Arlen Specter: Action needs to be taken.

[Good Friday]

Sen. Mike DeWine. He's already on the Senate Judiciary Committee, so he can be Chairman. He's got a consistent 100% pro-life rating from National Right to Life and consistent 0% ratings from Planned Unparenthood and NARAL Pro-Abortion America over the past seven years (at least, that's as far back as I can go); and he's from the battleground state of Ohio, which would ensure the support of Ohio's Evangelical/Catholic base in future elections. He's also Catholic.

Come ON, people. Obviously, he is THE choice. I don't know how anyone could possibly say that Specter, of all people, would be a better choice than this guy.

[Good Friday]

Anna, you're just wrong.

[quote name='Anna']You see, Nathan, and all, here is where I have a problem with knee-jerk reactionism:
The Right to Life website claims:
On November 4, those remarks were widely reported in the news media as a "warning" to the White House. The same day, Specter issued a statement saying that he had been warning of possible filibusters by Democrats -- but he did not pledge to support President Bush's nominations to the Supreme Court.

Reading Specter's statement in its entirety, however, we find:
“As the record shows, I have supported every one of President Bush’s nominees in the Judiciary Committee and on the Senate floor. I have never and would never apply any litmus test on the abortion issue and, as the record shows, I have voted to confirm Chief Justice Rehnquist, Justice O’Connor, and Justice Kennedy and led the fight to confirm Justice Thomas.

...I am committed to such prompt action by the Committee on all of President Bush’s nominees.

... I expect to work well with President Bush in the judicial confirmation process in the years ahead.”[/quote]
The statement NRLC refers to is the one where Specter inserted foot in mouth and warned President Bush not to send him pro-life nominees; the statement you quote is the subsequent statement in which Specter realized his error, and attempted to cover his tracks so that Republicans on the Senate Judiciary Committee couldn't derail his efforts to become Chairman. The statement you quoted is a simple attempt by Specter to try to pull the wool back over everyone's eyes so he can get that chairmanship he's been longing for.

[quote name='Anna']Certainly, Specter isn't THE best man out there to Chair the Judiciary Committee. But this is a position which is generally granted to the senior most member of the Committee, and that happens to be Specter.[/quote]
Yes, it is generally granted to the senior most member, but if another member of the Committee challenges his candidacy he can be derailed (COUGHMIKEDEWINECOUGH).

[quote name='Anna']I believe we have an opportunity here to bring Specter onboard with the conservatives on the Committee. I do not believe that he is a dyed-in-the-wool pro-abort. He's voted on abortion to further his own career ~ pro-life when to his advantage, and pro-abortion when to his advantage. That's despicable, indeed. But to deny pro-life justices during a time when the nation is calling for moral reform would be political suicide. I don't think he's about to do that.

For me, it has nothing to do with partisanship. It has to do with political analysis, not spinning our wheels, not getting hysterical just because the media wants us to, and not coming off like a bunch of hateful exclusionists and elitists, thereby driving moderates who might otherwise support us into the arms of the waiting liberal left.[/quote]
And what if your stunning political analysis is wrong? How many millions of lives will be lost? By supporting Specter, you are causing people not to send letters to their Senators trying to keep him from being Chairman of the Judiciary Committee, Anna. If he becomes Chairman and blocks Bush's nominees to the Supreme Court, and if that causes, say, 45,380,259 more murders of unborn children -- you will be able to proudly state that you had a part in that by trying to get other people not to oppose Specter.

The problem here is that, while you may be right, you may also be wrong. If you're right, no harm done. But if you're wrong -- boom, forty-five million more babies dead. Ask yourself if you're willing to take the risk.

[Anna]

This year I planned on voting for a Democrat who was pro-life for a state assembly seat. (I had supported him in the past also). But when I got to the polls, I realized that re-districting had caused him to no longer represent my area.

I often vote 3rd party, upon principle, and that principle being "life."

Nathan, you're kind of exaggerating the ratings numbers. Planned Parenthood's most recent rating gave Specter a 67%, and NARAL's most recent rating was 21%.

What makes me hesitant to jump into the fray and denounce Specter's impending Chairmanship isn't his voting record, (which by the way, had been increasingly moving to the right). It's who sounded the battle cry: a radical pro-abort reporter whose husband is a Kerry Campaign operative. This reporter also did a hatchet job on pro-life Senator Rick Santorum back in April of 2003.

The pro-aborts' blood lust begins with a single wound. If they can chisel away at the conservative's unity, they will. I see this divisiveness as a maneuver to break up a pretty solid coalition between the Republican stronghold in Washington and pro-life Americans.

soooooo, maybe I'm paranoid, but I do not trust the messenger!

[Anna]

[quote]The statement NRLC refers to is the one where Specter inserted foot in mouth and warned President Bush not to send him pro-life nominees; the statement you quote is the subsequent statement in which Specter realized his error, and attempted to cover his tracks so that Republicans on the Senate Judiciary Committee couldn't derail his efforts to become Chairman. .[/quote]
The "alleged" statement was only heard and reported by one reporter: Laura Jakes Jordan, herself a very pro-abortion liberal. Specter denies ever saying it in the context she presented to the public via the Associated Press.
The subsequent statement I quoted was Specter's clarification of what he actually did say.

Again, I could never say that Specter is THE best man for the Chairmanship. I just do not feel comfortable attacking his potential for doing good based upon the statements of Lara Jakes Jordan, herself rabidly pro-abortion, which he denies ever saying in his interview with her.

Folks can do as they wish. I think that in the end, the conservative Republicans who we elected, who've spoken with Specter and worked with (and sometimes against!) him will make the right decision. As for me, I don't want to be the one to take him down. Yes, Nathan, I could be wrong. That would be tragic. But Specter has indicated that he would support Bush's nominees, and thus far he has approved of all four put before him. So, I base my opinion on the statement he posted on his website and his recent voting record.

[Good Friday]

[quote name='Anna']What makes me hesitant to jump into the fray and denounce Specter's impending Chairmanship isn't his voting record, (which by the way, had been increasingly moving to the right). It's who sounded the battle cry: a radical pro-abort reporter whose husband is a Kerry Campaign operative. This reporter also did a hatchet job on pro-life Senator Rick Santorum back in April of 2003.[/quote]
I respect your decision, Anna, but I don't at all agree with it. The source, while fishy, doesn't matter. Even if Specter didn't make the statement, his voting record and his ratings from all of the three organizations I've been quoting over and over again prove that he is pro-abortion, and that he can't be trusted with the chairmanship of the Senate Judiciary Committee. You can't just look at his most recent ratings, because this is an election year and the most recent ratings reflect that. He's a Republican, and he knows that in an election year he needs strong pro-life ratings to be able to tout for his Evangelical/Cathoic base in Pennsylvania. His ratings in previous years which were not election years tell a different story, and reveal the true pro-abortion nature of Specter's voting record.

I'm sorry, Anna, but I simply don't agree with you, and I'm urging everyone here to take the cautious approach and oppose Specter's candidacy for chairmanship of the Senate Judiciary Committee.

[url="http://nnelson.blogspot.com/2004/11/i-knew-it.html"]From my blog:[/url]

Well, it was as I suspected. I've already been hearing from people that no, Sen. Arlen Specter is not the ideal candidate for Chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, but he's a moderate and we really need him onboard. Of course, if they're wrong it could end up costing roughly 45 million more lives. And the funny part is that if he was Sen. Arlen Specter ([b]D[/b]-PA) instead of Sen. Arlen Specter ([b]R[/b]-PA), we wouldn't even be having this conversation. I'm concerned that this same reasoning I'm hearing from non-bloggers has carried over into the blogosphere, which is why we're not seeing the massive coverage that would normally be seen over as important a pro-life issue as this one.

