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
Thanks for your reply. You make terrific points, all of which I agree with. Nothing is easy as it seems. I loved your description of the spider like process and how right and wrong gets lost in the shuffle.
What we need to focus on is how to best maneuver thru the webs keeping our eye on the right - in this case getting our judges confirmed. I suggest that this needs to be developed further. I am afraid that many of us are focused on Specter without regard for the ramifications. I would like to see a practical gameplan developed that culminates in our goal.
What does Specter's long record of broken promises tell us about the people of PA?