Yesterday, Arlen Specter declared on the floor of the Senate that he would not vote for cloture–meaning, for you’all not as familiar with the lingo of the Senate, that he would not vote to end a filibuster, which requires 60 votes to stop–on the Employee Free Choice Act. Oddly, this got very little play in the traditional press. The Hill, a Capitol newspaper, called Specter’s decision a death-blow to EFCA:
Sen. Arlen Specter (R-Pa.) announced Tuesday he will oppose card check, giving an apparent death blow to the most important congressional issue to organized labor.
Specter made the dramatic announcement in a floor speech. His opposition means Democrats can count on a maximum of 59 votes to move the bill forward, one short of the 60 required to clear Senate rules.
Winning 59 votes would require Democrat Al Franken to beat Republican Norm Coleman in the still-contested Minnesota Senate race. Democrats also would have to count on holding the rest of their votes, and several centrists have raised doubts about the bill.
Specter was seen as the most likely Republican to vote with the Democrats because he was a co-sponsor of the bill in the past. As important, he comes from a state that has increasingly voted Democratic in statewide races–Barack Obama easily won the state in 2008–and he was seen as particularly vulnerable when he runs for re-election in 2010. The flip side, however, is that Specter may also face a primary challenge from a conservative challenger. So, it looks like he decided that the internal party threat was more significant than the general election threat. Personally, I think the guy is now toast.
But, you may recall, I emphasized recently that I thought the math on passing EFCA was suspect–and I think Specter’s decision is much more significant in what it means about how Democrats will vote, than Republicans. I’ve never trusted a handful of conservative-to-moderate Democrats in the Senate–Max Baucus, Ben Nelson, Mary Landrieu, Bill Nelson, Mark Pryor and Blanche Lincoln and the replacement Colorado Sen. Michael Bennet. Like Specter, most of these folks were happy to co-sponsor the legislation when it had no chance of passing, and get labor’s money and support in the meantime. I don’t believe that they will vote against EFCA. But, they are certainly likely to try to amend it–and weaken it.
Specter, though, seems to give the business-friendly Democrats even more relief. They can now make the argument inside the Democratic caucus that, well, this bill isn’t going anywhere so why make us take a hard vote.
Well, folks, that’s what principle is about. And the real question now is: what will the president do and what will Harry Reid do? Will they expend some political capital to line up every Democratic Senator–and twist the arms of a band of other Republicans Senators who are considered "moderates" (i.e., Susan Collins, Olympia Snowe).
In my view, the only way to make this work–and I am still skeptical that the votes will be there to pass a solid bill–is to announce today that any Democrat who does not vote for EFCA will face a well-funded primary. Of the band of potential defectors, only Lincoln’s full terms is up in 2010 and Bennet, as an appointee, must run in a special election to fill out the rest of the term. The Nelson boys are up in 2012 and it’s not too early to start finding legitimate primary challengers to them. And while Harry Reid will support the bill, if he doesn’t fight tooth-and-nail for it, there is a legitimate question about whether he should face a labor-funded primary.
