home

Make Them ALL Work For It

By Big Tent Democrat, Section Other Politics
Posted on Mon May 04, 2009 at 08:01:55 AM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

Josh Marshall writes:

Make Him Work For It

I'm generally of the opinion that it's great to have anyone as a Democrat who will caucus with the party and support its candidates. . . .This has mainly informed my opinion about Arlen Specter . . . I guess my thought on this [is] it'd be nice to see him have to make some case to the Democrats in his state that he's worthy of their nomination . . .

My thought on this is EVERY POL should have to make the case that they should be the Democratic standardbearer for the post they seek - from Obama on down. Pols are not your friend. They are not the star players for your favorite sports team. They do what they do. They use you and we should use them -- to promote the issues you care about. I have always believed this. And I owe this thought to Markos Moulitsas, who first put it in my head. I wish he would return to his roots (Netroots pun intended) on this. To my mind, his work from 2002 on regarding that subject was his most important. I hope he returns to it.

Speaking for me only

< John Edwards Campaign PAC Under Investigation | Unreasonable Praise For a Bad Law >

  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    Make Them ALL Work For It | 93 comments (93 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

    So far, Specter is voting like a Republican (5.00 / 1) (#1)
    by MO Blue on Mon May 04, 2009 at 08:21:10 AM EST
    Specter announced that he was joining the Democratic Party IMO because that was the only chance he saw to win back his seat. That is a pol just being a pol. Based on his votes and rhetoric, if I lived in his state, I would be hoping for a primary challenger. I would also be telling the Democratic Party that Specter would not be getting my vote even if he became the nominee.

    The people who need to receive a big FAT "F" on this are Democratic leadership. They did not have to unconditionally offer Specter anything. He needed to change party affiliation to maintain his seat. Leadership needed to impose the conditions (i.e. you vote in support of our programs and we will back you) and not Specter. Dem leadership should get a stupid award.

     

    What did they offer him? (none / 0) (#4)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon May 04, 2009 at 08:53:25 AM EST
    And who is bound to give it to him?

    Parent
    Seniority (5.00 / 1) (#8)
    by Ben Masel on Mon May 04, 2009 at 09:03:46 AM EST
    Ried offered to transfer his years as a Republican for purposes of rank in getting Chairmanships.

    Parent
    Who gave Reid the power to do that? (none / 0) (#11)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon May 04, 2009 at 09:07:20 AM EST
    In 2010, there will be a new Congress. Who is to say Harry Reid will be Majority Leader then?

    Reid is in no position to make such a promise.

    Parent

    Is is de rigueur for party switchers (none / 0) (#12)
    by andgarden on Mon May 04, 2009 at 09:12:43 AM EST


    Parent
    So what? (none / 0) (#13)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon May 04, 2009 at 09:15:44 AM EST
    Jeffords was given a committee precisely when he switched. that was a deal.

    Reid can't make a deal about the next Congress. He simply is not empowered to do so.

    Parent

    As Franken is seated, a new (none / 0) (#14)
    by andgarden on Mon May 04, 2009 at 09:21:27 AM EST
    organizing resolution will be needed. This is going to be dealt with this Congress. Mikulski et al may grumble, but there's no way Specter is going to walk away without a plum assignment. My instinct is to say that I really hope they don't talk Leahy into giving up Judiciary, but OTOH I think Specter might be an effective tool for getting all of Obama's judicial nominees confirmed.

    BTW, remember that for Jeffords it was Reid who gave up his own slot on the EPW Committee (he was just whip at the time).

    Parent

    Subcommittee at best for Spector (none / 0) (#20)
    by ChiTownMike on Mon May 04, 2009 at 09:43:35 AM EST
    And on a voluntary basis with a Democrat willing to give up their place in line. Reid already made that clear.

    And Leahy is going nowhere.

    Parent

    Kagro said that (none / 0) (#31)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon May 04, 2009 at 10:18:13 AM EST
    but is it really true?

    Parent
    Was it true when Burris was seated? (none / 0) (#32)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon May 04, 2009 at 10:18:29 AM EST


    Parent
    IIRC, they hadn't passed the first one (none / 0) (#33)
    by andgarden on Mon May 04, 2009 at 10:22:12 AM EST
    when Burris was seated.

