[republicanwizard]

Please. If you cannot morally vote for Specter, then you cannot morally vote for Hoeffel. Don't think we're stupid. If you can't vote for a pro-choice Republican, then you certainly cannot vote a pro-choice Democrat, unless you are one of two things. A Democrat or a liar.

[RetroSexual]

The difference between this pro-abortion Republican and this pro-abortion Democrat is that the Republican will wield significant power in the Senate Judiciary Committee, while the Democrat will not.

Note that the Judiciary Committee is a very significant player in the abortion debate. One does not need to be a "Democrat or a liar" in order to wish to sway the debate.

Don't worry about my vote...I'm not from PA. I am considering contributing to Hoeffel though, and offensive accusations are not likely to affect my decision.

[The kings dead]

If you cannot morally vote for Specter, then you cannot morally vote for Hoeffel.

Hoeffel isn't next in line for the Judiciary chair.

[IGOTMINE]

The moral course of action here is to ensure that Spectre does not become the chair of the Judiciary Committee.

[RinaseaofDs]

Please. If you cannot morally vote for Specter, then you cannot morally vote for Hoeffel. Don't think we're stupid. If you can't vote for a pro-choice Republican, then you certainly cannot vote a pro-choice Democrat, unless you are one of two things. A Democrat or a liar.

Or pissed off.

Reagan proved you could be a conservative and be popular at the same time. Nixon pointed out the 'silent majority'.

People perceive that our culture is headed backward, not forward. If the party doesn't want to contribute to advancing its positions, then why should its members?

Your argument is hilarious: Bush and Santorum back Specter, regardless of his record, regardless of the presence of a better alternative.

You now want R's to back Specter on PRINCIPLE?

I argue that R's did better with D's in charge of the Senate. On what basis would 'more R's in the Senate' change this?

Pennsylvania and GWB deserves what it gets in November: a defacto Democrat as the Chairman of the Judiciary instead of a freshman D junior Senator. R's will pick up other senate seats that would have compensated for Toomey if he'd have lost in November, which I'm not sure he would have.

[ought-six]

The threat of Specter winning is that he will chair the judicial committee, where he is in lockstep with the libs who have railroaded Bush's judicial nominees. It's not so bad that he's just in the senate, but as the chair of the judicial committee the implications are too terrible to contemplate.