Playing pro-life political chess
Guest post by Joel Brind, Ph.D.
Many pro-lifers don’t trust Rick Santorum because of his 2004 support of Arlen Specter for U.S. Senate from Pennsylvania in the 2004 primary election.
On its face, it appears that Rick wandered off the reservation and put party before life by endorsing pro-abortion Specter against pro-life Pat Toomey.
Specter beat Toomey by only 1%, and many pro-lifers blame Santorum, a fact to some extent responsible for the 18-point shellacking Santorum got in the 2008 general election for his Senate re-election. (The magnitude of that defeat is often cited as the main reason why it has taken so long for Santorum to gain traction in the current Presidential primary race.)
When Santorum is asked about this, he steadfastly maintains that he came down in 2004 – and always has – on the side of life, and that his decision was no mistake. Can this be so? Let’s take a detailed look at what happened.
The political landscape in 2004 was very unusual: The GOP had a razor-thin 51-49 majority in the US Senate, which was needed to confirm any Bush (presumably pro-life) nominees to the Supreme Court, and Rehnquist was almost on his death bed. The political lay of the land in PA was such that Specter was well entrenched, and a shoo-in for re-election, provided, of course, that he got the GOP nomination.
But Toomey’s challenge was very serious, and potentially successful. Specter was desperate to keep his Senate seat and his Chairmanship of the powerful Judiciary Committee, assuming GOP could maintain its one-seat Senate majority. Simplistically, this seemed a prime opportunity to replace pro-abortion Specter with pro-life Toomey.
But as is often observed, the game of politics is chess – not checkers. President Bush’s strategists, seeing their Senate majority in peril – had determined that Toomey would likely lose the general election for Senate if he beat Specter in the primary. After all, Bush himself had failed to carry PA in 2000.
Apparently, then, Bush made a deal with Specter: If the Administration supported him in his primary challenge – and Santorum’s support was also essential to this package – Specter would behave himself and usher through his Judiciary Committee any SCOTUS nominees put up by President Bush. In light of the seriousness of Toomey’s challenge, Specter acquiesced.
So with Santorum’s help, Specter defeated Toomey in the primary by 1%, and was re-elected in the general election of 2004.
Thus, the GOP held its majority (actually gaining two seats) in the Senate. Specter got to remain Judiciary Committee chairman – after a very public pledge under pressure from nervous pro-life legislators – whereupon he proceeded to keep his promise, ushering through the confirmation of both Roberts and Alito to the Supreme Court in 2005 and 2006, respectively.
In short, history proved Santorum absolutely right. But the ending got even happier. As his next re-election campaign loomed, in 2009, Specter, facing an even more imposing primary challenge by Pat Toomey on the one hand, and being intensely wooed by Senate Democrats to get him to switch parties to regain their majority on the other, Specter jumped ship and became a Democrat.
Alas, poor Arlen Specter got knocked out by the popular Joe Sestak in the 2010 Senate Democratic primary, and Toomey, who easily won the GOP primary, got elected fairly handily in the GOP/TEA party sweep of 2010.
So now, thanks largely to the faithful and brilliant and courageous action of Rick Santorum, we have Roberts and Alito on the Supreme Court, and Toomey in the US Senate!
Isn’t that exactly what we have been looking for in our President, someone who has the intelligence and moral character to know what is the right thing to do, and the courage do it, even if its complexity makes him an easy target for cynics? “Conventional wisdom” holds that Conservatives should stop looking for “the perfect candidate.” I agree: I think we already found the perfect candidate in Rick Santorum.
Dr. Brind is a biology professor at Baruch College of the City University of New York and co-founder of the Breast Cancer Prevention Institute, is widely known for his research on the abortion-breast cancer link.
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.
Thank you, Dr. Brind for telling this story. And thank you for your work with BCPI.
SANTORUM 2012
Rick Santorum sees The Big Picture and Is A Righteous man! !00% Pro-Life-No DOUBT. I’m Voting For Him.
Not sure I understood all the connections ( I was kind of confused here), but I agree that he IS the perfect candidate. Rick operates by his convictions, so much so, that he LOST his final election in 2008 because he was brave enough to stand up for a cause that people warned him would be too controversial and he did it anyway. (Don’t quite remember what it was) but when Glen Beck asked him why he did that, he said, “I wasn’t going to be able to face my kids if I didn’t”. Wow! a man who listens to his conscience (wish more politicians were that way!)
