Party Over Principle? (My lone FReep of Arlen Specter)

This past Friday morning, Arlen Specter was at a town hall meeting in Ross Township (suburb north of Pittsburgh PA). According to Specter staffer Justin Lokay, this was at the suggestion of Lou Nudi, the Ross Committee Chairman.

There were about 35 people in attendance including the Senator and 5 or 6 staffers and interns. Also there was Congresswoman Melissa Hart, State Senator John Pippy, former Hart staffer and 16th state house district candidate Pat Geho, former row office candidate Becky Toomey (oh, the irony, but she is still the prettiest, and my favorite Specter supporter), Lou Nudi, as well as some various other local committee people. Arriving late as usual was State Representative Jeff Habay. More on him later.

I arrived shortly before the meeting started and checked to see if I was on the PNG (persona non grata) list, but was welcomed in, much to my surprise because I have been barred from previous events. I sat and listened to how conservative values were important to Arlen, how much he enjoys being around G.W.Bush, and how we must defeat the Democrats.

This is a pretty stock speech when he tries to court Republicans. Sadly too many pubbies have short memories and actually believe Arlen when he speaks. He invoked the name of his recent challenger, Pat Toomey and says that he enjoys his support because the Dem candidate is so bad. Yada, yada, yada . . .

He then tried to ingratiate himself by mentioning the names of several people in the crowd. There names were conveniently written on the cue card in his hand. The whole thing was a sad charade, but that didn't stop many from sucking it up. I don't know if they were all die hard supporters or simply supporting the "R" against the horrible "D" that looms ahead if we don't support Arlen.

He then 'yielded' to Melissa Hart. She yucked it up with him for a moment (Think Sonny and Cher, except that Sonny was the conservative, not Cher.) before he stepped aside. About now, there should have been a commercial break, but they continued anyway. Melissa then spoke in glowing terms of Arlen and how important it was to put Arlen into office so that he could chair the Judiciary Committee and help get Bush's judicial nominees approved. She cited the brave defense of former PA Attorney General Mike Fisher when some Democrats posed some minor opposition to Mike's approval. Thank God, Arlen was there to save the day and he convinced the Dems not to block him. BTW, Fisher was supported in his quest for the bench by his recent opponent for the Governor's office - Democrat Governor Ed Rendell. Gee, that must have been a tough fight, Arlen.

What no Borking of Fisher? Don't worry, if Mike starts to make some sound judgements, you can bet that Arlen will apologize like he did after fighting for Clarence Thomas.

Melissa was about 3 minutes into her praise when I just couldn't take it any longer. There she was defending the man that has been pissing on us for years and she was calling it rain. I walked out. On the way out, I said to her brother that I just couldn't stand the BS.

I stayed outside for the remainder of the meeting. I missed the Q and A session, but was told that there was only one tough question asked and that Arlen spent about ten minutes addressing it. The question may have hit a nerve, but I doubt that he will do anything more than pay lip service to it.

Some good news. There was some who expressed continued opposition to him despite coming to be convinced that they should now be supporting him.

I did tell Melissa's aide that I was not alone in my displeasure with her support of Arlen. She may or may not care, but I am sure that I am quite right in my assessment. She is putting the party before any principle she ever espoused and this will cost her later.

Another person that I engaged was Rep. Habay. He arrived only after I had left the meeting and was outside for about 15 minutes. He approached me as he entered the building and I greeted him with a snide remark that he resembled a man that I used to know and told him that I was disappointed in his support for Arlen. He told me that Arlen helped him early in his 'career' (God, I hate that word when applied to politicians.) and that he was repaying the favor. (Doesn't the mob do favors now for favors in the future too?) I told him that that is what happens when you get into bed with the wrong people. He started getting testy at that point (I have to keep the BAD in badray, ya know) and retorted that he wasn't in bed with anyone, but that he would be glad to sit down and discuss the issue with me. I said OK, but he needed to dig himself out of a big hole. Walking away, he said that he was very comfortable in his position. I thanked him for telling me what I needed to know as he turned the corner (more than metaphorically?).

Just before Arlen came out, I spoke to County GOP Chairman Rich Stampahar and he tried to convince me that Specter was the man to support. His pleas fell on deaf ears, but they were overheard by an intern of Specter's who wimpily came over to tell me that this was a private event and asked me not to create a disturbance. I replied only that I was talking to people that knew me and approached me and wasn't talking to any one else. Can you imagine anyone thinking that I would cause a disturbance? LOL Not me, I'm too shy.

On the way out, Arlen either didn't recognize me or thought that I went over to the dark side and was now a supporter. He approached me to shake my hand, but I politely declined. I reserve my handshake for those that I respect.

