Posted on 11/06/2004 11:37:25 PM PST by Tamzee
If George W. Bush and Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist accede to Sen. Arlen Specter's hopes of becoming the next Senate Judiciary Committee chairman, they will be betraying a very large group of voters who re-elected the president.
Even before Specter shot off his mouth to an Associated Press reporter and warned the president to avoid naming pro-life justices to the Supreme Court, he was way out of the mainstream of his party, a radical on the issue of abortion even by the standards of the other party.
He was the worst possible choice for chairman of the important Senate Judiciary Committee.
Then came that interview with Lara Jakes Jordan.
He is alleged to have said: "When you talk about judges who would change the right of a woman to choose, overturn Roe v. Wade, I think that is unlikely. The president is well aware of what happened, when a number of his nominees were sent up, with the filibuster ... And I would expect the president to be mindful of the considerations which I am mentioning."
I believe he said something very close to that, though he denies it now.
"Contrary to press accounts, I did not warn the president about anything" and would "never apply any litmus test" on abortion, Specter said in a statement yesterday.
The problem with Specter now is that he's compromised. He can't be trusted by either side in the debate at this point. And that's a good reason for the Republican Senate to look elsewhere for a chairman of the Judiciary Committee.
But there is more to this story than meets the eye.
It isn't only Specter who should lose his job. The reporter who broke the story has no business covering politics for the Associated Press. She has betrayed a partisan ideological agenda in stories over and over again.
If you doubt what I am saying, all you need to do is Google the name Lara Jakes Jordan and check out her screeds that somehow pass as news reports. I said it before, when she set up Specter's colleague Rick Santorum years ago in an ambush interview. I'll say it again now. She is one of those undercover political activists disguised as a reporter.
Lara Jakes Jordan is married to veteran Democratic Party operative Jim Jordan, the former executive director of the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee and former manager of Sen. John Kerry's presidential bid.
Would you trust her political coverage if you knew that? And her political activism is not reserved exclusively to the news reports she writes for the AP.
In January of last year, Mrs. Jordan was one of the signatories on a letter to her bosses at the AP attacking the news organization for "rolling back diversity" by not extending benefits to domestic partners.
In a symbolic move, the signatories to the letter returned key chains AP management gave them to "celebrate" its corporate diversity. The key chains carried the slogan: "AP Diversity: Many Views, One Vision."
Do you get the picture?
I've been in the daily news business for 25 years. When I got started a quarter century ago, there was an old newsroom saying that went like this: "I don't care if you sleep with elephants as long as you don't cover the circus."
Mrs. Jordan violated that old newsroom ethic. She abdicated her right to cover the circus because she was sleeping with an elephant – or, in this case, a donkey.
Yes, by all means, Arlen Specter has to go. He's right to apologize for the statements he made. He should never have been confiding in a politically motivated reporter with a big ax to grind. He's a disgrace to the Senate.
But he's not the only one who should be apologizing. The largest news-gathering organization in the world, the Associated Press, owes the American people an apology for continuing to assign Lara Jakes Jordan to politically sensitive stories.
If you would like to call Sen. Bill Frist's office to let him know where you stand on Arlen Specter as chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, his number is (202) 224-3344.
No doubt she is spinning.
Arlen "magic bullet scottish law" Specter should be denied the seat anyway. He made promises to the Pitt P-G that make my blood boil.
It isn't just abortion that Arlen is way way off on either
"a radical on the issue of abortion even by the standards of the other party."
Didn't he vote for the partial birth abortion ban? And the one enacting a criminal penalty for harming the unborn during another crime?
Pro-choice: Will Kill For Sex
The time is NOW. Forget everything else, we have a chance to stack the court and get this country back on moral ground.
"Pro-choice: Will Kill For Sex"
Pithy, and perfect.
Is there an online resource that documents possible conflicts of interest among AP reporters like Laura Jakes Jordan, as well as other members of the MSM?
That's what I told Sen. Frist. Millions more joined the fray this cycle because we want it done, NOW. One more piece of lip service and they'll lose the votes again...
