I Forgot Arlen

Soon after writing about potential Republican party-switchers in Congress, I realized that I forgot a very prominent name: Senator Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania. Along with Olympia Snowe and Susan Collins, Specter might be the only moderate left in the U.S. Senate if Gordon Smith and Norm Coleman are ousted next month. That was a big oversight on my part.

In terms of Specter's viability as a possible party switcher, I would guess that he would not switch. There are two key reasons. First, Specter has been a Republican Senator for a long, long time, and while he has never been beloved by all of his colleagues in the body, he is certainly entrenched there, and just getting up and leaving following a tough election cycle for the GOP (albeit historically tough) would be no small order.

Second, Specter is the ranking member of the powerful and Judiciary Committee, and he would have to leave that perch if he were to switch sides. That would be a big plum to give up given the committee's huge amount of media exposure and its jurisdiction and place at the center of most of the hottest-button issues in politics.

I certainly remember that after the 2004 elections, with Specter set to assume the chairmanship of the committee (Orrin Hatch was term-limited after six year), Specter was forced to grovel for the gavel to the conservatives who dominate the Republican committee side after he had made some comments cautioning President Bush against nominating judges who would seek to overturn Roe v. Wade. He literally had to spend several weeks lobbying his colleagues and reasserting his conservative bona fides and full support of ultra conservative judges. While Specter did ultimately receive the seal of approval from men like Jeff Sessions and John Cornyn and got his chairmanship, I am sure that the experience was highly infuriating. There is an argument that can made that the experience so disgusted Specter that it could make it easier to coax a switch next year. While Specter has never publicly revealed any kind of thoughts like this, it is a reasonable contention.

I think that one key would be Specter's own plans. He is up for re-election in 2010, when he will be 80 years old. While he has survived several tough bouts with cancer, he has stated -- emphatically -- that he will be a candidate in 2010. If this is true, switching parties in 2009 would present an interesting proposition. If he were to switch and ultimately get the Democratic nomination, I have little doubt that he would romp to another term in office. The Pennsylvania Republican Party has been getting weaker over the last decade, and while there would be a strong collective wish among conservatives to get back at Specter for his switch, they would have a hard time beating him.

Should Specter run again as a Republican -- certainly the more likely scenario -- he might well face a primary challenge from the right. As we noted above, many conservatives Republicans have never loved Specter, mostly because of his views on choice, and the 2004 controversy only brought those feelings back to the surface. They were even more stark then because Specter had barely survived a primary challenge from Congressman Pat Toomey, winning by just 51-to-49. Given the near-success of Toomey's challenge, another primary fight for Specter is not outside the realm of possibility, if not altogether likely. If it does happen, Specter should survive, but it would be tough for an 80-year cancer survivor to endure both a tough primary and perhaps a rough general election contest.

In sum you could make the argument that Specter switching to the Democratic Party would help him. But this assumes that he could be guaranteed no primary challenger. That's certainly something savvy leaders like Ed Rendell and Chuck Schumer would do in order to ensure another Senate vote. In terms of sticking with his party, he also faces the prospect of another Toomey-esque primary challenge, a prospect I'm sure he doesn't enjoy envisioning. It's an interesting thing to consider from Specter's perspective.

If Specter were to retire in 2010, a switch might seem more appealing to the senior senator, but I think that it would be exactly the opposite. If he has just two years left in office, why would Specter just leave the only party he has caucused with in his decades in the Senate? Maybe I'm overlooking something, but I do not think it adds up.

So, while Specter is certainly a moderate, and he has many reasons to hold a grudge against the increasingly right-wing members of his party and his colleagues in the Senate, as well as possible political reasons to switch to help win another term in 2010, I just don't see it. He's been a Senate Republican for too long to make the move now. Plus, giving up the ranking member slot on one of the top committees would be a very high price to pay. Still, this is a fun argument we might be able to return to later.