Specter's Support In High Places

It's ancient history, you protest, but it's never too late to review one part of the record of a United States Senator running for re-election.

Especially if that Senator is Arlen Specter, the Democrat-turned-Republican-turned Democrat who is defending his seat in the Democratic primary against United States Representative Joe Sestak.

Much of the controversy in the heated race, whose winner will go up against former Club for Growth director Pat Toomey, has centered on the circumstances of Sestak's retirement from the Navy as a three-star Admiral. However, Sestak now has released a potent thirty second ad (video below) questioning Specter's motives for switching in 2009 from the Republican Party to the Democratic Party.

There is little doubt that Pennsylvania's senior Senator jumped to the Democratic Party because he had little chance of surviving a GOP primary against Toomey, who nearly defeated him in the 2004 primary. Still, the state Democratic Party, Vice-President Biden (who, as a Senator from the adjacent state of Delaware, was friendly with Specter), and President Obama (who is especially fond of Senators antagonistic to him: see Lieberman, Joe; and Lincoln, Blanche) are actively supporting the incumbent.

As the ranking member on the Senate Judiciary Committee, Senator Specter had played a key role in the hearings held to consider the nomination of Clarence Thomas to the United States Supreme Court. To summarize:

In 1991, years after working for Thomas at the U.S. Department of Education, Hill, his former assistant, accused Thomas of sexual harassment.

Though eight years had passed since she had worked with him, Hill testified that her memories of their alleged interactions were vivid and vulgar, but the delayed accusations raised much speculation. They surfaced just after Thomas had been nominated to the Supreme Court.

When asked by Roberts why she didn't come forth sooner, Hill said, "It is amazing how much we tolerate in the workplace," explaining that people stay in problem jobs for a number of reasons, ranging from personal to financial....

In her testimony, Hill said of Thomas, "He spoke about acts he had seen and pornographic films, involving such matters as women having sex with animals and women having group sex and rape scenes."

The hearings polarized the nation with most people at the time naively believing Thomas, who effected a mood of righteous indignation, rather than the calm, thoughtful Hill. To this day, both the Supreme Court Justice and the law professor maintain they were being truthful. Note to those too young to remember this saga: if the same circumstances and hearings had occurred in the last decade, the nation would have believed the accuser and overwhelmingly opposed the nominee. Attitudes and understanding change over time.

Last August, Taylor Marsh argued

it’s important to remember that the one person most responsible for Thomas being on the court is Joe Biden, and I say this as one of his advocates, though based solely on his foreign policy acumen. Because if you view Biden’s part in the hearings again the political reality stacked up against Hill is impossible to ignore.

You can read about then-Judiciary Committee chairman Biden's unfortunate role here. More significantly, however, Marsh quoted a Court-watcher, Andrew Cohen, who had written

What kind of world does Justice Clarence Thomas live in? Alone among his colleagues on the Supreme Court, he declared Thursday in dissent in Safford v. Redding that an "abusive" and "humiliating" strip search of a middle school student for prescription Ibuprofen was actually a constitutional exercise by school officials who not only deserved immunity from liability but praise for their zealous dedication to student safety.

Less concerned about a forced and unnecessary intrusion into a young girl's pants and bra than he was about judicial intrusion into school safety policies, Thomas declared that the odious search was legal because administrators could have found what they were looking for. The majority ruling, he wrote, gives "judges sweeping authority to second-guess" school administrators trying to ensure the health and safety of students. His long dissent did not include a single sympathetic remark about the ordeal suffered by the victim in the case.

Marsh concluded

It is not shocking to me that Clarence Thomas didn’t find the groping of a young girl exceptional or that he didn’t think she had rights over the school. If you believed Anita Hill, the rest simply follows.

Of course it does. Clarence Thomas always knew he did what he was accused of; he simply believed the accusations were unfair, that he was being held to a higher standard than that of others, and that the accusations never would have come to light had he not been sufficiently respected that he was nominated for the highest court in the land.

