Tell Laura, I love her...
Since they lost on November 2nd, we have been witness to the Democrats in the process of continuing to destroy the viability of their party by driving their party towards a more narrow ideology. Do Republicans want to follow their lead?
Arlen Specter is under the gun by conservatives for remarks he made related to his expected elevation to chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee. Laura Ingraham is one of those in full cry to deny him this position. Before we speak about why Specter is in this pickle, let’s look at the realities.
First, the Republican Party is doing a creditable job filling the vacuum left in the “big tent” by Democrats (Republicans, especially conservative Republicans, are quite familiar with the peculiar bigotry displayed by purists who would rather lose elections than allow for competing viewpoints, but that’s another blog.) Does it really help the Republican Party grow its membership to insist on ideological purity?
Second, think about effectiveness. Do you think a conservative ideologue would be more effective than Specter getting conservative judges approved? As long as Specter continues to support the President’s choices and moves the process swiftly to a floor vote, all of which he has committed to do, he will be a far more effective advocate than anyone else on the Committee.
Finally, let’s think about why Specter is in this position. The article characterizing Specter’s comments was written by the AP’s Lara Jakes Jordan, the reporter who spun Rick Santorum’s (R. - Pa.) remarks on the Texas sodomy case into the same trap. Santorum stood by his remarks, and refused to follow her story down the spider hole, but conservatives are lining up to take the plunge.
Laura, I love you, but you’re wrong on this.
Arlen Specter is under the gun by conservatives for remarks he made related to his expected elevation to chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee. Laura Ingraham is one of those in full cry to deny him this position. Before we speak about why Specter is in this pickle, let’s look at the realities.
First, the Republican Party is doing a creditable job filling the vacuum left in the “big tent” by Democrats (Republicans, especially conservative Republicans, are quite familiar with the peculiar bigotry displayed by purists who would rather lose elections than allow for competing viewpoints, but that’s another blog.) Does it really help the Republican Party grow its membership to insist on ideological purity?
Second, think about effectiveness. Do you think a conservative ideologue would be more effective than Specter getting conservative judges approved? As long as Specter continues to support the President’s choices and moves the process swiftly to a floor vote, all of which he has committed to do, he will be a far more effective advocate than anyone else on the Committee.
Finally, let’s think about why Specter is in this position. The article characterizing Specter’s comments was written by the AP’s Lara Jakes Jordan, the reporter who spun Rick Santorum’s (R. - Pa.) remarks on the Texas sodomy case into the same trap. Santorum stood by his remarks, and refused to follow her story down the spider hole, but conservatives are lining up to take the plunge.
Laura, I love you, but you’re wrong on this.
posted by Rance Fasoldt at 6:03 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home