Arlen Specter - Dead at last
Posted: Mon Oct 15, 2012 1:52 pm
From all indications, Arlen Specter was a "good" senator, in that he worked hard to help Pennsylvania and its people. He was brilliant, hard working, well rounded (a pretty fair athlete, even into old age), and successful.
But one would be hard-pressed to find another successful politician who was less "liked" or likable than Snarlin' Arlen.
He first ran for DA on the Republican ticket while he was a registered Democrat. In Philadelphia, as in Pittsburgh, the Republican party is a small social club that never gets anyone elected. He only joined the Republican party after he won the election.
In the race when he won the Senate seat, he ran against a former Pittsburgh mayor, Pete Flaherty, who had absolutely worn out his welcome in his home city and county. Specter won by a small margin, but it was noteworthy that in Philadelphia where Specter was best known, Flaherty won, and in Allegheny County, where Flaherty was best known, Specter won.
Specter was blessed with a string of the worst imaginable opponents in his subsequent Senate elections, thus facilitating his 30 years in office. Despite this, I voted against him every time.
He perversely gained notoriety as a "centrist," but for those who were paying attention, this was merely because he would not take a position on any controversial issue until all the shouting was over and he could see which way was politically more opportune. If it was better for him to go against the Republicans he would do so; if it made no difference he would go with the caucus. He conspicuously voted against Bork's nomination to the Supreme Court, but waited until the issue was decided before announcing which way he would vote.
Ironically, he took a great deal of heat for carrying the ball in the questioning of Anita Hill, but I watched those hearings and he did nothing more than point out that Ms. Hill's actions flatly contradicted her accusations. So what? This got him branded as a misogynist by many, but clearly he did not deserve this slander.
His late "conversion" to the Democrat party was completely consistent with his entire career. He was convinced that he could benefit by a switch (not that anyone embraced him when he did it), and there was nothing even plausible to claim that he was doing it based on any "principle" other than protecting his long-held sinecure in the Senate. Happily, even the Dems rejected him the first time they had the opportunity to do so.
There is also some irony in the fact that Senator Santorum's support from conservatives completely evaporated when he supported Specter against Pat Toomey in '04. Although Rick would never admit it, he rues the day he supported Specter, and will never live it down. That pretty much tells you what Republicans thought of Specter; supporting him aainst a real Republican was an unforgivable sin.
I've heard stories that Specter's security staff hated him when he travelled overseas. He demanded to be treated like a potentate (more so than other Senators), but I don't have any details, and don't want to speak ill of the dead, eh?
But one would be hard-pressed to find another successful politician who was less "liked" or likable than Snarlin' Arlen.
He first ran for DA on the Republican ticket while he was a registered Democrat. In Philadelphia, as in Pittsburgh, the Republican party is a small social club that never gets anyone elected. He only joined the Republican party after he won the election.
In the race when he won the Senate seat, he ran against a former Pittsburgh mayor, Pete Flaherty, who had absolutely worn out his welcome in his home city and county. Specter won by a small margin, but it was noteworthy that in Philadelphia where Specter was best known, Flaherty won, and in Allegheny County, where Flaherty was best known, Specter won.
Specter was blessed with a string of the worst imaginable opponents in his subsequent Senate elections, thus facilitating his 30 years in office. Despite this, I voted against him every time.
He perversely gained notoriety as a "centrist," but for those who were paying attention, this was merely because he would not take a position on any controversial issue until all the shouting was over and he could see which way was politically more opportune. If it was better for him to go against the Republicans he would do so; if it made no difference he would go with the caucus. He conspicuously voted against Bork's nomination to the Supreme Court, but waited until the issue was decided before announcing which way he would vote.
Ironically, he took a great deal of heat for carrying the ball in the questioning of Anita Hill, but I watched those hearings and he did nothing more than point out that Ms. Hill's actions flatly contradicted her accusations. So what? This got him branded as a misogynist by many, but clearly he did not deserve this slander.
His late "conversion" to the Democrat party was completely consistent with his entire career. He was convinced that he could benefit by a switch (not that anyone embraced him when he did it), and there was nothing even plausible to claim that he was doing it based on any "principle" other than protecting his long-held sinecure in the Senate. Happily, even the Dems rejected him the first time they had the opportunity to do so.
There is also some irony in the fact that Senator Santorum's support from conservatives completely evaporated when he supported Specter against Pat Toomey in '04. Although Rick would never admit it, he rues the day he supported Specter, and will never live it down. That pretty much tells you what Republicans thought of Specter; supporting him aainst a real Republican was an unforgivable sin.
I've heard stories that Specter's security staff hated him when he travelled overseas. He demanded to be treated like a potentate (more so than other Senators), but I don't have any details, and don't want to speak ill of the dead, eh?
