Bye bye, Chairman Specter?

[Wakie]

2 thoughts on this.

(1) Guess you PA Repubs should have voted for Hoeffel.

(2) If Kemerer is the most qualified individual for the job then why not hire him?  Specter was elected to represent ALL of the people of PA, not just the Republicans.  (You guys are the ones who get upset when people disown politicians by saying things like "he's not my president".)  At the end of the day Specter can always override Kemerer.

[Wakie]

Correct me if I'm wrong here but I don't think Specter made this promise during the election, did he?  Kemerer is responsible for the vetting process.  If he fails in that responsibility surely he would be fired and replaced.  If anything he's going to be extra cautious in the vetting process because he'll know there's a target on his back.  Remember, Specter can always override him.

[Wakie]

Correct me if I'm wrong here but I don't think Specter made this promise during the election, did he?  Kemerer is responsible for the vetting process.  If he fails in that responsibility surely he would be fired and replaced.  If anything he's going to be extra cautious in the vetting process because he'll know there's a target on his back.  Remember, Specter can always override him.

He made a promise to those that promised to support him for Judiciary Chair and he went back on his word. Is that integrity?

Yes, it is, because he is more concerned about representing those who voted for him, and protecting American's freedom, than giving in to a bunch of intolerant religious.

Agreed. I'd rather have him stand up for the people who elected him.

But he's breaking the promises he made to those that chose him as Chairman. Who's to say that a conservative, which he promised, wouldn't serve the people of PA? Can't he serve the people and keep his promises?

Sometimes you cannot do that.  Do you really think he WANTED to break a promise and deal with the headaches that he, an experienced politician, knew that would cause?

I can't believe I'm defending Arlen Specter.

[Wakie]

Correct me if I'm wrong here but I don't think Specter made this promise during the election, did he?  Kemerer is responsible for the vetting process.  If he fails in that responsibility surely he would be fired and replaced.  If anything he's going to be extra cautious in the vetting process because he'll know there's a target on his back.  Remember, Specter can always override him.

He made a promise to those that promised to support him for Judiciary Chair and he went back on his word. Is that integrity?

Yes, it is, because he is more concerned about representing those who voted for him, and protecting American's freedom, than giving in to a bunch of intolerant religious.

Agreed. I'd rather have him stand up for the people who elected him.

But he's breaking the promises he made to those that chose him as Chairman. Who's to say that a conservative, which he promised, wouldn't serve the people of PA? Can't he serve the people and keep his promises?

Sometimes you cannot do that.  Do you really think he WANTED to break a promise and deal with the headaches that he, an experienced politician, knew that would cause?

Oh come on. Specter is known for this stuff.

Ok, so you think he wanted to deal with these headaches.  You're entitled to your opinion.  I just don't think it makes sense.

[Wakie]

This amazes me.  You guys want to lynch Specter because of a broken promise.  OMG, a politician who breaks a promise!?!  Wow ... we should burn him and his children.

"Read my lips, no new taxes."

[Wakie]

This amazes me.  You guys want to lynch Specter because of a broken promise.  OMG, a politician who breaks a promise!?!  Wow ... we should burn him and his children.

"Read my lips, no new taxes."

And "Read my lips, no new taxes" was wrong. We cannot justify breaking promises because "every politician does it." Ever wonder why so many people distrust politicians? I was at lunch Friday at a local diner. A waitress heard my friend and me discussing politics. She started telling us how "they're [politicians] are all corrupt." See how a few corrupt people give even the good a bad reputation?

Specter broke the promise. Specter should be removed. The worst part is that everyone should have seen something like this happening.

Wait a second ... so what you're saying is that every politician who breaks a promise should be removed, is that correct?

[Wakie]

This amazes me.  You guys want to lynch Specter because of a broken promise.  OMG, a politician who breaks a promise!?!  Wow ... we should burn him and his children.

"Read my lips, no new taxes."

And "Read my lips, no new taxes" was wrong. We cannot justify breaking promises because "every politician does it." Ever wonder why so many people distrust politicians? I was at lunch Friday at a local diner. A waitress heard my friend and me discussing politics. She started telling us how "they're [politicians] are all corrupt." See how a few corrupt people give even the good a bad reputation?

