PhillyTablet Inquirer Daily News
philly.com
email
font size
comments
76
options
 
Wednesday, January 7, 2009

 

 

Arlen Specter, the senior senator from Pennsylvania and longtime endangered species, launched his 2010 re-election bid on the Senate floor yesterday.

Specter's ostensible target was Eric Holder, the Obama administration's nominee for attorney general; as the ranking Republican member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, Specter vowed - in notably harsh tones - to give Holder a very tough time during the upcoming confirmation hearings, just to ensure that Holder will not be merely a water carrier for the Obama White House.

But, between the lines, here's what Specter was really saying: "I'm up for re-election in less than two years, which means it's time for me to suck up to the right wing of my party. I've long had a reputation as a moderate Republican, but moderate Republicans are an endangered species, especially in the Northeast; basically, the only ones left in the Senate are me and the two ladies from Maine. The right-wing Pennsylvania voters almost booted me out four years ago - I barely survived the party primary that April, beating conservative Pat Toomey by only 1.6 percent - and those voters would love to get me in the 2010 party primary. So this means I've gotta start sucking up to them, prove to them that I can be tough on Obama, and play the obstructionist when necessary. Better start now."

Conservative activists require no less. One of the top activists, Patrick Ruffini, said as much the other day: "The GOP's number one priority politically is to set into motion a series of events that will make Obama look more ineffective, partisan, and unpopular than he is today...we need to set the stage for a unified and effective Republican opposition that will actually fight from top to bottom."

And so Specter is falling into line. One would certainly expect the ranking Judiciary Committee Republican to quiz Eric Holder closely during confirmation hearings; as I have written here, Holder was the Justice Department official, eight years ago, who signed off on President Clinton's notorious pardon of Marc Rich. But, until yesterday, Specter had only voiced mild skepticism about Holder. In his Senate speech on the Senate floor, however, Specter frontally attacked Holder, raising the possibility that Holder might turn out to be as bad as...Alberto "Gonzo" Gonzales, the notorious lackey for George W. Bush.

Specter's key passage: "Mr. Gonzales left office accused of politicizing the Justice Department, failing to restrain executive overreaching, and being less than forthcoming with Congress...I am convinced that many of attorney general Gonzales' missteps were caused by his eagerness to please the White House. Similarly, when Mr. Holder was serving as deputy attorney general to President Clinton, some of his actions raised concerns about his ability to maintain his independence from the president. I am prepared to give Mr. Holder a full opportunity to explain his past actions and convince the (Judiciary) committee and the Senate that his record warrants confirmation."

For Senate politesse, that's strong stuff. Holder hasn't even taken office yet, and already Specter is suggesting comparisons to Gonzo, and vowing to closely scrutinize the Clinton years (no doubt, with more vigilance than his Republican-led Judiciary panel ever scrutinized the Bush years).

But that's politics. The guy has to make nice with the right if he wants to survive a 2010 Republican primary; after all, Toomey and at least two other conservatives are weighing the possibility of assailing Specter on his right flank.

Moreover, Specter may have a problem with the Republican electorate. In Pennsylvania, the GOP runs a "closed" primary, which means that only registered Republicans can vote. As Rick Santorum, the former Pennsylvania senator, explained last week in a newspaper column, "Specter's biggest problem...may be that thousands of southeastern Pennsylvania Republicans who voted for him in 2004 can't vote for him in the (2010) primary. Why? Because they're no longer Republicans."

Exactly. I've got the figures here. Between November 2004 and November 2008, the statewide tally of registered Pennsylvania Republicans shrank by roughly 162,000. It's safe to assume that a huge share of those emigrants are moderates from the Philadelphia suburbs who got fed up with the Bush regime and the Republican Congress. Those are the voters that Specter needs to survive a primary; without them, the Republican primary electorate is disproportionately dominated by the conservative voters who have stuck with the party.

Santorum was right. Arlen Specter's top concern is not a challenge from the left, from Chris Matthews or some other Democrat. It's a heightened challenge from the right, from a candidate who can leverage the increasingly conservative primary electorate. Which is why Eric Holder will be the first item on Specter's to-do list.

 

Posted by Dick Polman @ 10:44 AM  Permalink | 76 comments
Comments   
  • 0 like this / 0 don't   •   Posted 11:04 AM, 01/07/2009
    I don't think Mr. Specter is much of a moderate -- not just because (for example) he supports a flat income tax, but because he makes plenty of moderate noises but abandons moderate actions when the Republican party demands it. No Senator complained more about warrantless wiretapping than he did, for example, but when it came time to vote for the Kit Bond "compromise," he voted exactly the way the party wanted him to. He offered better legislation, sure, but I'm also sure he knew it would fail. And before anyone rushes to remind me of his tough questioning of Robert Bork in 1987, consider what the final vote on Mr. Bork would have been without Mr. Specter's vote. The vote was 58 to 42, meaning it would have been 57 to 43 if Mr. Specter had voted for Mr. Bork, meaning Mr. Bork still would have lost. I need not add, I trust, that the vote on Mr. Thomas five years later was considerably closer (52 to 48), and we all know where Mr. Specter stood on that one.
  • 0 like this / 0 don't   •   Posted 11:07 AM, 01/07/2009
    Nothing about Richardson backing out, Burris now being seated, Panetta's inexperience, Gaza or the Russians cutting off nat. gas to Europe? Just to name a few of the things that would be more relevant! Others include, Obama saying there is going to be trillion dollar deficits each year. Chief Performance Officer named, what the heck is that? Just another layer of liberal govt. Spector needs to go, too old, too liberal and has been there too long. We need some new blood and term limits for these guys/girls, they think a senate seat is theirs for life. The House too!
    NEPhilly
  • 0 like this / 0 don't   •   Posted 11:12 AM, 01/07/2009
    Santorum was right. Don't hear that one too often.
    potus
  • 0 like this / 0 don't   •   Posted 12:01 PM, 01/07/2009
    What a screetching shame that our favorite RINO might occasionally act like an actual Republican! It's *such* a disappointment to Dick Polman. Fear the "increasingly conservative primary electorate"! Gosh, are sheep falling off the Obama wagon already? Is the "It's Bush's Fault!" mantra looking less like a strategy and more like a fetish? It's only early January...
    MaggieL
  • 0 like this / 0 don't   •   Posted 12:06 PM, 01/07/2009
    All of a sudden Spector grew some balls. Where was his "tough" act with the Bush administration when they were running up trillion dollar deficits, lying about a war of choice or trampeling on the Constitution? Too little, too late IMO. Spector is very beatable right now even though he tries to play both sides of the fence all too often.
    chasing history
  • 0 like this / 0 don't   •   Posted 12:19 PM, 01/07/2009
    ZZZZzzzzzzzzzzz
    BarneyMiller
  • 0 like this / 0 don't   •   Posted 12:22 PM, 01/07/2009
    I usually don't agree with Arlen Spector but he nailed it with comments about Holder. The Attorney General's job is to serve the people of the United States, not the president. That's something both he and Gonzales did not do! Holder is a sleaze bag.
    SDWard
  • 0 like this / 0 don't   •   Posted 12:29 PM, 01/07/2009
    How about worrying more about whether the Gov't is effective rather than how many layers there are in the hierarchy? The guy is not even in office yet and his future has already determined, analyzed and graded by a bunch of nitwits.
    gee1971
  • 0 like this / 0 don't   •   Posted 1:05 PM, 01/07/2009
    How can a government, or any organization for that matter, be effective by adding more layers of bureauocracy onto it? When do things work better...when you need fewer approvals for something or when you need more? And I agree...what is a Chief Performance Officer, and how big a department will she have? Just more bureauocrats. Didn't Al Gore accomplish much the same thing during Clinton's years? Why not put Biden in charge? As for Specter, is Polman saying Holder should not be questioned on the pardon of Rich or the members of the FALN? Can Polman report that Holder even met with the attorney's of the FALN to work out the terms of their pardon/commutations? Shouldn't that be an item of questioning for the next top law enforcement officer of the country?
