Weekly Jackass Number Forty: Arlen Specter
To the more conservative readers of this blog, it will come as no surprise to see Pennsylvania Senator Arlen Specter join the ranks of our Weekly Jackasses; indeed, to them, the question would be, “What took you so long?” Specter has long been the right’s least favorite Republican, particularly given his pro-choice stance on abortion:
“When you talk about judges who would change the right of a woman to choose, who’d overturn Roe versus Wade, I think that is unlikely,” Specter said Wednesday, in the wake of President Bush’s re-election. “And I have said that bluntly during the course of the campaign, that Roe versus Wade was inviolate.”
Then there is Specter’s vote against CAFTA, not surprising when one considers his long history as an errand boy for the unions. Specter also has a reputation, as, well, a jerk:
Lawmakers on Capitol Hill have much better reasons for disliking him: They regard Specter as one of the prickliest pols in Congress — a humorless man who is cold to colleagues and cruel to staff. Late one night several years ago, Senate majority leader Trent Lott needed Specter to sign off on an appropriations bill. Specter agreed to do it, for a price: Lott would have to attend two fundraisers in Pennsylvania. Lott made the deal, but this sort of legislative hostage-taking doesn’t win fans. “There are two kinds of senators: Republicans who don’t like Specter and Democrats who don’t like Specter,” says a former leadership aide. In a Washingtonian magazine survey, Hill staffers rated him the Senate’s meanest member. This has given rise to one of Specter’s nicknames: Snarlin’ Arlen.
Reason exists, then, to give the man the award on at least an honorary basis. What has brought his Jackass candidacy to the fore, though, is his weird coziness of late with the radical Venezuelan leader Hugo Chavez, brought to my attention by this lengthy, excellent post by AcademicElephant. Specter, no fan of Donald Rumsfeld, has quite publicly chastised the Defense Secretary for ‘harsh rhetoric’ against the borderline maniacal Chavez, who, you may recall, recently had this to say to a youth rally regarding our nation and its President:
Chavez said late Monday that the U.S. government, which “won’t stop caressing the idea of invading Cuba or invading Venezuela,” should be warned of the consequences.
“If someday they get the crazy idea of coming to invade us, we’ll make them bite the dust defending the freedom of our land,” Chavez said to applause.
He spoke during the opening ceremony of a world youth festival bringing together student delegations from across the world and convened under the slogan “Against Imperialism and War.”
Chavez called the United States the “most savage, cruel and murderous empire that has existed in the history of the world.”
Yes, well, by all means, Mr. Rumsfeld, please don’t let any harsh rhetoric enter into this relationship.
The backstory is rather arcane and involves a dispute between the DEA and Venezuela’s woefully inept narcotic officials. Chavez is attempting to create a sort of Latin American counterpoint to the U.S. and its allies by allying with the Cuban superpower under aging dictator Fidel Castro (sounds like a bad episode of Get Smart, doesn’t it?) Rumsfeld quite rightly insists on dealing with the adults of the region, Paraguay and Peru, in bolstering democratic reforms and strengthening the drug interdiction efforts in the region. Venezuela under Chavez, meanwhile, does everything it can to stir up unrest in bordering nations and bicker with the DEA.
It’s a bit bizarre to find a Republican U.S. Senator on the side of Chavez and Castro in these areas; though I wish death on no one, Castro is clearly not long for the scene. There is no reason to change our policy towards him; and why should we not condemn, or at least give the cold shoulder to, Chavez, as he spouts radical Socialist rhetoric, and calls our nation ‘savage, cruel, and murderous’? As AcademicElephant points out, those who criticize the Defense Secretary’s manueverings as reminiscent of the Cold War need to be reminded that, in fact, we WON the Cold War. Isolating our enemies and engaging our friends is, in fact, just sound foreign policy.
So, Senator Specter, for your efforts in meeting with Mr. Chavez, and publicly undercutting our Secretary of Defense, and in recognition of your long-standing efforts to be a thorn in the side of all those you work with, we most humbly crown you our fortieth Weekly Jackass. May it serve as a constant reminder of our esteem…
Update 10:47 p.m. central: Many thanks to Leon H at Red State for the link, and as always, don’t miss the excellent work Leon does over at his own blog, either…
The only consolation I have is in knowing that I didn’t vote for the **** this time around. Other than that, Specter is, along with Robert “The Klansman” Byrd, the best walking endorsement for TERM LIMITS NOW! that I know of. (Sorry about shouting; I tend to get worked up on this subject)
On a semi-related subject, I wonder what this is going to do to Rick Santorum’s support among the conservative base? Now I understood why Santorum (and President Bush) supported Specter in ’04; Pat Toomey would not have gotten the ticket-splitter vote from Kerry voters that Specter did, and better a RINO then a Democrat. (usually) And Specter’s endorsement and organizational support played a key role in Santorum’s VERY narrow win over Harris Wofford in ’94. (I was a Santorum volunteer in that one) This sort of thing can’t be helpful to Santorum as he heads into a real dog fight for re-election in ’06. Of course Santorum ran on the “Contract With America” (which included term limits), but (unlike Bill Frist, for example) never promised to honor the term limits pledge himself. Maybe it’s poetic justice.
