Author:
J.Jeffrey Williams JD
|
[
Next Thread |
Previous Thread |
Next Message |
Previous Message
]
Date Posted: 06:58:53 11/09/04 Tue
Author Host/IP: adsl-6-44-160.tys.bellsouth.net/65.6.44.160
Date: Mon, 08 Nov 2004 19:29:56 -0500
From: "J. Williams" Add to Address Book
To: jjw@usa.net
Subject: If you want more pro-abortion, liberal judges on the Supreme Court, just ignore this important email
- What Senator on the Judiciary Committee was instrumental in stopping
brilliant conservative Judge Bork, his own party's nominee, from being
allowed
on the Supreme Court, thereby helping to hand President Reagan one of
his
greatest and most devastating defeats? Arlen Spectre.
-What Senator asked his supporters in a 1995 letter, "Will you stand up
to the
far-right fringe that demands that legal abortion be banned?" Arlen
Spectre.
- What Senator on the JFK Assassination Warren Committee came up with
the
"single bullet" theory (which alleges that all the different wounds of
JFK and
the Governor of Texas were caused by only one bullet, which supposedly
changed
directions numerous times, etc.), to support the Warren Committee
conclusion
that he assassination was solely the work of Oswald? Arlen Spectre.
This is the same Arlen Spectre who is next in line to be made CHAIRMAN
of the
Senate Judiciary Committee, which examines and recommends ALL nominees
for ALL
Federal judgeships, including the Supreme Court.
This is the same Arlen Spectre who, one day after being narrowly
reelected by
Bush's endorsement and help, paid Bush back by publicly warning that
Bush
should not nominate judges who are too conservative to suit him.
Of course he is already backpedaling and mealymouthing, but he
desparately
wants this powerful position, and never has there been a stronger need
for
common, decent God-fearing Americans to get involved and let their
wishes be
known. On his website he borders on deception by stating he has never
opposed
one of Bush’s nominees. True- he didn’t need to, the Democratic
filibusters took care of blocking those- but he doesn’t tell you he
blocked
Reagan’s conservative Supreme Court nominee, Robert Bork. Or that he
has
consistently been pro-abortion.
In my opinion speaking up on this particular case is even far more
important
than voting- Presidents change every four years, but bad Supreme Court
decisions control the future of our country for decades or even
centuries. For
example, do you remember the decisions in the 60's banning teachers
from Bible
reading or prayer in public schools? (Have you noticed what happened to
discipline, violence, pregnancy rates, and SAT scores in public schools
starting at that very time?) Not to mention the butchering of the
innocent
after Roe v Wade.
Speaking as a Christian trial attorney, I firmly believe that this may
be the
single most important opportunity you will ever have to help turn this
country
around from radical leftist control via the Supreme Court. Here's how:
Ordinarily the most senior member of the Judiciary Committee from the
party
holding the majority of Senate seats takes over as chairman, and
Spectre is
next in line to do so in January. However, the rest of the Republican
members
of the Committee may choose to overrule this Senate tradition and elect
a
different Chair if they are motivated enough to ruffle a few feathers
and do
so, though it is not common to do so. Constant calls and letters and
faxes and
emails to the other Republican members of the Judiciary Committee
against
Spectre, who said he ran originally as a Republican only "because they
offered
better financial support to their candidate than the Democrats," are
extremely
important at this time.
We can expect voluminous strident Media screeching, disinformation and
armwaving against any such opposition to Spectre. The extreme
anti-Biblical-values left knows that nothing would rip the heart out of
the
leftist power structure in this country like seating conservative,
strict-constructionist judges with traditional values, who believe in
following the Constitution and Bill of Rights, not in legislating the
latest
social trends from the bench or asking what the European courts think
we
should do.