In 1993, Kim A. Taylor, then a law professor at Stanford University and friend of Ms. Hill, explained to the Stanford University News Service

the committee adopted a process which effectively ceded control of the hearing to the Republicans and made possible the one-sided inquisition of Professor Hill that would eventually unfold.

Without basic rules of procedure, she said, the Democrats essentially permitted Thomas' Republican supporters to make unsupported speculations and ad hominem attacks on Hill, without anyone in the hearing room taking responsibility to point out the flaws in these types of attacks.

The lead Republican inquisitor was Senator Specter, and the Democrat most responsible for condoning the "unsupported speculations and ad hominem attacks," Senator Biden.

If times change and more Americans now recognize the travesty of having approved Clarence Thomas for the Supreme Court, perhaps Arlen Specter, favored to win the primary later this month, has changed, too. So perhaps it's not surprising that the same individual who patronizingly told supporters of Hillary Clinton's presidential bid "if women take a moment to realize that on every issue important to women, John McCain is not in their corner, that would help them get over it," would support the ever-pompous Arlen Specter for the party's nomination. Not surprising, only appalling.

Share|

Arlen Specter and Barack Obama: Perfect Together

Thanks to dailykos, here is video of Pennsylvania Senator Arlen Specter explaining on MSNBC's Hardball on Tuesday evening why he voted for McCain-Palin rather than Obama-Biden:



And thanks to the MSNBC website, we have the transcript to read the response of Republican-turned- Democrat Specter when Chris Matthews asked him for whom he had voted:

I thought that they were the better choice. And I was trying to work within the Republican party, and trying to bring moderation to the Republican party. The decisive step I took was when I heard President Obama early this year say we were on the verge of sliding into a 1929 Depression, and a new president with a new mandate. And I voted for the stimulus package.

And when Matthews wouldn't accept that answer at face value and asked him whether he was comfortable trying to place Sarah Palin "a heartbeat away from the presidency," Specter respnded:

Chris, I didn't exactly think my vote would be decisive. But when you're in a party and you work for a party and you're trying to work within the structure to moderate the party, I think that's the correct thing to do.

But parties change. Look here, Ronald Reagan changed parties. Winston Churchill changed parties. Phil Graham, Dick Shelby. It's not so unusual. And in my case, I think there was good provocation to do it, and I think it was the right thing.

Now, up until then, Biden and Rendell and a lot of people had been trying to get me to become a Democrat. When I voted for the stimulus package, I had more Republicans urging me to become a Democrat than the Democrats. And the effort to bring moderation to the Republican party was not successful. And I feel very comfortable as a Democrat.

It's hard to figure out why trying to "moderate" the party would entail voting for John McCain and, especially, Governor Palin, and Specter never explained. He does remind us that he voted for the stimulus package, though neglecting to remind us that he first (successfully) worked to weaken it. But he never concedes that he made a mistake voting for McCain-Palin- if in fact he thinks he does- or even that he finds Democratic/liberal ideology preferable to the reigning ideology of the Republican Party. Only that he "feel(s) very comfortable as a Democrat," which might mean only that he's more at ease when he actually has a chance to win re-election.

Pat Toomey, the former president of the right wing libertarian Club for Growth who very likely will be the Repub nominee for the Senate seat in 2010, had it right when he appeared immediately before Specter on Hardball and observed

Chris, Arlen Specter is whatever he thinks the political calculus suggests he should be at any moment in time.

Right now, that means liberal Democrat, because he's got a primary challenge from the left. If-if he manages to get by that, which I don't know that he will, but, if he does, he will be something else again. This is a guy who has made a career out of being on both sides of as many issues as he can.

It's not likely that Toomey, former chairman of the right-wing/libertarian Club for Growth, has seen the bar graph posted Wednesday by Moulitsas on his dailykos site. It seems hardly coincidental that Arlen Specter voted with the GOP most of the time when he belonged to that party, then voted primarily with the Democrats after his switch, then veered sharply left once it became clear he'd be challenged in the Democratic Party by Joe Sestak, who announced Tuesday that he would enter the race.

