Thursday, June 30, 2011

Rick Santorum is NOT a Tea Party Candidate

Rick Santorum has said that he was " the tea party before there was a tea party".

At a tea party rally in 2009, Glenn Beck said that tea parties were as much about criticizing Republicans' and George Bush's wasteful spending as they were about criticizing that of Democrats. According to The American Conservative's Jack Hunter:
Today, Santorum remains the personification of Bush Republicanism. Heading into the 2012 campaign, the former senator sounds more like the ghost of Republicans past, invoking Bush’s name more often and favorably than any other candidate, while seeming to hope his beating of the culture and foreign war drums might drown out his big government record.
Santorum voted for No Child Left Behind, Medicare Part D, and many other "compassionate conservative" socialist schemes signed into law by George W. Bush. Indeed, Santorum's recent voting record is that of a George Bush Big Government Republican. Santorum seems to have swayed that way from 2001-2006, during the Bush years. Some things he says today like that he would have opposed TARP match the more conservative Santorum of the '90s, but most bespeak the big government Santorum of the 2000s, and therefore Santorum is as antithetical to the tea party philosophy as George Bush is.

Santorum conflicts with the tea party on foreign policy. Shortly before the 2006 election that he lost to Democrat Bob Casey, Santorum said that it would be worth it to lose his senate seat for being such an apologist for the Iraq war. But the tea party represents grassroots beliefs. The urge to attack Iraqis who live thousands of miles away, across the vast Atlantic Ocean, that have never attacked you is not a grassroots impulse.

On March 20th, Santorum stated that NATO should have imposed a no fly zone in Libya sooner(!) than it did.

But on June 23rd he told Glenn Beck that he didn't "think we had an interest [in Lybia.]" Santorum then proceeded to contradict himself by saying "I think we should get out of [Libya], but I don't think we can immediately pull the plug [because among other things] it would threaten to "destabilize NATO"--whatever that means. So although we don't have an interest in Libya, we should have gone in sooner and we can't pull out immediately. Contradicting oneself is not celebrated by the tea party. Moreover, doesn't that line about "destabilizing NATO" sound just like some nonsensical excuse he would give to justify lingering in Iraq? Santorum's apparent deep concern for the alleged interests of NATO seems to have superseded his concerns for the US's interests because he himself has said that the US doesn't have any interest in Libya, implying that he knows it is not good for the US to be there. Putting the interests of internationalist entities above those of the United States is not a tea party cause and neither is making troops linger in theaters of recreational war.

Santorum has faultily insinuated that it was "Reaganesque" to attack Libya even though Libya has not attacked the US in any way whatsoever in the past 20 years. When the Reagan administration attacked Libya, it was in response to an assassination allegedly performed by Libyan government agents against two US armymen. Therefore the war in Libya that Reagan supported was defensive--albeit a little hawkish. But the present war in Libya that Santorum supports is clearly non-defensive. Supporting non-defensive foreign wars that enlarge deficits in not tea partyesque.

Santorum went on to tell Beck that he was concerned that the government was not doing enough to convince people of the need to "win" in Afghanistan and Iraq. I'm sure that's what so many tea partiers are yearning for: propaganda in support of recreational wars.

Santorum also belittled Obama's unfulfilled obligation to get congressional approval for the war, and implied that the main task for Obama was to make the mission clearer. Santorum wants a more purposed unconstitutional war, but an unconstitutional war nonetheless. Most tea partiers would place more emphasis on the unconstitutional status of the Libya war.

Perhaps Santorum does, however facially, represent some social conservatives in the tea party since he is ardently pro-life, but according to Jack Hunter:
In positioning himself as the most socially conservative candidate, Santorum has been successful in spending as many taxpayer dollars as the Democrats by seeking right-wing refuge in his pro-life, pro-gun, and anti-gay-marriage positions. The problem is, “conservatives” of Santorum’s stripe rarely do much to actually advance these issues. Is America any closer to overturning Roe v. Wade? Do we generally have more federal gun laws today or less? Has homosexuality become more or less culturally acceptable? For most Republican politicians, social conservatism has always been more of a fashion statement than a mission statement. You even get the sense that politicians like Santorum know full well they can’t do much legislatively on these issues and thus enjoy the conservative cover it always provides them. A 10th Amendment revolution [that only Ron Paul would champion] in this country might give social conservatives more political victories than they’ve had in decades—but it would also mean the loss of a valuable election tool for Republican politicians [like Santorum] who not-so-coincidentally seem to always favor impossible-to-pass federal legislation.
Even if Santorum does give good lip service to social causes, it does not absolve him from doing the right thing fiscally. Some would even say that Santorum's votes for fiscal prodigality were downright immoral. Moreover, would it be okay for someone to rob you as long as they were pro-life? To be irresponsible with your money? To make shady quid pro quo deals?

