Opinion: Whose Compromise Is It Anyway?

This article was originally on a blog post platform and may be missing photos, graphics or links. See About archive blog posts.

In an April 5 editorial, The Times endorsed a compromise proposal by Sen. Charles Schumer (D-NY) for congressional testimony by White House aides about the firings of eight U.S. attorneys.

The editorial noted that the compromise – in which the aides would testify without taking an oath so long as a transcript was made – was “quickly embraced” by Sen. Arlen Specter, who appeared with Schumer on the April 1 installment of ‘Face the Nation.’ Indeed, after Schumer spoke, Specter enthused: “I think that Chuck Schumer and I may have come to agreement here on a Sunday morning show with sound bites on a very important issue.”

But enough about Schumer. Specter’s staff has reminded us that the ‘transcript/no oath’ approach was floated by Specter before the “Face the Nation” breakthrough. Indeed, the Pennsylvania Republican who used to chair the Judiciary Committee said at a March 29 hearing that “I think that the president is wrong in insisting that there not be a transcript.” Also, Schumer acknowledged on “Face the Nation” that his compromise was “along the lines of what Sen. Specter has proposed.”

Of course, now that the Democrats control the Senate, Schumer’s endorsement of the Specter proposal is more important that Specter’s endorsement of Schumer’s endorsement of the Specter proposal. Or maybe we should call it the LA Times proposal, because the idea of a transcript but no oath was raised in a March 22 editorial in this newspaper.