Rick is a man of convictions even if he loses standing up for them.. how refreshing is that! :) I’ve already chosen my candidate in Rick and I pray Americans get more informed about him. Listen and learn but I’m already part of a fb prayer group for him that prays daily for him and his family. Glad to put my prayers and my vote behind a man who stands tall (and no, he’s not perfect) but he knows he answers to God for what he does. He has a humble, teachable heart. I like that! Go Rick!
Excellent analysis! Thank you for writing this. I have long thought Rick’s decision was brilliant and am glad to see Dr. Brind adding his voice to this debate..
I am hoping Santorum will speak out on the bc/abortion mandate this weekend on the Sunday morning shows.
Whew! Santorum’s fundagelical credentials appear to be intact. Excellent.
Go santorum, go! Santorum for gop nominee!!!
In that situation Santorum never should of endorsed Specter. This reasoning is a stretch to say he did the right thing. The RINO “Bushies” wanted Specter. He should of stood up to them & it is not about the “perfect candidate.” It is about NOT falling for the fake, imposter, RINO, infiltrators LIKE ARLEN SPECTER. These people will NEVER say who they really are. That is why everyone hates Romney, because he is such a bad liar. He is a pro-gay, pro”world is over populated”, pro-abortion RINO, with no morals WHAT-SO-EVER. That is why he so viciously attacked every republican while cowardly hiding behind superpacs. Read the Mitt Romney Deception Report online. In this day of internet media. It is impossible to hide who you really are. That is why Gingrich & Romney are losing, not because, “Mormonism” Romney is the Arlen Specter of the race, lets not make that mistake twice by thinking “vote Romney he has more money & can win” Scott Brown won his race being outspent 10-1 & all his dough came in the last 2 weeks. Stop underestimating the American people.
I see santorum is of the opinion that atheism will lead to beheadings.
Someone better check that rick perry hasn’t lost his faith or he might suddenly start supporting executions!
Actually it would be rather interesting to see comparative rates of support for the death penalty between theists and atheists.
hm. I understand that Professor Brind wants to shore up support for Santorum, but I tend to agree with Peter D that the reasoning here is a bit of a stretch. I’ll still vote for Santorum of course if he becomes the nominee, but I’m not really sold on the idea that endorsing Specter was the “faithful, brilliant, and courageous” thing to do. For good or ill, Santorum just did what he was told to do by his party.
Glad this website is back up from maintenance!
Peter D.: Remember when Pres. Reagan disapproved of Jesse Jackson’s trip to Syria to negotiate the release of a US spy plane pilot who had been shot down and captured by the Syrians? And then, when Jackson successfully negotiated the pilot’s release, remember how the left-wing media was absolutely salivating over the embarrassment this would cause the Administration? Remember how Reagan responded to the question about what he thought about Jackson’s coup?
Reagan said this, in his characteristic, smiling, affable style: “Well, you can’t argue with success.” That was the moral of the story and the end of the story. But Peter D., you seem to like to argue with success. That’s exactly the kind of cynicism I was writing about in the last paragraph of the post.
This retelling of history is a little bit off. It’s true that Santorum endorsed Specter since Specter promised to support originalist Supreme Court nominees. However Santorum also endorsed Specter out of Republican Party loyalty.
And Pat Toomey was not handily elected! He just barely beat Sestak, a hard core proabortion nightmare who was caught up in a political scandal. The Unions ran constant and unbelievably dishonest ads against him.
Also, it’s true that the Santorums’s endorsement of Specter made many Republicans stay home on election day in 2006. But it’s also true the the Democrats ran a ridiculously vicious campaign against Santorum, since they wanted revenge for the 2004 defeat of Tom Daschle, and because they are the Party of Abortion and wanted to get rid of the best prolifer in the Senate. It wasa perfect storm that led to Santorums’s 18 point defeat in 2006. Here’s what happened:
-The Democrats nominated Bob Casey, Jr, who is essentially “Santorum-lite” in a lot of ways, to run against Santorum. He is also the son of popular former PA governor Bob Casey. The Democrats selected him specifically to defeat Santorum with no regard for his positions on the issues. The ONLY thing that mattered was that Santorum lost, so massive liberal support backed up the campaign of the conservative Democrat Casey.
