We even considered his lack of fortitude might be due to addle-brained feeble-mindedness or senility. We did NOT, however, even contemplate that Specter may have been bribed.
That said, after Specter's latest flip-flop on Friday over EFCA, Erick over at Red State gives an interesting hypothesis which merits some further examiniation.
Arlen Specter is, admittedly, the most unprincipled opportunist in Washington, but something sure seems fishy.
Back in April after switching parties, Arlen Specter said, “I will not be an automatic 60th vote and I would illustrate that by my position on employees’ choice, also known as card check. I think it is a bad deal and I am opposed to it and would not vote to invoke cloture.” He was pretty adamant about it.
Well, Specter goes to the lefty blogger confab in Pittsburgh on August 14th and is asked, “Is it fair to say that on the climate legislation, on Employees Free Choice, on the public option health care plan, these are all areas where you would be voting with the majority for cloture?”
Specter’s response? “Yes.”
Guess what. Three days after Specter’s yes, Obama decides to raise money for Specter.
Sure, Obama had already said he’d campaign for Specter, but had actually done not one thing to help Specter. Heck, Obama did absolutely nothing to keep Sestak out of the primary, something Obama could have done.
But Specter goes on record saying he will now vote for cloture on stuff four months ago he adamantly was opposed to and now Obama says he’ll raise money for Specter, as will Joe Biden.
The question is: which came first? Did Specter saying ‘yes’ persuade Obama or did Obama persuade Specter?
The buzz in Pennsylvania last week was that Obama would not be helping Specter despite promises to do so. Now Obama is all in.
Unless you think the news is wholly coincidental, we must now consider the need to spell Arlen Specter’s last name with a dollar sign instead of an “S”.
It sure looks like Presidential bribe to get a filibuster proof Senate.
While there is nothing conclusive here, knowing that politicians often have less morals than snakes, this could be an explanation of why Specter's stance on EFCA changes from party to party or, for that matter, from month to month.