This has been noted as being almost like a game of rock-paper-scissors:

• Toomey beats Specter, 45/40.
• Specter beats Sestak, 46/42.
• Sestak ties Toomey, 38/37.

Some other numbers for Specter: 46/52 favorable/unfavorable (Rasmussen);  31/59 deserves-reelection (Susquehanna).  The Susquehanna poll also has him leading Sestak in the primary 44/16 and tied with Toomey 42/41, but that may be the usual registered/likely voter difference.  All in all, it’s starting to look like maybe Specter should have taken the hint and announced that he wasn’t going to run for re-election after he switched parties…

Moe Lane

PS: Pat Toomey for Senate.

Crossposted to Moe Lane.

They say that nobody loves a traitor. The Pat Toomey campaign wants you to remember that usually one person does, at least: the traitor himself.

Two things:

1. President Obama ripped off former President Bush so blatantly in that speech praising Specter that the former should have paid the latter royalties; and
2. It’s not every day that people are given a second chance to correct the mistakes of a past election.  Pat Toomey for Senate. RedState likes him.

Moe Lane

Read More →

With all of the delicacy, charm and raw political skill that they showed in trying to get Gov. David Paterson of NY to quit.

White House Is Taking a More Aggressive Role in State Races

WASHINGTON — The White House’s intervention in the race for New York governor is the latest evidence of how President Obama and his top advisers are taking an increasingly direct role in contests across the country, but their assertiveness has bruised some Democrats who suggest it could undercut Mr. Obama’s appeal with voters tired of partisan politics.

[snip]

More than anything, though, the interventions reflect a controlling style of this White House and of Mr. Emanuel, who employed similar hard-ball tactics to recruit candidates when he was running the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee. In addition to Mr. Emanuel, the White House political director, Patrick Gaspard, and deputy chief of staff, Jim Messina, keep close watch on all political races.

Via @PatrickRuffini: bolding mine, and reflective of Erick Erickson’s recent first look at ACORN CEO Bertha Lewis’s Rolodex.  One may be forgiven for wondering whether… input on this was sought.

Read More →

Jobs, health care, energy, deficits, Afghanistan, the general war on terror - all these are things that Congress should be working on. Indeed, Democrats are endlessly telling us that whatever priority they have cooked up, must be passed right now! But when the Senate is actually scheduled to be in session - purportedly addressing your concerns - they are delaying official business to let Arlen Specter raise money for his re-election campaign?

Reid announced Friday that the Senate would hold no votes after 3 p.m. Tuesday. His office later said that the scheduling decision was meant to accommodate a long-planned fundraiser that President Obama is headlining in Philadelphia to benefit Specter’s campaign.

The move could delay efforts to finish work on the fiscal 2010 transportation spending bill, which the Senate began considering Thursday…

Read More →

When Arlen Specter switched parties back in April, he realized that some of his former supporters might regret having donated money to someone who was no longer a Republican. He made a concession: “Upon request, I will return campaign contributions contributed during this cycle.”

That could wind up being a costly promise. Specter has raised $11 million this cycle, and only has $7.5 million on hand. That said, some donors have a lot invested in Specter and won’t want their money back. And many others might want their money back, but either aren’t aware of his promise or won’t bother to make the request.

Well, the Club for Growth has stepped up to the plate to do something for that latter group. They have offered to contact Specter’s donors and help them ask for their money back. Yesterday they received legal permission to do so:

Read More →

Arlen Specter is, admittedly, the most unprincipled opportunist in Washington, but something sure seems fishy.

Back in April after switching parties, Arlen Specter said, “I will not be an automatic 60th vote and I would illustrate that by my position on employees’ choice, also known as card check. I think it is a bad deal and I am opposed to it and would not vote to invoke cloture.” He was pretty adamant about it.

Well, Specter goes to the lefty blogger confab in Pittsburgh on August 14th and is asked, “Is it fair to say that on the climate legislation, on Employees Free Choice, on the public option health care plan, these are all areas where you would be voting with the majority for cloture?”

Specter’s response? “Yes.”

Guess what. Three days after Specter’s yes, Obama decides to raise money for Specter.