-2006 was a strong year for Democrats, with Nancy Pelosi using the “Culture of Corruption” meme to convince a good percentage of Americans that it was time to give the Democrats a chance to be in charge.
-Democrats trumped up attacks on Santorum from his book, “It Takes a Family”. In the book, Santorum argues that many couples work more than they have to in order to buy things for their families, but the families would be better off just spending time together rather than having more stuff. The Democrats transformed this simple statement into a broadside on women, morphing his words into the argument that women never need to work and should just stay home, and that women who do work are selfish. He never said it nor did he imply it, but that doesn’t matter. We’re talking about politics so the truth is irrelevant.
-Finally, and perhaps most damaging, Democrats attacked Santorum for enrolling his kids in PA Cyber School. “So what” you might say, “wasn’t he the Senator from PA?”. Of course, but he spent a lot of time at his house in Virginia… A house he had so that he could be close to his family while he was working in Washington DC. For whatever reason, this attack resonated with the general non-political population. The argument was that Santorum doesnt even live in PA and yet he is using PA money to enroll his kids in the cyber school. All of this ignored that Santorum does own a house in a PA and that he used to visit every county in the state at least once a year. Essentially, Santorum was attacked for having the gall to wanting to have his family close by when he was working, and not have to fly between DC and Pittsburgh every day.
I agree with you, Joanne, in that Santorum did what he was asked to do by his party re: the endorsement of Specter. (I said as much in my post.) But do you really think he just “did what he was told” out of blind loyalty? The political calculus was quite clear at the time, and if Santorum disagreed with it, I can’t imagine that he would have gone along with it, since it was even more clear that this would anger his base. A man like Santorum would have prayed hard about such a decision, and only done what he truly believed was right.
Thanks, John L, for fleshing out the details too numerous for my post. It would seem the only point of disagreement is how we characterize Toomey’s margin of victory in the 2010 general Senate election in PA. What I called “fairly handily”, you call “just barely”. The actual margin of victory was a bit over 80,000 votes, or 51-49%. That’s close, but certainly not into-the-wee-hours-before-the-winner-is-called close. However, earlier in the post, I described the GOP majority in the Senate as “razor thin”, and that was also 51-49. So I guess you got me on my inconsistency. My bad!
The question about the death penalty raised by “Reality” is very easily answered: Theists are of either of two opinions, i.e., no death penalty ever for anyone, or rare use of the death penalty, reserving it only for the most guilty.
Atheists (We call them atheists, but they are really anti-theists) generally support the death penalty only for the most innocent.
As part of a group of governmental intercessors that fasted and prayed through the nomination process for both Roberts and Alito, my thanks goes to Rick Santorum, because I know he also is a praying man who sought the Lord about what to do. His actions bought the nation years of potential righteous judgements at the SC, maybe decades. If Spector had not been elected and another held his powerful position at Judiciary, we would probably/likely be in a much more grievous state in the high court.
I have always been a huge Santorum fan. He is one of the few politicians that I still trust. He puts family before politics and always has IMO. Recently, he took a day or two off in order to be at home with his disabled daughter, I don’t see many politicians willing to do that. He has not watered down his message to pander to the mood at the moment and he has always been pro life and always will, that’s why he gets my vote.
Isn’t that awesome! Rick Santorum is practically a super-hero!
Too bad he’s just going to be hanging out by the pool this summer watching Romney vs Obama. After all this momentum, if Santorum can’t even get within 5% of Romney at the CPAC straw poll…heck, that should have been in the bag for him.
Joel does an excellent job of presenting how Rick saw things. Reasonable and honorable people can disagree as to whether Toomey would have won in 2004. But anyone who questions Rick’s dedication to the protection of human life does not know the man. He is good man and the best candidate to defeat Obama. The past is the past. The nation made a huge mistake in electing Obama. Lets focus on fixing that huge mistake. Lets make Obama the issue. He is a disaster and needs to be replaced.Lets all get behind Rick Santorum and elect him president.
