Two Weeks Ago, Specter Said He Was Only Hope Of Blocking Dem Agenda
Another sign that it’s unclear what Dems will really get out of the Arlen Specter switch:
Only two weeks ago, when he was still running for reelection as a Republican, Specter said that keeping him in the Senate was the only hope of blocking the Dem agenda, adding that if he lost a GOP primary, his seat would go to a Democrat, giving Dems “anything they want.”
Specter made the comments on Morning Joe on April 7th. He said that if his challenger from the right, Club for Growth President Pat Toomey, beat him in a Republican primary, Toomey would almost surely lose to a Democrat in the general election, adding another Dem Senator.
“Look here, our country is built on checks and balances,” Specter said, according to Nexis. “The only check and balance in America today are the 41 Republican Senators who can talk and filibuster. Otherwise, the White House, the House of Representatives [will] be a streamroller.”
“If there’s a Democrat in my place, then they’ll have anything they want,” Specter continued, speaking of the Dems. “It will be a bulldozer.”
Which raises the question once again: Would it have been a better deal for Dems long term if Specter had stayed a Republican, lost the primary, and an actual Democrat had been installed in his place?
The homepage of this blog is here. RSS feed here. Twitter feed here. Email me here.
Greg
.
Why do you think Specter was saying that? Might it have been to try to get his approval numbers in PA to move? Look the truth is Specter has never been a true wingnut and he is probably less conservative than Ben Nelson. And biggest of all Specter has ALWAYS been a major bullsh*t artist. Saying one thing and doing another. Check out his voting record
.
http://www.ontheissues.org/Senate/Arlen_Specter.htm
.
Just wait to see how he votes and then we can be concerned.
yes, but my point is, this is a reminder that however much of a maverick Specter is, him switching is not as good a deal for Dems than getting an actual Dem in there — something that was taken off the table as a possibility by his switch.
That’s what I haven’t been able to understand. Where is the benefit for the Dems in all of this? I would have just let Pat Toomey mop him up in the primary, and then run any number of competent potential Dems against Toomey in the general. Are they really afraid that nobody can beat some wingnut in the general?
Seems to me as if this is more of the Senate “old boys club” bullshit. Looking out for their own instead of looking out for how they can legislate Obama’s agenda more effectively.
The earliest there would be a new Dem would be January, 2011. In the meantime, Specter will be a Dem vote on most things, more than if he stayed a Republican for that time. And who knows exactly what things will look like by the time of the next election? (And all those things SG said.)
Yeah, I don’t think this is a great deal for Dems. I plan on giving money to the Democratic primary challenger in PA because that is the only way Specter will fall in line. It is possible for the insurgent candidate to win even if Specter is backed by Rendell, Biden, etc. If unions and progressives organize Specter could lose the primary. But I am cautiously optimistic that Specter will be a solid cloture vote for the Obama agenda.
The move by Specter may be seen as an act of self-preservation by an old bull. Look at Stevens, Inouye, Bird and a whole bunch of geriatrics in the last two decades. These guys are all about pork, status, holding on to power even when physically ill/infirm, and loving it. They are neither Republicans nor Democrats: they are autocrats. The Senate is the only place where they get deference.
Specter was in danger of losing his maverickhood. Look at McCain and Lieberman: another two who are all about entitlement: to office, to power, to lots of travel abroad and meeting the great and the not so good. No wonder Graham latched on to McCain.
The DOD genuflects and provides comfortable travel.
These guys don’t lose. And Biden will always be there in the background with a smile, a hug and a kind word.
Greg YOu are absolutely right. Specter or toomey would lose to a REAL democrat in the general. Which is why I don’t understand giving Specter so much seniority in the dem caucus. Specter had no options, couldn’t win as a repiglican, couldn’t win as an independent, so he had to switch to the dems. He was forced to convert. So why does he get better committee assignments than actual democrats who were elected as democrats. Its Holy Joe L. all over again. Specter needs the dems more than the dems need him, but he still is courted like he is the 51st vote to give control to the dems…I don’t get it, except that he is a villager in good standing and therefore entitled to special treatment.
I agree with “Simon J” that Specter’s switch is nothing more than self preservation and has nothing to do with ideology one way or the other. A mandatory retirement age for the Senate comes to mind.
The Democratic Caucus accepting Specter has more to do with milking the ensuing media frenzy and Washington Beltway pundits wringing their hands about the consequences. The same goes for President Obama offering his ‘full’ support. Those are just words, that don’t necessarily translate into actual support and aggressive fund raising efforts on the White House’s part.
As Lola mentioned, depending on how Specter behaves over the next 2 years, I’ll gladly give to a ‘real’ Democratic primary challenger. I don’t care what Obama, Biden and Rendell say on that matter. If Specter pulls a Nelson, I’ll be saving some money to donate to the appropriate channels to challenge him AND the Democratic ‘good ol’boy club.
Maybe if we’re lucky, Specter’s cancer will flair up and he’ll take an early retirement, which means Rendell can appoint a new Democratic Senator to replace him. Sure, I shouldn’t wish ill on a person, but when was the last time Specter was a ‘real person instead of an opportunist who votes according to the polls?
I think that the embarrassment of the Republicans was worth the switch. He could have easily pulled a Jeffords or Lieberman and declare being an independent, but he didn’t. I’d say Specter wanted to make a statement that he’s pissed off at his former colleagues and he wanted them to know it.
I wonder how long it will take before the 2 remaining ‘moderates’ will consider switching.
If anything else; it certainly shows that the Democratic party is certainly a BIGGER tent, because even the RINO’s are welcome along with the DINO’s – no questions asked. That by itself is something that will certainly be noticed by the so-called ’self-identified’ Independent voters.
Specter switching is a fun backhand slap to the Republican party. However, it’s a thorn in the paw of the Democratic party for (now) at least one more term.
.
Any Democrat who says it’s a better thing to have Specter in that seat right now outweighs the benefit of having a true-blue Democrat in that seat starting next year…they’re lying to your face.
.
He switched out of political expediency, and they accept him because of the Senate’s “clubby mentality”. It’s pathetic – they’d rather have a club buddy in the seat vs. a reliable Democratic vote. Tells you something.
Current polling data trumpeted by the left is almost completely irrelevant- a lot of people still don’t have any clue what Obama’s doing to the country, with his naive diplomacy and reckless print-money spending.
But they’ll come out-of-the-ether quick when we get humiliated overseas, the dollar tanks, inflation hits 10%, and/or a desperate Rezko/Blago sing to prosecutors about their former pal Barack… who’s closet is surely chock-full o’ bones.
Time is simply on the GOP’s side: neither Obama’s big-government spending nor his Carter-esque foreign policy based on appeasement have any precedent of success… anywhere…. ever. And the press can’t just do stories on his puppy-vetting process and how he likes to play basketball for four years.
Obama hasn’t been tested overseas, nor has he yet gotten to the hard part domestically: he’s yet to raise taxes, nationalize healthcare, or provide mass amnesty for illegal immigrants. He hasn’t closed down the car companies he now runs and he has not yet forced a 30+ % jump in utility bills and myriad other products with his cap-and-trade stealth-tax schemes. And these are all on the Obama agenda.
Most likely, when all their ill-advised pork-n-welfare spending fails to produce real economic gains, the Democrats face a bloodbath in 2010-
And by 2012? People will wince at the very mention of the name Obama-
I played basketball and baseball, basketball all the way through high school. I