Train-wreck On The Horizon For Dem Establishment And Specter?
It’s looking more and more like the Dem establishment’s embrace of its new darling, Senator Arlen Specter, could shape up as a major train-wreck come 2010.
Late last night, SEIU chief Andy Stern spoke out to ABC News about his meeting yesterday with Dem Rep Joe Sestak, who may challenge Specter in the 2010 Dem primary. Stern all but said Specter should forget about getting his support:
After the meeting, Stern said he told Sestak that, based on conversations with labor leaders in Pennsylvania, Specter is highly unlikely to get the support of organized labor if he votes against EFCA, the pro-unionizing measure that critics call “card-check.”
“There’s no way they’re ever going to be supporting someone who is seen as thwarting this opportunity,” Stern told ABC. “It is hard to imagine any union supporting a candidate in the Democratic Party for the US Senate who doesn’t have strong positions on both healthcare and Employee Free Choice.”
There a certain amount of bluffing and posturing going on here. But yesterday a top AFL-CIO official also strongly suggested labor wouldn’t support Specter, meaning leaders at two major unions are now on the same page on this question. It’s looking more and more like labor will back a challenger to Specter, and that candidate would have the support of progressive activists and the netroots against Specter and the Dem establishment.
Connecticut 2006 redux, anyone?
Update: Stern Tweets: “Sestak is serious about Senate race. Doing Senate Finance Roundtable today on health care.”
The homepage of this blog is here. RSS feed here. Twitter feed here. Email me here.
You should include the caveat that they won’t support Specter “if he doesn’t back EFCA”
well, I think it’s unlikely that Specter shifts significantly on both health care and EFCA.
Good news. This may teach The Establishment something. We want real Dems when we can get them.
Does this have to do with the water they drink at the White House? Why did Obama and Biden think Specter was a “winner”?
Greg
.
Isn’t the whole point of this position by the unions to get Specter to vote for EFCA? If thats so then I don’t think they want to send the message that they are going to oppose Specter even if he changes his mind. If that be the case then what motivation would he have to change his vote in the first place? Im just saying.
Specter’s situation is clear – either he ponies up to what it is to be a Democratic senator representing working people of his state, or he will end up the loser of the Democratic primary of 2010. Now, that’s Specter’s dilemma – what about the other 12 Democratic senators who are also poohpoohing EFCA, are they risking a challenge in their next primary election cycle? -Kevo
I fail to understand how the Dems would be better off if Specter had stayed a Republican. You don’t get to 60 caucusing in the same party in the Senate without having a pretty wide latitude on specific policies. Sestak might make a far better Democratic senator than Specter down the road, but at the moment Specter is the one who’s actually in the Senate. He’s a player, Republican or Democrat, and I’m just not staying up nights wishing he were still Specter (R-PA).
I’m not sure why Sestak would stay out of this. If he feels his record and the issues he’s strong on are more inline with a majority of Pennsylvania voters, then he should run.
Recent Pennsylvania polling shows support for Obama’s job performance in the state at 68%. That’s pretty high. That would tell me Pennsylvania’s overwhelmingly support Obama’s agenda’s.
If Sestak’s views are more in line with Obama’s, then I would say it’s a no brainier but…
Here’s the thing. How does Sestak fair against Ridge in a Senatorial race? I saw Specter edging him out but I’m not sure I saw any polling of how Sestak would fair.
ABC, even if the Dems are better off in the short term with Specter as a Dem, the point remains that the Dem establishment shouldn’t be ramming Specter down people’s throats…
and SG, a lot of Dems think they’ll be better off with, at minimum, a primary challenge to Specter, which will force Specter to the left to survive, and at maximum, a better Democrat in the Senate…as other commenters are noting…
If he won’t shift his stance, then he should face a primary challenge. Surely, somewhere in Specter’s grand switch, with all the conversations he had with Biden and as welcoming as the president has been, surely there’s one vote we get out of Specter that we wouldn’t have gotten prior to his awakening. Please tell me there must be. If not, then who really cares about this lazy pos?
Greg
.
I have said almost from the beginning that the threat of being primaried should be the stick that is used to keep Specter in line. But there has to be a carrot also and if the unions are saying that no matter what Specter does on EFCA they aren’t offering any carrots. To give up on him voting for EFCA would be ludicrous now if you ask me, especially when they finally have the power to push him one way or another. The whole point should be to use the leverage they have now to get the legislation passed now. At least that would be the strategic way to look at it.
Good Morning guys..
Hey Greg, do you think Sestak would win over Tom Ridge?
Looks like Ridge may jump in more and more everyday… or do you think Ridge may sit back and wait to see what Sestak does?
Greg
.
How exactly is the Dem establishment ramming Specter down people’s throats? As far as I can tell the only report of the Dems clearing the field for Specter was in an interview with Rendell when he said Specter would “basically” run unopposed. Never said he would clear the field. So far we have had second hand accounts by anonymous sources about all the great things that President Obama will do for Specter unconditionally but none of those reports seem credible when you really take a long hard look at them. President Obama isn’t a dummy and neither are his political advisors. They aren’t going to jump all in with Spector if the Democratic base is pissed at him. He isn’t going to give up that kind of political capital for a guy who votes against his agenda. So far the only people ramming Specter down anyone’s throats is the media. Two weeks from now most people won’t even be thinking about him switching unless people are still pointing out all of his votes. But like I said last week, his voting record as a Republican was probably better than Ben Nelson’s but we don’t see media reports asking why we have HIM as a Democrat. Like I said before having Specter as a Dem hurts us none at all. Bigger than that Barack Obama AND Hillary Clinton both campaigned for Joe LIEberman in 2006 and he still lost the primary to relative unknown Ned Lamont so next year when it comes down to it if he has not gotten with the program we can still drum his a$$ out of office.
I think that Rendell quote says it all. And David Shuster reported that Specter had been promised a clear field. And Harry Reid’s spokesperson told me that Reid would still back Specter in a primary even if he didn’t change course on EFCA.
Greg, I’m all for whatever kind of leverage can be used. That’s a lot of what politics is. But I’m not seeing people rolling over for what the Democratic leadership may want, and I don’t think that’s a serious concern. Maybe I’m not following this deeply enough, but it seems kind of like a tempest in a teapot thing.
A hedged quote from Rendell, Schuster’s reporting, and a comment from a political spokesman. Yep. Etched in stone.
David Schuster reported the same thing you reported Greg, the Rendell quote. And it in fact does not say it all. Its bluster from a guy trying to get Specter to switch. Rendell doesn’t have that kind of power and everybody knows it. Tempest in a teapot is what this has become.
Of COURSE Harry Reid will back Specter no matter what. When’s he ever shown a spine in any case?
Seems to me Arlen’s vote on EFCA is meaningless. What counts is his vote on cloture. If Specter blocks any vote on the floor, he’s doomed.
.
But my assumption was always that Obama and Specter came to some sort of understanding about votes on bills vs. votes on cloture.
.
Now, if all Specter does is block everything, this will sort itself out pretty quickly, as no Dem primary will see Sestak lose to an obstructionist.
Sestak has an impressive resume – I would favor him over Spector.. Spector is just another another career politician who has no clue what taxes are or what a gallon of milk costs.
Why would a contested primary be a “train wreck”? I usually just call it “democracy.”
Okay, I’ve tried to give Specter the benefit of the doubt. No more.
:
Unless AS(s) changes every single opposition he’s lobbed against the Obama agenda (and now Al Franken?), I will fully support Sestak’s run against that tool.
The over concentration on Andy Stern needs to stop. I love this blog because it actually discusses labor policy with some urgency and frequency, but there continues – in all media venues – to be a focus on Stern. Granted, he is more charasmatic and outgoing than anyone else in labor and old man Sweeney is just that – old. But to refer to Rich Trumka as “a top AFL-CIO” official and giving his statement less attention is glaring. (1) the AFL-CIO is infinitley larger than SEIU and a more powerful body (2) Trumka is the likely next President of the AFL and is currently acting in that capacity now (trust me) and (3) Andy Stern is one of the most loathed men in labor – he has little support even amongst his own troops. I actually think he gets a bad rap in the labor movement, but it is – to an extent – warranted.
I get that he is media darling (look, he even Tweets!) but the continous discounting of America’s actual labor movement – the AFL-CIO – serves nobody’s interest.
Trumka is not Sweeney, I assure you, and he has infinitley more clout than Stern. So when he makes a pronouncment, let’s treat it as at least equal as Stern. He may not have a facebook account, but he sure as hell has a lot of support.