Redstate

Don't grab your pitchforks and torches yet.

Have a little faith in the Republican leadership.

Don't let an AP reporter's characterization of Sen. Specter's remarks as "bluntly warning" President Bush get us all into a squabble.

Several judicial nominations need to be passed in the next four years.

It will do no good to adopt an angry attitude before we even get started.

This is hardly the first time that Specter has set himself up as Grand High Poobah, put on earth to ensure that Roe v. Wade is never challenged.  This is just an indication of how much of a thorn he can be for the President and the Party for the next six years.

Pat Toomey, anyone?

send out yours, this is the most important thing Republicans can do.

If you have trouble getting through at the DC office number of 202-224-3344, Frist's fax is 202-228-1264; his Nashville office number is 615-352-9411; and the Majority Leader office number is 202-224-3135.

But the real pressure points should not be brought on these members, but on Majority Leader Frist.

What are we actually supposed to be asking Frist to do? In detail, please. I'd like to get started making sure every conservative I know emails or calls Senator Frist.

This statement is so in character with his behavior that you will notice no one is saying, "hey, this doesn't sound like Arlen". So the fact that it is plausible is grounds to flog him a little.

His disgusting behavior towards Bush in the election, like the "Kerry-Specter" yard signs, also deserves flogging.

His "Scotch verdict" in the Clinton impeachment still warrants flogging.

Instead of being rewarded with a powerful committee he needs flogging in a major way. And this is our party.

I posted this to an earlier story, but got no response. I'm hoping somebody can answer:

Specter: a parliamentary procedure question

The unfortunate reality is we're stuck with Specter for another six years. So, my fear is if he's somehow blocked from the judiciary committee chairmanship, he may bolt fot the Democrats (I'm not even sure if it's possible to block him, but let's assume it is).

So, my question is: would Specter's chairmanship authority allow him to single-handedly hold up nominations supported by his fellow Republicans? I'm aware of the possibilites of Democratic filibustering (probably supported by a few Republicans), and my hope is we can cobble together a super-majority with the support of moderate Democrats. But again, would Specter's position give him as an individual Senator unique blocking authority?

If the answer is "yes", then I say full-speed ahead on efforts to prevent his succession to the chairmanship of the judiciary committee, no matter the consequences (including his jumping ship to the opposition).

If the answer is "no" it may be better to let him have his way on the chairmanship, and keep him in the GOP caucus for those occassions when he deigns to vote with his party.

Any thoughts?

I sent a letter to Senator Frist, and I hoped I reflected concern of Specter's remarks, while tying in the contributors to victory in 2004, plus the practical need of reforming the judiciary.  

Please post other emails of other appropriate points of contact so we can write them as well!

--------

Dear Leader Frist,

Although congratulations are in order for the increasing of Republican control of the Senate, as a Republican I am deeply concerned that Senator Specter intends to obstruct judges who fail to pass Kerry's abortion litmus test.  I understand that you have the power to prevent his appointment as leader of the Judiciary Committee.  Given the strong mandate of social conservatives, the rejection of Senator Daschle, and the pressing need for judges that accurately reflect the values of the country, it is imperative that more social and judiciary conservatives are appointed to the bench.  If you are unclear on this point, please consider the 9th Circuit Court, who is overturned more than a three-legged cow.

The people delivered you and the Congressional Republicans a victory.  I hope that you will, in turn, deliver us a fair, in-touch, and socially reflective judiciary.

I'm surprised that you say it doesn't matter what Sen. Specter said.

If the facts don't matter, what does?

See my previous comment:

http://www.redstate.org/comments/2004/11/4/93057/5822/14#14

As Chairman, Specter can singlhandedly choose just to not schedule a vote on anybody he wishes to hold up.

"Tell Majority Leader Frist that you don't want Arlen Specter as Chairman, and that the President deserves a Judiciary Chairman who represents the values of the Republican Party."

that you can't read what I wrote.

Specter is a detestable creature.

If he said it he needs to be punished.

If he didn't say it, he's already done enough stuff that he deserves punishment.

Sort of like the old French army practicing of randomly executing members of units that fled combat as a warning to the rest.

It seems the AP reporter correctly predicted the behavior he could provoke by his characterization of Specter's statements.

He has managed to set the tone--there will be a battle royal over ultra/arch-conservative nominees put forward by the hated fundamentalist Bush.

The leftists can be expected to respond as though every nominee is unacceptable, and will likely respond in the same tone as the AP reporter has set in his article.

You carry forward all your previous disagreements with Specter and assume the worst.

It matters whether Specter "bluntly warned" Bush, and whether Specter intends to oppose or stall Bush nominees.  If Specter intends to support the President, that matters.  If he doesn't, that matters.

But, you cannot know what Specter intends based on the AP reporter's characterization of his statements.

P.S.--Demwits accuse others of not being able to read or think.  Don't mimic them.  I can read.  I can also confine my comments to one point that you made without going into everything you said.  It doesn't mean I didn't read everything you said.

