It's Always Funny in Philadelphia

Former Senator Arlen Specter (R, then D-PA) tries his hand at stand-up comedy. And I'll be honest -- he's surprisingly funny. My favorite:

“I called [Bill] Clinton up on his 65th birthday and said, ‘Bill, congratulations on being 65. How do you feel?’ He said, ‘Oh, I feel like a teenager, the problem is I can’t find one.”

Solid stuff, particularly given that Specter is nearly 82 years old.

The Dems Big Night

Jon Chait is right. Tonight was an excellent night for Democrats. We held the PA-12 (special election to fill John Murtha's seat) -- not too shabby, given that the district was the only one in the country to vote for Kerry in 2004 but McCain in 2008. Joe Sestak is, I think, a more formidable opponent for Pat Toomey in Pennsylvania. Bill Halter pushed Blanche Lincoln to a run-off, which I believe he'll win -- it's a push as to whether this helps or hurts (not so hot) Democratic chances to retain the seat (Halter isn't an incumbent, which is good, but he's also quite liberal for Arkansas), but in a coin-flip environment I'd prefer the more liberal of two options. Finally, the Kentucky race ended up exactly as one would want it, with AG Jack Conway pulling the Democratic nod to face Tea Partier Rand Paul -- by far the most favorable match-up possible in the Bluegrass State.

So yeah. Good night.

Sestak Still Might Challenge Specter

Rep. (and retired Admiral) Joe Sestak (D-PA) is refusing to rule out a primary challenge towards Republican-turned-Democrat Arlen Specter (D-PA). Sestak has a stellar resume and has proven to be an effective campaigner, trouncing a 10-term (albeit scandal-plagued) incumbent to win his Republican-leaning seat in 2006 and winning re-election handily in 2008.

While the Democratic Party machinery has officially united behind Specter, and Sestak specifically admits he'd be bucking the party if he ran, I wouldn't be surprised if there wasn't some wink and nod collusion between Sestak and the party here, to put some leftward pressure on Specter and keep him honest. It does no good to have Specter as a Democrat if he refuses to join on cloture votes and works to water down Democratic legislation. The only thing that will stop him from taking that route is if he has to worry, at least a little bit, about a primary challenge.

Sestak says that his ultimate decision will be based on Specter's votes on health care, veterans' issues, and the military. I'm guessing his announcement is just meant to keep Specter conscious of his political position. If the new Democrat behaves himself, Sestak will probably drop out, mission accomplished.

Hush That Sarcasm

Ta-Nehisi Coates sarcastically wonders why none of his commenters wrote "THIS IS EXCELLENT NEWS!!! FOR HILLARY!!!!11"

But while it maybe isn't excellent news for her, Publius does eruditely point out that in many ways, we have Hillary Clinton's decision to prolong her primary campaign to thank for Specter's defection:

Today’s flip further vindicates Clinton’s decision to fight it out to the bitter end in last year’s primary. Looking back, nothing but positives came out of that contest. As I’ve explained before, the primary had an “anti-Tasmanian Devil” effect – rather than chaos, it left stronger party organization and big increases of registered voters in its wake.

And it’s that structural shift that doomed Specter. He couldn’t afford to lose hundreds of thousands of moderate PA Republicans.

This aspect of Specter's decision reconfirms one of the secrets of Obama’s electoral success. People point to the charisma and “hope and change” business. And that’s all fine. But we shouldn’t overlook Obama’s emphasis on nitty-gritty, massive organizing efforts (great article on those efforts here). Obama won with a lot of elbow grease and planning – it wasn’t because of speeches. The “old” politics of organization and registration made the “new” politics possible.

If Hillary hadn't stayed in the race, all those new registrations (and more importantly, registration switches from GOP to Dem) probably wouldn't have happened. If they hadn't have happened, Specter probably could have won a GOP primary, and would never have switched.