WE MUST GENERATE CONTINUING, HIGH-VOLUME OPPOSITION TO SPECTRE BEING
ALLOWED
TO TAKE OVER AS CHAIRMAN OF THE SENATE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE, which
controls
hearings and approvals of all Federal court nominees including the
Supreme
Court. THIS IS CRITICAL AT THIS TIME, AND COULD AFFECT THE DIRECTION OF
THIS
COUNTRY FOR DECADES TO COME.
I respectfully suggest that you phone, write, and call all Republican
members
of the Judiciary Committee (and perhaps all other Republican senators
and
senators-elect) and demand that Spectre NOT be allowed to take over as
Chairman of the Judiciary Committee. (Democratic members of that
committee,
which include the likes of Ted Kennedy, are not allowed to vote in this
matter, as they are the minority party at this time.) And while you're
at it,
you may wish to ask them which way they intend to vote, and whether
they would
agree to drop the usuual "secret ballot" provisions in this matter.
(Secret
ballots for the senators on the committee make it harder for us to hold
them
accountable for their vote.)
One news source reports that "Rumor has it that the powers-that-be in
Washington are sitting on their hands, waiting to see if the furor over
Specter dies down this week. We can’t let that happen - so pick up
the
phone. Call these Senators today!"
I would add, then email them and write them and fax them, and have your
wife,
older children, and friends do so separately. Then do so all over again
next
week.
"All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do
nothing."
- Edmund Burke
Please pass this on to everyone you can.
Yours for God and Country,
Jeff Williams
jjw@USA.net
Here are the D.C. office numbers of the Committee members to let your
voice be
heard:
Hatch (202) 224-5251
Grassley (202) 224-3744
Kyl (202) 224-4521
DeWine (202) 224-2315
Sessions (202) 224-4124
Graham (202) 224-5972
Craig (202) 224-2752
Chambliss (202) 224-3521
Cornyn (202) 224-2934
And don’t forget Majority Leader Frist at: (202) 224-3344.
And if you need more motivation - check out Kay Daly’s column at
www.gopusa.com. Kay’s been working the judicial nominations fight for
some
time -and knows better than most what a danger Specter could be as
Chairman.
If you want more information, below are two articles with more
information
about Spectre's persona, positions, and actions:
© 2004 WorldNetDaily.com
Controversial remarks by Sen. Arlen Specter, cautioning President Bush
against
nominating Supreme Court justices who would overturn the Roe vs. Wade
abortion
decision, have sparked a furious outcry from Bush's large conservative
and
Evangelical support base, and spawned a movement to ensure the
Pennsylvania
Republican does not ascend to chairmanship of the Senate Judiciary
Committee
as expected.
Overnight, a website named NotSpecter.com emerged to help lead the
charge.
Organized as a project of RedState.org, the website "is dedicated to
the
proposition that the Republican party, the conservative movement and
the
country would all be better served without Arlen Specter as chairman of
the
Senate Judiciary Committee. For decades, Specter has shown that his
personal
interests and the president's agenda are at odds."
The site has a petition that will be forwarded to the judiciary panel
and
offers other ways to contact influential officials in Washington.
Recently re-elected to a fifth term with the crucial aid of President
Bush,
Specter is in line to become chairman in January when Sen. Orrin Hatch
of Utah
steps down due to term-limit rules.
According to an Associated Press interview Wednesday, Specter said,
"When you
talk about judges who would change the right of a woman to choose,
overturn
Roe vs. Wade, I think that is unlikely. The president is well aware of
what
happened, when a number of his nominees were sent up, with the
filibuster. ...
And I would expect the president to be mindful of the considerations
which I
am mentioning."
After an immediate outburst of national outrage, Specter issued a
statement
Thursday insisting he did not send a warning to Bush.
"I did not warn the president about anything and was very respectful of
his
constitutional authority on the appointment of federal judges," Specter
said.
"I have never and would never apply any litmus test on the abortion
issue."
