Republicans Begin to Eat Their Own

OR: Is Arlen Specter Really Too Liberal?

Arlen Specter, Chairman of the Senate Judicial Committee, is a Republican from Pennsylvania where he has served as a conservative representative for over 20 years. Specter is generally considered to be fiscally conservative and has fought against government expenditure for such programs as healthcare for many years. Democrats are said to see him as less moderate than many in the Senate but someone who can be reasoned with on matters of substance. But Specter has "pro-choice" stamped on his forehead in a time when as many as 4 Supreme Court justices may be chosen and the neocons see him as a block to the neoconservative agenda of overturning Roe V. Wade and sending abortions back into alleys and brothels.

Specter has supported Preseident Bush almost 100% of the time but sees his role on the Judicial Committee as a bond of honor to the country. He does not want to see abortion become a more divisive issue than it is now but sees the religious right as a threat to "strict constructionistism" because the agenda of religious leaders extends far beyond abortion.

What Specter did not anticipate is that the President he has supported and believes in would turn on him as being a traitor to Republican values by his stance on choice. Once again, the Bush administration shows itself to not be conservative in any appreciable way and indeed to be a radical group of people who used the Republican Party to gain power and then fights within the party to move the it to their radical position.

The Democratic Party is often accused of being a concensus of 20 separate interest groups and certainly the commonality (the big tent approach) of the party is that supporting each other is better than letting the opposition steal the agenda. The re-election of Mr. Bush has shown the concensus to have failed to do this. Indeed, the Bush administration believes it has a mandate to change tax laws, social security, and how justice is done in the U.S. If the Democrats are going to gain any chance to make input in these issues then it is going to need at least a sympathetic ear to listen.

If you would have suggested before now that Arlen Specter would have such an ear before now I think that few would have agreed. However, I think Senator Specter is going to find out how far away his party has moved from his values and ideals. Senator Frist, the Majority Leader in the Senate, a potential candidate in 2008 is already looking away from Specter and considering alternatives to his chairmanship of the Judiciary Committee. Many others in the Senate are lining up against Specter, running scared from the monster in the White House who will stop at nothing to shape the United States in "his image."

This signals an even more important turn in the course of post-election America. It is a continuing revolution in the Republican "Party" that wil continue to adopt more and more of the leadership of the Jerry Falwells and Pat Robertsons whom many even in conservative congregations see as extremists. But as "moderates" are pushed out of the way like Colin Powell and Arlen Specter the agenda of the neocons becomes a possibility. Deficit spending, more tax cuts, extremist justice and more burdens placed on the workers and the poor are just some of the future as the administration moves closer and closer to it's core philosophy.

Is this really what you wanted when you voted for Bush?
24,095 views 45 replies
Reply #1 Top
At least someone has the 'nads to come out and say it.
Reply #3 Top
Seconding Little_Whip - Yes.

And btw, your blog is wrong in a most important area:

By CrispE:

Arlen Specter, Chairman of the Senate Judicial Committee, is a Republican from Pennsylvania where he has served as a conservative representative for over 20 years. Specter is generally considered to be fiscally conservative and has fought against government expenditure for such programs as healthcare for many years. Democrats are said to see him as less moderate than many in the Senate but someone who can be reasoned with on matters of substance. But Specter has "pro-choice" stamped on his forehead in a time when as many as 4 Supreme Court justices may be chosen and the neocons see him as a block to the neoconservative agenda of overturning Roe V. Wade and sending abortions back into alleys and brothels.


Specter is not a conservative. He is at best a moderate, at worst a total liberal.

He may be somewhat conservative on the fiscal side, but in every other way, he is completely and totally a RINO - Republican In Name Only.

He was lucky to keep his seat in the Senate, as he was almost beaten down in the primaries by a true conservative. If the Bush team had not gotten behind Specter, he'd have been gone, even if replaced by a Democrat. Some would say that might not be a bad thing, since that would have passed over Specter for seniority on the Judiciary commitee (with him gone) and his replacement would have started at the bottom of the seniority list for any position anyway (and would have been in the minority at the same time).

Specter himself is to blame for this recent flare up over his record. He ran his yap lecturing the President to be mindful of who he nominates for any openings on any court, and in doing so, completely over-stepped his bounds. He tried to deny it even a day later, but it was on the record for all to read and/or hear.

Personally, I don't mind a moderate Republican, but I look at Specter and see someone that might just as well pull a Jim Jeffords and switch to the other side or go totally Indy (independent). As much as think Jeffords was a creep for switching to independent back in 2000/2001 just after the election (which robbed the citizens who voted for a Republican to represent them from that Republican representation), at least he had guts enough to switch, and he has since faced re-election.

Specter has been a fence sitter for a long time, and he's danced around as a conservative when it benefits him, while at the same time he's shown himself to be a liberal so that he can keep pulling in votes from the left so he doesn't get sent home packing.
Reply #4 Top
Republicans Begin to Eat Their Own

By: CrispE
Posted: Monday, November 15, 2004 on Engaging the Possible
Message Board: Politics
Arlen Specter, Chairman of the Senate Judicial Committee, is a Republican from Pennsylvania where he has served as a conservative representative for over 20 years. Specter is generally considered to be fiscally conservative and has fought against government expenditure for such programs as healthcare for many years. Democrats are said to see him as less moderate than many in the Senate but someone who can be reasoned with on matters of substance. But Specter has "pro-choice" stamped on his forehead in a time when as many as 4 Supreme Court justices may be chosen and the neocons see him as a block to the neoconservative agenda of overturning Roe V. Wade and sending abortions back into alleys and brothels.

Specter has supported Preseident Bush almost 100% of the time but sees his role on the Judicial Committee as a bond of honor to the country. He does not want to see abortion become a more divisive issue than it is now but sees the religious right as a threat to "strict constructionistism" because the agenda of religious leaders extends far beyond abortion.

What Specter did not anticipate is that the President he has supported and believes in would turn on him as being a traitor to Republican values by his stance on choice. Once again, the Bush administration shows itself to not be conservative in any appreciable way and indeed to be a radical group of people who used the Republican Party to gain power and then fights within the party to move the it to their radical position


In answer to your last question YES! And BTW it's not JUST the republican party. You find quite a few republican voters are not caring to much for him either! Obviously not enough to vote him out of office though. However he is being called a RINO! (Republican in name only)
His name around town is "Arlen Sphincter"
Reply #5 Top
little_whip:

As always I appreciate your honesty. Funny that you liked Colin Powell. Why do you think he is resigning? Couldn't be that he was sick of the neocons was it?
Reply #6 Top
Terpfan 1980:

Well, he is a conservative to anyone truly moderate and at one time was considered very conservative by most Democrats. So, standing on his record, he is conservative.
Reply #7 Top
drmiler:

Nice of you to call someone with over 20 years experience in the Senate and a perennial vote getter in a Blue state a derogatory name. I might have had some question about Republicans eatting their own before now but that has been cleared up for me. Thanks!
Reply #8 Top

Reply #8 By: CrispE - 11/15/2004 1:49:16 PM
drmiler:

Nice of you to call someone with over 20 years experience in the Senate and a perennial vote getter in a Blue state a derogatory name. I might have had some question about Republicans eatting their own before now but that has been cleared up for me. Thanks!


If you think I thought that stuff on my own,, you are sadly mistaken. All I did was reitterate what I've been hearing.
BTW if you think I'm alone in this, go back and read reply #4.
Reply #9 Top
drmiler:

No, I know you're not alone. What I think is that you have no respect for someone who has served his country in a very honorable manner but whom people you respect treat with derogatory and derision.
Reply #10 Top
little_whip:

Interesting that Colin Powell would be sent to "the black hole of negotiations." As if the "Road Map to Peace" isn't enough?
Reply #11 Top

Reply #11 By: CrispE - 11/15/2004 2:03:59 PM
drmiler:

No, I know you're not alone. What I think is that you have no respect for someone who has served his country in a very honorable manner but whom people you respect treat with derogatory and derision.


