« Reid Spokesman: "We Are Just Going To Have To Disagree" With Specter About Minn. Senate Race | Home | Grassley: Sessions' Statements--If He Even Made Them--Don't Matter »
Gibbs: White House Will Keep Supporting Specter
At today's White House briefing earlier this afternoon, Press Secretary Robert Gibbs indicated that President Obama will continue to support Sen. Arlen Specter (D-PA) -- even if he's not supporting the Democratic agenda:
Jake Tapper (ABC): A follow-up on a couple of issues, one regarding the Pennsylvania primary. President Obama has said he will commit to Senator Arlen Specter. Today, Congressman Sestak of Pennsylvania said he is inclined to challenge Specter in the primary. Given the fact that Specter's very first vote as a Democrat was against the President's budget, is there anything that Specter could do that would -- in terms of voting against the President -- that would change the President campaigning for him against a Democrat who is more in line with the President's priorities?
Gibbs: I think the President was pretty clear on this. Senator Specter has his full support, and he'll do what's necessary to see him reelected. I think Senator Specter said it the day he made his announcement that he's going to make decisions on individual bills. But I think that him switching to the Democratic Party was a belief that that's the party that could best serve his constituents. We don't get a hundred -- we don't generally get a hundred percent of any party voting for us, but we'll continue to try.
In Gibbs' defense, this was before reports came out that Specter said he supported Norm Coleman in the disputed Minnesota race.
PERMALINK | RECOMMEND RECOMMEND (1)
| TOPICS: Arlen Specter, Joe Sestak, PA-SEN, Robert Gibbs, Senate '10
| TOPICS: Arlen Specter, Joe Sestak, PA-SEN, Robert Gibbs, Senate '10
Advertisement
Josh
Matt
Eric
Brian
Specter is making Obama look weak and ineffectual -- and I am sure I am only one of manhy, many Democrats who are completely turned off by the establishment old-boyism in all this. It is as if Democratic positions on key issues that matter to the majority of Americans are irrlevant when photo ops for Obama and Specter come into play, or when buddy-buddy ties in the Senater are at stake. This is a very disillusioning episode -- and I wonder if Obama and his people are aware of the downside for them.
The fact that Specter may come around after some consmetic maneuvers on EFCA does not soften this for me. EFCA without public choice in health care is not that much progress. And unions are beginning to look as if they are putting their organizational interests above the wellbeing of most Americans -- that is how it comes across when they meet with Specter and talk only about EFCA, not about public choide in health care.
Theda S.
May 5, 2009 5:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
Absolute poppycock. This is a small event relative to the issues that truly matter: the economy, health care, etc. Those are issues where Obama is exceptionally strong. As Pollster.com clearly shows. You are blowing this very far out of proportion and making a cheap shot at the same time.
May 5, 2009 5:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
Um, Specter voted against Obama's budget and said that he was against a public option and EFCA. I kind of thought that these were "the issues that truly matter: the economy, health care, etc.".
He's also against Dawn Johnsen's nomination to OLC. That's not a big deal either?
If Specter votes against Obama and Dems' agenda, then what exactly is the upside here, other than the cheap PR value?
When did Obama become the Democratic party and the actual issues stopped mattered? Was it the pixie dust they sprayed on the crowds at his campaign rallies?
May 6, 2009 4:14 AM | Reply | Permalink
Jeebus, that's rather hyperbolic isn't it? Get a grip already.
I agree we need to see how Specter adds value to the Democratic party. But, really, calm down, it's only been a few days.
Specter can vote against passing budgets every single time and I really don't give a shit.
What I care about is whether Specter will vote for cloture on a major issue like healthcare reform. THAT is what actually MATTERS. If he does that, all his theatrics and shit will be well worth it.
Having said that, if at any point Sestak can make a better offer, than obviously the equation changes. When Sestak does it, we'll know it, becasue Specter will be out on his ass. But everybody already knows that reality, including Specter, Reid, and Obama.
May 5, 2009 5:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well, Specter said that he would not support a public choice option as part of health care reform, which is what Theda was complaining about.
May 5, 2009 9:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
Good point. My first thought was, if Obama won't fight for his agenda, why should I?
Dems are being punked by Specter. Obama and the whole party look weak.
May 5, 2009 5:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think you are going overboard.
May 5, 2009 5:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
Specter is NOT making Obama look weak at all. Specter is making Specker look like an idiot.
May 5, 2009 5:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
A lot of Democrats (including myself) freaked out when Obama forgave Joe Lieberman for stabbing him in the back (among Joe's many other crimes). But that turned out to be the right decision in the long run. The situation with Specter is probably similar.
