Skip to comments.Rick Santorum and the Partial Birth Abortion Decision [an abortionist lover disses conservatives]
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.
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...
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.