Specter made a lot of Democratic turns in the last year, promising to be a leader on a whole set of issues still on the president’s agenda for 2010. Many people are wondering if Specter will still deliver. For my part, I don’t think Specter can afford any more ugly reversals at this stage of his career. Backing away from his positions, at this point, would be a final ugly stain on his legacy—so I expect him to keep his word. Specter still has a chance to leave a lasting mark in the Senate by vigorously championing legislation that will strengthen Pennsylvania and this country. Here is how.

Climate change and energy

As oil gushed into the Gulf of Mexico two weeks ago, Senators John Kerry and Joe Lieberman were out plugging their climate change bill, the America Power Act. While many prognosticators think the chances of a climate bill this year are dead, I believe the crisis in the Gulf demonstrates again more than ever why it is so essential for our country to pass legislation that incentivizes the development of renewable, sustainable energy sources that do not cause global warming. This bill is a step in the right direction.

Specter has made many statements supporting these efforts. He understand the threat of climate change.  Just six months ago, in a letter from nine senators he sent to President Obama before the Copenhagen summit, Specter wrote:

“Climate change is a serious and growing threat to the United States and the world. The consequences of climate change are already being felt at home and will intensify in the years ahead in ways that place the U.S. economy and future generations at risk. Internationally, the adverse impacts of climate change will threaten vital U.S. national security, economic, energy security and humanitarian interests. Smart climate change policies would guard against these risks while also spurring clean energy investments that promote economic growth and create good domestic jobs.”

I could not have said it better myself. “Smart climate change policies” are sorely needed to wean us off of our dependence on foreign oil and fossil fuels that are dirty and dangerous to our environment, our economy, and our national security. This bill is needed, as Specter put it, to “provid[e] energy for our country to take care of us and our economy in the future, to deal with climate change and to protect the planet from global warming, and to free ourselves from dependence on OPEC and Venezuelan oil.”

In a tricky international financial market, investing in clean tech solutions to our countries energy problems is a winning idea. As Ben Freed, the Pennsylvania spokesman for Al Gore’s Repower America group, explained to me this week, federal clean energy legislation that is signed into law this year will spur the creation of 1.9 million new jobs across the country over the next several years, including more than 78,000 in Pennsylvania. The American Power Act isn’t perfect, but it’s a strong way to begin the transition to the clean energy that the U.S. needs to revitalize its economy with new industries and jobs, restore its environment by reducing dangerous carbon pollution and strengthen national security by becoming energy independent.

Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell

Another major reform on the President’s agenda is the discriminatory “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” military policy. Each year, this policy forces thousands of patriotic gay, lesbian and bisexual Americans to leave the military, and makes countless others silently continue serving our nation with the sword of an unexpected outing constantly hanging over their heads, threatening to cut their careers short at any time. Just this week, newspapers from Seattle to Boston published editorials called for its repeal. This policy is abhorrent to American values of civil rights and equality, but to eliminate it, Congress must act.

Arlen Specter has become a great supporter of repealing Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell, in line with his long history of friendship with the American gay community. Back in October, I reported on Specter’s public stance supporting repeal. Specter stated “the military’s Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell policy is outdated, and should be rescinded entirely. A person’s sexual orientation has no bearing on their ability to serve their country in the armed services. Countless studies and the experiences of gays who have served in the military have borne out these findings.”

The time to repeal “Don’t Ask” has come. As The Washington Post reported, the American people are behind repeal.  Their inherent sense of fairness and equality is shining through in poll after poll. “A Post/ABC News poll showed that 75 percent of Americans support ending “don’t ask don’t tell.” One from The New York Times put support for gay men and lesbians serving openly at 70 percent. And 57 percent surveyed by Quinnipiac University favored repealing the 16-year-old law. Gallup shows that 70 percent of the American people are in line with that sentiment in a poll released on Monday.” Once the bill leaves the Senate Armed Services Committee, Specter should make the right decision, keep his promises, and take a great step forward for civil rights.

Specter Can Make a Difference

Arlen Specter is Pennsylvania’s longest-serving senator. By helping to pass the American Power Act and repealing “Don’t Ask” this year, he can leave on a high note. As he shapes his legacy in the last seven months of his remarkable career, we should all be counting on him to make a big difference for Pennsylvania and the United States by supporting these important pieces of legislation.

But first, check out The Rick Smith show on WHAL-AM 960 on Sunday. I’ll be talking about all this and more, and might even be shortly before or after Sestak himself. You can listen here.

And now, the takeaways.

1. The establishment is in trouble

Many people believe that the takeaway from Tuesday’s election is that incumbents are in trouble. I think that is true, but a narrow understanding of an even larger and more powerful trend: the weakening of the political establishment. In a way, the election of Barack Obama was the beginning of a new political era in which unconventional candidates are taking down those favored by political elites. Hillary Clinton was the Beltway favorite, but by appealing to the people instead of the party, Obama was able to vault past her and win the Democratic primary.

Many of the elections this Tuesday were a continuation of this trend.  Not even President Obama, with his formidable email list, army of volunteers, and strong endorsement of Arlen Specter, could persuade the Democratic base in Pennsylvania to follow his lead.  The backing of the entire party establishment and the major labor unions was not enough to sway voters to Specter’s side. In the end, rank-and-file Democrats refused to hold their noses and vote for a lifelong Republican who assured the confirmation of Justices Thomas, Roberts and Alito, voted for the Bush tax cuts and the Iraq War, and has flip-flopped on issue after issue. Instead, they supported the anti-Establishment candidate:  a former Admiral and progressive congressman who has promised to be a Democratic champion in the United States Senate. They bucked the Establishment, and in my estimation, made the right choice.

Joe Sestak was not the only insurgent who delivered a blow to the Establishment on Tuesday. In Arkansas, Senator Blanche Lincoln could not get over 50 percent of the vote against her Democratic rivals, and will face netroots-endorsed Bill Halter in a runoff in a couple weeks. Again, support by the Democratic establishment, including ads by Obama and Bill Clinton, did not make the difference for Lincoln. Her wishy-washy middle-of-the-road campaign does not have enough appeal, and there is good reason to believe that Halter’s more energized voters will oust her.

On the Republican side, anti-establishment Tea Party candidate Rand Paul defeated GOP-backed Trey Grayson by a huge 59-35 margin. In his victory speech, Paul declared himself a proud member and product of the extreme right-wing movement, and vowed to take the cause to Washington. The GOP has an uneasy relationship with this movement. While it is energized and vocal, it still represents only a small minority of American voters. Yet it was that energized activist base that made the difference in Kentucky, defeating the candidate favored by the Republican political elites in the State and across the country.

Some, like Nate Silver of fivethirtyeight.com fame, are arguing that this is not as big a repudiation of the establishment as some are making it out to be. He argues that the winning candidates in these cases ran relatively usual Democratic or Republican campaigns and were able to capitalize on their opponent’s weaknesses to win. It is true that anti-incumbent fever is a force that is influencing these races, and neither Grayson, nor Lincoln, nor Specter were particularly inspiring candidates. Nevertheless, the fact that these candidates all lost despite the strong backing of their respective party Establishments does underscore the fact that in the age of Obama, you need not be the favored candidate of the party to win a partisan nomination. That is a major trend all politicos must take note of.

2. The Republicans still have their work cut out for them

The conventional wisdom is that voter disaffection with Washington will translate into huge Republican gains in November. Some have even argued that the GOP will take back the House. Democrat Mark Critz’s decisive win in the special election in Pennsylvania’s 12 District special election should give the Republicans pause. This race to fill John Murtha’s seat was a juicy target for the Republican Party, out in purple country. Yet Critz delivered a crushing blow on Tuesday, winning by ten points, when even the most favorable polls only had him up six at the most. On the issues, Democrats still are more in line with the views of most Americans. They still retain large majorities in both Houses. While the [resident’s party historically loses seats in the midterm election following his win, Critz’s victory inspires hope the Democratic losses won’t be nearly as bad as some conservatives have hoped.

3. Pennsylvania is still the state to watch

Pat Toomey was never the Republican establishment’s favored candidate. When Specter bolted the GOP, Senator Orrin Hatch, vice chairman of the party’s Senate campaign committee, said that “I don’t think there is anybody in the world who believes he can get elected senator” in Pennsylvania. Hatch was making a frank assessment of Toomey’s far-right record as a Wall Street banker and President of the Club for Growth. All moves to the middle aside (and Toomey has made more than a few, including endorsing Justice Sotomayor and a few Obama policies), Toomey’s record speaks for itself.  A recent analysis by pollster.com concluded, “Toomey ranked more conservative than 97.9 percent of all United States legislators since 1995. He had a more conservative voting record than J.D Hayworth, Jim DeMint, and was about as conservative as Jesse Helms. Only Tom Coburn and Tom Tancredo scored further to the right.”

On the other hand, Joe Sestak has billed himself as coming from the progressive wing of the Democratic party. He was endorsed by Democracy for America, MoveOn.org, and other liberal organizations. He has voted with the Democrats in Congress every step of the way and gave full-throated support for the health care bill.  He is not an extreme leftist, but he is certainly liberal.

Thus, with Toomey facing Sestak, the entire country’s gaze will be focused on Pennsylvania, that perennial swing state, for indication of larger political trends nationwide. Is the more ideologically pure, rightward Toomey the new face of the Republican brand? Is going “hardcore conservative” the way for Republicans to regain their footing and begin winning elections and governing again? Or will a Sestak victory show that, in purple states, this is a center-left country entering a long period of Democratic ascendancy?

Stay tuned. It is sure to be a fascinating ride.

This has not been an easy choice. Senator Arlen Specter is a man I respect, a man who has dedicated his life to serving Pennsylvania. And since becoming a Democrat last year, he has been a solid and predictable vote, marching in virtual lockstep with the Democratic leadership. This track record has helped earn him most of the Democratic Party’s institutional support, including endorsements by the major labor unions, the state Democratic Party, and President Obama.

Yet even President Obama cannot convince me that Arlen Specter is the better choice for the Democratic Party, or the country. After weighing both the short- and long-term political costs and benefits, as well as assessing the strengths and weaknesses of both men, I have come to the conclusion that Joe Sestak is the better choice.

Who can we trust?

Despite all of his assurances, I still can’t trust Arlen Specter. He has not successfully convinced me that his votes won’t just sway with the political winds, as they so often have. While his voting record is satisfactory now, I seriously question his loyalty and commitment to the party a year or two or four from now. How can I take him at his word when his reversals are so profound? A year ago, for example, he voted against Elena Kagan for Solicitor General; now he seems poised to support her for confirmation to the Supreme Court. He was—at a minimum—silent on health care reform legislation before becoming one of its biggest champions. He was against repealing the Defense of Marriage Act and then he changed his mind. On issue after issue, Specter has undoubtedly come around to the correct position, but I worry that these are merely temporary shifts made in order to beat off a challenge from his left flank. There is nothing Specter has done to convince me this is not the case. His recent statement that “I have thought from time to time that I might have helped the country more if I’d stayed a Republican” does not inspire confidence—his campaign’s insistence that he was taken out of context aside.

On the other hand, I know where Joe Sestak stands. Sestak has a solidly Democratic voting record, and there is no reason to believe he will engage in any profound shifts to the right once elected. We can quibble over a vote or two, but by and large, all indications are that Sestak will be a reliable Democratic vote in the United States Senate who will vigorously oppose the right-wing Republican agenda, no matter who the President is or which party is in the majority.

Who can win?

In the short term, the question on everyone’s mind is simple: which man can beat Republican Pat Toomey? I am no longer convinced that Specter is the obvious answer. Specter’s abysmal approval ratings have been stuck in the cellar for many months. Usually, incumbents polling under 50 percent have a very low rate of reelection, and sometimes Specter has dipped far lower. Sestak has much more room to define himself and curry favor with voters, and he has a compelling life story with which to do that. Some argue that Specter appeals to moderates and independents, yet I believe Sestak can appeal to those constituencies as well, without carrying Specter’s baggage.

If Specter is nominated, the entire election will become a referendum on him. The focus will be on the “turncoat” career politician fighting for his political life, instead of key winning issues for Democrats and the deficiencies of the Republican alternative. Aggrieved Republicans will turn out hard to oust the traitor, while important Democratic constituencies may be depressed due to lack of enthusiasm for electing a 45-year Republican.

The best argument I have heard for Specter is that he is a hard-hitting political Machiavelli who will successfully paint Toomey as a Wall Street hack and right-wing extremist. Having won close elections before, the argument goes, Specter knows how to maneuver his way to victory. While I have no doubt that, if nominated, Specter will run a hard-hitting campaign, I fear the Republican line of attack is particularly powerful against him. Meanwhile, after seeing Sestak’s recent—and effective—attack ad against Specter, I am confident that Sestak can run an equally effective campaign against Toomey. While Toomey will make similar political assaults on Sestak, he will not have the “traitorous-lying-political-opportunist” line to use against him. With Sestak, the campaign becomes much more about the issues and the deficiencies of Toomey. I think Democrats stand a better chance of winning with that focus.

Who is better in the long term?

Let us assume, for argument’s sake, that both men could beat Toomey in the November. The next question becomes: which candidate’s election is better for the long-term interests of the party and the state? I believe that, on balance, Sestak is in the superior position. In addition to being a more trustworthy Democrat, Sestak is a young politician that really does represent a “new generation of leadership.” Arlen Specter is 80 years old. At best, he will serve another one, maybe two terms in the Senate. Sestak, at a sprightly 59 years old, can hold this Senate seat for years to come. In the long-term, it is best to position a young new Democrat named Joe Sestak to this seat—a true progressive who will represent a firm vote for many years to come.

The superior choice

Democrats are nervous about going against the party elders and the President to support an insurgent campaign. But Joe Sestak represents a great opportunity to remind the party that we—the progressive, activist base—won’t settle for Blue Dogs and DINOs in the United States Senate. Don’t get me wrong: Arlen Specter is a far better choice than Pat Toomey, and if he wins this hard-fought campaign, I will fully support him in the fall. The better choice, however, is not to gamble this election on a shifty career politician, but to select a fresh-faced public servant who can appeal to voters across Pennsylvania. That man is Joe Sestak, the Democrat for the United States Senate. On Tuesday, I encourage you to give him your vote.

And this is just one of many recent polls that show Sestak nipping at Specter’s heels. It can’t be denied there is real momentum now for Sestak. His strategy appears to be paying dividends. In the past week, I have had several young Democrats who were uncommitted in this race tell me that the biographical ads they saw of Sestak convinced them that he was a superior choice to the untrustworthy Specter. Endorsements aside, rank-and-file Democrats are still having trouble voting for a political opportunist like Specter, who they simply do not trust. Sestak is wise to go after Specter on his record, and his latest ad is quite effective on that front.

I’m impressed by the Sestak campaign, though I still believe it began two or three weeks too late. Overall, he has done an effective job of pushing back on the attacks on his Naval career (wisely using veterans to push back on Arlen’s attacks in what I thought was a smart television ad), and positioning himself as an attractive alternative to Specter. Specter continues to go negative, attacking Sestak at every chance he gets, in an attempt to paint Sestak as “just another politician.” By going heavy on the attacks, though, I start to get a bad feeling about Specter himself. It is as if the only way Arlen Specter ever wins is by destroying his competition.

I don’t think I’m the first American who is sick and tired of this politics as usual and who is beginning to tire of the old political tricks Specter is playing. Sestak is now tapping into this unease. Whether it will be enough to overcome to the establishment candidate is unclear, but at least, in these final weeks, the race is finally starting to get interesting.

Jill’s analysis of the complexity of Specter’s character and voting record is fascinating, and her analysis of the dynamics of his race are dead on. She is just one in a growing chorus of voices that, just weeks from the primary, foresee Specter surviving this round and moving onto the general election. It’s the kind of article I wish I had written myself.

Enoy.

Specter’s attack ad cites a 2005 Navy Times article in saying that Sestak was relieved of duty (essentially, fired) for creating a “poor command climate,” and the his campaign has backed that claim up this week with additional evidence from news reports that also quote anonymous sources.

Sestak is angry, and has been on the defensive. Rather than talking about his positive vision for Pennsylvania, he is forced to address Specter’s attacks.

However, managed carefully, this could prove to be a golden opportunity for Sestak. Having veterans come out and denounce the attack was a good start, but whining about “Swiftboating” is not going to win Sestak much sympathy when the fact of the matter is that the contentious circumstances of his military departure are quite different from the outright smears and lies that were used to attack John Kerry in the 2004 presidential election.

Rather than complaining about Specter’s attacks, Sestak should use this moment where his military career is under the spotlight to highlight the elements of that career which translate well into being a decisive and effective politician.

LBJ used to live by an old political maxim: “hang a lantern on your problem.” This basically means acknowledging your disadvantage and then turning it into an advantage. For example, when Jimmy Carter was criticized for being an outsider from the south, he embraced that identity, and used it to win the White House. Sestak needs to learn a similar lesson here. Ducking away from this controversy by characterizing it as “swiftboating” will not win Sestak any votes. Calling on Specter to “disavow the lies” is a weak tactic.

Let the veterans condemn Specter’s words. As a candidate for Senate, Sestak should take the perceived weakness—his controversial departure from the military—and turn it into a strength. The complaints seem to be that he was too demanding and forceful—but that’s not necessarily a bad thing. Sestak would look stronger if he said something like, “sure, I ruffled feathers by trying to push through needed, if unpopular reforms, by courageously speaking truth to power. It got me in trouble with the top brass —but I don’t regret it, after 31 years of dedicated service. Sometimes, doing the right thing isn’t the popular thing. But as your Senator, I will always put doing what’s best for the American people above what is popular on the beltway.”

Instead of whining, Joe Sestak needs to hang a lantern on his problem. By courageously explaining to the voters why his military career, including his controversial departure, qualifies him for elected office, he could change the whole tenor of this campaign and put Specter on the defensive. At the same time, he will remind voters that he is the outsider and upstart with the integrity and tenaciousness to take on unpopular politics-as-usual in Washington.

It’s bold moves like this Sestak needs to make—quickly—if he has any shot of beating Specter in this primary.

With still no television ads from the Sestak campaign, Arlen Specter struck first last week with three spots ads aimed at working-class voters in Pennsylvania. Rather than going negative or even mentioning any of his rivals, Specter’s ads portray him as a friend of the working class who has fought for 30 years to keep jobs in Pennsylvania.

Though they are about slightly different topics, the ads all take the same basic format: one (or a group of) blue-collar workers describe a problem they faced (a lost pension, a lost job), and explain how Specter found a solution that got them that benefit back. These short endorsements are spliced with shots of Specter “getting things done”—signing documents, walking out of his office talking to his (female African-American) staffer, shaking hands with workers, signing more documents, etc.

The ads are smart. Though well (and likely expensively) produced, they manage to convey an aura of authenticity, with the focus being not on the senator, but on the citizens he serves in his office. They remind Pennsylvanians that, Democrat or Republican, Specter has long been acknowledged as a hard worker who brings home the bacon for the state.

And they’re positive, without being overbearing; by having these words of praise come out the mouthes of blue-collar Pennsylvanians, rather than a generic voice over, they have greater resonance. All in all, they offer a good insight into the Specter campaign’s strategy going forward: a (non-partisan?) focus on what he has and will continue to do to help the people of Pennsylvania.

With the primary just one month away, we can expect Joe Sestak’s ads to be forthcoming soon. It will be interesting to see if Sestak focuses on selling himself to the people of Pennsylvania, or if he spends his time and money attacking Arlen, and presenting himself as the best alternative. He’ll surely try to do a little of both, with ads that dump on Specter while simultaneously touting himself as the next best alternative to a Republican turncoat.

We’ll be watching with anticipation here at The In-Specter.

However, beyond the spectacle of the race—the accusations and drama surrounding Rick Santorum’s endorsement-for-vote scandal being just one example—things seem surprisingly static. The numbers haven’t changed much, the lines of attack and argument are consistent, and everything seems to point to a predictable primary next month. This is all good news for Toomey. Every time Specter is in the news lately, unless it’s for another predictable endorsement by a Democratic institution, it’s some foible by the aging senator, like Specter calling College Democrats “College Republicans.”

As for Sestak, with only five weeks until the primary, he has yet to use his $5-million war chest to unleash his last-minute blitz of television ads. With little over a month to go, his opportunity to move numbers now hinges almost entirely this blitzkreig. We’ll be watching closely here at The In-Specter to see if it makes much of a difference.

Things can quickly change in politics, and once the primary is over, the real battle will begin. Toomey shouldn’t get too comfortable with his lead in the polls. Despite his flaws, if there’s one thing Arlen Specter has proven time and again, it is that he can win hard-fought elections —including against Pat Toomey.

In a speech to U.S. Steelworkers Thursday morning, Senator Arlen Specter unveiled a 5-point plan that he called his “worker’s bill of rights.” The Hill reported that his plan included forcing China to end its practice of pegging its currency to the U.S. dollar; more aggressive American enforcement of trade laws; rescinding the president’s authority to overrule the International Trade Commission’s recommendations; speedier remedies for illegal trade claims; and stronger “Buy American” requirements under the stimulus package.

These detailed policy proposals, however, seemed to be immediately tempered by a statement from a Specter aide that the bill of rights was likely to stay as campaign rhetoric rather than actual law. This seemed like a pretty odd remark from a normally-disciplined campaign, as it really feeds into the notion that Specter says whatever he needs to say to whomever wants to hear it in order to get elected.

Specter’s office must have pretty quickly realized how terrible this sounded, because it released a statement later today taking “strong exception” to the characterization of these proposals as simply campaign rhetoric.

“Today Senator Specter laid out what he believes is needed to protect American workers from unfair competition and destructive trading practices,” spokeswoman Kate Kelly said in a statement. “The Senator will work to advance his related legislation and continue to be an advocate for America’s manufacturing industry.”

It would be very interesting to know who on Specter’s staff had the lack of foresight to make the campaign rhetoric remark, which definitely put a damper on what was supposed to have been a powerful double-down on his recent endorsement by the Pennsylvania AFL-CIO.

If anyone out there has any thoughts, let us know.

Correction: This blog post was based on a news report which has since been corrected. The Hill now acknowledges it mischaracterized a Specter spokeswoman’s comments, making this post  largely moot.

In all of these endorsements, Joe Sestak is coming off as little more than an afterthought. Endorsements are a way of interest groups betting on a winner, in the hope that these moves will be remembered after the election. Even the mainstream media seems to reflect the conventional wisdom that, while Sestak still has a shot at energizing the liberal base to upset Specter at the polls in May, the safe bet is on Specter facing Pat Toomey in the general election.

None of these recent endorsements are a death knell for the Sestak campaign, if they can foment the kind of populist, grassroots campaign that motivates individuals to the polls on Election Day. But with less than two months until the election, the time has come for Sestak to unleash his war chest and start hammering Specter on television and in radio.

Only with an aggressive statewide assault on Specter’s record in the next few weeks can Sestak even have a hope of winning this primary. With these kinds of headlines of institutional support for Specter dominating the storyline, Sestak needs to shake up this race now if he has any shot of winning this race.