Arlen Specter

Obama is Cutting Sen. Specter Too Much Slack

dlindorff — Thu, 30 Apr 2009 13:41:22 -0400

By Dave Lindorff

President Barack Obama was so obviously pleased to have five-term
Republican Sen. Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania announce that he was
switching party affiliation and joining the Democratic Party that the
president missed an opportunity to make sure that his new BFF in the
Senate was also a backer of the issues that Obama ran on in the
presidential campaign.

Indeed, while President Obama was quick to offer Sen. Specter his
backing and even to offer to help him with fund-raising in his quest
for re-election in 2010, he said nothing at all about any quid-pro-quo.

This is not only unfortunate. It is irresponsible.

Sen. Specter, for all his claims to be an independent thinker, has
over the years voted at lease 65% of the time with his Republican
colleagues in the Senate—a support level for Republican positions that
exceeds that of two of his Republican colleagues from Maine, Sen.
Olympia Snowe and Sen. Susan Collins.

Sen. Specter, notably, had actually reversed himself in recent
months, on the issue of the Employee Free Choice Act, a bill, which
would make it easier for workers to establish labor unions in their
workplaces, and to win a first contract with management. At one time,
Sen. Specter had voted in favor of letting such a bill go to a vote in
the Senate, but lately, as he was contemplating a tough primary battle
against a conservative challenger, he had changed his tune, saying that
he would not vote to block a planned Republican filibuster of this
legislation.

The EFCA is a key legislative goal of the US labor movement, which
has seen its ranks dwindle over 50 years of successful corporate
lobbying efforts to whittle away labor law protections for the right to
organize. Where once nearly a third of all workers were in labor unions
back in the late 1940s and early 1950s, today, fewer than 9 percent of
workers in the private sector belong to unions, a figure that only
rises to about 12.5 percent when public employees are added in. This
despite the fact that 58 percent of Americans say that they would like
to have a union if they could get one.

Today, labor laws are violated with impunity to the point that one
lawyer from a prominent labor-busting law firm, faced with a unfair
labor practices filing and hearing by a union currently in its 10th
month of trying to negotiate a new contract with management, said to
union leaders, “Why are you bothering to file a ULP? You know there are
no real penalties for violating labor laws.”

The problem is that the National Labor Relations Act is so weak,
with no real penalties for management violations, and the Labor
Relations Boards that hear and rule on labor law violations are so
infested with pro-management members, that it is nearly impossible to
unionize new workplaces today. Corporate managements know that they can
fire union organizers at will with little consequence, that they can
stall off union elections for years and use the intervening time to
intimidate or replace pro-union employees, and that even if workers
ultimately get to hold a union election and do vote in favor of
unionization, they can safely stonewall negotiations for a first
contract.

The EFCA would address this problem in two ways. Firstly, it would
eliminate the cumbersome and easily delayed requirement for a secret
ballot election to establish a union. All union organizers would have
to do would be to collect cards of support for a union from a majority
of the workers at a workplace, and once those signatures were verified,
the company would have to recognize the union. Then the union and
management would get 90 days to negotiate an initial contract. If they
failed to reach an agreement, an initial contract would be established
through arbitration.

The House last year, under Democratic control, passed the EFCA,
only to have the bill die in the Senate, where Democrats held only a
one-vote edge. Republicans managed to prevent the measure from even
coming to a vote.

Last fall, the vast majority of Democrats running for reelection
said they backed EFCA, as did Barack Obama on the campaign trail. But
now that the new Congress is in session, support for the measure is
softening, under the pressure of a massive multi-million-dollar
lobbying campaign by such organizations as the US Chamber of Commerce
and the National Association of Manufacturers. A key player in the
campaign against EFCA has been Wal-Mart.

Sen. Specter, as a Republican facing a conservative challenger,
clearly felt he needed to oppose EFCA. But now Specter is claiming to
be a Democrat, in a state with significant union representation. Even
so, union activists report that when they went to his main office in
Pennsylvania to deliver tens of thousands of petitions calling on him
to support the reform measure, they were told by a staffer that their
hard work would just “go in the trash” when they left the office.

Specter’s continued opposition to EFCA stands as an insult and an
affront to all the workers in his home state, and the local labor
movement should withhold any support from him until he comes out
strongly and unambiguously for passage of EFCA.

President Obama too should be demanding that Specter promise to
support EFCA passage before he commits himself to backing the senator’s
re-election bid.

