Would you support a Progressive challenger against Arlen Specter?
By John Amato Wednesday Apr 29, 2009 11:30am
I do think it's rather silly for the Democratic Party to pledge money and support for (D) Arlen Specter to run in 2010, especially when it involves the Employee Free Choice Act and his career was hanging by a thread. I thoroughly enjoyed yesterday's coverage of the Republicans spinning in circles trying to come up some kind of coherent response to Specter's defection. If you watched FOX News at all they acted like spoiled little children who didn't get their candy as they lined up Bush thug after Bush thug to refute him starting with Karl Rove, Ari Fleischer and so on. They literally were dumbstruck by the fact that he left the GOP behind.
A bigger problem I have is that Specter will be given a huge megaphone by the Villagers to voice his "independence" and denounce any policy he so chooses whenever he wants without a second thought about it. He said over and over again that John Kennedy believed the party can ask too much of you. He'll have more power as a new Democratic politician than he ever did as a Republican.
As Digby says:
I confess that I'm more than a little bit irked that the Democratic Party has already pledged to support Specter against a primary challenger. It's fundamentally undemocratic, not to mention dumb. Specter now has carte blanche to remain an incoherent obstructionist for the next two years when they could have at least let us pull him to the left with a primary challenge.My pal Adam Green has a good idea.
On the very day Arlen Specter became a Democrat, he lamented that not enough right-wing Bush judges got confirmed, he opposed workers' right to organize, and he compared himself to Joe Lieberman. The DSCC and Pennsylvania Democratic Party will be supporting Specter in the primary.I think in time he will come over to support labor because PA will not take his abandonment of EFCA sitting down after he originally co-sponsored the bill in 2007, so this should get interesting. In the meantime, check out the Facebook page.
If there is a potential progressive challenger to Arlen Specter in Pennsylvania, they are probably scratching their head right now asking, "Would I have any chance at all if I ran, or is the fix in?"
What can progressives to do create an environment where this person feels they can run? Legally, we can't put money in a pot for a fictional candidate. But we can pledge now that if a real progressive steps up, we'll get their back. So, here's a little experiment. I just created a Facebook fan page (like a Facebook group) called "I support a real progressive against Arlen Specter."
Login or Register to post comments.
and with money, too!
Was going to throw his/her hat into the ring against Specter in a Democratic Primary I'd pledge a hundred bucks right now for that candidate.
I want him out of the Senate.
He's just an another typical, opportunistic politician who's more worried about staying in the mighty club than he is about actually serving the public.
Screw him.
I don't trust Arlen Specter as far as I could throw the Brooklyn Bridge. He's switching Parties merely to save his political ass. In reality, he'd be an even bigger back-stabbing piece of shit than Joe Lieberman (and that's saying alot!). Memo to the Democratic establishment: Forget this guy; find a real Democrat to run.
...but now he's our bag-o-crap.
Bad deal for long time Dems considering a run for his seat, but it aggrivates the righties, and that is worth something.
Also sends the message, along with Snow editorial in NYT, that moderates are not welcome in the GOP. With only one in 5 Americans admitting to being a Republican, they can not win without moving to the center and they can't do that, because they would have to admit they have been wrong the last several years.
aren't welcome in the GOP - and progressives are way, way, way in the back of the bus in the Democratic party.
Pelosi, Reid ---- and now Specter.
What a stench!
We could start our own list of the DINO complicits starting with Rahm, who wouldn't support Gore!!! Where did that slimy SOB come from?????
I don't trust this guy either. He is not a Democrat. He only switched to the Democratic ticket to try to win an election. But why did he choose the Democratic party? Why not become independent and caucus with the Dems? There are already 2 independents in the Senate doing this. I have a feeling he made a deal with the Dems to have campaign funding.
Spector: I do not want my 29 Senate career decided by the Republican electorate.
Well, Arlen, you chose your 29 year career decided by the Democratic electorate. I really hope it doesn't work out for you.
vote progress, not politics!
Wouldn't DARE endorse Specter in a primary against a REAL Democrat...especially someone who has true Democratic ideals.
I feel quite sure they'd have to keep their political noses out of that race.
.............DLC and the complicits in 'congress' spot-on 'assured' Specter of Dem support. SAD!!! The Rahm Fix is in! What rock did that critter come out from under?
Gene, I so agree! And, with the LIEberman comparison, he would be a greater pain in the BUTT, and probably report to Cheney!! Why can't that monster exit properly, OH! He's pulling a 'COLEMAN'
but HELL YES! Specter is an amoral carpetbagger.
