"Sestak Wins. So Does Obama"

[impik]

Hendrik Hertzberg:


Referring to the two big upsets of the night—the victories of Joe Sestak in Pennsylvania and Rand “Namesake of Ayn, Son of Ron” Paul in Kentucky—Jeff Zeleny and Carl Hulse write in today’s Times:


The results were sobering for both parties, amounting to a rejection of candidates selected and backed by leaders in Washington who found themselves out of step with their electorates.

That may be true in Kentucky, where McConnell learned that no amount of subservience to Tea Party/Fox News/talk-radio nihilism can ever be enough, but I don’t see how it applies to Pennsylvania.

Arlen Specter was not “selected by leaders in Washington.” He selected himself. As one of the last of the moderate Republicans, he was headed for defeat in his own party’s primary. He thought (no doubt correctly) that his chances for survival would be better in the other party, so he switched. The White House promised him support because his vote was an absolute sine qua non for overcoming Republican filibusters, most crucially filibusters against the health-care bill, on which the fate of Obama’s Presidency and the Democratic Congress rested. If this was a “backroom deal,” it was one that the White House and the “Democratic establishment” would have been criminally irresponsible not to cut.

With health care safely passed, however, the interests of the White House and the national Democratic Party are better served by Sestak’s winning the primary. Sestak is an actual Democrat, not a Democrat of opportunity. As such he will be a far more reliable and sincere supporter of the President and the President’s policies than Specter would have been if, at eighty years of age, the cranky ex-Republican had been vouchsafed a sixth (and last) six-year term. Moreover, Sestak is more likely to beat the Republican nominee, the fanatical anti-tax ideologue Pat Toomey. If Sestak wins in November, he'll probably be a senator for a long time. Given actuarial realities, a reëlected Specter might have ended up having to be replaced by a gubernatorial appointee, and there is no guarantee that Pennsylvania’s next governor will be a Democrat.

So I don’t see how this is some sort of defeat for the White House or miscalculation on their part. It looks more like a series of rather brilliant chess moves.

Of course, this doesn’t prove that the Democratic voters of Pennsylvania took all this into account and consciously made a rational, strategically thought-out choice. But there’s a better case for that interpretation than for the notion that Sestak’s victory was nothing but a populist spasm—a rejection of “Washington,” even a rebuke to President Obama



Read more: http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/hendrikhertzberg/2010/05/sestak-specter-obama.html#ixzz0oPcuwJFG

[Scurrilous]

1. K & R

:thumbsup:

[FrenchieCat]

2. Correctomundo! :)

[stevenleser]

3. I agree. I think the answer re: Sestak and Specter is pretty simple. How can you vote for the guy

who has been the enemy for 30 years. That is a lot of history to overcome.

[MadHound]

4. Brilliant chess moves?

Umm, Obama endorsed and supported Specter, granted, half heartedly, but supported him nonetheless. He was, for better or worse, Obama's man in PA. Specter is also a moderate, be he 'Pugs or Dem, he's a centerist, something that Obama is more comfortable with. Yet Specter lost, badly. This is not a victory for the WH, it isn't a brilliant 3D chess game, it is a loss, the horse Obama backed in PA lost.

Sestak owes nothing to Obama at this point, he has gotten where is he on his own merit. He is to the left of both Specter and Obama, and actually cares about his constituents. The Obama administration is breaking their ankles jumping off the Specter wagon and trying to scramble on the Sestak wagon. Frankly, if I were Sestak, I would hold Obama at arm's length for awhile. His record of having long coattails hasn't been all that great lately. Make Obama sweat it a bit.

This is simply a ridiculous spin piece, trying to minimize the damage. If things continue like this, in a couple of weeks we'll be finding out that Obama was endorsing Sestak all along:eyes:

[Qutzupalotl]

5. There was only one horse at the time.

And if the deal with Specter had not been struck, Obama's signature issue of HCR likely would have been defeated, putting Obama's chances in 2012 in jeopardy. As it stands, he'll probably win.

