Human Events, the Drudge Report and the Washington Post are all running, to varying degrees with the story that Arlen Specter will be running as a Democrat in 2010 for re-election to the Senate from Pennsylvania. Michelle Malkin's blog, however, is where I found Arlen Specter's own statement, that the Republicans have moved too far right and he is more in sync with the Democrats now, yada, yada, yada.
So Arlen, let me figure this out: Ronald Reagan's brand of Republican practice, built on a visceral opposition to totalitarianism, pro-constitutional and anti-judicial activism bias and strong support for the sanctity of life and other social issues was just fine, obviously, since you ran on this GOP ticket for the first time in 1980 and won. But now, having been decimated in 2 consecutive election cycles by George W. Bush's compassionate conservatism, the GOP has gone too far to the right and won't do any longer? Calling Specter a "sham" doesn't do him justice. Way to go, sir...use the party for your own personal advancement for 30 years, then ditch it when this ploy no longer is effective.
But just as troubling to me or more so is that a mere two weeks ago, Senator Cornyn threw the support of the NRSCC behind Specter. What if we had stood on constitutional principle rather than ceding Pennsylvania to the forces of liberalism? Would the outcome have been any worse if we had maintained the courage of our convictions?
So the Democrats, once Al Franken is seated, will now have their 60 votes. And unless at least one Democrat can be peeled off while all Republicans stand together unanimously, a filibuster is a nonoption.
Tuesday, April 28, 2009
Would Jesus torture?
Pat Buchanan's column today is titled "Is Torture Ever Moral?" AND I have purposefully not yet read it! Had I done so, this would be the third post in a row where I have cited something he wrote, and although I do read everything he writes, I don't want to be accused of being so tied to someone that their thoughts and mine are inseparable. Believe me, that would never be the actual truth when it comes to Buchanan...not that the facts ever got between some people and a good story.
I do not support torture. For any reason. The only serious argument that I ever hear anyone marshal for the efficacy of torture is "Well, what about if a dirty bomb is planted somewhere and the terrorist knows where it is and he'll tell us if we break enough of his toes or pull out a sufficient number of fingernails?" Sorry, I just don't buy it. If you are inflicting enough pain on someone, he will tell you what he thinks you want to hear.
But my reasons for opposing torture are actually deeper than whether or not it "works" (more on that in a minute). How could torturing someone do anything but dehumanize the torturer? I have never even understood people who subject animals to inhumane practices. I am the furthest thing from a vegetarian; I love my red meat and my white. Bring it all on: steak, hamburger, pork chops, grilled chicken, salmon, bratwurst...and we're only just getting started. But the slaughter should be quick, efficient and as painless as possible. Even when I think of animals that I find repulsive, such as rats and possums, which I try to eliminate whenever I see them, I don't want to see them tortured.
Most integrally, though, how can someone who claims to speak for Christ advocate such practices? In what scenario would Jesus have tortured someone? I do try, however ineffectively at times, to implement the WWJD question in my life on a regular basis. On this issue, it is an open-and-shut question. Let's all imagine together Jesus wiring up the jumper cables or the rack or the dunking bucket. See what I mean?
The bottom line is that I don't believe it does "work." I have my differences with John McCain, but this is one area where I have to cede the ground to him, as a former torture victim. McCain contends exactly what I have said, that it does not work and does not make us better people.
I will admit that if my little girl were missing, for instance, and the pertinent authorities believed they had located the kidnapper, in the wild heat and anger of the moment, I would support ANY technique that would extract the information. I do have blood flowing through my veins, not ice water. But this is precisely why we build layers into the justice system between the victim and the perpetrator, so that the perpetrator is treated humanely, and hopefully, as their deeds deserve in the end.
Taking the long view, how can a nation that practices insidious interrogation methods not be resented for decades to come, allowing the seeds for future wars to be planted? Even if torture did save a few lives in the short run, would it not condemn future innocents over the long haul? But even more importantly, is it ever right to "do evil that good may come?"
