Posted on 08/07/2004 10:31:36 PM PDT by TBP
LANCASTER COUNTY, PA - When Jim Clymer announced on Monday that he was going to be on the ballot for U.S. Senate this Nov. 2, a lot of Republicans groaned. They worry that Clymer, who ran a strong but unsuccessful campaign for Lancaster County commissioner in 2003, will doom Republican Sen. Arlen Specter’s chance to win re-election.
A conservative, third-party candidate such as Clymer, of the Constitution Party, will siphon votes from Specter and benefit Democrat Joe Hoeffel, they believe. And a Hoeffel victory could tip the Senate’s balance of power in favor of the Democrats.
The Democrats think so too. Backers of Hoeffel, a Montgomery County congressman, helped get some of the signatures Clymer needed to get on the ballot.
But as the conservative Lancaster County native sees it, there’s little difference between the two parties anymore.
“I don’t believe the majority of Pennsylvanians agree with what either party stands for,’’ says Clymer, 56, who lives near Millersville. “Their similarities are much greater than their differences. The idea of the two-party system is that you have alternative viewpoints. You don’t have that this year.’’
Clymer, who left the Republican party in 1992 because he thought it was becoming too much like the Democratic party, is now the national chairman of the Constitution Party, a right-wing organization that some have called extreme.
Among other things, the party’s platform calls for the elimination of the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, abolishing the Internal Revenue Service and the entire Civil Service system, withdrawal from the United Nations, a moratorium on immigration and termination of all foreign aid.
Clymer says he generally agrees with this platform.
“Fundamentally, what we’d like to achieve in the Constitution Party is the restraint of the federal government to the limited delegated powers that are given in the Constitution,’’ he says.
For example, Clymer said that regulation of drugs could be handled on a state or local level or by private enterprise.
“People see government as the mother and big brother that’s going to remedy every wrong done to them and protect them from every foolish mistake they might make for themselves,’’ he says. “We’re not in favor of totally disrupting society or the economy by making drastic changes that are harmful. We have to study how to extricate the government from involvement so it doesn’t create a crisis.’’
Both mainstream parties, Clymer says, are interested only in increasing the size and scope of government. And he believes there are enough Pennsylvanians unhappy with them to give him a shot at winning.
A long shot, no doubt, but he’s encouraged by recent polling done before he got on the ballot that showed the number of “undecided” voters jumped from 2 percent to 12 percent after he aired a series of radio ads.
“I compare it to David and Goliath,’’ he says of his campaign. “Goliath had all these sophisticated armaments and all David had was a sling shot and some stones. Well, my stones and sling shot are all the volunteers coming to the cause. They’re working for something they really believe in.’’
And Clymer believes that’s no longer the case for most Republicans or Democrats.
“Conservative Republicans are frustrated because they know (President) Bush is not a conservative,’’ says Clymer. “There’s a sense that the Republicans have lost their moorings. It’s like ‘Animal Farm’ or ‘1984,’ where black is white and things change and we’re told they haven’t changed.’’
The Republicans continue to increase spending and are failing to appoint the strict constructionist judges Clymer believes would truly uphold the Constitution.
He sees Specter, who heads the judiciary committee, as a particular problem.
“Republicans are getting cynical. When they see Sen. Rick Santorum endorsing Specter over (conservative Republican) Pat Toomey for the sake of the party, it makes people cynical.’’
Clymer doesn’t like the Patriot Act either.
“Every time there is a crisis in the country, it creates an opportunity for the government to gain in size and power and take away our freedoms. September 11th is an example of that. It’s an excuse to deny us our liberties, to tap phones and pry into our bank accounts and go into our homes,’’ Clymer said.
Not that he thinks Democrats are all happy campers.
“A lot of Democrats still believe in fundamental values. They are social conservatives,’’ he says. “They believe we shouldn’t open our borders and give amnesty to millions of illegal immigrants. They are wary of international trade alliances. They believe in the sanctity of life and they are out of step with party leaders.’’
As Clymer sees it, the public is being misled by both parties.
“The American public has been taught that the government is a sugar daddy, that any need you have, the government is here to solve.’’
Clymer says he has always believed in smaller government and self reliance.
He grew up on a farm in Quarryville, the fourth youngest of 10 children.
“We were poor but we had a good life. We were a happy family,’’ Clymer recalls. “We raised a lot of our own food — we had cows and chickens and a truck farm.’’
Clymer’s family was Mennonite and very religious.
