With Pat Toomey apparently putting a 2010 Senate race back
on the table, conservatives are once again faced with that
age-old question: What to do about Arlen Specter? I’m planning on
doing a piece looking at the impact conservative primary
challenges have had, for both good and ill, on the GOP (though
it’s no secret that I’ve personally supported many such
challenges in the past). But I don’t think what should be done
about Specter at this point is an easy call. All candidate
preferences that follow in this post are strictly my personal
opinion and don’t reflect anyone else’s at this magazine.
In 2004, the case for primarying Specter seemed pretty solid.
Republicans had a Senate majority they seemed likely to expand
with at least several Southern pickups. Ultimately, they came out
of that election with a 55-45 advantage. Toomey was well to
Specter’s right and as a congressman who had won in a
Democratic-leaning district was not a sure general election
loser, even if he would have had a tougher time holding the seat
than Specter.
Under those political conditions, it was probably worth
rolling the dice. And I think a similarly decent case could be
made that Toomey’s challenge — and the equally unsuccessful
subsequent conservative campaign against Specter as Senate
Judiciary Committee chairman — made Specter more cooperative
with conservatives than he might otherwise have been.
Coming on six years later, the Republicans barely cling to enough
Senate seats to threaten the occasional filibuster. Retirements
in Florida, Ohio, Missouri, and even Kansas potentially give the
Democrats additional pickup opportunities. Jim Bunning is looking
shaky in Kentucky. Under these political conditions, it seems
that keeping a Senate seat in the hands of even a lousy
Republican is worthwhile.
Specter’s lifetime American Conservative Union ratings are better
than every Democrat in the Senate except Ben Nelson’s. His 2007
ratings were better than every Senate Democrat except Mary
Landrieu, whom he tied (she was up for reelection in 2008).
Specter will frustrate conservatives, but he won’t switch party
affiliations like Jim Jeffords did and Lincoln Chafee might have
done if reelected.
But then again: Specter’s reelect numbers aren’t
very good. The coverage tends to focus on his unpopularity
with Republicans, but a majority of state voters say they would
prefer to see someone else in that seat. That may not mean
anything — a lot of Massachusetts voters told pollsters they
wanted a senator other than John Kerry in 2008, before they went
on to reelect him with his biggest margin ever — but it does
suggest Specter is not a lock to win reelection this time around.
Second, Specter’s unreliability comes at a great cost on
important issues. He was pivotal in the passage of the $787
billion ($1 trillion, with interest) stimulus package. He may
play a similar role on card check. He gives the Obama
administration’s policies a veneer of bipartisan support. If he
is going to be singlehandedly responsible for some of the GOP’s
biggest legislative defeats, is it really essential to have his
vote on less important issues?
I don’t know the answer yet. But it’s definitely something worth
thinking about. Especially for conservative Republicans in
Pennsylvania.
UPDATE: A blogger at the Next Right
weighs in against a Specter primary challenge.
UPDATE II: Matt Lewis has
Toomey’s statement.
