Anyone who knows me knows that I am very interested in the politics of this country. They also know that I am an independent thinker. What I mean is that I do not blindly follow the orders of any political party and I do not "just accept" everything an elected official tells me. I have a tendency to make up my own mind in regard to the various issues of the day. Having said that, I do have a few tendencies that affect my decisions. The first is that on social issues I tend to be quite liberal, preferring to allow people to make up their own minds (according to their own values) on a given topic rather than having the government dictate what I (or anyone else) should think. On issues of spending and defense-related matters, I tend to be quite conservative. I believe that the government should exercise both a little restraint and responsibility when it comes to spending . As far as defense matters are concerned, I believe the government should be circumspect and prudent before using our forces against another country, but at the same time they should do what is best for the country insofar as security is concerned.
Now, having stated the above, you know a little bit about how I reach a given conclusion.
In this entry, I would like to address the current flap (according to the Washington Post) over Arlen Specter and his supposed warning to George Bush regarding Supreme Court nominees and abortion.
At issue is Arlen Specter's supposed warning to Bush that any nominee for the Supreme Court must not oppose a women's right to choose. Senator Specter has denied that he issued such a warning, and I tend to believe him. He has been around the Senate long enough to know that in the period between the elections and the point at which you are appointed to a given committee, you don't say anything controversial. It is believed that Sen. Specter will be appointed as chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee. That committee handles matters involving the Federal court system. One of its most important duties is to "screen" the nominees (for various judicial posts) that the President sends them. This includes screening potential Supreme Court justices. According to newspaper reports, Specter is quoted as saying (in regard to potential Bush nominees for Supreme Court Justice) , "When you talk about judges who would change the right of a woman to choose . . . I think that is unlikely." (Source: Washington Post) Critics and conservative groups have taken this to mean that Specter would oppose any nominee for Justice that opposes a women's right to choose. According to the Washington Post, conservative and religious groups have been flooding Specter's offices with complaints. The Post also reported that one conservative group, Concerned Women For America, issued a statement saying that Specter had disqualified himself from serving as the chairman of the committee. (Meaning that the group believes he's not qualified to serve as chairman due to this supposed statement). Specter clarified his remarks and stated that "I expect to support his [Bush's] nominees." But, according to reports, the conservative and religious groups have not backed off.
My take on this is that Arlen Specter (R-PA) is a
moderate Republican from a state that went to John Kerry during the election. It went to Kerry despite the fact that Bush visited the state roughly 50 times during his first four years as president. I figure that the conservative and religious groups that support Bush (not to mention the White House itself) see this as a slap in the face. To visit a place 50 times in four years and then to have it go to your opponent? I'd be pissed too! This is the way that these groups are going to get back at Pennsylvania for not voting for Bush. Specter is PA's senior senator and, subsequently, its most powerful senator. He serves on several committees, but he is up for the chairmanship in only one (that I know of, corrections are most welcome). That committee is the Judiciary Committee. With an aging Supreme Court, and Chief Justice William Rehnquist's recent thyroid cancer diagnosis, Bush could be in a position to nominate one or more justices. These groups know that if they want to leave a lasting impression on this country, the Supreme Court is the place to do it. They know that justices are appointed for life, and it nearly takes an act of God to have them removed. They also know that if they can get their nominees onto the court, they will be able to control the direction of this country for years, possibly decades, to come. They know that Specter, as a moderate Republican Judiciary Committee chairman, would probably oppose anyone who was extremely conservative. This presents a problem to these groups that they cannot easily overcome. So if you are a conservative or religious group that has a problem like this, what do you do? Why, it is easy. You just take a page out of the Republican Party/puppet of the religious right's playbook. You want the page entitled "Character Assassination And Creating A Controversy." These groups apparently couldn't dig up any dirt shocking enough to disqualify Specter, so they just got a stooge reporter to start a controversy for them. My question for the conservatives and the religious groups who are bitching about this is, "What gives you the right to tell anyone what they can and cannot do?" The main issue here is a woman's right (and freedom) to choose what she can do with her body. These groups want to limit that