Republican Group Blasts Santorum after loss
urges return to the "party of Reagan and Specter."
By Mark Kilmer Posted in Republicans — Comments (57) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »
The Republican Party in Pennsylvania (PA GOP) seems to be in the midst of a squabble over whether it is conservative enough of is too conservative. We'll let them fight it out, but Chris Lilik has the details of Republican warfare in a blue State, including an "ad by the Republican Majority for Choice urges a centrist party of 'real Republicans' such as Abraham Lincoln, Ronald Reagan, former Gov. Tom Ridge and U.S. Sen. Arlen Specter instead of a 'minority of extremists,' including Santorum, James Dobson and Jerry Falwell."
The notion of "real Republicans like Ronald Reagan and Arlen Specter" strikes me as almost comical. On the matter of abortion of demand, which the group is pushing, it is not.
This Republican Majority for Choice further argues that Dobson and Falwell were responsible for Santorum's recent loss to Junior Casey, (who is also pro-life, they ignore). That's an error, but at least they want the GOP to move "back to the center." Where it was after President Reagan's conservative revolution?
It looks to me like an infiltration of pests.
« Burn the Witch — Comments (18) | Republicans and the Lesson of Ned — Comments (27) »
Republican Group Blasts Santorum after loss 57 Comments (0 topical, 57 editorial, 0 hidden) Post a comment »
Could be a democratic trick, funded by one of George Soros' dirty tricks organizations.
And also, I hope that you are right. Why smearing Santorum after he already lost by 17 pts does anyone any good is beyond me.
2006 is done, 2008 is another day and another fight
"The GOP must get back to its traditional values of small government, sound economic policy, personal freedom and liberty and letting Americans keep more of the money they earn by limiting government spending,”
This is what the chairman of the Republican Majority for Choice said. It sounds conservative to me. I hope we don't fall into the trap of defining conservative as strictly pro-life because you are going to lose a lot of votes. I mean a lot. In South Dakota they tried to pass a strict abortion band and it failed. Yes, a strictly pro-life approach failed in South Dakota!!!!!!
Yes, Ronald Reagan was pro-life but short of sending support messages via tape at the annual protest against Roe v. Wade what did Reagan do to promote a pro-life agenda? And I want to add that the most adamant pro-lifers seem to be men. Could it be because you are not the ones who go through nine months of pregnancy and in general are not the one who raise children? Hmmm...
We need to find a agenda that unites our party around a few bedrock principles. I hate all this move to the center crap. Center to me means you have no opinions and you stand for nothing. It is like been a little bit pregnant :). It means nothing.
While I don't think the GOP should provide a "pro life" litmus test, I don't think abandoning a pro life plank is in the best interest of the party and even more so of our country. Most of the pro lifers are small government types. If you want them out ofthe party, then the party will enjoy 40 more years in the wilderness being nice to the guys in the majority.
I think that is the sad thing-it took 40 years for the GOP to take the house, it only took us 12 years to lose it-because we liked power more than principals. The democrats like power more than principals too, they just have the MSM as their ally.
That said I think a commitment to Federalism is the best way to deal with the abortion issue.
The prolifers I know are mostly women. Men are the impregnators anxious to get rid of a "small" inconvenient problem - the child. Actually looking at research, most abortions are funded by or forced on a woman victim by the men in her life.
Dobson and Falwell stand strong for principles helping women and their babies in the womb. Don't blame them for Republican losses. Even some "prolife" Democrats won. Can't wait to see how long they remain prolife....My former Congressman Dick Gebhart went to Washington as a prolife Democrat. Wasn't long before he followed the party line.
So where does that leave us? Anedoctal evidence means nothing. I doubt it seriously that most of the abortions are forced on women. Also, I don't like the "victim" rhetoric. Sounds like the liberals with their endless parades of victims.
If a strictly pro-life stand is so advantageous, why did the initiative go down in flames in South Dakota? Can the pro-lifers please explain this? I can understand that type of initiative losing in liberal New York but South Dakota? Any thoughts?