In fact, his father objected to Clymer’s going to law school, believing that a Christian couldn’t be an attorney.
After Clymer graduated from Lancaster Mennonite High School in 1965, he went back to work on the farm. His family believed that children owed their services to their parents until age 21.
Four years later, Clymer went to Millersville University, graduating with a bachelor’s degree in history in 1972. He also loved languages and took German, ancient Greek, and Spanish, in which he is still fluent.
And to this day, he enjoys reading poetry and says he’s good at memorizing and reciting it. Henry Wadsworth Longfellow is his favorite poet.
“I set out to be a teacher but it was the late 1960s and early 70s and progressive education was running wild,’’ Clymer says. “I was disgusted and decided to find a different career.’’
He waited three years in deference to his father, who would come to accept his son’s career goals, and spent time driving trucks before heading to Washburn University School of Law in Topeka, Kan., when he was 27. He graduated cum laude in 1978.
Clymer came back to Lancaster, despite the chance to clerk with the circuit court of appeals in Kansas.
His wife, Lois, whom he met in high school and started dating after they’d both graduated, wanted to live in Lancaster.
Clymer came into a practice with another lawyer then went out on his own. He now practices in the firm of Clymer and Musser at 23 N. Lime St.
But he’s always had an interest in politics and considers Barry Goldwater a political hero. He’s run for office a number of times, including a run for lieutenant governor in 1994 and 1998.
He and his wife raised five kids — the youngest just graduated from Lancaster Christian School.
The Clymers are members of the Congregational Bible Church in Marietta.
Running for office and running a law firm take up a lot of time, but Clymer fits a lot into his day. An early riser, he usually manages on only five hours of sleep a night.
He enjoys the outdoors and is a licensed pilot.
That skill will come in handy as he begins his campaign.
“I’m planning to use my plane a lot,’’ he says. “Especially with all the windy roads and mountains across Pennsylvania.’’
If you think defeating Arlen Specter is going to make him repent his ways ---- you are sadly mistaken.
If you think defeating Arlen Specter will teach the Republican Party a lesson about supporting incumbents --- you are sadly mistaken.
If you think defeating Arlen Specter will make it easier for someone like Pat Toomey to win next time --- you are sadly mistaken.</P.
The truth is this --- Toomey lost a fair fight. Toomey's support of Arlen Specter will earn Specter's endorsement for a run at Governor where Toomey's views will make a much bigger difference to the people of Pennsylvania than they would in the Senate.
Huh so you are calling Toomey a liar. With friends like you who needs enemies.
BTW, I doubt your veracity.
What don't you believe?
He helped Santorum get elected and put a rock-solid conservative voice in the Senate.
The right is outnumbered in Pennslyvania... the conservatives and moderates need each other to get anything accomplished. We either cooperate and accept SOME conservatives and SOME moderates winning elections, or we pull a childish, spoiled snit and get all Democrats and hard leftists in office.
"Who's 'we' tried to elect Toomey and failed?"
"WE" means even though I dont live in PA, I sent $300 to support Toomey's campaign.
We fought the good fight but we lost narrowly.
3rd parties are for losers, and Specter the RINO is better than Hoeffel the Liberal Democrat. So the best choice is to hold your nose and vote Specter.
I'd be relaxed about a Specter loss, except that the polls ARE NOT LOOKING ENOUGH FOR US TO BE RELAXED ABOUT ANY RACE.
Complacency and 3rd party fantasies give us this: We risk waking up the day after the election to a future Kerry Presidency and a Daschle majority in the Senate.
Then 4 Liberal Activists on the Supreme Court later, you can console yourself with defeating a RINO. big whoop.
JMHO.
"The only point that Specter supporters can make is that Leahy or U-Boat Commander Kennedy will chair the judiciary committee if the Dhimmis take the Senate (admitedly a possibility)."
Given that Obama means a +1 pickup, given risks in Alaska and Colorado of dem pickups, PA pickup means a possible is +4 for the Dems, ... we make a few mistakes in the South where we are counting on pickups, and the GOP is *toast*.
Yes, distinct possibility!!!
We are headed for an iceberg and the purity-conservatives are arguing about the shuffleboard rules on the deck. Jeeesh!
I disagree with Bush to some extent but I'll still vote for him. I'm not a purist. I'm not even a republican; I temporarily changed my registration to vote for Toomey but changed back to no affiliation in disgust with the way Toomey was trashed by Specter, probably using Republican party money.
"I think that the primary focus should be on ensuring George W. Bush's reelection."
