On Arlen's Side

The President held a fundraiser for Arlen Specter yesterday. Which makes sense for him - Specter is favored, helping him overtly keeps him on the Administration's side, and considering all the attacks from Republicans, having a former one switch to your side probably feels pretty good.

And Specter has been a good soldier thus far, voting with his party over 90% of the time and supporting a public option in health care reform and even hammering out an agreement on the Employee Free Choice Act.

Sen. Arlen Specter (D-Pa.) on Tuesday told the AFL-CIO convention in Pittsburgh that he has been working hard “for hours” on a deal with other key senators, such as Sens. Tom Harkin (D-Iowa) and Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.), as well as labor leaders, on the Employee Free Choice Act (EFCA).

“We have pounded out an Employees Choice bill which will meet labor’s objectives,” Specter said. “I believe before the year is out, and I will join my colleague Sen. [Bob] Casey [Jr. (D-Pa.)] in predicting, that there will be passage of an Employees Free Choice Act which will be totally satisfactory to labor.”

The bill is one of the labor movement’s most important legislative priorities this Congress, one they believe is necessary to protect workers’ rights. Specter’s prediction was greeted by a prolonged standing ovation from the convention’s attendees, members of the nation’s largest union federation.

It looks to be a bill with real penalties for labor law violators, binding arbitration for a contract if a workplace gets unionized and no deal between labor and management could be reached, and no delays in union certification. Card check is probably not in the bill, I would guess, but that alone would represent a real achievement in labor law and an expansion of the potential for unionization.

So that's great. And Specter is being a good soldier. But he does not get anointed as a result. And indeed, much of his good work is being caused by the fact of a primary fight with Joe Sestak. Which could lead to a dramatic change in labor law.

Primaries work.

...Another example. Specter called for single-payer to be put on the table. The backstory here is that a single-payer bill is winding through the Pennsylvania legislature with a lot of support, and Specter wants a part of that.

We need to immediately move to primaries in every blue or purple state to put the heat on these Senators.

PA-Sen: Sestak's Good Framing On The Public Option

Barack Obama is going to stump for Arlen Specter, and there's no question Specter isn't the problem right now in the health care debate. But this video from Joe Sestak shows the difference - which actually is more one of rhetoric than anything.



To be clear, Sestak is on board with a public option because the primary is moving both candidates to the left. But he can talk about it FAR better than Specter, and that means something. Health care is bogged down in Washington right now because it doesn't have enough good advocates. The talking points Sestak used in his forum are some that I haven't heard from other politicians - that the premiums cover the public option, that $23 million to CEOs would be wiped out under it, etc.

We have plenty of Democratic votes, of varying degrees of progressivism. What we have in short supply are Democratic leaders. Sestak actually didn't leave a great impression during his Netroots Nation forum, although he was much better in the breakout session. But this video shows some pretty solid leadership.

Also, this is a video you would never see on traditional media because nobody's holding up a sign of Obama in a Hitler mustache or screaming at the top of their lungs. I guess that means it doesn't count.

Weird

Arlen Specter sitting in front of a Netroots Nation banner.

...Ari Melber to Specter: "Who are you, why are you here?" Answer: "I'm a fella who has a good job I'd like to keep." At least he's honest. Specter is very selectively tiptoeing through his record. When you've been in the Senate for 30 years, you could pretty much present yourself as Dennis Kucinich or Jim DeMint, depending on the coloring.

...Specter talking about carrying the President's message in town hall meetings on health care. As he keeps going, Melber says "This isn't the Senate and you're not going to filibuster."

...Susie Madrak talks about the Specter move of condemning a Bush Administration initiative, and then voting for it. Specter: "You can pick an isolated example or two." Or 102. Now touting the Military Commissions Act to the Netroots Nation audience. That's going to go over well.

...To recap, Specter said about the Military Commissions Act, "It was unconstitutional to exclude habeas corpus, it would set America back 900 years." Then went ahead and voted for this.

Shorter Specter: Without my vote gutting state funding in the stimulus, PA wouldn't have received all that money in the stimulus!

Specter is bobbing and weaving, essentially.

...Specter says he can be helpful on health care with Chuck Grassley. Sen. Grassley, who legitimized the "death panel" smear so much that he got the Senate Finance Committee to deep-six it. Specter does say Grassley is wrong to say that. "I will call him up today and tell him he's wrong." We say call him now. Specter says "join me backstage and watch me dial." I'm going.

..."I don't know Glenn Beck, and I don't care to know Glenn Beck!" A bold stand.

...Specter thinks there are 61 votes for cloture (all Dems + Snowe).

...Susie or Ari need to go after Specter on Clarence Thomas.

...On the crowd here: "This is easy compared to yesterday." Gives his elevator pitch: "I have a lot of experience, I can speak for Obama on tough issues effectively."

...he did indeed call Grassley. Left a msg and requested a meeting.

PA-Sen: Sestak Announces

Joe Sestak is officially a candidate for US Senate.

I can't tell you how energized I am after seeing all of those people come together, veterans and teachers, laborers and doctors, students and seniors. They all made the early morning trip out to Folsom, and were joined by thousands watching live online, because they know that we must work together to restore the promise of the American Dream.

The American Dream is a great compact between generations - a promise that we will all pass down a better world than the one we inherited. Now, it has been lost for the first time in our history, because too many of those sent to Washington to represent you, the people, have instead acted on behalf of the powerful and well-connected.