    Of course, they don't have to pass a new one, but if they don't Specter keeps his slots from the Republican allotment.

    Parent

    And that is bad why? (none / 0) (#37)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon May 04, 2009 at 10:29:50 AM EST


    Parent
    For now, it isn't (for us) (none / 0) (#38)
    by andgarden on Mon May 04, 2009 at 10:32:51 AM EST
    It might, however, slow down the new SC confirmation, and it would absolutely become a problem when Franken is sworn in.

    Parent
    Reid may not be in the next congress (none / 0) (#15)
    by Capt Howdy on Mon May 04, 2009 at 09:29:04 AM EST
    and neither may Specter.
    if Sestak challenged him who would you support BTD?

    I know whos side I would be on.


    Parent

    Seems silly to make a choice just yet (none / 0) (#16)
    by andgarden on Mon May 04, 2009 at 09:31:51 AM EST
    Both Specter and Sestak have the potential to be good or bad Democratic Senators.

    Parent
    after sundays performances (none / 0) (#17)
    by Capt Howdy on Mon May 04, 2009 at 09:34:56 AM EST
    I expect nothing good from Specter.
    he was very clear about where his allegiances were.
    with Arlen Specter.  
    for once in his bloated career Broder was absolutely right.

    Parent
    And Sestak's are with Sestak (none / 0) (#19)
    by andgarden on Mon May 04, 2009 at 09:39:00 AM EST
    The question is, where will that loyalty lead both of them? Specter has a history of saying one thing and doing another. So I'm going to watch for a little while.

    Parent
    We don't have to rely on "potential..." (none / 0) (#55)
    by Addison on Mon May 04, 2009 at 11:11:08 AM EST
    ...to make a judgment though. They both have records on policy. Sestak as a Democrat and Specter as a Republican. To avoid the past and cite a hypothetical future out of keeping with that past in order to avoid making a choice now seems wrongheaded to me.

    Parent
    Given the changed circumstances, (none / 0) (#57)
    by andgarden on Mon May 04, 2009 at 11:15:05 AM EST
    it seems silly to me to rely too much on Specter's past record. If that made any sense, the Republicans might have a reason to continue supporting him!

    Parent
    Tigers and stripes (5.00 / 1) (#59)
    by Addison on Mon May 04, 2009 at 11:25:22 AM EST
    Not relying on a politicians record seem insane to me! But even if that's the case, let's analyze his several-day record as a Democrat. So far it's been terrible.

    But as I said, Specter switching parties does not mean I won't use his political past (as a Dem or a Republican or a Dem again) as a tool to determine who I want to win that primary. Everyone should

    Parent

    Specter has a chance to make a record (none / 0) (#60)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon May 04, 2009 at 11:29:58 AM EST
    But as of today, Sestak is clearly superior.

    Parent
    No doubt (none / 0) (#26)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon May 04, 2009 at 10:01:45 AM EST
    Sestak.

    No brainer for me.

    Parent

    Let's just say that I would like (none / 0) (#28)
    by andgarden on Mon May 04, 2009 at 10:04:00 AM EST
    to be able to support Specter, and Sestak's entrance into the race may make that more possible.

    Parent
    and the way to do that (5.00 / 1) (#30)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon May 04, 2009 at 10:17:43 AM EST
    is to have a Sestak pressuring him, even if he eventually decide not to make the run.

    ALL primaries are useful.

    That's my point

    Parent

    glas to hear it (none / 0) (#29)
    by Capt Howdy on Mon May 04, 2009 at 10:05:55 AM EST
    me too.

    Parent
    Reid only offered him (none / 0) (#18)
    by ChiTownMike on Mon May 04, 2009 at 09:38:32 AM EST
    that he could keep his seniority. That's it. And Reid has the authority to do that. There was no promise of committee chairmanships or sub-committee chairmanships.

    "Senator Specter knows that no one will be dumped off the full committee or subcommittee unless it's done on a voluntary basis," Reid said.


