Reid: Specter Will Be With Us When We Need Him
Harry Reid had a fascinating interview today on MSNBC, discussing Arlen Specter:
Some highlights:
• Andrea Mitchell asked about a line from Reid's new book, in which he said that then-Republican Specter "is always there when we don't need him." Reid responded: "Well, I hope he's gonna be with us when we need him. I'm comfortable that's the case, I'm happy he's with us. We've got another Senator coming soon -- but everyone should understand, the difference between 58, 59, 60 Senators is just fairly illusionary, because we still have to work on a bipartisan basis with whatever we get done."
• Mitchell asked about Specter's statement on Meet The Press that he did not say he would be a loyal Democrat. Reid's response: "Well I think Arlen will be a good vote. He's a moderate person. I think that he'll fit in very well with the caucus. And on procedural votes he'll be with us all the time. If he -- I think there's just a lot for him to get used to, and kind of a lot for us to get used to, but we're glad he's with us."
• And on the subject of Specter's gaffe about wanting Norm Coleman to win in Minnesota: "It created a few questions with my caucus. And I went to Arlen last night, after I heard this, and said, 'Arlen, what's this all about?' And he said, 'Well, that isn't really what I meant,' words to that effect. So I accept that."
Late Update: So how does Reid's statement, "on procedural votes he'll be with us all the time," fit with Specter's own statement last week that he won't be an automatic 60th vote? Reid spokesman Jim Manley told me: "Sen. Reid never takes any vote for granted."
Josh
Matt
Eric
If by this:
Reid means that Specter will vote for cloture, then great.
May 6, 2009 3:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'd be more than happy to settle for that, but I'll believe it when I see it. Isn't he on record AGAINST cloture on EFCA?
May 6, 2009 3:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
I don't know his position on cloture for EFCA--just that he was against EFCA.
(That was, of course, before he transformed into the progressive stalwart that he is now. . .)
May 6, 2009 3:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
I agree with ex-Jonze on the previous thread. The EFCA will be modified just enough so that Specter can (at least) vote for cloture and save some face.
E.g., if it could be amended so that the secret-ballot option was effectively available to employees, and not just nominally available, that might do the trick.
May 6, 2009 3:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
How can a provision for an election to be forced by as few as 1/3 of the employees be construed as merely "nominal"? It's discouraging to see how effectively the right-wing propaganda campaign has spread this sort of misinformation.
May 6, 2009 3:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
Didn't Senator Specter say in his press release on the party change that he won't be an automatic vote for cloture?
(My question is rhetorical. He did say it.)
May 6, 2009 3:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
Specter specifically said that he would NOT vote for clocture on EFCA. I have no doubt he'll be as big a pain to the Dems as he was to the Repugs. I wish they would throw this one back.
Specter needs the Dems a lot more than we need him. He's dead weight, not to mention senile!
May 6, 2009 3:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
I forgot that.
He said: I will not be an automatic 60th vote for cloture
Wonder what Harry's talking about?
Or smoking?
May 6, 2009 5:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
Great. Specter will support cloture.
Seriously, we're willing to give up a Senate seat because the guy claims he'll be one of 60 senators to vote to close debate? Seriously?!
He has a thirty year record of voting for the very same tax cuts and spending cuts (outside of defense) that gave us the wealth inequalities, massive deficits and military madness that we have today. There are better Pennsylvanians. We need a primary.
May 6, 2009 3:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
Very reassuring, Sen. Reid. I hope he is to, but I'd rather have the comfort of a reliable true Democrat standing behind me than the solace of my hopes.
May 6, 2009 3:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
*to = too
May 6, 2009 3:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well I hope that I get plucked from obscurity by some attractive young hollywood starlet for all her massage practice and pool chair warming needs. Reality suggests that my butt isn't going anywhere and Specter is going to continue being a crotchety old, unpredictable douche monkey.
Keep on hoping, Harry.
May 6, 2009 4:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
Code language: Reid is saying that Arlen better be a "loyal" Democrat or else...
May 6, 2009 3:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
That would be a reasonable interpretation of Reid's statments... IF the statements came from someone who wasn't such a confirmed wet noodle like Reid.
May 6, 2009 4:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
This reminds me of a joke I heard about France a few years back...
Arlen Specter is always there when he needs you.
May 6, 2009 3:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
The past recedes and the future approaches. These old men are all in the past.
May 6, 2009 3:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
Every time I see Harry Reid on my TV screen I loathe him more and more...his trust in his fellow Republicans is heart warming, but he gets double-crossed again and again by them!
And his smirk as Andrea was asking these pointed question was undoubtedly because he realized just how stupid and cowardly his answers sounded...
There's absolutely NO WAY Reid should award Arlen the top Dem role on ANY COMMITTEE at all, no matter how well he comes around to voting with the Dems...
He's a self-promoting tool who was too stupid to keep his mouth shut, or he might have gotten those top assignments. Glad he opened his mouth and jammed both shoes in it!
May 6, 2009 3:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
No way Senate Democrats will vote to allow Specter to leapfrog them on committee assignments. Reid would lose his job as Senate Majority Leader if he pushed longtime committee Democrats to relinquish their subcommittee chairmanships for Specter.
May 6, 2009 4:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
Let me add: Democrats didn't even allow Frank Lautenberg, who served in the Senate from 1983-2001, to regain his seniority status in 2003 after he won an election most Democrats thought they were going to lose. And it's not like Frank Lautenberg defects from the caucus position very often (although he did on the 1993 Clinton budget).
May 6, 2009 4:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
If what Reid said is all true then why was specter stripped of his seniority? This was another Reid debacle and another example why the senate needs real leaders.
May 6, 2009 4:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
Reid is lame, but the rest of the Senate Democrats who elected him as their leader are the real problem. Those spineless wimps are content to allow Reid to embarrass himself and his party over and over. He is a reflection of them.
May 6, 2009 8:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
Russ Feingold a wimp? Barbara Boxer a wimp? Dick Durbin a wimp? I don't think so, try again. Why don't you chill, calm down, get rational and remember that it's one moron that's causing this problem. Jesus.
May 6, 2009 9:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
Harry who?
May 6, 2009 10:11 PM | Reply | Permalink