Posted on 04/26/2005 12:58:10 AM PDT by JohnHuang2
THE WASHINGTON TIMES
Senate Republicans are expressing concerns that Judiciary Committee Chairman Arlen Specter will defy party leaders and oppose the so-called "nuclear option" to end Democratic filibusters against President Bush's judicial nominees. The Pennsylvania Republican -- who was nearly passed over for the committee chairmanship because of his independent ways -- says publicly that he is undecided about whether he'll vote with Majority Leader Bill Frist and Republicans to limit filibusters of judicial nominations. Click to learn more... But a Senate speech last week in which Mr. Specter advised senators to ignore "party loyalty" has some Republicans convinced that he might break party ranks -- a move that could doom Republican support for overriding the filibusters.
(Excerpt) Read more at washtimes.com ...
*Ping
Let's just put it this way.
Spectre can redeem himself for Bork by supporting this. If not, Santorum will probably lose election and Spectre's legacy will be sealed but it will not be the admirable record he hopes to retire with.
I don't think people should assume he'll vote no. Spectre really hasn't been the disrupting factor the other RINO's have been since he received backlash for his comments following the election. This is something that will go down to the wire on what he decides to do.
BTTT....
A bump back to you in our beautiful state of PA. The sun is shining today!
You've posted a few really interesting articles today, thanks.
Boy, if only someone had seen this coming maybe we could've put a true PA conservative in office last year... < /sarcasm >
Remember all the lobbying by MILLIONS of people across the US (every major family group, religious group, etc) to prevent Specter from getting the judiciary chairmanship?
The phone lines at the Capitol switchboard were jammed, almost 24x7 with calls AGAINST giving Specter the chairmanship. But, in typical Washington fashion, the Powers That Be (on our own side, da#n it), decided to do what THEY thought was best - and went completely against public opinion and gave it to him ANYWAY.
Supposedly, he had to write a letter promising to support W's judicial nominees, move them through committee, and generally behave himself.
Predictably, this "promise" wasn't worth the paper it was written on.
So, what would most of us do at this point if Specter doesn't play nice? Yep - we'd nuke his Scottish behind right off the committe, strip him of his chairmanship and run him out of town on a rail.
But our R leadership? Oh, nooooo..that wouldn't be "appropriate".
Our side is getting CREAMED lately. If we don't do something major and show some real leadership, I fear we're gonna get trounced in '06 and '08, because there is a VERY large # of us who have HAD IT with this "leadership" that we put into office in the last election. And we'll be sitting home come next election, DESPITE the consequences.
For want of a few hundred votes...
After President Bush supported him, Specter is turning Judgas.
Well, yeah. Why DID George W. Bush travel to Pennsylvania to stump for this @$$#01e? And why did Rick Santorum go along with it? I'll betcha "Political Reality" had something to do with it.
Thanks for the ping OK
This is the line in the sand - the GOP delivers on judges, or they get dumped out of office. The choice is theirs.
Assuming he even lives long enough to finish his current term, there's almost no chance he'll run for office again.
You're welcome. The Republicans need to deliver on a couple of other items too, like tax reform and Social Security. Otherwise they're all talk.
Well, there's plenty of judgasses that should be turned, but I doubt Spector would turn them the right way.
Leni
This was eminently predictable, and in fact many people predicted this would happen. Specter is a vile, gutter lowlife who's out for himself and himself only, and he always has been.
I think they already did.
Far more often than I'd like, "political reality" is just an excuse for just "going along to get along", or weakly choosing to go the "path of least resistance". Other times, this term does indeed correctly describe the unfortunate need to compromise.
I consider the President's and the NRA's support of creatures like Specter and Carson are, to me, the former -- no excuses. Perhaps there are things going on there at those high political altitudes that we peons are not even aware of which force these things, but I don't buy that 99% of the time.
But as I said, despite the cases where the GOP and/or the NRA fall down on the job, overall they do one helluva lot better than the alternative, and I believe that as long as we continue to hammer them, things will continue to improve. You can't change any club that you don't belong to, and even then, improvement is measured in millimeters. Unfortunately. But I never saw anything in the real world that was easy, or quick.
Of course, you are free to stamp your feet, hold your ears shut and continue to demand 100% perfection, while we who are involved continue to carry your weight. We are used to it, and it certainly won't stop our slow advance to restore this nation to it's founding concepts.
Be well,
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.