Parties do have to agree on some non-negotiables. For Republicans that list includes a commitment to battle obstructionism in the judicial confirmation process, but it ought not to include a loyalty oath on every nominee. I and the vast majority of Republicans are pro-life, but I know there aren't enough pro-life votes in the country to empower a governing coalition.Thank you, Hugh, for making our point. Defeating obstructionism IS the issue many of us have with Specter. When Specter "warns" the President about the type of nominees he can make to his committee, I call that obstructionism.
Nobody is talking about throwing Specter out of the party. Or off the committee for that matter. Specter needs to realize who it is he serves and it isn't himself. Everytime he's up for re-election he suddenly gets all conservative; but shortly after, he dumps that baggage and is off to his usual antics. It has to stop. That message needs to be delivered.
The point that Hugh tries to make is that party building ensures GOP dominance, and he is right. But at what cost? He himself has said that there are principles that republicans should not surrender ground on, yet here he is advocating for a guy who clearly does not represent what a significant portion of the party believes in.
For me, it ultimately comes down to the choice is between Republicanism and conservatism. The "party dominance" racket isn't what wins elections, Hugh, it is standing on your principles.
8:30PM Update
Ramesh Ponnuru channels me pretty well at National Review. Actually, he says it better and longer than I did...Islamofascism Delenda Est!
Current Arafat Status:
