We've been exploring strategies here on FR and none have emerged as optimal.
So far, I object to Frist managing to exclude himself from responsibility by saying "it's up to the members of the committee." Frist can move Specter to another committee and the issue goes away, but he isn't doing that and so far he's escaping any outrage concerning it by . . . again . . . saying it's up to the members.
It's up to him. He has the power, in one place and not several places, to solve this problem. He can't leave Specter on the committee and unilaterally prevent him being Chairman. But he can "promote" him to a "more presitgious committee" whether Specter likes it or not. That seems to me the path of least resistance. Getting one Senator to do something about Specter has to be easier than getting 6 to act.
But hey, this is the Senate Republicans. Why are we surpised? Did they filibuster Ginsberg for USSC? No. She was the lead counsel of the ACLU, but they didn't stop her with a filibuster. They somehow persuaded themselves that the lead counsel of the ACLU was not liberal and pro-choice.
And to think we had wackos here on FR saying "We don't have to vote for Bush; we'll still have the Senate to prevent liberal judges from being installed."
I think Frist is acting smart. There is a process to confirm Senate Chairmen, and Frist is following it. Frist probably could use brute force and take Specter off the committee, but that would stir up a lot of stuff. Frist is gonna let the process play out, but with the guidance Frist gave I thought it was a clear signal to the committee members not to give Specter the chairman's job. Frist was subtle, but clear.