I'd rather vote Hillary than Specter

Regarding Santorum's decision to back Specter, I'm not sure that he "co-operated with evil." It's not as if the Democrats were going to put up a pro-lifer against Specter, so the likely result, no matter whether or not Santorum offered support, would have been a pro-abortion senator.

As I see it, there were two good reasons for Santorum to support him: first, because the Republicans only had a 51-49 majority, so they couldn't afford to lose any of their members; second, Specter has been good about supporting Santorum, whose conservatism is somewhat out of step with Pennsylvania voters. He needs all the help he can get every time he's re-elected, and if a "moderate" (read: liberal) Republican such as Specter endorses Santorum, it makes moderate voters feel better about their choice.

That being said, Specter has no business being the Judiciary chairman.

Of course Specter is unacceptable: at least a Hillary win wouldn't wreck the GOP as a pro-life party, whereas a Specter presidency would.

I've looked over the interview where Specter supposedly "warns" Pres. Bush. It just didn't happen. I suggest you all read it and see for yourself:
(1) He points out his yes vote on Pryor as an example of what he'll do.
(2) He suggests that the Dems will filibuster conservative SC nominees and that the President will probably take that into account (in response to a question).

Sorry, but suggesting that the Pres. might nominate a "moderate" is hardly a threat to him. It's simply a fact - there was an article recently on the WSJ on (White House counsel) Gonzales as a possible nominee for the SC, for instance.

Take a look at Specter's real position on judges (search specter.senate.gov with Google for "judges"):

What the Democrats are doing here today is really seeking a constitutional revolution ... The effort is being made by the Democrats to have their acceptable ideology without the traditional deference which has been paid to the President ... It is high time we had a protocol which both sides respected wherein so many days after a nomination, there is a hearing, so many days later, a vote in committee, and so many days later, a vote on the full floor ... There is a constitutional revolution underway here to change the fundamental way judges are selected ... But it is my hope that cooler heads can prevail and we can sit down and work this out so that when the shoe is on the other foot, we don't have this kind of gridlock and this effort to really upset longstanding constitutional principles.

Mr. President, I begin by taking direct issue with the arguments by the Senator from Massachusetts. The advice and consent function set forth in the Constitution has been consistently interpreted for 216 years to confirm Presidential nominations, unless there is a reason not to. That has been the practice. Now we have a new position advocated by the Democrats, saying if there are 41 obstructors, then the Democrats want an equal share in the process of judicial selection ... I am delighted that we have been joined by a number of Senators from the other side of the aisle. It is my hope that we will yet get five additional Senators who will break the deadlock and we will move to cloture and we will end this debate [on Estrada].

Tonight the Senate is engaging in a proceeding to call the attention of the American people to a very serious matter which exists on the confirmation of Federal judges ... Three years ago, I proposed a judicial protocol to establish a timetable that 60 days after the President submitted a nomination to the Judiciary Committee, there had to be a hearing; 30 days thereafter, there had to be action by the Judiciary Committee on the nomination; 30 days later, the matter had to be brought to the floor of the Senate. Those times could be extended on cause shown by the chairman of the committee with notice to the ranking member or by the majority leader with notice to the minority leader. But those time parameters should be established ... It does not require a Nostradamus to predict or to understand that the current approach on imposing an ideological test is a precursor for the Supreme Court of the United States. When the Senate is constituted as it is at the present time, it is easy to project that we will find a Supreme Court nominee, who does not satisfy the standards of the other party, subjected to a filibuster and to have a vacancy on the Court. What we are moving toward is deadlock ... I hope the American people tell us what they would like to have done: Whether you would like to have this kind of projected stalemate where nominees wait endlessly and where it takes 60 votes, a supermajority, to cut off debate and bring it to a vote, or whether you would like us to follow the constitutional mandate of 51 votes in confirmation so that these judges may be confirmed, may take their places to see that justice is done in an equitable way within a reasonable time period.

Take a look at Specter's real position on judges (search specter.senate.gov with Google for "judges"):

The problem is that there isn't one "real position" on judges with Specter. There are two, or rather two Specters. There's Normal Specter, who is dominant 4-5 out of 6 years and there is "Saving My Own Arse" Specter, who is dominant 1, maybe 2, out of every six years. It was Normal Specter who borked Bork. It was SMOA Specter who supported Clarence Thomas, whom he (Normal Specter, I believe) later said to be a disappointment.

Arlen Specter won't be running again until 2010, if he ever runs again. Normal Specter will be dominant for the entire Bush presidency and that could prove disasterous to any attempt to reverse, or even merely stop the damage being done by the activist judiciary.

Ugh, and who cares what Ann Coulter thinks? She is a demon, nothing Catholic or remotely Christian about this women...she is so mean spirited and evil natured.

Peter,

You are right, Specter should be defeated for this position. How about the Jewish prolife community chiming in here on this too.

Catholic Dem,

You sound like a real "feeling liberal". Please
give some examples of Ann's statements that maker her a demon.

FYI

-----------------
Forwarded Message:
Subj: NEW DATE: "Bork>Specter Pray-In" Tues Nov.16 @ Sen. Bill Frist's Office in DC
Date: 11/6/2004 4:27:18 PM Eastern Standard Time
From: SlatteryNY
To: AliciaGns

Take Stop Specter Action at these brand new websites
http://www.stopspecter.com/
http://www.notspecter.com/

&

And Join Evangelical and Catholic Pro-Life Leaders

The Rev. Rob Schenck, Rev. Pat Mahoney, and Chris Slattery

and cry out with us:

"No Judiciary Committee Chair To Sen. Arlen Specter"

and join our

"Bork>Specter - Pro-Life Pray-In"
Tuesday, November 16th

Assemble at either:
109 Second St. NE
(near U.S. Supreme Court)
12:30PM
(then we will process to pray)
or Arrive
at 1PM at 1st St. and Constitution Ave.

[Some will stay outside Senate Office Building
and some will go inside the office of]

Senator Bill First
461 Dirksen Senate Office Building
Washington, DC

Contact Senator Bill First by email @ Bill Frist, M.D.
http://frist.senate.gov/index.cfm?FuseAction=AboutSenatorFrist.ContactForm
Phone 202-224-3344 or fax to 202-228-1264

Contacting the White House [En Español]
Phone Numbers
Comments: 202-456-1111
Switchboard: 202-456-1414
FAX: 202-456-2461
E-Mail President George W. Bush: president@whitehouse.gov

Tell President Bush and Senator Frist that
we Need a Loyal Pro-Life Chairman
Say NO to A. Specter for Judiciary Committee Chairmanship

Contact Chris Slattery at (914) 224-5773 or
Rev.Pat Mahoney at (540) 538-4741

http://www.stopspecter.com/
http://www.notspecter.com/