Posted on 11/19/2004 1:14:50 PM PST by hinterlander
Conservative activists who protested Pennsylvania Sen. Arlen Specter's bid to chair the Judiciary Committee are vowing are keep pressure on the liberal Republican and his Senate colleagues who have vowed to support him.
A formal vote on Specter's ascension won't happen until January. Even though the nine Republicans on the Judiciary Committee are backing Specter, his support in the 55-member Senate Republican Conference remains unclear.
"Anything can happen in two months," said the Rev. Patrick J. Mahoney, who led a protest against Specter earlier this week on Capitol Hill. "Let's face the political realities, but I don't think it's both morally or strategically wise to throw in the towel this early."
Mahoney told HUMAN EVENTS his Christian Defense Coalition was still planning to hold a nationwide protest against Specter on December 9. On that day, constituents are encouraged to visit their senators' home-state offices to voice their concerns about Specter.
The conservative Concerned Women for America, one the most vocal anti-Specter groups, hasn't relented in the wake of Specter's concession Thursday to support President Bush's nominees and move legislation through the committee, even if he opposes it.
"The grassroots who have inundated the Senate with tens of thousands of e-mails and phone calls protesting Specter's appointment as committee chairman will remain energized in holding Specter accountable," said Jan LaRue, CWA's chief counsel.
Others, including Dr. James Dobson of Focus on the Family Action, Tony Perkins of the Family Research Council and Gary Bauer of American Values, continued to criticized Specter, but didn't promise any additional protests in the near future.
With the backing of the nine Republicans on the Judiciary Committee, Specter has already locked up a crucial bloc of support among his colleagues. Other Republicans, including Senators Norm Coleman (Minn.), Trent Lott (Miss.) Richard Lugar (Ind.) and John McCain (Ariz.) have already said they would vote for Specter.
Only Sen. James Inhofe (R.-Okla.) has publicly expressed opposition to Specter. In an interview with HUMAN EVENTS this week, Inhofe said Hatch's endorsement of Specter certainly eased tensions in the GOP and likely silenced opposition inside the party.
"As of right now, I would still oppose him," Inhofe said Wednesday. "But it's meaningless, however, because I'd probably be the only one."
Mahoney said his December 9 protest would be designed to raise doubts with senators about Specter. He also said it's an opportunity to assert the power of pro-lifers, who Mahoney said Republicans are taking for granted.
"The pro-family, pro-life voting bloc is almost being viewed by the Republican Party as African Americans are viewed by the Democratic Party," Mahoney said. "Specter getting to the Judiciary, although it's very disturbing, I think is dwarfed by a larger problem. The Republican leadership truly does not respect nor understand our constituency."
Chief among Mahoney's targets is Pennsylvania Sen. Rick Santorum, chairman of the Senate Republican Conference. As the third-ranking Republican in the Senate, Mahoney said Santorum should be prepared to face a tough fight when he faces re-election in 2006.
Santorum's support for Specter in this year's Pennsylvania primary angered conservatives, who preferred Rep. Pat Toomey. Toomey lost by a mere 17,000 votes of the more than 1 million that were cast.
Despite Santorum's friendship with Specter, he has stopped short of supporting his bid to become chairman of the Judiciary Committee. At a Wednesday press conference, Santorum said, "I think it would be presumptuous of me to direct the committee as to who they should appoint as their chairman."
Even if Santorum were to oppose Specter by voting against him when it reaches the Senate Republican Conference, Mahoney said it wouldn't have much of an impact with the pro-life community.
"We're going to use Senator Santorum as a template," Mahoney said. "Because of what he has done with Specter -- putting party over principle -- we are going to work to see that he's not re-elected in 2006."
Mahoney's early alternatives include Toomey, whose campaign manager didn't return a call to HUMAN EVENTS, and newly elected Pennsylvania Treasurer Bob Casey Jr., who received more than 3.3-million votes on November 2, the most ever for a candidate in Pennsylvania.
-----------
Copyright © 2004 HUMAN EVENTS. All Rights Reserved.
Bork Specter ~ keep the heat on!
Makes me feel better that the fight is still there. I'd given up because the knife in the back is too painful to move.
Odd headline, considering that "I'm quitting the GOP" is the favorite cry of the most vocal ones here. On average once a week per spammer...
Thanks for proving my point so quickly.
All it will take is one more snide remark about the president's judicial candidates.
I've been amazed at the number of people quiting, many of them who have quit numerous times before.
Replacement of Santorum by a Third Party Candidate would make them all CRAP in their panties!! We need PRO AMERICAN, PRO CONSTITUTION, PRO LIFE CANDIDATES!!
Arlen Specter, ( R. Orchiectomy)
The Republican leadership has been extremely stupid not to have worked behind the scenes to pacify Specter, throw him a bone, and give him another cushy job.
