I’m knee-deep in editing and things at the moment, or I’d have jumped in here earlier re: Specter. Just some quick thoughts before getting back to behind-the-scenes crashville.
As I said earlier in the week in here: I think Specter is too easily allowed off the hook with the phrase “litmus test.” Has he, in his Senate career, supported judges who happen to be pro-life, sure. Of course. No one is debating that. But has he, nonetheless, made promises that more than suggest he’ll be the behind-the-scenes not-that-extremist/you’re-not-getting-that-nominee-through-my-committee chairman calling shots in a White House negotiating session? Of course. Making this about the words “litmus test” makes it way too easy for Specter, in my humble opinion.
Side note #2: Specter’s victim defense doesn’t cut it either, in my opinion. Ironically, that Rush quote in the op-ed was related to a reference to The Corner Rush made last Thursday, when I had a momentary bout of giving Specter the benefit of the doubt. But, we have since seen the transcript of what Specter said to reporters after reelection, and this was not a case of misreporting/media bias.
See Ramesh’s defense of the AP reporter, too & his response to Hugh Hewitt yesterday if you haven’t by the way.)
Yet another side note: Kinda worth this effort just to see Arlen Specter have to cite Rush, Fox, and Pat Robertson in his defense.
The Left has been getting a lot of use out of Robertson of late. (Remember his supposed there-will-be-no-casualties-in-Iraq conversation with the president?) For Specter, Robertson is an “extremist“–he’s been using him for fundraising and in speeches (his presidential-primary hat-in-the-ring speech, for one).
Now he can use him to save his you know what. (Chairmanship. Chairmanship. That’s all I meant.)
I ramble…back to trying to avoid more widespread rambling…that’s in no way meant to be a full response to Specter today…just initial associated thoughts while reading it (and doing other things, truth be told).