This is something I think we can all agree on.
The big boys need to be taught a lesson on this one. And it doesn't matter whether the Republicans lose the Senate. The Dems have shown that it now takes 60 votes to pass anything in that worthless body. Oh, I forgot...the Dems have balls. The Republicans want the media to like them....pathetic.
Toomey ping and BTTT - hello, usual suspects and newcomers.
Abort Specter. I am sure he will understand what happens when you are not wanted.
Agree and understood - It's still tough to know that Sprectum isn't a lock on 1/2 of what the President needs him there to vote for. I know, take the half...
They really sent a bizarre message with their triangulation of a man who was the affirmation of hard-working, quality, conservative REPUBLICAN candidates that DO wish to participate in this bloody and thankless political industry.
A RINO and a Conservatiave Republican aren't tough decisions to make for America if one is really about that...
So, WADR, how many times must a Conservative be urinated upon by HIS Party before saying, "maybe we're supposed to apply pressure from without for change..."?? I support Bush, but it's simply a convenient time to make an easy decision that America needs more than conservatives at this time, IMHO. That's what I believe keeps the GOP from becoming more like the RATS even faster...
"I don't think Bush figured on the conservative distaste for Arlen."
I think you're right about this, I saw Bush giving a speech at a Rally in PA on C-Span recently and when he introducted the Sr. Senator applause versus boos were about 50/50 and those "Boos" were loud. You could see Bush was visably startled before he got control of his expression again. Then he introduced the Jr. Senator and the applause was deafening!
I was able to catch it again later in the day and enjoy the moment again! Smile! Arlen should have been horribly embarrassed.
Gee, guess Toomey wasn't the fringe nut who refuses to be a "team player" -- as he was depicted in the primary.
I appreciate Toomey's token endorsement of RINO Specter because it's necessary to keep his OWN career politically viable and not come off as a "sore loser", but anyone who read the interview with Toomey's "endorsement" knows he is doing it solely to be respectful and a gentleman-- and he can think of no reason to tell his own supporters why it would be good to have Snarlin' Arlen borkin' judges for another six years.
Furthermore, the fact that Toomey's supporters do NOT blindly follow EVERYTHING their candidate says is proof that the Toomey people are NOT purists who insist on a candidate who agrees with them on "100%" of the issues.
Chew on that one for a while...
Toomey lost in a fair fight? What is so fair about a party primary where the President jumps in with both feet? Where the party machineary actively backs one candidate?
There was nothing fair about it. The GOP establishment put Spectre over the top. If they get burnt it may teach them a lesson about meddling. If they dont learn, they are too stupid to be in charge anyway.
Many of the Purity Of Essence conservatives would rather complain than govern. It's much easier and more fun. One must always be careful about wished; they may be granted.
No, that's not exactly right. There are a lot of people who know Specter for what he is and believe him to be more dangerous than even a socialist Democrat rat like Joe Hoeffel. Hoeffel will not hold any extraordinary power as a junior senator. Specter, as a committee chairman, will. He and Hoeffel vary only in degree, not principle.
"If Specter narrowly wins or even narrowly loses and sees the margin of voters for Clymer which could have been his had he voted more Toomey-like, he may rediscover the principles he has shown on rare occasions like supporting Clarence Thomas."
Are you serious? There was no principle in supporting Clarence Thomas. It was based solely on the fact that it was an election year and every election year he does something to appeal to the right wing because he wants to fool people into thinking he is a conservative. Apparently, it works on some people.
I guess we'll see if Bush's calculation was an accurate one."
I believe that the Bush team severely miscalculated this race.
Specter did nothing to assure a Bush win in 2000, did he? Bush lost by 200,000 votes. The margin may be closer this time, but he will lose PA again. If Specter was such an asset, why did Specter take down all references to Bush from his website? Had he remained nuetral or backed Toomey, Toomey would have won and would have brought an energized GOP and conservative base to rally behind him and a Bush win would have been more likely. Even if the right votes for Bush, they're aren't pounding the pavements working for him. They aren't real pleased or excited.
It's hard to be excited about the guy that 'ain't the other guy'.
Toomey's 'endorsement' of Specter was hardly a ringing one. He said that despite his differences with Specter, Hoeffel was worse so we should vote for Specter.
I disagree with Pat. Hoeffel is bad and he is worse than Specter, but only by degree and not in principle. Specter, as the SJC Chairman, would be in a powerful position to hurt us. That's why I'm voting for Hoeffel.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.