Wanted: A Pennsylvania Ned Lamont to Defeat Arlen Specter in 2010 Democratic Primary

We already have one Joe Lieberman caucusing with the Senate Democrats. Frankly, adding another member to the Lieberman center/right corporate wing of the Senate Democratic caucus by changing the letter "R" to the letter "D" after the name Arlen Specter (Sen.-Penn.) leaves me less than thrilled.

Despite simplistic press accounts, Specter himself made it clear on "Meet The Press" Sunday that notwithstanding his switch in party affiliation to protect his seat, he can't even be counted on as the 60th vote to break Republican filibusters of President Obama's programs.

OK, I couldn't help but take some pleasure from Specter's defection--It represents one more symbol in the demise of the contemporary Republican Party and the devolution of Karl Rove's "permanent Republican majority" into a southern regional extremist right-wing rump party that may spend the next generation in the national political wilderness.

But one of the effects of national Republican Party's self-immolation is that the most important political divisions--those which will have the greatest impact on the pace of social change in coming years--are less between Republicans and Democrats, and more between center/right corporate Democrats and center/left progressive Democrats.

Nowhere was this divide in the Democratic Party clearer than in last week's vote on the bankruptcy reform bill, in which 12 Democratic Senators (including the newly minted Democratic Sen. Specter) opposed President Obama and joined with the banking lobby and 40 Republican Senator's to prevent bankruptcy judges from modifying the terms of certain underwater mortgages to let people stay in their homes.

In this past election, we won the fight for a Democratic majority. We now need to win the fight for a progressive majority who will stand up for the interests of the American people over the corporate lobbyists and their millions in campaign contributions.

I'm pragmatic enough to accept that maintaining a Democratic majority requires some diversity in the Democratic Party. The same candidate cannot necessarily win a Democratic seat in Nebraska or North Dakota as in Massachusetts or California. But to bring about the fundamental change that the country requires and that the Obama campaign symbolized, we need, wherever practically possible, to reduce the number of Congressional and Senate corporate-run Blue Dog Democrats who often oppose progressive change and increase the number who lead the fight for it. We don't need Blue Dog Democratic Senators in relatively safe Democratic states like Connecticut (where Lieberman lost the Democratic primary but narrowly retained his seat only because there was a 3-way race), New York (where unfortunately Gov. Patterson appointed Blue Dog Congresswoman Kirsten Gillibrand to replace Hillary Clinton in the Senate and where there will hopefully be a viable progressive Democrat to oppose her in the Democratic primary in 2010), nor in increasingly Blue Pennsylvania.

There is no reason why switching parties to save his own political skin should guarantee that the latest Blue Dog Democratic Senator, 79-year old Arlen Specter, will keep his Senate seat for the next 8 years, nor that there will be no serious challenge to Specter from what Howard Dean called "the Democratic wing of the Democratic Party" in the 2010 Pennsylvania Democratic Primary.

The Pennsylvania Democratic establishment, the Senate Democratic leadership, and even President Obama may have seen short-term political advantage in cutting a deal with Specter to support him in the 2010 Democratic primary, and to try to clear the field of serious opposition.

But as Obama's own Presidential campaign against Hillary Clinton demonstrated, we no longer live in an age of political inevitability, nor one in which the party establishment can necessarily successfully dictate to Democratic primary voters whom their candidate will be. In this age of increasing grassroots activism and online fundraising, there is ample room for insurgent campaigns to succeed.

What's needed in the 2010 Pennsylvania Democratic Primary is a Pennsylvania equivalent of Ned Lamont, who, despite the opposition of the state and national Democratic party establishment, and after starting out with a double-digit deficit in the polls, defeated conservative Democrat Joe Lieberman in the 2006 Democratic Primary. Lieberman only retained his Senate seat by running as an independent in a 3-way race in which he received 70% of the Republican vote and only 33% of the Democratic vote.

If Specter were to lose the 2010 Pennsylvania Democratic Primary to a more progressive challenger, he wouldn't have the same opportunity as Lieberman to run as an independent in a 3-way race. Pennsylvania has a so-called "sore loser" law which bars the loser in a major-party primary from running as an independent in the general election. If a more progressive Democratic challenger can defeat Specter in the Democratic primary, Specter's career in the Senate will likely be over.

And there's every reason why Pennsylvania Democrats should hope for a more genuinely Democratic Senate candidate in 2010 than Specter. Although he's changed the letter after his name from "R" to "D", there's little to indicate that he's changed his generally conservative views. He joins Joe Lieberman as among the most conservative Democrats in the Senate.

Specter's first vote as a newly-minted Democratic Senator was to oppose President Obama's budget. One of his next votes was to oppose the bankruptcy reform bill. Having shepherded the nominations of conservative Supreme Court justices Roberts and Alito through the Senate, he has made clear it that he feels no obligation to support President Obama's nominee to replace Justice Souter, or even to help break a Republican fillibuster.

Appearing on "Meet The Press" this Sunday, Specter repeated several times that "I did not say I would be a loyal Democrat". He strongly opposed the Employee Free Choice Act which would make it easier for workers to unionize and indicated that he may well support a Republican filibuster of that bill, as well as other Obama-supported legislation. While some have speculated that Specter cut a deal with the Obama administration to vote for health-care reform, he indicated that he would vote against, or even filibuster, a public option for health insurance (which even progressives who have joined President Obama in abandoning the fight for single payer health care see as the absolute bottom line for meaningful health-care reform). While Specter eventually voted for President Obama's stimulus bill, his price for doing so was to reduce the size of the stimulus package and to transfer more of the stimulus from spending to tax cuts, thus decreasing the number of jobs the stimulus bill is likely to create.

Do Pennsylvania Democrats really need 8 more years of this kind of "Democrat"? With Specter now a nominal Democrat, the likely 2010 Republican Pennsylvania nominee is the extreme right-wing former Congressman Pat Toomy who now heads the ultra-free market Club for Growth. Toomy's Congressional voting record also earned him a 100% rating from the Christian Coalition, an "A" from the National Rifle Association, and a 90% rating from the Chamber of Commerce. A Republican like Toomy might win a state-wide Senate election in a state like South Carolina or Mississippi. But as long as the Democratic candidate cannot easily be depicted as representing the most left-wing elements of the Democratic Party, just about any credible, moderately progressive, Democrat would likely handily defeat Toomy in an increasingly Blue Pennsylvania.

That's why Pennsylvania Senate seat cannot be wasted for the next 8 years on the center-right Specter who would be 86 when his next Senate term ends. Pennsylvania needs a Democratic Senator from the Democratic wing of the Democratic Party. Pennsylvania needs its own version of Ned Lamont to run an insurgent grassroots campaign against the Democratic Party establishment, defeat Specter in the 2010 Democratic Primary, and win the Pennsylvania Senate seat for a real Democrat who will support a change agenda.

Comments

[thenewdenial]

I whole heartedly agree. The motives of Specter are clearly to seek re-election in a primary he would otherwise lose if it weren't for the switch. With defunct Lieberman and a number of blue-dogs the Democratic congress will be left in somewhat of a state of disarray come their election cycles.

[truegreen]

Joe Sestak is the answer Arlen 'opportunist' Spector.

[xtungbebei]

it's one thing to work with centrist, center-right republicans (or democrats for matter) that genuinely represent their constituents, who have elected them. it's quite another to rig the field for one. whatever, specter may or may not give obama between now and 2010, if he's not willing to give it without a quid pro quo, then his promise is made of the same quicksand the banking industry was made of.

[DCDemInsider]

HuffPost's Pick

"You don't clear the field in a place like Pennsylvania," said former Vermont Governor Dean..

---

Thats right and PA Dems deserve the right to choose our Candidate!

People, this is about the Obama WH clearing the field so we wont have a choice.

From what Ive seen here, very few understand that Obamas pledge to Specter is the problem here.

Everyone but The White House says there should be a dem challenger to Specter.

That wont happen unless Dems kick up a fuss and aim it at the Obama WH.

Joe is dying to run, everyone has known since 2006 that he planned to run against Specter.

Simply, as a former Sestak aide let me explain, if Obama really raises money and does events for Specter, Joe can't and wont run.

Forget what uninformed people are saying here, though we can beat Specter in the primary, we can never beat Obama and the pressure of a WH endorsement.

if Obama publicly raises money and campaigns for Specter - no Democrat can run a real race. No way, no how.

We are ready to elect a great new Dem from PA. The question is will the Obama WH let us do this.

UNDERSTAND THIS - WE MUST PUSHBACK THE W.H. ON THIS NOW.

If you care about electing a real Dem from PA, tell them NOW at whitehouse.gov that you want an Open Primary and for the President to stay neutral.

[goingnow]

Excellent post. Thank you. No one is going to oppose voter free choice in PA.

[glorialovelace]

"We don't need Blue Dog Democratic Senators in relatively safe Democratic states like Connecticut (where Lieberman lost the Democratic primary but narrowly retained his seat only because there was a 3-way race), New York (where unfortunately Gov. Patterson appointed Blue Dog Congresswoman Kirsten Gillibrand to replace Hillary Clinton in the Senate and where there will hopefully be a viable progressive Democrat to oppose her in the Democratic primary in 2010), nor in increasingly Blue Pennsylvania."

What do you mean by "we?" YOU don't live in New York. We get to pick our own senators, and anybody who thinks that New York is a "safe Democratic state" has not done his homework.

As for Senator Gillibrand, her voting record is impeccably progressive. You really need to look up her record before you start advocating for a "viable progressive Democrat to oppose her."

[3rdpartypatriot]

People here will get "up in arms" (excuse the impression), because Senator Gillibrand supports the 2nd. I have my doubts because anybody who keeps a gun for protection but keeps it unloaded in a box under their bed obviously hasn't though the scenario through very well.

-3pp

[Querent]

Well and truly stated, Miles. Thank you.

[ProudLiberalDan]

The Democratic Party must leave room for centrists. If Specter wins the primary, so be it.

However, the base of the party has no obligation to concede nominations to DLC Democrats without a primary challenge. If for no other reason than the Democratic establishment is "clearing the field" for him without asking the grass roots is reason enough to for someone to run against Specter.

There is nothing wrong with being a "centrist", but EFCA and health care reform are mainstream Democratic positions. Any "centrist" Democrat should support those.

Specter needs to know there are limits to how he can vote and still be the nominee of the party. A primary challenger will hold him accountable.

[Ladyrantsalot]

Ideologically pure coalitions are tiny and powerless. Ideologically broad coalitions are huge and powerful. The New Deal was passed while the Democratic party was peopled with some of the most conservative, retrograde, and utterly vile people in American politics. Arlen might not vote the way you want him to vote all the time, but he will be useful in helping to get bills you care about onto the floor for a vote. Get real, do not cede the middle to the Republicans.

[Querent]

Will he? Will you let us know when Specter helps get a bill we care about to the floor, since you want us to trust you instead of our own perceptions? Or is this just theoretical?

[Ladyrantsalot]

I'm not asking anyone to "trust me." I could definitely see Specter voting for cloture on a bill, but voting against the bill if he didn't support it, however. Specter will be useful for preventing filibusters and allowing the majority to bring their bills to a vote. It's not 100%, but the Dems need 60 votes to end debate on a bill. They aren't going to get them by demonizing moderates.

[mredder4]

As a liberal moderate, I am cautious about running a progressive against Specter in the Dem primary. I still am. The presidential election aside, it was still Hillary Clinton who won that primary. Pennsylvania independents and Democrats spoke loudly with that choice about their current political stance: CENTER-LEFT. Since Specter is still a center-right politician, no matter his party, it's important to replace him with someone like Hillary Clinton. NOT NED LAMONT. An ultra-orthodox liberal won't appeal to PA voters any more than Toomey appears to be doing. And while this author has made a lot of great points that have made me aware of the need to replace Specter, I refute his (and anyone's) arguments that American voters are suddenly progressive. They're not. They just voted that way because of a restricting two-party system. Dems and Repubs seem to take winning elections way too seriously nowadays. Mandates are dreams and wishful thinking. Never forget that independents outnumber membership in either party, and they're the growing political affiliation.

[Querent]

The last poll I saw showed Democratic registration at around 38% and Independendent registration at around 35%. And Independents have been leaning heavily Democratic in elections for at least a couple of years now. Also, Independents are far less likely to vote than registered party members, since the category includes a lot of people who simply don't care that much. Try to understand this: a progressive candidate in the Pennsylvania Senate primary could draw support from progressives nationwide. I'm talking MONETARY support here, the kind that turned the tide in a number of senate and house contests in the 2008 election. A "moderate" couldn't do that. Moderates have no real commitment. They typically don't care much what happens in other states than their own, and besides that, they are too busy dithering between phony alternatives to make up their minds. If the people of Pennsylvania are not to be sold out to a DINO who has already double-crossed them repeatedly, the only alternative is to run a progressive candidate against Specter in the primary. Otherwise, meet the new boss. Same as the old boss.

[petejo]

with specter as the democrat's choice for the senator from penn come 2010 election, the democrats get a less liberal vote in the senate than they would have had he stayed republican. then the republican party would have named a more conservative candidate over specter for 2010, allowing for a real democrat to win the election in the increasingly democratic state.

[petejo]

too bad specter didn't share his intentions to switch parties with the liberal supreme court justices beforehand. it would have been helpful to have him continue as senior republican on the judiciary committee with the resources that post possesses during the confirmation hearing for souter's replacement. biden, as souter's counsellor and head of obama's committee to come up with souter's replacement, should have thought of that. another gaffe by mr biden???

[tegrat]

Spot on, Miles! So-called centrists (the term is really meaningless if you look at any single issue) are nothing more than corporate shills, by and large, and need to be weeded out of the Democratic wing of the Democratic party, post haste. If Arlen gets away with this, we are bound to see a boatload more of these rats abandoning the sinking ship of the GOP, only to be washed up as extremely weak Democrats in name only. Arlen should be judged by his record of obstruction, not his chosen party denomination.

[JimR]

It's nice to know that the extreme leftwing of the party is every bit as offensive and intolerant as the extreme right-wing of the GOP.

[EFCANOW]

HuffPost's Pick

Specter if Your Now a Democrat Act Like one or Else Go Back to The Republicans or Become Independent EFCA Healthcare http://bit.ly/UoL54

Time to scare Arlen
http://www.lastchancedemocracycafe.com/?p=2236

It turs out that newly minted “Democrat,” Arlen Specter, isn’t acting all that Democratic. As Steve Benen at the Washington Monthly puts it:

It’s quite a start for Specter’s career in Democratic politics, isn’t it? In the four whole days he’s been a Democrat, Specter has voted against the Democratic budget, rejected a Democratic measure to help prevent mortgage foreclosures and preserve home values, announced his opposition to the president’s OLC nominee, and this morning rejected a key centerpiece of the Democratic health care plan.

Yup, just what we needed, another Democrat who loves voting like a Republican. The Democratic leadership, of course, continues to insist that getting Specter to switch was a sweet deal. He’ll support the Democratic agenda on many issues, they insist. Color me skeptical.

He doesn’t have to vote with the Democrats down the line. Most of the time, they won’t need his support on final passage. So let him vote with the GOP: but, if he wants to be a Democrat, he needs to be there for us on the all important cloture votes. He needs to help break the filibusters. If not, he’s useless and the Democratic rank and file in Pennsylvania should take him out in the primary, Ed Rendell and the Democratic leadership be damned.

[glorialovelace]

I don't know what your idea of a "real Democrat" is, but I hope the tent remains large enough to include centrists. It would not only be narrow and self-destructive, but also pathetic, for the Democrats to dump a senator who is serving his constituents and who is flexible enough to learn and grow in the process.

As for your latter-day "Ned Lamont," THAT was a misguided adventure in attempting to scuttle the career of a well-liked politician and instead shove some ideologue down the throats of the electorate.

[Thatgirl122]

All it will take in PA to beat Specter in a Democratic Primary, or Toomey in the General Election is a "Pro-Life Democrat" the way Bob Casey beat the ultra-right Rick Santorum. There are plenty of Catholics in the state who object to Specter's Pro-Choice platform and will vote against him for ANYONE who claims to be Pro-Life. ANYONE. Even Toomey, who is simply another Santorum. So while Pennsylvanians are looking for a Progressive Democrat, they had better find a Pro-Life one. It is still the one issue that overrides voters' own economic or political self-interest.

[larry278]

Yes, vote in a pro-life Democrat like Sen Casey. Pa woud then have 2 DINO's in the US Senate. Sen Specter is more liberal than Sen Casey. Nominate Sen Specter as a Democrat; re-elect Specter & keep Pa in the 21st century.

[tegrat]

Scuttle the career? Shove down the throats? Come now, Lamont was duly chosen by a purely democratic process. There is no such thing as a centrist if you go issue by issue. Sure, Joe was a great social liberal, but so was Ned and then some. Please, we need more and better Democrats across the board, not Democrats who are owned by the board.

[DCDemInsider]

Lamonts companies were all non union.

To me that is unacceptable.

[SCG]

The voters in Penn. are moving to the democratic camp.

What change does Specter offer?

[DCDemInsider]

ask Obama

[ProudLiberalDan]

Joe LIEberman was wrong on the Iraq War. THAT is why he lost the Democratic primary. Defeating him in the primary was a moral issue for many.

[glorialovelace]

It was an expensive waste of time, and -- ultimately -- an embarrassment to the Democratic Party. Some people haven't figured out how to choose their battles.

[Querent]

Thanks for the Republican view of things, Gloria. It always helps to clarify things.

[glorialovelace]

I wouldn't know what the "Republican view of things" is. I'm a Democrat.

And your posts epitomize the party's need to ignore those who insist that so-called "real democrats" need to march in lockstep with the dogma of the far left.

[Bobrobert]

roflmao...

I hope he loses to another democrat in the primary... :-)