It's part of the deal for his defection. What else was he promised?
He is considered a Dem w/29 years seniority, a nice Chairmanship, and Obama support in re-election. What he gives us is yet to be seen, but if we can accept Liebermann back into the fold, we certainly have room for Sen. Specter
Look what he's given us already: Samuel Alito, John Roberts, Clarence Thomas, any number of his votes that got bills out of committee only to see him change his mind and vote against them once they came to the floor. He's against the EFCA--which promises to put him at odds with union workers in his home state. And the Democrats want to "invest" contributions in this guy? What was his percentage of votes cast in line with Bush-supported policies?
Hell, Specter's the gift that keeps on giving...sort of like that suspect onion-cheese dog at the Fair that doesn't quite want to go down.
Maybe you would prefer Bachmann.
you assume that specter will vote with the dems, and not be yet another GOP-lite democrat (bayh, nelson, landrieu, etc)
specter will be specter, and he'll only serve to pull the party further to the right.
the bosses will ALWAYS be able to produce 41 votes to block any measure they deem rally or potentially too damaging to their interests...
that's why there are "blue dawgs."
Specter joins the Dims already a "blue-dawg"...
they accioount for about 20%-25% of the Dim caucus on any given day.,..
this make ALL the "Blue Dawgs" all the more powerful...
What the fuck are the Obama/Dims thinking?
I keep saying, we got tricked again, and O-bought-ma is bought. Not that he might outwit them (NAZIS-CHENEY), we can hope, but for now, BOUGHT REID, PELOSI, all the so-called 'DINOS'. The rest of the world, that isn't locked behind the Iron Curtain of Propaganda, already knows the US of BLOODYISRAEL for it's ACTIONS!!!, not words, not CNN, not BBC, they know. The poor people in the states are the only poor babies not to KNOW.
being one who hails from PA, i am definitely not excited, thrilled or pleased by either specter's switch, nor the open-arm welcome from the dems. quite the opposite actually.
the last thing the party needs is more GOP-lite pols(or just plain GOP pols who can't get reelected and switch in order to stay in office). this will be a net minus for all.
i am not sure if this situation speaks less of specter or the dems...
What can be done?
Oust the "Democratic Leadership"!
Rahm first, DLC what the f**k? WHO elected them?? And, they had/have a lock on O-bought-ma, and Hillary, too. Traitors, all.
That really should go without saying for 99.5% of the regulars on this site...
Support the Progressive candidate, but if he doesn't prevail....you have to go with Specter over Toomey and continue to push Specter to make the progressive choices on everything that comes his way if he's elected.
Ed Rendell feels about this whole situation. I thought he was supposed to be in the running for Specter's seat.
What we need are more progressives in the Senate. Specter is not a progressive. Speaking of getting more progressives in the Senate, does anyone in CA know how Feinstein's bid in 2012 is shaping up? Will we get progressives to challenge her?
Rendell not only knew, he encouraged Sen. Specter to change parties. I'm sure there is something in it for him, but I like to think he has the party at heart.
Of course this all may be for naught if Ridge decides to run for Specter seat which I hear is a possibility.
2012 may not matter. She may jump into the 2010 California Governor's race since Ah-nuhl is term limited. Last I heard, Feinstein was the frontrunner of unannounced candidates.
I forgot about that. Thanks for the reminder. I don't know how I feel about her running for governor. Part of me thinks any person is better than Arnold, but at the same time, I'd like a nice progressive running this state again.
n/t
Hw was a den when he first got elected and changed to republican I ll donate to toss his ass he is against free choice
Arlen Specter is last in line as far as I'm concerned. Watch his ass, and once he fucks up he's on his own. Kick him in his shriveled nuts and send him back to the Republican Party as a warning that Democrats aren't friendly anymore. We didn't ask this traitor to become a Democrat, he asked us...we should never let him forget that.
I find it amazing when "news" sources year after year fail to align this traitor with the "magic bullet theory" Specter penned during the Warren Report with the murder of JFK. This ridiculous writing was part of the central cover-up in the murder and any school boy or girl could see right through it.
On top of that, this website continues to sing the praises between Demopublicans and Repukes which is utterly simplistic and dangerous. Folks there are no differences because they ONLY exist in rhetoric.
We are at a place in history where the large corps and banking/oil/pharm families have successfully taken over both parties save a few members of each party. The sooner we take this to heart and stop participating in this perverted process, the sooner we can make the needed changes.
I do not disagree that big business has far too much control in American politics, but I don't see how "stop participating" helps one iota. It is far more effective to actively participate in changing your party if you feel you are not being represented.
