Arlen Specter: Action needs to be taken.

[BeenaBobba]

At any rate, I look forward to Fr. Pavone's response!

God bless,

Jen

[Anna]

Jen, what you propose could be correct.
We have several scenarios.
1. Specter is granted Chairmanship, is happy, and returns the favors to Bush, Cheney, and Santorum, keeps the promises he has posted on his website, and votes to confirm Bush's appointees.

2. Specter is granted Chairmanship, is happy, and says, 'Screw you all! I didn't mean a word I said, I'm opposing your nominees!"

3. Specter is denied the Chairmanship, remains a gracious and forgiving gentleman, keeping his promises and repaying the political favors, supporting Bush's pro-life nominees.

4. Specter is denied the Chairmanship, is bitterly disappointed, furious at the pro-lifers who denied him the position he deserved based upon his seniority, and takes every opportunity to express his displeasure by voting 100% pro-abortion for the next six years.


I am taking human nature into consideration.
I do not regard this man as very trustworthy and noble, but because he is a Republican, and his fellow Republicans have "done good by him," I think he will go along with the flow in this, probably his last, term in office.

If we take him down, I anticipate option #4.

Specter would not only cost over 4 million babies their lives, he'd probably lose his soul. He's 76 years old. He could go like that *snap* Just how should we, as Christians, treat this man?

Look at how Bush handles him: with respect, kindness, suport, and all the while giving a pretty darn good example of respect for human life.

Then, along come the pro-life troops, kicking down the doors and demanding Specter's ouster.

I think we're making Bush's job harder in our present knee-jerk reactionary power play. I think it's gonna come back to bite us. I think it's going to ultimately hurt the babies and the cause for life.

But that's just my humble opinion.

[Good Friday]

[quote name='Anna']btw, Nathan, I've missed ya.[/quote]
I missed you too.

And I can't really find any holes in your argument. You could absolutely be right. The problem is that if you're wrong, it could prove totally disastrous. The problem is that if I'm wrong, it could also prove totally disastrous. I don't think I'm wrong, and you don't think you're wrong. However, I can see your reasoning, but I can't agree with it because I can't get past the 90% rating from NARAL and the 0% rating from National Right to Life. I can't get past the fact that, in 2000, he voted against unborn life 90% of the time. I'm afraid he'll do it again.

We've seen all the scenarios, and we've seen that it's possible that Specter could side with the pro-abortion Democrats if he's rejected for this position by his party. We've also seen that he could still side with the pro-abortion Democrats even if he gets this position. We've seen that if he gets this position, he could pay back the favors he owes pro-life Republicans. But we've also seen that even if he doesn't get the position, he still might not go against the pro-life majority, because it could cost him any future political bids. There are many possible scenarios, but in my opinion the scenario that he [b]could[/b] side with the pro-abortion Democrats as Chairman of the Judiciary Committee is more dangerous than if he sided with them as just another member of the committee. He'll have more power as Chairman than just another member . . . if he abuses that power, the pro-life bid for the Supreme Court is finished before it has even started.

We can't take that risk. That risk could mean 45 million more lives. There's more risk involved in letting him become Chairman of the Judiciary Committee than there is in keeping him from it, because even if he did side with pro-abortion Democrats, one more person seems unlikely to be able to help them filibuster any future nominees. They are too much in the minority now, and you have to remember that not all Democrats participate in these filibusters.

Thus, let me say that I can understand what you're saying, but I can't agree with it. I think there's just too much risk involved in allowing a man like Specter to become the Chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee. I do understand where you're coming from, but the risk of allowing him to become Chairman seems greater to me than the risk of rejecting him.

[Anna]

yep. It's a political catch-22.
That's why I've emailed Fr. Pavone. I hope he answers!
I'll let you all know what he thinks, if I hear from him.

Pray and ask God's guidance.
We can only trust our own logic and reason so far...

[SirMyztiq]

Ohh...So there is also a debate table. Hmm...

Anyways Bush will probably attempt to put in his own piece of mind into the Supreme court. It will NEVER happen. Democrats will surely stand together on the issue.

I recall Bush saying that he was "going to reach out to those who share our goals"

LOL

Hmm...You don't need to reach out to those they are already on your side!! Dumb donkey!!!

[JP2Iloveyou]

I haven't read this entire thread, but can we use some reason here? I interned for the Senate Judiciary Committee a little over a year ago. I worked for a Republican senator, whom I will not name here. Anyway, I worked behind the scenes on many of Bush's judicial nominations. Much is confidential about it, so I can't say much more than that. Suffice it to say though, Sen. Specter has voted in favor of every single one of Bush's nominees and there have been well over 100. Furthermore, everyone is saying he is next in line to chair the committee. He is not. Sen. Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa, is. However, Sen. Grassley already chairs the Finance Committee, another "A" committee. It is breaking procedure to sit on two "A" committees at once and it would be unheard of to chair two at once, so Sen. Grassley must make a decision regarding which he will chair. My instinct is that he will choose Finance, which brings us to Specter.

