You have asked for my thoughts.
I agree with your 3 issues. Issue 2 - getting the appropriate justices confirmed was the point of my thread earlier today.
Your comments about Specter are compelling. This is why he must only be allowed to get the chairmenship under certain circumstances.
The point I wanted to raise is what is the best strategy to get to our goal. By Specter's foolish initial comment right after the election, he has given us an opportunity. He has already tried to back off the comments. The white House might let him slide - consider Rove's comments today.
Can we turn Specter into a useful vote. The critical item is what is the vote count that is needed to enact the nuclear option. I believe it is 50. If Specter's vote can be the difference we would be better served in having a requirement of 50 for judges even if it meant having Specter as chairman. as a second condition, perhaps the Senate rules can enact power to the majority leader to be able to change chairmen.
We must keep our eye on the prize. Also another point. We cannot totally throw the RINOS overboard - except for Chafee. We need them not to filibuster or help with other votes. Unfortunately, we do not have enough members in the Senate to enact our will without some problems. That is just reality.
The operative question is what is the best strategy. Just to throw Specter overboard makes him a more certain enemy. It may weaken our ability to get our judges through. If he is not allowed to have the chairmenship then it might be easier for the Rats to use this as an excuse to maintain the filibuster.
I have no love for Specter and feel similarly to what you do. More importantly, I want to keep my eye on the prize.
I ask what is the most effective strategy? If you deny the chairmanship to Specter then what? I created my thread to suggest an alternative view.
Too many of the people commenting on this issue are focused on the anger and retribution - which are well deserved. We should not make the Rats mistake that lost them the election. All I want is the most effective strategy to get solid qualified judges confirmed. We must not fail in this quest.
But it's a diversion.
I see this as an attempt to create a backlash among the less religious.
I also see Specter's comments on abortion as an attempt to augment this backlash.
What I am trying to say is that Specter is trying to marginalize his secular opponents by dismissing them as "right-wing snake-handlers and tongue-talkers".
The only (practical, not rational) problems I see with your proposals are:
(1) Arlen Specter has a clear, and historically long, record of broken promises (As the most recent of hundreds, just look at his win in April's Pennsylvania primary. Anyone who understands politics knows that he has to have promised the President and Senator Santorum significant backing for conservative legislation in exchange for their endorsements, but it wasn’t twenty-four hours before he already began to distance himself from them, declaring himself an independent leader).
(2) As far as granting Frist the ability to remove chairmanships, that would be a viable option, were it not for the conceivable difficulty in getting that rule passed … and the possibility of granting too much power to future Majority Leaders of a more tyrannical bent than Frist. It might open up an unwanted Pandora’s box.
This is not to say that I disagree with anything you have said. Quite the contrary. But it is deeply discouraging how spider-like the modern political process has become. There are so many ramifications of each and every decision, or considered decision, that somehow right and wrong get lost in the shuffle.
~ joanie
Your solution is no solution. Your premise is incorrect. "Retribution" and "anger" has nothing to do with removing Specter, so your supposed emotional check you call "strategy" is not strategic at all. It isn't about giving place to anger over 'smarts' on how to manipulate the vote. It is get this guy out of the way now. He is an enemy plain and simple. Period. You will not in any way be able to control him issue by issue with 'leverage'.
The reason I suspected you of being a Democrat is that they expressly depend on emotional arguments/lies and your only 'reason' for why he shouldn't be removed is a direct attempt to portray your 'strategy' as the emotional high ground and as such 'ergo' the 'option of choice'. The filibuster needs to be met head on and in the open for all to see just how far they will go--which will work out for us even more. On a certain level you want them to filibuster. The more they filibuster, the more they erode their base. Democratic Planet is built on emotion. They'll break their own supposed emotional etiquette on which they stand as 'better than everyone else' just once too often and their base will puke--it is already over for them. You are going on a premise of how politics was played in the past as a model for the present and future. That is over. We just voted on that.
We're not hiding in the bushes plotting a battle plan. We're occupying ground already won and digging in with crew served weapons against an enemy determined to kill us and our children through any means possible, to include abortion and homosexuality. They are deceived. They're not doing it on purpose. But they are still doing it. There is more to be done. But giving up hard fought ground already won is no solution at all. We are genuinely in the right here. Giving place to fear is not wisdom.
Pass the ammo, brother. Don't tell me we shouldn't be here. What you put up with always comes back and bites you.