Watching Senator Arlen Specter on Hard Ball was painful even though I am not a fan. He twisted himself in more logic pretzels than Sarah Palin giving a speech to a convention hall full of wolves. Over the years, i have to admit he was one of my favorite Republicans because he gave hard questions to Supreme Court candidates, voted for science and environment more than most Republicans, among other issues. However, as soon as he put the "D" logo on, I saw him in a different light. He went from being a reasonable Republican to being an absurd Democrat. When Congressman Joe Sestak announced on the Ed Show, I was elated. Sestak was one of my first choices for VP even though I knew he didn't stand a chance because his support for Hillary. In the following days, I second guessed myself - after all, Specter was a million times better than Toomey, so I was I willing to risk losing to go for a true blue dem? Or should I settle for Specter because he is the least worst option. Over the last few weeks the choice became obvious and watching Specter today was just plain painful.
When watching Senator Specter twist and dodge through Chris Matthew's questions, it became painfully obvious that even if Specter had Santa Clause, Jesus, and the reincarnated Elvis Presley's endorsing him (rather than just Obama, Biden, and Rendell), he is heading for the electoral gutter. He looked pained as every question was about him changing parties, voting for Sarah Palin, and him interjecting that was a JFK Democrat, as if that would make him voting for Palin seven months ago okay.
The first question that Chris hits him with is about a twitter comment that Specter made this morning when Sestak announced, which read:
"His months of indecisiveness on his candidacy raises a real question as to his competency to handle the tough rapid-fire decisions required of a senator... During his continuing taxpayer-financed self-promotion tour around the state, Sestak should explain why, when Pennsylvanians are working harder... He can barely show up for work"
First, it seems to me Sen. Specter has forgotten that he is not a Republican anymore. Before Sestak could even officially announce, Specter had the sleaze all gunked up and ready to go. Not only was this an unwarranted attack, but it was based on a falsehood and, at the same time, brings up questions about Specter. The falsehood - Sestak's trip around PA was not funded by the government, it was funded by his campaign. Second, if there were any votes that were not going to pass because of his campaigning, you can be sure he would have been back in time to vote. Then, most importantly Specter accuses Sestak of taking too much time to decide whether he should run for one of the top offices in the country. This, brings about the obvious question - If he is questioning Sestak's decision making ability, then what about Specter's? A standard Rovian tactic is to take your biggest weakness and attack your opponent for it. So, let us think about Specter's decision making. Here are just a few of the dozens of bad decisions that Specter has made that has majority affected our lives:
- Vote for Palin (Okay didn't affect our lives, but if that doesn't reflect poor decision making, then what does?)
- Voted with George W. Bush 80 percent of the time.
- He helped derail Health Care in the 1990's
- He voted to privatize Social Security.
- Voted for the Iraq War
- Voted for Bush's Tax Cuts for the Wealthy.
- Waffled all over the place on EFCA
- Voted against the president's budget
- And many, many more... Too many to list here, but some of Sestak and Specter's ratings side-by-side really show the stark difference between them:
AFL-CIO Rating: Specter 61%, Sestak 97%
League of Women voters: Specter 44%, Sestak 100%
National Education Association: Specter 56%, Sestak 100%
NAACP: Specter 76%, Sestak 95%
League of Conservation Voters: Specter 40.5%, Sestak 97%
NOW: Specter 48%, Sestak 100%
IAVA: Specter B+, Sestak A+
NARAL: Specter 67.5%, Sestak 100%
Defenders of Wildlife Action Fund: Specter 60%, Sestak 100%
Given all this, how could we really vote for Specter? There is only one justification and now it has become irrelevant - that Specter has a better chance of winning. Think about it this way: Non-presidential years are all about firing up your base, not about independents, but firing up your base. After all that is listed above, how can we get anyone fired up around Specter? Sestak is blue through and through and also has an amazing life story and is someone that could represent PA for a long time to come.
A second possible argument would be about Specter's seniority. However, since he lost seniority in the switch to Dem anyways, Sestak and him are on equal footing, and Sestak has much more opportunity to earn seniority than the 80 year old Specter.
Besides, Specter would have to twist in so many directions to explain his many different positions that it would make Hillary explaining her war vote look simple. We have two choices - a true Democrat who can answer every question simply, has proven he is honorable every step of the way, and has chosen not to personally attack his opponent, or a senator that will have to explain 30 years of waffling, has voted for everything we hated over the last eight years, and resorts to Rovian personal attacks on their opponent.
The answer seems simple to me, but I decided a little over a week ago when I shook the hand of the next senator from PA:
Update: Here is a Great Blog on Pat Toomey, reminding people that he played a role in repealing Glass-Steagall.
Hat Tip to ItsSimpleSimon for the video fix!