The same should be said for health reform. It’s not clear at this
point whether Specter even backs Obama’s health reform plan. In truth
though, particularly given the number of uninsured people living in
Pennsylvania, Specter should be pressed to back the single-payer bill
being put forward in the Senate by his colleague Sen. Bernie Sanders
(I-VT). Specter, after all, just went through a tough battle with
cancer, which he seems to have beaten thanks to his extraordinarily
generous Congressionally offered and taxpayer funded health insurance
plan, and his access to the finest doctors and hospitals the country
has to offer. He is not in any position, ethically, at this point to
oppose making healthcare available to and affordable for every resident
of his state.

Right now, Specter is at his most vulnerable. Many of his long-time
Republican and independent backers are angry at him for quitting the
party, and at the same time, many Democrats, who have voted against him
for years as a Republican, are skeptical about his sudden change of
party registration.

Now is the time that President Obama should be demanding that
Specter back the key elements of his program. Now is also the time that
progressives and labor activists in Pennsylvania should be letting Sen.
Specter know that if he wants their support in 2010, he will have to
support our issues. That means full-throated backing for EFCA, and for
a single-payer health plan for America.

If Specter weasels on these key issues, progressives and labor
should withhold their backing and throw themselves behind a more
progressive candidate, should one choose to run against him for the
Democratic nomination next spring.
____________________

DAVE LINDORFF is a Philadelphia-based journalist. His latest book is
“The Case for Impeachment” (St. Martin’s Press, 2006). His work is
available at www.thiscantbehappening.net

GOP Moderates Choose Obama Over Teabaggers

Bob Fertik — Wed, 29 Apr 2009 08:15:22 -0400

Arlen Specter's switch is the first sign of a real and lasting division between "moderate" Republicans and the conservative movement that elected them and gave them power for a generation.

These "moderate" Republicans are not liberals. Most call themselves "conservatives." Their ranks include Specter, Olympia Snowe, Richard Lugar, Arnold Schwarzenegger. Their spokesmen include David Brooks, David Frum, Daniel Larison, and Michael Smerconish.

They are rich, country club Republicans who like being the Upper Class. They live in wealthy suburbs (or posh urban neighborhoods) to be as far from "the rabble" as they can and to send their kids to mostly-white schools. They support the largest prison establishment in the world for the working class but oppose any form of accountability for Wall Street and Washington. They support imperial wars as long as Other People's Children fight and die.

They supported Richard Nixon, even through Watergate, and Gerald Ford too. They supported Ronald Reagan, even through Iran-Contra. They supported good ol' George and his boy George W, even through Iraq and Katrina.

But they couldn't support Sarah Palin because she was just too ignorant - and defiantly proud of it. They couldn't support Mike Huckabee because he's a fast-talking southern Baptist preacher.

Right now they're having a profound identity crisis. They like Barack Obama because he's smart and flexible - and willing to plant himself firmly between the anti-corporate Pitchforks and the CEO's. They don't like the Teabaggers or their champions - Newt Gingrich, Tom DeLay, Dick Armey, Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck, Sean Hannity, Bill O'Reilly.

Pundits like David Frum have the luxury of critiquing this division.

Let’s take this moment to nail some colors to the mast. I submit it is better for conservatives to have 60% sway within a majority party than to have 100% control of a minority party. And until and unless there is an honored place made in the Republican party for people who think like Arlen Specter, we will remain a minority party.

But Republicans who are up for election don't have the luxury of waiting for a conservative-moderate "deal." Because the 2010 campaign is underway, Arlen Specter had to make a choice - whether to stand with the Teabaggers or Obama. As he said this morning, he was not going to let his long career be decided by the Republican primary electorate - the Teabaggers.

It's not clear if other Republican Senators will follow Specter across the aisle. Neither Olympia Snowe, Susan Collins, nor Richard Lugar are up in 2010. Judd Gregg and Mel Martinez are retiring. That leaves George Voinovich (OH), Charles Grassley (IA), and Lisa Murkowski (AK).

But it doesn't really matter. The Republican Party will keep shrinking as long as conservatives like Sen. Jim DeMint (SC) insist on ideological purity:

“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.”

And he may get his wish because Republicans will losing key elections as long as Barack Obama is President and the Teabaggers go nuts - alienating all remaining Republican moderates.

Republican Right Converts Arlen Specter to Democrat

Bob Fertik — Tue, 28 Apr 2009 13:13:38 -0400

Chalk up another "victory" for the Radical Republican Right - they drove Arlen Specter out of the Republican Party and converted him to a Democrat!