The time is NOW. Forget everything else, we have a chance to stack the court and get this country back on moral ground
Yep and when they sneer at you and say "who they going to vote for, the other side is worse" Just tell them this.
YES the other side IS worse, but the Social Conservatives CAN do what they did in 2000 and STAY HOME. Sorry but for once the Republican "Moderates" are going to have to compromise and give the Social Conservatives some of what they want. JUDGES, JUDGES JUDGES. This is THEIR NO NEGOTIATION issue. WE MUST PRODUCE.
I'm curious as to exactly what he said to them... the leftie journalists sabotage Republicans at every opportunity and don't hesitate to mischaracterize or just blatantly even lie.
I'd like to see a more conservative Senator chair the committee myself, but this "journalist" has created a situation where we now see threats to defeat Santorum and Frist in their next elections and even a thread stating Bush and Santorum committed treason. This is getting out of hand, IMHO.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1273153/posts <-- Link
He promised he'd keep 'extremist' nominees from the Supreme Court. There is an FR thread.
Specter is scum. I can't believe I voted for him. [spit]
Yes. He stood with us in banning partial birth abortions and voted for Laci and Connor's Law, our most significant pro-life victories in years. He has also voted for every single one of Bush's pro-life nominees.
I don't like Specter, but I also think Bush and Frist are too smart to allow Specter to chair the committee unless they've gotten some type of guarantee from him that he won't sabotage Bush's nominees.
I'd like to see Specter's exact words, not a leftie "interpretation" of what he said...
... and Democrats didn't care that CBS used forged memos. They decided the forgeries were "accurate", so "fake" was no big deal.
The same comments were reported by other reporters besides Jordan. Also, there is a transcript of what he said.
That pretty much sum's it up. Murder is not birth control!
Not that I'm aware of sadly, it sounds like it would be a valuable resource.
There is a terrific group that documents leftie media bias as it occurs in reports, though, an excellent resource for proving bias in general. http://www.mediaresearch.org
Reporter spinning or not ... we are all in favor of well-informed complaint ...
Lara Lakes Jordan was the one who started this whole mess with the first "Specter warns" story. And I read the transcript and couldn't find a single remark where Specter threatens to veto Bush's nominees. Perhaps you could provide me with Specter's statement where he does so?
There is also an FR thread.
bttt
Arlen Sphincter
You can spin his statement any way you want, but it's pretty clear what he means. Especially when you consider this highly inappropriate for right after the election. I think what he means comes through loud and clear.
November 3, 2004 Transcript
JORDAN: Senator, you didn't talk about the Judiciary Committee, it is something you are expected to Chair this January. With 3 Supreme Court Justices rumored to retire soon, starting with Rehnquist, how do you see this unfolding in the next couple of months and what part do you intend to play on it?
SPECTER: You know my approach is cautious with respect to the Judiciary Committee. I am in line, Senator Hatch is barred now by term limits and Senate Rules so that I am next in line. There has to be a vote of the Committee and I have already started to talk to some of my fellow committee members. I am respectful of Senate traditions, so I am not designating myself Chairman, I will wait for the Senate procedures to act in do course. You are right on the substance, the Chief Justice is gravely ill. I had known more about that than had appeared in the media. When he said he was going to be back on Monday, it was known inside that he was not going to be back on Monday. The full extent of his full incapacitation is really not known, I believe there will be cause for deliberation by the President. The Constitution has a clause called advise and consent, the advise part is traditionally not paid a whole lot of attention to, I wouldn't quite say ignored, but close to that. My hope that the Senate will be more involved in expressing our views. We start off with the basic fact that the Democrats are have filibustered and expect them to filibuster if the nominees are not within the broad range of acceptability. I think there is a very broad range of Presidential Discretion but there is a range.
ODOM: Is Mr. Bush, he just won the election, even with the popular vote as well. If he wants anti-abortion judges up there, you are caught in the middle of it what are you going to do? The party is going one way and you are saying this.