And to answer your question, I don't think Obama cares if his magnanimity pisses Democrats off. At this point, it seems abundantly clear that Obama is a pragmatist to the bone and only cares about getting things done. He knows that the "disillusionment" of some Democrats won't hamper his agenda.
May 5, 2009 6:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
What exactly will Specter help Obama "get done" if he consistently votes against his agenda? Are we now in 12D chess territory?
May 6, 2009 4:17 AM | Reply | Permalink
Specter won't help Obama get anything done. It doesn't matter what party Specter is in -- Specter will be equally obstructive. So what's the difference? Nothing. I don't think Obama cares what party Specter is in.
More specifically, I don't think Obama cares about the optics. He doesn't care if some Dems think he looks "weak and ineffectual."
May 6, 2009 12:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
So if Specter won't help Obama get anything done, then why is Obama giving him his full-throated support as he's proceeding to trash his agenda? What does Obama get out of that?
And if Obama truly isn't concerned about optics, then he's a fool. His largely optics-based popularity won't last, especially if he fails to come through on his extremely aggressive agenda. And getting erzatz Dems like Specter to play ball is what he needs to do to make that happen. If he fails to do that--i.e. at the substantive politics and policies--then the optics will eventually catch up with him, in a bad way.
Plus, the assertion that Obama isn't concerned about optics is rediculous on its face. He won the presidency to a large extent through his shrewd manipulation of optics (while making it not seem like optics). The vast majority of voters voted for the image, not the man. As the old saying goes, the most important thing in politics is authenticity--if you're good at faking it, you've got it made.
If Obama can't come through with the goods, by either not pushing for a progressive enough agenda, or failing to engage in the kinds of political tactics that are needed to make any agenda happen, then all the optical tricks in the world won't save him. Sooner or later, he's going to have to come through with substance. And getting pols like Specter (Nelson, Landrieu, Bayh, Baucus, etc.) to play ball is how to do that.
May 6, 2009 8:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
In Specter's defense, it was an attempt at a joke. HatchInBrooklyn in the post that broke this story breaks it down.
May 5, 2009 5:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2009/05/specter-wants-coleman-to-win-in-minnesota.php
HatchInBrooklyn, myself, and NCSteve break it down. Specter was taken out of context to create controversy and pump up audience. Sounds outlandish, but just check out the whole exchange in the Specter interview.
May 5, 2009 5:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
OK, fine--this episode was a joke.
But the FU to the unions? The FU to Dawn Johnsen? Surely Specter must have said "If you let me switch to the Democratic Party, and retain all my leadership posts, I'll do. . ."---otherwise, as Theda S. says above, Obama looks like a complete patsy.
May 5, 2009 5:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
This is an area where I know nothing. When you are in an elected post, how easy is it to switch parties? For me, I'd just do it and there'd be few strings in the way.
But when you are a Senator, what does switching parties entail? I know there was negotiation so that seniority would be retained, etc. But when it comes down to the actual switching of parties, would it just be to fill out two forms: one reneging and one affirming? Or is there far more to it?
May 5, 2009 5:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
It's the seniority that is the issue, not the actual party switching. Specter gets a new lease on his electoral life, his seniority is preserved, AND the president and party leaders promise to support him in the next primary and election.
What's Obama get out of this?
Seriously. What's the administration getting in return for the very strong pledge of support?
May 5, 2009 7:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
Exactly. Specter switching parties in and of itself in this congress means nothing beyond the PR value, since Dems don't need his seat to be in the majority or pass an organizing resolution. Nor does it help much in committees, since they control all of them. It might have meant something in the 110th congress, with the Dems' 1-seat majority, but in the 111th, the extra seat means nothing by itself.
What WOULD mean something is Specter voting with Dems on key issues, like EFCA, public option, the budget, Johnsen, to get that 60th vote. And he's on record as being against all of these. So what does he tangibly give Dems given this that justifies seniority and their full support for reelection? Unless he's just huffing and puffing and ends up voting with Dems on these issues, Obama & Dems look like fools, as does anyone who gives away something for nothing in return.
I'm hoping that this is Specter being typical Specter, barking like a mad dog but then tucking tail and doing as he's told in the end, and that Obama's support for him is nice guy codespeak for "Arlen, cut the crap and just vote for my agenda". We'll see.
May 6, 2009 4:32 AM | Reply | Permalink
how many more 'specter wants coleman to win' posts can we expect before the day is done?
May 5, 2009 5:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
Dunno. I'm still waiting for the one that says "Halperin played us for fools and we kneejerked ourselves right into it."