There was no rape or incest exception, and most South Dakotans knew this. Lots of people don't like abortion, but lots of people think it's fine for rape cases. For example, the Reformed Catholic Church doesn't think it's a sin in cases of rape.
But anyhow, I think the silly thing here is saying that Santorum lost to a pro-life candidate because he is pro-life, and thus that he should have been more like Reagan, who was pro-life.
-Chris
Oh, and P.S., most of the pro-lifers I know are women. I used to work in a Catholic school where 96% of the teachers were women, and in my school, nearly every pro-life person is a conservative girl, whereas the boys are reflexively pro-choice. Take that for what you will.
If abortion is the taking of an innocent human life, why is it okay to have an abortion in the case of rape or incest? Talking about punishing the innocents! The circumstances around how someone gets pregnant shouldn't matter. This is so hypocritcal of the pro-lifers.
I agree. I think it is stupid to blame the Santorum loss to his pro-life stand. I mean he got elected twice with that position. Something else must have contributed to his loss.
exceptions. Now, I don't agree with the exceptions, but I would vote rather have a law with those exceptions than what we have now. What is fraudulent is the "health" of the mother exception, which allows abortion until the head is out.
Look, we are a decadent people in denial about the slaughter we have participated in since the elites in SCOTUS, ie Mt Olympus gave us license, and which was easier before we saw the early state womb photos of the little arms and legs. Now its getting unbearable, but as methadone is to heroin...
http://gamecock.townhall.com and www.race42008.com
"The trouble with our liberal friends is not that they're ignorant; it's just that they know so much that isn't so." - Ronald Reagan
I can see the life of the mother as self-defence where you have to make a choice over who lives. But rape or incest? How does that work? Please explain.
was to argue that the rape/incest exceptions on the basis of self-defense, would you turn in a blank sheet? Don't condescend to me and I won't to you. But like I said if you are a minor child/high school student, then accept my apologies.
FTR-I don't happen to think the argument for same is persuasive in the end, LIKE I SAID, but I am not so intellectually obtuse that i don't understand the concept of the non-consensual implantation of a foreign element into one's body. 'k?
I do think that the argument for the self defense exceptions are one million times more legitimate than the argument that a fertilized fetus is not sacred human life and that abortion is not homicide
http://gamecock.townhall.com and www.race42008.com
"The trouble with our liberal friends is not that they're ignorant; it's just that they know so much that isn't so." - Ronald Reagan
or argues like one. Some understand that legally murder is murder, but self-defense is an affirmative defense to the admitted murder. Likewise, abortion remains murder, but rape or incest are affirmative defenses to the admitted murder. Teach more, GC, you're good at it.
To your other point, I could accept the health of the mother as an affirmative defense if we could give it real meaning, e.g., carrying to term would pose an imminent threat to the mother's life in a physical sense. The abortionists and the abortion lobby managed to remove all meaning from "health of the mother" and essentially conflated health with happiness and convienience, neither of which I'm prepared to accept as affirmative defenses.
In Vino Veritas
http://gamecock.townhall.com and www.race42008.com
"The trouble with our liberal friends is not that they're ignorant; it's just that they know so much that isn't so." - Ronald Reagan
http://gamecock.townhall.com and www.race42008.com
"The trouble with our liberal friends is not that they're ignorant; it's just that they know so much that isn't so." - Ronald Reagan
"I do think that the argument for the self defense exceptions are one million times more legitimate than the argument that a fertilized fetus is not sacred human life and that abortion is not homicide"
How so? Self-defence means killing a person in an effort to save the life of another person. How is abortion in the case of rape and incest saving a life? Whose life are you saving? If human life begins at the moment of conception, then all abortions are homicide except when you are saving the life of the mother. Sounds like the pro-life movement is engaging in political expediency here. Forcing women to go forward with pregnancies which are the result of horrible circumstances is too politically unpopular so I guess it is okay to kill those few unborn babies in an effort to prevent the vast majority of abortion. I have to say at least the pro-lifers in South Dakota were intellectually honest.
