The American Spectator

whiterb| 3.9.09 @ 7:47AM

Pearce was a perfect example of a conservative dream candidate getting slaughtered in a purple state. Wilson was female and a veteran , and just moderate enough to win. Just what were her sins ? A little too much compassionate conservatism ? A bit too sympathetic to the plight of Latinos ? Who the hell knows what she did to piss you quirky prima donnas off. And if you think I'm gonna burn my money to support Pat Toomey .You're wrong. That is unless he moves to the center, and shows he can win a fair share of the women vote. Remember what happened to Santorum ? Or have you erased that from your memory banks ? Pennsylvania has become even more moderate to liberal. Many of your examples predate 1980. Ed Brook vs Avi Nelson ? The world has changed since 1978, goodness. By the way, the Globe, Herald, and tv stations did Brooke in for his infidelity. The people voted for that nice, clean cut, all American boy, devout Catholic, great family man John Forbes Kerry. But, keep thinning the herd. Politically it make conservatives even punier 90 pound weakings than you already are, but if you don't mind Obama, Pelosi, and Boxer, et al kicking even more sand in your face, so be it. Have a nice day.

Luonne Dumak| 3.9.09 @ 9:43AM

Down with Specter,Collins and Snowe. I am tired of so called moderates with no values. Specter sold this country down the drain for money for cancer reseach. Who knows what the other 2 were thinking about. With the coming ideas of Socialized medice, card check and biofuels in the offing the thought of these useful idiots in the Senate sends chills up my spine.

Anthony| 3.9.09 @ 10:03AM

As has been said so often, if you don't stand for something, you stand for nothing. What's the point of having a RINO like Spector? A lot of good he did the last 2 yrs of Bush's term when it came to judicial appointments. He was rolled by Schumer & Reid. How many times has this guy gone AWOL on us the past 20 yrs? He votes with Maine's RINOs for the stimulus bill so what good is he? I don't like losing elections either, but what's the point of having the likes of Specter around? Obama is in the process of destroying the Democrat Party, hopefully before he destroys America, conservatives now have their best chance to make our case!! Say good-bye to snarl'n Arlen.

Watashi| 3.9.09 @ 10:21AM

There is a big difference between the two RINO snowbirds and Specter. The snowbirds at 75% and 80% ADA ratings come off as "moderate" Democrats whereas Specter at 45% ADA is a "moderate" Republican. I guess the debate really centers upon whether you are better off with striving for a majority of Republican senators for the power to shape legislation or ideological purity and a permanent minority in a demographically changing America. Not a very good choice. Maybe we should split the difference and forget the snowbirds but hang in with Specter on the grounds it will only get worse with running an ideological soulmate and losing the seat to a 95% Democrat.

Dai Alanye| 3.9.09 @ 10:21AM

Which is less desirable, a treacherous friend or an open enemy? The "moderates" among us never seem to catch on to the disadvantages of following the crowd. In doing so they forego the chance of educating and leading the electorate, and almost certainly submit to a permanent minority status.

Effective leaders have always been ready to swim against the tide in matters of importance. Men who put principles first—like Bob Taft, Barry Goldwater, Ron Reagan, and even Newt Gingrich—have done far more good for the development of the Republican party than temporarily-successful moderates like Eisenhower, Nixon, Ford and the Bushes, all of whom weakened the party.

Bob Cotten| 3.9.09 @ 10:21AM

PENNSYLVANIANS!!!

IT'S TIME TO EXSPECTORATE!!

