Posted on 11/18/2004 8:14:45 PM PST by dangus
I think it conservatives need to remember the back hand they've been dealt by Republicans; We need to be able to say, "You owe us." At the same time, our efforts did yield significant rewards. If we're getting the truth, we may have simultaneously kept Specter in the GOP, established the legitimacy of the nuclear option, and made sure conservatives' nominations would get reported out of committee.
Here is what National Review contributors had to report:
SEN. CORNYN ON SPECTER FIGHT [KJL] From the Senate floor today: And I want to say something to my constituents and the people who may be listening who have contacted my office in very sincere concern for what they have seen played out here on the Senate floor and in the judicial confirmation process. I want to say to all of them, I appreciate your passion. I appreciate your concern. I appreciate your interest in the instruments of the government that ultimately the people of this country control. And we are going to need the involvement, the attention, the passion of all of the people.
And indeed, we are going to need to appeal to our better angels on the floor of the United States Senate and in the Senate Judiciary Committee when it comes to the next nominees for the United States Supreme Court. We all remember, whether it’s a confirmation process by which Judge Bork was blocked, by which Clarence Thomas was ultimately confirmed after going through a process that no one should have to go through, my hope is that we will have learned that that is not the way the Senate should conduct itself and that we will resolve among ourselves and resolve among the American people and to the people we represent that we will treat the President’s judicial nominees fairly, that we will treat them with dignity and that we will provide the up-or-down vote that the United States Constitution demands when it comes to the confirmation of the President’s judicial nominees.
I’m not suggesting for a minute that anyone violate their conscience. Indeed, any Senator with a sincere belief that an individual judge should not be confirmed should come to the floor, as no doubt they will, and explain to their colleagues why they feel so strongly, why they conscientiously object to this nominee and to vote their conscience. I think every Senator should do that, and I trust they will.
But no one, no Senator has a right, no group of Senators has a right, no minority has a right to tyrannize the majority of the United States Senate when we stand ready in a bipartisan fashion to cast a vote up or down for a judicial nominee. And I sincerely hope that we will not have only learned from the mistakes of the past when it comes to obstruction of the President’s judicial nominees, but we will conduct ourselves with the kind of dignity that the American people have come to expert from United States Senators and that we will conduct ourselves uprightly, with fairness and dignity and treat all we come in contact with exactly the same way.
KATHERINE LOPEZ: BY THE WAY [KJL] There's some important stuff in that Specter statement. Those Judicary Committee Republicans did some real work: --"I have already registered my opposition to the Democrats' filibusters with 17 floor statements and will use my best efforts to stop any future filibusters. It is my hope and expectation that we can avoid future filibusters and judicial gridlock with a 55-45 Republican majority and election results demonstrating voter dissatisfaction with Democratic filibusters. If a rule change is necessary to avoid filibusters, there are relevant recent precedents to secure rule changes with 51 votes."
And, important for FMA supporters: --"I have long objected to the tactic used in bottling up civil rights legislation in the Judiciary Committee when it should have gone to the floor for an up-or-down vote. Accordingly I would not support committee action to bottle up legislation or a constitutional amendment, even one which I personally opposed, reserving my own position for the floor."
Those committments would not have been made without people calling in and e-mailing. Good job, folks.
PEGGY NOONAN: I'll finish with Sen. Specter, whose sonorous "Ssssshhhhhhhh" was so satisfying. Arlen Specter was just re-elected by the people of Pennsylvania, a major industrial state; the Judiciary Committee chairmanship is his by tradition and seniority. Conservatives have been angry with him for a long time and for good reason. They have expressed their unhappiness. They have made their point. Mr. Specter has been chastened and warned; the leadership of his party told him to fight for himself. He knows the Republican Party will expect him to support the nomination of judges free of a Roe v. Wade litmus test, or any litmus test, including a religious test. Many believe, and with reason, that a practicing Catholic isn't allowed to be a federal judge in America anymore. Mr. Specter will have to be more open-minded, more supportive, than he's been in the past. But he looks like a man who got the message, doesn't he?
The on-the-ground conservatives who won this election for the Republican Party want to show their force. Understandable. They won. But there's a lot of force being shown lately, and sometimes it's conservative to step back, to hold your fire, to wait.
Give him the slot. If it doesn't work, revisit it later. There are enough battles going on.
Keep Spector's feet to the fire...
Translation: "Daschle's gone, now knock off the crap."
Ha. He will block and they will let him get away with it, except for Supreme Court... apparently
Specter should be aware he has a noose constantly hanging over his head and, if necessary, conservatives will not be afraid to use it.
