Centerfield

It's like the situation where a pro-life Democrat wants to say something in public.

In other words, each party has their own sacred cows.

Specter has completely humiliated himself in this process.

It's been really ugly.

I was raised an evangelical christian and while I'm not particularly evangelical, I am a Christian. It is my strong opinion that religion and politics should NOT mix.

I think the evangelicals have this idea that the country was founded by the pilgrims -- or that the founding fathers believed as the pilgrims did. They need to relearn their U.S. history. The founding fathers intent was to keep religion OUT of government while placing no restrictions on forms of worship. Perhaps the religious right would do well to remember that.

Heather,

Well said.

One would think that Republicans would eventually learn that they'll never completely satisfy the conservative faction anyway.

I believe the Republicans have learned exactly what they need to know about this constituency. They've already served their purposes for 2004.

I think it's important to see what Specter actually does in this position. He's indicated that the position was important enough for him to recant his initial remarks about future appointments. At this point, I don't see that much has changed.

Mark, isn't Reid pro-life? I don't know that speaking about being pro-life is a sacred cow with Dems. Pro-life is a choice a woman can make.

I share Heather's background and agree with her stance on church and state.

Oops... some of Heather's background - not evangelical.

Orrin Hatch picks up clue phone--film at 11.

Maybe the Republicans already know they can't satisfy every single demand of the right wing and aren't going to try. In the long run, rejecting a committee chairman because he is too pro-choice is unlikely to carry much weight with the majority of evangelicals; they don't have to satisfy the leadership on every appointment. Plus, senators are very sensitive to losing their perogatives. No one wants to see someone like Specter get screwed because, as they say, "but for the grace of God go I." In addition, I think congressmen and women get tired of being pushed around by groups, whether liberal or conservative. Congress persons want to be seen as having some independence. I think it's pretty bad tactics for the evangelical right to be so heavy handed--they almost forced the GOP to come back to avoid being seen as totally in their pocket.

Of course, this could also work as a warning shot across Specter's bow. He better shape up and do the right thing. He certainly is expected to shepher Bush's judges through without any questions. Let's see what happens.

Re: Heather's comments. We really need to understand the complexity of people. Too many liberals see religiously-minded folk, especially in the South, as simple-minded, one-dimensional bigots. In part, this comes from newspaper articles that give very one dimensional accounts of people; in part in comes from the attention that the leadership gets in expounding the most extreme positions. I would suspect that there is a lot more diversity among religious folk than the media gives them credit for. In fact, a commentary on NPR last night suggested that Bush should not assume that evangelicals will just support his economic plans blindly.

Amen, Marc.

One-dimensional bigots invariably see the other side as one-dimensional bigots. What they don't see is everything in between.

I think Hatch has comported himself EXTREMELY well. His initial remarks were clear and temperate and geared towards avoiding acrimonious and divisive nominations. He was telling the truth about what could be expected depending on the path Bush chose.

His remarks were spun as a warning shot. I even fell for it. Maybe they were, to some extent, but he never presented himself as an opponent as he was cast. I disagree with the notion that he recanted. What he did, in my opinion, was try to make clear where he stood because he had spuncast into a tone he never meant.

The members of the GOP more concerned with fiscal and war issues have no taste for acrimonious social distractions, and both Specter and Bush know this. Bush already gave his short list of priorities, and they lean to the fiscal and foreign policy. Specter might have even done Bush a favor by taking a hit here.

Believe me, the GOP knows how to serve its evangelical constituency, namely, as one part of a coalition, not as their bosses. This is no departure from recent practices. The evangelicals have nowhere to go anymore than the far left does. Both groups can influence the party nominations, but they only have one place to go come general election time.

Noisy posturing such as Mahoney's is to be expected. But his choice is still to either take what is offered and keep working with the GOP, cut off his nose to spite his face by advocating not voting, or head off into the wilderness as a minority party with no realistic chance of ever being a majority.

Math lesson: If you want to run the show, you have to be the guy with the 51%, and Mahoney aint that guy, nor is the evangelical demographic, not today or anytime soon. I'd LOVE to see the true believers invoke purity and head off into the wilderness. I'll pay for the bus ticket to the desert for Mahoney, or for a bus ticket to canada for any lefty who promises to stay there...let's pass the hat.