Rascal..........maybe your true colors are showing -- a CORPORATIST/NAZI???? Have to watch that. You don't agree that big business has far, far, far, far, too, too, too much control in Amerikan politics?????? Where have you been???
Winston You are Right:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arlen_Specter
At the recommendation of Representative Gerald R. Ford, he worked for the Warren Commission, investigating the assassination of John F. Kennedy. As an assistant counsel for the commission, he authored or co-authored[10] the controversial "single bullet theory," which suggested the wounds to President Kennedy and non-fatal wounds to Texas Governor John Connally were caused by the same bullet. This was a crucial assertion for the Warren Commission, since if the two had been wounded by separate bullets, that would have demonstrated the presence of a second assassin and therefore a conspiracy.[1
He is just a piece of shit!
Philip Zelikow part One?
Didn't know about his participation in the Warren Ommission, and the magic bullet. WOW!!
We have enough bluedog poop on our shoes. A progressive candidate would be far preferable, and if we were to support Specter we'd have to make sure he doesn't say "Democrat Party." Before deciding whom to support we should make sure there's a progressive candidate who can beat the Republicans' guy.
He poses like a good guy, while only protecting the established powers and covering the tracks of criminals and quislings. Like he did under the JFK murder investigation!
That makes him the perfect DLC Democrat. A sellout and a crook with a gentle look.
you win the Magic Bullet prize package... D' tell him what he's won!
:)
My wife and I made the decision last night: we're ONLY supporting Progressive candidates in 2010 and 2012. If Harry Reid, Obama, and the DNC decide to support Specter, we're not giving them a dime.
Our "wait-and-see" issues were major health care reform and what Obama plans to do to ease the "test-test-test" mentality of No Child Left (Behind). Now, this has become our line in the sand. Sad, really. But hey, with the economy so crappy, maybe we can save a little money during the next two election cycles.
I agree, John.
I like Specter as a conservative Republican, he is what they should be.
Specter as a democrat? Not so much, I see the Democratic party as the new Progressive party. That's what we want and what we need. Democrats need to be left leaning not conservatives. I think Specter should have stayed with the republicans, he is Republican, the rest are neo-cons. We need republicans to be true conservatives and Democrats to be true progressive.
But what is progressive?
No-one is defining the term. Yet everyone claims to be one. What is wrong with being a liberal? Oh, liberalism is anti-authoritarian by definition. And the progressive cause needs people to act and identify with cogs in a machine?
It scares me that people claim to be progressive, but act like anything but a liberal. This is certainly not directed towards you personally, Nowwhat, but the question needs to be asked.
Be a progressive and be Rahm Emmanuel's bitc*, imo.
Mutually exclusive terms.
It is really hard to explain me with 1 word or a label.
I know some poor people in town that I just spent 25 dollars on for cleaning supplies for their home, but I also like giant v8's and 4x4 trucks, I don't like public transportation or country music. I like violent video games but don't like war. ??
The Irony and contrast in my personal beliefs and morals would drive any one insane.
A progressive, hopefully honest, educated and moral. Supports the entire constitution including the right to bare arms. Supports Hemp and peaceful resolutions to social problems ......sigh????!?!!
I think you meant bear arms.
Baring arms is what the wingnuts tend to want to do.
Speaking of tendencies.
I am unapologetic in saying I am a socialist.
I care little for this liberal/progressive label posturing.
I am happy that you are unapologetic as a socialist. I wish we had more socialists, and I am always eager to hear your perspective on things.
On a side note, I remember a while back you mentioned a book that dealt with the current economic crisis. The name of the book escapes me, but I was wondering if you had finished it and if you would recommend it?
Bad Money by Kevin Phillips. In writing style it is all over the place but it has much good information about many bad actors in finance most of whom are being bailed out by our captured government.
You will not be encouraged after you read it.
The other book was Predator State by James Galbraith who I greatly admire, as I did his father. I have yet to finish it, I was getting too depressed by the entire business.
I was asking you another question here.
I hope in about a few months to read those two.
You some sort of a prude?
Gravitas!
Maybe I do?
Bare is naked bare? Bear is to possess or show? Bear is an animal? Is bair even a word or just a last name.
The bear is bearing his bare ass????
Bear as to possess.
Bare as to be unconcealed, as to brandish.
Bair as to hand over more hundreds of billions in non recourse loans to Banksters, for them to bear, and that is the bare bones of the matter.
When I think "Progressive," I think Howard Dean.
