Comments on: Frist on Specter: Captain Ed and Hindrocket Disagree

By: Bizzyblog » Wait a Minute, Hugh

Bizzyblog » Wait a Minute, Hugh — Thu, 09 Nov 2006 23:30:21 +0000

[...] - 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.” [...]

By: David

David — Tue, 30 Nov 1999 00:00:00 +0000

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.

By: Chuck

Chuck — Tue, 30 Nov 1999 00:00:00 +0000

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.

By: Dafydd

Dafydd — Tue, 30 Nov 1999 00:00:00 +0000

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

By: Patterico

Patterico — Tue, 30 Nov 1999 00:00:00 +0000

Very possible. Hey, everyone misreads an article now and then. I did it just yesterday myself.

By: Patterico

Patterico — Tue, 30 Nov 1999 00:00:00 +0000

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.

By: LarryH

LarryH — Tue, 30 Nov 1999 00:00:00 +0000

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.

By: ausin mls

ausin mls — Tue, 30 Nov 1999 00:00:00 +0000

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.

By: AMac

AMac — Tue, 30 Nov 1999 00:00:00 +0000

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.