Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Gang of Three
American Spectator ^ | 4/1/04 | Timothy P. Carney

Posted on 04/01/2004 5:31:11 PM PST by swilhelm73

For some conservatives dissatisfied with President Bush's lurches to the left on spending, immigration, Medicare and education, three Senate races could hold the answer to their prayers. The nomination of Rep. Pat Toomey (Pennsylvania), and former Reps. Tom Coburn (Oklahoma) and Bob Schaffer (Colorado) to the Senate could change the layout of the body so that it might push the President in a more rightward direction.

In Pennsylvania, Bush has endorsed incumbent Sen. Arlen Specter, and even backed him for chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee when Sen. Orrin Hatch gives up the gavel next year. At first glance, this appears odd to anyone comparing Specter's and Bush's stances on the courts.

Specter has voted many times to pass resolutions declaring that Roe v. Wade was rightly decided. He played the key role in killing the nomination of Supreme Court nominee Robert Bork in 1987. Bork, according to Specter, failed to see the constitution as "a living, growing document." Specter, in his memoirs, also expressed some regret about his yes votes for Antonin Scalia and Chief Justice William Rehnquist. Bush, meanwhile, has said he wants to appoint more judges like Scalia and Clarence Thomas. The White House maintains Roe was wrongly decided.

On closer look, Bush's stance makes sense. The White House has made it clear, even sending clear signals to conservative senators, that Bush would like to nominate to the high court White House Counsel Alberto Gonzales. Gonzales, on the Texas Supreme Court, helped to gut a parental notification requirement for abortionists. With Specter in charge of the judge battle, the White House will have a great excuse to nominate Gonzales.

BUT THINGS WILL LOOK very different if the three conservatives win. First, if Toomey knocks off Specter, conservative Jon Kyl (Arizona) would take the Judiciary gavel.

Second, Tom Coburn would not be intimidated by a White House set on selling out its base. Coburn regularly stood against House GOP leadership during his six years in the House, and he would do so again. If Bush tried to appoint a judge such as Gonzales, Coburn, long before any other Republican senator, would stand against the White House. And Bob Schaffer, who had a similar habit of bucking the party line in the House, would likely stand with his freshman colleague and be the voice of cultural conservatives.

In the Senate, individual members have much more clout than they do in the House. Whereas Coburn, Schaffer, and Toomey were only able to ruffle feathers in the lower body, they could turn things on their head in the Senate. From nominations to appropriations, the fear of a handful of bona fide conservatives speaking to their heart's content about White House failings could impel Bush to take a couple steps back to the right.

Specter and Co. often apply leftward pressure to Bush. Toomey, Coburn, and Schaffer could tug in the other direction. But the odds of all three men ending up in the Senate are not great.

Toomey is climbing in the polls for the April 27 primary, but Specter has already outspent Toomey by almost five to one, and still has nearly $10 million on hand. Schaffer, on the other hand, has an inside track to the Republican nomination, but is facing an uphill climb in November against popular state attorney general Ken Salazar.

Coburn, the most conservative of the three, is also the strongest of the three. His entrance into Oklahoma's open Senate race has recharged the state's Republican Party. Because Coburn comes from the same congressional district as Democrat Brad Carson, Carson's greatest advantage is wiped away if Coburn can beat Oklahoma City Mayor Kirk Humphries in the GOP primary.

The April 27 primary in Pennsylvania, and July 27 contest in Oklahoma, will set the stage for a November in which conservatives could make inroads into the U.S. Senate.


TOPICS: Government; Politics/Elections; US: Colorado; US: Oklahoma; US: Pennsylvania
KEYWORDS: 2004; bobschaffer; electionussenate; gopprimary; tomcoburn; toomey

1 posted on 04/01/2004 5:31:11 PM PST by swilhelm73
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: swilhelm73; BADJOE; GeneralHavoc
Good write-up; ping.
2 posted on 04/01/2004 6:28:24 PM PST by brityank (The more I learn about the Constitution, the more I realise this Government is UNconstitutional.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: All

Always Breaking News
on Free Republic!

Bring it on!

Take it back!

Donate Here By Secure Server

Or mail checks to:        
FreeRepublic , LLC
PO BOX 9771
FRESNO, CA 93794

Or you can use:                     
PayPal at Jimrob@psnw.com

STOP BY AND BUMP THE FUNDRAISER THREAD-
It is in the breaking news sidebar!


3 posted on 04/01/2004 6:29:16 PM PST by Support Free Republic (I'd rather be sleeping. Let's get this over with so I can go back to sleep!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: swilhelm73
Nice article. In an ideal world, all three would be elected in the fall and smack some sense into the Senate leadership. Unfortunately, I also agree with the article in that I think Coburn is probably the only one that will be nominated and elected. Toomey has made quite a dent against Specter, but he has a ways to go to make up the rest of the difference. As many on here have said, just about anybody can pull 35-40% against Specter in a primary, but it remains to be seen whether he can get to 50%. It is also a tossup at best that Toomey wins the general election if nominated. I know very little about Schaffer, but he is going to need to make up alot of ground in fundraising, organization, etc. if he wants to beat Salazar. He's been out of the public eye for a few years and he has never won statewide before. I'd consider him the underdog at this point, which is stinks because Campbell would have breezed to victory and now we might lose the seat.
4 posted on 04/01/2004 6:40:01 PM PST by zebrahead
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: swilhelm73
I hope Tummey wins, but I disagree with the analysis on why Bush is supporting Spectre.

Bush has always made perfectly clear what his position is on abortion. He has never wavered, retreated or deviated from his initial position, even though most prolife people never understood what he was saying.

One last time: Bush has always said that the abortion laws will not be changed until the hearts of the American people are changed. Why are prochoice people unable to understand that simple statement?

Bush made it his highest priority to change minds. His first major piece of legislation was the embryo stem cell law. He created a two-month long national, debate on the morality of killing human embryos. His first prime-time address to the nation was to argue that embryos are real living human beings.

In less than four years Bush has completely reversed to hearts of the American people. Polls now show that 75% oppose abortion except in extreme situations.Have they already forgotten partial birth abortion?

Neither Spectre nor any judge will make any difference once the hearts are changed.

5 posted on 04/01/2004 6:48:04 PM PST by bayourod (We can depend on Scary Kerry's imaginary foreign leaders to protect us from terrorists.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: swilhelm73

6 posted on 04/01/2004 9:49:01 PM PST by GeneralHavoc (Want to Help Pat Toomey? Join Toomey Meetup!: http://www.toomeyforsenate.meetup.com/)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson