It's enough ... (4.00 / 2)

if Sestak fleshes the message out more ... give concrete examples .. but of course .. it couldn't hurt for Sestak to broaden his message to things other than Specter is a lying weasel

---

by: Calvin Jones and the 13th Apostle @ Mon Jun 01, 2009 at 18:54:46 PM UTC

Everyone knows Specter is a joke ... (0.00 / 0)

it's just that now .. we finally have a candidate who can stand toe to toe with him .. especially since if Sestak runs .. it means the unions are backing him(and not Specter anymore)

---

by: Calvin Jones and the 13th Apostle @ Mon Jun 01, 2009 at 18:55:59 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Specter is, at heart, a Republican (4.00 / 3)

Just shove his 25+ year record up Arlen's nose.  There's no shortage of video, text or voting record to use in a Democratic primary.

John McCain won't insure children

---

by: magster @ Mon Jun 01, 2009 at 18:54:55 PM UTC

Specter's Word is Worthless (4.00 / 3)

There must be a dozen or more important high profile issues on which Specter publicly staked out principled (OK, semi-principled) positions only to cave-in when it came time to vote.  The Military Commissions Act comes to mind.  I don't know about Pennsylvania, but out here in Missouri, a candidate would suffer from such public displays of weakness. Voters may disagree with but still vote for someone who stands firm on principles.  The reciprocal does not work.

---

by: ArthurKC @ Mon Jun 01, 2009 at 19:12:18 PM UTC

The obvious one (4.00 / 4)

This is so obvious that it may be missed: If Specter wins in 2010, he instantly becomes a de facto Republican again, since the only reason he's now a Democrat is in order to win the 2010 election.  He then has 6 years of complete freedom to be an obstructionist - especially since he's 78 years old and so he may not run again in 2016!

---

by: raj @ Mon Jun 01, 2009 at 19:17:12 PM UTC

I'm having a hard time believing this is (4.00 / 1)

an issue. Do PA Democrats have no memory of voting against Specter for the past few decades? It's a Democratic primary. The guy was a Republican last Tuesday.

Is pinpointing the right message the key factor, here? I dunno. I find the whole thing baffling. I guess if were Sestak, I'd ignore messaging and go right for mockery: ads showing nasty products being repackaged in glittering new (false) colors. A sleazy salesman trying to sell a crap vacuum cleaner, who when the buyer says 'no' slaps a new label on the vacuum and tries to sell it as a blender.

---

by: Joel @ Mon Jun 01, 2009 at 19:53:25 PM UTC

Specter's brand (4.00 / 2)

Specter's personal brand that he is advertising is one of idiosyncratic independence, such as when he gave the Scottish verdict of "not proven" during the Clinton impeachment or opposing the nomination of Robert Bork or voting against CAFTA.  His admission that polling influenced his decision is the sort of unexpected candor that leads people to believe he is someone who can be trusted to be honest, even if you don't agree with his positions.  So, that's the image that you have to work against, if you want to charge him as being "untrustworthy".

The first thing that you should do is make a lot of preemptive challenges to him that he needs to move left on certain issues before he has a chance to address them himself.  It harms the Specter brand image to be seen as outright pandering to the left, so his instinct will be to not shift left, to show his independence.  Of course, if liberals actually do need his vote, then challenging him head-on is probably the worst way to persuade him.  Having a candidate like Sestak being able to challenge Specter means cultivating cordial relations with the media, a smaller-scale version of my argument that the progressive movement needs its leaders to have Chris Matthews on speed-dial to be effective.

The second thing necessary is to drive a wedge between Obama and Specter.  The first task for opposition research would be to look through the voting records and search for votes where Obama and Specter were on opposite sides.  Look to craft a narrative that says that Specter can't be trusted to back up Obama.  Of course, you have to find a way to do that without making Obama looking stupid for appearing to trust Specter.

Of course, if it were up to me, I'd prefer a line of attack that paints Specter as a cancer-ridden old man who has gone crazy over the years, possibly due to a psychological reaction from being so rejected by the Republican base that he dropped out of the 1996 presidential race before the primaries even started.

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

---

by: Anthony de Jesus @ Mon Jun 01, 2009 at 20:00:47 PM UTC

I think this is VERY promising and very Obama like IMO. (4.00 / 4)

Obama took on the same tactic when running against Clinton; there was a meme about the Clinton's not being trustworthy and that they also were full of baggage that made it impossible for them to create a functioning government. That brought out the bad side of the Clinton years and the shut down of the government.

Sestak should link this to the idea that a REAL democrat will have more influence on the caucus and be able to get more things done.

(1) Seniority: this is a major issue. Spector doesn't have it and there are real questions he will get it at all.

(2) Respect: Spector doesn't respect the party or the ideals; look at how he approached EFCA and universal health care and the stimulus. Sestak should DEFINITELY hit him on gutting the stimulus that was likely too small all in the name of "moderation" and to stay on the good side of the Republicans. Then detail his drift to the right.

