Posted on 11/09/2004 9:30:42 PM PST by crushelits
WASHINGTON, Nov. 9 - The White House offered only lukewarm support today for Senator Arlen Specter, the Pennsylvania Republican whose bid to become chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee is under fire from conservatives.
Asked whether President Bush would have confidence in Mr. Specter as chairman, the chief White House spokesman, Scott McClellan, said the chairmanship was "a matter for the Senate to decide, and it's something that the White House does not have a role in.''
Advertisement
"Senators will make that decision," he said.
The White House does, of course, have influence. By virtue of , Mr. Specter is in line to be given the chairmanship by his fellow Senate Republicans when Senator Orrin G. Hatch of Utah steps down under a Republican rule limiting the term of a chairman to six years. But from an ideological standpoint, Mr. Specter is hardly ideal to Republicans' conservative wing, since he supports abortion rights and is still remembered for having voted against Robert H. Bork, President Ronald Reagan's unsuccessful Supreme Court nominee, in 1987.
This afternoon, some religious conservatives vowed to fight Mr. Specter's elevation to the chairmanship and said they planned a demonstration in front of the office of Senator Bill Frist of Tennessee, the Republican majority leader, next Tuesday afternoon.
"If the Republican majority voted in Senator Specter as Judiciary chair, it would be a slap in the face and betrayal to the millions of pro-life, pro-family Americans who worked so hard to elect President Bush and Republican members of Congress," said the Rev. Patrick J. Mahoney, director of the Christian Defense Coalition.
(Excerpt) Read more at nytimes.com ...
Maybe we can change the verb of choice for the liberals from being borked to being spectred.
Just like when Bush met with Dashahole at the beginning of his first term and told me never to lie to him.
LOL! Actually, he did not tell me that he said it to tommy!
One should be cautious and try not to make a 'spectre'cle' of one's self, it would seem. ;-)
Doesn't sound like any form of support to me.
I don't think I'll be putting any of my hard-earned on Specter for this one.
From what I hear, the pro-life organizations and their thousands of troops are now refusing to campaign for or vote for anyone who supports Specter.
..."refusing to campaign for or vote for anyone who supports Specter>"
Take that, Mr. Frist - and that and that and that and that!
Specter is a spook.
Sorry, "WE" won, now move along little specter, you are a rooster without a crow and I swear these spurs will hurt you!
(I would love to meet the little mud hen in person, it would be a hoot)
Would the above qualify for Ratherisms? If not I guess that's why they pay Dan the Big Bucks.
Too bad they couldn't take that same sensible approach in the primary.
Not exactly a ringing endorsement of Specter, now is it?
One thing we know: George W. Bush does not like liars and deceivers. And once you have crossed him, you are OUT...for good. Just ask Yasser Arafat. I think Arlen Specter made a deal with Bush to get his primary support, and then was shown to be at worst a liar, at best a deceiver, with his Nov 3 comments.
I think Bush has already decided Specter has to go.
Didn't Specter Kill Kennedy? Maybe W. is afraid.
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.