Maybe I'm just not a 'good republican'. Maybe I'm an 'unappeasable'. Maybe I am a purist. I've been called all of these things and more. And worse.

What I do know is that I cannot support this man. Not for party loyalty, not even for the Senate majority (we do not effectively have it now because of people like Specter). I also know that it is not out of bitterness or hatred. It's just principle. He doesn't believe the things that I believe. He doesn't value the things that I value. His vision of America is not my vision.

This November, a vote for Democrat Joe Hoeffel is a vote to put a true conservative, a true Republican in charge of the Senate Judiciary Committee. I'm voting for Joe.

Thanks for the ping, Jeff.

I hope you're proud of yourself, Ray. You startled my dog and made her jump (when I issued a loud 'Yes!' upon reading of your 'rudeness'. :)

Trillium, that you would call a refusal to shake the hand of a traitor 'a bad mannered, vulgar display that indicated a severe lack of upbringing' is ludicrous. A handshake is a sign of esteem. Do you respect the man who refused to convict President Clinton, based on conveniently-cited Scottish Law? Or the man who denied Robert Bork a Supreme Court seat because he holds fast to the original intent of the Constitution? Or the man who steadfastly supported partial birth abortion, and sought to water down the recent ban? Or the man who is in the pocket of America's trial lawyers and racial quota advocates? Or the man who consistently receives the support of America's teachers' unions and battles against school choice? Or the man who believes that American soldiers should be tried in international courts? Either you and I (and Ray) disagree on the significance of a handshake, or we embrace entirely different principles.

I have not yet decided what I am going to do regarding the senate race in November, Ray. I do know that I will not be voting for Specter. The choice remains: Do I write-in Pat Toomey's name? Do I vote for the Constitution Party candidate, who hasn't a prayer of winning? Or do I vote for socialist Hoeffel? I'm leaning toward the latter, for many of the reasons discussed on this thread.

I have been accused of being too focused on the Toomey/Specter race, both when it was in full swing, and since the dust settled and we all discovered that the best man didn't win. I don't, and never will, believe that (being too focused) is the case. The Toomey/Specter race represented much more than a simple senatorial primary.

President Bush's endorsement of Arlen Specter took the definite prospect of victory out of Toomey's grasp. Having watched Toomey lose by a mere 1.5%, it is obvious to anyone who knows the power of a Presidential endorsement, and the effect that constant television ads depicting the President and Specter as allies in conservative principle, that, had the President simply remained neutral, Pat Toomey would be on the ballot in November.

And, were Pat Toomey on the ballot in November, I truly believe he would be elected to the senate by a large margin.

Which would have meant that, come January, John Kyl, a genuine conservative, would have been named to head the all-important Judiciary Committee, and the vacated seat of Arlen Specter, for the first time in almost a quarter of a century, would be occupied by a man of principle.

(1) Rule by judicial fiat, and the usurping by the judiciary of powers Constitutionally reserved for the executive and legislative branches, is moving ahead relatively unchallenged, and (2) the Supreme Court, for the first time in our history, is beginning to invoke ludicrous unconstitutional reliance on precedents set by international law/courts, and (3) between two and four Supreme Court justices may be seated within the next few years. For all of those very powerful reasons, the influence represented by the chairmanship of the senate Judiciary Committee is historically unprecedented.

The President's decision to endorse Arlen Specter last month was among the most ill-advised he has made since assuming office. Although they surely will not be pointed out by the media, and only those informed enough, or concerned enough, to connect-the-dots will be aware of them, the repercussions (from senate Judiciary Committee decisions/confirmations, to the general precarious makeup of the senate) will be enormous, and potentially devastating.

Sure, we will most likely retain 'Republican' senate control in November. But we would have done so with or without Arlen Specter. These days labels are dangerously deceiving. Now, instead of having a genuine conservative (John Kyl) seated in the chair of the all-powerful Judiciary Committee, and another genuine conservative junior senator (Pat Toomey) sitting alongside Rick Santorum, we will once again have a socialist dressed in Republican clothing – and a lame duck, I-don’t-give-a-damn-anymore-about-compromising-with-genuine-conservatives-in-order-to-retain-my-seat – ready and willing to Bork any Bush Supreme Court nominations. Not to mention casting leftist votes on issues related to abortion, tort reform, education, affirmative action, school choice, taxation, the influence of international law on American justice … Not to mention the fact that the senate will not be graced with, and influenced by, the input of a man of the rare courage and deep conviction of Pat Toomey.

Mr. Bush, you made a deadly mistake, and our republic will be paying a dear price, far beyond the horizon, for your moral lapse and political miscalculation.

~ joanie

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.