Posted on 08/13/2009 6:11:56 AM PDT by philsfan24
>>Looks like Specter better schedule his “end of life consultation”.
Post of the Day! Thanks.
We ended up with Specter due to a combination of factors. Liberal Republican Senator Richard Schweiker retired. Specter won a multi-candidate Republican primary due to better name I.D., as he had run for Senator in 1976 and Governor in 1978. He lost both primaries, but they gave him name recognition in central and western Pennsylvania. Also, his many years as Philadelphia County District Attorney made him a celebrity in the metropolitan Philadelphia area. The rejection of Jimmy Carter handed him the general election.
Spectator is GOING to be a spectator. Unfotunately, there are a whohle s _ _ t pot more, and I am not talking just dumbocrats, that need to be taken out as well
Hey .. I just had a BFO (brilliant flash of the obvious)
why don’t we get all the RINOS to swap parties in the next 9 months. The democrats don’t want them, we sure as heck can’t somach them ... and then we elect new blood in their places. I gues that would mean about 30 RINO Senators swapping party though ... one could only dream.
They are useless to us now regardless and even the few conservative left (after 30 go through the change) have no spine, balls or ledership capability. Perhaps obammers medical program will provide Rush’s conversion .....addadictomy .... to the conservatives left. No ... not possible .. immediate bodily rejection by this crowd.
In the ‘80 GOP primary, it was an 8-man field, but 5 of them were effective unknowns, leaving the three leaders, State Sen. Edward Howard, “Bud” Haabestad and Specter. Specter was the liberal in the race and Haabestad was the Conservative. The 5 lesser candidates received between 5 and 3% apiece. Howard received 13%, but Specter eked by with an underwhelming 36% and Haabestad got 33%. Had almost any of the lesser candidates endorsed Haabestad, he’d have won the nomination. As it was, Specter won again by a very underwhelming 50%-48% against Pittsburgh Mayor Pete Flaherty in the general (Flaherty had won his primary by a majority, 53%, and among the primary candidates was former IA Congressman Ed Mezvinsky, who received 7%, and who had only been defeated by the ultra-RINO Jim Leach 4 years earlier and carpetbagged it over to PA, and he’s, of course, now in prison today).
Specter probably would’ve lost reelection in 1986 had the Democrats nominated a different candidate for the general. Specter faced a single opponent in the primary, Richard Stokes, who still managed to get 24% as a protest. Because the Marxist Castroite Congressman Bob Edgar (who represented the same district Sestak does) narrowly defeated former Congressman and State Auditor Don Bailey, who was considered a Social Conservative (overall a moderate, and who voted to the right of Specter in his last year in the House), 47-45%, Specter lucked out by having an opponent that made him look like Jesse Helms (and won, 57-43%).
The reason Edgar jumped in was because he was nearly beaten by Curt Weldon in ‘84 (winning by just 412 votes), and Weldon was expected to knock him off in ‘86, so he just opted out and decided to see if he could win statewide. It was similar to how the also-vulnerable Al D’Amato lucked out in NY by getting the moonbat Mark Green as his general opponent instead of Power Authority Chairman John Dyson. D’Amato had the mercilessly effective tv ads going until Election Day, so much so that if you asked a kid at the time living in the NY Media Market if he heard the name “Mark Green”, the kid would answer “Hopelessly Liberal !”
I hope Toomey keeps up the momentum. It's a long time till the election.
" Specter eked by with an underwhelming 36% and Haabestad got 33%"
A shame. Haabestad was then the state GOP Chairman and a former "Princeton Basketball star" according to an article.
Billyboy: . "But the ONE area where the two parties HAVE completely "switched sides" is trade policies -- the GOP used to be the protectionist party and the Dems used to be the "expand free trade with everyone" party."
Foreign policy is another. The capital D Democrats of the 19th Century were the Manifest Destiny party. Whig Lincoln and other proto-Republicans were opposed to "Imperialism" the Mexican War for example. By the late part of the Century the conservative Bourbon Democrats were railing against the "Imperialism" of Benjamin Harrison and the Republicans. I don't know what was behind that switch.
The trade switch though I think I get. Republicans were the more pro-Industry and business party. Way back when industry supported protectionism. In the 20th century business eventually came to largely oppose it (not soon enough IMO, Republicans passed a disastrous tariff under Hoover). While the labor unions who came to own the rat party became and remain to this day mostly in favor of protectionism.
There is still plenty of cross-over (including amongst those of you I pinged ;) ), some fair trade Republicans mostly in the Midwest (and PA) and parts of the south (which used to be the free trade hot bed, wanting to sell cotton abroad) and some mostly free trade democrats.
PNTR for China caused major disagreements among conservatives as I remember.
“On the trade issue, it’s worth noting that Rick Santorum made concessions to organized labor on some votes, notably trade, wage, and workplace safety issues.”
PNTR for China passed in Congress with a coalition of the most ardently pro-free-trade conservatives and the most ardently leftist (and thus Communist friendly) Democrats. I’m about as pro-free-trade as it gets, but I don’t see what’s so “free” about trade with a country in which the Communist Party owns 10% of all industries and that doesn’t protect out intellectual property. I also have qualms about GATT, since it undermines our sovereignty to allow some anti-American panel tell Congress and the president what they can do. I would much prefer a system of bilateral free-trade agreements with every country willing to sign them with us (and willing to abide by them).
LOL. Yeah right that will work.
Go Toomey! Screw ACORN!
+++++++++++++
I love this part of the poll:
Eighty percent (80%) of Republican voters now favor Toomey in a match-up with Specter, up from 68% two months ago. Specter draws 61% of the Democratic vote, down from 74% in June.
Ouch, turncoat Arlen looks like he’s done. Put a fork in him. Too bad, so sad.
I’ll bet the RINOs would support him too.
++++++++++++
Pathetic.
The key will be Rendell, we better hope that the sex scandal hits soon so his influence will evaporate. GOP operatives should be all over that story.
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.