More Specter Weirdness

by publius

I think Freud called this the "death wish."  Halperin reports on an NYT interview with Specter:

The new Democrat says the Minnesota Republican should return to the Senate. "There's still time for the Minnesota courts to do justice and declare Norm Coleman the winner."

UPDATE:  I still don't know entirely what he meant, but this suggests that he was either joking, or is starting to get the message:

But questioned outside the Senate chamber Tuesday, Specter said the comment was a mistake.

“In the swirl of moving from one caucus to another, I have to get used to my new teammates,” he said. “I’m ordinarily pretty correct in what I say. I’ve made a career of being precise. I conclusively misspoke.”

Asked who he’s backing now in elections, Specter said, “I’m looking for more Democratic members. Nothing personal.”

Comments

[Ugh]

TPM sez it might (might) have been a poor attempt at a joke.

[cleek]

OT: those AIG bonuses? 4x more than they initially claimed.

Specter is a dink.

[russell]

AIG spokesman Ashooh said the company's revised accounting is the result of different wording of the questions asked by Cummings and POLITICO.

"Oh, you meant bonuses".

[Adam]

My sense, based on the transcript, was that it was a joke -- Specter was a prosecutor and he knows Coleman's case is BS. The interviewer asked if he was worried that there were no more Jewish Republicans, and Specter essentially said, "Well, there could be if Norm Coleman wins his oh so meritorious appeal."

The problem is that, even if it was a joke, there's no way for him to walk it back without admitting flat-out that Coleman's case is crap, and he has every reason to not want to do that.

[gwangung]

Oh. In other words, Spector is still a Republican politico at heart--has no grasp of humor and can't make a joke if his life depended on it.

[OCSteve]

Excuse me if I (too much) enjoy the fact that you guys now have Lieberman and Specter. Two guys who take getting re-elected over anything else. I know – I’m not nice…

[John in Nashville]

So what else is new. Arlen Specter got his start in electoral politics running for the Republican nomination for District Attorney in Philadelphia while still registered to vote as a Democrat. The senator is nothing if not a political hermaphrodite.

[KCinDC]

... without admitting flat-out that Coleman's case is crap, and he has every reason to not want to do that.

Does he? I'm having trouble seeing a reason. The only reason to pretend Coleman has a case is to keep Republicans happy, but Specter is way past worrying what Republicans think of him at this point.

[Adam]

Does he? I'm having trouble seeing a reason. The only reason to pretend Coleman has a case is to keep Republicans happy, but Specter is way past worrying what Republicans think of him at this point.

I didn't mean politically -- what I was thinking is that for many lawyers (and prosecutors especially) there's a huge perceptual difference between mocking a case and saying how it should be decided.

Specter's original statement on the case was that he wouldn't pass judgment until it was decided -- if he agreed with it on the merits, I think he probably would have said so.

That's not to say that Specter's not a bit of a weathervane, but this seems like pretty thin gruel -- there's plenty of substantive stuff to criticize him on. It seems petty.

[Dr. Psycho]

The Jewish lawyers I know make much better jokes than that.

Me, I think it's just jetlag -- parts of his brain have not yet been informed that he is now a Democrat.

[Hob]

OCSteve: We "now" have Lieberman? More like we unfortunately still have Lieberman, even after he left.

[d'd'd'dave]

Sorry to be OT but I wanted to offer this up for one of the lawyer types to maybe address in a post.

http://hotair.com/archives/2009/05/04/senior-creditors-chrysler-deal-violates-5th-amendment/

[d'd'd'dave]

And why not throw this in too

http://www.businessinsider.com/henry-blodget-this-hedge-fund-managers-not-afraid-of-big-bad-obama-2009-5

[ScentOfViolets]

Does he? I'm having trouble seeing a reason. The only reason to pretend Coleman has a case is to keep Republicans happy, but Specter is way past worrying what Republicans think of him at this point.

Posted by: KCinDC

Maybe it's to keep the Spectre base happy; if he loses a primary to a fellow Democrat, he can always run as an 'independent'. Wouldn't want to tarnish that precious legacy of his, doncha know. He has apparently taken a page from Lieberman's book of self-aggrandizement.

[CaseyL]

New Flash! Democrats stand up for themselves, deny Specter seniority.

No, really. They actually voted to give him the same seniority as any other newly-minted Senator. None. He gets to spend the SCOTUS nominee hearings as the most junior member of the Judiciary Committee.

I honestly didn't think the Dems had it in them.

[Fledermaus]

OcSteve

I'm just curious which politician doesn't take getting re-elected over everything else?

[jrudkis]

ddddave,

The clip that the article shows does not identify how like a mortgage holder the senior debt holders are.

The specifics are important: for example, the collateral could only be "worth" 29% of the loan, but be intrinsic to the company. If the debt holders are holding out for more than the value of the property on the market based on the assumption that it is more valuable to Chrysler, that is very different from simply reassessing property.

So I think we need more information than the quip that was presented.

[jrudkis]

I'm just curious which politician doesn't take getting re-elected over everything else?

There are many. They are the ones that lose, or fail to get reelected.

[d'd'd'dave]

jrudkis

Okay. Perhaps more information will come out.

[Johnny Pez]

if he loses a primary to a fellow Democrat, he can always run as an 'independent'.

Nope. Not in Pennsylvania.

