Posted on 05/01/2004 4:52:58 PM PDT by joanie-f
I've written extensively about the Toomey/Specter race here on the forum over the past month. I'm sure that some of my FR friends are secretly wishing that I would switch gears and focus on something else for a change (and, to that end, I am making a promise right now -- that this will be my last comment on the race, unless someone else brings up an aspect of it that I cannot help but respond to :).
Yes, the Pennsylvania Republican primary is now history. But I sincerely believe that there are lessons of significant future relevance to be learned, on a national scale, and ones that every state can use as a barometer for primaries within its own borders. So I would like, one last time, to put at least some aspects of this primary under a political microscope.
The political climate in this country has become so clouded so as to prevent the average American citizen from sorting through the fog on his own in order to know where he stands on anything these days. But it doesn't have to be that way. And the Toomey/Specter race was a sterling example of what happens when the fog becomes so thick that you can't see your hand in front of your face.
Whenever I have to make a political decision, I always fall back on the mindset of the Founders of our republic (especially their determination to preserve the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness). I truly believe their vision was incomparably profound in its simplicity. At the very core of their vision, they held five premises to be sacred and immutable:
(1) individual liberty is not compromisable
(2) along with liberty, the sanctity of life is not compromisable
And, in order to protect and ensure the above:
(3) American law and justice cannot be over-ridden by international law or treaties
(4) American sovereignty must be preserved from outside interference of any kind
(5) the expressly limited to a few enumerated powers authority of government must remain in the hands of the people
Of course there are countless more minor ramifications, but I believe that the Founders' vision, and the incomparable personal sacrifices they made in our behalf, focused largely on those five immutable premises.
Their blueprint is timeless. We need to ignore the (often purposefully created) fog that envelopes American politics today and, when making decisions on which (local/state/national) candidate to support, or where we stand on a specific issue, we must simply seek out the answer to the question, 'How does this particular issue relate to those five premises?' In doing so, we will find the answer to any and all modern political questions (resting secure in the belief that the Founders were the courageous, dedicated, visionary geniuses that they were).
If you agree with the above, stick with me a little longer ..
Let's look at this week's Toomey/Specter race.
The 'fog' in this particular skirmish took the form of dishonest television advertising, cross-over registrations, confusing endorsements and obfuscating statements made by local and national leaders, the often colored opinions of media 'experts' and pundits, concerns about who could or could not win against the democrat opponent in November, etc., etc. ad infinitum ...
And a pretty thick fog it was.
Wading through it, let's focus on (1)-(5) above:
___________________________________________________________________
(1) Which of the candidates champions individual liberty?
Encroachments on individual liberty come in many forms: physical, social, economic.
One of the candidates has championed some of the largest tax increases in our history, and has also more often than not been on the side of those who would vote down, or dilute, tax cut bills. The other candidate has never voted for a tax increase.
One of the candidates consistently works under the belief that the government better knows how to spend our money, and that it is within the government's authority to redistribute a significant portion of wealth from the haves to the have nots (and from the workers and producers to the non-workers and non-producers). The other consistently votes to allow us the freedom to keep the fruits of our labors, believing that we know best how to spend our own hard earned money.
One of the candidates voted against requiring a supermajority (2/3 vote) in Congress to raise taxes. The other voted to require a supermajority for any future tax increases.
One of the candidates believes that it is within government's authority to require businesses to hire employees based on their minority race, sexual orientation or national origin -- and that organizations (such as the Boy Scouts of America) which promote the welfare of children should also be required by government to place such minorities in leadership positions. The other champions the rights of individuals and businesses to hire on merit those workers they believe will benefit them and their business, and to have their children associate with people of whom they approve.
One of the candidates votes consistently for National Education Association-supported legislation and opposes school choice. The other more often than not votes against NEA-supported bills and strongly supports school choice.
(2) Which of the candidates believes in the sanctity of life?
One of the candidates has consistently supported Roe vs. Wade, has consistently voted against a ban on partial birth abortions, recently voted with pro-choice democrats to obstruct passage of a ban on PBAs, and always votes for taxpayer funding of abortion. The other has consistently opposed Roe vs. Wade, was the original co-sponsor of a ban on partial birth abortion, and always opposes taxpayer-funding of abortion.
One of the candidates joined Diane Feinstein and Ted Kennedy in writing legislation to research the viability of human cloning. The other was the co-sponsor of legislation to ban the concept of human cloning.
(3) Which of the candidates reveres American law and justice, and has pledged not to allow international law to take precedence?
One of the candidates was the only Republican senator to support subjecting American soldiers to trial in international criminal court. The other vehemently opposes any American military personnel falling under international criminal court jurisdiction.
