Early on, Senator Arlen Specter’s supporters knew that the 80-year-old Republican-turned-Democrat was in trouble.
“Turnout was terrible,” Gov. Edward G. Rendell said less than two hours before the polls closed here.
And just about two hours after they had closed, he blamed the rain and the low turnout in Philadelphia for ending Mr. Specter’s 30 years in the Senate.
“The rain killed Arlen,” Mr. Rendell said dejectedly. “Whatever chance he had went down with the rain.”
Mr. Specter, a survivor of cancer and a brain tumor, was a master of political survival, too, largely by nimbly balancing the interests of both parties. But last year, when he saw that he could not win re-election this year as a Republican, he switched sides, a move that was not enough to save him from defeat in the Democratic primary on Tuesday.
Mr. Specter won just three counties, including Philadelphia, but not by the huge amounts needed to offset the wins by Representative Joe Sestak everywhere else in the state.
Mr. Sestak’s campaign focused relentlessly on Mr. Specter’s party switch, saying that it symbolized his opportunism and that he was out for himself. Mr. Specter may have sown the seeds of his own destruction when he readily admitted that he changed sides to keep his seat.
He was encouraged by President Obama, who was looking for a 60th vote in the Senate and promised Mr. Specter all the support a sitting president could muster. In the end, Mr. Obama held a fund-raising event for him, which provided vivid footage in a television commercial. But as an anti-incumbency wave seemed to sweep the country, the president studiously avoided campaigning here.
After the dust settled, some analysts said that an Obama rally in Philadelphia, where the president remains popular, might have excited the electorate more and increased the turnout enough to save Mr. Specter.
Still, Mr. Specter had to contend with the fallout from his years as a Republican, including devastating footage of his endorsement in 2004 by President George W. Bush.
Mr. Specter looked shaken and emotional in a brief concession speech at a hotel here. He perfunctorily thanked Mr. Obama and Mr. Rendell and pledged his support to Mr. Sestak.
In sharp contrast, Mr. Sestak, 58, delivered an exuberant victory speech in which declared: “This is what democracy looks like!”
Although he himself has served in Washington, Mr. Sestak cast Mr. Specter as the candidate of Washington and did his best to distance himself from the wave of anti-incumbency sweeping the country.
Mr. Rendell, in an interview in his office here, said Mr. Specter’s loss should not be interpreted as part of a national trend.
Rather, he said, the race was a referendum on Mr. Specter.
“None of these results should be taken as meaning anything,” the governor said as he mulled the ins and outs of the nail-biting race. “If it’s about anything, it’s about the difficulties of party-switching.”
The Tea Party Express is out with its list of targets in the November midterms.
No Republicans, and no surprises:
Majority Leader Harry Reid of Nevada; Blanche Lincoln of Arkansas; Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania, and Barbara Boxer of California.
The list for the House isn’t as extensive as we thought it might be, but like the tea party movement itself, the list seems fluid and could likely expand: Betsy Markey of Colorado; Alan Grayson of Florida; Baron Hill of Indiana; Barney Frank of Massachusetts; Dina Titus of Nevada; John Spratt of South Carolina; Tom Perriello and Gerry Connolly of Virginia, and Alan Mollohan of West Virginia.
But what would a tea party be without some recognition of the movement’s heroes? (There’s a surprise at the end!)
The Tea Party Express, holding a series of events in Washington today in part to complain about Tax Day and how the federal government is spending money, endorsed these Senate candidates: Sen. Jim DeMint, running for re-election in South Carolina, and Chuck DeVore running in California; Marco Rubio in Florida; Rand Paul in Kentucky; Todd Tiahrt in Kansas, Sharron Angle in Nevada, and Pat Toomey in Pennsylvania.
For re-election to the House, the list includes Tom McClintock of California, Tom Price of Georgia; Mike Pence of Indiana; Michele Bachmann of Minnesota, Joe Wilson of South Carolina… and Walt Minnick of Idaho – a Democrat.
The disclosure came during an afternoon taping of Larry Kane: Voice of Reason, a Sunday news-analysis show on the Comcast Network. Sestak would not elaborate on the circumstances and seemed chagrined after blurting out "yes" to veteran news anchor Kane's direct question.
