Bye bye, Chairman Specter?

[Smash255]

He had no intentions of going out of his way to pick a nonconservative just to piss off party leaders.

Thank you for proving that you know nothing about Arlen Specter. He probably had no intentions of picking a conservative and should have never made the promise to those that supported him. Why can't you realize that?

I'm not sure if he actually 'promised' to pick a conservatjive.  He could have promised to CONSIDER a Conservative & those on the right took that to mean he will automatically pick a conservative.  He could have had a conservative in mind, but for some reason it didn't work out (he felt the guy was too extreme, didn't like the interview) or whatever.  Bottom line is the best man got the job. 

[Smash255]

He had no intentions of going out of his way to pick a nonconservative just to piss off party leaders.

Thank you for proving that you know nothing about Arlen Specter. He probably had no intentions of picking a conservative and should have never made the promise to those that supported him. Why can't you realize that?

I'm not sure if he actually 'promised' to pick a conservatjive.  He could have promised to CONSIDER a Conservative & those on the right took that to mean he will automatically pick a conservative.  He could have had a conservative in mind, but for some reason it didn't work out (he felt the guy was too extreme, didn't like the interview) or whatever.  Bottom line is the best man got the job. 

He promised a conservative the position.

From http://www.spectator.org/dsp_article.asp?art_id=7659


Specter hired Kemerer to deal specifically with the nominations and vetting of federal judicial nominees, a position many conservatives were led to believe by Specter would go, at the very least, to a Republican, and most likely to a conservative.

Specter, according to a longtime conservative judicial observer, made those promises during a meeting in late 2004 at which Specter was pleading for an opportunity to serve as Judiciary Chairman.

The article says led to believe.  How do you know this guy didn't mis-understand Specter and took something like "I will most likely nominate a Republican" to mean "I am definatley nominating a Conservative".  Maybe Specter did make that promise, but maybe that promise was made before Kemerer was available, once Kemerer became available Specter changed his mind because the better candidate came about.  Bottom line he chose who he felt was the best candidate for the job.  Did he really make that promise??  Well maybe, but even if he did it doesn't mean that he purposley lied about it.  It could mean he simply changed his mind, it could be the person who he thought was the best candidate all along wasn't available when he made that promise and became available afterward, it could mean that the conservative he had in mind fell through for whatever reason. 

[Smash255]

Specter has always been to the left of the Republican Party and pretty much a moderate.  The GOP has gone further to the right over the last few years.  Why would Specter go against his beliefs and go towards this hard-core right wing agenda when he is a moderate??

Also I don't recall Specter saying he is going to go all out & campaign for Bush, he said he would support the President, but that doesn't mean he has to go all out for him or support his every move, especially when it goes against his own beliefs.  I just thinnk your bitter towards Specter because he doesn't fit into the hard-core right wing agenda of George bush and your beloved Rick Santorum.

[Smash255]

1) Yeah, they probably did authorize it.  I'm not all that hung up on this issue and I don't really see where it applies for this conversation.

2) Oh he certainly could climb higher.  6 years is a long time.  There are other committees.  There is certainly legislation he's going to want to get through Congress.  There is quite a bit he could have "won" through brown-nosing.

3) Specter may have had this guy in mind to begin with or he may not have.  Neither you or I can really say because we can't crawl into Specter's head.  At the end of the day though he clearly believes this guy is the best person for the job.  Shouldn't he hire the best person for the job for the American people?

1) It has to do with his consistent breaking of promises.

2) Specter won't go higher than Judiciary Chairman.

3) Stop this "it's what's best for the American people." stuff. The American people are tired of seeing politicians breaking promises. They could be served well by a conservative Republican.

See their is your problem right there.  You don't care who the best person for the job is, all you care about is that the person is a Conservative Republican.  This may come as a shock to you, but sometimes (gasp) the best person for the job is not a conservative Republican. 

Also you seem to be set in your mind that Specter had his guy from the start.  Well his guy was still at the NAACP when Specter made this so called promise.  Maybe he knew the guy was going to leave and become avalible or maybe he didn't know he would be available and had someone else in mind wwhen he made the promise, but when kremer left the NAACP and became available, Specter felt he was the best person for the job, and only went back on the promise because someone he felt was better suited for the job suddenlt became available and that person wasn't available (as he was still with the NAACP) when the promise was made.

