The Filibuster-Proof Senate Majority

You know that 60–seat, filibuster–proof majority the Democrats openly coveted in the Senate during the 2008 campaign? The one that, in the weeks just before his death, Ted Kennedy was so obsessed with preserving that he lobbied lawmakers in Massachusetts to change the rules so an interim senator could be appointed to take his place while others ran in the special election that will choose the person who will serve for the remainder of his unexpired term?

Well, more and more, it looks like actually holding those 60 seats (which includes two seats that are held by independent/third–party senators who caucus with the Democrats) in the 2010 midterm elections is going to be a tough sell.

If, as appears likely, the Democrats lose legislative ground next year, is that going to be a reflection on Barack Obama? Yes and no. Yes, in the sense that Obama's extremist agenda has been hard for some centrist Democrats to get behind — and is, therefore, something of an albatross for Democrats who will be on the ballot next year.

And no, because Obama is not the first personally popular president to face this situation. Bill Clinton and Ronald Reagan both were personally popular presidents whose agendas were not popular. Both saw their parties lose ground in Congress during the midterms, but each rebounded enough to win second terms.

Such a fate may await Obama. Only time will tell. For that matter, only time will tell whether Obama's Democrats lose ground in Congress on a scale that approaches what Reagan, who also saw unemployment go into double digits on his watch, or Clinton experienced.

But public opinion surveys certainly suggest the enormity of the task facing the Democrats in the Senate.

Not that the filibuster–proof majority has proven to be as valuable to Democrats as they thought it would be. Unless Democrats can actually gain ground next year, they will continue to need folks like Joe Lieberman — who hasn't been shy about threatening to use the filibuster (which kind of defeats the purpose of having a "filibuster–proof" majority) on sensitive matters like health care reform.

When you consider the problems Senate Democrats have had keeping people in line on the tough questions, it is doubtful whether the filibuster–proof majority has done them much good. So maybe losing it wouldn't be so tragic for them — certainly not as tragic as another year of unemployment will be for their constituents.

Most of the senators whose seats will be on the 2010 ballots were elected in 2004. In that election — which may have been influenced by things like the swiftboating charges against Democratic presidential nominee John Kerry and a widely circulated message from Osama bin Laden the weekend before the election — Republicans picked up four seats.

If the 2010 Senate elections featured only the seats that would normally be on the ballot, Republicans would have to defend 19 seats and Democrats would have to defend 15. But Democrats also will have to defend the seats previously held by Joe Biden and Hillary Clinton, which are currently held by caretakers. Thus, there will be 19 Republican seats and 17 Democratic seats technically in play in the midterms.

And many of those Democratic seats appear to be in jeopardy:

• One of the most apparent problem seats for the Democrats is the one held by Chris Dodd of Connecticut.
  
  Dodd is a "dead senator walking," writes Mark Hemingway in the Washington Examiner. And recent polls, which show his GOP challengers in front — Rob Simmons by double digits and Linda McMahon by smaller margins — seem to support that conclusion.
  
  So, too, for that matter, does Vice President Joe Biden, who attended a fundraiser for Dodd in Connecticut recently but nevertheless commented — a tad undiplomatically, albeit truthfully — that the five–term senator is "getting the living hell beat out of him."
  
  That must be an astonishing development for Democrats as well as Republicans, given the facts that (a) three–fifths of Connecticut voters supported Barack Obama for president last year and (b) Dodd received the backing of nearly two–thirds of the state's voters when he was re–elected in 2004.


• Dodd, though, is far from being the only endangered Democrat in the Senate.
  
  Sen. Arlen Specter, whose defection from the Republican Party in April enabled Democrats to cobble together their 60–seat majority (and, according to many political observers, permitted him to avoid a bruising battle for renomination), faces an uphill climb in Pennsylvania. Pat Toomey, the conservative former congressman who nearly denied Specter renomination in 2004, announced his intention to seek the Republican nomination a couple of weeks before Specter announced his party switch — and it was widely believed by many that Toomey would have a strong chance to win, given how many of the state's Republicans were disgruntled by Specter's support for the economic stimulus package.
  
