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
whats jeanine doin' in your livingroom?
G, from the language they use and the immaturity of their comments, I don't think they were old enough to vote for Specter the last time he ran.
Uh no, just my opinion and my opinion is now that you are more of a feeb with your above italicized comment.
If you don't understand that I have to cast my vote as I think best based on the information I have, then it's hopeless to try to explain that to you. The President has a vote for his senators in Texas; I have one in Pennsylvania. We both have personal responsibilities to cast them as we think best. He's not asking me for my advice; I'm not asking him for his.
If, however, you think that your personal preference is more important than the war on terrorism, or the future of our culture, that is up to you. I prefer to help the President fight the war on terrorism and promote our values. I know that those two goals are more important than my personal opinions.
Another strawman argument. My personal opinion is based on what I think is the best way to defend our culture, prosecute the war on terror, etc. You may disagree (and you may want to be told what the best ways are), but you are making the same decision I am. Or perhaps refraining from making it, if you will only do whatever you think the President wants.
It takes a lot of guts to do what you don't want to do, but if you believe that the greater good must prevail, the sacrifice is worth it.
You make our point. Don't think anyone here wants to vote for Hoeffel. The point is that he will be able to do less harm to our country than Specter would. We are sacrificing our representation in the Senate for the good of the country. I know, I know, you still don't get it.
Sorry, when it comes to my responsibility as a voting citizen, I inform myself and then vote my own conscience and preference. That's really what voting is all about.
I have done so on Specter and would not vote for him.
Doug finishes an excellent response with:
"By the way, I'm with Jeff rather than Ray on this. I will never vote for Arlen Specter, but I don't think I can vote for Hoeffel either. Jim Clymer (the Constitution Party candidate) is who I'm leaning toward just now."
Concerning this final point, let me first state "I understand"... back when we were in full swing in the Toomey election, I never considered the possibility that he would lose (only because I was too focused on helping to ensure a win). Interestingly enough, some around me were a bit more forward-thinking at the time and had already considered ahead towards the question of "what to do next" if he weren't successful... they proferred then that they would vote Hoeffel, following the same line of conviction.
I wasn't there... the perverse thought of voting for someone who has absolutely no redeeming value, much less one is ideologically 180 degrees of where I position myself, seemed 100% inconceivable.
Post-primary, once the dust settled, I began to actively address non-conventional wisdom and thought and pondered what a logical and reasoned next step might be?
Jim Clymer (Constitutional Party) is a reasoned choice for a Conservative voter. As has already been pointed out here, by Ray, he ran as a running-mate with Peg Luksik. Trust me, he is much more in line with our traditional conservative thought process than Hoeffel, who admittedly (as I've stated here on quite a few occasions) has no (none, nada, what else do I need to say!) redeeming qualities.
But herein lies the problem... that "protest vote" for Clymer only negates one vote against Specter. If the real goal in the process is to protect the integrity of our judicial system, and removal of Specter is necessary to ensure that end game result, then a "hold your nose and vote" for Hoeffel will be necessary (it takes 2 votes to overcome this "protest vote").
There are some involved in this discussion who have resorted to name-calling, and who refuse to even consider the possibility. By indicating that we will vote for Hoeffel, even with the reasoned explanation that has been provided, we are being called "leftist" and all kinds of names. We are not extremist. We are simply voting our conscience for what we see to be the good for this country.
Let's see. You advocate voting for Democrat Hoeffel for Senate, lifetime ACU rating of 8 while Bernie Sanders admitted Socialist is a 7.... BUT.... you find my using a pic of Garofalo as a freak suspicious? I've seen DU'ers that are more rational than you.
And not the good of the party. When party comes before country (and principle), we are lost.
Neither WE nor YOU know any such thing because it is simply not true. Specter is rated WORSE than several Democrats.
The issue is whether a liberal with power with hold that seat and control the SJC or a liberal without power will hold hold that seat and NOT control the SJC. It's that simple.
If you are just an "R", and don't care about conservative values, can you just say so?
And what state are you from? You never did answer that question.
don't you see that all we have to do is look at his record to know who he is.
Bush supported Specter because that was his job. not because of some secret kabal unknown to us lil' ole uninformed voters.
and you'll never get a budget passed with the king of pork barrel arlen specter pulling strings.
we can vote for the president , as badray and smokeyb and myself and many others have said....AND try to remove specter ...ready for this... AT THE SAME TIME!!! what a concept!
you tie Bush and Specter together like Specter is the magic key to the Pa. vote, you're dead wrong Specter has never helped a republican pres. win PA... I don't recall ever in my whole life seeing a picture of Specter and Ronald Reagan on the campaign trail together.
there is now only one way to gain control of the judiciary committee, and that is the removal of Specter.
...". Please rethink. It takes a lot of guts to do what you don't want to do, but if you believe that the greater good must prevail, the sacrifice is worth it....
you are right , but, what is the greater good ? a liberal in the Chair of the SJC or a conservative?
you choose specter , that says it all for me.
Specter's primary campaign focused on attracting Democrats to switch over to vote for him.
"You have no way of knowing that. The GOP could lose control of the Senate tonight if there is a switch, or a resignation, or a death, etc."
Who's going to switch? A RINO who is really a democrat that is seeking some personal benefit or advantage? Gee, maybe we should only have people with principle whose values match ours represent us so that we don't have to wory about that sort of thing. You can live in fear and you can spout scare tactics and 'what if' scenarios all you want. It doesn't change the fact that Specter is barely a Republican and is a real threat to our values if he chairs the SJC.
She's backing him for her reasons. I'm backing him for mine.
Sometimes people at odds have the same interest even if it's for different reasons. Hell, I'd work with the ACLU if I had to to stop some hideous restriction on our rights.
Specter will not be looking out for us on the SJC. That's why he must go.
Am I really seeing this ?
And vicious fringers like you make it difficult to attract new voters to the right. People like you are far more dangerous to conservatism than Specter is.
..And President Bush decided to go after these terrorists. No matter what people said about him or is actions, he knew taking care of the terrorists was much more important now and for the future than our "standing" at the UN, the non-alliance countries, or the Democrats.
Do you think he would have changed his mind if it meant alienating the Republicans ? NO COURSE NOT ! He knew that if he didn't stop the terrorism there would BE no Democrats or Republicans. There would BE no majorities and minorities.
This is the way we feel about removing Specter. We feel that it is much more important to remove him so that we can protect the judical system than to tow the party line and to worry about majorities.
What new voters are you attracting ? Are you saying it does not matter what they believe as long as they register "R" ?
She's backing him for her reasons. I'm backing him for mine.
Yes, you both want to see the liberal democrat elected. Disgusting.
And that assumption of yours speaks volumes. The right wing could grow larger by selling our values to folks on the left. It would be even easier to sell our ideas to folks in the middle who already believe 60, 70, 80% of what we do. You know those folks... the ones you guys completely despise as "RINO's". That's where we get new conservatives from... they'll be too busy to listen to our ideas, though, if they have to wipe the foam from their faces that our rabid brethren are spitting at them. Some "true conservatives" seem to believe that moderates are even more evil than hard-leftists... let's have a little perspective, please, especially since we'll always be struggling to push our agenda forward as long as we just stay a minority.
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.