Let me be VERY clear. Sen. Specter is NOT pro-life. In fact, I dare say, he comes down on the wrong side of many issues. However, I don't think this is really something that we need to worry about. Instead, what we should be focusing on is finding five democrats to vote for Bush's choices to block a filibuster. Ben and Bill Nelson are two. I think Ken Salazar could be another. The other two? Who knows. Maybe Harry Reid trying to present a moderate face for the democrats, maybe Joe Lieberman, Mary Landrieu, Blanche Lincoln, or Mary Pryor. Max Baucus would be another possibility. I'm really just thinking (typing) out loud here. Anyway, I'm glad you guys are concerned, but I don't think it is anything to get to upset over right now.

Again, I DO NOT support Arlen Specter.

[JP2Iloveyou]

Anna said that we only have 55 senators who will support the President. I just wanted to say, with all due respect, I think that number is a little low. Every Republican will stand by the President. I am quite certain that even five most liberal Republicans in the Senate, Susan Collins, Olympia Snowe, Lincoln Chafee, Specter, and Lisa Murkowski will be there when we need them to be. The most hotly contested judicial nomination that Bush sent to the Senate was over Miguel Estrada, who was supported by four democrats: Ben Nelson, Bill Nelson, Zell Miller, and John Breaux. Miller and Breaux retired and were replaced by pro-life Republicans, however, both Nelsons are still there and I see no reason why they wouldn't continue to support the President's nominees. They didn't participate in any of the filibusters that were going on in this Congress. Again, Ken Salazar is a conservative dem and I think he will be on board. We only need two more, and that is to confirm someone who is really partisan. Most confirmations are unanimous. Bush doesn't need to send someone up who will cause a big debate. He only needs to send someone who believes what he believes and is not really contentious. My guess is Orrin Hatch. However, Miguel Estrada remains a possibility, Ted Olson, and Alberto Gonzalez, who is rumored to be a judicial conservative and would therefore vote to overturn Roe, but who is personally pro-abortion. Of the four names I put up there, only Estrada would really be hard to confirm in my opinion.

[popestpiusx]

[quote name='Anna' date='Nov 7 2004, 06:05 PM'] It does my heart good to see that so many are so passionate about the pro-life cause.

[/quote]
I understand very well how the system works and I am flat out rejecting any excuses for Specter or for those who supported him. Even in politics there are things and people who cannot be supported or compromised with. Specter's in bed with Kennedy. He must be prevented from the chairmanship, lest he spred the Kennedy's viruses and infectuous diseases to the other members of the Judiciary Committee.

[Anna]

[quote name='popestpiusx' date='Nov 8 2004, 10:57 AM'] I understand very well how the system works and I am flat out rejecting any excuses for Specter or for those who supported him. Even in politics there are things and people who cannot be supported or compromised with. Specter's in bed with Kennedy. He must be prevented from the chairmanship, lest he spred the Kennedy's viruses and infectuous diseases to the other members of the Judiciary Committee. [/quote]
This post does not demonstrate any knowledge of the ways of Washington politics and government rules at all.
It does demonstrate justifiable mistrust and resentment toward Specter.

[b]Please provide me with a political scenario, since you claim to be politically savvy, in which denying Senator Specter the Chairmanship will ensure the confirmation of pro-life Justices to the Supreme Court. [/b]

[quote]Even in politics there are things and people who cannot be supported or compromised with.[/quote] Where's this found in the political handbook?
There are things, yes, and perhaps there are some really, really few extremist pro-abortion liberals who might not compromise. But Specter is known to compromise (too much, sometimes!) And when you need more pro-life votes, you may be able to work with those who sometimes compromise. That puts Specter into the "maybe" area, not the "no way will he ever cooperate with us" area.

That said, Specter, by his past record, does not deserve our "support," and I do not "support" him.
However, having an inkling of how one hand must wash the other in order to get things passed in our nation's capital, [u]I don't want to be one who damages our pro-life Senators' chances of being able to get a few good votes out of Specter.[/u]He has, thus far, been onboard with Bush nominees 100% and was recently opposed by the pro-aborts in his bid for re-election to the Senate.
[u]This puts him in the position of showing his appreciation to those pro-lifers who extended a helping hand to get him re-elected[/u].
It doesn't mean I trust him, I love him, I support him, or I think he's undergoing a tremdous conversion. Don't jump to false conclusions.

REALITY: The pro-life senators need as many votes as possible, and he is a definite "maybe."
Our rejection of him could turn him into a definite "no."

Those who've signed the petitions against Specter and encourage others to do so, seem to be so blinded by his past that they are unable to think ahead...They have been unable thus far to give me a good political scenario where this is going to benefit the unborn babies.

You've said nothing to convince me that your rejection of Specter isn't just another knee-jerk reaction because of his past record, with no consideration of the long term effects.

