Bye bye, Chairman Specter?

[Keystone Phil]

Here's Arlen Specter's campaign working hard for the President.

Where is that a broken promise?  That is just him deciding he prefers one candidate over the other.  Just because you disagree with him doesn't mean he should resign.

Nice try. Specter said he would campaign for the President. He broke his promise and people in his campaign made up this sign. Your attempts at defending Specter are really pathetic. I don't even think Specter himself could believe you.

[Keystone Phil]

Here's Arlen Specter's campaign working hard for the President.

Where is that a broken promise?  That is just him deciding he prefers one candidate over the other.  Just because you disagree with him doesn't mean he should resign.

Nice try. Specter said he would campaign for the President. He broke his promise and people in his campaign made up this sign. Your attempts at defending Specter are really pathetic. I don't even think Specter himself could believe you.

I'm not really a Specter fan ... I voted Hoeffel.  What I'm really doing here is pointing out that you're whining because Specter doesn't want to play all out cronyism.  Now I fail to recall ever seeing Specter pledge to campaign for Bush (although I did see him campaign for Bush).

All of that said, there's no need to start launching personal attacks.  If you would prefer that to rational discussion just say so.

He did promise to work hard for the President's campaign and hardly did a thing. Then his campaign makes Kerry-Specter signs.

He's broken too many promises. He's walked all over the GOP leaders. He should be removed.

[Keystone Phil]

Is it more important for a Senator to

1) Follow his instincts and hire the best person to do a job for the American people.

OR

2) Hire someone who is 2nd rate just to keep a promise to his party's leadership.

Where is "Be honest to his colleagues" on that list?

Jump around it all you'd like, Wakie. Specter has broken his promises to his colleagues.

[Keystone Phil]

first of all let me add, that im a strong supporter of president bush, and i support *most* of his judicial nominees.

however, the white house has no right to be pissed at specter.  they want him to rubber-stamp all of bush's appointments.  that is not the job of the senate.  if specter were to do that, hed be abdicating his reponsibilities as a senator.

He's not being asked to be a rubber stamp. He was the one who promised something to those that promised to support him. He went back on it. Also, bringing up judges that have already been confirmed is a ridiculous idea.

What's more important...politics or integrity? I guess we see which side you stand on.

Integrity would require standing by your word. Specter hasn't done that.

How so. He put his ideology and his values before party politics. That doesn't happen on either side of the aisle much these days. Thats integrity in my book.

Yeah...see...breaking promises to your colleagues is not integrity.

[Keystone Phil]

Is it more important for a Senator to

1) Follow his instincts and hire the best person to do a job for the American people.

OR

2) Hire someone who is 2nd rate just to keep a promise to his party's leadership.

Where is "Be honest to his colleagues" on that list?

Jump around it all you'd like, Wakie. Specter has broken his promises to his colleagues.

Oh I'll make no bones about it ... Specter broke his promise.  This leads us to ask the question ... why would a guy who was already walking on thin ice with his party do that?

Your explanation seems to be "he just loves doing it".  That is ridiculous.

If there was something in it for him you could make that argument.  But the only thing he gets out of this are headaches.

The only rational conclusion is that he thought Kremerer was the best person for the job.

I find it refreshing that a politician would be willing to tell his party to get stuffed in order to do what he feels is right for America.

Ok well you're wrong right of the bat. I don't say "he just loves doing it."

Specter's ego is immeasurable. Power, power, power. Why do you think he made the Kerry-Specter signs? He wanted to boost his support in Philly. He knew that with Clymer on the ballot he wouldn't get the complete landslide that he wanted.

He broke his promise to his colleagues so he could get the post. I don't think that's doing something "right" for America. I think it only feeds into the stereotype that politicians are crooked and willing to break a promise.

[Keystone Phil]

Is it more important for a Senator to

1) Follow his instincts and hire the best person to do a job for the American people.

OR

2) Hire someone who is 2nd rate just to keep a promise to his party's leadership.

Where is "Be honest to his colleagues" on that list?

Jump around it all you'd like, Wakie. Specter has broken his promises to his colleagues.