No, I have absolutely NO respect for an elected offical who abandons the basic precepts that got him elected in the first place.
Reply #12 Top
drmiler:

I wasn't aware a) you live in PA or b) you were voting when Senator Specter was originally elected to the Senate. I apologise.
Reply #13 Top
drmiler:

I wasn't aware a) you live in PA or b) you were voting when Senator Specter was originally elected to the Senate. I apologise.


Runs away!!

Plinko? To Philosophy Class of course!!
Reply #14 Top
No, I have absolutely NO respect for an elected offical who abandons the basic precepts that got him elected in the first place.


Then I guess Drmiler hates George Bush because he A) Said he was against nation building and B) campaigned as a moderate Republican.
Reply #15 Top
Myrrander:

I thought that reply was too easy so I went with the other one! Kudos and Tally ho!
Reply #17 Top
Of course Spector's detractors also fail to realize that he is a moderate Republican whose constituency is conprised of liberals, moderates, and a small number of the far-right . Pennsylvanian Republicans are by far more moderate than in other states. His job is to serve his constituency as a whole and not just the minority faction within his state. He has no duty to represent the far right agenda outside of his state. Again, the far right can't seem to understand that his job is to advance the will of his constituency as a whole and not just one segment of it. The majority of Pennsylvanians do not want Roe v. Wade touched and that includes the majority of his moderate Republican constituents. The fact that he stands up for what the majority of his constituents wants, leave him open for attack by his own party and he is labeled in a derogatory fashion as "disloyal," and with terms such as "RINO." This whole situation further underscores that the far right is not open to dissenting opinion or alternative points of view. If you are not with them, even as a member of the Republican party, you are against them. You will be targeted, silenced, and ousted. There is no room for compromise. Spector's job is not to cow tow to Religous right pressures coming from outside of his state. His job is to represent ALL Pennsylvanians as best he can. I lived in Pa when Spector was reelected many times and I voted for him because he was a moderate as did the majority of his constituents.

"If the Bush team had not gotten behind Specter, he'd have been gone, even if replaced by a Democrat. " That is correct which is further evidence that Pennsylvanians would not tolerate an extreme right social agenda. They would vote for a Democrat before an extreme right candidate. I suppose that was never even taken into consideration before the far right started labeling him as a non-Republican. I guess it never occurred to them that you can be fiscally conservative and socially moderate? No. You have to adopt the the far right social agenda or risk being targeted and forced out of the Republican party. Keep doing that and you will just force moderates to become independent swing voters or conservative Democrats.
Reply #18 Top
Gosh, you mean Specter wants George Bush to live up to his debate promise not to use abortion as a litmus test for judges? How dare him! Given Bush's record on his 2000 debate promises, Specter should realize that this is a man who says one thing to get elected and does another once elected. Damn that Arlen Specter! Damn him for his honesty! Damn him to hell!
Reply #19 Top
Reply #19 By: Citizen T_Bone4Justice - 11/15/2004 3:45:28 PM
Of course Spector's detractors also fail to realize that he is a moderate Republican whose constituency is conprised of liberals, moderates, and a small number of the far-right . Pennsylvanian Republicans are by far more moderate than in other states. His job is to serve his constituency as a whole and not just the minority faction within his state.


Very true about representing his own constituency, and not the rest of the nation, but a commitee chairman has a larger obligation to the party and/or to the country.

That is why there's such a fight going on here. Specter as a commitee member is fine. Specter as a chairman, responsible for helping to push nominees through, is a completely different thing.