I don't mean to sound insulting here.
[b]I'm asking folks to convince me, based upon sound political PROJECTIONS, that rejecting Specter is a wise course of action.[/b]

[popestpiusx]

[quote name='Anna' date='Nov 8 2004, 11:07 AM']

[b]Please provide me with a political scenario, since you claim to be politically savvy, in which denying Senator Specter the Chairmanship will ensure the confirmation of pro-life Justices to the Supreme Court. [/b]

[/quote]
What must be proven is that Specter's appointment will benefit the pro-life movement. His record speaks for itself. He believes abortion to be a constitutional right. Even if he has approved at one [point or another of low level pro-life judges and even to some extent (begrudgingly) approved them at higher level, there is no way he will do so with SC appointments given the fact that a slight shift on the court will (or can) end legal abortion in this country, or at the very least, in many states. THere is too much on the line. There are others who are pro-life, who if appointed to that position, would most certainly approve properly qualified judges (who are also pro-life).

Your argument relies on a dangerous political pragmatism. Anytime you make a deal with the devil, he will always come back for payment. Given Specter's other views there is no proof that this payment would be acceptable. The ends do not justify the means.

[quote]Where's this found in the political handbook?[/quote]
I suppose that depends on what political handbook you are following. Certainly not the one that puts political expediancy as highest ideal.

[quote]and he is a definite "maybe."[/quote]
This is a tad oxymoronic, don't you think. There is nothing definate about a "maybe", especially one who believes very strongly in abortion rights.

[quote]I'm asking folks to convince me, based upon sound political PROJECTIONS, that rejecting Specter is a wise course of action. [/quote]

What your asking for is for someone to do what you have done: weave a nice tale. UNfortunately that's all it is: speculation based on what you would like to see happen. Yes, we are reacting to his past. Why? Because that is how we know where a person stands on a given issue. You are basing your speculation on this man having some sort of honor or character, something he has not had thus far.

What would be the harm in putting a pro-lifer in that position? Bush has a moral mandate from the country. It is the pro-life issue, more than any other, that won him re-election. Compromising on this issue will be disastrous. If Specter decides he wants to jump ship, then let him. If the solid republicans are firm (in other words, if the famously spineless Republican senators will actually grow a spine) they can get pro-life judges through. After a while, when highly qualified judges are being turned down one after another (if such a thing would happen, though I don't believe it would) it would become obvious to the public that the only reason is the fact that these men are pro-life. This will not fair well for those who are sabotaging the president. There, how's that for speculation.

All the useless speculations aside, I agree with Bill Dyer:
[quote]The Republican Party simply can’t afford to have this key position in the hands of someone whose loyalty to party and President is intermittent at best. It’s not a question of the Republicans devouring one of its young, but rather of giving an unruly and untrustworthy rebel a bit of a “time out.”[/quote]

[Guest proud2bcatholic]

Well, I realize that I may be mistaken. There really is no way of knowing what will work the best (approve or reject Specter), I will just spend time in front of the Blessed Sacrament asking God that the best possible situation will happen.

Either way, I hope that the pressure that was put on Specter and the Republicans shows that us pro-lifers won't accept anything less than pro-life justices and to fail in doing so may have serious ramifications for them in future elections.

May the lives of babies be saved.

This "lurker" has spoken, got to go study.

[toledo_jesus]

[quote name='SirMyztiq' date='Nov 8 2004, 02:09 AM'] Ohh...So there is also a debate table. Hmm...

Anyways Bush will probably attempt to put in his own piece of mind into the Supreme court. It will NEVER happen. Democrats will surely stand together on the issue.

I recall Bush saying that he was "going to reach out to those who share our goals"

LOL

Hmm...You don't need to reach out to those they are already on your side!! Dumb donkey!!! [/quote]
If the Dems want to start winning seats and elections, they had better change some of their views to be more mainstream...Funny that you used the words Dumb Donkey, cause that is what I think everytime I hear Democrats whine about how stupid the rest of America is.

[Good Friday]

The Priests for Life issued a statement. It isn't on their website yet, but I got it via e-mail from their mailing list and posted it on my blog. You can view it [url="http://nnelson.blogspot.com/2004/11/more-on-specter.html"]here[/url]. They're backing the effort to keep Specter from chairmanship of the committee, and they included the National Right to Life action alert in their e-mail.

When National Right to Life is opposing Specter, and when the Priests for Life are opposing Specter, when he has said that Roe v. Wade is "inviolate" and when he has held 90% ratings from NARAL and 0% ratings from National Right to Life, it seems to me that some people with good intentions are on the wrong side of this and need to reconsider. And that's the last thing I have to say about this.

[Anna]

[quote]Ohh...So there is also a debate table. Hmm...

Anyways Bush will probably attempt to put in his own piece of mind into the Supreme court. It will NEVER happen. Democrats will surely stand together on the issue.

I recall Bush saying that he was "going to reach out to those who share our goals"

LOL

Hmm...You don't need to reach out to those they are already on your side!! Dumb donkey!!! [/quote]

Ohhh....my.....
Poor Mr. Myztiq is so sadly misinformed on so many fronts...
Where to begin?
Let's begin with "It will NEVER happen." That's what the liberals said about a Bush re-election.
I don't recall Bush saying that he was going to "reach out" to those who share our goals, but he sure did say that he was going to stay the course and get the job done...And that's why WE reached, pulled his lever, and re-elected him for four more years.
I'm sorry that you disagree with the majority of American voters, but that's the way a democracy works. You get your say at the polls, and the majority wins.

[Anna]

Thank you, Nathan!