This campaign is not about me. It's about all of us, and we are going to need your help to win. We have an opportunity -- if we act with resolve - to put college back in reach for our children, to demand transparency and accountability from our financial system, and provide quality and affordable health care to everyone. We can be a world leader again, working toward peace or putting American ingenuity on the front line against global climate change.

I have no illusions about Joe Sestak's record, though the fact that he's attempting to catch a wave of grassroots energy will hopefully make him a bit more responsible to those same grassroots. And the very fact of Sestak's candidacy is doing wonders for keeping Arlen Specter a Democratic partisan. Aside from my belief that primaries are pretty much the essence of democracy, offering voters a choice, giving Specter pressure from the Democratic mainstream is important, especially going into the next several months of tough Senate votes.

Here's Joe Sestak's campaign page.

PA-Sen: Hints and Allegations

Arlen Specter, clearly worried by a potential matchup with Joe Sestak, has started to use his cash reserves to bang away at the Democratic Rep's voting record.



And Specter sent out his golden boy Ed Rendell to mock Sestak's chances.

Joe, you're needed in the House. It's a difficult seat for the Democrats to hold without Joe Sestak running again. His chances of unseating Arlen Specter againt the wishes of an extremely popular president, at least for the Democratic voters, a vice-president who has tremendous impact in the southeastern part of the state, a governor, Sen. Casey -- all those elected officials, the mayor of Philadelphia, Mike Nutter, the county executive of Allegheny County...

To battle those forces when you're not even -- Joe Sestak doesn't even have good name recognition in neighboring Philadelphia. Arlen Specter's been a houshold word for thirty years. I think it's a tremendous uphill fight and i think it could -- it will -- cost Joe his seat in the House and may cost the Democratic party what would be a safe seat.

I liked Sestak's response to Specter - "Pennsylvanians would have been better off if Arlen Specter had missed a lot more votes over the past eight years instead of voting for George Bush's failed economic policies, an ill-conceived war in Iraq, and permitting the cost of college to be out of reach of so many of our families." He also attributed a lot of his personal voting record to the problems military members have with absentee ballots, something Specter himself actually co-sponsored in a bill to fix.

As for Rendell, Sestak handled that well too.

Joe Sestak has great respect for Governor Rendell -- but we have to ask ourselves, what would happen if our leaders only stood up to challenges when the odds were in their favor? That isn't the spirit that created this nation, led Barack Obama to the Oval Office, or allowed Ed Rendell to become Governor of Pennsylvania when everyone said a Mayor of Philadelphia could never win.

What will happen if only those from what the establishment deems "safe seats" are advised to run for higher office? Where will the audacity come from, if not from those who have demonstrated the ability to galvanize a constituency against the odds? Political calculation is not what put the Democrats in power, and it isn't what's going to keep us there. The people are looking for leaders of conviction, not convenience.

The latest Q-poll still shows long odds for Sestak, but the news isn't great for Specter either - Pat Toomey now ties him statewide. At this point in the campaign, I think Sestak is in a decent place.

PA-Sen: A Real Race

While Joe Sestak may not have formally announced his campaign for US Senate, he's raising money at a clip that would be completely unnecessary for a House seat. He raised over a million dollars in the second quarter and has $4.2 million in the bank. By contrast, Arlen Specter raised $1.7 million but had a high burn rate, adding only $800,000 to his cash on hand. That war chest is impressive - $7.5 million dollars. But Sestak has enough to remain competitive. $4 million dollars can buy a lot of ads and build a substantial organization, and we're only just beginning.

The point is that, unlike past primary efforts, this is a real race, and given that Carolyn Maloney just pissed away her credibility up in New York, it's the race that progressives should focus on.

(I harbor no illusions that Sestak would hesitate from stabbing progressives in the back on health care himself, if he had to. But the mere threat of a primary by him is already doing the job of keeping conservative Dems in line, which is the point of these kinds of challenges.)

Party-Switcher Blames Opponent For Not Being Partisan

A clumsy, lame attempt by Arlen Specter to box in Joe Sestak.

"Congressman Sestak is a flagrant hypocrite in challenging my being a real Democrat when he did not register as a Democrat until 2006 just in time to run for Congress," Specter said in the statement. "His lame excuse for avoiding party affiliation, because he was in the [military] service, is undercut by his documented disinterest in the political process."

This would be because then-Admiral Sestak was on active duty until February 2006, and it's fairly standard practice for active-duty members of the military, particularly in the officer class, to maintain political neutrality. I don't want ranking military personnel registered with a political party for obvious conflict-of-interest reasons. Here's Sestak's response:

We've learned today that Arlen Specter can abandon his party, but he just can't quit making Republican swift-boat attacks on the integrity of Democrats who served in our military.

Like Colin Powell (who was also registered as an Independent while he served), I believe that military officers should be nonpartisan. The military depends on cohesion and unity, and the defense of this nation must never be political. I'm proud that I was an Independent during my 35 years in the Navy, and I was proud to register as a Democrat as soon as I retired from active duty.

Let's be clear: I voted for Bill Clinton, Al Gore, John Kerry, and Barack Obama while Arlen Specter was voting for George Bush and Bob Dole and John McCain. My question to Arlen Specter is this: do you regret voting for George Bush and John McCain? Why should Democrats support someone like you who actively campaigned - as recently as last year - for politicians with values like George W. Bush?