Socially liberal--*very* liberal. Fiscally accountable: if we're going to spend our tax dollars, we have to know where the money's going and why, and it has to be for the "social good" (and of course, that's vastly open to interpretation, but that's a starting point). Spending should be for things that benefit the masses that they can't do for themselves: improved health care, public transportation, infrastructure. Our investments would be in people, not in corporations, foreign governments waging war on their people, or in our wars for resources. Russ Feingold is Progressive. Paul Wellstone was Progressive. Bernie Sanders is Progressive (though an Independent). Peter DeFazio leans pretty heavily Progressive.
When I think "liberal," I think Nancy Pelosi--the party line that keeps the Democratic power structure in place. It stands for little. It spends just like Republicans spend--in order to gain corporate support. It's the other side of the same coin--the one that needs Republicans like they need Democrats--like Coke needs Pepsi. Neither of these groups needs the middle class. And neither really gives a damn about the underclass, even thought they both pander to these groups in different ways, playing on their fears and frustrations.
I may not have said this very articulately, but that's what I think of when I tell people, "I'm not a liberal. I'm a Progressive. There's a difference."
sheesh. Buying the Thug/MSM definition, I see.
If it does the same as the right, then it IS the right. Just because someone has a different letter after their name doesn't turn definitions of old words into shit.
Oops, I seem to have pissed you off yet again.
Yeah, I think of Pelosi as a liberal. That's my definition, not a "thug's" or the "msm's" (although liberal politicians didn't do themselves any favors when Ronald Reagan and his henchmen were attempting to redefine the term in the '80s and liberals did very little, as I recall, to try to combat it--which is really neither here nor there). I don't equate the right with the left, under any circumstances, but I also don't have a very high opinion of some who stand so close to the center that they appear to stand for nothing. That's how I view Pelosi. It isn't how I view, for example, Barney Frank.
There are, to my way of thinking (and it's only my way, of course) shades of "liberalism" just as there are shades of "conservatism" and progressives. I'm not exactly sure what you mean by "turning definitions of old words into shit." I don't think of "liberals" as shit. I just don't agree with all that they appear to stand for--and that's truer for some than others (just as I don't hold Olympia Snowe in the same disregard with which I think of a Republican like Newt Gingrich).
Finally, I owe you no explanation. Because we disagree (or interpret things differently, or whatever) doesn't mean I'm buying into something you accuse me of. You can believe that if you wish, but attacking me for it only makes you rude. It doesn't alter my opinion.
Have a nice day.
When I think of progressive, I generally refer to the origination of the progressive movement in California during the turn of the 19th century. Progressives fought for social justice, for workers, for suffrage, for social programs like public education, and for the recall option. Today progressives fight for almost the same things. We fight for workers' rights, for universal health care, for free education to all (including college), for a better environment, for social justice, and for equal rights for all Americans. These are just a few of the causes of progressives. Pick up The Nation to read more. I think Progressives have more in common with Social Democrats or Democratic Socialists. Essentially, progressives are champions for the working and middle class.
Thank you, Lizzy. You said what I had in mind much more eloquently.
Yes, there is a difference between the two.
I have been wanting to ask about something you said back here:
I have looked far and wide and I can't find such a position. The closest is this which I should have included the description of 'easy and liberal' conditions for the wage laborer, to start thus:
For Marx, even 'easy and liberal' creates wage slavery and wage slaves, the laborer will NEVER receive full value for his labor. The capitalist receives the difference. The difference has grown huge.
If you steer me in the direction you were looking maybe I will like 'liberals' better, maybe even capitalists, who knows.
I was mistaken on the equality aspect. I actually don't know why I wrote that. That was a very wrong assertion for me to make. Capitalism commodifies labor and creates further wage inequality. I know this, and I am so wrong for saying anything to the contrary.
I do think that Marx understood that Capitalism was able to stimulate technological progress and innovation. But, he knew that the cycle of Capitalism becomes worse and worse and cannot be maintained in the long run.
I think the point I was trying to make, very inarticulately, was Tom Delay and people who were labeling Obama as a Socialist did not truly understand what they were saying. Actually, upon further review, that comment that I made just bugs me. It is all sorts of wrong.
Thank you for calling me out on what I said. I think sometimes I get a little too emotionally attached to issues (like the last Presidential campaign) and write things in haste, leading to inaccuracies.
> I was mistaken on the equality aspect. I actually don't know why I wrote that. That was a very wrong assertion for me to make. Capitalism commodifies labor and creates further wage inequality. I know this, and I am so wrong for saying anything to the contrary.
