The Instapundit touches on why Arlen Specter may be a little ‘uncooperative’ regarding judicial nominees, and points to stem cell research as one cause:
Specter’s voice was rough from chemotherapy treatments. He said he is angry that stem-cell research is still being delayed by lack of funding.
“I’ve been waiting too long already,” Specter said.
Specter has introduced a bill that would overthrow President Bush’s executive order, which limits federal funding to a small number of human embryonic stem-cell lines. Specter’s bill would open up funding to unused embryos donated by couples after in vitro fertilization. The House has already passed the bill, and the Senate was expected to do the same.
But the president has promised to veto it.
Not to mention that certain members within the social con movement took it upon themselves to personally savage Arlen Specter, calling him a member of the ‘culture of death’:
Senator Specter apparently wants a place on your wall. Here’s why he shouldn’t get the chance.
Pick your poster child: Arlen Specter, bald from chemotherapy treatments for Hodgkin’s disease, saying that he is Exhibit A for embryonic stem-cell research … or those cute little kids in the AP photo with this caption: “President Bush appeared at the White House with babies and toddlers born of test-tube embryos, some wearing shirts that read ‘former embryo.'”“I look in the mirror every day,” says Specter, “barely recognize myself. And not to have the availability of the best of medical care is simply atrocious.”
Meanwhile, President Bush was busy praising a Christian agency that helps couples adopt frozen embryos. Amidst 21 babies and toddlers who began their lives as frozen embryos left over after fertility treatments, the president said, “there is no such thing as a spare embryo.”
So, again, pick your poster child. The man with a disease who thinks there is vast medical potential in destroying babies described as embryos, or the children who developed from their embryonic state to roll around on White House carpet.
That might have angered him a touch. Add to it the sheer hell the hard right put Specter through simply to get the position he had wanted as Chairmen of the Judiciary committee:
One focus when the Senate reconvenes on Tuesday will be the efforts of Specter, R-Pa., to convince his fellow Republicans that he deserves to be the next Judiciary Committee chairman. Opposition has arisen to the moderate Republican, who supports abortion rights, as a result of his postelection statements that nominees with anti-abortion views would have a tough time winning Senate confirmation.
He has since stressed that he would be a team player if he succeeds the current chairman, Sen. Orrin Hatch (search), R-Utah, who must step down because of GOP-imposed term limits…
Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, R-Tenn., said Specter must still make his case to Republican senators.
A chairman, Frist said on “FOX News Sunday,” is responsible to “the feelings, the beliefs, the values, the procedures that are held by the majority of that committee,” which overwhelmingly opposes abortion.
Frist added that he would expect the committee’s head “to have a strong predisposition” to supporting the president’s nominee in committee and the full Senate.
A litmus test to install a chairman who will allow litmus tests, if you will, again with cheerleaders within a certain wing of the Republican party. I can’t imagine why he would engage in a little foot dragging or be a little bitter. Not at all.
Stormy70
Specter sure did cozy up to those voters and Bush to get elected, though. Specter hated Bork, and helped to defeat his nomination. Specter still trash talks Bork, and vice versa. This was the reason most of the right went after him. He’d “betrayed” them in the past over judges, long before stem cells came into the picture. In the end, I think Specter will be fair to the eventual nominee.
Jeff
That’s why I love Arlen. Anyone that’s hated by left-wing morons like Atrios and Kos, and a right-wing moron like Wildmon, is A-OK in my book.
Besides, the guy used to be DA in Philly and he’s gone toe-to-toe with Frank Rizzo. If he suruvived that, he can survive these little bitches.
pmm
Mr. Cole,
It’s not simply the “social con movement” that opposed Specter’s posting on the Judiciary. National Review was probably the loudest of the anti-Specter operations, and they compiled a fairly impressive dossier of anti-Specter arguments:
Vlad
Specter’s pretty well in step with the views of his constituents on abortion, at least according to the new Quinnipiac poll.
Steve
It’s fair to say that the pro-life faction within National Review was the loudest source of the Specter opposition. It’s true that there were reasons for conservatives to oppose him other than social issues, but that doesn’t mean there would have even been an issue if the social conservatives hadn’t spoken out.
Recall that the real genesis of the opposition to Specter was a statement he made that Roe v. Wade was settled constitutional law.
pmm
Mr. Cole,
You are quite right in noting that Sen. Specter may have both personal and principled reasons to be less than cooperative with the SCOTUS nominee. But that only buttresses the argument of conservatives who believed Sen. Specter was not the best candidate, insofar as the GOP leadership in the Senate should have been looking for a Judiciary Chairman who will best back the party’s goals.
