Nichols: "Arlen Specter's Deliciously Bitter Farewell to Fellow Senators: You're a Bunch of Cannibals!"

John Nichols (The Nation):

No one expected Arlen Specter, the grouchiest member of the Senate, to leave the chamber quietly -- or, for that matter, gracefully.

But who would have thought that the Democrat turned Republican turned Democrat would exit the Senate calling his colleagues a bunch of “cannibals”

Referring not just to the intense partisanship that has come to characterize the chamber in recent years but also to the internal ideological wrangling that forced him from the Republican Party in 2009 – only to be defeated in a Democratic primary in 2010 – the senior senator used his valedictory address Tuesday to declare: "Eating or defeating your own is a form of sophisticated cannibalism."

Dismissing specific colleagues, particularly South Carolina Senator Jim DeMint, the Tea Party Republican who has sought to impose ideological purity tests on the GOP, as destructive players, Specter growled in a 2,600-word valedictory speech that: "Collegiality can obviously not be maintained when negotiating with someone out to defeat you, especially in your own party. In some quarters, compromising has become a dirty word… Politics is no longer the art of the possible when senators are intransigent in their positions." MORE...

"OFA/DNC phonebanking against Sestak and for Specter"

AMERICAblog:

For years, Specter was a Republican. Sestak is a real Democrat. Doesn't OFA have better things to do?

If Specter wins, and I really hope he doesn't, I wonder how all of these loyal Democrats are going to feel when Specter isn't worried about Democratic primary voters anymore. Arlen Specter worries about one person: Arlen Specter. He's as craven as politicians get. So, win or lose next week, Specter will dump Obama and the Democrats if that's in his best interest. Everyone knows Obama can't count on Specter to "continue working on his behalf." Because Specter works on behalf of Specter.

Howie P.S.: No like.

"Can Cheryle Jackson End the War in Afghanistan?" (with video)

truthout, with video (00:31):

Add Illinois to Pennsylvania as states where there is a contested Senate primary in which the war in Afghanistan has become an issue.

The Chicago Tribune reports that the two leading contenders for the Democratic nomination for Barack Obama's former seat in the Senate have staked out diametrically opposed positions. A Tribune poll last month reported that Alexi Giannoulias and Cheryle Jackson were the leading contenders for the Democratic nomination. On Afghanistan, the Tribune reports that Cheryle Jackson wants to end the war, while Giannoulias supports it:

"It is time to take care of America again and time to bring our troops home," said Democratic Senate contender Cheryle Jackson, a former president of the Chicago Urban League. "Until we stop spending hundreds of billions on wars, we will not have the focus or money to solve the challenges we face at home."

But first-term state Treasurer Alexi Giannoulias, a Democrat, said he fully supported Obama's strategy for Afghanistan and indicated that those who oppose it are engaging in wishful thinking.

Indeed, Cheryle Jackson's first TV ad takes direct aim at the wars - "It's time to leave Afghanistan and Iraq":

The leading contenders for the Democratic nomination for Senate in Pennsylvania have also staked out opposing positions, with incumbent Sen. Arlen Specter opposing military escalation and challenger Joe Sestak supporting military escalation.

It is, of course, during the election cycle - especially the primary election cycle - that our political system is most vulnerable to public opinion, and that vulnerability, if seized upon, can have a lasting effect on national politics. As a result of the 2006 primary election cycle - in which, most prominently, Ned Lamont defeated Joe Lieberman for the Democratic nomination for Senate in Connecticut - opposition to the war in Iraq became established nationally as the predominant Democratic position, and the subsequent Washington fight over Iraq policy helped pave the way for a timetable for the withdrawal of US forces to which the Bush administration ultimately agreed. At the beginning of the 2008 presidential primary cycle, all the leading contenders for the Democratic nomination - including Barack Obama - were insisting that the US must threaten Iran with military force. By the end of the cycle, Obama was the diplomacy candidate.

Spectacularly, even opposition to US policies towards Israel and the Palestinians is surfacing in the Jane Harman-Marcy Winograd race, with Rep. Henry Waxman accusing Winograd of insufficient loyalty to Israel and Winograd standing her ground.

So, if you want to change national policy - in particular, if you want to end the war in Afghanistan - now is the time to raise your voice. Find out where the candidates in the Senate and House primaries stand on the wars - and raise the alarm.

Howie P.S.: Pennsylvania is a tough call for me.

