SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : Politics for Pros- moderated -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: LindyBill who wrote (84095)11/5/2004 2:30:21 AM
From: LindyBill  Read Replies (2) | Respond to of 793914
 
I hope they dump him, but he will probably survive. Better to have him inside pissing out. If he gets out of line when a nominee comes up, they have good leverage now.

It was unclear whether Specter had staved off a challenge to his chairmanship. Although he is in line by seniority to succeed Sen. Orrin G. Hatch (R-Utah), who is term-limited as Judiciary Committee chairman, Specter could be rejected either by a majority of committee Republicans or the full 55-member Senate Republican Conference.



Specter Denies Warning Bush Over Court Nominees

By Helen Dewar and Charles Lane
Washington Post Staff Writers
Friday, November 5, 2004; Page A05

Sen. Arlen Specter (R-Pa.), who expects to head the Judiciary Committee next year, moved yesterday to quell an uproar over comments that were widely interpreted as warning President Bush against choosing Supreme Court nominees who oppose abortion rights.

"Contrary to press accounts, I did not warn the president about anything" and would "never apply any litmus test" on abortion, Specter said in a statement. "I expect to support his nominees," Specter said later in a telephone interview.

The controversy, which could put Specter's accession to chairman in jeopardy, came as senators and their strategists began to pick their way through the post-election landscape, which appeared to strengthen Bush's hand on judicial nominations, although not without complications.

Republicans figured their four-seat Senate gain will help win support for Bush's nominees among Democrats worried about whether their party was hurt by charges of "obstructionism," an element in the defeat of Minority Leader Thomas A. Daschle (D-S.D.) in Tuesday's voting.

But key Democrats vowed to continue opposing nominees they regard as extreme, employing filibusters if necessary, as they did over the past two years to block 10 of Bush's appeals court choices. Republicans will have 55 seats in the Senate next year, five short of the 60 needed to cut off stalling tactics.

Adding to the political tensions are Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist's recent diagnosis of thyroid cancer and expectations that a nomination for the high court will occur sooner rather than later.

After a Philadelphia news conference Wednesday, after he was elected to a fifth Senate term, it seemed that Specter, who generally supports abortion rights, might also pose a complication. News reports said he warned Bush against nominating anyone for the Supreme Court who would overturn a woman's right to abortion and suggested he would oppose such a nominee. Specter was quoted as saying, "When you talk about judges who would change the right of a woman to choose . . . I think that is unlikely."

The news accounts prompted a flood of complaints to senators' offices.

In his statement yesterday, Specter said he had supported all of Bush's nominees and added, "I have never and would never apply any litmus test on the abortion issue."

It was unclear whether Specter had staved off a challenge to his chairmanship. Although he is in line by seniority to succeed Sen. Orrin G. Hatch (R-Utah), who is term-limited as Judiciary Committee chairman, Specter could be rejected either by a majority of committee Republicans or the full 55-member Senate Republican Conference.

A senior Senate GOP aide said Specter has "created an extremely stormy path for himself," and that it was "too early to say" whether his chairmanship was in jeopardy. Others said they expected the storm to blow over.

Concerned Women for America, a conservative group, issued a statement saying Specter had disqualified himself from the chairmanship and stuck by that statement even after Specter issued his clarification. "He's a desperate man trying to pull himself out of a hole he dug himself into," said Jan LaRue, the group's chief counsel.

The Bush administration began planning for a possible Supreme Court nomination in January 2001, with aides preparing a list of 10 to 20 possible candidates and vetting each, according to former officials who were involved. But those files stayed on the shelf as the court's membership remained unchanged as it had since 1994. Rehnquist's cancer diagnosis has undoubtedly caused the administration to step up its planning.

No one is predicting that there will be anything but a serious fight over any nomination to the court. Conservative interest groups showed by their reaction to Specter's remarks that they expect a nominee to their liking; liberal interest groups are expected to pressure Democrats to oppose anyone Bush picks.

