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.
Let me guess... Your eyes are brown.
As “full of it” as you are, they would have to be.
The aforementioned, aforezotted writeblock was about as subtle as a knee to the groin.
Absolutely false.
Except it will never be repealed:
1. If Rudy is elected he will likley bring a GOP House with him, and maybe a GOP Senate;
2. The GOP would filibuster such an attempt to repeal the ban even if the rats were stupid enough to commit political suicide and try it.
That’s why he’ll be easy to spot when he comes back...and we’ll dry gulch him!
A GOP House and Senate?
Or a Conservative House and Senate?
Rudy's coattails will be quite liberal.
“The aforementioned, aforezotted writeblock was about as subtle as a knee to the groin.”
Don’t know that I’ve ever seen a ZOT thread that featured no pictures of the merciless kitties.
But it was a good ZOT anyway.
That troll lasted several months, but they all reach a point where they can’t help themselves, and finally melt down.
I’ve got my eye on another one right now, he’s been in hiding for a couple of days, but he’ll be back.
I don't think it works that way from distrcit to district where it is often conservative Republicans who get the party's nomination. Remember, 99.99% of voters don't have nearly the knowledge that a typical political junkie freeper like you or I have, and most voters really don't have a clue. It's all about charisma, personality, and celebrity, as well as a perception of strength and honsety.
The real danger in a Rudy success would be that it would embolden GOP "moderates" (liberals) and it would also make some of the more wishy-washy and cowardly Republicans believe (falsely) that going "moderate" is the key to victory. The long-term damage to the party and to the country would be significant, IMO.
Personally, I'm a Fredhead and I really hope Thompson jumps in. That said, Rudy doesn't scare me. I believe he's an opportunistic chameleon who would mostly do what the national party expects a "mainstream" Republican to do. Whatever that is, it is far, far better than what any scumbag rat would do.
Regards,
LH
I have never siad I support or do not support him. I asked the other poster to support his claim that Rudy WILL repeal the current ban. I don't like conjecture.
Even though I was pissed at Rick for supporting Specter, I still voted for him.
It’s my opinion that the GOP could have done more to help Santorum, but chose not to.
Do you recognize sarcasm if it is not actually spelled out for you with a “/sarcasm” tag? I was laughing throughout the entire thread. You didn’t get it.
Good for you. It was a serious statement and my question was a serious question. Why you have to jump in as the resident asshat is anyone's guess.
The original statement was from someone who opposes Rudy.
No kidding Einstein! Thank's for that CAPTAIN OBVIOUS tidbit! Sheeeze...
I guess I don’t understand your incessant questioning him to explain his comment.
I know I'm a day late (I just found out) but..
THANK YOU JIM!!That guy was driving me n-u-t-s! Always posting leftist tripe, junk about winning 'purple and blue states', posting phony state polls and in general slamming - mocking conservatives.
That's obvious isn't it!
He said that Rudy WILL repeal the partial birth ban. I simply wanted him to prove this vivid statement. I make decisions based upon facts and not upon hyperbole conjecture. I leave that way of thinking to liberals.
He said that because Rudy has taken BOTH SIDES of the issue, and that was a way of saying it. Sometimes sarcasm is just sarcasm.
Look, it's an important statement and if true, then I want to know the exact source of it and not just some guy who "thinks" Rudy will do that. The poster stated that Rudy WILL repeal the partial birth ban.
And I really don't think you can speak for him.
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.