"Bloggers Back Obama's Agenda, Not His Strategy" (with video)

Ari Melber (The Nation), with video (06:38):

It's cool to be a liberal blogger again. Just ask Bill Clinton.

Speaking to the fourth annual Netroots Nation convention in Pittsburgh, where a slew of bloggers, online activists and traditional pols gathered this weekend, the former President heralded attendees for elevating "public discourse" and pushing their agenda with transparency and partisan vigor.

Bloggers take sides, Clinton said appreciatively, and they "don't have to pretend" that they are neutral. The line not only celebrated a netroots ethic--it implicitly rebuked the traditional media's claim to disinterested objectivity. Heated media criticism is a passion that the blogosphere and The Big Dog have always shared. On domestic policy, by contrast, there are more disagreements. Yet Clinton's appearance resonated more for his stature in the party than where he falls on the progressive axis. Campaign season has given way to an era of Democratic governance, when volunteer armies and small donors matter less, but the netroots can still draw some of the most powerful people in politics. The current White House sent one if its most sought-after emissaries, senior adviser and longtime Obama confidant Valerie Jarrett, for a keynote appearance. And that's only counting Democrats.

Netroots Nation also drew a rather unlikely guest: a life-long Republican senator who recently joined the Democratic Party because, as he told the bloggers, he "has a good job" and wants to keep it. Arlen Specter, the resilient, 79-year-old pol who has now managed to seriously rile the base of both political parties, took questions at a session focusing on his 2010 primary. I co-moderated the event, with Pennsylvania blogger Susie Madrak, and a companion session for his opponent, Rep. Joe Sestak.

Specter made a blunt, detailed and explicit case for netroots support. He ticked off his putative credentials, from current policies (pro-choice, public option, labor voting) to current alliances (Obama, Biden) to great moments in progressive pushback (voting down Robert Bork's Supreme Court nomination) to, yes, his ginger embrace of new technology. In under an hour, Specter asked attendees to join his text message program, huddled with bloggers so they could watch him make a promised cell phone call Sen. Chuck Grassley--to rebut misinformation about health care - and Specter capped it off by tweeting , typo and all, the happenings in real-time: "Called Senator Grassley to tell him to stop speading [sic] myths about health care reform and imaginary 'death panels.'"

While those moves could have been empty gimmickry--one politician simulates calling out another without actual dialogue--the 75-year-old Iowa senator also tweets. Back in June, Grassley made waves by tweeting that President Obama had "nerve" to chide Congress' timetable on health care when his colleagues were "even workinWKEND" -- suggesting his missives are drafted without staff filtering. And just one hour after Specter's salvo, Grassley packed a stern riposte into 140 characters:

"Specter got it all wrong that I ever used words 'death boards'. Even liberal press never accused me of that. So change ur last Tweet Arlen"

The fast fight drew coverage from ABC, MSNBC, Politico, The Hill, and UPI, among others, while the satirical blog Wonkette appraised the human costs: "Evil Liberal Bloggers Strain Grassley, Specter Friendship, On Twitter."

Sure, the messages are short and the stakes may seem small. Yet the exchange also demonstrates the utility of new media politics. Beyond his "position" on health care reform, I asked Specter about countering misinformation from his former allies because, once again, a big political debate has been hijacked by dishonest operatives, enabled by a (mostly) complicit press corps. In other words, the lies may count more than the votes. And bloggers in the audience yelled out for Specter to contact Grassley immediately based on two basic premises: our representatives should deal in public, and fact-checking is a communal, political activity that cannot be left to media gatekeepers.

As it happens, governing in the Obama era is starting to feel more like another desperate, frantic election campaign, where overheated symbols substitute for genuine policy discourse and feckless referees grant equal time to lies and facts alike. So it's really no wonder liberal bloggers are back. We need them.

"Sestak and Specter in Pittsburgh"

Booman may have begun a whole new format for blogging by putting his observations in the comments section. A reader helpfully posts full invitation details on the after party @ The Shadow Lounge. That's my kind of coverage.

"Specter Blasts Sestak's Voting Record" (video)

Political Wire, with video (01:02):

The Pennsylvania Democratic primary for U.S. Senate has already turned nasty.

Sen. Arlen Specter (D-PA) unleashed a blistering web ad attacking Rep. Joe Sestak (D-PA) for having the "worst voting record in Pennsylvania." He also accused the former Naval officer of being "AWOL" for Pennsylvanians.

"Rep. Sestak (D-PA) Announces Intention to Run for Senate" (video)

TPMtv: video, (03:42).