Nice to hear YOU say that, John J, with Arizona being one of the very few significant contests before super Tuesday (Feb 28). Any chance of there being some serious right-to-life organizing and campaigning in Rick’s behalf for the Arizona primary?
Here’s a message for Ex-GOP: Romney won the straw poll at CPAC in 2008, although Ron Paul won it in the last couple of years. The key to winning such straw polls as in C-PAC and FRC’s Values Voters Summits (where Paul also tends to win) is to pack these conferences with your own supporters. I think Romney astutely packed the house as much as he could–He certainly has the money to do it–but it is most informative and encouraging how well Santorum did: He came in a respectable second–with 31% of the vote, second to Romney’s 38%–but even more importantly, Santorum beat Gingrich more than 2 to 1, with Gingrich only getting 15%. Even more heartening were the results of the Maine caucuses, where Romney and Paul competed actively, but Santorum did not. Santorum’s showing was a strong third (The results were Romney, Paul, Santorum and Gingrich; 39-36-18-6). So in the relatively liberal state of Maine, Santorum beat Gingrich 3 to 1.
Dick Morris–a political pundit I respect, because he is usually right–says the number to watch is the margin between Santorum and Giingrich, because that will tell who can consolidate the anti-Romney vote. If conservatives are not split two ways (not counting Paul, who is really a libertarian, with his own following), Romney can be beat.
So now it’s up to the social conservatives like us to make the difference in this election. We have the strength to win it all with Rick; we just have to get it done!
Joel,
Please stick around! We can use all the help we can get. All the trolls and grumblers are starting to wear me out!
Santorum scares too many people, and with good reason – he raises the specter of a theocracy, and the biggest step backward for the US, ever. People came to the “new world” to get away from his type of thinking, and the Founding Fathers sought to guard against it.
OK, Sarah G. How about quoting just one sentence, in context, that even remotely suggests Santorum is interested in a theocracy. I suggest you stop basing your conclusions on 2nd and 3rd-hand information. The closest Santorum has ever come to “raising a specter” is what I talked about in this post, and Arlen is now out of the picture doing stand-up comedy:-)
Santorum has got far too much baggage to be electable – the things he’s said, the outlandish positions, the home loan scandal, the association with the AFA, etc. It was surprising that he was elected to office in PA, but people quickly learned their lesson when he was a Senator.
Hey, Hans J: How are you getting worn out? You haven’t posted any observations or opinions except that you are getting worn out!
Hey Cordovan Ciara,
I think you need to read up on the earlier posts before you jump in with vague charges and sound like a fool. I commend to you in particular the informative comments of John Lewandowski above, to find out the details of why–after serving two terms in the US Senate–Santorum did not win re-election. Methinks you just don’t agree with Santorum’s philosophy. You are entitled to your opinion, of course, but it would better serve the discussion if you were up front about it.
Joel – the problem is, I don’t see Newt dropping out of the race soon to consolidate the votes.
There are just three states going before super Tuesday, leaving very little chance that anybody drops out, and more chance that Super Tuesday will be a good day for Romney while the other three split some votes and take a couple of states.
The last major poll in Michigan was over a week ago – at that time, Romney had a 15 or so point lead on the rest of the field. If he wins Michigan, I think it is all but over…it will give him a few point bounce heading into Super Tuesday that would mitigate the chances somebody else rolls and has a great night.
If somebody else comes up and wins Michigan…well, things could get interesting.
Ex-GOP, you may be right about Newt not dropping out, but maybe not: After all, I wonder if Newt is driven more by the need to get revenge and get Romney out of the race than the need to get elected. He is smart enough to figure out when the presidency is beyond his reach, but even if he doesn’t, there are several conservative leaders now–Herman Cain, JC Watts, Rick Perry who may realize they jumped too soon on Newt’s bandwagon and may try to convince him to drop out, and may also switch their support to Santorum. Also, as I noted earlier, margins of between 2-1 and 3-1 behind Santorum may convince enough Gingrich voters to switch to Santorum.