Oh I'll make no bones about it ... Specter broke his promise.  This leads us to ask the question ... why would a guy who was already walking on thin ice with his party do that?

Your explanation seems to be "he just loves doing it".  That is ridiculous.

If there was something in it for him you could make that argument.  But the only thing he gets out of this are headaches.

The only rational conclusion is that he thought Kremerer was the best person for the job.

I find it refreshing that a politician would be willing to tell his party to get stuffed in order to do what he feels is right for America.

Ok well you're wrong right of the bat. I don't say "he just loves doing it."

Specter's ego is immeasurable. Power, power, power. Why do you think he made the Kerry-Specter signs? He wanted to boost his support in Philly. He knew that with Clymer on the ballot he wouldn't get the complete landslide that he wanted.

He broke his promise to his colleagues so he could get the post. I don't think that's doing something "right" for America. I think it only feeds into the stereotype that politicians are crooked and willing to break a promise.

1) You claim Specter made the "Specter & Kerry" sign.  Maybe he did or maybe a staffer produced them.  I'm really not all that hung up on it since that doesn't tie into this issue at all.

2) You said that Specter is doing this because he wants power.  If that were true he would have nominated an ultra-conservative.  That would get him in tighter with his party so that he would be able to climb higher on the political jungle gym.  Realistically he isn't ever running for reelection.

3) I can understand how your argument applies to why Specter made the promise in the first place.  But your argument doesn't explain why he's breaking it though.  Mine does.

1) A Specter staffer was responsible for this. However, there weren't just two or three signs. The campaign had to have authorized that. I didn't see any myself but apparently they were on some major roadways here in Philly.

2) He promised something to get the power and when he got the power, he broke it. He can't climb much higher so he made the promise and then went against nominating the conservative.

3) I'm explaining to you why he broke it. He wanted whoever he wanted from the beginning but realized he had to promise something to win the spot. Once it was won, Specter could do whatever he wanted. Or so he thought...

[Keystone Phil]

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.

[Keystone Phil]

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.

Don't give me that. A conservative could have served us just as well. If this guy was what was right, why didn't Specter stand up and say to his colleagues "He's the right guy." ? Don't tell me that he didn't know about this guy when he made his promise either.

This is typical Arlen Specter. Where are his GOP defenders? Where is Santorum? Where is Frist? They thought he was right before but they know he is wrong now. Bye bye, Chairman Specter. That is what's right for America.

(By the way, you guys are also missing the point that Specter wants already confirmed judges to have another hearing. Yeah, that's right. Already confirmed judges. That must be right for America, too.)

[Keystone Phil]

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.

[Keystone Phil]

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.

[Keystone Phil]

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.

[Keystone Phil]

Awesome! Now he's using Republican cash to hire far left wingers. Now I'll have to hear that it's techincally not Republican money but American money (since it's distributed by the American government) and he's doing what's best for America.


"The fact that Republican money is being used to hire hardcore leftists to work on the Judiciary Committee is just a travesty," a GOP aide said.


http://www.thehill.com/thehill/export/TheHill/News/Frontpage/012605/specter.html

[Keystone Phil]

Hold on a second there Phil ... where do you get the idea that "he's spending Republican money"?  My understanding is that this position is paid by the Federal Government.  The Federal Government pays liberals and conservatives.

I must say I was amused by this line from the story, "Especially irksome to conservatives is a report filed with the Federal Election Commission showing that Short donated $500 to Sen. Hillary Clinton’s (D-N.Y.) 2000 campaign."  I wonder if they'd complain if that money was donated to Zell Miller.

Ahh ... how delightfully ridiculous the GOP has become.

Ask the GOP aides that said he was spending Republican money. Keep avoiding these points, Wakie.

[Keystone Phil]

Hold on a second there Phil ... where do you get the idea that "he's spending Republican money"?  My understanding is that this position is paid by the Federal Government.  The Federal Government pays liberals and conservatives.

I must say I was amused by this line from the story, "Especially irksome to conservatives is a report filed with the Federal Election Commission showing that Short donated $500 to Sen. Hillary Clinton’s (D-N.Y.) 2000 campaign."  I wonder if they'd complain if that money was donated to Zell Miller.

