The cover stories from top Democrats may flood the media, but in the end it’s clear that Pennsylvania Arlen Specter’s rhetorical hubris ended in him losing what he clearly felt he would get when he jumped from the Republican to Democratic party: keeping seniority on key Senate committees.
Since jumping ship, Specter has angered the Demoocratic party’s liberal wing (and by some reports some other Democrats as well) after making a series of comments that he later had to explain and/or soften: he was quoted as saying he never said he would be a loyal Democrat (which he later implied after an outcry meant that he didn’t suggest he was anti Democrat), and quoted in an upcoming interview as saying he wanted Republican Norm Coleman to prevail over Democrat Al Franken in the hotly disputed Minnesota Senate election (he said he misspoke:““In the swirl of moving from one caucus to another, I have to get used to my new teammates…I’m ordinarily pretty correct in what I say. I’ve made a career of being precise. I conclusively misspoke.”)
Majority Leader Sen. Harry Reid originally suggested that Specter would keep his seniority but, according to various reports, his Democratic colleagues wanted to vote on it. Meanwhile, Specter seemed doggedly intent on stressing how he’d do whatever he wanted, by specifying his opposition on some key issues, making the loyalty comment, and getting quoted about rooting for Coleman. In short: Specter seemed to be almost daring the Democrats to try and pressure him.
The Senate dealt a blow tonight to Sen. Arlen Specter’s hold on seniority in several key committees, a week after the Pennsylvanian’s party switch placed Democrats on the precipice of a 60-seat majority.
In a unanimous voice vote, the Senate approved a resolution that added Specter to the Democratic side of the dais on the five committees on which he serves, an expected move that gives Democrats larger margins on key panels such as Judiciary and Appropriations.
But Democrats placed Specter in one of the two most junior slots on each of the five committees for the remainder of this Congress, which goes through December 2010. Democrats have suggested that they will consider revisiting Specter’s seniority claim at the committee level only after the midterm elections next year.
“This is all going to be negotiated next Congress,” Jim Manley, spokesman for Senate Majority Leader Harry M. Reid (D-Nev.), said tonight.
Specter’s office declined to comment.
Without any assurance of seniority, Specter loses a major weapon in his campaign to win reelection in 2010: the ability to claim that his nearly 30 years of Senate service places him in key positions to benefit his constituents. Tonight’s committee resolution, quickly read on the Senate floor by Reid himself, contradicts Specter’s assertion last Tuesday when he publicly announced his move from the Republican side of the aisle.
What happened?
Specter’s switch was happily greeted by many Democrats who saw him bringing the party closer to a filibuster proof majority. Some on the left immediately voice fears Specter would become “another Joe Lieberman” — someone they could count on to not count on. If Specter had just gone about his business, he might have argued successfully to keep his chairmanships. But he seemingly felt compelled to create an issue that not yet truly existed….in record time.
Clearly, if Specter’s seniority claim will be negotiated during the next Congress, the Demmies in the Senate are saying they want Specter to show them some proof that a party switch was more than just a 100 percent for re-election purposes. Meanwhile, Specter could face a tough Democratic primary and a tough re-election if former Gov. Tom Ridge runs against him.
The Bottom Line: Specter moved over to the Democratic side and has had his wrists slapped — but they wouldn’t have gotten slapped if he hadn’t placed them in the controversy cookie jar within days of his switch.
The danger for the Democrats: if Specter is legislating as a moderate and he is defeated in a primary or loses election because liberal Democrats stay home, the Democrats will be seem as uninterested in moderates as the Republicans. The one difference: Specter seemed to be forcing the issue of how loyal a bona fide Democrat should be. GOPers will likely now try to paint Specter as having been snookered into switching into the Democrats — and will argue that Democrats used a bait and switch technique. But his comments over the past week made it clear his switch and willingness to accommodate his new party was not the same as Jim Jeffords’.
UPDATE: MSNBC’s Chuck Todd, Mark Murray, and Domenico Montanaro write:
Specter’s tough week: Life as a Democrat hasn’t been that easy for Arlen Specter so far. He twice voted against Democratic measures, including last week’s budget vote. Then came his interview on “Meet the Press,” in which he said he wouldn’t be a loyal Democrat. And now there’s an upcoming New York Times magazine interview, in which Specter says he wants Norm Coleman to win in his recount battle against Al Franken. (Specter tells CQ that he misspoke to the NYT mag. “In the swirl of moving from one caucus to another, I have to get used to my new teammates,” he said. “I’m ordinarily pretty correct in what I say. I’ve made a career of being precise. I conclusively misspoke.”) All of these moves/remarks have infuriated the liberal blogosphere, which is now conducting a straw poll to determine whether there should be a Draft Joe Sestak movement to challenge Specter in a Dem primary. As Specter is undoubtedly finding out, it’s sometimes lonely being stuck in the middle. Just ask Joe Lieberman. By the way, considering Specter’s moderate tendencies, doesn’t it actually make sense that he’d be supportive of Coleman? Does the quick back-track show he’s more concerned already about his Democratic prospects than his supposed moderate principles?
Joe Gandelman is a former fulltime journalist who freelanced in India, Spain, Bangladesh and Cypress writing for publications such as the Christian Science Monitor and Newsweek. He also did radio reports from Madrid for NPR’s All Things Considered. He has worked on two U.S. newspapers and quit the news biz in 1990 to go into entertainment. He also has written for The Week and several online publications, did a column for Cagle Cartoons Syndicate and has appeared on CNN.