Poaching Specter Is a Cowardly Move.

[SteppingRazor]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/dan-sweeney/from-a-purely-political-s_b_192394.html


So, you've got a blue state represented by a Republican. Said Republican is old, and not as popular as he once was. Additionally, he faces a primary challenge that some polls say he will not survive, which would leave Democrats running against a far-right yahoo. So, what do you do?

The proper response is to find a great Democratic candidate and run him/her against either that far-right yahoo or the old Republican, who has been left bruised and bloody following a drawn-out primary against said yahoo. Instead, the Democrats have essentially performed a tactical retreat here, moving Specter to the "D" column rather than risking an election that would clearly have favored the Democrats. Instead of an election that they probably would have won, leaving them with a solid Democratic senator, they have instead chosen an election that they will almost definitely win, but that will leave them with a mealy-mouthed political hack with all the morals of a wounded badger.

As blogging great Glenn Greenwald has already mentioned over at Salon, "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." (Greenwald's entire piece is a must-read.)

Democrats now have Specter by the balls -- but only through the 2010 election. He's got to play ball now, so that the DSCC holds up its end of the bargain and disavows any competition for Specter in the Democratic primary. But even then, they haven't been pressing their advantage. In his news conference announcing his switch, Specter said that he remains against the nomination of Dawn Johnson and the passing of the EFCA.

[tekisui]

1. We only need him until 2010.

Then, its up to him. We will have more seats in the Senate.

[Mass]

4. Democratic leadership has said they would not run somebody against him in the primary,

which will make it difficult for a Democrat to raise enough money.

[FrenchieCat]

6. That's what I'm thinking! Timing is everything.

He's gonna have to behave for an entire year. In political time, that's a long time!

[Laelth]

14. That's true. 66 or 67 seats looks likely after 2010. n/t

:dem:

-Laelth

[Better Believe It]

21. Only if the economy is much better and people are returning to work

[babylonsister]

2. Don't discount Sestak...

http://briefingroom.thehill.com/2009/04/28/sestak-refuses-to-rule-out-senate-run-against-specter/

Sestak refuses to rule out Senate run against Specter
@ 2:10 pm by Jeremy P. Jacobs

Congressman Joe Sestak (D-Pa.) on Wednesday refused to rule out a run for the Senate in 2010 despite Sen. Arlen Specter's (Pa.) decision to switch parties and become a Democrat.

"I am going to have to wait," Sestak, who has been mulling a run for the Senate, just said on MSNBC.

MSNBC reported earlier that Democrats promised Specter they would support him in his reelection bid against former Congressman Pat Toomey. Sestak is the first of other potential Democratic contenders to comment on Specter's decision.

Sestak said he is waiting "to see what {Specter} is running for," implying that he wants to see what Specter will proactively stand for in his campaign instead of just opposing Republican policies.

"If the alternative is Toomey, that's one thing," Sestak said, appearing to indicate that he would support Specter if he is the Democratic nominee.

[mvd]

9. I'd rather have Sestak

While I like having an extra vote, I hope Democrats expected some concessions of their own in exchange for their support. If he won't even support Dawn Johnson, I wonder if they did at all.

[windbreeze]

11. Sestak might want to recall

what happened to Lamont...Personally, I never thought he got the kind of help he needed from Democrats to oust Lieberman....wb

[Ikonoklast]

3. We have enough 'name-only' Democrats in the Senate.

Political ambition and his own personal aggandizement is Specters' only creed.

We need more liberal votes in the Senate, and Specter ain't gonna be one of 'em.

[DrToast]

5. I don't think people appreciate where we're at right now

We have a wildly popular President and a large majority in Congress. Now is the time where you push your agenda. If Specter can help with that, then you take him. You don't say, "Well, in 2010 we can get someone in there that we really like." Great. And what if the economy goes further in the toilet and Obama starts to lose some of his popularity? What if he doesn't have the support for his agenda in 2010?

You've gotta strike while the iron is hot.