mfalatko| 3.9.09 @ 10:47AM

Senators Spector, Collins and Snowe are typical of what the electorate, especially conservatives, are so upset with. These three, and some others, say John McCain, have only one true ideology, get re-elected. They really have no guiding ideology. Like most moderates, they can't articulate what they truly believe in because they either believe in very little or what they truly believe in, if articulated, would mean the end of their careers. Conservatism has done well for the country in the past and, if allowed to fully blossom across the full spectrum of policy such as education, banking, defense, social programs, etc. by representatives in power who would hold true to their conservative beliefs, it would do even better for all Americans. The Republican Party hasn't fallen on hard time because of its conservatism, it has done so because it has abandoned its conservative roots to become more like Specter and because it has lacked the cohesive voice of a Reagan to articulate the benifits that conservatism brings to all Americans. For the Republicans to return to power they need to do two things to start; first, find an articulate spokesman for conservatism and let him/her lead and second, purge the current House and Senate delegations of those "Republicans" that represent the move of the party away from conservatism. If they had done this with the likes of Stevens, Foley and Cunningham and opposed Bush's rediculous levels of spending they would have faired much better in 2006 and 2008. They need to send the signal in 2010 with Specter, and several others that they have truly returned to their conservative roots. And for those who would cross over and support the Democrat candidates, the party should make them permanent Democrats or non-sequiters.

Bob| 3.9.09 @ 10:48AM

Antle, I am usually on the critical side of your pieces, but this one is an excellent and objective analysis. Specifically, your point regarding the overall strength or weakness of the Republican party being a significant factor is on target.

At present, the Republican party is seen by swing voters as older, white, male, negative (i.e., the party of "no"), purveyor of large debts, devoid of big ideas, and dominated by religious whackos and extreme personalities like Limbaugh.

Going back to Reagan is not the answer because of the huge debt that was created on his watch and the fact that the voter demographics has changed to include more minorities and young people. You don't find the racial or sexual preference bias among younger voters that you do with older voters and that aligns much more closely with Dems than Republicans.

As much as most of you hate RINO's like me, we are the keys to the success of the party. In general, we are just as fiscally conservative as any of you and much more attuned to the needs of minorities, women, and the center of the electorate.

This demographic change is something that people at the RNC and intellectuals like Frum and Brooks understand. Remember that in 1980, Reagan only won with 50.7% of the vote. If you had the demographics you have today, he might have lost.

Let me say that as a fiscal conservative, I was against the TARP and the auto bailouts as they limited the ability of those companies to restructure. I believe the current programs by Geithner and Bair are far better and would have supported them. But because I have libertarian views on social issues you guys want to jettison me and my ilk.

The Republican party is a lot smaller today than it was 4 or 8 years ago. Winning elections is all about coalition building, not conservative "values". This is where the battle for the Republican party lies, and the more social conservatives are the core of the Republican party, the smaller it will become. The more Republicans demean other Republicans, the more irrelevant the party will become. That's too bad since there are many of us who believe that there are lots of NEW ideas out there and that the country needs fiscal leadership.

MooseontheLoose| 3.9.09 @ 11:27AM

Maine is right at the tipping of going right wing. Ayup.

W. James Antle III| 3.9.09 @ 11:28AM

There is absolutely no objective evidence that Heather Wilson would have won that New Mexico Senate seat. In countless polls, she performed no better against Tom Udall than Steve Pearce. Wilson was having increasing difficulty holding on to her House seat in a swing district and was not favored to win re-election.

As soon as it became clear that the Democratic nominee was going to be Udall rather than Martin Chavez, that race ceased to be competitive regardless of who the Republican candidate was.

And by the way, Ed Brooke lost to Paul Tsongas, not John Kerry.

Doctor Right| 3.9.09 @ 11:44AM

I am sick-to-death of the tird old argument concerning "the dire need to maintain enough Republican seats in the Senate" as a potential justification for supporting Arlen Specter.

In a word: BULLS***!!!!

I was absolutely sickened by Bush's pusillanimous support of Spector in '04, and I was shocked by Santorum's.

The Conservative base has had ENOUGH of politics as usual. Obama's plan is the fast-track to socialism. The only way to stop this runaway train is to elect real Conservatives to the House and Senate. Otherwise, the fast train simply becomes a slightly slower train, but the last stop on the line is still socialism.

