Why Should the Democratic Party Support Specter's Switch?

Senator Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania became a Democrat today (statement here) after seeing some brutal recent poll numbers between himself and former Club For Growth president and Republican primary challenger Pat Toomey.

Details are still emerging, but several things deserve highlighting:
1) Harry Reid had been pushing Specter along this path for some time.
2) Specter's statement makes clear that he's still voting no on the Employee Free Choice Act, and might even vote against cloture.
3) But, fear not. The SEIU (and presumably the rest of labor) is on board Specter's primary campaign.
4) So's the DSCC and PDP.
5) It's unclear at this moment what kind of promises, in terms of committee assignments and seniority, were afforded Specter by the Senate leadership in order for him to switch, but I think it's safe to assume that he won't go to the back of the line (see: Joe Lieberman I-CT).

Left-leaning media are falling all over themselves this afternoon, describing what a coup this is for the Democratic Party. And as much as I'd love to play along, I can't this time. I want off the train.

I can't think of a single incident over the course of the last eight years that better illustrates my frustration with the Democratic Party. Let's take a step back and see what the world looked like yesterday, because I think yesterday the future of Progressive causes in the United States looked a bit brighter. Impossible, you say? Let's review.

Yesterday, these were the possibilities for this Senate seat, from most to least likely:
1) Tommey wins the Republican primary and loses the general election to a random Democrat.
2) Specter wins the Republican primary and wins the general election.
3) Specter wins the Republican primary and loses the general election to a random Democrat.
4) Tommey wins the Republican primary and wins the general election.

Today, here are the possibilities:
1) Specter wins the Democratic nomination and wins the general election (overwhelmingly likely).
2a) Specter wins the Democratic nomination and loses the general, presumably to Pat Toomey.
2b) Specter loses the Democratic nomination and another Democrat wins the general.
4) Specter loses the Democratic nomination and some Republican wins the general.

My question for Harry Reid, the SEIU, and DSCC, the PDP, and everyone else that wanted Specter to flop and issued proclamations of support for him today, is this: What in the hell is better about that second list? Put differently, if Specter's going to flop, why shouldn't the Democratic establishment have done everything possible to defeat him in a primary match-up, against a Democrat that will, you know, support a Progressive Democratic agenda? If Specter wins the Democratic primary you can always hop on board at that point, and back his candidacy as the prohibitive favorite.

Some of you might be thinking, "That's all well and good, but what if Specter wouldn't have flopped without first attaining Democratic establishment, labor, and committee/seniority support?" My ineloquent answer to that would be, "Fine. Who gives a shit? Stay a Republican. Good luck in the primary." At which point the Democratic establishment should do everything possible to help Toomey hammer Specter during the primary match-up. Because after all, the best possible outcome is for any feasible Democrat to be matched up with Toomey in the general election.

The thought that scares the hell out of me is that Specter's Democratic establishment support stemmed from the fact that Specter's chances against Toomey as the Democratic nominee would be better than another generic Democrat's. This is undoubtedly true, but how spineless do you have to be to mortgage the house against that slightly increased risk? It's like Harry Reid woke up today and decided he'd rather have a quarter for sure than a 50% chance at $1 million.

This would make more sense if Specter hadn't been among the most moderate voters in the Republican caucus, or if there was any indication he wouldn't correspondingly be among the most conservative voices as a Democrat, but there's no reason to think that at all (as his EFCA stance illustrates). It might also be different if he were 40 years old, with an evolving ideology. However, he's 79 years old. It's very likely that this will be his last term. It's also quite likely that instead of a Democratic incumbent in 2016, you'll have an open seat, and that your Republican opponent will be a lot less crazy than Pat Toomey.

Again, if Arlen Specter wants to run as a Democrat, it's a free country and he should file the paperwork. But I cannot for the life of me understand why, under the circumstances, anyone interested in Progressive change should offer him any additional incentive whatsoever to make the switch.

Didn't See It Coming, But Not Really Surprised

Jeez, you go to lunch and Arlen Specter changes freakin’ parties. With Toomey polling above fifty percent in a potential Republican primary, this really isn’t that big a surprise. Specter obviously makes much more sense in the Democratic caucus than he did in the Republican one – the most conservative Democrat is way more conservative than the most liberal Republican is.

One of the strangest things about the modern story of the Republican Party is the degree of party loyalty they have been able to engender, and the degree to which its outer fringes hold sway inside the party. The same is just not true for Democrats – look at the degree to which blue dogs like Bayh feel free to go against large, popular legislation with impunity, and the degree that even moderate Republicans like Voinovich, Snowe, Collins and even Specter are forced to toe the line.

Interesting times. At any rate, this should impact EFCA in some interesting ways, so perhaps we'll hear from DP later about that.

Where Things Stand

For some reason, I just got an email alert from Adam at Net Right Nation. I know there are people out there who like to get emails from groups that they hate just to have something to mock and point at. My friend Tyler is fond of reading the letters to the editor of the Newark Advocate, which makes me want to bash my brains out with a claw hammer. At any rate, I don’t know how I ended up on the NRN mailing list, but here we are, so let’s see what they have to say!

Here is a must watch video of Missouri Senator Kit Bond discussing the November election results. Not only is his answer stunning, it is very telling of where the conservative movement is today.

Senator Bond was responding to a question about Obama's support for Global Warming when he said, "that's why I campaigned for Sarah Palin and her running mate."

I couldn’t have said it better myself.

Today in Advertising

I just saw a Maryland Lottery commercial that closed with the tagline, "People Win".

It's quite a thing when your brand image is so bad that your marketing campaign revolves around convincing people that you're not engaged in fraud.

Friday

Doesn’t seem to be much going on requiring my wholly unique perspective. Torture, the Minnesota election continues to drag on interminably, the Republicans are doing what they do best: obstructing the appointments of people with wholly mainstream views aided and abetted by their fellow traveler’s among the Democrats. I do not understand how a minority, after losing two consecutive election cycles, including a pretty stinging presidential defeat, continues to think that burrowing deeper into the conservative catechism is the way back on top.

But hey, it’s Friday, and you can even speed on the highway.

Coolest Headline I've Ever Seen

Here.

Commenter Greg Bringing the Weak Sauce

You may remember commenter Greg and his cut-and-paste shilling for Sarah Palin from this post. His comments were barely relevant to the post, and he didn't formulate any argument at all, except that she remains popular to some minority of the American people, which no one had disagreed with.

Nevertheless, I tried to engage the weak sauce, partly because we don't get a lot of Sarah Palin fans on the site, but also because (and perhaps this is evidence of a lack of ideological diversity in my everyday life) I don't regularly talk to anyone who sees her as a capable leader. You'd think he'd take the time to reply, as that would further his aims of mindless promotion. Hell, maybe he'd even convert a reader or two with his brilliant rhetoric, lining the pockets of SarahPac in the process.

Alas, it turns out he's just like her, fleeting and vacuous.

My Future Blogging Plans

Wanted to let my loyal reader(s) know that I'll be launching a new blog. It'll kick off Monday, if I can get everything together by then, or the following Monday if I need a bit more time. It will be devoted solely to EFCA (the Employee Free Choice Act). The layout will be a little different, though not radically. I've been putting together press releases, press lists, and trying to work on some layout issues...basically all the things I didn't do when I started TPBP. I've thought about cross posting to TPBP, but I think I'll use this space to post non-EFCA related commentary, should I have any.

I'll be sure to post here when the new blog's up and running.

You Don't (or Maybe You Do) Know Dick

I’ve followed with interest the exchange on TPM over the last few days about Dick Cheney’s change in personality. One of the fascinating stories of the last decade or so is Cheney’s transformation from boring, hardworking, rightwing technocrat to a secretive, really rightwing extralegal cipher. I think this explanation makes the most sense – this side of Cheney was always there, but it took a weakwilled manchild above him to allow him the space to really put it into effect. That said, I don’t think you can discount the idea of some sort of physiological transformation, either. I’ve known a few people who have had serious brain injuries that resulted in dramatic shifts in personality.

But, perhaps now is a good time to revisit this profile of Cheney from July, 2000 in the USA Today (Motto: “Almost like a newspaper!”).

Strip Search Supreme

The Supreme Court was considering a case today dealing with when it is appropriate to allow school officials to strip search students in the search for contraband. The ACLU lawyer discussed the school’s actions in terms of an “ick” factor, and certainly thinking about Clarence "Bill of Responsibilities" Thomas and Antonin Scalia discussing searching a girl’s underwear was enough to make me gag. As John Cole pointed out when talking about the same case, our priorities are seriously out of whack when there is even an argument about the appropriateness of this.

When dealing with childhood and children, there’s a remarkable and unfortunate tendency for people to completely forget what it was like to be a child and to attend a school. Schools already possess, for better or worse, an unbelievable amount of control over kids. This is for the most part a good thing – kids are incredibly stupid, and tend to get themselves into all sorts of problems. I’m certainly not saying schools shouldn’t have a reasonable amount of leeway to act in the best interests of children. However, forcing little girls to strip in the search for ibuprofen (!) is so far beyond that line that they should really call home, the line might be worried. People so wrap themselves up in this idea of “I’m protecting the children/country/sanctity of marriage” that they are unwilling to allow criticism of their actions, even once they have blown any sort of reasonable cost/benefit scale.

The Movement That Dare Not Speak Its Name

It's unclear whether Aaron should be treated as the proverbial marooned Japanese soldier, unaware of WWII's conclusion, or whether this should all be seen in a more spiritual light, a la the Resurrection. I'll combine the metaphors, pick up a rifle, and join Aaron's island coup. Because after all, one person's raving insanity is two people's grassroots movement..

Aaron tackled this to some extent in the comments section of his last post, but I think the Life and Times of Sarah Palin is relevant enough to warrant continued discussion. Aaron wrote:

As for Palin, I think it's a mistake to simply say, "She lost, forget about her." Palin was hugely popular with the conservative rump in this country.

Though Aaron didn't indicate otherwise, the issue in question is to what degree Palin remains popular with a significant minority of the GOP.

For those not up to speed, Palin's star in Alaska has fallen quite a bit in the wake of her November electoral defeat. She nominated a hard right candidate for attorney general who was subsequently denied confirmation by the Alaska legislature. She has had a series of avoidable problems filling an open legislative seat, the continued and public beef with Levi Johnson and family is increasingly petty and embarrassing, and she pissed off her legislature yet again after ditching the last day of an important session to headline a pro-life group's dinner in Indiana.

Despite all this, it's unclear what effect this will have on her statewide electoral prospects in Alaska, be they in a gubernatorial reelection bid or running for Murkowski's U.S. Senate seat (which appears unlikely).

I'm interested in how (or if) this will effect her popularity in the lower 48. Larison had a fairly interesting post recently on the schism between what he calls "mainstream conservatives" vs "dissidents" and why there was increasingly little conversation between the two groups. As "David Cameron's Tiny Wanker" alluded to in comments, the degree to which Palin has a legitimate national presence in 2012 is the degree to which the GOP is increasingly far afield from the body politic.

Combine this with the increasingly incendiary and bizarre comments coming from very mainstream Republican sources (John Boehner's truly sad interview with Stephanopolous last weekend, Texas' governor talking of secession, or nearly any Michelle Bachman comment). Throw in the fact that there is an established and powerful media presence actively promoting a lot of this rhetoric, and you have a situation that at the very least merits continued comment and observation.

Who is the leader of the opposition party? Seriously. Michael Steele? Ostensibly. John Boehner? Legislatively. Mitch McConnell? Ha. Rush Limbaugh? Rick Sanford? Bobby Jindal? I honestly don't know the answer, but there was a moment in time when Sarah Palin could have perhaps drawn a plurality of Republicans to her banner. It's unclear whether or not that time has passed. I think I would argue that it hasn't. It doesn't matter that that's a sad state of affairs. Sadly, no one knows who David Frum or David Brooks are. They know Palin, and literally tens of millions of people see her as their political leader.

Apple Goes to War

Via Slashdot, Newsweek reports that the US Army is issuing iPod Touches and iPhones to troops in the field as standard equipment. The uses are diverse and fascinating, from pulling down live video feeds from drones to calculating ballistics trajectories and looking up etiquette for cultural encounters. This is real science fiction stuff. Live video from above you? That's pretty out there.

What's also interesting, of course, is that living in New York City, the damn iPhone is completely ubiquitous. It's shocking how many people have those things. Their attraction is their versatility. An iPhone is really just a small computer with a great interface, and it's amazing that they are proving useful for everyone from yuppies to teenagers to soldiers in Afghanistan.

Pay No Attention to That Woman Behind the Curtain ...

Reihan Salam convinces himself that Sarah Palin has, sadly, lamentably, unaccountably, turned out to be a grasping, power-mad political hack in a post for the Daily Beast. This seems like the same story from the run up to the Iraq War played again, in the farce section of the program. Once again, everyone eventually comes around to the position that it was a mistake, but no one wants to admit that it was a lementable, hilariously predictable mistake from the very beginning. Read Salam's post for the sad and funny sight of a man trying to square a circle and failing:

What I’m wondering is: Has Sarah Palin undergone some kind of secret lobotomy?

Southern Hospitality

The flurry of blog-posting continues unabated as I find two articles that I wish to share in the course of a week! Hold on to your hats, folks!

Anyways, in a move that can only be described as "awesome," the Texas House took away the vast majority of Gov. Rick Perry's office budget to try and fund various projects, mostly mental health services and veteran's services. The article says that this is likely to be undone down the road, but hey, it's still funny.

But seriously, secession? Really? I can't add any more to what's already been said about the absurdity of the tea party nonsense, but it's just unbelievable that we have people carrying racist signs, complaining about the tax rate returning to Clinton era levels and refusing to take stimulus money to help out people in their states. And to top it all off, we have people out there who, apparently, seem to think that the solution is to secede. Fair enough.

In the (Depressing) Spotlight

Well, it's been a while since I've had anything to say to you guys, but I figure the New York Times doesn't bother to write articles about your hometown everyday. It includes a fairly decent video to accompany the article, with plenty of shots that make Newark look a lot nicer than it actually is.

The thing about Newark is, it really is in a bad way. It's right at the forefront of the collapse of the manufacturing economy and the rise of the service industry. Right now, it's running around an 11% unemployment rate. I think one of the things that gets lost in discussions of rural and suburban unemployment is the inability of people to go elsewhere. A lot of people say, "Well, why can't they just move to where there are jobs?" Moving costs money. You need a car to have a job in a place like Newark, and of course you need a job to have a car. There's only a hilarious parody of public transportation. And once you're wrapped up in debt, what else is there for you to do? It's a crushing feeling, and you can feel it hovering over the city. In the same way success builds on success, failure is a hard thing to escape.