Nevertheless, outraged Iowa state Rep. Dan Boddicker has launched a
drive to
make Sen. Charles Grassley chairman of the panel instead. But the Iowa
Republican senator, an abortion opponent, is expected to resume his
chairmanship of the Senate Finance Committee.
According to rules established by the majority party, the committee
chairman
will be chosen by a secret-ballot vote of the Republican members of the
panel.
The nod traditionally goes to the senior member, but the rules specify
any
member can be selected. The entire conference must then approve the
committee's pick by another secret ballot, although rejection is rare.
Specter, who says he joined the GOP in his first election race in 1965
because
it offered more support than the Democrats, has a lifetime rating of 43
out of
100 from the American Conservative Union. By comparison, his
Pennsylvania
Republican colleague Sen. Rick Santorum has a rating of 87.
But Santorum has come to Specter's defense, while seeking assurance he
will
abide by the president's wishes.
After Specter's follow-up statement Thursday, Santorum said Specter had
"clarified that he does not support a litmus test for nominees with
regard to
their stance on abortion" and added he looked forward "to working with
Sen.
Specter to guarantee that every judicial nominee put forth by President
Bush
has an up-or-down vote" by the full Senate.
Sen. John Cornyn, R-Texas, told the AP he hoped Specter would promise
to back
the president's nominees.
"I'm intending to sit down and discuss with him how things are going to
work,"
he said. "We want to know what he's going to do and how things are
going to
work."
Vigorous campaign
Syndicated radio talk host Laura Ingraham, urging "Stop Specter Now,"
is
waging a vigorous campaign to get listeners to put pressure on Senate
Majority
Leader Bill Frist, who has shown interest in becoming the Republican
presidential nominee in 2008.
Ingraham is among many asking citizens to call Frist's office at (202)
224-3344 and contact members of the judiciary committee.
A group called Grassroots PA points out Specter wrote a letter in 1995
to
supporters that slammed the "far-right fringe" of the Republican Party.
The group pulled out quotes from Specter's letter:
• "I want to strip the strident anti-choice language" from the GOP
party
plank.
• "I will not give up our Party to radical extremists without a
fight."
• "Will you stand up to the far-right fringe that demands that legal
abortion be banned?"
• "I don't think the Republican Party should be blackmailed by any
special
interest group."
James Dobson, head of Focus on the Family, called Specter's comments
this week
"the worst kind of political bullying."
The Family Research Council noted Spector led the fight against
President
Reagan's nominee to the U.S. Supreme Court, Robert Bork.
"He has a history of pandering to the aggressive abortion lobby and a
Specter
chairmanship would be disastrous," the FRC said in a statement.
As chairman, the FRC pointed out, "he would control the confirmation
process
of federal judges, including nominees to the Supreme Court. He would
also
determine the makeup of the Senate Judiciary Committee staff, which
would go a
long way toward determining the committee's political and judicial
philosophy."
Concerned Women for America sent a letter yesterday to Frist, urging
the
majority leader to "use your considerable influence to prevent Sen.
Specter
from being placed in a position of trust to which he is clearly not
suited."
CWA referred to the conventional wisdom that Specter would not have
narrowly
defeated popular conservative challenger Rep. Pat Toomey in the
Republican
primary without the support of President Bush.
"Some pay-back," CWA said. "Specter earned no mandate to tell the
president
that he did not earn 'a mandate' in his election victory."
CWA added, "Given the president's resounding victory by both popular
and the
Electoral College vote, and the Republicans' increased margin in the
Senate to
55 seats, filibusters should be out of the question to consider and
easy to
defeat. This makes it all the more traitorous for Specter to give aid
and
comfort to those who've opposed the president’s judicial nominees."
A coalition of pro-life groups plans a "pray-in" outside the Dirksen
Senate
Office building Tuesday at 12:30 p.m. to help ensure Specter does not
get the
panel chairmanship.
