Time For a RINO Hunting Safari: Bag A Specter

Toomey: US Senate ^

[LibertyJihad]

I’LL go straight to the point,” said Arlen Specter, shortly after sitting down to dinner with Paul Weyrich of the Free Congress Foundation in March. “I’ve got a primary and I’m being hit from the right. I want your support.”

The Republican senator from Pennsylvania wasn’t going to get it merely by breaking bread. Says Weyrich: “I told him I was disgusted with how he comes around just before his elections and asks for conservative endorsements, when we all know he won’t give us the time of day later on.”

[LibertyJihad]

If Specter defeats Toomey, and the GOP holds its Senate majority in November — which it likely will — he will chair the Senate Judiciary Committee. If that happens, pro-life Republicans will face the appalling prospect of a Republican chairman blocking President George W. Bush's pro-life appointments to the bench, including the Supreme Court, or supporting a President John F. Kerry's pro-choice picks.

Please help defeat the Democrat, Arlen Specter, and give "liberally" to the Toomey campaign. It's easy --- just follow the link.

https://www34.safesecureweb.com/politicaldo/ecv1/toomey04/

[Preacher777]

Everyone needs to read Coulter's column on Specter! I think the dude is toast!

Anyone coming to the HUGE Toomey-Dr. James Dobson rally Friday night in Lancaster?? Specter's ads he has been running in Lancaster County basically infer that Specter is pro-life and say that Toomey is pro-abortion and pro-life! Dobson will help any confused pro-family person to see who is thinking about the family! The rally is at the Host Exposition Center behind the Host Resort on Route 30 in Lancaster. Doors open at 6:00 and the rally starts at 7:00. Free admission. Join us!!

[The kings dead]

In years past, Weyrich has traveled to Specter’s home turf and urged conservatives to stick with one of the GOP’s most liberal members. “I’m not sure what I’m going to do this time.” [...] Specter may not be the most unreliable GOP senator—he faces strong competition in that category from Lincoln Chafee of Rhode Island—but he is almost certainly the most harmful, because he is smart, ruthless, and influential.

Fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice, shame on me. Go Pat!

[cuz_it_aint_their_money]

Anyone coming to the HUGE Toomey-Dr. James Dobson rally Friday night in Lancaster??

I'll have to check with the boss at home (you know, more commenly referred to at "The Mrs") but if we do show up, I'll have my FreeRepublic Logo Sign that we can all rally around, and show Pat that he's got the PA FReepers support!

[First_Salute]

From the article:

"Specter’s Pennsylvania colleague Rick Santorum, a committed conservative, supports Specter over Pat Toomey. “There’s no question that Arlen’s an independent guy, but he also understands the concept of team,” says Santorum."

[Cicero]

In my opionion it would be a huge mistake to re-elect Specter because of worries about the senate majority. It would be better to lose the seat to a Democrat. I don't think that's likely, but in any case I am in hopes that we can pick up another senate seat elsewhere.

It's absolutely crucial to pick up enough senate seats so that Bush can nominate decent judges. But it's also obvious that re-electing Specter would NOT help that cause, but only hurt it. It would be another "NO" vote on any conservative judge, and it would just encourate Collins and Snowe to vote "NO" as well.

We must turn our country around, and the first order of business to do that is conservative judges. So far Bush has resisted the policy of his predecessors, including Reagan, to cave in and start nominating liberal judges who can get Democrat support. But the moral regeneration of our laws and our culture cannot take place with left wing loonies controlling the judiciary.

Specter must go.

[First_Salute]

Bump.

[Redbob]

I honestly think the people of Pennsylvania and the people of the United States would all be better off even if a Dimocrat were elected in Spectre's (misspelling intentional) place.
At least then a real Republican might head the Judiciary Committee.

[F16Fighter]

SPECTER IS THE VIRUS; TOOMEY IS THE CURE

[First_Salute]

The value of the U.S. Senate as originally designed, was that it representated the people by way of their respective state legislative bodies.

When the manner of voting for, and thus placing a Senator in office, was changed from legislative body to popular vote, the design --- the purpose of the structure --- was broken, and quite a lot of the Senate's authorization was broken with that.

For example:

The responsibilities of Senators, to their legislators back home, on matters of "advice and consent" in regard to the President, is not like their responsibilities to the popular constituency.

In the first case, the Senators are much more linked to the welfare of their home state, because they answer to the legislators whose business that is, in addition to the people of their home state.

In the second case, the Senators do not answer to the legislature, nor do they even answer to the people of their home state. Instead, the Senators answer to the polls much more on a national basis, affected strongly by the whims and wishes and directives of the national news media.

When the original intent, of the original structure, was by design, to make the Senators responsible to their home state.

Stripped of that more immediate accountability, the Senate is not performing its originally designed duties, of being a check against un-limited government and against those bent on un-limited government.