And the stance of President Obama, whom Specter apparently is still satisfied he voted against? As the New York Times reported, the day after Mr. Opportunistic announced his change of party

Mr. Obama pledged enthusiastic support for Mr. Specter’s candidacy as a Democrat in 2010, saying, "We are confident that Arlen Specter is going to get a sixth term."

No doubt the President has believed all along that Arlen Specter would be a valuable supporter as a Democrat of his agenda. And so he has been, and will be until, if planned, he is re-elected, at which time his political calculus will shift. Meanwhile, it will be interesting to view President Obama campaign for the incumbent against two-term U.S. Representative Sestak, the highest ranking former military officer in Congress. Sestak is a little different than Specter, having been a critic of the Iraq War, supporter of gun control, and an original co-sponsor of the pro-labor Employees Free Choice Act, which Senator Specter still opposes. And someone who has cast a vote for for Barack Obama.

Specter On Health

If there were an Academy Award, an Emmy Award (or any other award issued by pretentious, self-absorbed industries) for opportunism, it would go to Arlen Specter. And then retired.

Even after switching from the Democratic Party to the Republican Party, Specter remained opposed to a public insurance plan as part of health care reform, as he reiterated in early May to anchor David Gregory on NBC's Meet The Press. When pressed for clarification, Pennsylvania's senior senator responded "that's what I said and that's what I meant."

Now, Specter is singing a different tune. Referring to health care as "a right," the Senator stated "Schumer has it right about having a public component." (Schumer's public plan would "be subject to the same regulations and requirements as all other plans.”)

This blogger on dailykos believes Specter is a mere "pawn" in a game of chess masterfully played by President Obama. Yes- and I'm a Saudi sheikh.

This post from dailykos proprietor Marcos Moulitsas gives a better indication of the reason that Specter has decided, at least on this issue, to act a little like a Democrat. He links to this poll from Franklin & Marshall College, which reveals that the senator is hemorrhaging suport, though only (sarcasm alert) among Democrats, Republicans, and Independents. Although he leads likely challenger U.S. Representative Joe Sestak in a hypothetical matchup, 48% of Democrats polled were undecided.

Chris Bowers of openleft.com reports that Sestak, publicly a supporter of the Employee Free Choice Act, received a rousing reception when introduced at a recent United States Steelworkers Legislative Conference in Atlantic City, N.J., a common venue for gatherings of groups from eastern Pennsylvania. Specter had been slated as keynote speaker, but the invitation was withdrawn because of the membership's negative reaction. Now, following Specter's 150 (would be a 180, but Schumer's idea is less progressive than Obama's) on health care and his uncertain prospects in a Democratic primary, could the support of the Pennsylvania senator for EFCA be far behind?

More On Specter

The saga continues.

Centrist and neo-liberal Democrats, including the President and the Vice-President, are hoping that the newest convert in Washington, D.C., Arlen Specter, becomes a Democrat now that he is a Democrat.

But if Specter's appearance on Sunday's Face The Nation is any indication, it's going to be a long wait. The Pennsylvania Senator, asked by Bob Schieffer where he disagrees with "the President and the Democrats," remarked

One illustration is the legislation on employees’ choice, which is also known as card check, which would eliminate the secret ballot and also provide for mandatory arbitration. Now, while I feel there’s a need for a labor law reform, I’m not for that legislation.

This is unsurprising, given that Specter, representing a state with a very heavy concentration of members of organized labor, has said a few times in the past months that he will be opposing cloture on the Employees Free Choice Act. But asked by Schieffer "What kind of person do you think President Obama ought to nominateto the court?", Specter replied

And we can expect under our constitutional process to have very probing questions for the President’s nominee to make sure that there will be respect for the Constitution and public policy in the Congress, and not to make law but to interpret the law.