Indeed, more support is needed on the ground level to overturn Roe v Wade. A recent Gallup Poll reveals that 49% of Americans identify as pro-choice and 45% as pro-life with the rest being either unsure or choosing neither. Electing a pro-life politician while doing nothing to convince pro-choicers to become pro-life is like putting the cart before the horse. Public opinion needs to be swayed to at least 70% pro-life to ensure a lasting reversal of Roe v Wade. But because people are lazy or don't want to hurt their pro-choice friends' feelings, they prefer to elect Santorum and let him do all the talking. Meanwhile Santorum does all kinds of other bad things, and again, because people are lazy, they re-elect him based solely on his pro-life stance. Again, being pro-life does not confer absolution from fiscal responsibility, etc.

According to a column quoted by Jack Hunter:
“Reagan was a small government conservative who declared in his inauguration address that government was the problem, not the solution. There, Bush begs to differ. The essence of Bush’s big government conservatism is a trade-off. To gain free-market reforms and expand individual choice, he’s willing to broaden programs and increase spending.
These sorts of bargains are faustian because they make conservatives seem fiscally irresponsible to liberals and prevent liberals from becoming conservative. In keeping with this faustian method, Rick Santorum endorsed the liberal Arlen Specter over less liberal Pat Toomey in 2004 in return for Specter's alleged pledge to support Bush's supreme court nominees. But there is no evidence to suggest that Toomey wouldn't have voted to nominate George Bush's selections Roberts and Alito. Unless Santorum knew for certain that Toomey would have lost the 2004 general election and that Specter would have won it, then Santorum's excuse is outright deceitful. We suspect Santorum endorsed Specter as part of some other quid pro quo deal--perhaps in return for Specter's vote for the Bush tax cuts. Santorum's endorsement may have been the key to Arlen Specter's victory over Toomey in the primary. Even if it wasn't, it was intended to help Specter beat Toomey. Santorum either played a role or tried to play a role in the retention of Arlen Specter, who eventually was a key vote for Obamacare. The tea party patriots I know stand firm on principle and do not indulge in such deleterious faustian tactics.

The US federal government is drifting further and further toward enforcing atheistic despotism within the confines of government buildings and institutions. So why would a socially conservative tea partier vote for someone with a record of growing government? Santorum talks the talk of stopping big government, but he didn't do much to walk the walk while in office, ie, vote against it--at least not in the Bush era. Who's to say that Santorum wouldn't resort to supporting more big government in the future, as long as the bill in question had a Republican stamp on it? Even if such a bill were well-intentioned, the power it would grant the government may be used for evil in the future, as in the case of the TSA.

Although Santorum has criticized the body scanners used by the TSA, he voted to create the TSA back in 2002 despite the fact that some said stricter rules for private security forces in aeroports was a sufficient security measure and that creating the TSA was not necessary. Indeed Israeli aeroports are the safest in the world and are not enforced by government goon squads. Creating government agencies to "keep us safe" is not exactly a tea party cause.

Maybe Santorum does fit into the Republican co-opted notion of the tea party, but he is certainly not tea party Kosher.

King's College Radio Station Criticized

King's alum Jim Spock once had a talkshow on King's College's radio station WRKC (88.5FM), Wilkes-Barre, Pennsylvania. But Spock was removed in 2005, because, according to him, station manager Sue Henry did not like the content of one pre-recorded show he was airing.

Spock had been airing his own talkshow in addition to the three pre-recorded shows, one of which was "Making Contact"--a liberal show similar to Democracy Now.

Spock insists that Henry, a known Republican, told him to cease his show because she didn't like the content of "Making Contact". Spock refused to continue his show without Making Contact and the King's administration backed Sue Henry.