Needless to say, the very fact of Specter, who just switched parties a couple months ago, questioning the partisanship of anyone else is awkward, too.

Sestak needs to quit the Hamlet act and get in the race. But he's a much better campaigner than Specter, if this is any indication.

PA-Sen: Sestak Waiting Too Long?

Joe Sestak may be embarking on a tour of every county in Pennsylvania, but if you tell anyone that he's running for Senate, he'll track you down and immediately disavow any official announcement. And this hemming and hawing has led another candidate to enter the race.

While Congressman Joe Sestak keeps sticking his toe in the water, another Democrat has already plunged into a primary race against U.S. Sen. Arlen Specter - state Rep. Bill Kortz, a little-known two-term legislator from the Mon Valley, outside Pittsburgh.

Kortz, 54, a 30-year veteran of the steel industry who's held elective office for just 2 1/2 years, announced his candidacy in April, when Specter was still a Republican and various Democrats were licking their chops about taking him on. Specter's metamorphosis to a Democrat won endorsements from President Obama, Gov. Rendell and Sen. Bob Casey, and convinced Joe Torsella to drop out of the Senate race.

But Kortz says that the party leadership is out of touch with Democratic voters and vows to drive his Ford minivan throughout the state to contest Specter's re-election.

Kortz doesn't have much money, though his populist message may connect a bit, particularly because he'll be the only candidate from the western half of the state. But significantly, as an elected official he'll need to be part of all the debates and process stories about the race. And he splits a sliver of the anti-Specter vote. Which makes Sestak's job more difficult. If he'd quit dipping his toe in the water and just get in the damn race, maybe Kortz gets out of his own accord.

Senate Primary Challenges A Go-Go

With the second quarter fundraising out of the way, now is the perfect opportunity for candidates to jump in and announce their intentions to run. In Pennsylvania and New York, that's what we're seeing.

Joe Sestak's candidacy is the worst-kept secret in America, and he again vowed to run in an interview with the Wayne Independent.

A congressman from the Philadelphia suburbs will challenge U.S. Sen. Arlen Specter in the Democratic Senate primary.

In an interview with The Wayne Independent Wednesday morning, U.S. Rep. Joe Sestak, D-Pa.,confirmed his intention to run against Specter, a long-time Republican who switched to the Democratic party earlier this year.

“I am going to get into the race against Arlen Specter ... for senator,” said Sestak in his first media interview as part of a three-week tour through all of the Commonwealth’s 67 counties.

Sestak is a good campaigner and a smart politician and I expect him to do well. In fact, I predicted a victory last week.

Now there's another primary challenger, in New York State to go against Kirsten Gillibrand, the appointed replacement of Hillary Clinton. Carolyn Maloney will run.

Rep. Carolyn Maloney has decided to take on Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand in the 2010 Democratic primary, refusing to bow to party leaders who want her to stay out, the Daily News has learned.

"She's definitely decided to run," said a senior Maloney adviser, speaking on condition of anonymity. "She's in it."

Previously, New York poohbahs like Chuck Schumer and the White House cleared aspirants out of the way. Maloney would not be moved. In general I think that's healthy. Gillibrand has a good voting record as a Senator, but I reject the appointment process as undemocratic and think that appointees should have to work for their position. With Ted Kaufman not running in Delaware, Roland Burris toast in Illinois, and this primary, 3 of the 4 appointees will either not run or have challenges next year, and Michael Bennet certainly ought to have one in Colorado.

They may be expensive, they can potentially be divisive, but they allow the voters a voice rather than having representatives anointed from on high. That's always a good thing.

Joe Sestak Will Beat Arlen Specter In The 2010 PA Primary

There, I've said it. I'm not above making some predictions. And this one is based in some reality, for once! The fact is that Arlen Specter's standing with voters in Pennsylvania has slipped significantly a year out from any primary. His job approval rating is down to 34%, and among Democrats, only 43% believe he deserves re-election. In a head-to-head matchup, Specter only garners 33% against Sestak, who has 13%, with a whopping 48% undecided.

These are much better numbers than, for example, Ned Lamont had at a similar time, nearly a year out from his primary against Joe Lieberman. And the trends in terms of key stakeholders are moving Sestak's way as well. This Open Left piece is hilarious:

At first glance, Joe Sestak reiterating that he is a co-sponsor of the Employee Free Choice Act while speaking at a United Steelworkers conference doesn't seem like much of a news story. As the title of this post implies, however, there is something that made it very interesting...

The catch is that Senator Arlen Specter did not speak at this event. In fact, he was disinvited.

Here is the full story, courtesy of an email exchange with Jim Savage, who is President of a Steelworkers local here in Philadelphia:

"The Senator [Arlen Specter] was invited & confirmed as the keynote speaker."

"There was quite an uproar when we found out. He was uninvited because of the rank-and-file reaction."

"Also, it's worth noting that the Senator was none too happy about it."

At that point, Sestak was then invited. Before he spoke, he was "introduced to the delegates as "our next Senator" to a rousing ovation."

The general sentiment toward Specter was "fuck'm."

I have to say, talking to local union leaders is a lot more fun than talking with communications staff.

Sestak keeps dipping his toe in the water and intimating that he'll get in the race. At some point he'll have to go ahead with a full-fledged announcement. But if, as appears likely, he does run, I think he'll win. I've certainly been wrong before, but then again, so has Larry Sabato....