But if Mahoney is any sort of savvy, he understands all this, too. He gets a ton of support from HIS people by sounding strong in the face of this disappointment. There's a good chance that all this stuff has been nothing more than theater. It wouldn't surprise me a bit. Even if it's not, I could still have written this script with my eyes closed. It's a re-run, folks.

MWS wrote:

We really need to understand the complexity of people. Too many liberals see religiously-minded folk, especially in the South, as simple-minded, one-dimensional bigots.

I've read this in various places. I also sense a lack of understanding even when people who don't share a religious belief are genuinely trying to grapple with the issue. But, I didn't take Heather's comment to be one of a simplistic, negative view of this constiuency.

What I read was that she is one of many Christians who believe in the separation of church and state. I think that is a legitimate discussion to have. If prayer is not allowed in public schools, does that mean that the government doesn't recognize its' importance in an individual's life? I don't see it that way because there are numerous opportunities to teach one's faith in the home and at gatherings after school and on weekends.

I would like to explore ways for the government/politicians to recognize the importance of this aspect of people's lives while maintaining the separation of church and state.

I heard Specter say something very wise on NPR yesterday morning. The fellow mentioned in JD's post was talking about how Specter needed to bear in mind that the Christian Conservatives got him elected, and that he needed to respect them and their wishes. Specter said something along the lines of, "I *do* respect Christian Conservatives, and he's right, they are a part of my constituency, but only *a part.* I have others in my constituency too, and their views deserve to be respected and represented as well." I thought that was *so* well said. This is the kind of leader people should be building up, not trying to tear down, IMO.

As a centrist Republican I do not believe that Specter should get the job and I would vote against him if I had the opportunity. The guy is an ego maniac, and he is not a centrist, he is an oppurtunist. If it where not for George W. Bush Specter would have lost the primary race in the last election which he won by just over 1500 votes. As far as this being ugly, Carla, I think we can pass that statement off as a desperate attempt to shine light on any division within the Republican Party, from a Democrat whose party is in shambles. I think whether Specter stays or goes Republicans will be just fine and as united as ever.

One other thing that I thought about when I heard this story, and then the one today about DeLay. I'm concerned that conservatives might be over-reaching. I think that they've seen a win in 2004, and that has given them a bit of a big head/big mouth. They seem to be thinking that this election has given them a super-mandate to try to push everything in their direction. They better settle down. The public will snap them back to reality pretty dang fast if they feel things moving too far away from the center. What's good for the dems is good for the conservatives....

Jamie,

My comment was not meant as a negative take on Heather's comment; just the opposite, I thought it was an extremely cogent observation. I apologize if that's how it came though.

Personally, while I am not a religious person, I think that liberals have been too zealous in trying to divorce religion completely from public life. The fact is, this is a religious country and I think that the interpretation that liberals have placed on separation of church and state is an exaggeration that is not required by the Constitution. For exmaple, it's not clear to me that the Constitution (as opposed to my personal preference) should TOTALLY prohibit prayer opportunities in school. I think this kind of stuff has hurt the cause of legitimate church/state separation. It has also taken a question that should be, in part, be decided by the democratic process and removed it to the legal arena. This is an area, I think, where the overzealousness of liberals has really hurt the Democrats, another example of trying to make social policy through the courts when you could not win in the legislative arena. And, let me say that I speak as someone from the South who has experienced, uncomfortably, the importation of religion into schools. I would rather we didn't see it, but I think the attempt to suppress all religious expression has resulted in a more extreme form coming out.

MWS, I misread your previous post. I apologize.

... but I think the attempt to suppress all religious expression has resulted in a more extreme form coming out.

This is what I think occurred as well.

As a centrist Republican I do not believe that Specter should get the job and I would vote against him if I had the opportunity. The guy is an ego maniac, and he is not a centrist, he is an oppurtunist.

I agree with your basic take on Specter -- he's not one of the centrists I happen to like. We took a look at his recent record back when we were reviewing candidates for endorsement, and there's a distinct "wiggle" in his voting record that corresponded to the leadup to the latest Republican primary. He moved pretty far to the right to avoid being beaten by a conservative Republican.

That reinforces my sense that he doesn't have a strong political core, which is a prerequisite for strong leadership.

