Specter Fallout SANTORUM IN TROUBLE

American Spectator ^ | 1/24/2005 | The Washington Prowler

[Badray]

See my #113.

You make the same phony apologist argument as the other poster.

It doesn't hold water.

What we are seeing now from Specter is exactly why we fought so hard to remove him in the primary last year. We KNEW who he was and what he would do. We KNEW that he couldn't be trusted. Why didn't the WH and Santorum know that? They are supposed to be the wise, politically astute, professionals. They are supposed to be conservatives.

Their support was active and deliberate in face of letters, emails, faxes, and phone calls pleading with them to, at least, stay out of the primary and let the voters decide who should represent them.

The question to be decided: Why? The possible answers are a] Ricky and Bush and (let's throw in) Rove are stupid or political cowards or b] Specter, Santorum, and Bush have more in common than any of them will admit and they wanted him to win so that he can take the heat for their failure to perform on their own campaign promises.

I vote [b].

[smokeyb]

Okay, tell me, what is flyover country???

AKA red states. Not meant as derogatory.

I know we lost our house, senate, and governorship because we did not play together but rather beat each other up on stupid things like so-and-so supported so-and-so and therefore I can't support him. Maybe I do know the game.

Those so-and-sos are beating up on all of us. Just what is your definition of "WE"?

[Badray]

I sometimes think that those who have removed themselves from the political arena are the smart ones. They don't face the anxiety and disappointment that we do.

Mostly now I stay involved to b****slap them when they get out of line. The least that I can do is give them back some aggravation. Maybe a few of them will develop bleeding ulcers or retire to spend more time with their families. LOL

[Flux Capacitor]

'Fraid you're wrong about all of this, bud, because your argument is built on the faulty foundation that people can safely predict the outcomes of elections a year before they happen according to a simplistic categorization of "red states" and "blue states", and using "projections" that don't take into account retirements of safe incumbents, or even whom the candidates are going to be. Those were the same "projections" that told us Harry Reid was in trouble, Lisa Murkowski was a goner, the Republicans in Louisiana would be carved up in the primary, and Jim Bunning was cruising to an easy re-election with a comfortable victory margin.

Anyone who really paid attention to the individual races knows that control of the Senate was in doubt right through the summer, until the GOP candidates in key races like LA, OK, and NC started pulling away. And as for whatever Specter said.... why should we start putting stock into anything Specter says? An open race between Toomey and Hoeffel would have been a 50/50 proposition, not a fait accompli simply because we would have wished it to be so.

You want a Democratic Senate? You're welcome to it, though I don't particularly appreciate your wishing to impose one on me. But I wouldn't want to hear a single member of the Pat Toomey Brigade complaining about Majority Leader Reid if Specter's seat had made the difference. Toomey lost, people. It's been a year since he lost. Get over it, deal with the situation as it exists, and stop acting like post-election Democrat crybabies who spend their time whining about how they coulda been contenders.

-Dan

[smokeyb]

I vote [b].

make that 2 for [b]

[smokeyb]

'Fraid you're wrong about all of this, bud, because your argument is built on the faulty foundation that people can safely predict the outcomes of elections a year before they happen according to a simplistic categorization of "red states" and "blue states", and using "projections" that don't take into account retirements of safe incumbents, or even whom the candidates are going to be.

Isn't that exactly what Santorum and Bush did with the Specter-Toomey race?

[Flux Capacitor]

It is not. They made a political calculation toward what they felt would be their best chance at keeping the seat and fending off a Democratic takeover of the Senate, because they knew that was a serious threat as it was, and would have been more so with Pennsylvania as an open race.

-Dan

[smokeyb]

Toomey lost, people. It's been a year since he lost. Get over it, deal with the situation as it exists, and stop acting like post-election Democrat crybabies who spend their time whining about how they coulda been contenders.

We got over the loss. What we will never get over is the backstabbing of so-called conservatives which still lick Arlen's boots while telling us they are holding his feet to the fire.

