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.
The GOP?
Kennedy was anti-communism, cut taxes, and believed that America should bring freedom to other nations.
If anything, the fact that the Democrats NEVER mention JFK shows just how far to the left THEY'VE gone.
PA. Southwest suburbs of beautiful Filthydelphia.
So, what you are saying is that you are so upset at the fact that this "pro-abortion Liberal" keeps getting elected to the Senate in your State, that you are willing to teach them a lesson by allowing an even more pro-abortion liberal candidate to be elected?
The message you would send is that the more pro-abortion liberal one is, the more likely one is to get elected.
What in the world is this supposed to mean? Do you have any idea what the Constitution is? It's purpose? Are you serious or are you drunk?
"Not many people know more about the constitution than the Constitution Party. Did you know that the Constitution Party is STRONGLY pro-life?"
I know that the CP is strongly pro life. Why are you asking/telling me this? You aren't making any sense at all. Nothing in your entire post to me has any relevance to what I've posted.
If that is the case then taking out Specter this year is a good bet.
I saw that figure in one of the conservative magazine articles last week and I don't recall right now which one it was. It said that the dems need to win 8 of the 10 races to shift the majority back to their side.
You're right. It is a good bet and worth the risk. That's why I'm backing Hoeffel. He cannot do the damage that Specter can do with all the 'clout' that he brags about.
If Specter loses and we retain the majority, Jon Kyl will take the Chairmanship. He's rated a 97% by the ACU. Specter, at 43. and Hoeffel at 8%. And Specter's number is improved by the fact that he detours to the right every 6 years. If this is his last term and won't seek reelection, he has no reason to swing right or to care about the GOP, let alone us conservatives.
You decide. Specter loses, that Senate seat drops from 43 to 8. But the Judiciary chair goes from 43 up to 97. To me, there isn't a question as to what we should do.
Well, not quite.
They'd find today's "G"OP to be far too much to the left to suit them.
Think I'm joking? Google up Hubert Humphrey's comments on the Second Amendment.
The consummate liberal of that era -- the Liberal's Liberal -- is far, far, far to the right of today's "conservative" Republican. In fact, he sounds like a "radical right-winger."
It's eerie.
Been trying really hard for the past 18 months to return to my home state of FL. Had a great interview in Feb and thought that was *it*. Suddenly, the company decided it was going to "wait a few more months" before filling the position - found out three weeks after the interview.
Probably won't get anything before July, but one never knows do one? ;-)
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.