Arlen Specter: Action needs to be taken.

[BeenaBobba]

Anna, you might also want to check [url="http://www.lifesite.net/ldn/2004/nov/04110503.html"]this[/url] out.

Please keep in mind that some Christians voted for Kerry because they don't think abortion can ever be made illegal again. They did the so-called "practical" thing in voting for Kerry because they believed he could at least do something about the situation in Iraq. To me, supporting Specter would be like supporting Kerry. It's a concession I'm not willing to make. I'm not saying that your view is totally unreasonable, but I can't support Specter in good conscience.

God bless,

Jennifer

[Anna]

Ok, people.
Please don't just keep giving me links to show me that Specter is a rat fink. I'm 45 years old, and remember what happened to Robert Bork.
I know that Specter is a slimey weasle.
Reading article after article telling me what I already know still doesn't answer the concerns that I do honestly have.

Jennifer, there isn't exactly an "opening" on the Judiciary Committee that Specter is looking to fill. He is already a member of the Judiciary Committee. The senior member normally takes the Chairman position. This year, the Chairmanship would then pass on to Specter. That's how things work in Washington, DC.

Politics is a dirty business. You have to make bedfellows at times with characters who aren't your friends in order to get your measures passed. And in turn, you're expected to do something good when your slimey bedfellow colleague comes a'callin' looking for a political favor. I'm not saying that I agree with it, but folks, wake up! Hello! That [i][b]is[/b][/i] how it works.

That said, my concern is this:
Both Cheney and Bush campaigned for Specter. (Yes, I know in Southern PA, Specter actually had his name printed along side Kerry's on lawn signs during the campaign, and he didn't even have the decency to show up at Cheney's visit.)
Not only did President Bush and Vice President Cheney both campaign for Specter in PA, but so did Senator Rick Santorum.
So Specter won, not only the primary against a pro-life opponent, but the general election against a pro-choice opponent.
He was flip floppin' and playing the middle ground and all that jazz...yep.
Would I trust him as far as I could throw him? ... nope.

But what we don't know sitting at our computers and chatting and emailing Senator Bill Frist (whose family owns the largest chain of for-profit abortion-providing hospitals in the nation) is what kind of favors Specter may owe to the conservative pro-life Republicans who supported him during both of these election-year challenges. He's in for a six year term, and at the end of it, he'll be 82 years old.
He is either going to repay these favors, or stab the Republicans in the back. Either way, that'll be his legacy. He won't be running for another term in all likelihood.

[b]Now IF we deny him the Chairmanship, [i]what will he do?[/b][/i]
Will he go to the Democrats and fillibuster and make it impossible to appoint any Constitutionalist Justices to the Supreme Court?

[b]He's a rat fink, yes.
But right now, he is a rat fink in our corner.
We can "hope" that he'll stay in our corner. We have no assurances, but he does owe quite a few people.
Or, we can deprive him of a position which would normally, traditionally be his...
and see what happens when Bush announces a nominee.[/b]

So, please, folks, don't give me any more links which just re-hash what a stinker Specter is.

Find me a site that says, he's just as dangerous on our side right now as he would be if we ousted his keister.

If Bush, Cheney, Santorum, and goodness knows who else think that they can work with this man, well, they know him better than I do. I feel very, VERY uncomfortable telling them, demanding of them, that they tick this guy off and send him packing to the liberal camp.

I've got the babies' best interests at heart, and I think that all the petitioning right after Specter's initial remarks could be construed as knee-jerk reactionism, which could backfire and make it worse for the pro-life cause.

That is my political analysis take on things.
Anyone else care to give a different scenario, with reasons as I have?

As H. Ross Perot has said, "Ahhhhh'm all eeeeeeeeears."

I love ya'all too, I just need to know that it's really the right thing to do before I jump on the bandwagon...And I am not so sure that it is the right thing to do.