For those of you under 8 years old: this "not to make law but to interpret the law" is straight out of Republican 101. It is part of the party's rhetorical support for "strict constructionism." Conveniently, Arlen Specter, like many conservatives who rail against judges who "make law" rather than interpret it, is reluctant to identify the instances in which courts have allegedly legislated, and loathe to identify the offending judges.

On Meet The Press the same day, Specter was asked about retaining as a Democrat the seniority he had accumulated as a Republican, and offered no false modesty:

Well, no, that's an entitlement. I've earned, I've earned the seniority. I was elected in 1980. And I think that's, that's not a bribe or a gift or something extraordinary.

Nevertheless, politico.com reported earlier today that Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid now has decided to treat the Pennsylvania senator as the most junior member of the five committees on which he has been serving. Though Specter claims that Reid had indicated otherwise to him upon the switch of parties (and the arrangement will be reassessed upon convening of the next congress), the contention is belied by this exchange on MTP:

MR. GREGORY: I want to move on, though, to the question of what it took for the Democrats to get you. What were you offered? What inducements have you been given to switch parties?

SEN. SPECTER: None.

MR. GREGORY: None.

SEN. SPECTER: None.

MR. GREGORY: You won't retain your seniority, as you move over, on, on key committees?

SEN. SPECTER: Well, that is, that is, that is true. But...

There is some indication that this unusually bold move by the Democratic caucus was spurred in part by Specter's rather odd confirmation, in an interview to be published this week in The New York Times, of his radical allegiance to affirmative action and continuing fondness for the GOP:

Q: With your departure from the Republican Party, there are no more Jewish Republicans in the Senate. Do you care about that?

SPECTER: I sure do. There’s still time for the Minnesota courts to do justice and declare Norm Coleman the winner.

Speculation arose that Specter was joking (which the reporter doubts) and, as if to confirm that he was actually serious, Specter said he "misspoke." (That's politician for "I didn't realize speaking as I believed would hurt me politically.")

In classic understatement, Michigan Senator Debbie Stabenow summed it up:

"There were concerns about his actions."

Arlen Specter On Face The Nation

Senator Arlen Specter appeared on Sunday's Face the Nation and was asked by host Bob Schieffer: How do you come down on that? What kind of person do you think President Obama ought to nominate to the court? He responded (from transcript, in pdf) in part:

I’d like to see more diversity. I think another woman would be good. I think that ultimately maybe now we need an Hispanic. African-Americans are un-- underrepresented.

Specter's point raises a whole lot of possibilities. There are, by this count 12Jewish United States Senators (it really doesn't matter, does it?). That would be 12% of that body, far greater than the roughly 1.7% in the population. Decrease the number of Jews in the United States Senate? That would be up to the electorate and the suggestion therefore is silly, unless it would be accomplished by the replacement of Arlen Specter by a real Democrat.

But how about on the Court- which is not subject to popular election- itself? Currently, there are two Jews, 5 Roman Catholics, and 2 Protestants- including the outgoing (not in terms of personality, for sure) Souter. Contrast this to the American population as a whole, now approximately 51.3% Protestant, 23.9% Roman Catholics, and 1.7% Jewish.

Should we endeavor to make the Court reflect the population of the people it serves? Perhaps limit our search for Associate Justice Souter's replacement to qualified Protestants (of whatever color), casting aside Roman Catholics and Jews until such time as Protestants are better represented?

Is this idiotic? Is it unnecessarily restrictive? Is it an analogous proposition? Yes, yes, and yes. Sure, there is a greater likelihood of African-Americans bringing a different perspective to the Court because of their background (one which reflects their experiences, and status in society) than would Protestants. Then consider Clarence Thomas, who is relatively indistinguishable from most white, conservative Republicans. And unlike race (e.g., black) or national origin (e.g., African-American)- which are inherited characteristics- religion is at least somewhat a choice.

Maybe all this consideration of demographic factors is a waste of time and injurious to the cause of justice in the nation. And that would be the point.