SPECTER: When you talk about judges who would change the right of a woman to choose, overturn Roe v Wade, I think that is unlikely. And I have said that bluntly during the course of the campaign and before. When the Inquirer endorsed me, they quoted my statement that Roe v Wade was inviolate. And that 1973 decision, which has been in effect now for 33 years, was buttressed by the 1992 decision, written by three Republican justices-O'Conner, Souter, and Kennedy-and nobody can doubt Anthony Kennedy's conservativism or pro-life position, but that's the fabric of the country. Nobody can be confirmed today who didn't agree with Brown v. Board of Education on integration, and I believe that while you traditionally do not ask a nominee how they're going to decide a specific case, there's a doctorate and a fancy label term, stari decisis, precedent which I think protects that issue. That is my view, now, before, and always.
ODOM: You are saying the President should not bother to send somebody up there like that.
SPECTER: Can't hear you
ODOM: You are saying the President should not bother or make the move to send somebody up there who is clearly anti-abortion.
SPECTER: I don't want to prejudge what the President is going to do. But the President is well aware of what happened[implied threat] when a number of his nominees were sent up, were filibustered, and the President has said he is not going to impose a litmus test, he faced that issue squarely in the third debate and I would not expect the President, I would expect the President to be mindful of the considerations that I mentioned[hear the threat?].
JORDAN: However, Senator the President has President has sent up, as you know, a number of very very conservative judges socially, you have made a point in this campaign of saying that you have supported all of those ______ at least I the last two years, how is this going to square with what you are saying today about wanting the Republican party to be big tent and moderate.
SPECTER: I have been very careful in what I have said and what I have done. The nominees whom I supported in Committee, I had reservations on. As for judge Pryor, there had been an issue as to whether as Attorney General he had raised money, I said in voting him out of committee, that he did not have my vote on the floor until I satisfied myself about collateral matters. The woman judge out of California, who had dismissed a case on invasion of privacy where the doctor had permitted an insurance adjuster to watch a mammogram, I had a reservation on it, so I wanted to talk to her to see if that was aberrational or whether that really reflected her judgment on each and every one of those cases. This may be more detail than you want, but there was one judge for a district judgeship, Judge Holmes, in Arkansas, who was first in his class at the University of Arkansas, had a PhD from Duke, had a master's degree, was touted by both Democratic Arkansas Senators, was supported by 2 pro-choice women, Senator Landrieu and Senator Lincoln, highly regarded in the Arkansas editorial pages, and for a district court judgeship I thought. He had made two statements, and they were, one was in a religious context that a wife should be subservient to a husband, that was in a religious context. Then he made a statement doubting the potential for impregnation from rape, and made an absurd statement that it would be as rare as snow in Florida in July. That was about a 20 year-old statement and I brought him in and sat down, had a long talk with him and concluded that they were not disqualifiers. He was the only judge whom I voted to confirm on the floor vote where any question has been raised and I think that was the right decision for a district court judgeship, not to make that a disqualifier. There are few if any whose record if you go back over 30 or 40 years, and not find some dumb thing, I don't want you to take a to close a look at my 40 year record.
HIGHSMITH: Talk to us a little bit beyond judgeships, you said again today and last night that your goal now is to moderate the party, bring it to the center.
SPECTER: Correct
MACINTOSH: What are the characteristics that you are looking for in any candidate for the high court who might come your way in the next year or two?
SPECTER: Well I would like to see a select someone in the mold of Holmes, Brandeis, Cardozo, or Marshall. With all due respect to the U.S. Supreme Court, we don't have one. And I haven't minced any words about that during the confirmation process [insults current Supreme Court].
MACINTOSH: Meaning?
SPECTER: Where I have questioned them all very closely. I had an argument before the Supreme Court of the United States on trying to keep the Navy base, and you should heard what the eight of them had to say to me. They were almost as tough as this gang here this morning.
ODOM: Senator, the judges you mentioned are obviously renown. Are you saying that there are no greatness on there, is that what you're driving at?
