Lest you think this is fiction - these signs started to appear in the Philadelphia area just before the election, paid for by Arlen’s former campaign manager. This particular picture originially appeared in the Philly Daily News.
Posted on 11/10/2004 2:06:25 AM PST by Always Right
Specter Ping - Please bump the thread. If possible report any activity or feedback you have heard.
BEGIN YOUR DAY BY EMAILING THIS ARTICLE TO ALL REPUBLICANS ON THE SENATE JUDICARY COMMITEE!
Did Specter Cost Bush Pennsylvania?
NewsMax.com's Fr. Michael Reilly contends that President Bush could have won Pennsylvania if he had backed Sen. Arlen Specter's conservative challenger in the state's primary. Exit polls reveal that President Bush may have miscalculated earlier this year by endorsing pro-abortion Senator Arlen Specter in his primary battle against conservative challenger Pat Toomey.
Immediately following his narrow primary win, Specter was quick to declare his independence from the president and reassert his pro-abortion credentials.
After his Nov. 2 win, Specter added insult to injury, asserting that if he were to become chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, pro-life judges need not apply.
Originally believing that a strong GOP Senate candidate in Pennsylvania could put the state's 21 electoral votes in the Bush column, the president campaigned with Specter and helped him squeak out a win against Toomey. Conventional wisdom had suggested that Toomey would be a weaker candidate in the general election.
But saving Specter didn't impress Pennsylvania Republicans.
In fact, Bush's endorsement of Specter angered pro-life Republicans across the state, and now exit polls suggest that many of them did not show up to vote on Election Day.
While national polls indicate that moral values was the No. 1 priority for 22 percent of all voters, only 18 percent of Pennsylvania voters listed moral values as their top priority.
Since 80 percent of these "moral values" voters nationwide supported the President, their lower turnout in Pennsylvania probably gave Kerry his narrow margin of victory in the Keystone State.
Catholics voted for Bush nationwide 52 percent to 47 percent. The margin was wider in Ohio, 55 percent to 44 percent, and wider still in Florida, 57 percent to 42 percent. In Pennsylvania, however, Catholics were almost evenly split, going for Bush 51 percent to 49 percent.
If Bush allows Sen. Specter to chair the Senate Judiciary Committee, his support among "values voters" nationwide could suffer a similar decline
Republicans need to start practicing what they preach. Republicans tout competition, and the best man winning. But when it comes to assigning committee chairmanships, they take the touchy-feely approach of awarding it to whoever has the most seniority. This sounds a lot like affirmative action to me. It is intellectually lazy and anti-competition. Why should a senator worry about being loyal to his party and his party's ideals, showing up for meetings, voting, or studying the issues if none of this has any impact whatsoever on his chances to chair a committee?
I say reward hard work and dedication instead. It's the Republican way!
John Kyl for Judiciary chairman.
If you want to have a healthy garden you gotta pull out the weeds...
Sen Specter is a particularly nasty clump
imo
They only started doing that since 1994. It is not like there is some long-standing tradition. They changed the rules then, they can change the rules now. I am sure Democrasts try to put their best fighter in the best position to help their cause. Seniority is a spineless way to select Chairmen.
I don't understand this. While the desire to have everyone be politically correct is obviously strong among some so-called conservatives who want only those who agree with them entirely to have a voice, the self-destructive impulse is harder to understand. Knock Specter off as Chair and you open up a scenario in which moderate Republican Senators walk across the aisle and the Republican majority thins mightily or disappaears. Recall that there are at least 3 other moderate Republicans in addition to Specter who will have no difficulty getting reelected as democrats or Independents. You may thinks this unlikely (I don't) but it is certainly not impossible. Pro-Choice Republican Senators will bridle at the notion that they will be punished for their views by people from states other than their own. So these PC rants make no sense to me unless you want to damage Republican control of the senate.
Whats the difference.Hes either going to screw us as a Dem or a so called republican.If he does switch thats one more idiot we got out of our party.
BTTT!!!!!!
Bump!
right there with ya buddy...bttt
Hi Switzer. I see you signed up today just to tell me this.
I believe that the reason you have signed up today is because Specter is the last hope you and your friends have at some of the Bush agenda being blocked. The party you support has obstructed the president for 4 years, but no longer has the power to do so. Now your last hope is in a "moderate" Republican doing your dirty work. Anyone who calls Specter (or Chaffey or Snowe for that matter) a "moderate" around here just blew their cover.
Arnold Schwarzenegger is a "moderate". John McCain is a "moderate". Rudy Giuliani is a "moderate". Arlen Specter is a flaming liberal.
Don't forget Scottish law in the impeachment proceedings!!!