[Smash255]

1) Yeah, they probably did authorize it.  I'm not all that hung up on this issue and I don't really see where it applies for this conversation.

2) Oh he certainly could climb higher.  6 years is a long time.  There are other committees.  There is certainly legislation he's going to want to get through Congress.  There is quite a bit he could have "won" through brown-nosing.

3) Specter may have had this guy in mind to begin with or he may not have.  Neither you or I can really say because we can't crawl into Specter's head.  At the end of the day though he clearly believes this guy is the best person for the job.  Shouldn't he hire the best person for the job for the American people?

1) It has to do with his consistent breaking of promises.

2) Specter won't go higher than Judiciary Chairman.

3) Stop this "it's what's best for the American people." stuff. The American people are tired of seeing politicians breaking promises. They could be served well by a conservative Republican.

Phil, you keep banging on this drum saying he consistently breaks promises but all you come up with is this position.  You claim that somehow a campaign sign is also a broken promise but I think you're reaching.

Seriously, this sounds like you are bitter that not every position in government is filled by a conservative Republican.

I'm reaching? Did you not see the sign? Defend Specter all you want. It's obvious that he breaks promises. I won't sit here, wasting my time trying to convince the unconvincable.

Does he break promises??  Maybe.  However, you seem to think that Specter should have automatically picked a Conservative Republican without a care if he was the best person for the job or not and only caring that he was a Conservative Republican.  You can't seem to grasp the fact that someone who isn't a conservative Republican can do the job better..  Thats what this is about.  Maybe hhe promised to pick a Conservative Republican, but in the end he felt that their was a better candidate who wans't a Conservative Republican so he went with the better candidate

[Smash255]

1) Yeah, they probably did authorize it.  I'm not all that hung up on this issue and I don't really see where it applies for this conversation.

2) Oh he certainly could climb higher.  6 years is a long time.  There are other committees.  There is certainly legislation he's going to want to get through Congress.  There is quite a bit he could have "won" through brown-nosing.

3) Specter may have had this guy in mind to begin with or he may not have.  Neither you or I can really say because we can't crawl into Specter's head.  At the end of the day though he clearly believes this guy is the best person for the job.  Shouldn't he hire the best person for the job for the American people?

1) It has to do with his consistent breaking of promises.

2) Specter won't go higher than Judiciary Chairman.

3) Stop this "it's what's best for the American people." stuff. The American people are tired of seeing politicians breaking promises. They could be served well by a conservative Republican.

Phil, you keep banging on this drum saying he consistently breaks promises but all you come up with is this position.  You claim that somehow a campaign sign is also a broken promise but I think you're reaching.

Seriously, this sounds like you are bitter that not every position in government is filled by a conservative Republican.

I'm reaching? Did you not see the sign? Defend Specter all you want. It's obvious that he breaks promises. I won't sit here, wasting my time trying to convince the unconvincable.

Does he break promises??  Maybe.  However, you seem to think that Specter should have automatically picked a Conservative Republican without a care if he was the best person for the job or not and only caring that he was a Conservative Republican.  You can't seem to grasp the fact that someone who isn't a conservative Republican can do the job better..  Thats what this is about.  Maybe hhe promised to pick a Conservative Republican, but in the end he felt that their was a better candidate who wans't a Conservative Republican so he went with the better candidate

Of course I want to see the best person for the job. I believe this guy is appointed to help the Republicans on the committee, correct? Do you think he'll help the Republicans? He has access to Republican files and briefings.

He breaks his promises. That's the fact you and everyone else here has to accept. Stop justifying his broken promises.

Ummm.  I thought his job was to pick the best candidate to help the ENTIRE COMMITTEE, NOT to pick the best person to help the Republicans on the committee

[Smash255]

Who does he have a greater responsibility to ... the American people or the Republican party?

The "sign" you keep harping on is immaterial.  Certainly Bush and Santorum and company saw those signs too ... yet they continued to campaign for him.  You say that is a "broken promise".  No, it's just a grab for votes.

Bush, Santorum, and company didn't really campaign for Specter during the General election. That's when those signs popped up. You wanted examples of Specter's broken promises. Specter said during the primary that he would work for the President in PA. He didn't do much of anything and in fact made signs promoting himself with Bush's opponent. Promise broken.