As I said at the end of the last thread, the thought of Halperin snickering with his Villager cocktail buddies over how easy it was to stir up a lefty blog shitstorm over what was clearly an attempt at humor on Specter's part is what really pisses me off. It fits so nicely into all those soothing Villager CW platitudes about how much more important they are in the grand scheme of things than those pissant amatuers running their silly little blogs.
May 5, 2009 5:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
Here's the first TPM acknowledgment of this, but it isn't quite your title:
http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/2009/05/tongue_in_cheek.php
May 5, 2009 5:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
If I were them, I'd also be putting in a call to Halperin for comment as to just what, exactly, he thought he was up do when he put that big red "ATTENTION, LIBERAL BLOGGERS (AND AL FRANKEN)!!!" headline at the top of his story.
I also think there's an important lesson here about giving into the blogger "if I don't weigh in on this just this second I risk becoming momentarily irrelevant" instinct when the information is coming from Halperin.
I recall last summer, Halperin used to link to TPM frequently. Then Josh did a post that really smacked Halperin around for some typical piece of Notejob hackery. Never saw him link to TPM, or even acknowledge it existance, again after that. When Josh did the post, and it came right on the heels of several favorable links from Halperin, I said to myself, "damn, that's some serious integrity on Josh's apart. You know that Halperin's been driving some significant traffic to this site and yet when Halperin acts like a tool, Josh resists the siren song of MSM acceptance and easy clickthroughs and fearlessly calls him out for being a tool." And he paid the price. TPM is on Halperin's "dead to me" list, though that seems to be just they way TPM likes it.
But my point here is that I can't help but suspect that this was driven by an ugly little vindictive urge on Halperin's to bait the blogs, and probably Kos and TPM in particularr, into making themselves look foolish combined with some arrogant belief that he won't pay a price amusing himself crying "wolf."
May 5, 2009 6:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
Whatever deal Obama made, and I think it was for the stimulus vote, it does not bind the rest of us.
Go Sestak!! Run, Joe, run.
May 5, 2009 5:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
Huffington Post has blown this all out of proportion, too. Spector is the new punching bag of the month (like Hillary was last year).
May 5, 2009 5:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
The whole Specter deal is pretty much beyond rational understanding. Specter will vote, on any given piece of legislation, according to his perception, at the particular moment, of his personal benefit. This fact only reinforces our knowledge of him as being unreliable.
I have been from the beginning and remain a dedicated Obama supporter but...............
It is almost impossible for me to believe that President Obama could be politically obtuse enough to promise Specter a no primary nomination in the the next election. If he gets it, Ridge (or likely even Toomey) will beat him. Sestak would win.
The whole deal is nuts.
May 5, 2009 5:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
Even Specter said that Obama NEVER said that there would be no Democratic primary.
May 5, 2009 5:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
A pro forma primary with all viable candidates (like Sestak) pressured by the party to stay out is what I mean when I say "no primary". Maritza is literally correct but, I fear, taken in by political doubletalk.
May 5, 2009 6:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yeah, he never told Obama he was a "loyal Democrat" either. Chrissakes, Maritza, what this guy says or doesn't say simply does not matter.
May 5, 2009 10:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yeah, if he keeps making political blunders like this, Obama will never get past Hillary's juggernaut, much less beat McCain.
May 5, 2009 5:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
Perfect! Every time BHO gets "rolled", a few weeks later I read about some unidentified floaters being found in the Potomac. Could it be that old Ba-Rack the knife's back in town. Rahm extracted promises and insurance, they don't care what Specter says or how he votes when it's meaningless.
May 5, 2009 8:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
Just what is your malfunction, Peorgie?
May 5, 2009 10:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
Still going with the "He won the election against long odds therefore he's right about everything and is never ever ever wrong about anything" defense, I see. Yeah, that passes logical muster.
LBJ won in a landslide in '64, so obviously he could do no wrong.
Oh, wait, Obama's "different", like none other. He just is.
May 6, 2009 4:38 AM | Reply | Permalink
Deborah Solomon's interviews in the NYT Magazine are often jokey--she has a good sense of humor and asks audacious questions. Too bad people didn't get this before they went all ballistic.
May 5, 2009 5:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
Oh yeah, I forgot....
Specter has already stated that he will not vote for a health care bill with a government (Medicare-like) option in it.
Does this mean, since the President has reportedly vowed to back Specter all the way, that he (President Obama)has, in fact, taken the government option off the table?