If anything, the Senate is a club bent on its being government, yet again, without personal accountability.

What the founding fathers did not want, based upon their wise failure analysis of how low the "most high" can get.

I'd amend the Constitution, but not for all the popular civil wishes and agenda that are all state matters properly within the jurisdictions of the states' common laws.

The Amendment that we need, is to return the Senators to being elected by their home state legislatures, on every other other election. That is, per Senate seat, alternate, one election by popular vote, followed by the next election by the state legislature, so forth, and so on.

It would be a compromise between the old manner of elections, originally intended, and the present manner. Yet it would give, in my humble opinion, some "term limits" control over the Senators, and over their club.

I'd recommend another "term limit" Amendment for states' Representatives, too, as follows:

Every twelve years accumulated in office by a Representative, requires that for the following two year term in that seat, the candidate is elected by the state's legislature.

[Labyrinthos]

At least then a real Republican might head the Judiciary Committee.

Assuming that we maintain control in the Senate if Spector loses. Does anyone have the info as to which seats are up in the senate and the likely outcome?

[cake_crumb]

Donated. Didn't really know anything about Toomy before last year. Been getting more and more impressed by him lately.

[Preacher777]

Would LOVE to meet up with you!! I have heard from a couple of fellow Freepers who are planning on attending! Your sign would help us locate each other! Blessings!

[First_Salute]

Looking at the map of the states in the year 1980 Presidential elections, versus the map of the states in the year 2000 Presidential elections, indicates that the people, many of whom were Democrats, will vote for a more honorable man.

Honor matters.

A man cannot be afraid to stand up and say what he really means.

The maps indicate a measure of trust.

The penalty, the burden, yet the benefit of standing up, is worthy leadership.

I disagree with the Bush Stealth Politics As Usual Way that is often championed here.

That sets a bad example and makes an easy target for the socialists to prove, in public, that the man cannot be trusted.

People who disagreed with Ronald Reagan, lots of them, still voted for him, as a matter of trust.

Young people in our military, the people who will fight for freedom, they should be honored by the conduct of their leaders who are not afraid of being labeled "meanspirited" by socialists in the U.S. Senate.

Moms and dads have much to lose, and we owe them that, when the officers knock on the door, their sons, their daughters, did not die because their leaders were playing politics, were all over the board, were saying one thing yet meaning another, and all such manuevering that wastes lives.

We are fighting for truth, yet President Bush is advocating Arlen Specter/Spectre, who is a dead ringer for O'Connor as Chief Justice of the Supreme Court --- the reason that she is lingering on the bench.

That lady will disarm the Second Amendment in a flash; but that's OK for the Bush-Bots who are fascinated, nee obsessed, with any and every "stealthy" Karl Rove-ism de jeur.

Rush criticizes Democrats for not having the guts to tell people who such Democrats really are.

Well, want to know the major difference between Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush?

Ronald Reagan left no doubt about where he stood. Indeed, a secret of his success, was that in the years travelling across the country, making speeches, before he was even a candidate for President, he told people what he thought, and he also supported peoples' love of our country, and he championed our worthy American Heritage, all in support of us.

He campaigned in support of us, in support of peoples' hearts and minds, their good convictions, that after years of Democrat Party despotism, it was OK to stand up and be proud of what is good about America.

The people loved it, and they loved him, and they love him.

Because he did not shirk who he was, in order to win votes, nor did he act in any way with shame of convervatives and conservativism.

Something that George Bush has yet to learn.

[Owen]

We already did this. GW Bush has been more conservative than was Ronald Reagan in the same years of his presidency in terms of expenditures as a % of GDP. I was surprised too, but it's true.

Overall, this is probably unfolding as it should. I am not happy Toomey made his move on a sitting Senator. Especially one so old who may be moved to the administration or who may retire soon. He should have waited for the seat to be open. But he made his move and the debate unfolds and the primary is what, next week?

The people will speak. The party will have a nominee. WF Buckley said it all:

"I support the rightward most candidate who is viable."

That will be the GOP candidate in November.

[votelife]

the more I think about this race, the more I think even IF Specter were the nominee, the Repubs would probably be better off if he lost!

[votelife]

even if Specter wins the primary, the Toomey race has made Specter make more nods (fakes) to the right...Toomey has already helped and if he loses (hopefully not) Toomey is in a good position for a future Senate or Gov run.

[PeoplesRep_of_LA]

Assuming that we maintain control in the Senate if Spector loses. Does anyone have the info as to which seats are up in the senate and the likely outcome?

People do not vote for the dithering double talk of Spectre, he has won because he has ruthlessly cobbled together alliances over the years. This man's time has run out, pandering to conservatives at election time only has a way of catching up with a liar.

Toomey can win this, and when he does, his clarity and conviction will win, just as Santorum's has, and just as W's will this fall over flip-flop.

Stop worrying, trust in the truth, not in this ugly man;