Frist on Specter: Captain Ed and Hindrocket Disagree
Captain Ed appears to disagree with Bill Frist’s comments this morning, in which Frist said that Sen. Specter must give the president’s judicial nominees a floor vote if Specter wants to chair the Judiciary Committee.
Meanwhile, Hindrocket appears to approve.
I am totally with Hindrocket on this one, as my previous comments make clear. I don’t support Specter for the chair position, but I can live with it — as long as he does what he’s told.
I think Captain Ed is going soft on us. Too much exposure to Hugh Hewitt — who, I hasten to add, is a great guy who just happens to be wrong on this issue.
Patterico — Although I agree with you 99% of the time, I disagree here. I don’t like Spector’s judicial philosophy, his opposition to tort reform, or his contempt for the so-called religious right. However, there are plenty of voters who share his views. We don’t want to drive all those people away from the Republican Party.
Comment by David — 11/14/2004 @ 12:23 pm
Why should the standard-bearer for the minority position within the Republican party be given THE most powerful position concerning the 2nd-most (after WoT) important issue of concern to the majority?
What I’m concerned about is, after years of parliamentary blocking outside the democratic process by Democrats, now we’re gonna get parliamentary blocking outside the democratic process by ONE republican. THAT shouldn’t be tolerated, and removing that threat — while still allowing Spectre to vote his concience as a committee member, but not Chairman — is not a purge. It’s just common sense.
And if the mod-cons bail over Spectre’s “treatment”, then it seems to me they were simply looking for an excuse — better to find out now, rather than later.
Comment by Chuck — 11/14/2004 @ 1:21 pm
Pat, Ed’s not “going soft;” he misread (I believe) the article to suggest that Frist was demanding that Specter agree in advance to vote for every one of Bush’s nominees on the Senate floor, while it appears that Frist has only demanded that Specter pass all the nominees through the J-Com onto the Senate floor… which is entirely reasonable.
Even the most dyed-in-the-wool-over-your-eyes conservative right-winger would not agree in advance — in writing, yet! — to vote for every, last nominee a Republican president sends up… would you want him to vote to approve another David Souter? Or even if the president, in some sort of wacky deal with Ted Kennedy, sent up another Ruth Bader Ginsburg, would you insist every GOP senator vote to approve her on the Senate floor?
If you had misread it the way I am convinced Ed did — or if Frist had actually made such a ridiculous demand (which he did not) — you, too, might think Frist had “overplayed his hand” and oppose the misunderstood demand.
I think it’s just a problem of inattentive reading on Ed’s part, not creeping liberalism!
Dafydd
Comment by Dafydd — 11/14/2004 @ 1:53 pm
Very possible. Hey, everyone misreads an article now and then. I did it just yesterday myself.
Comment by Patterico — 11/14/2004 @ 3:21 pm
I should add that the last paragraph of my post was a bit tongue-in-cheek. I’m teasing Captain Ed, who is, I think, one of the best bloggers out there.
Comment by Patterico — 11/14/2004 @ 3:30 pm
There is no way the GOP can lose more than a seat or two in the Senate in 2006. Just glance at the names–they are invulnerable. They will probably win one or two. Thus, we have good control for the next four years. Why waste it? Look. If Specter, Chafee, Snowe and Collins ALL jump ship, we still have a majority. They can even take either McCain or Hagel with them–Chaney will give us 51. So why not push the pedal to the floor? The above assumes the Democrats will hold Pryor, Lincoln, Johnson, Bauccus, Nelson (NE) and Salazar every time, too, which they won’t.
Comment by LarryH — 11/14/2004 @ 10:42 pm
David — c’mon, you really think that voters are going to remember in 2006 whether Specter is chairman of the Judiciary Cmte? You have to be kidding me. The only person it matters to is Santorum, because he wants Specter to campaign for him. Of course, whether Specter actually WILL is another question. He’s not much of a loyal guy to his party.
And LarryH — I agree. I think the Senate outlook looks very good for us.
Comment by ausin mls — 11/16/2004 @ 1:17 am
Belatedly (5 days after the original post), a contextual question on the history of Bush’s success to date in judicial appointments. I ask because of a statement incoming Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) made when interviewed this morning by NPR reporter Juan Williams on Morning Edition at 8:47 ET (11/19/04 archives to be posted here).
Williams asked Reid what he thought of Daschle’s leadership to date on judicial confirmations. Reid said he approved of it, and pointed out that the Senate confirmed 203 appointments and rejected only 10 during Bush’s first term. ‘203 to 10, that’s a pretty good football score, nothing for Republicans to complain about’ (from memory). The interview then moved on to other matters.
I have hardly followed the judicial appointments issue. Many listeners like me would think, “203-10? Why, then, all this controversy about Specter as Judiciary Chairman? The playing field is already tilted in conservative Republicans’ favor!”
In fact, that’s what I would think, if it were not for the errors of omission and comission I’ve noticed in other NPR stories that put left-wing/Democratic positions in a particularly favorable light.
Comment by AMac — 11/19/2004 @ 6:21 am
[...] - Patterico, 11/18/2004 — “I don’t support Specter for the chair position, but I can live with it — as long as he does what he’s told.” Did he? - Calblog, 11/12/2004 — “I still maintain that Senator Specter shouldn’t be let within a mile of the Judiciary Committee, let alone its chairmanship.” [...]
Pingback by Bizzyblog » Wait a Minute, Hugh — 11/9/2006 @ 3:30 pm