Specter: Psych! I'll Back Holder
It may be time to coin the phrase "pulling a Specter," because Sen. Arlen Specter (PA), the senior Republican on the Judiciary Committee, just did it again. After making a huge fuss questioning the independence of Eric Holder, Specter just caved and said he'll support the attorney general nominee.
"I can say with some confidence that there won't be a successful filibuster," Specter told reporters at a press conference gathered to share his thoughts on Holder in advance of tomorrow's Judiciary panel vote on the nominee.
Specter added that the strong recommendations Holder received from former FBI director Louis Freeh and former DoJ No. 2 James Comey were influential in swaying his vote.
"At no time did I challenge Mr. Holder's integrity," the Pennsylvania senator concluded. (But he sure came close, according to Holder himself.) "It was a question of judgment."
Speaking of judgment, Holder also has resolved -- to Specter's satisfaction, at least -- the GOP demand that he promise not to prosecute Bush administration intelligence officials who engaged in brutal interrogations at Guantanamo Bay and elsewhere.
"The gist of" Holder's stance on the issue, Specter told me, "is that if you have an authoritative legal opinion, that's a defense in terms of mens rea, of intent. That's a broad generalization. I don't think you can go any further than that until you examine the specific facts of a case."
"[There may be] an opinion that allows an interrogator to go so far, and the conduct [in question] vastly exceeds that," Specter added, referring to the 2002 "Bybee memo" on torture that was later repudiated by the Bush DoJ. "It's really going to be fact-specific."
It looks like the grown-ups have won. But for the hardest-core GOP senators, the point may never have been to stop Holder's confirmation -- merely to wound the new administration.
Late Update: Thanks to the eagle-eyed reader who sent in Specter's letter to the editor -- printed in this morning's Philadelphia Inquirer -- in which he takes a hard line against Holder. Citing Louis Freeh, no less. What a difference a few hours makes, eh, senator?
Josh
Matt
Eric
Brian
Typical specter bull. I like it, "pulling a specter" will become the new term for this nonsense. He did the same crap throughout the king's years. All bluster and no substance.
January 27, 2009 3:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
Sadly enough, he's likely to win another term in 2010.
Of course, right-wing headlines and properly stern pics of him from the Holder hearings will be front and center in his campaign ads. And, lucky me, I'll get to see 'em all every night.
January 27, 2009 3:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
He is ripe for picking off. If the dems put up a great candidate, he will be toast. Thank God tweety isn't in the running. How about rendell?
January 27, 2009 3:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
You severely underestimate a few things in PA politics.
(1) We love us some incumbents here. Related: the wisdom of voting to remove a five-term Senator (who's in a position to send a lot of money and projects PA's way) is VERY debatable.
(2) Specter has enough of a bipartisan rep that he even pulls decent Dem support, and the GOP always lines up behind him in the general.
(3) He'll have two storylines going for him - his return from cancer, and his "heroic" "opposition" to Holder.
(4) Really, the man has no scandals, and no major mistakes, to run against. Therefore, the "great" candidate" you seek will have to be even better than that - and probably won't be good enough even then.
Rendell may be an excessively gregarious loudmouth, but he's also a smart politician. Trying to beat the state's most popular Republican politician is asking an awful lot, and can be very costly to a good career if you lose (see: Burris, Roland W., Career of).
January 27, 2009 5:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
Good points, however, the dem party has expanded tremendously in pa and outnumbers repub's substantially. I still want to see him gone yesterday. PA got rid of that knucklehead, I can't remember his name now, which is a good thing and he was an incumbent. I am keeping my fingers crossed on this one. I think the R behind his name may still reak in 2010 and a dem can pick up the seat.
January 27, 2009 5:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yes, but the "knucklehead" in question was Rick Santorum, who lost to Bob Casey by 20 points precisely BECAUSE of his displayed idiocy. Santorum was a lot like, say, former Sen. Carol Moseley-Braun (D-IL), who lost her seat after one term in 1998 under equally predictable circumstances. Stevie Wonder could have seen both of those electoral ass-whippings coming.
Specter, in 30 years in Washington, hasn't displayed half the stupidity Santorum did in six. No, I don't like Specter, per se. But you're wasting your time eyeing his seat.
