Moon of Alabama Brecht quote
Back to Main

April 28, 2009
Specter Changing Sides

Sen Arlen Specter switches his party affiliation. That is good for some stuff on the Democratic agenda as it will give them, as soon as Al Franken is seated, a filibuster safe super majority.

Good for Specter too who would otherwise have lost the Republican primary in Pennsylvania. He has good chances to win as a Democrat. Obama says Specter has his "full support."

One wonders how this switch was influenced or will influence his recent initiative to roll back presidential power grabs:

First, I intend to introduce legislation that will mandate Supreme Court review of lower court decisions in suits brought by the ACLU and others that challenge the constitutionality of the warrantless wiretapping program authorized by President Bush after September 11.

…
Second, I will reintroduce legislation to keep the courts open to suits filed against several major telephone companies that allegedly facilitated the Bush administration's warrantless wiretapping program.

…
Further, I will reintroduce my legislation from 2006 and 2007 (the "Presidential Signing Statements Act") to prohibit courts from relying on, or deferring to, presidential signing statements when determining the meaning of any Act of Congress.

All three positions are to the 'left' of the blue dog democrats and possibly to the 'left' of Obama too. Especially the signing statements act is inconvenient for any president.

Has Specter Obama's "full support" on this legislation agenda or will Specter sell out on these quite important issues to get a friendly welcome in the Democratic caucus?

Posted by b on April 28, 2009 at 16:55 UTC | Permalink
Comments

conspicuous omission: employee free choice act.

Posted by: Lizard | Apr 28 2009 17:58 utc | 1

Interesting angle, that he might be co-opted rightward. I’m used to thinking of the Dems as hapless patsy omega-bottoms anxious to make amends for each new slap in the face. I assumed Specter would replace Lieberman as a sanctimonious Quisling pissing on his party at every turn and dragging them right. Without a third party of the left, defections mean nothing and Dems obviously know it, given how they forcibly crushed Nader.

Posted by: …—… | Apr 28 2009 18:05 utc | 2

Yup, I see Specter falling into the Lieberman area of “supporting” the Democratic Party. Harry Reid reportedly said Specter has been with the Dems when they don’t need him, and seldom with them when they do need him.
I somehow don’t think that will change greatly. But perhaps hopes of getting a good committee chairmanship will help keep Specter in line, however. Reportedly, he was not promised any chairs.
Time will tell.
I was somewhat stunned at the MCMers* talking about how this change would give Obama the votes he needs to get his program through. No mention of the rightward leaning Dems. Yikes.
*MCMers–Members of the Mainstream Corporate Media

Posted by: jawbone | Apr 28 2009 18:17 utc | 3

I think that most of Specter’s moves to the right during the Bush years have been necessitated by political posturing.
I have a hard time believing he will descend into such an overt bottom-feeder like Lieberman; politically, he is moving in the opposite direction from that leech. Is Specter similarly beholden to AIPAC? I haven’t followed him closely; i can only say I’ve resented his backpedaling on issues like torture, wiretaps, and the like, but of course in an environment where your conscientious vote won’t make a difference, there’s no point in rocking an already leaky party-tethered boat.
I can see how this move might free him up to pursue issues a bit more conscientiously, but he will probably still remain an anomaly within the party. It will be interesting to see how his political persona alters.

Posted by: china_hand2 | Apr 28 2009 18:48 utc | 4

Here’s an excellent analysis by Glenn Greenwald.
What Specter’s switch says about him, the Democrats and our political spectrum
It’s quite clear why Spector switched sides. he’s another Lieberman. An Israeli firster who will hold as leverage an important seat in the house. He will go to Obama and say… you be a hawk on foreign policy and I’ll make sure to put a stamp of approval over your domestic policies.

Posted by: Anthony | Apr 28 2009 20:34 utc | 5

I haven’t seen it mentioned today so far but I wouldn’t be surprised if Specter doesn’t make it to the 2010 election. How much chemo has he had? I’m sympathetic to him as a person, but as a politician he deserves the same circle of Hell as the the Clintons, Lee Hamilton, Leiberman, et al. His ‘principled’ stands only show how unprincipled and self-serving he is.

Posted by: biklett | Apr 28 2009 20:54 utc | 6

Back in December, the WSWS suggested that Obama undertook no effort to thwart the election of Saxby Chumbliss (R) because in fact he wasn’t interested in a filibuster-proof majority:
Republican wins Georgia Senate race as Obama lies low

It is likely, in fact, that Obama had little desire to achieve a 60-vote supermajority in the Senate, since the “threat” of a Republican filibuster serves as a built-in excuse for the Democratic administration to repudiate its campaign promises to end the war in Iraq, provide jobs and move towards universal access to health insurance.

Posted by: Colin | Apr 28 2009 20:59 utc | 7

from Greenwald – “Arlen Specter is one of the worst, most soul-less, most belief-free individuals in politics.”
He won’t be any use to the dems. He has already said he’s against EFCA and he may even help the gop fillibuster Dawn Johnson. I’m paranoid enough to wonder if this wasn’t engineered by sensible republicans in order to keep another right wing vote in the senate. He was looking to get clobbered in the primary by the unelectable Pat Toomey. Anybody the dems would have put up would have won easily and been beter than Specter.

Posted by: Sgt Dan | Apr 28 2009 21:48 utc | 8

Changing Deck Chairs on the Titantic, but the band plays the same song of masked despair.

Posted by: Obamageddon | Apr 28 2009 21:57 utc | 9

i don’t see how this helps anything. is it just political expediency on specter’s part? probably. and i doubt he’ll work to “roll back presidential power grabs” now that he’s batting for team blue.
one of the consequences is that dems will have even less of an excuse when their filibuster-proof majority still doesn’t produce significant change. i expect some really wakco rethugs to win elections in 2010.

Posted by: Lizard | Apr 28 2009 22:24 utc | 10

Sgt Dan,
After removing the three G’s (God, Guns, and Gays) from the political equation, there’s little to no difference between Republicans and Democrats.

Posted by: Cynthia | Apr 28 2009 23:04 utc | 11

“He will go to Obama and say… you be a hawk on foreign policy”
hehe, good one. dude’s already a warmongering assclown surrounded by warmongering assclowns of his choosing.
no arm twisting required,

Posted by: ran | Apr 29 2009 0:01 utc | 12

Specter is part of the inner circle, and as the saying goes, nothing in politics happens by accident. Are we looking at the first card in the deck of Cheney’s sleeper cell?
I would be willing to bet he knows far more than we do, and he is positioning himself to monkey wrench some dire up and coming event. He and his ilk, play the game igo (Japanese), weiqi (Chinese) or baduk (Korean) while others are merely playing chess. And while this game combines a beautiful and intellectual challenge, they are no more intellectual than us serfs, these vassals of tptmb (the powers that make believe) aren’t in our servitude, they are not public servants, they are of of high rank and have inside information, that us peasants are not privy to, and besides, they cheat.
It’s a terrible beauty. They play us — the masses –like violins. And we dance to their tunes. Single bullet Specter, is a bishop of the realm.
If this link doesn’t come through, then I have been singled out for link censoring…. and yes I have tried b, and others suggestions.
[link corrected – b.]
[corrected again – b.]

Posted by: Uncle $cam | Apr 29 2009 2:33 utc | 13

link censoring, a new phrase? of course if one were to be link censored, it would be you, uncle. and your frustration means its effective. don’t let it be effective.

Posted by: Lizard | Apr 29 2009 2:53 utc | 14

I agree with Uncle. Specter has always done elite bidding.
This is not good for dems.

Posted by: jdp | Apr 29 2009 3:21 utc | 15

specter the spook or simply specter the sphincter – is it for
penetration, or timed to tighten the chamber?

Posted by: b real | Apr 29 2009 3:45 utc | 16

Uncle, does it strip the URL without the link code?

Posted by: rjj | Apr 29 2009 6:21 utc | 17

Looks like Uncle has been blacklinked. Uncle, only alternative might be just posting the URL’s.
Attempting Google backup:
For Specter, inner circle http://www.politicalfriendster.com/showPerson.php?id=1072&name=Arlen-Specter
Go, briefly explained http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Go_(board_game)
A visual introduction

Posted by: small coke | Apr 29 2009 6:30 utc | 18

Attempting Google backup:
2nd attempt. (1st reported posting but vanished.)
For Specter, inner circle http://www.politicalfriendster.com/showPerson.php?id=1072&name=Arlen-Specter

Posted by: small coke | Apr 29 2009 6:36 utc | 19

Breaking post into 2 posts seems to help. is 3 links too many?
Go, briefly explained http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Go_(board_game)
A visual introduction

Posted by: small coke | Apr 29 2009 6:39 utc | 20

@Uncle – @13 – no censoring going on …
you wrote ‘<AHREF=”…’ instead of ‘<A HREF=”…’
A blank was missing – I corrected that and republished your comment.

Posted by: b | Apr 29 2009 6:39 utc | 21

Missing reference – #18 & #19 are substitute links for Uncle’s #13.
Looks like b fixed Uncle’s link. But it still leads to a dead end.

Posted by: small coke | Apr 29 2009 7:14 utc | 22

Happens to me all the time.
At SST A HREF=”http… would disappear. It requires HREF= “http….. Without the space the link disappears.
Also SST refuses to transmit after a certain number of previews so you have to copy the post, go to main directory, reopen the thread to get a fresh form, paste, and it posts. Not sure if that happens here.
I copy posts before hitting the button to save wear and tear on the temper.

Posted by: rjj | Apr 29 2009 7:50 utc | 23

PS This site also rejects posts that have been previewed too many times. Copying post, reaccessing the thread via the main page to clear the form and pasting enables one to post.

Posted by: rjj | Apr 29 2009 10:01 utc | 24

A Stage Full of Whores

Posted by: Uncle $cam | Apr 30 2009 2:08 utc | 25

i still can’t read uncle’s #13 link
🙁

Posted by: annie | Apr 30 2009 2:18 utc | 26

Spectre’s (sp) bringing in satchel fulls of moolah to the dems from his ‘benefactors’.
That’s why he got into the Boy’s Club without any caveats.
When the Rethugs can’t influence legislation in favor of their ‘sponsors’, then the ‘sponsors’ switch to others who CAN.
Spectre got in cuz he’s spreading the benefactor love around, with a satchel full of love for everyone in the Dem Party who helps him achieve his goals, which are the goals of his ‘benefactors’.
Life is simple, don’t screw it up.

Posted by: larue | Apr 30 2009 3:37 utc | 27

Back to Main