I’ve got to disagree with Red State on Renne Ellmers here

Meglos: Well, gentlemen, shall we all descend together into the earth for another thousand years or shall we resume our original arrangements?
Grugger: Well, I’m prepared to forget that little incident.
Meglos: Oh, I hope not.
Brotadac: We’ll remember.

Doctor Who Meglos 1980

God, the Father of mercies, through the death and resurrection of his Son has reconciled the world to himself and sent the Holy Spirit among us for the forgiveness of sins; through the ministry of the Church may God give you pardon and peace, and I absolve you from your sins in the name of the Father, and of the Son, + and of the Holy Spirit.

The words of absolution at the end of confession

There is a new congressional Committee being formed concerning Planned Parenthood and at Red State they have an objection to a specific potential member:

House insiders have indicated to RedState that Rep. Renee Ellmers (R-NC) is angling hard to be on the committee. The reasons for Ellmers’ desire to be on the committee are obvious: Ellmers publicly betrayed the pro-life movement during the embarrassing debacle over the 20-week abortion ban – a bill which enjoyed broad, bipartisan support but which failed due to the political cowardice of Ellmers and others. Ellmers already knows that due to this and a number of other high profile votes, she is likely to face a stiff primary challenge as one of the most high profile faces of Republican Failure Theater.

This is something  that due to Rep Ellmers past friendship to this site I reluctantly wrote about here

Full disclosure, I’ve interviewed Rene Ellmers, she was on my radio show and has been a friend to this site. Furthermore I’ve given her the benefit of the doubt in the past when there were questions about some of her positions in the past.

But I’m not a republican and I’m Catholic before I’m conservative and abortion is a sine non qua at this site.

The Red State piece make the following argument against Rep Ellmers

Rep. Renee Ellmers (R-NC) 60% already had a chance to do something for the pro-life movement, on a bill that’s much more popular than defunding Planned Parenthood, and she blinked. She does not have legitimate interest in defunding Planned Parenthood or taking any actual substantive action against them. What she wants is television commercial material during her upcoming primary campaign.

However I submit and suggest that Rep. Ellmers situation is the very reason why she might be a more than acceptable choice for this committee.

Given her vulnerability and the fact we are already seeing ads like this drawing tens of thousands of hits:

It would seem to me that Rep Ellmers would have a powerful incentive to be a productive and effective member of this committee.

Red State fears that her presence would only result in phony grandstanding

In other words, allowing Ellmers to participate will to invite another Chaffetz into this hearing – someone who has no interest in using the hearings to actually do or learn anything but rather only to grandstand.

This is not an illegitimate point and if it was 1920, or 1950 or even 1990 there is every chance that this could be the case.

However this is 2015, a member of congress can’t break wind without somebody getting it on cellphone video. If Rep Ellmers attempted to play this kind of game during the hearings the attack ads would likely be on the net before she had a chance to finish yielding her time back to the chair.

If this was the first last and only chance to defend planned parenthood then I could see the point in not taking any chances.

But given the presidential election year our Democrat friends from the lowest minority house members to the White House will have every incentive to fight to the death for every one of those donation dollars that Planned Parenthood provides so while this committee will be important the final nail in the coffin for these baby killers is likely to come in the next congress not this one.

Now I also understand the argument concerning getting a scalp and the example it gives to others but also consider that I’d rather convince a sitting member to see the error of their establishment ways than have to go though the expense of attempting of trying to oust them in a primary.

And it would undercut leadership arguments to members that rather than supporting the Tea Party they have no choice but to cling to leadership for survival.

Of course given that leadership is going to decide who makes this committee if they decide my argument if valid they might just choose to exclude her for the very reasons I gave.

Either way it won’t be boring to watch.