AP: Specter Rewriting Pledge, Senate Leaders Find First Draft Unacceptable

GrassrootsPA ^ | 11/18/04 | GrassrootsPA

[GeneralHavoc]

The good news is that GOP Leadership is not letting him off the hook easy. Notice that Senate leaders rejected his first draft.

Associated Press:

Specter, who supports abortion rights, also is pledging a strong predisposition to support the president's nominees for the bench, according to these sources, who spoke on condition of anonymity. The Pennsylvania senator's draft statement affirms that he will not impose a litmus test on nominees based on the issue of abortion, but does not include a blanket pledge to vote for them.

Specter's written statement, apparently undergoing changes, largely covers positions he has staked out in public statements in recent days. Even so, several GOP sources said one early version was deemed unacceptable by Senate leaders in a meeting on Wednesday, particularly on the contentious issue of changing Senate procedures to eliminate the possibility of a filibuster by opponents of a nomination.

[Dolphy]

Then he's removed as the Chairman, and the Senate count is 54-46. There's no real damage there.

And we want him to be the Republican in exile every time a contentious judicial issue comes up? I don't. Public relations is part of this entire process, ignoring that does the agenda no good. Specter did us a favor by opening his mouth and bringing so much attention to himself and his Chairmanship.

[Once-Ler]

The Republicans may have a very small window of opportunity to get Bush's nominees through.

A lot of people said that in 2000 and 2002. Go for everything right now so moderate voters are shocked into voting for rats and we lose everything and more ground in the backlash. Not one of these people could predict what they would eat tommorow much less what the future had in store.

[Always Right]

This just might turn out OK after all. Wait and see.

Something postive will come out of this, I am certain of that. I find it very positive that Senators are seriously considering changing the Senate rules on filibusters. If we can get that done, Specter can have the chairmanship.

[Hendrix]

"A lot of people said that in 2000 and 2002. Go for everything right now so moderate voters are shocked into voting for rats and we lose everything and more ground in the backlash"

I disagree. I think we are where we are because of what Bush has done (his conservative agenda), and I don't think the so called moderates are going to fault Bush or the Republicans for doing whatever it takes to get Bush's judges through. I would be willing to bet anything on that.

That is the Republican's problem; they are too worried about backlash. There won't be any backlash, except from the media.

[conservativepoet]

Sounds like the Republican leadership might be a little smarter this time around. I'm more confident that the grassroot fury will make a difference now.

[TAdams8591]

Oh, yeah and when we need to get that last nominee past, the one who will tip the Supreme Court scale to the side of a Roe vs. Wade reversal, Specter's words in writing will keep Specter in line, particularly if (God forbid) Hillary is president. /sarcasm/

[joesnuffy]

Arlen Specter

Magic Bullet Theory
Pro Homosexual Marriage
Pro Abortion
Anti 2nd Ammendment- AWB
Anti 1st Ammendment- McCain Feingold
Pro UN (wants U.S. troops under UN International Criminal Courts
Likes Activist judges..proposes liberal slant litmus test for SCOTUS justices
Friend of SOROS

[Recovering_Democrat]

Specter, for all his warts, has still supported all of Bush 43's nominees. I don't think all the rants about him are necessarily justified.

[MamaLucci]

The GOP are playing hardball with McSpecter!

[WildTurkey]

I would rather have him leave the party than to block the judicial nominees.

Forcing him out of the party would probably result in his being more likely to block any judges.

[Eastbound]

Sorry, but I have no confidence in this guy. Dump him and get it over with. There is much to do and little time to do it. Remove the potential road blocks and lets get this train back on the tracks. We won. Let's start acting like winners for a change.

[Mach9]

McCain wouldn't DARE. He's on thin-enough ice as it is--notice his last comments (re Specter) were decidedly pro-Bush. Snow & Collins--no loss whatsoever.

[Once-Ler]

The danger in changing the Senate rules on filibuster is it may set a precedent on all filibusters and should the Republican Party fall out of favor with the voters this tool would not be available to stop a one seat rat majority from complete control. Then we might as well do away with the US House which currently operates under those rules.

[ken5050]

He's not leaving the majority to go into the minority...

[W1_hooyah]

"Specter did us a favor by opening his mouth and bringing so much attention to himself and his Chairmanship."

Right on the money, Dolphy. Specter is very useful to us in his weakened, chastened state.

[ken21]

either the pubs show some balls, or they'll be history.

they control both houses of the congress + the presidency. if they can't run things, then that's it.

this is the best it's been in my life--republican control. it won't get any better than this.

the dems do more with less.

[Once-Ler]

Whoops. I should have directed that post to Hendrix in post 8

[Hendrix]

"Forcing him out of the party would probably result in his being more likely to block any judges."

I highly doubt that. He cannot block judges as a mere senator, even if he switched sides. If he joined up with all the liberal republicans, he still could not block a judge on an up or down vote (do the math). I am not advocating forcing him out of the party, but if he leaves because he is not made the head of the judicial committee, so be it.

[Thorin]

>>>>>"Even under Scottish law, Spector must GO".<<<<

You are absolutely correct.

[Hendrix]

"The danger in changing the Senate rules on filibuster is it may set a precedent on all filibusters and should the Republican Party fall out of favor with the voters this tool would not be available to stop a one seat rat majority from complete control. Then we might as well do away with the US House which currently operates under those rules."

I am willing to take that chance. Again, that is the problem with Republicans: they are too worried about what might happen. The democrats are always going to not play fair, so no matter what we do to show that we are playing fair (not revoking that rule) will be of no use if they want to do it when and if they get back in power (they will revoke it in a heart beat to stop a minority of republicans). QUIT WORRING ABOUT WHAT MIGHT HAPPEN!