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.
-Av
Anyone who would call Toomey a socialist in light of his votes on trade issues is wearing black glasses and blinders. You cited two votes of his that had to do with trade that occurred during his three terms in the house. I am not familiar with either one of the bills. One of them (the WTO vote) appears on the surface to lean toward a gloablist mindset – but the fact that the vote was 56 ayes to 363 nays tells me that there is more to that bill than meets the eye (not to mention the even more important fact that Toomey has a clear record of preserving our national sovereignty, both on defensive and economic issues). So although I must temporarily plead ignorance on both bills until I can read up on them, Toomey’s voting record and the results of the full house vote both strongly suggest that this vote was anything but evidence of a socialist bent.
As for your contention that my headings (1) and (2) in the definition of a conservative clash … you seem to be predisposed to making leaps of interpretation. I did not in any way infer that public office holders must profess or renounce a certain religious belief (so your Jefferson quote is quite irrelevant).
Every civilized society needs a generally accepted list of ‘rights’ and ‘wrongs’ that help define the (small, but precise) bounds of where one man’s individual liberty ends and another’s begins. Not where one man’s individual liberty ends and the government dictates from there out. Christian/Judeo morality was the basis upon which our Founders laid the cornerstone of this republic. That is not to say that public servants must pass a religious litmus test, or must be professing Christians (or Jews). It simply says that the moral basis for both religions serves the ‘civilized society guidelines’ mentioned above.
De Tocqueville wrote, ‘Americans hold religion to be indispensable to the maintenance of republican institutions. Despotism may govern without faith, but liberty cannot.’
Robert Bork, in Slouching Towards Gomorrah, wrote, ‘For most people, only revealed religion can supply the premises from which the prescriptions of morality can be deduced. Religion tells us what the end of man should be and that information supplies the premise for moral reasoning, and hence a basis for moral conduct.’ 'Moral conduct'. Nothing more and nothing less. It does not imply that anyone must accept or reject other specific religious teachings or doctrines.
Neither deTocqeuville nor Bork was suggesting (nor do most conservatives) that one must be a believer in a certain religion in order to hold public office. They were merely (correctly, from my viewpoint) asserting that religious morality (in America’s case, predominantly Christian morality upon which much of the Founders’ writings were based) provides a logical, acceptable societal standard definition of ‘right’ and ‘wrong’ when that society needs to address its members’ encroachments on other members’ individual liberties.
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.
Did you read my essay at all? A full half of it is devoted to analyzing the two candidates’ stances/votes on numerous issues – and relating them to the previous definition of what our Founders believed important (which strongly correlates to my definition of a conservative, since we genuine conservatives still cling to their vision).
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.
To my mind, the fact that you would have voted for Toomey based on his votes on the two trade issues you cited would be roughly equivalent to going to a racetrack and betting on a horse because you like the way his tail flows in the wind. Maybe you ought to study up on the man’s record and political philosophy a little more. You might discover that he has a steady, unfaltering gait, superior intelligence and instincts, uncommon endurance, and is capable of a magnificent stretch run.
~ joanie
... 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."
So much for Specter's GOP "credentials."
Now let us all imagine the evolutionary net result in twenty years of Luis Gonzales' suggestion that the GOP must surrender it's traditional principle, and:
"mov[e] towards the center of the political ideological spectrum and away from the outer fringe."
IOW, condone pro-abortion, anti-gun, pro-high tax, anti-border enforcement positions, and become like Democrats -- but technically NOT in name. However, switching policy affiliations at that point would be simple enough, wouldn't it??
I'm a RINO today. Democrat tomorrow.
Sounds like the best recipe for political disaster and CWII if ever I've heard one.
My nomination for quote of the day!
Well, I disagree with Pat Toomey on that issue and I supported him ANYWAY. What does that say about Toomey supporters? I thought we were all "intolerant purists" who supposedly have a "fringe ideology" of only voting for candidates who agree with us on EVERY issue. Apperently not, eh?
You ever stop to think I'd be supporting Specter right now if he didn't vote with Daschle the MAJORITY of the time? If that's "acceptable" to you, then will you support support Brad Carson (D) for the Senate in Oklaholma? Would you support having him chair in the judiciary committee in the Senate? His "conservative" rating is EXACTLY the same as Specter's -- lifetime 42%. NO Republican could stomach Carson chairing that committee, yet you're asking people to support someone with an IDENTICAL voting record for the committee.
If you don't want a Dem Senator from PA, then you should have been promoting Toomey in the primary. Now Pennsyvanians will end up with a Democrat no matter WHO wins. Like I said, I didn't make this bed.
John F. Kennedy and Hubert Humphrey would make better Republicans than the likes of Specter, Snowe, and Chaffee.
Hoping a liberal Republican win also wipes out any pretense of caring about conservative causes.
Wrong. There are varying degrees of liberal and conservative thought in the Republican party.
We see the debates on this board all the time.
However one who supports a less than conservative Republican can at least say that he is still supporting the party that leans conservative staying in power.
Anyone who says they would prefer a Democrat win cannot even pretend to care about conservative causes.
AHEM! You made this assertion.
I asked you to back up your claim and show me where, but you obviously can't do it.
You can't do it because I NEVER said such a thing anywhere at anytime.
You really should try addressing what people ACTUALLY post instead of assigning them those positions you feel most comfortable arguing with.
Just as friendly suggestion.
Why say you are a Republican when the platform means nothing to you?
But you just said you would vote for a RINO if "if the leadership of the State, or U.S House, or Senate were at stake."
Where are your "principals"?
If you truly believe it is hypocrisy to vote for a RHINO, why would you compromise them under ANY circumstances?
In the case of PA, you end up with Specter retiring in four years, and throwing his support behind the Republican candidate seeking to fill his seat.
If Toomey works hard enough, that will be him.
On the other hand, if Specter gets defeated, then you end up with Toomey once again trying to unseat an incumbent Democrat with access to the Democratic Party coffers.
Stupid?
PA has been sending Specter, a liberal Republican by everyone's description in this forum, to the Senate for twenty four years!
Why would the ability to see the obvious be stupid?
Pennsylvania elects Liberals, they've been doing it for decades.
In this forum, every time a moderate republican loses a race, the fault is laid squarely on the shoulders of the candidate, and his message.
Every time a conservative loses an election however, we argue that it is someone else's fault other than the candidate's.
In each case, the fault lies with the candidate, and his or her message.
Toomey fell short of the number of votes needed to beat Specter, for whatever reason.
Did Specter fight dirty?
The Democrat that Toomey would have fought in the general election would have fought even dirtier.
Get Toomey ready for the next election, and expect a hand up from Bush, Santorum, and maybe even Specter.
Menwhile, you must understand that you prefer to have Toomey running for Specter's vacated seat, than against an incumbent Democrat.
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.