Here we go already.
There was a big difference between Laura Ingraham and Rush today.
I think what you are hearing is that Specter gets the chairmanship with the understanding that he doesn't impede Bush judges.
That is how I read that.
Hopefully this won't block Justice Ashcroft!
Let's secede!
Poor Rush... guy never wants to make a choice between being Republican and being conservative, because his audience is half of each.
Specter is in. Maybe Rush figures that there is no point in beating a dead horse. Personally, though, I'd like to beat it a little more. Mr. Specter ought to be reminded who put him where he is, and who can take him out.
Bork was voted down based on lies. Please don't do that.
See Hugh Hewitt's ( http://www.hughhewitt.com/ ) thoughts on Specter Nov. 8 7:20 A.M.
Think long term and who is needed to maintain the Pubby majority.
If it were Specter v. any typical 'rat, I'd go Specter.
Specter says he has voted for/supported all of GWB's nominees. Can anyone refute that?
And who is this imbecil broad who's clip he's playing? What a dope.
The Republicans and their lap dog Rush, are engaged in a very cynical game here. Republicans love having the abortion issue out of their hands so they can rail against and fear monger about judges, but they really don't want judges to overturn R v. W. because then the issue would return to the States, and the other side would get energized. As is, with the issue in all reality out of play politically, the issue clearly works in their favor as their are substantially more single issue pro-lifers than there are pro-aborts. Specter, however, is either arrogant or stupid or both. He has clearly overplayed his hand here. Now the evangelicals are watching and this is Bush's first test for if he is going to listen to them. Write and call your Repub Senator. I predict they will have no choice but to dump Specter. BTW, does it surprise you that Rush is waivering on a subject that is not about bombing Iraqis?
I was okay with taking down Specter UNTIL, I read Oliphant's piece in the Boston Globe encouraging Republicans to give Specter to boot.
Maybe a tin foil hat, but when a noted Democratic mouthpiece encourages Republicans to do something like that, I can't help but think there is a problem with the idea that the Dems hope to capitalize on.
Rush needs to get there "First with the most"
I am NOT having a hard time following Rush. I agree....with Rush. This is not a big deal.. W will handle it.
I'm divided on this. I signed several petitions to replace Specter as chair of the committee. I was violently opposed when Bush and Rove intervened for Specter in the first place. I would rather see him gone.
But if Bush wants to go with Specter on a suitable leash, that's his choice. He had just better understand that he, Bush, will be held responsible for what Specter does, because Specter wouldn't be there without the intervention of Bush and Rove.
I personally wish they had kept out of the primary, or had just given Specter a pro-forma recommnedation as the incumbent and left it at that.
Moreover, I think Bush is making a mistake. Specter cannot be trusted. It will be more and more difficult to keep the leash on him as Bush nears the end of his term and the media start bashing him again. And what about the years after 2008, when Specter is still there and Bush is gone?
But I guess it's up to Bush. I sure hope he knows what he's doing. I haven't seen what Rush said, but I imagine he takes a somewhat similar position. If Bush thinks it's better politically to work with Specter, and if Specter keeps the agreement, then it doesn't much matter what he personally thinks, as long as he plays ball.
Our center is not holding. The GOP leadership does not want this. rush sounds like he's back on Oxy.
does freerepublic now have conference posters?
There was a time when "polite society" regarded such unabashed ego-centrism as boorish. Some of us think of it that way..
Kudos to Michael Medved who stays focused, deals with issues, genuinely respects the audience, and makes an effort to avoid "me-itis".
Does Rush get money from Soros too?
Well .. I don't know what Rush you're listening to .. but it's not the Rush I'm listening to.
I happen to agree with Rush. Frist and the WH could have shut down this controversy days ago, just by publically saying Specter was their man, and they have not. Why?
My guess was pretty similar to Rush's (which I posted here on FR a couple of days ago) .. it appears the GOP leadership are just letting Specter twist in the wind; while Specter continues to give his assurances that he will not have a litmus test for judges. Since I suspected Specter was trying to send a message to the dems that he was on their side .. it's become publically unpopular for Specter to do so. The dems ace in the hole has folded to public pressure.
I agree with Rush .. this will all work out. Specter has certainly found out by now that the public is not going to stand still for him favoring the liberal side in any way.
And .. we must remember .. this is NOT a democracy (or MOB rule). This is a REPRESENTATIVE REPUBLIC. And .. if anybody was paying attention, the WH (via Rove) said on Sunday they had received assurances from Specter that he would support the President's nominees, and the President was ready to accept Specter's word. If Specter doesn't keep his word .. Frist can remove him from the chairmanship.
Rush also brought up another good point. The rules of the Senate appoint chairpersons on their length of service. Whether I agree with that or not .. there isn't much I can do about it except complain (which would fall on deaf ears with my 2 dem senators).
Also .. Rush pointed out that since the repubs are in charge of the Senate, they can CHANGE THE RULES and allow more repubs on each committee .. which would help a lot. Why isn't anybody starting an email campaign to support doing that ..?? Probably because it's easier to whine about ONE SENATOR than it is to appeal to ALL OF THEM to change the rules.