    tom - wilmington, de
  • 0 like this / 0 don't   •   Posted 1:07 PM, 01/07/2009
    This is a very insightful blog--your point that Spector is in trouble because of the decline in (most likely more moderate) registered republicans in Pennsylvania is something I hadn't considered before. Spector has been a strong advocate of federal funding of science (such as the National Institutes of Health). The Philadelphia region benefits tremendously from NIH funding because that has helped it to become a regional site for pharmaceutical research (many research scientist have been trainees on NIH-funded projects at academic medical centers. This has in turn helped to create a good workforce for pharmaceutical companies, thus encouraging many of them to settle in this area). Spector's loss would not only mean the loss of a relatively moderate voice in the Republican party, but also the loss of a strong advocate of science that benefits us all, not just in terms of our health, but also in terms of the region's economy.
    Nalaka
  • Comment removed.
  • 0 like this / 0 don't   •   Posted 1:22 PM, 01/07/2009
    With the Blago and Burris fiasco playing out, this is all Richard can write about? What about the Bill Richardson debacle? Richard, can you report two sides? Obama did not have the spine to call for a special election in IL because he knew the repubs would win. Very lame Richard.
    CD75
  • 0 like this / 0 don't   •   Posted 1:35 PM, 01/07/2009
    Let Specter lose to a Santorum clone---the clone will then be clobbered in the general election and we can continue the rejection of the wingnuts who got us embroiled in 2 wars while cutting taxes on the rich, resulting in a trillion dollar deficit, cut regulatory authority and put Brownie types in charge of the bureacracy so that we engaged in a national Ponzi scheme, have allowed our infrastructure to collapse as well as the environment, and have allowed Southern states to cooperate with foreign manufacturers to destroy the US manufacturing base. What the heck do we need Specter for?
    Palestra Jon
  • 0 like this / 0 don't   •   Posted 1:47 PM, 01/07/2009
    I love the media. A few months ago, people were not saving enough, and that sparked such commercials as "Feed The Pig". Now, people are saving too much and the economy is suffering because of it. So, if we spend money, we need to save more, and when we save more, we need to spend more money. Just like Obama and his trillion dollar deficits for years to come despite his economic recovery and reinvestment plan AND the expiration of the Bush tax cuts next year AND the economic growth he is going to create. By the way, if unemployment goes up to 7.5%, can Obama claim to have saved jobs because the unemployment rate is not 7.6%?
    tom - wilmington, de
  • 0 like this / 0 don't   •   Posted 1:51 PM, 01/07/2009
    I agree with both the first poster & Rauol Duke. Spector blows a LOT of smoke. He tries to come across as someone who has an "independent voice", but he becomes "the good soldier" when its put up or shut up time. A good 'Pub Conservative will beat him this time. This will put that guy on equal footing with Matthews (if he decides to run). I like Chris, but he doesn't know when to shut up, so he may shoot himself in the foot somewhere along the line. As far as Rauol's comments go, the Social Con extremists & the Neo COns still seem to be pretty far apart from the True Conservatives, who are beside themselves in disgust for what Bush & Cheney have done to their party.
    yobill626


View comments: 1  |  2  |  3  |  4  |  5  | 
About Dick Polman

Cited by the Columbia Journalism Review as one of the nation's top political reporters, and lauded by the ABC News political website as "one of the finest political journalists of his generation," Dick Polman is a national political columnist at the Philadelphia Inquirer. He is on the full-time faculty at the University of Pennsylvania, as "writer in residence." Dick has been a frequent guest on C-Span, MSNBC, CNN, NPR and the BBC. He covered the 1992, 1996, 2000, and 2004 presidential campaigns.

ARCHIVES

All commentaries posted before April 18, 2008, can be accessed at www.dickpolman.blogspot.com.