"Was it Secretary of the Navy?" Kane asked.
"No comment," Sestak said.
"Was it [the job] high-ranking?" Kane asked. Sestak said yes, but added that he would "never leave" the Senate race for a deal.
A White House spokesman this morning strongly denied an offer had been made to Sestak. Before the spokesman issued the denial, a senior Pennsylvania Democrat said Sestak's account was met with anger by White House officials yesterday.
After yesterday's taping, Sestak said he recalled the White House offer coming in July, as he was preparing to formally announce his Senate candidacy in August. He declined to identify who spoke to him or the job under discussion. Sestak also would not say whether the person who approached him worked for the administration or was an intermediary for the offer.
"I'm not going to say who or how and what was offered," Sestak said in an interview. "I don't feel it's appropriate to go beyond what I said," because the conversation was confidential.
Sestak, 58, a retired Navy admiral, has said that some Pennsylvania Democratic leaders have tried to entice him to drop his campaign with promises of support for other offices in the future. He also has said that Sen. Robert Menendez of New Jersey, chairman of the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee, urged him to run when Specter was still a Republican, then tried to force him out after Specter switched parties.
But Sestak has brushed aside talk of White House pressure.
"He asked me the question, and I had to answer it honestly," Sestak said of his exchange with Kane. Sestak said he had declined the job offer immediately and added, "The person said, 'I knew you'd say that.' "
It's no secret that leading Democrats are backing Specter, a five-term incumbent who switched from the GOP last spring, soon after providing the critical vote for President Obama's $787 billion stimulus program.
Obama endorsed Specter at the White House and has raised money for him. Gov. Rendell has been vocal in calling Sestak's challenge harmful to the party, as has state chairman T.J. Rooney.
Party leaders are worried that an expensive primary could weaken an incumbent Democratic senator in what is shaping up to be a Republican year, and also about the possibility of losing the House seat that Sestak won in 2006. He is only the second Democrat since the Civil War to represent the Delaware County-centered Seventh District.
An added concern: possibly losing the seat in Harrisburg occupied by the leading Democratic candidate to replace Sestak in Congress, State Rep. Bryan Lentz. Democrats have a 104-99 majority in the state House; control of the chamber is crucial with Pennsylvania expected to lose a congressional district next year in the reapportionment that follows the census.
Still, Sestak's account was startling.
"Clearly, the offers are made," said Ross Baker, a Rutgers University political science professor who specializes in Congress. "When a White House wants to preempt a challenge, they'll dangle something. But it is almost never uttered."
In addition, Baker said, conversations in such cases are nuanced, and savvy operators know not to use explicit quid pro quo language.
He said he could not, off hand, think of another instance in which a candidate has divulged an approach from White House officials. Baker said that, in theory, that might be an advantageous gambit for a candidate who, like Sestak, is positioning his campaign as an outsider and wants to demonstrate that "the big guys" are worried about the challenge.
Nachama Soloveichik, spokeswoman for former Rep. Pat Toomey, the leading GOP candidate for the Senate seat, said she had no information on Sestak's story but added: "It's just like Arlen Specter to get an insider Washington deal to try to save his political career."
Christopher Nicholas, Specter's campaign manager, declined to comment on the report or the Toomey campaign comment.
Last week, after Sestak received nominating petitions for the House from the Pennsylvania secretary of state, talk buzzed in political circles that he would give up the Senate race and run for reelection.
He says he is running only for the Senate, and volunteers are circulating nominating petitions for that office.
Legally, Sestak could circulate two sets of petitions, and experts say there is no prohibition on running for two offices simultaneously.
Larry Kane: Voice of Reason is set to air Sunday at 9:30 p.m.; audio of the interview will be on the KYW NewsRadio Web site tomorrow. The show will be rebroadcast at 5:30 p.m. Wednesday.
This afternoon during an interview with MSNBC's Andrea Mitchell, Democrat Senator Arlen Specter (D-PA) of whom by the way is a former Prosecutor, agreed with his G.O.P. Congressional colleagues that Terrorists who come on American soil and commit War Crimes should NOT be Mirandized or given Legal Rights.
