The Spectre of Specter

Beldar nails this one right out of the park:

My own opposition to Sen. Specter’s Judiciary chairmanship isn’t based on his pro-choice views. Rather, it’s based on my perception of Sen. Specter as not being a reliable “team player” in general. Dubya expended substantial political capital and showed remarkable party loyalty in supporting Sen. Specter in a tough primary fight; I think he was wise to do so, on grounds that if Sen. Specter had lost in the primary, his successor candidate might well have lost in the general election, handing that seat over to the Democrats. But in marked contrast to other Republicans like Rudy Giuliani and Arnold Schwarzenegger, Sen. Specter refused to risk any of his own political capital on behalf of President Bush’s re-election — and in a battleground state that Dubya lost by only two percent, and might well have won had Sen. Specter campaigned aggressively for him.

Beldar is exactly right. This has nothing to do with Specter’s politics, and everything to do with party politics. There is a big, big problem in the party, hell, both parties, with people crossing the aisle on a whim. On this issue, Specter is thumbing his nose at his entire party, and it is time to make an example of someone.

Specter is, at best, a mediocre statesman. He is good a getting reelected. Sure, that is a vital skill for a politician, but if he can’t play well with his party mates, it is time for him to have a time-out.

I’ll let Beldar have the last word:

The Republican Party simply can’t afford to have this key position in the hands of someone whose loyalty to party and President is intermittent at best. It’s not a question of the Republicans devouring one of its young, but rather of giving an unruly and untrustworthy rebel a bit of a “time out.”

Comments are closed.