Dobson Warns GOP Senators on Specter

Human Events Online ^ | November 15, 2004 | Robert B. Bluey

[EternalVigilance]

She's been trotting her numbers around for days. Thanks for clarifying.

[ChocChipCookie]

I didn't read anything in this article that I disagree with or that I haven't said myself. Specter is astonishingly arrogant and should NOT be heading the Judiciary Committee. Countless voters, and not just "evangelicals", saw what was happening with top-quality judges and said, "no more." For this RINO to come along and say that he is going to do the same thing that Daschle, Schumer, and their ilk have been doing -- well, as far as I'm concerned every voice against Specter is a welcome one.

[Howlin]

I'd like to see those figures; got a link? I'll send them to Pew Research and Michael Barone.

[EternalVigilance]

You picked a fitting screen name this time around, troll.

[k2blader]

I'd say the Religious Right was instrumental in reelecting PresBush.

Hm, I wonder why any Bush supporter would attempt to say otherwise... ?

[Howlin]

Republicans have to get good judges on the courts.

You are always the voice of reason.

[Howlin]

I've linked mine; we'll see if he can.

They certainly do NOT match the national numbers.

[Peach]

I don't have a guilty conscience, but then, I'm not the one blackmailing or threatening to withhold my vote if people don't vote MY way on one single issue.

[EternalVigilance]

Whatever the numbers are, you're smoking rope if you think pro-lifers aren't the core constituency of the Republican Party.

[Howlin]

Can you possibly be that unknowledgeable?

Mineta and Tenet serve at the PLEASURE of the president; he needed them at that time.

[Reagan Man]

First off. All exit polls from 2000 and 2004 were done by one exit polling firm. For 2000 I used the ABC website. For 2004 I used the CNN website.

[Howlin]

The numbers are what they are; they're not MY numbers; they the numbers from one of the most respected pollsters and polls around.

Whatever the numbers are, you're smoking rope if you think pro-lifers aren't the core constituency of the Republican Party.

You continue to try to "reword" people's responses to make it sound like WE'RE not pro-life; of course, you won't do it directly to our faces, but in posts to others, you allude to the fact that we are pro-abortion.

The vast majority of AMERICANS are pro-life, too, and some of THEM vote Democratic. The GOP is pro-life, but a lot of the militant pro-lifers are NOT GOP.

[WhistlingPastTheGraveyard]

I was just hoping he wasn't dumb enough to give them out in HIS offices.

Nah, Arlen's not stupid... just roughly 33.3% more duplicitous than the average US Senator.

That's why holding his feet to the fire a little bit should work to our advantage. He only fought for Clarence Thomas after he caught hell for borking Judge Bork. Same concept at work here.

It never hurts to make our own slimeballs sweat a little. He opened his big piehole and gave us the opportunity to make a semi-honest man out of him... and we're taking that opportunity. At least that's the way I'm looking at this.

[Edit35]

After all the tirades and criticism heaped on Specter, I think the Pennsylvania Senator will be reluctant to prevent any well qualified judges from coming up for a vote, regardless if they are pro-Life or not.

I truly believe he gets the message, and knows that the GOP would make his life miserable if he goes against his word NOT to block any pro-Life candidates.

Besides, the last thing the Republican Party should do is drive away the moderates like Specter, without whom we will not be able to win elections.

The best way to win over Pro-Life supporters is to change their hearts.

Regardless of how passionate anyone feels about abortion, it will do no good for the GOP to destroy it's own, and thereby reduce itself to minority status.

Like someone said, the last thing we need is to see Sen. Specter giving the keynote speech for the Democrats on the 3rd night of the 2008 political conventions, wherever they will be held.

[sport]

Don't include me in your "we".

[You Dirty Rats]

Bork lost 42-58. It wasn't that close. I think Deconcini and others would have voted against him anyway. In 1987 the 'Rats had taken over the Senate, and Iran-Contra was starting to hurt. It wasn't a good time to get Bork through. At the time I remember some critics saying Reagan should have appointed Bork earlier, when he had the Senate, and Scalia in 1987. But I can't fault Reagan for that; Nino was simply better than Bork.

Our problem hasn't been the Justices we can't get through, but the ones we did. How about the following list -- match the bad nomination to the President: Blackmun, O'Connor, Souter, Warren, Stevens. Hint: None were nominated by 'Rats. All were disasters. The worst of the lot IMHO is Sandra Dee O'Connor, who now thinks we should cite European Courts in SCOTUS decisions. She has a way to go to rise to the level of mediocrity.

We need ruthless nominations like FDR's first - Senator Black, a liberal New Deal Deep South Big Government activist; a guy the Southern Senators hated but had to confirm. Too bad he turned out to be a Klansman, but he got FDR's view of the Federal Government approved. We need equally powerful nominees on our side.

[AnAmericanMother]

I'm gonna be difficult here and say that I'm relieved Bork didn't get confirmed.

His position on the Second Amendment disqualifies him for me. He believes it is a collective not individual right and only applies to the "state militia", which he sees as the equivalent of the "National Guard".

I can't understand his view, which is completely inconsistent with much of his constitutional thought, other than that he just must be a real anti-gunner.

[AnAmericanMother]

Everybody knew Black was a klansman, at least everyone who was paying attention.

In certain areas of the South and the Midwest (esp. Indiana) at that time, you had to join the Klan to get anywhere in politics.

[Howlin]

You can't use the Evangelical votes to figure it like that;

VOTE BY RELIGION

BUSH

KERRY

NADER

TOTAL

2004

2000

2004

2004

Protestant (54%)

59%

+3

40%

0%

Catholic (27%)

52%

+5

47%

0%

Jewish (3%)

25%

+6

74%

*

Other (7%)

23%

-5

74%

1%

None (10%)

31%

+1

67%

1%

Evangelicals are counted in with all those religions.

[Reagan Man]

>>>>I've linked mine; we'll see if he can.

Wrong. I've linked mine. And your links?