Specter Calls Private Meeting with GOP Committee Panel
Specter makes another attempt to clarify his Nov. 3 statements but opposition to his chairmship still runs strong.
Sen. Arlen Specter, presumptive chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, is not overlooking the small possibility that his post-election comments on the President’s pro-life judicial nominees could cost him the position. He is calling a private meeting with the panel's Republican members next week to make his case, reported a committee member.
Details to the meeting, reported the Associated Press, such as whether Hatch agreed to call the meeting or the exact date of the meeting is not known.
Specter’s seniority in the Committee makes him next in line to be its chairman. Current head of the Committee, Sen. Orrin Hatch, is stepping down due to a six-year term limit. The Republican Committee members will get the first vote on Specter's chairmanship but their decision can be appealed to the full party later.
Get Our Latest News for FREE
Sen. John Cornyn, R-Texas, a committee member, told AP, "I expect we'll sit down with him and hear what his plans are to support the president and his nominees." Coryn also said Specter is "likely to be confirmed."
One day after the election, the Pennsylvania senator made comments that put him at high odds with pro-family conservatives. They say Specter suggested that President Bush’s pro-life nominees would be filibustered by the Senate and also denied Bush’s conservative mandate following the election.
While Specter tried on several occasions to quell the uproar from conservatives, Senate office phone lines have been busy with callers objecting his chairmanship as part of an initiative by pro-family groups.
Several pro-life groups, including Christian Defense Coalition, have planned a demonstration to protest his chairmanship next week and statements from pro-family leaders urging his removal from the position have been issued almost non-stop.
Jan LaRue, Concerned Women for America's chief counsel, named some of the mistakes Specter made even when he tried to clarify his comments.
"What Specter failed to say is another part of the problem," she said. "If he really intended to help the president, his statement on the day after the election would have been a strong one needing no 'clarification' that could lead to 'incorrect reporting.' It would have sent a shot across the bow of Senate Democrats instead of the president. You have to expect more from a guy who thinks of himself as a silver-tongued orator.”
"Instead of saying the president doesn't have a mandate as a result of the election,” LaRue continued, “he would have emphasized that he does. Instead of saying that he anticipates continued filibustering of qualified nominees, he should have cautioned his Democratic colleagues to avoid filibustering or they might end up at home on the range like Tom Daschle.”
“He should do the honorable thing and withdraw himself from consideration,” she concluded.