A Pretty Sweet Deal

Arlen Specter's opportunistic jump to the Democratic Party has been met with glee by the big Democratic players. Pennsylvania Governor Ed Rendell has pledged his support for Specter against any and all comers in a Democratic primary, and The New York Times reports today

.... Mr. Specter said on Tuesday that he had received commitments from Mr. Obama and from Senator Harry Reid of Nevada, the majority leader, to support him in any primary, backing intended to deter Democratic challengers. Mr. Obama made good on that pledge on Wednesday.

The most outlandish- and telling- statement of support came from Vice President Joe Biden, who as a lon-time friend, commuting buddy, and U.S. Senate colleague of Specter, reportedly was the most instrumental in convincing the guy some Republicans are now calling "Benedict Arlen" to switch parties. Biden said, with apparent pride and lack of irony, "anyone who thinks Arlen is going to cash in his independence has another think coming."

Say what you will about Biden- and so many do- he is right on target. In his statement Tuesday, Specter bragged about his reputed "independence," vowing "My change in party affiliation does not mean that I will be a party-line voter any more for the Democrats that I have been for the Republicans. Unlike Senator Jeffords’ switch which changed party control, I will not be an automatic 60th vote for cloture. For example, my position on Employees Free Choice (Card Check) will not change."

At his press conference, he confirmed "I'm opposed to the nominee for Assistant Attorney General in the Office of Legal Council, Dawn Johnsen." Then the following day, Specter voted against the budget conference report, which enables the reconciliation process, which would allow for President Obama's budget to pass with a simple majority. And Thursday, Specter joined his fellow Republicans- er, former fellow Republicans- in voting down the amendment offered by Dick Durbin (D.-Ill.), which would have added to S896, the Helping Families Save Their Homes Act, "cramdown." As opencongress.org describes it, this is "a provision giving judges the power to reduce mortgage principals and interest rates for homeowners in bankruptcy," a right currently afforded owners of vacation homes, yachts, and investment properties.

The agreement apparently struck between Speaker Reid and Senator Specter allows the latter to keep as a Democrat the seniority he had as a Republican, as a Senator elected in 1980. Here, openleft.com explains Specter's rank on each of the five committees on which he currently serves and there is a possiblility Leahy will create a special subcommittee on the Judiciary Committee that Specter would chair. There also is speculation that 84-year-old Daniel Inouye of Hawaii may step aside as chairman of the Appropriations Committee, to be replaced by Vermont's Patrick Leahy, who in turn would be replaced as chairman of the Judiciary Committee by Specter.

All in all, not a bad arrangement for a guy who a few days ago was down to two choices: stay a Republican and exit the Senate in 21 months; or do a "solid" for Barack Obama, switch parties, and have a chance to survive.

Specter Switches

There are a lot of reasons to like and support Barack Obama. This is not one of them.

Jonathan Martin of Politico reports the response of presidential press secretary Robert Gibbs to today's switch by Pennsylvania Senator Arlen Specter from the Republican to the Democratic Party:

President Barack Obama will throw his "full support" behind Republican-turned-Democratic Sen. Arlen Specter, White House press secretary Robert Gibbs said Tuesday.

Obama will campaign and raise money for Specter's reelection in Pennsylvania next year, Gibbs said at the daily briefing.

Asked if that applied to a Democratic primary, Gibbs said: "Full support means full support."

The president's move sends a powerful signal to Democrats in Washington and Pennsylvania that not only is it OK to get behind the longtime Republican, but that they ought to follow suit.

As if to confirm Obama's fealty to Specter, the senior Pennsylvania Senator stated "He said he would support me, come to Pennsylvania to campaign for me."

This is the same Arlen Specter whom, according to the Associated Press, recently maintained

If we lose my seat they have 60 Democrats, they will pass card check, you will have the Obama tax increases, they will carry out his big spending plans. So the 41st Republican, whose name is Arlen Specter, is vital to stopping tax increases, passage of card check and the Obama big spending plans.

