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
It's not been overlooked. It's been discussed ad nauseum. It just doesn't have much of a chance of happening. Do you think that the Democrats will win 80% of the Senate races?
Can't you read? Or are you just trying to build my reply count again?
I am promoting the election of Joe Hoeffel in order to defeat Arlen Specter so that a real, true blue, rock ribbed, solid, principled, ACU rated 97, Jon Kyl becomes chairman of the SJC in place of liberal weak kneed, unprincipled, spineless, baby killing, anti 2nd Amendment, international law loving, ACU rated 43, Specter.
again, Hoeffel is just a pawn to remove specter.(abortionist)
Specter is in line for the SJCC, and with Specters past history, even now, trying to scuttle judge Holmes floor vote. open defiance to GWB within 24hours of his reelection he will not confirm REAL conservative judges to the bench and if there are any SCOTUS openings he will apply a litmus test of roe v wade and we will never get a conservative SC justice appointed while specter is in that position.
basicly
the one thing in hoeffels record I like is he would have NO power. junior senator, no committees. just one liberal vote, thats it.
or we can have Specter...
a pro-choice lawyer
from post #106 (sorry for the cut/paste but i'm tired)
highlights in history :
the "one bullet theory" (this while still in the minors)
the "bail for Ira Einhorn" (I'll bet he got a cut)
the "Borking" (killed nomination gaining Arlen the Democrat MVP award)
the "Scottish Law" (first attempt to invoke International laws on Americans)
the "Not to impeach" (again turned his back on the party)
the "government waste" (the undisputed king of Pork)
the "2001 tax cut" (gutted it himself)
the "PBA bill Amendment"(Lied to our face and supported the Dems)
that sums it up as best as i can at1:18am
hey Badray goodmorning! i'm off to bed. they're all yours :o)
Then write your own vanity and post it under that name. Pretty simple. For my own post, I like Party Over Principle? because it sums it up just fine.
You added 2 + 2 and got 3. I only said that I was prohibited from attending one other meeting, but I didn't say what kind of meeting or why. But it will be fun to watch the ruminations of your little mind.
Where is the miinformation? I've posted most of the negative aspects of my proposal myself. I've hid nothing. I am convinced that we will not lose control of the Senate and you think that we need Specter to maintain it. That's called a difference of opinion, not misinformation.
But once again, I don't really expect you to correct your lies and misrepresentations. You just don't seem to have the integrity.
Thank you for outing yourself as a pro baby killing RINO.
And who is bullying you or anyone else? You and your ilk keep making that assertion, but I've seen no such bullying.
Tell the whole story, Tamsey.
Specter did a Kerry on that issue. First he voted with the extreme left pro baby killer faction for an amendment that would have gutted the PBA ban. Then, after if failed, he voted for the ban. He was forced to vote for it because it was right before the primary, IIRC.
You really have trouble with seeing the whole picture, don't you?
A7,
Thanks. And no need for an apology about the length of your reply because you were able to address a variety of issues and put things into perspective.
I think that some of my impatience with the GOP is my age. I'm not over the hill yet, but am tired of settling for someone who doesn't share my values, but do so because the other guy is far worse. I don't think that we should have to choose between two evils when we are capable of putting up a good candidate.
Good luck in Massachusettes.
Now, to your claim of name calling. I believe that your fellow Specter supporters are more in need of that little lesson. Other than RINO, liberal, (and potty mouth and ignoramus for Dane's filthy mouth) I don't believe that I called any one any names. I may be wrong and if so, I apologize because I have really tried to not make this personal as some on your side has done intentionally. Remember the comment that you made about my mother? Nice. Real nice. Maybe you should lecture yourself first. Take the mote out of your own eye. Any of this sound familiar?
You 'mainstream' Republicans have been shifting the party leftward for years. When I refer to "Republican", I refer to the core vales and principles of the party platform -- Lower taxes, smaller and less intrusive government, personal responsibility, pro 2nd Amendment, belief in the sanctity of human life. If these principles have been abandoned in your quest for power, then yes, you are RINOs.
