Posted on 05/30/2004 8:54:37 PM PDT by 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
get a clue, its about the senate judiciary commitee chair. Specter out Kyl in. are you too dense to understand that ?
Grow up.
I mean "grow up" in a political sense. Your machinations are idiotic.
You clearly don't know the least thing about Joanie-f and her activities over the years or you would never make such a foolish staement regarding her.
Your statements regarding her are so ludicrous on this forum with the people who have known her over the years as to discredit yourself and not her.
You may not agree with her words...and that's fine...but to make statements like "Only a Democrat", and that she must be a "dyed-in-the-wool Leftist", only serve to marginalize you to the vast majority of Freepers who have been around here for any length of time.
I would advise that you step back, take a deep breath, and realize that the arguements that Joanie-f is making, again whether you agree with them or not, are quite a bit deeper than the level of thinking you are employing in your response.
Toomey was clearly the more conservative candidate. In this case, conservative is what drives issue like the abortion issue, RKBA, immigration, etc. Specter has proven over years that he has stepped over the conservative line more times than I can count and he is depending on his big party connections, not his record or his position on issues to sustain him. It's far past time for him to go, and I also believe Bush made a big mistake in coming out in his support.
It smacks of political favors being paid and just goes back to the point that we would all be much better served by reading, internalizing and practicing George Washington's parting advise regarding party loyalty.
Now...just because we disagree with Bush on such a point does not mean we will not support him on other issues and as he goes against Kerry. It is possible to remain loyal to principle and still support particular candidates who disagree in some areas. It is also possible to use one's influence to try and turn the GOP back towards its roots.
My own view would be, since I could not in good conscience vote for Specter, to vote for the Constitution candidate since I could not vote for Toomey. But thats me. Others are past that point and want Specter out even if it means getting a democrat in...whom they feel they can deal with easier the next go around. I'm not there myself.
Unfortunately, for many of us you see, Specter has crossed a line where it is no longer possible to support him in any way. And that is a result of his own doing.
HRRMMMPH! How dare you ask me any questions or doubt me? ;-)
How are you? I was hoping that you'd weigh in because you are always thoughtful. Besides, you're part of WHACPACSACPAC.
No, I didn't look fully into his record. I looked at his website and at a few other group ratings which means that I would never support someone like this under ordinary circumstances. But these aren't ordinary circumstances. We have a unique opportunity to forever remove one major obstacle to Republican governance if we dare act boldly and decisively in November.
As to the votes you mention, did they pass? These guys always throw things up against the wall in the hope that something will stick. It's horrible stuff usually, but it goes nowhere.
What is good about it is that it *can* (but doesn't necessarily) reveal exactly where some closet libs stand. I say *can* because some will hide their true beliefs by not voting for something in one of these throwaway votes that they would vote for if they thought that it could pass. This gives them cover to say 'Look, I voted against SB xxx.' Is that too much rambling to be understandable? Is understandable a word? LOL
Along that vein, Specter (and others as well) will vote with us when it is a safe vote -- where there are no consequences for Arlen with any liberal constituencies or when he must to get conservative support to win election. For instance, if something is passing or failing overwhelmingly, it doesn't matter if he votes for or against it, so he is forgiven for voting for a conservative issue or against a liberal one and he looks no worse than an 'independent' to the uninitiated. He wins points without giving anything up. I don't believe that he will even give us that much consideration if he makes it to this next term. Our values are not his values.
So even though I've not looked as closely as you and I do take your word for it, I believe with all of my heart that we will continue to trend to the right. Hoeffel's votes will bear less and less importance as his term slips by and more and more dems lose or decide to retire because it itsn't any fun for them any more. In essence, we will see more of what we saw after the 94 takeover with the Contract for America.
What I am advocating today could be turned on it's head before election day. I could be totally wrong on my predictions and presumptions. Unlikely, but possible. ;-)
The other thing to consider is that you can look at the alternatives NOW, think about what you want to do NOW, but not take action until the last minute. It's better than a hasty and failed effort to spread the word at the last minute if it turns out that this is the best idea since sliced bread.
Thank you, Dane.
Thank you and your ilk for giving cover to Specter; he of "Not Proven" non-conviction of clinton; he who gave legitimacy to Hillary's run and elevation to the Senate from NY -- a state she never lived in; he who almost single handedly blocked a Constitutional Jurist from the Supreme Court; he who advocated the advancement of a known extreme liberal jurist to the federal bench; ad infinitum.
Yes, Dane, be proud; be very proud that your 'Party above Principle' line has done more toward the destruction of the Constitution than the Demoncrats could hope to do on their own. Be proud.