...and by the way, this is exactly why Specter came out today in favor of the public option for health care reform. He will not be a problem in this fight, unlike what would have been the case if Sestak shied away from running.

PA-Sen: Sestak Calls For Volunteers

Chris Bowers got back from watching Arlen Specter at a state Democratic Party meeting and came back more determined than ever to support his opponent. He lays out the bill of particulars here. Specter has never been particularly trustworthy, this example gets me the most:

The ultimate fold: You simply cannot trust Arlen Specter. At all. Here is Specter on standing up for what's right:

Prior to the vote on the Military Commissions Act of 2006, he [Specter] 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.

Joe Sestak is basically in the race running against Specter, and has put out a call for volunteers.

For those who have come to my web-site, I ask you to please stay involved by hitting the “Volunteer” button in our Action Center, and providing us with your contact information.

Many critical issues currently face our country and Pennsylvania. My District office has prevented 400 families from being foreclosed on and losing their home. In the past two years, my office has handled over 10,000 constituent case files; the average Congressional office has handled 3,200.

What we’ve been able to accomplish in my District in terms of support, as well as creating opportunities for economic growth, is what I do believe Pennsylvania needs, especially at this moment in time … when many of us voted for change in the last election. Pennsylvania, does indeed, have a vibrant, dynamic future that stretches well into the horizon … and I look forward to being a part of that.

I endorse anyone in Pennsylvania getting involved. We know far too much about Arlen Specter and his complete lack of principle to stomach him being anointed the Democratic nominee without a fight.

Amazingly, People Want To Choose Their Own Representatives

A new poll from Susquehanna Research in Pennsylvania informs us that 63% of registered Democrats want to see Arlen Specter challenged in a primary. That doesn't even mean they want him beat. They want him to make a compelling argument why Democrats should choose him to represent them. That would be a little thing called democracy. And in general, people like it.

Establishmentarians like Ed Rendell would rather not let the rabble experience democracy. They'd rather protect their friends and colleagues - Rendell himself worked with Specter in the Philly DA's office years ago.

None of this necessarily means that Joe Sestak is a liberal champion. It means that primaries and accountability through them are really the main tools that voters have to hold lawmakers to their promises. If Arlen Specter faces a primary, he suddenly has a powerful reason to support a Democratic agenda. Actually, so does Joe Sestak. Primaries and re-elections hold politicians to account. That's why they're not elected for life, though sometimes it seems that way.

A Peek Into The Machine

I just came across an astonishing interview on The Ed Show with Pennsylvania Governor Ed Rendell about the potential Specter-Sestak primary. It's a combination of a threat, Newspeak, muddled and often contradictory logic, and a depiction of how the spoils system works in government, particularly a machine state like Pennsylvania. It's really something, and it looks almost staged, like an infomercial designed to bash Sestak's chances in public. Here's a transcript.

Schultz: Do you think Joe's got a shot?

Rendell: I'm an admirer of Joe Sestak. I'm going to work hard to get him re-elected when he runs for Congress next year, not for the Senate. Joe should not run for the Senate in the Democratic primary, he'd get killed. And let me tell you why he'd get killed. Number one, Arlen Specter's been going around PA for three decades, as the Senator. He goes into every one of the 67 counties each and every year, and he holds town meetings, and he does constituent service, and he's never asked whether people are Republican or Democrat. Last three weeks or so, we've been having regional conferences with elected Democratic Party chairs, and elected Democratic officials, in every region of the state. It's unbelievable how many of them know Arlen personally, and admired him and supported him, even though he was a Republican in the past. You can't buy that, and you can't overcome that in one campaign. It's been thirty years. Number two, Arlen Specter will raise two, three, four times as much money as Joe Sestak. Number three, Arlen Specter has the support of the President and the Vice President, a President who's got a 90% approval rating among registered Democrats in Pennsylvania. Joe Sestak does not want to be one of the candidates who ran against Bob Casey in the Democratic primary, when the whole governmental establishment was for Bob Casey. He doesn't want to be marginalized, he doesn't want to get 15, 18%. Joe should run for Congress again, establish some seniority, his time will come. He's a terrific guy, his time will come, but it's not this year.

Schultz: Governor, you're very strong with that answer tonight. It almost sounds as if Joe Sestak would be making a fool of himself if he were to try this. Would you go that far?

Rendell: Well, I wouldn't say making a fool of himself, of course, Joe's a terrific guy, and he's got great credentials. But he's being talked into it by people on the extreme of the party, and they're good people, and they care about the right issues, but they don't represent the broad slice... this is a conservative state. I know people shake their heads when I say that, but the Democratic Party in Pennsylvania is more Bob Casey's party than it is Ed Rendell's party. I won because I was a great regional candidate, Ed, and I won re-election because I think I did a good job. But this, our Democrats are middle-of-the-road Democrats, with the exception of the Southeast. And Arlen Specter appeals very much to them. And it's not so much who I support, or who Bob Casey supports, it's all these party chairmen and all these elected officials that Arlen's been taking care of for years. And most people think that Arlen's supported our constituencies, and he has, over the years.

Schultz: So the infrastructure of the party in PA, would, no matter what side it is, is going to be with Arlen Specter. So the question begs, is anybody willing to step up and tell Joe Sestak, don't do this? That we've got a good enough guy, that he's gonna be good on the issues? Because Mr. Sestak was on this program, and the point that he made, he didn't like the idea that there was someone in the party, including yourself, including the President and the Vice President, that were willing to anoint Arlen Specter because he'd been around for a long time.