[MadHound]

6. I recognize why Obama made the deal with the devil

But the fact is he made the deal and got burned. Again, this isn't some brilliant game of chess that Obama orchestrated. Sestak beat Obama's man Specter and trying to spin this as some sort of victory for Obama is just plain ridiculous. Obama's coattails again proved unable to get a candidate to the winner's circle.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

7. Obama's coattails again proved unable to get a candidate to the winner's circle.

You do realize that Sestak is now going to be riding Obama's coattails into the general...

[MadHound]

9. Frankly, given the fact that Obama supported a faux Democrat over a real one,

And the fact that Obama's endorsement has been the kiss of death so far, if I were Sestak, I would probably be avoiding Obama like the plague.

[Qutzupalotl]

10. "over a real one" -- there was only one at the time.

Just reiterating, since you didn't catch it the first time.

[MadHound]

12. Umm, Sestak announced his candidacy on August 4 last year.

So gee, I guess Specter wasn't the only one in the race.:shrug:

[Qutzupalotl]

14. Umm, Specter switched parties in April, which is when Obama promised support.

So there was only one horse at the time of the deal, I re-reiteriate.

[MadHound]

15. Yes, he did,

And at that time Sestak was exploring, some say on the verge of announcing, his own candidacy. Specter jumped ship and made Sestak reconsider. It isn't as clear cut as you want to make it seem.

However back to the original point, this is no victory, no brilliant chess move for Obama. It is a loss, plain and simple. And again, if I were Sestak, I would be cautious about Obama's support.

[Qutzupalotl]

21. "It isn't as clear cut as you want to make it seem."

My sentiments exactly.

What has Obama really lost? A little political capital, perhaps. But doing so got his signature issue passed, which ensures his re-election in 2012.

That sounds like a gambit to me!

[tavalon]

13. He did what he was supposed to and the progressives did what they were supposed to.

The only way Obama loses is if he doesn't listen to the lesson taught here.

[high density]

19. I guess Obama's coattails don't work great when the candidate was recently a Republican

and blatantly switched because he knew his own party was soon to push him out.

[Radical Activist]

8. Does Sestak's victory move the Senate left or right?

It moves the Senate left.
Does that make it easier or harder for Obama to pass legislation through the Senate?
It makes it easier because the Senate has been watering down Obama's proposals.
That makes it a win for Obama.
Pretty fucking simple.

[MadHound]

11. Except for the fact that Obama's legislative agenda, as we've all been told ad nauseam, isn't libera

It is, at best, moderate. Much of the time it seems center right, even corporatist.

Having a genuine left winger in there is not going to make things easier for Obama, at least not initially.

[Radical Activist]

16. We've been told it disingenuously

by people who would be saying the same thing even if Obama were a socialist.

The plain truth is that legislation Obama has proposed and passed through the house on every top issue is more liberal than what passed or stalled in the US Senate. Blaming Obama for what the Senate does is for people who failed high school government class. If the Senate moves left then Obama wins. The most liberal members or the Senate are also some of Obama's closest allies. That should tell you something.

[MadHound]

18. More liberal?

:rofl:

First off, much of the legislation that Obama has pushed has been moderate to center right, with a definitive corporatist tilt. Race to the Top, which opens the door for privatization of public schools, no public option in HCR, despite massive public support, an escalation of the war, forty percent of the stimulus being tax cuts, these aren't the actions of a liberal president.

Please, we all recognize where Obama stands, when he gets called on it, don't try defending the indefensible.

[Radical Activist]

20. Obama proposed legislation to the left of what passed the Senate.

You can call it too moderate all you want, but the plain truth is that Obama is proposing things to the left of where the US Senate is right now. So, moving the Senate left moves it closer to Obama. That's true no matter where you think Obama falls on the spectrum. It's a win for Obama unless you have a case of ideological blockage.

Putting the most stimulus spending into solving global warming, more regulation of banks and credit cards, better CAFE standards, getting the stimulus money repaid back from banks and GM, ending mountaintop removal coal mining, passing health care after six previous Presidents failed, pulling troops out of Iraq, and passing a major climate change bill in the House. Those ARE the actions of a liberal President. Suck on it, Waldorf.
<--- this is you!

[FrenchieCat]

17. for Dems, its a win, win, win....

Its Republicans who lost.