Jakubczyk on Life

While the ground swell of indignation over Senator's Arlen Specter's comments continues despite his protestations of support for the president's candidates, there are some who wonder if this response by the grass roots is wise. Reacting to the betrayal of conservatives back in April when the White House came out publicly for Specter over Toomey, making the argument that Specter would help Bush wish Pennsylvania, and perhaps fearing that a Bush loss might leave the Republicans losing the Senate, most Washington insiders told conservatives to bear it and so they did. Pro-life conservatives got out the vote for the president. They, or should I say "we," worked very hard to put a pro-life person in office. So the last thing we need is to hear a senator with a pro-abortion record dissing the president.

The reaction was predictable. Specter will be loyal. "Trust me,." Specter tells us. How can you really trust someone who is supported by Planned Parenthood and who once in the chairmanship will have the ability to thwart the president's nominations. How can we having won the presidency, the Senate and the House find ourselves held hostage as we were for the last four years?

Frankly I do not trust him. I have heard his comments about the right to life and he supports Roe v. Wade. This decision was so poorly reasoned that even liberal professors from the great law schools of the Ivy league condemned it. Yet Arlen Specter wants abortion to remain legal. That means he wants to allow babies to die. That is not someone we should have as chairman of the senate judiciary.

Now my friend Hugh Hewitt disagrees with the effort to remove Arlen. He posits that we need Arlen's vote and we do not need him leading the RINO senators against the president. On the surface that might seem a good argument. Had Arlen not said anything, that might have worked in the drawing rooms of the Senate. But who is to say that Arlen would not do that anyway? What has Arlen done to insure anyone's trust? He has already disparaged the current court and the conservatives on it. Do you really think he would support Clarence Thomas for Chief Justice?

Now the problem now is much bigger.

Does the Republican leadership recognize from whence the power and the victory came?
Or are we expected to sit back, be quiet and do as we are told.

Opposition to Specter is coming from across the country - from the grass roots, form the Red States and the Red Counties. ( an aside- funny how the word 'red' has moved from being a reference to the 'left' to a reference to the 'right' - go figure.) It is not ending. As of Monday November 8, 2005, more and more writers were adding to the conversation and the growing cry to keep Specter from being chosen for this post.

Specter has made his position on abortion clear. As was reported by the Philadelphia Inquirer: “At his post-election news conference Wednesday, the Pennsylvania Republican had said that a woman’s right to choose was “inviolate,” adding that overturning Roe v. Wade now would be akin to trying to reverse Brown v. Board of Education, the court’s 1954 desegregation decision.”

As reported by Bonnie Chernin Rogoff in her latest post on www.intelectualconservative.com

"Senator Specter’s record on abortion is solidly anti-life. He led the fight to kill Judge Robert Bork’s nomination to the U.S. Supreme Court, but voted to confirm Ruth Bader Ginsburg, an extreme left-winger who in 1972 became the first director of the ACLU's Women's Rights Project. Senator Specter supports Roe v. Wade. He voted against bans on partial birth abortion. He is opposed to parental notification laws for minors having abortions. He favors taxpayer-funded abortions."

Now to answer Hugh's questions;

1. If Specter wants to remain a player in DC, he will support the president's nominees without being the chairman. The senate can give him another important chairmanship that will not negatively impact on the life issues and all save face. If he joins the pro-abortion extremists, then he will find himself alone and facing six years of contempt from his colleagues.

2 As for the filibusters, the senate needs to change the rule with regard to appointments.

3. Refer to answer one. Unless he wants to be alone, he will join in confirmation. If he does not, it once again proves the point. After all, what assurances does anyone have that he would cooperate or vote even if chairman. You all are operating on faith and playing as if he has all the cards.

4. Is the party going to continue to be held hostage by liberal pro-abortion senators? Hagel will not betray his pro-life principles. As for the the others, they will want support for their programs and will not stray from the fold.

5. His recent comments re Bork, Thomas, and the court give me and others no comfort level and tend to support our concerns. Then there is the maxim - if they can do it and get away with it, expect it. Why should we believe this guy at all? He has no credibility. See above record. By the way, with the Democrats using the rules and preventing a final vote, he could afford to vote for the nominees, knowing that they were not going anywhere soon.

6. Actually opposing specter may help Rick Santorum and blot out the terrible thing he did in April by supporting Specter over Toomey. Had Toomey beat Specter, I believe Bush would have taken Pennsylvania and we would have Toomey in as the junior senator. Rick would have then jumped the top of the possible presidential contenders for 2008.

7. How is it that the Caucus would pull him after seating him? That is not going to happen. Now, prior to appointment, that is when the election of the chair should occur. The chair SHOULD reflect the sentiments of the majority of the committee.

I agree that the process is in need of repair.

I just do not want Arlen Specter as my repairman.