It's the Gulag for you, counter-revolutionary.
Marx was a German economist of towering intellect who wrote mainly of conditions in industrial England.
The Gulag such as it was purported to have been, mainly by those who had no information but primarily propaganda, was in Siberia many years later.
The confusion was intentionally developed and it seems to have taken firm root in this particular case.
I didn't mean to embarrass.
Although some of the Reptiles are as goofy as they sound, others know full well they are playing on sixty years of vicious anti socialist propaganda whenever they bring up Marx. Here is my previous thought on that. Of course Marx the economist is seen through the prism of Lenin the revolutionary. Lenin created State Socialism which is as untenable as our State Capitalism. Not all of Marx's predictions have come to pass, there have been instances of the mitigation of the worst elements that he saw. However the big prediction, that capitalism would collapse of its own inherent corruption HAS come to pass. We have just witnessed it. Sadly for us the perpetrators have captured the government and are having their lost fortunes replenished are our expense. They will rise again on our backs but the world will not be the same.
Use Wellstone's example for a yard stick, then don't listen to the drivel that comes out of their mouth. 'Talk is cheap' and always has been. Watch the voting record, watch who he sides with in 'congress' or in the local levels, does it HELP, or does it profit the CORPORATIONS??? If it benefits the 1%, while leaving the common peón in the dust..........you have your answer. If endorsed by Rahm, vote for the other guy.
Specter has to prove he is worthy based on the voting record. I am strongly in favor of supporting a progressive candidate. Also, Specter should not get to chair any committee until he has won a Democratic primary. He is a DINO until he can prove otherwise with his voting record and not his rhetoric.
I don't expect him to vote with the majority every time as I would not expect that from any member of Congress. However, the Employee Free Choice Act and Universal Healthcare are two core progressive issues. If he votes No against either of these issues, then he will not win reelection regardless of whether a progressive runs against him in the primary or not because he will have pissed off enough in both parties.
...............not the TALK!!
... as long as he support cloture. Though why he would think that would garner him Democratic or significant moderate support, I don't know.
Heck, they should run a middle-of-the-road Democrat if they can't find a suitable progressive. If anybody defines "DINO" it is Specter.
What use does this over-the-hill ghoul provide? He's not the "magic" #60 given his past voting record, he brings no Democratic credentials with him at all. This is a marriage of convenience for Specter and is, frankly, not very convenient for anybody BUT Specter. To Hell with him.
Put me down in the "if he wants to be a Democrat, let him be a Democrat but continue running the PA operation as if he's just another guy who would like to run for the Senate seat" column. As many have said, he needs to start proving himself as a Democrat not as some greedy old Republican who just can't stand the thought of dying a common civilian like the rest of us proles.
i've got a magic bullet theory about Arlen Spector, or does no one else here remember those origins of his career?
to me, this whole lie started then
edit: yeay! Celsius already referenced it... OK, how about Lenny Bruce's magic bullet?
over ANY politician that switched parties just to save his political ass. What the hell is wrong with Rendell and Biden encouraging this turncoat Spector to run against true Democrats?
I don't think guys like Liberman or Spector are loyal to anyone but themselves. They have been in Washington DC so damn long they have no idea what to do with themselves should they be defeated.
Spector has already said where his votes are going and they aren't going to go to strengthen the Democratic positions on the Free Choice act and probably not going to go to any left wing Justice appointment. With "friends" like Liberman and Spector, who needs enemies?
Reid, Pelosi...as well as many Democrats DO NOT want to enact any type of Progressive legislation period! This explains their constant obstruction with excuses such as:
(a) Before the 2006 elections, their excuses were something along the lines of: "we are trying our best to stop the damage that the Bush/Cheney Administration is reaping on this country, but the Rethugs have the majority and are hands are tied! That's why it's mandatory for you to vote the Republicans out and the Democratic in!
(b) When the Democrats took control of the House after the election, the excuse went something to the effect of: "we can pass meaningful legislation, but the Republican controlled Senate will simply shoot it down. That's why we have to not only elect a Democratic majority in the Senate in the 2008 elections, but ALSO a Democratic President to take back our country and put an end to this Bush/Cheney insanity!
(c) When we elected a Democrat President and a Democratic majority in both Houses the excuse is: "oh no, we can't do that because the Repubs will fillibuster ...and besides we want to be bi-partisian!
