Jump to content
TSM Forums
Sign in to follow this  
Guest MikeSC

What I Want To Know Is...

Recommended Posts

Guest MikeSC

Since we lost PA, why the fuck was it so damned vital for Bush to help Specter? He could've backed Toomey, an infinitely better choice, and not been hurt at all by it.

-=Mike

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest MikeSC
I dunno.

Hell, Arlen didn't do SHIT for Bush. He never stumped for Bush. He didn't help other PA candidates.

 

Bush made a mistake helping that stupid fuck when his primary. Toomey would have won PA for Bush.

 

And made my EV prediction closer to reality.

-=Mike

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest MikeSC
I'm surprised he didn't (help Toomey). Toomey was a big proponent of the "ban gay marriage" amendment.

From what I gather, the administration's official policy was to support all Republican incumbents. Which shows that Rove is not God.

-=Mike

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Banders Kennany

How could Spector do that if he was a beaten man. I voted for Hoeffel because Spector is such a Bush hardliner it is ridiculous. He may not have stumped for Bush, but he must subscribe to the school of lamism with his speeches so it's no big loss. He takes in all of Bush's policies with open arms so that must count for something.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest MikeSC
If Toomey would have beaten Spector, Hoeffel would have beaten Toomey. And Bush wouldn't want wacky Arlen mad at him -- Specter might hold up some of Bush's judical nominees as a result...

Says who? Toomey would have gotten the social conservatives that I have doubts much cared for Specter. And THEM coming out could've easily swayed PA over to the Bush column.

 

Now, that twat has the ability to kill judicial nominees.

How could Spector do that if he was a beaten man. I voted for Hoeffel because Spector is such a Bush hardliner it is ridiculous. He may not have stumped for Bush, but he must subscribe to the school of lamism with his speeches so it's no big loss. He takes in all of Bush's policies with open arms so that must count for something.

Actually, he doesn't side with Bush all that often. He's of the Snowe and Chaffee school of being a Republican (namely, he isn't really one). He had a comfortable lead and could have gotten off his bony ass to stump for Bush.

 

I guess he was too busy looking up Scottish law (impeachment reference!) to help.

-=Mike

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×