Specter is no "liberal" and he still opposes key Democratic issues like card check union elections (EFCA). He also won't provide an automatic 60th vote for cloture.

But he brings us one vote closer to our goal of 100 Democratic Senators - a goal we could never dream of without the suicidal brilliance of the Republican Right.

Fun Thoughts: Messin' With Republicans

dlindorff — Tue, 28 Oct 2008 14:55:55 -0400

By Dave Lindorff

A week out from Election Day, with the polls looking pretty good for Barack Obama's election, especially in the Electoral College, focus is shifting to the Senate, where Democrats would need to pick up 10 seats in order to be able to both prevent Republican obstruction via filibuster, and send Connecticut's turncoat Sen. Joe Lieberman into well-deserved oblivion.

Getting to a 10-seat gain may look like long odds, but it occurs to me that this really doesn't matter. In fact, a President Obama could have fun picking off a couple of Republican senators from states that have Democratic governors, by naming them to posts in his administration, thereby simultaneously demonstrating a bi-partisan approach to governance while ensuring solid Democratic control of both houses of Congress. And he could do this without having to name out-of-synch conservatives to any position.

For example, Obama could invite either Sen. Susan Collins or Olympia Snowe, both Republican senators in Maine, to serve in some capacity in the cabinet--perhaps in the role of EPA Administrator or Secretary of the Interior, or as Secretary of Health and Welfare or of Education. Either one would be hard put to turn down that offer, and if accepted, Maine's Democratic governor, John Baldacci, would get to name a replacement, who would be a Democrat.

Oregon Republican Senator Gordon Smith is in a tight race for re-election in that liberal state. If he succeeds in returning to office, Obama could offer him a cabinet post, too--perhaps Secretary of Commerce. Smith has been campaigning almost as an ally of Obama in his effort to defeat Democratic challenger Jeff Merkley, so he'd be an easy fit, and that would give Oregon's Democratic governor, Ted Kulongoski, the chance to name a Democratic replacement--probably Merkley. So everybody (except Senate Republicans) wins!

If still another Democratic Senate seat were needed to hit the magic number of 60 in the next Senate, Obama could find a job for Tennessee's Lamar Alexander, or even Pennsylvania's senior senator Arlen Specter.

Republicans, of course, would be livid if their numbers were pared in this way, but that would be fun to watch. All the named Republican senators above are relatively liberal and have suffered at the hands of their party's conservative majority. Most would probably jump at the chance of a cabinet post.

So if Obama wins next Tuesday, but Democrats fall short in the Senate, look for some entertainment in the coming few months.

________________

DAVE LINDORFF is a Philadelphia-based journalist and columnist. His latest book is "The Case for Impeachment" (St. Martin's Press, 2006 and now available in paperback edition). His work is available at www.thiscantbehappening.net

Gay Marriage Ban Advances to Senate Floor

Bob Geiger — Thu, 18 May 2006 12:48:30 -0400

It looks like Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist (R-TN) is going to get his wish to follow up his failed "Health Care Week" with "Wedge Issue June" as Senator Wayne Allard's (R-CO) "Marriage Protection Amendment" made it through the Senate Judiciary Committee today on a straight party line vote -- after which, Senator Russ Feingold (D-WI) left the room following a sharp exchange of words with Committee Chairman Arlen Specter (R-PA).

Allard's bigoted bill, which has a zero chance of passing the full Senate when it arrives for the June 5 date set by Frist, has 29 Republican cosponsors and says that "… marriage in the United States shall consist only of the union of a man and a woman."

It also "prohibits the Constitution or any State constitution from being construed to require that marital status or its legal incidents be conferred upon any union other than that of a man and a woman."

The Associated Press reports that Feingold, a vocal opponent of the measure, got into a heated exchange with Specter after the vote.

"I don't need to be lectured by you. You are no more a protector of the Constitution than am I," said Specter after Feingold said he was leaving the meeting. "If you want to leave, good riddance."

Said Feingold: "I've enjoyed your lecture, too, Mr. Chairman. See ya."

Up next, look for Orrin Hatch's (R-UT), S.J.RES.12 -- also known as the "flag-burning amendment" -- to pass Committee and find its way to the Senate Floor in June as well. The Hatch amendment proposes to amend the U..S. Constitution "…to prohibit the physical desecration of the flag of the United States" and Frist has promised a roll-call vote on it as well.

With Frist trying to set the table with nonsensical issues for the midterm elections, it's gonna be a long, hot summer.