[BeenaBobba]

[quote name='Anna' date='Nov 7 2004, 04:19 PM'] Jennifer, there isn't exactly an "opening" on the Judiciary Committee that Specter is looking to fill.  He is already a member of the Judiciary Committee.  The senior member normally takes the Chairman position.  This year, the Chairmanship would then pass on to Specter. That's how things work in Washington, DC.
[/quote]
Hi Anna,

I'm sorry; I didn't know that until now. But that solidifies my opinion even more. I don't think Specter is right for the job at all. I'd like to see DeWine become chairman. If Specter wants to run into the arms of the Democrats, let him. The Republicans would still have the majority in the Senate. We don't know who the new Republican members of the Judiciary Committee will be, but we do know that Specter's no good. (If the new members are pro-life, then we'll have the majority in the Judiciary Committee, right?) The odds of him doing anything substantial to end legal abortion isn't very high at all. This is what could happen:

1.) He becomes chairman of the Judiciary Committee, gives lip service to we pro-lifers, and then rejects Bush's pro-life judicial choices, which could be disastrous.

-or-

2.) He becomes chairman of the Judiciary Committee and, by some miracle, approves of Bush's pro-life judicial nominees.

Honestly, judging by the evidence (i.e., his pro-choice voting record, his low NRLC ratings, his high Planned Parenthood ratings, his flip-flopping, et cetera), the first choice seems more realistic. You said yourself that he'll be old at the end of his term. He's shown himself to be a slick politician who'll change positions to advance himself. I agree that he probably won't run again. You say that perhaps he'll feel he owes something to pro-life Bush and other pro-life Republicans, but what does he have to gain or lose? Nothing! His career in politics is almost over. It's not like he'll lose anything if he doesn't return the favor. And let's face it, he's neither consistent nor solidly pro-life. He'll go where the wind takes him. Frankly, I don't want someone who is so easily swayed to be the chairman of the Judiciary Committee. He's not worth placating. I just can't trust someone who puts politics before preborn kids to the degree that he has.

[quote]Both Cheney and Bush campaigned for Specter.  (Yes, I know in Southern PA, Specter actually had his name printed along side Kerry's on lawn signs during the campaign, and he didn't even have the decency to show up at Cheney's visit.)
Not only did President Bush and Vice President Cheney both campaign for Specter in PA, but so did Senator Rick Santorum. [/quote]

Shame on them for doing so, too! Santorum should've known better!

[quote]Will he go to the Democrats and fillibuster and make it impossible to appoint any Constitutionalist Justices to the Supreme Court? [/quote]

That's the thing, though. What kind of harm could he do? The Republicans (who are generally more pro-life than the Democrats) are a majority in the Senate. There's a chance that there'll be more Republicans on the Judiciary Committee soon enough. The chairman of the Committee is the one with the most influence -- and that's why I don't think he should become chairman. With the Republican majority in the Senate (and possibly in the Judiciary Committee as well), and with someone like DeWine as chairman, the harm he could do to the pro-life side (provided he pulls a Benedict Arnold) wouldn't be as much as if he gets the chairmanships and stabs us in the back. If he doesn't get the chairmanship and decides to stay with Bush on pro-life issues, so much the better. But, judging the pros and cons, I think he has the potential to be more harmful as chairman.

[quote]I've got the babies' best interests at heart,[/quote]

I know you do, Anna.

[quote]I love ya'all too, I just need to know that it's really the right thing to do before I jump on the bandwagon...And I am not so sure that it is the right thing to do.[/quote]

That's fair enough. It's good to think things out.

God bless,

Jennifer

[Guest Aluigi]

second choice is actually possible seing as he owes more this election to people with conservative values voting for him (so it'd be better for him politically)

i don't know how this is all gonna work out... just gonna pray cause i have no effect on who gets on the judiciary comittee

[Anna]

It does my heart good to see that so many are so passionate about the pro-life cause.

However, it scares me when we attempt to interject our passions without an understanding of how the system works.

