Specter: The Silver Lining

11/22/04 | Corsica Bella

[BellStar]

He does not have to mind you gave him the Keys!

[polyester~monkey]

well said! This is what I thought the party leadership should do all along. Now we have a vote for the nominees and such that we didn't have before, because Specter will be too scared to vote against them. After all, not giving him the Chair might have made him go the Jeffords route, and no one wants that.

[cynicom]

Anyone that trusts Specter is a fool in his own right.

[GeronL]

He will still block them

[Aunt Polgara]

You are, of course, assuming that he wasn't lying to you. After all, he made a commitment to his local paper that he wouldn't support "extreme" nominees.

So, take your pick. Who was he lying to? The GOP, whom he disagrees with, or the newspaper, whom he agrees with?

[etradervic]

If a Dem is elected President in 2008, he would also be "predisposed" to supporting those nominations as well.

[polyester~monkey]

He can either betray the party and lose his seat or vote with us and face the possibility of losing his seat. Whatever happens, let's look on the bright side: the 2010 primary!

[workerbee]

They avoided the risk we all knew was involved -- that an unprecedented break with Senate tradition would provoke Specter to join Committee Democrats in their obstructionism, and form an open alliance with Snowe, Chafee, and Collins, if not go the Jeffords route entirely.

I still don't see how making Specter "agree" to anything prevents him from doing just this (obstruction). He's in his 70s, isn't he? Isn't this supposed to be his last election anyway? So let's say a conservative nominee for the USSC comes along and he decides, nope. Isn't the only recourse to his obstructionism to remove him as chairman? Once he's chairman, the spectacle of removing him makes things worse for the Repubs IMO. Plus, it assumes they'd have the intestinal fortitude to actually do it, something I question given their reluctance to "break tradition". Or is it common for committee chairs to be replaced?

[pickrell]

That's a top-notch post. Thanks.

[MHGinTN]

"The good news is the price Specter was forced to pay." It is said that ignorance is bliss ... Specter has paid nothing. Everything that could possibly 'come due' has been sent out into the unknown future. Wake up.

[freeangel]

At the risk of sounding negative, what makes anyone think specter will honor any commitment?

[EagleUSA]

There is a rope and a tall tree waiting for Specter if he back-stabs the Repubs. I don't trust that lizard, but he knows there are about 10 million eyes on him...

[spokeshave]

Frist told him of the Dahmer procedure

[Victoria Delsoul]

Specter had to make these commitments in writing and make them public in a press conference, which he did.

Wow, smart move!

[reformed_democrat]

Instead, they put him on a tight leash, and served notice on him that conservatives are watching and that he’s expected to play by the rules.

What leash?
What, exactly, is the Senate Leadership going to do when Specter reneges?

[Cedar]

'If a Dem is elected President in 2008, he would also be "predisposed" to supporting those nominations as well.'

Great point. Just think what Hillary & Specter could accomplish together...

[workerbee]

See #9. What happens if he decides a conservative USSC nominee is too conservative and holds a press conference saying "yes, I know what I agreed to, but such extreme out-of-the-mainstream views as Nominee X espouses have forced me to withhold support." Were any consequences put into writing, as well? If Frist et. al. wouldn't listen to the outrage of conservatives now, wouldn't "break tradition" now, why believe they will have the fortitude to remove Specter from the chairmanship later?

[F16Fighter]

I'll be scrutinizing the Judiciary Committe Hearings closely...

...I want to see this supposed gun to Specter's head that will ensure that he "votes right."