Now, having said all of that...humiliation should not be equated with torture. Forcing Islamic male prisoners to wear panties on their heads, a la the Abu Ghraib debacle, is not something I would advocate either, but it is not torture; it does not involve physical pain. I am also not opposed to aggressive interrogation techniques, such as calibrated sleep deprivation, loud music and similar measures.
I don't like waterboarding, though; if it isn't torture, it is the illusion of the same, although my wife disagrees (yes, she supports it). But those who practiced it on the very few occasions that it was done did so under the full consent of law that was unchallenged. And by all accounts, Nancy Pelosi and her fellow Democrats who are now burning with indignation over such "OUTRAGES" sat in the very committee hearings where it was approved, and raised no objections. Zip. Zero. Nada. What a bunch of plastic phonies.
So there is my position, nuanced as it is; I suppose some would characterize it as inconsistent.
I do not support torture. For any reason. The only serious argument that I ever hear anyone marshal for the efficacy of torture is "Well, what about if a dirty bomb is planted somewhere and the terrorist knows where it is and he'll tell us if we break enough of his toes or pull out a sufficient number of fingernails?" Sorry, I just don't buy it. If you are inflicting enough pain on someone, he will tell you what he thinks you want to hear.
But my reasons for opposing torture are actually deeper than whether or not it "works" (more on that in a minute). How could torturing someone do anything but dehumanize the torturer? I have never even understood people who subject animals to inhumane practices. I am the furthest thing from a vegetarian; I love my red meat and my white. Bring it all on: steak, hamburger, pork chops, grilled chicken, salmon, bratwurst...and we're only just getting started. But the slaughter should be quick, efficient and as painless as possible. Even when I think of animals that I find repulsive, such as rats and possums, which I try to eliminate whenever I see them, I don't want to see them tortured.
Most integrally, though, how can someone who claims to speak for Christ advocate such practices? In what scenario would Jesus have tortured someone? I do try, however ineffectively at times, to implement the WWJD question in my life on a regular basis. On this issue, it is an open-and-shut question. Let's all imagine together Jesus wiring up the jumper cables or the rack or the dunking bucket. See what I mean?
The bottom line is that I don't believe it does "work." I have my differences with John McCain, but this is one area where I have to cede the ground to him, as a former torture victim. McCain contends exactly what I have said, that it does not work and does not make us better people.
I will admit that if my little girl were missing, for instance, and the pertinent authorities believed they had located the kidnapper, in the wild heat and anger of the moment, I would support ANY technique that would extract the information. I do have blood flowing through my veins, not ice water. But this is precisely why we build layers into the justice system between the victim and the perpetrator, so that the perpetrator is treated humanely, and hopefully, as their deeds deserve in the end.
Taking the long view, how can a nation that practices insidious interrogation methods not be resented for decades to come, allowing the seeds for future wars to be planted? Even if torture did save a few lives in the short run, would it not condemn future innocents over the long haul? But even more importantly, is it ever right to "do evil that good may come?"
Now, having said all of that...humiliation should not be equated with torture. Forcing Islamic male prisoners to wear panties on their heads, a la the Abu Ghraib debacle, is not something I would advocate either, but it is not torture; it does not involve physical pain. I am also not opposed to aggressive interrogation techniques, such as calibrated sleep deprivation, loud music and similar measures.
I don't like waterboarding, though; if it isn't torture, it is the illusion of the same, although my wife disagrees (yes, she supports it). But those who practiced it on the very few occasions that it was done did so under the full consent of law that was unchallenged. And by all accounts, Nancy Pelosi and her fellow Democrats who are now burning with indignation over such "OUTRAGES" sat in the very committee hearings where it was approved, and raised no objections. Zip. Zero. Nada. What a bunch of plastic phonies.
So there is my position, nuanced as it is; I suppose some would characterize it as inconsistent.
