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.
I hope you're proud of yourself, Ray. You startled my dog and made her jump (when I issued a loud 'Yes!' upon reading of your 'rudeness'. :)
Trillium, that you would call a refusal to shake the hand of a traitor 'a bad mannered, vulgar display that indicated a severe lack of upbringing' is ludicrous. A handshake is a sign of esteem. Do you respect the man who refused to convict President Clinton, based on conveniently-cited Scottish Law? Or the man who denied Robert Bork a Supreme Court seat because he holds fast to the original intent of the Constitution? Or the man who steadfastly supported partial birth abortion, and sought to water down the recent ban? Or the man who is in the pocket of America's trial lawyers and racial quota advocates? Or the man who consistently receives the support of America's teachers' unions and battles against school choice? Or the man who believes that American soldiers should be tried in international courts? Either you and I (and Ray) disagree on the significance of a handshake, or we embrace entirely different principles.
I have not yet decided what I am going to do regarding the senate race in November, Ray. I do know that I will not be voting for Specter. The choice remains: Do I write-in Pat Toomey's name? Do I vote for the Constitution Party candidate, who hasn't a prayer of winning? Or do I vote for socialist Hoeffel? I'm leaning toward the latter, for many of the reasons discussed on this thread.
I have been accused of being too focused on the Toomey/Specter race, both when it was in full swing, and since the dust settled and we all discovered that the best man didn't win. I don't, and never will, believe that (being too focused) is the case. The Toomey/Specter race represented much more than a simple senatorial primary.
President Bush's endorsement of Arlen Specter took the definite prospect of victory out of Toomey's grasp. Having watched Toomey lose by a mere 1.5%, it is obvious to anyone who knows the power of a Presidential endorsement, and the effect that constant television ads depicting the President and Specter as allies in conservative principle, that, had the President simply remained neutral, Pat Toomey would be on the ballot in November.
And, were Pat Toomey on the ballot in November, I truly believe he would be elected to the senate by a large margin.
Which would have meant that, come January, John Kyl, a genuine conservative, would have been named to head the all-important Judiciary Committee, and the vacated seat of Arlen Specter, for the first time in almost a quarter of a century, would be occupied by a man of principle.
(1) Rule by judicial fiat, and the usurping by the judiciary of powers Constitutionally reserved for the executive and legislative branches, is moving ahead relatively unchallenged, and (2) the Supreme Court, for the first time in our history, is beginning to invoke ludicrous unconstitutional reliance on precedents set by international law/courts, and (3) between two and four Supreme Court justices may be seated within the next few years. For all of those very powerful reasons, the influence represented by the chairmanship of the senate Judiciary Committee is historically unprecedented.
The President's decision to endorse Arlen Specter last month was among the most ill-advised he has made since assuming office. Although they surely will not be pointed out by the media, and only those informed enough, or concerned enough, to connect-the-dots will be aware of them, the repercussions (from senate Judiciary Committee decisions/confirmations, to the general precarious makeup of the senate) will be enormous, and potentially devastating.
Sure, we will most likely retain 'Republican' senate control in November. But we would have done so with or without Arlen Specter. These days labels are dangerously deceiving. Now, instead of having a genuine conservative (John Kyl) seated in the chair of the all-powerful Judiciary Committee, and another genuine conservative junior senator (Pat Toomey) sitting alongside Rick Santorum, we will once again have a socialist dressed in Republican clothing – and a lame duck, I-don’t-give-a-damn-anymore-about-compromising-with-genuine-conservatives-in-order-to-retain-my-seat – ready and willing to Bork any Bush Supreme Court nominations. Not to mention casting leftist votes on issues related to abortion, tort reform, education, affirmative action, school choice, taxation, the influence of international law on American justice … Not to mention the fact that the senate will not be graced with, and influenced by, the input of a man of the rare courage and deep conviction of Pat Toomey.
Mr. Bush, you made a deadly mistake, and our republic will be paying a dear price, far beyond the horizon, for your moral lapse and political miscalculation.
~ joanie
Wise choice!
Easy one Joanie, and you know it...
Choose the latter -- drive the stake through Specter's heart! And tell others to do the same...
No telling the damage Specter will do in the coming six years as head of the senate Judiciary Committee.
joanie, now I really feel badly for not pinging you sooner and directly. Your insights, passion, and eloquence know no bounds. I am thrilled that you are on the right side of this.
Thanks.
PS
Sorry about scaring the dog. That was rude of me. ;-)
In any case, everyone would be well served to read, digest, internalize and take to heart Geroge Washington's entire farewell speech.
BTW, you have regular email.