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
"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.