I don’t quite agree with your take on Michigan, because Michigan is (correctly) viewed as a pro-Romney state, since that’s where Mitt grew up and where his dad was governor. I also do not believe that he can beat Santorum with anything near a 15-point margin (if at all), because Santorum is emerging as a rust-belt champion, due to his background and his particular program to bring back manufacturing jobs to the US, right down to a preferential corporate tax break for manufacturers.
Nevertheless, viewing Michigan an an uphill climb is my main reason for putting emphasis on Arizona’s primary, also on Feb. 28 (Are you still listening, John J?).
As for Super Tuesday, if Santorum is still up there in the national polls, it will be a good night for him.
Joel,
There are many other posts here to wear me out. I wasn’t talking specifally about this one. I voted for Santorum both times, and I’ll likely do it in the primary too.
Fear of theocracy just means they know he actually has core beliefs. What they want is a typical phony poitician who yawns inside when he ends a speech with “God bless America!” They would rather chuckle at a Bill Clinton carrying a Bible out of church.
If I were an American, at this point in the Republican candidate selection process, I would support Rick Santorum. And so would a fellow Canadian, Mark Steyn (at least that’s my impression). As a theocrat who believes the only perfect candidate already rules the whole world (despite His electability problem and the crowds demanding His crucifixion), I know that the eventual Republican candidate will be flawed. As a Protestant of the Reformed persuasion, I applaud Mr. Santorum’s family values and moral convictions but am wary of what I perhaps wrongly regard to be a Roman Catholic belief in big government and social justice.
I agree, Hans, but when they throw around terms like “theocracy” without backing them up with facts, I call them out. Too many times I hear conservative commentators let left-wingers skate with such terms. We just have to be vigilant!
Jon, you are certainly right about a substantial segment of the Catholic population–mainly Catholic Democrats, who buy into the Obama-style interpretation of the Bible, as in “much will be required” meaning that the government should require it! But I’m sure Santorum is totally wise to the fraudulent ethic of being generous with other people’s money! The politicians–like Obama–who subscribe to that are clearly the “ravening wolves in sheep’s clothing” (BTW, are you a night owl, or do you hail from the west coast, like Vancouver, eh?)
Here’s a follow-up to Ex-GOP: Rick Santorum just responded to a reporter this morning re: his second place finish in the F-PAC straw-poll, that Romney had bought many tickets for his supporters to attend and vote for him. As I noted in an earlier comment, this is par for the course in such “pay-to-play” straw polls, and as a consequence, they don’t mean much.
Perhaps from the standpoint of his faith it was a calculated move, but politically speaking, does no one else see anything wrong with politicians agreeing to help one another on the basis that they’ll confirm any SCOTUS no questions asked? Or do anything with no questions asked, for that matter? Regardless of how right we think we are about something, these kinds of politics are the problem.
Politics is just like anything else, really: It’s about trust. I have arrived at the following motto with which I conduct myself: Always trust everyone. That is, always trust everyone to act according to his nature and his loyalty, and always remain vigilant to see just what those are.
That being said, the Chairman of the Judiciary Committee is not in a position to confirm SCOTUS nominees; rather to see to it that their nomination is not borked. And Specter did keep his word.
Joel – thanks for the info – didn’t know that about the cpac poll.
The next states polls will be coming soon – I’m guessing they will start them today or tomorrow to get the post Maine info. Rasmussen in Arizona at the beginning of the month had Romney up by 24 over Newt and 35 over Santorum. Michigan on the second had Romney up by 15 on everyone else (a three way tie essentially).
If Romney wins those two to get a little bounce into Super Tuesday, I think it is over.
But this race has been about as unpredictable as a race could be…heck, maybe at the end it is Mitch Daniels in a convention flip.
“But do you really think he just “did what he was told” out of blind loyalty?”
Where did I say that Santorum acted out of “blind loyalty?”
I don’t like to ascribe bad motivations to people, or speculate about someone else’s motivations if it casts that person in a bad light, and with some difficulty, I try to extend that charity to politicians as well, so I regret making a definitive statement like, “He just did what the party told him to.” Having said that, I still think that in the dirty world of politics, office holders do at times have to make deals and compromises that are less than ideal, this situation very much being case in point. Clearly, some feel that there is a defense for Santorum’s behavior here. I think well-meaning people can see things differently, and certainly to reject the idea that Santorum’s decision was “brilliant,” “courageous,” etc.