Spock says several King's College broadcasting students had backed him but were afraid to say so. He now reports that two of the shows he once played are now broadcast by Wilkes University's radio station 90.7 WCLH.

We're not fans of "Making Contact" per se, but we are partial to alternative media (being that that's what the NuPo is). We'd frankly be interested in what a liberal like Spock had to say, given that Steve Corbett and Nancy Kman tend to be a little closed-minded and banal sometimes. A college radio station would seem like a great place for new amateur talkers to be heard. As long as said talkers were held to a code of ethics so they did not slander anyone, a talkshow at King's station should be fine. Maybe Henry thought enforcing a code of ethics would be too much of a burden for King's College to handle given its limited resources.

Anyway, we thought we'd re-post a letter to the editor that someone wrote in support of Spock (The views expressed in it are not necessarily those of the NuPo):
Dropping Radio Programming Runs Counter to Democracy

Re: “King’s sees tempest in its airwaves,” Jon Fox, Nov. 25, [2005].
There is no word to express my outrage towards Sue Henry, general manager of WRKC, the King’s College radio station, and Robert McGonigle, associate vice president for student affairs.

The fact is that both agreed to pull off the air the show “Making Contact,” a current affairs program, because they found the broadcasting of what is happening in America today to be inappropriate. The anti-war rally in Washington was real, the state of mind of the majority of Americans towards the Bush administration is real, but Ms. Henry and Mr. McGonigle feel that Jim Spak, who had been running “Making Contact,” has gone too far with extremism while he was simply running a show on what? Current affairs.

As we preach democracy all over the world, Henry and McGonigle just killed it in the King’s College radio station.

Monique Frugier
Ardmore
We found the above 2005 letter on this blog: http://www.sauvessanges.com/published7.html

Wednesday, June 29, 2011

Glenn Beck's Double Standard

Glenn Beck Fawned over Bush era Republican Rick Santorum while interviewing him even though Beck has called Bush a progressive and has criticized Bush's spending.

Yet, Beck prefaced a June 27th interview with Ron Paul by saying that he thought Dr. Paul was "wrong on a few things". The introduction as a whole was favorable to Paul, and Beck actually took a slight at Rick Santorum's opinion (or lack thereof) on auditing the Fed. (see video). continued below


But during a half hour interview with Santorum on June 23rd, Beck did not once criticize Santorum's big government voting record. Santorum voted for No Child Left Behind, Medicare Plan D, and many many other "compassionate conservative" schemes signed into law by George W. Bush. Why didn't Beck bother to mention his disagreements with Santorum's voting record?

According to The American Conservative's Jack Hunter:
Today, Santorum remains the personification of Bush Republicanism. Heading into the 2012 campaign, the former senator sounds more like the ghost of Republicans past, invoking Bush’s name more often and favorably than any other candidate, while seeming to hope his beating of the culture and foreign war drums might drown out his big government record.
If Beck were being consistent, wouldn't he at least question Santorum on his record?

Rush Limbaugh was also quite friendly to Santorum when he interviewed him, but Rush has never gone out on a limb and criticized Bush to the extent that Beck has. We know Rush is a sticker for the establishment GOP, but this is not the case for Beck, right?

It is painful to watch pundits like Glenn Beck say all the right things one moment and then forget them whenever a hallowed Republican like Santorum appears. The material on Beck's show would suggest that he is an avid Ron Paul supporter since Beck highlights heavily Fed's misdeeds more than any other FOX News host. Yet Beck fawns over Santorum and not Paul.

At least the judge, Andrew Napolitano, seems to be honest, that is, when FOX lets him on the air.
_____________________________________________

Addendum
We would add that Santorum has said he was "the tea party before there was a tea party". But Beck once cheered on a Tea Party crowd to condemn the Bush style spending that Santorum once championed.

Santorum also conflicts with the tea party in other ways. Shortly before the 2006 election that he lost to Democrat Bob Casey, Santorum said that it would be worth it to lose his senate seat for being an apologist for the Iraq war. But the tea party represents grassroots beliefs. The urge to attack Iraqis who live thousands of miles away, across the vast Atlantic Ocean, that have never attacked you is not a grassroots impulse.