    Parent
    It is my understanding (none / 0) (#61)
    by MO Blue on Mon May 04, 2009 at 11:38:59 AM EST
    that Dem leadership promised that they would give Specter full support in his reelection bid and that he would maintain his seniority making him a prime candidate for becoming chairman of key committees.

    As far as I'm concerned, the common good would have been better served if leadership had said: "Let see what you do for us and then we'll talk about what we will do for you."

    Parent

    I was amazed (5.00 / 1) (#9)
    by Capt Howdy on Mon May 04, 2009 at 09:03:54 AM EST
    at Specters performances on the sunday shows this last week.
    I saw him on a couple of them and his shamlessness was quite unbelievable.
    he explained carefully that the sole reason he switched parties was that he saw he could not win in the republican primary.  he was totally up front about the fact that it was a completely craven decision to save his own political hide.
    and there was more.
    I surfed past Bob Scheiffer mistakenly supposing he would be a loyal democrat.
    Specter got quite animated. I NEVER SAID I WOULD BE A LOYAL DEMOCRAT.  he said.  repeatedly.
    I think if Joe Sestak challenged h im in the primary Specter could be in real trouble.
    I know we have seen this before but Sestak is no Ned Lamont.
    in case you missed it (none / 0) (#77)
    by Capt Howdy on Mon May 04, 2009 at 12:50:04 PM EST
    on MTP

    SPECTER: No. And you misquote me, David. I did not say I would be a loyal Democrat. I did not say that. And last week, after I said I was changing parties, I voted against the budget because the budget has a way to pass health care with 51 votes, which undermines a basic Senate institution to require 60 votes to impose closure on key issues.... I did not say I am a loyal Democrat.

    --

    I cant find the face the nation clip but he was even more unequivocal.   when he screws us no one can say they were misled.

    Parent

    Every seat is an open seat. (5.00 / 2) (#21)
    by Ben Masel on Mon May 04, 2009 at 09:44:41 AM EST


    Precisely (5.00 / 1) (#25)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon May 04, 2009 at 10:00:52 AM EST
    It's why we should all donate our 1.00 to Masel for his challenge of Kohl.

    Parent
    I know I left that Lira coin somewhere! (none / 0) (#27)
    by andgarden on Mon May 04, 2009 at 10:02:41 AM EST


    Parent
    Specter is just Joe Lieberman without (5.00 / 2) (#22)
    by Anne on Mon May 04, 2009 at 09:49:43 AM EST
    the primary loss; he's cut right to the chase and decided to go where the votes are.

    I heard some twit from Politico on Washington Journal this morning, who said that Specter voted with the Republicans on the budget and bankruptcy legislation last week, but now that he is officially a Democrat as of today, we can expect him to vote more with the Dems.

    What?  So, if he had made the switch before that legislation came up for a vote, he would have voted for, not against?  Really?  So, the guy who said he wouldn't be an automatic vote as a Democrat felt obligated to be exactly that for the GOP?

    Who does he think he's fooling?  Oh, right, the Senate leadership; are you allowed to have that many examples of the PT Barnum aphorism all in one place?

    I stopped watching the Sunday talk shows months ago, but I'm wondering: did anyone challenge Specter on the nakedly political decision to switch parties, or did they all just swallow whatever swill he was serving and patiently wait for more?  Never mind - I think I can guess.

    they swallowed (5.00 / 1) (#24)
    by Capt Howdy on Mon May 04, 2009 at 09:56:34 AM EST
    altho Scheiffer did seem a little amazed at how clear he was willing to be that he had no intention of being a "loyal democrat".

    Parent
    same old names running everything. (none / 0) (#23)
    by Salo on Mon May 04, 2009 at 09:52:43 AM EST
    same old results.

    http://icasualties.org/Iraq/index.aspx

    When will it end?

    Parent

    Not just a primary problem (5.00 / 1) (#34)
    by CST on Mon May 04, 2009 at 10:25:13 AM EST
    In MA we often have no republican candidate running in the general election.  Republicans are dead in this part of the country.  It's time for a third party to step up and fill the void.

    I would love to see a socialist candidate or green party candidate run against a democrat in the general election.