I would challenge you to this extent, though. I don't think it makes sense to oppose one of the more moderate Republicans for a top committee chairmainship in the present political environment -- one where centrists are dwindling in the Congress, and the president is overseeing a cabinet shakeup that on the whole deemphasizes moderate Republicans.

I don't like Specter, but if he's pushed aside he would almost certainly be replaced by a conservative Republican, possibly a *very* conservative Republican. Does it make sense, under present circumstances, to prefer the latter to the former?

Re: My comments regarding separation of church and state.

There was a time, believe it or not, many years ago, that I truly respected both Jerry Falwell and James Dobson, from the view point of my faith. However, my respect for both has diminished considerably by their political maneuvering. I have always felt that a person who has been called to ministry should remain true to their calling and be as neutral as possible when it comes to politics.

In the same regard, there is nothing wrong with our politicians making reference to their faith or being public about it. They should NOT, however, use their office to proselytize or promote for a particular religion.

As for Amy's comment about Republicans over-reaching, I would submit that it is the Religious Right in particular that seems to be doing the most over-reaching.

Mathew:

Specter has been bending over backwards and twisting all over the place to get this job. And he's had to spend mountains of political capital to do it. He might not even have the job if it wasn't for Santorum...who'd lobbied like a mad man for Specter.

Specter now owes Santorum in a huge way. He's also laid himself out prostate to the social conservatives...who will vote for him because of all of his promises made in the meetings earlier this week.

It's very ugly. And frankly I'd be stunned if Specter actually didn't cow tow (is that how you spell it?) to those who've been fighting his chairmanship so vehemently.

Hey, Who's for making this whole thing even more interesting and floating a "anti-Semitism" bubble
in Patrick Mahoney"s direction? How would the director of the Christian Defense Coalition handle being on the receiving end of "religious fury"?

Bill,

From a centrist point of view I think you are right, but I admit there is a little partisan pride involved here.

Bush stuck his neck out for Specter and upset many in the base in order to do it. One could even argue that it cost him enough votes to lose the state of Pennsylvania in the general election. The average conservative Republican was behind Congressman Toomey's attempt to win the Republican primary, and had it not been for Bush's endorsement of Specter, Toomey probably would have been successful. For Specter to then proceed to go on national television and attempt to dictate who the President of the United States can and cannot nominate to the Supreme Court is the sign of a politician that has got a serious God complex, in my book, and I have no use for such an individual even if he is techincally closer to my world view than most Conservative Republicans.

As a centrist, I would love for the Bush appointments to be Anthony Kennedy types, and some of them may, but I also strongly believe that the President has the right to pick his own appointments and the Senate should approve those appointments as long as they are qualified to do the job. Politics should not play a roll. This talk of filibustering Supreme Court nominees is unprecedented.... It is just as wrong as the Republican Chairmen who never gave hearings to some of Clinton's appointments. It wasn't a court nominee, but I was appalled when Jesse Helms shut the door on the Weld nomination to the Ambassadorship of Mexico, or when surgeon's where excluded from consideration for performing a completely legal abortion.

As a partisan centrist it doesn't really matter to me whether or not the Chairman of the Judiciary Commiittee is a conservative or a moderate, it matters whether that person is going to give all nominees a fair hearing and an up and down vote.

Carla,

It is an insider spat between Republican Senators that only ideologues and policy wonks care about... The average American is more interested in who is going to witn the ideological war that is about to erupt in the Democratic Party. I think it is hilarious to see Democrats shine light on a situation that they really don't know much about and provide details about relationships between Republicans based on third hand news reports that are aimed at creating a story that isn't there. What I here in DC is that Specter isn't cow towing to Conservatives at all, but rather explaining what he meant by his ridiculous comments on national television... A problem he wouldn't have if he had checked his ego and not contradicted statements he made in order to win the Republican primary in Pennsylvania against a more Conservative opponent. Nobody is under any illusion over who Arlen Specter is or what he stands for.... I think the question is whether he is a danger to potential Bush nominees.

What does Specter get out of the chairmanship? I realize he gets some extra staff and funds but other than that, what does this do for him? Does this boost his chances of higher office? If Specter doesn't get this, does Grassley get the job?

