Fight the REAL enemy

[Oik]

Anna, I want to correct your assessment of Senator John McCain, Arizona senator.

He is not 100% pro-life, He just spoke at my college here is Az a couple of days before the election. He said, and I quote, "I am pro-life. I don't believe in abortion,
[b]except[/b] in cases of rape and incest."

I still voted for him because the guy that ran against him was 100% pro-abortion!

Sen. McCain is an asset to the cause in the long run. He also voted against the FMA because he said "...i believe it should be left up to the states to decide and I am confident that in this state (Arizona) it would pass (legislation to ban gay marriage, that is)."

So, Sen. McCain is:
Against gay marriage, to be decided at the state level
For supporting Bush in Iraq
Against abortion, except in cases of rape and incest

Still, an asset to the cause. Oh, and Sen. Kyl is 100% pro-life! So Arizona is in really good hands!

[popestpiusx]

McCain shifts around almost as bad as Kerry. It just depends on who he is talking to. ONe day he is pro-life and against gay marriage, the next he won't be nailed down on any issue. Plus he co-sponsored that horrendous campaign finance bill with that communist Russ Feingold.

[Anna]

Firstly, it was not "my" assessment. I said that before I posted it, and again afterward.

Secondly, no one here ever said McCain was "100%" pro-life. These are generalizations of how the senators generally vote, and speculated projects of how we might expect them to vote on a judicial confirmation vote.

Thirdly, the issue isn't McCain. McCain can be expected to back the President's nomiees to the Supreme Court. I don't believe he has indicated otherwise.

The issue is Specter.

That said, I have an announcement to make:

*hops up on soap box*

Thank you to Nathan for providing me with the information of Father Pavone's approval of the course of action to be taken regarding the impending Chairmanship of Senator Arlen Spector on the Senate Judiciary Committee. In addition to reflecting upon Fr. Pavone's recommendations, plus listening to the highly-qualified political analysis of Laura Ingraham, and hearing Arlen Specter speak on the Sean Hannity program last night, together with a great amount of research, inquiry, and soul searching, I've emailed Senator Frist opposing Specter's Chairmanship.

My two senators are both Democrat pro-aborts, so there is no sense in contacting them. I will most likely contact the other Republican members of the Judiciary Committee as well, because once I am onboard with something, I generally give it my all.

However: There is still one urgent piece of the puzzle that only a few have mentioned. We must petition the Republican Senators to [u][b]reform the fillibuster rules[/b][/u]! They can do this in January, when the new Congress begins. They can change the rules from requiring [i]60 votes for a fillibuster-proof confirmation[/i], to a [u]simple majority 51 votes[/u]! Then, whichever way Specter decides to go, he can't hurt a thing.

So, please, don't drop the ball and think you've done all you need to do.

If you've contacted the Senate requesting Specter not be made Chairman of the Judiciary Committee, (and even if you haven't!) please contact the Republican Senators and request that they make fillibuster reform a reality in the next Congress. They need to make this the first item on their agenda. (imho)

Thank you all for your patient persistence, and May God Bless America.

SAVE THE BABIES!!!

*steps off soapbox*

yeah.....

Pax <><

[Guest Aluigi]

[quote]Dear Friend:

Thank you for contacting me regarding judicial nominations in the
newly-elected session of Congress.  It is an honor to serve in the United
States Senate.

The Constitution's "advice and consent" clause clearly gives the Senate the
prerogative to accept or reject any of the President's judicial
nominations.  Unfortunately, a minority of Senators have been using Senate
rules to stop the confirmation of many of these nominees and thwart the
will of the majority.  Their unwise and dangerous efforts are unprecedented
and must not be allowed to succeed.  That is why I have taken several steps
to address this attack on our Constitution and judicial system.  On June 5,
2003, I proposed a narrow change to Senate rules that would prohibit long
term filibustering of judicial nominees.  On November 12 - 14, 2003, I held
the Senate in session for almost forty straight hours — the longest
continuous debate in over 10 years — to force the minority to defend their
actions.

I believe that the American voters sent a very clear and stunning message
in the November 2, 2004, elections.  That is why, as I begin work as
Majority Leader in the 109th Congress, I will continue to work to ensure
that President Bush's judicial nominees receive fair treatment.  I am sure
the President will continue to nominate judges who believe in protecting
the rule of law, and I am confident that the Senate will be able to confirm
these judges in the 109th Congress.  Activist judges who make law instead
of interpreting law undermine the rule of law.  It is imperative that the
Judiciary Committee approve the President’s judicial nominees and send them
to the Senate floor for an up-or-down vote.

Rest assured, I will continue to fight for fair treatment of the
President's judicial nominations.  Anything less is unfair to the nominees,
the President, the integrity of the judicial system and the American
people.

Sincerely,
William H. Frist, M.D.
Majority Leader
United States Senate[/quote]

[Good Friday]

I was going to post the same thing; Al, you beat me to it.

And Anna, good for you!!!