You should support 'Offal -- you're of the same cloth; black, unyielding, and coarse. You and your ilk make me sick.
Thanks, Ray, for bringing the party favours out of the woodwork. "There's none so blind as those who will not see; nor those so deaf that will not listen."
Senator Specter is a problem but one that I think we can deal with better in the party.
I understand Badrays argument and I agree with him as well but I think there is still time to get the GOP in shape. I don't think we should wage a war within our own party at this time. The Democrats are disintegrating and we should run with that fact.
The control of the GOP is a pivotal issue for Conservatives but this call for action comes at a bad time.
Well, since I have been reading this thread, I thought I would throw out my opinion. Arioch7 out.
Please explain. What is idiotic about removing an antagonist from office.
Keep in mind, as others here have already said, but not necessarily from the same perspective -- this is not a game. This is war.
We're not talking about who takes home a damn trophy. We are talking about our rights. The right to life. The right to keep and bear arms. The right to free speech. The right to free exercise of our religious faiths. Any man, any politician who threatens those rights, my rights is not merely a political opponent, he is my enemy. It matters not what uniform or party label he wears. It matters not whether the threat is foreign or domestic. It matters not who endorses him. He is still my enemy.
And if that enemy is inside my gate, wearing my uniform, he is a bigger threat to me than the enemy outside my gate. Both must be dealt with, but removing the internal threat must take precedence.
Specter must go. Take a look at his record and tell me what makes him worth keeping other than the "R" after his name.
You are a good friend, and, as always, a gentleman. I am also gratified that, even though you do not believe that you yourself could pull the lever next to Hoeffel’s name, you do understand the reasoning embraced by those of us who may decide (albeit reluctantly) to do so.
I have voted for Arlen Specter four times. Each one of those times I did so in order to support the Republican party – never because he reflected my beliefs.
The future composition of our judiciary -- especially the Supreme Court -- is perhaps the most crucial factor that will dictate the future (or the demise) of our republic. My (and many others’ on this thread) refusal to ever vote for Arlen Specter again, and to even go so far as to vote for his socialist democrat opponent, simply boils down to the fact that we fervently believe that, at this critical juncture in our history, it is infinitely more important to have a good man (namely John Kyl) at the head of the senate Judiciary Committee than it is to have one extra (disingenuously labeled) ‘Republican’ in the senate majority ranks (not to mention placing that all important chairmanship in his traitorous hands).
~ joanie
I will not vote for either. I will pull the lever for Dubya however.
You are welcome, my FRiend. Glad to be of service.
I do understand Badray's motivation though...I'm just not that far along where I would use my own vote in that manner.
Well said...and true. I'd still go the protest vote via the Constitution party...but I underestand full well your reasoning and motivation.
ping
But, on principle, I could not vote for either Specter or the democrat because of their positions (particularly as regards abortion and the RKBA which as you know, to me are the most fundamental issues) and would therefore have to remain true to the very principles we share and vote for a candidate that did support those principles and then depend on God in Heaven to sort it out.
In the end, as you and I agree...He will sort it out and I must follow the dictates of my own conscience and heart and remain true to Him first in such matters...but this is just my own perspective and how I would remain true to that course. Others well have been pushed perhaps further than I.
Why don't you get over yourself?
You're actively trying to elect a Democrat with an 8 ACU rating in a 51-49 Senate.
That's your game here. You don't get a shred of respect from me.
The one logical argument against the "Hoeffel over Specter to get Kyl" is that Republican chairmanship of the judiciary rests on a Republican majority in the Senate. How confident are you that there will still be a Republican majority in the Senate if the Specter seat is lost to a Democrat?
Even when RINO's vote with the Dems, the Republicans still get to keep our majority chairmanships.
BTW, Yes, HR 1794 passed, but no thanks to Hoeffel and 132 of his buddies.
Thank you. This is not a decision that I came to lightly, but I believe that it is best action for this country. And I want you two to know, that your understanding and support means the world to me. There are many wonderful people here on this board, but few that I respect as much as I do you. You both are national treasures.
Jeff, I know that it is not easy for good people like you to do something like this regardless of the end result. We are not 'the end justifies the means' kind of people. This is just such a rare moment that I believe that we must sieze it. It won't present itself again soon, if ever.
Heh heh, I like your sense of humor. The democrat minority is running the Senate my friend. A vote for Hoeffel defeating the rino Specter will send a long hard message to the so-called conservatives in DC, GW Bush and Santorum included.......
Hoeffel is 100% and Specter is 90%. A 10% difference. Hoeffel wins he is a junior Senator without heading the Judicial Committee that will be significant seating judges that will make major decisions on this issue. Specter ?
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.