It is high time that the "establishment" Republicans, including the Norteastern elitists and blue-blooded country clubbers accept a simple fact - You are our bitches. The Conservative movement OWNS YOU lock, stock, and barrel. Without our support, this Party will crumble into irrelevancy. If being aligned with we pro-life, pro-second ammendment, pro-Constitutionalists causes you embarrassment at your Georgetown cocktail paryies, then please do us a favor, and become Democrats. Because if you try to screw us again, we're gone. Speaking only for myself, I'd rather spend a few years in the proverbial political wilderness rebuilding a new Party, based on sound Conservative principles, from the ground-up than spend one more minute supporting another RINO, or a Party that is too gutless to take on the liberal-socialist establishment in Congress, the White House, and the media.

Arlen Spector has never been a Conservative, but his weasely. RINO tendencies were kept in-check by Republican Presidents and a Republican House and Senate.

It is time for Spector TO GO!!

Take note, Mr. Steele...

Havoc| 3.9.09 @ 11:50AM

The expense of supporting a two-party system is pointless unless the two parties can be ditinguished ideologically. An election is more than a sporting constest, after all.

Havoc| 3.9.09 @ 11:52AM

Maybe, I intended to say, 'distinguished' and, 'contest' ... above.

whiterb| 3.9.09 @ 12:05PM

Heather Wilson voted to fund embryonic stem cells and schip and health care funding for older women. She appeared more reasonable on abortion. I contend this would have gained her more votes than Pearce, especially among women. In neighboring Arizona, Hayworth lost because he too was rigid on the same issues. They(he and Pearce) lost suburban women. Give Wilson a chance to go head to head with Udall, and with her less extreme voting record, and I see her having a shot. Plus she was a woman and a vet.Have you noticed democrats love running women and vets,and notice how they win ? Look you own the GOP, good luck. Yeah, Tsongas, so wimpy, but he was a good family man.By the way, Avi does talk radio part time in Boston. He is not your kind of conservative these days. Believe he has a PHD in science. Spends time defending evolution. Kind of libertarian, not a Limbaugh. Understands world has changed, too. The gender gap cometh. It got the GOP. Add that to the youth gap and minority gap, well looks tough. But, go on and keep thinning the herd. Keep hammering wrong side of issues that kill the GOP. Maybe you know something I don't.

Bram| 3.9.09 @ 12:06PM

I voted for Scott Garret in the primaries - which convinced long-time Rino Rep Marge Roukema it was time to retire - it can happen.

Pat Toomey will receive a donation from me if he sets out to slay that loathsome Rino.

Thomas| 3.9.09 @ 1:17PM

After listening to mfalatko and Doctor Right, I have nothing to add to that side of the argument.

Mr. Antille has presented a thought provoking analysis of the argument of conservative candidates adversely affecting GOP electibility in modern times. Unfortunately, his evidence was, essentially, inconclusive. This is due, largely, to a lack of depth in regards to the factors affecting specific elections. The presentation presupposes an honest election unaffected by outside influences, including, but not limited to, media reporting, voter accessibility to polls and fraud. Any given election is much more than a simple head-to-head contest between to people. I realize that an in-depth analysis of election factors would require a good sized tome, but this analysis leaves thing a bit vague.

I agree that there is no evidence to support the contention that conservative primary candidates, or any conservative candidate, adversely affects GOP candidate electibility. But it fails to answer the question of re-electibility of conservative candidates. Perhaps ths could provide the premise of a future analytical piece. Anyway, this was a very interesting read and took a significant amount of work to produce. Thanks, Jim.

Michael Tomlinson| 3.9.09 @ 1:34PM

Next year should be the year of the Republican straight ticket for most conservatives, but there are glaring exceptions and Arlen Specter is one. Conservatives are no longer obliged to vote for this Obamanation in hopes of stemming Democrat insanity. He is part of the problem.

Republicans began losing elections in 2006 with the conservative meltdown exacerbated by some conservatives jumping on the senseless anti-Bush and anti-Republican bandwagon created by Chuck Schumer. No party can win elections when it is constantly under attack by a vocal and vitriolic element within its midst (Tom Delay in Townhall revealed 72% of rank and file conservatives still supported President Bush in 2008 as opposed to the verbal minority who helped revitalize the left that has given us our current autocracy in DC).

