Why Should We Believe Anything Specter Says?

by Josh Orton, Tue Apr 28, 2009 at 03:33:39 PM EDT

While I'm disappointed that Specter said he'll vote against cloture on EFCA, I'm not really sure why we should take his statements at face value.

Specter about a month ago:

I am staying a Republican because I think I have an important role, a more important role, to play there. The United States very desperately needs a two-party system. That's the basis of politics in America. I'm afraid we are becoming a one-party system, with Republicans becoming just a regional party with so little representation of the northeast or in the middle atlantic. I think as a governmental matter, it is very important to have a check and balance. That's a very important principle in the operation of our government. In the constitution on Separation of powers.

Specter denied up and down that he'd defect from his party. But his political calculation changed, hence so did his position.

I don't point this out to argue that Specter will now vote like a Democrat - but I do think we've got to disbelieve all Specter's assertions equally.

Tags: Arlen Specter (all tags)

Comments

15 Comments

Sort by

permalink

A couple of tweaks, Arlen has a change of heart

then, it was all about principle! (wink!)

I'm thinking you got something here Josh; Arlen can't come off as someone that was only voting his party-line.

He has to be a man of integrity.

But, a couple words changed in the bill!

Bang, he is voting for cloture!

by WashStateBlue 2009-04-28 03:42PM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: Why Should We Believe Anything Specter Says?

I don't believe anything he says. I don't believe that after the election of 2010 we can count on him to do anything other than have taken a seat that could have gone to someone we could place more faith in believing.

by bruh3 2009-04-28 03:51PM | 0 recs

permalink

The big tent just got a little bigger.

Specter belongs in a party that has room for Evan Baye and Dennis Kucinich. We really are the big tent. And as for one party rule? No problem when the party is the Democrats...we can provide all sides of an argument on our own.

Specter can be reasoned with, he's wicked smart and speaks his mind. He'll fit right in with us.

by GFORD 2009-04-28 03:59PM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: Why Should We Believe Anything Specter Says?

And the problem with having a majority of sixty on most votes between now and 2010 is? Man, look in the mouth of that gift horse!

by Shaun Appleby 2009-04-28 04:51PM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: Why Should We Believe Anything Specter Says?

As has been demonstrated by the so-called moderate Dems, it doesn' help move a progressive agenda to have numbers, if many are reformed Republicans. I don't understand this naive view that more Demsmeans more progressive policies. It's the quality of the Dems that matters. In Pa, we would have a great chance of electing a progressive Dem rather than allowing Specter to switch sides and maintain his power. What is happening to the progressive movement?

by orestes 2009-04-29 04:09AM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: Why Should We Believe Anything Specter Says?

So elect one. In the meantime 2010 is half of Obama's first term. I don't see the downside here.

by Shaun Appleby 2009-04-29 04:49AM | 0 recs

permalink

Re:The downside for Pa voters

is that the party leadership has already promised to support Specter for re-election, which will make it difficult for a real democrat to challenge him. I just heard on CNN that one dem who was planning to run in the primary has withdrawn. Call me old-fashioned but I believe voters should get to pick their own candidate.

Plus, there is the matter of Specter's voting record, which Harry Reid and friends now find it convenient to overlook. Specter stood with Bush on the Iraq War, warantless wiretapping, the patriot act, judicial picks, etc. His record is not that of a moderate.

by half nelson 2009-04-29 12:05PM | 0 recs

permalink

Re:The downside for Pa voters

You're right, voters should get to pick their own candidate, and there's no illusions about Specter's ideological purity. But on the criteria of one's voting record on the AUMF and the Patriot Act there are quite a few sitting Democrats who are not 'moderate' either.

Is a cloture vote on at least some of the Obama administration's legislative agenda not worth something when weighed in the balance? I'm guessing things look a bit different from the West Wing and I'm not sure I disagree with that perspective.

by Shaun Appleby 2009-04-29 12:37PM | 0 recs

permalink

Re:Time will tell what Specter's support is worth.

Being an opportunist, he may prove to be useful if he decides that it's in his best interest to throw in his lot with Obama. I hope so.

All the same, it is galling to hear Ed Rendell and Harry Reid gushing over Specter, as if the past 8 years never happened. Under Bush, Specter showed complete disdain for the views of his (largely democratic)constituents, putting party first whenever he was needed. Santorum did the same and he got his comeuppance in 2006. I was frankly looking forward to seeing Specter get his.

I agree that there are plenty of democrats who also enabled Bush (and are obstructing Obama) but many of them represent conservative regions.

by half nelson 2009-04-29 03:25PM | 0 recs

permalink

Re:Time will tell what Specter's support is worth.

Well, in a way he has 'gotten his.' When 200,000 Pennsylvania Republicans crossed-over it basically left him without an alternative. I'm guessing from my perspective that his 'usefulness' is precisely the criteria on which the Democratic reception of him should be judged. Early returns are not too promising but on health care issues perhaps he will prove to be worth enduring the galling approbation with which he has been welcomed by otherwise sober Democrats.

On the other hand a progressive primary challenge will be an interesting litmus test of where Pennsylvania genuinely falls in the political spectrum. If a significant number of those 200,000 'new' Democrats take the trouble to vote in the primary one wonders at the outcome.

by Shaun Appleby 2009-04-29 06:09PM | 0 recs

permalink

Re:The downside for Pa voters

Having noted Specter's budget vote, however, I am more inclined to agree with you.

by Shaun Appleby 2009-04-29 03:13PM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: Why Should We Believe Anything Specter Says?

The straight answer is No. He will pal around just long enough to get elected, then revert to Liebermansian hubris when it comes to votes that count. It will be a thrill ride for him; for awhile. As soon as he is elected, he will make the assumption that he is the new leader of the newly bipartisan Democratic Party.

Unfortunately for Arlen, the Dems will get their 60 votes in 2010 without him. Between the GOP retirements and open seats, the they will capture a comfortable lead without defectors.

by KoolJeffrey 2009-04-28 06:17PM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: Why Should We Believe Anything Specter Says?

I wonder what was happening behind the scenes when he made that quote? Politics can be like national security in at least one way - to be up front about everything that's happening as it happens could ruin a deal in the works.

by Nathan Empsall 2009-04-28 07:52PM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: Why Should We Believe Anything Specter Says?

Biden claimed he wasn't the VP choice up until he was selected. This is SOP.

by midwestdem1 2009-04-28 08:04PM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: Why Should We Believe Anything Specter Says?

You're really not looking a gift horse in the mouth with this diary, are you?
You want to bea dentist when you grow up and you're practicing on your new pony, right?

by spirowasright 2009-04-29 08:41AM | 0 recs