Harry Reid fails at long term thinking regarding Specter

[Politics_Guy25]

So a Quinnipiac poll came out today. Specter has a massive lead over Toomey 46-33 but it's a barn burner too close to call hotter than a Texas two step wake the kids moment (to quote Dan Rather) race with Ridge 46-43. Sure, Specter is the 60th vote NOW but he was guaranteed to lose against Toomey and Joe Sestak would have beaten Toomey in a landslide. Ridge is far more formidable. Reid practically threw away picking up both PA senate seats next year for what? A senator who guarantees not to be an automatic 60th vote and will vote against EFCA? A guaranteed PA senate pick-up would have negated somewhat any losses that we may have taken in 2010. Now, we have to defend with millions of dollars that could go to other more progressive candidates a DINO.

If Specter is a reliable 60th vote once Franken gets seated on issues besides EFCA, I'll take this back but I doubt it. Plus you think Reid and sorry to say VP Biden as well would have preferred PA to have a senator like Sestak than a weasel like Specter.

[Occam Bandage]

1. Harry Reid has proven himself pretty good at long-term thinking.

He's shit at short-term gains, but he tends to get what he wants in the long run. The Dems keep expanding their power in the Senate, our agenda has been successful so far, and the Republicans are bleeding support, in large part because of the fact that Reid keeps maneuvering them into having to either assent to Obama's agenda or throw up an endless stream of petty obstruction. He never gives them an opportunity to take the offense, nor does he give them an opening for a message. (He did similar in '06-'08, bringing up bills designed to make the Democrats look moderate and the Republicans either look weak or look obstructionist/Bushist; they of course chose the latter without fail, and their Senators suffered in the polls.)

Of course he has his flaws. Reid is absolutely awful at getting things done in the short term. Terrible. Frustrating as hell. He's not good at spending capital to ram bills through; he's not a risk-taker, and so he doesn't ever gamble Democratic capital on achieving major gains. But over the long term, his caution has ensured we haven't made any major missteps of overreach like the Republicans did on immigration, on Schiavo, or on social security. I'd be shocked if Reid were to make a long-term commitment to anything without triple-redundant guarantees; he isn't the type to take undue risks.

As for Specter and the "60th vote" business? It's true he's said he'd vote against plenty of things. I don't care what he votes against; I care how he votes on cloture on procedural obstruction, and how he votes on cloture on high-impact filibusters. We don't have enough information to say how he'll work out for us, but I can't imagine that the entire Democratic establishment would stick their necks out for Specter without any leverage of their own. For all we know, they gave him a list of bills for which he would need to vote yes on cloture to avoid being primaried out. Dean and Carville have already raised that spectre; they're among the highest-profile Dems to both maintain a connection to the administration but yet to be far enough away that they can speak without sounding as if their words are the administration's.

As for the chance to pick up a seat? There's something to be said for a bird in the hand being worth two in the bush. We don't know what the political issues of 2010-2012 or 2012-2014 will be, what the balance of power will be, and what that state of the nation will be. We do know what the issues of 2008-2010 will be, we know the state of the union is at its most dire in decades, and we know we have an opening like few in history to accomplish major legislative reforms if we can get past GOP obstructionism. DUers have been calling on Reid to spend some damn capital and get some shit down now now now for some time. This might be him actually doing that.

As for polling? The election is two years out. GE polls aren't worth anything right now.

[Johnyawl]

20. Thanks O-B!

Excellent analysis of Reid, and the Specter situation. You're right about the polls, PLUS Tom Ridge has not said he'll run, nor has he beat Toomey in the republican primary. Unless something changes dramatically there's no way lunatic limbaugh, the party base and toomey are going to give pro-choice, moderate Ridge a pass, regardless of what the republican leadership in the Senate wants.

[Supersedeas]

22. He unbridled support for Jay Bybee for a lifetime appointment to the Fed Bench

was pretty good...no?

[MADem]

2. This was a Biden-Reid-Obama show. I think they know why the want the guy.

Specter was RECRUITED. He didn't just make this decision on his own and the Democratic leadership said "Oh, ok, sure, whatever."

I think they want him for specific "juice" in designated areas. The Judiciary Committee votes to send Supreme Court nominees out for a vote by the full Senate. I rather think Arlen can be useful there, and on health care issues.

[sofa king]

9. And the Intelligence Committee

Like the White House, Congress was also run like a criminal operation under Republican control, and Specter no doubt was instrumental in keeping any number of nasty factoids under the rug: 9/11, Plame, torture, manufactured intelligence, American einsatzgruppen operating in Iraq and elsewhere, government overthrows, and so on.

With Specter switching sides, he could be helpful in either bringing some of those facts to light, or probably more likely, keeping them under the rug to avoid releasing details of Democratic complicity.

