Posted on 11/04/2004 9:28:08 AM PST by Bungarian
Rush says Spector claims the press misrepresented what he said about the Supreme Court judges and will issue a statement latter.
IIRC, not to correct his own words, but to deny a news report that he (Specter) was associated with one of the two (closely affiliated) Main Street Republican groups. Specter's denial was factually accurate, but at the same time was misleading. Specter was, at the time, affiliated with one of the groups, he denied (correctly) that he was not a member of "the other one."
Not the mark of honesty, in my book. He could have pointed out that there were two groups with similar names, and which one he was a member of, as well as why. This "Main Street Republican" group is full of RINO's and elitists. As far as I know, he is still "in."
Well, this is nice.
Dan
That was 1992. Specter was up for re-election that year.
His election years have been 1980, 1986, 1992, 1998, and 2004.
Might be time to believe Arleen.
From NRO.
Archive
E-mail Comments
Send to a Friend
Print Version
Thursday, November 04, 2004
IS NEW HAMPSHIRE GOING BLUE [Jonah Goldberg]
From a reader:
Jonah Goldberg
The worse news coming out of the 2004 election for libertarians in New Hampshire is that by all appearances New Hampshire will become nothing more than another Vermont in 20 years. I hope I am wrong but New Hampshire appears to be the fourth or fifth bluest state by county and getting bluer every minute. We are only less blue than MA, HA, VT, and CT.
It appears that West Virginia has joined the rest of the south and New Hampshire has joined the rest of the northeast. I just not prepared to accept Ben and Jerry has desirable icons for New Hampshire.
Maybe it is good that the Old Man did not live long enough to see this happen.
Posted at 12:39 PM
IS IT TIME [Jonah Goldberg]
to dust-off the Krugman Cat Index? A consumer confidence soars.
Posted at 12:37 PM
SILENCE SPEAKS VOLUMES [Jonah Goldberg]
From a reader:
The key thing for public commentators is to recognize that self-indulgence is just that, and does nothing positive.
Although we can agree that Arafat was very bad, or evil, or wicked, or what have you, he is/was nevertheless the symbolic figure of Palestinian nationhood for several millions of human beings. Unless you want to simply dismiss those millions, it is probably best to greet the death of Arafat with silence.
Posted at 12:34 PM
THAT [KJL]
reporter who wrote that story on Specter's litmus-test comment is the same reporter who ambushed Rick Santorum a while back and whose husband worked for the Kerry campaign.
So I'd be curious to hear the tape of what was said.
(Lara Lakes Jordan.)
****END EXCERPT*******
Just my thoughts (too)...
Neither is Arlen 'Scottish Law Trumps the Constitution' Specter.
I guess Frist took Arlen aside and gave him a stern talking to.
Jack.
You're right.
He'll sing a nice tune so he can be the head of the judiciary and then WHAM the president.
I'm going to start searching for this now. It would be helpful if you could post a link or something to get this part of the story out. It is important.
This man must not be the next Judiciary Chairman.
Baloney!
Arlen just felt the immediate heat of the blossphere calling for him not to lead the judiciary committee.
I say keep him off! Put in a person who will forward all of President Bush' recommendations for an up or down vote.
NewsMax reported on the Post-Gazette's endorsement AND Specter's statement HERE.
GOP Sen. Specter Vows to Block Bush's Nominees
NewsMax.com
Friday, Oct. 29, 2004Recall that alleged Republican Sen. Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania, upon winning the primary, immediately backstabbed President Bush, who had campaigned for him instead of actual Republican Pat Toomey. Turns out Specter was just getting started.
We now see that the usually pro-Democrat Pittsburgh Post-Gazette endorsed the sharp-horned RINO in Tuesday's general election for this reason: "Before the Post-Gazette editorial board, he promised that no extremists would be approved for the bench."
What the pro-abortion Specter and pro-abortion Post-Gazette mean by "extremist" is anyone who isn't pro-abortion or who otherwise follows the U.S. Constitution instead of making up legislation from the bench.
"Even if he votes nine out of 10 times for the administration, we trust his word that the 10 percent of difference will be a brake on the worst excesses of a second Bush term, if it comes to that," the pee-yoo P-G snarled.
