Do you think pro gun people have been sold out by this news regarding Specter ?


PDA






bg
November 18, 2004, 04:19 PM
A RINO could take Sen.Hatch's spot. Doesn't the GOP realize a lot of gun people
voted for them in the election this yr ? What do you think ?
http://www.yahoo.com/_ylh=X3oDMTEwdnZjMjFhBF9TAzI3MTYxNDkEdGVzdAMwBHRtcGwDaW5kZXgtY3Nz/s/221017

If you enjoyed reading about "Do you think pro gun people have been sold out by this news regarding Specter ?" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
Gordon Fink
November 18, 2004, 04:27 PM
I don’t think they realize that, or at least they don’t care. After all, who else are you going to vote for?

~G. Fink

Phantom Warrior
November 18, 2004, 04:30 PM
As a pro-gunner, financial conservative, and STRONG pro-lifer I'm very disappointed by Sen. Specter's appointment as chairman of the Judiciary Committee. The only good possibility I can see is him being scared back onto the straight and narrow by all the uproar. Considering his history as a "moderate" Republican and the fact that he is not planning to seek reelection in six years I'm not optimistic...

Waitone
November 18, 2004, 04:40 PM
Expecting Specter to behave consistent with conservative principals is akin to asking a cat to bark. It is against his nature. He MAY make a concerted effort to behave himself but is will at some point in the future revert to his 30+ year behavior patterns. He MAY do what he said he will do about moving nominations to the floor for a vote but he will stub up at some point on some other cause. I think second amendment issues are a likely place for him to revert.

I just hope FristBush have made it clear there will be considerable pain inflicted should he revert to his demonstrated character.

Specter is like a guy for which I formerly worked. When confronted with opposition he would cave, vacate the battlefield, then launch a counterattack when he thought he could get a away with it.

FristBush screwed up.

Standing Wolf
November 18, 2004, 05:07 PM
Republicrats and Democans fear the voters only a few weeks before each election.

BigG
November 18, 2004, 05:16 PM
I have a feeling that Arlen Specter has been told the gospel and has come to Jesus. He will not say a word or do a thing to block the President's nominees. ;)

Desertdog
November 18, 2004, 06:52 PM
The pro-lifers are planning on putting the heat on to prevent him from becoming the chairman upto and including the day the Senators vote.
There is no reason we can't start raising hell also.
It is my understanding that it is the Republican Senators that will make the decision and the Democrats have no say in it. If I am wrong let me know, but I don't think Di Fi and Boxer listens to the ordinary citizen anyway.

Dbl0Kevin
November 18, 2004, 07:00 PM
The pro-lifers are planning on putting the heat on to prevent him from becoming the chairman upto and including the day the Senators vote.
There is no reason we can't start raising hell also.
It is my understanding that it is the Republican Senators that will make the decision and the Democrats have no say in it. If I am wrong let me know, but I don't think Di Fi and Boxer listens to the ordinary citizen anyway.

It actually works out better for us if he DOES get the chairmanship. Think about it he has already went and run his mouth and caused a stirup. Now he has had to make assurances to the White House and to the leadership that he'll toe the party line if he gets his chairmanship. If he is skipped over, however, you could look for him to get pissed off and become a troublemaker on many issues. Give him the Chair and make sure he keeps his word....at least then we have something to hold over his head.

pittspilot
November 18, 2004, 07:29 PM
Spectre was placed in that position due to the seniority system of the Senate.

To interrupt that would be somewhat unusual. However, I agree that he know is operating under duress. This may be useful.

Standing Wolf
November 18, 2004, 08:23 PM
Give him the Chair and make sure he keeps his word....at least then we have something to hold over his head.

Great theory, but who's going to make him keep his word: Frist?

JerryM
November 18, 2004, 08:34 PM
Sen Specter does not represent the views of many of who voted Republican. My first priority was the moral issues and the hope that President Bush would put judges and SC Justices on the bench who reflect my views on those issues, and the gun control issues.

The Republicans have my vote to lose if they do not uphold what they supported.
I personally hope that the Republicans will hold his feet to the fire, and insist that he do as he has promised. I tend to think that they will, but I would not bet any of our lives on it. I would bet Bill Clinton's and John Kerry's.

Jerry

Gary H
November 18, 2004, 08:44 PM
I'm hoping that A.S. won't be adding a final "S" to his initials. Didn't the NRA suggest that folks best vote for him in the last election? Was that because he was pro-2nd as an individual right, or was his opponent another Democratic Anti-sort? I personally don't trust this guy and he has another six years to go. I can't imagine that he will stay well behaved for his full term.