"I think any expectation that the interest groups will lay down against the president's nominee is misplaced," said Viet D. Dinh, a former Justice Department official who worked on judicial nominations.

But Dinh noted that Senate Democrats would face a difficult choice if their only way to stop a Bush nominee were to launch a filibuster, which has rarely been used against Supreme Court nominees. "The Democrats will have to decide on the meaning of the defeat of Tom Daschle, whether it is about obstructionism or just a midcourse correction," Dinh said.

The list of probable nominees remains much as it has always been. At or close to the top is White House counsel Alberto R. Gonzales, 49, who is trusted by the president and who would be the first Hispanic nominated to the court.

Though Gonzales is still seen as a likely first pick by Republican insiders, his luster has been diminished somewhat by recent controversies over the civil liberties impact of the administration's policies in the war on terrorism. Gonzales is also distrusted by the Republican right, which regards him as less than reliable on such issues as abortion and affirmative action.

Also high on the Bush list are J. Harvie Wilkinson III, 60, a federal appeals court judge in Richmond who is seen as reliably conservative and possessed of the seniority and stature necessary to serve as chief justice, and J. Michael Luttig, 50, who serves on the same court.

Others include appeals court judges Samuel A. Alito Jr., 54; Emilio M. Garza, 57; and California Supreme Court Justice Janice R. Brown, 55.

A popular scenario among court watchers is a double switch, with Bush elevating Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, a centrist, to chief justice while nominating a new associate justice.

But a Republican source who asked for anonymity to speak more freely said there is "no chance" of that. Also considered unlikely, said Republicans familiar with administration thinking, is any promotion of Justices Clarence Thomas or Antonin Scalia to chief justice, notwithstanding their popularity on the right.

© 2004 The Washington Post Company



To: LindyBill who wrote (84095)11/5/2004 2:32:48 AM
From: LindyBill  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 793914
 
Finkel goes out to the darkest heartland, with whip and gun, to interview the yahoos. The thinly veiled contempt drips.



'It's a Victory for People Like Us'
Bush Emphasis on Values Drew Ohio Evangelicals
By David Finkel
Washington Post Staff Writer
Friday, November 5, 2004; Page A03

SHEFFIELD LAKE, Ohio -- Here on Redwood Drive, in the little house with the white picket fence, these first days after the election are good days, happy days, blessed days.

"Dear Lord," Cary Leslie is saying for the sixth time since waking up at 3:45 a.m. to go to work. He has prayed for strength not to hit the snooze button on the alarm clock. He has prayed for a safe day for his wife and three children. He has prayed for patience with the foul-tempered customers he deals with at the car-rental counter. He has prayed for a job that will pay enough for a struggling family of five to keep up with the bills. He has prayed for a quick resolution to the presidential election. And now, with the election decided, he is thanking God for listening to his prayers.

Tara Leslie, Cary's wife, has been praying for President Bush, too, and now she is saying, "I think it's so important to have a society of moral absolutes."

"It's really good to know our country had a decision to make, and there are so many people who feel this way," Cary says. "It's a victory for people like us."

The Leslies: They are George W. Bush votes come to life. The millions of voters who describe themselves as "white evangelicals," 77 percent of whom voted for Bush? That's the Leslies. The voters who said "moral values" was the single issue that mattered most to them, 80 percent of whom voted for Bush? That's the Leslies, too.

They are precisely the people the Bush campaign built its reelection strategy on -- people who would put faith-based moral values above every other consideration when it came time to vote, including the war in Iraq, terrorism, the economy and, in the Leslies' case, a life that has been in financial peril since Sept. 11, 2001.

