Arlen Specter's Guiding "Principle": What's Best for Arlen, Not America!
Senator Specter is a traitor in the political sense returning home to the Democrat Party. As an ambitious young politician, Senator Specter saw his chance and abandoned the Democrat Party. As an ambitious old politician, he saw that he would lose the Republican primary and cut a deal to return to the Democrat Party to keep his Senate seat.
Senator Arlen Specter is a liberal who has long masqueraded as a moderate with the media's help, as the media has worked assiduously to push America left.
Commentator J.B. Williams, in "The Housecleaning Has Begun, as Sen. Arlen Specter Takes a Flying Leap":
"Specter's voting record is solidly liberal, not Republican:
Opposes Parental consent and limiting out of state abortions for minors
Favors Affirmative Action
Favors same-sex unions
Opposes Three Strike sentencing laws
Favors socialized health care
Bought hook, line, and sinker into Gore's Global Warming swindle
Favors amnesty for illegal aliens
Opposes tough on terror efforts
Supports Obama's multi-trillion dollar spending spree
Supports criminal court access and U.S. Civil Rights for Gitmo terrorists"
Self-interest is Senator Specter's guiding principle.
His political strategy is reminiscent of that of the late Senator Jacob Javits of New York. In Javits' case, it was easier to tell that he really was a liberal, because he ran as the nominee of both the Republican and Liberal Parties (and not the Conservative Party). And when he lost a Republican primary in 1980, even though he was an incumbent United States Senator, he stayed in the race (albeit unsuccessfully) as the Liberal candidate.
Senator Specter switched political parties again, rather than fight, because he realized that he would lose the next Pennsylvania Republican primary for United States Senator overwhelmingly and could not win as an independent (like Senator Joe Lieberman), and his personal political survival is paramount for him.
Republican Senate Conference Vice Chairman John Thune (S.D.) hopes that Senator Arlen Specter will remain allied with his former Republican Senate colleagues on judicial nominations.
Senator Thune: "[Senator Specter]'s got a deep, profound respect for the law. And I think that will shape his judgment when it comes to judicial nominations."
Judicial Confirmation Network counsel Wendy E. Long issued the following statement on Senator Specter's latest party switch: "As chairman and ranking member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, Senator Specter deserves praise for recognizing the virtues of judicial restraint in voting to confirm Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Alito, as well as supporting appellate court nominees who practice judicial restraint. We hope he will continue to support judges in that mold."
These are wonderful hopes, but expecting President Obama to nominate "judges in that mold" is not realistic and neither is expecting pro-abortion Senator Specter to vote against confirmation of judicial activists nominated by the man securing his re-election.
As Mrs. Long herself put it, for "the first time in history" we have "a president [who] has put forth as his gold standard for judicial nominees the very definition of judicial activism."
Yes, Senator Specter supported now Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Alito, but was that not part of the price for Senator Specter becoming Chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee in 2005?
Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Alito were highly qualified nominees deserving of unanimous confirmation, but who thinks that either would have been Senator Specter's choice if he had been the chooser?
Commentator Frank Salvato, in "Specter: An Opportunist Guilty of Political Treason," reported the Specter story as follows: "US Sen. Arlen Specter (R-PA) announced this week that he was switching political parties. Initially he said that he was doing so because he didn't want to be 'judged by the Pennsylvania Republican primary electorate,' the same electorate he courted in his last election. But later, after he realized his statement depicted him as an ungrateful political opportunist, he said his decision was based on the idea that the Republican Party – which has moved more to the center in recent years – has 'moved too far to the Right.' The truth is that Specter is a political opportunist who has literally thrown his constituency under the bus just to save his political career. In the political sense, he is a traitor."
That's the truth.
It's also true that Senator Specter is a traitor in the political sense returning home to the Democrat Party. As an ambitious young politician, Senator Specter saw his chance and abandoned the Democrat Party. As an ambitious old politician, he saw that he would lose the Republican primary and cut a deal to return to the Democrat Party to keep his Senate seat.
Mr. Salvato refuted Senator Specter's eventual rationalization for returning home to the Democrat Party:
"In Specter's formal announcement – in other words, after Specter's political spin doctors crafted an excuse for his narcissistic, self-serving party switch – he said:
"'Since my election in 1980...the Republican Party has moved far to the right...I now find my political philosophy more in line with Democrats than Republicans.'"Really? The current Republican Party is now more to the right than during the Reagan Era? The spendthrift Republican Party of the 2000-2004 Era is more to the right of Newt Gingrich's Republican Party of the Conservative Revolution and Contract with America? Is anyone buying this line of garbage?
" * * *
"One has to wonder how many political 'pieces of silver' the traitor Specter received for selling out his constituency for a political party."
To be precise, Specter did not sell out 'for a political party." He uses political parties and "sold out" to be re-elected. He cut the best political deal he could...and Americans will be paying the price for generations.
Michael J. Gaynor has been practicing law in New York since 1973. A former partner at Fulton, Duncombe & Rowe and Gaynor & Bass, he is a solo practitioner admitted to practice in New York state and federal courts and an Association of the Bar of the City of New York member.
Gaynor graduated magna cum laude, with Honors in Social Science, from Hofstra University's New College, and received his J.D. degree from St. John's Law School, where he won the American Jurisprudence Award in Evidence and served as an editor of the Law Review and the St. Thomas More Institute for Legal Research. He wrote on the Pentagon Papers case for the Review and obscenity law for The Catholic Lawyer and edited the Law Review's commentary on significant developments in New York law.
The day after graduating, Gaynor joined the Fulton firm, where he focused on litigation and corporate law. In 1997 Gaynor and Emily Bass formed Gaynor & Bass and then conducted a general legal practice, emphasizing litigation, and represented corporations, individuals and a New York City labor union. Notably, Gaynor & Bass prevailed in the Second Circuit in a seminal copyright infringement case, Tasini v. New York Times, against newspaper and magazine publishers and Lexis-Nexis. The U.S. Supreme Court affirmed, 7 to 2, holding that the copyrights of freelance writers had been infringed when their work was put online without permission or compensation.
Gaynor currently contributes regularly to www.MichNews.com, www.RenewAmerica.com, www.WebCommentary.com, www.PostChronicle.com and www.therealitycheck.org and has contributed to many other websites. He has written extensively on political and religious issues, notably the Terry Schiavo case, the Duke "no rape" case, ACORN and canon law, and appeared as a guest on television and radio. He was acknowledged in Until Proven Innocent, by Stuart Taylor and KC Johnson, and Culture of Corruption, by Michelle Malkin. He appeared on "Your World With Cavuto" to promote an eBay boycott that he initiated and "The World Over With Raymond Arroyo" (EWTN) to discuss the legal implications of the Schiavo case. On October 22, 2008, Gaynor was the first to report that The New York Times had killed an Obama/ACORN expose on which a Times reporter had been working with ACORN whistleblower Anita MonCrief.