Posted on 11/18/2004 4:04:39 PM PST by conservativecorner
(CNSNews.com) - Pro-life activists, seeking to derail the appointment of Pennsylvania Republican Sen. Arlen Specter to the chairmanship of the Senate Judiciary Committee, will not get a chance to personally argue their case with Majority Leader Bill Frist.
A coalition of pro-life religious leaders did meet with Frist's aides Tuesday, but any efforts to persuade Frist about Specter's fitness to serve as Judiciary chairman will have to be done from afar.
Rev. Patrick J. Mahoney, director of the Christian Defense Coalition, said Frist's top aide cited scheduling problems that would preclude a meeting with Frist from taking place.
"It is deeply troubling that Senator Frist could not find the time to sit down and discuss the Arlen Specter situation with national leaders and clergy from the pro-life/pro-family community. It clearly shows a profound lack of respect and understanding toward the very people who re-elected President Bush and gave the Republicans majorities in both the House and Senate," Mahoney stated.
"The reality that Senator Frist must now understand is, don't dismiss and ignore us today and expect our enthusiastic support in 2008 if you decide to run for president," Mahoney added.
Despite initial concerns over whether Specter, as chairman of the Judiciary Committee, would give President Bush's conservative judicial nominees fair hearings, Frist Wednesday sounded like the issue had already been decided.
"Today he had the opportunity to make some comments, which were received very well by members of the (Republican) caucus," Frist said, adding that he was anxious to resolve the issue over who will chair the committee.
In addition to handling the president's nominations to the lower federal courts, members of the Senate Judiciary Committee could soon be dealing with one or more Bush nominees to the U.S. Supreme Court.
Too right. Schedule a meeting with Reid. Harry will have a sit down with them.
I'll second the nomination!
>>Anyone else get the feeling that we might have been sold out?<<
On a 2 for 1 sale!
...alright then.
Everyone have a Happy Holidays and we'll see you all come New Year!
(I'll check in from time to time!)
God's speed to all and WE ARE BUT ONE - BUT ONE *CAN* MAKE A DIFFERENCE!
AFE
O & O
...but it was King Arlen's "magic bullet" B4R...(snicker)
Would be interesting to know how many FReepers would be willing to work on/for a real AMERICA FIRST coalition.
See my posts 48 and 58 under "Getting Screwed by the GOP"
11/18. "Freedom" still has an inviting appeal to it, IMHO.
All I can say is most of ya'll cheered when Lott was cashiered over an insensitive gaffe and hope ya'll are happy.
*I know them both thru family....decent enough men but neither is tuff....like DeLay.
** one of several W endeavors I took issue with but WTF
My fetus, I mean my sister is a 7 month preemie, I know well the issue...
The so-called pro-choice'ers are not even open to conversation and thereby disqualifies them as rational. My hope is the pro-lifers would not be so silly.. Barring a revolution this issue will not be settled by having irrational fits, but by patient argument. Because the left has brain washed the sheeple into accepting virtual murder with the same arguments slavery was sold by.
You open to revolution (I am), most are NOT.. To make any headway reality suggests patient persuasion.. otherwise pro-lifers will be relegated to the nutso fringe when its the other side that is nutz.. Negotiation or revolution, your choice.. I can do either but still have my druthers.. But life will be lost either way.. Adult life or baby life is still life and both should be revered.. Revolution is bloody and abortion is bloody..
...would very possibly be like trying to herd cats, regardless.
IMO we have the talent and resources - if we band together and create a force that isn't just beholden for behoden's sake...we can make an impact.
Apparently, the RINO formula...works. Use the leverage we have for positive, effective good, I say...
Many, if not most, of the ills of this country are the result of right-thinking conservatives being forever cajoled into compromise with leftist ideology. It’s been happening for decades. And electing Arlen Specter to chair the Judiciary Committee represents yet another in a long series of erosions of principle.
Arlen Specter has participated in (even orchestrated) massive cover-ups of critical events in this republic’s history that begged to see the light of day. He has been in the pocket of anti-liberty special interest groups the entire span of his four-term senate career, most remarkably placing the economic/physical well-being of this country and its people a distant second to the incessant power-grabs of trial lawyers. On several critical matters of national policy he has declared the US Constitution subservient to international law, most recently proudly declaring that US military personnel should be tried in international courts.
And yet such a man, who has overtly and consistently exhibited an allegiance to power brokers (both foreign and domestic) that supercedes any loyalty he claims to this republic and her people -- and whose political philosophy is more often than not at odds with this administration and the Republican members of the Judiciary Committee -- is likely to be seated as its chair.
Are the inmates running the asylum?
There is nothing (repeat: nothing) in the senate rules that requires that a committee chairmanship be determined on the basis of seniority.
So will someone please explain to me why, after a momentous, historically critical election such as occurred two weeks ago, a man of Arlen Specter’s dubious character and tarnished leadership credentials should be obtaining one of the most powerful positions in Washington? And why, when there are several extremely qualified men (Kyl and Graham come immediatelt to mind) sitting on that very committee who do not need to be strong-armed, under duress, to toe the line, and whose conservative ideology closely mirrors that of the administration, one of those men is not considered more deserving of the post? Does the cream no longer rise to the top in American leadership? (a rhetorical question … the answer is obvious)
In order to obtain this position, Arlen Specter will have to promise to change his stripes, and other men will be passed over – men who have spent their entire political lives fighting for Constitutional principles, and defending that magnificent blueprint from insidious attacks orchestrated by the likes of the man under whose chairmanship they will now sit.
