Posted on 11/18/2004 10:38:30 AM PST by GeneralHavoc
The good news is that GOP Leadership is not letting him off the hook easy. Notice that Senate leaders rejected his first draft.
Specter, who supports abortion rights, also is pledging a strong predisposition to support the president's nominees for the bench, according to these sources, who spoke on condition of anonymity. The Pennsylvania senator's draft statement affirms that he will not impose a litmus test on nominees based on the issue of abortion, but does not include a blanket pledge to vote for them.
Specter's written statement, apparently undergoing changes, largely covers positions he has staked out in public statements in recent days. Even so, several GOP sources said one early version was deemed unacceptable by Senate leaders in a meeting on Wednesday, particularly on the contentious issue of changing Senate procedures to eliminate the possibility of a filibuster by opponents of a nomination.
"So all of Kerry's votes were Hard Core Leftists????"
Well they sure aren't conservatives. The bottom line is that we have the majority, and the majority rules in our system.
I don't think so!!!!
Double amen, and might I even say... dittos. When will our side realize that playing fair with the 'Rats only puts us at a terminal disadvantage? We'll never have it better than this. Question: what advantage does the chairman have in a committee? Can he stop a nomination, even if the majority of the members want it to go through?
Yes, you're right. But we know how that would be played by a media starving for ways to paint Bush and his supporters as right wing extremists.
The bottom line is that we have the majority
I don't think so!!!!
We got the majority in the election, and the majority rules. What don't you understand about that?
"Yes, you're right. But we know how that would be played by a media starving for ways to paint Bush and his supporters as right wing extremists"
Screw the media. They are going to do that no matter what we do, so don't worry about it and just get it done.
My senator DeWine is a Rino and he's on the committee. I'm not sure about the other members, but I think the others might be pretty solid.
He can't do a Jeffords because he can't singlehandedly deliver the Senate to the Democrats.
Can someone clue me (and others) in to this "Scottish Law"? I've been trying to find information and the context of this concerning Spector but am coming up with nothing.
My guess is that of the relatively few moderate voters out there, very, very few of them voted for Bush and Republicans. So why should we wring our hands about "backlash" from them? They've already lashed back, as the 'Rats have. The real backlash to worry about, as Bush 41 found out, is the one that might come from those who put you in office in the first place. You don't want to honk them off. Worry about keeping your friends first before trying to make new friends among the enemy.
(It's all hooey in the Clinton case. The guy was guilty as sin but Specter was looking for political cover.)
How brave of you, but you don't get that decision.
The democrats are always going to not play fair, so no matter what we do to show that we are playing fair.
It's not Democrats I worry about it is moderate voters who are voting Republican and giving us majorities I worry about. Watching the right wing beating of a moderate Senator is putting smiles on the DUmmys who voted for Kerry. They point their fingers and whisper, "If the right wing will do this to a Republican just think what they will do to rats and independents."
QUIT WORRING ABOUT WHAT MIGHT HAPPEN!
Where have I heard that phrase before? Oh yeah. When my friends were trying to convince me to do something stupid that I instinctively knew was a bad idea.
Any backlash would require full media participation. Liberal dominance of the media haws been severely compromised as is evidenced by the recent election. The backlash threat has been largely defanged. Time to forge ahead!
The "nuclear option" is not about doing away with the filubuster entirely. It merely puts judicial nominations off limits to filibusters. So this would not be turning the Senate into the House
As to the what if we fall out of power scenario. You know what will happen. We'll confirm their judges 98-0 like we did for Ruth Bader Gisnburg. For a pascifist to give up his weaponry is no sacrifice at all.
Get it done is right, there is no point to making that more of an uphill battle though. I want to win the war and that requires picking the right battles.
I say so what if he does pull a Jeffords. He goes from possible Judiciary Chair to the bottom of the totem pole on the Democratic side. Jeffords pissed away all of his senority by flipping and got squat in return.
Specter can be a bigger PITA, demand that he get is way, and be a McCain protege by just by staying a RINO than joining the other team.
There are 4 hard core RINO's: Specter, Collins, Snowe, and Chaffee. That brings the 55 down to 51
Then you have Warner (VA), Stevens (AK), and Huchison (TX), who have voted in support of Roe in the past. In that sense of the Senate resolution that was attached to the PBA ban. They'd bring the 51 down to 48.
Then you have the "wild cards" McCain and Hagel. Bringing the count of real Republicans down to 46. And Lisa Murkowski is pro-choice so bring it down to 45.
So depending on how strict you grade, the answer is between 4 and 10 out of 55.
I am afraid they are putting on a show like they are "taking care of him" until the furor dies down. We have to keep up the pressure. It may take weeks.
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.