    Races like that... (none / 0) (#46)
    by Addison on Mon May 04, 2009 at 10:44:41 AM EST
    ...are where Nader should have started off, instead of national politics. Oh well.

    Does anyone else find it ironic that the Republicans of today are almost solely the Dixiecrats of yesterday? I mean, the Dixiecrats split off from the Dems and went to the GOP, and then the GOP was like, "oh man, no, no way" and left for the Democrats.

    Parent

    Nader became (5.00 / 3) (#47)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon May 04, 2009 at 10:45:57 AM EST
    nothing but an ego trip by the end.

    A sad ending to an admirable life.

    Parent

    Well (none / 0) (#50)
    by squeaky on Mon May 04, 2009 at 11:04:58 AM EST
    He is not dead yet.

    Parent
    As a force for policy change? (none / 0) (#51)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon May 04, 2009 at 11:05:50 AM EST
    He is indeed dead.

    Parent
    and has been (none / 0) (#52)
    by Capt Howdy on Mon May 04, 2009 at 11:07:38 AM EST
    since at least 2000


    Parent
    I'm Optimistic (none / 0) (#53)
    by squeaky on Mon May 04, 2009 at 11:09:58 AM EST
    And always open for surprises from great people. He is only 75.

    Parent
    He's got my vote... (none / 0) (#71)
    by kdog on Mon May 04, 2009 at 12:31:45 PM EST
    whenever and wherever he decides to run...I mean look at the alternatives.

    A name followed by a D or R...guilty as charged.


    Parent

    The ideas aren't dead (none / 0) (#73)
    by jondee on Mon May 04, 2009 at 12:39:28 PM EST
    War is (as Gen Smedley Butler said) a racket; Corporations aren't people; and, if money=speech then the death knell of democracy is already upon us.

    Parent
    Also, contrary to the meme (none / 0) (#79)
    by jondee on Mon May 04, 2009 at 12:53:30 PM EST
    making the rounds, I seriously doubt Nader is any more of an egoist than O, HRC, McSame or any number of others.

    Parent
    Obama, Hillary and McCain didn't (none / 0) (#82)
    by tigercourse on Mon May 04, 2009 at 12:57:39 PM EST
    screw over the country through one ill conceived action AND THEN TRY TO DO IT AGAIN 4 years later. That's the part that gets me, it's not his 2000 actions that anger me, it's his 2004 attempt, even knowing the outcome of his last try.

    Parent
    Not true. (none / 0) (#58)
    by Salo on Mon May 04, 2009 at 11:20:55 AM EST
    The GOP is made up of the upper income brackets.   That's their base. never forget it.

    Parent
    Maybe Republicans could shape up? (none / 0) (#54)
    by Militarytracy on Mon May 04, 2009 at 11:10:23 AM EST


    Parent
    not unless (none / 0) (#70)
    by CST on Mon May 04, 2009 at 12:19:33 PM EST
    they get brain transplants.

    No, I think Mitt Romney was the nail in the coffin for MA republicans.  True colors and all that.  We don't take too well to the "social conservatism" aspect of conservatism.

    It could happen I guess, but not for a while.  Not until people forget the bait and switch job.  We sure didn't like being ridiculed in South Carolina by our own gov. while he was still on the state payroll.

    Parent

    The error of my ways? (5.00 / 2) (#35)
    by Militarytracy on Mon May 04, 2009 at 10:26:07 AM EST
    That I watch no organized sports?  That I know no favorite team, no star players that are going to give everything they have to bringing home the win?  Do I have unmet needs combined with a distinct fascination for politics?  Will I always be at risk for trying to shop for a hero on a ranch that breeds almost NONE of those :)?  Will I one day next election cycle write a diary about how some candidate I like is very Thomas Jefferson or very Abraham Lincoln?  A girl has to wonder.

    Yep (5.00 / 1) (#36)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon May 04, 2009 at 10:28:27 AM EST
    Paul Simon, the songwriter and singer, had a nice line about it - "where have you gone Joe Dimaggio, a nation turns its lonely eyes to you. . ."

    Parent
    If there is sport that I think I'm at risk (5.00 / 2) (#42)
    by Militarytracy on Mon May 04, 2009 at 10:36:03 AM EST
    for getting into it's hockey.  I can watch hockey, and since my husband played when he was a youngster he also has explained many of the rules to me that aren't obvious to the casual observer.  The one thing that bothers me about hockey fans  is that they are for the most part nuts :)  It isn't enough to paint your body two different colors and wish the opposing team well.  Hockey fans seem to like it when a dentist has to be called in.  I could attempt to carve out a niche for a hockey fan that is pro teeth.

    Parent
    Hurling is a fun amateur (none / 0) (#67)
    by Salo on Mon May 04, 2009 at 11:58:04 AM EST
    sport in the US.  lot's of pub teams springing up all over the place.

    Parent
    Hope you didn't miss Caps v Pens ... (none / 0) (#93)
    by FreakyBeaky on Mon May 04, 2009 at 11:43:50 PM EST
    Great game - and as far as "nuts" is concerned, I think you would fit right in.  Join ussssss .....

    Parent
    Don't need heros in politics IMO (5.00 / 1) (#64)
    by MO Blue on Mon May 04, 2009 at 11:46:04 AM EST
    Need competent legislatures who put the people's interest on the top of their to do list. Need informed voters who pay attention to how their elected officials vote and not what they say or what letter of the alphabet is after their name.  

    Parent
    Abe was a sharp too. (none / 0) (#40)
    by Salo on Mon May 04, 2009 at 10:33:22 AM EST
    Jefferson was problematic as well he'd not last five minutes with the cut throat pols of today--good for his own day though.

    Parent
    Isn't that it also? (none / 0) (#43)
    by Militarytracy on Mon May 04, 2009 at 10:40:19 AM EST
    The day for political heros is not this day in America?  

    Parent
    Primaries make the eventual nominee stronger... (5.00 / 1) (#39)
    by Addison on Mon May 04, 2009 at 10:33:01 AM EST
    ...how can anybody be under any doubt about this after last year? Obama might have lost if Hillary had dropped out in February or March.

    It's just dumb to even bother debating whether Sestak should be making noises about challenging Specter. Who would possibly argue against this?

    And as was noted elsewhere, even if Sestak chooses not to run, the threat being there forces Specter to -- at the very least -- stop a filibuster even if he is for some reason against very reasonable public health policies that would benefit the whole country.

    In short, in my view Specter is still a Republican, BUT he's now a Republican whose destiny we control via the primary. It's better than the reverse (in the short term), but we have to exert that control to get anything out of it.

    he's a ship rat (none / 0) (#41)
    by Salo on Mon May 04, 2009 at 10:35:37 AM EST
    he ought to be defeated in a primary.

    Parent
    Hey... (none / 0) (#44)
    by Addison on Mon May 04, 2009 at 10:40:57 AM EST
    ...while I'm not so into the whole "ship rat" analogy -- at a certain point "opportunistic politician" will do without adding another metaphorical layer -- of COURSE I'd rather have Sestak win the seat over Toomey rather than Specter. Of course.

    In the meantime Sestak has to run first, and no one should be against that -- even if they for some reason want Specter to win -- because of the obvious benefits to the Democratic Party. If, let's say, Sestak polls terribly against Toomey I imagine PA Dems will go with Specter, but at least he'll have to look over his shoulder and hopefully vote the right way a couple times.

    Look, as I said, Specter is now a Republican whose destiny we control. That's nice! But if we can get a Democrat whose destiny we control, that's even better. Goes without saying.

    Parent

    Specter is not controllable. (none / 0) (#56)
    by Salo on Mon May 04, 2009 at 11:14:13 AM EST
    He's akin to the balance of power itself. No Democrat actually controls his destiny. How is it that a career centrist gets to be rewarded this year, and expect to give virtually nothing in return?

    Parent
    Per AP, Pres. Obama called Specter (none / 0) (#86)
    by oculus on Mon May 04, 2009 at 01:18:05 PM EST
    and Hatch to discuss upcoming Obama SCOTUS nomination.

    Parent
    Because, as we all know, it is so (5.00 / 1) (#90)
    by Anne on Mon May 04, 2009 at 01:21:47 PM EST
    important for a Democratic president to seek the advice and counsel of Republicans - they have such good ideas, you know?.

