Posted on 11/09/2004 11:24:52 AM PST by nathanbedford
Rush is floundering. He cannot find and hold a position on Specter and sounds utterly incoherent. This post is to counter Rush's rare defalcation and remind his listeners of the importance of acting now to eliminate Senator Specter before he assumes the Chair of the Senate Judiciary Committee and does great mischief to any pro-life nominee.
We do not need another Borking of a good and honest nominee by this unprincipled and mercurial RINO.
Bork Specter.
Here we go already.
There was a big difference between Laura Ingraham and Rush today.
I think what you are hearing is that Specter gets the chairmanship with the understanding that he doesn't impede Bush judges.
That is how I read that.
Hopefully this won't block Justice Ashcroft!
Let's secede!
lol
That's how I understood it, that one person wasn't going to block President Bush.
I can't, I'm already in the disputed territories.
Agree about Rush today, I thought the same thinkg. Hannity also dealt with this issue yesterday, and while he treated Specter (who was on the show) very gingerly, he took a much stronger stance when Bork came on afterwards. He was pretty clear on his postition.
Poor Rush... guy never wants to make a choice between being Republican and being conservative, because his audience is half of each.
I had considered that there might well have been a deal cut and so posted - before he made his comments which in my view disqualified him:
Arlen Specter's Win Could Impact Supreme Court
Posted by nathanbedford to Tallguy
On News/Activism 11/03/2004 1:52:24 PM EST · 34 of 41
Specter certainly poses an interesting dilemma, the consequences of which could rob us of much of the fruits of one of the most significant political victories in American history.
If Bush gets to nominate up to 4 justices will Specter play a constructive role as chairman or act as spoiler? We do not know if a deal has been cut designed either to keep him off the chair or to get him to play for the home team. At the time of Toomey's primary challenge, Bush, much to great consternation here - which I shared, supported the RINO over the conservative. The conventional wisdom concluded that Rove had calculated that Specter would help but Toomey would hurt Bush's chances in this key(stone) swing state. There might have been more to the deal than that: Bush might have extracted a promise either to quit the Judiciary committee or to act act as Chairman but to fully support the President's nominees. We cannot entire discount the possibility that Specter extracted a "no litmus test" pledge from Bush, a pledge which we heard to our consternation in the debates. One can only pray that my cynicism is misplaced.
With or without a deal, how will Specter behave as chairman when called to fight on behalf of a beleaguered anti-abortion nominee? Will he stand tall as he did with Thomas or tank as he did with Bork? Surely he knows in his heart that this is clearly his last tour of duty in the Senate so he has no reason to trim for reelection as he had to do after the reaction to his support for Thomas.
Maybe Specter will want to go out in grand style in his last hurrah but will he want his legacy be written to please academic historians or will he want his legacy to be the Constitution itself?
The dilemma is complicated by the fact that there is very little leverage which can be applied to a six term Senator who needs no $ for his next campaign. So, contrary to suggestions here that he be threatened by Frist or other powerful Senators, there is virtually nothing which can be done to him. Lyndon engineered a shunning of Hubert Humphrey and brought him to heel but that was a different day. Today, the Majority Leader has precious little power except the power of persuasion.
So the idea of threatening Specter is fraught with danger and could likely lead to a real backlash resulting in the loss of his vote if he were to lose his chairmanship and becomes a renegade. Even to broach the matter of his withdrawing from the chairmanship might force him off the reservation.
We know that Specter is an insufferable egoist and he must be handled very carefully. I think he should be approached by a peer who can feel him out without generating offense, and who can cut a deal. Perhaps such a deal has already been cut during the primary. Let's hope the price is not too high for the unborn.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1268833/posts
Specter is in. Maybe Rush figures that there is no point in beating a dead horse. Personally, though, I'd like to beat it a little more. Mr. Specter ought to be reminded who put him where he is, and who can take him out.
To fight Specter is to win a battle and lose a war. Check out Hugh Hewitt on this - he is right.
Kind of like raising kids - sometimes you have to pick your battles and not fight everything. This is one of those times. Let it go on Specter - bigger fish to fry, we don't need this right now.
Bork was voted down based on lies. Please don't do that.
See Hugh Hewitt's ( http://www.hughhewitt.com/ ) thoughts on Specter Nov. 8 7:20 A.M.
Think long term and who is needed to maintain the Pubby majority.
Hopefully this won't block Justice Ashcroft!
and Justices Moore and Coulter. ;-)
If it were Specter v. any typical 'rat, I'd go Specter.
Specter says he has voted for/supported all of GWB's nominees. Can anyone refute that?
And who is this imbecil broad who's clip he's playing? What a dope.
"being Republican and being conservative, because his audience is half of each."
LOL - To think that one used to automatically imply the other! Now we've become the party (or Administration, at least) of more gov't and more spending.
"Well I'm sorry but the defalcation is yours this time"
More like, defecation, as it was truly a crappy post for the reasons you cited.
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.