Tuesday, April 21, 2009
Obama and the dictators
There is something discomforting about the video of President Obama grinning broadly and clasping the arm of Venezuela's President Hugo Chavez. Yet, in fairness, Obama clearly gives Chavez the brush-off when Chavez approaches Obama and hands him a copy of Open Veins of Latin America: Five Centuries of the Pillage of a Continent. (Full disclosure: thanks to Pat Buchanan's latest column for the title; otherwise, I wouldn't have had the foggiest.)
Sidenote: I run the risk of being accused of repetitiveness, citing Buchanan again today, after doing so in my last post on Friday. So be it. Buchanan has never written better, and with more scintillating analysis than he does today. He is iconoclastic and not afraid to speak the truth as he sees it. Usually, he is right.
I just watched Buchanan, on "Morning Joe", reiterate what he writes about in today's column, "The Apologists." He told a humorous story on Scarborough's show that he doesn't relate in the column, about personally keeping Nicaragua's Daniel Ortega away from President Reagan at a UN reception so that Reagan would not have to decide how Ortega should be greeted...or snubbed. In the receiving line, however, Reagan did shake Ortega's hand since Nicaragua was the host country of that particular UN assembly.
It is a thorny thing. Our leaders must, from time to time, interact with foreign heads of state who do not share our views, who persecute their people and who do not champion human rights. It has always been so. Certainly, there should be some differentiation between those who are at least partially supportive of America and could be referred to as our allies and those who reject our ideals completely. I am reminded of what FDR is rumored to have said when questioned about a certain foreign leader, perhaps Yugoslavia's Tito: "He may be a son of a b----, but at least he's OUR son of a b----!"
Buchanan feels that the issue really is not about who the President does and does not allow to shake his hand, but rather involves the insults that a President allows to stand unanswered. Such diatribes have been rather profuse in recent years, and when Obama only apologizes for America's "imperialism" (not that he used that exact word, but it, I believe, fairly characterizes how Obama would view past actions by America) and does not stand up for America's positive intervention in Central American affairs at their own request (Exhibit A: Grenada and Exhibit B: the Nicaraguan Contras), it allows an image to stand that should be negated.
But I can't say I'm surprised. Troubled, yes, but hardly shocked. When the President's wife revealed last year that she was "for the first time in my adult lifetime...really proud of my country" for no less than nominating her husband, she disclosed more than perhaps she intended about the worldview that animates the vision of the Obamas and their fellow members of the anointed elite.
Sidenote: I run the risk of being accused of repetitiveness, citing Buchanan again today, after doing so in my last post on Friday. So be it. Buchanan has never written better, and with more scintillating analysis than he does today. He is iconoclastic and not afraid to speak the truth as he sees it. Usually, he is right.
I just watched Buchanan, on "Morning Joe", reiterate what he writes about in today's column, "The Apologists." He told a humorous story on Scarborough's show that he doesn't relate in the column, about personally keeping Nicaragua's Daniel Ortega away from President Reagan at a UN reception so that Reagan would not have to decide how Ortega should be greeted...or snubbed. In the receiving line, however, Reagan did shake Ortega's hand since Nicaragua was the host country of that particular UN assembly.
It is a thorny thing. Our leaders must, from time to time, interact with foreign heads of state who do not share our views, who persecute their people and who do not champion human rights. It has always been so. Certainly, there should be some differentiation between those who are at least partially supportive of America and could be referred to as our allies and those who reject our ideals completely. I am reminded of what FDR is rumored to have said when questioned about a certain foreign leader, perhaps Yugoslavia's Tito: "He may be a son of a b----, but at least he's OUR son of a b----!"
Buchanan feels that the issue really is not about who the President does and does not allow to shake his hand, but rather involves the insults that a President allows to stand unanswered. Such diatribes have been rather profuse in recent years, and when Obama only apologizes for America's "imperialism" (not that he used that exact word, but it, I believe, fairly characterizes how Obama would view past actions by America) and does not stand up for America's positive intervention in Central American affairs at their own request (Exhibit A: Grenada and Exhibit B: the Nicaraguan Contras), it allows an image to stand that should be negated.