He also sees nothing wrong with holding trials for Terrorists in Military Tribunals.
She thought Senator Specter was going to bash Republicans for saying Pres. Obama's Admininstration handled Umar Matallab's Interrogation incorrectly.
Instead he agreed with them.
Ha Ha!
As Scott Brown mentioned when delivering his victory speech, the American government should NOT be wasting Taxpayer dollars on ensuring that Terrorists who come to KILL American citizens, have legal rights.
Pres. Obama let me ask you when it comes to the "War on Terror" what's more important?
Protecting American Citizens or Mirandizing Terrorists for symbolic purposes??
As the 44th elected U.S. President who is your allegiance to the world stage or American citizens?
I hope Senator Specter doesn't suffer Retaliation from Pres. Obama or Democrats for speaking the truth regarding this situation.
Check out the videos below to hear both sides of the Terror debate including Senator Specter agreeing with Republican Party leadership.
Between 2003 and 2009, Republican Sen. Arlen Specter obtained nearly $10 million in earmarks for abstinence education.
Then he became a Democrat.
Since switching parties last spring, Specter hasn’t sought a dime in earmarks for abstinence education — a dramatic reversal that critics describe as a case study in the cynical politics of pork-barrel spending.
As an abortion-rights Republican facing primary challenges from the right, Specter could use the abstinence education earmarks to show social conservatives in his party that he was sensitive to their concerns. But as a relatively conservative Democrat, he doesn’t have to worry about a challenge from the right — and has to be careful not to offend liberals, who generally prefer a broader approach to sex education.
“It really is, in my opinion, one of the best examples of the raw politics behind earmarks,” said Steve Ellis, vice president of the government watchdog group Taxpayers for Common Sense. “Once he becomes a pro-choice Democrat, [the social conservative bloc] becomes a constituency that’s not as important to get earmarks” for.
Specter’s office said the senator stopped seeking earmarks to fund nongovernmental abstinence education programs because of the difficult economy and because the state of Pennsylvania has begun accepting other federal funds for abstinence education.
But Specter’s move away from abstinence-only earmarks is also consistent with a broader swing to the left as he faces down a primary challenge from a more liberal Democrat, Rep. Joe Sestak.
Over the past 10 months, Specter has come out in favor of the union-backed Employee Free Choice Act, opposed a troop buildup in Afghanistan and reversed his opposition to the nomination of Dawn Johnsen to lead the Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel.
The leftward tilt has Specter taking fire from both directions.
A Sestak spokesman said Specter’s “willingness to reposition himself just for political purposes should give pause to Pennsylvanians who are looking for a loyal senator who will put principle over politics.” And a spokeswoman for former Rep. Pat Toomey — Specter’s likely 2010 Republican challenger — said it’s clear that Specter “stands for nothing except the preservation of his own political career.”
Specter amped up his earmarks for abstinence education in 2003, a year after Pennsylvania first declined Title V funding — money set aside exclusively for abstinence-only programs.
But those requests also came as Specter faced a tough GOP primary fight against Toomey, an ideological conservative with strong support among the Republican base.
“He seemed to up the ante and go after abstinence funds a little harder closer to reelection time,” said Charlene Bashore, legislative and political action committee director of the Pennsylvania Pro-Life Federation. “Many people would view his efforts closer to his elections with a wink and a nod.”
Between 2003 and 2004, Specter secured more than $5 million in earmarks — and he specifically touted his support of abstinence education programs to audiences across Pennsylvania.
“Abstinence education has demonstrated its value,” he said at a field hearing on the issue in Harrisburg, Pa., as he ran for reelection. “If we can persuade young people to avoid premarital sex and unintended pregnancies, it will be a tremendous step forward.”
Specter was a “very public pro-choice Republican,” said Larry Ceisler, a Philadelphia-based Democratic political consultant. “On a litmus test issue, if you don’t have something else to point to showing that you recognize some of the other parts of that debate, you can have tough political sledding.”
In the 2009 spending bill, Specter won more than $500,000 in earmarks for 22 abstinence-only programs at hospitals, school districts and social service organizations, according to data compiled by Taxpayers for Common Sense.
