this is a VERY interesting and VERY important article.

The fact that Specter over and over said EFCA would “eliminate the secret ballot” means he played a role in damaging the reform, no matter how much he claims to want it.

At the end of the day with Specter, it’s not just about the votes he makes or things he says, but the fights that he chooses to take on. I’m not sure that a guy who’s been there for so long can just vote one way or another and that be enough for voters. He needs to be out there fighting for things, not refusing to “comment on things until the bill is in front of him” or just saying “it’s on the table”.

Jack-
I don’t know if I agree with you.. I don’t like politicians who already know how they’re gonna vote even before they enter the discussion room. Its attitudes like that that define too much of the GOP (eg. Sotomayor).

I’d rather have a Senator who considers issues on a case-by-case basis.

clarification
(eg. like the GOP has acted during the Sotomayor hearings)

The “secret ballot” argument (mantra) against EFCA had caught on even even among enough Democrats. As originally presented, the bill was a non-starter. Specter knew this. Sestak did as well, which is why he was working on compromise bill from the get go. (One of the local Delco union reps told me that Sestak never really came out for the original, and was onto plan B without giving Plan A a chance.)

When Specter says “You’ll be happy with my vote”, it’s quite clear that it’s for the compromise bill that will be widely accepted as a major step forward.

What I’ve noticed is that the Obama administration puts out much stronger proposals than they know can be passed, essentially overshooting the mark. Then they dial it back enough to get it passed. If they put forth the “final” version first, it would get whittled away to nothing.

I’m going with your first interpretation. Senators love to deny that they have any agency, speaking in the “constituent voice” hiding behind people that are nearly always less informed on the contested policy issues than they are. Specter isn’t dumb. He knows EFCA doesn’t actually take away the secret ballot, and that slow-rolling arbitration is business’ favorite tactic for killing organizing drives. If he really supports labor law reform, he would use his agency and his national platform to vigorously explain that to his constituents. He would make commercials and send out literature and do the TV PR blitz to set the record straight. But he doesn’t. He accepts the Chamber of Commerce framing of the issue, and sells out labor with a compromise bill that only nibbles around the edges of the problem. He co-sponsored the first bill because he knew Bush would veto it. But when the time comes to actually cast a vote in an environment that it can really pass, he empowers Republicans and conservative Democrats to water it down. I don’t care what any politician says on the op-ed pages. You have to evaluate them on what they actually do and how they really use their power.

“He co-sponsored the first bill because he knew Bush would veto it.”
This is what the Blue Dog Dems did: pretending to support EFCA, then backing down when it looked like it would pass.

Specter’s been consistent on EFCA in what he would vote for, what he would vote against, and what he would allow to be voted on.

The more the Sestak people pin their hopes on Arlen voting the wrong way on EFCA, the more disappointed they are going to be when he votes for it and gets the Union support.

The only thing consistent about Specter is that he votes according to his perceived self-interest at the time. One cannot vote against confirming Robert Bork but in favor of Clarence Thomas and claim to be consistent in an intellectually honest sense.