Good post. I'm a conservative in Pennsylvania and agree emphatically with Hugh Hewitt.

I have to agree with you and Hugh.

This pains me. I can't stand Specter. I can never understand how he gets elected time after time. I had left the Republican party (mad at Bush's domestic agenda, mainly), and Pat Toomey's challenge is just what got me back into the Republican party - I wanted to get Specter out in favor of Toomey.

And yet, I find myself agree with those who want to defend his chairmanship. VERY reluctantly.

I believe the issue really hinges on the ability of the Republican leadership to lead. Whether Specter is granted the Chairmanship is relatively moot if Senator Frist can marshall the forces necessary to remind Specter that disloyalty to the elected party of power is not without cost. Senator Specter's two-faced approach (remind anyone of a certain recent Presidential candidate?) not withstanding, he is controlable.

I am absolutely a "moral values" voter. My two best friends are both Pastors of Evangelic Churches.

But I have to agree with Dean that "moral values" was not the dominant issue. The dominant issue was war. In my own church, I discussed this issue, and cautioned against buying into the sophistry (Definition: a clever argument intended to deceive) of the exit polls.

War or National Security was the biggest issue to voters with 34% reporting War as their primary voting motivation. It was also my biggest motivation. The moral values of the country don't matter if there is no country because it was destroyed by terrorists.

Moral values were my second highest motivation, and also the second highest group supporting Bush. Fully 1/3 of Bush supporters voted for him on moral values, not an insignificant number. But 40% of Bush supporters voted for him because of the War.

It is important for conservative Christians like myself to be honest with ourselves about the political landscape. We are NOT a majority, and MUST work within a majority coalition.

This is one of the reasons I think going off on Arlen Specter is very short-sighted. I read his comments, and did not interpret them as a "Warning" to the President against nominating pro-life judges. Rather, he simply was saying that it would be difficult if the President did nominate such a judge. And his comment was in response to a question. It wasn't a premeditated pre-emptive statement at all.

One other thing Conservative Christians like myself need to keep in mind. Politics and Religion are both about core beliefs. In religion, compromise is heresy, but in politics, compromise is NECESSARY and indispensible to governing.

If you truly want to see what making politics your religion looks like, look no further than the anguish of the leftists who lost last week's election. For many of these leftists, any political compromise is heresy. This is evidence that they have made their politics into a religion.

For Christians, it is perfectly legitimate to pursue the implementation of our values in the society in which we live. That is part of the free flow of ideas - the underlying purpose of all clauses in the First Amendment.

But our eternal Hope is not in any political party, or in any particular politician. ALL parties and ALL politicians will inevitably disappoint. God forbid that we should become as shrill as those on the left. Remember, compromise in politics is NOT heresy, and ultimately, freedom is what we need to pursue in our society - not orthodoxy.

Spector's liberal views far transend his pro-abortion stance. Those hoping Mr. Frist will be strong enough to set the standard of conservatism may well be wishing on a star.

As history has proven Spector will say whatever is needed to obtain his goals. He can't be trusted to support judges that are guided by the Constitution.

If a senator is allowed to defy his constituents as well as his party should the party elevate his position and authority? Not in the world I live in. If we wish more Snows and Chafees then allow Spector to head the judiciary committee. If you wish an imperial judiciary that will dictate law by fiat then support Spector. Call me old fashioned, but I do not support a man whose positions minize the power of the voter while elevating those of the annointed.

So long as Specter is promised that the first time he "leaves the reservation" he will lose the Chairmanship, I'm fine with him getting it.

But the RINOs need to understand that the "R" next to their name matters. They want the perks that come from being in the majority party, they can damn well support the Party.

Which is to say, they should all be promised that supporting a Democrat fillibuster immediately costs them all their committee memberships.

Voting for bills / appointments can be negotiable, voting for fillibusters should not be.

Amen Greg. I hate to disagree with Bill and Hugh, but it would be useful to throw Arlen and his fellow RINOs out of the Republican Party just to deal with that meme that we supposedly control the Senate when we have to bribe people like Specter and even McCain for votes.

Yeah, it would be great if we could boot Specter, Chafee, Snow, McCain, etc. from the party. It would be great if we didn't have to work so hard to achieve our goals.

It would also be great if I found a million bucks on my doorstep in the morning.

Don't get cocky. We have to work with what we have, not what we wish we had. Like it or not, Chafee and Snow probably are TRUE representatives of their constituencies. That's what makes 2006 and 2008 important as well.

Some turned their backs on George H.W. Bush, and look what that got us. A couple of terms of Clinton, and a couple of liberal Supreme Court Justices - Breyer and Ginsburg.

Let's concentrate on the achievable, and work on eliminating Democratic Senators, not shooting those who caucus with us. Just what did ticking off Jeffords do for us? Chafee may as well be a Democrat already. But Specter and Snow are not so easily written off.

Having Specter on the Judiciary Committee at all makes no sense, as long the Senate keeps the committee membership evenly divided between Democrats and Republicans. Putting a swing vote on the committee instead of a reliable Republican vote practically guarantees periodic defeats for the Republicans that were entirely avoidable.

And putting Specter in charge is even worse. Not only does it give him a better platform from which to attack conservative nominees, but it also puts him in charge of the Judiciary Committee staff. That will slant the information the committee has to work with and further the careers of people working against conservative causes.

Specter's past promises to block Bush's "extremist nominees" and to preserve Roe v. Wade make his new promise to work with the president worthless.

For those that say Specter can be controlled - how? At the end of his new term of office, Specter will be 80. If he is headed towards retirement, a threat to oppose him in the next election will not carry much weight. And why put someone in charge that cannot be trusted and has to be watched?

Specter may have a part to play as a member of a governing majority, but it would be nuts for the Republicans to inflate his prominence and power precisely in the arena where he disagrees with most of them.