Tube City Almanac

April 28, 2009

Meet the New Arlen, Same as the Old Arlen

Category: Politics, Rants a.k.a. Commentary || By

An Alert Reader emailed me this afternoon to say, "I always knew Arlen Specter was a Democrat."

(I think that was meant in the pejorative sense. And I've never even been to Pejoria.)

Y'know, the Republicans keep saying that, but I don't know that it's true.

Everyone in my immediate family is a union member (PSEA, SEIU, FOP and UAW, respectively) and I didn't see any of us turning cartwheels for Arlen Specter after hearing his vocal opposition to the Employee Free Choice Act. (Which is another topic, for another time.)

And the mother of me still hasn't forgiven or forgotten the grilling that Specter gave Anita Hill during the Clarence Thomas hearings. As far as she's concerned, "Arlen" is a four-letter word.

Arlen Specter is a "liberal"? Please. Only by the standards of Torquemada or Rick Santorum (which, come to think of it, is redundant).

. . .

Here's another reason that Democrats shouldn't do backflips: I don't mean to be crude, but Specter is 79 years old and a survivor of cancer and heart problems.

Pennsylvania is due for a Republican governor. If Specter is re-elected in 2010 and unable to complete his term, that governor could appoint Specter's replacement.

Put that in your 60-seat majority and smoke it.

. . .

The fact of the matter is that Specter is a traditional mainstream Republican in the mold of Bill Scranton, Dick Thornburgh, Nelson Rockefeller and Hugh Scott. He's for law and order, low taxes and deregulation.

He had a reputation as a hang 'em high prosecutor when he was the district attorney in Philly, and he was usually a reliable vote for the Reagan and George H.W. Bush administrations.

So when Specter says that the party changed, not him --- there's something to that.

. . .

Somewhere along the line, the Republican Party became more concerned with "ideological purity" --- defined as a very narrow set of moral beliefs --- than the rule of law.

Arlen Specter, for all of his faults, has a keen legal mind (even when it requires resorting to Scottish law). Watching the Republican Party's national leaders twist themselves into knots to justify torturing prisoners and granting Dick Cheney unlimited authority must have chafed him raw.

And now Pennsylvania Republicans are rushing headlong into the arms of Gloomy Pat Toomey. Specter didn't leave them. They left him --- loudly and gracelessly.

They can bleat all they want about Specter's vote for the federal stimulus package, but they were unhappy with him long before that, mainly over things like Specter's refusal to support legislation banning abortions and civil unions for gays and lesbians.

(Imagine the nerve of Specter, saying that he's a "conservative," when he thinks that the government should stay out of people's private lives!)

. . .

But Specter also didn't become a liberal. And he never was.

Frankly, many of Pennsylvania's Republicans of the past would be in the same boat with Specter if they were running today:

  • Tom Ridge presided over the creation of the state Department of Environmental Protection --- he's a looney tree-hugger!

  • Dick Thornburgh was the key proponent for the creation of the Americans with Disabilities Act --- he hates small businesses!

  • Hugh Scott told Richard Nixon to resign --- he wasn't loyal to the President!

Hell, Barry Goldwater was pro-choice and pro-gay rights.

Fat chance getting the presidential nomination these days, "Comrade" Goldwater! Go back to Canada, you hippie!

. . .

The problem that Republicans now face is the problem Democrats faced in the early 1980s. Back then, the Democrats were beholden to nuts (Jerry Brown), big-mouthed firebrands (Jesse Jackson) and dull, mushy-headed career politicians (Walter Mondale).

Substitute Grover Norquist (nut), Fox News (big mouths) and Mitch McConnell (dull and mushy), and there's your present-day GOP.

. . .

The Republicans also have a bad habit of putting know-nothing dimwits into the spotlight. (Step forward, Gov. Palin and Joe the Plumber.)

Joe Biden is a flake, prone to malaprops and a little bit (OK, a lot) sleazy, but at least no one thought he was a dummy.

It's like advertising Pepsi by using toothless slobs in the commercials. It might taste great, but who wants to be associated with it?

Seriously, who wants to be in a party where people like U.S. Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-Looney Tunes) are taken seriously?

. . .

In the end, Specter's bolt to the Democrats is all about saving his own hide, and nothing about him being "too liberal."

I expect him to behave true to form, and wind up annoying Democrats just as much as he annoyed Republicans. Probably a lot more.