As for Amy's comment about Republicans over-reaching, I would submit that it is the Religious Right in particular that seems to be doing the most over-reaching.

Well, that's not quite what I said, Heather. I didn't say republicans, I said conservatives. The word "republicans" wasn't in my post. :-)

My apologies Amy. :) I still stand by my statement. There are conservatives and then there are the religious right. Not even all conservatives are part of the religious right! (Thank goodness)

Yes, Heather, I agree. The distinction you make is a point well-taken. :-)

"I also strongly believe that the President has the right to pick his own appointments and the Senate should approve those appointments as long as they are qualified to do the job."

Two problems with that statement:

(1) Qualified is somewhat of a loaded term. Someone can be a brilliant legal theorist who uses his or her expertise to push the law in a particular direction. (You can also be not a great legal theorist and do the same thing as Brennan and Marshall proved.) So it's not clear what qualified means in an objective sense.

(2) You can't divorce ideology from judical performance at the Supreme Court level. Supreme Court decisions, whether we like it or not, have enourmous political ramifications. Since Supreme Court justices serve for life, they will be making decisions and impacting the country long after the president who appointed them is gone. Why should Bush, for example, be able to entrench his philosophy on the Court for the next several decades just because he is president now. (And I would say this if it was a Democratic president too.) Let's face it; at the level of the Supreme Court, ideology has to be a factor. I think it's appropriate for the Senate to inquire as to a nominee's judicial philosophy and past decisions. If the nominee shows a distinct inclination to decide cases based on a particular ideological preference that Congress does not like, it has every right to shoot down the nomination.

Personally, I would favor amending the Constitution so that justices do not serve for life, but rather for a specific term (say 15-20 years). This would reduce the ability of a particular president to lock in his ideology fo rsuch a long time. Without the life tenure, I think the confirmation proceedings would be less contentious.

...as long as they are qualified for the job.

Give me the right to write the job descriptions and I can guarantee that only those I hand-pick will ever be qualified.

I don't think it is as difficult an issue as they say. There is not one Bush appointment, although maybe ideologically too conservative, that has not been well respected within the legal community and favorably assessed by the American Bar Association. In my opinoin that entitles them to an up or down vote.

MWS,

I agree with you on term limits... I also believe they should be limited, but there is a difference between not being able to divorce yourself from politics and not beeing willing to. When it comes to the appointments of a President, IMHO, Congress should divorce themselves from the politics and look solely to qualifications. A perfect world scenario? Maybe...

Mathew,

In point of fact, you're wrong. For a list of ABA assessments of the president's judicial nominees, check here.

As you'll see, at least three nominees have been rated "Not Qualified" by the ABA Standing Committee on the Federal Judiciary, and several others have flirted with the "Qualified/Not Qualified" line. Personally, I'd prefer Article III nominees, who, once confirmed, sit for life, to be at least "Well Qualified."

MWS,

I disagree on judicial term limits. Not only are Article III judges constitutionally guaranteed life tenure, but having seen other judges (like federal magistrate judges, Armed Forces Court of Appeals judges, and U.S. territorial district judges) in action, I believe that life tenure is in the constitution for good reason.

I agree with JJD. I like the idea of giving judges lifetime tenure. Always made sense to me. Be careful who you pick because of that, but it's better than having judicial decisions swayed by electoral concerns, which just seems wrong to me.

I understand the objections of people who want judicial accountability, but I think judges have a special role which is best served when they are, after careful consideration, given the freedom to make unpopular decisions if it's what the law calls for.

Carla;
Kowtow. An anglization of a Chinese word (I believe)

Re the separation of church and state -- I don't think the U.S. Constitution, as interpreted by the Supreme Court, does "totally prohibit prayer opportunities in schools". It bans schools from organizing or sponsoring specific prayer opportunities, but can't students pray beyond that -- even in groups? In fact, even when I lived in NY, I saw plenty of students who were involved in religion -- more so on public college campuses (where religion organizations are everywhere, and preachers can preach in public areas), but even in grammar and high schools. And that's doubly true in the south.

The reality is that some school administrators may misinterpret the Court's decisions, and assume that voluntary prayer is banned, but that's just not true, is it?

(And, as an aside, at least here in the South, it's pretty common for Democrats to be pro-life.)