Replies

I don't see why you highlighted "I am very, very deeply committed to education and economic opportunity for all Americans", as if this is a controversial position. I don't know of anyone who would disagree with that statement. Nor should they.

I don't think anyone would disagree with that position either. I think they would disagree with Arlen's VOTING RECORD (pro-affirmative action, anti-vouchers, etc.) on that issue if stopped to think about whether his actions match his words.

Overall, I think your post was a rather unconvincing argument against Specter.

Ah, so you're not convinced that a guy who was ON RECORD saying most Republicans want "to pursue a radical social agenda that would end a woman's right to choose and mandate school prayer”, and "this nation -- nor this Party can afford a Republican candidate -- so captive to the demands of the intolerant right”, plus my personal favorite "It is not Judeo-Christian to bring God into politics." DESPISES the very people who he is BEGGING to vote for him now?

Talk about biting the hand that feeds you. Since the party shouldn't be "captive to the right", then he doesn't NEED our votes. Why would he go to a gun rally and press the flesh with those "intolerant" people? The moderate "majority" can all vote for him.

>> The National Review Online made a much stronger case against him than you. <<

The National Review cited the exact same speech. I merely posted a longer form and pointed out all questionable statements he made there. Of course their article was more in-depth, because they covered his whole career. I'm just REMINDING people of one example showing the way this guy acts when he's not out running for the Senate.

Well, yes. NRO was more convincing specifically because they went far more in depth, citing his actual VOTING RECORD on a number of issues, rather than just highlighting sections regarding abortion from a single speech.

Now I understand there is a segment of FR that is very passionate about abortion issues, but there is a whole lot more to politics - a whole lot more that is of more immediate concern - than this single issue, and it is certainly not a slam-dunk issue with all of your intended audience.

I was with you sort of for most of it, but your seemingly anti-education, anti-equal access slant really turned me away from whatever point you were trying to make.