Posted on 11/08/2004 12:07:05 PM PST by pookie18
It's insane to put the most liberal member of the Republican caucus in charge of what is in some respects the most important chairmanship.
But perhaps Rove is being clever. Perhaps they cut a deal with Arlen. Perhaps Arlen is making all this noise as a smoke screen. perhaps when the time comes he'll be waving poms poms for every guy Bush send up to the Hill no matter how strict a constructionist. Perhaps Arlen is therefore being used as a cover - "If flaming liberal pro-abort Arlen likes this guy, how bad can he be?"
If so, Rove better have his cojones in a box in his desk drawer.
You speak in the past tense now. Are you nuts or something?
Specter hasn't yet acted as a Senator whose state voted for Kerry as nothing has happended since the election except some talking.
If Specter wants to be the chair of a Republican committee, he should act like a Republican. Unlike the others on this thread, I am cautiously optimistic that he will (yes, I know of his past, but he has promised a quick up or won vote on the nominees--that is all I ask). We will have a large enough margin on the committee in any case.
I didn't hear the show, so can anyone give a brief synopsis? Did Sean grill him or was it just a friendly chat?
I wish Specter would go on Laura Ingraham's show. That would prove he has nothing to hide!
hannity's email: hannity@foxnews.com
"Bork believes that the 14th Amendment was passed to aid freed slaves, not women, and therefore the highest level of scrutiny should be retained only for racial discrimination."
Specter stated he met with Bork for five hours and came to the conclusion that Bork felt it didn't apply to women only to ethnicity. Even your own statement above says Bork may not have necessarily applied it to women in the strict sense of application of law.
Total disagreement on this front. I happen to know the subject area rather well and know that he is ill-informed. Not the only one, mind you.
He came up with the magic bullet though. I agree with him on that.
Another member of "the club" heard from.
Nevermind the fact Sean's show is #2 nationwide behind the solidly charismatic conservative on the radio dial.
Maybe to say he has no true convictions was too harsh, but he is too quick to jump on the bandwagon of men who are against most conservative principles.
Yep, O'Neill was on already.
"He came up with the magic bullet though. I agree with him on that."
Haha... I agree on the single-shooter theory too... Amazing that this guy is still in the public arena four decades later...
OK, I have read Bork's jurisprudence and am very conversant in constitutional interpretation. Forgive me if Specter's 5 hour meeting doesn't impress me.
Moreover, this is a man who applied Scottish law in the Senate.
more info, please.
"Moreover, this is a man who applied Scottish law in the Senate."
And like I posted earlier, past tense, in the thread I felt it might be a problem.
Whew, I feel even WORSE after listening to this opportunity to "clarify" his positions. This man can NOT become the chairman of the committee. Bye-bye...
Well, it's not worth writing him an email to tell him of my thoughts on his mental capacity.
I believe people have a right to have an intellectual deficiency and to have that broadcast over radio.
I think he was probably wrong on Bork. But he was right on Clarence Thomas, right on Scalia, right to vote for Rehnquist for Chief, and he supported Pickering.
Don't try to minimize the votes of those others on the Judiciary Committee or those in the Senate on the Senate floor. The people itching to rake Specter over the coals make it sound like Specter is the only one entitled to vote up or down. The whole process is obviously more complex than that.
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.