PDA

View Full Version : Caution: Specter says President has no mandate



ODShowtime
11-05-2004, 12:03 AM
Caution: Specter says President has no mandate

Posted on Thu, Nov. 04, 2004

By Amy Worden, Carrie Budoff and Steve Goldstein
Inquirer Staff Writers

Invigorated by a decisive win and the prospect of assuming a more prominent role in the U.S. Senate, Arlen Specter cautioned President Bush yesterday not to interpret his own victory as a clear mandate, and urged him to respond to the Republican Party's more moderate wing.

Specter, as presumptive chairman of the powerful Senate Judiciary Committee, suggested that he would block any Bush nominee to the Supreme Court who opposed abortion rights. Reiterating his position that a woman's right to choose is "inviolate," he said overturning Roe v. Wade today would be akin to trying to reverse Brown v. Board of Education, the court's 1954 landmark desegregation decision.

Barring unforeseen GOP objections, Specter, 74, should assume the committee chairmanship in January. He also sent an unsubtle message to the White House that he expects nominees for the federal bench to be of the highest caliber, and took a critical swipe at the stature of the current court.

At a news conference less than 12 hours after winning a record fifth Senate term, Specter wasted no time in asserting himself.

"If you have a race that is won by a percent or two, you have a narrowly divided country, and that's not a traditional mandate," he said. "President Bush will have that very much in mind."

"The number-one item on my agenda is to try to move the party to the center," Specter said. "I want to focus on the politics of inclusion."

Specter spoke bluntly, as if he regarded himself as a "free agent," in the phrase of a political analyst, either because of his new power or because his fifth term might be his last.

This is the exact reason I voted for him.

To win the new term, Specter defeated Democratic U.S. Rep. Joseph M. Hoeffel by 11 percentage points, making the outcome one of his more decisive victories in 24 years.

He picked up more votes - almost 2.9 million - than ever before, and earned the second-largest plurality of his Senate campaigns. Specter offset a poor showing in the city by sweeping the Philadelphia suburbs and winning commanding margins through the rest of the state.

When recent polls showed Hoeffel down by more than 20 percentage points, "that was when I thought people had just decided that they would stay with seniority," Hoeffel said in an interview yesterday.

The campaign could have used more money for TV commercials, Hoeffel said, but he was pleased with how the race was conducted.

"I really felt we had a good chance of winning," Hoeffel said. "An 11-point margin is not a close margin, so it didn't work out as I hoped it would."

The Senate seniority that Specter emphasized so often during the campaign will likely take center stage in the coming months if Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist, who has been diagnosed with thyroid cancer, leaves the bench. In addition, a number of other justices are thought to be considering retirement.

Yesterday, Specter described Rehnquist as "gravely ill" before taking a jab at the chief justice and his colleagues, saying there were no longer legal "giants" on the bench of the caliber of Oliver Wendell Holmes, Louis Brandeis and Benjamin Cardozo.

"With all due respect, we don't have them on [the court] now," he said.

Specter's comments on judicial appointments were what conservatives feared - that despite receiving the President's help during the primary to overcome a conservative challenger, Specter would hold firm to his centrist principles with court nominees.

"There will be all eyes on Specter to see how he reacts to who the President selects," said Sarah Binder, an expert in the selection of judges at the Brookings Institute in Washington. "I'm sure the administration will consult with Specter to see what will fly."

Specter, who is in line to succeed the committee's current chairman, Sen. Orrin Hatch (R., Utah), has been criticized by Hoeffel and others for vowing to appoint "centrist" judges while supporting several Bush nominees, including right-wing judges who opposed abortion rights.

But some political observers say it might be Specter, whose moderate views have alienated conservative Republicans, rather than Bush who will feel the heat from both sides of the political spectrum.

"Over the next several years Specter will be on the hot seat in a really big way," said Mark J. Rozell, a political scientist at George Mason University in Virginia. "Specter is not popular, especially among conservatives. But because of Bush's victory, the conservatives have high expectations. This could be real intra-party trouble for them."

Former Pennsylvania Rep. Bob Walker, who held the second-ranking leadership post when Newt Gingrich was speaker of the House, said that chairs of full committees "are real powerful people, and the more powerful the committee, the more influence they have."

Specter, said Walker, "will have the power to negotiate on Senate matters beyond his committee post" by virtue of his chairmanship.

As Specter settles into his new Washington role, Hoeffel will leave Congress, having given up his House seat to run for the Senate. Hoeffel, a lawyer, said he did not know what he would do next.

Colleagues and friends say he could challenge Republican U.S. Sen. Rick Santorum in 2006, but Hoeffel would say yesterday only that "I have no plans to run for any office."

Jon Delano, a political analyst at Carnegie Mellon University, said that despite Hoeffel's loss, "he is someone who clearly has a future if he wants it."

"He should take a lesson from Arlen Specter, who ran three times and lost before he won," Delano said. "That is a good role model."

http://www.philly.com/mld/inquirer/10094999.htm?1c


I am honored to have voted for one of the only men in the country who has the nuts and the power to stand up to gw&friends. Cheers to you Senator Spector!
:gulp:

JCOOK
11-05-2004, 01:27 AM
Can anyone say "magic bullet theory" what a republican FUCKWHAD!

ODShowtime
11-05-2004, 11:22 AM
ah the sweet irony....

you ballsuckers!

jhale667
11-05-2004, 05:01 PM
I don't see how you could assume a 3% win as a "Mandate"...that'd be pretty arrogant...oh, wait a minute....;)

DLR'sCock
11-06-2004, 01:43 PM
Well, a Republican with common sense, who would have thunk it?

FORD
11-06-2004, 01:45 PM
I don't know whether to hate Specter for his role in the JFK coverup or respect him for what he's done since. Guess he got tired of covering for the BCE?

Warham
11-06-2004, 01:57 PM
Who?

Nickdfresh
11-06-2004, 02:06 PM
Spector is one of the few sane Republicans. John McCain, Colin Powell and myself (for the time being) are the other ones.

Warham
11-06-2004, 02:46 PM
All Bush supporters too, I see.

wraytw
11-06-2004, 05:08 PM
Originally posted by DLR'sCock
who would have thunk it?

Certainly not you. You don't think much, period. :)

diamond den™
11-06-2004, 07:08 PM
Originally posted by ODShowtime
Caution: Specter says President has no mandate

Posted on Thu, Nov. 04, 2004

By Amy Worden, Carrie Budoff and Steve Goldstein
Inquirer Staff Writers

Invigorated by a decisive win and the prospect of assuming a more prominent role in the U.S. Senate, Arlen Specter cautioned President Bush yesterday not to interpret his own victory as a clear mandate, and urged him to respond to the Republican Party's more moderate wing.

Specter, as presumptive chairman of the powerful Senate Judiciary Committee, suggested that he would block any Bush nominee to the Supreme Court who opposed abortion rights. Reiterating his position that a woman's right to choose is "inviolate," he said overturning Roe v. Wade today would be akin to trying to reverse Brown v. Board of Education, the court's 1954 landmark desegregation decision.

Barring unforeseen GOP objections, Specter, 74, should assume the committee chairmanship in January. He also sent an unsubtle message to the White House that he expects nominees for the federal bench to be of the highest caliber, and took a critical swipe at the stature of the current court.

At a news conference less than 12 hours after winning a record fifth Senate term, Specter wasted no time in asserting himself.

"If you have a race that is won by a percent or two, you have a narrowly divided country, and that's not a traditional mandate," he said. "President Bush will have that very much in mind."

"The number-one item on my agenda is to try to move the party to the center," Specter said. "I want to focus on the politics of inclusion."

Specter spoke bluntly, as if he regarded himself as a "free agent," in the phrase of a political analyst, either because of his new power or because his fifth term might be his last.

This is the exact reason I voted for him.

To win the new term, Specter defeated Democratic U.S. Rep. Joseph M. Hoeffel by 11 percentage points, making the outcome one of his more decisive victories in 24 years.

He picked up more votes - almost 2.9 million - than ever before, and earned the second-largest plurality of his Senate campaigns. Specter offset a poor showing in the city by sweeping the Philadelphia suburbs and winning commanding margins through the rest of the state.

When recent polls showed Hoeffel down by more than 20 percentage points, "that was when I thought people had just decided that they would stay with seniority," Hoeffel said in an interview yesterday.

The campaign could have used more money for TV commercials, Hoeffel said, but he was pleased with how the race was conducted.

"I really felt we had a good chance of winning," Hoeffel said. "An 11-point margin is not a close margin, so it didn't work out as I hoped it would."

The Senate seniority that Specter emphasized so often during the campaign will likely take center stage in the coming months if Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist, who has been diagnosed with thyroid cancer, leaves the bench. In addition, a number of other justices are thought to be considering retirement.

Yesterday, Specter described Rehnquist as "gravely ill" before taking a jab at the chief justice and his colleagues, saying there were no longer legal "giants" on the bench of the caliber of Oliver Wendell Holmes, Louis Brandeis and Benjamin Cardozo.

