But... but... (4.00 / 2)

Hmm. I wish I could find the flaw in your logic, but there isn't any.

---

by: Malacandra @ Thu May 07, 2009 at 19:53:57 PM CDT

There is a slight one... (4.00 / 1)

Specter got the deal he got partly because he's Specter, he had massive seniority in the GOP caucus, so he expected some sort of seniority in the Dems. I imagine in that context the Dems view Specter's new gavel as a demotion (rightly or wrongly). A freshman backbencher who decided to switch probably wouldn't get to chair anything.

But even without the chair, the promise of no primary and the complete lack of any voting obligation is still a pretty sweet deal. You also get the extra benefit of being able to position yourself on the teevee as a moderate iconoclast who bucks the establishment, Specter/Lieberman style! Maybe they'll invite you on Fox News to talk about how extremist the Dems are being!

---

by: Marcelo @ Thu May 07, 2009 at 20:03:47 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

well (4.00 / 1)

I've seen more than one pundit on MSNBC and CNN saying that they just can't imagine the Democratic caucus giving Arlen Specter his full seniority after the 2010 elections. They'd have to actually vote against their own best interests by putting him in front of them. Mikulski for sure would vote no.

Of course, I can foresee a scenario where word comes down from on high (Obama) that they should give him his seat, and Specter will sweeten the deal by threatening to jump back to the GOP if they don't, in which case the Dems fold. We just saw this happen with Lieberman.

But as least Lieberman votes with us 70% of the time or so. Specter needs to prove himself, and fast.

---

by: existenz @ Thu May 07, 2009 at 20:46:25 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Jump back to the GOP? (4.00 / 1)

Good luck with that..

He still has to deal with an impending primary over on that side...

And they still can't offer him jack...

REID: Voting against us was never part of our arrangement!
SPECTER: I am altering the deal! Pray I don't alter it any further!
REID: This deal keeps getting worse all the time!

---

by: lord_mike @ Thu May 07, 2009 at 20:51:58 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Here's a partial list of who's interests are served (4.00 / 2)

By not circumventing the Senate seniority system.

The most senior three Senate Democrats without a chairmanship are Barbara Mikulski, Russ Feingold, and Patty Murray, in that order.

Then you have the Senators he moved immediately ahead of on the powerful Judiciary and Appropriations committees: Harkin and Mikulski on Appropriations and Kohl, Feinstein, and Feingold on Judiciary.  Then, you have Kohl, Akaka, and Boxer, who have chair committees where Specter would have outranked them.

Then, you have the Senators like Dorgan (Indian Affairs), Landrieu (Small Business), or Kent Conrad (Budget) who don't want Specter to start a game of musical chairs, especially if it makes them chairless.

Then, you have the some Senators who might not like Specter for pure ideological or partisan reasons.

Of course, my idea of compromise is to give Specter Veteran Affairs and move Akaka to Homeland Security while kicking Lieberman out, because screwing with the perfidious Joe gives me more pleasure than stripping Specter of seniority.  

Things You Don't Talk About in Polite Company: Religion, Politics, the Occasional Intersection of Both

---

by: Anthony de Jesus @ Fri May 08, 2009 at 00:02:40 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

to expound upon your point: (4.00 / 7)

I wouldn't be surprised if the DSCC and the DNC concentrate on recruiting more "moderate" Republicans into the Democratic fold for the 2010 elections by ensuring them the support in the primaries and giving them seniority.

This is no doubt the long-term strategy of the Democratic leadership, intended to swell their ranks in Congress and increase their power. Of course, it will pull the party further to the right and decrease its electoral chances. But they can't be expected to see further ahead than their own shoelaces.

---

by: limpidglass @ Thu May 07, 2009 at 20:05:18 PM CDT

I'd offer the deal (4.00 / 4)

... to Olympia Snowe. If she asked me to invite her partner Susan Collins, I'd give her that. I'd even offer the deal to Kay Bailey Hutchinson of Texas. I'd be amused to see their side lose three female Pro-Choice members.

I don't care if they'd all join the Blue Dog Caucus. I'm with LBJ: "I'd rather have them inside the tent pissing out than outside the tent pissing in." And I'm aware that some of these pissers seem to have very poor aim lately.

But when the Repub Party dies off, and the Democrats split into two parties, I'll be O.K. with one composed of the Senators from Walmart, a couple of Westerners, a few retread Repubs, and a handful of others. Somehow that doesn't scare me.