Also, Specter shouldn't have made a promise for a Republican if there was that chance that the nominee wouldn't be "the best" for the American people. End of story.

Maybe he had no clue that this nominee would become available (as he was still with the NAACP when the supposid promise was made).  Maybe Specter had another conservatuve in mind, but for some reason it didn't work out.  bottom line their are too many if's and's and maybe's.  We really don't know what  kind of promise Specter made (just because someone said he did doesn't make it a 100% fact), we don't know what kind of intentions he had behind the promise, we don't know if he had Kremer in mind, we don't know if he knew he would become available, we don't know if he had someone else in mind when he made that promise.  Bottom line is their are a bunch of if's ands and maybe's no one knows what the truth really is.  Its probaly somewhere in between what Specter has said & what the Conservatives have said.  IMHO Kremer was an excellent person for the job and Specter did the right thing in picking the most qualified person (regardless of party)

[Smash255]

Who does he have a greater responsibility to ... the American people or the Republican party?

The "sign" you keep harping on is immaterial.  Certainly Bush and Santorum and company saw those signs too ... yet they continued to campaign for him.  You say that is a "broken promise".  No, it's just a grab for votes.

Bush, Santorum, and company didn't really campaign for Specter during the General election. That's when those signs popped up. You wanted examples of Specter's broken promises. Specter said during the primary that he would work for the President in PA. He didn't do much of anything and in fact made signs promoting himself with Bush's opponent. Promise broken.

Also, Specter shouldn't have made a promise for a Republican if there was that chance that the nominee wouldn't be "the best" for the American people. End of story.

Maybe he had no clue that this nominee would become available (as he was still with the NAACP when the supposid promise was made).  Maybe Specter had another conservatuve in mind, but for some reason it didn't work out.  bottom line their are too many if's and's and maybe's.  We really don't know what  kind of promise Specter made (just because someone said he did doesn't make it a 100% fact), we don't know what kind of intentions he had behind the promise, we don't know if he had Kremer in mind, we don't know if he knew he would become available, we don't know if he had someone else in mind when he made that promise.  Bottom line is their are a bunch of if's ands and maybe's no one knows what the truth really is.  Its probaly somewhere in between what Specter has said & what the Conservatives have said.  IMHO Kremer was an excellent person for the job and Specter did the right thing in picking the most qualified person (regardless of party)

Bottom line: It's ok when Specter consistently breaks promises he makes to his colleagues.

I didn't say that.  What I said is no one really knows how much of a promise was really made.  For all you know some of these people are just angry that he didn't pick a conservative so they said he promised it to start a controversy.  maybe they are telling the truth, who really knows? 

Also their are circumstances that neither of us know.  Was Kremer even viable when this 'promise' was made (he was still with the NAACP), was their another conservative that was going to get the job and for some reason things didnt work out and Specter skipped to the next person.  For all you know Specter could have had a conservative in mind for the job as his #1 and Kremer for his #2 or even lower, he made the promise thinking the #1 would get the job, but something went wrong with that # 1 (bad interview, decided against the positon, health reasons) who knows and Kremer got the position as result.

Anyway my whole point is I'm not so sure that Specter promised to give it to a conservative, could just be a few conservatives are ticked off at him for not picking a conservative so theey lashed out.  Or he could have promised it to get the position, but had no intention of getting the comnservative.  or he promised it, but things didn't work out with his 1st choice(s) or he promised it, but someone he felt was more qualified came along  (I haven't seen you argue against Kremer's qualifications, HE IS QUALIFIED).  Anyway all I'm saying is their are many possibilities of why Specter didn't choose a Conservative.  Could it be what you suggested??  Yes, but it could be many other reasons as well.

[Smash255]

The Specetr defenses here have gotten a bit laughable.  There are certain incontrovertible facts.

If Specter had not promised to back Bush's nominees and campaign for himm in the state, Bush would not have campaigned for himm in the Primaries and Toomey would have won that primary.

Specter did not campaign for Bush, nor is he backing a conservative judicial agenda.  Had he told the truth, he would have lost.

If Specter had not promised to appoint conservatives to the committee staff and back Bush's nominees, the caucus would never have named him Chairman of Judiciary.

Speccter has nominated arch leftists to the staff and has admonished Bush for sending conservatives to the bench.  Had he told the truth, he would not have become chairman.