[MADem]

14. Why would he ever "release details of Democratic complicity" in any event?

Even if he stayed on the GOP team?

You can't say a Democrat was "complicit" in anything without first blaming the GOP to the max. They not only controlled the Congress, they most importantly controlled the Congressional agenda. Nothing happened without their imprimatur.

It's why Conyers had to hold faux hearings in the basement. The GOP leadership wouldn't allow these hearings to be held in regular hearing rooms.

[sofa king]

15. I don't know. Why is Jane Harman in the news lately?

Edit: Sorry, I wasn't being opaque here. I just forgot to put my speculative answer: Jane Harman was being blackmailed by the Republican Party. For what, I don't know, but her behavior suggests that she was being coerced to help kill unfavorable news stories.

Others in Congress have shown similar behaviors. Joe Lieberman, for example.

I suspect that's exactly the sort of detail and the sort of illicit machinations of which Sen. Specter is aware.

[MADem]

16. I wonder about that, and I'll tell you why. Specter was considered to be "unreliable" by the GOP.

People here are calling him DINO, but the GOP has been calling him RINO for years.

When the puppet Frist was running the Senate, he'd go schmooze with Cheney, and come back with the pronouncements and directions from On High. He'd tell his whips what to do and they'd do it. No questions asked. Same way with Fat Denny over on the House side. Cheney to Fatty, let the word go forth. People were often told what to do, but not always why. They knew that if they didn't do what they were told, there'd be hell to pay.

Remember, those same bastards froze out Jeffords (from the signing ceremony of the education bill he worked his ass off on) because he failed to jump when they demanded it of him. Their attitude was "Do what I say...or ELSE!" There was no give and take even with the members of their own party...and particularly with those who were suspected of being ideologically impure!

That GOP exodus after the Dems took power (they were tripping over themselves to announce their retirements, many of them) was no accident. I think plenty of them hated being in the minority, but I'll bet a lot of them were hoping "Out of sight, out of mind..."

[sofa king]

18. Sounds reasonable.

But going back to the blame game, you and I know full well that the gangsters acted like gangsters and they are the root of the problem and the direct cause of all of the thousands of transgressions of the law and the unenviable overall situation we enjoy. They were good at it, keeping poor records and concealing the ones they made.

But the media pretends not to know that, and never will admit that they do. No, they'll happily send up a new Democrat every week as the pinata for that week's disclosure, and never mention the context of the situation if they can avoid it.

That's not so easy with Mr. Specter aboard, because if the press gets fed one complicit Democrat by the machine, we'll be able to name half a dozen Republicans who planned and executed the operation. I mentioned Harman before because I think that's where we'll see the first example, and get to see if it works. Harman wants to unravel her ball of yarn, because she knows that if she does, sooner or later all the neoconservative ties to AIPAC will be revealed, and no doubt she'll drag a lot of Republicans down with her.

[MADem]

19. That whole Harman thing just doesn't make sense to me.

I'd love to know who, in the media, heard the tape. I'll bet no one. If that's the case, that no one heard a tape, then who is this source who is so trusted that they'd print that assertion without hearing the tape? Are they simply lazy, are they stupid, or are they in the pockets of people who want to make trouble...and didn't count on Harman standing up and yelling back at them?

I dunno, I really got the impression that "the media" expected Harman to hang her head and slink away. She's not doing that, though, at all. Perhaps her role was "mischaracterized." I've no doubt she's not afraid to make a deal with all sorts in position, but that deal supposedly on the tape just sounds ... stupid to me. It doesn't sound like a believable trade. The lobbyist in this instance is promising something it doesn't sound like he can deliver. After all, don't we all say "Sure, I'll put in a good word for ya..." even when we have no intention of going to the wall for someone, and/or when our opinion doesn't really count for shit? It's a way of saying "I support your efforts."

I am still trying to wrap my head around this Harman thing, and something is not ringing true. I don't know what it is, quite.

I hope Specter knows names and can name them. He's being a bit stubborn, apparently, and it has cost him his seniority, at least for now. Maybe if he works and plays nicely with others, he'll get it back.