Rendell: Well, we anointed Bob Casey because he was a good candidate and he had been around for a long time, even though he was a young age, he started very young. Ed, it's not a question of anointing. In the end, people decide, not me, not even the President. People decide. But when they hear from the President that we need Arlen Specter. When people understand that Arlen Specter single-handedly saved the stimulus program for this country and put his political rear end on the line, when they understand that ten billion dollars more for NIH, to help us do research on every incredible disease that we're facing as a human race. People understand, and they like Arlen Specter and they understand that he's who the President wants. Look, I'm the last person to tell Joe not to run, because people told me not to run when I decided to run for Governor, because no one from Philadelphia had been elected since 1914 as Governor. So I'm not about to say to someone don't run. But I think Joe should think about what Arlen has done, the things that, the alliances that he's made over the years, the constituent services operation that has that's second to none, and the fact that he does have the support of Democrats, particularly the President.

Schultz: Well, labor has told me that they're not going to sit this thing out. Now, would this competition make Arlen Specter a better Democrat when it comes to voting on Employee Free Choice Act, free trade issues, and also health care reform? What about those three?

Rendell: Well, it's interesting. Both Joe Sestak and Arlen Specter are trying to broker a compromise on the Employee Free Choice Act, because they know they're aren't enough votes right now. There are at least, and you know this better than I do, Ed, how many Democratic Senators will not vote for the Employee Free Choice Act as is?

Schultz: Well, they're a little nervous about it, there's no question about that. But I think-

Rendell: Arlen and Joe are both trying to make some changes in the Act so that everyone can support it so they can have a broad base of support. So I think Arlen Specter has been for our constituents for the longest time. You know he's been called a RINO, a Republican in name only, and in fact there's a lot of truth to that. He's always been there for poor people, for working people. And he's been there for labor! He ran against a good Democratic Congressman, Joe Hoeffel in the 2004 election, and organized labor was for Specter. Arlen is going to do the right thing on the Employee Free Choice Act, just like he did on the stimulus. He's going to try and broker a compromise. Ironically, Joe's doing the same thing in the House. So, look, these guys are very much the same. Joe Sestak's not a liberal Democrat either.

Schultz: No, he's not. But he is better to labor, and he is, wants a public option on health care, and he is not the free trader that Arlen Specter has been. I think your analysis and your take is great, you know, I don't want to go against you on anything. I always want you on my team. You've got Pennsylvania down, there's no question. But from my instincts, I think Americans are tired of the good old boy network. And I love competition, and I think competition makes people better, that was my Op-Ed last night...

Rendell: And you're right about that, except, we will lose a terrific Congressman. Joe Sestak runs against Arlen Specter, he's out of the Congress, after just two short terms. We will lose a terrific Congressman, and when he loses to Arlen, he fades into political obscurity. He's a guy who should be there for us. We don't have a deep bench among Democrats in Pennsylvania, we need Joe to stay in the Congress and do the work he's been doing.

So, Sestak would get killed because Arlen backslaps all the party chairs and everybody loves him, and he'll raise a lot more money (a veiled threat alluding to what Rendell will tell local donors) and the President wants him in. Then he says that the dirty hippies are pushing Sestak, but Pennsylvania Democrats are conservatives and Arlen Specter, a 30-year Republican, suits them fine, and Rendell (the noted hardcore lib) only snuck in on a technicality, but Arlen's a good guy because he invented the stimulus package himself and he's supported everything Democrats have supported forever, because he's the Dennis Kucinich of the Keystone State. And then Schultz asks why are you choosing for the voters, and Rendell disavows doing that at all - no telling somebody not to run from him - and proceeds to say that Specter's "who the President wants," even though it doesn't matter who the President wants because people decide.

Then Schultz asks whether the pressure is good or bad, and Rendell says that Sestak and Specter are exactly the same on Employee Free Choice, "same" being defined as the fact that one supported it and one said he wouldn't support it in the curent form. But it's all fine because a lot of Democrats don't want to pass the bill - including Specter - and Arlen will "do the right thing" on that because he loves poor people. Anyway, Joe Sestak and Specter are exactly the same - never mind the hippie morons - and when Schultz talks precisely about the areas where they differ and says that competition is healthy, Rendell makes the most open threat of the interview, warning that we'd lose Sestak's Congressional seat (a district Obama won 56-43), and Sestak will fade into oblivion (with a not-so-gentle push from Rendell, of course).

This pretty much is how things are run in Pennsylvania, as I understand it. Rendell recounts with pride how he cleared the field for Bob Casey in 2006. If Rick Santorum, sensing a loss, switched parties then, Eddie probably would have cleared the field for him, too.

Me, I support democracy. And if Ed Rendell wants Arlen Specter to beat Joe Sestak and stay in the Senate, he has a means to do that. He has a vote. We'll see how it turns out next year.

...C&L has the vid:

PA-Sen: Early Numbers Seem Fine For Sestak

The Philly Inquirer surveys the potential Sestak-Specter primary.

In an interview last night, Sestak said that he needs to consult with his wife, Susan, and their 8-year-old daughter, Alex, before launching what would be an all-consuming statewide campaign.