Specterism Du Jour: FISA Review of Illegal NSA Wiretapping

Bob Fertik — Tue, 16 May 2006 12:40:07 -0400

Specterism n. A threat to stand up to Bush that is never meant to be acted upon and withdrawn at the very first opportunity.

Remember when Specter threatened to send Bush's illegal NSA wiretapping program to the FISA court for its legal judgment? Well today that threat became one more "Specterism."

Specter has mollified conservative opposition to his bill by agreeing to drop the requirement that the Bush administration seek a legal judgment on the program from a special court set up by the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) of 1978.

Here's Glenn Greenwald:

One would think that if they really believed that they had the clear-cut legal justification for warrantless eavesdropping which they claim to have, they would be eager to have a court rule on this issue so that this unpleasant controversy -- with all of these mean-spirited and utterly baseless allegations of lawbreaking -- can finally be put to rest. And yet, time and again, they do precisely the opposite: they desperately invoke every available measure to prevent any judicial ruling as to the legality of their behavior.

Impeach Bush NOW!!!!!!!!!

The Definition of "Specterism"

Bob Fertik — Fri, 28 Apr 2006 14:41:38 -0400

The English language badly needs a new word: "Specterism."

The word derives its origin from "Bushism," a word coined by Slate's Jacob Weisberg, which means an incoherent statement by the most powerful man in the world.

What is a "Specterism"? Here's the proposed dictionary entry:

Specterism n. A threat to stand up to Bush that is never meant to be acted upon and withdrawn at the very first opportunity.

Here is the latest Specterism:

The chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee said Thursday he might seek to block funding of a domestic eavesdropping program in an effort to force the Bush administration to answer lawmakers' questions about the operation.

In a warning to the White House, Sen. Arlen Specter (R-Pa.) said he planned to introduce legislation that would cut off funds for the surveillance program, which he described as a threat to civil liberties and a violation of domestic espionage laws.

OK, so Specter threatened to stand up to Bush. Or did he? Not so much.

Specter said he was not yet prepared to support a cutoff of funding, which he said would be a measure of last resort. But he warned that if the Bush administration was unwilling to comply with existing laws or help draft new domestic surveillance legislation, the only way for Congress to exercise any control might be to deny funding.

"What's the use of passing another statute if the president won't pay any attention to it?" Specter said. "When you talk about withholding funds, there you're talking about a real authority."

Steve Benen of Carptebagger Report provides a concise history of Specterisms:

Specter had grave concerns about warrantless searches, before he backed down during a hearing with Alberto Gonzales. Specter was going to give Samuel Alito the grilling of a lifetime, before he backed down during conformation hearings. Specter was publicly uncomfortable with Karl Rove and James Dobson cooperating on judicial nominees, until he backed down. As Harry Reid said a few weeks ago, Specter is a "moderate Republican…whenever you don't need him."

Are there any others?

Speak Up Specter!

Bob Fertik — Sat, 25 Mar 2006 12:20:06 -0500

On Friday, Senator Arlen Specter will chair a hearing of the Senate Judiciary Committee on Senator Russ Feingold's Resolution to Censure George Bush for illegal wiretapping.

Specter has repeatedly denounced Bush's illegal wiretapping. But he refuses to do anything to stop Bush from doing it!

Senator Feingold proposed censuring Bush to put the Senate on record that Bush's conduct is illegal and must stop now. So why does Specter say Feingold's resolution is "vastly excessive?" And why is Specter politicizing the resolution by declaring "I am sure not going to sit back and have Feingold spout off."

It's time for Arlen Specter to stop defending Bush's illegal wiretapping and start defending the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, and Freedom.

Call/fax/email his offices (numbers below) with this simple message:
"Speak Up Specter! Censure Bush for illegal wiretapping!

Telephone numbers:
Senate switchboard: 888-355-3588
Sen. Specter's D.C. office direct line: 202-224-4254
Allentown office telephone: 610-434-1444
Erie office telephone: 814-453-3010
Harrisburg office telephone: 717-782-3951
Philadelphia office telephone: 215-597-7200
Pittsburgh office telephone: 412-644-3400
Scranton office telephone: 570-346-2006
Wilkes-Barre office telephone: 570-826-6265
Fax numbers:
Sen. Specter's D.C. office fax: 202-228-1229
Allentown office fax: 610-434-1844
Erie office fax: 814-455-9925
Harrisburg office fax: 717-782-4920
Philadelphia office fax: 215-597-0406
Pittsburgh office fax: 412-644-4871
Scranton office fax: 570-346-8499
Wilkes-Barre office fax: 570-826-6266
Email Sen. Specter