Posted on 11/08/2004 4:43:30 PM PST by hansel
I think we can find a middle ground. Hinderocket tries to do so in his post. I think it's worth the read.
I agree with this...it is silly to spend Bush's political capital on party infighting instead on extracting a pound or two of flesh from the Democrats on Taxes, FICA, Judicial nominations, etc, etc.
Specter did save the Clarance Thomas nomination when others were caving to Anita Hill....it was risky for him with the female vote in PA as well...he'll be fine.
Oh, PLEASE!
Stop this "middle ground" stuff. There is no middle ground for Hilter and there is no "middle ground" for this dangerous idiot. The guy is wrong, PERIOD.
However, we must keep emailing and calling Specter to let him know we are NOT amused. And we are watching.
great post,
i totally agree and posted what powerline wrote on an early forum about Spector.....let's not become Dems's of Jihadists on this......stay united as a party and let the rules apply.....Bush will get his nominee's thru and Spector can help with the RINO'S.........it will all work out.......Im' more afraid that some of us will become so intolerant that we will look foolish and one os small tent.....witness to your beliefs and then let Karl and the Whitehouse and Frisk do the right thing......they will...show the Dems and Michael Mooore etc that we can govern properly, solve our own disagreements and move forward........
You misspelled "gerund."
Dan
He's a liberal hysterical over the majority of people in the U.S. who don't see things his way. The American people made a clear statement - they don't want LIBERALISM.
The mandate that President Bush got was not from liberal moderates.
Why take a chance when his mounth already gave him away?
Good essay. Allow me to opine. Like you, I initially wanted to throw the guy over the side. Then I found Hewitt's arguments very persuasive. I even thought that Arlen as chair could actually NOW work to the GOP's advantage...he supports the president's nominees'..he gives some of the Dems cover to vote for them...(after all, "ole Arlen's sterongly por-choice, and he's OK with this...the usual double talk...) However, what's decided me that he's got to go, ASAP, is listening to all the lefties, libs, and Dems who are supporting Spector. To reshuffle the old maxim..In politics, the friend of my enemy is still my enemy..
I don't think Specter will be nearly as much of a problem as some seem to think. Besides I don't like the idea of tossing people overboard at the first sign of disagreement. We just saw what happened when the democrats did it.
Other than saying that I have no intent to pressure the president on his picks.
On Fox Grapevine tonight, the panel was discussing the advantages for nominating Specter. Charles Krauthammer said Specter will be a good filter. Also, due to all this publicity, the democrats would not dare obstruct Specter's nominations. Specter is more likely to guide the RINO'S into non obstruction. The panel seemed to all agree that Specter was OK.
We don't get a say, Bush does. He has decided to let Specters idiocy pass. I voted for Bush because I trust him, I'll have to trust his judgement here as well.
I am normally a nuclear option guy, but not in this case. I agree with Hewitt that dissing Specter kills our chances for confirming any conservative judge.
I think we leave Specter alone with his promise for quick up-or-down votes. Then Bush nominates conservative after conservative to the courts. Let the Dems block Bush judges until the Supreme court is reduced to 7 or 8 judges, and use their obstruction as the hammer to deliver a super-majority in 2006.
That would be my tack.
Hold your friends close.
Hold your enemies closer.
My initial reaction was "throw him over the side and don't forget the weights on his ankles" but I'm "moderated" a bit.
I completely understand how the PA conservatives feel, alot of us felt the same way in GA when Herman Cain was running against Isakson and Isakson is no Specter.
I'm inclined now with the public concessions of "all judges" get a hearing and also hearing (and being reminded of) his impassioned defense of Clarence Thomas today on Hannity as well as the fact that he has voted out of committee every Bush judge when there were plenty of chances to "moderate" that he will "keep his word" to the White House.
I will also call Frist tomorrow and tell his office that the public concessions that Specter has made must serve as a line, that if crossed the cacaus has to be willing to throw him over immediately.
Thank God that the signers of the Declaration of Independence had more courage than the Republican Senate, and pundits like Hewett!
Yes, as in grab the bull, or cow in this case, by the horns! LOL!
"We did the middle ground thing when President Bush first took office, and all it got us was Daschle (sp?) and filibusters!"
No middle ground with the Dems, that gets us nothing. However, we can do "middle ground" with members of our own party. If we don't, we will be seen as intolerant. That will get us NOTHING we want. Specter might be able to provide good cover for conservative judges. We need to look at some of the possible consequences of throwing Specter overboard.
I really respect Krauthammer's positions and even he said throwing Specter over would be a waste of Bush's political cover and could adversely effect the Republicans. He said no one wants infighting like this just days after a successful election. It doesn't look good for our party.
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.