my unreasonable arrogant previous comment. I apologize. You displayed the character I claimed to have! Still a work in progress here at DeVineLaw...
see Achance's comment
He isn't even a lawyer, but is a better legal mind than most here. But if after I read it, he has said anything wrong, I'll go paperchaseDrKingsfeild on him!!
smile Achance and
more later
http://gamecock.townhall.com and www.race42008.com
"The trouble with our liberal friends is not that they're ignorant; it's just that they know so much that isn't so." - Ronald Reagan
If you want to start a "Republicans should abandon the pro-life plank" blog entry, that would be fine, but this isn't the place to get in a huge discussion about abortion.
---
"I am a great believer in luck. The harder I work, the more I have of it." -- Thomas Jefferson
battery (improper non-consensual touching), assault, or unwarranted intrusion against one's SELF, hence SELF defense.
The idea is twofold. That one deters rape and incest from those that intend to produce a child and that the unwanted sperm is an agent of the rapist inside one's body, that one may defend oneself from.
As opposed to say, the sperm that enters when a young lady voluntarily removes her panties and grabs the male by the scruff of the neck and demands the stuff!
get it
Like I said, I am not persuaded by it, beacuse its still an innocent life and because I am sure those exceptions would be abused to get abortion on demand.
But if it were the only way to restrict abortion or have no law at all, then I would compromise. Yes, that's right, rabid, right wing southern evangelicals will compromise and the open minded lib Yankee women that hate men won't. (see Achance on that one!)
http://gamecock.townhall.com and www.race42008.com
"The trouble with our liberal friends is not that they're ignorant; it's just that they know so much that isn't so." - Ronald Reagan
rape/incest/life of mother account for less than 3% of all abortions.
So if you consider outlawing abortion on demand with these exceptions, you have the ability to save well over 900,000 lives that would be lost without the law.
It is essentially a trade for the greater good, rather than a sell out. Saving some lives is better than saving none. Not to mention that if the only reasons for abortion were those, then at least with the rape victims you could help target outreach to them.
Studies indicate that women who are raped and carry their babies to term actually do better psychologically than women who choose abortion (yes there are studies, no there aren't very many, and no I really am not in the mood to play google, but I have commented on them in other discussions of the rape/incest exception on this board, feel free to do a search). So, while I am willing to agree to the bargain if it was offered (and I won't hold my breath that it will be), I also know that the reality is that even in cases of rape abortion isn't likely to be the best choice.
there isn't really either group heads and tails above the other.
One each breakdown-support in all cases, support with restrictions, only in cases of rape incest, should be completely prohibited the stats for both sexes are pretty much the same and where there is a difference it is only by one or two perentage points, which is within the margin of error.
Abortion is a human issue, not a woman and not a man issue.
The pro-life core of the GOP is much much larger than the pro-abortion crowd. Period. This party can work with the Arlen Specters out there--but they ought not have much of a say in social policy. The Christian conservatives are the engine that drives the movement. They are the precinct walkers, phone-callers, and they are the only ones in the party who can mass-mobilize voters.
You sell them out, Dick Armey-style, you will lose every year. The Democrats have been so impotent lately because they have been so anti-religious, anti-life, and anti-family. Suprise! Suprise! once they find some spine on traditional values they start winning again.
Here in Colorado Bob Beauprez lost the governor's race because he went after the squishy moderate GOP women in the suburbs by hitting a strong anti-immigration meme. He never talked about life and marriage. He lost the election by an astounding 13 points to his pro-life Democrat opponent. The marriage amendment passed by 12 points and a domestic partnership initiative lost by 6 points. But Beauprez didn't want to seem to "right-wing" by vocalizing his support for traditional values and he rightly lost because of it.