The motto of [url="http://www.catholicity.com/"]CatholiCity[/url] is something to the effect of: "Hear the truth, decide for yourself." Here's the truth:

- - - - - - - - - -

[b]Ratings from the Planned Parenthood Federation of America[/b]

Senate Division, 1996-2003: 67%
1999: 71%
2001: 75%

[b]Ratings from NARAL Pro-Choice America[/b]

2000: 90%
2001: 0%
2003: 21%

[b]Ratings from the National Right to Life Committee[/b]

1999-2000: 22%
2001-2002: 0%
2003-2004: 64% (but it's an election year)

- - - - - - - - - -

Now, for the sake of argument, we're going to compare Sen. Specter's ratings from these three organizations with the ratings of a Democrat who Catholics are reluctant to support for the position of Senate Minority Leader because he isn't pro-life enough, Sen. Harry Reid (D-NV):

- - - - - - - - - -

[b]Planned Parenthood Federation of America[/b]

Senate Division, 1996-2003: 56%
1999: 57%
2001: 50%

[b]NARAL Pro-Choice America[/b]

2000: 30%
2001: 100%
2003: 29%

[b]National Right to Life Committee[/b]

1999-2000: 66%
2001-2002: 33%
2003-2004: 55%

- - - - - - - - - -

It becomes clear immediately that we could sooner trust Sen. Harry Reid, the Democrat, to vote pro-life than we could trust Sen. Arlen Specter, the Republican, to vote pro-life. Sen. Specter only exceeds Sen. Reid's rating from National Right to Life once, during an election year. Sen. Reid only exceeds Sen. Specter's ratings from NARAL Pro-Choice America twice, by very narrow margins; and Sen. Reid does not exceed Sen. Specter's ratings from the Planned Parenthood Federation of America. It becomes clear immediately, then, that Sen. Arlen Specter is pro-abortion and that he should not be the Chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, regardless of his party affiliation.

Now, let's look at the ratings from these three organizations for the man who is the most plausible candidate to oppose Specter's candidacy for the chairmanship of the Senate Judiciary Committee, Sen. Mike DeWine (R-OH):

- - - - - - - - - -

[b]Planned Parenthood Federation of America[/b]

Senate Division, 1996-2003: 0%
1999: 0%
2001: 0%

[b]NARAL Pro-Choice America[/b]

2000: 0%
2001: 0%
2003: 0%

[b]National Right to Life Committee[/b]

1999-2000: 100%
2001-2002: 100%
2003-2004: 100%

- - - - - - - - - -

The truth is clear, the choices are clear. Make the right choice. At the very least, we all need to be opposing the candidacy of Sen. Arlen Specter for Chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee. But I think we also need to be mindful of who his replacement should be: Sen. Mike DeWine, the Senior pro-life Senator from battleground Ohio.

[Theoketos]

Nathan,

I am glad that there is some one you can really sink your teeth into.

[Anna]

Ok, just for the sake of conversation here:
If Specter were a Democrat, with the same record he has now, yes, I would reject him. Why? Because I hate Democrats? No. Because as a Democrat, her would be more likely to oppose the Republican president's nominees.

As a Republican, who owes the President for campaigning for him in the primary, who owes the pro-lifers who voted for him over his pro-abortion opponent, it seems only logical that he would not "bite the hand that fed him." There would be no profit or gain in it politically for him. Also, he probably will not run again. He would probably like to close his political career on a positive note.

That said, it isn't because I hate Democrats. If we had a pro-life Dem running against a pro-abort Rep, I'd vote Dem. I'd vote for who would be most likely to save the babies.

I see Specter as something of a loose canon, and if we deprive him of his chairmanship, then there goes his loyalty. He has no reason to stick up for the pro-lifers, or the babies. He could side with the Democrats and fillibuster...I'd hate to see that happen.

I am simply using my own reason and logic here, rather than mob rule and hysteria. I'm trying to think through the entire scenario, rather than grasping at a short-term victory which could cost the babies in the long run.

You assume that the politicians will all be voting based upon their passion for the issue, but some (such as Specter, who has no great pro-life record) will likely be voting out of a sense of party loyalty. Reject him, and he might just reject the nominees.

