Posted on 11/07/2004 3:05:58 PM PST by Remember_Salamis
We must make it perfectly clear to Rick Santorum that if he lets Specter chair the judiciary committee, we WILL NOT SUPPORT HIM in 2006 for Senate. Instead, we will support Pat Toomey.
We must also make it perfectly clear to Bill Frist that if he does not block Specter Chairmanship, he might as well not even enter the 2008 primaries.
Both of these men hold the power over Specter and we must threaten to boycott their futures if they ignore their base.
Santorum, while the no. 3 Republican in the Senate, does not control the Judiciary Committee. Specter's proposed chairmanship is not Santorum's call. Santorum in not even on the Judiciary Committee.
President Bush, and Senator Santorum barely campaigned for Snarlin Arlen...infact, the President got a low, muffled chorus of 'boos' when he mentioned the (absent from the podium) Specter at a campaign stop in September in Latrobe, PA. Bush and Santorum were endorsing the incumbent...I was mad about that, but many wiser FReepers pointed out that neither party dumps an incumbent...so we were stuck with the Scottish Law expert, and Pat Toomey (who ran against Specter in the Republican primary, and nearly won) will come back to possibly run for Governor in '06.
As for the current troubles Mr. Specter finds himself in...he has no one to blame but himself. He (Specter) opened his big mouth and drew the line in the sand regarding Roe v. Wade. Now the bigboys are coming by and kicking said sand in his jowled face. For someone with 30 some years of experience, gravitas if you will, Specter sure didn't learn how to play nice in DC.
If the pubbies listen to their grassroots, the senior Senator from Pennsylvania will be lucky to chair the Federal Commission on Post It Notes...
True. But his role as committee chairman transcends his role representing the people of Pennsylvania, a job I'm sure he does quite well. If he keeps his mouth shut I'm sure he'll survive, but I wouldn't mind seeing him "replaced". Once hearings start it's too late.
Yes, utterly strange and very third party.
That would be silly. Santorum is a strong FMA advocate and that would only hurt the cause.
The fact Specter is backtracking fast speaks volumes for the new landscape. The "leadership" is waiting to see what happens and if this blows over.
Man, we ARE the base! Just wait until 2008 and see how active this place is. You've seen how quickly StopSpecter.com got stood up. Internet activism in the new home of grassroots politics.
A pro-life Republican who cannot win is worthless. Supporting Specter assured that more could be accomplished in a GOP Senate with more GOP Senators.
That's why I posted it, so those of you who are his constituents can write him and tell him that support for Specter makes you question his integrity and ability to lead.
Stop digging the hole deeper.
You are not Santorum's "base." In addition, I think this "stop Specter" stuff is a waste of time. Specter will not be denied the chairmanship of the Judiciary Committee. He has been put on notice, and he gets the message.
Dear AskStPhilomena,
"Instead of selling the hot-dog, out of charity you should have told Kerry to fast and do penance for supporting the slaughter of the innocents on an unprecedented scale."
Yeah, that's the ticket. I'll approach a pompous, self-important United State Senator and tell him to FAST AND DO PENANCE!
Reminds me of the homeless guy who used to sit on the steps of the Capitol (this was obviously pre-9/11) with a hand-made sign informing us all the end was near. We all paid sharp attention to that fellow.
Politics is the art of the possible. I think that President Bush and Sen. Santorum made a mistake to support Arlie in the primary. But I also believe that they thought it was the best political move for the good of the conservative cause. They felt that Mr. Toomey would have lost the seat to the Dems (I disagree with that analysis.), and they thought we might lose the Senate (I was reasonably confident we'd hold it.).
If both of those two things had been true, it would have been important to support Arlie, as disgusting and slimey as that is. Loss of the Senate would have hurt the conservative cause, including the cause of life.
sitetest
It's based on seniority. Of course, they can ignore their own rules, but it won't happen, and it certainly won't happen because Santorum says so. If you want to boycott someone, I suggest that it be Snowe and Chaffee, both of whom are up for re-election in 06.
Please, PIPE DOWN!