The Urban Family Council, which received more than $310,000 in earmarks in the past, collected an additional $24,000 last year. The group was founded by a Philadelphia evangelical activist and is known for its aggressive efforts to block benefits for gay partners of city employees.
A+ for Abstinence, a Christian program that runs a website called coolvirginity.com, received $24,000. The program, according to the website, “shares sexual purity in an innovative and spiritually sound way that speaks directly to the hearts of young people.”
A study published this week in the Archives of Pediatrics & Adolescent Medicine suggested that an abstinence-only class offered without moral overtones could be more effective in preventing teenage sex than either a course on safe sex or a class that taught both abstinence and safe-sex techniques.
Brenda Newport, executive director of the Women’s Care Center of Erie County, said Specter was impressed by her abstinence-education program after visiting several years ago. She’s received funding from his office for 12 years, including more than $400,000 in earmarks since 2003.
But with the earmarks gone and the economy still down, she said, she’ll have to lay off teachers and administrators this fall.
“I haven’t heard anything from him,” she said of Specter. “It’s a double whammy — economic times are harder, and our funding depletes at the same time.”
"Being a Moderate Republican sometimes feels like being a cast member of "Survivor" — you are presented with multiple challenges, and you often get the distinct feeling that you're no longer welcome in the tribe."
"It is truly a dangerous signal that a Republican senator of nearly three decades no longer felt able to remain in the party."
"It didn't have to be this way."
Maine Senator Olympia Snowe (R)
Sources: NY Times, Political Base, Think Progress, Youtube
The decision to remove Specter's seniority on those committees occurred during a vote on Capitol Hill Tuesday night and may have come as a surprise to the 29 year Public Servant.
Pursuant to Specter's defection he told reporters Dems had assured him such a move would allow him to maintain priority status as it relates to becoming a future Committee Chairman, upon his reelection in 2010.
Last Sunday he also stated to "Meet the Press" show host David Gregrory, "it's an "entitlement" for him to retain his seniority on those committees.
Further stating, "I was elected in 1980. I think that's not a bribe or a give for something extraordinary," he said. "I'll be treated as a Democrat as if I was elected as a Democrat."
However apparently this sentiment was not embraced throughout the Democrat-controlled Congress.
By voice vote Specter was instead added as a Democrat Junior member on these five committees:
Judiciary, Appropriations, Veterans Affairs, Aging and Environment & Public Works.
While Specter's new position on these committees does expand the Dems' majority, it will place him in last place during Committee Hearings and limit his influence.
Going forward it looks as though if Senator Specter wishes to reap anymore Congressional rewards, he's going to have to "tone down" his Independent streak and show some Democratic Loyalty.
With all due respect to Senator Specter, considering that our country is in much need of Economic Reform, Health Care Reform, Tax Reform, Criminal Justice System Reform, Housing Reform, Educational Reform, etc., this is no time for ANY member of Congress to grandstand or demonstrate their so-called "Independent Streak".
Instead its a time to work together in order to help bring about needed positive change for the American Voters.
Senator Specter telling "Meet the Press" show host David Gregory that he will maintain his Seniority status on Congressional Committees.
April 28, 2009, a day millions of U.S. voters will never forget as news of long time Republican Senator Arlen Specter's (PA) switch to President Obama's Democratic Party, rocked the Political world.
Along with Minnesota's Senate pick Al Franken's win (again), Specter's move will possibly give President Obama's Administration the filibuster-proof power it needs to continue carrying out his agenda for CHANGE.
In fact word on the street is that the G.O.P. is actually kind of PO'd at Steele right about now. So angry they want to take away his control of the RNC's purse strings as a means of embarrassing him until he steps down.
Many Republicans are feigning shock about about Specter's decision to leave. Many of them are complaining and whining. Why? Let's face it the G.O.P.'s loss is the Democrats' Giant gain right?
Instead of the G.O.P. becoming angry it really needs to re-evaluate itself and if need be, make changes. Specter's defection is a clear sign that something isn't working within the Republican Party. (Denial is not a river in Egypt.)