Some, like me and Keystone, knew he was lying and never trusted him.  But he did trick enough people to win the primary and then to become head of Judiciary.  That makes him a liar, and it invalidates his victories to some extent because they were won by lying, and had he told the truth he'd have lost.  That's reprehensible, and Democrats would not defend a pro-lfe Democrat who had done the same thing and they know it.

Few things here the reaspn bush supported Specter had nothing to do with any promises.  They were soley political reasons of his own.  bottom line is PA is a moderate state, it would not elect two hard-core righties to the Senate.  Toomey gets the nod it brings out more of the leftest vote in the state and Bush's chances of winning the state go down.  As far as specter not backing Bush's nominees.  He has backed most of them, that doesn't mean he has to back and rubber stamp every single one.  bottom line is Specter knows if Bush nominates hard-core righties their will be an issue in getting them the nomination so he basically said it would be a good idea to back off the hard-core righties and nominate judges which will have broader support as opposed to judges which will lead to a partisan bitch fest.  The problem here is simple, Specter is a moderate Republican who sometimes thinks outside the box doesn't agree with everything Bush does, and is not going to rubberstamp the hard-core Conservatives bush wants to put through and because of that many conservatives are pissed.

[Smash255]

Who does he have a greater responsibility to ... the American people or the Republican party?

The "sign" you keep harping on is immaterial.  Certainly Bush and Santorum and company saw those signs too ... yet they continued to campaign for him.  You say that is a "broken promise".  No, it's just a grab for votes.

Bush, Santorum, and company didn't really campaign for Specter during the General election. That's when those signs popped up. You wanted examples of Specter's broken promises. Specter said during the primary that he would work for the President in PA. He didn't do much of anything and in fact made signs promoting himself with Bush's opponent. Promise broken.

Also, Specter shouldn't have made a promise for a Republican if there was that chance that the nominee wouldn't be "the best" for the American people. End of story.

Maybe he had no clue that this nominee would become available (as he was still with the NAACP when the supposid promise was made).  Maybe Specter had another conservatuve in mind, but for some reason it didn't work out.  bottom line their are too many if's and's and maybe's.  We really don't know what  kind of promise Specter made (just because someone said he did doesn't make it a 100% fact), we don't know what kind of intentions he had behind the promise, we don't know if he had Kremer in mind, we don't know if he knew he would become available, we don't know if he had someone else in mind when he made that promise.  Bottom line is their are a bunch of if's ands and maybe's no one knows what the truth really is.  Its probaly somewhere in between what Specter has said & what the Conservatives have said.  IMHO Kremer was an excellent person for the job and Specter did the right thing in picking the most qualified person (regardless of party)

Bottom line: It's ok when Specter consistently breaks promises he makes to his colleagues.

I didn't say that.  What I said is no one really knows how much of a promise was really made.  For all you know some of these people are just angry that he didn't pick a conservative so they said he promised it to start a controversy.  maybe they are telling the truth, who really knows? 

Also their are circumstances that neither of us know.  Was Kremer even viable when this 'promise' was made (he was still with the NAACP), was their another conservative that was going to get the job and for some reason things didnt work out and Specter skipped to the next person.  For all you know Specter could have had a conservative in mind for the job as his #1 and Kremer for his #2 or even lower, he made the promise thinking the #1 would get the job, but something went wrong with that # 1 (bad interview, decided against the positon, health reasons) who knows and Kremer got the position as result.

Anyway my whole point is I'm not so sure that Specter promised to give it to a conservative, could just be a few conservatives are ticked off at him for not picking a conservative so theey lashed out.  Or he could have promised it to get the position, but had no intention of getting the comnservative.  or he promised it, but things didn't work out with his 1st choice(s) or he promised it, but someone he felt was more qualified came along  (I haven't seen you argue against Kremer's qualifications, HE IS QUALIFIED).  Anyway all I'm saying is their are many possibilities of why Specter didn't choose a Conservative.  Could it be what you suggested??  Yes, but it could be many other reasons as well.

If something mistakely "went wrong" with the conservative, why would major Republican leaders distance themselves from Specter right now? Why don't they defend him like they did in the past if they really feel something went wrong?

because when the something that "went wrong" they wanted Specter to still pick a conservative regardless if Kremer was more qualified than the next conservative in line.  They didn't care how qualified the person was as long as they were a Conservative, which seems like the way you think, as opposed to picking the best candidate.  Aand your lack of response otherwise shows that although you don't want him there you know Kremer is highly qualified for the job

[Smash255]

Phil, the email is sent.

