Posted on 01/24/2005 7:31:36 AM PST by AliVeritas
His decision was a raw political calculation to advance himself and it backfired.
That is his 'mistake.'
Little Ricky made a calculated decision to back the liberal whose votes cancel out his own.
Little Ricky staked out the reputation of being 'the conservative Senator from PA' and Toomey -- a real conservative, threatened that. He had to stop him from winning because it just wouldn't do to be the '2nd most conservative Senator from PA.' He thought that it would undermine his run for higher office.
If there is a mistake, this is it:
He miscalculated the backlash from Toomey's supporters. If he had suddenly become the 2nd most conservative senator from PA, we would have two conservative senators and he would then be positioned as more 'reasonable' (earning him votes from pro life democrats) and would have earned the devotion of conservatives rather than their ire, and assuring his continued ascendency.
This assumes that he does hold conservative ideals and wants to see them advanced. I have serious doubts that this was anything more than a role that he was playing and that he couldn't care less about the issues that he claimed to share with conservatives.
Anyway, he is lost my trust and my vote.
No, you wake up. This crappy hire was taken care of.
-PJ
Like campaigning for a pro-abortion Senator? That was no mistake. We here in PA know a lot more about our fine senator than you do out there in flyover country.
"Political protocol" is just a rationalization for "conservatives" to justify what he's doing. And, doesn't following political protocol in this way fly directly in the face of the argument you just made about saying what he wants (or means)?
Finally, don't throw your own straw man in, which is what I think you did by dismissing the term Judicial Revolution. Just keep thinking Bush says exactly what he wants and keep arguing that. That's fine. I disagree, and more and more people are starting to agree with me. By 2008, even Bots will be disenchanted. But we won't know until then.
Isn't it funny that everytime Specter's actions are "taken care of" he goes against his handlers even further?
You are right. What has Specter done yet without Republican approval except open his big mouth? Did you see the speech he gave when he took the chair? Man, he did not write that!!! I think he is under more than one thumb right now.
This may sound crazy, but prior to Santorum supporting Specter, I would have walked across hot coals for the man, or at least done door to door campaigning for him - to me there's not much difference. He broke my heart when he supported Specter. I thought he was a true believer, only to discover he was just another power hungry politician.
I'd like to be able to say I won't give him my vote, but I probably will. And unless Toomey is running against him, I'll probably give financial support to him as well. Although I'm not going to give till it hurts, as he's proven he's just another Washington pol.
Nice argument, except that it was built on a faulty foundation.
The GOP control of the Senate was never in serious doubt.
A year before the race, all projections were for a 4 or 5 seat pickup which is what happened. Specter even said that his seat, if lost, would not switch control to the Democrats.
You may think that it puts you in good company, but you, Ricky, and Bush and the apologists are the only ones making that argument.
I am not an insider, but with a couple of calls, I could find out what is going on down there. However, my info may not be any deeper than the Prowler.
This sounds like "eating our own"
I agree with you. Are you familiar with Steve Freind? He's the former PA legislator from Havertown who wrote the Pennsylvania Abortion Control Act. He actually campaigned for Spector once the primary was over. I asked him if he would still be campaigning for Specter if he thought the Senate would hold its GOP majority. He refused to accept the premise.
It was another heartbreaking but eyeopening moment for me when I realized Steve Freind was also just another power hungry pol, looking to make a buck. I actually felt like vomiting that night and when I came back home and logged onto FR I jumped down the throat of some poor guy who came to FR to rally Catholics for Bush. The whole Toomey wound was still too raw for me to be feeling kindly towards Bush, who had propelled Arlen to victory.
Don't interrupt their group therapy session with reality.
They might bite.
Funny. That was our argument to Santorum for why he should back Toomey, but he chose to actively support a liberal POS who opposes the values that are important to us good folks.
He had a chance once to do the right thing but tradition, party politics, and expediency won out. Now, to win reelection and resurrect any hopes of winning the WH, he'll have to do more than make nice sounding speeches.
Personally, I think that he rolled the dice and crapped out.
Is this how it was taken care of?
From The Legal Intelligencer:
Partner Quits to Work for Senate Committee:
Carolyn Short, one of the chief litigators in Reed Smith's Philadelphia office for more than a decade, has left the firm to become general counsel for the U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee, which is now chaired by Arlen Specter, R-Pa. Short resigned last Tuesday from Reed Smith, her professional home for the past 16 years, and was sworn in Thursday. Short said she only views it as a temporary position, being that she and her husband, former U.S. Constitutional Center executive director and Democratic congressional candidate Joseph Torsella, live with their four children in Flourtown. She said her chief motivation for accepting the position and giving up what is believed to be a seven-figure book of business was the chance to work with Specter. She said the senior senator from Pennsylvania called her shortly after he was named chairman of the Judiciary Committee. "I don't think I would be doing this if it wasn't for [Specter]," Short said. "He's a brilliant lawyer in his own right and we come from similar backgrounds. We both were DAs who worked in private practice. "But how could any lawyer say no to an opportunity like this? It's an important time for the judiciary, and I'm really looking forward to it."
I believe in redemption, even for politicians, but it will take more that saying the right thing. He must vote to advance our causes and block anything that doesn't. He can't sit on the sidelines and avoid the hard issues and tough decisions.
I don't think he has it in him though. I'll be looking for a challenger to support instead.
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.