"majority leader" instead of "leader of the Judiciary Committee" when you refer to Senator Frist, no? Senator Hatch is the outgoing chair of the Judiciary Committee.

Thanks for giving some more specifics as to how we can work on getting Specter blocked!  There's no question as to that we need to... the judiciary committee is not one that we should have a prochoice RINO leading.  

But it's good to know exactly how the process works.

Are we sure that something hasn't already been worked out?  Would the Presdent and Sen. Santorum support him if they didn't already have some kind of gentleman's agreement regarding being obstructive to voters.

Scenario: Once Specter says "Bush's nominee is not an extremist" it would be hard for the Dems to say that he is without looking awfully bad.

that is your concern.

Specter, and a small handful of others, need to be put on notice. Worst casing it, this is a warning shot and Specter will act with much more reticence in the future.

Best case, Frist grows a pair and blocks Specter in favor of a Republican senator.

Thanks for the heads up.  Rock on, red-staters!

if you're right.

If he says now "no right-wing nominees" (and provokes this reaction from repubs, and later says "this guy's okay" to the president's choices, the Dems might have a harder time fighting.

Maybe we should give politics a chance? I dunno.

If the election was won 51% Bush, 48% Kerry, doesn't it make sense to have a supreme court that is 51% conservative and 48% liberal?
Tyranny of the majority and all that...

Just adding another one to the mix.

First, thank you for your great service to our nation. I believe in your positions on many topics and feel you are the right man to lead the Senate for the foreseeable future. I'd like to urge you make the right choices when it comes to Arlen Specter and his position as judiciary chairman. His comments in the last day or two about blocking any Bush supreme court nominee that opposes abortion rights are out of line with 59 million Americans. A Daschle-like litmus test is not the way to chair any committee. Please make the necessary moves to assure the judiciary chairman is someone who represents the values of the Republican party. The people of America have given the Republican party a clear mandate in the next four years. Please take advantage of this mandate and allow conservative ideas to flourish.

There's a great guy answering the phone. Say howdy to him and treat him nice. He'll pass along your comments.

Because then he would be able to hold up his AP statement and the fact that he got a vigorous flogging from outraged conservatives as evidence that the candidate was 'moderate'.

All the more reason to write and call, let's help Karl Rove.

Has the internecine warfare begun already?  This is a heartening development.  :)

He needs 'corrected' - NOW!

Do not forget his betrayal during the Clinton impeachment trial.

This guy is too far out of step with the Republican agenda - and agenda validated as recently as 24 hours ago by re-election of the president.

The notion that he would say what he did, when he did and how he did is nothing less than arrogance and insult - and constitutes a drop of the gauntlet on the president's agenda.

Although a Democrate, I'm not much for going for power for power's sake. If you go after your own party member's, it's like stabbing your mother.

If you think anyone in the Republican leadership wants to take this man on head to head over this issue, I am sure they have only one candidate that has a chance to do it, and even then it may not result in much. And that's "W" himself in a public war that discredit his character. Other than that folks you'll be barking up this tree for a long, long, long time.

And if they do go after him like that, this will cause some big problems for the party.

I would like to see nothing more being a Democrate because I feel I understand the consequence of the action, but to be fair and sporting about it, keep the gain of power for at least a few days before you throw those vegas dice out there again.

What you are contemplating cannot be done right now without political lose. You attack him now and fail, then there will be no chance to get him out by resignation in 2002, which by the way, if the seats be gained, you could do with a majority that seats 60.

I mean best of luck, but I have already learned the lessons of getting greedy. If you want to be greedy, you have to do it slowly,...lololol.

If the election of 2004 taught us anything, it is that when you stick to your guns you win and when you squish all over the place and try to please everyone, you don't.

Consider this.  Bush went for the Edu bill with Kennedy, the mammoth farm bill, the largest govt entitlement since, I donnow, the dawn of time, and hasnt seen a spending bill he will not sign.  Did it get him anything from the libs or swing voters?  NOPE.  

But, did he compromise on fighting terrorism?  No.  Did he compromise on stem cells?  Well, just a teeny tiny bit but generally, no. Abortion?  No.  Gay Marriage?  No.

Did he win?  Yes.

We conservatives will come together when there is an election to be won.  We'll follow that 80% rule of voting with the guy we agree with 80% of the time.  We'll see that with John Kerry well, gee, maybe the Republic just will won't survive and we fight against him with all our hearts.

But when the next battle comes along, when it is time to fight for what we believe, for things like solid judges who will not legislate from the bench, will we squish?  We will not.

Wave your banner of bold colors my red state friends.  After all, the battle rages on.

"If you go after your own party member's, it's like stabbing your mother."

The Democrats moms must all be chopped into a million pieces after all the attacks on Zell.

If you're looking for a polite, substantive, way to tell the Majority Leader you don't want Specter in charge of the Judiciary process in the Senate you can try my letter on for size.  Posted here at RedState as well as at home.

