Trouble for Santorum?
www.grassrootspa.com and www.politicspaa.com are reporting that Bob Casey will be the Democrat nominee against Rick Santorum, in all likelihood. Intransigent convert Barbara Hafer looks unlikely to run against Casey at this point (though rumors that she had switched parties for this very reason ran rampent throughout the state). The Democrats need Casey almost as badly as they want to beat Rick Santorum. The Dems are getting smacked around electorally because they can't even make inrodes into the pro-life community. The reason for this is simple: their cash flow comes from the radical pro-choice elements: Emily's List, NOW, etc. However, these pressure groups can't deliver the votes, and the pro-choice demographic tends to be shrinking (perhaps putting all one's eggs in the basket of a movement determined to abort itself out of existence seemed wise thirty years ago, but WSJ's James Taranto's infamous "roe effect" is really coming home to roost). So the pro-choicers bring money, and the pro-lifers bring votes. Republicans have (whining of a certain New Jersey governor who bares the dubious distinction of losing to Jim McGreevy notwithstanding) not as yet clensed the pro-choicers completely from the party in the same way that Democrats have pro-lifers. It's interesting to note that the two biggest headline speakers at the Republican convention, Ahnold and Rudi, are both staunch, unreconstricted pro-choicers. At the last convention at which Zel Miller spoke (1992), pro-lifers were denied a platform. Incidentally, Zel was pro-choice at the time: part of the reason he is known as "zig-zag Zel." So the GOP doesn't have quite the same disadvantage with pro-choicers that the Dems do with pro-lifers, though it certainly can be bad for them at times. I probably should be sad that some Republican pro-choicers feel "alienated", but given the way their opposition is treated in the Democratic party, I would encourage them to have a little perspective.
Back to Casey. Along comes the son of the very man they shut out in 1992, now practically begged by the Democrats to run against their arch-nemesis, Rick Santorum. Now, we can argue about how conservative Rick is or isn't how much he's betrayed the movement or hasn't, but the point is, to the left, he represents conservatism. Beating Santorum will energize their base and depress ours in a big way. And even if they don't win with Casey, they'll have shown pro-lifers that the door is open to them: at least, to run against other pro-lifers.
So what should conservatives do? From a purely ideological standpoint, some have suggested ditching Rick by the wayside. I'm starting to get really sympathetic to that line of thinking (senator, I hope you're reading this: I've been a real staunch defender but you're not making my job any easier). What possessed him, regardless of other circumstances, to allow for a situation which would create the press release "Santorum to push for minimum wage increase"? There's a time and a place for reaching out beyond your base. Right after you've just alienated it (politically necessary though you thought support for Spector might have been) is not the time. And Arlen seems to be Rick's worst handicap at the moment (Senator Spector, you old goat, you'd better be reading this too. I've been a detracter for a long time, and if you kill Santorum for us you'll make that a whole lot easier, if that were possible). Spector's public posturing, his hiring of liberals to judiciary staff (however qualified you think they may be) and his gratuitous slap-in-the-face comments about Bush reflect badly with conservatives on Santorum. We tend to think that (to some extent) Bush and (far far more) Santorum saved your bacon senator, so, it would seem that your actions become Santorum's actions. You should keep in mind the friend and colleague who saved you big time in the Toomey primary when you go out in the press and slap around the President because you're on a power trip.
All that said, we conservatives must keep in mind what a Santorum loss would mean for the left. For them, it would be more empowering, statewide and nationally, than we can possibly imagine. They can't beat Bush, who they loath more than any other, but Santorum is a close second. To them, the shades between "squishy conservative" and "rock-ribbed conservative" are about the same as the difference we can see between Ted Kennedy and Hillary Clinton. Does Hillary's rhetorical embrace of the pro-life movement make the right love her any more? Nope. Will talking like a minimum-wage-loving liberal make the left dampen their dislike for Santorum? Nope. Trust me guys, they hate him more than they hate anyone else in the senate. The left has been humiliated and brow-beaten badly, not only by Kerry's loss but by Dashle's fall and the loss of so many senate seats. They are bitter, they are angry, and they want blood, someone's blood. If the left brings down Santorum (which they just might be willing to embrace a pro-lifer to do), they will be energized beyond all reason and (never mind the truth of this claim) claim all the credit. They will be even more insufferable, more difficult to deal with and more ready to play attack politics with Republicans and conservatives than they are now. Likewise, the GOP, who also sees Santorum as a conservative, will see the necessary response as a move leftward. For these reasons, we need to support Santorum, unless he is unseated in the primary by a Pat Toomey cloan or the real deal.
posted by A. J. @ 6:41 PM
14 Comments:
A.J.,
Greetings from a fellow "A.J."! I just came across your weblog, via the blogroll of another weblog at which I remember that my blog used to be blogrolled at as well. (His blog has been re-designed since then.)