So what are the people who worked their asses off to get the Democrats elected in 2008 left with? (you know, because we wanted "Change we can Believe in") In short...nothing has really changed at all. We still have an excuse prone worthless right leaning Congress, and a President (The Obama King) who refuses to bring the Bush/Cheney War Criminal Cartel to justice and protect the Constitution, as well as an Attorney General, Eric Holder (the court jester) who is nothing short of a lapdog and who also refuses to do his job and uphold the rule of law and protect the Constitution!! What's the answer?...Both parties SUCK beyond belief...What we need is a NEW Political Part in this country! A Progressive Political Party - a party that delivers progressive legislation for the PEOPLE - NOT for the Banks and Corporations. This is the ONLY solution to this constant game we are forced to endure!!
Taking note of the political force Obama was able to generate through the web, he has shown what a little organizing and messaging can do to rally people to a cause. The members of Obama's webroots group just need to realize they are the true power and force. Obama accepted the challenge, but still needs to deliver. Stick together and realize Obama is one man not the movement. If the Justice Department doesn't investigate and enforce the law on torture, this will seriously hurt Obama's reelection chances.
O-bought-ma, the 'deal' that allowed a black man to be president was that he wouldn't prosecute, he would listen to Cheney, and Rahm, etc. He sold out!! 'He doesn't want to look backward', while at the very same time is 'targeting' holocaust deniers!!!! US of BLOODYISRAEL.
Specter, his smelly career on the brink, made the democratic party think he was doing them a favor by hooking up with them.
For us, the people, we are once again left in the dust.
Specter will be a Lieberman.
We could have fielded a progressive challenger to this half-baked cretin Bush-licker.
And instead, we will be treated to the spectacle of Obama and Biden campaigning for this self-serving schmuck.
And the democrats are putting out there that this is some kind of victory.
What if Specter turns out to be a Joe Lieberman, version 2.1? The Dems lose for winning.
...I don't understand how it matters whether he calls himself a Democrat or not.
Simply handing him the (D) label and support with nothing in exchange (support for Obama's platform), then I have ZERO incentive to support him as the Democratic nominee.
Attention "Newstalgia": Anyone have footage of Arlen back when he was a Democrat pre-1965?
FOX Snooze will eventually put a (D) next to a Republican or an (R) next to a Democrat.
What good is it to have someone like Spector (or Evan Bayh) in the Democratic party? We need real progressives promoting real needed change. I say they should have let him rot in the GOP and found a good candidate to unseat him. With very few exceptions this guy was a rubber-stamp Bushie just like the rest of them. He didn't need to change parties, he needs to change jobs!
primary his ass!
n/t
is turning out to be a great leveler of playing fields. My bet is that if a true progressive/liberal runs, he'll mop the floor with Mr. Specters ass.
Every time you guys put up a pic of Paul Wellstone is makes me sad.
You know we had our own Specter in reverse here in MN in the form of Norm Coleman. He was a good Dem until he decided to ride with the wind and go over to the dark side. He thought his chances were better. It worked once. It took a plane crash. Every time I think of it blood comes out of my eyes.
Carps
I didn't know that, wow!
Spector will still be a major pain in the ass with the only difference being it will be a pain in the Democratic ass instead of the Republican one.
The man gives new meaning to the words "arrogance" and "narcissism."
When I was helping with the Kerry campaign, I was instructed to help out with the Hoeffel campaign and I wouldnt do it. Specter puts people above party more often than any Republican and a surprising number of Democrats.
Did he switch parties to save his senatorial seat? Hell, yes. Because if he stays a GOP, he's going to lose to a rabid wingnut, and that wingnut will then lose to (probably) Hoeffel. Ive met Hoeffel while he was campaigning a few years back. He was at the train station drumming up votes, and I tried to ask him a few questions. Its as though he couldnt have cared less. Specter wants to be Senator to represent the people of PA, Hoeffel wants to be a Senator cause its a sweet gig.
Anyway, if Specter stays a GOP and loses in the primary, who's he helping then?
People > Party...its why ive been voting democrat...unless Specter is running
Specter could be dead in a year or so sick he can't run. I hope he says healthy but he has been very sick over the past few years.
F→Arlen sphincter, He's just trying to save his ass...
I think he flip flops, but what about... "Is Chris Matthews Running For Office"?
→ → →[ http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/04/19/is-c... ] Clip (0:34min)
1. This administration isn't stupid. Specter got support by agreeing to support most of the Obama agenda in trade for money and support for his reelection. Dems likely oked his throwing a couple votes to his old base where it doesn't really matter, but expect some real change in his voting pattern in support of more progressive agenda.