"Senator Frist,

First of all allow me to thank and congratulate you on your tireless efforts this 2004 campaign season on behalf of the Republican Party, our President, and our congressional candidates. As a party we have achieved a string of victories now that cannot be discounted or overlooked. You played no small part in that effort and deserve the recognition that is commensurate with such an amazing victory.

No such achievement is ever gained of course without the energetic and enthusiastic support of the party faithful. Regaining control of the Senate in 2002, and again adding to our majority this year, required that the GOP base mobilize in a way unprecedented in recent party history. Our leadership asked, and we delivered with record setting turnout across the nation, both in key battlegrounds like Florida and Ohio as well as in strongholds like Alabama, Georgia and Montana.

Now that same base pleads with our leadership to hear our voice in the composition of our Senate Judiciary Committee. We do not want our nation's justices, and most importantly the likely Supreme Court nominees, subjected to the scrutiny of a senator who has proven time and again that he does not share the values of the Republican base. This Senate must not return Senator Alren Specter to the chairmanship of the Judiciary Committee.

The party faithful spoke last year with their energetic support of a conservative challenger for Specter's seat, and now we are speaking again. Do not let a Senator with a socially liberal record stand as gatekeeper for our President's judicial nominees.

This party has stood behind your leadership since Senator Lott's unfortunate mistake in 2002, and we are relying on your good judgment now. Provide the necessary support and leadership for our conservative senators on the Judiciary Committee to vote their conscience and replace Senator Specter.

Thank you, and God Bless."

Sen. Specter has posted a press release.


Seems he's trying to smooth things over.

Wrote to both Senator Frist and Senator Sessions (my senator here in 'Bama).  Aside from my own comments, I largely paraphrased your letter, ConfigSysboy, so thanks!

A few questions for RedStaters:

1. When Roe v. Wade is overturned, what is an appropriate sentence for:
   • Doctors performing abortions?
   • Women receiving abortions?
2. When Roe v. Wade is overturned, would it be appropriate to push for a federal abortion ban (or a constitutional amendment if necessary), or would this become a states' rights issue?

And a bonus, non-Roe-related question: Was Loving v. Virginia an example of activist judges overstepping their bounds?  If so, would you support overturning it?

Couple of clarifications that should be noted.  I've updated the text of my letter on my site to reflect this info:

Specter is not currently, nor is he guaranteed the chairmanship of the committee.  Currently the post is held by Orrin Hatch, but the senator is barred from returning to that post by term limits and Senate rules.  According to tradition the next senior-most member of the committee, Specter, is in line to take the post, but his position is not guaranteed.  Certainly however without some sort of outcry from the vocal base of this party, tradition is likely to take its course and Specter knows this.  It seems obvious that he has already begun behind-the-scenes manouvering in advance of the new Senate term as regards judicial appointments.

So your voices count.  Make them heard.

Thanks for providing that link to the press release.

It could be true that Sen. Specter is trying to smooth things over, but it's also possible that he is trying to set the record straight after the AP characterized his statements as a "blunt warning" to President Bush.

Hmmm....interesting...It seems the senator is aware he's, um, rather put his foot in his mouth.

Quick question to Specter experts: if you read the press release on his site, Specter mentions his support of a number of nominees, including, for example, Justice O'Connor. He does not mention Scalia, though, I notice. And Scalia joined the court after O'Connor. Anybody know if Specter voted to confirm Scalia, and, anybody know if he voted to confirm Bork? I say if he even so much as voted against either, much less actively participated in opposition to either, he has no business whatsoever chairing the Judiciary Committee, and should definitely be opposed.

Since you seem to labor under the incorrect, totally off-base presumption that Roe is the only thing holding back the floodgates of criminal sanction attached to abortion, and since you clearly seem to be trolling, I'm disinclined to answer. But:

(A) Penalize abortion wherever possible. Allow an exception for the mother's life. And that's all.

(1) (a) Penal acts -- prison at least.

    (b) Therapy. Prison if wanton or repeated.

(2) It would become a state issue, as most criminal matters are. Unlike some folks here, I have no problem Federalizing this.

(3) No; no.

There's a bridge you can sit under over there. Some billy goats are scheduled to pass through soon.

I'm no expert, but "Google" searches are easy.

A "pdf" document that Google turned up showed that Scalia was approved 98-0.  Sorry I couldn't provide the URL.  The Google "hit" led directly to the pdf document, and for some reason I couldn't copy that URL. (I'm no expert on that, either, I suppose.)

