Posted on 04/19/2009 8:16:05 PM PDT by lqcincinnatus
NRSC Set To Back Specter This snippet from the Washington Post's overview of Arlen Specter's candidacy stuck out at me:
Sen. John Cornyn (R-Tex.), head of the National Republican Senatorial Committee, has written a letter to fellow Republicans asking them to support Specter. "While I doubt Arlen could win an election in my home state of Texas, I am certain that I could not get elected in Pennsylvania," Cornyn wrote. "I believe that Senator Specter is our best bet to keep this Senate seat in the GOP column."
(Excerpt) Read more at realclearpolitics.com ...
Steele’s name is nowhere to be found in the article...
In the past the GOP has continued to support Specter, even though he has repeatedly sided with the Dems over the Republicans, because it didn't want to lose the seat to a Democrat. Then after reelection Specter has repeatedly gone on to stab the Republicans in the back. (The GOP reminds me of Charlie Brown thinking that “this time” he will really get to kick the football held by Lucy, only to land on the ground again, for the millionth time when Lucy pulls the ball back before he can kick it.)
At this point with the imbalance in the Senate favor of Democrats, would losing the seat make any difference at all in the outcome of votes? I don't think so. The dems are going to win every time, with Specter's help. So, backing Specter simply to keep it a “Republican” seat is illogical, given that we are talking about a confirmed RINO. But backing a real Republican who might have a shot at obtaining the seat and keeping it for the Republicans at least gives us a fighting chance.
That's quite an admission. Following the crowd instead of doing what you know is right is called selling out. What's right is what's right no matter how many others are doing what's wrong. Are you sure you're are not Arlen Specter trolling here? It's exactly the same.
“In the given context, it is pronounced ‘state-ist’ 100% of the time. ‘Stat-ist’ simply makes no sense whatsoever.”
What do you mean, “in the given context”? There is only one definition of statism of which I’m aware.
If you look the word up in the dictionary, I’m sure it says the “a” is long. But in common parlance, both versions are popular. Yes, I know, people are stupid and we shouldn’t let their bastardization of the language bring us down. However, I’ve heard respectable conservative pundits, ones with far better credentials than Steele, pronounce it the other way. It’s no sign of ignorance, really. That’s just the way a lot of people say it.
“That’s quite an admission. Following the crowd instead of doing what you know is right is called selling out...Are you sure you’re are not Arlen Specter trolling here? It’s exactly the same.”
Wow, that’s an incredible leap. It’s just the way language works: most words you learn through interaction with other people. And when you hear “statist” pronounced a certain way, which happens to technically be wrong, it’s natural to pronounce it that way. Most people don’t run to the OED every time they hear or read a new word.
Anyway, it’s not as if I know in my heart of hearts that prouncing it one way is right, and proceed to sacrifice right for convenience. Only recently did I ever bother to look the word up and see how it’s officially pronounced. Like I said, it stood to reason that the “a” was long, considering the root word. But I heard it the other way so often, I assumed it was correct. It’s not the most significant mistake of my life. I knew what the definition was before the dictionary told me, and that’s the most important thing.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.