You know, if you didn't like Specter you didn't have to vote for him.  Bush and Santorum didn't have to endorse him (I guess their lust for power outweighed their better judgement, eh?).  Don't blame me, I voted for Hoeffel.

Your party seems to be lynching its moderates though.  McCain, Chaffee, Whitman, and now Specter are all being shouted down by the extreme rightwing.

I'm not of voting age yet. Thank God I didn't have to cast a ballot for him and at this point, I have come to the decision that I would have voted for Clymer. I would have actually campaigned for Specter before voting for Hoeffel.

I am disappointed in President Bush and Senator Santorum for supporting Specter. Now they have to deal with him. If the President and Santorum had stayed out, Toomey would have won by about 4-6 points.

My party isn't lynching anyone. People like Specter and Chafee pretty much stand in the way of what Republicans believe in.

Toomey would have lost


Anyway you guys are basically lyniching the moderates in your party 9Specter, Chafee, McCain) anyone that doesn't believe in the hard-core right-wing philosophy that dares question Bush you guys treat like dirt

[Smash255]

Phil, the email is sent.

You know, if you didn't like Specter you didn't have to vote for him.  Bush and Santorum didn't have to endorse him (I guess their lust for power outweighed their better judgement, eh?).  Don't blame me, I voted for Hoeffel.

Your party seems to be lynching its moderates though.  McCain, Chaffee, Whitman, and now Specter are all being shouted down by the extreme rightwing.

I'm not of voting age yet. Thank God I didn't have to cast a ballot for him and at this point, I have come to the decision that I would have voted for Clymer. I would have actually campaigned for Specter before voting for Hoeffel.

I am disappointed in President Bush and Senator Santorum for supporting Specter. Now they have to deal with him. If the President and Santorum had stayed out, Toomey would have won by about 4-6 points.

My party isn't lynching anyone. People like Specter and Chafee pretty much stand in the way of what Republicans believe in.

Toomey would have lost


Anyway you guys are basically lyniching the moderates in your party 9Specter, Chafee, McCain) anyone that doesn't believe in the hard-core right-wing philosophy that dares question Bush you guys treat like dirt

Toomey would have won.

Anyway, this party gives moderates a big voice. How did we "lynch" McCain? He was a prime time speaker at the convention! Specter received a lot of support from the GOP establishment. Must have been a "lynching" in disguise, right Smash? And Specter isn't even a moderate! He's a liberal.

Everything is "far right" with you. You throw around that label far too lightly.

Toomey would have lost.  Yes PA has its Conservtaive parts, but as much as you think it is PA is NOT a Conservative state overall, it is a MODERATE state overall.  And a moderate state isn't going to elect two far right senators

The whole South Carolina "push polls" for one.  Republicans on this board blast McCain all the time for speaking against Bush.  Specter gets trashed a lot for not being in line with the party.  Basically anyone that speaks out against Bush is branded as disloyal

[Smash255]

Phil, the email is sent.

You know, if you didn't like Specter you didn't have to vote for him.  Bush and Santorum didn't have to endorse him (I guess their lust for power outweighed their better judgement, eh?).  Don't blame me, I voted for Hoeffel.

Your party seems to be lynching its moderates though.  McCain, Chaffee, Whitman, and now Specter are all being shouted down by the extreme rightwing.

I'm not of voting age yet. Thank God I didn't have to cast a ballot for him and at this point, I have come to the decision that I would have voted for Clymer. I would have actually campaigned for Specter before voting for Hoeffel.

I am disappointed in President Bush and Senator Santorum for supporting Specter. Now they have to deal with him. If the President and Santorum had stayed out, Toomey would have won by about 4-6 points.

My party isn't lynching anyone. People like Specter and Chafee pretty much stand in the way of what Republicans believe in.

Toomey would have lost


Anyway you guys are basically lyniching the moderates in your party 9Specter, Chafee, McCain) anyone that doesn't believe in the hard-core right-wing philosophy that dares question Bush you guys treat like dirt

Toomey would have won.

