Posted on 11/15/2004 1:04:53 PM PST by hinterlander
Republican senators who support Sen. Arlen Specter's bid to chair the Judiciary Committee could face retribution from disgruntled conservative and Christian voters, warned Dr. James Dobson in an interview Monday with HUMAN EVENTS.
Dobson, the founder of Focus on the Family Action, a political group he organized to help re-elect President Bush, said Specter is frantically trying to save his spot atop the Judiciary Committee after suggesting Bush shouldn't bother nominating pro-life judges.
Specter has since distanced himself from his November 3 comments, but the protests against him haven't diminished. For the second straight weekend, he appeared on Sunday morning news programs trying to allay fears voiced by activists like Dobson.
"It may not be possible to derail Senator Specter," Dobson conceded to HUMAN EVENTS, "but if they [Republican senators] don't do that, I think it ought to be very clear that when the senator reneges on his promise to do the right thing, it's going to be remembered."
Republican senators on the Judiciary Committee are expected to meet with Specter this week, which will be followed by a secret vote taken in January to elect a chairman. Their offices have been inundated with phone calls protesting Specter's possible promotion.
GOP-imposed term limits are forcing Sen. Orrin Hatch (R.-Utah) to step down as the committee's chairman. Next in line is Sen. Chuck Grassley (R.-Iowa), who would rather lead the Finance Committee than Judiciary, leaving Specter with the most seniority.
"He's been out there for the last week on every show that would invite him," Dobson said of the Pennsylvania senator. "He's been trying to save his chairmanship by bobbing and weaving and telling us that he didn't mean what he said when he said what he meant."
Dobson has used his radio program, which reaches 7 million listeners per week, to rail against Specter's possible ascension. Other conservative and Christian interest groups are protesting as well, including a scheduled demonstration Tuesday at the office of Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist (R.-Tenn.).
"We're certainly going to do everything we can to let people know that Senator Specter not only threatens the court, but he is also the champion of stem-cell research and he is opposed to protection of marriage within the Constitution," Dobson said. "This man is going to be in an extremely powerful position to oppose most of what President Bush was elected to do. That is irritating a large number of people."
Dobson said Specter owes his victory to Bush, who chose to campaign with him instead of his more conservative Republican primary opponent, Rep. Pat Toomey. Specter narrowly beat Toomey by a little more than 17,000 votes in the April primary.
"He was very clear about what his intentions are," Dobson said in reference to Specter's November 3 remarks. "It's not only the court, he stands in opposition to just about everything the President ran on in terms of the moral and social agenda. How arrogant is that?"
Robert B. Bluey is Assistant Editor for HUMAN EVENTS
Well, it reined you in a little at least.
If you and your friends had 100% free play, FR would become worthless to anyone who cares about forwarding the conservative movement.
As I noted, the data, re: the Evangelical question seems to follow the actual results. However your contension that questions must "stand alone" is false. It's not a matter of "linking questions", other than for accuracy. A poll that asks blacks, Jews, Hindus, Muslims, or those with no religion if they're white Evangelicals, by definition of asking allowing a "yes" answer, are also by definition unreliable. What they did here one can't know without seeing the questionaire.
Speaking of willful, did you miss SJackson's post up the thread where he found where your own organizations EMAIL claimed just what I said it did?
This entire conversation is worthless.
Who had who banned and how they got that way? You both have more to offer on debate: I've seen it.
And that's what's important to you, isn't it? Controlling the dialog.
I seriously doubt it has reigned her in -- or, for that matter, any of the others who were either suspended or got notes from Jim -- it just proves that she knows we have "special circumstances" around here for the likes of you.
Well, thank you EV.
Here's a clue - the conservative movement doesn't move forward unless the conservative candidates win.
And the campaign y'all ran in Illinois wasn't designed to win.
Have any of your candidates ever won?
I didn't run the campaign in Illinois. What gave you that idea?
I think we want strict constructionists judges who won't try to legislate from the bench, in either direction.
It's an open question whether or not any of the justices other than probably Reinquist will need to be replaced, so a lot of this argument is "sound and fury, signifying nothing" at this point in time. Speculation. Counting chickens before they hatch. Etc.
I said "y'all", not "you", indicating you were a part of it, not the entire thing.
I got that idea from your posts on this board telling us how hard you were working for the campaign, how many new voters you were registering, etc.
Are you now telling me you were just some lowly gopher rather than someone up in the campaign organization?
You shouldn't talk about 'special circumstances'.
You've been allowed to continuously rag on conservatives here. I don't know anyone else who could have survived on FR under those circumstances.
If anyone has a special dispensation, it's you. Don't know why, exactly.
As for me, I've supported the exact candidates and principles Jim has, 100% of the time. Can't remember an instance where we've gotten crossways, politically.
For the last three weeks of the campaign, I was able to elbow a few incompetents out of the way and get some things done.
Prior to that, I wasn't directly involved, as I was in Iowa watching my nephew who was orphaned in May.
I won't make any apologies, though, for doing all I could to try and defeat Obama...especially to those of you who did every thing you could to pull down the Republican nominee for the duration.
I agree that that release was stupid.
I had nothing to do with it.
SJ, you'll notice that I didn't post on that thread.
What I noticed was that you didn't speak against it either. Or try to correct it.
Oh, you can be counted on to throw water on any young conservative's enthusiasm who gets too carried away. You don't need me for that.
There you go again, trying to insinuate that I'm not a conservative. I am a conservative; just not one like you.
I don't know anyone else who could have survived on FR under those circumstances.
There are plenty of us; try not to be such a drama queen; you certainly give as good, if not better, as you get.
If anyone has a special dispensation, it's you.
I've been suspended before; have you?
Nope.
Somehow I don't think that set of facts is making you look as good as you think it is...
So you were depending on ME, who had been warned to stay off those threads, to object to it?
My question is, if you didn't agree with the email and the discussion on that thread, why didn't you say that then? Why just keep quiet?
I didn't say you weren't a conservative, although sometimes I ponder that question.
I said 'you rag on conservatives'.
Kinda like on this whole thread.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.