"Specter has broken his word repeatedly. I assume he told Rove that if Bush helped him in Pennsylvania, he would help Bush. Ha.
Specter is going to be meeting in the back room with the Democrats on the committee. Does anyone think Specter can be prevented from making whatever deals he likes? Does anyone think he will keep a promise if the situation changes and Bush is weakened by media attacks? Will he keep the promise after Bush leaves office?
We have a window of four years to straighten out our judiciary. We can't afford to let the whole thing ride on a corrupt liar."
____________________________________________________________
Everything I have read about him justifies NRO's article: "The Worst Republican Senator." He has made an art form of acting like a Republican only when he is up for re-election. As others have stated this is the only reason he stood up for Justice Thomas during his confirmation battle. Which brings us to the "Zell" factor; Spector is old and tired and every indication is that he will be leaving after this term. Therefore, he will take off his mask big time and nose-thumb the administration with a "nyah, nyah, nyah" as soon as he gets what he wants. There won't be a thing Dubya or anyone else will be able to do about it.
For God's sake, let's show some backbone for once. Bush has spent four years reaching out to the other side and pulling his hand back bloody. Make no mistake, Spector IS "the other side."
Or would twitting MacSpectre now drive him to be our Zell DURING this crucial term?
I'd suggest, in a friendly way, that we're losing focus a bit. Is the discussion about whether MacSpectre sucks, as a senator? Well then, I think we're all agreed. He's by far not the worst (Boxer, Kennedy, Kerry, etc.); but he sucks.
But is that the issue? No. That was up to Pennsylvania to decide last week, wasn't it? And in the primary? And they decided — God help them — that they wanted him. That's how the Constitution works.
The issue is specifically whether he should chair this committee, which tradition would call for. If not, it gets complicated. Do we trash tradition? Do we forbid anyone who is ideologically impure from holding any position, as the Donks did with Casey? Do we send the message that other viewpoints can vote, but only the pure will wield influence?
If so, are we about making a gesture and feeling good about how pure we are, knowing that we will lose power in two years and get little done before then?
Or do we really want to put our eyes on the long-term, be THE national party, and make real progress?
Dan
Correct. Now how much havoc can we stir up before this is settled. I'm fired up. Calls & E-Mails but I don't hold the cards with these members because none are from my state. The rest of you - get in the trenches here & assure us of some satisfaction.