Comments

Entry: PA Primary: Republican vs. RINO Monday, April 26, 2004

Tomorrow's primary will decide whether Pennsylvania Republicans are represented in the US Senate by a Conservative Republican or a RINO -- Republican In Name Only. According to CBS news Arlen Specter "votes with Democrats almost exactly 50 percent of the time." Naturally, this appears to be a good thing to the Liberal media. If there's any point in calling Specter a Republican, I fail to see it. Pat Toomey, on the other hand, is described as a "former Wall Streeter, Harvard grad and conservative ideologue" and is "known as a tax-cutting, spending-cutting budget hawk. He is also conservative on social issues such as abortion and cloning." Except for the cloning issue (being all in favor of the advancement of science), I cannot see a downside to electing Toomey to represent the State's Republicans. The media's position on the contest -- again, no surprise -- is that it's better for Pennsylvanian Conservatives to elect a false Republican who represents them only half the time than a true Conservative who -- the media hastens to warn -- stands a chance of losing the election in November.

While Specter voted to reduce the Bush tax cuts in 2001, Toomey voted for them in full. Specter has voted for five major tax increases, in fact, while Toomey has opposed raising taxes. We've seen the result of those cuts in a booming economy. Toomey supports tort reform, which would cut down on the number of frivolous lawsuits that are keeping health care costs so high. Specter opposes those reforms. Specter favors allowing US soldiers to be tried in the International Criminal Court, while Toomey opposes such an affront to the rights of Americans under the Constitution. Specter voted to let public schools ban the Boy Scouts of America. Toomey supports school choice, while Specter opposes it. In 1987, Specter voted against Reagan's appointment of Conservative Judge Robert Bork to the Supreme Court. Bork's appointment would have prevented many of the judicial abuses of power we've been subject to ever since.

In 2002, Arlen Specter was the only Republican to vote against a resolution to aid international efforts to bring "Saddam Hussein and other foreign nationals accused of genocide, war crimes or crimes against humanity" to justice. He still voted against the measure when it was weakened to read that "nothing in this title shall prohibit the United States from rendering assistance to international efforts to bring to justice Saddam Hussein, Slobodan Milosovic, Osama bin Laden, other members of Al Queda, leaders of Islamic Jihad, and other foreign nationals accused of genocide, war crimes or crimes against humanity." Again, he was the only Republican to do so. Toomey has voted for pay raises for the military every year he has been in office. Not only did Specter vote against military pay raises two separate times, but he also voted to cut the budgets for both intelligence and defense along with John Kerry.

Tomorrow's primary is not Republican vs. Republican. It's Republican vs. RINO.

17 comments


	Jamie G. April 26, 2004 02:21 PM PDT It would be nice if Republicans in Pennsylvania would wake and realize what Specter really is - a RINO - and vote for Toomey. Unfortunately, his record is well known, so they already knew about it before the last election and it didn't stop them from voting for him then. I honestly don't see how they could vote for him. But then again, I've always wondered how people could ever bring themselves to vote for Robert Byrd. I would vote against Specter if I could. But they don't allow folks from Alabama to vote in PA elections!


	JM April 26, 2004 02:28 PM PDT Americans overall have become more Conservative since 9/11 woke us up. Look at the results of the 2002 elections -- massive Republican victory. I hope enough of us have refused to be lulled back to sleep.


	d_Brit April 27, 2004 12:22 AM PDT Re:" I cannot see a downside to electing Toomey to represent the State's Republicans. " Obviously GWB does see a downside, as he's pushing for Specter. Tell me, has it occurred to you that with occasional exceptions, close elections are determined by folks in the middle? By people not particularly committed to dem or pub idealogy? That democrats would LOVE for the republican party to be completely absent RINO's? Just as pubs would LOVE for the dems to all be Michael Moore's? What's the diff, you're right and they're wrong? That you define a republican by them voting consistently WITH the group rather than by individual conscience? Many pubs point to the movement of the democratic party to the extreme left and predict the eventual abandonment of the party by americans if that trend continues. Anyone care to point to a position to the right of Toomey? How is the pubs moving to the far right any different? The american public views left wing extremism as but one side of the coin of extremism.


