Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: Reaganwuzthebest
True but Toomey only lost by 51 to 49%. With strong Bush/Santorum backing the base and fence-sitters could have been energized just enough to pull Toomey over the top. In a close election sometimes that's what it takes but since Santorum chose the liberal to support it's not now suprising to see a backlash from conservatives against him.

True, but if Santorum with his 90+ ACU rating loses in the upcoming election to a liberal Democrat then the conservatives who didn't vote for him will be responsible for the outcome.

BTW if Bush and Santorum had supported Toomey and if Specter won, then both Alito and Roberts would not be sitting on the SC.

Also, there was the risk of Casey beating the more conservative Toomey.

The bottom line is the president supported the R incumbent (who BTW voted 75% conservative in 2004) and took the approach that if the people of PA want somebody more conservative, it is up to them to vote that way. The bottom line is the president wasn't willing to risk Arlen's support in the WOT and with SC judges when all the voting R electorate had to do was go out and vote for Toomey.

The registered Rpublicans of Pennsylvania didn't even elect Toomey as the R nominee. They are responsible for what happened. It is called indiviudal responsibility.

54 posted on 11/27/2005 8:50:32 AM PST by FreeReign
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 52 | View Replies ]


To: FreeReign
The registered Rpublicans of Pennsylvania didn't even elect Toomey as the R nominee.

That's where Toomey lost, 51 to 49% in the primary. If Santorum and the GOP establishment had strongly supported him who knows what the outcome would have been.

Sure it's individual responsibility but if you think conservatives are just going to forgive and forget Santorum's sellout to his supposed principles and let bygones be bygones then we might as well let them do whatever they please with never a worry for potential consequences since they'll know without a doubt they'll get away with it.

55 posted on 11/27/2005 8:59:17 AM PST by Reaganwuzthebest
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 54 | View Replies ]

To: FreeReign; A. Pole
You just pointed out how the people end up with the representation they deserve. Unfortunately the representatives battle on the basis on how much of our money they can redistribute - their only real differences being which financial bracket of the citizens to soak for it.

I'm sick of this constant pitting of high-earners versus low earners killing the middle class while spreading true divisiveness for the sake of the socialist's agenda. Why not gut one third of the privacy-invading bureaucracy in one fell swoop by eliminating income taxes altogether and establish a national sales tax? This would better realign money spent with real money earned, as well as stopping the overdependance on the wealthy's earnings to support the masses' needs.

It would stop the unfair redistribution of wealth - the very definition of socialism. The inevitable shortage should be made up by a new tax code that measures people's time instead of earnings. As we're all on the same time schedule we could say Bill Gate's two hours are worth those of you or I and we contribute our respective (and fair) tax percentage on that time basis regardless of the amount of money. In this way the rich won't be soaked, the poor won't be unfairly taxed and the Socialists in government would no longer have a neck to feed on.

Ideas courtesy of Paul Buff. I wish I were as bright.

63 posted on 11/27/2005 10:46:39 AM PST by NewRomeTacitus (Hey kids, let's fix these problems and hang the traitors. Yaaay!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 54 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson