Comments on: Poll: Even Republicans Want Specter To Back EFCA

By: Jim

Jim — Wed, 06 May 2009 03:10:22 +0000

Two words: Campaign contributions. Two more: Big money.

It’s the money that drives the politics. And the money ain’t on the side of labor.

By: GabeSmall

GabeSmall — Wed, 06 May 2009 01:52:14 +0000

I wouldn’t put much stock in these numbers. I’d be willing to bet that a lot of Republicans in PA haven’t even heard of EFCA and don’t know what opposing it implies.

All they heard was “Does Specter’s [position on some topic] make you more or less likely to vote for him?” They answered “Less likely” because they’re pissed at him for defecting.

By: Bernie Latham

Bernie Latham — Tue, 05 May 2009 18:58:32 +0000

Once again, let me try and argue a longer term perspective on Specter’s shift. I don’t mean to minimize the dilemma that exists re labor (my dad was a labor organizer and I’m deeply sympathetic) but it is a long while before the next electoral cycle and, given the appropriate spin, Specter could become a unicorn in 12 weeks and the present schmozzle will be in the long-dead and forgotten past. Surely the differences between public statements now and backroom dealings are comparable to the two parts of an iceberg – the visible part and the not.
Specter leaving the Republican party is a high-profile defection. As with Jeffords, (moreso here, I think) it has significant symbolic value – significantly negative for Republicans and significantly positive for Obama (of the open arms, reasonableness, glowing children, and post-partisanhood). Imagine, for example, if McCain were to now take Limbaugh’s urging and also switch parties. He won’t, I’m certain, but imagine the optics of it if he did.
Another example…we knew a couple of years ago as the Dem nomination process got going that with a woman and an African-American vying we liberals weren’t going to escape that battle – signifying two huge cultural shifts – unscathed. But that was short-term, wasn’t it? Likewise now, as the political horizon re-jiggers itself, interests and goals will bump up against each other causing temporary heat and consternation.
As I said, it isn’t as if labor and other issues upcoming aren’t important to us, rather I’m just suggesting that a longer view is important too. For example, Boehlert (media matters) has a column up now on the financial crisis facing Clear Channel and that might have consequences far more lasting than Specter’s vote on a particular bill.
Please continue.

By: Greg Sargent

Greg Sargent — Tue, 05 May 2009 17:57:35 +0000

that’s what makes his current position so inexplicable. maybe it’s all about maximizing whatever he gets for his ultimate EFCA flip.

By: Trevor J

Trevor J — Tue, 05 May 2009 17:47:19 +0000

Specter is nothing if he’s not smart about self-preservation. He knows how to read poll numbers, clearly. When his flip was first announced last week, I asked what the Democrats were going to get out of this. I think it’s becoming clear that they were getting someone who would figure out how to stay in the Senate. Specter’s path to a D-election looks pretty clear: EFCA (likely w/watered-down card check) and cloture (at minimum) on energy and nominees. He’s irrelevant on health care.