But I can't say I'm surprised. Troubled, yes, but hardly shocked. When the President's wife revealed last year that she was "for the first time in my adult lifetime...really proud of my country" for no less than nominating her husband, she disclosed more than perhaps she intended about the worldview that animates the vision of the Obamas and their fellow members of the anointed elite.
Friday, April 17, 2009
Covering up Jesus
Pat Buchanan's column today (a searingly serious one), "Rendering Unto Caesar," discusses the request by the White House that Georgetown University's Gaston Hall cover up all symbols, "including IHS, the millenia-old monogram for the name of Jesus Christ" for the occasion of President Obama's recent speech.
Georgetown obliged, no questions asked.
I just watched Governor Tim Kaine, currently on double duty as DNC Chair, be confronted by Joe Scarborough about this. I grinned when cnsnews.com was cited as the source, and Kaine clearly had no idea who that was; he cannily pleaded ignorance to the whole incident, saying he was hearing about it for the first time, but that he knew the White House always requested American flags as a backdrop for speeches.
Kaine was being more coy than he knew he was, perhaps...or not. His explanation is right in line with the current talking point being issued by the White House on this: The coverup of the Jesus Christ symbol by black cloth was an "unintended consequence" of requesting American flags for the platform.
This is all grimly ironic on so many levels; it simply begs for evaluative commentary. For indeed, "unintended consequences" characterize so many political decisions these days, and will continue to do so in the years to come in this Presidency. Yet said consequences are always completely unforeseen, even when covering up a centuries-old religious symbol in favor of the designated tonesetting scenery of the moment.
As Buchanan explains, the IHS has a long and rich history, since it was first implemented by St. Ignatius himself and eventually became a Jesuit symbol. A quick bit of research shows that the latter step occurred in 1541. So the President and his advance men requested that 468 years of honor to the crucified Christ be symbolically obliterated for the visit of today's American Messiah.
Any leftist reading this post will scoff; I have no doubt of that. But in what is becoming a long line of signals and actions being taken by this White House that demonstrate contempt for traditional, Judeo-Christian values, this becomes impossible to shrug off or explain away. It brings to mind what former Chief Justice William Rehnquist wrote of a Supreme Court decision to which he dissented: "The court's opinion bristles with hostility to all things religious in public life."
Georgetown University's statement hardly helps. Here it is, from Associate VP Julie Green Bataille: "The White House wanted a simple backdrop of flags and pipe and drape for the speech, consistent with what they’ve done for other policy speeches. Frankly, the pipe and drape wasn’t high enough by itself to fully cover the IHS and cross above the GU seal and it seemed most respectful to have them covered so as not to be seen out of context." (emphasis mine)
Who was it that first said that the devil is in the details?
Georgetown obliged, no questions asked.
I just watched Governor Tim Kaine, currently on double duty as DNC Chair, be confronted by Joe Scarborough about this. I grinned when cnsnews.com was cited as the source, and Kaine clearly had no idea who that was; he cannily pleaded ignorance to the whole incident, saying he was hearing about it for the first time, but that he knew the White House always requested American flags as a backdrop for speeches.
Kaine was being more coy than he knew he was, perhaps...or not. His explanation is right in line with the current talking point being issued by the White House on this: The coverup of the Jesus Christ symbol by black cloth was an "unintended consequence" of requesting American flags for the platform.
This is all grimly ironic on so many levels; it simply begs for evaluative commentary. For indeed, "unintended consequences" characterize so many political decisions these days, and will continue to do so in the years to come in this Presidency. Yet said consequences are always completely unforeseen, even when covering up a centuries-old religious symbol in favor of the designated tonesetting scenery of the moment.
As Buchanan explains, the IHS has a long and rich history, since it was first implemented by St. Ignatius himself and eventually became a Jesuit symbol. A quick bit of research shows that the latter step occurred in 1541. So the President and his advance men requested that 468 years of honor to the crucified Christ be symbolically obliterated for the visit of today's American Messiah.
