Senator Arlen Specter (Incumbent Party, PA)
Posted by Thomas Nephew on April 29th, 2009
When I first heard from a co-worker yesterday that Pennsylvania Senator Arlen Specter might be switching to the Democratic Party, I asked, “But should we take him?” Since then, I’ve joked on facebook that “a Specter is haunting the GOP,” but my doubts about this have only deepened.
In his statement Specter explained that it was Pennsylvania Republican opposition to his pro-stimulus vote earlier this year that proved an “irreconcilable difference” with voters from his former party, but added:
My change in party affiliation does not mean that I will be a party-line voter any more for the Democrats that I have been for the Republicans. Unlike Senator Jeffords’ switch which changed party control, I will not be an automatic 60th vote for cloture. For example, my position on Employees Free Choice (Card Check) will not change.
It’s passing strange that The Nation’s Chris Hayes could cite this, and then write (emphasis added):
It’s possible, indeed likely, that this is merely a semantic shift. Specter will retain his own politics, vote the way he was before and have a D in front of his name instead of an R. He’s hoping he’ll have a clear path to re-election as a Democrat in a blue state. But, it’s also hard not to think that Democrats are in a much better position than they were 24 hours ago.
With all respect to Hayes — who’s probably more of a righteous lefty on his worst days than I am on my best ones: depending on the issues involved (see above) or the Democrats involved, it’s not that hard at all. From the Washington Post’s report (by Kane, Cilizza, and Murray) — with the dispiriting message to peons like myself that the “President Says He Is Pleased With Move but Does Not Expect Senator to Agree With New Party at All Times”:
A handful of Pennsylvania Democrats had been considering pursuit of the Senate nomination, but potential opposition to Specter began to melt yesterday as the would-be contenders learned that he would have support from Obama and practically every leading Democrat in Washington.
Among those abandoning the race were State Senator Josh Shapiro (“Senator Specter is now the incumbent Democratic Senator”), although Democrats Joe Sestak (D-PA-7) and Joe Torsella are still reportedly considering running. I don’t know anything about Shapiro, but suspect he hasn’t jumped ship from the Republican Party lately after toeing their line whenever it counted. As for Sestak– an attractive Democratic candidate with serious potential as late as last week — PoliticsPA’s Alex Roark quotes him as follows:“What is the senator running for, and why couldn’t Specter use his leadership role to reshape the party instead of abandoning it? In short, I believe that the principles of what he is running for and his commitment to accountable leadership are questions that still need to be addressed.”
Indeed they are — no matter which side of the aisle you’re on… and no matter how tempted you might be to celebrate a defection. The Nation writer John Nichols sees it differently (A Liberal Democrat Returns to the Fold“), claiming “Specter will break from the Democrats now and again. But don’t be surprised if the breaks are to the left rather than the right” and citing Specter’s recent New York Review of Books article The Need to Roll Back Presidential Power Grabs. But while Specter often loudly announces and then gets credit for alleged liberal, civil liberties impulses, that’s generally as far as he takes it. Take for example Specter’s hand-wringing indecision about but eventual support for the Military Commissions Act and FISA Amendment Acts — critical votes on two of the signature civil liberties, executive power, habeas corpus legislation of the past eight years, and ones that were all the more important for not cracking the united Republican front on these decisions.
We’ll see — and I’d be glad to be wrong — but I’d guess that Specter will be sticking to his anti-EFCA guns longer than to his wobbly ‘positions’ on civil liberties. Look for EFCA to at best get the critical card check provision gutted, and for Specter’s “anti power grab” legislation to (a) shove aside better legislation by people like Russ Feingold and then (b) get watered down to the point of uselessness, probably with Specter’s pseudo-rueful acquiescence.
On the issue of the moment, Specter (as usual) tries to have it every which way as recently as an April 22 press release — opposing a truth commission because the new caretakers of the Executive Branch have all the facts available to them, arguing “if” there’s evidence of criminality then the Attorney General has full authority to prosecute it, and then concluding “going after the prior administration sounds like something they do in Latin America in banana republics.” No, not prosecuting torturers sounds like something they do in banana republics.
But the basic point is that Specter and the Democratic poobahs (apparently Joe Biden and Harry Reid chief among them) who coaxed the senator into switching sides have shoved aside the people who ought to really matter when political parties grow or shrink: the voters — yes, even the Republican “base” voters — who choose the candidates of each party, and then test their strength against eachother in the general election.
The Post’s lead editorial (”Aisle Crosser“) gets it partly right…:
…it’s troubling that Pennsylvanians voted for one thing — a Republican senator — but now find themselves with something else: a Democrat who, if and when Minnesotan Al Franken is seated, will represent the 60th vote in the caucus.
…but mostly and predictably wrong, calling Specter’s exit from the Republican Party evidence of “a troubling polarization in politics.” Yet — like that other alleged victim of polarized politics Joe Lieberman before him — there Specter still is, now just with a different letter after his name in roll call tallies. Look at what actually happened, and I think it’s incontrovertible: Specter’s switch — and the open arms welcome he’s getting — is evidence of incumbents closing ranks in American politics, to the detriment of precisely those citizens who care most deeply about the issues, their parties, and the votes they therefore cast.
=====
UPDATE, 4/29: Mick Arran foreshadows his reaction with the title “Dump the Dems 10: First Lieberman, Now Specter. Who’s Next? Cheney?, closing “Hey, Rush! Play your cards right and in a few years you’ll be running both parties.”
Category: Post. Tags: democratic party, election10, gop.
Thread RSS,
Comment, Trackback.
Print This
April 29th, 2009 at 2:18 pm
Agree with you 100%.
I think Specter’s switch is a strategic negative for the Democrats:
1. I predict he will vote with the R’s just as much as he did when he was an R.
2. I don’t think he’ll vote with the D’s even on “cloture” motions.
3. I think he is a Lieberman clone inasmuch as he will always try to position himself as the fulcrum vote on key issues (just like he did on the stimulus package). This will invariably hurt the content of those bills, just as it did on the “stimulus” package.
4. The D’s are going to take Pennsylvania in 2010 anyway, and could have had a much better candidate. I hope Sestak will decide to run, so that D primary voters at least have a choice.
5. I think Reid, Rendell, and Biden have really goofed up strategically — Specter is going to be a phantom 60th vote.
6. Just having the 60th vote on paper will give the R’s a major new argument for 2010 midterms (vote for R’s to “restore checks and balances”).
April 29th, 2009 at 4:00 pm
I’m with you and Robert. This is just a further co-opting of the Dem party. It’s not good news. Good news would have been Toomey winning the primary and then Specter and Toomey losing to a Dem.
April 30th, 2009 at 7:03 pm
Go here to pledge support to a real Democrat if one decides to enter the primary against Specter (links in post to Facebook and plain web pledge sites).
Harry Reid, Joe Biden, and Ed Rendell get together in a room and the next thing you know Pennsylvania voters have their choices restricted and their futures set for them. No. thanks.
Pennsylvania before this switch was an excellent prospect for a Better Democrat, and it still can be. If Arlen Specter does enough good for the party between now and next year to win a Democratic primary, good on him. But the only way he’ll even consider doing those good things is if there’s a chance he’ll face a real Democrat in the primary.
May 19th, 2010 at 1:09 am
[...] office, and Pennsylvanians were right to vote him out of it. When Specter switched last year, I wrote: But the basic point is that Specter and the Democratic poobahs (apparently Joe Biden and Harry [...]