“You are no more a protector of the Constitution than am I.” A telling quote from one of the biggest fucktards in Congress. “Good riddance” say he, of a departing Senator who felt like the rights of citizens ought to be respected by the Legislature.
The lack of common decency is #12 on your list of “Signs of the Imminent Fall of Civilization.”
This surprises me. Specter is usually known for his moderation. 
I for one wish that he would stop posing as a guardian of individual liberties and ethical governmental practices and actually do something resembling the behavior of such a guardian.
Yeah, there must’ve been some testy words exchanged between them before they exited.
But this looks like a purely political ploy by Spector and the Pubs. He says he’s opposed to the amendment, but wanted to let the full Senate vote on it. IOW, he wants to be able to say Senator So-and-so is in favor of SSM if that Senator votes against the amendment. Sleazy, to say the least.
Yeah well. The guy’s in his fifth term. Perhaps he’s outstayed his welcome, himself.
I’ll say this for Feingold - he found something more effective to do than just a “no” vote. CNN noted, and I’m not surprised that Fox didn’t :rolleyes:, that the bill is thought to have little chance of passing the Senate.
Sen. Specter is a good man. I’ll chalk it up to a bad day. We all get hot and say things sometimes.
There’s plenty more election year bullshit to come. Frist has set aside a week of committee time to talk about flag burning. Apparently the U.S. Senate has no more important issues to deal with.
Yeah, because we all know that is all part of FoxNews’ secret plan to… ?
Your scorn is misplaced. From the Fox link in the OP:
Take over white house press operations:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2006/05/20060517-4.html
cough
Though I’m not really buying Spector getting so mad about the whole thing if there’s nothing more to it than being “totally opposed to it, but felt it deserved a debate in the Senate.”
err which is to say I think there’s more than just being “totally opposed to it, but felt it deserved a debate in the Senate.,” not that his anger was made up.
In actual fact, the CNN website has the exact same paragraph in its story:
The remainder of the article is word-for-word, too. The only difference being Fox’s (incorrect) use of the em dash where CNN employs a double hypen. Not surprisingly since they’re both taken from AP.
Slip of the tongue. But good fodder for the conspiracy theorists!
I’m not sure how smart this is of the Pubbies, politically. I think there are plenty of Repulicans who will be on record as being “pro gay marriage” by voting against this in the full Senate. Senator Spector being one of those who’ll vote against it, and McCain, too.
He was probably pissed at Feingold’s implication that, by voting for it, Specter showed that he didn’t support civil rights or the Constitution.
So? That will just let the White House direct the wrath of Focus on the Family to those guys.
Do you really think this is anything but a political ploy? Usually when a group wants to pass something, they work quietly to round up the votes. Something failing time and time again on the floor is not considered helpful to the cause. I don’t doubt the Pubbies believe in the amendment, but if passing it were their primary concern this is not how to go about it.
Read post #4.
I’m just saying it will hurt some Pubbies as well as some Democrats.
Which is bullshit. Spector should put his vote where his mouth is.
While I tend to agree with you in this particular case, I wouldn’t generalize. I can imagine instances when a Senator might not favor a particular measure, but still, in good conscience, vote for it in committee in order do allow the entire Senate to vote on it.
I was suggesting Fox wouldn’t denigrate such an obvious conservative ploy. But you guys are right, it’s an AP story anyway and I missed the phrase in the Fox link.