Specter: I'm entitled
Arlen Specter's incessant griping about having to face a Republican primary challenger smacks of entitlement, as numerous bloggers have pointed out. Specter (like Lincoln Chafee and Joe Lieberman before him) simply assumed that the Senate seat belonged to him and there's something structurally unjust about having to defend his record in a primary.
Until this morning, this charge of entitlement was based on inference. But on Meet the Press today, Specter acknowledged explicitly -- in a different but related context -- that he really does think himself entitled to power:
Never mind the many senators who have represented the Democratic Party faithfully for years or even decades. Never mind the fact that Specter voted against the Obama budget and has promised to oppose Democratic efforts on workers' rights and public health insurance. And please: pay no attention to Specter's specific denial in the Meet the Press interview that he'll be "a loyal Democrat."
Specter deserves power because Specter deserves power. It's a beautiful piece of tautological reasoning that tells you much of what you need to know about Specter's motives -- and the establishment mindset more broadly.
Until this morning, this charge of entitlement was based on inference. But on Meet the Press today, Specter acknowledged explicitly -- in a different but related context -- that he really does think himself entitled to power:
MR. GREGORY: I want to move on, though, to the question of what it took for the Democrats to get you. What were you offered? What inducements have you been given to switch parties?Here Specter foregoes any pretense of having to earn rights in a political party that he has actively worked against for virtually his entire career. Being treated by the Democrats as though he'd been elected as a Democrat -- which he wasn't -- doesn't even register with Specter as a perk. Rather, it's just taken for granted. It's an entitlement.
SEN. SPECTER: None.
MR. GREGORY: None.
SEN. SPECTER: None.
MR. GREGORY: You won't retain your seniority, as you move over, on, on key committees?
SEN. SPECTER: Well, that is, that is, that is true. But...
MR. GREGORY: That's not an inducement, Senator?
SEN. SPECTER: Well, no, that's an entitlement. I've earned, I've earned the seniority. I was elected in 1980. And I think that's, that's not a bribe or a gift or something extraordinary. I will be treated by the Democrats as if I'd been elected as a Democrat.
Never mind the many senators who have represented the Democratic Party faithfully for years or even decades. Never mind the fact that Specter voted against the Obama budget and has promised to oppose Democratic efforts on workers' rights and public health insurance. And please: pay no attention to Specter's specific denial in the Meet the Press interview that he'll be "a loyal Democrat."
Specter deserves power because Specter deserves power. It's a beautiful piece of tautological reasoning that tells you much of what you need to know about Specter's motives -- and the establishment mindset more broadly.
This post first appeared at jesselava.com.
Advertisement
The Democrats in Washington DC will take anything they can get. It doesn't matter that they get nothing in return apparently. They have been pushed around so long and gotten so used to bowing and scraping that now that they're in power they don't know how to be any other way. It's really, really sad. They don't need Specter. Specter needs them, but they are so lacking either in backbone and self respect they are letting the tail wag the dog once again. But, in this case I'm not getting too upset because I know there isn't a chance in hell that Specter gets nominated as a Democrat next year. Thank God!
May 4, 2009 1:12 AM | Reply | Permalink
"there isn't a chance in hell that Specter gets nominated as a Democrat"
Don't be so sure. With Obama and the entire Dem party establishment behind him, the smart money's still on Specter.
May 4, 2009 2:34 AM | Reply | Permalink
The smart money? Then I'm even more sure he'll lose! So who says the smart money is smart other than the smart money people? They aren't as smart as they think they are. Look at their recent track record... The smart money backed the Iraq invasion, Hillary as a shoe-in, and the ponzi schemes of Wall Street.
Specter is a pathetic egoist more interested in his ongoing stature as Senator than whether or not he does anything for anyone (other than himself). He will lose the Democratic Primary. Mark my words.
May 4, 2009 3:34 AM | Reply | Permalink
I do think there's a chance of that, and I certainly hope you're right.
May 4, 2009 7:39 AM | Reply | Permalink
I wouldn't be too sure about that Oleeb. This whole thing reeks of Rahm Emmanuel and Specter wouldn't have jumped ship if there was the remotest chance he would have ended up in the ocean. There is already a deal in place - this is back room dealing at its most sleazy.
May 4, 2009 11:28 AM | Reply | Permalink
Well, there are far sleazier backroom deals. :) But yes, there does seem to have been an arrangement made, and it's all in the open: the establishment Dems will back Specter and give him seniority in exchange for Specter changing the letter after his name.
May 4, 2009 11:36 AM | Reply | Permalink
Well, I wouldn't say it's all out in the open and I doubt that we'll ever be privy to what happened - we're just the voter bees.