    BTW, I hear Jeff Sessions will be the new ranking member on the Judiciary Committee.

    Hoo boy...Sessions is really not one of my faves.

    Parent

    It make the policies we fight for (none / 0) (#45)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon May 04, 2009 at 10:42:44 AM EST
    more likely to happen.

    that is actually my real concern.

    Parent

    like healthcare (none / 0) (#48)
    by CST on Mon May 04, 2009 at 10:50:53 AM EST
    If it weren't for the huge debate over healthcare in the pres. primary - it wouldn't be seen as such a necessary item today.

    Parent
    It's true... (none / 0) (#49)
    by Addison on Mon May 04, 2009 at 10:56:05 AM EST
    ...but in this case (and in many others like it) we have a pol who's no better than he should be and the policies' fates are completely tied to how much fear he has put in him. The pol's psychological state is analogous to the fate of good policies, they are one.

    The Specter deal is strictly for a short-term benefit. Like Jason Taylor at the Redskins or something. He's there to give us the edge in this political season but we basically expect him to spend half his time off the field in the massage shed. Hopefully he'll be on the field enough to up our stats in filibuster breaking. He's in our party for that one reason and putting him through a primary is the only way we can make it happen.

    Parent

    But if he's on the field for the benefit (none / 0) (#88)
    by oculus on Mon May 04, 2009 at 01:19:20 PM EST
    of the opposition?

    Parent
    It might be generally true (none / 0) (#81)
    by brodie on Mon May 04, 2009 at 12:55:53 PM EST
    that primaries make the nominee stronger, but I immediately see these exceptions:  

    1.  Jimmy Carter not made better in the GE, nor his overall prospects, by the divisive TK primary challenge.  Ted made a mistake here -- he probably should have run in the very wide-open 76 primary (which would have been a much smaller field had he jumped in), though he would have risked his senate seat.

    2.  Bill Bradley's challenge mostly from the left didn't generally push Al Gore further to the left (to the contrary in fact) for the GE, at least in his most important public appearances, and didn't sharpen whatever political skills he had.  Later, Gore himself seemed annoyed that he had to squander so much pre-GE time and resources swatting away the overrated media darling Dollar Bill.  On this one, I agree with Al.

    3.  HoDo's liberal-left campaign and the now-disgraced John Edwards' (phony) populist approach didn't do much to either sharpen the skills of or move leftward or enhance the GE prospects of the once and future frontrunner John Kerry.

    As for 2008, since it was such a very long pre-IA primary period, with many appearances, town halls, and debates, Obama was not going to be much affected as a GE candidate whether or not Hillary dropped out in Feb/March or June.

    As for Specter, watch him vote more Dem as we get closer to the primary 2010 period.  Right now is too far out, and most Dem primary voters will only remember what he's done (not done) for them lately.

    E.g., look at how he handled those two key SC votes:  coming out of the 86 re-elect, he felt at liberty to vote Nay on Bobby Bork.

    But just a year from his next election, in 91, he needed to shore up his GOP bona fides so went (almost overboard) for Uncle Thomas.

    Parent

    I dispute the notion (5.00 / 2) (#83)
    by andgarden on Mon May 04, 2009 at 01:00:17 PM EST
    that Bradley ran from the left.

    Parent
    I might dispute it too, (5.00 / 1) (#89)
    by brodie on Mon May 04, 2009 at 01:19:53 PM EST
    when we carefully look at the overall voting records and analyze the major proposals in the 2000 campaign.

    But I'm talking political perceptions here and campaign strategerie, and I'm suggesting that Dollar Bill did indeed attempt to run to Al's left.  He was, recall, against the timid "incrementalism" of the Clinton/Gore years, as Bill tried to project himself as the Big Idea Guy.

    Dollar, e.g., tried to propose a bolder health care program -- until Al and his team stripped away the gloss and exposed its major fatal flaws.

    Dollar also tried to run as more of a Civil Rights Guy than southerner Gore -- primarily (as I cynically recall it) because he'd taken showers with black guys when he was in the NBA.

