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.
What you say is partly true. I dislike Specter intensely, but he did shepherd those two supreme court appointments through the Senate successfully, as he promised to do, even if he was talking out of the other side of his mouth to the press while he did it.
Personally, I think Bush and Santorum were mistaken to have backed Specter. But I also think it was a grave tragedy that conservatives let Santorum be defeated as a result. He made ONE MISTAKE, and otherwise has been a very reliable pro-life conservative. Casey voted pro-life in the recent stem cell vote, but I don’t trust him to be as reliable as Santorum, and he will vote with the Dems on most issues.
Letting a Democrat win because Rick made one mistake was a very stupid thing to do. We lost one of our best senators with considerable seniority as a result, all because people’s noses were out of joint.
That pre-supposes that Giuliani will have strong support among those states that are teetering on the edge between red and blue. It's not clear that the 'moderates' and independent voters would support Giuliani over the Democrat candidate, but it's clear that he wouldn't have as much conservative support, and to win as a Republican you have to have the MAJORITY of conservative support no matter how much other support you may get.
You’d take a politician at his/her word? Have you learned nothing?
I’d rather usher in those types instead of DEMs so good guys like my congressman, John Culberson, don’t get f%cked and can have support doing their job.
You have not backed up your statement that Rudy will repeal the ban. That’s all I am asking you to do. So far, you are only telling me what YOU think he’ll do and have provided no facts that Rudy plans to repeal the ban.
Rudy's a NARAL fundraiser. His actions back his words. He's their boy.
Incidentally, his campaign would no doubt get a lot of their blood money.
Your contempt for social conservatives reflects poorly on your candidate, Rudy.
If you'd like to be a FRedHead let me or Howlin know.
CAUTION: This is a very high volume ping list. You may receive between 5 and 10 pings a day. If you'd rather not receive so many pings, let me know and I'll only ping you once a week.
“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.”
You are naive if you don’t think the Democrats deliberately backed a pro-lifer solely to split the pro-life vote and win a seat in the Senate. They knew Santorum was vulnerable because the social conservatives considered that he had “betrayed” Toomey. They knew you guys don’t really understand power politics—that you can’t see beyond the noses on your faces. The split of the pro-life vote was enough to allow the abortionists to take over the Senate by a single seat. You can thank your fellow pro-lifers for being stupid enough to fall for the oldest political trick in the world—divide and conquer—just as you guys are falling for the hate-Rudy b.s.
That does not support the earlier statement that Rudy will REPEAL the ban. Please provide proof of Rudy's position that he will repeal this ban. That's all I am asking you to do. Prove it.
This far ahead of Primaries is not the time for the "A vote for anybody but my guy is a vote for a Democrat" argument. Now's the time to vote for somebody good.
Do you think I would trust him not to change his mind?
If you think I shouldn’t trust him, I’ll take that under advisement.
I failed to see the sarcasm tag, old FRiend...
No the name of the game is not “win at any cost” it is NEVER EVER EVER COMPROMISE your PRINCIPALS. Rudy is NOT a conservative. RUDY is NOT good for the conservative movement. And RUDY will NOT get my vote.
“, they believed Toomey had little chance to win in the general election...”
This is complete nonsense.
Joe Ho, AKA Joey Hoeffel, is a stupid, stupid man. I know him personally and I can say that with complete confidence.
Toomey, had he been given a chance, would have spanked him so badly, he would have slunk back to his home in Abington and spent the rest of his life in Romeo’s tavern.
Our fellow pro-lifers?
You're not pro-life?
Your logic is twisted at best. Here’s fact. My Congressman, (R) John Culberson, just got screwed by the 2006 elections — and screwed good. And when good Conservatives in Congress get screwed, YOU get screwed.
I have to say that the Senate with Lincoln Chafee was a lot nicer than the Senate without him.
Yup, we're just too dang stupid to "get it". Just a bit of advice- if you're trying to get social conservatives to vote for Rudy you might not want to preface it by insulting them. Believe it or not, we actually have very good reasons for voting the way we do, and resorting to calling us stupid really doesn't help your case.
You have not proven your original statement that Rudy will repeal this current ban. That’s all I am asking you to do.
It's not about hating Rudy, it's about hating his liberalism. When you call it "b.s.," you should point out what part is b.s.
“No sale. Rino Rudy is so far to the left a rat win would not matter.”
This is a politically stupid statement.How does giving the election over to the party of abortion and treason support your principles? 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 dont 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 pollsor else you lose everything, the legislature, Supreme Court nominees, the Dept. of Justice, the war on terroryou name it. The stakes are too high to risk supporting losers.
The Rudybots love to trot out the anti-social conservative line...
However, it’s not just social issues where Rudy’s a liberal. He’s pretty much a liberal on EVERYTHING. Gun control, TAXPAYER funding of abortion (which is both a social AND fiscal issue) as well as a host of other issues...he’s basically a statist.
I mean, I suspected it, but now I have proof.
Apparently you are suggesting every other declared or possible candidate in the field, other than Rudy, is a loser and not fit to lead the country. I and many others believe otherwise, including the vast majority who visit this forum. All you have done since joining the discussion here at FR is serve as a sounding board for the Giuliani campaign. It might help if you joined some unrelated discussions on this forum to learn a little more about Free Republic and its goals, and stop pimping for the Giuliani campaign. Better yet, join the campaign yourself where you might do some good.
You made a definitive statement that Rudy will REPEAL this current ban. I simply want you to prove this statement.
The stakes are too high to risk supporting LIBERALS.
Considering that he has repeatedly spoken against the PBA ban, to the point of endorsing Clinton's decision to veto it, not to mention his 100% NARAL rating, I think our assumptions are pretty safe. Today's statement praising the USSC decision pretty much means that Guiliani thinks Congress has the right to pass the law, not that he agrees with it.
If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, assume it's a duck.
If you are so certain that he wouldn't sign a bill overturning the PBA ban, why not contact his campaign to get a statement to that effect?
How does turning our own party over to people who are no different support our principles?
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.
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!!!
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?
Other than two great SCOTUS Judges, I don’t see much difference.
Don't forget he has in in-office record, too. But that doesn't predict what he'll do in office, either, apparently.
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.
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.
“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.
Vote Rudy: The Loose Cannon Candidate
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.
But pro-lifers split their allegianceeven 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.
This article is crap especially the end!
Rudy v. anyone in November guarantees pro-abortion anti-gun victories in advance.
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.
“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.
I found it to be richly marbled with crap, through and through.
"Screwed" would have been "voted out of office." I think we just see things differently.
Of course you did. It's the immutable import of your words.
>NEVER, EVER, EVER COMPROMISE your PRINCIPALS.<
LOL! No, principals, unlike teachers, must never be compromised.
OK. You owe me a new monitor and keyboard because mine are now covered in coffee.
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.