The anti-immigrant crowd will kill this party. That same crowd is becoming stridently anti-war and is also luke-warm on values issues. The GOP can easily become a party without a soul, a party of racists, and a party of petty pragmatists. That's not my party and it's wholly not conservative. Look to guys like Mike Pence and Mitt Romney for leadership--not Tancredo and Buchanan--if you want to win. But your silly rant about abortion and men is ridiculous. If we dumped the anti-life crowd overboard we would suffer as a party--I agree--but the pro-life base is what makes this party viable.
Let me make myself clear. I don't want to kick the pro-lifers out of the party. Personally, I would like to see Roe vs. Wade reversed so that we can take the decision about abortion to the people instead of judges. If we start voting on abortion I think that abortions will be legal in the early stages of the pregnancy, there will be a total ban on late-term abortion except when the life of the mother is at stake, and parental notification.
was truly a case of extremists pushing too far. Had it allowed a rape exception it would have been accepted by the voters by a significant majority. Pro-life politics has been a bet plus for the GOP, although no litmus tests should apply and the GOp does need to avoid adopting positions so extreme that they are well beyons what the public will support.
There are also areas of life where the government should not meddle. We don't need thought police, federal nannies, or taxpyer-supported scolds over us.
where you can junp from issue to issue, side to side, read the tea leaves, be hailed as a moderate, and hope you get a profile in the NY Times. They might be assuming a little too much in their choice of names, but modesty in the Center is a rare commodity.
A learning disability may be at work here and the name, Lincoln Chaffee, may be a hint. They can imitate the Democrats but should be informed that the imitation is never as good, or bad, as the real thing.
"a man's admiration for absolute government is proportinate to the contempt he feels for those around him". Tocqueville
it is the work of Arlen Specter's gang; which I suppose you might consider a form of Democrat trick. . . . . .
This has been Specter's position for as long as I can remember. The day after the election, his chief media mouthpiece in the Philly area, a radio guy who runs a morning commute "conservative" talk program, featuring regular call-ins by (I kid you not) Jim McGrevey, Chris Matthews and Uncle Arlen, came on hard with the same message, as did Arlen himself. The principal agenda of this gang is: pro-abortion; pro-gay marriage; and a timetable for withdrawal in Iraq.
Yes, Santorum got crushed this time, but so did many of Arlen's RINO stripe. Santorum won two previous elections in this purple state and was no less a conservative then. Santorum lost this time for three reasons:
*anti-Bush sentiment. Bush is very unpopular in this state among Ds and Rs and Santorum was (correctly) portrayed as a solid supporter of Bush;
*anti-state GOP sentiment, resulting from the midnight pay-raise shoved thru the state legislature by the GOP majority; and
*a no show by the party in the gubernatorial contest (ran very weak, nearly invisible candidate against a very popular D in Rendell).
Specter won his spot in the Senate, and 4 reelections thereafter, with the hold-your-nose support of PA conservatives, including Santorum (and me), who put party above principal. For his part of the bargain, Specter was unable to swing any moderate support for Santorum.
My message to the PA and national GOP would be get back to the conservative basics. We can win big on that platform.
"My message to the PA and national GOP would be get back to the conservative basics." Be specific. Thanks.
. . . I had been planning on sharing with you this piece in today's Philadelphia Inquirer, a nice farewell to Santorum:
"The only thing he could have done were things that wouldn't have been him," such as deserting President Bush or casting himself as a moderate, said John Brabender, one of Santorum's top strategists. "People wouldn't have believed it."
So Santorum went with authenticity, and decided to win or lose on his own terms.
His staff never commissioned a poll after early October. He spent the final weeks of the campaign talking about what he wanted to talk about. And the rest, he said, would be left up to God.
He had turned more to his faith than ever before, praying daily for himself - and Democrat Bob Casey Jr.
"If you trust in [God], then his plan is your plan," Santorum said. "That is a very hard thing for someone who is as goal-oriented as I am."
