Skip to: Content
Skip to: Site Navigation
Skip to: Search

TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 9, 2010
 |  Follow Newser on Twitter   Friend Newser on Facebook   Subscribe to Newser's RSS feeds   Subscribe to Newser emails Newsletters

OFF THE GRID

Arlen Specter Is Old but Not Dumb

Apr 29, 09 | 8:14 AM   byMichael Wolff
Get posts from Michael Wolff via email (Sample)

Follow him on Twitter @MichaelWolffNYC

Share
Arlen Specter has defected from the Republican Party not because it’s too conservative, but because he is too old. When you’re 79 and running for another six-year term, the big issue isn’t politics, it’s age. Specter’s Republican primary opponent, former Rep. Patrick J. Toomey, may be a lot more conservative than Specter, but, as attractively, he’s a lot younger, too.

Nobody’s going to cast an uncritical vote for a 79-year-old if there’s a sentient alternative.

Except, of course, the Democratic president of the United States, who will get a filibuster-proof majority if he does. The president has promised to hand the doddering Specter the Democratic Senate nomination in Pennsylvania, guaranteeing him victory in an overwhelmingly Democratic state, in return for the old coot standing with the Democrats.

You don’t get more nakedly opportunistic than this.


(AP Photo)

It’s a civics class reminder: The strength of political parties is not based on ideology, but on the fact that they get you elected. Specter is merely part of such an unsentimental understanding and trend. Mark Parkinson went from Republican to Democrat, and, by so doing, became the lieutenant governor of Kansas, and, with the confirmation of Gov. Kathleen Sebelius as health and human services secretary yesterday, governor himself. In New York, Michael Bloomberg went from Democrat to Republican to Independent to, currently, trying to accrue all labels in his bid for a third term. In 2001, the Democrats briefly achieved a Senate majority with the defection of Jim Jeffords.

Switching used to be frowned upon. Because each party stood for very little, it had a vested interest in defending the idea that it stood for a lot. Therefore both parties discouraged crossovers. Nobody wanted a turncoat. But with the Republicans becoming a real party of believers, and the Democrats become a party of the opposite view, a realignment becomes natural—and disguises the fact that it is, most clearly, not ideology at work but expediency and opportunism that gets a politician to switch sides.

Curiously, it seems not to have occurred to the Republicans that if they tried to get rid of the over-the-hill Specter, he might have another option. This lack of foresight was probably an aspect of the age factor. After almost a century as a Republican, how do you become a Democrat?

Easy, it turns out. You do what you have to do to save your aging skin.

If Specter had been defeated in the GOP primary by an arch conservative, the Democrat, whomever it was, would surely win in November; if Specter had won the primary, he would have, as a 79-year-old Republican, vulnerable on age and party, likely lost to the Democrat. Therefore, Specter could solve all his problems, including, it seems, mortality itself, by becoming that Democrat.

This is why politicians like politics, because sometimes it’s magic.

More of Newser founder Michael Wolff's articles and commentary can be found at VanityFair.com, where he writes a regular column. He can be emailed at michael@newser.com.

15 comments
VIEWING:
 