I totally agree with Dr.Dean that a healthcare bill with no government option would be far worse than no healthcare bill at all. We'll be at least twenty years getting around to trying to change that bill!
May 5, 2009 5:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
A healthcare bill with no public option will most likely undermine both employer paid healthcare and Medicare. It's not any better than the Republican ideas. All it does is provide welfare to insurance companies and ration care.
May 5, 2009 6:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
Wherein I say something EXTREMELY intemperate about Obama.
Aside form that, just let me say I'm embarrassed to have him as our party leader in this particular matter.
Howard Dean 2012. Let's get a real Democrat in office.
May 5, 2009 6:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
Brilliant. We should totally launch a brutal, destructive primary campaign against a sitting president of our own party. That always works out great for us.
May 5, 2009 6:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
The American middleclass has no party. I'm waiting for them to put corporate logos on the Capitol, the White House, and the Supreme Court.
May 5, 2009 6:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
Shouldn't you be advocating for Nader by now?
May 5, 2009 7:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
So it's either accept things as they are and just STFU, or you're a traitor to the party?
No wonder we're dominated with sellout corporatists, with such attitudes. Keep that powder dry, and never, ever, EVER use it.
May 6, 2009 4:46 AM | Reply | Permalink
Why don't you quit your complaining, because that's going to get you nowhere either.
May 6, 2009 9:29 AM | Reply | Permalink
Why don't you quit your cheerleading, because that's going to get you nowhere either.
May 6, 2009 8:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thank you, this person has pretty much has been doing that for quite sometime now, very sutile though. Serious anyways that comes out of Bluebells or Oleeb's mouth are Obama's bad, Obanma's bad, he needs to be gone. That's why I pretty much tune out anything those two have to say. They bring nothing to the table to negativity and ctiticism.
There I feel better now, now that I said my peace to the Obama haters here. I can go back do having my morning coffee.
Have a nice day everyone.
May 6, 2009 9:37 AM | Reply | Permalink
I wasn't even born then...
Also Christ, you think HOWARD DEAN can create a primary that is viable enough to be brutal and destructive when his opponent is PRESIDENT BARACK OBAMA?
I don't think I'm the one who needs to stop and think for a bit here.
May 5, 2009 6:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
Right. Clearly, any history that one has not personally lived through is completely irrelevant to the wisdom of one's political positions. And the less history you've lived through, the less relevant what happened before you were born is.
May 5, 2009 7:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well, now, the history I'm remembering here is the good old days of the Daley machine bashing kids in the streets while the deals were cut inside the Chicago convention. The more things change, the more they stay the same.
May 5, 2009 8:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
Completely ignoring the substance of my post eh? I was simply pointing out that I wans't born yet. I happen to really like history so your characterization of me was TOTALLY FUCKING WRONG.
Here's the point since you seem be having difficulty sifting it: Howard Dean is not a viable candidate against President Obama. He will swat Dean like a fly, but Howard Dean is a far better Democrat and I have no problem engaging in a desire for a quixotic primary challenge that will make me feel better and damage prospects for Obama NOT ONE BIT.
May 6, 2009 11:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yeah seriously Steve you right. Let's all wage a primary challenge againist a very popular president just because of one stupid statements. These comments I read here are just the ones in the thread where Obama invited Rick Warren to speak at the invocation, everyone here pissed their pants about that just like they are now.
Primary challenges againist sitting presidents are good and always work out. Look at Jimmy Carter.
Oh wait...
May 6, 2009 9:32 AM | Reply | Permalink
Specter needs to pretend to be principled. He's just re-stating the stances he took while he was a Republican. If he flipped 180 degrees that would be a huge attack point for both a primary challenge and in the general vs Ridge, proof that Specter stands for nothing except staying elected.
May 5, 2009 6:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
That's what I thought (besides Obama being too smart to have done this for nothing). Even if that is the case, though, I think Specter is now walking on an extremely thin line between pretending to be principled and helping mobilize Sestak supporters.
May 5, 2009 8:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
Fuck the White House. I'm sick of them already anyhow.
May 5, 2009 9:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
Oh why, because he's saying that not going to eve matter in the long term? Not to mention saying things you don't want to hear? So what. I'm getting sick and tired of all the Obama complaining from you, Bluebell and Oleeb. Your sick of the WH house just because of some remark then son you need to get your priorties in order because Arlen Specter's party switching isn't a big deal with most americans and this isn't something you need to get all worked up about.
Dosen't matter anyways, Specter's going down. Either by Sestak or Ridge is either gets in because he's valnurable againist both of them. So shut up about this.
May 6, 2009 9:27 AM | Reply | Permalink