Fight the REAL enemy

[Anna]

For those of you who think that Senator Arlen Specter is seriously pro-abortion and will reject pro-life nominees to the Supreme Court, please take a look at what his recent challenger had to say: [url="http://www.hoeffelforsenate.com/issues/choicecomparison.cfm"]http://www.hoeffelforsenate.com/issues/choicecomparison.cfm[/url]

Consider that the quotes or misquotes attributed to him by one single reporter have been denied by him, and that the reporter is married to a top Democratic party operative and manager of the Kerry bid for the White House. Could she possibly be writing this story with a little [i]bias? [/i]
Could she possibly want to damage the pro-life cause, and de-rail the Republican stronghold in Washington?

Could she be striking at the Republicans' achilles heel, using the party's own greatest weapon, Pro-Life Christians?

Seems she's a one-woman American version of Al Quaeda, hijacking the pro-life movement and commandiering it right into the faces of the new Republican administration.

Don't let her use you like that. Do your research, and trust Bush and the Christian Republicans we elected to bring Specter fully onboard with the pro-life cause. Don't cast him to the liberals! Senator Specter isn't truly one of them. We need his vote and support, which we'll not get by condemning the man.

I deeply regret the scandal, calumny, and detraction he has suffered at the hands of Christians this week, because of a single slanted article by a leftist reporterette.

Edited November 6, 2004 by Anna

[Anna]

So, then WHO IS the real enemy?

Well, the pro-abort factions, NOW, NARAL, Planned Parenthood, their ignorant accomplices, and their not-so-ignorant supporters ~ the Hollywood left and the liberal media!

Here's what President Bush said to the media after his election in a press conference. It's rich! I love how, maintaining his gentlemanly composure, he told them that they're beady-eyed skeptics who exacerbate bitterness and divisiveness, making it difficult to govern! Yes, the media is a very BIG part of the morality problem here in America.

[color=green]And so I'm optimistic. You covered me when I was the governor of Texas. I told you that I was going to do that as a governor. There was probably [b]skepticism in your beady eyes [/b]there. (Laughter.) But you might remember -- you might remember, we did -- we were able to accomplish a lot by -- and Washington is different from Austin, no question about it. Washington -- [b]one of the disappointments of being here in Washington is how bitter this town can become and how divisive. I'm not blaming one party or the other. It's just the reality of Washington, D.C., sometimes exacerbated by you, because it's great sport. It's really -- it's entertaining for some. It also makes is difficult to govern at times.[/b]
But nevertheless, my commitment is there. I fully -- [b]now more seasoned to Washington, I've cut my political eye-teeth[/b], at least the ones I've recently grown here in Washington. And so [b]I'm aware of what can happen in this town[/b]. But nevertheless, having said that, I am fully prepared to work with both Republican and Democrat leadership to advance an agenda that I think makes a big difference for the country.

Listen, thank you all. I look forward to working with you. I've got a question for you. How many of you are going to be here for a second term? Please raise your hand. (Laughter.)

Good. [b]Gosh, we're going to have a lot of fun, then[/b]. Thank you all.[/color]

Let the good times roll, Mr. President! You certainly showed off your pearly white political eye teeth, and your detractors must've felt the bite! :peace:

Edited November 6, 2004 by Anna

[cmotherofpirl]

Amen
AMen
AMEn
AMEN
AMEN!
Sing it over!

[qfnol31]

[quote name='Anna' date='Nov 6 2004, 12:35 PM'] For those of you who think that Senator Arlen Specter is seriously pro-abortion and will reject pro-life nominees to the Supreme Court, please take a look at what his recent challenger had to say: [/quote]
The only reason I would say so is CINLife right now holds it to be true...

[qfnol31]

[quote]That won't happen if Senator Arlen Specter is the chairman.[/quote]

So does LifeNews

[Good Friday]

I hate to burst y'all's partisan little bubble, but Arlen Specter is PRO-ABORTION. In 2000, he voted the way NARAL Pro-Choice America wanted him to 90% of the time -- that means 90% of the time, he cast votes that contributed to the murder of the unborn. How much more pro-abortion do you get? In 2001-2002, Specter received a 0% rating from National Right to Life. What does this all add up to? It adds up to the fact that over the course of three years, (2000, 2001 and 2002), Arlen Specter voted [b]FOR[/b] the unborn a [b]MAXIMUM[/b] of 10% of the time.

Is this really acceptable to you? Because I've got news for you: there are Democrats who vote more consistently pro-life than Specter does. Sen. Tom Daschle has voted more pro-life than Specter has. The problem here is partisanship. It's a mortal sin to support Arlen Specter in the way that y'all have been doing it. Now go to Confession.

[Guest Aluigi]

even though the wind is blowin spector towards supporting pro-life judges, there are others with more solid and dependible positions of supporting pro-life judges, and thus spector is justly considered part of the enemy.

[Guest Aluigi]

OPPOSE SPECTOR

seriously, let's make certain the judiciary committee will be supporting Bush's judges, not deciding whether or not to do so based on the latest poll. Spector is pro-abortion, and it's likely when he realizes that the highest court in the land would be key to defending abortion righs he will no longer simply blow with the political wind, but oppose pro-life judges.

can you honestly tell me there's a low possibility that he would oppose Bush's judges? I think it's very possible that he would.

[Good Friday]

[quote name='Aluigi']can you honestly tell me there's a low possibility that he would oppose Bush's judges? I think it's very possible that he would.[/quote]
You're right. The statistics over the past [b]seven years[/b] certainly support the conclusion that Arlen Specter is, shall we say, less than reliable on abortion issues!