No, this won't go away. And it's virtually certain to have a negative effect in the next couple of elections. It may mean that Republicans in the Senate will drop instead of increasing in 2006.
I've never been one to vote for third-party candidates or to complain if I don't get everything I want. I understand that politicians have only so much political capital and have to spend it wisely. But this fight is absolutely crucial. It's the bottom line. Nothing is more important. We are in reach of turning our courts around. If they blow it, it will disillusion Christian conservative voters with the party for the next 10 or 20 years.
We can't stop them if they decide to go ahead with this. But they would be exceedingly stupid to do so. It will be virtually impossible for them to punish Specter for misbehavior once he has the job. But he will be in a very strong position to punish them, and I expect that he will.
One or both ?
I expected they would not expectorate spercter
Both..that's his new "state"..(g)
Yes, since Hell would be frozen over.
If there is a silver lining here, it's that Specter has been completely neutralized. He will have to give every nominee a vote, and knows he'd better not oppose a pro-life nominee. He understands now, better than before, that a lot of eyes are on him. So does the President.
Cicero, you've got it right. ;o)
From the article: "Mahoney told HUMAN EVENTS his Christian Defense Coalition was still planning to hold a nationwide protest against Specter on December 9. On that day, constituents are encouraged to visit their senators' home-state offices to voice their concerns about Specter."
I'll be visiting mine. To give up this early is to lose for sure. We must fight and fight HARD. I don't think people have given up yet.
Mahoney, a good Christian leader, said: "The pro-family, pro-life voting bloc is almost being viewed by the Republican Party as African Americans are viewed by the Democratic Party. Specter getting to the Judiciary, although it's very disturbing, I think is dwarfed by a larger problem. The Republican leadership truly does not respect nor understand our constituency."
This appears to be true. However, Values Voters do not vote Republican. They vote for those who support their values and then followup with action. If that doesn't happen, the Republican Party will lose in the next elections.
I hope you are right. Somehow, I just can't believe Specter has turned over a new leaf, even with the trip to the woodshed, if that indeed happened. The guy's a loose cannon. Always has been.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1284025/posts
I'll say. They've started calling him Arlene.
Anyone who has been on this forum for any length of time knows that there is not any such thing as a Republican in the Senate. Those boys and girls are 100% RINOS. The House Managers were 100% tried and true Republicans and they were ridiculed and derided by those boys and girls in the Senate. Orrin Hatch must have been the person to which Dana Carvey modeled his church lady character.
Well, he's pro-abortion and probably always will be. But the point is he won't carry this principle into judicial selection. Bush and the base won't stand for it.
I agree. Specter has spent years making a "name" for himself as a "maverick", an "independent", and "one unafraid to buck the leadership" based on his "principled stands"...
[side note: that's MSM-ese for "obstructionist in a liberal direction"... had this been an identical obstruction in a conservative direction, the common MSM terms would have been something more like "stubborn, inflexible, right-wing, elitist, lone-wolf, etc."]
Given that he would be even harder to GET out of the chairmanship than to KEEP out, and given that I (at least) see NO pressure, whatsoever, that could be brought to bear on a "Chairman Specter", especially by some of the fortitude-deprived GOP leadership, it seems insane for the caucus to hand him the Chairmanship!
(Wow... I've had two rants in one day! Is this good, or bad? :) )
Its Friday. You were due.
Specter's going to get the chairmanship...there's no question. Will this frustrate a bunch of folks? You bet. Does anyone on Capitol Hill care? Nope. They're elected already.
Will this bloc of voters make a difference in 2006? Nope. The same RINOs will run again and get elected, because they'll win their primaries and nobody will want to vote for the Democrat.
And so it goes. The pro-life bloc just isn't big enough to get what they want. They're loud; they're noisy, but there just aren't enough people who have this as a one-issue cause to affect politics on that level in most states.
And if you think President Bush is going to press the issue, forget it. Remember, he endorsed Specter.
Rev. Mahoney speaks for me!!!!
Everything he utters in this article is exactly the way many Pro-Lifers are thinking. The Republicans run a risk each time they dismiss our urgent call to arms.
The Senate Republicans did very well by their favorite and hardest working constituency.
You liberals can whine all you want about it. No one's buying.
"You liberals can whine all you want about it. No one's buying."
Wow! You think I'm a liberal? Guess again.
Of course Mahoney isn't quitting. There's more fundraising to be squeezed.
It is becoming more and more evident that there is a growing faction in the GOP that works deliberately against the very reasons we have been Republicans.
It frightens me that these people "on a shining hill" are behaving in an increasingly "in your face" manner to the people who put them where they are.
We also have the media to blame for not printing or airing the wrongs done this country by the left. But then they, too, have been vastly infiltrated.
Is the Internet our last bastion? (By the way, no one has ever answered my question "who owns the internet?").
bttt
etc, etc., etc. Google "Who owns the internet" for more.
