That capital will be needed in January to change the rules so judges can't be filibustered.
That is where the battle for pro-life judges will be won or lost.
The fillibustering issue is another important one but having a moderate, pro-choice Senator as head of the judiciary committee will NOT help matters no matter how you look at it.
I'm convinced that Specter could change his party affiliation to Democrat and without changing any of his views, handily win another election. That should tell you something.
We'll have to see what the transcript says but it is interesting that whatever it says, so many people can believe the original news story without question. Don't get me wrong, if Specter comes out with a transcript that says something entirely different, I'll believe him over some reporter. However, that does nothing to erase his actions in the past.
Remember his invocation of 'Scottish law'? That was the point at which it was clear to me that this guy had lost it.
This whole exercise with Spector is a waste of hard earned political capital. The MSM is trying to get the conservatives to spend early and waste what they have earned.
Winning is the goal, not arguing. Bush has already laid down the marker. he will appoint judges who interpret the law not rule by their opinion.
What is needed is strategy. The old in your face one has not worked and simply feeds the MSM with the ammo they use to blast us with.
I come to win not just waste my time playing the MSM game.
I agree the fillibuster ruse needs to be killed, but there's no need to fillibuster a judge that doesn't get out of Specter's committee. either he "comes to Jesus" on the issue or he has to go off to exile on some non-social committee.
With all due respect, "political capital" is just a metaphor, useful at times, but not all the time. There really is not a set supply of good luck or good news that the senators have to horde for later use. Nothing keeps a senator from voting for a good chairman now, and good filibuster rules later.
A better metaphor might be momentum. A first step towards judicial restraint now clarifies in peoples' minds that such a thing is possible and makes it easier to take a second step in the same direction later. Elevating Specter to the chairmanship is a vote for the status quo, and does nothing to make it easier for people to support cloture reform later.
Or you could look at this as a "teaching moment". Bush saved Specter's hide in the primary, and Specter rewarded him with a slap to the face. Now people are waiting to see whether there are any consequences, and that will guide their future actions. A little firmness now might save the Republican leadership grief later.
If you do insist on the "political capital" model, consider that putting Specter into the chairmanship increases the future political cost of getting judges who take the constitution seriously. Specter said he opposed Bork because of Bork's "insistence on 'original intent'". What are the chances that he will help the president with his nominees, when he has such an attitude?