MoveOn: Arlen Specter--"A Choice to Make" (video)

MoveOn, video (00:30):

MoveOn's new ad about Senator Specter's choice to oppose bankruptcy reform. The bill in question would have kept millions of people in their homes, but Senator Specter stood with Wall Street and voted against it.

"Rep. Sestak Talks About Running Against Specter" (video)

TheYoungTurks, video (17:30).

"Sestak may challenge Specter in primary"

The Hill:

Rep. Joe Sestak, the second-term Pennsylvania Democrat who has been mulling a run for Senate, says he may go ahead and challenge Sen. Arlen Specter in the Democratic primary.

Democratic leaders hope to clear the field and give Specter a clean shot at the Democratic nomination for Senate.

But Sestak declined to rule out a challenge to Specter during an interview Thursday on the "Bill Press Show," a nationally syndicated liberal talk show.

Sestak also said he would not let Democratic leaders in Washington push him out of the race. President Obama and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) have promised to raise money for Specter and campaign on his behalf during the 2010 Democratic primary.

Specter told reporters Tuesday that Pennsylvania Gov. Ed Rendell (D) hoped to convene a meeting of leaders in D.C. to solidify party backing for the senior senator who left GOP ranks this week.

Sestak, however, says he doesn’t care what party leaders in Washington decide.

“Pennsylvanians need to make this decision and not have it decided by Washington, D.C., Democratic Party establishment and I feel very strongly about that,” said Sestak.

The House Democrat said he would look closely at Specter’s policy statements and how he votes over the next few months before deciding whether to take him on.

“What’s he running for?” said Sestak. “There are critical issues facing our nation, from healthcare to how do we take care of education.

“Now, if he’s for the right things we might end up with the right candidate but for me it’s a wait-and-see.”

Sestak said that he’s focusing on helping constituents in his district, noting that his office has handled “10,000 constituency cases in two years.”

“This cannot be about a legacy; it has to be about cementing a future for our people,” he said.

Sestak is beginning to position himself as an outsider, a candidate not in lockstep with the wishes of party leaders in Washington.

The lawmaker recalled that when he first ran for Congress, the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee had already settled on another candidate and tried to stop him from running.

Sestak said he told political strategists in Washington at the time that he did not think he needed their permission to run.

“I think this just comes down to what’s best for Pennsylvanians, and boy are we independent.”

The ED Show: Meet Joe Sestak (D-PA) (video)

MSNBC-ED Show, video (07:43).

Howie P.S.: Sestak talks about Pennsylvania politics and says he "hasn't made up his mind" on whether to run for the U.S. Senate there in 2010. Ryan Lizza, John Feehery and Jamal Simmons join Schultz to discuss the Pennsylvania situation and its national impact. In the next segment, video (11:08), Schultz gives his view of the what Spector move means to the Obama agenda and the prospects for health care reform. He discusses this with Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vermont).

Barack Obama

"Thoughts on Specter"

Booman:

We Democrats here in Pennsylvania know Arlen Specter's record better than anyone and you'll be hearing endless reiterations of his many sins over the next two years. I don't need to do that now. Suffice to say that most progressives in this state find Specter to be enormously frustrating. We do not dispute that he is what passes these days for a moderate Republican. We know that he has a good record on labor issues and that he is officially pro-choice. I know high level people in the teacher's unions that intended to re-register as Republicans to vote for him in the primary and then re-register as Democrats to vote against him in the general. Specter is not hated or despised by most people, but he isn't liked or respected either.

We were hoping to beat him in the 2010 election, not be asked to support him. I suspect most activists and progressives will simply refuse to work for his reelection and we'll probably get organized in the Netroots to do the best job we can financing an alternative in the primary.

This sets us up to look like the left-wing version of the Club for Growth. We look too ideologically rigid and intolerant to allow for moderates in our party. There is no doubt that this will be the dominant media narrative, especially considering that Specter will have the full support of the DNC, DSCC, Harry Reid, and President Obama. But it's not a fair characterization.

The Republicans need a moderate to win in this increasingly Democratic state. The Democrats do not need a moderate to win. We just went through a less clear case of this in 2006 when we were forced to stomach Bob Casey Jr. as our candidate against a mortally wounded Rick Santorum. Sen. Casey is good on many issues, but we deserved a chance to choose between several viable candidates, including one that supports abortion rights. We deserve the same chance in the 2010 elections. But the only way that can now happen is if the progressives really get organized and have a lot of luck raising money for a challenger to Sen. Specter. It's not easy to take on our own president's endorsement.

