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

Self - Vanity | n/a | Self

[Badray]

Party over Principle?

That is the $64,000.00 question.

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.

Ray Horvath

[Dane]

I'd tell, but we aren't on speaking terms. LOL

I understand, the incessant shouting to yourself, "of damn Bush, damn Hart, damn Pippy", gets in the way of having an intelligent conversation.

[smokeyb]

Thank you for the correction. I have always admitted on FR that I am not the best speller or typist, but smokey's use of "principal" for "principle" is a basic misunderstanding of the word and should be corrected, IMO

I know the difference, Dane . And I admit that I also err when typing in a hurry. so do others but they usually understand how it happens. But most people have the maturity to overlook it. Unfortunately I lowered myself once and did it too but I regret it. But if you want we can go through this whole thread and I will point out numerous errors you have made.

The problem is that it is YOU that don't seem to have an understanding of the word PRINCIPLE, or don't care about it.

[Dane]

The problem is that it is YOU that don't seem to have an understanding of the word PRINCIPLE, or don't care about it

I know the word PRINCIPLE, but don't get so freakin fixated over it, to trash other good people, such as Hart and Pippy.

[smokeyb]

Uh no smokey, it only took you 223 replies before you admitted that you were there(supposedly, IMO).

It took only a few ? what are you saying ?

BTW, calling for legal action on a fairly friendly FR thread, is the last hideout of a scoundrel, IMO.

you dont trust me but you won't let me prove it ?

[Steve Eisenberg]

I'd still rather have 41 solid conservatives who will fight for principle than 59 squishy RINOs that do not hold our values as dear as we do.

This is putting it with great honesty. It makes more sense than the argument that we should vote down Specter to put in Kyl as chairman, since Hoeffel would probably be reelected several times, making the highly speculative idea that Kyl can push through real conservatives onto the Supreme Court less of a consideration.

One has to consider that with Hoeffel in, the Democrats will be that much more liberal/socialist next time they regain control. Therefore, Mr. Horvath is really proposing a model for the US where we careen from left to right, rather than typically governing from the center. Such careening is exactly what Argentina has been doing since the 1930's, and it has propelled that country practically from first to third world. Reading Argentine history is recommended.

I voted for Toomey last month and will likely vote for Specter in November. If by some chance there is a Democratic landslide, I won't like it, but I will rest comfortable in knowledge that America is a politically moderate nation characterized by rotation in office between coalition parties.

[smokeyb]

smokey, please tell your 'FRiend' Dane that you were at the YR meeting, not the one that is the focus of this thread.

Now I see. Dane, I was at the YR meeting where Pippy was squirming after he was told what Specter had done.

[Dane]

It took only a few ? what are you saying ?

It took 223 replies. Capiche?

you dont trust me but you won't let me prove it ?

Whew talk about Orwellian.

[take]

illegal alien population in Pennsylvania


since 1992 has increase 18%

[joanie-f]

Only a Democrat could accuse our wonderful President of making a "deadly" mistake.

Is that so? Have you ever made any deadly mistakes? And would you call a person who recognized your mistake a derogatory name? Is Bush capable of making mistakes in your eyes?

You call the Toomey supporters who cannot bring themselves to rally around Arlen Specter 'whiners', and you claim that the Specter supporters would have supported Toomey in November, because they are 'loyal (and right thinking) people'. To what, exactly, is it that these ‘Specter supporters’ are ‘loyal’? Certainly not conservative principles. Certainly not legitimate campaign practices.

Also, within this category of ‘Specter supporters,’ do you include the thousands of (‘right thinking’) democrats who temporarily switched party registration so as to skew the Republican primary in Specter’s favor? Do you include the (‘right-thinking’) trial lawyers, who orchestrate his every move when crucial votes on tort/medical malpractice reform come up before the senate? Do you include (‘right-thinking’) pro-partial-birth-abortion advocates whose voices speaker louder to him than pro-life voters? Just kind of wondering which of these ‘right-thinking’ Specter supporters you are referencing (‘who would be supporting Pat Toomey right now, had he won’ … excuse me … I need to take a brief laugh break. Wouldn’t want to do so right in front of you. Wouldn’t want to be called ‘rude,’ as was the fate of poor Ray, when he told you that he refused to shake Specter’s hand … )

That you would label my arguments as 'disgusting and arrogant' and 'the ranting of a dyed-in-the-wool leftist (whiner) who wants the Democrats to prevail in November' may just be a teeny tiny leap of interpretation, don’tcha think?

If you’ll notice, I did not attack you. The closest (and it was not very close at all) I came to that was calling one – just one – of your assertions ‘ludicrous,’ after which I simply (and politely) asked you:

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.

Why did you not answer any of my questions, trillium?