Sure, Obama had already said he’d campaign for Specter, but had actually done not one thing to help Specter. Heck, Obama did absolutely nothing to keep Sestak out of the primary, something Obama could have done.

But Specter goes on record saying he will now vote for cloture on stuff four months ago he adamantly was opposed to and now Obama says he’ll raise money for Specter, as will Joe Biden.

The question is: which came first? Did Specter saying ‘yes’ persuade Obama or did Obama persuade Specter?

The buzz in Pennsylvania last week was that Obama would not be helping Specter despite promises to do so. Now Obama is all in.

Unless you think the news is wholly coincidental, we must now consider the need to spell Arlen Specter’s last name with a dollar sign instead of an “S”.

It sure looks like Presidential bribe to get a filibuster proof Senate.

:sound effect of mouthful of coffee being sprayed across the monitor:

Uncomfortable town hall meetings are just the tip of the iceberg for Pennsylvania Senator Arlen Specter. He now trails Republican Pat Toomey by double digits in his bid for reelection next year and is viewed unfavorably by a majority of the state’s voters.

The latest Rasmussen Reports telephone survey of Pennsylvania voters shows 48% would vote for Toomey if the election were held today. Just 36% would vote for Specter while four percent (4%) prefer a third option, and 12% are not sure.

These figures reflect a dramatic reversal since June. At that time, before the public health care debate began, Specter led Toomey by eleven.

:pause:

Wow.

Read More →

This one is of his speech that Toomey did for the Gathering, not the interview afterward: I’m not sure if there is going to be a better video copy of it, so enjoy. Pat Toomey is, of course, the guy who scared Arlen Specter into getting primary challenged by the Democrats instead of the Republicans, which is probably not what Specter had in mind. Such a pity, really.

As the video notes, Toomey also has a book (The Road to Prosperity) out.

Moe Lane

Read More →

From the diaries, by Erick.

As noted below, Rep Lloyd Doggett of TX got his head handed to him talking to his constituents back home in the most liberal part of Texas.  He’s not alone.

Panzeramic has a whole series of videos from an Arlen Specter event with [HHS Secretary] Kathleen Sebelius in Philly.  Here’s my favorite…

Check out the site, they’ve got a bunch more. It would appear that the indians are restless.

[UPDATE]: And if you think those numbers are bad, wait until Specter caves on card check to appease his new owners.  His constituents are purely going to hate that.

Via Hot Air Headlines, nobody loves a traitor.

Pennsylvania Sen. Arlen Specter’s 2010 reelection lead over Republican challenger Pat Toomey has shrunk to a tie with 45 percent for Specter and 44 percent for Toomey, according to a Quinnipiac University poll released today. And voters say 49 - 40 percent that Sen. Specter does not deserve reelection.

[snip]

Specter, first elected to the Senate as a Republican in 1980 but who switched to the Democratic Party earlier this year, holds a commanding 55 - 23 percent lead over U.S. Rep. Joe Sestak in the race for the Democratic nomination. On the Republican side Toomey buries Peg Luksik 47 - 6 percent.

[snip]

In other trial matchups Specter would defeat Luksik 47 - 40 percent, while Toomey would edge Sestak 39 - 35 percent.

That last bit may be what dooms Sestak’s candidacy… except, of course, that the Democrats are already trying their best to sabotage his (and Maloney’s, over in NY) primary challenge anyway. Meanwhile, the NRSC is backing Toomey, thus avoiding the bloody primary that we were all expecting and dreading before Specter changed sides.

So: thanks for not retiring, Arlen! Make sure that you vote for health care rationing!

Moe Lane

Crossposted to Moe Lane.

The good news: Pat Toomey’s (R Cand, PA) campaign (donate here) is reporting that he raised 1.6 million dollars in the second quarter of 2009.

Mr. Toomey’s strong first campaign quarter fundraising compares favorably with those of successful U.S. Senate challengers in the last election. In fact, he has raised more than every successful 2008 challenger. In his first quarter as a Senate candidate, Mr. Toomey has raised more than candidates Al Franken (D-MN), Jeanne Shaheen (D-NH), Kay Hagen (D-NC), Jeff Merkley (D-OR), and Mark Begich (D-AK), all of whom went on to defeat incumbent U.S. senators

The other good news: Joe Sestak’s (D Cand, PA) primary campaign against Arlen Specter (Arlen Specter, PA) is being reasonably well funded.

