Hi. I've blogged here several years now using an anonymous handle taken from my political hero. I've never disclosed my actual name--until now. My father, my son, and I all share a name w/ a certain PA Gooper who's running for Senate. I actually don't have a clue as to what said Gooper's views are, but I want Sestak to challenge Specter in the worst way possible.
I don't expect Sestak to beat Specter. The latest polling data shows him trailing by a wide margin, the party machinery in PA is openly discouraging a primary challenge, and there's no doubt as to what the views of the WH are here. Defeating JoeMentum (JM) in the 2006 primary took serious self-financing in a much smaller state than PA, and Sen. Obama's open support of JM didn't mean half as much then as President Obama's even tacit support would mean now.
Quoting one of my favorite lines from one of my favorite movies ("Animal House"), now is a time for a senseless, stupid, and futile gesture, and we're just the guys to do it. Actually, I don't think a primary challenge would be senseless or stupid, but I fully expect it to ulitmately be futile. I don't care. The very idea of Arlen Quisling getting a free ride in a Dem primary profoundly disturbs me, and it should equally disturb every other Kossack.
There are multiple current reasons why Specter must be primaried. He did a 180 degree turn on EFCA. He voted to filibuster the Johnsen nomination. He openly opposes the public option on health care. He voted against Obama's budget. The biggest reason of all for a challenge, however, is his critical role in getting Clarence Thomas confirmed to a lifetime SCOTUS seat in 1991.
One has to be an atty mid-40s or older to fully appreciate the harm that was done to our legal system in 10/91. Thomas was only 43 at the time. He had spent 18 months on the federal bench, and his prior career was largely undistinguished. George H.W. Bush's claim that Thomas was chosen b/c he was "the best qualified [nominee] at this time" was the kind of brazen lie that would've done his namesake son proud.
During his intial round of hearings, Thomas misled at best and lied at worst about his views on Roe v. Wade. Thomas was at Yale Law School when the decision was issued, and, as every atty knows, discussing recent SCOTUS opinions is a favorite activity of most law students. Any Yale law student who wasn't intellectually curious enough to discuss Roe w/ his fellow students wasn't intellectually curious enough to be qualified for the high court.
Prof. Anita Hill's charges that Thomas sexually harrassed her while serving as her superior at the EEOC were mere icing on the cake. A credible accuser w/ nothing to gain making such allegations against a marginally qualified nominee whose credibility was already questionable should've been more than enough to kill the nomination in a Dem Senate. Instead, Thomas squeaked through, 52-48. Specter's efforts on behalf of Thomas played a critical role in that outcome.
Three GOP senators, Hatch, Simpson, and Specter, turned the hearings from an inquiry about the nominee's qualifications into an attack on his accuser's credibility:
With coaching from Bush administration officials, however, Thomas quickly put Hill and Senate Democrats on trial, scorning her charges as a "travesty" and condemning the hearings as a "high-tech lynching for uppity-blacks." Republicans on the judiciary committee ably abetted his efforts. Utah's Orrin Hatch was surely aware by that point of the nominee's proclivity for pornographic movies and habit of describing their contents to friends. However, Hatch righteously asserted that only "a psychotic sex fiend or a pervert" could have made the statements Hill attributed to Thomas -- a proposition with which the nominee readily concurred. Nor was Hatch alone. Pennsylvania Republican Arlen Specter hinted darkly that Hill might be charged with perjury, while Wyoming's Alan Simpson declared that his office had been flooded with warnings Hill could not be trusted, yet provided no evidence supporting his assertion.
Justice Thomas has now been on the SCOTUS for almost 18 years, and he may have 18 more years ahead of him. He was 1 of the 5 votes for the issuance of a highly dubious stay of the FL recount on 12/9/00, and he was, obviously, one of the same 5 votes to confirm the (s)election of W/Cheney 3 days later. He would not be on the high court had it not been for Specter's efforts.
Specter took considerable heat from the GOP right for his vote against confirming Robert Bork in 1987. He was up for re-election in 1992, and he was concerned about a primary challenge. His savaging of a demure law professor who never sought the limelight was performed for purely political reasons. Specter needed cover on his right flank, and the Thomas hearings provided him w/ that cover.
Glenn Grenwald said everything there is to say about Specter's party switch in Salon:
Arlen Specter is one of the worst, most soul-less, most belief-free individuals in politics. The moment most vividly illustrating what Specter is: prior to the vote on the Military Commissions Act of 2006, he went to the floor of the Senate and said what the bill "seeks to do is set back basic rights by some 900 years" and is "patently unconstitutional on its face." He then proceeded to vote YES on the bill's passage.
In addition to the obvious multiple concerns about Specter, we need to examine our relationship w/ our party's "elders." We often fulminate about the spinelessness of the Senate Dems and their frequent disregard of our views. We also express our resentment about being taken for granted in party councils. Specter's switch and the concommitant understanding that he would not face a primary challenge epitomizes those twin evils.
The Dem Senate caucus is free to eagerly welcome this obvious 5th columnist into its ranks. The WH is equally free to welcome him. We are equally free to oppose them here.
There is generally little we can do about the fact that Harry Reid is ineffectual at best and that he heads a caucus where conviction is clearly in short supply. We could do nothing when JM was eagerly welcomed back into the fold after openly campaigning for McCain last year. We can do nothing about the fact that several Dems who supported EFCA when it stood no chance of passage suddenly reversed course once it actually could pass. We probably can do nothing about the fact that Baucus, Schumer, and others are determined to kill the public option.
We can, however, stand up and be heard here. We can state that there are lines that should not be crossed by our party, and this line is clearly one of them. We can at least try to hold our party's "leadership" accountable for a change.
This Pat Toomey says that it's time for us to mount a primary challenge.