While Santorum answered some of Beck's questions on the Libya war, he used some rhetoric resonant of the Bush era and the excuses he gave for lingering in Iraq. Santorum told Beck: "I think we should get out of [Libya], but I don't think we can immediately pull the plug [because among other things] it would threaten to "destabilize NATO"--whatever that means.

Admid concerns that the benefits of government foreign aid are being gulped up by dictators like Mubarak, Santorum has called for more US foreign aid and has refused to cut any money from the defense budget. Believe it or not, many tea partiers want Defense cut and belief much of the Dept's activity is wasteful.

Santorum had previously stated that NATO should have imposed a no fly zone sooner(!) than it did. Santorum also faultily insuates that it is "Reaganesque" to attack Libya even though Libya has not attacked the US in any way whatsoever in the past 20 years.

So how could Santorum tell Beck he disagreed with the war if he had said we should have gone in sooner? He must have either lied to Beck after Beck pushed him to be against it or have changed his mind between since he supported it.

Santorum went on to tell Beck that he was concerned that the government was not doing enough to convince people of of the need to "win" in Afghanistan and Iraq. I'm sure that's what so many tea partiers are yearning for: propaganda in support of recreational wars.

Santorum also belittled Obama's unfulfilled obligation to get congressional approval for the war, and implied that the main task for Obama was to make clear the mission. Santorum wants a more articulate unconstitutional war, but an unconstitutional war nonetheless. Meanwhile, Beck allowed Santorum to pose as a constitutionalist.

Perhaps Santorum does, however facially, represent some social conservatives in the tea party since he is ardently pro-life, but according to Jack Hunter:
In positioning himself as the most socially conservative candidate, Santorum has been successful in spending as many taxpayer dollars as the Democrats by seeking right-wing refuge in his pro-life, pro-gun, and anti-gay-marriage positions. The problem is, “conservatives” of Santorum’s stripe rarely do much to actually advance these issues. Is America any closer to overturning Roe v. Wade? Do we generally have more federal gun laws today or less? Has homosexuality become more or less culturally acceptable? For most Republican politicians, social conservatism has always been more of a fashion statement than a mission statement. You even get the sense that politicians like Santorum know full well they can’t do much legislatively on these issues and thus enjoy the conservative cover it always provides them. A 10th Amendment revolution [that only Ron Paul would champion] in this country might give social conservatives more political victories than they’ve had in decades—but it would also mean the loss of a valuable election tool for Republican politicians [like Santorum] who not-so-coincidentally seem to always favor impossible-to-pass federal legislation.

Even if Santorum does give good lip service to social causes, it does not absolve him from doing the right thing fiscally. Some would even say that Santorum's votes for fiscal prodigality were downright immoral. Moreover, would it be okay for someone to rob you as long as they were pro-life? To be irresponsible with money? To make shady quid pro quo deals?

According to a column quoted by Jack Hunter:
“Reagan was a small government conservative who declared in his inauguration address that government was the problem, not the solution. There, Bush begs to differ. The essence of Bush’s big government conservatism is a trade-off. To gain free-market reforms and expand individual choice, he’s willing to broaden programs and increase spending.
These sorts of bargains are faustian because they make conservatives seem fiscally irresponsible to liberals.

In keeping with this faustian philosophy, Rick Santorum endorsed the liberal Arlen Specter over less liberal Pat Toomey in 2004 in return for Specter's vote on the Bush tax cuts and Specter's alleged pledge to support Bush's supreme court nominees. But there is no evidence to suggest that Toomey wouldn't have voted to nominate George Bush's selections Roberts and Alito. Santorum's little quid pro quo game resulted in the retention of liberal Arlen Specter who eventually was a key vote for Obamacare.

And yet, the impeccable Beck never even brought up any of this to Santorum, and seemed to gloat over him the entire interview. Does Glenn Beck actually believe what he professes?

Wednesday, June 22, 2011

Mark Levin Sees no Contradiction

On his radio show broadcast today, Mark Levin shifted right from complaining about troops being removed from Afghanistan to saying that the reason things were so bad at home was that the government was "involved in everything." According to Levin, the government being "involved" overseas is desirable but involvement at home is anathema.

In Levin's mind, something magic must happen when government crosses a US border. It is very interesting that many Republicans such as Levin seem to be pro-small government at home but raging statists abroad.