[Ikonoklast]

8. Just because he follows you home, doesn't mean you have to feed him.

Sometimes strays are just mean and bite for no reason.

[SemiCharmedQuark]

7. It's a gamble on the side of history. Historically, the party in power loses seats.

The Dems are thinking they are erring on the side of caution by putting through legislation *now* before they are possibly defeated.

But Specter...who knows what he'll do.

[mvd]

10. Good point

I don't think we will lose in 2010 (at least not much,) but the strike while it's hot argument makes sense.

[SemiCharmedQuark]

13. Specter's not giving any signs that he's going to be helpful, but as someone else point out

he also ruled out switching parties.

[Laelth]

15. I think we'll gain seats in both chambers in 2010. n/t

:dem:

-Laelth

[SteppingRazor]

17. I think it'll be tough to make substantial gains in the House, but...

the idea that the Dems will actually lose seats in the Senate in 2010 is simply not borne out by the facts, history or no. (See my post, below)

[Laelth]

19. We don't need substantial gains in the House, but I think we'll get them anyway.

I agree with you about the Senate, though I am, perhaps, a little more optimistic. I see more rats jumping ship soon. Obama is just to cool, and the R's look like idiots fighting him.

:dem:

-Laelth

[SteppingRazor]

16. Except that, in the Senate, odds are the Dems will pick up four or five seats in 2010.

Throw history out for a sec and just look at the seats that are in contention in 2010.

Democrats will try to pick up Missouri, New Hampshire, Ohio and Florida, all of which have retiring Republican senators, as well as mounting possible campaigns against vulnerable GOP senators in Kentucky, Louisiana, and North Carolina.

Republicans might -- might -- be able to field campaigns in Arkansas and Connecticut. That's it. They talk big about California, Colorado, New York and Illinois, but those are all bull.

[BeyondGeography]

12. It's not cowardly, it's evil

[Hippo_Tron]

18. The first two years of a presidency are the most crucial for legislation

That is a separate variable from the number of seats and IMO a very crucial variable. Most of a President's major legislation gets done in the first two years even if they don't lose Senate seats in the midterms. This is because after the midterms they are simultaneously governing and running for re-election which makes it harder to get things done.

And the second term is never as good for legislation as the first term because you don't get a honeymoon.

Any number of things can happen after the 2010 elections. But regardless of the outcome President Obama will never get the first two years of his administration back. He made the call that getting as much done in these two years is the most important thing and frankly I think history backs him up on that one.

[Orsino]

20. We don't have to choose between poaching Specter and replacing him.

We can do both--and get his seat, for whatever it's worth, now.

[SteppingRazor]

22. I don't see how he loses now in 2010.

The Establishment -- up to and including Schumer at the DSCC and Obama himself -- will support Specter. A candidate can run in the primary to Specter's left without any of that support, a la Ned Lamont in Conn. But such a campaign, which was already a tough task in Conn., would be extraordinarily difficult in a state as demographically disparate as Pennsylvania. Couple that with the fact, if he loses the primary, Specter would probably just pull a Lieberman and split the middle between the left candidate and Pat Toomey, and the idea that Specter will lose this seat in 2010 becomes extremely unlikely.

[Jakes Progress]

23. We could have had the seat in 2010

without dancing with the devil. If Spector had split the republicans or the republicans run a far enough right candidate, we should have had a decent Democrat to run. With a good candidate and support from Obama and Clinton, we would have had the state without the messy back room deals.

[SteppingRazor]

25. Precisely.

A Democratic candidate would have faced either far-right loon Pat Toomey or fairly unpopular Arlen Speccter, who had just been in a cash-draining, bruising fight with Toomey. Either way, it was a likely Dem. pickup. Now, Penn. is stuck with Specter as its senator for eight more years.

[Jakes Progress]

26. We read what Dems probably offered

including chairmanships. Given his recent statements that he wouldn't be changing some important positions, what can he do for us? I just feel like we've been snookered.

[w4rma]

24. Beat him in the primary, unless he support EFCA, etc. (nt)