Demographics & Economics
OMB
Congressional Budget Office
The Federal Budget
U.S. Census Quickfacts
Inflation Calculator
CIA World Factbook
NationMaster
State Healthcare Facts
UN HDR stats
US Bureau of Economic Analysis
US Bureau of Labor Statistics
US CDC health stats
US DOJ Bureau of Justice Statistics
US DOJ crime stats
Constitution
The Constitution
The Founders' Constitution
The Avalon Project
The Federalist Papers
The antifederalist papers
Founding documents
Politics
ADA (liberal) Voting Records
ACU (conservative) Voting Records
Census Voter Turnout
Congressional Research Service
Memeorandum
NOW list of voting scorecards
PolitiFact
PorkBusters
Project VoteSmart list of voting scorecards
RealClearPolitics
Roll call votes--House
Roll call votes--Senate
Survey USA
WaPo Votes Database
Iraq/Terrorism
CentCom
Brookings Institute Iraq Index
Project on Defense Alternatives War Report
Nat'l Defense Univ Iraq
Nat'l Defense Univ Afghanistan
MERLIN, Nat'l Defense Univ Library Network
STRATFOR
Nat'l Memorial Inst for Prevention of Terrorism
West Point's Combating Terrorism Center
Politics blogs
Baldilocks
Blue Mass Group
Cadillac Tight
California Conservative
Jon Chait
Confederate Yankee
Crooked Timber
Democracy Project
Dinocrat
First Read
Gateway Pundit
GenerationPatriot
Horse Race Blog
Just One Minute
Hugh Hewitt
Michelle Malkin
Patterico's Pontifications
Power Line
Red State
RNCC blog
Scrappleface
Talking Points Memo
The Blogometer
The Corner
The Next Right
The Moderate Voice
Think Progress
Wizbang
Moderate / centrist
Ambivablog
Bipartisan Rules
Booker Rising
Centerfield
Charging RINO
Donklephant
Liberal War Journal
Militant Moderates
The Buck Stops Here
The Glittering Eye
The Iconic Midwest
The PoliGazette
The Walrus Said
Legal & blawgs
How Appealing
Becker-Posner
Bench Memos
Concurring Opinions
Law & Letters
Legalities
Prawfsblawg
SCOTUSblog
Sentencing Law & Policy
The Volokh Conspiracy
Christian
ADW blog
Father Z
First Thoughts
Mirror of Justice
Veritas Rex
Middle East & Muslim affairs
Eteraz
Iraq the Model
Lebanese Political Journal
Michael Totten
Michael Yon
General interest
Althouse
Ambiance
Chris Muir's Day by Day
Instapundit
IowaHawk
JAC
Professor Bainbridge
Prettier than Napoleon
Rachel Lucas
The Right Coast
Science Blog
Sippican Cottage
The Anchoress
Whatever
A poll finds that not only would Tom Ridge best Arlen Specter if he is the GOP nominee in Pennsylvania, 48%-41%, but that he may even have the chance, leading Pat Toomey for the GOP nomination 60%-23%. (Polling and common sense also make clear that if Toomey is the nominee, Pennsylvania will vote for whoever wins the Democratic nomination, be it Specter or Admiral Sestak.) That, ladies and gentlemen, is not the light at the end of the tunnel; but it is a light nonetheless, and a welcome one.
Added: As they threatened they might, "Democrats placed Specter in one of the two most junior slots on each of the five committees for the remainder of this Congress, which goes through December 2010. Democrats have suggested that they will consider revisiting Specter's seniority claim at the committee level only after the midterm elections next year." And that relates to this post in this way: "Without any assurance of seniority, Specter loses a major weapon in his campaign to win reelection in 2010: the ability to claim that his nearly 30 years of Senate service places him in key positions to benefit his constituents ... Without that seniority, ... [Specter] would not even hold an appropriations subcommittee chairmanship in 2011, a critical foothold Specter has used in the past to disperse billions of dollars to Pennsylvania."
