And it’s not about purity, it’s about principle. Show me you have some and I will support you.

+1

You backed Specter after he voted with Collins and Snowe.

We’re watching you.

At this rate you’ll achieve parity with McCain is less than 12 months.

Never Again !

Some morons never learn.

This abortion crap is going to destroy the Republican party. I am sick of the purity of losing.

Hilts on April 29, 2009 at 11:00 PM

Sorry, but what the heck are you talking about?

-Aslan’s Girl

In many cases, you wouldn’t know the difference between 1 house democrap and 1 house republican.

We need to STOP this, at least for the time being. We need to elect CONSERVATIVES that will get this crap ironed out, then start pressing for a way to force these guys and gals to be accountable for what they promise and how they campaign.

One way is to make recall elections a possibility, and easier than they are to recall a mayor. (One suggestion however, would be to allow republicans to recall their congressman or senator if they are republican and turned out to be liberal, or RINO. Dems should have that same option of course.)

Perhaps a prison term…1 year for ever lie they are caught in from campaigns that they flip flop on in office, along with a 10% tax against their campaign funds for every lie told.

These things should scare the crap out of politicians, maybe we’d even get a truly honest one once in a while.

Assume that Ridge would be a 2-1 underdog against Specter in the general and Toomey would be 10-1.

This is just pure and simple a moronic choice you’re presenting here. Toomey came THIS CLOSE to trouncing Arlen in his last primary. Are you KIDDING me?

And Ridge is not the darling of conservatives, here in PA or elsewhere. He was a disaster at homeland security, and he bailed on that position because he needed a bigger paycheck.

Ridge. Make it 1000 to 1.

I was just browsing over at the Maritime Sentry, and there was this interesting post about Arlen Specter’s primary challenger, Pat Toomey. Specter has been a de facto Democrat for a long time now, but for some reason the NRSC has continuously end…

So, let me carry your position out to what I believe is your necessary ultimate conclusion: Better that every human on the planet die, than a single vote be cast for a politician who is not pro-life. Do you see how your “no compromise, ever” single-issue stance boils down to this?

If you don’t agree with the above proposition, then where do you draw the line of compromise, and why? And if you’d compromise to save humanity, why would you refuse to compromise to save the United States? Would you compromise to save your life? Your family’s? Why?

Blacklake on April 29, 2009 at 7:31 PM

I said in earlier posts I’d vote for Ridge over Specter in an election (not just theoretical, I’m a PA voter). I am not a “no compromise, ever” person. And your hack view of my principles does not naturally lead to “Better every human on the planet die, than a single vote be cast for a politician who is not pro-life”.

Show me these pro-life politicians who don’t believe in defending America. Casey? He’s not pro-life. I’ve seen no evidence that he is.

I’m predisposed to agree with Republicans on issues anyway, even without abortion as an issue. But I refuse to concede defeat on this issue. We are closer to states deciding this issue than ever. If I have to just admit that we’ve lost, then I would have no passion for politics. What good is a government that refuses to protect the lives of its own citizens?

Democrats run candidates who do not want to protect America from harm unless they absolutely have to, and who in no circumstances care to lift a finger to stop abortions from happening. Both are ridiculous and irresponsible cases of politicians abandoning the primary role of government. Why shouldn’t we run candidates who do the opposite? Why compromise with them? The Dems nearly never do. I just wonder where all this disdain comes from. A candidate need not make abortion the centerpiece of his or her campaign to be pro-life.

If its Ridge vs. Specter a large chunk of the Republican base might not show up either, and you’re going to need them at the polls for all the congressional races.

BadgerHawk on April 29, 2009

You have to remember…This isn’t a question of who conservatives would vote for, this is a question of who Pennsylvanians would vote for. Except for Santorium (Whose rhetoric alot of people here tired of…) Senators here have been more moderate. If they haven’t, they don’t last long… If John Heinz didn’t die in a plane crash almost 20 years ago, he probably would still be in the Senate. He was very center in his votes, and was very popular with both (D) and (R). He did what he thought was right.

Ridge would be a good candidate for PA. He was popular as a governor. And most of his views would fit with conservatives. He would be a good fit in the Senate.

Only problem with Toomey is that really most of us in PA doen’t really know him. Yeah, he would do well in a primary against Benodict Spector, But if he went against him in a General, he wouldn’t do so well. He still might win (maybe), but no where near a 21 point lead. And also, I don’t think Spector will win the (D) primary…

And yes, I live in Murtha’s district. I voted for Russell. Went to a couple of Russell rallies. District is rigged heavily (D). Lots of unions here (Mines, Steel, Iron, etc) that swallow the party line, hook, line, and sinker.

Lynn Swann was a good candidate, but was really a novice going up against Rendell. (No chance) He needs some experience to do better in the future.