"Personally, I do intend to get in, but we make the decision as a family. This is a deployment," said Sestak, a retired Navy rear admiral. "We have not made a final decision. . . . I intend to try to do this in a thoughtful, deliberate way."

He added that, in preliminary conversations, his family had been "very supportive" of the idea.

Meanwhile, a preliminary poll shows what I think is good news for Sestak's candidacy. Specter's statewide approval rating is only 46%, and his lead in a hypothetical primary over Sestak is only 50-21. Considering Specter's name ID, the fact that he cannot break 50% is an excellent sign for the lesser-known Sestak. And despite not being known at all, Sestak beats Toomey in a head-to-head general election matchup. If I were the Admiral, I'd take those numbers as a baseline.

Obviously, the big hitters in the Party - Ed Rendell, not to mention the White House - may try to push Specter over the line. But I don't think Democratic primary voters can be that easily fooled, to line up with the guy who admitted he was joining the party only for political reasons and has a lifetime record of opposing many Democratic causes.

PA-Sen: Sestak's In

So says Brian Beutler:

Rep. Joe Sestak (D-PA) is privately telling supporters that he intends to run for Senate, TPMDC has confirmed.

"He intends to get in the race," says Meg Infantino, the Congressman's sister, who works at Sestak for Congress. "In the not too distant future, he will sit down with his wife and daughter to make the final decision."

The move would constitute a primary challenge to Sen. Arlen Specter (D-PA), who intends to run for re-election in 2010, after having switched parties earlier this year.

Earlier today, a Sestak volunteer and contributor received a handwritten note from Sestak himself, announcing his intent to run and asking for a contribution.

This is spectacular. Nobody, least of all Arlen Specter, should have a free ride to the halls of power. My personal feeling is that Joe Sestak is superior to Specter in just about every way, but even if he were not, I would support this for just about any and every seat. Primaries are healthy. They keep politicians honest. They allow the people to make the key decisions on who to represent them, instead of having the options shoved down their throats.

FWIW, the Pennsylvania Democratic infrastructure looks to be supporting the incumbent. But if Sestak can raise enough money, I believe he can change enough minds. This is a really interesting development and it bears a lot of watching.

Obama Dumping On Primaries

The President of the United States is also the leader of a political party, so the notion that it's somehow scandalous for Barack Obama to "sway" the midterms elections is faintly ridiculous. I am concerned about his attempts to close off the Democratic primary process, however; I'm assuming plenty of Clinton loyalists tried to pressure him not to run, either.

The White House's willingness to engage emerged with a surprising bang. Democratic campaign operatives grumbled that Mr. Obama got involved in a special House election in upstate New York both late and grudgingly. But at the insistence of Sens. Menendez, Charles Schumer (D., N.Y) and Kirsten Gillibrand herself, Mr. Obama stepped in this month to head off a primary challenge from Rep. Steve Israel to Ms. Gillibrand's New York Senate race next year.

Israel's Chief of Staff has denied the report that Rahm Emanuel threatened to have the President campaign in black neighborhoods in New York for Kirsten Gillibrand if Israel ran against her, and that Israel would lose any ability to set policy in Congress. But the facts are that Obama's people wished to avoid a primary in New York, he made himself known, and at least one challenger demurred as a result. Now, I don't particularly like Steve Israel, but it's not my decision to make. We're seeing the same dynamic in Pennsylvania with Arlen Specter, as Democrats pressure Joe Sestak to stay out of the race:

When it comes to sorting out who gets to run for Senate, the chair of the DSCC -- currently New Jersey Sen. Bob Menendez -- is the heavy. So it shouldn’t be taken lightly that the DSCC commissioned a poll pitting Specter against possible primary challenger Rep. Joe Sestak. The lopsided result -- a Specter lead of 56 percent to Sestak's 16 percent -- sends a pretty loud signal to the congressman. Remember, nobody made the party release these results, and indeed, if you want to get technical about it, the DSCC didn't actually "release" them; they just became public somehow.

Of course, just a couple months ago, Sestak was the DSCC’s best hope of mounting a credible general election campaign against Specter. But as is often the rule in these situations, the party is going with the incumbent, who’s viewed as a likelier winner. Menendez could scarcely send a louder signal to Sestak, at least not without decapitating a horse and doing some nocturnal breaking-and-entering.

This is of course coordinated from the very top. And it's profoundly at odds with the small-d democratic model of the voters choosing their representatives. Primaries are the lifeblood of a political system, in my view. They breathe life into the stodgy old system of the status quo. When a politician gets out of line or out of touch, a primary opponent can hold them to it. When they fail to represent the expressed will of the constituency, a primary opponent can step in. This should not be suppressed but celebrated. Nobody should choose the options for the public. Not even the President.

Labor's Still Got Some Muscle

A couple days ago, the LA Times, no doubt dripping with glee, printed a story about labor being outmaneuvered on the Employee Free Choice Act and in particular the card-check provision. First of all, the idea that anyone in the labor movement would be surprised by corporate opposition to this bill is kind of crazy. They knew that big business would throw everything they had at this, and that Republicans and key corporate Dems would resist passage.

But rumors of labor's demise are greatly exaggerated. First of all, Tom Harkin is making a smart threat, vowing to either reach a compromise on Employee Free Choice or force his fellow lawmakers to vote on it.

