Good point. Why did Bush take a proactive stance here?
I believe this race could do that very rare thing that everyone is always wanting to do--send a message--when conservatives feel betrayed and disappointed, we're told by the Machiavellians--"Where're ya gonna go?" After all, we don't have many alternatives, and the RINOs know it.
There could be another RINO or two who might get a chill down his spine at Specter's losing his primary. Maybe they might even start to listen to their own constitutents.
Like Bush, for instance, won't listen to his conservative base on enforcing immigration laws. As if he owes more to Fox than to the Middle America who support the WOT (which Fox does not).
Where're we gonna go? We won't be without some resources of our own.
I've suspected for some time that the Bush administration is playing a very interesting game with regard to these U.S. Senate seats. Their primary concern isn't necessarily seniority, and it has nothing to do with incumbency -- it has everything to do with "ideological cleansing" in the Senate from both sides of the aisle.
To the Bush team, I'm convinced that the absolute worst thing for any state in the Northeast is a pair of U.S. Senators split between the two parties. In my opinion, the Bush administration would rather deal with two Democratic senators from a "Blue" state than deal with a Senator from each party -- because it's a lot easier to screw a Democratic state when it comes to Federal appropriations bills. This is exactly why the Bush administration did not lose much sleep when Jeffords jumped ship in 2001, and why they did not try very hard to defeat Lautenberg in New Jersey in 2002.
If Bush is serious in his support of Specter, it's because he thinks the odds of a Specter victory in November are better than the odds of a Toomey victory.
That's just my take on things.