freedom. They want to dictate to a women how she may act. Hmmm, sound a bit familiar? Like anyone we know (or might recently have defeated)? How about the Taliban? Does that ring a bell? Now all of these groups will say "Hey, we're no Taliban. We don't say that women can't go to school and that they have to cover their faces and the like." True, right now they don't say that, but how long before they will? I am sure that the Taliban didn't reveal their entire agenda to the Afghan people until after they were in power. Is that the plan of these groups? Now don't get me wrong, I do not oppose religion or people who believe in God or anything like that. What I oppose is the hypocritical, power-hungry people who run these religious political groups. If you are a member of one of these groups, ask yourself "what is the ultimate goal of this group and its leaders?" If the answer is that your group is seeking to promote its views to others and that these others can then choose to follow or not to follow your groups views, fine, I have no problem with your group. But if the answer is that your group is seeking to promote its views as the "only correct view" and that all other views are considered "wrong," "immoral," "inferior," "sacreligious," or "heretical/blasphemous" and that individuals who do not agree with your views must be somehow "dealt with," then I have a REAL PROBLEM with your group. Your group isn't seeking to promote its religion, it is seeking to promote a theocratic dictatorship. Most religions and religious groups are not trying to turn this country into a theocracy with theirs as the only religion. Most religious political groups, on the other hand, are seeking that exact situation. And, here's a shocker (not), most of the leaders of these religious political groups don't give a diddler's damn about the religion, they are merely using it as a convenient vehicle to gain power. It is the power they are after and once they gain power, then the religion is discarded like an old shoe. Don't believe me? Ok, go ahead and elect the leader of one of these religious political groups as president and see what happens. I wouldn't give it 6 months until this country was turned into a dictatorship. Not a theocracy, but a straight dictatorship.
As long as the Republican Party continues to kowtow to these groups, the people of this country will continue to face the threat of a theocracy. By the same token, as long as Republicans continue to take their orders from the the fascist wing of the party, the American people will continue to face the threat of a right-wing dictatorship (see Central America, South America, and Nazi Germany for what happens in a right-wing dictatorship). As long as the Republican party is in the grip of its fascist members, moderates such as Specter will continue to be the target of campaigns seeking to keep them Republican and in Congress while also seeking to remove them as a block to the fascist agenda. If you don't believe that the Republican Party is controlled by those who fit the definition of a fascist, I invite you to read both the Patriot Act and the Republican sponsored Patriot Act 2 (the Patriot Act 2 is only proposed legislation, it isn't a law...yet.) These acts (or proposed acts) pretty much obliterate your civil liberties. They are a clear violation of your constitutional rights. They contain provisions which violate your right to face your accuser, your right against self-incrimination, your right to a fair and speedy trial, your right to be tried by a jury of your peers, your right of free speech, your right to be protected from cruel and unusual punishment, and your right to be protected against being held against your will while not being charged with a crime . All of this in the name of being protected against a terrorist attack. War on terrorism my ass! There is no "war on terrorism!" Wanna know why? Because the terrorists have already won. The minute they forced the US to abandon the principal that preserving liberty for the individual citizen outweighs preserving the security of the government, the terrorists won. They did it by forcing the government to restrict the actions of individual citizens in the name of security. These actions by the government do not sit well with civil libertarians, but they are fine with conservative groups. That is because while the civil libertarian looks to preserve the liberties and freedoms of all of this country's citizens, these conservative groups want to restrict everyone's freedom or they want to restrict freedoms to only those people they approve of (usually white, heterosexual males and while I happen to be a white, heterosexual male, I do not approve of restricting anyone's freedoms). These conservative groups are looking for a classic police state dictatorship. The last line of defense between the Congress' legislated restrictions, conservative groups' desired police state, religious groups' dreamed of theocracy, and the White House's promotion of the previous three, is the judicial system. In specific, it is the Supreme Court, with its ability to have the final say on whether a law is constitutional or not, that is chief among the line of the judicial defenses. The aforementioned groups know, that should they gain control of the judiciary, there will be no defense for the average citizen against their (the groups) agenda of restriction and , finally, elimination of a person's civil liberties.
And now you know why I am on this rant.
