Replies

In the last few days, we have all seen the "old" media claiming that "evangelical Christians" got Bush re-elected. That's not true, of course, although that group helped just like the hispanics and blacks.

But it's a diversion.

I see this as an attempt to create a backlash among the less religious.

I also see Specter's comments on abortion as an attempt to augment this backlash.

What I am trying to say is that Specter is trying to marginalize his secular opponents by dismissing them as "right-wing snake-handlers and tongue-talkers".

All I have been trying to suggest is that maybe there is a better way to use this snake salesman. We know we have some leverage because he wants the judiciary chairmanship. we need to extract that leverage. As a failsafe, we need to have the majority leader have the power to change chairmen at any time.

It is also a given that he does not deserve the chairmanship. Most, if not all, of the people expressing their opinion on this site is in agreement with that.
Unfettered from concerns about reelection - Specter is at best a question mark. At worst, he will take the Rat position most of the time. This is reason enough to be afraid of Specter. Perhaps there is a price worth paying. If we can get our judges confirmed, then the price of having him as chairman is cheap.

It comes down to tactics and strategy. If Specter is dumped then what? This needs to be compared to a course of action with leverage extracted from Specter and then what. All I want is the most effective strategy.

Christians contributed much more to Bush's victory than either blacks or hispanics. They voted in much larger numbers, and the percentage of them that voted republican was enormous. Fundamentalists voted something like 85% Bush.

But I agree with you that the media is trying to drive a wedge by mentioning it.