Anyway, this party gives moderates a big voice. How did we "lynch" McCain? He was a prime time speaker at the convention! Specter received a lot of support from the GOP establishment. Must have been a "lynching" in disguise, right Smash? And Specter isn't even a moderate! He's a liberal.

Everything is "far right" with you. You throw around that label far too lightly.

Toomey would have lost.  Yes PA has its Conservtaive parts, but as much as you think it is PA is NOT a Conservative state overall, it is a MODERATE state overall.  And a moderate state isn't going to elect two far right senators

The whole South Carolina "push polls" for one.  Republicans on this board blast McCain all the time for speaking against Bush.  Specter gets trashed a lot for not being in line with the party.  Basically anyone that speaks out against Bush is branded as disloyal

Right....that's why Santorum, a conservative, has the highest approval ratings and lowest disapproval ratings in the state. No way Toomey could have won, right?

Specter is a RINO. He's not a moderate, he's a liberal and has turned his back on this party and what it believes after the party supports him. I'm tired of it.

You site a poll 5 months old for this.  Anyway in moderate states you will sometimes see a liberal or a conservative in the senate, but you will very rarley see two liberals or two conservaties from a moderate state.  On most categories  (looking at the enitr voting record) Specter pretty much fits into the moderate category with a  slight left lean.  He isn't as far to the left as Chafee.  Specter didn't turn his back on the party.  He has ALWAYS been a moderate.  The party has shifted further to the right and expected Specter to follow suit.  Specter isn't going to change his views and go further right simply because the party has or it would be what is expected of him being a Republican.  He is not a conservative, never was, never will be, yet some people expect him to change his views just to make the conservatives in the party happy

[Smash255]

Phil, the email is sent.

You know, if you didn't like Specter you didn't have to vote for him.  Bush and Santorum didn't have to endorse him (I guess their lust for power outweighed their better judgement, eh?).  Don't blame me, I voted for Hoeffel.

Your party seems to be lynching its moderates though.  McCain, Chaffee, Whitman, and now Specter are all being shouted down by the extreme rightwing.

I'm not of voting age yet. Thank God I didn't have to cast a ballot for him and at this point, I have come to the decision that I would have voted for Clymer. I would have actually campaigned for Specter before voting for Hoeffel.

I am disappointed in President Bush and Senator Santorum for supporting Specter. Now they have to deal with him. If the President and Santorum had stayed out, Toomey would have won by about 4-6 points.

My party isn't lynching anyone. People like Specter and Chafee pretty much stand in the way of what Republicans believe in.

Toomey would have lost


Anyway you guys are basically lyniching the moderates in your party 9Specter, Chafee, McCain) anyone that doesn't believe in the hard-core right-wing philosophy that dares question Bush you guys treat like dirt

Toomey would have won.

Anyway, this party gives moderates a big voice. How did we "lynch" McCain? He was a prime time speaker at the convention! Specter received a lot of support from the GOP establishment. Must have been a "lynching" in disguise, right Smash? And Specter isn't even a moderate! He's a liberal.

Everything is "far right" with you. You throw around that label far too lightly.

  And a moderate state isn't going to elect two far right senators

By the way, Santorum and Toomey are not far right. I know you're used to Chuck Schumer and Hillary Clinton but that doesn't mean that when you see someone to the right of them that they are far right.

Santorum and Toomey are far right.  Both have had steady  ratings in the 90's the last few years from the ACU.  Santorum's lifetime rating is only below that because he was more moderate during the 90's, but look at the last 5 years or so & both have VERY Conservative voting records

[Smash255]

Phil, the email is sent.

You know, if you didn't like Specter you didn't have to vote for him.  Bush and Santorum didn't have to endorse him (I guess their lust for power outweighed their better judgement, eh?).  Don't blame me, I voted for Hoeffel.

Your party seems to be lynching its moderates though.  McCain, Chaffee, Whitman, and now Specter are all being shouted down by the extreme rightwing.

I'm not of voting age yet. Thank God I didn't have to cast a ballot for him and at this point, I have come to the decision that I would have voted for Clymer. I would have actually campaigned for Specter before voting for Hoeffel.

I am disappointed in President Bush and Senator Santorum for supporting Specter. Now they have to deal with him. If the President and Santorum had stayed out, Toomey would have won by about 4-6 points.

My party isn't lynching anyone. People like Specter and Chafee pretty much stand in the way of what Republicans believe in.