Specter broke the promise. Specter should be removed. The worst part is that everyone should have seen something like this happening.

Wait a second ... so what you're saying is that every politician who breaks a promise should be removed, is that correct?

Specter has consistently broken these promises and cannot be trusted with a role of leadership.

You're avoiding the question.  It is a simple yes or no.  Should every politician who breaks a promise be removed from office?

[Wakie]

This amazes me.  You guys want to lynch Specter because of a broken promise.  OMG, a politician who breaks a promise!?!  Wow ... we should burn him and his children.

"Read my lips, no new taxes."

And "Read my lips, no new taxes" was wrong. We cannot justify breaking promises because "every politician does it." Ever wonder why so many people distrust politicians? I was at lunch Friday at a local diner. A waitress heard my friend and me discussing politics. She started telling us how "they're [politicians] are all corrupt." See how a few corrupt people give even the good a bad reputation?

Specter broke the promise. Specter should be removed. The worst part is that everyone should have seen something like this happening.

Wait a second ... so what you're saying is that every politician who breaks a promise should be removed, is that correct?

Specter has consistently broken these promises and cannot be trusted with a role of leadership.

You're avoiding the question.  It is a simple yes or no.  Should every politician who breaks a promise be removed from office?

If it's as consistent as Specter's promise breaking, yes they should be voted out of office and removed from the position they were elected to by their colleagues.

Just out of curiousity, what other promises has Specter broken?

[Wakie]

Here's Arlen Specter's campaign working hard for the President.

Where is that a broken promise?  That is just him deciding he prefers one candidate over the other.  Just because you disagree with him doesn't mean he should resign.

[Wakie]

Here's Arlen Specter's campaign working hard for the President.

Where is that a broken promise?  That is just him deciding he prefers one candidate over the other.  Just because you disagree with him doesn't mean he should resign.

Nice try. Specter said he would campaign for the President. He broke his promise and people in his campaign made up this sign. Your attempts at defending Specter are really pathetic. I don't even think Specter himself could believe you.

I'm not really a Specter fan ... I voted Hoeffel.  What I'm really doing here is pointing out that you're whining because Specter doesn't want to play all out cronyism.  Now I fail to recall ever seeing Specter pledge to campaign for Bush (although I did see him campaign for Bush).

All of that said, there's no need to start launching personal attacks.  If you would prefer that to rational discussion just say so.

[Wakie]

Is it more important for a Senator to

1) Follow his instincts and hire the best person to do a job for the American people.

OR

2) Hire someone who is 2nd rate just to keep a promise to his party's leadership.

[Wakie]

Yeah well ... politicians say stupid things.  They say, "no new taxes" or "combat operations in Iraq are over" or promise to maintain steel tariffs and then 3 days later lift them.

[Wakie]

Is it more important for a Senator to

1) Follow his instincts and hire the best person to do a job for the American people.

OR

2) Hire someone who is 2nd rate just to keep a promise to his party's leadership.

Where is "Be honest to his colleagues" on that list?

Jump around it all you'd like, Wakie. Specter has broken his promises to his colleagues.

Oh I'll make no bones about it ... Specter broke his promise.  This leads us to ask the question ... why would a guy who was already walking on thin ice with his party do that?

Your explanation seems to be "he just loves doing it".  That is ridiculous.

If there was something in it for him you could make that argument.  But the only thing he gets out of this are headaches.

The only rational conclusion is that he thought Kremerer was the best person for the job.

I find it refreshing that a politician would be willing to tell his party to get stuffed in order to do what he feels is right for America.

[Wakie]

Is it more important for a Senator to

1) Follow his instincts and hire the best person to do a job for the American people.

OR

2) Hire someone who is 2nd rate just to keep a promise to his party's leadership.

Where is "Be honest to his colleagues" on that list?

Jump around it all you'd like, Wakie. Specter has broken his promises to his colleagues.

Oh I'll make no bones about it ... Specter broke his promise.  This leads us to ask the question ... why would a guy who was already walking on thin ice with his party do that?

Your explanation seems to be "he just loves doing it".  That is ridiculous.

If there was something in it for him you could make that argument.  But the only thing he gets out of this are headaches.