So, nice work, Hillary Clinton. You just got us a Senate seat. The Party thanks you.

Eric Cantor: The Jewish Michael Steele

Matt Yglesias notes that with the defection of Arlen Specter and the defeat of Norm Coleman, Rep. Eric Cantor (R-VA) is the sole remaining Jewish Republican in Congress. He titles his post "The Democrats' Jewish Problem".

Drown This

Best intro to a piece covering Arlen Specter's defection goes to WaPo writer Dan Balz:

How much more can the Republicans take? Demoralized, shrinking and seemingly lacking an agenda beyond the word "no," Republicans today saw their ranks further thinned with the stunning news that Pennsylvania Sen. Arlen Specter is switching parties and will run for reelection in 2010 as a Democrat.

Meanwhile, Sen. Jim DeMint (R-SC) finds reason to celebrate, saying "I would rather have 30 Republicans in the Senate who really believe in principles of limited government, free markets, free people, than to have 60 that don't have a set of beliefs." John Cole points out that at this rate, the GOP should get there by 2016 and also asks if "the GOP small enough to drown in a bathtub yet?"

And There's....60!

Sen. Arlen Specter (R D-PA) shocks the political world with a party switch.

Yes, it might have been his only route for political survival. But he'd been a Republican for a long time, and even stuck his neck out by coming out against EFCA (a position which, bizarrely, he apparently is sticking to, which will make the Democratic primary as hellish as the Republican one would have been). I genuinely expected he would have retired first. But the modern day GOP is so infuriatingly alienating to his moderates that I guess Specter felt he had to take a stand.

Once Al Franken gets seated, this is a 60 seat majority in the Senate (although Specter says he wouldn't be an "automatic" vote for cloture). I assumed we'd have to wait until 2010 for that. But thanks to intractable Republican extremism, Channukah comes early.

Specter's whole statement can be found here.

Specter to Pull a Lieberman?

MyDD has the scoop on an intriguing possibilities. Now Republicans get to have the fun of mediating between a rabid and infuriated base and preserving a much-needed Senate seat!

Cited Senators

Already in my criminal law textbook (Kadish, Schulhofer, & Steiker, 8th Edition), there have been two citations to articles authored (or co-authored) by sitting US Senators. This is shocking, since I always sort of assumed that when US Senators wrote articles, they never said anything worthwhile. Yet here they are, apparently key elements of the criminal law.

The one I saw today was written by Jon Kyl (R-AZ), along with Steven J. Twist & Stephen Higgins, On the Wings of Their Angels, 9 Lewis & Clark L. Rev. 581 (2005) [pg. 1015 in the book]. At this point, Kyl had already been Senator for 10 years.

But the one I spotted yesterday was, if anything, even more amazing. Found on page 13, it was an excerpt from a book review written by one Arlen Specter (R-PA), cited at 76 Yale L.J. 604 (1967). In 1967, Specter was still a mere district attorney in Philadelphia, embarking on a failed run for mayor of that lovely city. He would proceed to lose re-election for his DA position, lose in a Republican primary for Senate, and lose in a Republican primary for Governor, before finally breaking through to the US Senate in 1980, where he has remained ever since.

Blog Buddies!

In this post, Paul Mirengoff of the right-wing Powerline Blog refers to South Carolina Senator Lindsay Graham (R) as "the Arlen Specter of the South". What's bizarre about that is that I can very much imagine any number of liberal blogs referring to Graham in the very same way -- but for very different reasons. Paul presumably groups Graham with Specter as insufficiently conservative Republicans who don't sufficiently lock-step with the prevailing conservative line (his words may vary). Liberals, by contrast, attack Graham and Specter as pretending to truly agonize over issues like torture and indefinite detention before voting to clear every obstacle towards bringing them into being. For being utterly spineless enablers, in other words, of the very projects the Powerliners are angry they are not sufficiently gung-ho about ushering in.

Fascinating contrast, no?