The coalition, which says it hopes also to pray inside Frist's office,
includes Troy Newman of Operation Rescue, Rev. Pat Mahoney of the
Christian
Defense Coalition, Rev. Rob Schenck of Faith and Action, and Chris
Slattery, a
pro-life, pro-family activist from New York City.
"We urge people to contact Senator Frist and let him know that the
president
needs a loyal man at the helm of the Judiciary Committee, and that man
is not
Senator Spector, " said Mahoney.
"Specter's attempt to challenge the right of the president to make
judicial
appointments is outrageous," said Newman. "He cannot be allowed to
single-handedly hold nominees hostage with whom he has a personal ax to
grind."
November 05, 2004, 9:30 a.m.
(Bush helped Spectre over Toomey, and Spectre repaid Bush with his
remarks
the day after election telling Bush he better not nominate strong
conservatives. -jjw)
MORE INFO ON SPECTRE'S RADICALISM: Article from National Review last
year
The Awful Specter of Yet Another Term
Conservatives need a friend in Pennsylvania.
By John J. Miller
EDITOR'S NOTE: Republican senator Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania coasted
to
reelection on Tuesday, winning 53 percent of the vote against his
Democratic
opponent. He quickly put his political future at risk, however, when he
warned
President Bush in an interview not to nominate any Supreme Court
Justices who
might consider overturning Roe v. Wade. Specter is next in line to head
the
Senate Judiciary Committee, so his views on judicial nominations carry
enormous weight. Even before this latest comment, conservatives were
demanding
that Specter — one of the most liberal Republicans in the Senate —
not be
elevated to this position of great influence. Early this year, many of
them
backed congressman Pat Toomey’s underdog bid against Specter in the
GOP
primary — a valiant effort that very nearly succeeded, until Bush
intervened
in the final days and dragged the imperiled incumbent across the finish
line
for a narrow victory. Last year, John J. Miller wrote a cover story for
National Review on Specter and his legacy (in the September 1, 2003,
issue of
National Review). It is reprinted here.
“I'll go straight to the point," said Arlen Specter, shortly after
sitting
down to dinner with Paul Weyrich of the Free Congress Foundation in
March.
"I've got a primary and I'm being hit from the right. I want your
support."
The Republican senator from Pennsylvania wasn't going to get it merely
by
breaking bread. Says Weyrich: "I told him I was disgusted with how he
comes
around just before his elections and asks for conservative
endorsements, when
we all know he won't give us the time of day later on." In years past,
Weyrich
has traveled to Specter's home turf and urged conservatives to stick
with one
of the GOP's most liberal members. "I'm not sure what I'm going to do
this
time."
The choice for Weyrich — and the whole conservative movement — is
whether
to make another uneasy peace with Specter in the prudential belief that
no
party holding a one-seat majority in the Senate should dump an
incumbent who
has won four previous elections in a swing state. The alternative is to
rally
behind Pat Toomey, an impressive congressman from Allentown who has
launched
an energetic primary bid against the man who has done more to frustrate
conservative goals over the years than perhaps any other member of his
caucus.
Specter may not be the most unreliable GOP senator — he faces strong
competition in that category from Lincoln Chafee of Rhode Island —
but he is
almost certainly the most harmful, because he is smart, ruthless, and
influential.
Weyrich's complaint is a common one: Specter votes like a Democrat
until late
in his term, when he remembers that he will need at least some
conservatives
on his side if he's going to win another six years. "Arlen is not a
team
player, but we're getting a little more cooperation out of him this
year,"
says one GOP senator. In 2001, for instance, Specter was in his usual
form,
helping slash the Bush administration's tax cuts by $250 billion. This
year,
however, he embraced the president's tax-relief proposals early on.
"There's
more reason for an economic stimulus now," he says. Skeptics think it's
not
the economy he's trying to jump-start as much as it is his Republican
base —
which he'll need in next April's primary.