[Anna]

Specter is not pro-life.
Neither is he pro-abortion.
He is a fence sitter, imho, and does what is politically expedient.
Because he was opposed by NARAL this year (with a 21% rating) and therefore elected by those who value life more than abortion, he owes the Pro-Abort crowd nothing, and he owes the pro-lifers his loyalty.
Will he be loyal?
He says he will on his website.

I'm not a mindreader, nor a Republican croney, I simply feel that there are still enough Democrats to fillibuster, and would like to keep Specter on our side.

Yes, there are others out there FAR, FAR more pro-life than Specter, both Rep & Dem!

So, I guess everyone should follow his conscience on this one. Pray and then do what you feel is best.

[Sinner]

Sorry Anna.......... this war has no gray area. SPECTER MUST GO.

[Anna]

Go where?

We on the right cast him aside...he has nowhere to go but LEFT.
We lose his vote, his potential support.

Speaking in principle, I wouldn't want to do business with the guy.
Speaking as a political reality, he has just been elected to another six year term, and we'd better learn how to handle him to keep him voting WITH US, not against us.

It takes 60 votes to confirm a Supreme Court Justice nominee.
We've got 47 pro-life senators who will support a pro-life Justice nominee.
We've got 4 "mixed on the life issue" senators who will probably support a pro-life nominee.
We've got 2 "mixed" senators who may or may not support a pro-life nominee. (Specter is one.)
We've got 5 "mixed" senators who will not support a pro-life nominee.
We've got 2 pro-abortion senators who may or may not support a pro-life nominee.
We've got 39 pro-abortion senators who will not support a pro-life nominee.
And we've got 1 pro-life senator who will not support a pro-life nominee.

This political analysis was provided by a respected, pro-life Catholic who has been tracking the senators' voting records and statements for a good long time. I believe it to be accurate.

Before casting aside someone who might just help the babies, or could make a devastating enemy, you'd better do the math. Politics are tricky. We could very well wind up needing Specter's support.

I don't want to throw the baby out with the bathwater. Specter isn't great, but he is not a total lost cause...yet...(imho)

I think people who don't acquaint themselves with the political process and then try to pressure their representatives are about as dangerous as those who go to the polls and vote without acquainting themselves of the issues.

I recommend becoming fully informed about the Judicial nomination/confirmation process and where we all stand right now, before shooting ourselves in the foot.

God Bless. <><

[JP2Iloveyou]

Anna, would you care to name some names on who those senators are that you are talking about? My focus of my political science degree has been the U.S. Senate and I can't think of one "pro-life" Senator who would not support a pro-life judge. I suspect you are talking about Harry Reid, but I'm not really sure. PM me if you want.

[popestpiusx]

[quote name='Anna' date='Nov 6 2004, 05:40 PM'] Specter is not pro-life.
Neither is he pro-abortion.
[/quote]
????

Not pro-life IS pro-abortion. Specter is pro-abortion. He has a voting record nearly identical to that of Ted Kennedy with only very few exceptions. He must go.

We must oppose Specter. He may not be the enemy incarnate, but he is vertainly in bed with them.

[url="http://www.notspecter.com/"]http://www.notspecter.com/[/url]

[BLAZEr]

[quote name='Anna' date='Nov 7 2004, 04:33 PM'] Go where?

We on the right cast him aside...he has nowhere to go but LEFT. 
We lose his vote, his potential support.

Speaking in principle, I wouldn't want to do business with the guy.
Speaking as a political reality, he has just been elected to another six year term, and we'd better learn how to handle him to keep him voting WITH US, not against us.

It takes 60 votes to confirm a Supreme Court Justice nominee. 
We've got 47 pro-life senators who will support a pro-life Justice nominee.
We've got 4 "mixed on the life issue" senators who will probably support a pro-life nominee.
We've got 2 "mixed" senators who may or may not support a pro-life nominee. (Specter is one.)
We've got 5 "mixed" senators who will not support a pro-life nominee.
We've got 2 pro-abortion senators who may or may not support a pro-life nominee.
We've got 39 pro-abortion senators who will not support a pro-life nominee.
And we've got 1 pro-life senator who will not support a pro-life nominee.

This political analysis was provided by a respected, pro-life Catholic who has been tracking the senators' voting records and statements for a good long time.  I believe it to be accurate.

Before casting aside someone who might just help the babies, or could make a devastating enemy, you'd better do the math.  Politics are tricky.  We could very well wind up needing Specter's support.

I don't want to throw the baby out with the bathwater.  Specter isn't great, but he is not a total lost cause...yet...(imho)

I think people who don't acquaint themselves with the political process and then try to pressure their representatives are about as dangerous as those who go to the polls and vote without acquainting themselves of the issues.

I recommend becoming fully informed about the Judicial nomination/confirmation process and where we all stand right now, before shooting ourselves in the foot.

God Bless. <>< [/quote]
Specter already votes against us. He is the reason that Judge Bork isn't on the Supreme Court.

He does not support pro-life judges. He is a Republican in name only. He votes "somewhat prolife" only every 5 years . . . that is, in preparation for re-election.

He must go.

And can you get the names on your little senatorial breakdown. Because when I run the numbers, I don't get what you get.

Who is the Pro-life Senator who won't vote for a pro-life judge?

And besides, it only takes 51 votes to approve a justice to the supreme court, or any other court. The 60 comes from the fact that it takes 60 votes to end debate, therefore, someone opposing a judge can fillibuster the nomination.

HOWEVER . . . don't think that the little pro-life senator chart will be effective in this debate. It is a totally different break down as to who will or will not vote on a motion of cloture (motion to end debate).

So, imho, whoever wrote that analysis isn't as smart as they think they are.