He could have been speaking of Santorum, who is one of the best men ever to serve in the US Senate. The world is a better place for him having served there, and he is probably better off being released from the wolves for a time. I wish I could have voted for him.
http://gamecock.townhall.com and www.race42008.com
"The trouble with our liberal friends is not that they're ignorant; it's just that they know so much that isn't so." - Ronald Reagan
The ultimate determinant in the struggle now going on for the world will not be bombs and rockets but a test of wills and ideas-a trial of spiritual resolve: the values we hold, the beliefs we cherish and the ideals to which we are dedicated.-Reagan
but I agree with at least what you've posted. Pennsylvania is a Democratic State -- "blue" not "purple" -- and Rick Santorum would rise or fall as Rick Santorum. If he would have turned on the President or the Iraq war for Pelosi-like reasons, he'd have lost his base.
We'll no doubt see more of Rick. The talk I'm hearing now is of a possible gubernatorial run in 2010. (It seems that every mention of a future election sounds like a bad science fiction novel.)
He can run for President as someone who never shied away from his conservative positions, no matter how unpopular, and, hey, Bush won the presidency twice without winning Pennsylvania.
I wouldn't worry much about this. Jumping through that link to the ad show that much has changed. It looks like Specter had nothing to do with it and disavows it. There is a quote that the "big tent" can include both Specter and Santorum. The images of Specter and Santorum have been removed.
So I think this was just a private web page, probably not authorized by any of the politicians, but just the opinion of some private citizens.
Notice where the thread has gone and you will see the basis of oppositional complaints, abortion.
Republicans and indeed, conservatives have made great strides against the scourge of abortion. Liberals have done a great job of defining people like Dobson as extremist. Hence Dobson=extreme=conservative. This is initially the tact on abortion but an entire pro family agenda is next.
Now I can not support everything Mr. Dobson says, since all his positions are unknown to me. However, much of it appears to be grounded in morality, what's wrong with that? He only has a seat at the table in formulating this debate. Mr. Dobson is not making policy for anyone and I can not think of any sychophants. Is there not room for considering all positions in order to determine the best possible policy?
You folks are probably getting tired of hearing this from me, but it is about your principals, not people or parochial considerations. If you believe in the proliferation of life, then a common sense approach is not inconceivable. It may not be "extreme" right and certainly not pro abortion. However, the approach should be simple and not so idealogical as to be inflexible. That does not leave room to consider this issue will need to be slowly addressed over time. We require time not only to change laws but more importantly peoples minds. To proceed in to extreme a manner only lends specious creedence to argumentation such as that being put forth in Pennsylvania.
"Dulce et decorum est pro patria mori"
dems that agree with every policy position of Dobson, Fallwel, ect but who buy into the "extremist" label the MSM has pinned on them.
Jesus Christ was an extremist. He was crucified. He is our example. We must expect persecution.
http://gamecock.townhall.com and www.race42008.com
"The trouble with our liberal friends is not that they're ignorant; it's just that they know so much that isn't so." - Ronald Reagan
I'm against any candidate who would vote against the type of judge who would vote against a Roe vs Wade. Northeastern Republicans and California candidtates aren't likely to win if they run on a strict pro-life platform, but they can still support constitutionally correct judges (part of the reason Specter has been such a problem for us).
The campaign for 2008 starts today, and Republicans need to learn how to fight. www.scorchedblue.blogspot.com
in reality than John McCain and his tweedle-dee buddy Lindsey Graham on judges.
Please don't get me wrong, I have absolutely no use for Specter, but I don't think he's been "the problem" over the last couple of years. Certainly Jon Kyl would be much better as Chmn of Judiciary, but the G14 made more difference in the negative than Specter by himself.
_______________________________
If "pro" is the opposite of "con", what is the opposite of "progress"?
Tom Ridge was such an effective Homeland Security Leader. He was soo inspiring. Wasn't he the real cause of the Katrina disaster?
Tom Ud
Liberal John McCain says Falwell = Sharpton = Farrakan
http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0605/24/lkl.01.html
MCCAIN: Neither party should be defined by pandering to the outer reaches of American politics and the agents of intolerance, whether they be Louis Farrakan or Al Sharpton on the left or Pat Robertson or Jerry Falwell on the right.
