Letter to a Hack

Dear Sen. Cornyn and Staff:

I was dismayed at your endorsement and support of Sen. Arlen Specter.  It is not so much the fact that you endorsed—the National Republican Senatorial Committee is, after all, a club of incumbent Republican Senators, and they would be expected to support a club member—but the rationale of your support, and how early it has come out, is stunning

Your support is based almost entirely on the fact that Specter, rather than a challenger, is electable in Pennsylvania.  The implication is that his challenger(s) would be “too conservative” for Pennsylvania. 

Already, Sen. Specter has launched attack ads against another Republican—one who has yet to announce his candidacy.  These ads were so blatantly inaccurate that Sen. Specter altered the ad after suffering the initial embarrassment from outright lying about his would-be challenger.  I would hope these are not the types of attacks the NRSC will be engaging in. You should have learned from the mistakes of the past, such as when your predecessor at NRSC use millions of supporters’ dollars to attack a “conservative” challenger to former Sen. Lincoln Chafee—right before Chafee switched to the Democratic Party and campaigned for Barack Obama for president.

Furthermore, the implication the Sen. Specter is more electable than a “conservative,” or even electable at all, is suspect at best.  Due to his voting record and behavior, Specter’s re-elect numbers are far worse than typical incumbents, well below what pollsters consider a danger level, and worse than former PA Sen. Santorum’s numbers, before the latter lost by twenty points.  Sen. Specter is not electable in a general election in Pennsylvania, much less a Republican primary.

Most importantly, you offer no reason why voters would want to re-elect Sen. Specter.  While I realize your organization’s mission is to re-elect Republicans, a campaign slogan of “elect Republicans so we can have Republicans in office” offers no appeal to most voters.  Consider what Sen. Specter represents, and ask yourself why someone like me would support such a candidate, or why Pennsylvania would be better off with Sen. Specter in that seat than a typical Democrat:

• Already this year, Specter has voted to raise taxes—a massive increase on tobacco taxes, which fall primarily on the poor, to fund health care for the upper middle class.
• Specter has written earmarks for the AFL-CIO, an organization which uses both union dues and a voluntary PAC to almost exclusively support Democrats and left-wing policies.
• You note Sen. Specter recently decided to oppose “card check,” which would take away workers’ right to a secret ballot and force companies into mandatory binding arbitration.  Yet Specter previously co-sponsored this legislation, and his remarks even noted that he might support it again if the economy improves—and the job-killing effect it would have might not be so obvious.
• On the issue most important to me, Specter voted to end the DC Scholarship program—a program which saves low-income children from failing schools, one which even the US Department of Education reports significant academic gains from, and which costs a fraction per-pupil as the DC public school.
• Specter voted for Obama’s economic stimulus—a dramatic increase in federal spending, and one which undermined welfare reform, forces states to expand services and spending, and hampers economic growth—without reading the final legislation.  This on top of Specter’s support of repeated bailouts of failing companies.  Thanks in no small part to Sen. Specter, the federal budget now represent the highest percentage of GDP in since WWII, and this year’s budget deficit is several times higher than last year’s—previously the highest deficit in US history.

Indeed, your support for Sen. Specter indicates the Republican Party is content to support higher taxes, handouts to unions and erosion of worker’s freedom, elimination of school choice, and massive increases in federal spending.  More  precisely, this endorsement indicates that the Republican Party is not concerned at all with principles, but simply with obtaining and maintaining political power. 

While under no circumstances was the NRSC going to receive any contribution from me, I would advise you to ponder why your party has lost elections recently.  Let me suggest that it is precisely because of the well-earned reputation GOP only cares about retaining political power.  It appears you are content to maintain that direction.