Even today- today- Arlen Specter couldn't bring himself to say that he changed parties because his perspective or (as is much more commonly claimed) the perspective of his old party changed (the popular "I have not left the party, the party has left me" line). He declared

My change in party affiliation does not mean that I will be a party-line voter any more for the Democrats that I have been for the Republicans. Unlike Senator Jeffords' switch which changed party control, I will not be an automatic 60th vote for cloture. For example, my position on Employees Free Choice (Card Check) will not change.

Apparently, Specter will not be given the chairmanship of any committee. Nevertheless, The Washington Post reports

Specter will receive his seniority among Democrats as if he had been elected as a Democrat in 1980, when he rode into office on the coattails of Ronald Reagan's conservative revolution. That effectively means Specter will become chairman of a key subcommittee on the Appropriations Committee, likely the one overseeing the departments of Labor and Health and Human Services.

A Democratic opponent of the Employee Fair Choice Act- and he may become a key figure overseeing the Department of Labor. Rising unemployment, declining job benefits, a diminishing middle class; and Barack Obama reportedly has pledged his support- against any possible Democratic challenge- to a Senator who has generally supported legislation to make all that possible. Disgraceful.

The Bipartisan Susan Collins

O.K., in the interests of bipartisanship (and that, we know, is next to godliness), we'll stipulate the following:

- the swine flu outbreak is not, fortunately, at least as of now, a pandemic;
- so far, as the spokesman for Senator Susan Collins (R.-Me.) says, "There is no evidence that federal efforts to address the swine flu outbreak have been hampered by a lack of funds."
- spending on public health does not fit the GOP's theme of contempt for science;
- Senator Collins was not trying to kill off Americans, or even Mexicans.

Still, Senator Collins played a major role (video below) in stripping from the economic stimulus bill nearly $900 million in pandemic flu preparations, boldly declaring "Does it belong in this bill? Should we have $870 million in this bill? No, we should not."

Granted, Senator Collins, short of sound judgement, as of now has had the integrity? courage? to leave on her website a Wall Street Journal article from February 5 (before final approval of the package):

After meeting with Mr. Obama, Sen. Collins expressed concern about a number of spending provisions, including $780 million for pandemic-flu preparedness. "I have no doubt that the president is willing to negotiate in good faith, that he wants to have a bipartisan bill," Sen. Collins said.

Collins joined with Repub Senators Snowe of Maine and Specter of Pennsylvania in forcing cuts to the stimulus package in return for their "aye" vote. Collins claimed that such spending on public health would not create jobs, that eliminating it "would step back from spending projects that don't immediately lift the sagging U.S. economy." Still, Collins' opposition was, not coincidentally, consistent with Karl Rove's complaint that the bill included "$462 million for the Centers for Disease Control, and $900 million for pandemic flu preparations."

But enough of the Rove-bashing- I'll leave it to others. Commenting on Hardball tonight, Ryan Lizza probably was closer on motive when he "semi-defended" Collins by saying in part "Susan Collins through that whole process had no coherent argument. She just wanted to knock down the total so she could be viewed as a moderate Senator." And the piece in the WSJ only substantiates Lizza's theory: the writer approvingly referred to "Sen. Collins, a centrist with allies in both parties...."

Centrist! Bipartisan! Few adjectives are more lovingly bestowed by the mainstream media, and probably few more coveted by politicians, than these. The grandstanding Susan Collins, earlier this year, portrayed herself as a responsible, independent-minded public servant- while doing it all for the political benefit it bestowed as she charmed the Fourth Estate. She may have, as Lizza maintains, "a long history of funding for flu outbreaks, flu money" and, a celebrated "centrist," she can avoid the media ridicule others would face if she maintains: "I voted for it before I voted against it."

Actionable

Senator Arlen Specter (R.-Pa.) was interviewed shortly after 1:00 p.m. this afternoon by Mrs. Alan Greenspan on MSNBC about, primarily, the bonuses American International Group has given to many of its executives. There has been a confident, almost blithe assumption on the part of some government officials (such as chairman of the White House Economic Council, Larry Summers) and that the government cannot recoup any part of the bonuses- a contract is a contract, period.

Many of us who are not lawyers suspected this is an overly simplistic, even fatuous, argument. And so, we now know, does Specter, former District Attorney of Philadelphia and ranking member of the Judiciary Committee. While acknowledging it as an extreme example, he likened it to a contract for distribution of marijuana- hardly enforceable, as he emphasized. (A contract signed for proceeds of a winning, illegal bet, I would expect, also would not be enforceable.) Although Specter did not note it, contracts also are open to interpretation, and the letter from Chairman and Chief Executive Officer Edward M. Liddy (any relation to G. Gordon?) to Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner did nothing to dispel the notion that AIG was not contractually obligated to pay the bonuses. At the very least, the Justice Department could file suit to try to recoup the bonuses. As Specter concluded, "stop all the talk; go to court; they're unenforceable."

Specter's Polish Stereotype

To the Washington Post's Anne Kornblut, it was "a sour note" and "downplaying the significance of Obama's impending win, casting it as a function of the state's demographics and the Illinois senator's heavy African American support." To the New Republic's Jason Zengerle, it was among "their efforts to pigeonhole Obama as the "black" candidate. That said, I never thought they'd do it this explicitly." And Jake Tapper of ABC News couldn't resist being sarcastic: "Boy, I can't understand why anyone would think the Clintons are running a race-baiting campaign to paint Obama as "the black candidate."

Perhaps the mainstream media over-reacted when on the day (1/28/08) of the South Carolina primary, Hillary Clinton's husband told reporters "Jesse Jackson won South Carolina twice, in ‘84 and ‘88. And he ran a good campaign, and Senator Obama's run a good campaign here." Or perhaps not, given that the name "Jesse Jackson" strikes fear and loathing throughout the white community. And it was, at least, a (minimal, insufficient, and superficial) effort to deal with issue of ethnicity and politics.

Not so the (thus far) near silence of the mainstream media to an extraordinary appearance by Senator Arlen Specter (R.-Pa.) at the annual luncheon of the Republican Party of Pennsylvania at the Commonwealth Club, which took place in New York City, New York. The New York Post describes:

A witness reports Specter began by asking if anyone in the room was Polish. About 10 guests out of hundreds there raised their hands. Specter deemed the number insignificant and forged ahead with some supposedly funny Polish jokes, including the old one about the man who interrupted him once, saying, "Hey, careful. I'm Polish!" Specter said he responded, "That's OK - I'll tell it more slowly." Specter also told two other tasteless jokes in the same Polish vein. "No one walked out, but it was offensive," said our source. "I was offended, and I'm not Polish."

Apparently, approximately fifteen weeks after Barack Obama was nominated by the Democratic Party for President and six weeks after he was elected President by the American people, ethnic bias lives on. Whether it's a different standard for individuals of European background, for Republican Party functions, or simply for a guy who no longer should be a United States Senator, it is a reminder that hypocrisy has not been banished from American politics.

It was eight months since Obama's comment at a fund-raiser in San Francsco, before the Pennsylvania primary, about some residents of small towns in Pennsylvania and the midwest: "it's not surprising then they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren't like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations...." Prominent Repubs echoed the criticism leveled by John McCain senior adviser Steve Schmidt, who contended "It shows an elitism and condescension towards hardworking Americans that is nothing short of breathtaking." A major theme developed, typified by the remark by Karen Tumulty of Time Magazine "maybe the cringe factor would have been less had Obama not been speaking in San Francisco...."

It was the return of the "San Francisco Democrats," those liberal elitists from the coast, not from the "pro-America areas" Sarah Palin would so smugly enlighten us about 24 years later. Yet, here it is a media favorite- a.k.a. a "moderate Republican"- suggesting from New York City's Manhattan (never a borough with an inferiority complex) the stupidity, the inferiority of a whole class of Americans.

We await the shocked reaction of the mainstream media, the Pennsylvania Republican Party, and uber Republican Rush Limbaugh.