The internet was originally designed to be extremely decentralized so it would survive a nuclear attack. One result is that it's a very difficult thing to "own." The federal government could presumably crush it if they really chose, but short of that the internet at the moment is mainly being run by groups of nerds.
Thank you, Gentlemen.
It isn't over until the fat woman sings.
I am witholding giving to the RNC etc. until they get rid of Specter. I would like them to drive him to Jeffordization.
It would be better to go ahead with 54 Senators than 54 plus one Quisling.
Har, har, har. Of course we will.
Are we about to see in the near future the "Potomac Shuffle"? So glad that not all are giving up because we have to let them know that we WILL impose a major destruction on them if somehow these conservative judges aren't in place by next election. I say more & more contacting just so no doubt our intentions.
Not this one. I was a Pubbie for 40 years. This year was marginal and held I my nose only and voted for Bush only because of the SC nominations. Now that the Pubbies have back-stabbed us on that one, I am gone from the Party for good.
From here on out it's Third Party for me while I watch all you die-hard loyalists fall for the "But the OTHER guy is worse!" B/S. Hint to you folks - Vaseline is cheap - you'll be needing lots of it.
I am seriously considering starting a PAC for the sole purpose of fighting everyone that supports Specter in the next primary.
Something along the lines of:
"If you support this thing and he gets the chairmanship, if he even twitches your next primary opponent gets (X) million."
You had to hold your nose for Bush but are ready to go third party? You should have your nose checked out, your sense of smell is backwards.
Neutralized? Is he dead? As Bill Devane so famously says as the character of the US Pres. Hayes - I don't THINK so.
Spectre is practically chairman. He's got the votes. This is just where the libs and Dems want him. I heard Mark Shields, the almost insane Dem spinner on PBS, lament that he was similarly neutralized or neutered or non-functional or a numb . . well. In Shields-speak, though, that means - GREAT! We got a lib as the chairman of the committee! He's gonna throw a party over this.
I am fairly confident the GOP is going to regret turning its backs on the American voter who put them there. Bush first let loose with Gonzales. Now its continuing to back Spectre, whom he also helped in the campaign. But, however, and as his defenders would point out even here on FR, the other shoe has yet to drop. Gonzales isn't yet facing the foreign nationals problem on our borders. And Spectre hasn't yet gotten the list of nominees. So when it does drop . . .
Well, when Specter balks or worse, his backers will still support him, if out of nothing other than pride.
I don't want to prejudge it or give up too early. We have a huge opportunity to appoint decent judges and start taking our country back from the liberal activists. We have a real chance of overturning Roe v. Wade, which unlike most Supreme Court decisions is the one that refuses to go away.
If in spite of all the protests Specter is appointed, then we'll wait and see what happens next. If he behaves and if things go well over the next two years, then we should do well in the midterm elections.
I'm only speaking up now because these are a lot of ifs, and the administration needs to realize what the stakes are. If they go with Specter, then a lot of people will be sitting on the edge of their seats for the next two years, watching what happens.
If after OWNING the House and Senate and Presidency for the better part of 8 years the GOP doesn't kick some major @ss on behalf of conservatism, they will see massive apathy and defections from within the party...
As forSpecter, the GOP has already alienated more folks then they realize -- and I mean party organizers and soldiers.
Oh, I don't know. If Bush tries to put a known pro-abort on the USSC or inferior court, watch the volcanic reaction from the base. I'm betting it would be a disaster.
We'll see. I'd much rather have Gonzales as AG then on the USSC, which was the other option. Gonzales is pro-choice, but he is a Bush Man. Meaning he will subvert his ideology to the betterment of Bush. That's what Presidents demand of their Cabinet appointees. So I don't worry about Gonzales suddenly reversing course on the PBA Ban case, or assisted suicide.
Immigration...that's another matter...
Regarding Specter, I just don't see him squaring off with Bush and demanding pistols at dawn. The White House will crush him like a grape if he causes trouble on a nominee. Politicians are often much nastier to the people in their own camp who cause trouble than to those outside it.
I agree Specter will get his Chairmanship, and was never in any serious danger of losing it. Senators do not oppose each other based on ideology.
But I respectfully disagree on the strength of the pro-life lobby. Without the massive pro-life bloc, the Republican Party would cease to be a national party immediately. It would be the same across the South and Midwest and Rust Belt states.
But Specter as Judiciary Chair is not a make-or-break issue for most pro-life folks. Putting pro-life judges on the USSC and inferior courts, however, is. If the White House and Party foist an obvious pro-choicer on the court, then they will lose seats in 2006.
If so, the childish petulance of those who stay home or vote against Republicans will prove, once again, that the far right has no political sense. Whatsoever.
I didn't write ~ "Anything can happen in two months"?
It was in the original article. I thought you had posted the tread. Sorry.
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.