Here's what Sen. Specter's opponent said about his record on judicial nominees:

http://www.hoeffelforsenate.com/press/pr100504.cfm

For Immediate Release

October 5, 2004

SPECTER VS. SPECTER EDITION #2

"Centrist Judges?" Let's go to the videotape for another "mixed message"

In April, nine days before barely surviving a primary challenge, Arlen Specter went on Live@Issue on Philadelphia's NBC 10, and reminded voters: "I voted to confirm Chief Justice Rehnquist.  I knew Justice Scalia was pro-life, I supported him. And Justice Kennedy.  Remember Justice Clarence Thomas?"  That's the same interview when Specter said "President Bush was in Pittsburgh on December 3rd and he said, I'm looking forward to having Arlen Specter as chairman of the Judiciary Committee because he thinks I can help get his judges, justices confirmed."

The Corner posted a full transcript of the interview... and it is rather worse than the article showed it to be. His intentions can hardly be misconstured;  this is certainly not just the networks trying to make trouble.

Whoever is writing Specter's online memoranda should be more careful. The omission of the name "Scalia" immediately raised my suspicions.

You're point about googling is well taken, by the way: I plead guilty to laziness when I'm participating in a blog community frequented by so many knowledgeable folks. I notice you didn't mention Bork, though, so I'll have do a bit of googling myself.

about both issues.  I was born well after Roe, so I don't have experience with abortion-related criminal law.  How would you adjudicate the "mother's life" exception?  Would that be an issue for a judge, or a panel of doctors?

Can you correct my incorrect, totally off-base presumption regarding Roe's holding back the floodgates?   I was under the impression that a number of states would move to criminalize abortion pretty quickly if Roe were overturned, but you seem to allude to other factors preventing this.  What am I missing?

I should have paid more attention in the eighties, but it appears that Snarlin' Arlen did indeed play a key role in denying a place on the high court of one of the greatest legal minds this country has ever produced. If you'd prefer that elected bodies do the bulk of the heavy lifting when it comes to making laws, then Specter's definitely not someone you want with a veto on the composition of the federal courts: http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110003978

Keep firing off those notes to Frist!

Thanks to National Review. Link here.

Lots more in The Corner.

And forgive me my self-indulgence, but the Senator always reminds me on one of my favorite Fall songs, Spectre Versus Rector.

The Spectre enters the Hero

but the possession is ineffectual.

So exit a spectre.

Inspector and hero walk on the scene

Is the Spectre vanished forever?

Is Spectre banished forever?

One can only hope.

When Roe v. Wade is overturned, what is an appropriate sentence for:

Doctors performing abortions?

Women receiving abortions?

Whatever each state determines.  Personally, I favor a 6 month sentence for those who perform abortions in the first trimester and 2-10 years for abortions after the first trimester.  The woman ought to go unpunished.  Some pro-lifers may disagree with me that life is life at conception so the penalty ought to be uniform, but I think after implantation, the fetus's right to life grows exponentionally from there.

When Roe v. Wade is overturned, would it be appropriate to push for a federal abortion ban (or a constitutional amendment if necessary), or would this become a states' rights issue?

Sure, the amendment process is the proper channel, but NOT through Congressional action, it would be a violation of the commerce clause to pass restrictions on abortions according to originalist jurisprudence, despite the cases upholding the Mann Act and other congressional morals legislation.

And a bonus, non-Roe-related question: Was Loving v. Virginia an example of activist judges overstepping their bounds?  If so, would you support overturning it?

Of course not, the state is forbidden by the 14th amendment to make racial distinctions and classifications under the (murky and debatable) original intent of the 14th amendment.  Harlan's dissent in Plessy makes that point and it is the best reading of that amendment.  If you want to ask about civil rights legislation generally, I think much of it can be supported, as some has been, by the second section of the 13th amendment, which applies to individuals and outlaws slavery.  The Radical Republicans who passed those amendments intended them to give Congress the power to take the actions necessary to make blacks full citizens, and the collapse of reconstruction brought with it an unoriginalist interpretation of those amendments.

I would just wonder how non-originalists can put so much faith into an institution to allow it to decide cases purely on the judge's own moral and policy views when it has such a lousy history in doing so.  Were I a liberal, I'd jump the gun now and embrace fully the principles of federalism so that conservatives and liberals can share this nation in peace and harmony without having to legislate every dispute to a national edict binding the entire nation.  

Loved your letter...

Living here in the suburbs of Philly I've gotten to see him up close and personal.

I added the following additional verbiage to my letter.

Specter's recent "blunt warning" is in line with the type of behavior we in the base find disturbing.  The final days of his campaign, with a significant lead in the polls, he took two actions here in Pennsylvania which hurt the President:

(A)    His 1996 campaign manager launched a 527 group pushing signage and campaign literature in Philadelphia to vote a Kerry/Specter ticket.

(B)    He decided to make an issue on stem cell research, running a commercial with Michael J Fox on how he "gets it" - clearly suggesting the President did not.

Sorry--I didn't think to look for Bork once I found that statement about Scalia.

You're right: Specter opposed Bork's nomination.  Here's what he said about it recently--

http://specter.senate.gov/index.cfm?FuseAction=SpecterSpeaks.Detail&Spe
cterSpeak_id=42&Month=2&Year=2003

Ironic, isn't it?  Specter's Democratic opponents sniff that the Bork nomination was many years ago, and that Specter has been too accommodating to conservative judicial appointments in the past four years.  But, Specter's Republican opponents have the memory of an elephant--and 1987 is as fresh in their memories as yesterday.