  The assumption most of this year has been that Specter and Toomey will meet in the fall campaign, where the numbers seem to be more favorable for a Democratic candidate. Instead of appealing only to Republicans, as the two did in 2004, the audience this time would be more diverse — more than 50% of registered voters in Pennsylvania are Democrats compared to 37% who are Republicans.
  
  But the general election is not Specter's only concern. In spite of the fact that he has been in the Senate for nearly 30 years, the 80–year–old Specter can't necessarily count on being nominated by his new party. Joe Sestak, a two–term, moderate–to–liberal congressman (who, incidentally, is 58 years old today), does not pose a serious threat at this stage, but that may change when the campaign season is in full swing. At the very least, he may prove to be a persistent nuisance for Specter at a time when he would prefer to be setting aside his resources to fend off Toomey, who leads both potential Democratic rivals, according to recent polls.


• Harry Reid is the majority leader, but that isn't necessarily going to help him when he faces the voters in Nevada.
  
  Sherman Frederick writes, in the Las Vegas Review–Journal, that Reid's prospects are bleak. "Reid's getting the thumbs down from 49 percent of Nevada voters," he writes, adding that polls show both of his potential Republican challengers would win the election if it were held today.
  
  That's quite a decline for a man who was re–elected with 61% of the vote in 2004.


• Given their recent electoral successes, Democrats may have hoped to pick up the seat being vacated by Republican George Voinovich. But Republicans appear to be competitive in the battle for Voinovich's seat. The presumptive GOP nominee, Rob Portman, has been leading both of his Democratic rivals in recent polls.

Those are just four seats, but if Democrats lose even one (except for the Ohio seat, which is currently in Republican hands), their filibuster–proof majority will be gone (assuming Democrats fail to buck the historical trend and win a seat that is currently held by the Republicans).

And that doesn't take into account any seats that appear at least somewhat safe today but may not turn out to be as the 2010 election scenarios began to reveal themselves.

Assume nothing.

Let's Have Two Parties

Terence Samuel has written an intriguing article for American Prospect, but I'm not sure I buy it — perhaps that is mostly because of what I believe, not so much what I see.

Essentially, what he says is that Arlen Specter's switch to the Democratic Party this week was really the final act in a drama that began quite awhile ago — the implosion of the Republican Party.

And, while the party's collapse came during George W. Bush's watch, writes Samuel, he does not deserve to shoulder the blame alone. "Though the decline was triggered by the disastrous presidency of George W. Bush, it was the decision by congressional Republicans to so fully and uncritically embrace the Bush agenda and the president's arrogance that cost the GOP so dearly."

The indications of the coming disaster could be seen in 2000, when Bush won the contest with Al Gore and became the first Republican president in nearly half a century to take office with his party holding the majority in both houses of Congress.

"Had they heeded the warning signs, Republicans could have saved themselves a lot of trouble — and maybe even a few congressional seats," writes Samuel. "Specter's reasons for leaving are the same as Republican–turned–Independent Sen. Jim Jeffords' were eight years ago. Perhaps more importantly, they were the same reasons that drove so many Americans into the arms of the Democrats over the last four years of the Bush administration."

Bush and the congressional Republicans began paying the price for what might be called, in American politics, a policy of mutually assured destruction after Bush took the oath of office for a second time, and the country faced the Terri Schiavo episode, followed by Hurricane Katrina. By the time the voters went back to the polls in 2006, the tide had turned.

Anyway, that in a nutshell is what Samuel says.

And I go along with most of it.

But if Specter's switch really is some sort of post–endgame chapter in this drama, a lot of Republicans haven't figured it out yet.

Samuel implies that the party is like a dinosaur on the verge of extinction, being overtaken by the onrush of time and the evolution of other species. Specter, he writes, saw that "Republicans are dying and moderate Republicans are headed for extinction. There was no other option but to switch."

There is some truth in that observation, and perhaps I have a suspicious nature, but I think Specter was motivated by a desire for self–preservation. He knows that electoral momentum is with the Democrats these days and that running as a Democrat improves his chances of winning another Senate term next year.

I don't think the Republican Party is dying. Its effectiveness has been restricted to certain areas of the country, but, until I see evidence to the contrary, my sense is that Specter's decision was guided more by regional pragmatism than principle.