[sofa king]

21. Oh, here are some places to start.

I don't pretend to know what's going on, either, but it's pretty easy to guess where that trail of yarn leads. If I had to do it over again, here's where I'd start:

The Larry Franklin espionage scandal:
http://web.archive.org/web/20040831001421/http://www.reuters.co.uk/newsPackageArticle.jhtml?type=worldNews&storyID=573326§ion=news

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/08/31/politics/campaign/31inquire.html

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/09/29/AR2005092901267.html

Douglas Feith and the OSP:
http://rawstory.com/news/2005/Senate_Intelligence_Committee_stalling_prewar_intelligence_1202.html

http://levin.senate.gov/newsroom/supporting/2007/SASC.DODIGFeithreport.040507.pdf

http://www.thenation.com/doc/20020902/vest

Michael Ledeen and forged intelligence:

http://www.nationalreview.com/ledeen/ledeen031003.asp

http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=OTY2OTBhOTYzY2NhZTE3ZWM1MDc0ODA3Y2EyNzA3NTE=

http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/story/10962352/iran_the_next_war

And, of course, Paul Wolfowitz. Once you have Ledeen, Feith, and Wolfowitz's numbers, it's easy to see that they would stop at nothing to achieve their objectives, whether it be illegally sharing intelligence with the Israelis, forging documents to justify one war and to start another, outing a CIA agent, and so on. Those guys would happily blackmail Jane Harman, and Harman is fighting back like she knows who did this to her and why.

Edit: I forgot to say that I'm sure Specter knows about all of this, was probably instrumental in delaying and watering down his Committee's reports on those subjects, and now faces the prospect of not getting his seniority back if he doesn't deliver those goods to Harry Reid. So Specter's defection has the chance to touch off the whole fireworks shed. Won't that be fun.

[rusty fender]

3. Harry Reid is just a miserable failure

period.

[slick8790]

4. Perhaps I'm mistaken here, but I have faith in Pres. Obama/VP Biden/Sen. Reid

I think they're smart enough to know they would probably win a race next year in PA. The question is, what did Specter promise to the administration in order to get their full support in the primary/GE? I'm sure Reid/the White House would not have welcomed him with such open arms if they hadn't secured a promise that he would support at least some important parts of their agenda in the time between now and 2010. Because arguably, this is where Obama will be judged, on whether he can pass his agenda successfully now. Specter is 79 years old, and has had multiple bouts with cancer. The White House knows that it is unlikely that he'll live out a full 6 year term, or if he does, he'll certainly not be running for re-election. I think we can put up with 70% support from specter in the interim in exchange for more of Obama's agenda getting passed, and most likely, PA will have a new, mainline democrat sometime in the next 4-5 years.

[AlinPA]

5. Specter will switch back to R after (if) he wins the election. The republicans

are taking us for a ride here; Democrats spend energy and money to get him elected and he flips back. More than embarrassing.

[Peacetrain]

7. We get a health care bill through, he can switch to the Libertarians if he chooses.

We have a short short span of time, to get a LOT of things done. President Obama knows this and is taking advantage of it all he can..Specter gets us there, then he has done all that we could ask.

I think we might get an extra year, because the republicans were so so awful.. but from 2011 to the end of his second term, is will be a battle royal for not much of anything.. that is how they do it in DC.

[AlinPA]

10. As you can see I don't trust Specter and I don't expect anything from him.

[Occam Bandage]

8. That requires both

the Republicans to be about five times smarter than they have proven themselves, and the Democrats to be about five times stupider than they have proven themselves. I don't know why so many here are still so obsessed with the thought that the Republicans are secretly playing enormously complex "Rovian tricks." Rove is like the least tricky guy on Earth, and the Republicans are the bluntest party on Earth. They don't *have* tricks. They have sledgehammers.

[AlinPA]

11. I don't trust Specter. I don't get "Rovian" out of what I posted. It's not

that complex; he gets all the help and switches - that would be a sledgehammer.

[Occam Bandage]

12. I wouldn't invite him to my birthday party or anything,

but what makes you think the Republicans would have him back? We nearly didn't let Lieberman back, and Lieberman never officially switched parties. The Republicans aren't nearly as prone to forgiving betrayals. Hell, they nearly booted him out for voting for the stimulus package.

[AlinPA]

13. 41 votes v 40 votes. They'll take him.

[MADem]

17. No he won't. He will not give up Judiciary. And he'd have to if he pulled that shit. NT

[onenote]

23. Are you confident enough to place on a waqer on that assertion?

I'll put up $25 donation to DU if it turns out you are right. You willing to donate $10 to DU if you're wrong?

[SteppingRazor]

6. The day Specter switched, I made a similar argument over at HuffPo:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/dan-sweeney/from-a-purely-political-s_b_192394.html

It was a lame move to poach Specter, regardless of whether Ridge gets in the race.

[onenote]

24. Disagree. Eighteen months is a long time

If Specter, together with Franken, provides a 60th vote on cloture, then its an immediate positive. Somewhat perversely, our ability to pick up more seats in 2010, which looks pretty good now, could be jeopardized if we end up getting stymied by repub obstructionism. WHile its absurd that the Dems would get blamed for not accomplishing things when the problem is repubs blocking them, that's often how it plays out in the world of politics. The party perceived to be in power takes the hit.