Yes, that is an interesting exchange between Sen. Specter and the reporters:

http://www.nationalreview.com/thecorner/04_11_04_corner-archive.asp#045307

But, characterizing that conversation as "bluntly warning" the President is hardly correct.

It also doesn't appear that Specter has a narrow view of the range of ideology or political philosophy which would be acceptable in a judicial nominee--with the obvious exception of the abortion right described (discovered?) in Roe vs. Wade.  

It seems pretty clear that a nominee who could be expected to vote to overturn Roe vs. Wade would not be favored by Sen. Specter--but, then, he wouldn't be alone.

Until Roe vs. Wade is looked upon as being the modern-day equivalent of Plessy vs. Ferguson, and therefore needs to be overturned, I doubt the situation will change much--regardless who is the Senate Judiciary Committee chairman.

I don't mean to say you shouldn't voice your opposition to Specter as chairman--just that you shouldn't attack with hammer and tong.

...all that long ago, and Judge Bork was really shafted. It was truly an injustice -- not just to Mr. Bork, but to the nation as well. By all accounts his credentials were absolutely sparkling, and the quality of his writings, and the power of his legal thinking, pointed to a brilliant stint as a SC justice.

Anyway, absent a "mea culpa" or explanation from Senator Specter as to why he now realizes his actions in '87 were wrong (and a solemn promise not to repeat his error) I see no reason for principled conservatives not to oppose his elevation to the chairmanship. I'd be loathe to see him switch parties, but, if we can't count on his vote and support when it comes to the much-needed reshaping of the out-of-control federal judiciary, what difference does it make if he has "D" next to his title instead of an "R"?

Challenges AP's veracity.

Well, I'm not going to conclude what's accurate here or not, just based on what we're being told here I'm just characterizing this and throwing out possibilities. Everybody knows when I start predicting things I'm generally right. And so I'm giving you the benefit of my insight here. It does sound like something Specter would believe. But whether he would say it is another thing, but the press has him saying it, fills their template of, "The Republicans really don't like each other and, look, here's a real Republican, Specter, he knows country, he knows, and he's challenging Bush. Bush doesn't have all this unity." I mean, that's the underlying theme of this.

If I remember my history, wasn't Arlan Specter the author of the Magic Bullet theory in the Warren Commissions report on the JFK assassination?  (My physics professor had fun with that one) Correct me if I'm wrong, but the point is how can anyone in his district have ever voted for someone so obviously so intellectually dishonest?  If I just lived in his district and could vote him out....  At least I can tell Frist what I think and did so.

Only makes sense in light of his press release. The transcript itself includes nuggets like this one:

I don't want to prejudge what the President is going to do. But the President is well aware of what happened when a number of his nominees were sent up, were filibustered, and the President has said he is not going to impose a litmus test, he faced that issue squarely in the third debate and I would not expect the President, I would expect the President to be mindful of the considerations that I mentioned.

And there's this little soupcon:

MACINTOSH: What are the characteristics that you are looking for in any candidate for the high court who might come your way in the next year or two?

SPECTER: Well I would like to see a select someone in the mold of Holmes, Brandeis, Cardozo, or Marshall. With all due respect to the U.S. Supreme Court, we don't have one. And I haven't minced any words about that during the confirmation process.

The only fair reading of these quotes is (1) Specter endorses the filibusters, or at least endorses those results, and will essentially recast that filibuster on the Judiciary Committee, and (2) the only appropriate justices are those like the "great" liberals of the 20th Century (excepting, blessedly, Brennan).

There is no reason to keep this joker around, and certainly no reason to let him anywhere near the Committee Chair.

There is an old Scottish saying that the Haggai doesn't fall too far from the colon.

Spincther is an abomination to the republican party. Why the establishment would betray Toomey for this jerk is inexcusable.

If Spincther is allowed to head the judiciary committee, every Bush voter who stood in the rain for up to 10 hours will have been shat upon.

In order:

Roe swept away the criminal statutes that dealt with abortion. It's absence would not automatically reinstate those statutes; the several states could effect that, or not, at their discretion. In other words, Roe killed the statutes, but its death wouldn't bring them back to life. Someone would have to put them in place again.

It would be an issue for a finder of fact, with medical experts on both sides. It's how we work other criminal trials; I see no reason why this should be different.

I believe in the transcript of Specters remarks, he mentions that the Justice is ailing, gravely ill.

This is going to come down the pike sooner than we all thought. It won't happen during the lame-duck session of Congress, but it just may be one of the first orders of business after the new Congress gets underway.

I have a few more thoughts about the Specter Situation that I want to share and get some discussion on before this goes much further.