(3) Arlen Spector is a George Bush Democrat, not an Obama democrat and the president is making a mistaking trusting a republican like he made a mistake trusting the Republicans to act like grownups over the stimulus.

JMHO:  But I think the core message should be you can't trust Spector to act like a democrat; and these are times that need a democratic solutions to George Bush's generational mess that Arlen Spector supported for 8 years. Hit him hard on the Bush connection, say the President is making a mistake of accepting Spector, and that no one can trust a man whose flip flopped in a month as much as Spector has flip flopped.

---

by: BlatantLiberal @ Mon Jun 01, 2009 at 20:09:01 PM UTC

Makes sense to me (4.00 / 1)

It's basically what sunk John Kerry.

---

by: TValley @ Mon Jun 01, 2009 at 20:14:49 PM UTC

All Sestak needs to do... (4.00 / 2)

...is show video of the stump speech Bush gave Arlen in 2004 praising him for being such a strong Bush supporter...

Put hat video on a loop, and the primary will be yours, Joe!

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 @ Mon Jun 01, 2009 at 20:49:19 PM UTC

Reality (0.00 / 0)

Perhaps it isn't cricket to point out Specter's age and ill health, but why not, it's relevant.

It doesn't have to be crude, some variation of the "time for a change" message and a focus on how long Specter has been around should get the message across.

"A senator who has the energy to work for all of PA, for the next six years" or the like.

Policies not Politics

---

by: robertdfeinman @ Mon Jun 01, 2009 at 22:43:56 PM UTC

Specter's flip flop on Habeus Corpus (0.00 / 0)

Glenn Greenwald is right that this accurately depicts the true cravenness of Specter:

http://www.salon.com/opinion/g...

Arlen Specter is one of the worst, most soul-less, most belief-free individuals in politics.  The moment most vividly illustrating what Specter is:  prior to the vote on the Military Commissions Act of 2006, he went to the floor of the Senate and said what the bill "seeks to do is set back basic rights by some 900 years" and is "patently unconstitutional on its face."  He then proceeded to vote YES on the bill's passage.

What better argument could there be than that? By his own admission, Specter seeks to "set back basic rights by some 900 years". What better example of his lack of trustworthiness is there, considering he flip flopped and voted for something that, again by his own admission, was "patently unconstitutional on its face"?

Beyond Iraq: A Time to Break Silence

---

by: Harry Waisbren @ Mon Jun 01, 2009 at 23:25:42 PM UTC

to me, this is obvious (4.00 / 1)

You run on "change." That theme has a good track record since 2006. Then, you portray (quite easily) Specter as "more of the same." You use tons of very old video and more recent video tying Specter to the worst of Republican policy and the worst of Republicans (George Bush and Dick Cheney). This will repel voters from him and also point out how old he is.

Yes, Specter will have some kind of Obama presence. Hopefully it won't be too high-profile and hopefully the voters can see through the politics behind the endorsement.

---

by: tremayne @ Tue Jun 02, 2009 at 00:04:13 AM UTC

yes (0.00 / 0)

hammer specter with the bush stuff

---

by: The Big Hurt @ Tue Jun 02, 2009 at 04:06:41 AM UTC

"It's not a game" (0.00 / 0)

"I forgot what team I was on." That's how Specter justified hoping for Republican Norm Coleman's success in his ongoing fight to overturn Democrat Al Franken's electoral victory in Minnesota, days after his "switch" to the Democratic party. He also said "In the swirl of moving from one caucus to another, I have to get used to my new teammates..."

Sestak should run an ad with those Specter quotes, emphasizing that Sestak's political actions are driven by his core values rather than political jockeying, and end with the coda: "Teammates? Somebody needs to teach Alan Specter that it's not a game."

This ad should run sooner rather than later, because 1) it will have more effect when the Minnesota litigation is still unresolved, 2) the Specter quotes are objectively rather trivial, and their impact will fade, and 3) the ad would connect to and lay the groundwork for later, stronger arguments linking Specter to Bush (which don't have such a short shelf life).

---

by: FearItself @ Tue Jun 02, 2009 at 14:23:46 PM UTC

Make a virtue of negativity (0.00 / 0)

"This year, vote against someone!

Because Arlen Specter isn't a Democrat, he's a George Bush Republican.

Because Arlen Specter doesn't represent Pennsylvania, he represents Beltway pandering and gutted the stimulus

Because Arlen Specter can't be trusted to fight for healthcare, EFCA or Obama's nominees.

Because if he fled one party, how can you trust him in another?

Because sometimes you need a change. Vote Sestak."

Something along those lines. Attack Specter viciously and joyfully. Point out the difference between Specter 2004 and Specter now, and ask what Specter 2016 will be like (which also allows an age-based attack). Say that the negativity is helpful, because primaries matter and voters need to decide who they agree with.

Make it about issues, not Arlen, and he's toast.

Forgotten Countries - a foreign policy-focused blog

---

by: Englishlefty @ Tue Jun 02, 2009 at 14:38:48 PM UTC