Re: federal funding of Planned Parenthoood and abortion, I know that Joseph Lawler never expected better of Scott Brown, but I did. And I suspect that many Massachusetts voters did as well.

Sure, I understand that Brown faces reelection next year in overwhelmingly liberal Democrat Massachusetts. No one expects him to be a stalwart advocate for unborn children. But is it really asking too much for him to oppose appropriating taxpayer funds to subsidize abortion?

For the longest time, after all, that was the common ground shared by pro-life advocates and pro-choice “moderates” within the Republican Party. The latter would support abortion “rights,” but promised not to use taxpayer funds to subsidize or promote abortion.

But now, apparently, even that fair-minded compromise has been discarded. You not only have a “right” to abortion, you also have a “right” to have that abortion paid for by the taxpayer.

Yet as Jim Antle points out, when Brown ran for the Senate he “specifically opposed federal funding for abortion.”

As Hot Air’s AllahPundit asks, the question now is: Has Brown gone too far? Has he done too much to appease the Left, such that conservatives now have no choice but to oppose him, or at least to sit on their hands come the 2012 election?

I’m not sure. Maybe. At some point, after all, conservatives must conclude that it is better to lose on principle than to win by jettisoning core beliefs.

On the other hand, Brown is a smart pol who seems always to give himself wiggle room.

For example, with respect to Planned Parenthood, as AllahPundit observes, Brown says he is in search of a “compromise” measure. In fact, he initially “voted in favor of the House GOP proposal that would have made the cuts…”

I’m not sure what such a “compromise” measure would entail. As I say, the real and longstanding compromise involves supporting (or at least tolerating) abortion “rights,” while opposing taxpayer funding of abortion. Anything less than that strikes me as an unacceptable sellout.