...and it’s, ahem, thinking outside the box.

P.S. I’m NOT a one issue voter, never have been.


128 posted on 04/18/2007 11:37:49 AM PDT by SE Mom (Proud mom of an Iraq war combat vet & FredFan)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 119 | View Replies]

To: msnimje

AMEN!!!!!!


129 posted on 04/18/2007 11:38:13 AM PDT by berkley
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: beancounter13; Jim Robinson

If that guy wasn’t a cancer on FreeRepublic, he at least was a suspicious polyp.


130 posted on 04/18/2007 11:38:17 AM PDT by Petronski (FRED!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 127 | View Replies]

To: writeblock

pro-life ingrates?

Wow! I have one question for you. Why are you even part of FREEPERS????? I am not saying that you can’t have differences but you seem to have a huge distaste for conservatives and obviously pro-life FRiends.


131 posted on 04/18/2007 11:39:01 AM PDT by napscoordinator (.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 111 | View Replies]

To: ElkGroveDan

Nope, there is no flaw... Snowballs have better chances in hell than Toomey had of surviving the Philly voters and winning a statewide run in 04.


132 posted on 04/18/2007 11:40:35 AM PDT by HamiltonJay
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: napscoordinator

i have been struck by the condescension and outright contempt for prolifers dripping from many rudyfans posts. it is unbelievable.


133 posted on 04/18/2007 11:40:37 AM PDT by xsmommy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 131 | View Replies]

To: Jim Robinson

Amen!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


134 posted on 04/18/2007 11:41:51 AM PDT by napscoordinator (.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 118 | View Replies]

To: xsmommy

Rudiphilia seems to be inherently pro-abortion.


135 posted on 04/18/2007 11:42:05 AM PDT by Petronski (FRED!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 133 | View Replies]

To: Petronski

there is definitely something to that....


136 posted on 04/18/2007 11:42:49 AM PDT by xsmommy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 135 | View Replies]

To: TommyDale; writeblock
"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."

When you have a candidate that does not share any of your principles and you vote for them, you have given up all your principles and have rendered yourself voteless. Once people are browbeaten to vote for a person based on unproven logic, that we just want to win, you can never go back. In otherwards, we can't say we will vote for Rudy without knowing that his candidacy alone is without principles. If we do that, the cause of conservatism will be gone for a long time, or maybe forever. Rudy will not further our principles because he doesn't share our principles. Neither do Republicans that support him.

If Rudy gets the nomination it would be better for our cause if he loses, proving Republicans have shot themselves in the foot.

In the end, Democrats are not going to vote for Rudy. They will vote for Democrats because they don't trust Republicans.

Without conservatives, Rudy is dead meat. But...we know you can win without us, so we have been told.

137 posted on 04/18/2007 11:45:24 AM PDT by dforest (Fighting the new liberal Conservatism. The Left foot in the GOP door.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 117 | View Replies]

To: Jim Robinson; All

Guess I came late to the thread...writeblock is blocked:)

Not sure if this hase been covered yet by someone...but I’ll tell ya, I could HUG Brit Hume. This morning when the SCOTUS decision was announced he was discussing it on FOX. He very calmly, VERY graphically let out a few details about why “partial-birth” abortion is so gruesome.

Kathryn Lopez on NRO’s The Corner, noticed it as well:
http://corner.nationalreview.com/


138 posted on 04/18/2007 11:46:24 AM PDT by SE Mom (Proud mom of an Iraq war combat vet & FredFan)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 128 | View Replies]

To: xsmommy
It is just stunning to me that people are here to destroy (or try) what Free Republic is about and I can’t figure out why they are here. I mean it does make us better debaters I guess...lol.
139 posted on 04/18/2007 11:47:06 AM PDT by napscoordinator (.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 133 | View Replies]

To: Jim Robinson

We will be crawling with the Rodham-rodent’s dnc minions in the coming months ... I don’t envy the mods’ work in the coming political season. Democrats lie and mischaracterize as easily as they breath.


140 posted on 04/18/2007 11:50:45 AM PDT by MHGinTN (You've had life support. Promote life support for others.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 124 | View Replies]

To: indylindy
When you have a candidate that does not share any of your principles and you vote for them, you have given up all your principles and have rendered yourself voteless.