First of all, for the moment this is a minor campaign on our part and is not likely to actually result in someone else chairing the committee.  What it is doing however is applying enough pressure to remind Specter which side his bread is buttered on.  Without the vocal support of the President during the primaries he would not be returning to his seat next year, and our opposition to his chairmanship will serve to remind him that obstructing the President's nominees will be met with outrage from a very energized base.  I think that is appropriate and good.

Now I am not intimately familiar with Specter's history, but I did do a little homework on his career earlier in the year when Pat Toomey mounted such a strong challenge in the primary.  Based on that it seems to me that Specter is a consummate politician, and not an ideologue.  He may not agree with the base on social issues, but it seems to me he's willing to play ball when there is sufficient capital in it for him.  Which means with the proper amount of pressure applied he might play nice with the Bush administration.

On the other hand, he seems to be nearing the end of his career and may be willing to sacrifice popularity and politics for a pet cause if he doesn't intend to run again.  In which case he would be willing to go up against the President in public regardless.

If the base decides that the risk is not worth it and Specter needs to go then I would advocate not just a campaign to have him denied the chairmanship, but to have him removed from the committee altogether.  If the socially conservative base were in fact to undertake an all-out campaign to have Specter denied the chair I think it is entirely feasible that he would respond to the affront by using his vote as a committee member to obstruct the process when he might not otherwise have done so.  A bitter senior senator who feels he has been attacked by the conservative base is not someone you want on that committee at all.  If the purpose is to ensure that he cannot obstruct conservative nominees merely having him remain in his current capacity as a senior member of the committee would be self-defeating as it would almost certainly guarantee his opposition in light of the campaign that kept him from succeeding Hatch.

At this point I'm not necessarily recommending one course or the other, but I do think if it is decided to go after him in earnest it should be done with open eyes as to what will be required to actually achieve the stated goal.  Half-measures would not do.  If this campaign is to be escalated it should be done with the goal of removing him altogether in mind.  Otherwise you've made a bitter enemy out of a strong politician and then left him in a position to do your stated cause harm.

He has many Republican friends that would indeed choose him over party, like country over party. And he enjoys the same on the other side of the isle.

In fact I think you may see several high power profiles come out together from both sides and warn of improper nomination from there point of view and get mass national support, because of a very strong and needed effort to try to sew our country's pieces back together, because this is a very, very deep and bad split and many of the elected know and beleive this. Anymore true fighting or bickering will result in MAD for the party's, but more so for the people they are suppose to represent.

Having many insider friends, I am hearing about serious and deep rooting concerns about the split of the nation and the people right now. That there is a feeling that makes many un-nerved on both sides, and many are having a hard time describing it, other than very, uneasy and deeply concerned. There is a feeling on both sides that this particular fight with the idealogical brother's of the nation during this election cut too deep, and may not be repairable and there is deep, deep, deep concern apparently.

I'm hereby proposing a HUGE campaign to BLOCK THE ELECTION OF ARLIN SPECTOR to the Chairmanship of the Judiciary Committee. The Corner (National Review) advises that these Senators should be contacted regarding this subject since they are on the Judiciary Committee:

Charles E. Grassley (IOWA)

Jon Kyl (ARIZONA)

Mike DeWine (OHIO)

Jeff Sessions (ALABAMA )

Lindsey Graham (SOUTH)

Larry Craig (IDAHO)

Saxby Chambliss (GEORGIA)

John Cornyn (TEXAS)

My e-mail to Cornyn (my Senator) reads, in part, as follows:

You are urged to do the intelligent thing and REJECT ARLIN SPECTOR as Judiciary Chairman even at your own political peril. Long story short, we cannot allow one of the most important elements of the Presidents appointment power mitigated by Arlin Spector.

Thanks, in advance, for your strong LEADERSHIP on this issue. Arlin Spector is a Republican in name only and MUST be dispatched where the Judiciary Chairmanship is concerned. ANY OTHER REPUBLICAN would be better. Perhaps you should throw your hat in the ring.

Bloggers, please go to www.senate.gov and from there, find contact information for your Senator. Then, send a demand letter. A note to Majority Leader Bill Frist would be in order as well.

In closing I'd like to point out that we bloggers have earned a chip in the game and we need to use it. Reelecting the President was not the end, it was the beginning. We need to assume the position and put on the full court press day and night. No more compromises where a full measure is within reach otherwise, we fall by our own hand. Enough is enough, NO MORE CLOSE ELECTIONS.

My wife was pointing something out to me on one of the Demo sites earlier today, where apparently there is a group in Miami that is organizing what they call, and get this...

Identify and boycott (ROB)'ers

Republican Owned Businesses

Sure it may cause some economic damage, but far more social and national damage serving only to enlarge an already gapping hole in the relations between the party members.

It has been said that a Democracy will go through a civil war every hundred to two hundred years to keep intact it's principles and true form.

