A Toomey/Specter Epitaph

self | 05/01/04 | joanie-f

[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.

[CharliefromKS]

BTTT!!!

[prisoner6]

it hurts to 'hold your nose' while voting for the 'less of two evils' but it is necessary...

Fool me once, fool me twice...

Come on...conservatives have done that WAAAAYYY tooo long! I can hear the RINO's already wailing the same song you're singing.

Actually I'm kinda flattered/impressed that now they realize they've turned off conservatives so much we're serious about pulling up stakes and heading out, and ARlen might just lose without us.

Still not gonna vote for him....not again! And if sitting it out results in his re-election what's in it for me? How does that help the conservative cause?

Let's all come to grips with this. There has been a(nother) great schism developing in the pubbie party. RINO's and cons are never going to agree.

PA was the birthplace of this country. Ironically it was also the birthplace of today's socialism/unionism. Perhaps it will now be the birthplace of a new, agressive conservative movement, or at least a reformed republican party.

Cheers to that, sez I!

prisoner6

[LibFreeUSA]

-"I'm seriously considering voting for Hoeffel just to get rid of Arlen.

I would take you up on that, and hope that you're serious, because it would be better to get rid of such vermin that does great damage to the conservative agenda while operating under the mechanism and power of the Republican party.

I would strongly urge all the Toomey supporters to seriously consider NOT voting Republican or voting FOR the Democratic candidate.

You see, good 'ol Arlen here, is supposed to be in-line to take over the Chairmanship of the JUDICIARY COMMITEE next year, and guess WHERE all the Supreme Court nominess HAVE TO GO THRU to get aproved???

[Minuteman23]

Excellent premises and excellent examples of where each of them stands on each one. It makes me wonder even more why anyone but a card carrying socialist would have voted for Specter.

[Avoiding_Sulla]

I ran into her just this morning, when she was unable to remember the name of Specter's opponent in the general election. That didn't stop her telling the rest of us...

Well, then let me introduce you to the conservative majority who already share your Opinion of Lady Fair.

Hey, wait a minute! You're already on my Stalwart Conservatives list -- she's not new to you!

I've been away too long, so overwhelmed with work, I couldn't remember an old cohort. (At least I found time to send money to the Toomey campaign -- I lament the presence of this ghost-of-a-conservative, Spectre, and so was more than praying he'd be defeated). Why didn't all that Leftist money going to Specter persuade enough voters just how bad he is? Cross-overs doomed Toomey, is that the analysis? How close was the outcome?

[prisoner6]

Oh I am VERY serious!

I can also understand why someone would not be able to vote for Hoeffel. If they just want to sit ti out, that's fine. It's a personal decision.

But I expect the same consideration in return. It is/was a free country. If I decide it's in my best interest and the best interest of the country to vote for Hoeffel, then please let it be.

Perhaps I'll change my mind by election time, but I doubt it.

prisoner6

[F16Fighter]

"So long as you believe only liberalism can attract voters, you will continue to advocate the GOP's slide to the left."

Whooosh...

I do believe that was an ace, FO.

[F16Fighter]

Excellent post, Joanie...

The Neville Chamberlain-wing of the RINO party won't like it, but you hit the nail pretty good.

[F16Fighter]

ping

[prisoner6]

Just a ping to Badray. I'm at work if you can ping Martin or any other PA FReepers please do so!

prisoner6

[F16Fighter]

Care to opine?

[DameAutour]

You might have a point here, on preferring Hoeffel over Specter. If the Senate were guaranteed to pick up more Republican seats, I'd wholeheartedly agree that Hoeffel will do far less damage than Specter. Specter is not just a RINO, he's a traitor. Republicans must not forget Bork, and "Scottish Law". He'll betray Bush in a minute, he has already laid the groundwork with his press conference attacking Bush. He's a traitor not only to conservatives (whom he can't really betray because he never was one), he is a traitor to Republicans, period. He is not a man of true principles, unlike John McCain, who is a RINO who at least believes in his own BS. Specter is the worst kind of political hack.

Specter will be chief of the Judiciary Committee. I happen to think that a more conservative judiciary should be a top priority. There is NO DOUBT in my mind that Specter will torpedo conservative judicial candidates just like he did the honorable Robert Bork years ago. NO DOUBT

Quite frankly, Specter is worse than a Democrat. He's a socialist who supports killing babies. His morals are lax and he has no principles. He's not even a good human being. Zell Miller is a 100x better than him.