Read More →

Brian pointed to the bizarre reposition of Rep. Charles Melancon (D-LA) on card-check. But this points to a broader pattern. Senators running in 2010 in potentially contests Senate seats are afraid to take a position on the issue.

For example, in Colorado, appointed Senator Michael Bennet is “stuck in neutral” on card check, according to the Denver Post. In Arkansas, Blanche Lincoln won’t support it. Pennsylvania’s Arlen Specter is famously wrapped around the axle on it.

With card-check, cap-and-tax-and-trade, and Obamacare in the pipeline, how much soon until these Senators back away from the President?

A little while back Greenberg* Quinlan Rosner put out a poll that showed Specter leading 55-34 over Sestak in the primary. Interestingly, (via DoubleplusUndead, via @JustKarl), one hope for Sestak is apparently that he actually leads Specter among Democrats who know both candidates, 52-44.  The difference is due to the fact that Sestak is only known to about 30% of the PA Dem electorate.

Full disclosure: I don’t care who wins this primary, just as long as it’s won ugly, expensively, and with a lot of promising political careers permanently blighted by petty spite and bitter grudges.  That being said, both candidates have complications:

• Sestak - more accurately, Sestak’s supporters - are probably assuming that getting his recognition numbers up will not erode his lead among voters aware of both.  That may be justified; on the other hand, most of the voters aware of both are probably also more committed or ideological Democrats.  Assuming Sestak runs, how more moderate and conservative voters will react once they take a good look at him will be interesting to see.
• Specter’s major problem?  If  you believe this poll, he faces the problem that if he wants to win the primary he has to start voting the Democratic party line on everything.  No more contrary votes for him, which is going to make it problematical when/if he gets out of the primary to face Pat Toomey**.

This is not the primary campaign that the VRWC contemplated happening a year ago, but it’s got its points.  Believe the internals of that poll, and either way Toomey will be facing a candidate that’s going to be squarely identifying himself with a Democrat who’s more palatable to his base than, perhaps, the Pennsylvanian electorate.  And it’ll be interesting to see just how the parties are perceived next year, because even right this second they’re not really all that far apart…

Moe Lane

*Yeah, the same guy that gave Rahm Emanuel free rent while Emanuel was doing DCCC business with his company. And whose wife put up that legislation designed to gut the organic food industry. What’s your point?

**Who, by the way, comes across as pretty sharp when you talk to him.

Crossposted to Moe Lane.

When the Democrat leaders in Washington were negotiating Arlen Specter’s party switch, they were eager to assure him that they would do all in their power to ensure him a clear path to the Democratic nomination for Senate. It’s becoming clear that in doing so, they promised something far outside their power to deliver.

In the 2010 race for U.S. Senate, by a 63/28 margin most Democrats believe Specter should face a challenge from one or more other Democrats in the 2010 Democratic primary in order to secure the nomination (9% are undecided). This suggests most Democrats want Specter to earn his rightful place as the Democratic nominee despite comments by Democratic Party officials and leaders that Specter should be given a free ride in the primary.

In a potential general election match-up between Democrat Arlen Specter and Republican Pat Toomey, Specter leads Toomey by a 46/37 margin (13% are undecided and 4% would support someone else). Among Republicans, Toomey leads Specter 69/21 while among Democrats Specter leads Toomey by a 65/14 margin. Among “super voter” or those who voted in 3 or 4 of the last 4 general elections the race is a near toss-up with Specter leading by a narrow 42/39 margin, while among those who voted in only 1 or 2 of the last 4 elections Specter holds a commanding 50/36 lead. This means lower turnout favors the Republican nominee in this contest, while higher turnout favors the Democrat.

Read More →

It’s not ‘official’, but unless Sestak is sufficiently a practical joker as to send his supporters handwritten phony fund-raising notes, it’s happening. Guess that means that Arlen Specter is going to have to face a tough primary battle after all.