Thanks — I can see it now.
Well said, Joel! Bravo!!
“The question about the death penalty raised by “Reality” is very easily answered: Theists are of either of two opinions, i.e., no death penalty ever for anyone, or rare use of the death penalty, reserving it only for the most guilty” – no, that doesn’t answer the question. Not even a little bit.
“Atheists (We call them atheists, but they are really anti-theists)” – its a bit hard to be ‘anti’ something that you don’t believe in the existence of.
Back to Reality: That’s what I mean; they are not really atheists. Were they really atheists, they would not care what believers did, would they? They would walk past a nativity scene at the Town Hall, and think the display was festive, or not, but would they expend great time and effort and money in lawsuits to get the scene removed? Everyone is a believer of some sort, but many worship at the alter of lesser gods and demons.
Back to Joanne: You say “officeholders at times have to make deals and compromises that are less than ideal”. On its face, this statement seems like an obvious truism. But I look at it slightly differently. After all, when one is faced with a choice, it is a given that which of two or more options is chosen makes a difference. In other words, one of the choices is the right choice among those available. Of course, a theoretical choice that would seem ‘ideal’ may not actually be available to make, and so one needs to discern and choose the best available option. I would argue that the best available option is actually, by virtue of its being the best available option, the ideal choice.
“Were they really atheists, they would not care what believers did, would they” – are you kidding? Given what certain elements of some theist groups are constantly attempting to do in the socio-political realm, the fact that I do not believe in the existence of any god/s does not mean I can just ignore the theists actions.
Guys, let’s look at this for a moment.
Obama supports Partial birth abortion, and killing children who survive abortions. http://shar.es/fRjwt
He wouldn’t know natural law if it bit him. http://shar.es/fRjkF
He has defied the Pope, http://shar.es/fRjUv , betrayed the Timothy Dolan http://shar.es/fRjSp , stabbed the US bishops in the back http://shar.es/fRYvK , and now has a compromise that means less than nothing http://shar.es/fRYcM …..
At this point, no matter who we have to stand against him, we should all come out and vote for Anybody but Obama … it’s almost impossible to be more radical than Obama on abortion…. unless you’re Pelosi. http://shar.es/fRj97
He who takes the Catholic vote takes the election. It’s time to play to that. http://shar.es/fRe3D
Jill,
We also don’t support Santorum, because he voted 10 times to fund planned parenthood $300 million. This is the total amount of federal tax payer dollars that fund planned parenthood, the nations biggest abortion provider, which kills 400 thousand babies per year. If you want a truly pro-life president vote Ron Paul, who has never voted to fund abortion, and who is the only candidate who has a plan to overturn Roe v. Wade.
LA TIMES – 2012
“Santorum acknowledged that as a senator, he voted for appropriations bills that contained provisions funding Planned Parenthood, but said he did so because “we had no ability to defeat” them.”http://articles.latimes.com/2012/jan/18/news/la-pn-romney-skips-personhood-forum-rivals-tout-antiabortion-pledge-20120118
2. Santorum wrote legislation to fund embryo experimentation with tax-payer.
shttp://articles.philly.com/2006-05-06/news/25400471_1_fund-new-methods-embryonic-stem-cell-stem-cell-bill
Philly News, 2006,
“U.S. Sen. Rick Santorum (R., Pa.) yesterday called for federal funding of research that would involve creating altered human embryo[s].”
3. Santorum supported at least 5 pro-choice candidates against pro-life alternatives and also contributed to their campeigns.
http://blog.catholicmumma.net/my-ron-paul-resources/
In addition to his well-known endorsements of Arlen Specter and Christine Todd Whitman, Santorum’s Leadership PAC, America’s Foundation, financially supported candidates who have supported pro-abortion positions, including:
Rep. Charlie Dent (R-PA) $9,500 between 2004 & 2010Sen. Susan Collins (R-ME) $10,000 in 2002Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-AK) $10,000 in 2004
Santorum also voted for funding for the Legal Services Corporation, which has spent federal funds challenging parental notification laws for abortion.
