Good Bye, Arlen! And Good Riddance!

Pennsylvania had their primary election today.  Pro-abortion and one-time-RINO Senator Arlen Specter was rejected by the PA Dems for a sixth term as US Senator.  This defeat is seen by many as a slap to Obama, who supported Specter.

Specter enjoyed the dubious distinction of being the only Republican to receive a campaign donation from the now-deceased late-term abortionist George Tiller, a.k.a. Tiller the Killer.  Joe Sestak won the Democrat nomination.  He'll run against Pat Toomey, who defeated Peg Luksik to become the Republican candidate.  Those of decent memory will recall that in 2004's Republican primary, Toomey and Specter faced off.  Toomey would have won that primary, had he not been thrown under the bus by then-Senator Rick Santorum and President Bush in favor of Specter.

Specter's defeat was long overdue, but now the air in the Senate hallways will be just a tad bit fresher.

Particularly for Pennsylvanians - Regarding Senate Race

Arlen Specter's seat is up for grabs.  Remember him?  He's the RINO who decided that deep down inside, he was a Democrat after all and switched parties.  Hey!  At least he was honest.  Alas, I understand that he is being challenged in the Democrat primary.

My concern is with the Republican primary.  Until now, I was inclined to favor Pat Toomey.  Some might remember that six years ago, when he ran against Specter in the primary, he was back-stabbed by both President Bush and Senator Santorum in favor of Specter (who later became a Democrat).  I thought he deserved a chance until it was brought to my attention today that had he sat in the Senate, he would have voted to confirm Sonya Sotomayor, who has made no secret of pandering after the Messiah Most Miserable.  Hear in Toomey's own words.



Listen closely to two of his reasons.  First, he says that the Senate owes the President "some due deferance".  Not so, Mr. Toomey!  The concept of "due deferance" has no place in the Senate confirmation.  Rather, what is at play here is "checks and balances" and "division of powers", not "due deferance" which is just another term for "rubberstamp".  Second, he states that a criterion of a judge is whether he or she "rules in the ideological mainstream of America".  Wrong again.  That's another way of saying "go with the flow" - but what determines the "flow" except all kinds of fads and peer-pressure?  Rather, what we need are judges who will adhere to the United States Constitution as written by the Founding Fathers.

Regretably, I now opine that Patrick Toomey is not worthy of conservative support.  I'd suggest that all citizens of Pennsylvania turn their eyes to Peg Luksik instead.