The 73-year-old Specter is one of the Senate's best-known but
least-liked
members. His notoriety dates back to 1964, when, as a young lawyer
serving on
the Warren Commission, he invented the "single-bullet theory" to
explain how
Lee Harvey Oswald assassinated President Kennedy. Ever since,
conspiracy
groupies have blamed him for a major cover-up. In Oliver Stone's movie
JFK,
Kevin Costner's character labels Specter "an ambitious junior
counselor"
behind "one of the grossest lies ever forced on the American people."
Lawmakers on Capitol Hill have much better reasons for disliking him:
They
regard Specter as one of the prickliest pols in Congress — a
humorless man
who is cold to colleagues and cruel to staff. Late one night several
years
ago, Senate majority leader Trent Lott needed Specter to sign off on an
appropriations bill. Specter agreed to do it, for a price: Lott would
have to
attend two fundraisers in Pennsylvania. Lott made the deal, but this
sort of
legislative hostage-taking doesn't win fans. "There are two kinds of
senators:
Republicans who don't like Specter and Democrats who don't like
Specter," says
a former leadership aide. In a Washingtonian magazine survey, Hill
staffers
rated him the Senate's meanest member. This has given rise to one of
Specter's
nicknames: Snarlin' Arlen.
Being "mean" isn't necessarily a bad quality in a politician. When
Weyrich
stumped for Specter in 1992, he made a simple point to his conservative
listeners: "Arlen Specter is a jerk, but he's our jerk." A former
Senate
staffer puts it this way: "If there's a tough debate going on, you
definitely
want Specter on your side."
The problem for conservatives is that Specter isn't their jerk nearly
enough.
He is an abortion-rights absolutist, a dogged advocate of racial
preferences,
a bitter foe of tort reform, a firm friend of the International
Criminal Court
— the list is long. When Citizens Against Government Waste recently
listed
Specter in its "Pig Book" as one of the Senate's most profligate
spenders, he
shot back: "If they left me out, I'd be worried." In 1995, Specter
briefly ran
for president and pursued the unique strategy of attacking the base of
his own
party: His announcement speech lobbed a grenade at "the intolerant
Right."
After pressing this theme for several months, one poll showed him
attracting
support from a grand total of 1 percent of Republicans. The senator's
lifetime
rating from the American Conservative Union is 42 percent (Pat Toomey's
is
97).
In July, Specter disappointed conservatives yet again when he blocked a
school-choice proposal that would have granted vouchers to 2,000 poor
students
in the District of Columbia. Prominent Democrats, including D.C. mayor
Anthony
Williams and Sen. Dianne Feinstein of California, support the plan. So
did
Specter six years ago, when he voted in favor of a similar measure.
"I've
regretted it ever since," he now says. "I believe school choice
violates the
separation of church and state. It's unconstitutional." But didn't the
Supreme
Court rule otherwise last year? "It was a 5-4 decision. The court may
change
its mind." Specter's own children attended private school in
Philadelphia.
"They didn't have access to a good public school," he explains. So what
would
he say to a mother in D.C. who insists that her kids don't have access
to a
good public school either? "There are charter schools available. I've
led the
way to improve the quality of education in America."
Specter's biggest impact probably has come on the Judiciary Committee.
That
makes sense, because he was a prominent lawyer before arriving in
Washington.
In addition to his work on the Warren Commission, he was twice elected
district attorney in Philadelphia, where he earned a tough-on-crime
reputation. On the Judiciary Committee, he has been tough on Republican
judicial nominees. In 1986, Ronald Reagan selected Jeff Sessions of
Alabama
for the federal bench, but Specter joined his Democratic colleagues in
defeating the nomination — it was only the second time the Judiciary
Committee had turned down a nominee since the FDR era. Attorney general
Ed
Meese called it "an appalling surrender to the politics of ideology."
Sessions
didn't vanish from public life; in 1996, he was elected to the Senate.
Now he
sits with Specter on the Judiciary Committee. The two men don't talk
about
what passed between them 17 years ago, but Specter admits he made a
mistake:
"I've gotten to know him. I regret my vote."