Does this mean conservatives should sit back and do nothing about Arlen Specter? No. What have we got to lose since it is apparent Specter will vote with Democrats on major issues? Does anyone expect him to vote against an Obmanation for the Supreme Court? It was one thing to save Specter when we needed him to insure a Republican majority in the Senate, but now he's a liability that deserves zero support from conservatives. Toomey should run and with a unified conservative voice (Quislings like Peggy Noonan & Christopher Buckley should be treated as the pariahs they are) he has a good chance of winning in 2010.

As the Obama depression daily becomes reality (even his bitch Warren Buffet acknowledges things will get worse with higher unemployment and inflation under Obama) 2010 is the perfect year for conservatives to challenge and take out Obama’s “brownshirts.” How can Obamanations survive in 2010 with 10% or more unemployment and double digit inflation eating out the guts of our economy and impoverishing a once flourishing middle class’ thanks to Barack Hussein Obama? Only the sheer stupidity of voters can continue to breathe life into the Democrat zombie.

One thing we must avoid is while rejecting collaborators like Specter is showing sympathy for the faux conservative Blue Dog Democrats. They are Obamanations that need to go. Any candidate with a D behind their name is an ally to Obama no matter what they say. Every Democrat in office empowers the radical left. Even if it is the dog catcher if he’s a Democrat he’s got to go.

The time has come for conservatives to stop the internecine warfare within the Republican Party, rally around solid candidates like Pat Toomey and take out Barack Obama’s flunkies. If the voters in Pennsylvania want 10-20% unemployment and double digit inflation then saner Americans can only wish them well and hope they get what they want while areas with wiser voters are spared.

W. James Antle III| 3.9.09 @ 1:53PM

Whiterb, your argument is basically that Heather Wilson agrees with you and therefore she would have won. I am telling you that the numbers from the 2006 election and the 2008 polling do not support any of your contentions about her appeal. You have supplied no evidence to counter these points other than your own subjective opinions. You have merely complained about the prejudices of others while parading your own.

Thomas, I do plan to give this a fuller treatment later. There are a lot of factors that come into play in a given election. I am confident in making two points, however: 1.) Conservative and moderate Republicans tend to win and lose together; 2.) There is no evidence a renewed Rockefeller Republicanism would produce durable Republican majorities. But that doesn't mean that the conservative always wins while the moderate always loses.

dcd| 3.9.09 @ 2:11PM

Swing voters own you, swing voters by definition will always control the election. There will always be a voting segment that sympathizes with the opposition to some extent, and that last percentage point you lose. That is democracy folks.
So rail all you want, but if the republicans don't find a way to pull in more voters than they push out 2008 will be repeated in 2010 and 2012.
As for cowtowing to hard right, they can be safely marginilized cause who else are they going to vote for? If they sit at home that means more leftists in office.

Marc Jeric| 3.9.09 @ 3:24PM

Sen. Specter depends on the Philadelphia unions for his votes, especially those of that navy shipyard there. When Carter eliminated new Navy ships the workers there were left without work. So Specter recommended a work program whereby for example designers would be taught welding and welders design, in a continuing program of utterly useless "work", thus preserving Specter's votes.

Ryan| 3.9.09 @ 4:23PM

Something that not a lot of people have noticed - it will be VERY hard for the Dems to gain any more seats on either side unless Republicans actively try and lose elections. We CAN gain easily, and the table may be set with the issues surrounding the economy that may come to fruition in 2010. A handful of bad news for Obama at the right time, and we could gain a LOT of strength back with some smart campaigning.

whiterb| 3.9.09 @ 4:29PM

Unlike Pearce ,Wilson did not go head to head with Udall. such an early poll, as you advance is meaningless. I admit I think Wilson has a certain voter appeal one cannot easily nail down. But I did the tedious work of going over the websites of the candidates in the top 50 house races in 2006m and 10 or twelve in the Senate. The democrat candidate differed on just a few key issues. One was minimum wage, another embryonic stem cells, another was health care, schip etc. In JD Hayworths case his opponent was every bit anti illegal immigration as he was, but he had a very heart wrenching stand in favor of embryonic stem cells and JD simply said no go. They, the dems ran adds of Rush railing against the lovable MJ Fox. Our candidates were lumped with this hideous Limbaugh tirade that came off so poorly. He looked like a burly hunter beating on baby seals with a club. Sorry but he did. Wilson was a woman with a heart on this and other matters. My case is circumstancial but not without merit. But she may have pulled it off by getting votes in the middle, getting votes because she gets respect as a vet, and getting votes from women because she is a woman, and cares about their issues. Add to this, is the fact conservatives would have looked at all the rest in her record and supported her as well. This little gal, an enlisted person in the military, not coming from a fancy background, showing a certain true grit that she exuded( in my opinion), yeah I think she would have given that aristocratic sh*thead Udall a run for his money.