I describe myself as a Reluctant Republican. That is because I am registered as a Republican and most of the time have voted for Republican candidates, but I am embarassed by how little regard that the party has for it's own principles.
As for my plan, you'd be surprised how many good republicans are planning to follow me. Many other people cannot bring themselves to vote for Hoeffel, but will never vote for Specter again and will write in a name or vote 3rd party. Most people grasp the importance of removing someone like Specter so that he cannot influence the selection of judges.
Pro life judges are part of that equation, but is by no means the only part. Judges who interpret the law and follow original intent are crucial to the survival of or Republic. Judges who make things up as they go, finding rights that aren't there, and overlooking the ones that are clearly printed are the bane of our existance and will be the death of the Republic.
Surviving a socialist will be easy because we know what he is and won't be lulled into any false sense of security that he is on our side and looking out for our values. Some of your cohorts actually believe that an ACU rating of 43 qualifies Specter as a solid Republican who borders on being conservative.
As for the 'Party', you are right. I have a lot of nerve. They play up to me and ask for my support based on how I respond to their slick fundraising letters and sooner thtn the check is written, they have put aside my values until the next time that they write to tell me what the dems are going to do to me if I don't send more money to save "x" from the democrat hordes.
I support candidates that display integrity and principle. I no longer support the party financially because chances are that my money will go to a candidate that I will not support directly. My money and my vote are worth more than that to me.
And that brings us back to my little plan. I will do everything legal and within my power to see Specter lose. I will continue to try to influence others. I won't be able to reach or convince everyone, but I will be able to get several hundred directly (actually, I think that I'm already close to that). Many others like me are doing the same. We won't convince everyone, but we will influence enough not to vote for Specter or to vote for Hoeffel that he will be defeated.
I would urge you to reexamine your love fest with the GOP. Not every single candidate is worthy of your vote just because they have the "R" after their name. They couldn't possibly be, but if they are, then you stand for nothing but power and your power will not advance my values.
And no matter how much you attempt to minimize them, they are my values and I will defend them even to the point of using a socialist with now power to remove a liberal who will have lots of power.
I'm tired and need to go to bed, but I cannot do so until I clarify this misrepresentation of our thinking.
I have stated it clearly, in no uncertain terms that Hoeffel is a scumbag socialist who must be removed in 6 years (God, I wish that it were sooner than 6 years). His only value is that he can be used to remove Specter who is a 'powerful senior senator' who will have the power to decide what judges and what bills come up before his committee.
Hoeffel will be a junior democrat senator with no power in a Republican controlled Senate, with a Republican controlled House and a Republican President. How much damage can he do compared to what Specter can do?
I must disagree. If you look at it simply from the perspective of who wins in November - Specter or Hoeffel, yes, however, that is not the end of the story. The residuals of the following 6 years in office of the candidate who wins(regardless of under which party umbrella either is running), is the key. Should Specter prevail in November, he then (as he is next in line) becomes the Chair of the Judiciary Committee. We already know we cannot trust that Specter can be counted upon to stand for the principles of conservatives. His voting record proves this beyond a shadow of a doubt. It is not only possible, but probable, that he will affect the appointment of the next justice to sit on the Supreme Court bench. The ramifications of that appointment [going by the issues Arlen supports, pro-choice, human cloning (creating human life to use in labs with the intent to kill these babies when they are no longer useful), and the many other positions he takes that are not in line with conservative, moral thinkers] will live long after Specter is gone not only from the US Senate, but from this world. Effectively, his choice(s) will be on the bench for 40-45 years, maybe more. The damage that can be caused is mind-boggling.
In the alternative, voting in November for Hoeffel will then place (R) Senator Kyl of Arizona as next in line for the chairmanship. Kyl is a strong, proven conservative and would be a far better representative of the moral majority. Hoeffel then, being a freshman senator, would have little power to cause long-term damage. Any potential damage is far more containable. In 2010, the next time this seat is open for election, we then place another strong, conservative candidate in the race (hopeful that Pat Toomey will agree to run again), we can, with far less opposition that in the current election (and recent primary), prevail and re-gain this seat for republicans in the House.
