Pat Toomey’s Future An interview.

National Review ^ | 4/30/04 | Ramesh Ponnuru

[Kuksool]

I guess the "Gifted One Who Sees the Truth" now has a new playmate.

[ClintonBeGone]

I stand by my statement. Can't change your stripes.

[Luis Gonzalez]

"The Gift Is To See The Trout"

[joanie-f]

Shot and shelled, we will still stand for liberty, where, when the left and all who compromise with it are desparate for salvation, will try to find home ... So, I am not going to abandon where we stand for liberty, because it is home, our homes, our country under God.

A proud BTT for wisdom and eloquence.

[FreeReign]

You speak the language, you engage in the native customs, and you make this country your native land. Luis hasn't done any of that.

(My Bold)

Hey Formoore04, you don't speak the language? Why did you call him "Luis". Why didn't you call him "Louis".

Apparently you don't speak the native language do you...you jackass.

[FreeReign]

A third party (any third party) in American politics will never be anything but a spoiler, unless one of the major parties is so decayed that the third party replaces it entirely.

The system is bipolar, and if disturbed by a third party, seeks its own equilibrium. The 20th Century saw the rise and fall of the Bull Moose Party, Debs's Socialists, a couple of racist segregationist parties, the airy liberal American Independent Party and the man-on-a-horse authoritarian Reform party. The most any of them ever achieved was getting the fellow more opposed to their politics elected.

Well said.

[FreeReign]

What in the Republican platform does Specter stand for?

Way back, Specter did stand for Clarence Thomas.

Specter did have a 65 ACU rating in 2003 -- which made him about 65% conservative.

His lifetime rating is a puny, 43.

[Republican Wildcat]

For Senate? That site says he's running for county commissioner.

[BillyBoy]

My understanding that he was running for County Comissioner but after Specter won the primary, he announced he would enter the Senate race instead. It's only been a couple of days so his website isn't updated yet.

[Torie]

Your wasting bandwidth by vague accusations. Let me help you with getting started with some of this: "I oppose Sabertooth's program for extirpating illegal aliens from the Fruited Plain because I think it is Draconian and unfair because ... " Or maybe you think Sabertooth is too closed minded on gay marriage. Or maybe you think he is too tough on Bush in not giving him slack to deal with real politik. If so elucidate on that.

You see how it goes? We deal in issues rather than personalities. We don't do vague ad hominums. It is an exercise in spam. You are wasting everybody's time. Get it?

[TOUGH STOUGH]

"You're engaging in short-term political thinking."

No, you are wrong. My thinking on this political topic is about as future oriented as it gets. Specter is salivating at the opportunity to make a mark on history as Judiciary Committee Chair.

Picture it: June 2005. Rehnquist retires. Bush is poised to name a conservative successor. Specter opposes the nominee and uses his new found power to shall we say "influence" the other members of the judiciary. The conservative justice gets borked. Another conservative is named. History very quickly repeats itself. Finally, a some what moderate justice is approved, who either before but probably after assuming his position, proves himself to be antigun, proabortion and pro-radical gay lobby and that's just for starters.

Bush has the opportunity to name one or two more conservatives. Specter successfully Borks them all. Another moderate and perhaps a closet Liberal is approved. The overturning of Roe v. Wade is again set back 20, 30 or more years. There are greater restrictions on gun ownership. And legal proscriptions against gay marriage are ruled unconstitutional. First amendment rights are sharply curtailed and on and on.

The formidable damage a Liberal Democrat like Specter could cause the constitution and the country is frightening.

If Specter gets elected, Bush and Santorum will rue the day they ever supported him. And you will too.

Thus, it is the long term future political ramifications of a judiciary chaired by Specter which is at the core of my consideration. Again, you are wrong.

Furthermore, there is no good reason the Republican party should support disloyal members of Specter's ilk. Support of such politicians harms the party, and more importantly the nation.

[TOUGH STOUGH]

The persuaive arguments in your post are extroradinary for one so young.

I would encourage you to turn your post into an article if you haven't already done so and submit it to BobJ.

[Delphinium]

Specter did stand for Clarence Thomas.

Well that is a good thing.

I try to see something to like in everybody, but as he is now he is no better then any democrat.

Except for keeping us from a possible loss of the leadership in the Senate he is really no use to the Republican party.

