Senator Arlen Specter Town Hall Meeting on Health Care at Penn State

Senator Arlen Specter held a town hall meeting on health care at Penn State's conference center hotel on August 12. The video here, presented by the Penn State student newspaper, the Daily Collegian, is from that meeting. An accompanying story is here.

By all reports, Specter has been handling the angry shouters who have come to his town halls this month, as they have come to those of other Democratic members of Congress, with considerable skill and fortitude. He insists that the protesters have a right to be heard, and he moves close to them as they ask their questions, rather than shrinking away, as we would all be tempted to do, or himself rising in anger, as we might also be tempted to do.

Moving in on Specter

MoveOn.org has sent out a series of targeted videos to residents of states in which Democratic Senators who voted against the mortgage foreclosure and bankruptcy reforms are vulnerable to primary challengers.

This is an interesting use of Internet video political argument, whichever side of the issue you are on, and it is additionally interesting that MoveOn includes on the web site where the video is displayed a script for the ad with accompanying documentation of each factual claim. Of course that documentation is itself vulnerable to argument, but at least this approach opens up the typical 30-second spot by making itself accessible to debate, in principle.

Specter is getting it from both sides these days, first for his "disloyalty" in voting against some measures the Congressional Republicans were for, then the reverse, then switching parties -- and immediately announcing his intention to be something more complicated than a "loyal" Democrat. He does his best to represent this as sticking to his principles, and there is evidence for that; his detractors argue that he is just stubborn, vain, and unpredictable, all in support of his own interests, and there is evidence for that view.

Principle or mulish stubbornness?

Loyalty or independent judgment?

Pragmatism or mere self interest?

These appear to be the rhetorical topoi at work in the rhetoric about Specter and about the Congressional Republicans.

Rick Santorum on Arlen Specter - Point of Order!

Talking Points Memo quotes former Republican Senator Rick Santorum on the Arlen Specter party switch:

"Arlen not only stuck his chin out, he stuck his rear end out and then he pulled his pants down and then wiggled it at us."

~Former Senator Rick Santorum (R-PA), on an illegal sexual act Specter's party shift.

photo: Newscom / Zuma

Senator Arlen Specter (Democrat, Pennsylvania)

He actually did it.

Arlen Specter has switched parties, he announced today. He will become a Democrat.

Here is the statement he released today, as published in the New York Times:

I have been a Republican since 1966. I have been working extremely hard for the Party, for its candidates and for the ideals of a Republican Party whose tent is big enough to welcome diverse points of view. While I have been comfortable being a Republican, my Party has not defined who I am. I have taken each issue one at a time and have exercised independent judgment to do what I thought was best for Pennsylvania and the nation.

Since my election in 1980, as part of the Reagan Big Tent, the Republican Party has moved far to the right. Last year, more than 200,000 Republicans in Pennsylvania changed their registration to become Democrats. I now find my political philosophy more in line with Democrats than Republicans.

When I supported the stimulus package, I knew that it would not be popular with the Republican Party. But, I saw the stimulus as necessary to lessen the risk of a far more serious recession than we are now experiencing.

Since then, I have traveled the State, talked to Republican leaders and office-holders and my supporters and I have carefully examined public opinion. It has become clear to me that the stimulus vote caused a schism which makes our differences irreconcilable. On this state of the record, I am unwilling to have my twenty-nine year Senate record judged by the Pennsylvania Republican primary electorate. I have not represented the Republican Party. I have represented the people of Pennsylvania.

I have decided to run for re-election in 2010 in the Democratic primary.

I am ready, willing and anxious to take on all comers and have my candidacy for re-election determined in a general election.

I deeply regret that I will be disappointing many friends and supporters. I can understand their disappointment. I am also disappointed that so many in the Party I have worked for for more than four decades do not want me to be their candidate. It is very painful on both sides. I thank specially Senators McConnell and Cornyn for their forbearance.

I am not making this decision because there are no important and interesting opportunities outside the Senate. I take on this complicated run for re-election because I am deeply concerned about the future of our country and I believe I have a significant contribution to make on many of the key issues of the day, especially medical research. NIH funding has saved or lengthened thousands of lives, including mine, and much more needs to be done. And my seniority is very important to continue to bring important projects vital to Pennsylvania’s economy.

I am taking this action now because there are fewer than thirteen months to the 2010 Pennsylvania Primary and there is much to be done in preparation for that election. Upon request, I will return campaign contributions contributed during this cycle.

While each member of the Senate caucuses with his Party, what each of us hopes to accomplish is distinct from his party affiliation. The American people do not care which Party solves the problems confronting our nation. And no Senator, no matter how loyal he is to his Party, should or would put party loyalty above his duty to the state and nation.

My change in party affiliation does not mean that I will be a party-line voter any more for the Democrats that I have been for the Republicans. Unlike Senator Jeffords’ switch which changed party control, I will not be an automatic 60th vote for cloture. For example, my position on Employees Free Choice (Card Check) will not change.

Whatever my party affiliation, I will continue to be guided by President Kennedy’s statement that sometimes Party asks too much. When it does, I will continue my independent voting and follow my conscience on what I think is best for Pennsylvania and America.

It seems likely that Specter may sometimes be as frustrating for Democrats as he has sometimes been for Republicans. In any case, it will be interesting to watch. And, who knows, perhaps we'll find an easier path to progressive legislation in health care, education, the environment, and in judicial confirmations.

As of this moment, even Specter's official Senate web page does not say anything about this remarkable event.

The president called Senator Specter this morning: "we're thrilled to have you."









(President Barack Obama speaks by phone to Senator Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania on April 28, 2009 about the Senator's decision to become a member of the Democratic Party. White House Photo, Pete Souza)