Sestak: Specter Better Shape Up
Rep. Joe Sestak (D-PA) is starting to sound like a guy whose road to the Senate has just been hit by an avalanche. A 79-year-old, recently Republican avalanche. Earlier today on MSNBC, he reiterated his doubts about Sen. Arlen Specter's move into the Democratic party. But, at the end of his appearance, he almost explicitly threatened to run for the Senate if Specter didn't quickly prove a good steward of Democratic values.
"I'll wait and see. Is he gonna be for what we believe in. if it's not good for Pennsylvania, well then we'll make that decision."
Democratic leaders in Washington and the Pennsylvania political brass have fallen all over themselves to welcome Specter and assure him a safe place in the party. So it's hard to imagine that this is just an orchestrated attempt to keep Specter in line.
Josh
Matt
Eric
Specter has no principles. For him, it's all about survival. That means Sestak should keep it up, get ready to run and put the pressure on. If Specter continues to posture and vote like a Republican (against the Obama budget, against Dawn Johnsen, against the Employee Free Choice Act), there will be plenty of people ready to volunteer and contribute to elect a real Democrat to the seat.
April 30, 2009 10:37 AM | Reply | Permalink
specter has the same principles as any other human being.
survival.
you may not like him but dont pretend all people are not driven by self interest, cause they all are.
April 30, 2009 11:36 AM | Reply | Permalink
Some people do have principles that they adhere to even when it's politically or personally risky. The ideal politician is someone who can balance the idealistic and the pragmatic in order to get as much positive things done as possible. Not sure whether Specter is worse than the typical pol or not, but surely the point remains that we have reason to question is devotion to principle and try to pressure him.
April 30, 2009 12:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
my point is simple.
the "principles" you speak about are motivated by self interest.
and every other person that acts out of their "principles", whether or not you agree with them, are too always acting out of self interest.
it can not be otherwise.
April 30, 2009 12:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
While there's a certain truth to what you are saying, the definition of "self-interest" can be so broad as to be irrelevant.
For example, in my case, I believe that the most efficient path towards increasing my own happiness is to be around happier people. This leads me to try to increase the happiness of those around me. Taken to it's logical extreme, this results in me prioritizing the happiness of all other human beings above my own, which is the opposite of what is traditionally defined as "self-interest".
April 30, 2009 1:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
The party leaders (Reid? come on) are most certainly not smart enough to have orchestrated this, so I'm grateful to Sestak for doing their job for them.
April 30, 2009 10:44 AM | Reply | Permalink
Specter can't go back on the statements he made on EFCA, Johnsen, etc. However I expect he'll veer left soon, the Dems got something out of the deal other than Specter voting without the RNC pressure.
If they didn't I expect Specter to lose the primary because the grass roots will rise up against him and Republicans will help bank roll his primary loss.
April 30, 2009 11:02 AM | Reply | Permalink
He'd better change his position on at least the EFCA. Specter cannot win Pennsylvania without labor. Period. Republicans aren't going to vote for him, that means he'll have to rely on Democrats and that means embracing labor. I expect he will change his tune, since he only changed parties to get re-elected.
April 30, 2009 11:23 AM | Reply | Permalink
Brilliant analysis Margaret. In the end, they will find a way to have Specter vote for EFCA while claiming a consistent position. Some words changed here, another comma there and all of a sudden uncle Arlen's pro-labor again.
April 30, 2009 12:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
Biden gave away too much to on those Friday afternoon train rides with Arlen. He gets to keep his seniority and muscle aside Democrats for committee chairmanships? (Sorry, Senator Harkin). And in his first statement, he says he's going to oppose EFCA (card check) anyway and don't trust him to be a reliable vote on anything else. And for this we get...what? A PA Senate seat we were going to take anyway?
How about we make him toe the line from now until PA primary day if he gets 'uppity', Sestak takes the nomination?
April 30, 2009 11:51 AM | Reply | Permalink
When I first read the news about the party change, I called Senator Specter's office to congratulate him. I also took the opportunity to tell his office that I support the nomination of Dawn Johnsen and that I hoped the Senator would reconsider his position on EFCA. Around the same time that I was made that call, Senator Specter gave a press conference in which he announced his opposition to Dawn Johnsen.
As a Pennsylvania Democrat, I agree precisely with Representative Sestak's comments: I am ready to support Senator Specter, but only if he represents my views. If he doesn't, then I will quickly shift my support to a primary candidate who does. I would like Representative Sestak to be that candidate.
