From the DNC…

Eric Cantor, Mitt Romney and Jeb Bush can talk about reinventing the GOP until they’re blue in the face but it’s all for naught if the party doesn’t back up its words with actions.

Making a crimson-red conservative like Sessions the GOP’s top spokesperson for the upcoming judicial wars confirms that the GOP isn’t serious about changing.

One other thought: Jon Kyl would have been a much better pick in terms of preserving comity in the Senate.  He’s red as a rose but is reasonable and temperate.  He apparently didn’t want to give up his leadership post.

1) In theory, a Republican filibuster should be a non-issue — the GOP lacks the membership to mount one.

2) With Specter’s switch, the only way they can mount one (assuming Dems maintain unity) is by continuing their efforts to keep Al Franken from getting seated.  So in case anyone thought the GOP might surrender the Minnesota fight, think twice: there’s a good chance they will ramp up their efforts to keep Franken out of the Senate.

2) Specter will be under enormous pressure to be the 60th vote for Souter’s replacement.  Unless the nominee is a real stinker along the lines of Harriet Miers (which it won’t be), it’s difficult to envision a scenario where he doesn’t vote for Obama’s pick.  Specter will inevitably be asked about this when he goes on the Sunday shows – his answer will likely be the main headline coming out of his appearances (unless he decides to support EFCA)…

These Democrats will be in the position to force the Democratic leadership and the White House to negotiate and make concessions to win their support on measures requiring a super-majority.  At the same time, Republicans will presumably ratchet up the home-state, electoral pressure  on Senators like Ben Nelson and Byron Dorgan to keep them from helping Democrats take advantage of having a 60-member caucus.

These Red State Democrats will determine the degree to which the Democratic majority is able to use the filibuster to defeat Republican efforts to block judicial nominees and measures like universal health care.

It is vital that Democrats do what they can to help them deflect GOP pressure.  One way to do that might be to spend some DNC money to strengthen local campaign arms on the ground in these red states.  By checking the GOP’s ability to exert pressure on red state Dems, the DNC will reduce the incentive people like Nelson have to buck the majority and strengthen Democrats who represent the GOP’s remaining turf.

April 28, 2009

Statement by Senator Arlen Specter

I have been a Republican since 1966. I have been working extremely hard for the Party, for its candidates and for the ideals of a Republican Party whose tent is big enough to welcome diverse points of view. While I have been comfortable being a Republican, my Party has not defined who I am. I have taken each issue one at a time and have exercised independent judgment to do what I thought was best for Pennsylvania and the nation.

Since my election in 1980, as part of the Reagan Big Tent, the Republican Party has moved far to the right. Last year, more than 200,000 Republicans in Pennsylvania changed their registration to become Democrats. I now find my political philosophy more in line with Democrats than Republicans.

When I supported the stimulus package, I knew that it would not be popular with the Republican Party. But, I saw the stimulus as necessary to lessen the risk of a far more serious recession than we are now experiencing.

Since then, I have traveled the State, talked to Republican leaders and office-holders and my supporters and I have carefully examined public opinion. It has become clear to me that the stimulus vote caused a schism which makes our differences irreconcilable. On this state of the record, I am unwilling to have my twenty-nine year Senate record judged by the Pennsylvania Republican primary electorate. I have not represented the Republican Party. I have represented the people of Pennsylvania.

I have decided to run for re-election in 2010 in the Democratic primary.

I am ready, willing and anxious to take on all comers and have my candidacy for re-election determined in a general election.

I deeply regret that I will be disappointing many friends and supporters. I can understand their disappointment. I am also disappointed that so many in the Party I have worked for for more than four decades do not want me to be their candidate. It is very painful on both sides. I thank specially Senators McConnell and Cornyn for their forbearance.

I am not making this decision because there are no important and interesting opportunities outside the Senate. I take on this complicated run for re-election because I am deeply concerned about the future of our country and I believe I have a significant contribution to make on many of the key issues of the day, especially medical research. NIH funding has saved or lengthened thousands of lives, including mine, and much more needs to be done. And my seniority is very important to continue to bring important projects vital to Pennsylvania’s economy.

I am taking this action now because there are fewer than thirteen months to the 2010 Pennsylvania Primary and there is much to be done in preparation for that election. Upon request, I will return campaign contributions contributed during this cycle.

While each member of the Senate caucuses with his Party, what each of us hopes to accomplish is distinct from his party affiliation. The American people do not care which Party solves the problems confronting our nation. And no Senator, no matter how loyal he is to his Party, should or would put party loyalty above his duty to the state and nation.

My change in party affiliation does not mean that I will be a party-line voter any more for the Democrats that I have been for the Republicans. Unlike Senator Jeffords’ switch which changed party control, I will not be an automatic 60th vote for cloture. For example, my position on Employees Free Choice (Card Check) will not change.

Whatever my party affiliation, I will continue to be guided by President Kennedy’s statement that sometimes Party asks too much. When it does, I will continue my independent voting and follow my conscience on what I think is best for Pennsylvania and America.

1) If The Administration is going to release documents and photos, it should do so in one shot.  The drip-drip approach is creating a new daily back-and-forth with each disclosure – there’s no reason to give critics (at home and abroad) a new round of ammo to use every day.

2) One of the things that makes Obama different is his ability to look apolitical in a job that is wholly political.  By trying to play the torture issue down the middle, he risks that image and enables critics on either side of the aisle to suggest that politics is driving his decision-making process. If he doesn’t want an inquisition of the Bush years, he should say so clearly and move on.  By not doing so, the White House enables news analysis pieces to be framed like this one from the AP:

Barack Obama, facing perhaps the trickiest political issue of his young presidency, is trying to appease his liberal base without losing control of a potentially volatile inquiry into George W. Bush administration‘s use of harsh interrogation tactics against terrorism suspects.

One step to the left or right could land him in political trouble.

3) Ultimately, it either is or isn’t in the best interests of the country to prosecute those who played a role in developing and implementing the Bush torture policies.   Politicians get into trouble in situations like this one when they try to play both sides of the coin.  As long as he respectfully acknowledges the deeply held views on both sides, Obama can’t lose by letting the substance of the issue dictate the policy.

While the President rightly makes the point about rejecting the “false choice between our safety and our ideals,” it’s important that he and other Democratic leaders start emphasizing the safety part when making the argument.

Democrats need to do a better job of explaining how they are reconciling efforts to protect our ideals with the imperative of protecting our bodies.

Cheney is trying to set up a dynamic that will let Republicans say “I told you so” if — god forbid — there is another attack.  By making an argument that emphasizes strength, smarts and righteousness, Democrats can neutralize what Cheney is doing.

It’s not the first time that Frank has upset a university student.  Here’s a video that got some play on Drudge a few weeks ago:

(For the record, I think Barney Frank is one of the smartest people in politics today.  He actually understands the issues he’s working on.)