www.byzcath.org Forums General Discussions Town Hall confronting Santorum January 22?

Paul, the criticism is entirely appropriate when the "pro-life leaders" sell out to support overtly pro-choice candidates over pro-life candidates.

I still am quite confounded by the attempts to legitimize his support for Specter or minimalize Santorum's actions. Again, Specter's record and actions are out there for everyone to see. It was never any secret right from the beginning of the primary campaign.

At some point, our elected officials have to be accountable for their actions. Santorum needs to come clean on this, explain himself, and apologize to the pro-life community and tell us WHY HE DID THIS.

Frankly, with me, anything less will be covering tracks. I've seen too many cases in the past where party politics trumped faith convictions, and this is smacking of the same thing. This is simply a betrayal of everyone who has been faithful to the pro-life movement "down in the trenches" as many of us have for many years.

Do judicial appointees mean anything in the big picture? Of course. Where does Specter stand on life issues? It's quite obvious, but anyone can ask Bork for a second opinion.

The pro-life stance hinges on judicial decisions perhaps even more than the legislative process. All of us in the pro-life movement have known that since Roe V. Wade, it is a given. Even more reason to be disgusted by Santorum's sellout.

Sure, Santorum's past record looks good on paper. But all that aside and well, let's just face the facts that he jumped ship for a pro-choice candidate, because objectively that is exactly what he did.

We make no gains, in fact we take steps backward with this kind of fence-hopping. Gains are made ONLY by supporting the strongest pro-life candidates possible, and not by this kind of unconscienble compromise.

I see exactly where you are coming from and agree with you. It's great to be ideologically pure, but when you throw out the baby with the bath water, everybody loses. You're right, nothing gets done without compromise. It's not ideal, but the reality is that this is the way things work.

Charles

Whoa. How does supporting a pro-life candidate over a demonstrated pro-choice candidate "throw out the baby with the bathwater"? You got me there, can't follow that at all.

If wanting the best pro-life candidates available is "purist", guilty as charged and please write me up to your fellow compromise police.

wevoteprolife.com gave Senator Spectre a 64% pro-life voting record, on the otherhand NARAL considers Senator Spectre anti-choice. Was Toomey are better pro-life choice than Spectre. Yes, thats why I voted for Toomey in the primary. However, perhaps it was providence at work because given how close the Spectre/Hoeffel race was I do not think Toomey could have one, in which case we would haver 100% anti-life Hoeffel instead of 64% pro-life Spectre. So instead of giving Senator Santorum with a 100% pro-life record a hard time, why not encourage Senator Spectre to increase his pro-life record which would garner him more votes in PA.

Fr. Deacon Lance

Taking Specter to task is a given, Fr. Deacon, as perhaps you haven't been reading all of the comments. No one has indicated otherwise.

Why can we not make Santorum responsible for his actions? Anyone jumping in bed with Specter needs to be taken to task as well as he.

No one has a crystal ball of any election. I would rather have seen the best man run, lose or win, than to have a known pro-choicer like Specter loose on the Judicial committe. By the way, does anyone remember Bork? 64% isn't good enough, there is far more to record than just statistics. That's at least 36% pro-baby killing by my simple addition.

Given that Specter is likely to be appointed chairman of the senate judiciary committee, Santorum's support is even more reprehensible. Had Toomey been the GOP candidate and lost to the Democratic candidate, the GOP would still have had a majority in the Senate and a pro-life Republican would be in line for chairman.

Confront Santorum for betraying the pro-life movement and write your senators and make them aware that we will not tolerate pro-choice nominees to the Court.

http://www.capwiz.com/nrlc/issues/alert/?alertid=6611956&type=CU

I think Paul is saying you have to make lemonade with the lemons you are given. Sometimes you just have to deal with what you've got. By all means, support pro-life candidates. But don't alienate one who may help you. Compromise is an element of politics that isn't going away. It's the way that system works. It's not ideal.

Right on, Jennifer. Here's what the neoconservative guru Robert Novak had to say on Monday:

"That challenge from Rep. Pat Toomey threatened to end Specter's long political dance in which he has worn the Republican label while wooing left-wing pressure groups.

Specter survived because of aggressive support from President Bush as well as Santorum, who were inflexibly backing any incumbent Republican. No sooner had Specter been narrowly nominated than he turned leftward, declaring his independence from Bush and refusing to help two GOP congressional challengers in Pennsylvania who had a chance to win but went down to defeat."

You said it well. Reprehensible is really an appropriate word in this case. I think of we want to really look at the "baby went out with the bathwater" business it starts with Bush and Santorum's support of Specter.