However one still has to speculate and perhaps consider why such a seasoned, well-respected Republican (formerly Republican that is)Pennsylvania Senator with more than 20 years in office, would make such a breathtaking move right before the 2010 elections? Here are the five most obvious reasons.
1) Due to Senator Specter's past voting record, his Republican Party constituency was waning anyway.
Had he remained a member of the right, its doubtful he would've even been re-elected for another term.
3) He realized the G.O.P. can no longer keep its base satisfied or recruit new members with its current Staunch, Narrow-minded, out-of-touch, somewhat racist, Conservative, Southern-centered, "Party of No" agenda and remain effective in the future political arena.
This type of thinking among them which promotes Exclusion as opposed to the Dems Inclusion, is no doubt the reason why they have in fact earned the negative moniker "Party of No".
4) Specter realizes that the G.O.P. in its current state (unless it chooses to become a more Centrist, more Moderate party)is a dying, soon to be non-existent political movement.
Since they often crave the limelight and need to remain popular in order to continue reaching their constituency base, what Politician in his or her right mind wants to remain part of a dying party?
Other than being labeled as "The Party of No" and Media coverage of those conservative-based "Tax Day Tea Parties" which made embarrassing headlines two weeks ago, the Republican Party is the political party which:
a) Endorsed many of former President Bush's ineffective policies.
Although I must admit he did keep us safe from further terror attacks during his presidency.
b) Ran our nation's Economy into the ground while becoming Wealthy on the backs of Low-Income African-Americans and Illegal Immigrants.
c) Voted to give Banks like BOFA and Citibank $700 Billion dollars in Bail-out money with absolutely NO Accountability.
d) Voted yes to allow the practice of excessive Torture on Prisoners of War. This was an absolute violation of the Geneva Conventions Treaty but in their quest for Power and Revenge, I guess the G.O.P. forgot about that important Foreign Policy contract.
e) Voted yes to Re-Segregating Public Schools, which then created an entire network of Failing school districts like the one currently existing in Charlotte, NC
This practice has crippled our nation and made us less competitive in comparison to countries like China and Japan.
f) Voted yes for allowing Banks to finance Sub prime Home Loans and other types of Mortgages they knew Buyers wouldn't be able to repay, thus creating a snowball effect of Toxic Mortgages and Homelessness.
g) Voted No to Clean Energy and less dependence on Foreign Oil
h) Voted No to Green Jobs
i) Voted No to cross country High Speed Light Rail
j) Voted No to President Obama's Economic Stimulus Bill (Specter voted Yes)
l) Refused to help properly secure the borders thereby assisting Immigrants to enter our Country illegally, so that Big Businesses could continue hiring them to work for low, low wages.
m) Authorized and encourage the U.S. Attorney General's office and District Attorneys nationwide to place trumped up charges, especially as it relates to illegal drugs on African-American and Hispanic citizens thereby sentencing thousands of them to prison for 20+ years or more.
n) Voted Yes to billions in Tax Cuts which ONLY benefited the Wealthy and eventually caused Wall Street to crash.
o) Voted No to Abortion and most other methods of Family Planning funding, yet when Low-Income Teens or Young Women begin to birth baby after baby after baby and couldn't properly take care for those children, Republicans then Voted No to extra Funding for Child Care assistance, Pre-Kindergarten programs, Health Care, Adoption Assistance, etc.,
p) Voted Yes to allowing Banks and Sallie Mae for providing Billions in High-Interest Loans to College Students.
Afterward the same Republican-controlled Congress allowed Bush's Administration to hire private Debt Collectors, for the sole purpose of harassing those students to begin repaying those loans less than a year after they graduated.
Hopefully I've provided more than enough reasons as to why Senator Specter decided to change his Political citizenship. Now let's go somewhere and celebrate this victory along with President Obama!
Senator Arlen Specter of PA explains during a Press Conference why he switched parties.
Sources: Whitehouse.gov, Huffington Post, MSNBC, Washington Post, Washington Times, NY Daily News, Politico, The Hill, ABC Newsblogs, nbcdfw.com, RNC, specter.senate.gov, Youtube, Google Maps
Welcome to the BLACK POLITICAL BUZZ Blog. (Established 2008)
My name is Laurel. (Author & Publisher)
I Blog with a focus on POLITICS, Business, and occasionally Entertainment.
