Brain Fertilizer

Independent thinking is what I look for in candidates, people who don't make statements or create legislation always favoring their endorsers or contributors. Our Governor, one congressman, and both of our Senators routinely cross party lines in both word and action. I think that makes them better representatives. By taking surprising tacts they've worked wonders for our state.

And I think Specter's advice was good, myself.

I don't think Bush endorsing Toomey would have gotten him elected. Many thought he was too far right.

Now, Nathan, you've told me that it is the GOP who is the "big tent" party...I think whether or not other Republicans support Specter is proof of that statement...or not.

There's a little bit of twisting my words in your statement, Jo...
From what I've heard, the primary between Toomey and Specter was close, and Bush took a good bit of criticism for supporting Specter.
Now Specter is attempting to impose a litmus test for the President's selection to the Supreme Court. That is not his position, and represents a betrayal. Perhaps not a major one, but a betrayal nonetheless. I wouldn't be so upset about it if Specter just voted down a selection on the basis of abortion rights. But as a Republican Senator who benefited greatly from Bush's endorsement to use his leadership position to stump againt Bush's agenda is not good sportsmanship, even if it is politics as usual. To me, it lacks integrity.

OK, first, don't mean to twist your words in any fashion.

Second: Let's remember Specter's upcoming duties. He's going to chair the Judiciary Committee when Sen. Hatch is term-limited out. This might be a clear statement of "Just 'cuz you send it my way and you endorsed me doesn't mean it gets approved".

And I think that's pretty cool.

"Twisting" only to the extent that I have said the GOP is a big tent...but this isn't really a "big tent" issue. It's not his views that bother me, it's the way he articulated his intent to oppose any attempt by President Bush to nominate a candidate who might overturn abortion rights...whether or not that view comes from a non-religious strict interpretation of the Constitution. That goes way beyond "advise and consent", just as the Democrats did with nominations in the last term. And after President Bush took criticism to support him and help him win the nomination, For Sen. Sepcter to say this at this point, with Chief Justice Renquist's health situation, seems more than just a notice that he won't rubberstamp nominations. If you ask someone for help, you don't kick them to the curb the instant you don't their help anymore, and that's exactly what Specter did.
Zell Miller still voted with Democrats on a large number of issues. He didn't suddenly vote in line with Republicans or anything. But Specter is declaring a Democrat-style litmus test. For all the venom your party spewed on Sen. Miller, this represents a greater betrayal than anything Sen. Miller ever did.

But Specter is declaring a Democrat-style litmus test. For all the venom your party spewed on Sen. Miller, this represents a greater betrayal than anything Sen. Miller ever did.

Only from the perspective of a died-in-the-wool Republican. Otherwise, that statement is more than a bit of a stretch. I would argue that "declaring a Democrat-style litmus test" on a single issue...even an important and contentious one...is no worse than openly and virulently endorsing an opposing candidate for president, particularly at the opposing primary. Do you think Senator Miller would have done this if he had been running for re-election as a Democrat and needed party support and funding? If your concerns really have more to do with the context in which the dissent is raised, than you certainly have to lump Zell's actions under the whole "betrayal to party" tent (Gotta love all these tent analogies).

Re-reading the article, I see perhaps I over-reacted somewhat. I somehow got the impression he inherits the position by seniority or something. If this actually gives Senators a chance to know what his view is and then vote accordingly, then I agree it isn't a betrayal and is actually pretty good.

That is all. We now return you to your normally scheduled inanity.

This seems a clear example of where conservatives and moderates part ways. The giveaway is the use of the word “betrayal”. As you admit, too strong, but your emotion was revealed. Specter’s action is a betrayal only if he swore an oath to support an agenda which included voting for and otherwise supporting Conservative judicial appointments. He either did and is a rat or he did not and he is free to speak his mind. I do not think that speaking his mind now is a betrayal. When you feel that your leader is wrong or is tempted to head in a wrong direction, you oftentimes support him best by opposing him. This being politics and all it may only be that Spectre hopes to reap some political benefit from his statement. I don’t think so.
It would be a grave mistake to interpret the Bush victory as a blanket endorsement of the entire Conservative agenda. Repealing Roe v Wade is not a majority position and the majority feels very strongly about it. It may be the new “third rail” in American politics for the President. Appointing judges who overturn it will only result in a Constitutional Amendment (yes, the votes are there, count ‘em) and a rending of America that ends who knows where. Surely President Bush is smart enough and cares enough about America to not let that happen. Specter is right to stand up right now so that we don’t start down that slippery slope. This really is the wrong war at the wrong time in the wrong place.

Waitasecond. Now you assume too much. This is about integrity more than the actual issues. I actually don't support the repealing of Roe vs. Wade.
Well, I don't support the complete banning of abortion. I support more restrictions, tho. But if Roe vs. Wade should be repealed, it should only be to replace it with something else that can't be threatened by 1 change of a SCOTUS Justice. I've often said that the pro-abortionists stupidly accepted a temporary victory now rather than waiting 5 years for a permanent one.
Now, I've said why this issue is important to me three different ways and the three of you don't seem to catch it: If I cover your back to get you elected, you damn well better cover my back on my most major issues.
Bush spent political capital supporting Specter. And Specter's first announcement after winning the seat again is to announce that he'll block any attempt to put a strict constructionist on the SCOTUS?
But like I said, if this just helps Senate Republicans to realize he's the wrong person for the position, then that's good. If it's an announcement of: "This is where I stand, and I'm telling you now so you won't be surprised later," then I would consider that honorable. I just didn't get that impression the first time I read it. And apparently bunches of other people didn't, either.
Part of it simply might be the way the reporter edited/transcribed the statement, since the reporter is the same one who distorted Sen. Santorum's statements to make them seem more inflammatory, the same reporter whose husband worked on Kerry's campaign.