I don't blame the Democrats for orchestrating this move. It's a solid play that deeply demoralizes the Republicans and puts them on the defensive. We will get endless benefits in rhetoric as we explain that the GOP is too radicalized and Southern to represent the people of Pennsylvania. And I know how this is going to go down. We're going to have to take on our own party leadership including the president to make the case for an alternative to Specter. And we'll have to try to communicate that the problem isn't that we can't tolerate moderates in our party but that we want choices.

Specter is popular in this state. He's only following his voters (the 200,000 moderate Republicans that switched parties to vote in the 2008 Democratic presidential primary). He's going to be formidable. And I welcome his decision to join the Democratic Party even as I know the decision was forced on him more by our idiosyncratic election laws than any matter of principle. But, just because I welcome him into the party doesn't mean that I don't want a better Democrat representing me in the Senate. Is that unreasonable? Just give me the chance to vote for another viable candidate. That's all I ask. If Specter wins I will respect that just as I begrudgingly respected Casey's win in the primary in 2006.

We can win the 2010 senate election without Specter. The Republicans cannot. And that's the difference between our position and the position of the Club for Growth.

Nate Silver: "Specter's Switch More Insult Than Injury to GOP"

Nate Silver:

Senator Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania has decided to become a Democrat.

This strikes me as being bad news for the Republican Party more than it is good news for the Democrats. Back in January, I described a process which I labeled the Republican Death Spiral:

Thus the Republicans [...] are in something of a death spiral. The more conservative [...] their message becomes, the more they alienate non-base Republicans. But the more they alienate non-base Republicans, the fewer of them are left to worry about appeasing. Thus, their message becomes continually more appealing to the base -- but more conservative, partisan, and strident to the rest of us. And the process loops back upon itself.

This defection, coming at a time when historically low numbers of Americans are identifying themselves as Republican, would seem to be a manifestation of said Death Spiral. These problems, indeed, were particularly acute in Pennsylvania, where many of the state's more moderate Republicans had re-registered as Democrats to vote in the state's extremely contentious primary between Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton. Thus, given an extremely conservative Republican electorate, Specter appeared to be an underdog against his extremely conservative primary challenger, Pat Toomey, and switched parties in order to increase his odds of survival.

But this is not necessarily an unmitigated win for the Democrats. Unlike Jim Jeffords' switch in 2001, this does not affect who controls the Senate Chamber. Rather, it merely nudges the filibuster math, which has always been somewhat fuzzy. While the Democrats will have a nominal total of 60 votes once Al Franken is seated, the Senate's fortunes will still be determined by a group of about a dozen moderate senators from both parties (including Specter), just as it was before.

The real question is -- how often will Specter's vote change as a result of this? Specter was already voting with the Democrats on some issues, like the stimulus, and he said in his statement today that he will continue to vote against the Democrats on at least one other high-profile issue, the Employee Free Choice Act. If he goes from voting with the Democrats 40 percent of the time to 60 percent of the time, that is not so terrific for them, particularly if the 60th seat raises expectations and lends credence to Republican claims about the need for divided government.

But of course, Specter can't be too cute about this, or he might have primary problems on the left. The Republican nominee is probably going to be Toomey, who will be an underdog against any sentient Democrat. Why should the Democrats settle for a Liberdem when they can probably get Pennsylvanians to elect a mainline Democrat along the lines of Bob Casey? Specter's cooperation on key issues like health care and cap-and-trade would now seem all but assured -- but then again, Democrats could perhaps already have expected such cooperation to begin with.

Unless Specter becomes a fairly liberal Democrat (perhaps with one or two exceptions like EFCA) his party switch today is something which might have more symbolic than actual impact.

Howie P.S.: H/t to Mike Kato.

NBC: "Spector switching" (video)

MSNBC, video (05:19).

Howie P.S.: Obama is "thrilled" and Joe Lieberman has a new Facebook friend!

Sen. Spector: "Obama chose not to seek my advice on Holder" (video)

MSNBC, video (04:14).

Howie P.S.: Listening to Spector bluster about "independence" is laughable. "Morning" Joe and Pat Buchanan pile on, helpfully.

Barack Obama

YouTubing Gonzo (videos)

Sen. Feingold's Questions (video, 10:28).

Sen. Specter Questions Gonzalez (video, 11:26).