Rick Santorum and the Partial Birth Abortion Decision [an abortionist lover disses conservatives]

vanity ^ | April 17, 2007 | writeblock

[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.

[Petronski]

You made a definitive statement that Rudy will REPEAL this current ban. I simply want you to prove this statement.

I can't, since you've informed me that I can't trust Rudy to act based on his principles--in this case, his pro-partial-birth-abortion principles.

So if Rudy is not bound by his principles, nothing he does can be predicted.

It's been educational.

[Mr. Silverback]

Hmmm...todays ruling is a good thing for Rudy? Well, I doubt Rudy thinks so. Here's some great stuff that Spiff put together and posted in post 87 of this thread:

Rudy Giuliani opposed banning Partial Birth Abortion.
Rudy Giuliani would not have signed this ban in the first place.
He can't be trusted and should not be supported.

[GEORGE] WILL: Is your support of partial birth abortion firm?

Mayor GIULIANI: All of my positions are firm. I have strong viewpoints. I express them. And I--I do not think that it makes sense to be changing your position.... ABC News February 6, 2000

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

TUCHMAN: Giuliani was then asked whether he supports a ban on what critics call partial-birth abortions, something Bush strongly supports.

GIULIANI: No, I have not supported that, and I don't see my position on that changing. - CNN December 2, 1999

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

BLITZER: If you were in the Senate and [President Clinton] vetoed, once again, the [ban on the] so-called partial-birth abortion procedure, you would vote against sustaining that against the -- in favor of the veto in other words, you would support the president on that.

GIULIANI: Yes. I said then that I support him, so I have no reason to change my mind about it.

BLITZER: All right. So the bottom line is that on a lot of these very sensitive issues whether on guns, abortion, patients' bill of rights, taxes, you are more in line with the president and by association, with Mrs. Clinton, than you are against them. - CNN February 6, 2000

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

MR. RUSSERT: A banning of late-term abortions, so-called partial-birth abortions--you're against that?

MAYOR GIULIANI: I'm against it in New York, because in New York...

MR. RUSSERT: Well, if you were a senator, would you vote with the president or against the president? [Note: President Clinton was in office in 2000]

MAYOR GIULIANI: I would vote to preserve the option for women. I think that choice is a very difficult one. It's a very, very--it's one in which people of conscious have very, very different opinions. I think the better thing for America to do is to leave that choice to the woman, because it affects her probably more than anyone else....

MR. RUSSERT: So you won't change your view on late-term abortion in order to get the Conservative Party endorsement?

MAYOR GIULIANI: It isn't just that. We shouldn't limit this to one issue. I'm generally not going to change my views - NBC Meet the Press, February 6, 2000

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

***Note: the version of the Partial Birth Abortion Ban that Giuliani opposed in 2000, that he said he supported Bill Clinton in vetoing the Republican-controlled Congress's legislation, contained the exception for the life of the mother that Rudy is now trying to pretend is a prerequisite for his support of it.

(Oh, and one more Rudy quote, from Spiff's tagline...) "Most of Clinton's policies are very similar to most of mine."--Rudy to the NY Post, 1996

But yeah, he'll be so different from Hillary that he'll take blue states away from her. BWAHAHAHAHA!!!

[Cyber Liberty]

I am afraid I don't have the details for your district. Did your swell guy get screwed in a primary, or in a General election? And was it because of a third-party?

I never said vote third party if you have a RINO. I said vote for somebody decent in the Primary and go from there.

Geesh. Your Rudy-vs-No Rudy arguments are not what I'm going to do. I've had it up to here with people who don't understand the difference between Primaries and General Elections.

Fight like heck to get a good conservative during the Primary, fight like heck to keep a Rat from winning in the General. Is it that tough?

[Cyber Liberty]

Other than two great SCOTUS Judges, I don’t see much difference.

[kevkrom]

You're saying his political positions are not predictors of his action in office.

Don't forget he has in in-office record, too. But that doesn't predict what he'll do in office, either, apparently.

[Paperdoll]

Are you suggesting that voting Giuliani into office automatically ensures a Republican Congress in ‘08? I think the social conservative faction wields the power in the next election.

[The Blitherer]

For those of you too dense 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.

Okay, I'm gonna try to explain this WITHOUT calling you dense or resentful, a courtesy you yourself can't seem to extend. 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. By rejecting a liberal Republican, we are assuring that our voice will still be heard in the Republican party, even if that party is briefly out of power.

It is BECAUSE of the long term effects on our political system and the long term damage a liberal Republican party would do that we won't allow our party to abandon the ideals it currently stands for.

[writeblock]

“This outcome today happened because we elected a pro-life President. How you can use it as proof that we need to elect a pro-abortion President is beyond me.”

Bush narrowly scraped by to victory twice. Since that time the Dems have taken over both houses of Congress. They have outregistered the Republicans by 15%. They have a bottomless supply of money and the backing of the mainstream media. They have a monolithic black vote and most of the Hispanic vote. They have Bush fatigue putting wind in their sails. And as if that wasn’t bad enough, they have red states trending left and growing increasingly purple—in places like OH, CO and VA. So the outlook looks bleak for any conservative. Only by winning some blue and purple states have we got a ghost of a chance. Besides, Rudy has pledge to nominate strict constructionists in the mold of Roberts and Alito.

[Petronski]

Vote Rudy: The Loose Cannon Candidate

[avacado]

"I am afraid I don't have the details for your district. Did your swell guy get screwed in a primary, or in a General election? And was it because of a third-party?"

He was reelected to Congress. It's just that he's sitting there with a limp-dick because the DEMs now control Congress. He's screwed, I am screwed, and YOU are screwed.

[eastsider]

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.

Please, enough with the shell game already. Voters look to their Senators' influence on the bills before them, not on their parties.

[napscoordinator]

This article is crap especially the end!

[Petronski]

Liberals know that getting Rudy through the GOP primaries means at least two big liberal issues will already be won.

Rudy v. anyone in November guarantees pro-abortion anti-gun victories in advance.

[avacado]

"I can't, since you've informed me that I can't trust Rudy to act based on his principles--"

I have never said anything like that. You are just making stuff up now in drama queen fashion. I asked you to back up your statement that Rudy WILL repeal this current ban.

It's a simple question and doesn't need your full blown Drama Queen Production... just back up your statement.

[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. As it is, he’s widely admired there as a moderate Republican like Arnold and could very well win the state—and pull off a landslide victory. If he did this, he would usher in a GOP Congress.

[Petronski]

This article is crap especially the end!

I found it to be richly marbled with crap, through and through.

[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.

"Screwed" would have been "voted out of office." I think we just see things differently.

[Petronski]

I have never said anything like that.

Of course you did. It's the immutable import of your words.

[Paperdoll]

>NEVER, EVER, EVER COMPROMISE your PRINCIPALS.<

LOL! No, principals, unlike teachers, must never be compromised.

[Cyber Liberty]

I found it to be richly marbled with crap, through and through.

OK. You owe me a new monitor and keyboard because mine are now covered in coffee.