« No Litmus Test for Arlen Specter | Main | President Pushes Legalizing Illegal Aliens »

November 10, 2004

How The Specter Debate Hurts Us

Hugh picks up on how this nonsensical debate over whether to try and deny Arlen Specter the chairmanship of the Judiciary Committee hurts the Republican cause:

Charles Hurt's Washington Times' piece this morning is a warning to conservatives that the Specter debate is playing right into Democratic hands. Look at the quotes from Democrats:

*from Barry Piatt, spokesman for Senator Byron Dorgan, (D-ND): Republicans "don't have a mandate. This was a very close election, and many of the Senate seats they picked up were won very narrowly...There have been a few extreme right-wing judges who have been rejected....Ninety percent have been confirmed. What more do they want?"

*from Senator Richard Durbin, (D-IL): "With diminished numbers on the Democratic side, we need to carefully pick our battles, and we have to look for common ground with the administration when we can find it....But no one should think my Democratic colleagues and I are going to back off when we believe that the president is advocating something that might not be in the best interest of the country."

*from Jude McMartin, spokesman for Senator Jeff Bingaman (D-NM): "Senator Bingaman feels strongly that any nominee ought to be within the mainstream....He makes no decisions before the hearing. He's got no litmus test other than that the nominee ought to be within the mainstream."

Then read "Democrats Vow to Hold Bush Accountable," from this morning's Washington Post. Not surprisingly, the Democrats seem to be heading further left, refusing to acknowledge their collective repudiation. The dominant forces in the party --and those leaders angling already for 2008-- will not suddenly shift to sweet reason and return to Senate tradition. There will be an all-out battle over every Supreme Court nominee, and there will be a filibuster of any nominee that conservatives find acceptable, including my three favorites listed below.

In short, anyone who thinks we can spare a vote or two is nuts. Anyone who doesn't see the potential loss of up to five or even six votes in the humbling of Arlen Specter is not evaluating the situation with the detachment that is absolutely necessary. And anyone who thinks that forcing the White House, or Senator Frist or Senator Santorum into public declarations of "oaths demanded and oaths taken" is a good idea really hasn't thought through how Senator Specter's support for future nominees will be diminished in the press by reference back to this battle underway today.

Can we agree that the MSM will be as hostile to fact and logic as it was in the campaign just ended? Can we also agree that the venom directed at President Bush will also be directed at his Supreme Court nominees? Then can anyone really think we can afford to continue this "arm the opponents with talking points" exercise?

What talking points? If as expected Senator Specter becomes chair and leads vigorous efforts to get, say, Judge Luttig confirmed as the new Chief Justice, I can already hear Ralph Neas on Meet The Press arguing that Senator Specter was "neutered in November." In the unlikely event Senator Specter is toppled, not only do we risk losing his and other moderate GOP senators' support for a floor vote and an end to filibusters, we can almost assure an elevation of the importance of that opposition.

Patrick Leahy, Ralph Neas and Nan Aron and the rest of the hard-left gang want nothing more that for Specter to be thrown under the bus. What's that tell you about the wisdom of that course of action?

Ramesh argues that my anti-anti-Specter arguments are all over the map. No, they are not. They are just too numerous to post at one time. And they all fall into one of two categories: Those arguments which underscore how denying Specter the chairmanship would increase the difficulty of successful confirmation battles, and the argument that upending traditions of comity within the Senate do enormous damage to politics generally.

We are already deep into an age of bitter politics, where every maneuver is justified by the ends being pursued. The decision in the last couple of years --led by Tom Daschle and Patrick Leahy-- to radicalize judicial nominations even beyond the terrible precedents of the Bork and Thomas nomination battles was one of the most irresponsible ever taken, and now the prospect of filibusters and smear campaigns seems inevitable. The only chance of repairing this process is for a united and determined GOP caucus to demand a return to past, pre-Bork practices, and failing to obtain that demand, to launch and win a great debate leading to new rules on judicial nominations. That debate would be ferocious and would lead to an up-or-down vote on a package of rule changes on the floor. This so-called "nuclear option" was not attempted in the last few years because GOP leadership doubted that it had the votes. With a caucus of 55 and some sober Democrats across the aisle, the threat of that option might be enough to calm the Democrats and undo the knots which they have tied. The Specter debate is giving exactly the wrong signal, and forcing the very confrontation that might have been avoided.

Perhaps some folks welcome the battles. I think it is better to win quietly than it is to emerge with a nominee confirmed by a single vote of the Vice President, the nominee's reputation scarred by the slanders of an out-of-control left, the country even more polarized, and two or three more nominations to go. These are the circumstances upon which the fever swamp and the Michael Moore caucus of opportunists feed.

Jeffords, Jeffords, Jeffords.

Posted at 04:10 PM Pacific