FACTS ABOUT LAUREL:
Wife,
Mother of a U.S. Soldier,
Sister,
Woman of GOD,
Loyal Friend,
Creative,
Blood-related to a nationally known Charlotte Politician.
Black Female, Intelligent,
Married,
Love to Travel,
Credentialed by the RNC and DNC.
Political Blogger/ Commentator
Grassroots Activist,
PROFESSIONAL STATUS:
Credential Political Blogger/ Commentator,
Registered Independent Voter
Original Native of BROOKLYN, NY
Currently reside in CHARLOTTE, NC
I’m Nice but don’t get it twisted because my Mind is Sharp!
Since You’ve Chosen to Visit and Read the Contents of this Blog by Personal Choice, and of Your Own Free Will,
Please don’t ask me to Compensate you for Expressing individual commentary/ Posted Articles, which are protected by the First Amendment, citing Freedom of Speech & Freedom of Expression.
No Intentionally Malicious Slander, Libel or Defamation of Character content will be published and I will always Credit all Sources.
NOTE TO ALL ELECTED OFFICIALS, APPOINTED OFFICIALS & PUBLIC FIGURES:
Per the Landmark U.S. Supreme Court Case: 1964 case of New York Times v. Sullivan………
The Public has a Right to Criticize the People who Govern them, so the least Protection from Defamation is given to Public Officials. When officials are accused of something that involves their behavior in office, they have to prove all of the above elements of defamation and they must also prove that the defendant acted with “actual malice.” (For a definition of actual malice, see the “History of Defamation and the First Amendment, below.”)
People who aren’t Elected but who are Still Public Figures because they are influential or famous — like Actors, Actresses, Movie Stars, Singers & Entertainers, Journalists, TV Hosts, Bloggers, etc., — also have to Prove that Defamatory statements were made with Actual Malice, in most cases.
To the Associated Press and other Media Organizations:
When I use your Content Links., I’m also citing the Fair Use Doctrine (Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107) for further Copyright permission.
Posts and Links published on Black Political Buzz are not endorsed by Black Political Buzz Blog Author Laurel’s Employer, nor the Employers of other Black Political Buzz employees.
This includes Links, Posts and Comments posted on Black Political Buzz’s Facebook and Twitter account pages.
Comments, Links and Opinions of site visitors are Independently-Owned and not endorsed by Black Political Buzz employees, Blog Author Laurel or Laurel’s Employer.)
(No Personal Offense intended) Please know that Black Political Buzz is not responsible for nor do I endorse Requests for Donations from Third Parties on this Blog.
I will Only Endorse Requests for Donations made on behalf of BLACK POLITICAL BUZZ Blog for Business Purposes & Operating Expenses.
I will also Only Endorse Requests for Donations on behalf of Legitimate Politicians and Legitimate Political Candidates. PERIOD!!
If anyone else or another Organization wishes to post a link to Request Donations, I am NOT endorsing ANY of those Requests!
Unless I receive a personal Request to do so and I have Professionally Confirmed that the Third Party Organization or Charity is indeed a Legitimate Entity.
NOTE: Anyone who chooses to give to any Third Party Organization NOT Endorsed by BLACK POLITICAL BUZZ is doing so at his or her own risk.
BLACK POLITICAL BUZZ does NOT Discriminate against Politicians, Political Candidates, Organizations or Charities based on Race, Color, Nationality, Ethnicity, Gender, Sexual Orientation, Religion, Faith, Disability, Political Affiliation, Creed, Education, Social Status, Age.
This disclaimer applies to ANY and All requests for Donations on this Blog. Thanks for understanding. Again No Personal Offense intended.
For Story Tips….Corrections…….. or Requests for Endorsements:
Please contact me via e-mail: blackpoliticalbuzz@gmail.com
or via my Facebook page: facebook.com/blackpoliticalbuzz
Thanks for stopping by
God Bless
Laurel @BLACK POLITICAL BUZZ
LINKS: POLITICAL PERSPECTIVE & INFORMATIONAL SITES
.jpg)
