Posted on 11/11/2004 10:31:42 AM PST by churchillbuff
...And the anchor of the agenda — right-wing appointments to the Supreme Court — may well be stopped by Republican fear of a splinter in their own coalition. ... If evangelicals win, moderates lose. Until now, there's always been a reason why the Bushes couldn't do more than regret abortion. ... There's no quicker way for soccer moms to be reborn than to convene a 5-4 pro-life vote on the Supreme Court. Surely if Karl Rove is smart enough ... It's why Bush talks more about a "culture of life" than about a culture of pro-life. ....
if Specter gets his chairmanship — and Orrin Hatch, who's rarely wrong on such matters, says he will — I'd score one for the moderates and a sign that Bush sees the peril in delivering the court to his right wing.
(Excerpt) Read more at latimes.com ...
Another exhibit for the Museum of Irony.
So is this Specter battle is a lot more important that Hugh Hewett and other Specter defenders want us to believe? If they let Specter get in - the GOP leaders will be showing they don't really want a conservative judicial agenda, and they're going to let Specter stop it for them.
I thought the "There's no quicker way for soccer moms to be reborn than to convene a 5-4 pro-life vote on the Supreme Court." was rather ironic, myself...
It would allow more future soccer moms to be BORN, to be sure. Do these "Times" libs even think, before writing, at ALL?
Can we stop calling those who want to impose a religious litmus test on judicial appointments "moderat"?
We might have a book in the works here.
I think they're thinking quite shrewdly, when they see that a win for Specter is a big loss for getting real conservatives on the judiciary. We'll get conservatives to replace retiring conservative judges, but NOT conservatives to replace liberal judges. That's what Specter's chairmanship will ensure. The Times believes - happily - that conservative voters have been played for suckers, and maybe the Times is right.
BORK SPECTER NOW!!!
The reasons, beyond butchering babies 'legally', for Specter not ascending to Chair the Senate Judiciary Committee are BIG, BOLD and BLARING!
If the GOP can't get this right, then they really are the Stupid Party that preys on it's base and turns around and cr@ps on them.
Next, people are better than what they have been. Sure it's got it's ebb and flow, but as a rule we evolve for the better despite focus groups and media mouthpieces. A fundamental wrong can only be masked in so many ways for so many years before it's time to face that it is wrong.
That is where we are on abortion as it is practiced in America today within the confines of legal standing. It just can't stand on it's own anymore.
IT doesn't matter what we call them, if we let them take control of the judicial process even though the conservatives are the ones who re-elected Bush. Specter promised his local newspapers he'd stop conservatives from replacing liberals on the federal judiciary. In light of those promises, why is he even being considered for the judiciary chairmanship? The Times article says, in effect, that the GOP leaders are playing conservative voters for suckers. It's yet to be proven that that is incorrect.
We've been had and Hugh's the mouthpiece for Rove...IMO.
I'd love for to be wrong...
BORK SPECTER NOW!!
The GOP won this election thanks to issues liking ending the imperial judiciary.
One would hope they realize this, and the political price to be paid if they sell out middle America.
Normally I'd file this article under Leftist wishful thinking...but Specter as SJC chair can't but make a conservative wonder.
Is the Herald Examiner still around out there?
How come all the extreme left-wingers control the print?
Is there no opposition to the L.A. Thymes?
Margaret Carlson is virtually never right, so this is a good sign.
BTW, her Capital Gang "outrage of the week" on the Saturday prior to the election was this: She denounced John O'Neill for continuing to smear Kerry with the "disproven" SwiftVet allegations. She claimed that O'Neill has been jealous of Kerry for over 30 years, though she failed to explain this. Kate O'Beirn just shook her head in disgust.
And this was after Carlson's earlier prediction of a Kerry victory and a Democratic Senate.
You hit the nail on the head. The votes have been counted, and the evangelicals will be discarded. The religious right has been "punked."
The basic message is that Specter will keep conservatives from replacing liberals on the federal bench. Why do you not believe that this will happen, since he made exactly that promise to various newspapers in Pennsylvania? Instead of nitpicking the LA Times article, you should be confronting the GOP leaders who may be about to give Specter a chairmanship.
Instead of nitpicking the LA Times article, you should be confronting the GOP leaders who may be about to give Specter a chairmanship.
Why is it that every wizened old left wing media hag seems to be preoccupied with being impregnated then aborted? Why should that cycle use up more valuable political capital than the nuturing of children. Why? Why? Why?
....and maybe the times is right.
Left Wing Lunacy Dressed as Republicans BTTT
Friend, this article only makes the very reasonable point that making Specter head of judiciary will betray conservatives. The LA Times is happy about that - - - but if you're not, you should confront the GOP leaders, not the LA Times for reporting what they and Specter are up to.
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.