Hearings within 30 days for all Bush nominees
An up-down vote in committee within 30 days after the hearings
An up-down floor vote within 30 days after the committee vote. (Obviously, Specter cannot guarantee this last item, since it depends on Dem filibusters, but it implies a pledge by Specter to vote to break any such filibusters)
I don't think you can expect much more from a committee chairman. Remember also that Specter has voted to confirm all of Bush's nominees so far, including pro-life nominees.
That Specter received donations from Soros spells it out plainly for all to see. Specter cannot be trusted.
Soros knew Specter might get the Chair if he could defeat Toomey. Specter was BACKED FINANCIALLY by the most ardent opposer of conservative causes.
Quote from the article about it during campaign:
"As Jim Geraghty reported on NRO last week, Soros, a wealthy Manhattan financier, donated $50,000 to the Republican Mainstream Partnership (RMP). This contribution will help this group of self-described moderate Republicans bolster Specter's effort to win Pennsylvania's hotly contested GOP Senate primary against pro-market stalwart Congressman Pat Toomey"
The downside on this “victory” is we expend and waste a ton of momentum and popular support. Bashing Specter makes us look petty, small, narrow minded and poor winners.
First and foremost, he owes his political life to GWB.
. . . if Specter pushes a nominee, most MSM is going to view that nominee as a “moderate” because of Specter’s history. The nominee may in fact not be that moderate, but Arlen’s stamp on it is going to give it the benefit of the doubt.
I’m concerned we end up looking like a bunch of knuckle-draggin’, mouth breathing nimrods.
OK, first things first -- the "risks" you cite seem to center on appearances. We (conservatives) will be seen as petty, small, narrow minded and poor winners and we end up looking like a bunch of knuckle-draggin’, mouth breathing nimrods.
I understand your concern. But conservatives will always be portrayed as a bunch of knuckle-draggin’, mouth breathing nimrods, no matter how many degress we display on our collective walls. The media hate us, for no good reason, and the only attack they have left is the ad hominum. Personally, I'm used to it, and would be concerned if they ever expressed favorable interest in anything I hold dear.
Now, as to he [Specter] owes his political life to GWB. . . if Specter pushes a nominee, most MSM is going to view that nominee as a “moderate” . . .
Arlen Specter owes nothing to anyone. Just ask him, he'll tell you. As a former constituent, I am quite familiar with the "tender mercies" of Mr. Specter. Never be fooled into believing Specter owes anyone a debt of gratitude. He does not.
The fact that Specter is a "moderate" will not insulate him from the media. Remember what they did to Zell Miller? And he's still a democrat. A conservative being slowly roasted by the media will cause Specter to get the matches, not the fire extinguisher. He will not defend a conservative nominee. More likely, he will help the democrats defeat one, either through direct action or, more likely, inaction.
We have virtually nothing to gain by allowing Specter to ascend to the Chairmanship of the Judiciary Committee.
It is irrelevant. That is the image painted by MSM irregardless of who GWB places in nomination, and how they wish to characterize us. Maragaret Cho's-mindset basically "rulez" at management suites of NBC, ABC, and CBS. The risks are greater of putting him in. Furthermore, you are really missing the danger Specter the Defecter poses for national sovereignty. His ICC position, his UN position, his flip flops on "hate crime" criminalization of various and sundry things, make it a "Bad Bet" to give him authority over appointments beyond his mere sitting on the Judiciary Committee. This man's torpedoing of Bork "Leading the Charge" and opposition to Jeff Session's nomination, and the very clear fuming threats made all during this year's campaign makes it clear...he intends to continue by hook or by crook the harm he has set out upon.
If we let Bygone be Bygones on this, hoping he has been "scared straight" we will surely be "screwed" within the year. You are entitled to your weak-sister opinion. But as for me, I will stand for a Constitution that is original, not debased under the phony euphemism of being a "living" Constitution. [I.e., judge-made distortions palmed off as Constitutional law ]. If your opinion prevails among the Senate GOP majority, then they will each share the blame for the failure to "hold the line" against a known enemy of the Real Constitution...as will you.
No more Bad Calls. No more Slippery Slopers.