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
If you allow more and more of those in your midst to take on more and more of the form and substance of the opposition...you ultimately become the opposition. That is the issue with Specter. It does not apply to that degree in all of the races...but it does in this one. IMHO, removing him will send a message to the others that in the end will be very critical to the overall future of the GOP.
Other than that, I can agree with most of what you said in this last post.
My only other point was that you should take some time to check into the background, position and tireless activism of other posters before you label them as you did Joanie-f in your prior post.
Bull. If you do this you are mindlessly supporting the party power brokers, who couldn't care less about principles and values but who only want to maintain control.
What is so tiring about some "conservatives" is that they continuously threaten to take their votes home, or elsewhere, if they don't get their way 100 % of the time.
Again, bull. Many of us have voted for Specter in the past, knowing full well that he disagreed with us on most of the positions that are important to us. However this time putting him back in power will give him the ability to cause much greater damage to those positions. After a reasoned analysis of the situation, we've decided to "take one for the team" and do everything we can to see that he isn't reelected. We're not threatening to take our votes home, we're guaranteeing to use them as we best can to defend our values. No threat; guarantee. Get it?
The rest of us don't get our way all the time either, but we are not fair-weather Republicans. We know that any Republican is better than any Democrat.
Arlen Specter; Zell Miller. QED.
I do not admire "conservatives" who are so committed to their personal ideologies that they are willing to sacrifice control of Congress.
Well, I don't admire "Republicans" who are so concerned about the Senatorial body count that they won't require at least a passing nod to the principles the party was founded upon. And who said anything about sacrificing control of Congress? That's a strawman argument.
Please think about what is truly important.
That's exactly what we're doing.
This is puke!
trillium writes:
"We know that any Republican is better than any Democrat."
I know of a very principled man, running as a 'D' for State Senate in Maine right now. His name is Paul Madore (Lewiston). When posting not too long ago, I was "treated" on a FR board to the following quote:
----
To: jim_g_goldwing
I'm in Maine and I wouldn't vote DemocRat if a sand nazi was sawing my head off.
Principled conservative Rat indeed, newbie.
31 posted on 05/11/2004 5:37:07 PM EDT by metesky (You will be diverse, just like us.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies | Report Abuse ]
----
This sort of thinking is perverse... yes, as a Conservative Republican, I am repulsed by the Democratic platform. But to suggest that EVERY 'R' is good and that EVERY 'D' is bad is PURE HOGWASH.
Man, his Conservative bona fides are impeccable. I can see why you, Badray and the rest of the purists would vote for him.
I don't care what anyone says ... you guys aren't irrelevant fringy nutjobs! Nah. You're fine Conservatives. Because you keep saying you are.
Every circus needs clowns.
Are you from PA? If not, your opinion is irrelevant.
Is this vanity posted to the Pennsylvania forum or the general forum?
The makeup of the Senate affects every American.
Thanks for your interest.
Vote any way you like in your own elections. Here in PA, we'll vote to remove Specter. End of story.
And, like your last name ... you'll experience another loss. In a long line, I'm guessing.
And put in Hillary flying monkey Hoeffel.
Whew dude you are a feeb, IMO.
A common misconception. Being principled means just that - acting in accordance with morality/ethics. If your personal well-being conflicts with the overriding principle, the principled person will still act to fulfill the moral or ethical tenet in question as opposed to rewarding himself.
Bottom line...putting others above oneself has no bearing on whether a particular action is principled.
These guys think they hold the forum spellbound in awe with unending recitations of their otherworldly Conservative principles. As they advocate a vote for socialist Democrat Joe (100 ADA, 5 ACU, 100 Sarah Brady, 100 Planned Parenthood, 100 ACLU, 0 NRA) Hoeffel to fill a six year Senate term.
They're magnificent Conservatives. No need to ask, they'll tell you ad nauseum.
Wow, you can tell from the amount of posts, this RINO thing certainly strikes a nerve. This is the thing, it is Bush's, Toomey, and all the rest jobs to support Republicans no matter what. THey are looking to keeping Republicans in power. That is Their job, it comes with the territory. BUT, it is OUR job to vote with our principles and heart. Let them be swayed in the political arena, but not us, not conservative America. When Republican leadership sees that liberal Republicans won't win, they will change. Its that simple. THey want to WIN. So we must vote in a way that convinces the leadership that we will only support those who share our values, period. Because in the end, with Republicans like Specter, we all lose.
clarification is needed.
Is it intentional? avoiding the basis of our position. To stop Specter from taking the chair in the Senate Judiciary committee?
Who would you rather see chair the SJC, Specter or kyl?
Which is more dangerous?, a ranking 5 term liberal RINO or a 1st term junior Dem. senator with no clout?
can we estimate how Liberal Specter, or Conservative Kyl, will direct judicial voting as SJCC?
do you actually think Specter won't block pro-life judges?
how do you feel about the title of this thread? "Party Over Principle"
(please no squawking or hand ringing about us losing the majority, my stomach hurts, so I don't want to laugh)
"machinations" lol
And ad nauseum, ad nauseum, ad nauseum, while they promote Hillary flying monkey Hoeffel.
I'd rather have Kyl than Specter, but I'd rather have Specter chairing the Committee than Leahy chairing the committee and Kyl being ranking minority member.
Losing majority status DOES matter, and the fact that you guys don't understand or care about that makes you a pathetic joke.
This drive to unseat Specter in order to position Kyl for the SJC chairmanship is perhaps the dumbest thing I've seen in political discourse in years.
Carry on, it's a laff riot.
I can see them now, eyes squeezed shut, hands over their ears, holding their breath. refusing to acknowledge what is behind the "R" , behind Specters name.
As a PA'er, I agree with you 100%. Deliberately replacing Specter with Hoeffel is an insane plan and I find it frustrating and even embarrassing that the idea keeps getting pushed here.
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.