Specter Decides to be a Pain

Way back in November of 2004 I was part of a group of bloggers encouraging the GOP to remove Arlen Specter as chairman of the Judiciary Committee. Many of us were concerned that Specter would be more of a hindrance than a help with Bush's judicial nominees.

Although he did a pretty good job with the Alito and Roberts nominations, Specter is still a wildcard, and now it looks like he may choose to torment Bush on his probable nomination of General Michael Hayden to replace Porter Goss as CIA Director. Why would Specter care that much about Hayden's nomination? He used to run the NSA, and Specter has joined the ranks of those Senators who are suspicious of our nation's efforts to head off terrorist attacks (h/t Captain Ed):

Not only Democrats expect to use a Hayden nomination to revisit the legality of the surveillance, however. Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Arlen Specter (R-Pa.), who has held four hearings on the matter, said he may try to hold up Hayden's confirmation if the administration does not provide more information about the eavesdropping. He said he would try to persuade fellow senators to use the confirmation as "leverage."

"I was briefed by General Hayden and I got virtually no meaningful information," Specter said in an interview. "Now with Hayden up . . . this gives us an opportunity to ask these questions and insist on some answers if the Senate is of a mind to deny confirmation."

Captain Ed doesn't think much of Specter's actions, but thinks there could be an upside to the coming fight:

However, on the plus side, the Post reports that the White House anticipates a battle and may even wish to generate one. Unlike with Harriet Miers, conservatives will appreciate Hayden and rally to support his nomination. Picking a fight with the Democrats gives the White House yet another argument to paint Democrats as soft on national security, hoping that the solid majority in favor of the NSA intercept program will eventually wear his opposition down once and for all.

The Democrats, on the other hand, hope to force Hayden to issue enough refusals to answer questions and keep the answers he does provide so vague as to wear down that majority support -- and with it, Bush's base of support for the war itself. That's the risk that Bush runs with the appointment of Hayden, and with Feingold on the committee, the risk is real enough. If Feingold begins to get traction during these hearings, more Democrats will start calling for further hearings on the NSA and Bush. If not, he can kiss his presidential aspirations goodbye.

I think there are more downsides than upsides to Specter's decision to be a pain, but a fight over the NSA issue might be just what the White House wants. Polls seem to indicate that the NSA issue is a winner for Bush because most people, unlike the Dems, have no problem with tapping international phone calls. They can tap mine anytime they want - I have nothing to hide.

It doesn't hurt that there haven't been any attacks on U.S. soil, which tends to give credibility to the idea that the NSA program might actually work, and might have helped prevent attacks. I hope Feingold does the full wacko again in these hearings. That will not only be entertaining, but will tar the entire Dem party as a group of people who are more interested in the rights of terrorists than the safety of Americans.