Any leftist reading this post will scoff; I have no doubt of that. But in what is becoming a long line of signals and actions being taken by this White House that demonstrate contempt for traditional, Judeo-Christian values, this becomes impossible to shrug off or explain away. It brings to mind what former Chief Justice William Rehnquist wrote of a Supreme Court decision to which he dissented: "The court's opinion bristles with hostility to all things religious in public life."
Georgetown University's statement hardly helps. Here it is, from Associate VP Julie Green Bataille: "The White House wanted a simple backdrop of flags and pipe and drape for the speech, consistent with what they’ve done for other policy speeches. Frankly, the pipe and drape wasn’t high enough by itself to fully cover the IHS and cross above the GU seal and it seemed most respectful to have them covered so as not to be seen out of context." (emphasis mine)
Who was it that first said that the devil is in the details?
Thursday, April 16, 2009
Indianapolis Tea Party--4/15/09
I attended the Indianapolis Tea Party yesterday at the State House...a very worthwhile venture. A few impressions:
MUCH bigger than I expected; deep down, I was afraid that it would turn out to be nothing more than a lot of smoke and mirrors, with no one much showing up. The entire State House South Lawn was jammed, with more protesters marching around the perimeter. Police estimates, according to the Indianapolis Star, assessed the attendance at 2,500. No way. I don't know how the police, for whom I have profound respect, gauge these things, but there were a lot more than that. The organizers stated from the podium that there were 10,000 people there; that, on the other hand, seemed a tad high. I would say that there were very likely between 5,000 and 7,000.
There is something afoot here, and the Obama Fan Club (i.e., the "mainstream media") knows it. So does the White House. This is a movement that is effervescing at the grassroots level. Not a single politician spoke yesterday, although I saw Congressman Dan Burton (my Rep) walking around on the platform and heard Congressman Mike Pence in studio on WIBC in the car on the way there, so he also had to be close by. Very few signs (and there were a ton of them) were professionally printed; almost all were hand-designed and every one I saw contained a pungent message of opposition to bailouts, high taxes and endless financial red ink. The tone was respectful, but firm: "We have HAD ENOUGH!"
WIBC morning host Greg Garrison spoke for about 15 minutes, followed by several "soapbox testimonials" from common citizens who were in attendance. Among the latter was an Irish lady (Tara Destak?) who had moved to America with her husband 20 years previously, after failing for years to save up a downpayment for a house due to excessive taxation rates. They arrived in the US with 2 suitcases full of possessions and nothing else; they had jobs in 3 weeks, had saved enough for a down payment on a home in (I believe) 2 to 3 years, and today is living the American dream as a homeowner. She just received citizenship last week. VERY inspiring.
We also heard from the man behind the Jason Chaffetz victory in Utah; I can't remember his name, but you can find the whole story in brief on Chaffetz's Wikipedia entry or in much greater detail on icaucus.org. This man has a network that is being put in place all across the country to duplicate the Chaffetz drafting and get more congressmen and women in Washington who will do the right things, without regard for media outcry.
The event closed with a brief, but highly animated speech by "Thomas Paine": yes, the some one whose Youtube videos have been making the rounds and receiving millions of hits, coverage on TV, etc.
We've only just begun.
MUCH bigger than I expected; deep down, I was afraid that it would turn out to be nothing more than a lot of smoke and mirrors, with no one much showing up. The entire State House South Lawn was jammed, with more protesters marching around the perimeter. Police estimates, according to the Indianapolis Star, assessed the attendance at 2,500. No way. I don't know how the police, for whom I have profound respect, gauge these things, but there were a lot more than that. The organizers stated from the podium that there were 10,000 people there; that, on the other hand, seemed a tad high. I would say that there were very likely between 5,000 and 7,000.
There is something afoot here, and the Obama Fan Club (i.e., the "mainstream media") knows it. So does the White House. This is a movement that is effervescing at the grassroots level. Not a single politician spoke yesterday, although I saw Congressman Dan Burton (my Rep) walking around on the platform and heard Congressman Mike Pence in studio on WIBC in the car on the way there, so he also had to be close by. Very few signs (and there were a ton of them) were professionally printed; almost all were hand-designed and every one I saw contained a pungent message of opposition to bailouts, high taxes and endless financial red ink. The tone was respectful, but firm: "We have HAD ENOUGH!"
