Posted on 01/16/2006 5:03:36 AM PST by Kaslin
"He made it a point to clarify, however, that he was speaking theoretically and was "not suggesting remotely that there's any basis" for a presidential impeachment at this moment."
Specter is losing his spine. He shouldn't even lend credibility to this insanity by talking about it. Duhhhh...If he talks about it, other Senators will take cue from him and talk a little more, and on and on and on. First things, first, Specter. Keep the Senate thinking about confirming Alito. Remember what Frist said? No other business will be taken care of until the up or down vote? PAY ATTENTION, ARLEN... Where is your brain?
Breitbart didn't write this story; He doesn't write anything on Breitbart.com.
Breitbart probably just got tired of looking through media sources, and newpaper sites for linkable headlines, when he pioneered a site where he pays for AP, Reuters, and AFP directly. He has all the news of the major newsfeeds at his fingertips and each story is reliably linkable. (How does he afford the fees, one has to wonder?)
Unfortunately, he links to the two most incompetent and biased reporting services (AP and Reuters) and one more competent, but unquotable news service (AFP).
I hope Breitbart.com is an interim step towards the development of a professional and balanced news wire.
And if a majority of the house, and 2/3rds of the senate, are convinced both that Bush violated the law, and that he had no constitutional authority to do so, they can vote to throw him out of office.
And interestingly, the Supreme Court has nothing at all to say about it.
I mention that because this is a perfect example to use with your liberal buddies when they say that the Supreme Court is the final word on the constitution, and that the other two branches must defer to the judiciary on constitutional interpretation.
The impeachment process clearly shows that in some case it is the legislative branch that defines what the constitutional powers of the president are, and that the judiciary has virtually no say (The chief justice of the supreme court gets to preside over the senate proceedings).
Now, if after he was impeached and removed, the democrats tried to get him indicted for a crime, the judiciary would have the final word.
Perjury is not protected by the Constitution. In contrast, president's executive powers as Commander-in-Chief cannot be limited by statute. Even assuming arguendo that FISA did restrict the president, the post-9/11 declaration of war by Congress is broad enough for the executive branch to engage in the monitoring of international phone calls involving U.S. citizens.
I guess all you have to do to be considered 'top' by the press is back-stab your party.
It was on Stephanopoulousis' show..nobody saw it..
Impeach him over this:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1558944/posts
I knew this was Spincter as soon as i read the headline. What an a-hole.
. . .using Reuters, in particular does not cast favorability here, of course. . .but interesting, nonetheless and hopefully. . .withing the realm of possibility.
There is no need to impeach Hanoi Kerry from the US Senate
He is there illegally!
WAKEUP AMERICA!
For those who "forgot" what Hanoi Kerry
did in the past read on and learn the truth.
Hanoi Kerry was still a USNR officer while he:
gave false hearsay testimony to Congress
negotiated with the enemy
helped the US lose a war
abetted in the deaths of millions
created a hostile environment for all servicemen
Why is Kerry still in the US Senate?
This is in violation of
U.S. Constitution Amendment 14 Sec 3 (1868)
Section 3. No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress,
or elector of President and Vice President,
or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States,
or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath,
as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States,
or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer
of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States,
shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same,
or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof.
But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.
http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/constitution.amendmentxiv.html
Too many here at FR associate the party "Republican" with the ideology "conservative". This makes just one more example why we MUST criticize many Republicans because so many are NOT conservative.
Arlen should be drawn and quartered. Bet that's the last time Bush goes to bat to save his re-election.
I can't believe there are some people here so delusional that they think he'll actually defeat Casey.
The nitwits running the Senate Republican conference sealed their fate when they entrusted Liddy Dole with the task of winning seats for them.
That's akin to putting Ted Kennedy in charge of keeping your liquor cabinet well-stocked.
The GOP-if they're lucky-will only lose two seats.
If they break even it will be a miracle.
As such, they primarily now stand for rampant corruption, unfulfilled campaign promises and good old selling America out. That's pretty much an accurate description of a Republican.
I *railed* against Rick Santorum when he endorsed and campaigned for RINO Arlen Specter against Pat Toomey. I called him every name in the book. I wrote him a devastating letter, which was posted on a Toomey blog site for all the world to see (I'll include the text at the end of this post). But the person most responsible for the RINO Specter winning the primary by 1% over Toomey was George W. Bush himself. President Bush listened to Karl Rove's stupid advice and endorsed Specter and even cut campaign ads and recorded phone calls for that worthless RINO. It was Bush's help that got Specter over the finish line. Now, I don't think that Specter's embarrassing performance as Judiciary Chairman should mean that conservatives should desert President Bush and toss him overboard, so I certainly don't think that we should abandon Senator Santorum, holder of one of the most conservative votingrecords in the Senate, and replace him with an idiot Democrat who isn't worthy of carrying his late father's shoes. We must support Senator Santorum's reelection.
