Posted on 11/09/2004 5:26:17 PM PST by FrankRepublican
Tide runs against Specter Uproar continues over comments on federal judges By Alexander Bolton
Conservative opposition to Sen. Arlen Specter’s (R-Pa.) becoming chairman of the Judiciary Committee has mushroomed, to the dismay of Senate leaders who hoped it would fade, The Hill has learned.
Many conservatives were outraged by Specter’s comments after being reelected to a fifth term last week, when he said it is unlikely that the Senate would confirm judges who would overturn Roe v. Wade, the landmark 1973 Supreme Court decision legalizing abortion.
Specter’s post-election statement that judicial nominees who oppose abortion rights may have a hard time getting confirmed has put Majority Leader Bill Frist (R-Tenn.) and Specter’s junior colleague, Republican Conference Chairman Rick Santorum (R-Pa.), in difficult positions.
Both men are viewed to have White House ambitions. Frist is expected to retire from the Senate at the end of the next Congress to run for president, while Santorum’s supporters expect him also to run for the White House, perhaps as early as 2008.
The support of social conservatives is crucial to the presidential ambitions of both men, as conservatives — particularly evangelical Christians — demonstrated last week by helping President Bush defeat Democratic challenger Sen. John Kerry by a comfortable margin.
Some GOP strategists speculated last week that the controversy over Specter’s remarks, which he hastily backed off of, might die down over the weekend. But conservative leaders such as James Dobson, head of Focus on the Family, criticized Specter, as did House Speaker J. Dennis Hastert (R-Ill.).
Frist, Santorum and other Republicans reported that their telephones, fax machines and e-mail inboxes were jammed by protests from conservative activists who demanded that Specter not be allowed to succeed term-limited Judiciary Chairman Orrin Hatch (R-Utah).
“This is huge with the base. It’s mushrooming, and it’s not going away,” a GOP Senate aide said.
Specter has claimed his comments were reported out of context and issued a statement pledging to advance Bush’s judicial nominees, who are likely to include one or more selections to the Supreme Court.
The response from Senate Republican leaders has been not to respond, either in the hope that the uproar will die down or out of fear that opposing Specter’s ascension could backfire.
GOP aides and conservative leaders outside Congress said that Senate Republicans have not “circled their wagons” to defend Specter.
Frist has been silent, and Santorum issued a bland statement of support on Specter’s behalf last week but has since kept his distance.
“The Republican members of the Senate Judiciary Committee have the responsibility of voting for chairman,” Santorum said in a statement released by his office. “As I’m not a member of this committee, I will not be participating in the voting process.”
As chairman of the Senate Republican Conference, Santorum can claim he has an obligation to represent the interests of all 51 GOP senators and, therefore, it would be improper for him to pick sides in an internecine battle.
However, many conservatives, still angry over the role Santorum played in helping Specter stave off a stiff primary challenge from conservative Rep. Pat Toomey, are placing the focus squarely on Santorum.
Mike Schwartz, vice president of government relations for Concerned Women for America, one of the groups leading the conservative charge against Specter, said that the controversy can only be resolved by Santorum and that his standing with the Republican base could be damaged.
“Rick Santorum has already severely strained his relationship with conservatives by going way beyond the call of duty to get Specter renominated,” Schwartz said. “He’s the one person who can bring this to an end in a peaceful way.”
Schwartz, who said he believes Specter would relinquish his claim to head the judiciary panel if Santorum asked him to, added that if Santorum does not intervene he will “more seriously fray his relationship with conservatives.”
As for what impact that may have Santorum’s presumed White House ambitions, Schwartz said, “Let me remind you of how well Senator Specter did when he ran for president” in 1996, when he failed to mount a serious bid.
One GOP aide estimated that nearly 20 conservative groups are involved in the campaign to deny Specter the Judiciary Committee chairmanship.
In defending himself, Specter has been mostly alone, making several media appearances to tamp down the conservative uproar.
“I have not heard of any Republican senators coming to his defense yet, which is good news for us,” said Jayd Henricks, director of congressional relations for the Family Research Council, another conservative group hoping to oust Specter. “This is not a good thing for keeping party unity. They may be waiting to see if the storm dies down, but I don’t think the pressure’s going to let up, from our standpoint.”
Time and Senate procedure may work to Specter’s advantage.
The process for choosing a successor to Hatch, who will step down because of Republican Conference-imposed term limits, requires that members of the judiciary panel vote on a new chairman. That recommendation must then be ratified by the full conference.
But the committee is not expected to vote on Specter until January, when seven new GOP members have been sworn in and given committee assignments. Conservative activists may be hard-pressed to sustain their push against Specter for two more months.
On the other hand, a new class of conservatives will join the Senate, including former Reps. Tom Coburn of Oklahoma and Rep. Jim DeMint of South Carolina, who could press the leadership on behalf of their constituencies. Another incoming freshman, former Rep. John Thune (R-S.D.), said over the weekend that the makeup of the federal judiciary was a main theme of his campaign.
In addition, Republican members of the Senate Judiciary Committee may be emboldened by anonymity to vote against Specter’s chairmanship, as the January vote will take place through secret ballot.
“I think there will be votes against him with a secret ballot,” said an aide to a Republican member of the committee. “The key is whether any Judiciary members lobby senators to vote against him prior to the conference vote.”
The aide added, “Specter not the right person for the position. Specter has shown he’s not a team player.”
Specter may be hurt by his positions on tort reform, a central element of Bush’s second-term agenda.
In the past election cycle, he accepted more than three times as much money in political contributions from lawyers and law firms than from any other industry, according to the Center for Responsive Politics. And Specter’s son is a prominent Philadelphia-based trial lawyer.
That has raised the suspicions of several tort-reform proponents, who said momentum on the issue could be hampered if Specter presided over the committee of primary jurisdiction.
People need to keep calling and not back down. Specter is in big trouble. I called Frist and Santorums offices in DC today after making endless redials.
Specter will also screw us on tor reform probably with Trent Lott and Richard Shelby of AL.
Received an email from Senator Inhofe today in reply to my phone call and email:
November 9, 2004
Dear xxxxxx:
Thank you for contacting me about the selection of Senate committee chairmen. As your voice in Washington, I appreciate being made aware of your views.
The rules for determining the chairmen and ranking members of committees in the United States Senate are decided by the party conferences. After a new Congress is sworn in, the majority party, (in this year's case the Senate Republican Conference), meets to determine its leadership for the new Congress. Committee assignments are given to returning and new Senators. Under Senate Republican Conference rules, the most senior members of each committee are usually chosen as chairmen and are limited to serving only six years. Once the committee assignments have been decided, the Republican committee members meet to recommend chairmen of each committee to the full Republican Conference. After this recommendation is submitted, a secret ballot is conducted among all the Republican Senators to approve or reject the recommendation.
When the Republican Conference meets to determine committee chairmen for the 109th Congress, I will keep your thoughts in mind. Again, thank you for your comments. Please do not hesitate to contact me again.
Didn't anybody in a position of Strategery think of the implications of all this stuff (Ahem!......Carl Rove?) before they pulled the plug on Toomey and sent Bush and Santorum out on the stump for this turkey?
Please use the published title when posting an article
and on, and on...
Take back the language. Dobson is a civil rights leader. Its the liberal race baters are not (although Jesse Jackson used to be when so rightly compared abortion to slavery back in the 70s).
What does this say about Senator Specter?
But Arlen does support Hillary's confirmation to the Supreme Court. It's not like he's against All "Radicals."
Oh he's a team player alright. Just not for our team.
Excellent response from Frist.
He needs to force the rules change limiting filibustering of judicial appointees at the beginning of the new Senate.
Each new Senate gets to adopt its own rules according to the constitution. Carrying them over from new Senate to new Senate is only a tradition.
It's "mushrooming" as in mushroom-cloud if we see Specter's lizard-like face in the Judiary Committee.
“The Republican members of the Senate Judiciary Committee have the responsibility of voting for chairman,” Santorum said in a statement released by his office.
Republican politicians have a responsibility to, in order:
1) Do the right thing.
2) Do what reflects the will of their Republican supporters who voted for them and determine party ideology.
3) Do what reflects the will of the American people as their duly elected representatives.
Sometimes all three point to the same decision.
This is one of those times.
What is NOT a factor is seniority. It may be important within the beltway, but the average conservative/republican/voter/American couldn't care less about how long some old panderer has managed to fool his constituency into keeping him in office.
And those who would care least would be the unborn.
Is the author calling us out? Ooooo-kay. That's just fine. I guess I will have to send 2 emails per day and make 2 calls per day until they vote in January. In fact, I think I'll bump it up 1 for each remaining week. What is that? 10 weeks left. 10 emails and 10 calls a day. No problem.
How's that?
The democrats and their liberal allies in the media (and even those like Specter in the Republican party) refuse to recognize what has happened to this country, vis-a-vis the conservative base. Well, the conservative base has always been the proverbial "silent majority".
Not anymore, pal.
We were awakened years ago during the Clinton years. We fought, but our voice was barely making it through the liberal-media fog that blamed everything on everyone else but Bill Clinton.
The internets [wink] emerged. Free Republic and other conservative outets on the web grew.
Then 9/11 came and us conservative, God-fearing, patriotic sons-a-bitches had enough. We had enough of the question like "What did we do to make the terrorists hate us? Boo-hoo, boo-hoo..." We had enough of the liberals intellectually siding with the terrorists. We had enough of the liberals telling us that it was our fault for what happened. Enough was enough.
2002 was a clarion call and the beginning of a fundamental change in this country.
The 2004 primary was notice to all the lefty RINO, panty wastes like Specter. Right or wrong, the only reason you made it through the primary was many Republicans had faith in W, not in you, Senator Specter. Unfortunately, you have mistaken the people's faith in W as an endorsement of you, your politics, and your linguini-spined, liberal BS.
We are rejecting the liberal mentality as a whole, regardless of your party. Get ready, because its coming.
The 2004 election was a loud voice, booming for everyone to hear, "We're here. We ain't queer. And, you need to get that liberal crap weasel agenda outta here!"
So, come 2006 and 2008, everyone needs to remember these lessons.
We're taking this country back from the gay-baiters, the race-baiters, the fear-mongers, the class warfare whores, and all the other people who have been telling us how to live for the past 30 years. The PC crap isn't going to run our lives anymore. You will NOT tell me how to pledge to my flag. You will NOT tell me that I have to "respect" other people's lifestyle choices.
F' YOU!
If you don't like, leave.
If, however, you want to live in freedom --the type of freedom that God has intend us to live in-- then get on board and join our fight.
We are the modern minutemen. We are rejecting the rules that have been forced on us by the liberal aristocracy that bows down to the entitlement-driven, welfare state, socialist mentality.
</rant>
"Conservative activists may be hard-pressed to sustain their push against Specter for two more months."
Wanna bet?
If he can convince us that he's a good choice for the Chairmanship then they will vote for him, but if we're still tying up their phones and email when time comes for the vote; he's out.
He didn't help himself Sunday by saying Bush didn't get a mandate.
I think he'll crack under the pressure.
Bork Specter.
While Karl is generally brilliant he underestimated Reagan Democrats and social conservatives which is why he couldn't win PA or MI in 2000 or 2004.
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.