Meanwhile, speaking of wetting themselves, folks around here are sure that Obama will keep his all of promises even if Specter does not keep any of his. Somehow I doubt it will play out that way.

Obama is not the liberal I wanted, but he ain't no fool.

He promised to campaign for Specter? Yeah, and exactly when will that be? Did he promise to campaign for him during a primary? If he promised to campaign for him after he wins the Democratic Party nomination, well hey, Obama ought to do that for any incumbent Democrat who asks.

When and where will that campaign appearance take place?  What will he say and how will he say it? Specter's strength has been the Philly suburbs, iirc, so Obama could go way over to the Ohio border, or into the woods up near the NY border, to speak at a breakfast meeting, before heading into the next state for a mass rally or a town hall meeting. He'd keep his promise, but so what? The news coverage would go to the other events.

Maybe Specter thinks he can get his way without supporting Obama and the Democratic Party. Some bloggers seem absolutely sure that he can do it. I don't see it playing out that way. So I'm chillin.

---

by: Woody @ Thu May 07, 2009 at 20:46:58 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

I don't see that much of a difference (4.00 / 2)

Between Specter and Collins/Snowe.

Things You Don't Talk About in Polite Company: Religion, Politics, the Occasional Intersection of Both

---

by: Anthony de Jesus @ Fri May 08, 2009 at 00:08:30 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Chris, you're funny (0.00 / 0)

I don't think it would work out the way you describe with 100 Democrats in the Senate. I don't think it would in any way change the eternal gridlock that exists between the Democratic Party and the Democratic Party, the House Democrats and the House Democrats, the Senate Democrats and the Senate Democrats and of course the POTUS and the Congressional Democrats.

---

by: Michael Harold @ Thu May 07, 2009 at 20:29:39 PM CDT

Yep (4.00 / 2)

Though some Senators would find reelection more difficult as a Democrat, in deep red states.

But it's really point one that gnaws at me. If Specter doesn't start radically changing his votes, what's the point? I keep going back to the same analogy, of a player switching teams but continuing to shoot baskets for his old squad.

---

by: existenz @ Thu May 07, 2009 at 20:42:17 PM CDT

One thing this does for the DNC (4.00 / 4)

The ability to repeatedly secure right of center candidates relative to their constituency in high profile races - first Gillibrand and now Specter - must please the party's big donors.

---

by: wobbly @ Thu May 07, 2009 at 20:54:37 PM CDT

If Specter would only (0.00 / 0)

If Specter would only get with the program the way Gillibrand has, Chris and others here could quickly move on to other pressing matters. When she represented an Upstate, exurban + rural, recently Repub House district, she had a moderate voting record. Now that she represents the entire state, she's voting like a big city liberal, campaigning for other Democrats, doing everything just about right.

I'm still hoping to see Specter move toward the Democratic Party line, but he'll have to move very fast to catch up with Senator Gillibrand.

---

by: Woody @ Fri May 08, 2009 at 15:31:24 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

I'll go for this (0.00 / 0)

The new Democrats stop worrying about Club For Growth and the religious right and in return we get easy primary targets.

Win / Win

Well, ok, I wouldn't be willing to give any leadership positions to these bozos, but the rest sounds good.

---

by: Mark Matson @ Thu May 07, 2009 at 21:49:48 PM CDT

I'm glad you put into words exactly what I've been thinking (4.00 / 2)

I always appreciate a good snarky diatribe.

So thank you.

---

by: hellenica @ Thu May 07, 2009 at 21:56:44 PM CDT

Primary him anyway (4.00 / 2)

So there was a deal with some leadership that there would be no primary. So what? I think that at the very least, labor and the netroots would come together behind an actual Democrat in a primary. Sestak, for instance, already has the support of the netroots, and he's been meeting with labor leaders. Labor has pretty clearly stated their willingness to support a primary candidate who will vote to pass EFCA.

So either Specter is going to have to shift his votes somewhat, or he'll be successfully primaried by Sestak. Of course, Specter is no slouch - he can shift with the winds better than anyone. If he changes his vote on EFCA, he'll probably pull labor's support, and then there will be no stopping him. While voting against Obama's budget and health care reform will hurt him in the primary, if he can get the labor unions behind him he can still win it.

---

by: dyfrgi @ Thu May 07, 2009 at 22:46:27 PM CDT

Even if he shifts, shaves his head bald, (4.00 / 1)

and tatoos a peace sign on his forehead doesn't mean he can be trusted.   Jesus christ, how many times have we been lied to?  

