This is putting it with great honesty. It makes more sense than the argument that we should vote down Specter to put in Kyl as chairman, since Hoeffel would probably be reelected several times, making the highly speculative idea that Kyl can push through real conservatives onto the Supreme Court less of a consideration.
One has to consider that with Hoeffel in, the Democrats will be that much more liberal/socialist next time they regain control. Therefore, Mr. Horvath is really proposing a model for the US where we careen from left to right, rather than typically governing from the center. Such careening is exactly what Argentina has been doing since the 1930's, and it has propelled that country practically from first to third world. Reading Argentine history is recommended.
I voted for Toomey last month and will likely vote for Specter in November. If by some chance there is a Democratic landslide, I won't like it, but I will rest comfortable in knowledge that America is a politically moderate nation characterized by rotation in office between coalition parties.
Steve, thanks for your thoughtful, but IMO, mistaken notions in your reply. First, getting rid of Specter to put in Kyl AND being in a position of having 41 conservatives that are reliable rather than 59 RINOs are not mutually exclusive ideas. But neither do they necessarily go hand in hand. I'd love 60 conservatives, but getting rid of the moderates is necessary first.
Second, if Hoeffel wins and it's because of the support that I am encouraging, then without our votes, he will be facing an uphill reelection battle. He is not a lock to be reelected. PA is trending more conservative.
"One has to consider that with Hoeffel in, the Democrats will be that much more liberal/socialist next time they regain control."
You assume that they will regain control any time soon. Why?
"Therefore, Mr. Horvath is really proposing a model for the US where we careen from left to right, rather than typically governing from the center. Such careening is exactly what Argentina has been doing since the 1930's, and it has propelled that country practically from first to third world. Reading Argentine history is recommended.
Where do you get that notion? What I am proposing is governing from a middle of the road, limited Constitutional government. BTW, I am Mr. Horvath.
"I voted for Toomey last month and will likely vote for Specter in November. If by some chance there is a Democratic landslide, I won't like it, but I will rest comfortable in knowledge that America is a politically moderate nation characterized by rotation in office between coalition parties."
How can you vote for Toomey and then for the antithesis of Toomey? It doesn't make sense to me.