Clymer seeks to restore the republic

The Pittsburgh Tribune-Review ^ | Saturday, October 2, 2004 | Bill Steigerwald

[Willie Green]

You can't say that Constitution Party candidate Jim Clymer doesn't offer Pennsylvania's conservative voters a clear choice in next month's election for U.S. Senator.

Clymer, who with liberal Democrat Joe Hoeffel is trying to unseat incumbent liberal Republican Sen. Arlen Specter, is about as conservative as you can get on both social and fiscal issues. He is solidly pro-life, tough on illegal immigration, strong on gun rights and believes in a federal government strictly limited to its proper constitutional functions.

The Lancaster lawyer, a Republican until 1992, will be in Pittsburgh today to campaign and tape a TV debate with Hoeffel and Specter. I talked with him by telephone Wednesday:

[Willie Green]

"What´s in a name? That which we call a rose
By any other name would smell as sweet".

~ William Shakespeare (Juliet, in "Romeo and Juliet", act 2, sc. 2)

[Willie Green]

ping

[Old Sarge]

Any relation to VP Cheney's aquaintance of the same name?

[Willie Green]

I don't believe so.
Nevertheless, sometimes ya just gotta be amazed at the bemusing alignment of stars that provide conservatives a choice between a "Clymer" and a Scottish Sphincter.

[Bossy Gillis]

Pat Toomey should be the candidate instead of Specter.

[advance_copy]

Jim Clymer is an outstanding man. If ever a third party candidate deserves support, it is Jim Clymer over Arlen Specter. Jim is the only true conservative running for the U.S. Senate in the Keystone State. He has the right stand on the issues, and he is a truly honorable Pennsylvanian.

www.jimclymer.com

Even if he only serves to cost Specter the election, we're better off. Otherwise, Specter will be chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee and every nomination by re-elected President George W. Bush will go through Specter's committee (i.e. they'll get Borked). That would not be good.

[Willie Green]

Thank-you for the link.
My comments were not meant to detract from Jim Clymer.
Merely to quickly acknowledge the misfortunate coincidence with his name so that we can move to a more important discussion of where he stands on the issues.

[advance_copy]

No worries. As noted, "What's in a name?" On the issues, Jim Clymer's top notch. He's pro-life, pro-2nd Amendment, good on immigration, etc. Jim "gets it" with regard to bloated federal government. He does play off the Buchanan-isolationist business a to little extent, but he's pretty reasonable with regard to that (unlike some).

[Willie Green]

He does play off the Buchanan-isolationist business a to little extent, but he's pretty reasonable with regard to that (unlike some).

Well there are many of us who believe that Buchanan's so-called "isolationism" is a greatly exagerated smear fabricated by anti-american globalists.

[Tribune7]

ping

[tet68]

"What´s in a name? That which we call a clymer
By any other name would smell as a clymer".

A "former" republican and a "former" democrat, huh.

[Tamzee]

Even if he only serves to cost Specter the election, we're better off.

A matter of opinion, at best.

We'd be one seat closer to losing the entire Senate, game over. Then Leahy gets the Judiciary Committee along with the rest of the lefties taking over. An insane risk, even if it just makes it easier to lose the Senate in 2008.