Posted on 11/07/2004 3:55:20 PM PST by joanie-f
But I agree with you that the media is trying to drive a wedge by mentioning it.
BTTT for level-headedness.
Of course I think Specter should be sent to a different committee.
But since the question of strategy has come up....apparently there is some problem with Specter not being on this committee (??)
I agree that that would be the most 'amicable, politically (man, do I hate even typing that word!) feasible' solution. But I don't think that would sit well with Specter, since he has had his eye on the chairmanship of that particular committee for decades.
We have to take seriously TakeChargeBob’s assertions earlier on this thread that Specter is capable of merciless vindictiveness (he wasn’t dubbed the cruelest man in the senate – by his fellow senators, his staff, and even members of the sympathetic mainstream, media -- for nothing). When it comes to critical votes, and filibuster threats, he could easily mean the difference between victory or defeat.
At the same time, we cannot, under any circumstances, allow him the chairmanship of Judiciary – no matter the promises he makes in order to obtain it. His promises aren’t worth the breath it takes to voice them. So I believe your suggestion (keep him on the committee) is the only viable solution – and let the chips fall where they may. If he chooses vindictiveness over graciousness (and who in his right mind would better on the latter?), so be it.
~ joanie
Your solution is no solution. Your premise is incorrect. "Retribution" and "anger" has nothing to do with removing Specter, so your supposed emotional check you call "strategy" is not strategic at all. It isn't about giving place to anger over 'smarts' on how to manipulate the vote. It is get this guy out of the way now. He is an enemy plain and simple. Period. You will not in any way be able to control him issue by issue with 'leverage'.
The reason I suspected you of being a Democrat is that they expressly depend on emotional arguments/lies and your only 'reason' for why he shouldn't be removed is a direct attempt to portray your 'strategy' as the emotional high ground and as such 'ergo' the 'option of choice'. The filibuster needs to be met head on and in the open for all to see just how far they will go--which will work out for us even more. On a certain level you want them to filibuster. The more they filibuster, the more they erode their base. Democratic Planet is built on emotion. They'll break their own supposed emotional etiquette on which they stand as 'better than everyone else' just once too often and their base will puke--it is already over for them. You are going on a premise of how politics was played in the past as a model for the present and future. That is over. We just voted on that.
We're not hiding in the bushes plotting a battle plan. We're occupying ground already won and digging in with crew served weapons against an enemy determined to kill us and our children through any means possible, to include abortion and homosexuality. They are deceived. They're not doing it on purpose. But they are still doing it. There is more to be done. But giving up hard fought ground already won is no solution at all. We are genuinely in the right here. Giving place to fear is not wisdom.
Pass the ammo, brother. Don't tell me we shouldn't be here. What you put up with always comes back and bites you.
It tells us that, for five terms, they have exhibited one of two things: (1) agreement with the leftist agenda, or (2) a very short memory.
But don't be too hard on Keystone staters this time. They came within 16,000 votes/1.5% (many of which were temporary democrat union crossover registrants) of unseating a powerful four-term incumbent. That sends a mighty strong message about the new awakening that is taking place within the borders of Pennsylvania.
Thank you.
The only other option is giving Specter a leadership position on another "very desirable" committee. What that might be I don't know....someone else might can sort out those details
...and as long as Specter could do minimal damage in that desirable position...
..really gets complicated, but it can be done. Maybe some other extra rewards thrown in for him giving up the Jud. committee. Would have to be a lot, so he can save face.
Surely this is workable. He doesn't own the party.
> ping <
Words well said.
I don’t think your option of providing him a leadership position on another committee would sit any better with him than his remaining simply a member of Judiciary. This man will not be denied what he has wanted for decades, and, should the Republican members of Judiciary do the right thing, he will be inconsolable. We need to prepare for the special kind of vindictiveness that only he can dish out.
He doesn't own the party.
He is not, and has never been, a Republican. Not only doesn't he own the party, but he loathes much of what it stands for.
He is my senator. Years ago, whenever he would cast a particularly pernicious vote, I would write him a scathing letter, telling him my opinion and asking him to justify his cowardice and/or betrayal. At first, I used to receive responses (and they weren’t form letters). But that didn’t last long. The responses ended altogther, and, needless to say, so did my efforts to make him explain his broken promises.
Many years ago, shortly after my last letter to him, I attended a town meeting of his, and introduced myself before asking my question. Believe it or not, I believe he recognized my name – and, unlike his other responses to other people at that meeting (which were condescending and patronizing), he was very careful in his choice of wording, and very respectful in his demeanor. As it turned out, I was the last questioner of the evening, but I had hoped to corner him afterwards (since his answer was, of course, nothing but double-speak), but he did not stay around to talk with his constituents. (I am in no way insinuating that he didn’t wish to talk with me, in particular. Far from it. He avoids talking to his constituents altogether. Prefers talking at them.)
Thanks for the excellent insights.
~ joanie
P.S. I’ve been watching ‘We Were Soldiers’ on TNT tonight as I have been answering the responses on this thread from my laptop. If that movie doesn’t drive home the reasons we need to shield this republic from ‘leadership’ the likes of which is represented by the senior senator from Pennsylvania, I don’t know what does.
Good night, all.
I guess he and Jim Jeffords can go sing duets in the Senate cloak room.
The funniest reply on this thread!
(But I'd pay good money for the CD.)
I've been watching Mission: Impossible, but of course that is no reflection on the task at hand.
Or maybe so....their mission DID get accomplished.
or what if the Senate Leadership agreed to waive the 6-year term limit for Hatch and allowed him to continue as chair?
"Turncoat Harmony" ($15.99 @ amazon.com; 2 for $30)
My feeling is Hatch would not be a good choice either. But then again, someone more knowledgeable on Hatch would be better to comment about this.
Well said, Joanie.
And not only should Dubya and the GOP ‘spend their political capital’ like drunken sailors, they ought to crush ANY call for "bipartisanship" while righting the ship, and imposing their long overdue conservative will upon the Party of Death.
And what of the reptilian Arlen Specter?
Yes, MUCH the blame for this despicable human being wielding ANY power within the dominant 55-strong GOP lies at the feet of George W. Bush who ignored his ideological brethren -- Pat Toomey -- in the primary. Wasn't Dubya's support of Specter over Toomey worth 1%?? Of course it was...
"It is now time to discard dangerous and liberty-erosive tradition and political protocol and, instead, elect as chairman of the judiciary committee a Constitutional scholar who reveres the genuine Constitutional definition of the judicial branch of government."
Amen, sister....
By denying Specter, this is Dubya only chance to redeem himself after having sold out Toomey
Orrin has become more weathervane-prone in his aging. We need someone who will stand uncompromising on his principles. John Kyl is the best bet for that.
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.