    I might be misremembering but in the primary season, pre-Nadir, Wall Street Bill was actually getting traction from the lefty-lib purist crowd -- though for sure most of that was probably driven by pure anti-Clintonism.

    Parent

    Carter was a Democratic President. (5.00 / 1) (#85)
    by Salo on Mon May 04, 2009 at 01:04:57 PM EST
     Gore was a sitting VP. Of course TK and Bradley caused damage.  Specter is a panicked GOP turncoat--no comparison.  Are you smoking angel dust?

    Parent
    Never tried the dust, sorry. (none / 0) (#91)
    by brodie on Mon May 04, 2009 at 01:25:21 PM EST
    My post was about the wisdom of challenging Dem incumbents/quasi-incumbents, with a plausible primary opponent from the left.  

    Generally, I'm in favor --as I definitely am wrt Snarlin' being challenged by Sestak.  But as I tried to show, it doesn't always work out well.

    Though in the case of Specter, if Sestak does bloody him up good and well with the Dem liberal base in PA, but Specter still survives (as he always seems to do) for the GE, then loses to Ridge (but never to Toomey), I can't say I'd lose a lot of sleep over losing a D seat.

    Parent

    At first I thought the Specter switch (5.00 / 2) (#62)
    by pluege on Mon May 04, 2009 at 11:40:08 AM EST
    might be useful because he would no longer be under republican pressure to toe the party line. But now I see that this influence on Specter voting has been replaced by an equally strong, maybe greater influence: Spector's desire to not be seen as a Democrat.

    So on the whole, the liar Specter is gaming the system as his only chance to continue his illustrious career as a pol known for his lack of standing for anything but himself - straight from the LIEberman mold. Good Democrats are pissed at the Specter insertion above them in the seniority spoils racket; Democrats also lose out on the opportunity for republicans to tear each other apart in a primary, instead opting for Democrats need to do just that to get an actual Democrat representing the party instead of an egomanically, lying skank. Just another Vichy Dem debacle brought to you by Reid and Obama.  

    I hope he's primaried and that he loses (none / 0) (#2)
    by Demi Moaned on Mon May 04, 2009 at 08:31:44 AM EST
    But I don't expect it.

    If brownsox over at DailyKos is to be believed (and he sure knows more about it than I do), Specter has a lot of support among PA Democrats.

    And if that's the case, it would be politically risky for someone with statewide appeal to risk it in the face of the party machinery and funding lining up behind Specter.

    Specter needs to be primaried no matter (5.00 / 2) (#65)
    by pluege on Mon May 04, 2009 at 11:50:41 AM EST
    which party he is in - he is a terrible pol, terrible for Pa, terrible for the country. Its just too bad that the genius of Reid and the Obamadmin flipped the cost, effort, and damage of a primary battle from the republicans to the Democrats. And, the geniuses get to piss off actual Dems in process by inserting DINO Specter above them on the seniority roster. The Big Stoopid of democratic [cough] strategy is stifling.

    Will there ever be an end to Vichy Dem stooopidity? (no evidence exists that it will occur anytime in the foreseeable future.)

    Parent

    No risk (none / 0) (#3)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon May 04, 2009 at 08:52:52 AM EST
    No reward.

    Parent
    meet the press (none / 0) (#5)
    by jackson on Mon May 04, 2009 at 08:56:02 AM EST
    His performance on Meet the Press was not at all encouraging.  Worst moment:  He expressed regret that Chaffee lost in RI because that meant that 34 Republican judges were not confirmed.  He needs to show that he will be a real Democrat.  the best test would be an on a slightly modified card check proposal (so he can have a fig leaf)  

    I disagree (none / 0) (#10)
    by Capt Howdy on Mon May 04, 2009 at 09:05:17 AM EST
    his worst comment was on Face the Nation when he literally shouted over and over that "I never said I would be a loyal democrat!!"

    Parent
    Harkin (none / 0) (#6)
    by koshembos on Mon May 04, 2009 at 09:01:41 AM EST
    Of all the goodies lavished on Specter (remember Anita Hill), he should not get Tom Hatkin's committee chairmanship. Harkin is one of the more progressive senators and he shouldn't be replaced by a unproven newcomer.

