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
My nomination for quote of the day!