Specter doesn't regret a more famous vote that took place the following
year,
on the Supreme Court nomination of Robert Bork. This was a watershed
moment in
Washington politics, when left-wing histrionics began to play a leading
role
in judicial confirmations — and the term "borking" was born. Bork had
an
impeccable record as a law professor and judge, but the debate over his
nomination was dominated by the fevered rhetoric of his enemies, who
said that
confirming him would condemn women to back-alley abortions and blacks
to
segregated lunch counters. Fresh from his first re-election a few
months
earlier, Specter couldn't make up his mind about what to do. He
questioned
Bork for hours in his private chambers and at public hearings. In the
end, he
decided to vote against confirmation. "He called and said that he
couldn't be
sure about me," says Bork.
"I've never known what he meant by that." Specter's announcement doomed
the
nomination. As Bork lobbyist Tom Korologos put it at the time: "Specter
hit
the game-winning RBI." Conservatives, of course, resent that he was
batting
for the wrong team.
Specter likes to think that he redeemed himself in the eyes of the
Right four
years later, when he was a strong defender of embattled nominee
Clarence
Thomas. With his next election a year away, he was indeed looking to
win
points with the Right. His strong prosecutorial skills became an
important
asset to Thomas, in hearings that polarized the country even more than
Bork's
had. It is possible to believe that without Specter's aggressive
interrogation
of Anita Hill, including his accusation that she may have committed
perjury,
Thomas would not have been confirmed.
Yet Specter wasted little time in distancing himself from the man he
helped
elevate. He has described the Thomas-Hill episode as a kind of
sensitivity
seminar on sexual harassment: "The hearings were a learning experience
for me
and, for that matter, for America, too." He has also expressed his
"disappointment" in Thomas's performance on the Supreme Court. Specter
refuses
to use the same word today, though he's clearly not comfortable with
Thomas's
conservative record. "He's grown a lot in the last twelve years," says
the
senator. But Specter still won't commit to voting for Thomas if he were
nominated as Chief Justice. "I'd want to think about that," he says.
What
about Antonin Scalia for chief justice? "I'd want to think about that,
too."
The impeachment trial of Bill Clinton occurred before the full Senate
rather
than the Judiciary Committee, but many people believed Specter again
would
play a memorable role. And in fact he did, though his performance was
most
noteworthy for its weirdness. Senators were supposed to determine
whether
Clinton was "guilty" or "not guilty" of impeachable crimes. Specter,
however,
wanted a third option: "Under Scottish law, there are three possible
verdicts:
'guilty,' 'not guilty,' and 'not proven.'" He said that the president
had not
received a proper trial, in the sense that no witnesses were called —
and
therefore senators didn't have enough information to convict. When
Specter
announced "not proven" during the roll call, Chief Justice William
Rehnquist
ordered his verdict to be recorded as "not guilty." Specter continued
to claim
that the distinction was meaningful, and suggested that perhaps Clinton
should
face a criminal trial in an actual court after leaving office. Yet he
clearly
doesn't have a low opinion of the former president; two pictures of
Clinton
decorate the foyer of Specter's Senate office.
During the George W. Bush administration, Specter has supported most of
the
president's picks for the federal bench. In May, however, he forced the
Judiciary Committee to send the nomination of Leon Holmes to the Senate
floor
without a recommendation — an embarrassing setback for the White
House. (As
of this writing, there still hasn't been a floor vote on Holmes.) In
July, he
voted to approve Bill Pryor's nomination, but not before announcing
that he
might change his mind and vote against Pryor on the Senate floor.
This behavior is no surprise, though it would take on added
significance if
Specter were to become the next chairman of the Judiciary Committee, as
he is
now in line to do. Orrin Hatch of Utah is the current chairman, but
he's
term-limited in that position. Next comes Chuck Grassley of Iowa, who
isn't
expected to give up his control of the powerful Finance Committee.