After all, the US military is a government institution that relies not on profit for its funding but income redistribution. Its structure is susceptible to the same inefficiencies and wastefulness typical of any long-standing government bureaucracy.

It would seem like a logical conclusion that the military is a socialist organization because, after all, taxes are collected and redistributed to soldiers, personnel, and profiteers. Although most would say that necessary military funding is a necessary socialism, the overseas military activity Levin spoke of is not necessary--the non-defensive, recreational wars raging in Afghanistan, Iraq, and Libya.

Although the odds of dying from a terrorist attack are far less than those of dying from a snake bite, snakes for some reason do not warrant equivalently overarching military action in Levin's mind. Is he soft on snakes or overestimative of terrorist threats?

Moreover, nearly all great nations in the modern era have fallen due to financial reasons. It is ironic that the very institution meant to protect us may be leading to our demise as it digs us further into debt.

To expect Levin to arrive at this thought may be expecting too much.

Tuesday, June 7, 2011

Velma Chides Hannity for being Obsessed with the Anthony Weiner Scandal

A woman named Velma from New Orleans called in to the Sean Hannity radio show and reprimanded him for spending too much time covering liberal congressman Anthony Weiner's sexting debacle. Hannity half tried to sidestep the question by mentioning unrelated stuff and then tried to cover himself by claiming that the incident was of prime importance.

But Velma was right. There's only so much nonsense people can take from hucksters like Hannity, who focus on insignificant gossipy things.

Hannity mentions many good things on his show, like concerns over eminent domain. But he rails on incessantly about Islamic Terrorism, which 99.999% of Americans have not been hurt by in the past year.

More generally, if Hannity really cared about the well-being of his listeners, he wouldn't fill their heads up with such gossipy trifles that don't truly inform them or make them smarter voters.

But being gossipy probably nets Hannity better ratings...

Yes, it is obvious that Weiner did something bad, but he needs to be criticized primarily on his bad ideas and policies--the things that actually affect people, not harassed over a singular sin of his. Going on a crusade to try to prove that all liberals are immoral people is a terrible strategy for the conservative movement because Anthony Weiner can simply be replaced with a liberal who doesn't sext.

When I was once a talk radio listener, I tried in vain to try to get liberals to think all liberals were immoral but it was to no avail. You've got to get people to see that it is the liberal policies that are the problem. This requires education and thought, neither of which a casual radio listener may want to give.

I suggest people seek out other sources of media, like The Freeman and news outlets like The Hill, the Washington Times, and Russia Today. For TV, there's "Freedomwatch" with Judge Napolitano. Napolitano may not have Hannity's looks and voice, but he is a lot more genuine in what he covers and how he covers it. Also, look to Christian Churches to hear the truth on moral issues, not some disc-jockey trying to get ratings.

I wish there were a mainstream radio show host I could recommend. But most of them are as gossipy as Hannity. Michael Savage is decent, but you have to listen through hours of him talking about his boat, his dog, his latest spaghetti recipe, his boyhood, all of which, although entertaining because of his wit and storytelling ability, are a lot to suffer through if you just want to hear only politics. Moreover, Savage, too, gets caught up in the character assassination hysteria, leaving his listeners so hateful of liberals that they blindly support the political opponents of such liberals without being critical enough of them. But at least Savage actually criticizes Republicans when they act like Democrats. He condemned Bush's rampant spending.

Savage's pick of Romney for president in 2008 was a bad choice, but overall Savage is probably the most honest major conservative talk-show host out there. He also has good guests on his show, one of whom, Jack Hunter, is an excellent and articulate commentator. Hunter has a radio show of his own, but it isn't widely syndicated.

When it comes to criticizing Democrats, conservative talk radio is fairly decent, (except Hannity and O'Reilly who obsess over minutia). But when it comes to being smart about which Republicans to support, talk radio gets an F.

Saturday, June 4, 2011

Horowitz Revs up Anti-Paul Propaganda

"Conservative"* media figure David Horowitz and others who post on the NewsReal blog have a jihad of their own running against Ron Paul and anyone who supports him.** There's a lot of provocative name-calling by the bloggers and Horowitz, which we won't repeat because it is a provocation, a gateway into a mindless, emotion-directed ad hominem debate, which results in a sort of quest to become the ape that wins the fight and can beat his chest at the end of the argument. This is exactly the type of non-issue driven debate people should avoid. The issues and facts are what matter. Ideas, especially, are relevant in any discussion on Ron Paul, who is driven by his. There are at least 5 smear attacks scheduled against Ron Paul per month, it seems. The bloggers are trying to get people to dislike Paul.

