Posted on 11/12/2004 10:30:29 AM PST by crushkerry
A friend of mine who happens to be a veteran GOP political operative and I were discussing the Arlen Specter controversy. To protect his identity we'll call him "Larry". Larry's a very conservative guy and 100% pro-life, but because of his experience in managing congressional campaigns he is far from a "pie in the sky" ideologue, and is perhaps one of the most politically pragmatic people I know. Larry can look at an issue from political angles that a non-professional like myself couldn't see with a mirror. As you might guess we were at odds recently over the issue of Arlen Specter becoming Judiciary Committee Chairman.
In Larry's opinion there is no need to pick a fight with Arlen, and doing so is counterproductive. His political reasoning is that Specter is already an emasculated chairman so out of step with his party, that he will not have the usual ability to sink a nominee behind closed doors. Further he will be watched like a hawk by the rest of his caucus, and more importantly, the White House. He also thinks leaving Specter in place allows the party moderates to think they have a voice, even though you are not giving them the results they want. Finally, this out in the open fighting allows liberals to highlight the supposed turmoil in the party.
Needless to say I respectfully disagreed, but I could see his point and while I didn't agree with it, his overall argument (not recorded here in its entirety) does have a political logic to it.
I recall this exchange with Larry because as it progressed I came to realize something that made me feel even stronger about Specter not becoming the Chairman of the Judiciary Committee. It had to do, not surprisingly, with my pro-life view. But the consideration here wasn't moral, it was political. For the first time it really hit me that there may be no other time where the political stars are aligned to finally accomplish the ultimate goal of the pro-life movement - the overturningA friend of mine who happens to be a veteran GOP political operative and I were discussing the Arlen Specter controversy. To protect his identity we'll call him "Larry". Larry's a very conservative guy and 100% pro-life, but because of his experience in managing congressional campaigns he is far from a "pie in the sky" ideologue, and is perhaps one of the most politically pragmatic people I know. Larry can look at an issue from political angles that a non-professional like myself couldn't see with a mirror. As you might guess we were at odds recently over the issue of Arlen Specter becoming Judiciary Committee Chairman.
In Larry's opinion there is no need to pick a fight with Arlen, and doing so is counterproductive. His political reasoning is that Specter is already an emasculated chairman so out of step with his party, that he will not have the usual ability to sink a nominee behind closed doors. Further he will be watched like a hawk by the rest of his caucus, and more importantly, the White House. He also thinks leaving Specter in place allows the party moderates to think they have a voice, even though you are not giving them the results they want. Finally, this out in the open fighting allows liberals to highlight the supposed turmoil in the party.
Needless to say I respectfully disagreed, but I could see his point and while I didn't agree with it, his overall argument (not recorded here in its entirety) does have a political logic to it.
I recall this exchange with Larry because as it progressed I came to realize something that made me feel even stronger about Specter not becoming the Chairman of the Judiciary Committee. It had to do, not surprisingly, with my pro-life view. But the consideration here wasn't moral, it was political. For the first time it really hit me that there may be no other time where the political stars are aligned to finally accomplish the ultimate goal of the pro-life movement - the overturning of Roe v. Wade.
In the discussion with Larry I finally realized that Arlen Specter is the gatekeeper to only political battlefield remaining in the pro-life movement. Think about it. There is really nothing else that can be done legislatively to advance the pro-life movement, as the last Congress gave the movement its most significant victories in the last 30 years.
As Larry mentioned, the PBA ban was a watershed moment in the pro-life movement as it shifted the entire abortion debate and gave pro-abortion suburban women a pro-life issue they could get behind. The same he said was true about the "Connor Peterson" Law, because it got even got some pro-abortion politicians on our side. Both of these events, Larry said (notwithstanding the potential judicial reversal of the PBA), are great strategic opportunities to move forward on the ultimate goal of the pro-life movement.