Is it because you consider them 'disgusting, arrogant, and dyed-in-the-wool leftist'? (posed by a 'non-loyal, non right-thinking whiner')

If so, then, by your (odd) definition, I plead guilty to all three penchants. I’m going to re-examine what I thought amounted to thirty-plus years of vigorously supporting conservative causes and candidates, and take a good look in the mirror at the new definition of a 'dyed-in the wool leftist'. Where were you thirty years ago, trillium? You could have saved me a lot of self-deception.

On my way out for the night. Wish I could shake this feeling that I am not who I have always believed I am. I kinda feel like Hester Prynne. (*sniff*)

~ joanie

[Barlowmaker]

I hate it, you hate it ... but Toomey LOST. Shed your bitterness already. The decision today is between Hoffel and Specter to represent Pennsylvania the next six years. If the GOP loses the Senate, you'll have Kennedy, Biden, Levin, Leahy, Dodd, Byrd and Sarbanes chairing committees. Arlen Specter has never come anywhere NEAR as low as 8 on the ACU rating. You are not to be taken seriously as a well-intentioned Conservative if you advocate voting for Joe Hoffel this November. It's asinine.

[Badray]

"This is putting it with great honesty. It makes more sense than the argument that we should vote down Specter to put in Kyl as chairman, since Hoeffel would probably be reelected several times, making the highly speculative idea that Kyl can push through real conservatives onto the Supreme Court less of a consideration."

Steve, thanks for your thoughtful, but IMO, mistaken notions in your reply. First, getting rid of Specter to put in Kyl AND being in a position of having 41 conservatives that are reliable rather than 59 RINOs are not mutually exclusive ideas. But neither do they necessarily go hand in hand. I'd love 60 conservatives, but getting rid of the moderates is necessary first.

Second, if Hoeffel wins and it's because of the support that I am encouraging, then without our votes, he will be facing an uphill reelection battle. He is not a lock to be reelected. PA is trending more conservative.

"One has to consider that with Hoeffel in, the Democrats will be that much more liberal/socialist next time they regain control."

You assume that they will regain control any time soon. Why?

"Therefore, Mr. Horvath is really proposing a model for the US where we careen from left to right, rather than typically governing from the center. Such careening is exactly what Argentina has been doing since the 1930's, and it has propelled that country practically from first to third world. Reading Argentine history is recommended.

Where do you get that notion? What I am proposing is governing from a middle of the road, limited Constitutional government. BTW, I am Mr. Horvath.

"I voted for Toomey last month and will likely vote for Specter in November. If by some chance there is a Democratic landslide, I won't like it, but I will rest comfortable in knowledge that America is a politically moderate nation characterized by rotation in office between coalition parties."

How can you vote for Toomey and then for the antithesis of Toomey? It doesn't make sense to me.

[DameAutour]

These are just a few of the close votes. In particular, so-called RINOs have been instrumental in getting the Bush tax cuts passed. Without them, the tax cuts would not have been passed. Tax cuts are one significant part of the conservative agenda. When the Democrats control the Senate, there are no tax cuts, only tax increases. Democrats don't vote for tax cuts. If Bush wants to keep passing tax cuts and repealing taxes, he will need a Republican majority.

S. 625 - Unconstitutional law would have federalized "hate crimes" and included homosexuality in the definition. Specter voted against this bill, which was sponsored by Edward Kennedy. The bill lost by 6 votes.

S. Con. Res. 23 - Included 550 million dollars in tax cuts. Specter voted in favor. This passed by 1 vote.

S. Con. Res. 23 Kyl Amendment - Repeal the death tax. Specter voted in favor. This bill passed by 2 votes.

S. 1054 - Phase out taxes on dividend income. Specter voted in favor. This bill passed by 1 vote.

[DameAutour]

How can you vote for Toomey and then for the antithesis of Toomey?

It seems to me that Democrat Joe Hoeffel is much more the antithesis of Toomey than Republican Arlen Specter. In fact, seems Toomey agrees.

Let me get this straight. Apparently, a person of principle would support extreme leftist Joe Hoeffel (ACU lifetime rating of 8) over left-moderate Arlen Specter (ACU lifetime rating of 43).

According to this reasoning, Pat Toomey is NOT a person of principle, since he supports Specter.

So, since Pat Toomey is not a person of principle, isn't it a good thing that he lost in the primary? Badray, you supported Pat Toomey and campaigned for him. Did you campaign for a person who lacks principles?