Bob| 3.9.09 @ 4:46PM

Did any of you take math in junior high? Republicans account for between 29% and 33% of voters. Democrats are 39%-41% of voters. Within the Republican party, 18% or so consider themselves to be social conservatives. To win any national election you need the 11% or more RINO's, plus independents, libertarians, and moderates. It takes a coalition to win. The Republican message of fiscal conservatism is meaningless and most voters consider Democrats to be more economically responsible. The message of tax cuts is meaningless as Bush showed that tax cuts lead to very high debt and severe recessions.

To believe that you will change all of this with some right wing messenger is simply dumb. The more to the right you move, the more you turn off most of the coalition necessary to win. In addition, demographics are moving in the wrong direction.

So, for those of you who believe the party needs to move to the far right, please tell me where you get your stuff -- it must be mighty good.

Truth to Power| 3.9.09 @ 5:52PM

Bob questions our math capabilities while treating variables as constants. There is no election today so their current values are not relevent. Bob's assumes that this is now a new law of nature but that is the mistake of a sophmore. If Obama and the leftist Congress make matters worse with their high taxes, bloated spending, addition of entitlements, fraudulant energy policy and weak foreign and defense policy then Bob's assumptions will not survive. Right now the middle rationalizes but soon they will be angry. Jimmy Carter 2 will look a lot like Jimmy Carter 1 before it is all over. I am betting that things will look better for conservatives even in 2010.

Interloper| 3.9.09 @ 6:08PM

Here is a fuller description of the situation from February Quinnipiac Poll data:

"Specter enjoys a solid approval rating, with 56% approving of the job he is doing and 30% disapproving. Yet, Democrats are far more likely to approve of his performance (62% to 26%) than Republicans (55% to 33%) and independents (49% to 35%)."

Even if Republican opposition to Specter has risen to 60 percent in the wake of his vote for the stimulus plan, that could be offset by his having increased favor with Democrats and independents.

http://tinyurl.com/baj3s

I am sure that Toomey, if he were to win the GOP primary, has no chance of winning the general election. Specter, with his popularity among non-Republicans, does.

W. James Antle III| 3.9.09 @ 6:40PM

The poll I am citing was conducted by Susquehanna Polling and Research. It is more recent and differs from Quinnipiac in finding a majority of voters overall wanting to replace Specter (though this is obviously different than a head-to-head match-up). But it also finds Specter more popular among non-Republicans than Republicans.

Robert Rosencrans| 3.9.09 @ 6:46PM

There is only one party left, the party of Washingtonians.

The two parties parlay back and forth about the budget and sashay back and forth about the issues but when push comes to shove, there always appears to be enough votes to pass Porkulus, while a few of the main players offer feeble resistance.

It's a failed drama, and a failed operating model. That's what the economy is really stating.

No one in D.C. cares, and few outside the beltway understand it.

chemman| 3.9.09 @ 6:50PM

I'm surprised at you Bob, you usually make better arguments than "Bush's tax cuts led to higher spending" You and I both know that it was the tax cuts in conjunction with lack of spending discipline that led to the higher deficits. Revenues went up but spending went up by that amount and then some. Yes this occurred in both Republican and Democrat led administrations.
What your math lesson is really saying is that because the current majority of voters believe that democrats are more fiscally responsible we will continue to lose elections as conservatives of all stripes. Considering that this administration plans to add to the national debt an amount equal to all of Bush's eight years in two years then in truth we're screwed because obviously the voting population is incapable of thinking rationally.
BTW to the those in the center who voted for Obama/Biden because you believed he would govern from the center and be more fiscally responsible than Bush and the Republicans, Hows that working for you now?