"With all due respect, we don't have them on [the court] now," he said.

Specter's comments on judicial appointments were what conservatives feared - that despite receiving the President's help during the primary to overcome a conservative challenger, Specter would hold firm to his centrist principles with court nominees.

"There will be all eyes on Specter to see how he reacts to who the President selects," said Sarah Binder, an expert in the selection of judges at the Brookings Institute in Washington. "I'm sure the administration will consult with Specter to see what will fly."

Specter, who is in line to succeed the committee's current chairman, Sen. Orrin Hatch (R., Utah), has been criticized by Hoeffel and others for vowing to appoint "centrist" judges while supporting several Bush nominees, including right-wing judges who opposed abortion rights.

But some political observers say it might be Specter, whose moderate views have alienated conservative Republicans, rather than Bush who will feel the heat from both sides of the political spectrum.

"Over the next several years Specter will be on the hot seat in a really big way," said Mark J. Rozell, a political scientist at George Mason University in Virginia. "Specter is not popular, especially among conservatives. But because of Bush's victory, the conservatives have high expectations. This could be real intra-party trouble for them."

Former Pennsylvania Rep. Bob Walker, who held the second-ranking leadership post when Newt Gingrich was speaker of the House, said that chairs of full committees "are real powerful people, and the more powerful the committee, the more influence they have."

Specter, said Walker, "will have the power to negotiate on Senate matters beyond his committee post" by virtue of his chairmanship.

As Specter settles into his new Washington role, Hoeffel will leave Congress, having given up his House seat to run for the Senate. Hoeffel, a lawyer, said he did not know what he would do next.

Colleagues and friends say he could challenge Republican U.S. Sen. Rick Santorum in 2006, but Hoeffel would say yesterday only that "I have no plans to run for any office."

Jon Delano, a political analyst at Carnegie Mellon University, said that despite Hoeffel's loss, "he is someone who clearly has a future if he wants it."

"He should take a lesson from Arlen Specter, who ran three times and lost before he won," Delano said. "That is a good role model."

http://www.philly.com/mld/inquirer/10094999.htm?1c


I am honored to have voted for one of the only men in the country who has the nuts and the power to stand up to gw&friends. Cheers to you Senator Spector!
:gulp:

http://www.obule.com.br/fotos/spector1.gif

:)

HELLVIS
11-06-2004, 08:00 PM
It's as close to a mandate as any president in your lifetime. Deal with it.

Nickdfresh
11-06-2004, 08:21 PM
Originally posted by Warham
All Bush supporters too, I see.

I'm not sure that at least one of them, besides myself, didn't vote for Kerry. I really hink McCain would strangle Bush if no one was watching. There well founded rumors that McCain, despite his public stumping and love fest for Bush, would kick the living shit out of Junior for what he did to McCain in 2000.

John Ashcroft
11-06-2004, 08:22 PM
All this talk of "no mandate" is going to make it all the sweeter when Dubya and the Republican Congress steamroll liberalism out of existance.

And they'll place Supreme Court Justices to keep you libs from doing anything about it.

But, you're completely free to keep whining.

Nickdfresh
11-06-2004, 08:24 PM
Originally posted by John Ashcroft
All this talk of "no mandate" is going to make it all the sweeter when Dubya and the Republican Congress steamroll liberalism out of existance.

And they'll place Supreme Court Justices to keep you libs from doing anything about it.

But, you're completely free to keep whining.

I think not John, more likely the Democrats will filibuster Bush's cryptic fascist judicial nominees should he elect to pander to his religious ideologues.

wraytw
11-06-2004, 08:45 PM
Originally posted by Nickdfresh
I think not John, more likely the Democrats will filibuster Bush's cryptic fascist judicial nominees should he elect to pander to his religious ideologues.

It's unlikely that the new Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid (who is pro-life) will lead any filibuster against pro-life judicial nominees.

Nickdfresh
11-06-2004, 09:09 PM
Originally posted by wraytw
It's unlikely that the new Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid (who is pro-life) will lead any filibuster against pro-life judicial nominees.

I beg to differ.

wraytw
11-06-2004, 09:12 PM
Originally posted by Nickdfresh
I beg to differ.

Then differ. But Reid is extremely moderate and completely anti-abortion.

Nickdfresh
11-06-2004, 09:23 PM
Originally posted by wraytw
Then differ. But Reid is extremely moderate and completely anti-abortion.