bacimom
Apr 29, 09 8:50 AM CDT
You are a moron. How do you figure he was a Republican for nearly a century? He's only been a Republican for slightly over 40 years and a Democrat before. In the era he changed sides it was the GOP standing for Social Reform and Civil Rights, not the Southern Democrats. Those were also the days of the real GOP Conservative... conservative fiscally, not blind, goosestepping religious conservatism. Sen Spector is a Moderate, has always been a Moderate and shouldn't be slapped around fpr being a pragmatist as well. You on the other hand are a biased, snarky, arse who can't find anything good to say about anyone and anything. Reply
Vote up! Vote down!
0
Fondue
Apr 29, 09 9:00 AM CDT
bacimom, what article are you reading? Arlen Spector is 79 years of age. Reply
Vote up! Vote down!
+1
IN RESPONSE:
bacimom
Apr 29, 09 10:02 AM CDT
Yes but until the '60s he was a Democrat. He's only been a Republican for just over 40 years. How does that make him a near Century Republica?
Vote up! Vote down!
+1
IN RESPONSE:
Fondue
Apr 29, 09 11:59 AM CDT
It doesn't make him a near century Republican. Wolff is stating the unassailable fact that Arlen Spector is a 79 year-old man - and in no way is Wolff implying that Spector has been a Republican for nearly a century. I can't figure how you are extrapolating that notion. If you could quote the line, that would help.
Vote up! Vote down!
0
JBTipton
Apr 29, 09 11:17 AM CDT
The entire discussion of age misses the point, I fear. What motivated Specter was the near-certainty that the splinter group that votes in today's Republican primary would chose a far-right alternative to him, assuring his defeat--but also assuring the election of the Democratic candidate. Call that naked pursuit of self-interest if you will, but I think intelligent reading of the tea leaves AND at the same time providing Pennsylvania with a moderate Senator is more accurate. But the real possibility that Mr. Wolff overlooks is this: I think that it is 50/50 that Sen. Specter will lose to a genuine progressive Democrat in their primary, however much the party leaders may wish to avoid that. The sure knowledge that the Republicans will field a far-righty makes choosing a YOUNG attractive genuine Democrat a nearly risk-free choice. Obama gets a friend for the next 18 months, and PA gets a new Dem Senator who might be around for 3-4 terms--a win-win for the Dems and a lose-lose for the hapless Republicans. Reply
Vote up! Vote down!
+3
bacimom
Apr 29, 09 11:31 AM CDT
I never discussed his age, or his health as a cancer survivor. Did Mr. Wolff bitch about the ages of any of the elder statesmen in the past? I don't know. What I responded to is Wolff's need to run everybody and evrything down. Reply
Vote up! Vote down!
0
IN RESPONSE:
bacimom
Apr 29, 09 3:33 PM CDT
"After almost a century as a Republican, how do you become a Democrat?"
Vote up! Vote down!
0
JBTipton
Apr 29, 09 11:54 AM CDT
Dear Bacimom-- I believe Michael called Sen. Specter "not dumb." How is that "running him down"? Reply
Vote up! Vote down!
0
bacimom
Apr 29, 09 3:36 PM CDT
JB, He may not have been as specific as usual, but Wolff of late talks negatively on most topics; it is to be implied that calling him "not dumb" was implying that he is a shark to be changing parties to get elected. Reply
Vote up! Vote down!
0
RadioGuy
Apr 29, 09 3:42 PM CDT
It IS a matter of a politician trying to save his job. After voting in favor of the stimulus plan, do people think Republicans were going to pick Specter over Toomey? I've always had a measure of respect for Specter because he's willing to buck his party to vote his conscience, a practice that will come to a screeching halt now that he's a Demo (ask Joe Liebermann what happens to Democrats who think for themselves). However, Specter is a politician first, and he'll tow the party line in order to get Obama campaigning for him next year. Reply
Vote up! Vote down!
+1
bacimom
Apr 29, 09 3:58 PM CDT
I don't have a problem with his switching to keep his job,; I don't think that is the only reason. I have always respected Sen. Spector for as ability to bring fair and reasoned balance to his voting. I believe in voting for the person not the party. My problem with this editorial is that while saying Arlen is "not dumb" to switch parties it makes that sound like a bad thing. As for Joe, he did more than think for himself, he campaigned for the other party and called the Dem candidate names. He also allowed his name recognition to get him the vote, even as an Independent; voted in by many people who voted the name without paying much attention to the affiliation. There are many things he will vote the party on, and many he won't like many a Blue Dog... no one "loudly" calls the Conservative Dems turncoats. Reply
Vote up! Vote down!
+1
lizouttavegas
Apr 29, 09 4:44 PM CDT
OMG..IF HE DOESNT HAVE ENOUGH MONEY TO RETIRE, WHY?? THEY'RE ALL CROOKS,SO SURELY HE CAN AFFORD TO GO..AND HE SHOULD!! HE'S TOO OLD! IM 66 & I LOSE MY CARKEYS ONCE A MONTH! SURELY HIS MENTAL FACULTIES ARE IMPAIRED BY AGING! HE SHOULD GET A LIFE BEFORE HIS IS OVER! Reply
Vote up! Vote down!
0
Reader47464183
Apr 29, 09 6:02 PM CDT
I am glad he switched! While I was not pleased with his actions during the Anita Hill Affair (if you'll pardon the expression), I have grown to agree with some of his positions and know full well he is a RINO (Rep in name only) like Susuan Collins and Olympia. He began political life (as a DA) as a Dem so I guess he is returning to his roots. If I were him ,I'd tend to play that up but guess he has enough spinners, lol I just want the Dems to have 60 seats, providing SNL Al wins in Minn) Reply
Vote up! Vote down!
0
bacimom
Apr 30, 09 8:13 AM CDT
Anybody ever say that to Strom, or Byrd, or even Teddy? Reply
Vote up! Vote down!
0
Jack_Bauer
May 1, 09 12:23 PM CDT
"Curiously, it seems not to have occurred to the Republicans that if they tried to get rid of the over-the-hill Specter, he might have another option." Curiously it seems not to have occurred to Michael Wolff that Benedict Specter's defection WILL HELP Republicans filibuster Judicial nominations in the Judiciary Committee. Mmm, I wonder if he can work it out why, if they are determined, Senate Reps can stop ALL nominations getting out of committee under Senate rules, now that Specter is officially no longer a Republican. Think about it and get back to us. Reply
Vote up! Vote down!
+1
LEAVE A
COMMENT
Comment Policy
Facebook ConnectPost this comment to Facebook?

After connecting you will have the option to post your comment on your Facebook profile.

 
RECENT POSTS
Feb 9, 10 | 7:46 AM

It’s the Sex, Stupid   

Feb 8, 10 | 7:10 AM

For Me, Palin Scores

Feb 5, 10 | 8:39 AM

Politics Has Lost Its Power. That’s Why There’s Gridlock

Feb 4, 10 | 8:07 AM

Rupert Murdoch Is Mad as Hell

Feb 3, 10 | 8:00 AM

Sarah Palin, Inc. Has a Problem

Feb 2, 10 | 12:14 PM

Obama’s Deficit Faux-Hawk

Feb 2, 10 | 8:32 AM

Jenny Sanford, Andrew Young, Gayle Haggard Tell Everything You Always Want to Know About Sex—Other People's

Feb 1, 10 | 8:12 AM

James O’Keefe: What Did Glenn Beck Know, and When Did He Know It?

Jan 29, 10 | 7:02 AM

JD Salinger, and His Way, Are Dead

Jan 28, 10 | 6:57 AM

The iPad Is Political

ABOUT

OFF THE GRID is about why the news is the news. Here are the real motivations of both media and newsmakers. Here's the backstory. This is a look at the inner workings of desperate media, the inner life of the publicity crazed, and the true meaning of the news of the day.

FeedRSS