Their objective, it seems, is not to draw anyone slightly sympathetic to Dr. Paul to their way of thinking since they so mercilessly libel Ron Paul's followers. (It is funny that they totally ignore Ron Paul's intellectual supporters and focus solely on truthers and a few random white supremacists.) The objective seems to be to give affirmation to the thoughtless skimmer who will take for granted the veracity of all the bloggers' slurs, quotes taken out of context, uncharitable arguments, straw-men attacks, and outright calumnies.

If they can get conservatives to early on associate Ron Paul solely with the likes of Jimmy Carter, et al, then they can get them to block out everything Paul or his supporters might say--even if it is truly conservative. Their method of proselytizing is geared toward fostering allegiance or enmity with people, not ideas or values. But the nature of the anti-Paulite articles is downright laughable at times--to the point where one wonders whether the authors are real people being serious. There's no charitable attempt to represent beyond caricature Ron Paul's beliefs. And we thought we here at the NuPo could be biased...

Moreover, the overall focus of the blog, by accident, distracts people from the nation's monetary and fiscal woes (and thus Ron Paul's platform) by concentrating on Mohammedans doing bad things, how bad Obama is, and the perils of multiculturalism. Because the readers' consciousness is totally removed from Ron Paul's platform, when Ron Paul speaks in the debates and doesn't drone on about terrorism the whole time, talking instead about the Fed and the debt, the people may be confused.

In a recent article, Horowitz himself labels Paul a "Vicious Anti-Semite and Anti-American." The disingenuous nature of the article in which he calls him this is fleshed out by the fact that Horowitz neglects to mention that Ron Paul's proposal to cut aid to Israel would also cut all foreign aid, including that designated for Israel's rivals such as Egypt.

The funny thing is that Horowitz's reasoning can be used against him. Horowitz opposed Ron Paul's bill which would have cut aid to Israel's rivals. Is Horowitz anti-Israel and therefore a vicious anti-semite (or racist) too? He would be if he used his own reasoning. Moreover, Ron Paul wants to take away aid from predominantly Christian (Catholic) nations too. Is Paul anti-Catholic? This is the exact same thing liberals do when they say people who oppose the welfare state don't like black people because they may, on the aggregate, use it a little more. Sadly, Horowitz was once respected here for his opposition to this sort of hysteria, which is often invoked in cases of political correctness. Now he is prime producer of it.

A writer for NewsReal blog defended Horowitz, saying that the body of Ron Paul's foreign policy work, etc suggests that he an anti-semite. This implies that it was therefore alright for Horowitz not to explain that Paul's bill would cut foreign aid to all nations. So, if someone is thought to be bad a priori, then telling half the truth about their actions to make them look worse is justified. This seems like a "means justify the ends" ethic. If Horowitz were to use such an excuse, then it may be the ethic of his communist past creeping into his present discourse. Moreover, Ron Paul contends that necons practice this ethic in his book Liberty Defined. For the record, the blogger's premise was mistaken: Ron Paul is not an anti-semite, and this is not a widespread belief.

Horowitz is an intelligent man, having received a graduate degree from Cal Berkeley. Unless he is totally blinded by his hatred of Ron Paul or something, then it is safe to assume that Horowitz knows full well the nature of what he's doing.

Nor does Horowitz provide a charitable explanation of Ron Paul's belief that foreign aid "takes money from poor people in rich countries to give it to rich people in poor countries"--a belief that has many scholarly followers. Paul believes foreign aid in principle is socialistic and wrong. I would have liked to see an argument against this principle rather than an empty smear of Ron Paul.

Since Paul already believes foreign aid is wrong, cutting all of it would only be fair. Therefore it is not "anti-semitism" per se on which Paul acts. In other words, the policy in not anti-semitic. Moreover, if Paul ever has opposed any actions of the Israeli government, the question for NewsReal blog is whether said government is the same as the entire aggregate of Jewish people. If it is, then Horowitz may be on to something! But Horowitz doesn't engage in debate on any of these issues in his post.

