You clearly don't know the least thing about Joanie-f and her activities over the years or you would never make such a foolish staement regarding her.
Your statements regarding her are so ludicrous on this forum with the people who have known her over the years as to discredit yourself and not her.
You may not agree with her words...and that's fine...but to make statements like "Only a Democrat", and that she must be a "dyed-in-the-wool Leftist", only serve to marginalize you to the vast majority of Freepers who have been around here for any length of time.
I would advise that you step back, take a deep breath, and realize that the arguements that Joanie-f is making, again whether you agree with them or not, are quite a bit deeper than the level of thinking you are employing in your response.
Toomey was clearly the more conservative candidate. In this case, conservative is what drives issue like the abortion issue, RKBA, immigration, etc. Specter has proven over years that he has stepped over the conservative line more times than I can count and he is depending on his big party connections, not his record or his position on issues to sustain him. It's far past time for him to go, and I also believe Bush made a big mistake in coming out in his support.
It smacks of political favors being paid and just goes back to the point that we would all be much better served by reading, internalizing and practicing George Washington's parting advise regarding party loyalty.
Now...just because we disagree with Bush on such a point does not mean we will not support him on other issues and as he goes against Kerry. It is possible to remain loyal to principle and still support particular candidates who disagree in some areas. It is also possible to use one's influence to try and turn the GOP back towards its roots.
My own view would be, since I could not in good conscience vote for Specter, to vote for the Constitution candidate since I could not vote for Toomey. But thats me. Others are past that point and want Specter out even if it means getting a democrat in...whom they feel they can deal with easier the next go around. I'm not there myself.
Unfortunately, for many of us you see, Specter has crossed a line where it is no longer possible to support him in any way. And that is a result of his own doing.
Senator Specter is a problem but one that I think we can deal with better in the party.
I understand Badrays argument and I agree with him as well but I think there is still time to get the GOP in shape. I don't think we should wage a war within our own party at this time. The Democrats are disintegrating and we should run with that fact.
The control of the GOP is a pivotal issue for Conservatives but this call for action comes at a bad time.
Well, since I have been reading this thread, I thought I would throw out my opinion. Arioch7 out.
You are a good friend, and, as always, a gentleman. I am also gratified that, even though you do not believe that you yourself could pull the lever next to Hoeffel’s name, you do understand the reasoning embraced by those of us who may decide (albeit reluctantly) to do so.
I have voted for Arlen Specter four times. Each one of those times I did so in order to support the Republican party – never because he reflected my beliefs.
The future composition of our judiciary -- especially the Supreme Court -- is perhaps the most crucial factor that will dictate the future (or the demise) of our republic. My (and many others’ on this thread) refusal to ever vote for Arlen Specter again, and to even go so far as to vote for his socialist democrat opponent, simply boils down to the fact that we fervently believe that, at this critical juncture in our history, it is infinitely more important to have a good man (namely John Kyl) at the head of the senate Judiciary Committee than it is to have one extra (disingenuously labeled) ‘Republican’ in the senate majority ranks (not to mention placing that all important chairmanship in his traitorous hands).
~ joanie