    If he gets the slightest challenge from the left (none / 0) (#7)
    by andgarden on Mon May 04, 2009 at 09:01:45 AM EST
    he will change his tune real fast. But that's probably true for most of the blue state Democrats who piss us off from time to time.

    Probably true, but only (5.00 / 1) (#63)
    by pluege on Mon May 04, 2009 at 11:43:50 AM EST
    until an election victory, upon which Specter would revert to being the leading member of the Party of, for, and by Specter, with its mission of screwing Democrats, the Obama agenda, and the people's wishes.

    Parent
    exactly (none / 0) (#66)
    by Capt Howdy on Mon May 04, 2009 at 11:50:45 AM EST
    he wants 6 more years.  which is probably about all he has got.  once he is in he will do whatever the hell he wants.


    Parent
    So make it worth his while to (none / 0) (#69)
    by andgarden on Mon May 04, 2009 at 12:12:33 PM EST
    convince us (and I will personally be voting in this primary next spring) that he's what we want in a Senator.

    Parent
    what possible reason (none / 0) (#72)
    by Capt Howdy on Mon May 04, 2009 at 12:36:13 PM EST
    could you have to believe a single word he says?

    Parent
    Why should I believe any politician? (none / 0) (#74)
    by andgarden on Mon May 04, 2009 at 12:43:13 PM EST
    I'll watch his actions over the next year or so.

    Parent
    his actions over the next year or so (none / 0) (#75)
    by Capt Howdy on Mon May 04, 2009 at 12:44:32 PM EST
    will be entirely contrived to get elected.


    Parent
    Well, if he sees the path to another (5.00 / 1) (#87)
    by Anne on Mon May 04, 2009 at 01:18:55 PM EST
    six years as having to be won with Democratic votes, he has to know - ought to know by now - that he isn't going to get them if he continues to act as a Republican.

    So, to the extent we can, we should take advantage of that kind of leverage, and make clear that just having the (D) after his name is not enough to get him elected.

    When he gets the results of some of the polling done after the announcement and after the "no" votes on the budget and cram-down, and after his comments about opposing Obama's health care plan and opposing Dawn Johnsen and opposing EFCA, and that polling shows that his actions do not poll well, I have a feeling maybe we'll see some adjustments in Specter's positions.

    Maybe.

    Parent

    So would those actions of any politician (none / 0) (#76)
    by andgarden on Mon May 04, 2009 at 12:48:02 PM EST


    Parent
    and how do you feel about this: (none / 0) (#78)
    by Capt Howdy on Mon May 04, 2009 at 12:51:26 PM EST
        GREGORY: It was reported this week that when you met with the president, you said, "I will be a loyal democrat. I support your agenda." Let me test that on probably one of the most important areas of his agenda, and that's health care. Would you support health care reform that puts up a government run public plan to compete with a private plan issued by a private insurance company?

        SPECTER: No. And you misquote me, David. I did not say I would be a loyal Democrat. I did not say that. And last week, after I said I was changing parties, I voted against the budget because the budget has a way to pass health care with 51 votes, which undermines a basic Senate institution to require 60 votes to impose closure on key issues.... I did not say I am a loyal Democrat.

    Parent

    Specter being Specter (none / 0) (#80)
    by andgarden on Mon May 04, 2009 at 12:53:55 PM EST
    Like I said, I'm going to watch his actions.

    Parent
    not true. (none / 0) (#84)
    by Salo on Mon May 04, 2009 at 01:02:17 PM EST
    you'd have seen a dozen defections by now.

    Parent
    remember honest joe lieberman? (none / 0) (#68)
    by Salo on Mon May 04, 2009 at 11:59:27 AM EST
    I mean kid, wake up.

    Parent
    I dont know (none / 0) (#92)
    by Capt Howdy on Mon May 04, 2009 at 01:29:21 PM EST
    maybe I am missing something.  I dont get how anyone who calls themselves a democrat would vote for, that is if they  had the option to vote for an actual democrat, someone who has gone to great lengths to make crystal clear that he is not, has never been, and never plans to be a loyal democrat.

    could someone help me out  here?

    Make Them ALL Work For It | 93 comments (93 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment