Posted on 11/18/2004 3:16:27 PM PST by Ed Current
The Chicago Sun Times (11/11/04) says Senator Arlen Specter wants a private meeting with Republican members of the Senate Judiciary Committee next week in order to "hash things out," according to Texas Senator John Cornyn, a former Texas Supreme Court judge, who appears to be emerging as a key player in the fight over whether Specter will be awarded the chairmanship of the powerful Judiciary Committee. It is unclear what Senator Cornyn’s role actually is. He says he wants to find out what Specter intends to do regarding Bush nominees to the federal courts. That sounds a bit like he might vote for him, provided Specter says the right things. Let Senator Cornyn, the other GOP members of the Judiciary Committee, and every Republican Senator (all are members of the Senate Republican Caucus and all will likely have a say in this matter) that Senator Arlen Specter is totally unacceptable for the position of chairman for the following reasons:
Senator Specter "is an avid supporter of the International Criminal Court (ICC) which would subject our military personnel to prosecution for war crimes before hostile international judges, and deny them the protections of our Constitution." In 2002, the U.S. Senate overwhelmingly passed and President Bush signed, the American Servicemembers Protection Act that exempted our military from the threat of the ICC. However, Senator Specter was among the few in the Senate and the only Republican, who voted against this amendment." (Concerned Women for America Press Release, 11/11/04) President Bush opposes the ICC, as do most Americans.
WTF!?
Have you seen a complete text of his statement today posted? I've been trying to find it..Thanks..
I think they call it the 'ole boyz club.'
I saw Specter's news conference where he was forced to read a concession statement. I felt kind of bad for him. It must have been very humbling, if not humiliating. Specter is very proud, and likes to be an idependent thinker. Nothing wrong with that, so long as he doesn't abuse his position to obstruct.
"Arlen Specter won support of his colleagues"
Here's your mandate!
Welcome to the "progressive" gop................
Enjoy
Specter has reached the Zenith of his CAREER in politics. Now he can take it to another level and instead of just being a worthless RINO, he can be a full time obstructionist and political backstabber to the man who got him reelected.
I think they call it strategery.
They threw Specter a bone. He gets to keep his chairmanship, but has been publicly thrown to the carpet. One false move on his part and he loses his head.
The ONLY thing I want out of Specter is that nominees get a fair and speedy floor vote. He's been forced to promise that he'll do that.
I dislike him intensely, was rooting for his primary opponent, but lets not pretend there's an upside to this. Here's one "moderate" who'll be towing the line.
Spectre is in a box now..
the panel's Republican members unanimously backed the Pennsylvania senator, known for his liberal stance on many issues.
From the same gutless RINO's that couldn't summon up enough courage to oust Clinton during the impeachment. Disgusting!
I guess they'll stop now, Frist has such gravitas.
Oh crap. The political second wind of Lardbutt Kennedy, Lurch Kerry, Breck Girl Edwards et al has begun. They'll see this as THEIR mandate.
I hope you're right...I heard a clip of the press conference on the radio. Specter sounded very subdued but also forcefully stated he will get nominees through...I hope it wasn't all for show.
I was one of the Republicans screaming for Specter not to get the Chair of the JC. However...on reflection I think this may work out.
First- he has been outed in MAJOR ways...thousands wrote and called to protest against him. He has been effectively neutered...and may well work for the more conservative issues.
IF he had been replaced- I think he would have turned into a Jeffords and fought hard against anything the president wanted. It also would have made him a "martyr" and someone the Dems would have used to their advantage. This may not be as bad as we think...
I think they call it strategery.
House, Senate close ranks to protect two controversial members
Senate Republicans, meanwhile, firmed up their support for Specter, who's come under attack from conservative and anti-abortion groups as he prepares to assume the chairmanship of the Senate Judiciary Committee.
Both cases illustrate Congress' determination to protect its own, even if that has risks.
"Democrats and Republicans, liberal or conservative, House members or senators, these individuals face an uncomprehending world outside the Congress," said Ross K. Baker, a congressional scholar at Rutgers University. "It creates a bond among them and causes them to set up protective mechanisms to prevent outsiders of all kinds - from interests groups to the president - from tampering with the workings of the institution."
The Senate is protecting the individualism and the autonomy from outside partisan forces," he said. "It's clinging to some norms about seniority, reciprocity and respect for a colleague. ... They have built a cocoon around him and insulated him from it."
WorldNetDaily: The Pennsylvania Treason
The fact that Specter's eventual margin of victory was so razor-thin made one thing absolutely undeniable. Without the influence and treachery of Bush and Santorum, we would have seen a raging pro-abort who has always been viciously hostile toward anything that the pro-life movement does replaced with a pro-lifer. It is laughable to suggest that the combined efforts of a Republican president and a Republican senator can't influence even 2 percent of the votes in a Republican primary. Given that, it is simply a fact that Bush and Santorum cost the pro-life movement this election.
Bush and Santorum defenders will claim that if Toomey had won he might turn around and lose in the general election and, thereby, turn control of the Senate over to the Democrats.
That's garbage. First, upon what do these people base the assumption that Toomey could somehow beat the senior incumbent United States senator in his state, but then not be able to beat a non-incumbent Democrat? If their claim is that Toomey's advocacy for the right-to-life makes him unelectable in a Pennsylvania general election, how do they explain Santorum's election?
Thank you...BTW..FYI..did you see the Byron York column today?..It was posted here..
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.