Talk:Arlen Specter

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This page is about an active politician who is running for office, is in office and campaigning for re-election, or is involved in some current political conflict or controversy.

Because of this, this article is at risk of biased editing, talk-page trolling, and simple vandalism.
This article is within the scope of the following WikiProjects:

Contents

[edit] Political Role Section

I think that this section, or at least the example provided, is misleading. As early as this morning (Meet the Press 2/5/06), Specter still maintains that the NSA spying program is on shaky legal ground, and probably illegal. I believe that statements regarding the president 'acting in good faith' were said in reaction to suggestions to whether or not impeachment proceedings were appropriate. I do not think Specter's mind has been changed on this issue as of yet.

User: DamonJay

[edit] NPOV

This article sure does not seem to take a NPOV and takes a rather hateful tone.

An edit speculating on why Arlen Spector is getting involved with the NFL/Spygate/Videotape Destruction issue was removed.ColonelKernel (talk) 19:43, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Specter Has Consistently Been Soft on Illegal Immigration

As late as 2007, Specter supported amnesty for illegal immigrants. During his long political career, Specter has been almost silent on the issue of the flood of illegal immigration. Such an important state and national issue can hardly be missing from a recounting of his legislative career. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.44.144.127 (talk) 00:18, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] New photo

Someone asked for a more recent picture awhile ago...I'm not sure why the comment was deleted. His Senate website doesn't seem to have any recent pictures; does anyone have a newer picture?

Vic Troy

I found a good photo at a PA league of women voters and posted it today. Merecat 22:51, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Where did it go, then? The present one is terribly outdated. --Dupes 17:43, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

This is still a problem. The current photo is so old as to be almost unrecognizable. -Will Beback 02:44, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
I concur. The photo in the article looks at least 20 years old. A more recent photo is needed. I would not, however, be opposed to putting the current photo somewhere else in the article.
I was actually about to post a new section about this, but it seems it's already a noted issue. I didn't even recognize him when I saw the picture. This is pretty important. Someone needs to get on this. I'm a pretty new editor, so I'm not entirely familiar with the procedure needed to insert pictures and cite them, but maybe we should stop talking about it and just do it. Nobody appears to have any objections.--Zombiema7 10:30, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Sid Simelia

The picture shown at the top of the page is the most recent one that has been put out by Arlen's press office. I formerly worked as an intern in the D.C. office, and while I should make it clear that I am not responding officially, this is simply my knowledge that I wish to impart on the WikiCommunity. The 2nd picture down on the page was Arlen's original bio picture (commonly referred to as the "Bar Mitzvah picture" around the office). Also, if you look closely at the bottom-left of the newest picture, you'll notice something else 'poking' into the frame. This is the shoulder of Senator Specter's Chief of Staff, Scott Hoeflich. Arlen doesn't smile when he's the only one in the picture.

Hope this info was helpful, entertaining, distracting, et cetera.

Ekatz2 —Preceding comment was added at 20:49, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] who killed kennedy?

what about his role during the warren commission?

Third paragraph from the top.

Ruthfulbarbarity 21:07, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Concerns About Re-election Passage, Hoefel/Specter Race

I could be mistaken, but I don't recall many observers asserting that Specter had moved too far to the right in order to win his last campaign for that seat.
Aside from making some concessions to the Bush administration with respect to facilitating the confirmation of prospective federal judges I don't think he embraced mainstream conservative Republicanism at all.
In fact, he condoned the decision by some union locals to produce Specter-Kerry lawn signs.
If anything, most people were of the view that conservatives staying home-or voting, but withholding their votes from Specter-would pose more of a challenge to his re-election.
Plus, the way his victory is described is a bit misleading.
Yes, in comparison to most Senate races-where the incumbent faces no real opposition-Specter's victory was "narrow," but in comparison to other races he has contested-for example, his razor-thin victory over his female opponent in 1992-his margin of victory was rather large.

Ruthfulbarbarity 21:07, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Texas

Putting WikiProject Texas here so the bot will not retag it. Ingrid 14:58, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Out of morbid curiosity, why is it that the bot feels that this page should be tagged as WikiProject Texas? Sixtus LXVI 18:44, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] NARAL

The following parenthetical statement should be removed:

    • (although he recieved a 20% rating from NARAL, indicating a pro-life record)

as NARAL's criteria are extremely partisan and do not accurately express stance on abortion in an NPOV manner. His 20% rating comes from a budget issue he voted against and some judicial nominees he supported. Not making abortion a hot-button automatic rubber-stamp issue is very different from being Pro-Life.

[edit] References

Why did this article use the non-standard section heading "footnotes" instead of the standard "References"? I changed it to use "References".

Why have contributors left thos references as simple inline inline links? Inline links really really suck. If they expire then no-one can fix the article by searching for a mirror, or an alternative source. Please everybody, if you are the person adding a reference try to use the {{cite news}} or {{cite web}} templates. If that is too difficult, at least put the article's title, author, publisher and date of publication in the reference. Thanks! Geo Swan 12:45, 16 July 2007 (UTC) (This is what conversion to the use of the {{cite}} template look like.)

Does this reference really satisdy the authoritative and verifiable requirements for an encyclopedic reference? http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.com/~battle/senators/specter.htm
It points to a page with no explanation of who did the research.
Cheers! Geo Swan 12:45, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
Case in point, the second reference was a dead link. Because whoever placed it didn't provide any details, it can't be fixed. It can only be pruned. Geo Swan 14:10, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] clarification

Hey all. I was reading through and came to this sentence in the paragraph about Kennedy:

"His connections with the case are dubious after former CIA and Watergate figure Howard Hunt wrote a book just before his death[2] implicating Johnson in the assassination."

Johnson who - Lyndon Johnson? He isn't mentioned previously (or anywhere else) in the article, which is usually done before identifying only by last name. I don't know a lot about this topic so I'll leave it to y'all to correct if you see fit. Jodamn 23:57, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

This sentence should probably be removed -- first of all, what does "dubious" mean? Second, the Kennedy assassination is obviously a controversial topic with hundreds of books with diverse and often speculative theories. As such, I'd like to see more than one source (or at least more specificity) before accepting the claim that anything "dubious" transpired. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.30.31.167 (talk) 18:33, August 27, 2007 (UTC)

I agree, I can't quite parse the grammar of that line. Someone who knows what its getting at should rewrite it.--68.102.156.139 22:41, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Single Bullet theory

It seems some here just can't let it go - they have to discredit the "single bullet theory" - the Warren Commission's contention that at a critical point, president Kennedy and governor Connally were hit by the same bullet and therefore Oswald could have been the lone assassin. When I added clarification on Specter's authorship of the theory, I saw some clearly POV language on this theory, so I reworded it to be neutral.

So "the controversial "single bullet theory" to attempt to explain the commission's preconceived conclusion that a lone assassin killed Kennedy" (which is misleading to say the least) I changed to "the controversial "single bullet theory" which explained how a single assassin killed Kennedy and wounded Texas Governor John Connally."

Then, someone changed that to "which purportedly explained how a single assassin killed Kennedy and wounded Texas Governor John Connally." and after I reverted THAT POV line, pointing out that the theory DID "explain" how the two were shot, though, obviously, you are free to dismiss the explanation as many have. And THAT was changed again to "which supposedly explained how a single assassin killed Kennedy and wounded Texas Governor John Connally."

Let's get a grip here. To insert words like "supposedly" and "purportedly" to the text is adding a subjective opinion on the subject. In my view, the easiest and most neutral way to address this without getting into controversy is to simply state that the theory provided an explanation for how a single assassin both killed Kennedy and wounded the governor. There is NO need I can see here for noting that others don't agree with this conclusion ESPECIALLY given the fact that earlier the theory is described as being "controversial" thus implying its conclusions are not universally accepted. If one wants to explore the issue, one needs only to click on the link. Cheers Canada Jack (talk) 21:19, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

I do see where you're coming from, Canada Jack.
There's an unfortunate ambiguity with the word "explained" in this sentence that is difficult to clear up in a neutral way (although the presence of the modifier "controversial" certainly does help with this). On the one hand, there is "explain" in the sense of giving a successful, conclusive account. On the other hand, there is "explain" in the sense of expounding a particular view or theory. Ideally, we'd want a different verb here that conveys only the latter sense. Any suggestions? 71.117.230.228 (talk) 21:34, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

71: How about simply saying "provided an explanation for" replacing "explanation"? I think that that removes the inference that this was a "definitive" explanation. Canada Jack (talk) 21:43, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

That's a little better, but I think one could do better still by reworking the entire sentence. Not to quibble here, and, granted, this is not an article about the John F. Kennedy assassination or the single bullet theory. But there's also another issue with this sentence. The single bullet theory by itself didn't purport to show how a single assassin could have killed Kennedy and wounded Connally, since it didn't concern the lethal shot (or shots) to the President's head. By itself, it purported to show only that the bullet in question caused all of the non-lethal wounds suffered by Kennedy and Connally during the shooting. The sentence as it stands is false, strictly speaking, but it does have the virtue of conveying that the lone assassin hypothesis depends crucially on the truth of the single bullet theory. And that's important. Still, I think the whole sentence could be rewritten in a way that renders it both true and neutral on the controversial matter. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.117.230.123 (talk) 03:35, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough. Here is how it reads now: As an assistant counsel for the commission, he authored or co-authored[2] the controversial "single bullet theory," which provided an explanation as to how a single assassin killed Kennedy and wounded Texas Governor John Connally.

How about... As an assistant counsel for the commission, he authored or co-authored[2] the controversial "single bullet theory," which suggested the non-fatal wounds to president Kennedy and Texas Governor John Connally were caused by the same bullet. This was a crucial assertion for the Warren Commission as if the two were wounded by separate bullets, there would likely have been a second assassin and therefore a conspiracy.

