Via email, the president tells me why I should vote for Arlen Specter in the May 18th primary against Rep. Joe Sestak.
He cast a deciding vote in favor of the Recovery Act that brought our economy back from the brink and created more than 120,000 jobs in Pennsylvania in just the first three months of this year.
He fought hard for health insurance reform, and because of that victory 1.3 million uninsured Pennsylvanians will now have access to affordable care — including more than 140,000 with pre-existing conditions.
And he’s been a champion of Wall Street reform and combating climate change, two crucial parts of my agenda that won’t happen without Arlen’s support.
Sometimes I get angry when the party leaders tip the scales in primary battles, but I’m not angry about this one. Flipping Specter to the Democratic caucus was a shrewd move and this is part of the price Obama agreed to pay to make it happen. But I won’t be voting for Snarlin’ Arlen. Frankly, I don’t like my choices in this race. I’m obviously not going to vote for Club for Growth champion, Pat Toomey, in the general. And I’m not impressed by Joe Sestak. I don’t like how he treats his staff, among other things. But Sestak’s stated positions and record are the best among the three, and I will be voting for him on May 18th.
As to Obama’s argument for Specter, I feel certain that Sestak would be just as good as, and probably better than, Specter on health care, Wall Street reform, and climate change. Sestak is more of a conventional Democrat, so I’d expect him to generally out-perform Specter on most issues.
However, it isn’t easy to cast away the kind of seniority that Specter has for a backbenching former admiral who grinds through staff like they’re nothing more than wheat. If Specter were to win another term, I’d expect him to be considered a Democrat in full good-standing, and to have his seniority restored. That would place him very high up on the Appropriations Committee (just behind Inouye and Leahy) and in very good position to bring home the bacon to the Keystone State. Sestak and Toomey can offer nothing more than their one percent influence in the hundred-member Senate.
Yet, despite the sacrifice losing Specter would mean for my state, I can’t support him. Probably more than any senator I’ve observed during my short life, Specter personifies the say-one-thing-do-another syndrome expressed by politicians at their worst. Specter’s record as Judiciary chairman under Bush was flat-out abysmal. He’d call something unconstitutional one day, and vote for it the next. The defining feature of Arlen Specter is that he doesn’t stand for anything other than his own political career, and that is why I can’t support him despite a generally moderate record, a good relationship with labor, and the endorsement of the president.
I will unenthusiastically vote for Joe Sestak. If you live in Pennsylvania, you should do so, too.