And: Politico reports:
In a statement released Wednesday afternoon, Specter said that Reid had promised him that he could transfer his seniority to the Democratic Party.
“Sen. Reid assured me that I would keep my committee assignments and that I would have the same seniority as if I had been elected as a Democrat in 1980,” Specter said. “It was understood that the issue of subcommittee chairmanships would not be decided until after the 2010 election. Some members of the caucus have raised concerns about my seniority, so the caucus will vote on my seniority at the same time subcommittee chairmanships are confirmed after the 2010 election. I am confident my seniority will be maintained under the arrangement I worked out with Sen. Reid.”
Specter said in the statement that he would “continue to be a staunch and effective advocate for Pennsylvania¹s and the nation's priorities.” But as early as Tuesday afternoon, the Pennsylvania Republican-turned-Democrat seemed to know that he’d be doing that from something akin to freshman status.
Sic semper proditores!
Post facto:
Anyone can rat (11/2/09)
name brand
Well, Ridge is a name brand. I think he can win. He's really an American Dickensian character, isn't he? The hard monosyllabic name, the homeland security stuff, the generally conservative outlook, and his solid wall-like demeanor all add up to daddy you can trust. Now, what that portends for the GOP beyond the simple chance for +1 is anyone's spin.
That Specter defected despite the obvious drawbacks you list certainly lends even more credence to speculation that the GOP has recently done things that made him pretty unhappy. It's striking to me that as recently as within the last few months Specter was still dismissing talk of defection.
I think your second para
I think your second para misses something important. I take it that you mean "[t]hat Specter defected despite the obvious drawbacks [of loss of seniority] ... lends even more credence to speculation that the GOP has recently done things that made him pretty unhappy." Well, that assumes that Specter knew he would lose his seniority, but everything I've seen on the subject has suggests he anticipated keeping his seniority.
For example, consider this, from The Hill's Alex Bolton: "Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid’s (D-Nev.) deal to allow Sen. Arlen Specter to retain his seniority after he switches to the Democratic Conference has not been received well by senior senators in the party. ¶ Several Democrats are furious with Reid for agreeing to let Specter (Pa.) keep the seniority accrued over more than 28 years as a Republican senator. ... Specter announced Tuesday that he would be able to keep his seniority in the Democratic Conference." That sounds to me as though Specter was given assurances that he would keep his seniority before he jumped.
It does not...
Specter left when it became clear that he would lose the GOP primary. Period. There is no evidence of any recent change in GOP politics since the time of his last election. The presidential nominee was exceedingly moderate. There was no Karl Rove coordinating pro-marriage constitutional amendments to enhance turnout among religious conservatives. The ONLY thing that changed was that the GOP voters of Pennsylvania got tired of him, and there was no GOP President to exert political capital on his behalf to ensure his reelection in the primary.
WHAT things has the GOP done since Specter last completely dismissed talk of defection? The only thing we know to have changed is the polling numbers. That's it. If you can't provide at least SOME evidence, then your "speculation" is purely result of your bias against the GOP.
And Specter was quite candid
And Specter was quite candid about it on MTP last Sunday - he said that he's not prepared to have his record judged by the GOP primary.
sounds good
OK. I am willing to accept you guys testimony regarding his reasons unless I hear any actual evidence otherwise. Nothing about Specter has ever impressed me. So unless someone shows that he was pushed, I'm fine with the presumption that it was an opportunistic jump.
The timing of all this made me suspect there were other things underlying it, but I was just speculating. Whatever party Specter is in, there still has to be some reconciliation of the apparent fact that while PA repubs may have tired of him, Pennsylvanians as a whole so far have not.
There is something inherently troublesome about this particular facet of the two-party system: it can conceivably anoint two choices who are for all practical purposes the only viable ones, even though some other candidate may have been the preferred choice of the people as a whole. And the more a given representative attempts to represent ALL of his or her constituents, the more he or she places himself in jeopardy of running afoul of this flaw. That's not very satisfying to me.