Nuclear Option Watch — The evolution of opposition

Because I’ve been doing my level best to count heads on the possibility of the Senate GOP successfully pulling off the “nuclear option,” I’ve been watching Arlen Specter closely. If the Republicans are going to get 51 votes on this, they’ll desperately need Specter.

With this in mind, it’s been surprisingly entertaining to see the Pennsylvania moderate evolve from a skeptic to an opponent.

A month ago, for example, Specter was merely “wary” of the nuclear option.

“I’m trying to set the stage to get the job done without going to the nuclear option,” Sen. Arlen Specter, Pennsylvania Republican, said in a wide-ranging interview Friday with The Washington Times.

[Asked if he would support the “nuclear option,”] Specter said, “I’m not going to jump off that bridge until I come to it, and I hope I don’t come to it.”

Two weeks later, some of the ambiguities were starting to fade.

Changing the Senate rules to prohibit filibusters of judicial nominees – the “nuclear option” – could have deleterious short-term effects and run the long-term risk of eroding the rights of the minority. “If we go to the nuclear option … the Senate will be in turmoil and the Judiciary Committee will be hell.”

Then, over the weekend, Specter went ahead and drew us a picture.

“I’m going to use every ounce of my energy, Wolf, to avoid confronting the nuclear option, because I think it would be disastrous for America. The Senate has a long, rich tradition for protecting minority rights. Did it in John Jay’s impeachment trial, about 1815 upholding the independence of the judiciary, and in the impeachment trial of Johnson in 1868.

“And right now this judge squabble is a big, big issue, but 100 years from now it’s not going to be as important as protecting minority rights, which the Senate has been the guardian of.”

The “nuclear option” would lead to “turmoil,” “hell,” and “would be disastrous for America”? I think it’s safe to say Specter has made up his mind.