The Washington Post

pa2012.com is proud to partner with The Washington Post in bringing our originally reported insider political news to a wide audience of decision makers and opinion leaders across the country.

Close it

Adam Schwartzbaum's Blog

Adam Schwartzbaum's Blog

The In-Specter

send to a friend | print | comment

Specter on Afghanistan: A principled stand or politics as usual?

There’s been a lot of buzz this week about Senator Arlen Specter’s recent comments, on the heels of President Obama’s imminent announcement of his decision to deploy additional troops to Afghanistan, that he does not support troop increases in that theater. On the blogosphere, there was plenty of open speculation that this was just another example of Specter taking a popular political position in order to shore up his support from the Democratic base, much of which is skeptical about sending any more troops overseas.

Once again, Specter is engaging in some raw political calculus. For months now, he has carefully hewed to the Democratic party line, voting with the party on nearly every single item in the Senate. On all the major policy issues, like health care and energy reform, Specter has been a good soldier for President Obama’s agenda. This is all relatively unsurprising, as Specter has made it abundantly clear that he is tying his electoral fate to the president’s popularity and success—remember the refrain he used at a recent town hall meeting at the University of Pennsylvania: “President Obama wants to do X, and so do I.”

Thus, what’s smart about his opposition to the troop build-up isn’t so much the fact that he’s moving to the left of Joe Sestak (which he is), but that he’s moving to the left of the president himself. When Specter became a Democrat, he promised not to tow the party line, raising concerns among many progressives that he would be the the same kind of spoiler for Democrats that he was, at times, for Republicans.

Now, Specter stays “true” to his word, not by pushing back on a popular progressive agenda item, but rather by breaking with the president over a foreign policy matter dear to many liberal hearts. Specter deftly earns cred amongst the anti-war crowd by taking a position on an issue on which his vote really won’t make a difference. He is able to safely position himself to the left of Sestak and the president, knowing full well that whatever the president decides to do regarding troop levels will be completely out of his hands.

Of course, there is the risk that Specter will once again come off as nakedly political, which is particularly off-putting when the discussion is our national security and the lives of American soldiers. Specter must be careful to frame his objections to the Afghan mission as one of genuine and responsible concern, not merely a convenient political tactic in a contested election year. How Specter handles the Obama’s speech next week about the likely increase in troop levels will be instructive.

By sending more troops to Afghanistan, President Obama will be making a bold, and perhaps unpopular decision to double-down on our Afghan strategy in order to make a final push for a victory against the Taliban and Al Qaeda. The president will need to convince a skeptical public that a major increase in troops is necessary and affordable in this troubled economic climate.

Will Specter be “persuaded” by the president’s rationale, helping “move” public opinion along with his own shifting position? Or will he really play the contrarian, making a public break with what will arguably be the biggest national security decision yet made during the Obama presidency?

share001btn Specter on Afghanistan: A principled stand or politics as usual?

November 25, 2009 at 3:45 pm

--Adam Schwartzbaum

comments

comments [13] | post a comment

  1. Michael Livingston

    Nov 25th, 2009

    I don’t think the words “Specter” and “principle” belong in the same sentence.

  2. David Diano

    Nov 25th, 2009

    Adam-
    This is a case of damned if he does or doesn’t.
    If he tows the line: he’s being a fake Dem
    If he disagrees: he can’t be trusted as a Dem.

    But, here we have a case of Specter disagreeing with Obama AND taking a Left position.

    To be fair, Specter qualified his position based upon an exit strategy. He hasn’t pre-judged the issue, without the details.

    Upon, hearing Obama’s proposal, Specter can still decide whether it meets his criteria.

    This is why the Senate is a deliberative body. Obama is taking a deliberate approach as well. Joey-31 (my new nickname for Sestak) jumped the gun as a Hawk, without knowing Obama’s plan.

    Just another example of why Sestak is not ready for higher office.

    Personally, I’m torn on the troop issue. We are spending $1 million per (underpaid) soldier per year. The enemy isn’t. That is not sustainable.

    Obama has to choose from a set of bad options and find a good strategy. Wait-and-see is a valid approach until Obama’s announcement.

  3. Wait-n-see

    Nov 25th, 2009

    Yeah, thats not dithering.

  4. David Diano

    Nov 25th, 2009

    Wait-n-see

    I’m taking about Specter waiting and seeing what Obama does. How can you endorse or dismiss a plan you don’t know?

    Obama is clearly making sure he’s getting input from everybody and actually making a careful decision based on information instead of misguided “gut” reactions.
    We voted against “shoot first ask questions later”. Obama’s taking the time to ask the questions before he “shoots”.

  5. Rob

    Nov 26th, 2009

    You can be sure that this move, like every Specter move, is based upon what Specter considers to be in his best political interest at the time, rather than being in the interest of the country. This creep has been there too long. He needs to go. The sooner the better.

  6. David Diano

    Nov 26th, 2009

    Rob-
    If Specter goes, we get stuck with Toomey. That’s not in the interest of anybody.

  7. Rob

    Nov 27th, 2009

    I disagree. If Specter stays, we get stuck with Toomey. Sestak will beat Toomey, because he’ll capture the independents (of whom I happen to be one). The independent vote will not go to Specter but to Toomey, because Specter is neither respected nor trusted by the independent community, which will value getting a new senator over keeping a hack.

  8. Ben

    Nov 28th, 2009

    This is sound war and US political strategy. This helps prop the President up by creating more demand for a strategy that so far has not existed in Afghanistan within his own party. Spector is not a tool who will do anything to get reelected no matter what people say, calculated like a chameleon is what all politicians should be when they see a President plunder this nations reputation as peacemakers and in turn turn nations against us. We must rise above and make hard decisions – putting party aside. I hope #Obama does the right thing and energizes this nation, including the Senator from PA, to rally behind a plan that has one goal in mind – victory and an end to the conflict.

  9. David Diano

    Nov 28th, 2009

    Rob-
    I find it difficult to believe that an independent would vote for Sestak over Toomey, but not Specter over Toomey. This is especially considering that independents have been Specter’s key group and Toomey is to the Right of Santorum.

    BTW, why would independents care what party Specter belonged to, since they aren’t members of either major party? The GOP has rejected any moderate voices. So why would the independents trust him less, now that he has broken away from the GOP’s far right-wing grasp?

  10. Nathaniel

    Nov 28th, 2009

    Before you judge Arlen Specter as lacking in principle and independence, read his autobiography “Passion for Truth” (2000).

  11. Rob

    Nov 30th, 2009

    David, I could care less what party Specter belongs to. I voted against him when he was a Republican for the same reason the man stands for nothing but his own reflection and, unlike Sestak, has voted for things that are atrocious because of his self-interest. And, as for Toomey, while I disagree with him, he is sincere, honest and principled. I’ll take honesty, sincerity and principled any day of the week over a dishonest, corrupt career politician like Specter, and so would most independent voters.

    Nathaniel, I read Specter’s book. It is intellectually dishonest and proves my point. In the book, he actually defends, strongly, his support of Clarence Thomas in terms that leave any thinking person wondering how Specter could think his readers are so stupid. In addition, readers who did not know history would not realize that we actually had a senior senator, John Heinz, during Specter’s first 10 years in office; I think Specter mentions Heinz only twice. The book is a joke, like the author.

  12. Joe Sestak Maintains Continued Support for Measured Troop Increase in Afghanistan | Politics PA

    Nov 30th, 2009

    [...] (1) http://hotlineoncall.nationaljournal.com/archives/2009/11/specter_sestak.php (2) http://www.pa2010.com/2009/11/specter-on-afghanistan-a-principled-stand-or-politics-as-usual/ [...]

  13. WESTPADEM6

    Nov 30th, 2009

    See also, Soviet Union bankruptcy. I agree w Specter. Without a plan and an end game, you shouldnt endlessly send them. So much for Joe’s promises to end the war.

Leave a Reply


- will not be published


pa2012.com blogs