	JM April 27, 2004 05:17 AM PDT Presidents generally favor incumbents, as they still have to work with them. Especially when the incumbent looks like a sure win (as Specter seemed to be until the last week or so -- he was up by 12 points just a week ago). One major difference between Left and Right is that the Right doesn't generally elect extremists to power, while the Left does.


	Jamie G. April 27, 2004 10:00 AM PDT There is a column on WSJ's OpinionJournal about Specter. at http://www.opinionjournal.com/diary/?id=110005003 Here is what it says about why Bush backs him (and it makes perfect sense) and why people tend to vote for him even though he isn't the most faithful of Republicans - PORK for PA, as he himself said - he can "bring home the bacon". "Mr. Specter secured President Bush's endorsement after the White House realized he was in line next year to become chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, through which nominations for any Supreme Court vacancy must pass. The rest of Mr. Specter's considerable power derives from his ability as chairman of a key Appropriations subcommittee to personally earmark hundreds of millions of federal dollars each year for projects back home."


	d_Brit April 27, 2004 01:53 PM PDT JM, Re: "One major difference between Left and Right is that the Right doesn't generally elect extremists to power, while the Left does." Please don't insult our intelligence. You can't have it both ways. You label Specter a RINO because he doesn't vote your way ENOUGH. That's idealogical purity and idealogical purity is always extremist.


	JM April 27, 2004 01:58 PM PDT d_Brit, now you're not making any sense. You claim that I'm an extremist of some sort because I point out that the supposedly Republican Senator votes with the Democrats as often as he does the Republicans -- and that the Republicans aren't getting the representation they deserve because of this? What kind of horse hockey is that? If he removed the (R) from his name and replaced with with an (I), then I'd give him points for being honest. But when he pretends to be Republican and isn't, he's a RINO.


	d_Brit April 27, 2004 02:10 PM PDT Jamie_G, That is my understanding as well. GWB has decided that the long-term republican agenda is best served by keeping Specter on board. Specter's future chairmanship increases Bush's chances in securing confirmation for new, truely conservative, federal justices. Given conservatives anathema to activist judges that is a valid goal on GWB's part. It's fair to argue that Specter will in the end betray his "deal" with Bush. He may well do so, Bush is making the bet that Specter will stay "bought." Bush has 2 yrs. to "get" out of Specter what he will, after that Specter's interests will be best served by "neutrality" toward both sides of the aisle. Looked at "hard-ball" politically, if Toomey wins, Bush can always get Toomey's vote because he's a "principle" kind of guy, and as a new member of congress his only power will be as an individual vote. One last thing, the whole RINO thing. By necessity, a representative democracy will ALWAYS vote in a certain number of representative's who are focused on the "pork' they can bring to their constituents. That is because every society has groups of people who just don't care about "principle" or the "larger good". It's called immaturity. Like the poor, we shall always have them with us....


	d_Brit April 27, 2004 02:27 PM PDT JM, I'm not making sense because you've mischaracterized or misunderstood what I mean. I took issue with your statement that the right doesn't elect "extremists". Let me quote a patron saint of the far right, former senator AND presidential nominee Goldwater; "Extremism in defense of liberty is no vice" the problem with that is who decides where liberty begins and ends? Regarding Specter, your quarrel with his voting is that he isn't PURE enough, that he puts his states' welfare above the nations'. That he puts practicality above idealogy, 50% of the time. My perception is that your OBJECTION to Specter is idealogically driven, rather than based in realism. It seems fair to characterize that as extremism because life is a BALANCING act between idealism and practicality. You abrogate that balance when you object to his practicality. I agree on principle, that he should declare himself to be an independant. I also understand the PRACTICAL reasons why he does not do so. Do you?


	JM April 27, 2004 03:00 PM PDT If I had to type Goldwater by today's standards, without a doubt he'd be a Libertarian. It was, in fact, that very "Extremism in defense of Liberty is no vice" line that caused him to be defeated in 1964, but you (like most people) too easily forget the second half of the sentence: "moderation in the defense of Justice is no virtue."