Meanwhile…

Moderate Pa. Republicans warming to Toomey

Moderate Republican leaders have stopped publicly pushing to recruit a less-conservative alternative to front-runner Pat Toomey in Pennsylvania’s U.S. Senate race, a sign that he has begun to calm concerns about his electability.

Toomey has redoubled efforts to court skeptics in the party establishment in the two weeks since former Gov. Tom Ridge declined to enter the race for the GOP nomination despite the pleadings of prominent moderates.

Karma. It’s what’s for dinner.

Moe Lane

Crossposted to Moe Lane.

Can you guess where this picture was taken? I’ll give you a hint: although you may never have heard of them, Kaufman and Klobuchar are exceedingly junior Democratic members of the Senate Judiciary Committee. They sit far from the dais - often in folding chairs, or on shared benches. They’re not allowed to grab food from the buffet; they have to brown-bag it and sit at the kids’ table.

This picture was taken this morning, when they welcomed Arlen Specter to the cheap seats.

There’s good and bad news for Arlen. The good news is that he was promised a subcommittee chairmanship. The bad news is his old friend Chairman Pat Leahy says he might not get it.

It seems there aren’t really any convictions Arlen Specter won’t sell in order to help him win reelection. According to his new colleague Tom Harkin, Specter realizes that he’s toast in a Democratic primary if he doesn’t kiss labor’s ring that he was wrong about Card Check:

A spokesperson for Sen. Tom Harkin (D-Iowa), the lead sponsor of the Employee Free Choice Act, confirmed today that an agreement is near that will allow Sen. Arlen Specter (D-Pa.) to return to his earlier position of support for the legislation.

Specter, originally a co-sponsor of the bill, announced on March 24 that he had switched to the opposition. At the time, as a Republican senator, he was under pressure from business lobbyists and right-wing Republicans lining up against him in that party’s coming primary election.

Read More →

Andy Stern, president of the Service Employees International Union (SEIU) appears to be warning his membership that there is no lock on allegiance for Arlen Specter even though he has recently jumped the GOP ship for the Democrat Party.

On May 3, Stern used his twitter account to praise Congressman Joe Sestak, a possible 2010 opponent for Specter for the Democratic Party nomination for Penn. Senator.

Read More →

I guess that Senator Arlen Specter (D-PA) really is happier in his new party:

Sen. Arlen Specter, Pennsylvania Democrat, said part of the reason he left the Republican Party last week was disillusionment with its healthcare priorities, and suggested that had the Republicans taken a more moderate track, Jack Kemp may have won his battle with cancer.

…because he’s certainly picked up from them the trick of using safely dead people to push a partisan talking point. Jack Kemp isn’t even buried yet; and he had nothing to do with the current political situation, you disgusting piece of partisan slime.  I don’t expect truly civilized behavior from you anymore, but I did foolishly think that you could be trusted to show more delicacy than a hyena at the passing of a former friend.

Yes, ‘former’ friend.  I have liberal friends; if one of them should die before me, I won’t be using his or her death to push the GOP’s agenda.  That’s because I’m a decent human being, and you’re not.

In short: thanks for leaving my party.  Don’t ever come back.

Moe Lane

PS: Have you ever even googled “Big Pharma?”  Do you have any idea who you’re allied with, now?  It’s groups like this.  And this.  And this.

When Senator Arlen Specter made the jump from Republican to Democrat last week, the buzz was that the Dems were ever so much closer to that “crucial” 60th vote in the Senate.  Well, apparently Arlen isn’t going to be so cooperative.  From today’s MTP:

GREGORY: It was reported this week that when you met with the president, you said, “I will be a loyal democrat. I support your agenda.” Let me test that on probably one of the most important areas of his agenda, and that’s health care. Would you support health care reform that puts up a government run public plan to compete with a private plan issued by a private insurance company?

SPECTER: No. And you misquote me, David. I did not say I would be a loyal Democrat. I did not say that. And last week, after I said I was changing parties, I voted against the budget because the budget has a way to pass health care with 51 votes, which undermines a basic Senate institution to require 60 votes to impose closure on key issues…. I did not say I am a loyal Democrat.

Read More →