Posted on 11/07/2004 10:43:35 AM PST by TakeChargeBob
In the justified outrage over the pompous comments by Arlen Specter the day after the election, we have overlooked the simple fact of what a wonderful gift we have received. The critical issue is how we can best cash in on that gift. We need to focus on winning the war rather than winning a particular battle.
The objective is to get strong qualified judges who will not legislate from the bench. We must develop the best strategy that achieves the objective.
One tactic that has been strongly advocated in most of the FR comments was to stop Specter from heading the judiciary committee. There are really 2 fundamental ideas that come through in the suggestions. The first idea is that we cannot have someone lead the judiciary committee that will be an obstructionist. In light of his comments and past actions, can Specter be trusted? It is this idea that had me strongly support the stop Specter campaign. The second idea was retribution focusing in on revenge -i.e. look what he did to Bork. In fact, one could cite a whole litany of issues with which to be angry at Specter. While it may feel good, we should not forget one of the main lessons of the most recent election. A campaign of hatred and revenge is doomed to fail. Why give our enemies any ammunition to hurt us with? Consider how this would be reported and would be used against us.
Is the battle against Specter the one that we need? The answer would clearly be yes if Specter would be an obstructionist. Perhaps other than security, the makeup of the court is clearly the most important issue that we must stand up and fight for. There are a number of us that are frustrated by the inaction of the current Senate in standing up for our nominees. While the nuclear option was not possible in the current Senate makeup, we might have tried a 24/7 filibuster. In fairness, this might not have been realistic because of the physical and technical difficulties in having our membership available around the clock versus the requirements of the opposition.
Let’s look ahead to the next Congress and consider the gift that Specter has given us. To realize the gift, imagine if Specter were silent. He would have had the judiciary chairmanship unchallenged. It is true that we might have grumbled or tried unsuccessfully to stop Specter's ascension but it would have fallen short. We would have had no leverage on Specter. The gift is that we now have leverage on Specter. What is that leverage and how can we best utilize it? The post of Chairman has been coveted by Specter for a long time. Note how quick Specter is to backtrack on his comments. In fact, Karl Rove comment’s today has given Specter support. Here is the price that we must extract from Specter.
1. Specter must agree not to stop any nominees from the process and give a quick hearing and an up and down floor vote to all Bush’s nominees. This is just an affirmation of Specter’s comments that he made in the last few days.
2. Specter must agree not to filibuster any nominee.
3. Specter must agree to support the motion to uphold the constitution and have only 50 votes (with VP tiebreaker) to support the President’s nominees to the court and other positions. In other wors support the nuclear option.
The last item is the real gift. Consider the tactic. Specter who would most likely vote against the nuclear option will have that condition held for his chairmanship. We would have turned a No vote into a Yes vote on the most important issue. If Specter’s yes vote is the one that would make the difference, then Specter’s comments will have been a godsend.
One more important thought about the courts. We must also leverage the future ambitions of our Senators to come through on the nuclear option. We must require that Frist put this to a vote in the next Congress and get the Senators on record as to their position. We will make it clear to defeat any Republican that will vote against the nuclear option. (We must position the nuclear option as upholding the constitution.) With 55 Senators, we only need no more than 5 defections to succeed. With Specter in the fold, there would be one less sure defection.
I appreciate any thoughts on how we can best achieve our objective.
It would be nice if Congress itself, with no input from anyone else, either the public or the Republicans or the President, would police Specter's intraparty treason, because the press would not connect it so much to the President.
With all the flack Specter is getting, though, maybe even he will honor his promises if in fact he does not get the boot from consideration for the chairmanship.
Finally, what good is a mandate to appoint strict constructionists if someone like Specter blocks fruition of the mandate? He has already done that in the last Congress along with Democrat Borkers.
And it's not like we are not used to bad press...
Come to think of it, my special interest is the safety of our troops and prosecuting the war no terror. Didn't Ron Paul vote against the nation defending itself? Yes, and he voted no on the budget that would have given our boys the equipment to stay safe!
You're right...we need to take him out too!
Dr. Ron Paul is principled. The thing about Ron Paul, though, is that if the USA had all along been following the examples he sets then the world would be different and all bets would be off about what we would be facing. He knows he is going to lose anyway--he even calls himself "Dr. No"--I think that even he would vote differently sometimes if he actually thought his vote was going to make a difference. He has never blocked even one thing important to Conservatives, but Specter has blocked many.
Since we have a majority in the House and that's all we need, I like keeping Dr. Paul around as an example to others of how to be a strict constructionist. If he defines the right then the others can move well to their rights and still be moderates!
Yes, as principled as Baghdad Jim McDermott. Since he has consistently voted in opposition to this nation defending itself, since he calls this war illegitimate and refuses to vote for the funds our troops need to stay safe...just like Spectre...off with his head.
Then when we're done with him we can move on to the next Republican that some of us don't agree with and target them!
This could be fun!
What does this say about Senator Specter?
