Consequences of Santorum loss
I posted all comments received via email regarding my column, “Quit De Wining about the Santorum Spectercle,” on my blog post yesterday.
Most were negative, and most swirled around the same general themes. My boiled down response is this:
I agree Rick Santorum and the GOP will learn a lesson if Santorum loses, particularly over the Arlen Specter issue.
They will learn that pro-lifers demand perfection. Santorum is with us on the pro-life issue and is eloquent in its defense. Perhaps I’m partial because he was the Senate lead sponsor of the Born Alive Infants Protection Act, for which I testified. He was also a lead sponosr for the Partial Birth Abortion Ban, and who can forget how he drew Barbara Boxer out with his “toe in birth canal” questions? That debate was historical in significance.
Santorum made a tactical decision to support Specter against pro-life wishes. It is likely (actually, so they have said) he and the White House judged the GOP majority would have been jeopardized by a Specter loss and Pat Toomey win in the primary. We’ll never know if they were right or wrong. We all think they were wrong. Ok, fine. Now what? They certainly had at least one of the same concerns we do if the GOP loses the majority in the Senate.
The concern is this: What if Democrats ascend to the majority? Ironically, we may now see that in the Senate with a Santorum demise. The federal court is where all pro-life legislative (laws) and legal (lawsuits) battles are won and lost. Federal judicial appointments are for life. While we will have instant gratification at humbling Santorum, what will the long-term consequences be? If Democrats assume control, it will be a cold day in Senate hell before another Alito or Roberts is confirmed.
Then, while we will have shown Santorum and the GOP a thing or two, all hope will be gone for at least the following two years of appointing a conservative Supreme. Those two years are critical. Justice Paul Stevens is 86 years old. Justice Ruth Ginsberg is a cancer survivor. I suspect both are hanging on with the opposite hope as us.
So, will babies be better or worse off if Santorum loses, if the Republican Party loses? We may feel vindicated, but will we really have won anything? I submit we will have cut off our nose to spite our face.
I also submit the following question for consideration, with all due respect and at risk of succumbing to the same fault I ponder: Is taking the perfect position against Santorum a holier than thou position, a feel good position? Jesus said to be as shrewd as snakes at the same time He said to be as innocent as doves.
I also submit it is not up to humans to humble other humans. It is up to God.
Finally, I submit that humans who demand perfection, or groveling for imperfection, demand more than even God.
Jill Stanek is a nurse turned speaker, columnist and blogger, a national figure in the effort to protect both preborn and postborn innocent human life.
Do you have any specific evidence that either Roberts or Alito will actually vote to overturn Roe v. Wade?
Who appointed O’Connor and Souter, and wasn’t he better than Bush (who will not resign the executive order banning federal fundings at any location that performs abortions)?
You confuse perfection with principle. You don’t lose your soul for being imperfect, but for failing to do good when it is critical that you do so.
Even if you fall, it is important to repent, and I’ve seen no evidence Santorum has done so.
If the Senate ends up 50-50, and Spectre switches sides (or votes with the democrats on judges as chair of the judiciary commitee), will that not accomplish what you fear? And Toomey – who could have been swept into office on the same winds of Divine Providence Santorum claims for his candidacy would have kept things nominally republican.
You either do the principled and righteous thing and let God bless your efforts, or try to play the game on the flesh, devil, and world’s chessboard and by their rules. You may win a battle but you will lose your soul in the process. Go join Santorum there, but remember what it will cost.
The early Christians just had to burn a pinch of incense at Caesar’s altar and could go on and practice their christianity unmolested – but they refused and were martyred. You would have me ignore a bonfire because he is otherwise really good.
I must pause and digress here and ask why you consider Santorum’s support of Spectre as trivial as it might be the root of the disageement. (I won’t argue if it is forgivable because he has not repented of it to my knowledge so hasn’t asked for forgiveness).