And btw, there are plenty of more "moderate" and/or liberal Republicans, including Olympia Snow, Lincoln Chaffee, and a few others. (About 5 - 7 moderate to liberal leaning Republicans at last count, maybe 3 - 10 -- depending on how you count -- true moderate types, and the rest typically tilted more to the conservative side).


Myrr - you can grouse about W.'s debate statements, but in the end what most conservatives want are judges that will not make law but instead will interpret and/or apply the laws that are written by legislatures and will do no more than decide constitutionality of laws that are written. We don't need judges like the Florida Supremes that decide that they can override the will of the people as written into law by the Florida legislature, or judges like the ones in New Jersey that decide that election law can be tossed aside in order to save the Democratic party from it's own mistakes. Laws are laws. If they are constitutional, they should be upheld and honored, not tossed aside because someone decides they want different results.
Reply #20 Top
Myrrander:

I don't think it was cheap. It was honest and relevant (just a bit too easy) AND it was my second choice! Hehehe.
Reply #21 Top
terpfan 1980:

I think the problem is that Bush "talks" about building concensus, reaching out to moderates and working with others and the truth seems to be that he has an agenda and woe be it if you have any other opinion.

Now, maybe like Little_Whip that is what you voted for. You trust Bush so fully and implicitly that any decision he makes is gospel. But I would say most Americans would not agree with that concept.
Reply #22 Top
It seems that when judges follow the GOP party line, they are "good constructionists" but when they differ from the GOP party line they are "activist judges." At least be honest and say that you only want judges who rule the way you believe. That's all I'm asking for is some HONESTY from the Republicans. You all have woven yourselves this web of euphemistic lies and now you're stuck and don't even realize it. The left wants judges who rule in their favor. So does the right. At least be HONEST about it, geez.
Reply #23 Top
Reply #24 By: Myrrander - 11/15/2004 4:15:29 PM
It seems that when judges follow the GOP party line, they are "good constructionists" but when they differ from the GOP party line they are "activist judges." At least be honest and say that you only want judges who rule the way you believe. That's all I'm asking for is some HONESTY from the Republicans. You all have woven yourselves this web of euphemistic lies and now you're stuck and don't even realize it. The left wants judges who rule in their favor. So does the right. At least be HONEST about it, geez.


I'm happy to be honest about my beliefs.

Judges that make rules where none existed are activist, no matter whether they are doing so in decisions that support liberals or conservatives.

Judges that apply the law as written, or determine that the law is unconstitutional and bounce cases back because of it, are what I would normally call good jurists.

Judges need not follow the GOP party line. If a judge looks at an anti-abortion bill and calls it unconstitutional because it is, then so be it. They've done their job. If they look at the same bill and decide to implement a totally different set of rules because they know better than the legislature, then they are activist.

Easy example, the mayor in San Francisco (or was it chief councilmember?) that decided on his own that the laws that barred gay marriage were unconstitutional and could be suspended and/or ignored - ACTIVIST. If he were a judge and had handed down such a decision, he'd clearly be an activist.
Reply #24 Top
Myrrander and Terpfan:

Well, just my opinion, but here is what I like to see in judges, especially on the Supreme Court: Common Sense. For example, the ruling that said that a defendent in a criminal case deserves to have a lawyer to defend them (Gideon ruling). It doesn't say such a thing in the Constitution but the Supreme Court said that "equal protections under the law" IMPLIED that as common sense.

Terpfan, would you disagree with the court because you would say that it is "activist judgement"?
Myrrander, how is this what the "left" wants? Isn't it about looking at law in light of society and making decisions that balance law and practice? Consider pornography. Making a ruling saying it's up to the local community to make the decision on it essentially says the law trusts people in the neighborhood more than the state. But is that "liberal"?
Reply #25 Top

Judges that apply the law as written, or determine that the law is unconstitutional and bounce cases back because of it, are what I would normally call good jurists

so youre saying that roe v wade was flawed because the texas law it overturned didn't infringe on the protections guaranteed by the constitution?