It takes 60 Senators to confirm a Supreme Court Justice nominee.
Do we have 60 staunchly prolife Senators? No. We have only 47.
Ok, how about some of those marginal guys/gals with whom we can bargain?
Well, let's see:
4 Senators whose voting records are "mixed" on the life issues who we can probably count on to support a pro-life Justice nominee.
That only gives us 51. We need 60.
There are 2 more mixed Senators who we "may" be able to bring onboard. (Specter being one of them!) That brings us to 53. We still need 7 more.
We've got 2 pro-abortion Senators who "may" support a pro-life nominee.
That still only gives us 55.

The other side is,
we have one pro-life Senator who will NOT support a pro-life Justice nominee.
We have 5 Senators whose voting records are "mixed," but won't support a pro-life nominee.
We have 39 pro-abortion senators who will not support a pro-life nominee.
Total opposing: 45.

Do the math
We need 60 to Confirm.
Hello.
We need Specter.

Now, let's really tick him off and refuse him the Chairmanship, humilate and embarass him, scandalize and calumnize him, raise an army of pro-lifers against him, and then come, hat in hand asking for his support when Bush attempts to nominate a pro-life Justice...

Do you see my point now, folks?

I am thinking of the babies...not my own principles.
I am considering how the political system of this country works, and how we cannot afford to exclude people because we, ourselves, are so highly-principled.
Understand the political system a bit better now?

[BeenaBobba]

[quote name='Aluigi' date='Nov 7 2004, 06:58 PM'] second choice is actually possible seing as he owes more this election to people with conservative values voting for him (so it'd be better for him politically)
[/quote]
I don't know, Al. Like he's hinted, the results of the election do not equal a "real" pro-life mandate since nearly half the country is liberal. (I don't agree with that, but that's how he sees it, apparently.) He could go either way. What I'm saying is that he's not entirely trustworthy. It seems like he doesn't deliver unless he gets something. He's not running again, so he's done trying to win us over. What's there to win us over to? No one will have to elect him again. All I'm saying is that my hope isn't exactly in him. If he voted against babies in the past, there's no reason why he wouldn't be able to do so now. If his conscience allows him to be pro-choice, will he really be so keen to repay a favor?

[quote]i don't know how this is all gonna work out... just gonna pray cause i have no effect on who gets on the judiciary comittee[/quote]

Sure you do! Prayers help so much! Keep them up!

God bless,

Jen

[Guest Aluigi]

you know what?, I think Anna is right.

[BeenaBobba]

Anna, the thing is, if he's so petty and low that he'll literally change parties when pro-lifers call him on his hypocritical behavior (and deny him the chairmanship), is he really a man we can rely on? I say no. The pro-life movement in America has compromised long enough. We cannot afford to keep compromising.

God bless,

Jen

[Anna]

See? This is why the Lord told us we have to be sly and a fox and gentle as a dove.

We've tasted a wee bit of success, think we have "power" and are flexing our muscles wayyyyyyy too soon.

Who pays the price?

The babies!!!

This is the 108th Congress: The present Committee Chairman is Senator Orrin Hatch, a pro-lifer, who will leave in January.

That is when Specter is the next guy in line, seniority wise, to become Chairman.
He would serve for six years.

Here is a list of the present members of the Judiciary Committee. Read each name, and ask yourself, "Do I want Specter voting with this Senator, or my guys?"

