![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
(no subject)
Just over 24 hours before I vote, and I'm still undecided about who I'm going to cast my vote for in the election.
Clearly, I'm talking about the Senate race between Specter and Hoeffel in Pennsylvania.
Specter used to be my favorite Republican, for a long time. He never used to blindly vote with his party. He thought for himself on many issues, even highly politicized ones. For example, he voted "not proven" on the Clinton articles of impeachment. So not only was his vote recorded as "not guilty", thus setting him against his party, but he drew attention to himself while doing so. But in the past few years, he's gotten worse and worse at this, and is now almost a down-the-line Republican. So I'd be inclined to vote against him.
Thing is, though, he's still staunchly pro-choice. And if the Republicans retain control of the Senate, which is looking more and more likely, then he'll be the chair of the Judiciary Committee. In other words, he'll be the second most important person in the country when it comes to appointing judges. I like Hoeffel more than Specter in general, but my worst nightmare is Bush winning the White House, the Republicans keeping the Senate, and someone other than Specter running Senate Judiciary.
So what to do?
Clearly, I'm talking about the Senate race between Specter and Hoeffel in Pennsylvania.
Specter used to be my favorite Republican, for a long time. He never used to blindly vote with his party. He thought for himself on many issues, even highly politicized ones. For example, he voted "not proven" on the Clinton articles of impeachment. So not only was his vote recorded as "not guilty", thus setting him against his party, but he drew attention to himself while doing so. But in the past few years, he's gotten worse and worse at this, and is now almost a down-the-line Republican. So I'd be inclined to vote against him.
Thing is, though, he's still staunchly pro-choice. And if the Republicans retain control of the Senate, which is looking more and more likely, then he'll be the chair of the Judiciary Committee. In other words, he'll be the second most important person in the country when it comes to appointing judges. I like Hoeffel more than Specter in general, but my worst nightmare is Bush winning the White House, the Republicans keeping the Senate, and someone other than Specter running Senate Judiciary.
So what to do?
no subject
--Jeff
no subject
and yeah, forget my question/comment below, i'm going hoeffel. thanks jeff.
no subject
no subject
--Jeff
no subject
no subject
no subject
--Jeff
no subject
no subject
I'm voting Hoeffel because Specter screwed over the Pittsburgh transportation system. OK, so that's not the only reason, but it's an important one.
no subject
no subject
Erg. I'm still torn on that issue, but I'm mad at Specter for destroying our bus system. But Hoeffel hasn't said much about that, has he? They all just focus on Philly. Grr.
This bears serious thought.
no subject
no subject
no subject
no subject
And from recent history, it seems like Specter cares more about toeing the party line than voting his conscience. As another poster mentioned, he voted YES on the "Partial-Birth" Abortion Ban. He also voted YES on the Unborn Victims of Violence Act 2004 - which seems to have no practical purpose beyond setting the groundwork for anti-choice activists to further promote their belief that unborn fetuses are people (and therefore abortion is murder).
I'm voting Hoeffel.
(Not that he seems to have much of a chance.)
no subject
no subject
no subject
Grr. Just read that law. Scary piece of work.
no subject
no subject
sorry to be so snippy but it truly irritates me when people talk about stuff they don't know about. desh, or anyone else, if you want to watch a procedure and see what it's really like, i can hook you up. but that procedure is described in the words of anti-choice anti-abortion activists, who of course frame it to sound as sick, cruel, painful and murderous as possible.
no subject
no subject
this probably sounds patronizing but put yourself in my shoes. if i was expressing strong opinions about things with which i didn't have a whole lot of experience, and which didn't affect my life very much, but which affects your life in huge ways [your occupation, the possibility of yourself being in the situation - needing an abortion, in this case] - well, you'd probably wish i'd asked you about your experiences.
i will of course never drag you to the clinic.
[it's interesting to read comments by you in lj because i picture you saying the things you're saying while having the expression on your face that's in your photo. so when you're mad at me or disagreeing with me or whatever, you're still smiling and having a good time.]
no subject
I still vote for choice, though. What I like doesn't have anything to do with what the rights of people I don't know should be (though, as I said, this example tests the limits of that for me). I'm not threatening your livelihood, don't worry.
I am, in fact, always smiling.
no subject
psyche. [sike.] [whatever.]
Ohmigod who cares the REAL issue here is that
Re: Ohmigod who cares the REAL issue here is that
Re: Ohmigod who cares the REAL issue here is that
anyway i already voted for hoeffel.