[russell]

From Dave's links:

"The above is how it works in America, or how it’s supposed to work. The President and his team sought to avoid having Chrysler go through this process, proposing their own plan for re-organizing the company and partially paying off Chrysler’s creditors. Some bond holders thought this plan unfair. Specifically, they thought it unfairly favored the United Auto Workers, and unfairly paid bondholders less than they would get in bankruptcy court. So, they said no to the plan and decided, as is their right, to take their chances in the bankruptcy process."

"The above" here refers to a preceding explanation of the bankruptcy process. All in all, a good and succinct description of the situation.

"Let’s be clear, it is the job and obligation of all investment managers, including hedge fund managers, to get their clients the most return they can. ... The managers have a fiduciary obligation to look after their clients’ money as best they can, not to support the President, nor to oppose him, nor otherwise advance their personal political views."

Also seems about right.

Some shrieking follows, and then this:

"Last but not least, the President screaming that the hedge funds are looking for an unjustified taxpayer-funded bailout is the big lie writ large."

Actually, Obama did offer taxpayer money to the tune of 32 cents on the dollar for the secured debt. That number was the result of a couple of rounds of offers and counter-offers between Obama and the secured debt holders. I believe the private equity firms participated in that process.

So they were not averse on principle to taking taxpayer money for their debt. The number just wasn't high enough.

If my understanding of the events is accurate, then "holding out for more taxpayer money" seems like an apt description.

In response, the private equity firms and folks sympathetic to them have replied as follows (from Dave's links):

Shaking down lenders for the benefit of political donors is recycled corruption and abuse of power.

The President’s comments here are backwards and libelous.

I am ready for my “personalized” tax rate now.

So, it seems they can fling the poo just as well.

These guys have insisted on their day in court, and they will have it. Nobody made them do anything, nobody will take anything from them against their consent without the proper legal review.

The President was publicly critical of them. That's what jackboots look like here in the USA.

[russell]

Shorter me:

For a taking to be unconstitutional, there has to actually be a taking. Nobody took anything from anyone.

[Brett Bellmore]

I think it's entertaining, watching it slowly dawn on Spector that he sold out too late, waited until after the market for political defectors tanked. Still, he got hosed on that seniority thing, should have gotten pro-rata seniority based on the Democratic votes he cast as a nominal Republican.

[Hartmut]

Noone hand him a hairdryer!

[ScentOfViolets]

if he loses a primary to a fellow Democrat, he can always run as an 'independent'.

Nope. Not in Pennsylvania.

Posted by: Johnny Pez

That's weird. Do you have a cite for the relevant law? Was it enacted in the wake of the Lieberman shenannigans?

[lebecka]

@ Scent of Violets-- this is a state issue. Leiberman is from Connecticut, Specter from PA.

[ScentOfViolets]

Well, yes, I assumed that it would be a state issue. I'd just like to know what the actual law is, and why it was enacted, whether it's been on the books for a hundred years, or added in the last eight.

[Brett Bellmore]

"Sore loser" laws are quite common, in fact there are only 4 states that haven't by one means or another ruled out the loser of a primary election running in the general election as an independent.

[mattH]

From The Hill on 3/7:

“A candidate who loses in a primary cannot run as an independent in the general election,” said Leslie Amoros, press secretary for the Pennsylvania Department of State.”

Specter is disadvantaged by the fact that Pennsylvania’s primaries are closed; independents and Democrats are barred from voting in the GOP contest.

The rightward shift of the GOP electorate in Pennsylvania and the lack of a fall-back option such as Lieberman relied on in 2006 puts strong pressure on Specter to contemplate his future as a Republican.

Specter would have a stronger chance against Toomey in the fall general election when independents and centrist Republicans-turned-Democrats could vote.

[...]

Madonna, of Franklin and Marshall College, thinks it would be difficult for Specter to run as an independent.

“Running as an independent is not a good deal,” he said. “Pennsylvanians haven’t elected an independent to anything.”

So, certainly not impossible, but considerably ore difficult, and against the common wisdom of Pennsylvania politics.

As for how long Pennsylvania's primary has been closed, at least before 2002.

[bedtimeforbonzo]

Every time Senator Specter opens his mouth it increases the chances that he will be defeated by Joe Sestak, a rising Democratic star in the House of Representatives, a retired admiral and a good bet to get the support of big labor.

Forget Toomey. The real race will be in the Pennsylvania primary and Sestak fighting the establishment (i.e. Specter, Obama and Rendell).

[SqueakyRat]

I wasn't aware of the Madonna-Franklin&Marshall connection. I congratulate F&M on their big score.

[lebecka]

"Forget Toomey. The real race will be in the Pennsylvania primary and Sestak fighting the establishment (i.e. Specter, Obama and Rendell)"

Actually, the word on the street here has been that Tom Ridge is considering a run for the Republican spot on the ticket. He would probably smash Toomey (helped by the fact that Toomey looks a lot like a rat-- which he is). I don't see Toomey beating Ridge in the primary, but then, the way this insanely nutty Republican party has been acting recently, who the hell knows what will happen?

[Gary Farber]

"Actually, the word on the street here has been that Tom Ridge is considering a run for the Republican spot on the ticket."

Ridge has since ruled out a run. The latest poll says that Toomey would smash Ridge.