If I remember right, you finger ostensibly catholic institions if they invite a pro-abort speaker – which would make a far lesser difference than Spectre. Also consider the difference if Toomey had won and was in the Senate working with Santorum instead of having Spectre who works against him. Or do you doubt God would bless Toomey’s candidacy?
You are basically saying compromise is acceptable. So where do you put limits – can you put limits? What about when some other “pro-life” commentator says something even worse that you don’t accept is acceptable because it will eventually help? You can’t argue principle because you’ve already said pragmatism trumps principle. Could Santorum do anything that would lose your support? If so, what and why?
For me, Santorum’s support of Spectre was not much different than an exception for killing embryos or abortifacients.
After all, we can’t expect a “perfect” ban on abortion – so which abortions would you support in order to ban all others using the exact same logic when you say I must accept Santorum?
Principles have to mean something, yet in the last 5 years, they have all but evaporated, so why should I care if Azmodeus or Beelzebub gets in? Principles are the highest law.
The last time it happened in the US, it was over Slavery, and there was a new, 3rd party who got in over their principled opposition to slavery, but it required a war to end it.
Now Consider our response to 3034 innocent lives taken one day several years ago. Torture. Rape. Cruelty. “Collateral Damage”. Suspension of the law – What light is there for an emination, or what object can cast a penumbra?
We call for the death of muslims and for compromise with the priests of Molech.
I am a pacifist because I accept the arguments that we ought not use violence in fighting against this perpetual holocaust. But those arguments also apply to comparatively trivial acts of mayhem done by muslims.
Osama exposed our cowardice, compromise, and hypocracy in that we will act like berzerk revenge killers in one case, but for something more serious we play political games while 4500 are murdered every day.
I can only close with two quotes from Bush:
Justice and cruelty are always at war and God is not neutral between the two.
You are either with us, or you are with the terrorists.
If you say I judge Santorum too harshly, I am only judging by the prevailing standard, albeit evenly applied.
We are all disappointed when people aren’t saints. Santorum disappointed us, but he’s better than his opponent. He has stood firmly when others wouldn’t. While he isn’t as far to the right as the people at
catholicfundamentalism.com (they’re the farthest right of ALL!) Santorum has been a sound Senator and is worthy of our support. Don’t let him be defeated because he isn’t a saint.
As a resident of Pennsylvania I would like to comment…
Quite possibly a few of you do not understand the baloney coming from Santorum recently.
In his book he says that women should be at home.
He also said that “Liberals” in Boston are pedophiles.
Well, I am from Boston and have lived here in Bucks County for nearly 25 years. My Mother, Brother & deceased Father were born there and I still have many relatives there and in New England.
As a fellow Catholic, I can not believe that any Catholic could be so cruel and heartless to say such things.
Mr. Casey, also a Catholic, is also pro life and I trust he will be a good Senator.
People seem to forget that as Christians and Catholics we are called to live our lives not only privately Christian but Publicly too.
This means that if one is say a Senator his votes should show his faith.
For instance, George Bush has said that he likes Outsourcing of American jobs. Come on now? Is Christ in this? Did Christ or the Church say it’s ok to rip one’s job away just so that job can be sent overseas?
I don’t think so…it’s Unamerican and unchristian.
Perhaps it’s ok to deny an increase in the minimum wage? Is this from Christ? I don’t think so.
What about deciding that it’s ok to deny giving an employee the “Title” of manager but not really giving him or her a promotion just so you do not need to compensate that employee for working overtime. This is exactly what the George Bush Labor department did.
As far as my degree from Xavier University ( A Jesuit College)informs me, these are not Christian actions.
P. Edward Murray, I doubt you ever voted for a Republican in your life. Casey is pro-life…except for…(in other words, he has a list of exceptions). And there’s the rub. He’s not really pro-life, he’s quasi-life.
If you don’t intend to vote for a true pro-life candidate, fine. But don’t spew Marxist ideals like “a living wage” while you’re doing it.