From National Review Online on Wednesday. Here's a great quote:
"There is no doubt that we would be better off with 54 Republican Senators and Judiciary Chairman Jon Kyl than 55 and Chairman Specter.":
Thank You, Arlen
We reelected the worst Republican Senator, and still lost Pennsylvania.
by Timothy Carney
Rick Santorum and George W. Bush told us that the GOP needed Arlen Specter. We needed Arlen Specter to deliver Pennsylvania for Bush. We needed Arlen Specter to boost the party in the Keystone State. We needed Arlen Specter to keep the Senate majority.
Santorum and Bush were wrong. They were wrong morally, and they were wrong politically. These men saved the man who saved Roe v. Wade, and now the costs to the pro-life cause, the conservative movement, and the Republican party — for so little benefit — could be deep and long-lasting.
Pennsylvania was always a stretch for Bush, and any decent political analyst knew that before Specter won the nomination in late April. The biweekly Evans-Novak Political Report, for which I write, said long ago that Bush would win Pennsylvania only if he somehow got a nationwide landslide. In other words, Pennsylvania would not be Bush's margin of victory, it was clear.
Not only should the GOP leadership have known Bush would lose Pennsylvania, they should have known that having Specter on the ballot would not help. It is an odd assumption that liberal voters would go to the ballot box to vote for Specter and think: "As long I'm voting for the Republican Senate candidate, I may as well vote for the presidential nominee in the same column."
It is more reasonable, in a year in which the base's motivation was questionable, to argue that Specter's primary challenger, conservative Rep. Pat Toomey, would have helped more by making sure the base, as well as the pro-life Bob Casey Democrats, showed up and pulled the Bush lever.
Specter's unhelpfulness on the presidential level also showed itself in some very concrete and visible ways. Most striking were the "Kerry and Specter for Working Families" signs posted around Southeastern Pennsylvania. Was the culprit some particularly ambitious freelance ticket-splitter? The signs were created, paid for, and posted by a 527 created by Roger Stone, chairman of Specter's 1996 presidential campaign.
Dick Cheney went to Pennsylvania in the final week before the election, and NRO's The Corner caught the priceless transcript:
THE VICE PRESIDENT: The president and I are delighted to be part of a great Republican ticket here in Pennsylvania this year. I want to thank Congressman Tim Murphy for his kind words and the great leadership he provides. (Applause.) And I also want to put in a good word for Senator Arlen Specter, although he couldn't be here today.
AUDIENCE: Booo!
THE VICE PRESIDENT: This is a tough crowd.
A poll released on the day of Cheney's appearance showed Specter up by 20 points, and yet Specter didn't have the time to help the top of his ticket, which was trailing by five that same day.
Yet Santorum and Bush told us we needed Specter to help the president win reelection.
Nor did Specter provide any help down-ticket. He didn't do any rallies or fundraisers with the embattled congressional candidates around the Keystone State. Most notably, Republican Melissa Brown lost to EMILY's List favorite Allyson Schwartz in Specter's base of Northeast Philly and some of the suburbs, and Specter never leant a hand. Republican Scott Paterno also got no Specter help in his hard-fought losing bid in Harrisburg.
Toomey, Santorum told us, would lose to Hoeffel, while Specter was a sure thing. To begin with, considering Hoeffel's political mediocrity there is no reason to assume Toomey would have lost.
Second, losing Specter's seat to a Democrat would not have been all bad. A top Republican Senator, in explaining his difficulty in winning votes in the upper chamber, recently told a crowd, "I only have 51 votes — really only 47." That was an admission that Specter — like Olympia Snowe, Susan Collins, and Lincoln Chafee — is a Republican in Name Only. Hoeffel would not have detracted from Bill Frist's functional majority.
It was clear as early as April that the GOP would be expanding its majority. Of the eight open seats this year, seven were in states Bush won. Of the highly competitive Senate races, all were in Red states, and nearly all were in states that were never in play in the 2004 presidential election.
In January, the Evans-Novak Political Report wrote: "In other words, Republicans have almost guaranteed an expanded Senate majority."
Would we really be worse off were Hoeffel a U.S. Senator now? While certainly more liberal than Specter, Hoeffel would do less harm. It is precisely the "clout" Specter bragged about that should worry conservatives around the country.
Specifically, Specter is in line to chair the Senate Judiciary Committee, which is in charge of confirming judicial appointments. There is no doubt that we would be better off with 54 Republican Senators and Judiciary Chairman Jon Kyl than 55 and Chairman Specter.