[meema]

Does Santorum have a chance against Casey??? In PA?
If Spincter rules the committee the way I fear?
How many Pubbies will just stay home?

[old and tired]

Dan, I'm not whining about Toomey's loss. I'm whining about Santorum's support of Specter. He let us conservatives down. And we can no longer support him with the same zeal we once had for him. The stark truth is that by supporting Specter, Santorum whored himself for the Republican party. And if another pro-life, pro-2nd amendment conservative faces Santorum in the primary, I'll probably vote for the challenger. That's how much Santorum's support of Scottish law Specter hurt. I think Bush, Rove and Santorum were blindsided by Toomey's razor thin loss. They sorely underestimated the level of distaste PA conservatives have for Specter.

We'll see how Specter does when Bush finally does appoint a Supreme Court justice. I honestly believe Santorum's reelection is riding on it.

[Badray]

You claim that it is faulty and I will agree that it is not fool proof, but it was accurate this time.

Are you gonna believe party or candidate propaganda that cries out that this seat or that is in jeopardy and then wins by 20 percentage points? That is just as unreliable and has the added 'quality' of being less than honest.

Fear is a powerful motivator and both parties are masters at stoking the emotions of their base with this technigue. I didn't (and don't) like Bush most of the time, but even I fell for the line that Kerry might end up winning and that repulsed me -- repulsed, not scared -- and I voted for Bush.

I would never vote for Kerry, but I would love to rescind my vote for Bush.

I have always tried to vote simply on principle. That is the only way that you don't really lose. But I have voted for the lesser of two evils. I won't do that anymore.

As to 'getting over it' - - -

Why? We are faced daily with the results of you people who think that supporting any "R" is a good plan. It doesn't take courage to vote for a party whose proclaimed prinicples are so broad as to be meaningless. Your plan will continue to bring us men such as Specter. Now he is in a postion to do the damage that no democrat senator could possibly have done.

Thanks for nothing.

[old and tired]

Does Santorum have a chance against Casey??? In PA?

Probably. The real liberals wouldn't come to the polls in an off election year to choose between two pro-lifers. That said, I don't think Casey can win the nomination. The main line limosine Dems in suburban Philly would never allow a pro-life, soft on the 2nd amendment nominee. Casey is not a charismatic campaigner and will not bring out the blue collar Dems in force.

[Flux Capacitor]

Believe me, I understand, though I personally was not surprised Santorum backed Specter. You could look at it as being a "party whore"; I won't argue. I saw it -- and I believe Santorum did -- as attempting to keep a key seat in Republican hands to stop a Democratic takeover of the entire chamber.

The RNC knew full well that was a danger. The last, last thing we want is for Bush to be stuck with a Democratic Senate, as Daschle's 2001 coup should remind us. Santorum played politics, as politicians will do; I sincerely doubt that Toomey himself would not have done the same thing in that position.

-Dan

[Flux Capacitor]

----I would never vote for Kerry, but I would love to rescind my vote for Bush.----

Tells me all I need to know about you. Enjoy the next four.

-Dan

[Badray]

LOL

That's some crystal ball that you have there.

Do you always jump to conclusions with little or no info?

Yeah, you probably do.

[EternalVigilance]

Bump...

[Flux Capacitor]

----That's some crystal ball that you have there.
Do you always jump to conclusions with little or no info?
Yeah, you probably do.----

"The GOP control of the Senate was never in serious doubt! Not ever! All projections from a year out with zero data were slam-dunks! Specter's seat would never have gone Dem! Specter told me so himself! I mean, I hate the guy otherwise, but I'm gonna take his word on this one! Why, in 2006 we're gonna...."

[mickie]

"As a former Santorum voter and contributor, I hope he loses".

Ditto.

[Doc Savage]

Tell you one thing! Holly Maddux isn't backing Specter!!

[Barlowmaker]

What we will never get over is the backstabbing of so-called conservatives which still lick Arlen's boots while telling us they are holding his feet to the fire.

Backstabbing? Grow up. Really. You sound like a petulant little toddler.