This is why I say I'd rather bring him on board than reject him outright. That's my blonde logic, take it for what it's worth!!!

btw, Nathan, I've missed ya. :wub:

[Guest Aluigi]

hmm... very convincing...

though i donno... if it were up to a vote on our part i'd oppose spector if like, we hadta vote a senator to be head of judiciary committee

but seeing as we don't have a vote, i have no problem with sending an email (i already did) to senators telling them to oppose spector. it will be THEIR call as to whether or not to listen to us, basing themselves off of whether or not they think spector would appoint the pres's judges.

[Anna]

You're right of course, it isn't our call; its the Senators who will ultimately decide. However, I don't wish to be counterproductive to the pro-life movement, so I am between a rock and hard place: action or inaction, which is the wisest course?
Acting upon principle would be easy for me: I'm pro-life; I would oppose Specter.
But acting upon practicality, reality, probability, and political analysis, I am not so certain that such an action might cause great divisiveness and ultimately damage the pro-life cause.
As such, I've emailed Fr. Frank Pavone and requested his insight on this matter.

No one need take my advice on this contentious issue, but I sure wish someone could address and shoot down my reasons for concern!

[Guest Aluigi]

I would like to see what Fr. Pavone has to say about it, would you mind sharing any response you get?

[Anna]

I certainly will.

I think there are a lot of pro-family organizations who are supporting the idea of preventing Specter's Chairmanship.

For me, it's got to be reasoned out, with a political analysis: a scenario of what would likely happen if he does become Chairman, versus what he'd do if he lost the Chairmanship...which would be more detrimental to the pro-life cause and the babies? That's what my hold up is on all this.

I already have read tons about what an unsavory, scheming, backpeddling weasle he is. (Hey, I didn't elect him. I'm just trying to figure out what to do with him now that he is elected... )

The organizations that presently oppose his Chairmanship are, I think, Dobson ~ focus on the Family, Wildmon ~ American Family Association, LaHaye ~ Concerned Women for America, National Right to Life, I've heard, not sure...
Bishop Emeritus Rene H. Gracida (tried to email him, but it bounced back, said his quota was filled). I found an error, I think, in the bishop's letter which concerned me. Can't think of any others right now....I'm going to bed. This issue is exhausting my poor little grey cells!

G'nite all!

[qfnol31]

Did you guys see where I said LifeNews was against him? ...

[Anna]

I went to Lifenews and read the story, but I did not see where they are encouraging us to contact Washington and denounce his impending Chairmanship.

Let me know if I'm incorrect on that. (I'm sure someone will!)

[BeenaBobba]

Anna, I love you, but I agree with Nathan. I don't trust Specter as far as I can throw him. At worst, he's dangerous to the pro-life movement. At best, he's a flip-flopper ([url="http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6405485/"]evidence[/url]). He's not someone I want to take any chances on. This is too important. You might also want to check out [url="http://www.nationalreview.com/thecorner/04_11_04_corner-archive.asp#045307"]this[/url] and [url="http://www.afa.net/petitions/specter.asp"]this[/url]. Read between the lines. He's all lip service. I don't want a man who thinks the Roe v. Wade decision is "inviolate" to win a chair in the Judiciary Committee.

A conservative friend of mine has heard Specter speak, and he was [b]far[/b] from impressed. As a matter of fact, he said that Specter's "slimyness [sic] knows no bounds."

God bless,

Jennifer

[BeenaBobba]

This past election, we had the choice between an incumbent president, who's not 100% pro-life, and the only candidate ever to be endorsed by Planned Parenthood. As Catholics, we knew that we were morally obliged to choose the candidate who would do the least amount of harm to the pro-life movement. Now, there's an opening on the Judiciary Committee. As Nathan has pointed out, Specter isn't the best person for the job. If we have a choice (which we do), we should choose the best possible choice. Bluntly put, Specter isn't the best possible choice. He's far from it.

God bless,

Jennifer