Meanwhile, – I think it was less than a month ago – there was a pro-life conference where I think it was Monica Miller demonstrated from the encyclicals and Bishop’s documents in no uncertain terms that Abortion – because it is an intrinsic evil – is not a negotiable issue. That no one with a properly formed conscience can either endorse nor vote for a pro-abort because it is material or formal (I forget the philosophical terms usage) cooperation with evil.
How stupid of me to believe this.
What you have just said is every pro-lifer can endorse and even vote for a pro-abortion politician long as it is part of some grand strategy or tactic.
(How were Specter’s other votes, e.g. for Obamacare?, not just the justices)
Cooperate with evil so that a good may result.
Those two justices cost the other votes Toomey would have cast instead of Spectre during the interim as well as any principles the pro-life movement claims to stand on and the souls of those that sold themselves out.
We are told to do the righteous thing and let God fight the battle for he will fight on our side and win, not to do any evil thing no matter how strategically advantageous.
You cannot have it both ways, saying out of one side of your mouth that no one may ever vote for a pro-abort under any circumstances where a legitimate pro-life candidate is running, and out of the other that you can vote for a pro-abort that has made promises or concessions as part of a strategic plan.
That is at the root. Is abortion an intrinsic evil, and is it always wrong to vote for a pro-abort over a pro-lifer. The answer including those lauding the defense is, “no”.
The Ron Paul supporters are here to bash Rick in an effort to besmirch his reputation in order to support their candidate. Those of us who want to see Obama gone must focus on nominating a candidate who can defeat him and who does not have the baggage that the left will attack. But let’s all be honest. Rick Santorum is pro-life. When he was in the Congress and the Senate, he acted as many politicians in attempting to do what he thought best. Good people can disagree on decisions. The proposed embryo bill in 2006 did not include killing human embryos. Santorum supports a human life amendment. So let us agree that whoever the Republican candidate is for president at this time, that person would be better than Barak Obama.
Ex-GOP: this race has been about as unpredictable as a race could be…heck, maybe at the end it is Mitch Daniels in a convention flip.
On one hand – yes, as so many had their time of popularity – Bachmann, Perry, Cain…. It was like they rotated in and out.
On the other hand, Romney’s always been there, and with the massive funding and organization, who can really stand against him, if it’s down to Romney and one other person, with all of Romney’s guns trained on him?
Doug -
I think Romney is still the favorite for the things you mentioned.
On the other hand, two new Michigan polls both have Santorum up by double digits (12 and 15). If he were to win, Newt were to drop, and Santorum got his votes (and more importantly his money), it could be a new game.
I think another interesting thing is, is the economy going to keep getting better and what does that do? If the economy keeps getting better and Obama looks like he’s going to win again, then I think hard right conservative would rather have Romney (“see, if only you would have put in a REAL conservative”), while the moderates will want Santorum. Should be interesting to see how it all plays out.
I agree with John J. Hey John, can you get a ground game going in AZ?
But I also want to say more about tz’s concern, i.e.,” is it always wrong to vote for a pro-abort over a pro-lifer? The answer…is no.” The way I see it, in certain contexts, the one who appears to be pro-abortion may actually be pro-life. For example, Specter was the one in the position to have the most influence stopping abortion, by virtue of his being a shoo-in for re-election, and the chairman of the Judiciary committee (both of which Toomey was not in a position to do at the time), and also, by virtue of his being a Republican, the party with the pro-life platform and the party which needed to hold its majority to flex its pro-life muscle.
In other words, as counter-intuitive as it seems, in the particular and peculiar context of the 2004 US Senate primary race in PA, Specter was actually the pro-life choice; even though I’m sure he himself didn’t like it one bit! Meanwhile, Toomey’s candidacy was key, because the strength of his challenge is what forced Specter’s hand to the good.
That’s what I mean by chess–not checkers. Toomey was the piece that literally kept Specter in check, thus, forcing him to move in a particular and beneficial way. Ron Paul, in contrast (following the same analogy) has arguably played checkers in his 20+ year Congressional career, where he has initiated not one piece of significant legislation that was ever passed into law. A man of principle: absolutely. An effective legislative leader for the pro-life cause: absolutely not.
