Is anyone sorry to see Specter go? He always struck me as the tenacious politician who figured out ways to stay in power (along the lines of Bob Packwood, but without the scandal), but there was nothing to like about him even when he was on your side.
Arlen Specter isn't leaving Washington quietly.
In his final speech on the Senate floor, the outgoing Republican-turned-Democrat sounded off on the tea party, the rise of partisanship in Congress and the "judicial activism" of the Supreme Court. * * *
Specter bemoaned the loss of a Senate where both parties seemed to be interested in finding compromise, and he was especially critical of lawmakers who campaigned against their fellow members.
So here is a guy, who doesn't use his last few moments in the spotlight to express his good fortune and thanks to those who supported him; to highlight his accomplishments; or otherwise focus on something positive. Instead, he takes this moment to take parting shots. Which reminds us why we are glad or are indifferent to his exit from the Senate.
I understand it was a relatively lengthy speech, and the Press just focused on the more thorny remarks.
Arlen Specter had a very "charmed" political career in Pennsylvania. He was never broadly popular, and simply benefitted from a string of horrible opponents. From all indications he was a good senator, willing to work hard to bring home a bit of bacon, and to work for compromises that actually got things done.
His personality was prickly and I have read many accounts over the years of him demanding royal treatment for himself and his family in a wide variety of circumstances. Politically, he had a very irritating practice of not committing to any controversial legislation until he was absolutely certain which way the political wind was blowing - all the time insisting that he was giving careful consideration to the issues. He did a few unpopular and painful things for his political Party, but he also bolted often enough to be irritating. One cannot see into another person's soul, but I NEVER got the impression that he was taking any stand due to deep-seated personal beliefs; he was always positioning himself for the best political result.
Ironically, Rick Santorum lost his seat in the Senate largely because he supported Spector for re-election in the primary of 2004 vs. Pat Toomey (our newly-elected Senator). The conservative base (of which I am an enthusiastic member) felt that Santorum betrayed us by not fighting for Toomey, a shining example of conservative competence.
He got waaaay too much credit AND blame for his role in the Anita Hill cluster-fuck. He left a lot of very pointed, embarrassing questions unasked, though he was said to have questioned Professor Hill "brutally." His many years "service" on the Judiciary Committee where characterized by the same political shrewdness that he displayed so often on the floor.
His much-quoted remarks yesterday about cannibalism among Republicans tell you a lot about how out of touch he has become from the population at large. Left unsaid was his underlying assumption that sitting Senators should always support their peers for re-election. Regardless of their competence or the quality of any possible opponent in the party primary. Think about that.
Long Run wrote:So here is a guy, who doesn't use his last few moments in the spotlight to express his good fortune and thanks to those who supported him; to highlight his accomplishments; or otherwise focus on something positive. Instead, he takes this moment to take parting shots. Which reminds us why we are glad or are indifferent to his exit from the Senate.
You don't have a career like Specter's by being a Pollyanna. And yes, I'm sorry to see him go -- especially since he's being replaced by Pat Toomey, a certified far-right extremist douchebag. I can't remember if I voted for Specter during the years I lived in PA, but it's very possible that I did; he didn't often let his party label interfere with doing the right thing (and I was more "pragmatic" back then). His primary battle last year was bruising, to say the least; Specter didn't do himself any favors in the contest and Sestak brought out the base to bring him down, only to be knocked out himself by a late teabagger surge. All around an unfortunate turn of events.
Given the feckless and cynical way he switched parties because he thought that was his surest path to re-election, I think he got exactly what he deserved, and I'm pleased as punch to see the seat back in GOP hands.
The party of economic suicide and self-inflicted disaster gains a seat. Now that's just wonderful.
Anyone asking why the Republicans have blocked all effective regulation of the financial industry? And even removed mention of deregulation as a cause of the ongoing disaster?