Depending on how you define the GOP’s goals, Specter may or may not have been that Senator. But given that he got the job, his opponents should’ve remembered that old cliche that you shouldn’t miss when you aim for the king.
John Cole
It was primarily the social con’s who opposed Specter, and the primary reason for the opposition was abortion. The idea that long-time member of the Judiciary, a lwayer, and a former District Attorney is unqualified to chair the committee for any reason other than deviations from conservative orthodoxy is silly.
And National Review is primarily inhabited with social cons these days…
pmm
Mr. Cole,
Why can’t conservative orthodoxy play a role in the selection of a Senate committee chairmanship? If the matter were simply one of raw qualifications and a senator’s CV, why would chairmanship be predicated on which party was in power?
Perhaps it would be better all around if the system were set up to maximize qualifications over partisanship, but I can’t see either party giving up the power when they’re in charge. It would be interesting to contrast whether the “co-chair” experiment of 2001-2002, when the Senate was split 50-50, resulted in better governance than today.
John Cole
I am not saying it can’t, I am telling you why Specter might be bitter.
Rick
And National Review is primarily inhabited with social cons these days…
John,
Unlike you, I wouldn’t greet this as a Bad Thing. But aside from K.Lopez, who are your candidates? Not Goldberg. Not Dreher. Ponnorurururururu, just maybe. But then who?
Cordially…
Rick
John,
Oh, I got one more: Stan Kurtz. Whether 2.5 writers make a primary habitat, well, I’ve been arguing numbers on B-J and by email for a day and a half, and don’t want to open up another front. But I think the roster, to quote from a mistake of yours yesterday, “it paints a much different picture.”
Cordially…
bg
If the phrase has any meaning at all, Ponneru and Kurtz are surely social conservatives, as are Krikorian, Podhoretz Jr., May, Graham and Lowery. How many more are there?
Goldberg, Stuttaford, Bell and Derbyshire seem like conservative-leaning social moderates to me.
My alternate theory is that since Lopez uses her time to pimp every little social-con cause she can think of and since the takes up the bulk of space on The Corner, that makes NRO seem more social-con than it is.
But hell, if you’re doubtful, someone could email them all and ask if they identify as social conservatives and get back to us.
Jeff
It’s a true testament to over-the-deep-end the conservative right went during the Schiavo mess that Derbyshire is now just considered a “conservative leaning social moderate” due to the fact that he seemed relatively sane compared to others in that camp.
John Cole
BG has it basically right, but John Derbyshire is most assuredly a social con.
Geek, Esq.
Derbyshire is most definitely a social conservative.
However, he is also sane, lucid, rational, and respects things like logic and science.
Which is why he doesn’t seem to fit in with the KJL crowd.
He recently handed Pods Jr. a full-out ass-whupping when Jr. suggested that Derb didn’t sound like a real conservative.
Rick
BG has it basically right, but John Derbyshire is most assuredly a social con.
John,
Taking a look at his rundown: Krikorian, Podhoretz Jr., May, Graham and Lowery, I’d say you and he are wrong. Especially in re: Podhoretz and Lowery., Quite MOR conservatives on social issues.
Not that I’d expect you libertines to agree. ;)
Cordially…
bg
JC: No one has ever said that to me before!!!
But on 2nd thought, Jeff’s statement and yours regarding Derb rings very true.
Rick
All this shows is that there’s no SoCon monolith. Especially not at National Review. They just sometimes get under John’s skin, is all.
Cordially…
bg
Email them and ask.
Sojourner
I’m no Specter fan but it’s certainly sad to watch the Repubs try to knock off one of the few remaining moderates. I do not understand why the moderate Republicans in this country aren’t screaming bloody murder.
PACollegeDem
Mr.Cole,
Another story of Specter being spurned by the sociocons was his fierce primary battle in ’04. Pat Toomey barely lost to him (as the primaries tend to be more radical for both parties), his canidacy driven mainly by Specter’s pro-choice stance. I remember the president of the Conservative’s Club on my campus penning an angry editorial to the school’s paper saying urging conservatives to vote for Joe Hoeffel (the Democratic challenger) in the general election to insure that Orrin Hatch got to be the Judiciary Chairman. They also had Pat Toomey come speak on campus during the general election campaign. They went off the wall in opposing Specter, he really gets the far right’s panties in a bundle.