Sen. Arlen Specter’s recent tough talk with Democrats in the escalating Senate battle over judicial nominees could mollify conservatives in his own party who almost upended his political career four years ago.

The Pennsylvania Republican barely escaped a two-pronged attack in 2004, weathering a GOP primary challenge and later a concerted effort to keep him from becoming the Senate Judiciary Committee chairman.

The outreach comes as he has sought to win Senate approval of lifetime seats for Bush’s judicial nominees, a priority for Republicans who want the federal courts to move solidly to the right. After shepherding through Bush’s two Supreme Court nominees, Specter is now playing the lead role in a partisan, election-year fight that could bring the Senate to a standstill.

Over the last month, the ranking Republican on the Judiciary Committee has warned Democrats that if they do not move a number of stalled appeals court nominees, he may retaliate on the Senate floor by objecting to attempts to expedite routine business. He reiterated that threat last week in an interview with the conservative editorial board of The Wall Street Journal.

To Democrats, Specter’s strong criticism and threats seem motivated by his own political survival, given that he’s up for reelection in 2010.

“I think Sen. Specter is always afraid of getting a conservative Republican in a primary,” Judiciary panel Chairman Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.) said. “He’s trying to be a good soldier.”

That charge, according to Specter, is nothing more than a “farfetched theory.”

“This is an issue which has been pressed by many people besides me, and I’m the ranking member so it’s my responsibility to take the lead on it,” Specter said.

The current battle over judicial nominees stems from Republican complaints that the Senate is not on pace to match the 15 appeals court judges confirmed by the GOP-controlled Senate in the final two years of the Clinton administration. Six appellate nominees have been confirmed since the beginning of the 110th Congress, and 10 are pending.

Democrats say they have helped to confirm more than 86 percent of Bush nominees, compared with the 75 percent of Clinton judges who were confirmed. Last year 40 nominees for lower courts were confirmed, more than each of the three preceding years under Republican leadership. Democrats say Bush is looking for an election-year fight by proposing controversial nominees.

Specter is now leading that battle and winning praise from a number of conservatives. Yet there are elements of the Republican base still dissatisfied with him. Former Rep. Pat Toomey (R-Pa.), who lost to Specter by two percentage points in the 2004 Pennsylvania primary, has not ruled out another challenge against him in 2010. Specter might be keeping that in mind, with $4.2 million in his war chest, according to CQ MoneyLine.

For now, most conservative leaders think Specter is on much more solid ground than in 2004.

“I think conservatives are much more receptive to him,” said Curt Levey, head of the Committee for Justice, which supports conservative judicial nominees. “I really don’t even hear complaints about him.”

“He’s found an area that conservatives care a lot about,” said David Keene, chairman of the American Conservative Union.

Keene said the senator’s efforts to build relationships have helped ease skepticism.

“He really didn’t have much communication with and outreach to conservatives before,” said Keene, who is also a friend of Specter’s and a columnist for The Hill.

 Specter has long had a mixed relationship with conservatives. In 1987, he angered the right by helping defeat the nomination of Robert Bork to the Supreme Court. But years later he angered the left by helping Clarence Thomas win a lifetime seat on the bench. He has sided with Democrats on issues such as tax cuts, the minimum wage, tobacco regulations and labor-union rules.

After narrowly winning reelection in 2004, cultural conservatives tried to block his bid for the Judiciary chairmanship after he suggested Bush should not nominate judges who would overturn Roe v. Wade.

Specter later persuaded the Republican Conference that he would work to confirm Bush’s nominees, not block them.

“I think the broad picture of this is that Specter spent a career trying to straddle this divide, and it suddenly has got more and more difficult,” said Guian McKee, an assistant professor at the University of Virginia’s Miller Center of Public Affairs.

Being in the minority, Specter is on firm footing now because he “can make an issue out of it” but can’t be held accountable if nominees are not confirmed because Democrats control the majority, McKee said.
But to some conservatives, Specter’s performance is being measured.

“I think he has reached out to some degree … but he doesn’t have any success to offer us,” said Connie Mackey, senior vice president of the legislative arm of the Family Research Council.

Toomey, who now heads the anti-tax Club for Growth, could not be reached for comment. The club’s spokeswoman, Nachama Soloveichik, said Specter is one of the most liberal Republicans in the Senate and “ought to be very worried” about being challenged from the right.

If a Democrat wins the White House in November, the calls for Specter’s seat might grow louder on the right, depending on the extent to which he compromises with the new president, analysts say.