The only rational conclusion is that he thought Kremerer was the best person for the job.

I find it refreshing that a politician would be willing to tell his party to get stuffed in order to do what he feels is right for America.

Ok well you're wrong right of the bat. I don't say "he just loves doing it."

Specter's ego is immeasurable. Power, power, power. Why do you think he made the Kerry-Specter signs? He wanted to boost his support in Philly. He knew that with Clymer on the ballot he wouldn't get the complete landslide that he wanted.

He broke his promise to his colleagues so he could get the post. I don't think that's doing something "right" for America. I think it only feeds into the stereotype that politicians are crooked and willing to break a promise.

1) You claim Specter made the "Specter & Kerry" sign.  Maybe he did or maybe a staffer produced them.  I'm really not all that hung up on it since that doesn't tie into this issue at all.

2) You said that Specter is doing this because he wants power.  If that were true he would have nominated an ultra-conservative.  That would get him in tighter with his party so that he would be able to climb higher on the political jungle gym.  Realistically he isn't ever running for reelection.

3) I can understand how your argument applies to why Specter made the promise in the first place.  But your argument doesn't explain why he's breaking it though.  Mine does.

[Wakie]

1) Yeah, they probably did authorize it.  I'm not all that hung up on this issue and I don't really see where it applies for this conversation.

2) Oh he certainly could climb higher.  6 years is a long time.  There are other committees.  There is certainly legislation he's going to want to get through Congress.  There is quite a bit he could have "won" through brown-nosing.

3) Specter may have had this guy in mind to begin with or he may not have.  Neither you or I can really say because we can't crawl into Specter's head.  At the end of the day though he clearly believes this guy is the best person for the job.  Shouldn't he hire the best person for the job for the American people?

[Wakie]

1) Yeah, they probably did authorize it.  I'm not all that hung up on this issue and I don't really see where it applies for this conversation.

2) Oh he certainly could climb higher.  6 years is a long time.  There are other committees.  There is certainly legislation he's going to want to get through Congress.  There is quite a bit he could have "won" through brown-nosing.

3) Specter may have had this guy in mind to begin with or he may not have.  Neither you or I can really say because we can't crawl into Specter's head.  At the end of the day though he clearly believes this guy is the best person for the job.  Shouldn't he hire the best person for the job for the American people?

1) It has to do with his consistent breaking of promises.

2) Specter won't go higher than Judiciary Chairman.

3) Stop this "it's what's best for the American people." stuff. The American people are tired of seeing politicians breaking promises. They could be served well by a conservative Republican.

Phil, you keep banging on this drum saying he consistently breaks promises but all you come up with is this position.  You claim that somehow a campaign sign is also a broken promise but I think you're reaching.

Seriously, this sounds like you are bitter that not every position in government is filled by a conservative Republican.

[Wakie]

Who does he have a greater responsibility to ... the American people or the Republican party?

The "sign" you keep harping on is immaterial.  Certainly Bush and Santorum and company saw those signs too ... yet they continued to campaign for him.  You say that is a "broken promise".  No, it's just a grab for votes.

[Wakie]

Who does he have a greater responsibility to ... the American people or the Republican party?

The "sign" you keep harping on is immaterial.  Certainly Bush and Santorum and company saw those signs too ... yet they continued to campaign for him.  You say that is a "broken promise".  No, it's just a grab for votes.

Bush, Santorum, and company didn't really campaign for Specter during the General election. That's when those signs popped up. You wanted examples of Specter's broken promises. Specter said during the primary that he would work for the President in PA. He didn't do much of anything and in fact made signs promoting himself with Bush's opponent. Promise broken.

Also, Specter shouldn't have made a promise for a Republican if there was that chance that the nominee wouldn't be "the best" for the American people. End of story.

True.  Of course the flip side of this is that the GOP should not have solicited such a promise from Specter.  Obviously there will be a chance that "the best" isn't a Republican.  They could be a Dem, a Repub, a Lib, a Green, or totally non-political.

[Wakie]

Hold on a second there Phil ... where do you get the idea that "he's spending Republican money"?  My understanding is that this position is paid by the Federal Government.  The Federal Government pays liberals and conservatives.

