Carol Platt Liebau

Monday, November 08, 2004

More on Specter . . .

Conservative talk radio has been burning up all day on the topic.

Let's think it through. As the ad says, you only get one chance to make a first impression. In 1993, Bill Clinton -- giddy at his election -- took a turn to the left immediately with his gays in the military gambit. No one ever forgot it -- it was disproportionately important because it was America's introduction to his governance.

So why, oh why, in the flush of victory, would conservative Republicans now try the same thing with Arlen Specter, and take a turn to the right that will be widely reported as "intolerant" before Specter has done anything wrong???

And one other question: How do you think we are most likely to get good action from Specter? By throwing him off the committee, and enjoying a satisfying but short lived emotional high, or by letting him know that he'd better fly right or he's outta there? Would he be more cooperative on our issues with something to lose (i.e. the chairmanship) or nothing to lose? The question answers itself.

Majority parties have to demonstrate a certain level of emotional maturity in order to become permanent majority parties. It means that we must be willing to forgo short-term payback for long term gains.

4 Comments:

Blogger JaxSolo said...

Carol,

This argument seems to be borne of common sense. I don't see why there is still disagreement on it. nonetheless, I think the expalnation is psychological. consider: Democrats seem to able to wait for years to see the changes they seek to be implemented. They keep plugging away - they have a long term view (much like the Soviet Communists were reputed to have had back in the day). Republicans have not learned that skill yet. We want everything we seek NOW. Very short term thinking - maybe that's because we, as a party, have not yet learned how to be the majority.

5:42 PM  
Blogger Theo p. said...

BWK,

I can understand the prolife communities concern. We have waited many years and 1.5 babies per year to change Roe v. Wade. This is not Social Security reform lives are at stake. We have watched as Judge Bork, one of the most qualified Judges ever nominated, was derailed for one reason and one reason only, he was prolife and the left knew Roe must be protected. Arlen Specter helped in that cause specifically to protect Roe v. Wade. We watched as a Ronald Regan appointee (Justice Kennedy) switched, some say because of a Lawerence Tribe indoctrinated Law Clerk, and protected Roe. Now the goal is in reach the stakes are very high should we take the chance on a Chairmen Specter. This is not a no brainer. The Choice is difficult. I choose for the sake of the party and political sense to go with Hugh and stop calling Senators, If I'm wrong and Mr. Specter derails a prolife candidate to protect Roe v. Wade again what can I say to the Murdered Children and the mothers who were exploited by the abortion industry for profit. What will you say?

6:52 AM  
Blogger Theo p. said...

BWK,

I can understand the prolife communities concern. We have waited many years and 1.5 million babies per year to change Roe v. Wade. This is not Social Security reform, lives are at stake. We have watched as Judge Bork, one of the most qualified Judges ever nominated, was derailed for one reason and one reason only, he was prolife and the left knew Roe was in danger and must be protected. Arlen Specter Borked Judge Bork specifically to protect Roe v. Wade. We watched as a Ronald Regan appointee (Justice Kennedy) switched, some say because of a Lawerence Tribe indoctrinated Law Clerk, and protected Roe. Now the goal is in reach the stakes are very high should we take the chance on a Chairmen Specter. This is not a no brainer. The Choice is difficult. I choose for the sake of the party and political sense to go with Hugh and stop calling Senators, If I'm wrong and Mr. Specter derails a prolife candidate to protect Roe v. Wade again what can I say to the Murdered Children and the mothers who were exploited by the abortion industry for profit. What will you say?

6:56 AM  
Blogger Patrick O'Hannigan said...

Carol,

The only thing wrong with your argument in my opinion is that both you and Hugh Hewitt wrongly assume that conservatives want to deny the Judiciary Committee chairmanship to Arlen Specter "before he has done anything wrong."

As people opposed to Specter have been pointing out, it's precisely his history of doing wrong (or weird, as when he when he weaseled by invoking Scottish law in the Clinton impeachment hearings) that makes him an awful choice for committee chairman. In other words, conservative opposition to Specter is more reactive than pre-emptive.

And (pace Hugh, though I don't know how to italicize the Latin) dunking Specter wouldn't be a "purge," because there is no movement to kick pro-abortion Republicans out of the party. Denying a position of leadership to one Senator does not constitute a purge.

9:38 AM  

Post a Comment

<< Home

Google