May 4, 2009 11:41 AM | Reply | Permalink
I've no doubt you're right and that a deal has been cut. I'm just confident that whatever deal has been cut by the insiders in DC, it will be undone by the Democratic voters in PA. This deal that the insiders have cut which yields zero for Democrats and shelter from the storm for Specter is just more proof of how ineffective and out of touch the Democratic leadership in DC is and yes, I include the President and his administration in that assessment. The President is surrounded by nothing but the worst sort of establishment, DC Democratic insiders. That's why we're seeing so many of the standard solutions and dilemmas from the President. Only where necessity has dictated a departure from past practices has the Obama admin deviated from the tired, worn out Democratic pattern of behavior, compromise and deals that serve everyone's interests except those of the Demcoratic constituency.
May 4, 2009 1:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
Oleeb, I agree with you, but no, the voters don't get to decide anything. The money for Sestak will dry up with a few phone calls from Emmanuel and it will be over long before the voters speak.
The system becomes increasingly corrupt with every passing year and it is not going to change because no one wants it to change, including the president.
May 4, 2009 1:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
Obviously we share a mutual contempt for the methods of people like Rahm Emmanuel. Nonetheless, I feel quite confident that their inside moves and attempts to cut off support for others will fail. The blogosphere can easily blow that crap away if it chooses to do so, but even without that I think the voters and people all over the country will defy the deal makers and defeat the old man. And I think there's not much discussion of the fact that the man is 79. Even if in perfect health, he is not terribly likely to live long enough to finish out another term. Don't think that won't play a major role in what transpires.
May 4, 2009 3:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yes, a deal was cut, but I'm beginning to wonder how many deals have been cut and how many bills are just plain fixed. We've seeing that on one financial bill after another over the last few years. I am really terrified that on both EFCA and healthcare the fix is in. The establishment doesn't care if Specter doesn't support either because they're so beholding to big corporate that they don't want either to succeed. Oh, we'll get a healthcare bill, but what kind of bill? Will it be in the public interest or in the interests of the biggest and baddest insurance and pharmas?
May 4, 2009 5:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
It's been like this for years and it is getting worse. If we don't do something about the lobbying industry and limiting power bases for congress we're done for.
May 4, 2009 6:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
It is amusing to watch this unfold.
Specter fears losing to the point of grasping at nothing. They just don't get it. "By the people and for the people" doesn't even seem to enter his mind.
Like our 'Uncle Ted Stevens', Specter faces the big boot. His twisted logic suggests maybe by going with the flow he stands a better chance as a Democrat. Like waving a magic wand. Maybe he expects to turn into some Prince by kissing a friggin frog.
Again and again we are taken as fools. Time for Specter to get his lunch and go sit in the caboose with Ted.
May 4, 2009 4:12 AM | Reply | Permalink
They really do believe that they're entitled to these offices. They don't look at public office as an honour bestowed upon them by the people, they look at them as careers, with job benefits, health care and generous pensions. If "we the people" don't get off the stick and start doing something about this power hogging, we're not going to have a country left.
May 4, 2009 12:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
I almost missed this, but I would catch it tomorrow.
Monkey Face Gregory. God I hate that guy. ha
Sometimes politics moves us in mysterious ways. If we can get judicial appointments, like we did under Carter--who set the record by the way, why not?
I wanted to castigate and punish Lieberman. Our New Prez said NO. He was right. President Obama forgave.
I guess I can.
Good post Jesse. Always read you.
May 4, 2009 1:22 AM | Reply | Permalink
Yes, he was emphatic that he will NOT be a loyal democrat. WTF? He proved it, post-haste, voting against the the bill to help people keep their homes. He has bugled more committees and hearings and negotiations than I could list. Arlen Specter Clouseau.
May 4, 2009 4:21 AM | Reply | Permalink
It would be great to have some real grass-roots support for this Sestak guy. Seems like a good guy, or am I missing something?
May 4, 2009 8:21 AM | Reply | Permalink
I've read things from a couple of Pennsylvanians who see him as a flaky douche, but it's hard to imagine him being a worse Democrat than Specter.
May 4, 2009 8:30 AM | Reply | Permalink
I was ambivalent to say the very least (though completely unsurprised) when Specter switched initials from R to D. Having seen and heard all of his comments since making the switch, I want an all-out primary against this guy. I don't know anything about Sestak yet, but I will start reading today. There is no reason in the world to back Specter if he is unwilling to support the President's agenda.
May 4, 2009 9:44 AM | Reply | Permalink
Here's a link. The guy really wants to be seen as a mover and shaker:
http://www.nybooks.com/articles/22656
May 4, 2009 10:28 AM | Reply | Permalink
"It's all coming together now Smithers..."
May 4, 2009 11:07 AM | Reply | Permalink
I think people are missing the aspect that the voters in PA decide these things, and not you!
Come to think of it, if party activists had had their way, we would never have fielded Bob Casey Jr., the popular pro-life son of former gov, who beat Rick Sanatarium by a whopping 17 pts. The politically correct lefty candidate never would have done that. And look at how well it turned out -- we delivered a punishing rebuke to one of the most rabid rightwing Republicans in recent memory.
Local knowledge trumps partisan purity any day.
May 4, 2009 12:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
p.s. I am in fact no fan of Spector, who always pretends to be independent, but over the years always folded to party pressure in the end.
But I think we are being overly strident and intolerant here. I'd give him a chance to vote the right way on the big issues, and use the pressure of a challenge as leverage.
"Carrots and sticks", not "sticks and sticks".
May 4, 2009 12:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
What other big issues can he oppose Dems on? The day after joining the caucus, he voted against the Obama budget. And he's already promised to filibuster (not just oppose) card check and oppose a public health insurance option. So if he votes for cap-and-trade -- which he would have voted for anyway -- all is forgiven? Wouldn't you rather just have a real Democrat?
May 4, 2009 12:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
You simply can't make *every* vote a litmus test. That's how the GOP acted and see where it got them. Someone could vote 99% with them, but if they voted wrong on one issue, they were suddenly traitors.
Here's a good discussion of a smart carrot and sticks approach:
http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2009/04/carrot-and-sticks-for-specter-model-for.html
I would say health care is a necessity. I would also say cap and trade. And look, we CAN'T wait until 2010 to start making progress. We need 60 votes NOW!! So the fact that we should have a 60th vote once Franken is seated is hugely important.
May 4, 2009 2:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
I wasn't saying make every vote a litmus test. I mentioned three enormous votes: the budget, workers' rights, and health care. On other stuff like cap-and-trade, he would have voted with us anyway. My point is that Specter will apparently vote the exact same way no matter what party he belongs to. So how does having him in the party benefit us? All it does is make it very difficult to nominate and elect an actual Democrat, even though PA seems ready to do so.
May 4, 2009 5:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
Did I say that I was making the decision? Wasn't I just providing political analysis?
May 4, 2009 12:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
I wasn't rdirecting this personally at you. Just presenting my view on this issue. Thanks for the analysis and discussion.
May 4, 2009 2:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
No, the voters in PA don't get to decide it - it's already been decided. He already has the democratic primary in hand or he wouldn't have jumped. The democrats will dry up any donations to the democratic candidate opposing Specter and Specter will get the nomination. The same thing happened here in Ohio in our last senate race - it's decided at the national level and the candidate left out in the cold is wondering where his promised donations went.
May 4, 2009 1:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well, Lieberman lost the Dem primary despite getting establishment backing -- and in PA, they have a "sore loser" rule where Specter wouldn't be able to run as an independent. And even in OH, that was a closer race than many thought it would be. Don't be resigned to the status quo; there's much we can do out here.
May 4, 2009 1:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
No it wasn't a "closer race" in Ohio - the primary was decided before it was even brought to a vote. Lamont stayed in it because he was rich enough to fund the race himself and even then Lieberman won didn't he?
May 4, 2009 2:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
As I mentioned, Lieberman only won the general because there was no "sore loser" rule as there is in PA. In any event, there are many examples of establishment candidates losing to insurgents. And I don't think resignation is productive for the progressive movement. There's too much work to do. It's always easy at any point in history to say that nothing can ever change, the powerful will always get what they want, blah blah. And yet change happens -- over time, if enough people are engaged and willing to work hard for it.
May 4, 2009 2:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
I don't believe I said that we should resign ourselves, but if we don't recognize and understand it for what it is then it will remain the same.
May 4, 2009 2:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well, you did say the outcome is already determined, and I think this particular challenge will be tough but not impossible.
May 4, 2009 3:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
Jesse, the outcome has already been determined. The goal is to maintain Specter's position in the senate - he would not have jumped ship if he had not been assured the nomination. There would be no point to it. People in Specter's position don't jump off the bridge without making sure the bungee cord is tightly attached. You don't think the democrats haven't already determined what they'll get out this, do you?
May 4, 2009 3:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
The difference between us is I don't think the future is written. Just because establishment Democrats plan for something doesn't mean there's nothing anyone can do. But we may just have to agree to disagree here.
May 4, 2009 4:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
And if enough of us sponsor Sestak out of outrage over Specter's nose-thumbing at all Democrats, and Specter loses; what is he going to do?
Stand at the Washington Monument and yell, "I was robbed!"
If Rahm Emmanuel can deliver Specter another term (for who knows why), he better be able to deliver the right Supreme Court Justices, Universal Health Care, and Tax reform. If he can only deliver one of those and it just happens to be Specter, I am done!
May 4, 2009 7:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
He's already come out against public health care, so that one's out.
May 4, 2009 9:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
No, what I was saying was this: If Rahm Emmanuel is so great that he can deliver the Primary for Specter, then RAHM better also deliver us the things we want, Specter be damned!
May 5, 2009 7:16 AM | Reply | Permalink
"No, the voters in PA don't get to decide it - it's already been decided."
If you mean that we get a 60th Democrat from now until 2010, are you objecting to that?
If you are talking about 2010 onward, the voters will decide. The party can try to suppress a challenge, but that didn't work so well in 2008 with their favorite presidential candidate.
The most important thing is sentiment of the voters. If Spector performs terribly and acts like a Republican, he invites a challenge and the cahllenger could very well win.
I think the ball is in Spector's court:
Vote with your blue PA constituents and succeed in 2010
Or vote like a Republican, appealing to nobody, and lose in 2010.
May 4, 2009 2:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
We don't "get a 60th democrat", we get another senator protecting his power base. That's all the voters of this country get.
If you think that the establishment didn't favour Obama, then you just don't get it at all - the system itself is corrupt, can't you see that? Obama wasn't some "insurgent" coming out of nowhere - he's part of the system, not outside of it.
We had a United States senator announce that the system is owned by the financial/banking industries and what happened? Nothing. No outrage, no editorials, no rush to investigation by the media, just absolutely nothing. Of course the ball is in Specter's court, it always has been.
May 4, 2009 3:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
"We don't "get a 60th democrat", we get another senator protecting his power base."
We get more votes than we would if Spector was GOP. I can't believe you are so absolutist that getting more votes for our side between now and 2010 isn't viewed as a plus.
"If you think that the establishment didn't favour Obama, then you just don't get it at all"
Yeah, I guess I don't get your paranoid conspiracy theories.
The important thing is that unlike the GOP, we Democrats -- and I'm assuming you aren't one -- shouldn't let our strategic decisions be made by ideological fringe. Let's keep up the big tent, tolerant, pluralistic type politics that Americans are really warming up to.
May 4, 2009 4:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
"I can't believe you are so absolutist that getting more votes for our side between now and 2010 isn't viewed as a plus."
I think the key question is whether that actually turns out to be the case. The only reason 60 is a magic number is it invokes cloture; if Specter would vote for cloture on issues that he otherwise would not have, then you're right. If, however, he votes exactly like he would have before on such issues, then really he's no help -- and indeed just gives cover to Republicans who can say "Even Spector the Defector won't abide this!"
May 4, 2009 4:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
It's not decided, it's fixed. It's the very worst of machine politics all but disenfranchising voters. You can have any candidate as long as the candidate is against labor and healthcare. What a choice!
May 4, 2009 5:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
I am really starting to loathe Spector. I don't imagine the odds of this are great, but I would be thrilled if Pennsylvania Democrats scotched this whole plan (which does seem to have been cooked up in the most undemocratic way) and chose an actual Democrat in the primary.
May 4, 2009 1:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
I was half inclined to give the guy a shot. But, after watching him on meet the press, the specter of Specter makes my sphincter sprockter.
May 4, 2009 3:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well done!
May 4, 2009 3:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
If a strong Democratic challenger appears, then expect Obama to honor his promise to support Specter by damning him with faint praise, and Rahm not to call off the competition.
May 4, 2009 4:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
What can Specter say if he loses? That he was PROMISED something? If he loses he will be powerless. I want to see that happen after his insulting and dishonest behavior on MTP.
Rahm can deliver? Supposedly that is what he does. OK, Rahm. Deliver Universal Health Care, Green Energy R&D, tax reform, and end our wars. Do that, and screw Arlen -- the entire country (minus 22%) will be behind our party, and the goopers can just continue to rebrand themselves into oblivion!
What if Ben Nelson finally admitted he was a republican and did it officially -- and his first statement was that he wasn't a "loyal republican!" What do you think the repub mafia would do to him? Do you think they'd BACK HIM IN A PRIMARY?
May 4, 2009 7:56 PM | Reply | Permalink