He is 29. She is 27. They have a 5-year-old, a 3-year-old and a 6-month-old, and they are thinking of having one more. They oppose abortion, favor a constitutional amendment that would define marriage as being between a man and a woman, and want more Supreme Court justices like Anton Scalia and Clarence Thomas. They eat at home and shop at Wal-Mart. They home-school their 5-year-old and are members of the nondenominational Church on the Rise, which is "committed to helping families hold down the family fort in the 21st Century," according to its literature, and where the senior pastor says 90 percent of the 1,200 congregants voted for Bush.

"Religious kooks," Cary says, imagining how some people might think of them. His own description: "We're pretty boring people. Normal people."

Normal people who, as this week has progressed, have found themselves increasingly happy about the state of America.

"We're definitely going to celebrate," Tara says of Bush's victory, but what that means is constrained by the changes in their lives that occurred during Bush's first administration.

On Sept. 10, 2001, Cary was earning about $55,000 a year. On Sept. 12, the decline began. No one was flying. No one was renting cars. Down went the commissions Cary gets when customers sign up for insurance coverage. "Maybe $35,000," he says of what he earns now, and that includes income from a second job he took a year ago, delivering pizzas on Friday and Saturday nights.

Forty hours a week at the car-rental counter, 12 hours a week running pizzas, the pinch of gasoline at $2 a gallon, savings drained, the realization that he and Tara are "kind of the working poor" -- and still it was moral concerns, rather than economic ones, that guided both of them on Election Day.

"I don't blame President Bush for anything that's happened with my income," Cary says. Rather, he looks at Bush as someone who believes in "personal responsibility," which Cary believes in as well. Don't complain. Solve. "There are jobs out there," he says, and as tired as he might be on Saturday night as he drives the streets of northern Ohio, he can use that time to listen to worship tapes, to think, to pray and to remind himself of what the priorities of a good life should be.

"Jobs will come and go. But your character -- you have to hang on to that," he says. "It's what you're defined by."

"It's been rough. Very rough. I mean scraping by," Tara says. But "to us, the biggest things were the moral things."

Because of this, Tuesday came with what they both say was "a sense of urgency." They voted for Bush. They voted for a state constitutional ban on same-sex marriage. Cary went to bed toward midnight, when the outcome was not yet clear. Tara stayed up till 2:30, too nervous to sleep, mostly watching Fox News. An hour later, the alarm went off for the first time, and while Tara slept, Cary did what he always does -- tiptoe out, dress down the hall, eat a bowl of Wheaties, drive to the airport, fiddle with the radio, pray.

By 7:30, when Tara awakened, Cary was already dealing with a number of customers wearing Kerry buttons, one of whom approached the counter singing a song about saving the world.

"We did that yesterday," Cary said to him. "What do you mean?" the man asked. "With the vote," Cary said, and as the customers kept coming, fleeing Ohio now that the election was settled, Tara was home-schooling the 5-year-old, and dressing the 3-year-old, and feeding the 6-month-old, and preparing the house so that when Cary walked in the front door after eight hours of whatever, he would know "that he's wanted. That he's home."

He walked in smiling, as he always tries to do, just as John F. Kerry was conceding defeat in faraway Boston, and an hour later, when Bush was declaring victory, he and Tara are in the thick of a day that would be the same no matter who won the election. A crying child with a bump on her head who needs a prayer. A neighbor who wants to borrow the minivan. A diaper that needs changing. A chair that the 5-year-old is trying to turn into a balance beam.

A typical day -- except with a particular hum to it that wasn't there the day before. The day before, they were the margins. Now they are the majority. "To know that he prays," Tara says of Bush, "and I really believe he does, that's a huge thing." The sanctity of marriage will be fine. The Supreme Court will be fine. The war on terror will be fine. The economy will be fine.

"It's not like a major euphoric outbreak," Cary says. "It's more like satisfaction."

"Validation," Tara says.

"I'm just kind of hopeful," Cary says.

"Definitely," Tara says.

A celebration, then, for two Bush votes as the next four years begin.

"Dear Lord," they say, one more time.

© 2004 The Washington Post Company