If Paul is anti-semitic, someone had better tell Walter Block and Peter Schiff. Also, someone had better tell Paul that his entire Austrian Economic philosophy was developed predominantly by two Jewish men, Ludwig von Mises and Murray Rothbard. Indeed, the NewsReal bloggers either live under a rock or think their readers do.

So the trick is to somehow reach the people Horowitz is getting to hate Ron Paul based on straw-man representations of him. But this may be very difficult, and many who might derive pleasure from such posts is probably not seeking the truth anyway but rather somebody to direct their already existent malice toward.

In sum, all of us make mistakes, the NuPo and Ron Paul included. We may be mistaken in our attitudes about things as well. That writers for the NewsReal blog have not been honest in their presentation of a fellow conservative Ron Paul does not mean they are locked into their hatred for him forever. They are free to change. A cool-headed dislike for RP's policies may be understandable if one has certain values, but the hysterical calumnies are not.*** It is hoped that Horowitz especially will issue an apology for his smears and his bloggers' stacking of the deck to find every single bad person on Earth who has ever supported Ron Paul.
___________________________________
*We put the moniker Conservative in quotations because the NewsReal blog upholds Newt Gingrich who has ever been a conservative in terms of his favored policies. By "upholds" we mean that the site featured an ad on top of the main webpage featuring Gingrich along with Palin and another neocon. Palin ran up debt in Wasilla, supported the bridge to nowhere initially, and now supports more expensive recreational wars, so she is not a solid conservative.
** We expect attacks on RP to continue on the Front Page Mag, where Horowitz now writes.
***Maybe we're being to harsh on Horowitz...he fits right in with Jefferson and Adams!

Thursday, June 2, 2011

Toomey Stumps for State Committee Judicial Selections

In a mass email sent out the morning of the May 17 primary, Pat Toomey endorsed the GOP state committee's endorsement selections of Victor Stabile and Anne Covey, both of whom had no judicial experience since they had never been judges. A reprint of his email can be seen at the bottom of this post.

Paul Pannepinto, a judge, was the non-establishment Republican candidate for Commonwealth judge, PA's state appellate court judge seat. Pannepinto claimed that his experience as a judge was preferable to the on-the-job training that his non-judge opponent, Anne Covey, may well need to go through if she is elected in the fall, having already beaten Pannepinto in the primary. However, she did work as a clerk for an appellate court judge, but it seems Pannepinto had the edge in terms of overall judicial experience since all the cases an appellate court judge would see, would come from the local level of which Pannepinto has intimate knowledge.

Toomey's endorsement of Victor Stabile, a notorious donor to Arlen Specter, is confusing. Stabile even gave money to Specter as he ran against Toomey in the 2004 Republican primary.

Moreover, it is bizzarre that Toomey would be so quick to serve as a sticker for state committee-endorsed candidates, since he lost to Arlen Specter in 2004 in part because the state committee endorsed Specter over him that year. We must concede that Toomey did receive the state committee's endorsement over Peg Luksik in 2010.

We have no knowledge of any connections Toomey might have to the two. We became aware of a flyer sent out on the eve of the 2011 primary depicting Tom Corbett, Jim Cawley, and Toomey himself posing as idols so that the sheep voters would psychologically associate them with the endorsed judges. It seems that the PA GOP brand is much stronger than the individuals that run under it.

Given Toomey's yea vote on Patriot act extension and his willingness to stump for the state committee and a big Specter supporter proves that when it comes to playing ball with the establishment, Toomey is a real team player. Maybe he's doing what he needs to to stay in office :-(

Anyway, here is a reprint of Toomey's message.
Today, May 17th, is Primary Election Day in Pennsylvania. I hope that you’ll join me in supporting our terrific Republican Judicial Team: Vic Stabile for Pennsylvania Superior Court and Anne Covey for Pennsylvania Commonwealth Court.

We made tremendous strides in the 2010 Elections, but we cannot stop now. Pennsylvania deserves judges with knowledge and vision who will not legislate from the bench.

That is why I am asking that you vote for Vic Stabile for Pennsylvania Superior Court and Anne Covey for Pennsylvania Commonwealth Court when you cast your ballots today.

Thanks very much for your continued support,

Senator Pat Toomey