April 30, 2009 11:19 AM | Reply | Permalink
Co-sign
I am happy to see that Sestak is keeping things in perspective. I still see a way that Specter can come back into the fold on EFCA, unless they already believe they have the votes of course. As to the Johnsen pick, I think they will be able to get here through anyway with Sebalius nomination now in. Because was it not her work for NARAL that gave pause to these members? If so, why the double standard with Sebalius, who is a very outspoken pro-choice Dem and cabinet level to boot?
April 30, 2009 11:25 AM | Reply | Permalink
I think Sestak is right. And Specter may have a lot of company if the democratic voter has anything to say about it.
April 30, 2009 11:27 AM | Reply | Permalink
There is no reason for any pa. dem who had ambition to the senate to just sit back and accept specter as the unchallenged nominee.
And rendell who is interested in his own self interest ,(his wife wants to be o n the supreme court)should not be making deals to see that specter runs unopposed.
Specter must be challenged so we can see what he actually believes.
No way we should just accept him and assume we can count on his vote.
And back room deals are not 'change' we can believe in.
April 30, 2009 11:57 AM | Reply | Permalink
I'm glad to hear Sestak is letting Specter know that Democrats will be watching. What I hated most about this whole thing was the "machine boss" quality to it. Rendell saying that he wouldn't have a primary with the Dems and Obama saying he would come to PA to support him. I'm sure they have much more of a commitment from Specter than what Specter was suggesting, but yuck. I know the realpolitic thing about getting a lot done in the first 2 years of the presidency, but it looked bad. And if Specter doesn't vote like a Dem, I hope the voters of PA do support Sestak. I'll send $$.
April 30, 2009 12:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
Nothing wrong with Sestak keeping up the pressure. But just because Specter says he's opposed to EFCA, that doesn't mean he's not going to be willing to support a reasonable compromise, and his move to the Democratic party just moves the goal posts on that compromise a little closer.
April 30, 2009 12:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
EFCA is already so watered down as to render it a shadow of it's former self. The LEAST that Specter owes the Senate Dems after being able to keep his senority is to vote for cloture with the Democrats. If he can't even bring himself to do that, he might as well not even switched parties. It's not like he did a Chafee and handed control to the Democrats by switching affiliation. The Dems are getting nothing out of this so far except for a laugh at the expense of the Republicans and I've never needed Arlen Specter to be able to laugh at those clowns.
April 30, 2009 12:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
"EFCA is already so watered down as to render it a shadow of it's former self."
Wait till the Blue Dogs get their hands on the healthcare bill.
April 30, 2009 5:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
If Obama and company are smart, they'll keep Sestak warming up in the bullpen.
April 30, 2009 12:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
The few times I've seen the man (Sestak)argue a position, he's sure looked like a star to me.
April 30, 2009 1:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
You know, I hate to agree with Republicans but I heard one strategist yesterday speak of the need for Obama to show leadership in the face of wavering Democrats and I couldn't agree more. If Harry Reid can't lead the Senate, he should step aside but either way, it's time for Obama to go up the Hill and kick some butts and Specter's butt needs to be the first in line.
April 30, 2009 1:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
You have it right Joe! Jump him EVERY time he opposes a nominee, or legislation that progressives believe are necessary. Health care, EFCA, New EPA rules regarding water, air, mining and drilling. We don't need another Blue Dog Democrat. Also, this is suppose to be the DEMOCRATIC Party with nominees decided by the people during the primary, not Rendel, Biden, Reid, Casey OR Obama. If you think you can win, GO FOR IT!!
April 30, 2009 1:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
To add on to that, every time Specter opposes something important to us, call his office and let him know you've just pledged $5 to Sestak (and please do actually pledge $5 to Sestak).
Conversely, if Specter comes around to supporting EFCA or Dawn Johnsen, send him $5.
Specter's pretty much admitted he's just in this to win, not because of his principles, so let us explain to him what he needs to do to win.
April 30, 2009 1:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
Am I wrong, or did Obama say he'd support Specter ... but did not say anything specific about supporting him in a primary? I can easily picture Obama sitting out any primary ("This is for the Democratic voters of Pennsylvania decide ..." or some equally diplomatic statement) and simply campaigning in the general election for whoever wins the nomination, no?
April 30, 2009 2:59 PM | Reply | Permalink