Don't mistake the Republican party as a party of conservatives. Extending the debt into the eight trillion dollar range should give all of us a clue that this impression of the Congressional majority is just plain wrong. Personally, I would like government to stay out of the morals business, but I would also like the press to stay out of the anti-Semitic and anti-Christian business and the judicial system to leave legislating to Congress.

Bartholomew Roberts
November 19, 2004, 08:55 AM
First, there was never any serious chance that the Republicans were going to cast off the seniority system and deny Specter a seat on the Judiciary for ANY of their interest groups.

The best hope for the move to deny him the spot was that Specter would be pressured into being a more conservative voter. I've always been skeptical of that since it seems to me Specter would be more likely to deliver some payback to those who tried to thwart him instead.

Specter is a mixed-bag; but so far some of his decisions have benefitted gun owners. For example, his decision to help deny Robert Bork a position was a victory for the Second Amendment.

Bork does not support the idea that the Second is an individual right (http://www.users.fast.net/~behanna/bork.html). (Semi-related and excellent link - http://www1.law.ucla.edu/~volokh/2amteach.htm )

Specter also supported us 100% in March, voting against the Kennedy ammo ban, the AWB renewal, the McCain bill and even the Boxer gunlock bill.

Gordon Fink
November 19, 2004, 11:54 AM
My first priority was the moral issues and the hope that President Bush would put judges and SC Justices on the bench who reflect my views on those issues, and the gun control issues.

So, Jerry, who will you vote for if President G. W. Bush appoints pro-birth, anti-gun justices?

~G. Fink

foghornl
November 19, 2004, 01:22 PM
The only current sitting Senator I can think of worse than Specter would be Sen. Ted "Where are my pants, my car, and my secretary? ? ?" Kennedy.

:banghead: :cuss: :fire: :banghead: :cuss: :fire: :banghead: :cuss:

RevDisk
November 19, 2004, 01:58 PM
The only current sitting Senator I can think of worse than Specter would be Sen. Ted "Where are my pants, my car, and my secretary? ? ?" Kennedy.



Odd, because Specter tends to vote pro-gun the overwhelming majority of the time.

RealGun
November 19, 2004, 02:04 PM
Tempest in a teapot. CircumSpecter is in, and there's nothing anyone can do about it. If Bush nominates his "strict constructionists", CircumSpecter shouldn't have any problem with that. Everyone seems to be assuming that Bush will nominate known pro-lifers. That will not happen, so everyone should just relax.

On the gun side, I think strict constructionists are what we need. The controversy will come when holding Bush accountable for repeatedly using the strict constructionist comment and then possibly departing from that declaration. Who should argue with a judge who sticks to the Constitution and the law as it is written.

Bush is counting on constitutional amendments, not stacked courts. If pro-lifers think they own this administration and this Congress, they are in for some reality lessons.

BigG
November 19, 2004, 02:09 PM
A strict constructionist should not be able for find a right for a federally subsidized abortion in the Constitution®.

Sam Adams
November 19, 2004, 02:11 PM
I tend to think that he survives as but a hollow shell of himself, as shown here: Specter Defanged http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1283930/posts

Sam Adams
November 19, 2004, 02:13 PM
OK, how does one put in a direct link to another site with the new format?

RealGun
November 19, 2004, 05:27 PM
A strict constructionist should not be able for find a right for a federally subsidized abortion in the Constitution.

How about some background? Is the issue subsidies or abortions?

Gary H
November 19, 2004, 07:23 PM
For those that want government dictates on morality, be prepared for your great-grandchildren electing the first fundamentalist Muslim President. You can watch from heaven while someone that may not share your views dictates morality. IF I must accept such dictates and to a certain extent I must, I would rather they be made on a state by state basis so that I could move to a state that I find more agreeable.

BigG
November 19, 2004, 09:31 PM
Realgun: I believe the "dirty little secret" is the unspoken idea that if abortion is legal, then if the rich girl can get one the nanny fed has to provide the same for her poor sister in the interest of "fairness" Aww-www-www. IMHO, that is the only thing "wrong" with abortion. I could give a flying :cuss: whether or not it's legal except for that. YMMV :eek: ;)

If you enjoyed reading about "Do you think pro gun people have been sold out by this news regarding Specter ?" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!