I think we primary whichever of the 12 are feasible, and we bloody the hell out of the rest by running ads in their states.  We do it for EFCA, single payer, trade - all of which are to the unions benefit.  

The joke is on us.   We aren't taking our party back from within.  The Republicans are.    

They're asking for another four years -- in a just world, they'd get 10 to 20. ~~ Dennis Kucinich  

---

by: dkmich @ Fri May 08, 2009 at 05:38:12 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

The Senior Republican Senators who have more Seniority than Specter (0.00 / 0)

Lugar-IN
Hatch-UT
Grassley-IA
All three are respected Mainstream Moderate Republicans.
plus the two Maine twins.  

---

by: nkpolitics @ Thu May 07, 2009 at 22:46:52 PM CDT

Hatch is no moderate (0.00 / 0)

---

by: NR @ Fri May 08, 2009 at 12:11:53 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Hatch,Lugar,and Grassley are Conservative but they are mainstream conservatives (0.00 / 0)

They are willing to work with the Democrats- They side with the Democrats on some issues such as Stem Cell Research. Hatch works closely with Ted Kennedy on major issues.  

---

by: nkpolitics @ Fri May 08, 2009 at 17:38:04 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Seeking the center (4.00 / 2)

If one's strategy is to take the center, and the center is defined as the gap between the Democrats and the Republicans, then one must keep moving further and further to the right.

The Democratic Party is steadily filtering conservatives over from the Republican Party, leaving the purest essence behind. After repeated lesser-of-two evil sorting operations, we will be left with the one most evil guy on the other side, and we will then be able to take pride in knowing we're not like him. Until that blessed day, we can never be sure we've compromised ourselves enough to defeat the ultimate evil which resides in the Republican Party.

---

by: barryr @ Fri May 08, 2009 at 00:07:41 AM CDT

I disagree (4.00 / 3)

I think it's a matter of the left convincing the center that a center-left vs right alignment is preferable to a left vs center-right alignment.  It's a matter of defining the center and deciding how much of the center you care to deal with.

I'd argue that Democrats have historical stunk at defining the center.

Things You Don't Talk About in Polite Company: Religion, Politics, the Occasional Intersection of Both

---

by: Anthony de Jesus @ Fri May 08, 2009 at 00:14:25 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

They've also stunk at defining the left (4.00 / 3)

I know from reading the comments on OpenLeft that there are profound disagreements as to what makes one liberal or progressive; but it sure seems to me that Bill Clinton was somewhere to the right of Richard Nixon.

Not being a Democrat, I'm far more interested in keeping the country from moving further and further to the right than I am in how many seats Dems sit in. I would hope that at least the current majority can get more Dems to face up to the fact that part of the battle is within the party, and not just with Republicans. 39 Republicans + 15 conservative (excuse me, "moderate") Democrats + 5 bipartisanship-loving Democrats + ? corporate tools = a filibuster-proof majority.

We have a long way to go to undo the damage done since the Powell Memo and the Reagan Revolution, and among other things it is going to involve bringing the Democratic Party to heel, not robbing the Republicans of their sane cloth-coat conservative base. You can get them to join the Democratic Party, but have you convinced them that liberalism makes sense and is good for the country?

I've said this since the second or third time I commented here: liberals will have a say in how the country is run again when politicians need their goodwill as much as they need corporate cash. If they can convince us we have to vote for them or the boogie-man wins, then that frees them up to make the donor class happy.  And the donor class is not interested in things like EFCA or limiting welfare-executive pay. But if we convince them that some of the compromising they love so much has to go our way or we'll replace them, then they have to balance the competing interests of the different groups trying to influence them.

---

by: barryr @ Fri May 08, 2009 at 03:06:31 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

D or R matters not, (4.00 / 1)

if we are all born again and working in the fields for a living.  Thanks to Clinton and DEMOCRATS, we are on a fast track to the bottom.  

They're asking for another four years -- in a just world, they'd get 10 to 20. ~~ Dennis Kucinich  

---

by: dkmich @ Fri May 08, 2009 at 05:41:19 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

I disagree (4.00 / 1)

I think it's a matter of the left convincing the center that a center-left vs right alignment is preferable to a left vs center-right alignment.  It's a matter of defining the center and deciding how much of the center you care to deal with.

I'd argue that Democrats have historical stunk at defining the center.

