Replies

Re: "It goes back to my original point that those that choose not to support Spectre, are no better than Santorum choosing to support Spectre and have no moral ground to walk if they emulate the behavior they state to despise"

The last part of the above sentence makes no sense to me. But as to "no moral ground" I beg to differ. A person who does not support Specter being a "moral" equal to Santorum supporting Specter is just hog wash. Maybe your moral equal but Santorum says he is pro life and Specter says he is not, for the pro life voter that is not acceptable. He or she has the advantage of consistency when they refuse to vote for Specter and look for a pro life candidate.

The issue of "can they win" is another issue but it is manipulation to demand a vote for a man just because there is a R behind his name. By your supposition an Republican who is not likely to get more than 30%of the popular vote should not be voted for because his more popular Democratic opponent is likely to win. Is not that 30% just throwing away their vote. How on earth are we going to influence these politicians if we do not support a better candidate, even one who may lose. Your formula is guaranteed to produce mediocre and con men in office. You also have no right to demand support where it is not deserved and to suggest they are morally wrong is false and manipulative. People have a right to vote for who they wish even for a man who may loose. Our Constitution has been trashed and the election system is in shambles and attitudes that insist on more of the same will not win me over nor will it fix one da## thing.

I don't know how I can be more clear. I will repeat only once more, after that I must assume we are destined not to be able to communicate.

Santorum made a political calculation to support Spectre. he did so because he did not want Spectre as an enemy. he did so in hopes Spectre would return the favor with support in '06 and in hopes Spectre would return the endorsement by supporting the Republicans that kept him in office. I do not feel he made the choice of his conscience but rather calculation.

A voter that chooses not to support Santorum on basis of "payback" for that endorsement is not on a high moral ground. A voter that dismisses a pro-life conservative in favor of a, he says, pro-life Liberal to make a point with the GOP is following a political calculation of their own. One I feel will do more damage. A calculation that is no different than the one made in '92 with Clinton. Revenge over the endorsement of Spectre is NOT taking the high moral ground as endorsing Spectre because of a political calculus is not taking the high ground. Morally each judgement is wrong.

Neither is assessed on the qualifications of the candidate and which individual best represents the state. Each indication of support is based on what suits that person's emotional needs. Santorum's survival in the Senate and the Penn voter's disgust at the endorsement. Neither earns my respect.

Please spare me the rant in the second paragraph. Name one instance where I stated they couldn't vote for the individual of their choice. You will find not one. You will find my disgust if they don't vote for santorum. YOU have no right to suggest I cannot disrespect that decision anymore than you have the right to suggest I cannot disrespect the decision to vote for Kerry in the general.

Sure, they have the right to do with their vote as they wish. And I can tell them what I think of that vote, as they can tell me what they think of mine. Just as many voters have exercised their right to disrespect the choice of Rep voters in Penn that chose Spectre to represent them in the General. Funny how their wishes are disrespected around here without a thought spared. Everyone wishes to pile on Bush or Santorum but voters in Penn made the call and that is conveniently swept under the rug in condemnation of the other two because it doesn't suit the outraged agenda of people that came close to having Toomey representation in the General.

Nor will you find ONE instance of where I stated someone should vote for someone because they have an "R" by their name. FYI, I wanted Spectre to lose. Blows that theory out of the water, doesn't it? I'm also supporting a Hagel loss.