I'm very depressed about the results. Looking over the stats I can only conclude that we've lost the Center. It pains me to say this.
Yes, we lost some votes on the libertarian right. Many casted protest votes for 3rd party candidates.
But that vote number is minuscule compared to the 20s something female demographic who doesn't want to hear about boring policy, instead, wants to hear only about how one is going to help fund her college education, and take care of her daughter at day care.
I'm now convinced. Americans want fluff in their politics. They want superficial. They want celebrity. Most especially Centrist voters.
In PA, they probably should have gotten rid of Santorum and found some Centrist, warm and fuzzy, Oprah Winfrey type candidate to run. Santorum, though I loved his views, was just too plain abrasive.
I bet if we look at the female vote totals in PA, we'll find he lost them by an overwhelming margin.
Folks, it's time to seriously "Oprah Winfrey-ize the Republican Party." I know that sucks, that it's horrendouse to hear; But if we don't do it, we're going to continue to lose future elections.
Eric Dondero
www.mainstreamlibertarian.com
http://gamecock.townhall.com and www.race42008.com
"The trouble with our liberal friends is not that they're ignorant; it's just that they know so much that isn't so." - Ronald Reagan
but you may want to have a good look at New England for clues as to precisely how well being a squishy, "moderate", stand-for-nothing, finger-in-the-wind, don't-dare-offend anyone, Democrat Lite™ party is working out for the GOP up here.
It's not.
Just saying.
-------------
"I don't know." -- Helen Thomas, when asked by White House spokesman Scott McClellan, "Are we at war, Helen?"
If Chafee can't win, how far left do we have to go?!?!
--
If you're seeing shades of gray, it's because you're not looking close enough to see the black and white dots.
may want to have a good look at New England for clues as to precisely how well being a squishy, "moderate", stand-for-nothing, finger-in-the-wind, don't-dare-offend anyone, Democrat Lite™ party is working out for the GOP up here.
And in the event they are too stupid to notice - it's not.
-------------
"I don't know." -- Helen Thomas, when asked by White House spokesman Scott McClellan, "Are we at war, Helen?"
One thing I do know is we Republicans in Congress seemed to have forgotten about our principles. We need to be working for smaller government, lower taxes and what we stand for.
I know that Republicans in the middle part of the country are frustrated by our talk about smaller, more efficent government and lower taxes. We dont follow through on these principles.
One thing could be said, when Republicans become squishy and run to the middle -- see George Bush, Sr., Bob Dole, Gerald Ford and many other RINO's-- WE LOSE!
When we stand to the right and are TRUELY REAL conservatives - WE WIN! That is what will always frustrate the Democrats, they don't stand for anything, don't have ideas. When we have ideas and stand for something, it drives them insane.
We want Mike Pence as our Minority Leader and in 2 years he will be the SPEAKER of the House.
near and dear. That's what will win over the independents in 2008. It's a lock.
The Red State staff, not being Democrats, manage to keep confidential the bulk of their anti-troublemaker tools, but they've given enough hints that they clearly are working a number of clever angles for spotting returners.
You won't last if you try to return.
--
If you're seeing shades of gray, it's because you're not looking close enough to see the black and white dots.
All four problems have been corrected.
-----------
Even those who learn from history are surrounded by those doomed to repeat it.
When I'm through with him he won't even be able to thumb wrestle with Stephen Hawking.
Envisioning when all that is Left is the Right.
to lance that boil.
_______________________________
If "pro" is the opposite of "con", what is the opposite of "progress"?
Now his son insists Reagan would also be opposed to Federal funding of stem cells-although Reagan isn't really wasn't able to make a position when the debate first began.
I am getting more and more uncomfortable though with the desire to get rid of the Christians some in the party seem to have-especially because there isn't even really a good definition for which Christians have to go-I often see comments at the more libertarian leaning blogs, and I have to think to myself "are they talking about me-I personally don't care for Falwell, Dobson or similar, but I am staunchly opposed to abortion and federal funding of stem cell research?"