Ahh ... how delightfully ridiculous the GOP has become.

Ask the GOP aides that said he was spending Republican money. Keep avoiding these points, Wakie.

You know I don't have direct contact with a GOP aide so I can't. 

From now on, if I can't have direct contact with someone involved in a story, I won't believe it. Sound good?

[Keystone Phil]

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.

[Keystone Phil]

Hold on a second there Phil ... where do you get the idea that "he's spending Republican money"?  My understanding is that this position is paid by the Federal Government.  The Federal Government pays liberals and conservatives.

I must say I was amused by this line from the story, "Especially irksome to conservatives is a report filed with the Federal Election Commission showing that Short donated $500 to Sen. Hillary Clinton’s (D-N.Y.) 2000 campaign."  I wonder if they'd complain if that money was donated to Zell Miller.

Ahh ... how delightfully ridiculous the GOP has become.

Ask the GOP aides that said he was spending Republican money. Keep avoiding these points, Wakie.

You know I don't have direct contact with a GOP aide so I can't. 

From now on, if I can't have direct contact with someone involved in a story, I won't believe it. Sound good?

Ok, you tell me to "ask the GOP aides".  I respond "I can't because I don't know any".  Then you whine?

What Republican money is being spent?  That isn't explained any where.  It is just an offhand comment that makes little sense (lousy journalism by the website for not explaining it).

Are you aware that these sources aren't just no-body aides? This is The Hill - one of the most well known, political newspapers in the country.

My point when I said "ask the aides" was that they knew about it and commented. Now you'll just refuse to believe it.

[Keystone Phil]

Hold on a second there Phil ... where do you get the idea that "he's spending Republican money"?  My understanding is that this position is paid by the Federal Government.  The Federal Government pays liberals and conservatives.

I must say I was amused by this line from the story, "Especially irksome to conservatives is a report filed with the Federal Election Commission showing that Short donated $500 to Sen. Hillary Clinton’s (D-N.Y.) 2000 campaign."  I wonder if they'd complain if that money was donated to Zell Miller.

Ahh ... how delightfully ridiculous the GOP has become.

Ask the GOP aides that said he was spending Republican money. Keep avoiding these points, Wakie.

You know I don't have direct contact with a GOP aide so I can't. 

From now on, if I can't have direct contact with someone involved in a story, I won't believe it. Sound good?

Ok, you tell me to "ask the GOP aides".  I respond "I can't because I don't know any".  Then you whine?

What Republican money is being spent?  That isn't explained any where.  It is just an offhand comment that makes little sense (lousy journalism by the website for not explaining it).

Are you aware that these sources aren't just no-body aides? This is The Hill - one of the most well known, political newspapers in the country.

My point when I said "ask the aides" was that they knew about it and commented. Now you'll just refuse to believe it.

Tell ya what, email Alex Bolton (the writer of the article) and ask him to explain what Republican money is being referred to.  When/If he responds add it to this thread.  Also ask the approximate age of the "aide".  His address is alexb@thehill.com

Here's a suggestion: Since you have the concern, you email him. I have no problem with the story.

[Keystone Phil]

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?

[Keystone Phil]

So basically, Specter just punk'd you all. He did a good job.

See "punking" someone would be a suprise. No one should be surprised by this.

[Keystone Phil]

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

You know what. You're absolutley right. I wanted the least qualified person as long as they were a conservative. Pick a bum off the street for all I care. As long as the bum is conservative, I don't care! (NOTE THE SARCASM THERE, SMASH.)

I don't know if this Kremer guy is qualified or not. My argument is that you stand by someone who has broken his promises to his colleagues that elected.

[Keystone Phil]

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.

First of all, the lefties here were energized enough. To suggest that because Pat Toomey was on the ballot and therefore increase liberal turnout is a flat out joke.

It's not about being a rubberstamp. It's about keeping the promises to those that save your political career. Specter made the promises. Specter should keep the promises. He has proven to me and many others that he is only concerned about one thing: his ego.

[Keystone Phil]

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.

[Keystone Phil]

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.

[Keystone Phil]

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.

[Keystone Phil]

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.