Patrick J. Leahy
RANKING DEMOCRATIC MEMBER, VERMONT

Charles E. Grassley
IOWA

Edward M. Kennedy
MASSACHUSETTS

Arlen Specter
PENNSYLVANIA

Joseph R. Biden, Jr.
DELAWARE

Jon Kyl
ARIZONA

Herbert Kohl
WISCONSIN

Mike DeWine
OHIO

Dianne Feinstein
CALIFORNIA

Jeff Sessions
ALABAMA

Russell D. Feingold
WISCONSIN

Lindsey Graham
SOUTH CAROLINA

Charles E. Schumer
NEW YORK

Larry Craig
IDAHO

Richard J. Durbin
ILLINOIS

Saxby Chambliss
GEORGIA

John Edwards
NORTH CAROLINA


John Cornyn
TEXAS

[BeenaBobba]

Another thing is that we can talk about how we *think* Specter might act in a variety of situations, but it's all hypothetical. It could go either way, and we won't know for sure until something happens. What we do know for sure is that he's not trustworthy -- and more importantly, that he's not exactly pro-life. I honestly think we should go with what we [b]know [/b]rather than what we might think or theorize.

God bless,

Jen

[Anna]

[quote name='Aluigi' date='Nov 7 2004, 07:07 PM'] you know what?, I think Anna is right. [/quote]
Thank you, Al.
At last, someone understands me.

[BeenaBobba]

[quote name='Anna' date='Nov 7 2004, 07:27 PM'] At last, someone understands me. [/quote]
I understand where you're coming from, Anna. Your position isn't totally illogical or anything like that. You make some good points that are worth taking into consideration. I'm just not sure it's the most prudent course to take.

God bless,

Jen

[Anna]

[quote name='BeenaBobba' date='Nov 7 2004, 07:27 PM'] Another thing is that we can talk about how we *think* Specter might act in a variety of situations, but it's all hypothetical. It could go either way, and we won't know for sure until something happens. What we do know for sure is that he's not trustworthy -- and more importantly, that he's not exactly pro-life. I honestly think we should go with what we [b]know [/b]rather than what we might think or theorize.

God bless,

Jen [/quote]
What we know, Jen, is that we do not have enough pro-life Senators yet to confirm a pro-life Justice.

While future Senatorial elections may give us a couple more pro-lifers, we could lose some, too, it's a gamble.

In solid states where the majority did vote pro-abortion, we don't stand much of a chance of unseating their already pro-abort incumbents.

We need to work with ALL the elected Senators we can who MAY come to our side.

Specter indicates on his website that he will support Bush. He denies what reporter Lara Jakes Jordan reported to the Associated Press. He says she misrepresented his remarks. She is known to do this. Many reporters do. My goodness, the media has hardly ever gotten an interview with me correctly yet. They misquote more than they quote.

So, what if Specter is Simon le'Gris ~ if we get him to vote with us?

Wasn't Saul a pretty rotten guy before his conversion? Well, let's work on Arlen Specter. Pray for him. And pray about what's the right thing to do in this instance. Because we don't have the numbers yet to pull off a pro-life nomination, and we need Specter's support.

[Anna]

[url="http://http://www.senate.gov/general/contact_information/senators_cfm.cfm?Class=1"]Here is a list[/url] of Senators who will be looking for re-election next.

[BeenaBobba]

Hi Anna,

I think it's too much of a gamble. Of course, this isn't necessarily of the same calibre, but imagine saying, "We can get John Kerry over to our side." Kerry is more pro-abortion than Specter, but still. We can hope for the best, but I don't feel comfortable putting all my chips in on Specter. There are just too many loose ends and possibilities. If he doesn't get the chairmanship, who's to say he'll turn against us? If he does get the chairmanship, who's to say he won't go against us? If he does do the latter, imagine how horrible that would be? He'd be in a very influential position, and he'd be against us. Knowing that there is a possibility that he could stab us in the back, I like to have some "insurance." If he stabs us in the back and isn't the chairman of the Judiciary Committee, it won't hurt as much as it would if he stabbed us in the back as the chairman. If he stabs us in the back as the chairman, he'll be united with the Democrats in ideology and in action. It won't matter if he formally joins them. What will matter is that he'll act with them. If he doesn't get the chairmanship, goes over to the Democrats, and stabs us in the back, we can say, "Well, at least he wasn't the chairman."

God bless,

Jen