WIBC morning host Greg Garrison spoke for about 15 minutes, followed by several "soapbox testimonials" from common citizens who were in attendance. Among the latter was an Irish lady (Tara Destak?) who had moved to America with her husband 20 years previously, after failing for years to save up a downpayment for a house due to excessive taxation rates. They arrived in the US with 2 suitcases full of possessions and nothing else; they had jobs in 3 weeks, had saved enough for a down payment on a home in (I believe) 2 to 3 years, and today is living the American dream as a homeowner. She just received citizenship last week. VERY inspiring.
We also heard from the man behind the Jason Chaffetz victory in Utah; I can't remember his name, but you can find the whole story in brief on Chaffetz's Wikipedia entry or in much greater detail on icaucus.org. This man has a network that is being put in place all across the country to duplicate the Chaffetz drafting and get more congressmen and women in Washington who will do the right things, without regard for media outcry.
The event closed with a brief, but highly animated speech by "Thomas Paine": yes, the some one whose Youtube videos have been making the rounds and receiving millions of hits, coverage on TV, etc.
We've only just begun.
Wednesday, April 15, 2009
Homeland Security report cites "right-wing" extremism
Let us call this what it is. It is fascism....nothing less.
I noted in several e-mails I got yesterday that this report from the Department of Homeland Security was being discussed. I have not, in full disclosure, read the whole thing, though I intend to soon, but I have seen enough bipartisan commentary on it by now that I am alarmed. The gist of the report is that the Feds should be on the lookout for increased activity by "right-wing extremists" due to current economic ills. A comparison is drawn to the resurgence of "right-wing extremism" in the mid-90's under an alleged similar climate of decreased economic activity and outsourcing of jobs.
Ed Morrissey's summary of all of this can be found here; it would behoove you to read it. As Morrissey capably points out, the DHS has no data to prove any of what they are saying. None. ZERO. Nonetheless, in a hamhanded way, but very clearly, DHS attempts to quash in its cradle any form of dissent to the unprecedented government expansion we are seeing today.
If President Obama does not denounce this, I don't know where conservatives can be expected to go from here in terms of giving this President the benefit of the doubt. We are repeating the steps that so many nations have trod before us; in popular jargon, "we've seen this movie before" and the ending isn't pretty.
Joe Scarborough was outraged about this as he discussed it on his show this morning, and Mike Barnicle (no conservative) was right with him. As Scarborough asked, "What if the tables were flipped and in the previous administration, Tom Ridge (the first DHS Secretary) were warning Dick Cheney to be on the lookout for the rise of liberal groups? You would have no end of apocalyptic warnings from this network and others!" (not his exact words, but close)
I noted in several e-mails I got yesterday that this report from the Department of Homeland Security was being discussed. I have not, in full disclosure, read the whole thing, though I intend to soon, but I have seen enough bipartisan commentary on it by now that I am alarmed. The gist of the report is that the Feds should be on the lookout for increased activity by "right-wing extremists" due to current economic ills. A comparison is drawn to the resurgence of "right-wing extremism" in the mid-90's under an alleged similar climate of decreased economic activity and outsourcing of jobs.
Ed Morrissey's summary of all of this can be found here; it would behoove you to read it. As Morrissey capably points out, the DHS has no data to prove any of what they are saying. None. ZERO. Nonetheless, in a hamhanded way, but very clearly, DHS attempts to quash in its cradle any form of dissent to the unprecedented government expansion we are seeing today.
If President Obama does not denounce this, I don't know where conservatives can be expected to go from here in terms of giving this President the benefit of the doubt. We are repeating the steps that so many nations have trod before us; in popular jargon, "we've seen this movie before" and the ending isn't pretty.
