Fox News' Beltway Boys Predict Upset in PA Senate Race

NFRA ^ | 4-22-04

[rwfromkansas]

You captured their illogic logic perfectly.

I want Toomey to win (rare for me to do for the conservative when I am skeptical of his chances in the general...I supported Arnold in Calif., for instance). I am so sick of Specter and want him gone no matter the cost.

But, I also won't sit and listen to people stay dumb things like Bush is a RINO just for supporting waffly Specter. You see, if he wins and then wins the general, he will chair the Senate Judiciary Committee. It is not a good idea as president to piss off the guy in charge of getting your judges nominated. Simply not a good idea at all. Specter would make GW's judicial appointment process a living hell.

If Toomey wins, Bush will then start campaigning vigorously for him in a couple months.

[rwfromkansas]

He already holds a grudge. The goal is to try to appease him somewhat in case he does win......so perhaps he won't make GW's judicial appointment process as difficult as he can.

He will make it difficult as it is.

Pray for a Toomey win. Then, apparently it is Jon Kyl in charge of the committee even if Toomey loses the general. Kyl in charge of that committee will do more to help us get right-minded people into the judiciary than even 2 seat gains in the Senate, so I am willing to risk it.

Go Toomey!

[nmh]

"I'm embarrassed for you."

No need to be embarrassed for me. It's you that are the hypocrite. For Arnold, his pro abortion stance wasn't a problem but here your glowing with a pro life stance. How that can be embarrassing for me is absurd. I'm consistently PRO LIFE!

"That makes no sense at all. Are you forgetting my painstaking, detailed essay on my rationale for reluctantly supporting Schwarzenegger? "

You are right. You don't make sense and why your position on abortion is hypocritical, Biblical Christian, Dan, LOL!



"Or do you simply not grasp the difference between a primary (which this is) and a real-live election (which that was)?"

I grasp the fact that you are a flip flop on abortion. Even though you are unable to stay on topic ... I'll repeat again, with Arnold you had no issue with his pro abortion stance yet here you are thrilled the person is pro life. It matters not whether it is a primary or as you like to put it, "a real-live election. What is at issue is your lack of consistency - endorsing Arnold and his pro abortion stance was not an issue. Yet here you are delighted to see a pro life person doing well.

"Either way, this doesn't reflect well on you."

No. It doesn't reflect well on you. For Arnold your pro abortion position was appalling. Now you are pro life again. No matter how you try to squirm, twist and convolute the issue, your hypocrisy is obvious. You can't dismiss it with painstaking essays or Clinton logic.
Take care, Biblical Christian, Dan - LOL! You really ought to consider changing that moniker. You give Christianity a bad name along with snickers and sneers.

[Dawgreg]

I agree...........the man's an idiot (Specter). I said it earlier, I have to part ways with W on this one. Besides Specter would be next in line for chair of the Judiciary Committee.........can you imagine that??? Brrrr, gives me the chills!

[Dawgreg]

Uh oh, I think I made a boo boo.............I thought Specter was next in line for chair of the Judiciary Committee. Sorry.:(

[Alamo-Girl]

Thanks for the ping!

[Veritas_est]

" . . . will Majette endorse McKinney?...That's gonna be a real hard one to wiggle out of.."

I don't look for Majette to endorse anyone, but anything is possible in politics. I'm not sure about this mess, but it appears that Majette felt she would be hard pressed to beat McKinney again. However, I think she has bitten off more than she can chew. I'm expecting Herman Cain to beat Johnny (RINO) Isakson in a run off, and then face and beat Majette in the general election. However, either one of them can probably beat Majette, but I think it will be harder for Isakson to beat her than Cain. Both Isakson and Majette draw their strength from metro Atlanta, but, in Georgia, few if any US Senate seats have been decided by the Atlanta vote. Rural Georgia is where Cain will beat both of them is my belief and desire.

[Veritas_est]

"Can anyone here write why I should financially support Pat Toomey?"

You should support the candidate whose platform more closely aligns with your political leanings. If you are a conservative then the answer is clear. You should support Toomey.

If, on the other hand, your screen name on FR is Common Tater (or if you agree with his illogical logic), you should probably support the most liberal Damocrat (did I misspell that?) running.

I am not trying to be smart with you. Just getting a friendly jab in at CT.

Basically the essence of my thinking is this, if you agree with the candidate enough to vote for him you should support him financially.

[BibChr]

"If a wise man has an argument with a fool, the fool only rages and laughs, and there is no quiet" (Proverbs 29:9).

You've raged, you've laughed. Now time for quiet. Though doubtless, having made a fool of yourself in public and not had the grace simply to admit and correct it, you'll feel compelled to one more parting slander. But then, expect quiet, even if only external to yourself.

Dan

[ken5050]

Thanks for the info..these few Ga races are going to be among the ones that attract a lot of interest,around the country AND with many Freepers....Not that I'm trying to create work for you..(g) but if you're so inclined I'd encourage you to do a weekly thread on these various GAraces..add your insights, and maybe links to any articles you feel are especially on point...and of course, put me on you ping list..regards..

[AgThorn]

In his heart ... read it again!!

