send to a friend | print | comment

‘Senator Specter is Still a Bush Republican’

That’s the headline of an e-mail I recieved several weeks ago from Democracy for America, a progressive group that at the time was raising money to put pressure on Arlen Specter to support a Commission to investigate allegations of torture committed by the Bush administration.

A lot has changed since I received that e-mail. Specter has become a Democrat. At first, I couldn’t help but be caught up in the sense of euphoria that swept Democratic circles yesterday over the prospect of having the symbolic 60 seats in the Senate. Yet after thinking over the realpolitik of the decision, and sleeping on it, I woke up this morning with quite a different take on what this actually means for the Democratic Party and for President Obama’s chances at passing certain legislation in the Senate.

To put it straight, I’m not sure it changes much. Specter still has a voting record that would put any Democrat to shame. He marched in lockstep with President Bush on the Iraq War, voted to pass and reauthorize the Patriot Act, voted for every resolution to continue the Iraq War and voted against every piece of legislation meant to set some timetable for troop withdrawal.

Specter may have voted for the stimulus package, but he also voted against Obama’s budget, and voted for the 5-year spending freeze legislation floated by the Republican leadership. Just yesterday, he reiterated his opposition to the Employee Free Choice Act, the important labor legislation that is at the front the Democratic agenda, as well as his opposition to Obama’s extremely capable and qualified nominee to head the White House Office of Legal Counsel, Dawn Johnson. Specter made it clear in his press conference that he intends to maintain his independence, and will not be an automatic 60th vote on any legislation.

Some have argued that, when push comes to shove, Arlen Specter will owe his seat in the U.S. Senate to the Democratic Party, and thus he may be more pliable then he would have been on issues like health care when they do finally come up for a vote. Yet if you look at Specter’s career up to this point, all signs indicate he probably would have voted for health care in the first place, whether he had an R or a D next to his name.

While it might help the Democrats at the margins, I’m not sure this is as much of game changer in terms of actually passing legislation than it has been heralded to be.

Indeed, as a progressive Democrat, I would have been happy to see Specter lose in the Republican primary and be relegated to the political wilderness. My thinking was that Republican Pat Toomey would face a true Democrat like Joe Torsella who would easily trounce him in the general election, and we’d get a great new Democrat to represent this newly blue state.

Instead, progressive Democrats like me will have to hold our noses and support a man who we have no great enthusiasm for, just because the political establishment thought it was convenient for keeping and consolidating power.

Specter’s shift may have taken the political world by storm. But at the end of the day, I’m not sure it really changes much in terms of passing the President’s agenda. I’m not above hoping that Specter has a revelation and alters his voting pattern to be more in line with his new party—but I’m not counting on it, either.

April 29, 2009 at 11:22 am

--Adam Schwartzbaum

Tags: Arlen Specter

comments

comments [4] | post a comment