But Bush and Santorum insisted we needed Specter in the Senate.
Exactly as conservatives said throughout the contest, there is no good reason to trust Arlen Specter. When we brought up that Specter sank Bork, he didn't defend himself, but instead pointed to what he did to Anita Hill. For any pro-lifer, the Borking of Bork should be an unforgivable sin.
Instead of Bork, we got Anthony Kennedy, who changed his mind at the last moment in the 1992 case Planned Parenthood v. Casey and cast the deciding vote to save Roe v. Wade. So Arlen Specter saved Roe v. Wade, a ruling he has repeatedly gone on record saying was rightly decided and ought not be overturned.
Still, Bush and Santorum told us Specter would play nice as judiciary chairman. Yet in a debate this October, Specter promised to deliver us "centrist" judges. The Pittsburgh Post-Gazette says he told them he would not allow any "extremist" judges on the court. Both the Post-Gazette and the Philadelphia Inquirer endorsed him on the grounds he would save Roe again and block more Antonin Scalias and Clarence Thomases.
Either Specter is misleading the papers and debate watchers or he is not really planning on supporting Bush. Bush has held up Scalia and Thomas as his model justices. The media do not consider them "centrist" and the Post-Gazette surely considers them "extremist." He has led the media to believe he would oppose another Scalia while leading conservatives to believe he would support one.
So either Specter's fooling someone, or Bush is fooling everyone. That is, Specter's actions and comments are only consistent if Bush already plans on giving us another Anthony Kennedy.
Considering this picture, one has to wonder what thoughts ran through Rick Santorum's mind as he tried to go to sleep on Election Night. Was Santorum surprised that Specter didn't help Bush? Did he really believe Specter could deliver Pennsylvania to the president?
Does Santorum feel betrayed by Specter's remarks on judges? Is Santorum ready to bear the blame for Specter's performance for the next six years?
Arlen Specter owes Bush and Santorum his career, but he isn't acting like it. Once we see what sort of Supreme Court Specter's committee gives us, conservatives will know what we owe Santorum.
— Timothy P. Carney is a reporter for the Evans-Novak Political Report.
I think you have got it!!! I would hazard to guess, from living here in PA, that this will not blow over quickly...and Arlen, thru his own sense of self importance, may have lost the position...too bad. He might even switch parties...again, too bad. The fact that he (Mr. Magic Bullet) is still restating and revisiting his position (and this is Sunday--his Opus was released on Wedneday) means he got an earful...from his fellow R's, maybe from the WH, and now the 'little people' are speaking...
"Yes, utterly strange and very third party."
-- OK, then let's just elect an entire senate of Chafees, Snowes, and Specters. Who cares what they stand for or how they vote, right?
I don't blame Santorum for backing Specter (the fact that I despise Specter notwithstanding). Santorum has to work with Specter; I don't. I wouldn't ditch Santorum even if it would keep Specter out of the chairmanship.
Moreover, the most likely result of such a campaign--if it got anywhere at all--would be to have Specter in the chairmanship and a democrat in Santorum's seat. Santorum doesn't decide his position based on polls.
LOL! No, lets just boycott...stupid ideas like this.
To all anti-Santorum posters, Santorum supported Specter because Pat Toomey isn`t well known enough in this state. I and many of us here would have supported Toomey, but Specter didn`t win his seat back by THAT much over a guy I can`t remember. Don`t be so quick to think Toomey would have won the seat, GWB didn`t win this state. To say Santorum should go down because of his support of Specter is stoopid. GWB supported Specter too. Santorum is a VERY viable VP candidate in '08 and would be rendered irrelevant if he was tossed from the senate in '06.
TOOMEY COULD HAVE WON! Hoeffel was politically inexperienced. Even if Hoeffel won, there is no doubt that we would be better off with 54 Republican Senators and Judiciary Chairman Jon Kyl than 55 and Chairman Specter.
I'm sorry but I think you and any of the others who want to take this out on Santorum are NUTS! He has no vote on this. Why would we want to try to guarantee the defeat of the best Republican senator PA will probably ever have? It's beyond crazy. We aren't ever going to get a more conservative electable pro-life senator than he is. We did not have the power or did not work hard enough to knock off Specter in the primary which was the place to do it. We have nobody but ourselves to blame for that.
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.