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.
In the business of throwing off idolatry, it's useful to read up on the old Juggernaut and the willing, popular and clebrated child sacrifice it represented.
It is not "Pat Toomey on Free Trade": it is two votes on related issues, but that is not necessarily a good indicator or his position on Free Trade. And from you, Luis, NOTHING is to be trusted. That is your posting legacy.
Are you saying that Toomey did not vote exactly the way it was described in the post?
And how about rather than simply slinging mud, as your style seems to be, you replace your ad hominem attacks with some sort of substance?
The battle is where the battle is, not where you want it to be.
You go vote Constitution Party as a sour grapes reaction to the fact that Arlen Specter won, AS HE HAS FOR THE PAST TWO PLUS DECADES, and you are literally abandoning the field of battle.
The Democrats have one prevailing ideology...defeat the Republicans, right now, it appears that a good number of people in this thread share the Dems goal in the upcoming elections in PA.
I have one prevailing ideology, defeat the Democrats. Had I worked for Toomey, I would now be ready to vote for the GOP candidate, and would be looking forward to the next elections, where Toomey should run to replace Specter's vacated seat, with the GOP's backing.
There are few members of the US Senate as conservative as Rick Santorum, and Rick backed Specter.
Why?
Because he understands the necessity of the Party supporting the incumbents.
Well, I guess that extends to all of the states then, since we have all been captured by the government's war against us. ;-)
Thanks for the clarification as I likely wouldn't get one from the other poster.
Some people in this forum would call Toomey a socialist in light of his votes on trade issues.
"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."
That's great, and very close to my own.
But we don't define politicians based on those principles, we define them by their votes in Congress.
For example, I would argue that in way too many instances, your numbers 1 and 2 clash.
Many, many conservatives have absolutely no problem with the government intruding heavily not only into the lives of citizens, but into their very bedrooms.
Your number 2 is also diametrically opposite to Jefferson's stance on the subject of electing public servants according to their religious beliefs.
"our civil rights have no dependance on our religious opinions, any more than our opinions in physics or geometry; that therefore the proscribing any citizen as unworthy the public confidence by laying upon him an incapacity of being called to offices of trust and emolument, unless he profess or renounce this or that religious opinion, is depriving him injuriously of those privileges and advantages to which, in common with his fellow citizens, he has a natural right; that it tends also to corrupt the principles of that very religion it is meant to encourage, by bribing, with a monopoly of worldly honours and emoluments, those who will externally profess and conform to it"
You see, when we get down to the nitty gritty of debating whether a politician is a conservative or not, you can't use such nebulous, all encompassing principles such as the ones you've stated, you must use specific issues, the way the candidates voted for those issues, and WHY they voted the way they did.
Having said all that, I would have voted for Toomey in the primaries (I agree with his votes on the trade issues), and would have also voted for Specter in the general elections, because my principles dictate that I take whatever action needed to keep a Democrat from office.
There's the rub.
Toomey's voting is no more supportive of the GOP that Arlen's.
Is he a member of the LP or the CP?
Hoping a liberal Republican win also wipes out any pretense of caring about conservative causes.
There's no difference between Specter and Hoeffel, other than in personalities whereas Hoeffel isn't your typical smarmy, arrogant liberal.
He's got two votes from this household - unless, of course, my prayers are answered and we are able to relocate back to FL beforehand.
If you vote for liberal Republicans just to keep Democrats out of office, what exactly are you accomplishing?
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.