	Jamie G. April 27, 2004 03:27 PM PDT Specter is a RINO, just as McCain is a RINO. Both should should drop the affiliation w/ the Republican Party. They should run as Independents (or as a candidate of any one of the numerous other parties in this country). Because by calling themselves Republicans, they are misleading the voters into thinking that they will adhere to the Republican Party platform and support the issues as stated. But, since they want to be elected, they run as Republicans. (Very few people vote for Independents.) And to me, that is dishonesty, plain and simple.


	d_Brit April 27, 2004 03:32 PM PDT JM, Since principles don't change, I question that Goldwater would define himself as a Libertarian today. Wouldn't you say that since Reagan, the republican party has moved considerably closer to Goldwater's positions? If so, then by your logic, that would mean that republicans are becoming libertarians in everything but name only. I didn't include the second part of the Goldwater quote because it didn't seem relevent to my point about extremism. Addressing the "moderation in the defense of Justice is no virtue." brings us to another issue. It sounds good but again that inconvenient issue of "balancing of principles" arises. Justice is a good thing, extremism in pursuit of justice, persued long and vigourously enough, invariably leads to injustice. The point is made in "Les Miserables", as well as any other illustration, of the principle to which I allude.


	JM April 27, 2004 03:54 PM PDT Actually, I always took the point of Les Miserables to be that Law without Mercy cannot beget Justice, but maybe that's just my interpretation. In any case, I always felt that Goldwater's use of the word "extremism" was his mistake. I don't think he meant the concept behind the word. If he'd said "vigor," "passion," or "tenacity" he'd have been elected President in 1964, and his quote would describe the current Republican position far better than what he actually said.


	d_Brit April 27, 2004 04:14 PM PDT Jamie_G, Fair enough. Let's examine what would happen if everyone followed through and ACTUALLY did what you propose. Keeping in mind the nastily practical "law of unintended consequences". 10-20% of each party would declare as independants. I choose that range because that's the number of "undecideds" in most presidential elections. It's also an accurate reflection of the number who when polled, don't have a strong affiliation with either party. In that situation, I maintain that for all practical purposes we would end up with something similar to parliamentary democracies like Britain and Israel. Those "independants" would end up with much more leverage than they presently hold because the two parties could not pass legislation without them. Each party would lose what "leverage" they now have with those (RINO)representatives that their logistical and financial support now gives them. In effect I posit that there is a valid possibilty that you would create a viable third party. If so, that would affect politics in profound ways. Ways that I beleive might have find us ironically wishing for the "good old days" ;-)


	d_Brit April 27, 2004 04:27 PM PDT JM, It's a fair interpretation. I would characterize it as a lesson in proportionality of the punishment fitting the crime. But in any case the injustice is clear. I entirely agree that Goldwater's use of the word extremism was the kiss of death for his campaign. Fairly or unfairly, it confirmed for the American people LBJ's characterization of him as a man who might rashly involve us in an unnecessary confrontation with the Soviets. As for his possible election in 64... While another word would have resulted in a closer election, you're forgetting LBJ's "Kennedy sympathy" vote. The ONLY way LBJ could have lost would have been if the falsity of the Tonkin Gulf incident had been convincingly revealed.


	JM April 27, 2004 04:40 PM PDT What really killed Goldwater's campaign was the "Daisy Nuke" ad, where the little girl was picking flowers as a mushroom cloud bloomed on the horizon. If Goldwater had not said "extremism," that ad -- the first negative attack ad on tv, by the way -- wouldn't have been a tenth as effective as it was in painting Goldwater as a "gung-ho" madman itching to push The Button.


	d_Brit April 27, 2004 06:41 PM PDT I agree that Goldwater's use of the word "extremism" dramatically increased the effectiveness of the "daisy nuke" ad. This isn't however, as you seem to imply, merely a matter of semantics. Rightly or wrongly, people view extremism as a state of mind willing to throw the "baby out with the bath water" if "principle" requires it. It's exactly that perception that fuels our belief that terrorists are willing to "cleanse" the middle east in a retaliatory nuclear attack if they can use nuke's on us. Extremism is INHERENTLY a proposition that IF the end is important enough, ANY means is justified.

Leave a Comment:

Name

Homepage (optional)

Comments