Big political stories are like buses: you wait ages for one to turn up… well, you know the rest . In America’s case, last week saw two huge pieces of news descend on Washington. On Tuesday, Republican Senator Arlen Specter announced that he was switching to the Democrats, giving them (in theory at least) a 60 seat filibuster-proof majority in the Senate (see my last post for more on this).
No sooner had the potential political ramifications of this news sunk in than another mammoth headline hit the press: Thursday’s announcement that Supreme Court Justice David Souter will be retiring from the Court come June. This means that Obama now has to find some time over the next couple of months to slot in, between his massive domestic agenda and economic efforts, that most controversial and explosive of a President’s tasks: nominating someone for the Supreme Court and getting Congress to approve them.
Though it might not be obvious at first, these two game-changing events – Specter’s defection and Souter’s retirement – are closely linked, at least in political terms. Specifically, both have the potential to seriously affect Obama’s “summer of reform”. Over the next few months the President will be working with Democrats in Congress to pass landmark legislation on, among other things, healthcare reform and climate change. The success of these bills will depend heavily on navigating what looks set to be a political minefield, thanks to a combination of an obstructionist Republican minority and the grandstanding of certain centrist Democrats.
In the case of Specter’s defection, it’s easy to see how this affects Obama’s legislative agenda- as long as Specter votes with his new party, then no Senate Republicans will be needed to pass the big bills. But the nomination process for Souter’s replacement, which will in all likelihood take place in June before any votes on healthcare reform or climate change legislation, could end up being just as significant for the President’s agenda.
Read more…
1 comment | tags: Arlen Specter, David Souter, Supreme Court, U.S. politics
The big political news from America is that Pennsylvania Senator Arlen Specter (not pictured) has announced he’s leaving the Republican party and joining the Democrats. This came as a bit of a bombshell to Republicans, since it means there will be 60 Democrats in the Senate. What’s so exciting about 60? Only that it’s the number needed for a filibuster-proof majority. In other words, Senate Democrats now have the votes to cut off debate on any legislation and head straight to a simple majority vote. This means – in theory at least – that Democrats can now pass any bill they want through the Senate and Republicans can’t do anything but sit on the sidelines and moan about it. Of course, in practice it’s not that simple – but then you didn’t think it would be, did you?
The rationale for Specter’s defection was fairly low on the list of honourable reasons to switch parties. Arlen Specter was one of the most moderate Republican Senators. He has a long history of defying the Republican party and voting with the Democrats, the latest example being his February vote in favour of Obama’s stimulus package, which infuriated his party’s base. He is also up for re-election in the 2010 mid-terms and, unsurprisingly, was facing a significant challenge in his state’s Republican primary from the seriously right-wing Pat Toomey, who’s being generously funded by a conservative political action committee called The Club For Growth. Now, The Club For Growth have a hilarious record of funding right-wing challenges to sitting Republicans, only to see their candidates failing to beat the incumbent yet still weakening them enough so that that they then go on to lose to a Democrat in the general election.
However, given that most Republicans now despise Arlen Specter as a Democrat in everything but name, the polls showed Toomey beating him heavily in the primary, despite the involvement of the chronically incompetent Club for Growth. Specter’s defection to the Democrats is therefore a matter of simple political survival – he could no longer be re-elected as a Republican. He could’ve gone Independent, but this way he (probably) avoids being challenged by another Democrat.
So the move was great for Specter. But was it good for Democrats?
Read more…
1 comment | tags: Arlen Specter, Democrats, ECFA, PA-Sen, Senate 2010, U.S. politics
