Arlen Specter tilting rightward
It's pander time for an endangered species
Arlen Specter tilting rightward
Dick Polman, Inquirer National Political Columnist
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.
Palestra is right. Why, in 2005, the Dept of Transportation collected $40 Billion in highway fees, tolls and taxes. After administrative costs and expenses, there was still $28 Billion to be divided between the states (only $12 Billion in admin expenses? What a bargain). Upon being sent to the states, another $15 Billion was diverted by those states to their general funds to pay for programs not related to transportation. That left all of $13 Billion to be spent on highways, bridges, and other infrastructure. This is reminiscent of the money sent to Louisiana to improve the levees that was spent on other programs. Darn that George Bush for allowing our infrastructure to collapse. And those rich people who went down to the 10% tax rate, or completely off the tax rolls, or who get money from the expanded earned income credit, or who took advantage of the expanded child tax credit should give that money back and NOW. Darn those people.— tom - wilmington, de- yobill...correct. True conservatives are no fans of either Bush or Cheney, and many of them stayed home in 2008 rather than vote for either Obama or McCain. That is reflected in the exit polls.— tom - wilmington, de
- PJon, where to start? The whole country wanted to go to war after 9/11 and the Dems in Congress voted for it, not just Repubs. Cutting taxes jump started the economy from the Clinton recession and 9/11. A trillion dollar debt is what Obama is promising, not Repubs. The national ponzi scheme is social security:) This financial meltdown came from lending people money that had no business getting it, via Fannie/Freddie, CRA and one Mr. Barney Frank, then rating the mortgages as AAA jst to make a buck. Pure and simple greed and the epubs tried to reign them in at Fannie, to no avail. thanks to Mr. Frank! Just because Toyota/Honda can run their businesses better and build cars in this country, that does not destroy our industrial base, it enhances it(just not the UAW). As for Brownie, he probably wasn't qualified to run FEMA, but in my opinion that agency would have failed the Katrina victims no matter who was in charge:) The dang govt can't do anything right. Our infrastrucure is the best in the world. The environment is fine, ask Spokane about global warning?— NEPhilly
- NEPhilly, you're post of 1:57 pm has be ROTFLMAO. What kool-aid induced crap that is!!! Same old tired, worn-out, debunked right wing copy & paste talking points that look like an 8 year old's fingerpainting. You post the same BS every single day and you get slapped around harder and harder each time - why do you keep coming back. Maybe just to give to rest of us some entertainment? or you into S&M? Keep on givin'!— WB_in_OC
- Spector's made a career with one play in his playbook: fake left, then go right.— PA_Dutch
- I'm confused. Tom, how is a projected $1.2 trillion deficit the fault of the guy who hasn't been sworn into office yet?— Phrossty
- Point of information: It's not Obama's "promise." It's his warning. Additionally, his warning appears to be based upon a briefing from the CBO, not some campaign promise to double dubya's fiscal fiasco. ****** http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/01/07/congressional-budgeters-project-t-deficit/ ******** (Fair and balanced.)— Phrossty
- Phrosty, don't you know? The republicans always set the stage for a booming economy that's only realized during a democratic administration.— PA_Dutch
Comment removed.- Phrossty, Obama said it himself a $1 Trillion deficit for the next fiscal year not this year and years to come, this fiscal year the deficit was $400 Billion (not chump change, but not a trillion dollars)! An he keeps on saying it is the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression, the election is over Barack and you won, stop the over the top rhetoric (was he around in 1979?). I bet once Jan 20 rolls around all his and the MSM rhetoric will change about the economy:) http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/07/us/politics/07obama.html?bl&ex=1231477200&en=2ad0afc7c66dc92b&ei=5087%0A— NEPhilly
- Man, NE---well at least you're consistent---consistently wrong, that is. While the recent elections really decided these issues and you were on the losing side, let's take them one by one. 1) 9/11 had NOTHING to do with Iraq---indeed, GWB admitted that publicly. And not everyone was in favor of war---indeed, public opinion only spun in favor after war started, as it always does. Meanwhile, everyone against this disaster was painted as a traitor---something right out of "1984." 2) Cutting taxes is indeed a legitimate measure to come out of a recession. However, GWB cut taxes deeply at a time he was increasing spending at an all time pace. He sent us to war while telling us to go shopping---I don't think anything has ever been so irresponsible. 