There's always been a streak in me that wants to see two competitive political parties. I've felt that way, even on those rare occasions when my party was the only one fielding a candidate.

To listen to high–ranking Republicans talk, the party will be positioned better in the future. The dinosaurs still have some breath left, they say, as well as a few old–school tactics up their sleeves

I hope it does have some life left in its lumbering old carcass — not because I agree with most Republican dogma but because I believe in a two–party system.

Having a choice between two viable options is an important part of a functioning democracy. It draws people in.

I may not agree with the choice the voters make, but we are all better off when more people participate in the process.

Specter Speculation

Bill Kristol is relentlessly optimistic. He never sees a cloud that doesn't have a silver lining for the Republican Party, even when the cloud is the defection from the party's ranks of a veteran senator.

In the Washington Post, Kristol writes that yesterday's announcement that Pennsylvania's Arlen Specter is joining the Democrats is good news for the Republicans.

At first blush, that may seem ludicrous. Republicans have lost their hold on 14 Senate seats since matching their post–Depression high of 55 in 2004. If Al Franken assumes the Senate seat from Minnesota — as now appears likely — Democrats will hold the presumably "filibuster–proof" 60–seat majority they openly coveted during the 2008 campaign.

But Kristol believes this can be a good thing for the GOP.

Barack Obama and the Democrats, he writes, will "be responsible for everything. GOP obstructionism will go away as an issue, and Democratic defections will become the constant worry and story line. This will make it easier for GOP candidates in 2010 to ask to be elected to help restore some checks and balance in Washington — and, meanwhile, Specter's party change won't likely have made much difference in getting key legislation passed or not. So, losing Specter may help produce greater GOP gains in November 2010, and a brighter Republican future.

"Plus, now the Democrats have to put up with him."

The impact of the 60–seat majority on next year's elections remains to be seen, but history does provide ample evidence of the lack of discipline among Democrats — and the price they have paid for it.

As I observed yesterday, Jimmy Carter was the last president whose party held such an advantage in the Senate, but it didn't help him too much. The absence of unity in the Democrats' approach to governing enabled Republicans to chip away at the majority in the midterm elections of 1978, followed by the loss of a dozen seats in the Republican landslide of 1980.

In the 1960s, Democratic Presidents John F. Kennedy and Lyndon Johnson built an even greater Democratic majority in the Senate, exceeding two–thirds of the Senate membership, but Republicans gradually chipped away at the deficit until being sidetracked by the Watergate scandal.

And Harry Truman, whose Democrats reclaimed majorities in both houses of Congress while Truman was winning his "upset" victory in the 1948 presidential campaign, handed control of Congress over to Dwight Eisenhower and the Republicans four years later.

I am reminded, in an odd way, of something Gene Wilder (as Willy Wonka) said to Charlie Bucket at the end of the 1971 film "Willy Wonka & the Chocolate Factory:"

"Charlie, don't forget what happened to the man who suddenly got everything he always wanted," Wonka said.

"What happened?" Charlie asked.

"He lived happily ever after," Wonka replied.

Specter may have given the Democrats everything they wanted, but history suggests it is unlikely that they will live happily ever after.

As this political drama plays out over the next couple of years, I urge you to remember the words of Will Rogers:

"I am not a member of any organized party — I am a Democrat."

Specter's Switch

---

---

I've seen a lot of unexpected things in a lifetime of following American politics.

But I can't think of anything that astonishes me as much as today's announcement that Pennsylvania Sen. Arlen Specter is switching parties and will run as a Democrat when he seeks re–election (at the age of 80) next year.

I guess it shouldn't surprise me, though. Specter was a Democrat when he was young, then switched parties when he sought office in Philadelphia in the 1960s. He tells the story in the attached clip.

Specter was elected to the Senate in the Republican year of 1980. The Republicans took control of the Senate that year, but Specter's election didn't really contribute to it because he didn't replace a Democrat. He was elected to fill the vacancy left by the retirement of Republican Richard Schweiker, who had a centrist voting record.

