WHEN COMMON SENSE IS LACKING.(Alfonse D'Amato)

Former Senator Alfonse D'Amato, the New York Republican, was first elected in 1980. He was reelected in 1986 and in 1992. Senator D'Amato managed to do this in liberal New York in spite of a solid pro-life record in the Senate: he voted pro-life 85 times on 89 roll calls.

When Senator D'Amato stood for reelection in 1998, he ran into opposition from some pro-lifers who considered him not pro-life enough or disliked him. Some misguided pro-lifers actively worked against him, others simply refused to vote for him in the general electionit was a matter of "principle," and Senator D'Amato didn't match their notion of a pro-life candidate.

Senator D'Amato lost to a Democrat who had previously been in the House of Representatives where he (1) was a shrill promoter of abortion, (2) co-sponsored the infamous "Freedom of Choice Act" that would have established abortion on demand under a federal law, (3) co-sponsored the "Reproductive Health Equity Act" that would have required federal funding of all abortions in any federal program, and (4) had voted 97 out of 100 times for the pro-abortion side. In other words, the Democratic candidate was the "ideal" pro-abortion candidate. And his pro-abortion zeal was gratingly expressed: as one senator observed, "There is no more dangerous place than between Senator Schumer and a TV camera." Yes, we are talking about the very same Senator Chuck Schumer who now proudly basks in the glory of having organized the Democratic takeover of the Senate in the 2006 election.

Note that Senator Schumer was so goal-oriented, that in 2006 he was willing to allocate large campaign funds to more or less pro-life Democratic candidatesas long as they would have a good chance to unseat an established pro-life Republican. Senator Schumer is not stupid. Senator Schumer was not interested in "making a statement"Senator Schumer concentrated on changing the balance of power in the Senate.

I am recounting what happened in 1998 and in 2006 so that we may internalize valuable lessons.

First, "elections have consequences." Just recall how Bill Clinton wrecked the pro-life policies of his presidential predecessors, how he gave us judges such as Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, how he unleashed the abortion drug RU-486 on this country, how he pushed the pro-abortion agenda at the UN, and how he wanted to make abortion a routine procedure within a federally mandated healthcare system. Just recall how the Democratic pro-abortion leadership in the Senate is absolutely opposed to appointing constitution-oriented judges to the federal bench.

Second, "there are no ideal candidates for political office"or, at best, very few of them. Anyone who thinks that one day there will be a majority of saints running Capitol Hill is a fool. And those who refuse to vote because the pro-life candidate is not "ideal" should look in the mirror. Most of the time they will not perceive an "ideal" pro-life voter.