From that statement I read someone that said "The tree of liberty must be watered with the blood of patriots every twenty years." Well maybe that was too often, but I understand what he was saying. Too many warnings in the form of historical ghost haunting my thoughts of what this level of division has done to this country in the past, and hope this is not the beginning of yet another cycle of Democracy that must be endured.

I urge you, don't shrink from the absolute need to push our judicial agenda forward. Conservative Judges can/will effect generations just as Activist Judges have FOR YEARS. Tolarance is only a subject when our team has the ball. Otherwise, it's "screw 'em, we'll do what we want". Well folks, I'm telling you it's time to face the reality of the situation. Our bent toward even-handedness is ALWAYS rewarded with a kick in the teeth. This time, we need to do WHATEVER IT TAKES and let the damn lefties move our way for the sake of unity.

For a boycott to have any meaning, it needs to have protracted impact. I'm afraid the proposed boycott won't because a) damn near everything worth owning has a Republican involved and b) Democrats are so undisciplined that to maintain a boycott till it hurts isn't even imaginable. Forget about it. We honor their right to bitch & moan and they, of course, take full advantage. If they worked at capitalism and entrapreneurism as hard as they bitch about entitlements they would all be rich.

You can't honestly support these vaules? You would seek to corrupt and set personal agenda ahead of countryman and good will for the sake of power? By infact attempting to place one set of values ahead of all others by mob rules mentality that every single forefather warned of and dreaded, especially Lincoln (Republican's) "Lincoln's Party", remember?

If you believe in the deepest principles of your party then you would know what Lincoln would think of your efforts, but then again you apparently do not care, so it's not an issue.

In the end it will make no difference either way what attempts will be made. Should the system ever get close enough to actually losing that principle, the country will no longer exist and will most likely be at civil war.

There are tens of thousands of people that are just like McVeigh. Something these people believe as destroying their constitution could trigger many of them. The sudden smack of reality from the hand of the ghost of McCarthism may prove to be a very painful experince indeed.

Self portrayal as a victim is somewhat interesting, but I think I'll leave you in that place by yourself.

"If it's civil war you want, it's civil war you'll get".

I think you drastically under estimate those who who feel very strongly about protecting rights you seek to destroy. Their style of striking isn't as subtle or as long term as your approach, and vastly more effective. Do you know the breakdown of all the fortune 500 companies in America politically? And that's just to start. Top 15% of all busniesses in America. What party affilation do you think owns the vast majority of these top 15%? I'll bet you cannot answer that question accurately if at all.

Just a word of wisedom to close. Be prepaired to reap what you sew. And judge your enemies weaknesses more accurately before you go head first into a cement pool with no water. Ben Franklin had a great saying that seems to fit here.

"The 20's, the will rules, the 30's the wit, the 40's the judgement" I think he meant in maturity years.

...although I wonder how abortion will be handled when its legality varies from state to state.  Will "transporting a person across state lines for the purpose of obtaining an abortion" be a federal crime, or would that have to be handled by the states involved?  Could a doctor in (abortion-legal) state X be prosecuted for performing an abortion on a citizen of (abortion-illegal) state Y?

But reading between the lines (and most of your posts) your perspective is lost on us. I don't know why you are wasting your time and ours.

I don't have any interest in explaining this further.

Your Fortune 500 analogy is a Red Herring. The only major companies that have made bad business decisions because of ideology are the MSM. Print runs are down, ratings are down, and alternatives emerge. If they want to wage their fortunes on ideology, then it will just open up new business opportunities for those that will not or those that disagree.

You don't understand that the Left has already SOWN. They are just starting to REAP. We will make sure they keep on reaping until they reach the permanent minority status that their bankrupt ideology of annointment and personal will to power deserve. That is what you are hearing. This isn't about threats are rhetoric - this is resolve.

The Left is done. We are not going to extend a hand so it can be bitten. Not this time. You will have to get up on your own and you will have to change.

On a humble note, we know we don't have all the answers and that having an active discussion on methods and means with diverse thinkers is a very good thing. What has changed is that the Goals that the Left holds - to the degree that they have them beyond their reacquisition of power- are not the Goals of America. At least they are not trusted when they say they have the same goals.

This isn't about war. It's about learning. The Left obviously hasn't learned much from this election. It guess that means this isn't rock bottom for them. So, we are going to help them get there.

How would it be handled if the woman goes to another country? I believe that the general idea goes something like this:

1. We can't stop you from doing something in another country that is legal there...
2. ...but we can get you when you come back.

Similar laws could be applied.

Thanks for the info Redstate. I emailed and called Senator Frist yesterday. The aide that answered the phone seemed real eager to hear what I had to say.

Your Party's overall Religious Idealism, based mostly in Zealot philisophy and "your" moral class system is nothing new. This type of thinking is the same old dressing of those who would oppress free men before you. Our forefathers put in place serveral, do date not used systems to avoid this normal and inevitable cultural swaying that the organized Christian church has introduced for centuries.