Ex-GOP: On the other hand, two new Michigan polls both have Santorum up by double digits (12 and 15). If he were to win, Newt were to drop, and Santorum got his votes (and more importantly his money), it could be a new game.
Indeed. Events can and do surprise us. ;) Hey, at least things are “in play” now. :)
____
I think another interesting thing is, is the economy going to keep getting better and what does that do? If the economy keeps getting better and Obama looks like he’s going to win again, then I think hard right conservative would rather have Romney (“see, if only you would have put in a REAL conservative”), while the moderates will want Santorum. Should be interesting to see how it all plays out.
Interesting – Santorum to the “right” of Romney in that respect?
The economy getting better – some slow progress, yes, and Obama has quite a bit that he can point to. But this is not “leaps and bounds” progress, and we are in a different time now. Used to be, you “took you pain early,” i.e. have higher interest rates and reign in inflation earlier in the administration, during the first couple years, then ease off on interest rates and generally pump the economy all you could as election time came around again. Now, circumstances are overwhelming that.
9 months, 3 weeks to the election. Interest rates are already low, and the Fed isn’t going to mess with them. If Greece and Europe in general hold things together, then I think the slow upward trend in the US will maintain for the rest of this year.
We’re coming up from relatively “bad times,” though. From the collapse of the real-estate bubble, and going back farther, from the collapse of the dot.com bubble and the stock market top in 2000. The process doesn’t fit neatly within Presidential administrations, and the whole deal is in the context of our debt and unfunded liabilities problem, which (obviously) is getting more and more prominent all the time. This is longer-term stuff, and it won’t weigh on this election much, IMO, because neither candidate will be all that different with their position. Wish that were different.
As Rick Santorum said right after the Iowa caucuses (while he still thought he had come in second to Romney): “Game on!” If he manages to sweep MI and AZ, he will go into Super Tuesday with such momentum, it might quickly be “Game over!”
Does Jill realize that her logic could be used to make a case for supporting Romney over Santorum, based on who would stand a better chance of defeating Obama?
Hmmm… Something seems a bit suspect to me. Perhaps you should read:
“Stop Making Excuses for Rick Santorum’s Endorsement of Arlen Specter.”
http://legalinsurrection.com/2012/02/stop-making-excuses-for-santorums-endorsement-of-arlen-specter/
A principled “pro-lifer” doesn’t derail a true prolife conservative running in his state in place of the most pro-abortion legislator in Pennsylvania history. Babies are being killed TODAY by tax payer money because Santorum endorsed Arlen Specter who ended up being the 60th vote on ObamaCare! Santorum supporters argue that he got a “promise” from Arlen that he wouldn’t vote for a pro-abortion Supreme Court nominee. And I’m shocked they even attempt to use this argument. What about all the other hundreds of appointee positions of HHS directors, other lower court judge positions, and funding bills that could support abortion or weaken protections against it? That’s not principled. That’s politically convenient party politics. And that’s wrong on BOTH the issue of abortion AND helping conservatives to get elected. And it wasn’t a one time betrayal of principle.
It would be one thing if this only happened once. But, back in ’08, Santorum was at it again–derailing rolife Mike huckabee to endorse prochoice Mitt Romney back in ’08. Listen carefully at 3:51 during this passionate endorsement of Romney during a radio interview on the Laura Ingraham show: http://youtu.be/Cvm6pZNn-_M
Not to mention his endorsement of Christine Todd Whitman… I think this endorsement is far worse than his endorsment of Specter, considering that she vetoed a bill that would outlaw partial-birth abortion.
Not to mention his votes for Title X funding, AND his vote for h.r. 746: a Bill that makes it HARDER for anti abortion protestors to try and STOP abortions at the abortion clinics!!!
I love Rick and ALL that he stands for…. but, voting RECORD is VERY IMPORTANT to me…. and these records I simply cannot ignore.
Additionally, Santorum’s votes for Title X funding and Sonia Sotomayor cannot be ignored. Even John McCain knew better and voted “NO” for her appointment. And prior to Newt Gingrich becoming a repentent adulterer? He voted to ELIMINATE Title X funding ALL together!!!
For some reason, Santorum believes that the “end justifies the means.” But, that is not what our Catholic faith teaches us. He should know better.