I had forgotten the contract with America included term limits – funny how that one died away when the supporters won election, eh? (At the risk of aggravating you further)…
Of course I think this is a great choice Mark–it’s SO well deserved. Love the youth rally quote.
I actually think Santorum is going to be okay because this Casey is a really rotten candidate, and Santorum has strategically sowed the seeds of patronage around the state. Remember, everyone thought he was vulnerable to Joe Hoffel at this point in the ’00 race.
Yes, I suspected you might like this choice…but thanks for the tip, it was a good one…my other possibilities will be there another week, alas, I’m sure…
AcademicElephant:
Joe Hoeffel (I think that’s how it’s spelled) ran against Specter in ’04. Santorum beat former Congressman (and Pittsburgh area newscaster) Ron Klink in 2000.
Excellent summary, but I’d quibble with just one point.
You call this the Weekly Jackass and Snarlin arlen deserves it every week. Could you give him an honorary lifetime achievement award or something?
Oh right, I had forgotten about Klink. I was distracted in ’00 by other things. Still, Casey is a major yawn and doesn’t seem terribly motivated. We shall see, but I suspect the great Santorum upset is going to turn out to be another fizzle for the dems.
fatman sez “better a RINO than a Democrat (usually)”. IMO, Specter is the exception that proves the rule: a aged Senator who will never face another election, slated to take over Chairmanship of the one of the PRIME committees of the Senate, who is ideologically opposed to the vast majority of his party on the VERY issues that will come before that committee….versus a freshman Senator in the minority opposition, who will weild almost no personal influence or power?
It was a no-brainer: in THAT case, it’s heads I win, tails you lose — either the REAL conservative Toomey is elected, or a backstabbing RINO with 18 years of pro-Dem votes is prevented from taking over the Judiciary committee (where the fight over Bush’s “#1 issue after the GWOT” was to occur). But both Bush and Santorum chose poorly, with predictable results: Snarlin Arlen will break out of his conservative-imposed lockdown at some point (there are already signs), and both Bush and conservative Pennsylvanians will rue that day — when “their own” Senator torpedoes Bush’s appointment of Luttig/Garza/Alito/JRB. (And I, for one, will NEVER forgive Santorum. With Santorum’s recent pandering, the pro-life Casey looks better every day.)
[...] You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your ownsite. [...]
chuck_1776: (if you’re still monitoring this thread)
I DID say “usually.” (Sorry about not replying sooner; I’ve been a bit under the weather lately.)
Still, which would you rather have: The aging Specter, who has promised to make sure that President Bush’s judicial nominees make it to the Senate floor for a vote, regardless of their views on Roe v. Wade? (And who can be removed as Judiciary Committee chairman if he doesn’t.) Or the much younger Hoeffel, also pro-abortion, and lionized by the Democrats and the MSM alike as the man who broke the GOP’s stranglehold on Pennsylvania’s Senate seats? (And likely given committee appointments belying his lack of seniority.)
As for Santorum, I may not vote for him again myself (though not because of this). But before you jump on Junior’s bandwagon, I suggest you make sure he’s as firmly pro-life as his dad was.
[...] You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your ownsite. [...]
[...] For the second straight week, I feel compelled to give the award to someone on the right. Here’s Ann Coulter on the flypaper strategy: As Republicans were saying repeatedly – captured on Lexis-Nexis for a year before it showed up in a Frank Luntz talking-points memo in 2004 – the savages have declared war, and it’s far preferable to fight them in the streets of Baghdad than in the streets of New York (where the residents would immediately surrender). In case you thought she somehow wrote her own column out of context, Ann was kind enough to repeat the slander: COLMES: And I want to ask you about something, Ann, that you wrote in your most recent column. You had a very funny line, actually, that it is hard to find a parking spot in New York City. There’s no question about it. You’ve had a pretty good day if you can do that. But then you said, “It’s far preferable to fight them on the streets of Baghdad than in the streets of New York (where the residents would immediately surrender).” Now, some New Yorkers felt that you were calling them cowards by making that statement. [...]
Those who support Hugo Chavez are nothing more than single minded socialists who are violating the basic tenants of human rights. They are no different than Chavez himself. In the end both will fail. It is quite shocking that these supporters actually think it is okay that Chavez has cancelled the oppositons radio station, television station, magazines, and newspapers. Everyone must support freedom and Democracy in Venezuela. What we see in Caracas is nothing less than the second coming of Fidel Castro himself. The earth does not want a one party system. You will all fail one day.