No, moral oppession hasn't worked here very well or very long in our history. I enjoy the cockiness, it leaves many holes to exploit. Again, the organized effort utilized by the Republican's was very impressive, but as one of our great former enemies once stated with a twist "You have succeeded in an attack on the Democratic Pearl Harbor, because of moral surpise, but infact overall have only served to awaken a sleeping giant."

Good luck in your venture in extending no olive leaf, I think you'll need it. I do not blame my fellow American's for falling into the trap of religious Puritanism, but sorry, I have to laugh at the notion that it will have any hold whatsoever. You'll see a big Democratic push this year in the revamping the Consitutional laws concerning seperation of church and state I am sure. And, it will be done state by state.

There is no time to deal with this religious extremism, there are real problems. Worst Job loss in 75 years. Poorly paying replacement job's. All time record dept, that Greenspan is echoing louder will be a serious problem. Health care for my parents in going to be horrific in cost, and my grandchildren will be paying off this "monologically" large republican dept for their entire lifetime.

You attacked a country that did not attack us. "They represent an imminent threat to America and the world with their nuclear, biological and chemical weapons, which we can see they either have or are getting and plan to use against us here and there when we go fight."

Graduated to;

"It was a bad place, a bad guy, the world is better off?"

You honestly believe people are going to forget that? Stats that make a party members feel good about themselves is the normal ego feeding habits after a great victory and I think that's good, people need that. But a 3% win for a War time President is laughable. By the way, the "we don't like you here" approach never works with me, get use to it.

Cheers

www.stopspecternow.com

Warden, don't for a moment assume I agree with your characterization of the situation.  I was not warning of some partisan armaggedon, just of the reaction of a skilled and tenured politician to a perceived slight.  If you honestly believe that the justice confirmation battle that WILL happen (there's no question of if, only of when) is going to play better for the Democrats and liberals than it will for the Republicans you've obviously not been paying attention to the polling data this year.

My only concern is that if we go after him (which it appears we are) we must make sure not to leave a powerful politician in a position to exact revenge on the social agenda for which he was sacrificed.

Whether or not your efforts will be supported has yet to be seen.

I am however, abit surprised that you would allow or condone that sort of action. I mean politics aside my man, he is a genuinely great person. Someone who has served this country in years far more than many of those in office today and far more than most. A man that I personally deeply opposed on several issues in the past. But to see him reduced by his own party to "Dust In The Wind" and those who would support him, for doing the things that were good for the Republican party and good for America shows no loyalty at all. A trait garnished, worked-at and polished until it makes a differnce, which is what he did for you and your party and this is how you thank him? I honestly believe other Republican's will see what you did to him and start to think of their own futures and you may detroy yourselves.

I could be wrong but I am not speaking from my political beliefs, I am speaking from my heart for a genuinely decent and good man.

Well, I'm glad to see the veneer of analytic thinking come off of your post. Now, people can read your trivial rant and realize that there is nothing but trite talking points.

I'm not even going to bother with the religious non sequitor. I didn't bring it up - I was using words about reap and sown because you had used them in another post (and their applicability was the inverse of your suggestion). You unmask why your party and belief are doomed to failure in contemporary America. You fear and loathe those of sincere Christian faith. You fear their worldview and you attack someone who holds it with visceral anger.

This type of trivial and vapid ranting has all of the makings of a future majority. By all means keep it up. Glad to see the mask come off.

If we had any suspician that he might be a "genuinely decent and good man" we would not be doing this.  

The problem is, he isn't.  He acts like a self-serving politician interested only in pushing his agenda-- which happens to be almost diametrically opposed to that of all good conservatives.

Always easy to do I know, I do it too. Make judgement on someone I personally have never met, but your talking more his record I can see that and you are not happy with it, I can see that.

Please by all means go after every Republican leader you want. Destroy all those who oppose you, no matter which side they are on, I have really no problem with that if that's your agenda. I'm kinda of "SUPER" realist so to speak. I will never go to one extreme or the other although I will engage to find out what I need with one very notable exception RELIGION.

Religion being forced down people's throats will eventually end in War, as it always has, as it is doing today, in Iraq for instance.

I know of many, many American's that will simply do what was intended to be done by Jefferson and the rest. Spill Blood. Too many Supremem Court members to one side, you take a gun and you walk up and blow his head off, you do the same to any politician that wants to push Religion and give up your life so your children may have a chance to live without religious oppression.

To many, especially the founders who drafted the Constitution, religion is the and has always been the biggest threat to people and country when it get's envolved in governmental decision making. It's a guaranteed way to destroy the country, and there are millions who believe this. And they will spill blood as it has always been spilled. Fathers with children in Texas who do not believe in this will spill blood, Mothers in Missouri will spill blood, and Children in Florida will spill blood for this issue. Yes too far to either side requires the American to take up arms and remove the threat by force if that is what is to be.

And to the most part that is exactly our history considering how many Presidents have been assasinated. But many times, lessons have to be learned over and over and over again to get it right.