Absolutely. There is room in the party for real moderates. Arlen is a liberal to the core.
Thanks. I think we are on the verge of winning. We have demonstrated we are resolved and that is making a strong impression. Staffers are on our side. Most of the Senaotrs on the Committee are not saying anything, which says a lot to me.
We've definitely gotten noticed LOL! Even with the Ashcroft/Evans resignations, and the many deaths of Yassar the Cockroach, this story is still quite visible and active.
Hot Flash
By Tara Ross
Ingratitude
Imagine that you are an incumbent Senator facing a strong challenge during your party's primary. The chances of defeat are real. Perhaps your opponent's views fall more in line with the party platform than your own do. Moreover, you have never been very good at supporting Presidents of your party. You undermine their judicial candidates. You take public stances against their legislative agendas. You like to look upon yourself as a bit of a maverick.
In the face of all these disincentives, and despite the fact that your opponent would make a better ally for them in Congress, your President and other Senators in your party decide to go to bat for you, endorsing you during the party primary. With their help, you defeat the challenger, a much-liked and well-respected Congressman--but only by a hair. You go on to win the November general election. All in all, it was a close call.
Out of gratitude, you realize that you must work harder to support your party--right? Wrong. If you are Arlen Specter, the liberal Republican Senator from Pennsylvania, you are more likely to return to your renegade ways.
Specter, you see, talks a good game when he is up for re-election. He recognizes his inability to win an election without the support of conservative Republicans, so he tends to run toward the middle during senatorial election years. Once re-election is safely behind him, he spends the next four to five years acting precisely as he wants, without regard to what the voters or others in his party may or may not want from him.
Such an attitude caused him, for example, to undermine the nomination of Judge Robert Bork to the Supreme Court during Ronald Reagan's years in office. He later supported Justice Clarence Thomas because--you guessed it--an election year was approaching.
Specter has done much damage during his tenure in the Senate, but this year, the consequences of his actions may be even more disastrous than usual. When the 109th Congress convenes in January, Senator Orrin Hatch will be term limited from resuming the chairmanship of the Judiciary Committee. Specter is next in line for this position unless Chuck Grassley of Iowa relinquishes his chairmanship of the Finance Committee, thus freeing himself to lead the Judiciary Committee instead.
Specter's record of undermining Republican judicial candidates in the Senate should provide ample evidence of what type of Judiciary Chairman he would make. But in case anyone should remain in doubt, he reminded everyone late last week. In his post-election news conference, Specter sent a warning shot to the President, implying that pro-life judges will not make it past a Judiciary Committee under his control.
"When you talk about judges who would change the right of a woman to choose, overturn Roe v. Wade, I think that is unlikely," Specter stated. "I would expect the president to be mindful of the considerations which I am mentioning."
Specter is wrong to impose a pro-choice litmus test on judges. To the contrary, the only appropriate litmus test for a judge is that stated by the President repeatedly throughout the campaign: Judges should strictly interpret the Constitution and the laws of this nation. Political preferences--whether on abortion or another issue--should not be taken into consideration when evaluating judicial nominees.
Bush gets this. Arlen Specter does not. Let's hope the rest of the Republican delegation gets it for him. With at least one and as many as four Supreme Court nominations approaching during the next four years, the stakes could not be higher.
Senator Bill Frist, as Majority Leader, can and should encourage procedural maneuvers to prevent Specter from assuming chairmanship of the Judiciary Committee. Rumor has it that Frist wants to run for President in 2008. He should show the conservative base in his party that a fair and impartial judiciary is important to him.
Moreover, Chuck Grassley can and should voluntarily forgo his chairmanship of the Finance Committee, instead assuming control of the Judiciary Committee. Such an act would admittedly be a step backwards for Grassley career wise, as the Finance Committee chairmanship is generally considered to be more powerful than the Judiciary Committee chairmanship. Forgive me for such an idyllic and naive sentiment, but isn't the first and foremost duty of elected officials to serve their country, rather than their own personal ambitions? Grassley should make this sacrifice for his country.
A fair and impartial judiciary is of critical importance. Republican Senators should act now to ensure that Arlen Specter is not the gatekeeper of the Judiciary Committee, determining which judges do or don't make it to the bench.
Specter has proven--repeatedly--that he is not up to the task.
Tara Ross is a writer and an attorney residing in Dallas, Texas, a regular contributor to TAEmag.com, and author of the recently published Enlightened Democracy: The Case for the Electoral College.
bttt
Lest you think this is fiction - these signs started to appear in the Philadelphia area just before the election, paid for by Arlen’s former campaign manager. This particular picture originially appeared in the Philly Daily News.
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.