It's important to note that this working theory, which emerged in April, 1964, arose out of the realization that the non-fatal wound to Kennedy was caused by a bullet which exited his body and "should have ripped up the car" but did not. The working theory was that "if Governor Connally was in the path of the bullet it would have struck him." The first assumption was that a second bullet struck Connally (ie., he was hit by two bullets) as the recovered bullet seemed to "pristine." However, later tests showed it indeed could have caused the wounds. By April 27 1964, the consensus was, given the lack of damage to the limousine and the assumption that Connally was hit by one, not two, bullets, that a single bullet caused the damage. On May 7, 1964, the Commission requested a reenactment to test its theory and on May 24, the reenactment took place. This reenactment, calibrated by the positions of the president and governor as seen in the Zapruder film, various other images and films such as the Nix film and the Muchmore film (the latter two for the fatal shot) confirmed a) that the bullet which passed through Kennedy would have hit Connally as he was in a direct line of fire as seen from Oswald's nest and the bullet did not strike anything but flesh in Kennedy and therefore was likely not deflected and b) Connally was in a position to have received the wounds he received if struck by the same bullet.

I note the above to address the claim that the theory was part of some "preconceived" conclusion that Oswald acted alone. The WC had more or less concluded Oswald acted alone to that point as all evidence pointed in that direction. But if one reads the accounts of the Zapruder discussions, one realizes that a) the film was hard to interpret and b) any scenario which suggested a second bullet here would not match the rest of the evidence. Indeed, the possibility that two bullets were involved was in fact considered though the WC (in contrast to most conspiracy theorists) realized that any bullet which struck Kennedy had to also hit Connally.

Canada Jack (talk) 16:59, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

User Gamaliel (wasn't that Harding's middle name?) omitted this section of text: This was a crucial assertion for the Warren Commission as if the two were wounded by separate bullets, there would likely have been a second assassin and therefore a conspiracy. Gamaliel said in omitting the text: Not necessarily since all the wounds were caused by bullets travelling the same direction.
Without gumming the main page up with this Warren Commission stuff, I would say that there is a pretty strong argument from many people that if the WC did not establish the single bullet argument, there HAD to be another assassin, given the timing problems. True, there is an argument, looking at only the Zapruder film, that two shots could have been fired by Oswald in enough time. The HSCA concluded Kennedy was hit around Z190, and if Connally was hit around Z235 as some claim, then there was sufficient time - some 2.4 seconds - for Oswald to fire off two rounds (1.6 seconds needed if using iron sights). However, making this argument ignores other evidence - such as when Connally was hit, the bullet HAD TO have passed through Kennedy first. Which would, therefore, mean that Kennedy was hit twice before the fatal shot, an assertion which isn't backed up by any evidence. Or that a tree blocked Oswald's view at frame 190 making that presumed shot an unlikely occurrence. I would say we should re-insert the text as most pro and anti-conspiracy theorists in fact make this point - two shots almost certainly mean two assassins. Besides the text says "likely" not "certainly" there would have been two assassins. Cheers. Canada Jack (talk) 20:20, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
I have no problem with the material in question appearing in the article if there is a reliable source stating it. Gamaliel (talk) 20:24, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough. I have Vincent Bugliosi, arguably the current most prominent anti-conspiracy theorist, saying "Despite the Warren Commission's assertion that the single-bullet theory was not essential to its conclusion that there was no evidence of a conspiracy, as critics would correctly point out, the single-bullet theory was [emphasis in original] essential to its findings. Commission assistant counsel Norman Redlich put it more bluntly: 'To say that [Kennedy and Connally] were hit by separate bullets is synontmous with saying that there were two assassins.' " (the Redlich quote, according to Bugliosi's reference number is from page 43 of Edward Jay Epstein's 1966 book "Inquest: The Warren Commission and the Establishment of Truth.")

I will insert the citation.Canada Jack (talk) 20:44, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Works for me. Thank you. Gamaliel (talk) 22:00, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

The sentence as it now stands, thanks to Canada Jack's last revision, should be acceptable to conspiracy theorists and non-conspiracy theorists alike. Good work. I'm tempted to replace the word "suggested" with "argued," but this is a minor concern. It seems to me that some of the foregoing discussion really belongs on the discussion page for the Single Bullet Theory article, though. That's the best place for discussing the evidence on either side in relation to a Wikipedia article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.117.230.123 (talk) 03:39, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. My main concern initially was the claim that Specter came up with the single bullet theory which is a claim that may not be true, or at least needs some clarification. However, upon looking at what is on the single bullet theory page, I realize that much of the context which is discussed above is lacking, ie., why the Warren Commission came up with the theory is not mentioned, and this, I feel, should be discussed. Perhaps I will bring this up on the relevant page. Canada Jack (talk) 15:45, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Inconsistency in Account on Spector's Representation of Ira Einhorn

The article makes a reference to Spector having represented Ira Einhorn 'prior to having become district attorney' with reference to Einhorn's conviction in the 1977 murder of Holly Maddux, but this clearly was after Spector's initial election to the post of DA in 1965. See the article on Ira Einhorn for additional detail. This needs to be researched and reconciled. This also suggests there be short additional coverage of Spector's history (if any) as a defense attorney, and the type of law he practiced privately, which would strengthen the background. MariaMitchell (talk) 21:47, 3 February 2008 (UTC)