In fact, four years earlier, Schweiker was named as Ronald Reagan's running mate in a political maneuver that was intended to help Reagan win the hotly contested Republican nomination in 1976 — but failed to do so. Then, in 1981, after Schweiker left the Senate and Reagan became president, Reagan chose Schweiker to be his secretary of Health and Human Services, a post he held for two years.

Specter, meanwhile, has been re–elected four times — in 1986, 1992, 1998 and 2004 — sometimes by wide margins, sometimes in close contests. He is considered a moderate, conservative on issues like crime and national security, with a more liberal record on abortion, the environment and immigration. He favors affirmative action and voted for the Civil Rights Act of 1990. He opposes same–sex marriage but supports civil unions. He supports the death penalty and opposes most forms of gun control.

Specter's greatest value to the Democrats in 2009 is the fact that, with Al Franken apparently on the brink of becoming the senator from Minnesota, he gives the Democrats the 60–seat, "filibuster–proof" majority needed to accomplish whatever they wish.

No president has had that luxury since Jimmy Carter in 1977 and 1978.

"Since my election in 1980, as part of the Reagan Big Tent, the Republican Party has moved far to the right," Specter said in a statement today. "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."

Specter was expected to face a rough campaign for re–election as a Republican next year. Many conservatives had sworn to oppose him, in large part because of his support for the economic stimulus package. And there was much rejoicing in Republican ranks a couple of weeks ago when it became known that former Rep. Pat Toomey would challenge him for the GOP nomination next year. Toomey nearly beat Specter in the Republican primary in 2004, even though Specter was endorsed by George W. Bush, and now, presumably, becomes the odds–on favorite to win the GOP nod and face Specter in the 2010 general election.

Even though there is plenty of agenda promotion going on in both parties right now, I have to wonder if Republican National Committee chairman Michael Steele wasn't on to something when he said, "Sen. Specter didn't leave the GOP based on principles of any kind. He left to further his personal political interests because he knew that he was going to lose a Republican primary due to his left–wing voting record."

Does Specter's switch indicate a genuine change of heart? Or is it a pragmatic ploy to prolong his political career?

Time will tell.

Drawing the Party Lines

The U.S. Senate approved the compromise version of the economic stimulus package. Now the House and Senate have to hammer out their differences and approve the same bill before it goes on to Barack Obama's desk.

Obama has said he expects to see it on his desk by Monday.

But Scott Wheeler, executive director of The National Republican Trust PAC, is playing rough. He's threatening to actively support any Republican who runs against a Republican senator who votes for the final version of the package. Three Republicans — Olympia Snowe and Susan Collins from Maine and Arlen Specter from Pennsylvania — supported the compromise bill, but all three have said they might not support the final version.

Specter might be vulnerable to Wheeler's brand of browbeating. He struggled to win re-election in 2004, and he will face the voters again in 2010. But Specter may feel somewhat torn — he was, after all, a guest at the White House on Super Bowl Sunday, where he was treated to Obama's hospitality and, presumably, his political charm.

Obama did win Pennsylvania, but his share of the vote there — less than 55% — lagged behind others outside the South.

Like Maine, for example.

In Maine, Obama got nearly 58% — a share of the vote that pales compared to Vermont, Rhode Island, Massachusetts and Connecticut, where Obama received 60% plus, but you have to keep in mind that two Republicans represent Maine in the Senate — the only state northeast of Kentucky and north of South Carolina in which that is so.

Snowe should not feel much political pressure. She was re-elected with nearly 74% in the Democratic year of 2006. Her seat won't come up again until 2012.

Collins also should feel comfortable but for different reasons. She was just re-elected in 2008 so she won't face the voters again until 2014. but her share of the vote was much lower than Snowe's had been two years earlier. Collins received slightly more than 61% of the vote, but she outpolled Obama in Maine, anyway, in spite of the fact that it was not a good year for Republicans.

If the Democrats only lose Specter's vote the next time, they should still have enough votes to succeed. But if they lose Specter and either of the Maine senators, they have a problem.

That should be the strategy — keeping Snowe and Collins happy. How do you accomplish that? That is where the leadership talents of the president and the legislative talents of the majority leader come into play.

This is the kind of test that tends to determine whether a president really is destined for greatness — or mediocrity.