Charles, I know and understand what Paul was saying, thank you. Those comments were directed at what you were saying. I still don't understand your argument. Specter "may help"? I guess suicide "may help" any sickness.

Anyone hear Bork when he called into Hannity this week?

No, I was thinking Santorum may help. I don't expect much from Specter, and I hope he doesn't get that committee chair.

It still doesn't make it right to for Santorum to jump on the incumbent bandwagon when clear positions agains life are on the record. People have to be accountable for their actions, no?

Many people here have mercilessly lambasted certain Democrats for anti pro-life statements or actions. Interesting when "one of their own" does something overtly opposed (yes, opposed) to the larger picture pro-life agenda that we can look the other way if one considers the longer term implications of judicial appointees.

Worst case scenario with Toomey, loosing one Senate seat (still have 54 instead of 55, still majority and still not 60) compared to Specter completely gone out of the picture in the Judicial committee (leaving lots of other choices for the Repubs with fewer unknowns on remaining members) seems clearly, which some like to say here, the "lesser of two evils".

The Republicans have used us for years - I can say that since I am a registered Republican. And we let them do it. The candidates tell us what we want to hear, and we want to hear it so badly, we vote for them. They kind of forget us after the election. One of our TN state legislators tells me he thinks we Christians sell ourselves too cheaply. I hope many of us are contacting our Senators and letting them know our displeasure with Specter, and that we don't want him as committee chair. I understand the changing political climate in Santorum's state, and that he did make some compromises we may not like. But he can still do some good for the pro-life cause. Let him know we expect better from him - which can be done without antagonizing him. I am subscribing to the "half a loaf" theory in that some pro-life victories are better than none at all. I would love to see abortion outlawed in ALL instances, but don't reasonably expect it to happen now. But some gains are, I think, possible.

Novak said it himself. Incumbent party politics trumps everything else with some Repubs, including personal faith convictions.

This is the sort of tomfoolery that led me to change that "R" in the upper corner of my voter registration card to "I". I can't go along with that. Now we have Gonzales. Specter. The dominoes are starting to fall.

Back to the Santorum/Specter love affair. Anyone who has been involved with the pro-life movement since Roe v. Wade knows a few very, very basic things from past experience.

The first premise to any coherent, big-picture pro-life strategy is we make absolutetly NO gains at all with any legislative battle, without FIRST making sure the judicial nominee foundation is solid. That is a complete given, since many of these guys are there for life. Congress comes and goes, NOT JUDGES.

We can mount campaigns to unseat Senators. Look at Daschle. Even with Toomey losing, you can work with that in six years.

Look at Roe v. Wade. Look at the immediate appellate court reversals of the "partial birth abortion ban".

Those had nothing to do with the legislative process, but everything to do with judicial appointees.

Let's be very clear about the gravity of Santorum's actions. Make him accountable. The judicial realm is absolutely the keystone to winning a pro-life battle in this country. Actually more is lost, I posit, with Specter winning than with Toomey losing.

As a fellow Pennsylvanian I agree.

JoeS

//wevoteprolife.com gave Senator Spectre a 64% pro-life voting record, on the otherhand NARAL considers Senator Spectre anti-choice. Was Toomey are better pro-life choice than Spectre. Yes, thats why I voted for Toomey in the primary. However, perhaps it was providence at work because given how close the Spectre/Hoeffel race was I do not think Toomey could have one, in which case we would haver 100% anti-life Hoeffel instead of 64% pro-life Spectre. So instead of giving Senator Santorum with a 100% pro-life record a hard time, why not encourage Senator Spectre to increase his pro-life record which would garner him more votes in PA.

Fr. Deacon Lance //

Diak, on that subject, Senator Frist is considering rules changes to limit the filibusters against pro-life judicial nominees. This requires a simple majority, not 60 votes. Encouraging your senators to support this would be very helpful.

YES!!! Yes, I was listening to Hannity's show on my way home (they play his third hour at 7 PM Central here in Saint Louis), and I was pumping my fist when Bork came on the line and told it like it is.

Jennifer makes a very good point. If the Democrat had won the Senate seat we wouldn't have this problem of Specter being on the Judiciary Comm.

Besides, I don't think that there's any evidence that Toomey wouldn't have had as good or better a chance in the general election, if the President and junior PA Senator had given him the chance.

A lot of people refuse to realize that career politicians usually do not have "beliefs." They have "positions" that can be "adjusted" for the sake of gaining more votes or power for their political party. Santorum's case is a lot more troubling, because I know that the man has beliefs. I agree with Diak and others that Santorum owes the pro-life community an explanation for his actions.

Back to my hole,

LatinTrad