Well, I don't think that's right. On the one hand, if he means that MacSpectre would be OBLIGED to VOTE FOR **any** pro-life candidate... well, how could he do that? Suppose a Klansman or Nazi who happened to be pro-life was nominated? I know it wouldn't happen with W, but I just mean it doesn't seem a fair commitment to demand.
If it means that MacSpectre would vow not to vote against a nominee JUST for being pro-life... how is that useful? I mean, of course he'd say it was for something else. How would we know whether he meant it? It's like the "health of the mother" exception to abortion; could mean anything.
Besides, is this what we really want -- a commitment on how he'd finally vote? Or do we want a chair who'd have fair and prompt hearings, and then send the nominee to the full Senate? I mean, yeah, I'd rather at least every GOP senator support anyone W would be likely to nominate... but is that a fair *demand*?
Dan
I don't believe that's the issue. The GOP will have at least a two-vote advantage on the committee, perhaps three.
The leadership won't be asking Specter to commit his vote on any pro-life candidate. Instead, they don't want him adopting any delaying tactics, bottling up pro-life candidates in committee.
With the expanded margins, Specter's vote in the committee and on the floor can be overcome. It is his procedural cooperation that is at stake.
If Specter will commit to that proposition, I personally have no objection to his being named Chairman (so long as they extract a similar pledge not to bottle up tort reform).
Remember that, while we don't need Specter's vote for judicial nominees in committee or on the floor, we do need his vote (and the votes of the other RINO moderates) on cloture motions.
I think the commitment they are looking for is that he won't stop a vote by the full Senate on a given nominee.
I don't think the GOP CARES if Arlen votes for him in the final vote...just the he lets them out of committee and doesn't support any fillibuster.