BJC| 3.9.09 @ 7:48PM

Good research piece, Jim! As Thomas notes, the overall results are inconclusive, but you've found nothing to refute my "seat of the pants" view about "rainy day Republicanism." (To recap: I observed that RINO unreliables like Specter are for Republicans like having a hole in your roof. When it's raining -- bad Leftist Democrat policies under regnant Democrat control -- the "conventional wisdom" is that you can't oust a RINO with a primary challenger because it's raining and could get worse. And then when it's sunny -- mostly Republican-led proposals being all that gets through to a congressional vote -- you don't need to repair the RINO hole in your roof.) And your assessment seems to agree with my take that the lamentable failure was in not consolidating conservative gains by running more reliable conservative primary challengers during GOP-favorable election years.

But can you inagine how silly much of the anti-Republican commentary is to me? I was one of those Reagan Democrats, eventually won over to the Republican Party by listening to Ronald Reagan himself, unfiltered through the Leftist bias of the media gatekeepers. There's nobody a "Reagan Democrat" type voter disagrees with more than a liberal Republican -- meaning of the country clubber variety who's pro-abortion, pro-homosexuality, materialistic greed in economics, elitist snob in attitude. So the agents provocateurs who counsel ditching Reagan full-bore conservatism for a return to Bob Michelist accommodationist defeat do not have the best interests of the Republican Party or the country in mind. In all the time I've been a Republican, the GOP has fielded only one national candidate I could support without reservations or qualms -- and lest you not know who I refer to, that would be Sarah Palin. Explains to me all I need to know about the purge urged on the GOP, that she was target of a vicious bigotry from the Leftist Democrats and RINO purgers ... and now Rush Limbaugh is similarly targeted. If the Republican Party really wants only the country-clubber set, then they really don't want me or my vote any more ... so that leaves me with what choice -- third party?

jack| 3.9.09 @ 7:50PM

specter,snow,collins and other moderates must be purged from Republican party. They exist for one reason only,to sell their support to the highest bidder. they have no principles and have crippled the republican party with their dishonestly. The media loves them because they weaken the party not because of their claim to some moderate ground,whatever that means.
If Republicans want to beat the Dems they need to get with the program. Look what Dems did to their only moderate,Joe Lieberman,they ostracized him and left him powerless because he sold his support to the Reps. That is how you solidify power,it might not be right or even American but the Reps inability to function as the majority party has left the country in the hands of radicals socialist who appear to hate everything about the US and its History. To save the party and the country moderates and country club republicans like the Bushes,Fords,and Doles must go

Rob| 3.9.09 @ 7:59PM

I'm kinda stingy with my money; and don't donate very often. But I promise to donate to whoever runs against Spector, Collins and Snowe in Republican primaries.

George S| 3.9.09 @ 8:57PM

Glad you're looking out for us... I am not a political analyst nor a numbers wonk but instead I look to what has happened; for what its worth:

During the primaries, our friends on the left thought that John McCain would be a great candidate. So much that the NYTimes endorsed him and many Democrats and Independents were gracious enough to help us out in New Hampshire.

When it came time for a Vice President selection, there again were the lefties kindly suggesting that Joe Lieberman would be a bold and daring pick. But when Governor Palin was selected, all hell broke loose - no need to rehash. Why? If all the demographics are against us, as are the mighty yutes, and the percentage of those who call themselves conservative are dwindling, why the fuss? Instead of sending an army of dirt-diggers to Alaska and running outlandish tabloid stories, why not just point a finger at us and laugh at our stupididty for not picking Lieberman? I don't understand the effort to destroy Palin if she only appeals to a measly 18% of the voters. (Bear with me, I have trouble with numbers).