That may not sound like a grave threat, but it may well be. Two of the bills main skeptics--Sens. Arlen Specter (D-PA) and Blanche Lincoln (D-AR)--face re-election next year, and both, for different reasons, may ultimately need union support to prevail. Specter, who tacked to the right and came out against EFCA before becoming a Democrat, is facing pressure from the Democratic base and Rep. Joe Sestak (D-PA) to move left or face a primary challenge.

And at least one high level union official has suggested that if Lincoln doesn't come around and support an EFCA compromise, she may face a green party challenger, in addition to a Republican challenger, in the general election.

And let's not forget that labor still can throw their weight around on non-EFCA issues, and they came up with a major victory to stymie the Obama Administration's apparent efforts to pass a corporate-written trade deal:

U.S. officials said they will delay seeking congressional approval for a pending free-trade deal with Panama until President Barack Obama offers a new “framework” for trade.

The administration, which in March said it would move quickly to pass the trade agreement with Panama, wants to outline how trade fits with other priorities such as assistance for unemployed workers and health care, Assistant U.S. Trade Representative Everett Eissenstat said today.

“It’s clear that trade agreements in the last few years have been much too divisive,” Eissenstat told the Senate Finance Committee. “We want to make sure that Panama doesn’t contribute to that divisiveness.” [...]

Eissenstat’s comments follow remarks by John Sweeney, the head of the AFL-CIO labor federation, that unions would oppose a rush to ratify the deal. The Panama accord was signed in 2007 and was viewed as the least controversial of three trade agreements reached by President George W. Bush and pending congressional approval.

Really, the wolf whistles and hoots hoping that labor is demoralized and devoid of clout really are embarrassing.

The Rare Reverse Kabuki

I don't know who fed the media this point, or maybe they just couldn't ignore the wealth of hypocrisy surrounding the right-wing hissy fit over Nancy Pelosi, but they have started to inexplicably push back. It started last week when Marcy Wheeler noted that Pete Hoekstra, the ranking member of the House Intelligence Committee, accused the CIA of providing insufficient briefings and even lying to Congress, regarding a separate investigation. In the interim, a host of elements of the CIA's story started to fall apart - their briefing record document included people who weren't in the meetings, people who lacked the security clearance to attend, and even stated Porter Goss was briefed in 2005 when he was the Director of the CIA at the time. The invaluable ThinkProgress dug up a copy of the letter Hoekstra sent to the CIA, and added this:

Similarly, in 2007, Hoekstra described a closed-door briefing by representatives from the intelligence community (including CIA) on the National Intelligence Estimate of Iran’s nuclear capability, saying that the members “didn’t find [the briefers] forthcoming.” More recently, in November 2008, Hoekstra concluded that the CIA “may have been lying or concealing part of the truth” in testimony to Congress regarding a 2001 incident in which the CIA mistakenly killed an American citizen in Peru. “We cannot have an intelligence community that covers up what it does and then lies to Congress,” Hoekstra said of the incident.

Maybe this was simply the easiest way for journalists to understand the emptiness of the hissy fit - Hoekstra said "lied," too - but for some reason they're off and running with this today. Wolf Blitzer confronted John Boehner with this and he had to concede the point. Newt Gingrich tried to play this off when called on it by Diane Sawyer, of all people, but it didn't work ut too well for him.



(not that anyone should give a crap what Newt Gingrich thinks.)

And here comes none other than Arlen Specter, calling 'em how he sees 'em with respect to the CIA:

Sen. Arlen Specter took the opportunity Wednesday to defend House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, who has come under fire in recent weeks over a controversy surrounding when she was told of the use of enhanced interrogation techniques being used by the CIA.

“The CIA has a very bad record when it comes to — I was about to say ‘candid’; that’s too mild — to honesty,” Specter, a former chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, said in a lunch address to the American Law Institute. He cited misleading information about the agency’s involvement in mining harbors in Nicaragua and the Iran-Contra affair.

I have no idea why the worm turned today, but this controversy is basically over. The CIA's theory is full of holes, and the Pelosi spat has turned into he said/she said, with the media willing to explore Republican hypocrisy on the issue.

Of course, defusing this time bomb has an added benefit - it ends any rising calls for investigations, perhaps starting with what Pelosi knew but encompassing the entire breadth of the torture regime from top to bottom. The Village certainly wants no part of that. So they had to play rough with Republicans for a couple days. It's almost a Kabuki dance in reverse - the media pretends to delve deep and fact-check precisely to pre-empt anyone else getting to actually delve deep and fact-check.

Pretty sharp. Meanwhile the whole "we tortured detainees to justify the war in Iraq" storyline has faded off into the distance as well. Maybe Jonathan Landay will drop yet another McClatchy bombshell soon.

Sausage Making On Employee Free Choice

Yesterday Arlen Specter announced that a compromise was in the works for the Employee Free Choice Act.

Sen. Arlen Specter said Thursday the "prospects are pretty good" for a compromise on legislation making it easier for workers to form unions.

Specter had come out against the bill in March, disappointing labor leaders. They had hoped he would be the crucial 60th vote needed to overcome an expected GOP filibuster of the Employee Free Choice Act.

The Pennsylvania senator has since switched from the Republican Party to the Democratic Party, and he said he's been meeting with labor leaders and fellow senators in hopes of coming up with a compromise he could support.

President Barack Obama also said Thursday that he hoped a compromise could be worked out that would "get enough votes to pass the bill."

