Posted on 11/07/2004 3:55:20 PM PST by joanie-f
Perhaps he could spend the years wiping the butts of the puppet masters since he values their priorities and goals so much.
I don't want Specter anywhere near the Judiciary Committee.
Jack.
Amen!
Amen!
Amen!
Your bold blue paragraph is something every American should know, and most of us didn't. Specter was one of the instigators of political judicial appointments. So he is a major culprit in something that should have nothing to do with someone who is chariman of the judiciary committee.
This is the best writing I've seen about why this man needs to be stopped. Thank you!
You have asked for my thoughts.
I agree with your 3 issues. Issue 2 - getting the appropriate justices confirmed was the point of my thread earlier today.
Your comments about Specter are compelling. This is why he must only be allowed to get the chairmenship under certain circumstances.
The point I wanted to raise is what is the best strategy to get to our goal. By Specter's foolish initial comment right after the election, he has given us an opportunity. He has already tried to back off the comments. The white House might let him slide - consider Rove's comments today.
Can we turn Specter into a useful vote. The critical item is what is the vote count that is needed to enact the nuclear option. I believe it is 50. If Specter's vote can be the difference we would be better served in having a requirement of 50 for judges even if it meant having Specter as chairman. as a second condition, perhaps the Senate rules can enact power to the majority leader to be able to change chairmen.
We must keep our eye on the prize. Also another point. We cannot totally throw the RINOS overboard - except for Chafee. We need them not to filibuster or help with other votes. Unfortunately, we do not have enough members in the Senate to enact our will without some problems. That is just reality.
The operative question is what is the best strategy. Just to throw Specter overboard makes him a more certain enemy. It may weaken our ability to get our judges through. If he is not allowed to have the chairmenship then it might be easier for the Rats to use this as an excuse to maintain the filibuster.
I have no love for Specter and feel similarly to what you do. More importantly, I want to keep my eye on the prize.
I ask what is the most effective strategy? If you deny the chairmanship to Specter then what? I created my thread to suggest an alternative view.
Too many of the people commenting on this issue are focused on the anger and retribution - which are well deserved. We should not make the Rats mistake that lost them the election. All I want is the most effective strategy to get solid qualified judges confirmed. We must not fail in this quest.
There is nothing in the Standing Rules of the Senate either that I can find.
More comments tomorrow...
If those are the big three issues, Specter should have no role because any answers he might have would be wrong.
I was hoping on election eve that his role would be retired. Now I see he made promises to newspapers that he wouldn't support Bush's judicial nominees for endorsements. Heaven only knows what else he promised to get reelected. He needs to be flat our ignored by the President, and the GOP need to treat him as what he is, the opposition.
But it's a diversion.
I see this as an attempt to create a backlash among the less religious.
I also see Specter's comments on abortion as an attempt to augment this backlash.
What I am trying to say is that Specter is trying to marginalize his secular opponents by dismissing them as "right-wing snake-handlers and tongue-talkers".
The only (practical, not rational) problems I see with your proposals are:
(1) Arlen Specter has a clear, and historically long, record of broken promises (As the most recent of hundreds, just look at his win in April's Pennsylvania primary. Anyone who understands politics knows that he has to have promised the President and Senator Santorum significant backing for conservative legislation in exchange for their endorsements, but it wasn’t twenty-four hours before he already began to distance himself from them, declaring himself an independent leader).
(2) As far as granting Frist the ability to remove chairmanships, that would be a viable option, were it not for the conceivable difficulty in getting that rule passed … and the possibility of granting too much power to future Majority Leaders of a more tyrannical bent than Frist. It might open up an unwanted Pandora’s box.
This is not to say that I disagree with anything you have said. Quite the contrary. But it is deeply discouraging how spider-like the modern political process has become. There are so many ramifications of each and every decision, or considered decision, that somehow right and wrong get lost in the shuffle.
~ joanie
Thanks for all the good information, joanie. I'll get busy with calls tomorrow.
All I have been trying to suggest is that maybe there is a better way to use this snake salesman. We know we have some leverage because he wants the judiciary chairmanship. we need to extract that leverage. As a failsafe, we need to have the majority leader have the power to change chairmen at any time.
It is also a given that he does not deserve the chairmanship. Most, if not all, of the people expressing their opinion on this site is in agreement with that.
Unfettered from concerns about reelection - Specter is at best a question mark. At worst, he will take the Rat position most of the time. This is reason enough to be afraid of Specter. Perhaps there is a price worth paying. If we can get our judges confirmed, then the price of having him as chairman is cheap.
It comes down to tactics and strategy. If Specter is dumped then what? This needs to be compared to a course of action with leverage extracted from Specter and then what. All I want is the most effective strategy.
You're very welcome, joanie......*~*.
Thanks for your reply. You make terrific points, all of which I agree with. Nothing is easy as it seems. I loved your description of the spider like process and how right and wrong gets lost in the shuffle.
What we need to focus on is how to best maneuver thru the webs keeping our eye on the right - in this case getting our judges confirmed. I suggest that this needs to be developed further. I am afraid that many of us are focused on Specter without regard for the ramifications. I would like to see a practical gameplan developed that culminates in our goal.
What was Bush thinking when he campaigned for Specter over Toomey? It certainly wasn't the good of the Nation.
Frankly, I'd like to hear Bush apologize for his support of Spector just as much as I would like to hear Kerry apologize to the Viet Nam vets for calling them war criminals.
No, there is not. I looked over it with a fine tooth comb on Wednesday after he won re-election, and included that fact in calls to Frist and Santorum. I plan to call all of the Republican members of the committee tomorrow, and will remind them of that fact, too.
Please make sure you post that link in any responses you make on Specter threads, John.
~ joanie
I am overwhelming you with 'joanie responses' tonight, but this one requires a huge STANDING OVATION.
What about if Specter is left on the Committee, but just not given the Chairmanship due to "it's best for the party"?
What does Specter's long record of broken promises tell us about the people of PA?
This is by far the best expose I have read about Specter. I agree with someone else on this thread that this should be in every newspaper in the country.
I wish Rush would read it on his show on Monday.
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.