But then it hit me - there are no places left to go legislatively. There are no more "half a loafs" to take. There's only one big one left. I could not think of one piece of legislation that would be of greater importance to the pro-life movement than the two previously mentioned. The only possible exception would be a Pro-Life Amendment to the Constitution, which is a pipe dream.
The legislative battles have been fought and for the most part, won decisively. There are no more fringes left to nibble on. Sure, we can and should continue the "ground battle" of trying to win hearts and minds to our side, but that's not going to get the job done in the end. Thus the legal and political fight turns to the last battlefield left on which to do so.
The last battlefield is the federal courts and the enemy on that field are the liberal activist judges that find phantom "penumbras" in the Constitution in order to justify their own desired outcome rather than following the law. These are the same judges that have in the past, and in my estimation continue, to strike down common sense abortion restrictions like the PBA ban. Even judges we thought were "conservatives" like Kennedy and O'Conner have been roadblocks to the pro-life cause.
Thus the only thing left to do is pack the federal judiciary with strict constructionist judges as best we can who will once an for all expose the legal fiction that the right to end a child's life is enshrined in the US Constitution. I use the term "the best we can" since judges often behave in ways far different than we thought after being appointed. (see Souter, David). The most important of the courts is of course, the US Supreme Court, the only body with the power to overturn the legal abomination that is Roe v. Wade.
It is for these reasons that Arlen Specter should not take the Judicial Committee Chairmanship. Even if we can take him at his word that there will be no "litmus tests" on judges, he would still be a potential speed bump in the road. The window for getting these type of judges on the bench will not be open forever. No one can predict what the makeup of the Senate will be 2 or 4 years from now. As it stands today, the Senate is more conservative than ever, and may be enough "red-state" Democrats around to potentially break a filibuster. And even if there are not 60 votes to break a filibuster Bill Frist finally has shown us he has a pair (likely because of his 2008 aspirations), and begun discussing the so called "nuclear option" of changing the Senate rules.
If there's one things that political history has taught us is that windows tend to close as fast they open, often times without advance warning. So in order to get the right players on the field to fight the final battle in the pro-life cause, the GOP needs to strike while the iron is hot. And part of that strategy must to remove any real or perceived roadblock out of the way. And Arlen Specter is such a roadblock.
Remember, judges get lifetime appointments, Republican legislatures don't.
Before we go we must make two things clear. First, this strategy of packing the courts with Scalia and Thomas clones is no guarantee that Roe will be overturned, but it does provide the best odds.
Second, the overturning of Roe does not mean a "ban" to all abortions. It simply means that the issue will be decided how it should have been in the first place - by the states through their legislature. While given our moral druthers we would have it banned completely, the correct Constitutional way to accomplish it is through the legislature of each state.
Ping
BTTT
Right on.
We can pass as many bills as we like, but as long as agenda-driven liberal tyrants control the judiciary they will simply strike them down.
We must take our judiciary back from the corrupt zealots who control it now. Otherwise nothing further can be done, not only to reverse the abortion juggernaut, but to reverse the steady march into gay marriage, judicial interference with the military (which not even Earl Warren dared to touch), judicial trashing of our election process (think SCOFLAw and SCONJ, or that judge who tried to corrupt the polls in Ohio) and judicial corruption of all our basic freedoms and societal understandings.
Even if Specter behaves for a couple of years, he is certain to break his word as soon as he sees that it is safe to do so. And he will still be in the senate after Bush has gone.
Please read the following comments by "Vicomte13" and with which I agree:
"We believe that abortion is infanticide, and that a holocaust of infants is taking place. We do not believe that there is any other issue on earth that compares with this one is moral import. And therefore, there is no policy or combination of policies, including perfect tax policies, tort reform, and every other thing that is near and dear to Republican hearts, that matters a damn if abortion is overlooked and slid by.
We know that this issue has to be settled in the Supreme Court, nowhere else. And we know that the opportunity to put new justices on the court comes once a decade, maybe, and that the current opportunity to alter the complexion of the court is not going to come for a generation. Therefore, the real possibility exists that abortion can finally be seriously curtailed, by the Supreme Court changing Roe v. Wade or eliminating it.