One of the candidates led the crusade to prevent the appointment of Robert Bork to the Supreme Court, on the grounds that he was a strict interpreter of the original intent of the Constitution. The other has a clear record of supporting only justices who believe in original intent.
One of the candidates backed down from taking a stand during the Clinton impeachment proceedings, and conveniently invoked an obscure Scottish Law which allows for a 'not proven' vote. The other supported the impeachment and conviction of Bill Clinton.
One of the candidates consistently votes against legislation which would reform the out-of-control medical malpractice insurance system, and which would drastically limit the income and political power of trial lawyers. The other is in the forefront of efforts to reform the medical malpractice insurance system and to curtail the economic and political power of trial lawyers.
One of the candidates consistently votes against caps in product liability lawsuits. The other consistently supports product liability lawsuit reform.
(4) Which candidate's record exhibits a respect for, and a determination to defend, America's sovereignty?
One of the candidates consistently votes to slash defense spending -- and often does not cite deficit reduction, but rater the more urgent need for domestic federal programs, as his rationale. He also believes that crimes against homosexuals and bisexuals should be treated more severely than those committed against heterosexuals, and has often voiced the opinion that a good place from which to find the money to fund hate crimes legislation is by cutting the defense budget. The other consistently votes for increased defense appropriations and military pay raises (and altogether opposes hate crimes legislation).
(5) Which candidate genuinely believes in the phrase government of the people, by the people and for the people -- and therefore consistently votes so as to limit the power of the federal government over the lives of its citizens?
See (1) through (4) above.
________________________________________________________________________
If we are not to submit to government obscured by purposeful diversions, every American needs to look within himself for the relevance of those five all-important premises in any political/ballot decision he makes. He cannot look to Madison Avenue advertising to clear the fog away. He cannot rely on politicians themselves (whose words are often carefully crafted based solely on political expediency) to answer those questions for him. And he cannot allow himself to be convinced by ulterior motive convincers, no matter how loud their voices or how often their pronouncements are repeated, that concerns outside of those five premises somehow must take priority.
A significant portion of the 50.6% of Pennsylvania Republicans who pulled the lever next to Specter's name took their eyes off of the Founders' vision on Tuesday. Either they allowed themselves to be taken in by lies of convenience, or they allowed others with a purely political agenda to do their thinking for them.
I believe American citizens must also use the above (1)-(5) litmus test in determining the honesty, and genuine dedication to the good of our republic (as opposed to caving in to political expediency, or the amassing of personal power), of their already elected officials. When someone in public office takes a stand on an issue, or supports a candidate, is he doing so because the goals of (1)-(5) will be furthered, or because other more corrosive political considerations are taking precedence?
As regards President Bush's and Senator Santorum's recent endorsement of Arlen Specter, I believe thick political fog took precedence over the Founders' vision. They will have to answer for that, to their constituents and their consciences.
If men of wisdom and knowledge, of moderation and temperance, of patience, fortitude and perseverance, of sobriety and true republican simplicity of manners, of zeal for the honor of the Supreme Being and the welfare of the commonwealth; if men possessed of these other excellent qualities are chosen to fill the seats of government, we may expect that our affairs will rest on a solid and permanent foundation ... Samuel Adams, 1780.
Gotta love Henley.
I would add that this lyric applies not only to the press. It is probably etched in granite above the doors of both the RNC and DNC headquarters.
Regards
J.R.
It's called rehashing. It's a waste of time and bandwidth to repeat the same rebuttals. Go back and read the thread.
"Show me a single post where I have EVER said I believe Dems will win 80% of the senate races in November.YOU CAN'T. I've never said such a thing."
AHEM! You made this assertion.
"Not when you're helping to give Dems back a majority in the Senate. That's EVEN WORSE than being a RHINO."
You say that I am helping to give the dems the majority of the senate. Since that requires them to win 80% of the races and you say that you aren't saying that they are going to win the required number to take the majority, just what are you saying?
Don't you just hate it when you get your talking points screwed up?
"Wow..what a powerful rebutal!"
Now you're confusing rebuttal with derision.
"First you assign me positions I have NEVER taken, and then you parrot the name "Terry McAuliffe! Terry McAuliffe! Terry McAuliffe!" at me. Are you trying to make me laugh on purpose or what?"
You made the assertions as I have pointed out above and since McAuliffe is the only other one that I've heard make it, I couldn't help but laugh at you as I typed my response. Laugh if you want. It might be the most useful thing that you do all day.
First, how do you ‘replace’ voters? We aren’t talking party officials here. We’re talking average citizens who go to the polls every two or four years and cast a ballot.
