Well, it's not good enough for many of us. My vote is mine to cast, for the candidate I think can do the best job in the position. If you want someone else to make your decisions for you, you need to find some way to give him or her your proxy. That way you won'e even need to show up at the polling place.
Specter, because of his voting record, is in President Bush's good graces. That is what I go on, not my own personal feelings, which may be based on incorrect, or not enough, information.
Then you need to inform yourself. Voting for anyone because someone else tells you to is an abrogation of your responsibility as a citizen.
I'm voting to help the President, not on my own personal preferences. That is what counts. Look at Specter's voting records. He will help the President get his budget passed. Please reconsider.
No, it isn't what counts. The whole point of voting is to vote on your personal preferences. Otherwise you could just have the party bosses pull the lever for you. And we have looked at Specter's voting records. That's why we'll never vote for him again. If you think Arlen will do anything that won't specifically help him personally, you haven't been watching. We have considered this long and carefully and reached our conclusions. Reconsideration isn't going to happen.
By the way, I'm with Jeff rather than Ray on this. I will never vote for Arlen Specter, but I don't think I can vote for Hoeffel either. Jim Clymer (the Constitution Party candidate) is who I'm leaning toward just now.
Doug finishes an excellent response with:
"By the way, I'm with Jeff rather than Ray on this. I will never vote for Arlen Specter, but I don't think I can vote for Hoeffel either. Jim Clymer (the Constitution Party candidate) is who I'm leaning toward just now."
Concerning this final point, let me first state "I understand"... back when we were in full swing in the Toomey election, I never considered the possibility that he would lose (only because I was too focused on helping to ensure a win). Interestingly enough, some around me were a bit more forward-thinking at the time and had already considered ahead towards the question of "what to do next" if he weren't successful... they proferred then that they would vote Hoeffel, following the same line of conviction.
I wasn't there... the perverse thought of voting for someone who has absolutely no redeeming value, much less one is ideologically 180 degrees of where I position myself, seemed 100% inconceivable.
Post-primary, once the dust settled, I began to actively address non-conventional wisdom and thought and pondered what a logical and reasoned next step might be?
Jim Clymer (Constitutional Party) is a reasoned choice for a Conservative voter. As has already been pointed out here, by Ray, he ran as a running-mate with Peg Luksik. Trust me, he is much more in line with our traditional conservative thought process than Hoeffel, who admittedly (as I've stated here on quite a few occasions) has no (none, nada, what else do I need to say!) redeeming qualities.
But herein lies the problem... that "protest vote" for Clymer only negates one vote against Specter. If the real goal in the process is to protect the integrity of our judicial system, and removal of Specter is necessary to ensure that end game result, then a "hold your nose and vote" for Hoeffel will be necessary (it takes 2 votes to overcome this "protest vote").
There are some involved in this discussion who have resorted to name-calling, and who refuse to even consider the possibility. By indicating that we will vote for Hoeffel, even with the reasoned explanation that has been provided, we are being called "leftist" and all kinds of names. We are not extremist. We are simply voting our conscience for what we see to be the good for this country.