Regarding the topic of this post - I think you may be interested in an article that I wrote on Pennsylvania politics about seven months ago (wow... it's been that long?!). I wrote this article for the Republican column of WatchBlog. It is mainly about Senator Arlen Specter, but it also mentions the Caseys (both father and son), and Senator Santorum. In Senator Santorum's last bid for re-election, he was also opposed by a pro-life Democrat, who came within 7% of winning. If the Dems of PA had run a pro-life candidate against Specter instead (especially considering the strong challenge he faced in the GOP primary from Toomey), perhaps they would have done better, and they may even have been able to pick up that seat. Please check out that article, and let me know what you think. Thanks!
Hey A. J. (so I believe youu said):
Just read the piece: it's a good one. The Democrats in PA seem to want to nutralize the life issue altogether: as in, run a pro-life candidate against a pro-lifer and visa versa. It doesn't seem to be working for them though. You've got to understand though, they (A) probably didn't expect to beat Spector and (B) would need the pro-choice war-chest (by their strategy at least) to do it. So they won't run a pro-lifer against anyone who isn't pro-life, because pro-life isn't their base and this would alienate their base.
Illinois eh? What school? What do you know about Obama? (feel free to email me off-post about it:
an1159@messiah.edu
since it's not directly related to this post, or just comment here if you like).
Thanks for checking this out.
Hi A. J., Out surfing for information on cash flows & happened upon your site. While Trouble for Santorum? wasn't exactly spot on, it did strike a note with me. Thank you for the really good read.
Hi there A. J., I had been out looking for some new information on cash flow industry when I found your site and Trouble for Santorum?. Though not just what I was searching for, it drew my attention. An interesting post and I thank you for it.
Hello A. J., been looking for the latest info on american cash flow and found Trouble for Santorum?. Though not exactly what I was searching for, it did get my attention. Interesting post, thanks for a great read.
Hi there A. J., I had been out looking for some new information on cash flows when I found your site and Trouble for Santorum?. Though not just what I was searching for, it drew my attention. An interesting post and I thank you for it.
Hi there A. J., I had been out looking for some new information on business notes when I found your site and Trouble for Santorum?. Though not just what I was searching for, it drew my attention. An interesting post and I thank you for it.
Hi A. J., Out surfing for information on cash flows & happened upon your site. While Trouble for Santorum? wasn't exactly spot on, it did strike a note with me. Thank you for the really good read.
Excellent blog. I go though the web in search of
blogs like this one. Its so good, that I plan on
returning to its site!
I will give you access to jump to my alaska consolidate loan student blog.
Hi there A. J., I had been out looking for some new information on cash flow business when I found your site and Trouble for Santorum?. Though not just what I was searching for, it drew my attention. An interesting post and I thank you for it.
Hello A. J., been looking for the latest info on notenetwork and found Trouble for Santorum?. Though not exactly what I was searching for, it did get my attention. Interesting post, thanks for a great read.
Hello A. J., been looking for the latest info on cash flow business and found Trouble for Santorum?. Though not exactly what I was searching for, it did get my attention. Interesting post, thanks for a great read.
Cheapest prices for sildenafil citrate in these shops. Be sure
Follow the links:
[URL=http://pharm1.info/product.php?item=Cialis ]cheap cialis[/URL]
[URL=http://xafengyuan.com]cheap cialis[/URL]
[URL=http://formulam.net]viagra online[/URL]
[url=http://cheapest-pills.org]Cheap Levitra[/url]
[url=http://xparamacy.org]buy viagra[/url]
please don't click if you don't need it, otherwise sure it is cheapest there
We suggest cheapest prices for sildenafil citrate. Be sure
Follow the links:
[url=http://xpharmacy.org]buy viagra[/url]
[url=http://cheapest-pills.org]cheap levitra[/url]
[URL=http://pharm1.info]cheap viagra[/URL]
Post a Comment
<< Home