Posted on 11/09/2004 12:49:49 AM PST by kattracks
Arlen needs to go.
It's too obvious.
No sense buying some promise now from a man who's demonstrated a penchant for disloyalty. It's the kind of man who would go back on his word in a heartbeat.
Trust arlen? You've got to be kidding.
This is not the battle we want to fight 5 days after the President asked for the support of people who fear our party. Republicans believe rats have no morals. Conversly the rats and some moderates believe we are a bunch of sanctimonious and greedy bible thumping zealots intent on telling them how to live their lives. The right fringe of our party is now trying to prove it to more voters. After all if we are willing to stab a Republican in the back what will we do to the moderate and liberal voters?
Good point. We should promote a low-life baby-killing back-stabbing snake like Specter to a position of authority so he can derail Bush's nominees so we can appear moderate.....
Specter has voted for all of Dubya pro-life nominees, the PBA ban, and the Unborn Victims of Violence Act. You are a joke.
Abortion on demand? Specter votes yes. Tort reform, the Scottish Specter votes NO. Buh-bye!
http://www.notspecter.com/
Douglas Urbanski is a former Broadway producer, who is now a top-flight Hollywood manager and producer. He met Arlen Specter at a small gathering in early 1996, when Specter was running for President. This is what Urbanski recently wrote about his close encounter of the liberal kind back in 1996:
“Arlen Specter personally told me that the number one thing he regretted was his questioning of Anita Hill and his vigorous support of Clarence Thomas. Let me repeat: Specter made it clear that he did not think much of Thomas, and, in our chat Specter did his best to distance himself from these events. For what it is worth, Specter also elaborated that he thought President Reagan was too fanatically Conservative and regretted much of his support for President Reagan. (more…)
Specter has yet to vote on a Supreme Court nominee for Bush. Lesser courts have little to no effect on R v W.
Off the top of my head, Specter voted for one pro-life nominee (Thomas) shot down one pro-life nominee (Bork) and approved three pro-abortion nominees.
The man has been fairly consistent over his time in the Senate, arguing that R v W is inviolate and that he will fight for it.
So, from a conservative perspective, the previous poster is correct. Specter has promised to stab us in the back when it counts, and has stabbed us in the back when it counts before (Bork).
I suppose it is possible he had a change of heart in the last few days, but seeing as Specter has now promised the abortion lobby to defend them to the hilt, he is lying to either them or us.
Now, one question I'd yet to here answered is this. Specter opposes conservative judicial philosophy. He favors judicial activism and considers we modern conservatives to be extremists. The job of the SJC Chair is to sheperd through the president's picks, or conversely, to help torpedo them. The former isn't the case do to Specter's own views, so what does that leave us save the latter?
ROTFL....So Specter are you making the case Specter is pro-life????????? You are joking, right?
Specter has not let his own views prevent him from voting for some pro-life judges. He has assured us that he will allow a vote to all of Dubya's nominees. The President believes Specter is "a man of his word." Specter is not dumb. He has been re-elected 4 times by being a good representative to the voters of PA. That is what a Senator is supposed to do. I believe Specter has seen the tide changing and will likely vote for all of Dubya's future nominees, but even if Specter votes against a nominee to placate his pro-choice voters in PA he will vote for cloture for a full Senate vote. We need 60 vote to make cloture. Dubya's nominees need 51 votes to win confirmation. We don't need Specter's vote for confirmation.
GET OUTTA MY FACE!
Did you know that George Soros gave $50,000 to the Republican Mainstream Partnership earmarked to defend Specter against Toomey. Others who contributed significant amount of money to support Specter include Harold Ickes Jr., Ron Carey, Arthur Coia, Richard Ben-Veniste, Alan Dershowitz, Barbara Kennelly and the International Association of Fire Fighters. Do you really know who you are defending? Calling Specter a snake is an insult to snakes.
No Gomer, I was making the case that he wasn't, as you called him, a baby-killer. I'm gonna assume you don't really think Specter has physically killed any babies, and I'm sure I'll never be able to refute you're freaky extremist rhetoric metaphores.
Specter is a moderate, and like many moderates, abortion is not his #1 issue. It's barely mentioned on his Senate website. I am personally opposed to abortion, but I am a supporter of a woman's right to choose. If he is not pro-life he evidently feels a majority of his constituents supported the PBA ban and the Unborn Victims of Violence Act.
I like moderates better than liberals because...well...that's probably going to be too hard for you to understand so nevermind.
You've been defending thsi RINO for at least two days now. What's your agenda?
Kyl would be a much safer bet- what's the harm in passing up on Specter? Why take the risk that he's being honest about his views?
I simply don't trust him, and the like of Chaffee, Snow and the rest of the lib cabal in the Senate can finally be relegated to obscurity, with Jeffords, where they belong.
Specter received over $31,000 from the Childrens Hospital of Philadelphia. Good Lord! I bet Specter is going to push legislation to add violence aimed at sick children to hate crime definitions. As if the sick kids don't already get preferential treatment by just about everybody! It's diabolical!!!
Specter raised over $14 MILLION. If he gave back the $50,000 he would only have had $13,950,000 to beat his rat opponent by 10 points. Without the support of the people you mention I bet Specter would have won by only 9.5 points.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1272499/posts
Hugh Hewitt's Take on Arlen Specter
...the party needs to welcome its members who hold minority views, not punish them. The prospect that Senator Specter might oppose a Bush nominee is not a happy one, but neither is it inevitable nor, given the appropriate committee make-up, fatal to the nominee's prospects. Conservatives ought to be focused on demanding the right allocation of seats and the right names for the new members, not on their fears about Senator Specter's reliability. Recall that Specter did a fine job defending Justice Thomas. Given Senator Specter's reputation for moderation, his support of future Bush nominees could prove hugely valuable.
Specter lied about Bork and Bork's writings - he lied like a cheap rug (I read them at the time of the confirmation process, and I know this for sure). He even said that Bork opposed integration - a vile lie intended to paint Bork as an extremist.
His lying was so blatant, Bork's son heard him and notified his dad, who came on the air to refute them. Which he did, masterfully.
So, we know Specter is a liar. We also know that he promised the Post-Gazette that he would vote against pro-life judges (in order to gain the paper's endorsement.) Now he says he won't vote against pro-life judges.
In the classic phrase, was he lying then or is he lying now?
I don't care whether he's a moderate. What I care about is that he has a serious allergy to the truth. I hope it's fatal to his chances for the chairmanship.
Works for me.
You didn't bother to answer my post.
As has been pointed out, voting for lower court judges is not the same as sending strict constructionists to the SC.
Off the top of my head, Specter voted for one pro-life nominee (Thomas) shot down one pro-life nominee (Bork) and approved three pro-abortion nominees.
So, from a conservative perspective, the previous poster is correct. Specter has promised to stab us in the back when it counts, and has stabbed us in the back when it counts before (Bork).
I suppose it is possible he had a change of heart in the last few days, but seeing as Specter has promised the abortion lobby to defend them to the hilt, he is lying to either them or us.
Now, one question I'd yet to here answered is this. Specter opposes conservative judicial philosophy. He favors judicial activism and considers we modern conservatives to be extremists. The job of the SJC Chair is to sheperd through the president's picks, or conversely, to help torpedo them. The former isn't the case do to Specter's own views, so what does that leave us save the latter?
I believe I did...and quite admirably.
Thanks for playing.
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.