I think it is still early on judging Specter's impact on legislation will be (0.00 / 0)

If Harry Reid has actually secured something tangible from Specter as a result of this switch, we haven't seen it yet.  

Specter needs to maintain his previous statements (as a Rep) for now or he will appear a total tool.  If he came out in favor of any/all his previously oppossed positions right after switching parties he would be exposed as a total opportunist (not saying he isn't).

I think we will see a slow change in his positions, not highlighted by him or the Dems, as this plays out.  Afterall, Specter, if nothing else, has a clear track record of folding under party pressure to support/oppose positions.  And he will have considerable pressure, at least through the primary, from his new party to get behind some Dem causes.

The real question is, I think, does Reid have the balls to press for that support.  That I'm not so sure of.

---

by: alffy @ Fri May 01, 2009 at 18:10:58 PM UTC

Seems like a no (4.00 / 1)

Afterall, Specter, if nothing else, has a clear track record of folding under party pressure to support/oppose positions...The real question is, I think, does Reid have the balls to press for that support.

Specter may have a history of folding under pressure, but people like Reid, as you say, don't seem to have the history of applying that pressure.  And, from what we've seen so far from other party leaders (cf Rendell promising not to support any primaries), it seems like they've pretty much taken the position that he has the leverage to pressure them.

Yes we Kang

---

by: I Voted for Kodos @ Fri May 01, 2009 at 18:33:18 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Heh heh. I have an ad Progressives ought to run.. (0.00 / 0)

"Does the DSCC make your Senator all limp and wobbly?"

Well the results are in folkes!
Even a little Progressive can increase the power of that certain Member of Congress dramatically.
You can end forever such chronic weak Electoral Dysfunction and those pitiful cries of "I've fallen and can't get it up to 60 seats" by writing to your nearest Progressive dealer, now."

"

Nationalism is not the same thing as terrorism, and an adversary is not the same thing as an enemy.

---

by: worldlymother @ Fri May 01, 2009 at 18:38:35 PM UTC

This pitch makes me less likely to donate to the DSCC... (4.00 / 2)

...insofar as it reminds me that my money might be used to help preserve Specter's incumbency.

---

by: Sportin' Life @ Fri May 01, 2009 at 19:17:06 PM UTC

Democrats right now have 60 seats (0.00 / 0)

minus the two Arkansas Senators,Holy Joe-CT,Evan Bayh-IN,Ben Nelson-NE,and Specter-PA. We lose Dodd of CT. -7 Seats.

Democrats will pick up KY (a progressive Conway replaces the conservative Bunning).
Democrats will pick up MO (a progressive Carnahan replaces the conservative Bond.)
Democrats will pick up NH(a progressive Hodes replaces the conservative Gregg)
Democrats will pick up NC(a progressive Cooper replaces the Conservative Burr)
Democrats will pick up OH(a progressive Fisher/Brunner replaces the Conservative Voinovich)

Democrats will pick up a net gain of 4 seats. Democrats will have 64 seats  

---

by: nkpolitics @ Fri May 01, 2009 at 19:40:39 PM UTC

Harry couldn't get it up with 51 or 57 ... (0.00 / 0)

As a weak ML, he takes the Progressive out of Progressives.  Look at what he did to Russ Feingold.

We get nowhere, as Durbin pointed out, as long as the insiders/East coasters rule.

Not one of those you mentioned is from a Democratic stronghold - those are all purple/red states.  They'll only add to the muddled middle.  

Nationalism is not the same thing as terrorism, and an adversary is not the same thing as an enemy.

---

by: worldlymother @ Fri May 01, 2009 at 19:55:11 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Break the 60 vote mindset (4.00 / 1)

WE DON'T NEED 60 VOTES TO PASS LEGISLATION

This can't be repeated enough. We only need 60 votes to get to a vote on final. Harry Reid needs to make it clear to Specter that no matter how much he opposes a piece of legislation he will not be allowed to prevent it from going to a majority vote. That his old party raised it from a measure normally invoked only over major national issues to a routine part of governance is not reason to allow that to continue.

I don't care if EFCA passes 60-40 rather than 53-47, I mean the more votes the better but the key is to get to cloture.

There is this odd assumption floating around that individual Blue Dogs will on their own join with a united Republican caucus to prevent votes from going forward. I don't see that happening on a regular basis, Senators have too much to lose in the way of everything from spending provisions for their state to their office space.

There is no risk going along with a filibuster supported by your party's leadership while there is tremendous risk of going along with a filibuster supported by the other party's leadership. You are talking a whole different dynamic.

Another point missing here is that Republican routinely used the filibuster as a proxy for the veto. The implicit argument was as follows: "If you can't get 60 votes for cloture you certainly won't get 67 votes for a veto override so lets compromise now." This did two things. One it left the Republicans as the party of rational compromise and Democrats as being just out to score partisan points (yes this was bullshit, but surprisingly successful bullshit). Two it gave any individual Republican knowing that his was not really the decisive one, that instead went to the 34th member to sign on.

Well they lost that implicit threat, now the filibuster is no longer a test of the majorities power to withstand a veto, it is just pure obstruction for the sake of it. In the last Congress it only took 34 votes to Constitutionally block legislation. Now it takes 51. In effect a change in control of the White House is worth 17 votes to the winning side.

I suspect the old game of blocking legislation via the filibuster and then blaming the Democrats as a Do-Nothing Party are over. Specter claims he is not a guaranteed 60th vote, but he is largely bluffing in my view. Stray too often from the herd and I suspect those efforts to clear the field get pretty half-hearted pretty quickly. Specter needs the national party to stay at least neutral but probably needs active backing. Because Joe Sestak is out there waiting and the Netroots are more than restless here.

---

by: Bruce Webb @ Fri May 01, 2009 at 21:04:01 PM UTC

this looks like a much easier year for liberal primary challenges to me -- (0.00 / 0)

all someone would have to do is show all the votes and non-change since 06 -- the trillions for Wall St and pennies for local areas and the multiple defeats of even small things that would relieve the pain nationwide -- and all the millions in funding all incumbents receive from Wall St, HMOs, Defense Contractors, etc -- and that lobbyists are still writing all bills, etc.

---

by: amberglow @ Sat May 02, 2009 at 01:38:37 AM UTC