You obviously do not agree that we should go after Specter despite the exceptional (not run of the mill) reasons that we have to think that he will frustrate one of the most important things that we reelected GWB for, so that principled strict constructionist Supreme Court justices who will not legislate from the bench will be appointed. I am amazed that you do not think that the approach you advocate has not already been tried and found to be a failure. Are you not frustrated with the LACK of Republican ability to fill the courts properly thus far?
So the bottom line: Tell us your plan. Maybe everyone will back off on Specter if you have a good plan for getting the judicial appointments that we thus far have been denied. What is it?
Simple, we can all start crusades and vendettas for the special interests nearest and dearest to our own hearts. We can make noise and do our best to distract Congress so they get nothing accomplished. We can give the press lots of material to help them with their war on us.
Plan? No plan, let's just go crazy.
NO ONE is following the "plan" you suggest, and no one (except you) is suggesting any type of "go crazy" indiscriminate vendettas, so your use of that sarcasm is just an irrelevant straw man.
Based on nothing but your sarcastic implication that there is something wrong with it, I am hard pressed to worry at all about going after a specific, longstanding, key-position PROVEN obstructionist like Specter. Defanging him is part and parcel of the job we need to do, and here is where you seem to be fitting in:
- FReepers are to Specter as Bush is to Iraq.
- CWOJackson is to Specter as Kerry is to Iraq.
I actually thought that you might have something constructive to offer but apparently not.
Constructive? This is all about destructive. As I said, we need to launch crusades and vendettas against each and every Republican in Washington that doesn't fit in with our own issues. I'm drawing up my enemies list!
I was infuriated at Specter;s remarks also - and the Bork deal, but in the past 4 years, he has NOT - has he_ tried to block Pres. Bush's nominees?
And if Rove thinks he's ok for now - I certainly consider his insight better than mine -He's there, he knows all the ramifications, he may have a BIG leverage stick to hold Specter in line e-
who knows, but I'm inclined to leave it up to Bush and Rove now - and not give any more glee to our real enemies
This is true - AND we sure don't need to push him into going Independent or worse...we need that extra vote in the senate.
Pres. Bush and Rove have managed to play a good hand at the poker table so far - maybe we'd be best to leave them decide - they hold the cards and know what their hand is...
No one is going nuts.
There is a specific issue: how to get to appoint strict-constructionist judges. We have failed in the past to get this even with majorities. Most think Spector is an enemy, have been damaged by him, and now want to go after him. You think these people are wrong, but all you have offered is sarcasm which implies that these people, rather than being patriots making a hard and long-delayed decision, want to "launch crusades and vendettas against each and every Republican in Washington."
You have one more chance with me to offer an alternative plan with a rationale for why your plan will work before I write you off (on this issue only--we are still on the same side!) as this:
- FReepers are to Specter as Bush is to Iraq.
- CWOJackson is to Specter as Kerry is to Iraq.
And that may be the poker hand Pres. Bush and Rove are playing -
I'm willing to concede that they probably know more that I do - they're there
And there are people who will consider it equally rationale to do the same thing for any number of other hot button issues they feel strongly about.
I do not like Spectre, never have and never will. I don't like him holding the position he does. The White House seems to have the sitution under control and Spectre has already as much admitted that he has gone to the wood shed.
If we continue this course however I only see two outcomes, neither of which will force the Senate to cave to this demand.
1) We are going to give the press a topic that they can use run with: "Religious Right declares war on abortion". That accomplished what? It will only strengthen liberal resolve to call, write and e-mail their own Senators on a similar level and it will give the press an issue to concentrate on and detract from the mandate the President was given.
2) If we break down into in-house partisan battles, and I assure you that if this continues it will happen on every issue, we are spending every bit of political capital we gained from this election on in-house fueding.
The Republicans in the Senate know how we feel about this. It's time to not turn it into "the story".
I was hell bent for leather at first also - but have calmed down -
I trust that Rove knows what he's doing.
Yes, we could win the battle and loose the war.
At this point I wonder if we might do more harm by giving the dems and the MSM, which seems to be enjoying this - something to gloat about probably already talking to Specter and offering him a lucrative deal to switch over -
Rove and Pres. Bush know when to hold 'em, know when to fold 'em...do we
if this is so - what happens if he doesn't get the seat - wouldn't he be more likely to switch over - and we'd loose a seat in the senate?
Only problem is I don't trust any agreement he makes. He is a flake, unpredictable, uncontollable and ego driven. Massage his ego some other way than with the future of our judiciary.
Absolutely right - but Pres.Bush would never put a "Souter" up - He does get to do the picking of who go ups for vote ...right?
wouldn't he be more likely to switch over - and we'd loose a seat in the senate.......
It's better he switch than control Senate Judiciary
My Senate record of independence has demonstrated my willingness to break with my party. I had no hesitancy to oppose Judge Bork where I was convinced he was far outside the constitutional continuum or mainstream because his insistence on "original intent" presented a real threat to constitutional construction representing the consensus values of our society. For example, Judge Bork's narrow view of "due process" so that it did not include "equal protection" left no rationale for eliminating segregation in the District of Columbia schools.
http://specter.senate.gov/index.cfm?FuseAction=PressReleases.Detail&PressRelease_id=446
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.