This has been my grandstand speech for years. I do not believe there should even exist a lever for "straight-party" voting in the booths. There are good and bad, conservative-moderate-liberal minded on both sides. There are men and women with integrity and those who have little or none. To cast a vote based simply upon the (R) or (D) is much like using profanity or name-calling...it shows a lack of intelligence and independent thinking. Take the time to understand what ALL of the candidates stand for, support, do not support, what the reprocussions of electing one rather than another in any particular seat and their history. Ask yourself..."Do they really represent me and what I believe and wish for my family and my country?" Then vote.
I too stand beside badray in this strategy. It is not "supporting the democrat", it is relieving the Commonwealth of a republican who simply because he is registered as a republican will get your vote. The fact that his voting record is a far cry from representative of those who placed him in office. He is a danger to conservative philosophies and principles. Voting for Hoeffel is not support of Hoeffel, it is in support of re-gaining/preserving the future of big picture - taking the power that would be Specter's, if elected, and handing it off to Sen. Kyl, who will represent far more truly and consistently, the beliefs and positions of conservatives in judicial appointments to the Supreme Court.
Great minds think alike, welcome to FReeRepublic.
Barlowmaker says: Obviously, this is about one issue for many of you: abortion. Well, single issue bullies generally end up being a scourge within any political party. They can't be kicked to the curb quickly enough.
Ray - I've been thinking about this - unfortunately, I believe his opinion is representative of the views of most of the GOP establishment. After careful consideration of the evidence (Toomey, et al), I am led to a painful conclusion.
The Republican Party has absolutely no interest in overturning Roe v. Wade in our lifetimes.
Sure, they point to their voting records and their rhetoric. And there probably are a few principled individuals there who truly want change. But most do not.
Have you ever been to a greyhound racetrack? The key is to keep the rabbit just enough in front of the dogs that they continue to work furiously. Take away the rabbit, and they have no interest. However, in addition, when one of them actually catches the rabbit, it's a disaster. The dog will never run again.
That's how I see the GOP and abortion. As long as they had the 'Rat majorities in Congress or the Rapist-in-chief to blame, they could take a pro-life stand while knowing nothing would ever change.
But something happened - suddenly they controlled all three branches of government. Consequently, pro-lifers like myself expected more than just rhetoric. We wanted action. We got it on the PBA ban, but as far as the total number of abortions performed, the number covered by PBA represents a small percentage.
We know that Supreme Court openings are coming, and in Pat Toomey we saw a historic opportunity. Get rid of Specter, who has fought the conservative cause for years, get a new principled pro-life senator, and put a principled pro-life senater in charge of SJC. By their rhetoric, this should have been welcomed by the GOP. Instead, we know what happened.
Basically, the conservatives came too close to catching the rabbit, and they had to be beaten back. The key is to not beat them back to far, to keep them believing the dream that the rabbit is attainable someday. That way, they'll keep pulling the "R" level and believing the rhetoric, in the hope of a better day. But many of us have decided catching the rabbit may not be possible due to GOP indifference, so why run at all?
Let them (GOP establishment) kick us to the curb - see what happens at the next election. I think most of us conservatives would move on in our lives with a clear conscience, knowing we did everything possible to make a positive impact on our country and culture, but were rebuffed at every turn. We would simply take care and protect our families and loved ones, and wait for the inevitable.
I've said it on other threads - they need us a lot more than we need them. If the rabbit is not attainable, let them find another group in their quest to acquire and maintain power (which is all they really care about).
Trillium, unlike the flamethrowing children (Barlow, dane, et al), you at least seem to want to discuss issues. With respect - please give me your take on my greyhound analogy.
Very nice set of reasoned and well thought out posts.
I too welcome you to FR!
One thing you're known for on FR is your optimism. Why in this case are you so pessimistic about the GOP retaining the Senate? I have a very, very hard time seeing the Dems gain the majority.
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.