Secondly, I refute your characterization of Toomey as ‘nebbish’. Personal ‘charisma’ and the ability to be well-characterized by the mainstream media count for nothing to those who are seeking men of character to assume leadership positions in this country. Toomey is ‘nebbish’ in the same way Reagan was. He is soft-spoken, but speaks with passion. He is not vicious, but he defends his positions firmly and with strength of conviction. He is not glib, not suave, and not prone to talking in circles (i.e., will never be a darling of the mainstream media). But those Pennsylvanians who have taken a serious look into his record (as well as others outside of the commonwealth who have taken an interest in this race) have learned just why the media will continue to paint him as a weak candidate.
They, and his opponent, often see what should be considered strengths as weaknesses. The media, and a significant number of Specter ads, clung to the slogan, ‘Toomey isn’t far right, he’s far out.’ Why? Because countless times he chose to swim upstream, rather than toe the party line or vote with the majority – the latest example of which was the House vote on Bush’s prescription drug plan. A socialist-leaning, unconstitutional bill that passed overwhelmingly … and yet Toomey was the only Pennsylvanian in the House who voted against it. If that is a weakness, I say we need more men of weakness in government.
The Toomey supporters who, at least at this point, feel that they cannot pull the lever next to Specter’s name in the fall have not abandoned the GOP. They represent a segment of those who worked long and hard to reclaim the GOP from those who have hi-jacked her.
Your assumption that the active minority of voters in Pennsylvania that has gone for the democrat presidential candidate in every election since 1988 is the same active minority that supported Toomey and may not vote for Specter in November is so far off base that it’s sitting in the bleachers. You are equating Toomey supporters with those they abhor. It is the die-hard supporters of Specter (many of whom envision the bringing home of federal pork-barrel projects as more important than conservative Republican principles) who have consistently voted Specter/Clinton/Gore for the past sixteen years. And it is exactly the entrenched power of those kinds of voters that Toomey supporters attempted to overthrow.
You paint us as a group of children who are throwing a temper tantrum as a result of a single primary election loss.
I, for one, have held my nose and voted for Specter four times – each time placing on the shelf the abominations he has committed -- his cowardice in the Clinton impeachment trial, his crucifixion of Robert Bork, his continued efforts to weaken our defenses, his support of the feminist/homosexual/abortion rights/affirmative action agendas, his liberal tax and spend policies, and his reverence for international law. And I have done so in order to preserve party unity and ensure Republican congressional power.
But my party leaders themselves betrayed me this year. They sought to stifle my, and hundreds of other grassroots, voices because of political protocol and the promise of political favors. The GOP is not an organization. It is a set of principles that reveres liberty and national security/sovereignty. I am not abandoning the GOP. They have.
I could never bring myself to vote for a democrat with Hoeffel’s liberal credentials. But neither will I ever again pull the lever next to the name of Arlen Specter.
God bless you! I am somewhat ashamed to say that I had never even heard of Toomey until about six months ago. So I am now proud to make the acquaintance of a charter member of the Toomey Brigade.
Is there anything you would like to add to my response to Luis Gonzales’ post (#132 above)? Since you have been in the fray in this particular crusade much longer than I, you probably have some insights to offer him that I may be unaware of or have overlooked.
Again, thanks for being in on the ground floor of such an important movement (and one that is far from extinguished, despite Tuesday’s results).
~ joanie
Four of my favorite lines of his are:
I’m not the kind to smile and bow out gracefully
I always wanted to take it to the wall … and …
We condescend and in the end
we lose our very souls.
Would that there were more people who feel that way, rather than being satisfied with simply rolling over and playing dead.
In time, we can cure this epidemic. The battle for preserving the American system of government (as our founders created it) is worth the fight.
I wholeheartedly agree with the last sentence, and will be soldiering until the end (as will you). But I have my doubts about the first sentence. I don’t share your restrained optimism, John. This past month has been an eye-opener for me. On the one hand, it was good to experience the receptiveness of the hundreds of people with whom I talked. But on the other hand it was deeply disturbing to discover just how many otherwise intelligent people don’t have any idea that their country is being sold down the river.
I’ve already written too much about my feelings in that regard, so won’t continue the soapbox spiel here. But the bottom line is that I have seen it so often before: You speak to friends and family and neighbors about an important political ballot contest/issue. They comprehend and do the right thing. But then they once again revert to business as usual (i.e., allowing the media, especially, to do their thinking for them). It becomes a matter of not being able to get through their heads the importance of thinking for themselves. You simply have to drag them aside and educate them at various critical times. That’s not a solution. It’s a band-aid. Our republic is hemorrhaging and pretty soon band-aids aren’t going be able to stop the bleeding.
Preventing LIBERAL DEMOCRAT Specter from sitting as the Chairman of the Judiciary is also REPUBLICAN.
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.