Specter may be closer to the heart of the Democratic Party than the Republican Party, but that's only because Specter stayed where he was, while the Republicans went running way, way the hell off over there, somewhere past Oliver Cromwell and Louis XVI, but without Louis' sense of fashion or Cromwell's military skills.

The sooner the Republicans sober up and back away from the ledge --- back toward Specter and the rest of America --- the better off everyone will be.

. . .

P.S.: And I sure hope Bill Kortz hasn't paid for any campaign buttons yet.






Your Comments are Welcome!

Arlen is running scared of the right. Unfortunately for him, Kortz will win the Democratic nod. If anything, having another big name from out east helps Bill’s chances.

Sluggo
Paul "Sluggo" Shelly Jr. (URL) - April 29, 2009



Many (over twenty) years ago I happened to know people who worked for Specter, so I can echo your assessment. And the more I think about it, the more I like your analogy that the Republicans are where the Democrats were in 1980. I remember reading a paper in college (around 1980) where the major theme was that now that Jimmy Carter had destroyed the Democratic party, would Ronald Reagan do the same to the Republicans.

But the funny question is, do we root for Arlen to vote with Harry Reid 100% of the time, none of the time or only some of the time. Unfortunately, I can think of good reasons for all three.
Ed Heath (URL) - April 29, 2009



Ed, I ask very little of my elected representatives, except that they be (1.) honest and (2.) well informed on the issues.

I certainly don’t want Sen. Specter to vote 100 percent of the time with Harry Reid any more than I wanted him to vote 100 percent of the time with Mitch McConnell.

Specter makes me grind my teeth sometimes, but I’ve always seen him as thoughtful and I think he votes his conscience.

That’s worth more to me than someone who agrees with every one of my positions, but I’m probably in the minority. (Remember, a liberal is a guy who won’t take his own side in an argument.)

As for the Democrats 1980/Republicans 2009 analogy — I’m old enough to remember when the “litmus tests” for “real” Democrats were things like the Equal Rights Amendment and the Sandinistas. That worked out real well for them.
Webmaster - April 29, 2009



Specter candidly admitted that he did this to save himself from losing in the Republican primary. Whether he can win the Democratic primary is something else, but he at least has a shot there. The GOP seems bent on becoming the permanent minority party, closing down the “big tent” they talked about back around Bush 41. Since January, all they’ve done is carp about big spending and lower taxes in the face of the current economic crises, but I have yet to hear one of them offer a well-considered alternative course of action. I think they are all hoping that the Obama plan will fail and they get to say “I told you so” still without having any alternative course of action.
ebtnut - April 29, 2009



“Permanent minority” is a dangerous concept, and I don’t see the GOP as mortally wounded.

There are good Republicans; they’re just being shouted down right now by the cranks and weirdos. And there are cranks and weirdos in the Democratic Party, who could become ascendant again, just as they were following the Jimmy Carter debacle.

One of the Democratic Party’s real challenges will be keeping together a coalition as big as this one. I don’t think they’ve done it since the 1930s.

We need two (or more) strong, viable parties, but I agree that one thing that’s hurt the GOP has been their failure to promote any consistent ideas beyond (1.) no gays or abortions and (2.) tax cuts for the wealthy. I’m worried they might start stealing underpants next.
Webmaster - April 29, 2009



I’m with you concerning the need to two or more strong, viable parties. We need look no further than Allegheny County to see the effects of 1 party rule. I don’t intend that to mean that I’m blaming Democrats for the area’s problems, just a statement that the GOP has been missing in action locally forever.
Bulldog - May 01, 2009



Bulldog — Boy, you ain’t kidding!

I’m frankly shocked that NO viable Republican candidate has emerged for mayor of Pittsburgh, for instance. What are they waiting for?

Ditto with the county-level offices. Competent Republican challengers would force the county executive, sheriff, DA, etc., to be more responsive to public concerns and help put the brakes on some of the patronage and waste.

It wasn’t always this way. White Oak physician and former county commissioner Bill Hunt was a Republican, as was Elizabeth’s Barbara Hafer, and both were elected to county-wide offices. (And Hafer, of course, went on to state office. She also switched parties, but never mind.)

Jim Roddey proved that a Republican can win county-wide offices here. Again, I ask — what are they waiting for?
Webmaster - May 01, 2009



To comment on any story at Tube City Almanac, email tubecitytiger@gmail.com, send a tweet to www.twitter.com/tubecityonline, visit our Facebook page, or write to Tube City Almanac, P.O. Box 94, McKeesport, PA 15134.