During the campaign, Obama was on constant "95% will get a tax cut" drone. Tax Cut? Why, that's crazy conservative talk. Just to whom was he preaching, pray tell? Us 18 percenters? Why, for example, did he not tell us of his plan to spend $800 billion of our tax money on every liberal wet dream project kept in the back of a closet for decades? Instead, we heard tax cuts and fiscal responsibility. Why did he not hold the Daschle Plan up to the public and proclaim the second coming of Mengele Health Care? Why tell us that we will choose our doctors when the Daschle plan says otherwise? Why not scream from the heavens that we will be sent to surgical linen closets to die if computer models deem us too expensive to treat? Instead, we get promises of free care. After all, this country is basically center-left so why hide your intentions?

Why turn apopleptic when called a "liberal" in a land of 29% Republicans?

Why didn't Obama tell us mostly liberal/RINO Americans to expect the wealth to be spread? When he did let it slip, he and his swarms of lick-spittle bureaucrats set out to destroy the private citizen who had the gall to catch him without his teleprompter. Just what was behind the desperate fear behind that?

Why tap law enforcement as truth squads to investigate Republican ads that questioned his relationship with Bill Ayers? Us progressives were hip to the bombings of the sixties.

And why was Obama the only presidential candidate to invoke the name of Ronald Reagan? Yes, he said he admired his ability to present and communicate his ideas. Hardly a sop to only 18 percent of the electorate.

I just don't understand how RINO's are the future of the Republican party from what I have seen. But then again, I don't do nuance.

John| 3.9.09 @ 9:22PM

What is the difference between Spector and another democrat? The answer, is none! So what is the big question here as who to support? Any conservative GOP candidate is better the Spector, that is a no brainer.

If the GOP is ever again going to be a viable party, it needs to get rid of all of the RINO's, period.

ruth| 3.9.09 @ 11:03PM

Spector is worse than a democrat--he's democrat lite. Go up against the 'real' thing and you'll get rejected every time.

Alan Brooks| 3.10.09 @ 12:23AM

let's face it, REAL conservatism is dead, America's schools are mediocre, its culture is bread & circuses slime;
"I am the slime on your vide-o,
I am the slime, people look at me go"
Mencken has been demonstrated to be our greatest prophet.

invite Jimmuh as the permanent SmarMaster Of Ceremonies.

Eric Muetterties| 3.10.09 @ 2:14AM

Specter has the dubvious distinction of being the author of the magic bullet theory that the Warren Commision says killed Kennedy. Hmmm... and he was a Democrat then!

http://www.post-gazette.com/localnews/20031116jfk1116p3.asp

The truth may be stranger then fiction. He has always popped up in strange places.

Roy| 3.10.09 @ 6:48AM

I and "moderate Republicans" will be ships passing in this night if they continue to describe the industrial scale slaughter of human embryos for research as the position with a "heart".

What it actually is is substituting touchy-feely empathy for genuine compassion. Because the embryo is very little and doesn't look like you, you naturally tend to favor the one who does look like you and can more easily elicit emotional sympathy. But in the end it's no different than "Are you saying you care less about me than some random peasant in Mongolia?" Coming from my brother the answer would be no; but if he followed that up with "Well then I want to annihilate the population of Mongolia for research to find a cure to my disease.." well there are many words for that policy but the one with a "heart" isn't it.

It may be true that a majority falls for this drivel; this is why I am not a politician - I would be forced to tell the majority what I think of them.

whiterb| 3.10.09 @ 9:40AM

Actually Roy, it is a few cells in a petri dish, not slaughtering the entire population of Mongolia. You sound like Al Gore on another topic. Frum is right the GOP is becoming a cult. John Danforth, a devout man, warned of this ten years ago.

Bob| 3.10.09 @ 10:12AM

Whiterb, please don't conflate science with religious belief. Just let Roy go outside to ride his dinosaur with the knowledge that the universe is only 6000 years old. And by the way, the world is also flat.

It's funny. I was watching an interview with the Vatican astronomer (obviously a non-religious fellow) who was talking about the intersection of religion and science. He showed a timeline and said that he didn't expect the bible to be scientifically accurate as scientific methodology is a relatively new procedure. He had no problem accepting things like carbon dating. He understood concepts like the speed of light and how that related to what he was viewing through his telescope.

stmichrick| 3.10.09 @ 10:27AM

The bromide that 'real conservative' candidates move the party away from the coalition required to win needs qualification.