The good news here is that Specter realizes he needs to protect his left flank, lest he receive a primary challenge. American Rights at Work released an ad hammering him this week, and the unions have made it pretty clear that they will condition their support for Specter based on his record.

The bad news is that we have no idea what form this compromise will take. Specter has signaled that he opposes both the majority sign-up and the 120-day arbitration portions of the bill. The second part doesn't get mentioned much, but it's just as important, as Harold Meyerson noted in the Washington Post:

If our nation was governed by business's version of democratic choice, we would hold elections to determine the winner, but nearly half the time the incumbent would remain in power even if he lost.

In its campaign to derail the Employee Free Choice Act (EFCA), business has fearlessly depicted itself as the defender of elections and the secret ballot as well as the foe of the dread "card check" -- the process, championed by unions and included within EFCA, that would allow workers to sign union affiliation cards rather than compelling them to go through a ratification election in which harassment and firings of workers are all too common.

But the kind of democratic choice that business favors is choice without consequence -- a position made clear by its opposition to the other key component of EFCA: binding arbitration between company and union if they've been unable to agree on a contract within 120 days of a union winning the election. A study of first-contract negotiations by John-Paul Ferguson and Thomas A. Kochan of MIT's Sloan School of Management makes clear why such arbitration is needed. After surveying 22,000 unionization campaigns between 1999 and 2004, the authors found that even after a majority of workers voted for a union, they actually reached a contractual agreement with management (which is currently under no legal obligation to come to an agreement) only 56 percent of the time.

Heads, management wins. Tails, the employees lose.

Specter and others have proposed modifications to both majority sign-up and 120-day arbitration. There's Dianne Feinstein's "vote-by-mail" sign-up, where workers send in cards to the National Labor Relations Board and get their union when half of the workplace sends them in. And Specter has promoted a "last best offer" arbitration, with mediation after each side sends in their proposal.

We'll see if these are amenable to the unions. My hope is that everyone understands that the current system is irreparably broken, and we need something to change the ability of employers to fight tooth and nail against unionization, even after the workplace makes their will known through a hard-fought election. In the end, this is about worker rights.

Health Care State Of Play

One problem with yesterday's "game changer" of an announcement on industry-wide health care cost reduction is that it will not improve prospects to pay for health care from the government's perspective. As long as the Congressional Budget Office cannot "score" the savings into their assessment of paying for the health care plan, you still need to find the same dollars. Igor Volsky thinks that the prospect of savings makes the prospect of health care more plausible, because it provides a counter-weight to the CBO gospel, but if you still have to find the dollars, I don't see how that matters. Ezra Klein offers the idea of "directed scoring," where the CBO is essentially forced to account for industry-wide cost savings, but it's not entirely likely.

Regardless, the Senate Finance Committee is moving forward with a game plan for how to get a bill to the floor.

In a document laying out health-care options, Senate Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus, a Democrat, and Senator Charles Grassley, the panel’s top Republican, yesterday endorsed the idea of requiring everyone to have coverage. Insurers have sought such a requirement in exchange for agreeing to accept President Barack Obama’s demand that they enroll all applicants, regardless of medical condition.

The committee will discuss the options on May 14 with the goal of getting the measure to the Senate floor in July. Obama has said he wants Congress to create a plan that would reduce medical costs and extend coverage to the 46 million uninsured people in the U.S. They were 15 percent of the U.S. population in 2007, according to U.S. Census data released in August.

So we're seeing the AHIP-friendly individual mandate in exchange for guaranteed issue and modified community rating. People will be able to keep the health care they have if they choose. The government would provide subsidies to allow lower-income Americans to afford health insurance, and employers of large companies may have a mandate to cover their employees. And then there's the real sticking point, the public option:

Obama’s administration says competition from a government- backed health plan will improve quality and lower costs.

Last week, Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius told the House Ways and Means Committee that Obama has no wish to “undermine” private health-insurance companies by supporting a government-backed alternative. She also said Obama would be willing to consider a requirement that everyone have health coverage, a proposal he criticized during his presidential campaign.

The so-called public option to purchase government-provided health care is a central issue. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi has said the chamber will include such an approach in legislation it considers later this year. Republicans and some insurers, including Aetna Inc., have opposed the creation of a new program modeled on Medicare.

‘Medicare-Like’

Baucus and Grassley said one way to fashion a government plan would be to make it “Medicare-like” and have it administered by the Department of Health and Human Services. Alternatively, it could be run by the states or by private- sector, third-party administrators, they said.

Groups like Health Care For America Now are pushing hard from the outside to force inclusion of a public option, and they appear to be having an impact. Kirsten Gillibrand offered her support yesterday, and none other than Arlen Specter has signaled openness to a public plan. As Jon Cohn notes, "the nice thing about nakedly opportunistic politicians is that their ever-shifting positions are a leading indicator of changing political currents."

The President failed to mention the public plan in his statement yesterday, focusing on the matter at hand, the industry wide cost reduction. My personal view is that you need a public option, guaranteed issue, real community rating (where consumers pay the same baseline rate regardless of their medical condition), medical device reform, comparative effectiveness research, and stiffer penalties for non-compliance at a MINIMUM if you're going to go to this individual mandate/shared responsibility model. And all of these must be legitimate, particularly the public plan, which cannot just be a non-profit insurance option without monopsony bargaining power.

But we're moving toward a solution, and even if it passes, it will only be a step to an eventual single-payer system. That's my view on it.