Come on that’s way harsh. Ridge is a pretty darn good Republican. He may not be as conservative as you but he is not a self-serving fool like Specter.

petunia on April 29, 2009

I agree that Ridge is not a Spector. He is a good man and a good Republican. Ridge was a strong supporter of the second amendment here in PA. He widely supported home schooling! The cyber school in Midland PA was his personal project. It was and still is a great alternative for home schoolers! While he was governor, I don’t believe he pushed at all the pro-choice agenda even though he is pro-choice. I think he is more of the mind that this should be left to the states.
But,, once he’s in the Senate, who knows what he might do.

It does matter. It matters about equally as much as the war on terror. If we allow ourselves to sink further into their view that human life is not sacred, we’ve lost even if we win…
bcm4134 on April 29, 2009 at 6:28 PM

So, let me carry your position out to what I believe is your necessary ultimate conclusion: Better that every human on the planet die, than a single vote be cast for a politician who is not pro-life. Do you see how your “no compromise, ever” single-issue stance boils down to this?

If you don’t agree with the above proposition, then where do you draw the line of compromise, and why? And if you’d compromise to save humanity, why would you refuse to compromise to save the United States? Would you compromise to save your life? Your family’s? Why?

Sen. Orrin Hatch, the vice chairman of the National Republican Senatorial Committee

Yet another reason for the GOP being a mess.

Tell that to reagan and Obama….

Even though Ridge is ok, I don’t have an answer because I think they’re just purposely trying to screw Toomey over.

youngO on April 29, 2009 at 4:42 PM

Screw him for causing Spectator to switch, who was no asset to begin with. I might send Tooms a buck or two.

The world is unraveling all around us, yet some insist on remaining fixated doggedly on a single social issue, despite its status as political poison. That, in my mind, is a textbook example of insanity.
Blacklake on April 29, 2009 at 4:20 PM

I would argue that abortion on demand is the epitome of insanity and the world unraveling around us.

R’s have a choice of 2 guys:
Big government. Pro life. Anti gay-marriage.
Small Government. Pro-Choice. Pro gay-marriage.
I was willing to bet that it’d be 2-1 split for the first guy for most conservatives. Those 2 are the make or break issues for far too many people in this party. Gays and abortion. Everything else. Meh.
lorien1973 on April 29, 2009 at 4:22 PM

Well maybe in the Republican Party in your mind, you can help us all to see why this issue is so stupid compared to your pet issues, ON WHICH I AGREE WITH YOU ANYWAY.

Nobody has hard numbers of that sort when it comes to politics, and if they offer them, assume they aren’t reliable. Because most Americans–even if they are anti-abortion themselves–believe passionately in the separation of church and state, candidates who espouse their Christianity as part of their campaigns, usually in reference to abortion, do themselves enormous damage. Their evangelicism itself is the negative, not their abortion stance.
You need to let it go. It doesn’t matter if America allows or doesn’t allow abortions in the short term if, in the long term, there is no America. It’s a loser issue, and we’re in a struggle for national survival that’s far greater than any single cause.
Blacklake on April 29, 2009 at 4:26 PM

It does matter. It matters about equally as much as the war on terror. If we allow ourselves to sink further into their view that human life is not sacred, we’ve lost even if we win.

For now at least, abortion is settled law. Using it as a campaign issue doesn’t make practical sense. Why bring up something that the country is about evenly divide on and create a counter productive wedge issue?
FD/ I’m pro-life
oldernwiser on April 29, 2009 at 4:33 PM

The Dems don’t think that way. Of course, I’m not sure if they think at all. They hold to their extremism gladly. I don’t see the protection of innocent life as a “wedge” issue.

We will be in the Wilderness until that changes.
SlimyBill on April 29, 2009 at 5:23 PM

Right, so let’s get some conservatives on the Supreme Court and let the states decide this.

McCain won Pennsylvania, remember? Oh, and Pro-Life Democrat, Bob Casey, lost back in 2006. Remember?

Right!

Social conservatism does not define the Republican party, so no one who possesses core Republican values should ever be called a RINO. The problem with Specter is that he couldn’t even get the basics right.

That is why I don’t want Gingrich anywhere around the power. He started the big tent and it worked for awhile until the RINOs became to many and took over.

SkyWatch on April 29, 2009 at 6:12 PM

Gingrich might be the only one who saves the GOP.

Changing PA to pro-abortion would be great but that is a deal killer for most voters in PA. Statewide PA is pro-abortion.

So a pro-choice Republican who is committed to pro-conservative judges is much much better than a pro-abortion Democrat who will jump at the chance to stick another Lib in the Supreme Court.

petunia on April 29, 2009 at 4:23 PM

Um, isn’t Bob Casey Jr., the democrat who defeated Santorum, also pro-life? If a pro-life Democrat can get the nomination (much less win the general) in PA, what makes everybody think a Republican pro-lifer cannot win?

What am I missing here? Am I wrong about Casey’s position on the issue?