Sometimes the messenger (Reagan) CAN make the difference; in the case of Gilchrest it was a case of a messenger (Obama coattails) as well as a curious species of retired country club Republicans in this district who have an environmentalist streak (read: NIMBY) that has grown dramatically through the 90's.

Specter has survived because he represents the increasingly blue suburban metro areas in Pennsylvania. In other words, not entirely Democrat yet but moving in that direction as trends the Northeast in general.

In all cases a messenger is required who articulates the ideas of conservativism in a way that trumps the left's distortion of same on issues of race, environment, immigration and capitalism.

Rich Rostrom| 3.10.09 @ 4:54PM

Bob: "the Vatican astronomer (obviously a non-religious fellow) "... The Vatican Observatory is staffed almost entirely by Jesuits. I heard one of them speak on Friday.

Leslie Anne Lowe| 3.10.09 @ 5:07PM

The RINOs have no loyalty but to themselves, and have no values but those approved by the Washington Post and New York Times. They crave acceptance of the Beltway Social Scene, forgetting those who sent them to the Capitol to watch out for there interests.

If the "Moderate Republican" theory was valid, John McCain would be President, and he would never have chosen Gov. Sarah Palin as a last ditch effort to bring Conservatives back to the fold. He knew that, at least unconsciously, his efforts to curry favor with the media at been a one way street, and would not get him the Presidency that they told him had been stolen from him by W.

The biggest problem we have are the Washington Insiders telling those of us in the rest of the country that they know best. Since when does an orchid know what the forrest is really like?

Bob| 3.10.09 @ 5:14PM

Rich, when I said "non-religious" I was being facetious. While I don't agree with Catholic dogma, I respect the intellectual honesty and consistency of the Vatican hierarchy. They don't have the radical fairy tale views of the evangelical right wing whackos.

Bob| 3.10.09 @ 5:18PM

Leslie, evangelical social conservatives only represent about 18% of voters. YOU are the "orchid", not the "forest".

whiterb| 3.10.09 @ 10:30PM

Leslie, Rinos like Snowe and Collins have loyalty to their home state, and the people who voted for them. The people of Maine overwhelmingly reject your brand of politics. Nobody who runs for office in Maine and about 40 or 43 other states can run and say their first loyalty is to Rush Limbaugh and his brand of conservatism. They would lose , and it is the same with old Arlen, and the Keystone state. You must realize your beef is with the majority of Americans. Your politics have lost.

MOCITY| 3.11.09 @ 4:01PM

Never, Never compromise your values or your 1776 patriotism even if it means being in the wilderness.

George in RI| 3.12.09 @ 1:06AM

Want to know why good, pro-growth, Reagan-Republicans have such a hard time bumping off RINO's in primaries. Read Steve Laffey's Primary Mistake: How the Washington Republican Establishment lost everything in 2006 (and sabotaged my campaign). It is a fun and quick, yet a disturbing story...with a wake-up call for the Republican party.

Leslie Anne Lowe| 3.13.09 @ 3:28PM

Let's examine the consequences of having RINOs in the party. Peter Fitzgerald was a moderately conservative Republican Senator from Illinois who objected to some pork barrel spending in his home state. The RINOs led by Gov. George Ryan, Congressman Ray LaHood, and Speaker Denis Hastert all made it clear to Fitzgerald that they would make it impossible for him to fund raise.

The result was that Fitzgerald did not run for re-election.

And where are they now? George Ryan is in Prison for corruption (which for an Illinios Governor is now knows as a "Second Term"). Hastert lost the House to the Democrates and resigned, losing his seat the in the process. Ray LaHood has been rewarded with the post of Transportation Secretary (until something goes wrong and he can take the blame).

And the seat went to an obsure State Senator named Barack Obama.

The moral of the story is when you mess with the RINOs you get the horn.

hgjhg| 11.26.09 @ 9:56PM

Mac TOD Converter,
TOD Converter for Windows

mimi| 12.14.09 @ 10:31PM

cheap watches