[Bushbacker]

Joe Hoeffel is a proven GOP vote-getter. He has always won in GOP areas.

Pat Toomey is a proven Democrat vote-getter. He has always won in Democrat areas.

____Uh, Hoeffel used to be re-elected without ANY Republican oppostion when he was PA State
Rep and he was the first Democrat
in 100 years to win and be re-elected Congressman in PA's 13th District (Marjorie Mezvinsky
held the seat for just one term).

Yje consensus of practical GOP
regulars in PA was that Toomey would have trouble beating Hoeffel---who is from powerful Montgomery County, the wealthiest
area of PA.

It wasn't worth risking a return to power of Daschle in the Senate to be ideologically pure.

[phil_will1]

I find your post very persuasive, also. Every election forces us to face this issue - whether to back someone from the party we generally favor whose position on issues differs from ours. IOW, how much emphasis do we place on party loyality vs. our own personal principles and values.

I would argue that, contrary to some posts on here, refusing to accept candidates such as Senator Spector whose views and voting record are inconsistent with what the party stands for is actually good for the party IN THE LONG RUN. By that I mean that the party power brokers (such as Karl Rove) need to be taught that they cannot impose a candidate on the masses for the sake of political expediency. Attempts to do so may very well result in what they fear most - loss of control. If THAT message were communicated to Mr. Rove (and other political power brokers)clearly and distinctly during this election cycle, it would have ramifications far into the future.

[ClintonBeGone]

We deal in issues rather than personalities.

Move on Torie. You bring neither issues nor a personality to this discussion.

[NittanyLion]

Yje consensus of practical GOP regulars in PA was that Toomey would have trouble beating Hoeffel---

Wow! Talk about generalization! The "consensus" of "practical" GOP "regulars" was that Toomey would have "trouble". Who are these regulars? I haven't seen any such consensus...and what does "trouble" mean, anyway?

who is from powerful Montgomery County, the wealthiest area of PA.

Oooh..."powerful", "wealthy" Montgomery County. I'm scared just thinking about it. Those tough Montgomerians make my friends in (for example) Centre, Northampton and Chester County seem almost pathetic.

It wasn't worth risking a return to power of Daschle in the Senate to be ideologically pure.

It wasn't worth it to you (Perhaps also to the "practical regulars" - maybe that was their "consensus".). The risk was well worth it by objective standards.

[Luis Gonzalez]

You tell me, you're from the Philly area.

Why have you all been re-electing Specter for over two decades?

"Furthermore, there is no good reason the Republican party should support disloyal members of Specter's ilk."

And if the Party is taken over by the Libertarian wing, then they vote out the "disloyal members of" Santorum's ilk?

Or maybe of yours?

"Picture it: June 2005..."

You have the gift too?

No you don't.

[Bushbacker]

consensus of practical GOP regulars in PA was that Toomey would have trouble beating Hoeffel---


Wow! Talk about generalization! The "consensus" of "practical" GOP "regulars" was that Toomey would have "trouble". Who are these regulars?

___People in the key GOP organization of Montgomery County who are also powerful in the state
GOP. And, of course, Santorum and the President.



I haven't seen any such consensus...and what does "trouble" mean, anyway?

___Hoeffel would win.




who is from powerful Montgomery County, the wealthiest area of PA.
Oooh..."powerful", "wealthy" Montgomery County. I'm scared just thinking about it. Those tough Montgomerians make my friends in (for example) Centre, Northampton and Chester County seem almost pathetic.

___You know as well as I do that Montgomery County is the political bellwether for Southeastern PA
and usually determines how the rest of the state will go.


It wasn't worth risking a return to power of Daschle in the Senate to be ideologically pure.


It wasn't worth it to you

__Or to Santorum and Bush.

(Perhaps also to the "practical regulars" - maybe that was their "consensus".). The risk was well worth it by objective standards.


___I don't want to see Daschle back in charge. That would be worse than re-electing Specter and
I think President Bush---who would have to work with a Daschle-controlled Senate--agreed.

[ClintonBeGone]

It wasn't worth it to you (Perhaps also to the "practical regulars" - maybe that was their "consensus".). The risk was well worth it by objective standards.

Implied in Bushbacker's statement is 'it wasn't worth the risk to reasonable people'. I don't think anyone would ever accuse you of being reasonable, particularly when it comes to matters of election and what's in the best interest of the people of this country through the fine leadership of President Bush.