January 27, 2009 6:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
Nobody's saying it'll be easy, but Arlen is about as ripe for the picking as he'll ever be. It's not just PA demographics, and the fact that he's old, spineless, and prone to "pulling an Arlen," but also the fact that he'll have to once again tack hard right in the primary in order to even get the general. The only people who hate Arlen more than dems are what's left of the republican base, who consider Arlen the proto-RINO.
January 27, 2009 6:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
PA demographics haven't changed. Obama won the state, yes, but there is virtually no groundswell against Specter here.
Understand that Specter gets support from both sides of the aisle here. As for why he changes positions so much, it's a basic media tactic. Almost any publicity, is better than no publicity. People here see his name on the news, and what they say is, "Here's a guy who beat back cancer, and he's still working hard. I like this guy."
Notice, mind you, that I don't disagree with any of the characterizations of Specter here. But understanding Pennsylvania political reality is very important. And the reality is that Specter is about as safe as safe gets.
January 27, 2009 6:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
I really don't think so. He is a fool and ripe for a pick-up by the dems. PA will be behind obama 100% and specter will be a roadblock to that. Let's see what happens in two years, but right now I would say that this is a pick-up opportunity with the right dem candidate.
January 27, 2009 6:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
I don't know where you live. But I'm guessing you don't live in PA.
Outside of Rendell (who is a long shot to even try Specter), THERE IS NO SUCH CANDIDATE IN THIS STATE. Period. Point blank. End of story. You're looking at this as a pick-up chance. I respectfully submit that you need your eyes checked.
Who's there besides Rendell? ALL of the big-name state Dems are eyeing Rendell's term-limited seat. NOT ONE is even glancing at Specter.
Of course, things may change in the next year (Specter may have a major health issue, he may get caught in some scandal, etc.). But, as it stands right now, anyone thinking Specter is a reasonable target is living in fantasyland.
January 27, 2009 7:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
Actually I do live in PA. I live about 1 hour northwest of Philly. I think I have a vibe for the areas outside the suburbs. I have actually talked with diehard republicans in the suburbs on work matters and the republican party has got a huge problem at this point. Kind of like new england.
I also commute all the time to LA and I commute to DC all the time as well. I'm kind of bi-coastal.
January 27, 2009 7:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
I live in central PA (Union County) and I'm struck by how much the Republican base - hell, this whole area is Republican base - HATES Specter. Granted, they would still vote for him over a Dem, which might be how he stays in office. However, I do have one question - what does Rendell have to lose by challenging Specter. He has to leave the Governor's office, and he was not picked for a cabinet position in the Obama administration, as he was hoping for in a Clinton administration, so why not run?
January 27, 2009 8:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
Agreed. I think rendell would crush specter, who is worthless as a senator and a politician. He is stuck in the last century and we have moved on. I think rendell gets it, but who knows. I guess we will see in 2 years.
January 27, 2009 9:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
You've just described exactly why Specter will win in a walk - again - unless (a) he commits some massive error, which is unlikely, (b) some fundie runs against him in the R primary, or (c) Rendell runs against him, which would involve a lot of time and money.
Again, Specter was THISCLOSE to losing to Toomey in the '04 primary, but won the general over Hoeffel (who was a good candidate) by 11. Specter will carry almost all the GOP vote, and pick off enough Blue Dog-type votes to win.
I don't want it to sound like I don't want another Dem senator. I do - very much. But there is exactly one person in this state who might beat him in a general election - and Rendell sure isn't even tilting in that direction right now. You might want to start a letter-writing campaign to him.
January 27, 2009 11:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
First, that's one hell of a commute. :)
Second, yes, Republicans are in the shitter here. No question about it. But there are individual Republicans (my Congressman, Tim Murphy, is an excellent example) who are going to be re-elected every time, no matter how blue the state gets.
It's true that the hard right hates Specter. That's why he's had several tough primaries in his career (to be specific, 1980, 1992 and 2004 were extremely close calls). However, they always - and I mean, ALWAYS - line up behind him in November. His crossover cred (how many pro-choice GOPers are there?) will get him his normal 20% share of Dem votes, and he'll end up with his usual solid win.
January 28, 2009 12:10 AM | Reply | Permalink
Hmm, Republicans falling in line.
I thought the sky was falling?
January 27, 2009 3:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
Oh God, the comedy just keeps coming!
He does this regardless of who is president, who controls Congress or what the issue is. It's not about politics at all. It's some kind of compulsion.