Toomey would have lost


Anyway you guys are basically lyniching the moderates in your party 9Specter, Chafee, McCain) anyone that doesn't believe in the hard-core right-wing philosophy that dares question Bush you guys treat like dirt

Toomey would have won.

Anyway, this party gives moderates a big voice. How did we "lynch" McCain? He was a prime time speaker at the convention! Specter received a lot of support from the GOP establishment. Must have been a "lynching" in disguise, right Smash? And Specter isn't even a moderate! He's a liberal.

Everything is "far right" with you. You throw around that label far too lightly.

  And a moderate state isn't going to elect two far right senators

By the way, Santorum and Toomey are not far right. I know you're used to Chuck Schumer and Hillary Clinton but that doesn't mean that when you see someone to the right of them that they are far right.

Santorum and Toomey are far right.  Both have had steady  ratings in the 90's the last few years from the ACU.  Santorum's lifetime rating is only below that because he was more moderate during the 90's, but look at the last 5 years or so & both have VERY Conservative voting records

We have different views on what far right is, I guess. Bunning, Inhofe, Falwell, Robertson...now that's far right. I don't think Santorum and Toomey fit into that category.

Well judging on some of the comments on gays Santorum has made........

Santorum and Toomey aren't as far right as the guys you mentioned, but they are still to the far right.  Bunning,, Inhofe, Robertson & Falwell are off the cliff and are more conservative than Santorum and Toomey, but that doesn't mean Santorum and Toomey aren't far right, it just means they aren't as far as those guys

[Smash255]

Phil, the email is sent.

You know, if you didn't like Specter you didn't have to vote for him.  Bush and Santorum didn't have to endorse him (I guess their lust for power outweighed their better judgement, eh?).  Don't blame me, I voted for Hoeffel.

Your party seems to be lynching its moderates though.  McCain, Chaffee, Whitman, and now Specter are all being shouted down by the extreme rightwing.

I'm not of voting age yet. Thank God I didn't have to cast a ballot for him and at this point, I have come to the decision that I would have voted for Clymer. I would have actually campaigned for Specter before voting for Hoeffel.

I am disappointed in President Bush and Senator Santorum for supporting Specter. Now they have to deal with him. If the President and Santorum had stayed out, Toomey would have won by about 4-6 points.

My party isn't lynching anyone. People like Specter and Chafee pretty much stand in the way of what Republicans believe in.

Toomey would have lost


Anyway you guys are basically lyniching the moderates in your party 9Specter, Chafee, McCain) anyone that doesn't believe in the hard-core right-wing philosophy that dares question Bush you guys treat like dirt

Toomey would have won.

Anyway, this party gives moderates a big voice. How did we "lynch" McCain? He was a prime time speaker at the convention! Specter received a lot of support from the GOP establishment. Must have been a "lynching" in disguise, right Smash? And Specter isn't even a moderate! He's a liberal.

Everything is "far right" with you. You throw around that label far too lightly.

  And a moderate state isn't going to elect two far right senators

By the way, Santorum and Toomey are not far right. I know you're used to Chuck Schumer and Hillary Clinton but that doesn't mean that when you see someone to the right of them that they are far right.

Santorum and Toomey are far right.  Both have had steady  ratings in the 90's the last few years from the ACU.  Santorum's lifetime rating is only below that because he was more moderate during the 90's, but look at the last 5 years or so & both have VERY Conservative voting records

We have different views on what far right is, I guess. Bunning, Inhofe, Falwell, Robertson...now that's far right. I don't think Santorum and Toomey fit into that category.

Well judging on some of the comments on gays Santorum has made........

Yeah...he also said gays are children of God, like everyone else. What a far right wing extremist!

I was refering to that whole beastiality garbage.  Those were comments of an extremist

[Smash255]

By the way, I think anti-sodomy laws are completely ridiculous. I'm just saying, he didn't actually compare homosexuality to beastiality, he was just making a legal point.

Their were many ways he could have made the point without throwing beastiality in the mix.  By him throwing beastiality in the mix it shows he really does think that way.  Any rational person, or someone who doesn't think thay homosexuals are comparable would never even think of bringing up beastiality in context of a homosexual converstaion, even if it was just a legal point, no sane person does that

[Smash255]

Um, why? I do stuff like that all the time.

Exactly my point