I must say I was amused by this line from the story, "Especially irksome to conservatives is a report filed with the Federal Election Commission showing that Short donated $500 to Sen. Hillary Clinton’s (D-N.Y.) 2000 campaign."  I wonder if they'd complain if that money was donated to Zell Miller.

Ahh ... how delightfully ridiculous the GOP has become.

[Wakie]

Hold on a second there Phil ... where do you get the idea that "he's spending Republican money"?  My understanding is that this position is paid by the Federal Government.  The Federal Government pays liberals and conservatives.

I must say I was amused by this line from the story, "Especially irksome to conservatives is a report filed with the Federal Election Commission showing that Short donated $500 to Sen. Hillary Clinton’s (D-N.Y.) 2000 campaign."  I wonder if they'd complain if that money was donated to Zell Miller.

Ahh ... how delightfully ridiculous the GOP has become.

Ask the GOP aides that said he was spending Republican money. Keep avoiding these points, Wakie.

You know I don't have direct contact with a GOP aide so I can't.  And honestly, that isn't a point.  If there was some explanation of that statement it would make sense.  Otherwise it is just boring rhetoric probably by a 23 year old kid (as in a 23 y/o staffer).

[Wakie]

Hold on a second there Phil ... where do you get the idea that "he's spending Republican money"?  My understanding is that this position is paid by the Federal Government.  The Federal Government pays liberals and conservatives.

I must say I was amused by this line from the story, "Especially irksome to conservatives is a report filed with the Federal Election Commission showing that Short donated $500 to Sen. Hillary Clinton’s (D-N.Y.) 2000 campaign."  I wonder if they'd complain if that money was donated to Zell Miller.

Ahh ... how delightfully ridiculous the GOP has become.

Ask the GOP aides that said he was spending Republican money. Keep avoiding these points, Wakie.

You know I don't have direct contact with a GOP aide so I can't. 

From now on, if I can't have direct contact with someone involved in a story, I won't believe it. Sound good?

Ok, you tell me to "ask the GOP aides".  I respond "I can't because I don't know any".  Then you whine?

What Republican money is being spent?  That isn't explained any where.  It is just an offhand comment that makes little sense (lousy journalism by the website for not explaining it).

[Wakie]

Hold on a second there Phil ... where do you get the idea that "he's spending Republican money"?  My understanding is that this position is paid by the Federal Government.  The Federal Government pays liberals and conservatives.

I must say I was amused by this line from the story, "Especially irksome to conservatives is a report filed with the Federal Election Commission showing that Short donated $500 to Sen. Hillary Clinton’s (D-N.Y.) 2000 campaign."  I wonder if they'd complain if that money was donated to Zell Miller.

Ahh ... how delightfully ridiculous the GOP has become.

Ask the GOP aides that said he was spending Republican money. Keep avoiding these points, Wakie.

You know I don't have direct contact with a GOP aide so I can't. 

From now on, if I can't have direct contact with someone involved in a story, I won't believe it. Sound good?

Ok, you tell me to "ask the GOP aides".  I respond "I can't because I don't know any".  Then you whine?

What Republican money is being spent?  That isn't explained any where.  It is just an offhand comment that makes little sense (lousy journalism by the website for not explaining it).

Are you aware that these sources aren't just no-body aides? This is The Hill - one of the most well known, political newspapers in the country.

My point when I said "ask the aides" was that they knew about it and commented. Now you'll just refuse to believe it.

Tell ya what, email Alex Bolton (the writer of the article) and ask him to explain what Republican money is being referred to.  When/If he responds add it to this thread.  Also ask the approximate age of the "aide".  His address is alexb@thehill.com

[Wakie]

Phil, the email is sent.

You know, if you didn't like Specter you didn't have to vote for him.  Bush and Santorum didn't have to endorse him (I guess their lust for power outweighed their better judgement, eh?).  Don't blame me, I voted for Hoeffel.

Your party seems to be lynching its moderates though.  McCain, Chaffee, Whitman, and now Specter are all being shouted down by the extreme rightwing.

[Wakie]

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.

[Wakie]

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.

That is small tent Republican thinking.  If someone doesn't agree with you 100% then they are against you 100%.