IF, and ONLY IF, we can get pro-life judges on that court.
To do that, we have trusted the Republicans for years.
We just came out and voted for you again this time, in unprecedented numbers, because we are not stupid and we know what is at stake. Not just evangelicals either. The religious CATHOLIC vote went Republican this time, and they didn't do it because of trade policy or even gay marriage. The issue is abortion.
And the overriding issue is abortion.
So, if the Republicans allow Specter on the committee and he blocks pro-life nominees. Or if the Republicans do not use the nuclear option to override Democrat filibusters of pro-life nominees, THIS TIME there is no place for Republicans to hide. WE KNOW that you have the power, now, because WE just voted to give it to you. We understand that you can block Specter. And we understand the nuclear option.
And therefore, we most certainly will understand that if you allow the pro-life judges to be blocked, that it will be by you political CHOICE to do so. You CAN put them on, if you expend a lot of political capital. This will offend some people. A lot of people. And that is the price you HAVE to pay to get our votes next time. You have to be willing to bet the whole house to end infanticide.
If not, we will not vote for you.
We won't go running to vote for the Democrats: they're pro-abortion.
We won't go out and form a third party: we're not stupid and know that won't work.
We'll just stay home, just like we did in 2000.
Except that in 2000 it was out of frustration and neglect, and the lack of belief that anything will change.
This time, it's different. We understand the system, and we know that you have the power. And we demand that you use the power straight down the line to fill the high court and the appellate courts with judges who will protect the lives of babies.
Period.
This is not negotiable. At all. This is why we voted for you.
You have nothing to bargain with with us, and if you screw us, we will stay organized and we will stay home purposely to destroy the Republican party. Because if you do not protect the babies when you have the power to do it, you are no better than the Democrats...and worse, you will have lied to us.
This means, in effect, that all of those things YOU care about: taxation, immigration, trade and business policy, deregulation - all of those core issues that come as a package, are held hostage to our issue: babies. If you will not protect the babies, we will stay home and let the Democrats destroy everything else that YOU believe in.
This is called "Chicken".
It is called a "Mexican Standoff".
And since we are fired up by the certitude that we are doing God's work in defending babies, we cannot be bought, and you cannot win so much as an election for dog catcher in this country without us.
Therefore, the solution is simple and obvious: give us what we voted for you for. Give us pro-life judges. Use all of your power to do it. Sweep Specter out of the way: is he worth losing all the rest of your issues - because we really will stay home and throw the country to the Democrats if you're no better than they are on abortion, just to punish YOU for having betrayed us.
When the filibusters come, and they will come, use the nuclear option to override them. That will poison the Senate, yes. So what? We are talking about babies here. And with our votes, militantly mobilized because we are winning, alongside of yours, in 2006 and 2008 and beyond, even if the Senate is poisoned, you will be able to replace it.
That there is even a debate going on as to what to do with Specter is alarming, but we have had our hearts broken before, so we'll sit and pray and trust President Bush and Senator Frist and the Republicans to do the right thing.
Screw us, though, and we will turn on you and your whole agenda will go down the drain with the blood of the babies you wouldn't put your power on the line to save.
The easy solution, the win-win solution, is to BE as pro-life as you campaigned as being.
Just do it.
I apologize for the length of this post.
But it needed to be said.
The Republicans do not seem to get it.
They need to understand that we are more committed to saving babies than we are to the fortunes of the Republican Party.
That Specter is still in play demonstrates that too many of them do not take this seriously.
Rather than test us, what you guys should do is simply cave, now, and give us what we want.
Do that, and you wont hear from us again, because this is about the only religious issue that Catholics and Orthodox and Evangelicals AGREE on."
87 posted on 11/12/2004 6:41:26 PM CST by Vicomte13 (Auta i Lome!)
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.