Then there’s the ‘ramifications’ argument. It goes something like this: If Specter were denied the chair, he would work against conservative interests in the senate, especially where judicial nominations are concerned. Translation: According to the ‘unspoken legislative rules’ of the most powerful nation in the free world, senate committee chairmanships can be obtained via a type of political extortion.
If we don't return to valuing merit more than tenure or protocol, we will eventually succeed (if we haven't already) in barring the door to leaders of courage and integrity.
In discussions I have had with people both locally and here on FreeRepublic some have occasionally argued that ‘this is just the way the system works, and the power-brokering is nothing new.’
I don’t agree with the argument that things were not much different years ago. I hear that assertion about the moral fabric of our society as well and I don’t buy it in that respect either. Surely there were political power brokers in our past, and surely there were those whose sense of social morality left a lot to be desired as well, but, in both areas, what used to be something of an aberration is fast becoming the norm. And the fact that, because of the incremental nature of the degradation, we are (in many cases unknowingly) accepting it, does not bode well for us as a civilization.
I cannot assuage my opposition to the ‘you scratch my back/I’ll scratch yours’ theory of power-brokering for two basic reasons: (1) it inevitably leads to incremental leadership corruption and loss of liberty for the individual American, and (2) it causes good and decent people to say ‘this is just the way it is, and we have to simply accept the best that we are able to get out of such an unfortunate system.’ The fact is that our government was not always this way, and unless we at some point say ‘enough is enough!’ our children will be dealing with even more corruption of the system than we are. That is pretty much a given at this point.
The fact is that, if the President and Rick Santorum had endorsed Pat Toomey rather than Arlen Specter in the April Pennsylvania primary, we wouldn't be facing this dilemma now. And now, if a deserving man were elected to the chairmanship, we wouldn't have to consider what many are threatening: removing Specter from his position in the future, if he fails to honor his behind-closed-doors promises. Why make these stupid, characterless decisions in the first place? Why not simply do what is right and avoid the toxic complications resulting from continued compromise? Or is right somehow passe?
When you acquiesce to playing by convoluted rules, which are instituted with less than noble intentions, on a playing field that in no way resembles the one on which you had originally agreed to play, you legitimize both the unfair rules and the dangerous field of play.
We are forever compromising away the integrity of this republic. And there has rarely been a more opportune time than now to apply the brakes – by insisting that the best man for the job of Judiciary chair be chosen. Then if ‘repercussions’ ensue as a result, we deal with them in the same manner. Just as there will necessarily we a web of ‘repercussions’ (because of the current unwieldy nature of the beast), so must there also be a coincidental web of effective responses to them.
You don’t cure a cancer by adapting to it. You cut out its source, and you treat its after-effects.
I, for one, will not rationalize Arlen Specter’s election to the Judiciary chairmanship. Two weeks ago, conservative voters turned out in record numbers showing an unprecedented, implicit faith in those for whom they voted. And this particular myopic, cowardly compromise represents yet another sell-out by a party badly in need of a few history lessons … and a emergency spine transplant.
~ joanie
Let's put this into a different perspective, and then judge the rationality:
If you, as a by-stander, were asked to converse with a terrorist who was about to hack the head off a hostage, what would you find to converse about?
What possible avenue of discourse could you take that would appease him and save the hostage when his purpose for being there is to hack off his head?
The purpose of an abortionist is to kill the unborn baby.
The baby is a hostage in it's mother's body, no less than the hostages we have seen forfeited for some sick desire to kill other human beings.
I don't know which is most painful - to have your head hacked off or to have it punctured and the brains sucked out.
In either case, the hostage is dead, and that's what makes conversation meaningless in both cases.
Well said.
Have a good Holiday!
My answer to your question in #130: We watch even more closely, we make sure the electorate stays fully informed, and we ramp up the pressure to ever-increasing levels.
Judicial nominations are the big prize.
The 'leadership' needs to be sure of one thing: we're watching and weighing them in the balance.
Oh, and we need to make sure they know that we know that they just got an 'F' on their first test...
God's speed FRiend...
Well, joanie, you summed it up well and sealed shut all contrary arguments.
Couldn't have been spoken better. Thanks for putting in eloquent words the thoughts and feelings of many of us here.
Think your pretty smart huh....
Hows it working for ya?.. many pre-choice converts? or are just preachin to the choir..?
America needs to reject abortion, not just SOME...
I certainly hope that this scenario doesn't come back to haunt the conservative base.
I suggest you look again. I copied your WHOLE POST.
Specter was JUST voted in for another 6 years. We here in PA TRIED to vote him out. We almost succeeded and we would of succeeded had Santorum (Mr pro-life?)not campaigned is tail off for him and had our President (Mr pro-life) not come in at the last minute to campaign for him when Specter got scared and saw he was going to loose. I guarantee as close as it was they put him in office. Unless you haven't been keeping up with the news-we have BEEN letting them know in large numbers. Did they listen ? Santorum knows the wrath he has faced and will face in 2006 but has that stop him from promoting Arlen ? NO !
They all know what Specter is. They all know the damage he can do in that chair. Does it stop them > NO !
I believe you are the one that needs to try and follow. In fact I believe you need to catch up.
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.