Replies

Public opinion is clearly on the side of giving judicial nominees an up or down vote. Whether that is enough to persuade the senate or we are forced to go nuclear, we will still have to control the senate to confirm Bush's nominations.

I am no happier than you are about Specter being where he is. But it is what it is and electing a Democrat will do nothing to change the courts. I don't want to wait another 6 years to elect a Republican from PA. I want changes now and the odds of that happening are better with Santorum in the senate rather than Casey. If Toomey can beat Rick in the primary then more power to him and I will gladly contribute to his campaign. Otherwise, we need more Republicans in the senate, not less.

I dream about 60 Republican senators in 2006 and the possibilities that presents. Being pragmatic will get us to where we want to be much faster than hard line idealism.

Anyone NOT from Pennsylvania on this thread needs to STFU.

This is NOT a conservative state like Oklahoma, yet we have elected one of the most conservative Senators in the country. John Kerry carried Pennsylvania, and Arlen Specter got more votes than Kerry. Specter is the most popular politician in this state. Santorum probably picked up a lot of votes by supporting Specter; had he not supported him he would have been severely damaged going into this campaign. If we let Santorum lose this Senate seat, we will never get it back. Bob Casey will have it for 40 years.

Yeah, I am sympathetic to your point. There is a French (ugh!) statement that might be relevant, however, pour encourager les autres (as an example to the others, roughly).

Santorum may not survive, and we may have to wait 6 years. But if heresy is punished there, the others might be encouraged to stay less impure. Defiance of the base with impunity is not representative government. Just a thought, worth what you paid for it!