Arlen Specter's warped sense of proportion

Illustrating the abhorrent yet entirely predictable behavior of those on the left, Rush Limbaugh explains, 'A tiger is a tiger. A snake is a snake. And a liberal is a liberal.' To which he might add,  a 'moderate' is a liberal too. Pennsylvania Senator Arlen Specter, outspoken Republican 'moderate' and Judiciary Committee chairman, makes this point painfully obvious once again.

Specter recently voiced his concern over the possibility that Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist (R.—TN) may significantly alter Senate rules, invoking the so—called 'nuclear option,' to counter Democrat obstruction of President Bush's judicial nominees. Specter expressed fears that this tactic would result in 'turmoil' and 'bedlam' on the Senate floor.

Specter may well have been in retirement by now, were it not for the diligent efforts of the Bush administration on his behalf during Pennsylvania's Republican primary, in which the incumbent Specter barely beat Representative Pat Toomey, a conservative challenger. Last November, Specter secured another term with his victory in the general election.

In response to the support he received, Specter reacted with the typical ingratitude of  'moderate' GOP Trojan Horses, turning on the President within days of his victory, and warning him against nominating conservatives to the nation's high courts.

Now, in the face of a Democrat promise to continue obstruction of the President's judicial nominees, Specter takes issue not with the Democrats, but with the Republicans, expressing fear that such a rules change by Republicans would be harmful to the Senate.

Senator Robert Byrd (D.—WV) says it a bit more hysterically, resorting to the standard liberal rhetoric of comparing decisive Republican action to Nazi Germany.

Sad it is that Byrd and Specter can show great concern for the detrimental effects of changes to the operating rules within the United States Senate. Yet they remain oblivious to the damage being regularly done to the very fabric of American society by an out—of—control judiciary that regularly alters not merely rules, but the very foundation of law, based on nothing more substantial than the leftist philosophies it embraces.

But while Byrd is simply showing himself to be the partisan Democrat everyone knows him to be, Arlen Specter should be concerned with maintaining his party's stand in favor of protecting the Constitution.

Does Specter really hold the 'sanctity' of Senate rules in higher regard than the rule of law? Can he truly not see that, despite possible upheaval in the Senate, it nonetheless will continue to function? But a society in which the laws are subject to the whims of a few is a society that is on the road to tyranny.

Adopting more rhetoric from his Democrat colleagues, Specter embraced the assertion by New York Senator Charles Schumer that the make up of the nation's courts should be 'balanced.' But hardly some noble 'bipartisan' realization of common ground, the 'balance' Schumer advocates is between those who seek to undermine the Constitution in service to the liberal agenda, and those who would fight to preserve and uphold it.

So distorted has the debate become in recent years that the original premise of constitutionality, as an absolute standard established by its framers and approved by the nation during ratification, has been all but abandoned. Specter appears unwilling to remedy this situation.

The timing of Specter's comments is particularly unfortunate, since President Bush last week threw down the gauntlet to Democrat obstructionists, re—nominating a dozen individuals who had been denied confirmation in the past few years by means of the filibuster.

The past political repercussions suffered by obstructionist Democrats resulted in part from a presumption that Republicans would truly fight for the confirmation of a judiciary that supports Constitutional law. Any Republican who thinks that Democrat stonewalling alone will reap political benefits is gravely mistaken.

Underhanded tactics of this nature must be countered by a Republican guarantee to do something better. And 'business as usual' represents no such an alternative.

In last fall's elections, conservatives strongly supported those candidates who advocated traditional values. Their rejection of the status quo, and its corollary of continued moral decline, was a major factor contributing to Republican victories throughout the nation. They expect results.

Since Election Day, Democrats have scrambled to convince America that they too embrace 'values.' Republican waffling will only make this ruse easier for them to pull off. By his disproportionate loyalty to the decorum of the Senate and callous indifference to the Constitution, Arlen Specter may prove to be the Democrats' best friend.