Anyhow, to prove I'm no shrinking violet when it comes to criticizing Senator Santorum when he deserves criticism, here's the text of the e-mail I sent him before the 2004 Specter-Toomey primary:
Dear Senator Santorum:
Let me begin by saying that I am not a resident of Pennsylvania, so I am not technically your constituent. But as a member of the Republican leadership in the Senate, you represent Republicans throughout the nation, and as such I feel at the liberty to drop you this friendly note.
I am an active participant in the conservative movement, and regularly mention your name not only as an example of the type of leadership, platform and voting record Republicans need to get elected in competitive states and districts, but also as my preferred candidate for President in 2008. I defended you when you were unfairly attacked for your foresighted criticism of the pro-sodomy arguments in the Lawrence case, and I am certainly proud to have someone like you in the Senate to speak out and act on issues near and dear to me, such as opposition to abortion and judicial activism and support for tax relief and national defense. But I am at a loss for words when someone asks me why you are actively supporting the reelection of Senator Arlen Specter, who disagrees with us in every single one of those important issues.
I know that tradition dictates that incumbent Senators not oppose the reelection of their colleagues from the same party, especially when they represent the same state. And as Republican Conference Chairman, it would be unbecoming for you to actively campaign for the defeat of a Republican colleague. But is it really necessary for you to run commercials supporting Arlen Specter's candidacy when he is running against Congressman Pat Toomey, a true conservative Republican from a blue-collar Democrat district (just like a certain Congressman Santorum from a decade ago) who can lead the party to a statewide victory?
I am especially disheartened by your claim that Arlen Specter votes with conservatives "on votes that matter." When the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban, which you had been fighting for years to pass, got to the floor last year, it was nearly derailed by a sham substitute amendment by Dick Durbin that would not have prohibited a single abortion so long as the doctor stated that the mother's health (including mental health) may be in danger. You know better than I that passage of the substitute amendment would have signaled the defeat of the PBA ban, and would have been a major setback in the pro-life movement. I remember that you spoke eloquently on the Senate floor as to why the sham substitute had to be defeated, and that the only way to end that heinous practice was to vote against Durbin's substitute amendment. Wouldn't you call that a "vote that matters"? I sure do. And, in case you've forgotten, Arlen Specter voted in favor of Durbin's sham substitute, and the only reason it failed was because a few Democrat Senators, most of whom were up for reelection in 2004, voted against the amendment. Arlen Specter can only fool ignorant pro-lifers into believing that he supported the PBA ban, since he voted for its final passage, the results of which were a foregone conclusion. (Why, even Tom Daschle voted for the final bill! I hope that, in his Senate race against John Thune, Daschle doesn't run ads saying that he supported President Bush's agenda "on votes that matter.") But most pro-lifers are not that ignorant, and we will not support someone like Arlen Specter for reelection.
I could go on for paragraphs about Specter's voting record, the dangers posed by someone as unreliable as him serving as chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee (had Specter not opposed Robert Bork's nomination to the Supreme Court, Roe v. Wade would have been overturned in Planned Parenthood v. Casey back in 1992, which would have saved millions of lives), the fact that Governor Rendell would name Specter's replacement in case he can't serve out his entire six-year term, and how Specter's proven inability to attract votes from blue-collar Democrats in the Pittsburgh area and in the "T," not to mention the fact that he cannot rally the conservative base, will make him more vulnerable to a challenge from Congressman Hoeffel (who will not allow Specter to win by his usual margins in the Philly metro area) than would Pat Toomey (who would defeat Hoeffel by winning votes from pro-life, pro-gun, pro-defense Democrats, the group that gave you two House victories and two Senate victories), but I know that you already know all of that. My plea to you is that you think about these things, and reconsider your participation in an active campaign to defeat Pat Toomey in the GOP primary. If, God forbid, Specter defeats Toomey, then it would certainly be acceptable for you to campaign actively for Specter's reelection. But now is not the time to go wobbly.
I hope that you receive this note in the spirit with which it was intended, and that, after meditation and prayer, you do the right thing.
Sincerely yours in Christ,
[AuH2ORepublican]
I'm only being realistic, which means being honest.
As much as I'll miss him in the Senate, his chances of victory are as small as Charles Robb's were when he ran against George Allen.
I suppose it's possible that he'll pull off some improbable, Bob Smith-type victory, but that's an extremely unlikely scenario.
I don't see the point in throwing good money after bad, when there are so few races, e.g. in Maryland, Minnesota, where the Republicans have an opportunity to pick up Senate seats, in no small measure because of the sheer ineptitude of Liddy Dole.
Right now the GOP is following the same dumb strategy that it's always used.
Trying to salvage seats that are unsalvageable, e.g. Santorum, or prop up nominally Republican senators, e.g. Chaffee, whose victory would be meaningless-if not outright harmful-were it to occur.
Arlen Specter has foot-in-mouth disease, he must have caught it last week during the hearings.......Biden was frothing at the mouth with it along with teddy and chuckie.......you are the company you keep. sigh
Spectoer, whom I despise, allowed the Dims enough rope to give us Roberts and Alito.
For that I forgive Santorum.
This is what Bush gets for going to the mat for RINO Arlen Specter against conservative Pat Toomey.
WHERE IS THE RINO ALERT???????????
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.