Bye bye, Chairman Specter?

[The Duke]

Shouldn't this have been expected? This is what happens when you support people like Specter. Don't blame me! I supported Toomey!

Ah, but did the fellow in your sig?

Cheap shot, I know.  But now Bush, Santorum, and the establishment reap what they sow.

[The Duke]

Wh are the Democrats all claiming that Specter never promised to pick a conservative?  Why are they pretending that we just misunderstood all of Specter's campaign promises and promises to the caucus?

And where is Specter's biggest fan, htmldon, as the man from Philly sticks us in the back?

[The Duke]

Specter is chairman SOLELY because he made this promise.  Since he broke it, he should be removed.  Had he told the truth, he'd never have gotten the job.

[The Duke]

first of all let me add, that im a strong supporter of president bush, and i support *most* of his judicial nominees.

however, the white house has no right to be pissed at specter.  they want him to rubber-stamp all of bush's appointments.  that is not the job of the senate.  if specter were to do that, hed be abdicating his reponsibilities as a senator.

He's not being asked to be a rubber stamp. He was the one who promised something to those that promised to support him. He went back on it. Also, bringing up judges that have already been confirmed is a ridiculous idea.

What's more important...politics or integrity? I guess we see which side you stand on.

Integrity would require standing by your word. Specter hasn't done that.

How so. He put his ideology and his values before party politics. That doesn't happen on either side of the aisle much these days. Thats integrity in my book.

He said one thing and did another.  If that's your idea of integrity, okay.

Welcome to the Forum in any case.

[The Duke]

The Specetr defenses here have gotten a bit laughable.  There are certain incontrovertible facts.

If Specter had not promised to back Bush's nominees and campaign for himm in the state, Bush would not have campaigned for himm in the Primaries and Toomey would have won that primary.

Specter did not campaign for Bush, nor is he backing a conservative judicial agenda.  Had he told the truth, he would have lost.

If Specter had not promised to appoint conservatives to the committee staff and back Bush's nominees, the caucus would never have named him Chairman of Judiciary.

Speccter has nominated arch leftists to the staff and has admonished Bush for sending conservatives to the bench.  Had he told the truth, he would not have become chairman.

Some, like me and Keystone, knew he was lying and never trusted him.  But he did trick enough people to win the primary and then to become head of Judiciary.  That makes him a liar, and it invalidates his victories to some extent because they were won by lying, and had he told the truth he'd have lost.  That's reprehensible, and Democrats would not defend a pro-lfe Democrat who had done the same thing and they know it.

[The Duke]

Reid's not pro life.  And yes, our tent is bigger.

Problem is we're like the mafia, a kind of loyalty is required.  You make a promise to us, you keep it or else.

[The Duke]

Reid's not pro life.  And yes, our tent is bigger.

Problem is we're like the mafia, a kind of loyalty is required.  You make a promise to us, you keep it or else.

http://www.issues2000.org/Social/Harry_Reid_Abortion.htm
Oh yeah ... he's not pro-life.

The Republicans are a big tent?  Not according to Christie Todd Whitman.  In her new book she says quite the opposite.

Voted YES on maintaining ban on Military Base Abortions.
Voted YES on disallowing overseas military abortions.
Voted YES on criminal penalty for harming unborn fetus during other crime.
Voted YES on banning partial birth abortions except for maternal life.
Voted YES on banning partial birth abortions.

Unless you think the majority the vast of Americans are pro-life, then this does not qualify Reid as pro-life.  All of these measures passed the Senate, yet the Senate voted this past year to declare that the Roe v. Wade case was "rightly decided".  So obviously. many Senators support these measures but still think abortion is a Constitutional right.

If you believe abortion should be illegal unless there is rape, incest, or the life/health of the mother in danger, then you are pro-life.  If you don't believe that, you are not pro life.  Someone like Reid, who voted to affirm Roe in a sense of the Senate resolution does not believe abortion should be illegal, and is therefore not pro-life.

[The Duke]

Health is a little too broad. That could encompass a lot of things ("I have morning sickness").

Anyway, the Judiciary Committee is just about confirming judges, and plays no role at all in appointing them, right?

None, Constitutionally anyway.

[The Duke]

It doesn't mena they can't be Republicans, there are many pro-choice Republicans, and they're very welcome here.  But they are not pro-life, and shouldn't (and don't) pretend to be.  Reid shouldn't pretend to be something he's not either, and you shouldn't pretend he's something he's not.

If you think abortion should be legal, you're pro-choice, if you think it should be illegal, you're pro-life, and if you favor legal but heavily restricted you're neither.

And obvioulsy, I don't think he's against us 100%, he may even be with us more often than he is against us.  That doesn't mena he believes the things a pro-lifer believes.

[The Duke]

I don't know how anyone can definitively say that Toomey would have won or lost, since no one will ever know.

[The Duke]

By the way, I think anti-sodomy laws are completely ridiculous. I'm just saying, he didn't actually compare homosexuality to beastiality, he was just making a legal point.

Their were many ways he could have made the point without throwing beastiality in the mix.  By him throwing beastiality in the mix it shows he really does think that way.  Any rational person, or someone who doesn't think thay homosexuals are comparable would never even think of bringing up beastiality in context of a homosexual converstaion, even if it was just a legal point, no sane person does that

No sane person who isn't, well, a lawyer anyway.

If you know the law, you know the law, and you say what you know.  Santorum knew the law in this case, and what he said has merit.  There is certainly a counter case, but it is not as compelling in purely legal terms as Santorum's was.

Sodomy laws are unconscienable, but not unconstitutional.

[The Duke]

I can't believe I actually have to explain this to you guys.

In homosexual relations there are two consenting adults. In bestiality there is an animal who cannot give consent. It is, quite plainly, animal abuse.

An animal is property, and does not need to give consent.  It doesn't have rights like a person does.