2. Ok, we won. But lets make it easy for moderate GOP voters and Pols to come over to the light side. I know, it is like negotiating with "moderate" Taliban and former Sunni insurgents, but that is how we move ahead and make progress in politics...the bigger tent stuff. Look how the GOP is doing with demanding strict adherence to their small revival tent agenda. We don't want to do that!
3. Ok, some good dems got hurt, but by splitting off a few of our opponents we will have more influence that will create more powerful positions for them just a few steps down the road we are on. They are probably already getting calls with promises of things to come that will heal their disappointments. Let us not over react to the moment.
Specter...yes, this is a good thing! Enjoy...
Four things about Specter today: 1) he can read the political winds 2) he wants to win in 2010 3) he knows he can't do it by alienating blocks of Dem voters and 4) he HATES Toomey.
So, I think we'll see a cooperative Specter between now and, say next Spring. On EFCA, I think he'll support a budget consolidation move by the Dems, so that his subsequent "no" vote (if indeed there is one), would not sink the thing.
I'm more wary of him post2010, when he'll have 6 years to become whatever he wants to be.
And something tells me that Reid/Emmanuel took my four points into consideration when they chatted with Specter about switching parties.
Therefore he's defective - send him back.
He's a little long on wind, and I totally agree. It was STUPID for the Dems to endorse him and not let a progressive clean his clock!! I smell the DLC/AIPAC behind the curtain. Yep, fix is in. Too bad, nothing to see here, move along.
Specter, didn't change one iota in his voting. He's a seasoned pol and is seeing the handwritting on the wall. If he's PUKIE, he looses for sure.
There's somebody we might want to think about running against Spector. Chuck Pennacchio ran for the Pennsylvania Democratic nomination in 2006 to take on Santorum. I worked on his campaign. He lost to Bob Casey (big name recognition, State Treasurer and son of a former gov.--another political dynast, I hate 'em), but got about 12% of the vote state wide, not bad for a first timer. He's now head of an organization pushing for single payer insurance in Pennsylvania and is making good progress there. He's good progressive and a tireless campaigner. Our big problem was raising money and with better name recognition this time around and some support here, he might be able to do it.
... but I think the name that will have national grassroots money pouring into a challenger's coffers is "Specter". Of course, we'll have to look at for the establishment Dems giving Specter the Lierberman treatment in the primary.
Please focus on the prize for the next four years. We have several supreme court judges and a ton of legislation. Spector has probably only one more term in him. If elected, he will come through for most of what we need. Toomey would be a disaster and if the left and center are split, he might get it.
Patience please; we will get a progress in the next trounche. I know it's hard, but this pinch point is not the one to push on right now.
....I would send a few bucks to anyone who had a real shot of torpedoing Specter, aka the new Joe Lieberman. I am in favor of holding these bought and paid for 'Democratic' running dogs of the plutocracy accountable for their votes against real reform, and deliberate sabotage of any real effort to fix the problems that are drowning this country.
Pay-to-play government sucks - it isn't democracy at all - it's just Oligarchy by proxy.
Arlen has talked the talk, then been pulled to the right by a rabid GOP over the years.
Or, that's what his behavior and voting record has been blamed on.
If he comes over, and get's pulled into a center left position - well, if that's an efficient place to put money advancing the liberal agenda, I can still get behind it. But proactively assuming that's the best place for it - well, that may not be the case. He has gotten elected in the state for a long time, presumably they (At least 51%) like him.
I'm perfectly happy to gradually move red demographics to blue dog democrat demographics, and pull blue dog democrat demographics to more liberal demographics. It's a lot more work and not nearly as 'sexy' as flipping a red demographic to liberals, but it's more effective in the long term.
It seems to me the Republicans have tacked more and more to the right, but by and large never changed their demographics, and a great deal of these sudden political changes is stress building up, a 'tipping point' phenomena. It would be a mistake to believe that tacking to the left and alienating the near independents, *without* an accompanying change in the demographics, could not set us up for a predictable tipping point on the other side.
One mistake I have noticed looking at the history of liberalism if that it has had a tendency to believe being right is sufficient. There were a lot of items that were won in the courts, but never we never convinced a majority of society of. Most obvious example - We never convinced people that there is a penumbra of privacy, which in turn meant people were never convinced there was a case that that penumbra protected abortion rights. You can come up with others - just look through landmark civil rights cases - {G}.
So the Demographics never changed, and by the 1980's Liberalism was completely caught off guard by the 'Reagan Revolution', but the tension had been building for years.