3)Calling Soc Security a ponzi scheme is just wingnut militia nonsense. The program, from the start, was designed to have today's workers pay for yesterday's benefits. There is no "trust fund" nor has there ever been one. You just have to PAY FOR IT, just was we have to PAY for everything we spend. The Voodoo Economics practiced by the Reaganite Republican Party (words of GHW Bush) have virtually destroyed our economy---you must tax when you spend. Otherwise, the dollar indeed is devalued, and that is exactly what happened under GWB. 4) You are right that the mortgage crisis occurred because people who had no business borrowing were out there getting mortgages. But rather than repeated the tired failed right wing nonsense that Fannie and Freddie caused it, they did not and could not make the no-doc and 100% mortgages that caused the crisis. Rather, it was the securitization of mortgage obligations allowed by the Bush administration without regulation that caused it. Fannie and Freddie were brought down by their investment in CMO's not by their making of those mortgages.and 5) Lets see if Toyota stays here after its tax breaks run out---VW left as soon as they did. The workers suffer.— Palestra Jon
- PJon, awesome answer, let me respond! This election decided the issues for 4 years not forever:) 1) The National Intelligent Estimate from before the war says Saddam could team up with Al Qaeda in the future. The Dems in Congress, including our future Sect. of State voted for the war. 2) I agree Bush should not have increased domestic spending, but 9/11, homeland security and rebuilding our military from the Clinton decimation forced his hand, sort of. 3) SS is a ponzi scheme, what is the difference? Just a govt. sponsored one:) We should at least stop the Cola's on it or slow them down a bit 4) I've been down the whose-at-fault-road with others and here is my take, the securitization of subprime mortgages bundled with legitimate mortgages and then rated AAA were the problem! And Fannie with Dem help in Congress gave banks incentives to give more subprime mortgages, with no subprime morts (or less of them) there would have been no meltdown! 5) We will see if Toyota stays, but why build multi million dollar factories if your not staying! The legacy costs are what is killing the American auto industry, not foreign builders! You Sir, are a great American for caring and being so informed about your country and I look forward to future debates:)— NEPhilly
- Comment removed.
- Palestra Jon – Great post in response to NE Philly. Most readers here know that NEPhilly (and most other Bush supporters/defenders that post) just spews the same old, tired, debunked right-wing lies/talking points over and over, no matter what the subject of the column. It’s all they have since they cannot face the truth because the truth is not on their side. The walloping that their side got in the last election hurts so much that they are blinded by their extreme bitterness to the reasons why voters rejected them so forcefully, they are blind to the fact that their party is rendering itself irrelevant by not progressing along with modern views and values that a majority of Americans have, and they will keep defending the worst 8 years this country has ever had to endure, just to avoid facing the truth and the facts. Yes, they ARE THAT pathetic and sad.— NipTip
- C'mon Rauol, you're not playing the game! We're safer! AIG, Citigroup, JP Morgan Chase, Wells Fargo, GM and even Philly are all on the bread line for your and my money! I'm sure the leaders of these fine institutions have your and my best interest at heart and (save city of Philly) are all conservative leaning folks. Didn't you get your raise from your employer as a result of the Bush tax cuts? I'm certain the economy will get untracked if only we keep redistributing wealth to the folks who need it the least, but want it the most. They are the most "productive" persons in our society, after all. Plus, our roads and bridges are safer and more efficient, schools aren't crumbling or overcrowded, teachers are well-compensated, and the new national rail system with bullet trains is the envy of the world. Also, we're no longer dependent on the Middle East, Russia and Venezuela to supply our energy needs with the Republicans forward thinking energy policy of the last 1/4 century. It was 9 trillion dollar$ well spent. Wars (against terror/crime/poverty/drugs/etc.) aren't cheap y'know!— Phrossty
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.
- American Spectator
- David Limbaugh
- Free Republic
- Glenn Reynolds
- Hugh Hewitt
- Human Events
- John Hawkins
- Matt Lewis
- Michelle Malkin
- National Review
- Opinion Journal
- Power Line
- Red State
- The Brody File
- The Daily Caller
- Town Hall
- Weekly Standard
- Center for American Progress
- Crooks and Liars
- Daily Kos
- David Corn
- Huffington Post
- Media Matters
- Mojoblog (Mother Jones)
- Open Left
- Political Animal
- Salon's War Room
- Talking Points Memo
- Tapped
- The Democratic Strategist
- The Grey Matter
- Unclaimed Territory
- Andrew Sullivan
- Attytood
- Chi Tribune's The Swamp
- CJR's Campaign Desk
- CNN's Political Ticker
- CQ Politics
- FactCheck.org
- Gail Collins
- Howard Kurtz
- Mickey Kaus
- NBC's First Read
- Obit
- Political Wire
- Politico
- Politics Daily
- Pollster.com
- Real Clear Politics
- The Atlantic Wire
- The Fix
- The Moderate Voice
- The Plank
- USA Today On Politics
- Wonkette
