Apr 30 2009
Timothy McNulty | April 30, 2009
There's momentum out there in cyberspace for Joe Sestak to run against Specter for the Dem Senate nomination, from both the left and right.
He's an attractive candidate, being the highest-ranking veteran to ever hold office in Congress, with a $3 million warchest and a dependably Democratic voting record. 
Minuses: he'd have to run against President Obama, who has pledged to campaign for Specter, and would have to give up his Congressional seat after just two terms. (And also -- just like Democrats before Specter's announcement -- Republicans would love to see Sestak in it just to bloody the incumbent and make him spend some cash in a primary fight.)
If Specter does win a sixth term, he'd be 86 by the end of it, and perhaps ready to call it quits. If you're Sestak -- or any other Democrat for that matter -- why not just wait out the term and position yourself to be heir-apparent in 2016?
But here are two arguments for the Sestak move, first from SenateGuru:
So what are Democrats who want to support a real Democrat for Senate in Pennsylvania to do?
I think the answer to that question is: urge Congressman Joe Sestak to challenge Specter in the Democratic primary. Why Joe Sestak? A few reasons.
First, who could beat Arlen Specter in a Democratic primary? Based solely on my looking over the field of potential Democratic candidates,
I think only three names spring up: Sestak, Congresswoman Allyson
Schwartz, and state Auditor Jack Wagner. Schwartz has reportedly
already decided against a Specter challenge. Weeks ago, Wagner was reported to not be interested in a Senate bid. (All due respect to announced candidate Joe Torsella and his solid $600,000 Q1 haul
- my guess is that much of it came from contacts through Torsella's
poltiical mentor, Rendell, who could turn off the spigots in Q2.)
Sestak, however, refused to close the door to a run in the immediate wake of Specter's announcement.
Subsequently, Sestak has further widened the door to a primary challenge. He has been "playing phone tag" over the past few days with DSCC Chair Bob Menendez. Further, Sestak "feels strongly" that Democratic voters in Pennsylvania, not Washington dealmakers, should decide who the nominee will be. Click here for video of Sestak on MSNBC's Morning Joe this morning; and click here for audio of Sestak on The Bill Press Show.
Second, can Sestak put together and finance a credible campaign,
even with Ed Rendell pushing Pennsylvania Democrats toward Specter?
Yes. At the end of March, Sestak had a bankroll
in excess of $3.3 million. Just pulling an estimate out of the air,
Sestak might only need $5 million for the primary, so he's two-thirds
of the way there already.
Third, would his politics be an upgrade over Specter? According to the National Journal's 2008 Vote Ratings, Congressman Sestak was the 150th most liberal member and the 277th most conservative member. He also has a Progressive Punch score of 93.25.
By no means is Sestak a liberal - but he's pretty good. Further, he
brings a powerful profile: the highest-ranking former military officer
to serve in Congress who happens to also be leading the charge on revoking Don't Ask, Don't Tell. Sestak is 100% pro-choice, has enjoyed big support from labor, and gets high marks on middle class issues.
Add it all up. Congressman Sestak has the profile, the
resources, and the will to run. He would be a major upgrade over the
status quo. He may be the only person who could ensure that a real
Democrat is nominated for Senate over Arlen Specter.
And from the other side of spectrum, native Pittsburgher Jay Cost at Real Clear Politics -- not so much on Sestak, but why Specter is beatable at some point next year:
The Commonwealth of Pennsylvania has consistently had a three-to-five
point Democratic tilt to it. Yet this did not stop Republican John
Heinz from winning reelection in 1982 with 59% of the vote (a great
year for Democrats), and then with 66% of the vote in 1988. This is the
mark of a senator who has cultivated a good personal relationship with
his state. Specter's numbers are much less impressive. He won just 53%
of the vote in 2004 - despite outspending his opponent 5-to-1. He had
an extremely close call in 1992: after he went after Anita Hill on the
Senate Judiciary Committee, he squeaked by Lynn Yeakel with just 49% of
the vote. His biggest triumph was in 1998, when he won 61% of the vote.
Yet he ran against a candidate who spent just $180,000 - and the best
he could do was three in five Pennsylvanians.
Specter has never been a particularly strong candidate - and we can
talk about the narrow intolerance of the Republican Party, but the fact
is that the GOP money machine has consistently had to kick in tens of
thousands of dollars every cycle in case Snarlin' Arlen gets himself
into trouble, which he regularly does. So, when we're talking about the
GOP's intolerance, we're talking about some ill-defined subset of the
party, as those who have supported Specter include Mitch McConnell,
John Cornyn, George W. Bush, the Pennsylvania Republican Party, the
Pennsylvania Republicans who have consistently voted for him in the
general election, and so on.
. . . He barely pulled in 60% of the vote in
1998 against a guy who spent a pittance - which means that a solid majority
of the Democratic electorate pulled the lever for a guy they had never
heard of, instead of Arlen Specter, who had been serving in the Senate
for 20 years by that point. These are now Specter's core constituents.
He thinks he stands a better chance with them.
Apr 30 2009
Timothy McNulty | April 30, 2009
Dan Hirschorn at Pa2010 notes something that (somewhat shamefully) I should have noted in our many many many many Specter posts -- that Dravosburg's Bill Kortz is staying in the Democratic Senate race too, in addition to the other officially announced candidate, Philadelphia's Joe Torsella:
Bill Kortz says he's not going anywhere.
The Allegheny County state Representative told pa2010.com
that while he is reevaluating his strategy in light of Senator Arlen
Specter's decision to switch parties, he still has every intention of
running for the Democratic Senate primary.
"Nothing changes," Kortz said.
He said reaction among voters to Specter's switch had not been
nearly as enthusiastic as the jubilation expressed by party insiders.
And while he was hesitant to criticize Specter directly, he made clear
he didn't appreciate party leaders trying to clear the primary field
for the newly-Democratic Senator.
"Just because he got off the elephant and climbed onto a donkey,
that doesn't make him a true Democrat," Kortz said of Specter. "I
intended to turn that seat from red to blue the right way. His switch
doesn't really make it blue."
Apr 30 2009
Timothy McNulty | April 30, 2009
Good news for pols wanting to belly up to the trough of gambling money, but bad news for those who think mixing politics and gambling is a bad idea. (Hmmmm. I wonder if any gambling interests will start donating to JUDICIAL CAMPAIGNS now):
By MARC LEVY
The Associated Press
HARRISBURG, Pa. (AP) - Pennsylvania's highest court says a ban on
political campaign contributions by casino owners and executives is
unconstitutional.The Pennsylvania Supreme Court ruled Thursday that the ban violates the
state constitution's guarantee of free speech.
The ban was included in the state's 2004 law that legalized slot
machines. It was considered the nation's broadest such restriction.
A majority of justices agreed with the argument by Philadelphia-area
developer Peter DePaul, who sued to challenge the law in 2007. He's a part owner
of Foxwoods Casino Philadelphia, which hasn't been built.
DePaul argued that the ban was an overly broad and discriminatory
infringement of the rights of free expression and association.
The ban was touted as a major bulwark against the political influence
that the lucrative gambling industry can exert over policymakers.
Apr 30 2009
Timothy McNulty | April 30, 2009
We mentioned in a story today that Republicans will likely try to use Arlen Specter's party switch to question his trustworthiness and character. It looks like another tactic will be reminding Democrats of how close he was to George W. Bush, Rick Santorum and other none-too-Dem-friendly Republicans, as Scott Kraus points out (while posting the below video) in the Morning Call. (PS, the Hill reports that the NRSC is also targeting possible Dem candidate Joe Sestak with Specter-related robocalls):
So worried are they about Democrats' unfamiliarity with Specter that
they set up the following website, full of videos of key Republicans
extolling his virtues: http://www.nrsc.org/meetarlen/. There's even a nice clip of former U.S. Senator Rick Santorum singing Arlen's praises.
The phone calls include this nifty quote from President Bush, always
a favorite of Democrats: "I'm here to say it as plainly as I can, Arlen
Specter is the right man for the United States Senate. I can count on
this man - see that's important. He's a firm ally when it matters
most. I'm proud to tell you I think he's earned another term as the
United States Senator"
There are also a few clips of Specter talking about his thoughts on changing parties: namely that he's not planning to do it.
So nice of the NRSC to help Democrats out. Politics fans may remember that NRSC chairman Sen. John Cornyn, R-Texaswent
out on a limb not too long ago, urging Pennsylvania's Republicans to
vote for Specter over Pat Toomey, who had the support of many in the
party base in Pennsylvania, saying Specter was the party's only chance
to win the state in the general election.
Looks like that limb has broken.
Apr 30 2009
Timothy McNulty | April 30, 2009
A "lonely future" awaits Arlen Specter in the Senate, the Hill notes -- he has not only alienated Republicans with his party switch, but other senior Democrats who he might pass over for committee leadership.
The story doesn't mention this, but there is one silver lining for Democrats in this squabble -- if he is going to stay in good graces with his fellow Democrats, the notoriously independent Specter could feel more pressure to toe the party line on major votes. (UPDATE: Or maybe not -- Specter's first main vote, post-switch, was against the Obama budget.)
Anyway, here's the story:
Senior Senate Democrats are objecting to the deal Majority Leader
Harry Reid made with Sen. Arlen Specter, saying they will vote against
letting the former Republican shoot to the top of powerful committees
after he switches parties.
Several Democrats are furious with
Sen. Reid (D-Nev.) for agreeing to let Specter (Pa.) keep his
seniority, accrued over more than 28 years as a GOP senator. That
agreement would allow Specter to leap past senior Democrats on powerful
panels - including the Appropriations and Judiciary committees.
While he received a formal welcome Wednesday to the Democratic Party
at the White House from President Obama and Vice President Biden,
senior Senate Democrats exchanged phone calls to voice their objections
to Reid's gambit and one lawmaker said Specter should be happy with a
committee seat at the "end of the dais." Meanwhile, Senate Minority
Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) and two other members of the Senate
Republican leadership asked Specter to refund campaign donations.
One
senior Democratic lawmaker told The Hill that the Democratic Conference
will vote against giving the longtime Pennsylvania Republican seniority
over lawmakers like Harkin, Mikulski and Sen. Dianne Feinstein
(D-Calif.) when they hold their organizational meeting after the 2010
election.
Under his deal with Reid, Specter would jump ahead
of all but a few Democrats when it comes time to dole out committee
chairmanships and assignments.
"That's his deal and not the caucus's," the senior lawmaker said of Reid's agreement with Specter.
The
lawmaker requested anonymity because the issue of Specter's seniority
is "a sensitive subject." The lawmaker said it would be OK if Specter
joined his panel as long as he "sat at the end of the dais" with junior
members.
Since Reid and Specter announced their deal, Senate
insiders have speculated that Specter could bump Harkin after the
election from his chairmanship of the powerful Appropriations Labor,
Health and Human Services subcommittee or return to be chairman of
Judiciary if the current chairman, Leahy, takes over the gavel at
Appropriations. Specter was chairman of Judiciary in the 109th Congress
when Republicans controlled the chamber, and ushered through the
confirmations of Supreme Court Justices John Roberts and Samuel Alito.
But the senior Democratic lawmaker disputed these scenarios: "That can't happen. Seniority is decided by the caucus."
. . . But a source close to Reid told The Hill that Specter’s party switch
brings Democrats “one step closer to the 60 votes necessary to choke
off Republican filibusters.” The source said Democrats have close to a
year and a half to resolve seniority disputes before setting committee
assignments for 2011 and beyond.
“No one is going to lose
committee or subcommittee chairmanships this Congress,” said the
source, who added that the negative light Specter’s move has cast on
the GOP will help Democrats pick up even more seats in the next
election.
“We have a long time to sort this out,” said the source.
Specter announced Tuesday that he would be able to keep his seniority in the Democratic Conference.
“In
discussing that issue with Sen. Reid, the fair approach which we both
agreed to was to be where I would be had I been a Democrat coming into
the Senate with my election in 1980,” Specter told reporters. “So you
can take a look at the charts and figure out exactly where I’d be.”
That would give Specter more seniority than all but three Democrats on the Appropriations Committee: Inouye, Leahy and Byrd.
Apr 30 2009
Timothy McNulty | April 30, 2009
Musing continues on whether former governor and Homeland Security secretary -- and Republican moderate -- Tom Ridge might run against Pat Toomey for the GOP Senate nomination. Here's some stuff from PoliticsDaily (via GrassrootsPa):
On the other side of the aisle, rumors have been circulating that former Pennsylvania Governor and Senator Tom Ridge might
be persuaded to run against Toomey in the primary. This, of course,
would be an ideological clash between the conservative Toomey and the
pro-choice Ridge (who helped Specter narrowly fend off Toomey's 2004
challenge).
Some moderate Republicans like Senator Lindsay Graham are already excited about the Ridge idea. And Sen. Orrin Hatch is out there saying Toomey doesn't have a shot.
As this race continues to take shape, it is entirely possible that the excitement is just getting started ...
Ridge issued a respectful opinion on Specter yesterday that did not address whether he is interested in the race.
Apr 30 2009
Timothy McNulty | April 30, 2009
The Allegheny Institute has an analysis of yesterday's reassessment ruling, which gets into some of the statewide questions -- and confusion -- we mentioned yesterday. Dan Onorato seems to indicate that it won't become a statewide matter (among other counties that use base-year property valuations) and for the sake of his gubernatorial hopes, it better not -- you can be sure his opponents will try to yolk him with property tax turmoil . . . just like Onorato did to Jim Roddey in 2003.
Here's AI:
And while the Court has
ruled unambiguously about what must happen in Allegheny County, their opinion
does not resolve satisfactorily what must happen in other counties using the
base year system. Here's the problem. The Court ruled that the concept of using
a base year system to assess property is not in itself inherently
unconstitutional until the unrevised base year begins to create serious
inequities in taxation. In essence,
whether the base year system violates the Uniformity Clause is to be determined
on a case by case basis. For Allegheny
County their judgment is clear, for the rest of the state, murkiness and
confusion.
. . . What does this mean for
other counties in Pennsylvania using a base year? The Court's decision leaves a lot of
unanswered questions. It could be interpreted as a county using a base year may
have some serious uniformity issues if it has been in place for a while. The failure of the Court to delineate further
prompted Judge Baer to issue a concurring opinion pointing out the need to get
clarification for the other counties.
In that concurring opinion,
Judge Baer writes, "Absent the unlikely prospect of prompt legislative action,
the Majority's decision not to offer substantive criteria for interpretation of
the Uniformity Clause will result in ongoing uncertainty for the Commonwealth's
many taxing authorities and property owners alike". The Majority opinion held that it is hard, if
not impossible, to tell when a base year begins to violate the Uniformity
Clause. At that point, the Court did
what can best be described as a "punt" and gave the assessment ball to the
General Assembly. They did point out
that 22 states require annual reassessments while 26 others require periodic
reassessment (see our 2007 report on
assessments) so it is clear that Pennsylvania is out of step and the Court
may have been nudging the Legislature to see that fact.
The Majority basically
weighed the high probability of throwing the state into property tax chaos if it
declared the base year unconstitutional against the equally strong likelihood of
lawsuits by taxpayers who will cite the language in the Allegheny County ruling.
They chose the latter. . .
Perhaps a better approach
would be to have the Legislature amend the base year statute to require that a
given base year cannot be in place indefinitely. The new language could require
that a reassessment take place and new base year be established at least every
five years. The amended language could allow three years to carry out the first
reassessments for those counties with the highest CODs with others out of the
acceptable range to follow in two more years.
As it now stands, there is
no clear cut guidance as to which branch of state government should deal with
the remaining problems. Someone needs to
act before the court system is overwhelmed with lawsuits.
Apr 30 2009
Timothy McNulty | April 30, 2009
Jim Roddey said Tuesday that "there's room in the [Republican] party for a more moderate candidate" than Pat Toomey . . . but he just won't be supporting him/her, the Allegheny County GOP chair announced today.
The Toomey camp distributed this Roddey endorsement today, noting that the former Club for Growth president "represents the mainstream of the Republican Party":
PITTSBURGH,
PA - Former Allegheny County Executive and
current Republican Committee of Allegheny County Chairman, Jim Roddey, endorsed
former Congressman Pat Toomey's candidacy for U.S. Senate today.
Roddey, the first Republican
elected to Allegheny
County's highest office said, "Pat Toomey
represents the mainstream of the Republican Party that we need in
Washington. We are a party that
has a great diversity of views and we welcome people of all stripes to the
Republican cause."
Roddey continued, "Pat Toomey's
commitment to getting our economy moving again by opposing failed corporate
welfare policies and promoting smart and efficient government is exactly the
voice that Washington needs. I am
pleased to endorse Pat Toomey for U.S. Senate."
"Our campaign is honored to have
the support of Chairman Jim Roddey," said Toomey. "Chairman Roddey and I share a vision of lean, transparent government
that I am certain will resonate with
Pennsylvania voters."
Apr 29 2009
Timothy McNulty | April 29, 2009
Reassessments give me two kinds of headaches -- from the memories of covering the A.C/Pittsburgh reassessment circus a decade ago, and those of an Allegheny County homeowner whose home value (and more importantly) tax burden could be changing at a really, really inopportune time.
With the county's 2002 base year taxing system getting thrown out the window by the state Supreme Court today, a whole lot of people statewide could be sharing the same headaches. Judge Castillo's opinion says changes are needed to protect those in low-income communities whose home values have dropped since 2002, but it could also be bad for those in higher-value neighborhoods who have been skating by with under-valued properties (and therefore low taxes) all these years.
Or maybe with home values dipping so much lately (see chart above) maybe some taxpayers would do better with new, up-to-date values. There's going to be a lot of confusion obviously.
And that's where it gets tricky. As the great Chris Briem notes, the governor's race [and Dan Onorato's place in it] starts for real today:
Honestly I really wondered whether the state supreme court would rule
against Wettick even if they agreed with him because of the potential
turmoil it could have across the state. As I am sure Dan O. is already
pointing out, Allegheny County is far from the only county to use a
base year assessment system.
Where to start? Below are my
relevant posts and other commentary on property assessments here. I
will only add a couple things. Gotta give some points in judicial
courage to Judge Wettick and the majority on the state supreme court.
And as I said before in one of those posts, thus marks the real
beginning of the governors race.
Apr 29 2009
April 29, 2009
From P-G Harrisburg bureau chief Tom Barnes:
HARRISBURG -- Now that Arlen Specter is running for re-election
next year as a Democrat, Republican names are coming out of the woodwork as
possible challengers.
One that emerged today is that of state Sen. Dominic Pileggi,
the Republican majority leader, a former mayor of Chester, which is in Delaware
County.
"A number of people have asked me and encouraged me to consider
it,'' he said. "It's not something I'd given any serious consideration to
before. I'm certainly flattered by all the people who suggested I would be a
good candidate for that very important position. We should field a candidate who
can win the general election.''
But first, he said, there's this little matter of enacting a
state budget for the fiscal year that starts July 1. Right now it looks like
revenues could be anywhere from $2 billion to $3 billion less than the $29
billion that Gov. Ed Rendell wants to spend, so Senate Republicans are coming up
with their own alternative, more in the area of $27.5 billion.
"That will be my primary focus in the short term,'' he said.
More Posts
Next page »