After him
sits Specter, who has wanted the top job at Judiciary for years.
"There's a
lot I would like to do," he says, citing violent crime, antitrust law,
and
privacy as leading concerns. Several of his colleagues on the
committee,
however, are worried about the prospect of a Chairman Specter in 2005.
"He
could take the committee in a more liberal direction," says one of
them. "It
would definitely be a challenge."
Perhaps this is the clinching argument against Specter: He may in fact
be the
GOP's best bet for holding Pennsylvania's Senate seat, but his
re-election
also represents the best shot liberals have for influencing an
important
committee in a Senate they don't otherwise control. What's more, if
Specter
wins a fifth term in 2004, he'll be 80 years old in 2010 and perhaps
ready to
retire. If he knows he doesn't have to face voters again, conservatives
may
not even get the one or two years of leverage over him they've come to
expect.
Specter's Pennsylvania colleague Rick Santorum, a committed
conservative,
supports Specter over Pat Toomey. "There's no question that Arlen's an
independent guy, but he also understands the concept of team," says
Santorum.
"This race could draw resources away from other states, where there's a
big
difference between a Democrat and a Republican rather than a small one
between
Specter and Toomey." This party-line loyalty is remarkable, because
Specter
tried to complicate Santorum's first Senate primary by recruiting a
pro-abortion woman to run against him. His first choice was Teresa
Heinz,
widow of the late Republican senator John Heinz (and now the wife of
John
Kerry). When she said no, Specter turned to state auditor Barbara
Hafer, who
looked like a candidate for a few weeks but didn't get in. Specter was
forced
to abandon his efforts. Santorum captured the GOP nod and won the
general
election — showing that true-blue conservatives can prevail in
Pennsylvania
if they invigorate conservatives and run respectably among the state's
many
Reagan Democrats.
Anybody launching a primary challenge against an incumbent faces long
odds,
but Toomey is optimistic. "I wouldn't be doing this if I weren't
convinced I
could win," he says. Specter is taking the primary seriously, which is
good
news and bad news for Toomey: good because it suggests that Specter
really
does feel vulnerable, bad because Specter won't fall victim to Lazy
Incumbent
Syndrome. At the end of June, Specter had nearly $9 million in the
bank,
compared to about $1.5 million for Toomey. "I won't be out-hustled,"
says the
senator.
Yet the 41-year-old congressman remains confident. "I never thought I
was
going to raise more money than Arlen Specter," he says. "But I am going
to
raise enough to get out my message." Most experts think he'll need at
least $4
million to have a real chance to win. He may yet succeed: In 1998,
Specter
faced two nameless primary opponents who spent next to nothing on their
campaigns, and they attracted a combined 33 percent of the vote. This
suggests
that Toomey — not an unknown, but a conservative standout in the
House who
has won three elections in a Democratic-leaning district — begins
with
one-third of Republicans already in his pocket. He will only go up from
there.
And nobody should regard Specter as invincible in the general election:
In
1992, Lynn Yeakel came out of nowhere and almost beat him, holding
Specter to
49 percent of the electorate and drawing 46 percent for herself.
Much of the GOP establishment nevertheless is getting behind Specter,
including the White House. But Toomey is making gains. Two dozen
members of
the state legislature support his insurgency, as do Pennsylvania
right-to-life
groups and national organizations such as the Club for Growth. Steve
Forbes
and Grover Norquist also back him. The Pennsylvania primary is closed,
meaning
that only Republicans can vote in it; conservatives therefore will have
a lot
to say about who wins the nomination. Specter believes there's a
conservative
case to be made on behalf of his re-election. On primary day, though,
conservatives might well make a different declaration: "Not proven."
(Too late for that race now.-jjw)
Jeff Williams
[
Next Thread |
Previous Thread |
Next Message |
Previous Message
]
|
Supreme Court Nominee Info please read