Wow! Very well stated!

141 posted on 04/18/2007 11:54:29 AM PDT by TommyDale ("Rudy can win the War on Terror!" Perhaps, but for whose side?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 137 | View Replies]

To: writeblock

It is the truth.


142 posted on 04/18/2007 11:54:57 AM PDT by Hydroshock (Duncan Hunter For President, checkout gohunter08.com.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 73 | View Replies]

To: Jim Robinson

Thank you, Jim!


143 posted on 04/18/2007 11:56:27 AM PDT by TommyDale ("Rudy can win the War on Terror!" Perhaps, but for whose side?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 124 | View Replies]

To: writeblock
I suggest that Republicans nominate who ever wins the Democrat nomination. Then our candidate is sure to make it to the White House. /sarcasm

Seriously this post has a major flaw in it when it suggests that Giulliani’s candidacy is on a par with Spector’s. Spector was a sitting senator in a liberal state. It was truly the case that he was the only viable candidate in the race.

Neither of these things is true WRT Giulliani. He is running for an open seat, and he is not the only viable candidate running in the Republican primaries. In fact he isn’t even close to the most winnable.

In fact when compared with McCain, Romney, and Thompson, Giulliani is the most likely to lose against the likes of the three top Dems simply because so many conservatives will stay home on election night, or vote 3rd party. Giulliani IMO will not win a majority of Republican votes in the Primary, and may not be able to win a plurality if two or three conservatives pull out of the race before the primaries.

144 posted on 04/18/2007 11:56:31 AM PDT by HoustonTech
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: writeblock
single-issue social conservatives are bad for the Republican Party.

Trashing social conservatives is bad for your FR posting privileges, apparently.

Say hi to the gang back at Rudy Central. Tell them to send someone less obvious next time. You were about as subtle as a Porta-Potty on a hot summer day.

145 posted on 04/18/2007 11:58:12 AM PDT by dirtboy (Duncan Hunter 08/But Fred would also be great)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 119 | View Replies]

To: TommyDale

Darn it. I was arguing with the vanishing trollbot.


146 posted on 04/18/2007 11:59:16 AM PDT by dforest (Fighting the new liberal Conservatism. The Left foot in the GOP door.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 143 | View Replies]

To: dirtboy; Jim Robinson
Trashing social conservatives is bad for your FR posting privileges, apparently.

Methinks the big guy's patience is wearing thin. :-)

147 posted on 04/18/2007 12:03:30 PM PDT by Oliver Optic
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 145 | View Replies]

To: indylindy

Killed another thread! LOL!


148 posted on 04/18/2007 12:03:48 PM PDT by TommyDale ("Rudy can win the War on Terror!" Perhaps, but for whose side?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 146 | View Replies]

To: writeblock
If Rudi wanted the support of Pro-life people he would be pro-life.”

Not if he wants to win CA with its 55 electoral votes.


What? Winning California?

What they hell does that have to do with people trying to force the Pro-Abortion Rudi down the throats of Pro-Life voters?
149 posted on 04/18/2007 12:06:00 PM PDT by msnimje (True Conservatives will not support a pro-abortion candidate.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 95 | View Replies]

To: writeblock
"Santorum took the hit for taking a course of action that was wise both politically and morally..."

Yes, it was really, really wise for PA to get rid of a conservative like Santorum in order to hang on to our pseudo-Republican RINO Specter. /s

Santorum bent over backwards to get Specter re-elected, because Rick OWED him, not because it was "wise...politcally," at least not wise for Santorum, and it meant diddley squat to the Republicans as they could have lost Specter and still had votes to spare to control the Senate, not to mention being better off without the snake!

Not only did Santorum sacrifice himself, but this might have been the thing that kept Bush from winning PA in the fall. The primary was in May and Bush was riding high, but began to gradually lose support until Nov. when Kerry won the election. Doesn't pay to p.o. your base - at least not if you're a Republican in a blue state.

150 posted on 04/18/2007 12:09:34 PM PDT by penowa (NO more Bushes; NO more Clintons EVER!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-150151-200201-228 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson