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:

(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).

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 ...

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.

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?

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.

"I personally don't see how anyone could have any claim to being a conservative while preferring Democrats to be elected."

That's probably the best thing that could happen!

Things would degenerate to such a rotten state that maybe enough sheeple would wake up, band together, and end the socialist disaster that this nation has degenerated into in the last 30 years.

I know i'll survive it.

"First, how do you ‘replace’ voters?"

By moving towards the center of the political ideological spectrum, and away from the outer fringe.

How one characterizes an individual is up to one's own perception of that individual, "nebbish" is how I perceived Toomey from the few times I saw him, and "nebbish" was the description used by some others who followed the election closely.

You can't "refute" my impression of an individual by offering yours, and sorry joannie, Toomey is no Reagan.

And yes, you don't pull the Specter lever not only have you abandoned the GOP, but you have critically damaged Toomey's chances in the next election, as you will be forcing him to defeat an incumbent Democrat.

IF you are a Republican, then you close ranks after the primaries and vote to defeat the Democrats.

Specter only votes with the GOP 40% of the time?

What percentage of the time will his Democratic replacement vote with the GOP?

I feel that if PA voters wrote in Pat Toomey's name, and Specter lost by the amount of votes that Toomey received, the Republican machine would have to start paying attention … It would send a strong, clear message.

Good point.

I’ve heard a lot of rumblings along those lines. I, for one, have to take a few steps back from this skirmish before deciding what to do in November. I know I will not vote for either Hoeffel or Specter. That is a given.

An attorney with whom I occasionally work, Jim Clymer, is the national chairman of the Constitution Party, which is headquartered here in Lancaster County. He is seriously looking into putting up a viable Constitution Party candidate. Writing in Toomey’s name, as you suggested, is something else I am considering. I personally need to let the dust clear a little more before I decide what course to take.

~ joanie

"Murder should not be a states' rights issue, whether you are 30 or a pre-born child.

New York State had legalized abortion before Roe vs. Wade."

Please point me to that section of the US Constitution that authorizes the Federal government to be involved in a murder case, no matter the age of the victim. No penumbras. No allusions. Show me the enumberated power that deals with murder.

By moving towards the center of the political ideological spectrum, and away from the outer fringe.

Hmmm ... if you move the designated center of a circle further to the left, you aren’t fooling those who are well-versed in geometry.

What you describe as ‘the outer fringe’ used to be the center of the GOP. Those of us who occupy ‘the outer fringe’ believe in standing firm, no matter how others choose to re-define the terrain.

~ joanie

I'm not trying to fool anyone, I'm simply talking about politics in a forum where most people want to discuss ideology.

"What you describe as ‘the outer fringe’ used to be the center of the GOP."

The operative part of the phrase of course, being "used to be".

You may stand firm, that of course is your right.

But if you're in a battle, you must fight that battle wherever that battle field may be, not where you want it to be.

You think that what is now the outer fringe should be the center again?

Well, so do I. But the Party is the aggregate of the ideology of the totality of its membership. Change the voter's ideology to yours, and they will likewise elect the politicians who most closely resemble your political beliefs.

What exactly is the definition of "conservative"?

Is this part of that definition?

Pat Toomey on Free Trade

Voted YES on implementing free trade agreement with Chile.

United States-Chile Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act: Vote to pass a bill that would put into effect a trade agreement between the US and Chile. The agreement would reduce tariffs and trade barriers between the US and Chile. The trade pact would decrease duties and tariffs on agricultural and textile products. It would also open markets for services. The trade pact would establish intellectual property safeguards and would call for enforcement of environmental and labor standards. Reference: Bill sponsored by DeLay, R-TX; Bill HR 2738 ; vote number 2003-436 on Jul 24, 2003

Voted NO on withdrawing from the WTO.

Vote on withdrawing Congressional approval from the agreement establishing the World Trade Organization [WTO]. Reference: Resolution sponsored by Paul, R-TX; Bill H J Res 90 ; vote number 2000-310 on Jun 21, 2000

" An attorney with whom I occasionally work, Jim Clymer, is the national chairman of the Constitution Party, which is headquartered here in Lancaster County. He is seriously looking into putting up a viable Constitution Party candidate. Writing in Toomey?s name, as you suggested, is something else I am considering. I personally need to let the dust clear a little more before I decide what course to take."

I've met Jim and he seems to be a great guy.

There are many alternatives to consider this fall and not all of them are palatable. I am fully in favor of the least palatable one, but I know not every one will be able to pull the "D" lever.

Another (surprise) contender is the LP candidate who is pro life.

On a related note, I was honored to be asked by the local LP to consider running if Pat was defeated. I had their full cooperation in helping Toomey with yard signs and bumper stickers. Not that I wouldl have had a snowball's chance in July of winning, but it would have given me a great platform to blast Specter and Hoeffel both. At least, that is until my $359 in campaign funds ran out. LOL

I had to decline because the skeletons in my closet still have flesh on the bones.