Joe Scarborough was outraged about this as he discussed it on his show this morning, and Mike Barnicle (no conservative) was right with him. As Scarborough asked, "What if the tables were flipped and in the previous administration, Tom Ridge (the first DHS Secretary) were warning Dick Cheney to be on the lookout for the rise of liberal groups? You would have no end of apocalyptic warnings from this network and others!" (not his exact words, but close)
Tuesday, April 14, 2009
Cornyn (i.e., the NRSCC) will support Specter in 2010
Mark this in the ledger as one of the more discouraging things I've heard in a while. I like Senator John Cornyn...a lot. I enjoyed hearing him speak at CPAC, and added him as a Facebook friend shortly afterwards so that I could keep up with what he is trying to do on Capitol Hill.
For those of you that don't follow these things as closely, Cornyn has been tasked with leading the National Republican Senatorial Campaign Committee for the 2010 election cycle. I understand him when he says, as he did in his CPAC speech, that in some states, more conservative candidates will have difficulty getting elected.
But now, Cornyn has announced that the NRSCC will be backing Arlen Specter in his bid for a 6th term as the senior Senator from Pennsylvania next year. In Cornyn's own words, "While I doubt Arlen could win an election in my home state of Texas, I am certain that I could not get elected in Pennsylvania. I believe that Senator Specter is our best bet to keep this Senate seat in the GOP column." (emphasis mine) So, Senator Cornyn has effectively conceded the entire state of Pennsylvania to moderate/liberal/socialist forces.
And these are our leaders, as conservatives??? It is feckless statements just such as this that are driving alarmed Americans to TEA parties across the country tomorrow.
Has Senator Cornyn forgotten so quickly about his former colleague Rick Santorum? Even a firebrand like him was elected twice from Pennsylvania, in 1994 and 2000, although in very close elections both times. Santorum lost his bid in 2006 in a very tough climate for the GOP, when the country had turned sour on a war that Santorum supported, as well as a high-spending Republican-led Congress. Both of these factors look as though they will likely play into GOP hands in 2010; yet, we still cannot find the courage to back a genuinely conservative candidate like Pat Toomey who almost unseated Specter in 2004.
So this ensures that Specter will continue to function with impunity, as he has proved himself fully capable of doing with votes such as his support for the "porkulus" bill, along with Senators Olympia Snowe and Susan Collins, both of Maine. Why shouldn't he? What does he have to lose?
For those of you that don't follow these things as closely, Cornyn has been tasked with leading the National Republican Senatorial Campaign Committee for the 2010 election cycle. I understand him when he says, as he did in his CPAC speech, that in some states, more conservative candidates will have difficulty getting elected.
But now, Cornyn has announced that the NRSCC will be backing Arlen Specter in his bid for a 6th term as the senior Senator from Pennsylvania next year. In Cornyn's own words, "While I doubt Arlen could win an election in my home state of Texas, I am certain that I could not get elected in Pennsylvania. I believe that Senator Specter is our best bet to keep this Senate seat in the GOP column." (emphasis mine) So, Senator Cornyn has effectively conceded the entire state of Pennsylvania to moderate/liberal/socialist forces.
And these are our leaders, as conservatives??? It is feckless statements just such as this that are driving alarmed Americans to TEA parties across the country tomorrow.
Has Senator Cornyn forgotten so quickly about his former colleague Rick Santorum? Even a firebrand like him was elected twice from Pennsylvania, in 1994 and 2000, although in very close elections both times. Santorum lost his bid in 2006 in a very tough climate for the GOP, when the country had turned sour on a war that Santorum supported, as well as a high-spending Republican-led Congress. Both of these factors look as though they will likely play into GOP hands in 2010; yet, we still cannot find the courage to back a genuinely conservative candidate like Pat Toomey who almost unseated Specter in 2004.
So this ensures that Specter will continue to function with impunity, as he has proved himself fully capable of doing with votes such as his support for the "porkulus" bill, along with Senators Olympia Snowe and Susan Collins, both of Maine. Why shouldn't he? What does he have to lose?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