January 27, 2009 3:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
True that.
January 27, 2009 3:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
Spec-ter (spek-ter). Verb. To assume a position of righteous indignation over a political issue in order to garner specterpoints; the Specter position often is contradicted by the Voting position.
January 27, 2009 3:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
Influences include Henry Ashurst (who, when complimented about "seeing the light" and suddenly voting against a bill he'd vigorously championed earlier that day, admitted: "I didn't see the light. I felt the heat!"
January 27, 2009 5:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hmmmm, wonder if this had anything to do with the Rove subpoena?
Just a coincidence, I'm sure.
January 27, 2009 3:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
"pulling a specter" is an old term dating back to spercter's announcement that he couldn't possibly support the military commissions act of 2006, before voting in favor of the act the very next day.
January 27, 2009 3:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
And before that it was the survellience issue when he was going to issue subpoenas and then didn't. Also, throw in gonzo and him beating up on gonzo, but still supporting him.
The guy is a total bozo. Reid's comment on specter is absolutely correct. A reporter kept throwing out that specter was a "moderate" and would be helpful to the dems in the senate. Reid's response was that he could count on specter only when he didn't need specter's vote. Too funny and typical of specter.
January 27, 2009 4:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
I kinda wish House Judiciary Cmte chair John Conyers had waited for Eric Holder to be confirmed before subpoenaing Karl Rove. A few days wouldn't have made much difference, and I'm sure the Obama admin would feel much more free to say what they really think.
January 27, 2009 3:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
He might as well. Holder was going to be confirmed whether Spector agreed or not.
January 27, 2009 3:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
A senator whose name means "ghost" reveals that his threat to hold up confirmation hearings was really just a bluff all along? Sometimes you actually can't make this stuff up...
January 27, 2009 3:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
Specter's right wing Club for Growth primary opponent from last time, whom Specter barely beat, just decided not to challenge Specter in 2010. So Specter can now climb down off his conservative high horse which would hurt him in the general election.
The man is as transparent as glass.
January 27, 2009 3:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
This is as predictable as the day is long! He is beyond the "boy crying wolf." Time and time again he opposes a bill, an appointee or an investigation, bluster, bluster and vote against his own opposition. It's pitiful he is using 'outside influences' to make his decision. His constituents are paying him to use his own judgements, not those of others. Because they thought other than he he went along with them. He was so far on the outside of this he finally realized he wouldn't get any favorable publicity from this and capitulated. He was on the cusp of questioning Holder's integrity. He just exposed his lack of it.
January 27, 2009 3:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
Specter's remarkable turnaround can attributed to Toomey's decision not to challenge him. Without a dog nipping at his heels from the right, he tacks back to the center.
January 27, 2009 3:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
Which is where he's always been.
Specter, in a general election, is basically unbeatable here. The ONLY way to get Specter out of office is to get a Reichwinger to run in the primary against him. Otherwise, he'll die in the same seat he currently holds.
(Calling Mr. Santorum...)
January 27, 2009 5:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
Ah, that was the fool's name. I don't know about your analysis on specter. Maybe if he converts to a D. I think the R behind his name may tank him in 2010.
January 27, 2009 5:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
Let me tell you a story.
In June of 1993, at my high school graduation, our valedictorian introduced me to a lady named Agather McKeel. McKeel mentioned to me that she was working on Roland Burris's campaign for Illinois governor, and she asked me what I thought of his chances.
Well, I took a moment to think about the incumbent Republican governor, Jim Edgar. He, being a Republican, had occasionally pissed off state Dems. However, he had really taken care of his overall image as a moderate, and had been careful to send a lot of economic opportunity all around the state, including my hometown of East St. Louis.
After considering the fact that Edgar had no scandals, no major issues, and no economic problems to tag to him, I told McKeel that Burris had picked the worst possible incumbent to challenge, at perhaps the worst possible time.
I was hammered that evening for taking a stand against a black candidate. But I was ultimately proven correct. Our mayor endorsed the *Republican* (which is man-bites-dog territory in St. Clair County), and Burris didn't even make it out of the primary the next year - which is just as well, as Dawn Netsch got stomped by Edgar in the general. Burris would have suffered the same fate.
