So we run the moderate and lose against the most liberal candidate ever. Not a year later, people like you are out pushing for more moderate, blue state, big city Mayor’s who are supposedly pro-life but pretend to be pro-choice to win elections. I guess then integrity is another minor issue we need to sacrifice in order to win elections.

The deal is the party has cried wolf one too many times. The party is full of crap when it wants pro-lifers to take one for the team. The party just doesnt want to be pro-life. The party doesnt want to be small government either. The party believes what it hears in Washington. The party is wrong. I am not saying this is always the case, but when the party talks like you talk – they are wrong. The party gets moved to the left too easily by the Washingon Culture. If we ever gave up abortion completly, they would simply move to the left on the next issue.

What if Rudi was a great candidate except for the fact that he supported genocide of the Jews? Or that he supported a return to slavery? Or that he had a chronic embezzlent problem where he couldnt help but steal money all the time? Or that he didnt think we really needed a military? Or that he felt man on boy love should be legalized? The list could go on and on. My guess is that there are at least 100 things that would disqualify a candidate in your mind, no matter what their other qualities may be and no matter what their electability might be. For you legalized killing of innocent babies is not one of those disqualifiers. That is your perogative, but don’t pretend like people who have those principles are political retards because they dont see the bigger picture.

In the same vein, dont throw Pat Robertson in as some pro-lifer who understands politics. Pat Robertson is more like a politician who doesn’t understand abortion. He has been an apologist for China’s forced abortion policy as far back as 2001. He simply was limp wristed on pro-life issues. He was a patsy to give Rudi some credibiliy to moderate pro-lifers like yourself.

We dont have the freedom to pursue life in this country and if you understand the implications of that, you realize how that trivializes other issues. You also realize that the basic right to life is a prerequisite for any long term revivial of conservatism.

I concede that there are many people who call themselves pro-life, but really aren’t committed to the position. For those people who happen to be conservative, I am sure a pro-choice but otherwise conservative candidate will do just fine.

We all have issues that we are less willing to sacrifice on. Usually the people who call themselves pro-life but want to elect pro-choicers, aren’t really pro-lfe at at.

Pat Robertson understood where Rudy was coming from, given that the Mayor was forging a career in a heavily blue state like NY where a pro-lifer didn’t have a chance. He could see where Rudy’s sympathies really lay despite his pro-choice public stance–which was why he endorsed him. Had we nominated Rudy, he would have done much better in the blue states than McCain, possibly taking CT and NJ where he was polling very well against the Dem nominees. And had he won, we would now have another conservative justice on the Supreme Court instead of Obama’s liberal.

The idiocy of expecting a blue state big city guy to appeal to farmers and evangelicals is part of what’s wrong with our nomination process. Primaries should be rotated. Rudy would have killed Huckabee and Romney and McCain in the blue states–but they never got the chance to vote. Instead he was expected to compete in the South or in Iowa or in NH where McCain had a lock.

But Rudy had by far the most sophisticated knowledge of the economy, having served under Reagan and applied Reaganomics during his tenure as mayor–which was what put the city in the black. But even before this, as U.S. Attorney he was responsible for cleaning up corruption on Wall Street and had intimate knowledge of the economic system. He would have destroyed Obama in any debate on the subject.

Rudy also served in Reagan’s Justice Dept. and had complete familiarity with the FBI and the CIA. This would have served him well as President. So yes, he was by far the better candidate, having actually experienced executive leadership. It was especially apparent during 9/11 when he illustrated how prepared he was to lead. He was cool, compassionate and unwavering.

The whole abortion issue raised against Rudy was designed to derail him–and put him off his stride. Actually he was the opposite of Romney, a pro-choicer who pretended to be pro-life to get the nod. Rudy was very sympathetic to pro-life but was pro-choice officially–which was necessary in a blue state like NY. Yet he was pro-actively pro-life, greatly reducing abortions in NYC and raising the number of adoptions. He also promised if elected to nominate strict constructionists. That should have been enough to silence pro-life purists–but it wasn’t.

http://74.125.95.132/search?q=cache:0xd0qBynpB0J:www.muhlenberg.edu/studorgs/polling/New%2520Surveys/Governor%2520April%252025th,%25202006.doc+rick+santorum+pro-life+election+2006+casey&cd=8&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us&client=firefox-a

I can see a point that not all pro-lifers are conservative, but not all pro-gun people are conservative, or all pro-national defense people are conservative ect.

I also agree that if a health care defeat coudl be assured by dodging a meaningless pro-life vote then by all means defeat health care. I just dont think its that simple, and actually lean toward Stupak having a greater chance of killing the bill than voting against Stupak.

I also think that you fall into the lefts talking points when you start saying “single issue voter” no matter how you couch it. The fact is that people like me will not ever vote for pro-abortion candidate when there is an alternative. Putting up people like Rudi when there are good alternatives and then telling pro-lifers to take one for the team is dangerous game. On a lower level like the Specter situation, I can be accomodating. But that is such a fact specific question. Was it worth it in hindsight to get Alito and Roberts? Well, only if a) the RNC was right that the conservative challenger would have lost, b) we woundlt have gotten Alito and Roberts anyhow, and c) Specter doesnt do more damage than that little bit of good he did.

Frankly I am ready to lose elections for purity sake, and not purity of the pro-life movement, but purity of the consevative movement. We have simply been lied to too many times about having to run moderates or liberals for the good of the party.

Not to mention that the left will not drop this issue – ever. The more they have to come out and defend government funded abortions at every vote – the more ammunition we have for 2010.

There are people who will not vote for pro-abortion candidates who get called “single issue.” However, I think many of these voters have other equally important “litmus tests.”

While there is not even a microscopic chance of Stupak Amendment language in any more final bills, common sense dictates the bill must be defeated. Sadly, that is something most of those in Congress lack.