Specter: "I'm Going To Have To Talk" With Reid About Claim I'll Be There On Procedural Votes
As if the situation with Sen. Arlen Specter (D-PA) couldn't be a bigger mess, he is now disputing Harry Reid's contention that he'll be a solid procedural vote for the Democrats.
Yesterday, you'll recall, Reid said on MSNBC yesterday, "on procedural votes he'll be with us all the time."
Well, Fox News caught up with Specter today and asked him about that: "Specter merely smiled and repeated several times, 'I'm going to have to talk to Sen. Reid about that.'"
Reid told Fox in response: "I have talked since Monday night of last week on Specter. I'm not going to talk any more about it. I have explained and re-explained and the re-explaining is over with."
And Reid's spokesman Jim Manley said Reid was being "hopeful and optimistic" about Specter's vote, and reiterated what he told me yesterday about this: "Sen. Reid never takes any votes for granted."
Oh, brother.
(Via Think Progress.)
Josh
Matt
Eric
I'm torn between cognitive fog and an outsized need for attention as the reasons why Specter has been all over the place in the last week.
I think it's safe to treat Arlen as if he never switched parties. And that includes getting someone to primary him.
May 7, 2009 4:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think this is all the right way to look at it.
May 7, 2009 6:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
wow..snarlin arlin can't stop from stepping it all the time. The Democratic leaders are going to regret their heavy endorsements of this very very strange kind of new democratic Senator. I propose some immediate "take backs" and let this old bird fly in the wind....all this energy and crap of a guy who has yet to deliver a singular key vote for the dems!
May 7, 2009 4:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
Specter is more worried about a general campaign against Toomey than a primary challenge from the left. He can't be seen as a rubber stamp because Toomey will love running on that.
Reid needs to show that he got something out of this "deal" other than throwing Specter a political lifeline, but allowing him to vote with his Republican brothers and sisters.
Both need to save face, both are up for re-election.
May 7, 2009 5:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
Whoa! A Twofer. Get rid of both of them.
May 7, 2009 6:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
i'm sorry. does specter WANT to be a senator much longer? if he keeps this up, he's going to alienate the dems just like he alienated the republicans and this time, he won't be able to conveniently switch parties.
specter needs to know he doesnt have ANY leverage here. he either votes like a democrat or he'll lose to someone who will
May 7, 2009 5:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
This ought to be the minimum standard for any and every member in good standing with the Senate Democratic caucus. Which means it should apply to Specter -- and Ben Nelson, Evan Bayh and the other bluedog wannabes. Why Reid seems incapable of enforcing this basic rule of party discipline -- something the GOPosaurs have never had any problem with -- is beyond me.
As far as Specter goes, if he's not going to be with the Dems on procedural votes, boot him out of the caucus and leave him in no man's land. After all, what difference does it make to have 60 votes if it still doesn't make you filibuster-proof?
May 7, 2009 5:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
In the case of Nelson, and even Bayh to a certain extent, I don't think you can hold their feet to the fire too much on their votes. They are from much more conservatives states than Specter, and, more importantly, are Dems by choice, not necessity. The truth is a more progressive Dem would not win in these states. Indiana may have voted for Obama by a thin margin, but that was strongly affected by parts of the state being in the Chicago media market. I don't think a Barbara Boxer or a Ted Kennedy type would win in either state.
By the way, Specter should stop talking now. The proper response is, "I will continue to vote my conscience, but Senator Reid is correct in saying that, for the most part, I will vote with my caucus on procedural issues." There are ways to declare that you are an independent voice without seriously dissing your majority leader. How has this guy been elected to public office for the last thirty years? He seems politically challenged.
May 7, 2009 6:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
I disagree on two grounds:
1) We're talking about procedural votes, not votes on the merits. It means they vote for cloture to stop obstructionism, and then they vote their conscience (or their perception of where their constituents stand) on amendments and final passage of legislation. I don't think that's the least bit onerous no matter where they're from.
2) Blue dogs and Senate wannabes forget the lessons of 1994. If their obstructionism prevents President Obama from implementing his agenda, the voters will once again decide that the Democrats are incapable of governing and there will be another GOP sweep (hard as the prospect is to imagine today). If that happens, they will be the first to lose their seats, just as conservative Dems lost in 1994, and just as moderate Republicans lost in 2006 and 2008.
They should realize that their own self-interest requires them to walk a delicate line -- showing their "moderate" or "independent" credentials from time to time, but not when it would prevent the Democrats from fixing the economy, enacting health care reform, or addressing other issues where the American people demand action.
May 7, 2009 6:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
1) We're talking about procedural votes, not votes on the merits. It means they vote for cloture to stop obstructionism, and then they vote their conscience (or their perception of where their constituents stand) on amendments and final passage of legislation. I don't think that's the least bit onerous no matter where they're from.
Co-sign about a thousand times. No one wants Democrats to be in lockstep when it comes to voting an up or down vote. However, they need to get to that point in the first place, and refusing to allow the Senate to even get to an up-or-down vote is the same as ennabling Republicans. Republicans who are so far to the right at this point that it's absurd.
May 8, 2009 11:46 AM | Reply | Permalink
Specter is hilarious. He's the perfect example of what happens to Mr. Smith when he spends too long in Washington. The more of these we can defeat, in both parties, the better for America.
May 7, 2009 6:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
A primary fear became a primal one and Arlen switched to the party of his youth from the one he joined for ambition. It seems that the primary cure of his problem and him as a problem would be a Democratic primary with a real Democrat and not his being a Lieberman with a still apparent Kansas twang.
May 7, 2009 6:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
What I keep coming back to is: Why the heck does a 79-year old man care so much about keeping his ass in the Senate for another six years that will do anything to stay in. The whole thing smells. Specter is on a massive ego trip and does not have the interests of the country at heart.
(BTW, it's not that he needs the health coverage - he gets that anyway as a retiree, plus a generous pension and all the income he wants from speaking engagements, ghostwritten memoirs, etc.)
May 8, 2009 8:40 AM | Reply | Permalink
I see I'm not the only one for whom the math doesn't add up.
May 8, 2009 11:54 AM | Reply | Permalink
Someone should simply ask Specter what he means when he says he is a member of a political party. Right now it looks like he thinks that saying he is member of a party gives him a free ticket to the general election with no obligations or responsibilities on his part. If he wants to burnish his alleged independent credentials, why doesn't he man up and declare himself an independent? If there are any reporters out there, please, please, please ask him. To clarify:
"Senator, what does it mean to say you are a member of a political party?"
"Senator, what are the responsibilities of party members toward the party?"
"Senator, why don't you just run as an independent?"
May 8, 2009 12:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
just boot him.
no on dawn johnson
no on efca
no on procedural votes
sleazy cancer campaigning
what exactly does it mean to him to be a member of a political party?
i want a D who will push the D agenda.
if Arlen won't do that, what good is he?
and note, PA is not a Red State!
i think Sestak could make a run of it in PA. Obama is going to find out that his supporters are more enthralled with his policies than with his personality and to the extent he thinks he can rally support behind a specter who is dumping all over the D agenda he may be in for a surprise.
Sestak could be another Lamont and Specter another Lieberman.
May 8, 2009 2:52 PM | Reply | Permalink