I want Liberals to win, for a long time. That means changing the demographics, not just the politicians. If that means putting up with Arlen Spector as an uncertain ally for awhile and pulling the center of mass further left, so be it.
Jonnan
Joe Torsella is running. He's from the Philadelphia area and he's raised 600K so far. Rendell WAS backing him until yesterday. Fast Eddie is DLC and this move is so DLC. I don't know that much about Torsella but I do know he's a Democrat and not Spector. I'll volunteer and contribute for him and any other progressive real Democrat in the primary. Has Spector changed his party affiliation in PA yet? We have closed primaries and he needs to contact the county courthouse to change his party. Technically, he's still a registered repug if he hasn't changed his registration.
Specter is only interested in his own well-being and that is why he switched. It would be irresponsible to not support someone who will be a true representative of their constituents.
Well said, and my long term concern is Specter's age and health. I suspect he will consider another 6 year term as his last if he is blessed with good luck. That can make one extremely independent and difficult to influence from the outside. Arlen is such a political personna I am not sure what he would do with such independence. I am sure he would be helpful with Health Care but I can't read what his other hard core beliefs and issues might be when he can afford to throw caution to the wind. Any guesses here?
The number one objective is to get a good health care bill passed in the next months. If it doesn't get done now who knows if it ever will? Specter could be the vote we need to get it passed.
how the hell can someone who promoted the magic bullet in the assination of JFK even still be part of the government? what a laff. who elects folks that propose such outrageous theories - and this man STILL has influence in the USA - no wonder 'merica is such a mess. Think about it - the guy who proposed the magic bullet is still an force in the usa - WTF - who cares what an obvious liar does - crediibility? what's that?
Take Arlen Specter as a Democrat. Don't waste your money trying to find someone to upstage the long time Senator. Find a state where a fresh new progressive Democrat can defeat a true conservative Senator.
As much as I dislike Lieberman and Specter, they still will lean closer to the Democratic Party than the Republican Party. They still are useful tools.
...I wouldn't support Specter in the primary, nor would I vote for him in the general election, even if he were the Democratic nominee. I vote for people I want to hold office, not people who occupy slots on ballots.
If the Democrats are stupid enough to think Arlen Specter offers the Democratic Party anything positive, then there's nothing I can do about it, but I wouldn't vote for the guy in any election under any circumstances. It's very simple -- I don't want him in the Senate. At all. In any party. And I wouldn't do anything that would help him get there.
He voted with progressives about 25% of the time -- Ben Nelson, the most conservative Democrat came in in the mid-forties. Specter is not a Democrat and when the day comes that he represents the Democratic Party, I won't support it at all.
Listening to Snowe is sad. She's really out of touch with the modern Republican Party. She still thinks it stands for things it hasn't stood for in years, even decades.
Specter isn't a fool , he's been around , for better or for worse his spot is secured as the Dem nominee you can be sure , unlike the Repugs the Dem leadership won't turn around and stab him in the back . I'm not so sure we should be celebrating his defection , might have been better to leave him out in no man's land .
Start now demonstrating the obvious differences and shortcomings of Specter. Not as a previous republican or as a new democrat. But as an individual. His unpredictability. His too often disappointing votes. His glaringly obvious motives based solely on his own political survival. He is not a people's representative. Never has been and never will be. He should be very easy to defeat if the (immanently qualified) progressive opponent gets a calculated early start that is well funded and well organized. Specters' motives for switching parties is all too obvious and lacking in admirable foundation. His vote today against Obama's budget coupled with his admission he intends to vote against the confirmation of Dawn Johnsen is only the beginning of what would be a constantly strained reminder of why we would have been better off had he stayed in the party of NO! Arlen Specter is no great catch, quite the opposite. I find it particularly repugnant that the Washington political forces have virtually decided for us that Specter is going to be the man.
I'd definitely donate for a progressive Specter challenger that man needs to be retired. It just goes to show you that neither party believes in democracy - it's all about their position and their power. Maintaining the status quo is so much more important than accomplishing anything. I think I saw an attribution given to Jefferson for stating that the creation of political parties would be our downfall - we've arrived.
Spector not voting for Dawn Johnson or EFCA and just recently, Obama's budget.
These votes could cause me to desire say, someone more progressive in that seat to vote in my behalf.
But alas, I do not live in his state and therefore could not vote in this.
With the Democratic party making deals as with Spector. Basically promising to clear the field of up and coming democratic challengers in Penn.
Does anyone feel like they just rigged an election?
Specter is NOT to be trusted IMHO!!!
I'll donate what pittance I can scrape up when the times comes!
Login or Register to post comments.