Illustrating the abhorrent yet entirely predictable behavior of those on the left, Rush Limbaugh explains, 'A tiger is a tiger. A snake is a snake. And a liberal is a liberal.' To which he might add,  a 'moderate' is a liberal too. Pennsylvania Senator Arlen Specter, outspoken Republican 'moderate' and Judiciary Committee chairman, makes this point painfully obvious once again.

Specter recently voiced his concern over the possibility that Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist (R.—TN) may significantly alter Senate rules, invoking the so—called 'nuclear option,' to counter Democrat obstruction of President Bush's judicial nominees. Specter expressed fears that this tactic would result in 'turmoil' and 'bedlam' on the Senate floor.

Specter may well have been in retirement by now, were it not for the diligent efforts of the Bush administration on his behalf during Pennsylvania's Republican primary, in which the incumbent Specter barely beat Representative Pat Toomey, a conservative challenger. Last November, Specter secured another term with his victory in the general election.

In response to the support he received, Specter reacted with the typical ingratitude of  'moderate' GOP Trojan Horses, turning on the President within days of his victory, and warning him against nominating conservatives to the nation's high courts.

Now, in the face of a Democrat promise to continue obstruction of the President's judicial nominees, Specter takes issue not with the Democrats, but with the Republicans, expressing fear that such a rules change by Republicans would be harmful to the Senate.

Senator Robert Byrd (D.—WV) says it a bit more hysterically, resorting to the standard liberal rhetoric of comparing decisive Republican action to Nazi Germany.

Sad it is that Byrd and Specter can show great concern for the detrimental effects of changes to the operating rules within the United States Senate. Yet they remain oblivious to the damage being regularly done to the very fabric of American society by an out—of—control judiciary that regularly alters not merely rules, but the very foundation of law, based on nothing more substantial than the leftist philosophies it embraces.

But while Byrd is simply showing himself to be the partisan Democrat everyone knows him to be, Arlen Specter should be concerned with maintaining his party's stand in favor of protecting the Constitution.

Does Specter really hold the 'sanctity' of Senate rules in higher regard than the rule of law? Can he truly not see that, despite possible upheaval in the Senate, it nonetheless will continue to function? But a society in which the laws are subject to the whims of a few is a society that is on the road to tyranny.

Adopting more rhetoric from his Democrat colleagues, Specter embraced the assertion by New York Senator Charles Schumer that the make up of the nation's courts should be 'balanced.' But hardly some noble 'bipartisan' realization of common ground, the 'balance' Schumer advocates is between those who seek to undermine the Constitution in service to the liberal agenda, and those who would fight to preserve and uphold it.

So distorted has the debate become in recent years that the original premise of constitutionality, as an absolute standard established by its framers and approved by the nation during ratification, has been all but abandoned. Specter appears unwilling to remedy this situation.

The timing of Specter's comments is particularly unfortunate, since President Bush last week threw down the gauntlet to Democrat obstructionists, re—nominating a dozen individuals who had been denied confirmation in the past few years by means of the filibuster.

The past political repercussions suffered by obstructionist Democrats resulted in part from a presumption that Republicans would truly fight for the confirmation of a judiciary that supports Constitutional law. Any Republican who thinks that Democrat stonewalling alone will reap political benefits is gravely mistaken.

Underhanded tactics of this nature must be countered by a Republican guarantee to do something better. And 'business as usual' represents no such an alternative.

In last fall's elections, conservatives strongly supported those candidates who advocated traditional values. Their rejection of the status quo, and its corollary of continued moral decline, was a major factor contributing to Republican victories throughout the nation. They expect results.

Since Election Day, Democrats have scrambled to convince America that they too embrace 'values.' Republican waffling will only make this ruse easier for them to pull off. By his disproportionate loyalty to the decorum of the Senate and callous indifference to the Constitution, Arlen Specter may prove to be the Democrats' best friend.