I'd like to think so, but I have my doubts. First, Senators just have big egos. They hate kowtowing and soon forget that they owe anyone anything. Second, why shouldn't the lesson be that Specter refused to help the party and the president in key spots, and yet the party and the president helped him? Third, Specter is never going to run for anything again, so, other than gratitude (as to which see point 1), why reasons does he have to vote against his beliefs when the President asks him.

Please don't forget that last-minute NRA endorsement of Specter. Guns rule in Pennsylvania. Specter has been sound on gun control as long as he has been in politics.
He was speaking at my college during one of his campaigns in the 1960's. When he fielded my question on gun control he knew he was at a college campus and not a sportsmen's club, and he still gave a strong pro-gun answer about criminals getting guns illegaly and honest citizens having a right to defend themselves. Remember, for gun people, guns trump everything.

Agree with David. Already there are reports that Specter is distancing himself from Bush on tax cuts, vouchers, abortion, and stem-cell research. My hope is that Bush helped Specter not cause he didn't like Toomey but that he felt he needed to support an incumbent. I disagree with Bush here in that I think Toomey would have won the general election and kept the seat in GOP hands. And as David notes Specter probably won't face the voters again and therefore will probably drift even farther to the left.

You'd assume wrong.

Specter will be the Zell Miller of the Republicans once he's re-elected.

Bush and Santorum just blew a chance at getting a team player.

Bush's coattails would have been enough to get Toomey the seat. Concerns about motivating Dems to head to the polls to vote against Toomey pale in comparison to the vitriol here in Erie against Bush economic policies.

Those people are ALREADY motivated. Why not give us PA conservatives a chance to vote for principle instead of expediency?!

Most people I spoke to (and tried to convince to vote Toomey) said they were going to do what the President wished. Be careful what you wish for!

Bush should try to have the best of both worlds -- having helped Specter get re-elected (which I doubt will result in any gratitude from Specter), he should then throw some red-meat to the conservatives by making sure that Specter does not get the Judicial Committee Chairmanship.

This says more about Bush than anything else. If forced to choose between conservatism and the Republican party, he chooses the party.

Actually, strike that last comment. That's not exactly what I meant to say.

OJ's first sentence is right. His second sentence is a non sequitor.

I agree with everybody above.

OJ's second comment about expectations. I hope.

Pa. Republicans need to make sure that Specter is re-elected. It's no time to be thinking for themselves. Get with the program.

Jack:

He's a Republican. No one ever built a better party by stabbing members in the back.

David:

That's when they're speaking, but when it's time to vote even a Moynihan goes right down the party line. Specter can say whatever he thinks he needs to get elected, so long as he's the 60th vote on filibuster breaking.

If Republicans get a 55-45 breakdown in the Senate does anyone know what the Judiciary Committee breakdown would be.

I never understood the high esteem some on the right held for Moynihan. Sure he'd sometimes say things that made sense or went against the trends of his party, but every single time he had to vote, he always made sure his party won. Is it too much to ask the Specters and Snows and Collins and Chafees and McCains to do the same, or is that a dispensation only available to hypocrites on the Left?

Monyihan, Lieberman, Feinstein, and Byrd (at least) should have voted to convict Clinton. Specter should have, too. More than his vote against Bork, that vote defines him as weird (which is exactly what he accused Bork of).

At this point, don't we have to thank G-d that Clinton wasn't convicted?

David:

There were never 67 votes against him - but it would have been proper to get about 55.

Good point.

>If forced to choose between conservatism and the
>Republican party, he chooses the party.

Don't the Dems insist on absolute blind loyalty to The Party? (Remind you of another Party that ended its 70-year winning streak about ten years ago?)

Ken:

No, hardly any of the Democrats are loyal or there'd be none, starting with Tom Daschle.

Capital Briefs: The Real Specter Returns

The Associated Press reported April 29 that no sooner had President Bush helped liberal Sen. Arlen Specter defeat a conservative opponent, than Specter staked out his opposition to much of what the President hopes to achieve. "Less than 12 hours after defeating conservative challenger Pat Toomey," said the AP, "Specter touted his efforts to trim tax cuts; retain overtime pay for workers; resist school vouchers; and expand embryonic stem-cell research--all in opposition to President Bush's agenda."

From Human Events Weekly Wrap-up

It sure didn't take Specter long to show his gratitude. I expect his announcement that as Chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee he will block the approval of any pro-life judges.

jd:

Why? He never has before. Clarence Thomas is only a justice because Specter took down Anita Hill.