Arlen Specter is NOT a Republican. He is a democrat with an R for Reprobate afer his name. He is pro-abortion, anti-gun, pro-high taxes, against conservative judges on the highest courts in the land and it is one of the scariest things on earth that Ted Kennedy considers him fine Supreme Court Justice material.
If he was not taking over the Senate Judiciary Committee, I MIGHT be able to hold my nose and not breathe for three days to vote for him, but if there is even the prayer that Republicans can expand their control in the senate without him, the best thing for the entire country is to have him GONE! PERIOD!

Great post, Joanie. What a pity that there are still so many so-called conservatives who don't realize the lasting damage this RINO can do in his last term.
If ever we want our Constitution to shine once again, we cannot continue to elect Rs who are Ds and Ds who are Communists. This one, especially because he will affect our children's children, (if they are still allowed to be born,)
and will give us Mr. and Mr. Smith along with Mrs. and Mrs. Doe. He will act to put our sovereignty in the hands of the UN, and will make sure the money you earn gets distributed to those who screech loudest.
And while I'm at it, all the democrats want senior citizens to be able to buy cheaper pharmaceuticals from Canada and the EU. Why, pray tell, do they think they are so much cheaper? Their people are taxed to death to pay for those drugs that THEY won't have enough of if they can be sold at a profit here. Sick effing countries. Sick effing Dems. Kill old people elsewhere to gain more power here. I hate'em.

Thank you for the kind words. You have nothing of which to be ashamed. Heck, in these last three years I should have been able to find you and tell you personally. ;-)

There is nothing that I can add to your reply to Luis. It is excellent, well reasoned, and much more polite than I can usually manage when I reply to him.

In my regular monthly meeting this Wednesday (I lead a discussion group in Pittsburgh), we will be talking about the race and its aftermath. Several of the key area people from the campaign will be there including more than a few of our local FReepers who were instrumental in this effort.

Over the next few months, I will be working with a few of the remaining principled conservative politicians and others to harness this network and make it into an effective machine to work for the values that mean so much to all of us. I trust that I can rely on your help in your area.

We can win. We can take our country and our government back from the forces of modern day liberalism/socialism. But first people have to realize that there is a problem and that it is the very thing that they believed WAS the solution to all their problems. Government.

My personal definition of a ‘conservative’ is one who (1) seeks to hold fast to the Founders’ vision of government – limited (regarding intrusion into the lives of its citizens and exhibiting fiscal responsibility) and specifically defined, (2) believes in the timelessness and necessity of adhering to Judeo/Christian moral values, (3) reveres individual liberty, (4) believes in individual responsibility and willingness to accept the consequences of one’s own (in)actions, and (5) believes that our national (physical and economic) sovereignty must be defended at all costs.

I am not familiar with the free trade agreement with Chile, so will not comment on it, except to say that the mainstream ‘Republican Party’ of which you would urge me and others to be stronger supporters apparently voted overwhelmingly for this bill as well (195 ayes, and 27 nays).

As for his voting not to withdraw from the WTO, I admit surprise at that vote, but again would not comment until I find out the reasons for his voting against it (and I intend to inquire about it). Also, again, it appears that the bulk of the GOP voted as he did (33 ayes, and 182 nays).

You can’t have it both ways, Luis. You can’t criticize him and his supporters for being on the ‘outer fringe’ of the party, and then come up with two votes (cast during three congressional terms) as an example of his supposedly not fitting the conservative mold – and yet they were votes which seemed to mirror the GOP stand on both issues (not necessarily characteristic of Toomey, but certainly not either supporting your contention that he is on the fringe of the party).

Seems to me you need a course in being more assertive, Nix. :)

Thanks for the additional (well taken) points. We may disagree on the effect of Bush's and Santorum's endorsements of Specter – and our resulting view of both of them (I'm trying real hard not to re-open old wounds here … have slapped my own fingers a couple of times when they sought to type the word betrayal … oops! It would appear that they have a mind of their own … :)

But there is no doubt in my mind that you are well-informed and well-spoken. Glad we’re on the same side!

~ joanie

But if you're in a battle, you must fight that battle wherever that battle field may be, not where you want it to be.

To continue your analogy, by your logic the Battle of Gettysburg would've been fought in Buffalo. When fighting a battle, one doesn't cede ground needlessly as you're advocating here.

On a related note, I was honored to be asked by the local LP to consider running if Pat was defeated … I had to decline because the skeletons in my closet still have flesh on the bones.

A wise choice, if you ask me (with or without the flesh-bearing skeletons. :) It’s just my opinion, but I believe that people like us (you even moreso than me) are more powerful ‘in the trenches’ – as is evidenced by your subsequent post:

Over the next few months, I will be working with a few of the remaining principled conservative politicians and others to harness this network and make it into an effective machine to work for the values that mean so much to all of us. I trust that I can rely on your help in your area.

Thank you (thankyouthankyouthankyou!). THIS is the kind of work that so few want to tackle, and yet it is the only grassroots way that we will be able to turn this country around … if that is still possible at all. And yes, you certainly can rely on my help in any way I can assist here in Lancaster Country. I enjoy public speaking, and grunt footwork. Just whistle.

Again, many thanks for all that you have done, and continue to do, not only for Pat Toomey, but for the conservative cause in general.

~ joanie

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.