Sorry, I'm not persuaded yet. And I continue to hold Bush and Rove responsible.
This is the same clubby senate that agreed unanimously that at clinton's impeachment trial no one would be allowed to present any evidence. Some trial. They all took solemn oaths to try clinton fairly, and they all broke their oaths immediately.
They are losers. If they expect to gain more senate seats in 2006, they had better wake up pretty quick. Otherwise 2004 will be seen as high tide for the conservative movement.
This is Specter's chance. We have to keep him on a very short lease. If he even steps out of line a little bit we should can him.
I'll be tense, but this might be good for the institution of the Senate:
It also looks like the Republicans will not insert the "nuclear option" into the Senate Rules at the start of the session, but rather make clear that they consider filibustering nominations to be illegitimate, and serve notice to the Democrats that they will have no trouble going nuclear should the Democrats force the issue. "But you wouldn't want us to have to do that, would you?"
Doing it pre-emptively makes the Republicans seem beligerent. Waiting until a filibuster, on the other hand, would put Democrats on record as still obstructing the Senate. BUt I'd sorta like to see it settled before the ground situation has a chance to change: we could lose ground in the midterms; character assassination could provide cover for "moderates," etc.
Nelson (D-NE), up in 2006, is as good as a Republican, by the way, so start with a base of 56 votes for going nuclear. Landrieu (D-LA) or Lincoln (D-AR), both up in 2008, might also be squeamish about voting against going nuclear.
But he can't be canned. He is effectively a lame duck (he would be over 80 in 6 years). This was the Pubbies chance to can him. They dropped the ball, circled the wagons, and protected 'one of their own.'
I hate to put it this way, but we will not see any conservatives wield power in the Senate until we reach about 60 votes. Moderates Republicans wield power because they can get moderate Democrats to allow bills through. Conservatives have to say, "Yes, sir. Can I pick up your soap?"
63 would be nice. THen we could lose Specter, Chafee, Snowe and Collins, and still (with Nelson) get bills passed. But withholding money from "safe" moderates (Voinovich, Stevens, Murkowski, McCain, Dole, Grassley, Hatch, Hagel and probably a few others), and supporting primary opponents, and giving to conservative candidates rather than the party gets us heard. Losing seats is counter-productive; giving purse strings to conservatives is good.
Why do 99 US Senators allow a traitor in their midst?
Good advice! You don't want to be so snitty that you're ignored later when it might count even more than this battle.
>>Why do 99 US Senators allow a traitor in their midst?<<
Because there are 48 traitors in their midst.
Kerry has been defeated, the public has spoken, his treacherous act has cost him the Presidency, time to give it a rest man. There is more important things to worry about right such as advancing the conservative agenda under the Bush administration. It is just not prudent to always harp on yesterday's news.
Your reading this wrong my friend, what they are saying is its his seat by tradition and they will respect both the tradition and the people of PA who reelected him to office again, The Big But is he's on notice and He's not to play any games. Remember He still needs support to get anything done, the Senate's not a One Man Army, If you were to look at it as a chess game he's been checked and a wrong move will signal a check mate.
As one former president said, "There they go again". They have an increased majority in the senate, they have an increased majority in the House, and they retained the Executive branch. So what are they doing? They're rolling over and playing dead as if they lost and allowing the howling demonicrats to get their man, Specter, yes I know he's a, a, ahem, a, a, republican (RINO), but he's a Jack Ass in a gray suit as chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee. Why do I bother voting for them thinking they will grow testicles and become men and stand up to girlie men liberals? It's the same song every year, just a different verse. I'm getting sick and tire of Spineless conservative who are all talk and no balls.
"Kerry has been defeated, the public has spoken, his treacherous act has cost him the Presidency,
time to give it a rest man.
There is more important things to worry about right such as advancing the conservative agenda under the Bush administration. It is just not prudent to always harp on yesterday's news."
What don't you understand?
You just don't get it and want to "move along"
Hanoi Kerry STILL is in the US Senate.
Why?
That is today's news.
Not Lincoln...she was just re-elected - she won't be up until 2010.
Sorry....
I'm not pursuaded buy Specter's new come-to-Jesus attitude; and moreover, Saxby Chambliss has lost my vote next time he's up and Frist will get my active opposition anytime a vote for him is possible.
Business-as-usual and good-ole-boy accomodation is simply unacceptable in light of the threats we face and the short time we have left to set this Nation on the right path.
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.