There's a very good reason veteran politicos like Rendell avoid races against veteran incumbents like Specter. It's a *gamble*. Sure, Rendell would do all right. He'd be guaranteed the nomination. He might even beat Specter. But that general election would be hard, long, difficult and completely uncertain - certainly not the easy ride Rendell has had in winning his two terms as governor.
And there's not another Democrat in the state who would have a snowball's chance in Hell - you can make book on that. There's a reason Specter's won his four re-election campaigns by a minium of 11 points.
January 27, 2009 6:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
All true, but I get this feeling that we are in a different political climate right now. Something that none of us have experienced before. I really get the feeling that the populace is actually engaged and wants stuff to get done. The politics of old are not in play. If the politics of old worked, we would be singing hail to mcbush as president. I really believe that obama has totally shaken up the status quo. I guess we shall see.
January 27, 2009 7:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
Arlen Specter is what we like to call A JOKE.
January 27, 2009 4:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
I will never take Specter at his word. He has broken it too many times. As recently as yesterday he said he would support Geithner, and at the last minute, he said he would not.
This is the guy who cut his teeth in Washington in the Watergate whitewashing effort.
This is the guy who said Bushies did not need to take an oath when testifying before committee.
This is the guy who would sometimes ask testy questions of witnesses, leading one to think he would not be partisan in his determinations, but that would be a false assumption.
Specter is not a man of his word. Believe what he says he will do, only after he does it.
January 27, 2009 4:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
And, lest we forget, this is the guy who came up with the "magic bullet" theory.
January 27, 2009 5:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
"Single" bullet theory Steve. It very well may have been a magic bullet too. Oswald was a hell of a shot wasn't he?
January 27, 2009 7:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
I am going to thank TPM for hiring Elana Schor. Her writing and reporting is great.
I know this will sound slightly sexist, but I don't care. I am going to take this opportunity to implore TPM to please put Elana back on camera. I think her on-camera style is mesmerizing. Call me a goofy fan boy, but when she was describing Jay Z and P Diddy "giving each other five," it was both slightly awkward and endearing. I could watch videos of her on YouTube reading from the phone book. I really could.
Same with Kurtz. But different.
January 27, 2009 4:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
I've only seen Elena on the 2 inauguration videos but the thing that struck me is she had Rachel Maddow's speech cadence and enunciation down pat. I don't know if it's a conscious imitation but I think it would be insane for her not to emulate one of the best broadcasters around.
January 27, 2009 4:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
Spectar is just like a spoiled little kid demanding attention. He only wants face time on cable news. He is pathetic.
January 27, 2009 4:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
"But for the hardest-core GOP senators, the point may never have been to stop Holder's confirmation -- merely to wound the new administration."
Meaning Cornyn of course.
January 27, 2009 4:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hey, don't forget Kyl...
January 27, 2009 5:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think "all bluster and no substance" is perfect for Specter. How many times during the Bush administration did he bitch, moan, and kvetch about something, only to vote in lock-step with the other Republicans? He is a spineless, witless boob who deserves no respect. With a Democrat in the White House, maybe we can pay less attention to the things that air-bags like Specter bloviate about.
January 27, 2009 4:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yes indeed
January 27, 2009 4:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
Arlen Sphincter
January 27, 2009 4:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
This is just ridiculous. I don't agree with conservatives/Repub about most things, but damn if you claim to be taking a "principled stand" (yes I'm talking to you Sen John Coryn (R-TX)), then take it. If you don't, then you just become a hyprocite. This alos includes Democrats as well, but it seems like lately it's been the Repubs who protest the loudest, and then shuffles away with a wimper.
January 27, 2009 5:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
Non-support? What non-support?
January 27, 2009 7:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
Even before this, I was reminded of Janet Reno's wistful remarks after Arlen Specter attacked her on both sides of returning Elian Gonzalez to his father in Cuba: "Maybe he just likes to investigate."
January 28, 2009 12:23 AM | Reply | Permalink
And before that it was the survellience issue when he was going to issue subpoenas and then didn't. Also, throw in gonzo and him beating up on gonzo, but still supporting him.
The guy is a total bozo. Reid's comment on specter is absolutely correct. A reporter kept throwing out that specter was a "moderate" and would be helpful to the dems in the senate. Reid's response was that he could count on specter only when he didn't need specter's vote. Too funny and typical of specter.
m65 kamagra
June 6, 2010 9:48 AM | Reply | Permalink