Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Party Over Principle? (My lone FReep of Arlen Specter)
Self - Vanity | n/a | Self

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


TOPICS: Free Republic; Government; Politics/Elections; US: Pennsylvania; Your Opinion/Questions
KEYWORDS: aar; rino; specter
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 561-580581-600601-620 ... 821-827 next last
To: Tamsey
I don't ask questions unless I believe the premise. And I don't prove premises before asking questions.

Specter's 24 year history as Senator "PROVES" it. He promised to support Bork and then savaged him. And that was when he wasn't head of the Judiciary. As head of the "Judiciary" I cannot begin to imagine the destruction he will cause, and it will have nothing to do with whether he is "allowed" to, where do you get such notions?

I called Santorum's office, and they verified that if Specter wins he is next in line for the Judiciary and will get it.

The fact that you seemingly don't understand any of this and need it proven, reminds me much of Specter's "NOT PROVEN UNDER SCOTTISH LAW VOTE" during impeachment hearings and furthermore proves you are a Republican first before you are a conservative, IF you are a conservative at all.

You are unwilling to answer my question, unless the premise is proven to your satisfaction, which will never happen because you will continue to move the goal posts.

Therefore, our debate is over.

581 posted on 06/02/2004 2:29:53 PM PDT by TOUGH STOUGH ( A vote for George Bush is a principled vote!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 544 | View Replies]

To: TOUGH STOUGH

Your assumptions are incorrect no matter how much you care to holler otherwise. There are a number of ways we can prevent Specter from heading that committee.


http://www.humaneventsonline.com/article.php?id=1552

(snipped)

The simplest solution to the problem would take a personal sacrifice by Sen. Chuck Grassley (R.-Iowa). When the party’s term limits on committee chairmen force Sen. Orrin Hatch (R.-Utah) to give up the chairmanship of the Judiciary Committee at the end of the current Congress, Grassley will be next in line for that position. To assume that role, however, he would need to surrender the gavel of the powerful Finance Committee.

But, according to a Grassley spokesman, the Iowa senator (who faces an easy reelection this year) is unwilling to surrender Finance, which drafts all tax law and Medicare legislation. That leaves Specter as Hatch’s heir-apparent at Judiciary.

New Senate Republican Conference rules limit senators to eight years as chairmen. The only other time seniority is bypassed is if the senior senator on a committee already holds another chairmanship.

Hatch’s eight years expire at the end of the current Congress. (The few months of GOP control before the Jeffords defection in the 107th Congress are not counted against term-limits.) Grassley, who is serving his first full year as Finance chairman, is eligible to run his committee until after the 2010 elections.

The Grassley gavel trade is not the only way to block Specter, but it is the easiest and the cleanest. Such a sacrifice on Grassley’s part would become unnecessary, of course, were Specter to lose reelection, either to conservative primary challenger Rep. Pat Toomey (R.-Pa.) or to Democratic Rep. Joe Hoeffel (Pa.) next November.

Also, the members of the Republican Conference could make one of two rule changes to prevent a Specter-led Judiciary Committee. First, they could waive the term limit for Hatch. Alternatively, they could circumvent rules and tradition and skip Specter for Sen. Jon Kyl (R.-Ariz.), a pro-life conservative who is fourth in seniority.

A final option, more peaceful than either of the above, is that the leadership could talk Specter into taking the chairmanship of some other committee, perhaps by offering a spot on another coveted panel.


(snipped)


582 posted on 06/02/2004 3:39:07 PM PDT by Tamzee (Kerry's just a gigolo, and everywhere he goes, people know the part he's playing...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 581 | View Replies]

To: Tamsey
Also, the members of the Republican Conference could make one of two rule changes to prevent a Specter-led Judiciary Committee. First, they could waive the term limit for Hatch. Alternatively, they could circumvent rules and tradition and skip Specter for Sen. Jon Kyl (R.-Ariz.), a pro-life conservative who is fourth in seniority.

A final option, more peaceful than either of the above, is that the leadership could talk Specter into taking the chairmanship of some other committee, perhaps by offering a spot on another coveted panel.

According to Rick Sanorum's office, they are NOT going to do ANY of the above. I was told if Specter wins he will head the Judiciary, it is a DONE DEAL.

Knowing Specter like I DO, he probably threatened NOT to run unless he would be given the head of the Judiciary. And instead of learning from the past, the Republican party took the bait.

583 posted on 06/02/2004 3:47:32 PM PDT by TOUGH STOUGH ( A vote for George Bush is a principled vote!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 582 | View Replies]

To: TOUGH STOUGH

Gee, your previous post merely stated that Santorum's office confirmed Specter was in line for the Judiciary Committee. I'm willing to bet you weren't even aware of these options much less asked Santorum's office about them. BTW, Santorum and Toomey both endorsed Specter.

The rest of your posts are just "probablies" and personal assertions... you're right, the debate is over.


584 posted on 06/02/2004 3:53:15 PM PDT by Tamzee (Kerry's just a gigolo, and everywhere he goes, people know the part he's playing...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 583 | View Replies]

To: Tamsey
LIAR.

"I called Santorum's office, and they verified that if Specter wins he is next in line for the Judiciary and will get it."

I then asked if there was any way to block it.

They said there was but that none of those measures would be taken. If Specter wins the elction, he will head the Judiciary.

Even if the Republican Party changed its tune, after what they did in the TOOMEY race, one would be a fool to trust them.

BTW, your dishonest tactics, impress no one.

585 posted on 06/02/2004 4:12:47 PM PDT by TOUGH STOUGH ( A vote for George Bush is a principled vote!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 584 | View Replies]

To: TOUGH STOUGH

You'll forgive me if I don't just take your word for that, won't you, especially given your history on this thread...

Have a good evening.


586 posted on 06/02/2004 4:17:03 PM PDT by Tamzee (Kerry's just a gigolo, and everywhere he goes, people know the part he's playing...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 585 | View Replies]

To: Tamsey

and all of them, plus Specter will allow the sucking of brains out of babies heads, look at the blood on your hands.


587 posted on 06/02/2004 4:22:40 PM PDT by gdc61
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 489 | View Replies]

To: Dane

and your support of Specter belies your pro-babykiller agenda. the SJCC is the thing we are focused on, take your babykiller agenda to DU, FEEB


588 posted on 06/02/2004 4:29:06 PM PDT by gdc61
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 471 | View Replies]

To: gdc61

So THAT is why are so rabidly against abortion, you've had your brains sucked out.

Specter voted for the partial-birth abortion ban, cutie.

http://www.lifeway.com/lwc/article_main_page/0,1703,A%253D152736%2526M%253D50011,00.html


589 posted on 06/02/2004 4:43:04 PM PDT by Tamzee (Kerry's just a gigolo, and everywhere he goes, people know the part he's playing...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 587 | View Replies]

To: gdc61
and your support of Specter belies your pro-babykiller agenda. the SJCC is the thing we are focused on, take your babykiller agenda to DU, FEEB

And your candidate hoeffel(Hillary flying monkey) is pro-life(he is pro-abortion). Whew talk about a feeb.

JMO, time for you to have another strategy meeting there with your bosses hillary and leahy.

590 posted on 06/02/2004 4:46:13 PM PDT by Dane
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 588 | View Replies]

To: Badray; Doug Loss
Sorry for the late reply but I am having some hacker problems and I have been on and off line for the last couple of days.

I started this post online and now I am typing it offline so I can send it to you later. Damn XP! This OS has got to be the most unsecure thing I have ever seen.

There, my modem is unplugged, now send your stinkin bots through my computer, ya' bastards! God, I hate these problems. Ok, I don't have your original reply here but I think I remember enough to provide a response.

A few months ago, I was talking to a Right-Wing friend of mine about this very same thing. It seemed to me that the GOP was TRYING to get rid of its Conservative base. This angered the both of us and I have to say a few things have looked a little bit better over these past three months. However, we all know how the GOP will start to pander to the base to shore up our support.

On a thread by black GOP members about a similiar situation, I explained how I was limiting my contributions to only right-wing groups like the Heritage Foundation and the NRA (Technically, maybe the NRA is not right-wing but for all intents and purposes, it is in this culture.).

I have given quite a lot to the GOP over the past five years and I have to say that after 2003, I have cut my donations down about 90%. I regret not giving to the RNCC because I like the House Freshman but I am at the end of my rope.

I have defended "playing politics" in the past for reasons of realpolitik, yet when we gained power over every branch of government (I just threw in SCOTUS for kicks.)it was too much to see them waffling around like Neo-Conservative puppets (I dont think they are but that's what they seemd like to me.). That's the REAL reason that Neos are not liked by us, they adore big-government. Of course, when the mainstream press mentions Neos, they do it because it sounds somewhat sinister. We should explain that the reason Neos are so bad is because they are former liberals that still haven't quite grasped the meaning of the Conservative philosophy.

RINOs of course, are far worse. They have all of the faults of the Neos but none of their good points. I know it is difficult to influence the GOP as a whole, but I am using the only thing I have available to me, money. We all know how important money is, LOL!

My resources now go almost exclusively to the Right-wing. I have also explained to the RNSC, NRCC, RPTF(Republican Presidential Task Force), and The Inner Circle of the RNSC why I have witheld my membership dues and further donations. I have also told them how I have the ability to directly reach several people and make them stop funding the GOP as well.

I plan to get more in their face about it and participate more in the future. If all volunteers and funding sources for the GOP say the same thing, then they will listen. The Conservative Base gives the most cash, and volunteers the most time so in essence, the potential for changing them is ours. Conservatism has been in worse shape within the GOP in the past but we did lose quite a few good Conservatives due to retirement the last time around. I am going to miss Sen. Helms and Sen. Graham in particular.

I am very close to your position on Sen. Specter. Hell, as a matter of fact, I would be very amused if you guys did that and let the GOP know what happened exactly. Sen. Specter is beneath contempt in my book and although I pride myself on manners, I don't think I could have shaked his hand either, LOL!

Brent Schundler and Pat Toomey are what I consider top of the line Statesman (Would have been anyway, and still will in the future.), and the way the GOP dealt with them is a shame.

When I talk to folks up here, and they include some small time GOP politicians (Who are RINOs, they live in Mass man!), I tell them that it is not good to anger the Conservative base like this. A few of them have told me that it doesn't matter because they will vote the party line. Knowing how passionate Conservatives can get, I told them that we were not like the Dems and would NOT see our principles destroyed. Comprimised perhaps, but NEVER destroyed.

On a final note, I just asked myself what I would do if I lived in Pennsylvania and you know what, I would never vote for Sen. Specter anyway. I guess that means I would be in your camp. I just don't want to have a WIDE-spread civil war within the GOP right now. If you guys can do this then you will have sent a very powerful message to the GOP.

A broken GOP would be easier to fix for us but we would not be able to battle the GOP AND the Dems at the same time. I think I like your idea. It shows that the base will not be bullied and if it gets rid of that egotistical maniac, so much the better.

I just weighed in because this thread interested me and I realize I don't have the same situation you have but you can know that I am definately an ally in this. I guess we have to declare a cold war on the GOP and a hot war against the Dems. Sounds like a challenge to me, LOL!

Sorry for the long post! Arioch7 out. P.S. Those that called you a DU or Dem troll are out of thier freaking minds. Lefties do not have the strategic sense for this type of action. Also, what you are suggesting is beneficial to Conservatism. In other words, you are to thoughtful to be a leftie, LOL!

591 posted on 06/02/2004 4:57:31 PM PDT by Arioch7
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 292 | View Replies]

To: Tamsey
you need to read your own links

Mr. Specter has privately approached GOP senators, telling them to vote down Judge Holmes when his nomination hits the floor. Maine's Susan Collins has received Mr. Specter's plea to sink Judge Holmes, and Senate staffers say Mr. Specter is whipping other moderate Republicans behind the scenes against President Bush's nominee--

seems he can't even wait for the chair!
the bloods on your hands now.
Specter voters are babykillers.
592 posted on 06/02/2004 4:58:56 PM PDT by gdc61
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 569 | View Replies]

To: Tamsey
LOL! I knew you would come back with that retort and you failed to disappoint me, I know people who use your tactics so well.

I phoned within several days after the primary and did mention it on one or more of the Toomey threads at that time.

You can believe me or not, I really don't care.

It is your behavior on this thread which is questionable, not mine.

593 posted on 06/02/2004 5:07:02 PM PDT by TOUGH STOUGH ( A vote for George Bush is a principled vote!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 586 | View Replies]

To: Tamsey

my post 442 and 443 explains quite well why I hate abortion, and you're a piece of dirt for taunting about it.

Specters vote was a fruitless and obvious attempt to sway the conservative vote,

even I thought you were smart enough to figure that out, honey bun.

Dr. Tamsey to the abortion room...don't forget to wash your hands.


594 posted on 06/02/2004 5:12:05 PM PDT by gdc61
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 589 | View Replies]

To: gdc61

And you're shrill and a moron... I don't know which is more annoying.


595 posted on 06/02/2004 6:05:28 PM PDT by Tamzee (Kerry's just a gigolo, and everywhere he goes, people know the part he's playing...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 594 | View Replies]

To: Tamsey

we are both pro-life, but YOU choose to SUPPORT an abortionist. I choose to USE an abortionist to remove an even BIGGER abortionist. can you understand that sweetie pie?


596 posted on 06/02/2004 6:16:14 PM PDT by gdc61
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 595 | View Replies]

To: gdc61

You go ahead and vote for a 100% Planned Parenthood and 100% NARAL rated Socialist... that's between you and God. You might want to stop screeching that other people have babies' blood on their hands, though.

I'm done talking to you.


597 posted on 06/02/2004 6:44:32 PM PDT by Tamzee (Kerry's just a gigolo, and everywhere he goes, people know the part he's playing...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 596 | View Replies]

To: Dane

do you really not see the logic of using hoeffel to keep specter from the SJCC?


598 posted on 06/02/2004 7:00:22 PM PDT by gdc61
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 590 | View Replies]

To: Dane

you seem to be the most... vile, pro specter poster and i admit I hold that spot on the not specter side . lets try to discuss this without blood or flying monkeys. if possible. ???


599 posted on 06/02/2004 7:15:04 PM PDT by gdc61
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 598 | View Replies]

Comment #600 Removed by Moderator


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 561-580581-600601-620 ... 821-827 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson