Specter: man or mouse? The blogosphere moots...

Alex says: It seems that few people, even those who are celebrating the extra step towards the magic 60 Senate seats, have much positive to say about the beloved aisle-hopper. From a quick review of some of my favourite blogs, I’ve assembled a kind of blogospheric conversation on the topic... and the old truism that nobody likes a traitor, not even those who stand to benefit, seems to hold out pretty well.

Certainly, any concerns about Specter himself to one side, no-one short of the true believer is posing this as a good day for the Republicans. ‘Good Riddance’, even in this RINO’s case, can't help but ring false when a party is about to lose its only significant weapon in the senatorial arsenal. As Connecting.the.Dots says, this “is the latest sign of an eight-year process--the shriveling of the Republican Party to a one-size-fits-all collection of conservatives that started in 2001 with Sen. Jim Jeffords leaving and even John McCain flirting with the idea after being splattered by the Rove smear machine in the primaries a year earlier... This politically suicidal process cries out for psychiatric intervention, shrinks to stop the GOP from shrinking itself down to Rush Limbaugh and a few office-holding lookalikes.”

But if this is a bad sign for a rumpish conservative movement – perhaps an inevitable part of the process of political defeat, which only in time will see moderates returning to the fold when the Dems inevitably overstretch themselves? – it’s not produced a wave of enthusiasm for Mr. Specter himself. Freedom Writing voices the widely-held concern of many moderates. He says, ‘I have to wonder if Republican National Committee chairman Michael Steele wasn't on to something when he said, "Sen. Specter didn't leave the GOP based on principles of any kind. He left to further his personal political interests because he knew that he was going to lose a Republican primary due to his left–wing voting record."’

BuckNaked Politics shares similar feelings, noting the ‘muted cheers and tepid jeers’ accompanying the switch. “Obviously this is good news for the Democratic Party, though progressives like me aren't going to be dancing in the streets or anything over the party's acquisition of yet another conservative Democrat if not an actual DINO.” And, from the perspective of damage to divided government, Bipartisan Rules goes even further, firmly concluding that “While Specter will undoubtedly be venerated by the likes of Paul Krugman and Rachel Maddow, this move is clearly nothing more than a last-ditch attempt to save his political career ... At this site, of course, we think that an entirely Republican - or Democratic-controlled government is a recipe for disaster (see: 1992 to 1994 and 2004 to 2006), so we are disappointed by Specter's move.”

Bark Bark Woof Woof valiantly answers for the defence, here. “Mr. Specter's decision is based not only on the fact that Pennsylvania is trending to the Democrats and that he faced a daunting challenger in the Republican primary from former Rep. Pat Toomey who is a hard-right-winger, but that the Republican Party, both in Pennsylvania and nationally, is pushing the moderates out.”

My question is this: does this actually change the way votes will turn out in the Senate? Will the switch actually put a notoriously free-wheeling senator under Democratic party discipline? Would the stimulus package, where Specter helped remove hundreds of millions from the original proposal, have gone through differently if this switch had already happened? And what measures in the future will Specter vote for that, as a Republican, he’d have opposed? As Undiplomatic points out, “Predicting how this guy will shift is about as reliable than predicting next week’s weather.”

Alex Goodall
Papamoka’s European Contributor
From A Swift Blow to the Head