Posted on 05/30/2004 8:54:37 PM PDT by Badray
"No matter what, Specter will be gone in 6 years anyway if not earlier. Hoeffel may be there for 20+."
Oh ye of little faith. Although it is likely true that Specter would be gone in 6 years, the damage he will be capable of causing in that term could literally last generations. Hoeffel, on the other hand will not posess, nor be granted any amount of power to inflict long-term damage during his freshman term. He can be gone in 6 years as well, could he not? Is it so unlikely that we will be unable to place a candidate in 2010 that will re-gain the seat for concervatives?
Think of it as a baseball organization:
Generally, every baseball organization has a major-league team and a single A, double A and triple A minor league team training it's younger, less experienced players to possibly make it to "the show".
Specter, if elected, is in "the show" and will be pitching. He will have control, on may occasions during his 6-year term, to either fast-pitch and strike out a player, or oh-so-casually pitch just outside the strike zone and walk players.
Hoeffel, however, being a freshman senator, would be on the single A team learning the ropes and the rules. Yes, he will have the opportunity to play, but not to throw out any pitches on the major league team, where those decisions are made. No single A player is permitted, according to the rules of the game, to go straight from single A to the majors...they must do their time and before being eligible to play with the "big boys". Unless he proves to be outstandingly talented, it simply cannot happen. Is Hoeffel talented to the level that would give him any amount of damaging power in his first term???
1. Incumbents have strong retaining power.
2. Hoeffel has shown he's won tough elections before. Montgomery County is not easy for anyone to win and leans only slightly democrat.
3. With Specter gone in 6, an open seat would be easier for Toomey or someone else to win than against an incumbent.
And even a single A pitcher sometimes gets called up late in the season to get a shot at the big leagues. If he's called up to be the deciding vote on an issue, it won't look good.
If the dem was a Bob Casey dem, it would be one thing. Instead, it's a John Kerry dem.
Slow down for a second to consider this:
Specter an entrenched 4 term incumbent.
Specter nearly lost the primary (I know, I know. Almost doesn't count.)
If I/we are successful in removing an INCUMBENT and replacing him with an opponent who would likely not have won without our help, don't you think that we can remove him if (A) he doesn't have our help next time, and (B) we actively support a solid conservative candidate against him.
What we did, in coming so close, in the face of the odds against us was nothing short of amazing. Three months before the primary it was Arlen Specter against WHO? It took the POTUS's visit to PA in the final week before the election for Specter to win in a squeaker (less than 1 1/2% -- 15,000 votes out of 1.2 MILLION).
This race taught me that there are a lot of people who want to support quality people like Toomey. That some of them caved under the weight of a purely political (rather than ideological) endorsement of an incumbent was extremely disappointing.
This race stirred people to action who have never been involved before. Part of my (unpaid volunteer) job will be to keep them stirred and ready to help the next good conservative to stand for election and help to awaken others to a new GOP that will stand for principle and not just ruling power with no regard for principle.
Dan, thanks for weighing in again.
Yes it is risky for us to vote in a liberal, but we are also voting out a guy who has voted like a liberal (and worse than some) Dems.
I'd much rather have Hoeffel with no power, than Specter with lots of power. If memory serves me right, the Judiciary committee chairman is the ONE who decides whether GUN legislation gets to the floor for a vote. Do you want Arlen in that position? I don't. And the BEST chance of removing him is to vote directly for the opponent.
The old saying "Pick your poison" comes to mind.
"And even a single A pitcher sometimes gets called up late in the season to get a shot at the big leagues. If he's called up to be the deciding vote on an issue, it won't look good."
That is true...however, as I said, those are the very talented, outstanding players who are called up. If he is "called up" to be the deciding vote on AN issue, that is one issue, where Specter will be right there already and will make many, many votes, (as his history loudly proclaims) on the other side.
As for Hoeffel being re-elected in 2010, consider this, many voters (as they do not choose to or do not wish to educate themselves on the candidates, nor the issues) go purely, or at least primarily on name-recognition. They, (barring that outstanding talent that Hoeffel may be hiding), will hear little of him (Hoeffel)during this term...however, have heard and will continue to hear of Toomey. The support brought together for Toomey in the primary was incredible!
My graphic was pulled? Funny. Somebody called me a "baby killer" above that, and that's acceptable I guess. So it goes in the wacky world of internet debate.
Kerry/Hoeffel '04! The Conservative solution!
Was it a similarly clever strategy by single issue Michigan Conservatives that delivered Levin, Stabenow and Granholm into your lives?
Was that before, or after, you were barred from local townhall meetings?
If it was a statewide or Federal office I would probably leave the choice blank, from now on.
If he were as brilliant as you say he is, he would have beaten McGreevey. Ditto for Toomey losing to Specter. If you can't win, you don't deserve the title of brilliant.
I'll reply in more detail later (after I get the kids to bed), but your response fascinated me.
You know, I specifically remember Arlen Specter himself using nearly identical terminology as you used in your post years ago in a TV debate on MSNBC with Jerry Falwell. Almost identical - "the moderates are not going to lay down, we're going to fight back, etc." The same contempt for the "religious radicals". Amazing.
Very, very interesting...a more detailed reply in a bit.
holy crap ray! 700 coming up
With you and Ray basically providing 3/4's of the responses.
Will you address the name calling by your fellows and yourself? Or will you continue to ignore that? You found it an important enough issue to accuse 'us' of it, but refuse to acknowledge that you and yours are the prime offenders.
Read what you wrote in your other posts and see what I mean about your use of titles. You glorify party officials as though they are gods. Or dictators. It's disturbingly reminiscent of the old Soviet Union.
You show your disdain for those who have a faith in a power higher than the 'party' and have principles other than 'party'. You claim that you and your ilk are the majority within the party. Yet Specter had to go to the Democrats to get a margin of victory so thin you can see through it. As Doug Loss said, your days of domination by intimidation are over.
If you think that religious conservatives are a minority within the party then why was the primary so close? If the party tent is sooooooo big and encompasses soooooo many viewpoints, isn't it amazing that even with the help of your democrat buddies, you barely eked out a win? It would seem to me that we may not be in charge yet, but we are the biggest part of the party and that scares the daylights out of you.
I'm not old enough, or even interested enough to know the history of the GOP but somehow I just don't believe that before late in the last century the party was pro baby killer, anti gun rights, anti freedom. That is a modern day incarnation of the party and your revisionist view of history will not change that.
If you have no principle worth defending (other than party) then why do you care what party you are in? Why don't you join the democrats? They really don't care what you believe either. They only want the same thing you do -- Power.
Until about 6 years ago, I was an independent. The party came to me and told me that my views and values were important to them. They lied. My money and my vote was important. But guess what? I'm here and I'm staying. My goal is to drive the valueless, principleless, worthless RINOs from the party. I want the party to stand for something that it's members can be proud of.
If it ever occurs to you that 'party' here doesn't mean what it does in the old USSR, come back and we'll consider your application.
Did you ever stop to think, -- never mind. Bad question.
Maybe if you quit posting trash that needed clarified and rebutted, this thread would be half it's size.
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.