Things You Don't Talk About in Polite Company: Religion, Politics, the Occasional Intersection of Both

---

by: Anthony de Jesus @ Fri May 08, 2009 at 00:14:26 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

And Obama couldn't campaign (4.00 / 2)

for Jim Martin in Georgia, too "partisan".

Thanks.

---

by: Desider @ Fri May 08, 2009 at 00:14:35 AM CDT

I'm disappointed (4.00 / 1)

although not surprised with the passivity of this administration in its willingness to hew to a DLC-derived party line.  

But how would it have benefited the (at the time) future Obama administration, the Democratic party, or the left for the president elect to publicly campaign for a candidate that had absolutely no chance of winning a special election in Georgia?

---

by: wobbly @ Fri May 08, 2009 at 00:28:36 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Uhhh... (0.00 / 0)

By showing you have the belly for the fight?

That long odds don't trouble you none, if you don't get it this time, you'll at least make it easier next time?

No state or district left behind?

50 states, baby, 50 states.

---

by: Desider @ Fri May 08, 2009 at 09:26:38 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

i have a better idea (4.00 / 1)

why not have senator reid and other dems like him go over to the other side of the aisle and join the gop where their real loyalties and agenda are more palatable to that political attitude.  

---

by: pc @ Fri May 08, 2009 at 02:08:20 AM CDT

What better way to defeat Democrats (4.00 / 1)

then by joining their party and co-opting their policies.  People will get pissed at the Democrats for not delivering the change they were promised.

They're asking for another four years -- in a just world, they'd get 10 to 20. ~~ Dennis Kucinich  

---

by: dkmich @ Fri May 08, 2009 at 05:49:29 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

When parties die (4.00 / 1)

Republicans, despite their hand-wringing, are a long way from going out of business but they are no more than one election from being consigned to temporary irrelevance.

What makes a party die?  The "experience" is limited.  Two political parties have died in 220 years, the Whigs and Federalists.  In one case, effective governance reduced the Federalists to a regional party.  It got small in a hurry and stayed small.  After 20 years of irrelevance, the Whigs were swept away by divisions within the Democratic party (Jackson/John Quincy Adams that were more relevant and pressing).  In the second case, slavery was far more important than the sort of stuff pushed by a weak Whig Party and it pretty quickly went out of business.

Republicans have 178 House members and 40 Senators. They are a long way from the depths of the 1936 election which left them with a pathetic 88 House members and 16 Senators.  At that point, Republicans were two more elections from going out of business and being replaced.  Only the balanced budget nonsense of the Dixiecrats that pulled us into a recession as we were pulling out of the Great Depression kept the Republicans alive.  The election of 1938 was in some ways the most important election of the 20th century as the GOP went from 88 to 169 House members.

Yes, it is fun to imagine a no Republican Senate.  In that case, the division would probably be along personalities (pro-Obama vs. anti-Obama) or simply pro-Administration vs. anti-Administration as during George Washington's terms.  Btw, the very weak Federalists were succeeded by the weak Whigs who managed a similar electoral record to Republicans in the 1932-68 period: electing war heroes to two terms as President and barely controlling Congress for two scattered terms (one with a Democratic President) during a 30 year period.  That's a pretty good future to look forward to.

---

by: David Kowalski @ Fri May 08, 2009 at 06:01:21 AM CDT

Republicans post-1938 (0.00 / 0)

Wendell Willkie in 1940, Tom Dewey in 1944 and 1948, and Ike Eisenhower in 1952 and 1956 were not reichtwingers. None of them could possibly have won the Repub nomination in 2008, not even the war hero if he'd dared reveal his moderation. They would all probably have been booed at the Convention in St. Paul, the way the Goldwaterites booed New York Governor Nelson Rockefeller back in 1964.

I don't expect the Repubs to be able to take a turn toward moderation in 2012, giving us candidates like Willkie, Dewey, or Eisenhower again, but we shall see.

---

by: Woody @ Fri May 08, 2009 at 15:46:28 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

According to Ralph Nader (0.00 / 0)

they already are.


"It sounds wrong...
     ...but its right."

---

by: SpitBall @ Fri May 08, 2009 at 09:18:27 AM CDT

Right time to Switch to the Democracy! (0.00 / 1)

Remaining as a Republican for a Senate member is not an easy task to do.Everyone should be converted and Changed mentally.


Cheap   Wedding Favors

---

by: sabari02 @ Sat May 09, 2009 at 03:11:18 AM CDT