And anti-anti-abortion nut, besides, he really doesn't matter, ther other Democrats will over-rule him. Besides "extremely moderate" means he is a flaming liberal to you.

wraytw
11-06-2004, 09:50 PM
Originally posted by Nickdfresh
Besides "extremely moderate" means he is a flaming liberal to you.

Not really, considering I'm fairly moderate myself. Making assumptions doesn't help your case.

Nickdfresh
11-06-2004, 09:54 PM
Neither does speculating on Congressional Democrats rolling back Roe vs. Wade, Because it won't happen. Besides, I really think Bush is far less anti-abortion/pro-life than his Karl Rove scripted, pandering rhetoric indicates.

wraytw
11-06-2004, 09:56 PM
I never mentioned Roe v. Wade. :)

Nickdfresh
11-06-2004, 10:06 PM
True, but Roe v. Wade is really the essence of the matter isn't it?

wraytw
11-06-2004, 10:16 PM
Not really. At least, not in my mind. I don't see Roe v. Wade being overturned even with some new conservative judges. I think Bush would want conservative judges in the Supreme Court for the matter of gay marriage much more than for abortion issues. That's my opinion, anyway.

Frankly, I'd just like to see some judges that will leave their ideological views at the door. But that's probably a bit too much to ask.

Nickdfresh
11-06-2004, 10:35 PM
Originally posted by wraytw
Not really. At least, not in my mind. I don't see Roe v. Wade being overturned even with some new conservative judges. I think Bush would want conservative judges in the Supreme Court for the matter of gay marriage much more than for abortion issues. That's my opinion, anyway.

Frankly, I'd just like to see some judges that will leave their ideological views at the door. But that's probably a bit too much to ask.

Well as long as Bush's conservative Judges keep the gays in line, everything will be just fine and dandy! That is such an important, pressing issue. Not crime, terrorism, stem cell research (or the lack of it), the shitty economy, and jobs outsourcing. As long as judges can roust a fag or two, the world will be righted!:rolleyes:

wraytw
11-06-2004, 10:37 PM
Walking and chewing gum at the same time... it's not hard. :)

Nickdfresh
11-06-2004, 10:54 PM
Eh?

John Ashcroft
11-07-2004, 11:18 AM
Go ahead and filibuster. That's just great! In two years the Republicans will have 60 seats in the Senate and then what will you libs do? Your behavior is what's causing you libs to lose. I say keep up the good work!

Nickdfresh
11-07-2004, 11:48 AM
Originally posted by John Ashcroft
Go ahead and filibuster. That's just great! In two years the Republicans will have 60 seats in the Senate and then what will you libs do? Your behavior is what's causing you libs to lose. I say keep up the good work!

This arrogent, disdainful behavior is what will cause the Republicans to lose their Congressional majority once the American people realize they are driven by a bunch of bible thumping extremists.

FORD
11-07-2004, 11:53 AM
Originally posted by wraytw
Walking and chewing gum at the same time... it's not hard. :)

http://www.noapologiespress.com/newnews/images/bushstoopid.jpg
It is for this fucking moron

wraytw
11-07-2004, 02:04 PM
Insightful, FORD. lol

John Ashcroft
11-08-2004, 12:29 AM
Originally posted by Nickdfresh
This arrogent, disdainful behavior is what will cause the Republicans to lose their Congressional majority once the American people realize they are driven by a bunch of bible thumping extremists.

And yet I've seen those very same predictions since 1994. I guess you libs are just "holding out" on us, huh?

ODShowtime
07-25-2006, 11:51 PM
See 'cons, back in the day, JA could lay a verbal asswhuppin.

what a great fascist he was!

Cathedral
07-26-2006, 01:34 AM
Whatever happened to JA?

Nickdfresh
07-26-2006, 01:36 AM
You neglect the fact that I was right...

Guitar Shark
07-26-2006, 01:45 AM
Originally posted by Nickdfresh
You neglect the fact that I was right...

They haven't lost the majority yet... ;)

Nickdfresh
07-26-2006, 01:48 AM
The day of reckoning is close at hand...

Cathedral
07-26-2006, 03:10 AM
Damn, did i just witness premature ejoculation?

Nickdfresh
07-26-2006, 07:25 AM
:D

Nickdfresh
07-26-2006, 09:22 AM
Originally posted by Cathedral
Whatever happened to JA?

His little right wing heart was broken...

I believe he's been busy with a divorce...

LoungeMachine
07-26-2006, 10:18 AM
Originally posted by Nickdfresh
His little right wing heart was broken...

I believe he's been busy with a divorce...


He re-registered under another name some time ago.




thome ;)