[AgThorn]

No, that would make Bush an intelligent politician that knows that it would be foolish for a sitting Republican President to publicly side with the unseating of a strong RINO Republican such as Spector.

I don't agree with it, and I am just as upset with Bush's not suppporting Simon for California Governor awhile back as well. But Bush doesn't run his party ... perhaps our anger should be more pressed at the weak leadership the RNC has been showing rather than childish name calling of our President.

[NittanyLion]

You sure typed out a long reply, when you could've stated your view in totality be merely writing the following:

"I support moderate Republicans because I am myself a RINO. I'm mad as hell that I can't seem to control the conservatives in Pennsylvania, and so I'm going to spew a bunch of crap on this website in an attempt to undermine Toomey's support."

I'd suggest you save your commentating for subjects where your views aren't so absurd/uneducated.

[NittanyLion]

If Toomey has a chance to win do you think Bush, Rove,and Santorum would be suporting Spector?

That tired old line again? You know Bush supports the incumbent without exception - why post nonsense that's so transparently a ploy to support the liberal Arlen Specter?

[nmh]

Dan:

"If a wise man has an argument with a fool, the fool only rages and laughs, and there is no quiet" (Proverbs 29:9).

---

Dan, I'm not the "fool" and I don't laugh at you being hypocritical when it comes to abortion. I have read your sophomoric excuse for supporting Arnold for Governor in Calif. though he was pro abortion and sympathetic to homosexuals. Now this candidate makes you happy since he is pro life. I see hypocrisy going on and for someone professing to be a Bible based Christian - moniker "BibChr" I find this very disturbing. I'm also not impressed with how Arnold has handled the honmoseexual marriage situation. It's just par for the course when you endorse a nonChristian.

Dan your behavior here is precisely the behavior that discredits Christianity as well as what is written in the Bible. I can't imagine Christ painfully splitting hairs between a primary and a "real-live" election when it comes to taking a stance on abortion or homosexuality. Christ was consistent. He loved children. I remind you of verses from the Bible that show how disturbing harming a child is let alone an unborn baby:

Matt.18:6

[6] But whoso shall offend one of these little ones which believe in me, it were better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and that he were drowned in the depth of the sea.

Mark.9:42

[42] And whosoever shall offend one of these little ones that believe in me, it is better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and he were cast into the sea.

Luke.17:2

[2] It were better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and he cast into the sea, than that he should offend one of these little ones.

Dan, it appears to me that regardless of the situation Christ was consistent. He didn't compromise nor did He feel pressured to advocate evil. He stood firm.

Dan it's also inwise to take a Proverb 29:9 out of context for self serving reasons.

Dan:

"If a wise man has an argument with a fool, the fool only rages and laughs, and there is no quiet" (Proverbs 29:9).

Dan it is wise to follow what is written in the Bible. Perhaps I am a fool for pointing out what is written in the Bible in its proper context. Calling me a "fool" for stating what is written in the Bible just indicates more hypocrisy on your part, yet again.

Dan, here's one for you the fits the context of our discussion (you being for abortion (Arnold) and then against abortion):

Prov.16:18

[18] Pride goeth before destruction, and an haughty spirit before a fall.

Dan, it is your pride that holds you back ... from not admitting your weakness for conforming to this world.

Dan:

"You've raged, you've laughed. Now time for quiet. Though doubtless, having made a fool of yourself in public and not had the grace simply to admit and correct it, you'll feel compelled to one more parting slander. But then, expect quiet, even if only external to yourself. "

Raged? No. Laughed? Yes, at your hypocrisy and excessive pride that holds you back ... from being a follower of Christ . I've seen this many times, not just from you but others as well.

Actually Dan Proverb 29:9 fits you ("fool") when read in its proper context:

"If a wise man has an argument with a fool, the fool only rages and laughs, and there is no quiet" (Proverbs 29:9).

Dan by stating advocation for abortion when Arnold was running in California and now showing up at this post pleased that this candidate is pro life indicates foolishness on your part and you refuse to admit your hypocrisy and have no grace. Instead you lash out at me for pointing out this contradiction. You will even go to the ugly extreme of taking a Proverb out of context because of your excessive pride and ego. It is you who slanders God by using "Biblical Christian" since you obviously do NOT base your beliefs on the Bible.

I haven't "slandered" you. To slander someone is to utter something false about a person. I have not stated anything false about you. Your Clinton like essay only highlights my label for you. Thank you for providing it. Maybe you should read it over with a new pair of eyes and maybe you will see the error of your ways through hypocrisy.

I hope this verse is not the one that fits you the best:

Matt.7:6

[6] Give not that which is holy unto the dogs, neither cast ye your pearls before swine, lest they trample them under their feet, and turn again and rend you.

In any event, knowing your personality, Dan you may have the last word since I know it is important for you to have it. I'm a disciplined person. I will not be responding back to you on this thread.

[hobbes1]

I must be mistaken, but I thought if Toomey loses Specter automatically becomes chairman of the Judiciary Committee, if he wins against the dem candidate

If Toomey loses in the G.E......The discussion leading up to the previous comment, was speaking in terms of Toomey winning the primary, Ending Sphincter's Senate career.

[eureka!]

Re#157 I see that your question was answered. I was wondering too...