Editorial: Specter for Senate / Moderate Republicans are an endangered species
Sunday, October 24, 2004Pittsburgh Post-Gazette
Forget all the negative ads and countercharges. The race in Pennsylvania for the U.S. Senate comes down to what might be called the magic 10 percent.
That is the number of times that the challenger, U.S. Rep. Joe Hoeffel, says four-term incumbent Sen. Arlen Specter has voted to defy the Bush administration. One time in 10. The exact percentage can be argued, but the general point is right: Sen. Specter is a fairly reliable vote for the administration.
That 10 percent is magic enough for some labor unions and prominent Democrats -- Allegheny County Coroner Dr. Cyril Wecht among them -- who see Sen. Specter, 74, as a friend when they need one. He is, after all, a moderate pro-choice Republican who is always helpful to Western Pennsylvania and follows in the old tradition of GOP moderates from this state.
Unfortunately, that's a political position under siege both in the GOP nationally and in the commonwealth. Having made liberal a bad word, Republicans have drawn their big tent smaller and made it more hospitable to those such as Pennsylvania's junior senator, Rick Santorum.
Indeed, the lack of tolerance for any deviation from the party line explains why Sen. Specter had such a close race against the thoroughly conservative Rep. Patrick Toomey in the primary. It also explains why archconservative James Clymer is in this race under the banner of the Constitution Party (a Libertarian, Betsy Summers, is also a candidate). For some Republicans, there's nothing magic about that 10 percent: It means that Sen. Specter is not really one of their own.
This newspaper has always prized that independence, backing the senator in three elections and opposing him only in 1980 when hometown favorite Pete Flaherty unsuccessfully opposed him. We are not about to stop now.
The best argument for his staying on is his seniority, which puts him in line to be the chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee. In that capacity, he would be in a position to block some of the ideologically extreme federal judges likely to be nominated by President Bush in a second term, some of them for the Supreme Court. Before the Post-Gazette editorial board, he promised that no extremists would be approved for the bench.
Such influence takes years to earn and a Sen. Hoeffel would be in no position to make much difference in the vital area of judicial appointments, even if he were to join the Judiciary Committee.
To be sure, Joe Hoeffel, 53, is a respectable candidate with a distinguished career in public service. A moderate Democrat, he has managed to win respect and support in Republican-leaning Montgomery County. Also a lawyer, he was a state representative from 1977 to 1984 and a county commissioner for eight years before being elected to Congress in 1998. Voters who are dead-set about seeing the Senate shift to Democratic control should go with Rep. Hoeffel.
But Sen. Specter, as a moderate Republican, is an endangered species. Even if he votes nine out of 10 times for the administration, we trust his word that the 10 percent of difference will be a brake on the worst excesses of a second Bush term, if it comes to that. And, if Sen. Kerry wins, he will still be a voice of reason. The Post-Gazette endorses Arlen Specter.
The very reason that the liberal Post-Gazette endorsed Specter was because he was in line to become the Chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee and that he had personally assured the editorial board that he was going to block Bush's pro-life and conservative judicial nominations.
Editorial: Specter for Senate / Moderate Republicans are an endangered species
"The best argument for his staying on is his seniority, which puts him in line to be the chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee. In that capacity, he would be in a position to block some of the ideologically extreme federal judges likely to be nominated by President Bush in a second term, some of them for the Supreme Court. Before the Post-Gazette editorial board, he promised that no extremists would be approved for the bench."
http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/04298/400316.stm
Ah I see I should have refreshed the thread before posting!
A request to admin moderator would seem to be in order. The all-powerful mods can do anything. :=)
I agree. Transcribe this!
He needs to be politically disappeared.
The letter is HERE.
This is not a new story, just under reported. Specter has already been an obstacle to confirming pro-life, conservative judges and he's made such statements in the past. The single statement in the San Francisco Chronicle interview does not encompass the entirety of Specter's record on this issue.
As I said on another thread, judicial appointments are job one as far as I'm concerned.
I'm willing to see this play out in either of two ways. Either Specter pledges to play ball and confirm Bush's appointees, or he's out. If he's willing to do the job honestly, fine. That's one more vote for us. If not, out.
This has got to be an airtight and ironclad guarantee. No screwing around with the judicial appointments. No secret deals with the Democrats. No more obstruction and delay for the sake of delay. No more borkings.
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.