[Doug Loss]

Here's the long and short of it. My vote (and everyone elses, for themselves) is mine to cast as I think best. I will vote for the best candidate in the race. If I find no candidate worthy of my vote, I'll vote for the one who will do the least damage to the principles I hold dear. I will take the endorsements of various people I respect into consideration, but in the end I will make the decision myself. I worked for and voted for Pat Toomey because I believed him to be the best candidate in the Republican primary, President Bush's and Senator Santorum's endorsements of Specter notwithstanding. I will vote against Arlen Specter in the general election, the above-mentioned endorsements and Pat Toomey's notwithstanding. For those of you not from PA, I appreciate your opinions, and advise you to vote for the candidates you think best in your own elections. But you don't know as much about Specter as we here in PA do; if you did, I suspect many of you would agree with Ray and me.

For those of you here in PA, if you value the Republican body count more than you're concerned about the damage he can do to the positions that we here all share then by all means vote for snarlin' Arlen. But if you believe that the Senate will remain in GOP hands even if Arlen loses, then voting to return this man to the Senate as the Chairman of the Judiciary Committee is a vote to condemn conservatives in the Republican Party to a permanent position of impotence.

[jim_g_goldwing]

trillium writes:

"1. Any "pro-life PAC" that would urge ANY voter to vote for the baby-murdering Democrats is "pro-life" in name only. "

Ummmmmmmmmm......... but as YOU go to the poll in November and pull the lever for Specter, remember that he has a loooooooonnnnnnnnnggggggg record of pro-abortion voting.

And that speaks to a key point that was initiated by Ray's "vanity post"; if pro-abort Specter chairs the Senate Judiciary, how many conservative, pro-life judges do you think will make it through his committee?

Be real thoughtful before you answer, because if the liberal Dem Hoeffel (who admittedly has no redeeming qualities about himself) knocks out Specter, we get that conservative, pro-life, and very consistent and loyal Republican Arizona Senator John Kyl as chair. And I can assure you that we have a much better chance getting the "RIGHT" kind of appointments, if you catch my drift.

And to close, your final sentence of:

" If you are unhappy about the Republican Party either work to change it from within, or leave. The choice is yours."

Wellllllll... I guess you do understand after all... that is EXACTLY what we are trying to accomplish... change it from within.

[Badray]

I am not pleased that Pat said what he did about Specter. But it is true, mind you. I'm just not happy about it.

Specter is not as bad as Hoeffel. I've said that from the beginning. But Hoeffel will not chair the SJC, it's either Specter or Kyl. It's the damage that Specter can do that a freshman Senator cannot in a GOP dominated Senate.
That committee is more important because of the lasting effects of the decisions made there. This must be the focus.

BTW, thank you posting those 4 votes. I will take a look at them. I'm impressed that there are 4 that may fit the criteria. The one that passed by 6 votes is suspect. It may be one of those 'safe' votes that he is famous for, but I will look at them.

Thanks again for the follow up.

[Badray]

"For those of you here in PA, if you value the Republican body count more than you're concerned about the damage he can do to the positions that we here all share then by all means vote for snarlin' Arlen. But if you believe that the Senate will remain in GOP hands even if Arlen loses, then voting to return this man to the Senate as the Chairman of the Judiciary Committee is a vote to condemn conservatives in the Republican Party to a permanent position of impotence."

BRAVO! Well said.

[TaxRelief]

Badray,

I have read through most of this thread, and I can see that you are pretty much set on this course of action.
Before I jump into this debate, here is some background info on Hoeffel that you might find useful.

I understand fully that you recognize that Hoeffel is a Socialist, but are you really ready to give your vote of approval to the following positions embraced by Hoeffel and his supporters?

Are you aware that Hoeffel voted against H.R. 1794: "American Servicemembers Protection Act", is an amendment to a State Department appropriations bill that was written to protect our men and women on active duty from international courts? Hoeffel voted against it.

Are you aware that Mr. Hoeffel has repeatedly stated that he opposes free trade? That he supports socialized medicine? That he opposes timbering, lumbering or thinning for fire control?

Are you aware of Hoeffel's standing on various liberal/conservative positions?

NARAL PA is just thrilled with Hoeffel's anti-baby, pro-choice voting record and has awarded him a pro-choice rating of 100%. (Santoram gets a 20% rating and Specter gets a 90% rating.) http://www.naralpa.org/Congrec1.html

Are you aware of the fact that Mr. Hoeffel is radically anti-2nd amendment? The Brady Campaign gleefully rates Hoeffel at 100% for supporting Gun Control, while Specter's rating is just 14%.
http://www.bradycampaign.org/facts/scorecard/scorecard.php?indh=343 Hoeffel
http://www.bradycampaign.org/facts/scorecard/scorecard.php?inds=76 Specter

Vote Smart has a well-organized issue vote report card: http://www.vote-smart.org/voting_category.php?can_id=BC031551

[TaxRelief]

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.

Your thoughts on this issue and the Holmes situation, Gadflies?