But these are very shaky times not only for the Republican party, but for conservativism. The Democrats ABSOLUTELY CANNOT be allowed control of Congress, they had it for 40 years and look at all of the damage they did to America. The Republican Congress is still taking baby steps, it is imperative that the Republicans gain more control. The primary was the time to oust Specter, but in the general election there cannot be a Democrat victory if it puts Congress at risk. Hoeffel hasn't an ounce of conservatism in him. And he can seriously challenge Specter because Hoeffel's a NE Philly boy, and the NE is the most populous section of Philly. If Hoeffel can win Philadelphia, old Arlen might not manage another victory.

I wish Pat Toomey had defeated Specter in the primary. I think he might have done it, if not for Bush and Santorum scaring fence-sitting Republicans into voting for Specter. I despise Arlen Specter. But the primary is over and done. I hate the results, but a Democrat-controlled Senate would be far worse. It will be all of the bad Specter could have brought, plus worse.

If there is no danger of losing the Senate, no, better, if Republicans are going to pick up at least 2 additional seats to make up for it, then I wouldn't mind Hoeffel beating Specter. Then Toomey can beat Hoeffel in a few years.

[Afronaut]

I hope to be alive for Grandchildren in 25 years to tell them how great America used to be.

[prisoner6]

Very well said! I suppose I should also have made a similar caveat. There is only one instance - that I can concieve of at the moment - were i would vote FOR Arlen. Of course that is if control of the senate is at risk. Then and only then would I consider, and probably stoop to, voting for Arlen.

You make a very good point.

prisoner6

[winodog]

I agree that we cannot afford to turn the senate back over to the dems. Nonetheless it may be the only way to rid the party of the RINOS. Maybe if specter loses because conservatives write in Toomey it might just send a message to the rest of them.

I am of the belief that the rinos do just as much damage as dems. They may vote with the reps some of the time but it seems they roll over when we need them the most. We need to get rid of them the sooner the better.

[FairOpinion]

"So long as you believe only liberalism can attract voters, you will continue to advocate the GOP's slide to the left."


Whooosh...

===


There is nothing "Whoosh" about it.

The Republican party can either slide to the middle or go the way of the Dinosaurs and forever cede power to the Democrats/Socialists.

If the Republican party only consisted of the uncompromising conservatives, it would already have no power or say in politics. The uncompromising conservatives constitute about 10% of the Republican party.

[BillyBoy]

Vote Jim Clymer.

PA is going to elect one of two liberal Democrats. We conservatives shouldn't have to stoop to voting for either of them, but either way PA is screwed. The big thing with Specter is he has enough seniority to be VERY vocal with his liberal agenda, whereas Senator Hoeffel will be mostly ignored and powerless unless his party gains the majority.

After mulling it over for several days, I've concluded there is NO reason to support Snarlin Arlen MacSpecter unless it looks like the Dems are polling high enough to get 50 senate seats in November (very, very unlikely at this point)

[eeriegeno]

Specter spent months strong arming union leaders in order to cause strongly democrat union members to re-register as Republicans so as to skew the Republican primary results. Specter outspent Toomey almost four-to-one ($14,000,000+ to $4,000,000+) Spector’s campaign ads contained out and out slanderous lies (even attempting to implicate his opponent in the fabricated sale of drugs at an establishment that he once owned). President Bush and Senator Santorum vocally endorsed him, and appeared in person with him during political rallies in the last week of the campaign, and in countless television and radio ads. And yet, despite the fact that the above advantages would normally spell certain and huge defeat for any opposition candidate, Toomey came within 1.5% of deposing the corrupt and powerful four-term incumbent.

joanie, Specter may have won by 11,659 votes but a powerful message has been sent to other RINO's. That is that 'your day for ouster is coming.' It was damned close with Specter regardless of his incumbency and high powered endorsements.

[DameAutour]

I think a stronger Republican Senate might help offset some of the damage done by Specter when he becomes Judiciary Committee head. There might be more pressure with a stronger Republican majority. Bush will certainly have more of a mandate.

Well, that's about the only good that can come out of this. Gotta rely on Republican voters in other states to get more Republicans in the Senate. I honestly have no hope that Specter will do anything honorable in the next six years. Except hopefully not run for higher office.

One other good thing that might happen is Pennsylvania will become a battleground in the presidential election. Just like Schwarzeneggar's presence may force Kerry to spend more money in California, a fight in Pennsylvania will force him to spend more here. It would be an absolute thrill if Bush were to win Pennsylvania, in spite of the presence of Rendell and Philadelphia. I don't know if Specter can in any way help Bush win here in Pennsylvania. I doubt it since he didn't help him last time. But here's hoping for something good.

[NittanyLion]

The Republican party can either slide to the middle or go the way of the Dinosaurs and forever cede power to the Democrats/Socialists.

One wonders why you're a member of the Republican Party at all, since you seem more comfortable upholding those ideals traditionally the province of Democrats.

Admit it FO: at your core you do not believe conservatism holds any appeal.