Campaign Diaries

As the Democratic establishment continues to rally around Arlen Specter, the Senator’s primary continue to improve as the conventional wisdom is taking hold that he has quietly drifted within the Democratic mainstream ever since his rocky start. (Specter voted against the budget, opposed EFCA and public insurance and supported Coleman within the first week of his party switch.)

Today, an article in Morning Call takes that conventional wisdom very far in an article that goes through Specter’s May voting record and his recent statements to conclude that Specter has become a loyal Democratic foot soldier, “as automatic as they come:”

“For 48 hours, Specter lived up to his word, bucking his new party on the 2010 budget and a mortgage reform bill.

But in the nearly two dozen votes since, he’s been about as automatic as they come, holding the party line on every measure but one that’s come before the chamber. …

On two major items — health care reform and a labor rights bill — Specter has shifted toward the left, giving Democrats hope that his move to their side could help President Barack Obama press his agenda. …

In the 22 votes since April 30, Specter has sided with Democrats on all but one measure, a bill to limit credit card interest rates that was rejected last week. A revised bill passed this week, with Specter’s support.”

Politically, this is exactly what Specter needs: If it becomes widely reported that Specter has smoothly transitioned to the Democrats, it will be very hard for liberals to defy the establishment and primary him. But on the merits, this article - and with it arguments that Specter has suddenly moved to the left during the month of May - is remarkably weak.

I just spent a while taking a look at the 26 votes (not 22) that have occurred since April 30th and I have arranged them in a chart (see below). My examination makes me incredulous that one could conclude that Specter’s support for Democrats “has been about as automatic as they come” based on his voting record in May.

Sure, Specter has not looked as hostile towards Democrats as he was in the last week of April (nor could he afford to be). But there is no evidence that Specter has harmoniously integrated the party’s mainstream; the article’s decision to characterize him as a loyal Democrat (which fits the Senator’s own interests, of course) is based on misleading and overly simplistic statements.

For one, it is factually incorrect that Specter has broken with Democrats on only one vote over the past month. He has done so on two occasions. This might be a small point, but worth pointing out since the article is so insistent on the number “one.” On a third roll call, the Coburn amendment to allow guns in national parks, the Democratic caucus split equally (28-28); Specter went along with those who sided with Republicans.

Second, it is preposterous to compare most of these votes with the vote on Obama’s budget and the vote on the Durbin amendment to the mortgage bill (both mentioned in the opening sentence of the piece). For one, 13 of the 26 May roll calls were uncontroversial (by which I mean that there were at least 88 “yay” votes); that leaves only 13 roll calls that were at all contested. And even if we look at these 13 votes, many of them were minor roll calls.

By my count, there were 6 relatively suspenseful or high-profile roll calls: The Coburn amendment on guns, the Hayes nomination, the Sanders amendment on capping interest rates and arguably three amendments to the mortgage bill with tighter roll calls (Thune, Coburn and Kerry amendments). Specter took the conservative position on two out of six.

Third, on every single May roll call in which Specter sided with Democrats, at least 1 Republican did so as well. Fourth, on the one contested roll call in which all 40 Republicans voted together, Specter broke with his party.

Let’s go on to the full chart. (Note: I am counting Sanders and Lieberman as Democrats here, since both caucus with the party.)

Among my other problems with the article, there is this sentence: “Specter has sided with Democrats on all but one measure, a bill to limit credit card interest rates that was rejected last week. A revised bill passed this week, with Specter’s support.”

That sentence is outright misleading as it suggests that Specter ended up supporting some version of what he had opposed - thus diminishing the fact that he voted against his party’s position in the first place. That is simply not true. Specter voted against an amendment that would have capped credit card interest rates; the legislation he ended up supporting (along with all but 5 senators) was not a “revised bill” but simply the overall bill and Specter never stopped opposing a cap on interest rates at 15%.

(That sentence is equivalent to writing “Lamar Alexander sided with Democrats on a bill to allow guns in national parks; a revised bill passed this week, with Alexander’s support.” No: Alexander’s vote in favor of the final bill has nothing to do with how he felt about guns in national parks.)

I also object to the suggestion that Specter is shifting to the left on EFCA. That is obviously what the Senator is trying to portray, but there is no evidence for that if we look at the substance of his position - and I would think that this should influence the way in which such articles are written. In recent weeks, Specter has repeatedly reiterated that he still opposes card-checks and binding arbitration. Sure, he might vote in favor of a labor-friendly bill that has neither of these two provisions - but then again that wouldn’t be the bill that unions and business groups have been battling over and it wouldn’t be the bill that that Specter and Lincoln promised to oppose.

The one instance on which I agree with the article that that Specter genuinely rushed to the Democrats’ rescue concerns the dispute between Nancy Pelosi and the CIA. “The CIA has a very bad record when it comes - I was about to say [being] candid, but that’s too mild - to honesty. It goes back a long time,” Specter said. What is remarkable about this statement is that the Senator went much further in accusing the CIA of misleading than many Democrats are willing to go.

That statement is all the more remarkable since Specter has less of a duty to defend the Democrats’ House leadership than their Senate leadership. If he makes other similar moves and if he confirms that he is open to supporting a public insurance plan, it might be justified to write that he is integrating the Democratic mainstream. But it is much to early to conclude that he is shifting to the left - let alone that he has become “as automatic as they come.”