SPECTER: Yes. Can you take yes for an answer Vernon? I'm saying that we don't have anybody of the stature of Oliver Wendell Holmes, or Willy Brandeis, or Cardozo, or Marshall. That's what I'm saying. I'm saying that we have a court which they're graduates from the Court of Appeals from the District of Columbia basically, some other Circuit Courts of Appeals. I think that we could use, and I am repeating myself again, a Holmes or a Brandeis.[insults Supreme Court]
ODOM: Would you resign to take the appointment? You're the only person I can think of?
SPECTER: I can think of quite a few other people.
JORDAN: Like who?
SPECTER: I think there's some possibility, just a slight possibility, I may not be offered the appointment.
JORDAN: Senator, who do you think would be a good candidate?
SPECTER: For the Supreme Court?
JORDAN: Yes.
SPECTER: I have some ideas but I'm going to withhold my comments. If, as, and when the President asks that question, Lara, I'll have some specific information for him. In the alternative, if you become President, I'll have it for you.
[BREAK-Election 2010 question]
Jordan: Do you expect to continue supporting all of President Bush's judicial nominees?
AS: I am hopeful that I'll be able to do that. That obviously depends upon the President's judicial nominees. I'm hopeful that I can support them.[Not so veiled threat]
***Pro-choice: Will Kill For Sex***
GREAT bumper sticker.
Quote please...
We're savaging Republican Senators and forcing them to turn against each other because a Dem operative claimed that Specter threatened to veto Bush's nominees.
So let's see the quote everyone insists is out there where Specter said it... nobody can come up with one.
Nope... I don't hear threats... don't even hear "veiled" threats.
What was Specter supposed to say? That he would automatically vote for any nominee Bush put forward no matter who it was or what their qualifications were? The left would have a field day with any Republican on the Judiciary Committee stupid enough to state something like that and inherently disqualify himself from the "Advise and Consent" role of the committee.
Arlen is feeling the heat.
He's scheduled for one of the Sunday shows this morning.
I want to watch and see what he has to say.
Hey, onyx! :-)
I'm glad he's feeling the heat and think the letters about him are an excellent idea to keep the pressure on. I'd love to see what he says, too, do you remember which show he'll be on?
I just think the folks threatening to defeat Frist, slamming Hugh Hewitt and Grassley, and even a thread accusing Santorum and Bush of treason over this are going WAY too far... especially when the article about Specter was written by a woman who probably prays to Hillary every morning :-(
LOL!
Nope, I don't know which show.
I am hoping to catch AlasBabylon?'s post
a little later.. the poster who always starts
the Sunday morning thread.
I hope it's MTP. LOL.
Hmmm, *smack to forehead* I'm inclined to agree w/you...the 'RATs are "dividing and conquering" even before the Senate reconvenes...sowing discontent.
I'll try to catch it... should be very interesting to hear what he has to say for himself ;-)
And your tag is perfect for this thread LOL
Agreed.
I want to her what he has to say,
and judge his demeanor. I don't trust
him. He's a loose canon, and he wants
the Chairmanship badly.
When Arlen is on our side, he's articulate.
When he's not, he seems to have to "reach."
That Scottish law crap and his vote again Judge Bork.
onyx,In our state the President said yes to this man.We lost a good man by his yes so I trust the President.
"GREAT bumper sticker."
Thanks. Its all mine but anyone can use it for posters, buttons, bumper stickers, etc.
In fact, please do! Now is the time to put the abortion lobby, largest un-regulated in the nation, on its heels.
Let's put it this way. I'll believe Farah over Specter or some other leftist anyday.
Someone's lying. I'm guessing it's the Senator from Pennsylvania.
By publicizing what he said they should have known it would create a controversy..
Ahhh... so you would rather trust a Dem operative "journalist" who tried to sabotage Santorum in the past over trusting Specter, Santorum, Frist, Grassley, Bush, etc... Terrific.
Great. Farah believes that Specter was sabotaged by the "journalist". Farah also said that Specter should lose the Chair on stupidity alone for even talking to this well-known liberal activist "journalist", a point on which I agree.
I'm not trying to keep Specter in position to chair the committee, I'm trying to show people here that the left is deliberately trying to cause division and mayhem in the ranks of our Senators. We should be too smart to fall for it.
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.