"Except the Lord build the house they labour in vain that build it." --Psalm 127:1

Santorum Defends His Undefensable Support for Specter

Share Printer friendly

Dear Friends of the Constitutional Republic,

When Senator Rick Santorum (R-Pa.) --- an articulate, courageous defender of the unborn --- endorsed and campaigned for the pro-abortion, anti-life Senator Arlen Specter (R-Pa.) against the pro-life Rep. Pat Toomey (R-Pa.) in the GOP primary, many pro-lifers were puzzled and outraged. Why would Santorum do such a thing?

Well, in a column in “Crisis” magazine, Santorum has defended and explained his support for Specter as the “right” decision. But, what he says is sad because he reveals that he did what he did, basically, for partisan political reasons --- for reasons that put party over principle.

For openers, Santorum says he supported Specter “because it will further the causes in which I believe and because it’s in the best interest of my state.” He says Specter has a better chance of beating his Democrat opponent whereas Toomey “would have had a much tougher race.”  He says President Bush agreed that Specter was a stronger candidate.

Santorum says that as a “Republican leader” he has a responsibility to support incumbent senators generally, and Specter specifically. Reelecting Specter, he says, improves the chances of the GOP keeping control of the Senate.

Santorum also says that “clearly a pro-life Republican majority that includes Senator Specter” is better than Specter’s totally pro-choice Democrat opponent. Santorum includes Specter in the Senate’s “pro-life” GOP majority? Yes, that what he says. And he says this because Specter --- who Santorum also refers to as “pro-choice” --- voted for a ban on partial-birth abortion and fetal-homicide bills.

In other words, Santorum is playing the tired, old, failed, unprincipled lesser-of-two-evils game. But is Specter really the lesser-of-two-evils on abortion? The answer is: No!

It’s true that Specter voted for what Santorum says he voted for --- legislation that effects only a small minority of all unborn children. But, when it comes to the overwhelming majority of abortions which snuffed out the innocent lives of more than 40 million children since 1973, Specter thinks this slaughter should have been legal. Ditto his Democrat opponent.

So, is Specter really “better” than the Democrat he’s running against? I think not.

In his column, Santorum says that as chairman of the Republican Conference, “I’m always preaching to our members about teamwork.” And herein lies the problem. When it came right down to it, for Santorum, helping the Republican “team” was more important than doing the right thing, the Christian thing, which would have been to refuse to help, in any way, any candidate who is, in any way, not completely pro-life.

Thank God there is a real, completely pro-life choice for Senate this year and he is Constitution Party candidate Jim Clymer. It’s not that we needed another example of why we must have the Constitution Party, but Rick Santorum’s inexcusable, shameful support for Arlen Specter has given us one.

Thank God there is a real, completely pro-life choice for Senate this year and he is Constitution Party candidate Jim Clymer. It’s not that we needed another example of why we must have the Constitution Party, but Rick Santorum’s inexcusable, shameful support for Arlen Specter has given us one.