Specter observers sense a shift right

WASHINGTON - Like the unslakable thirst for campaign money and the constant huddling with lobbyists in Capitol Hill cubbyholes, oddball alliances have long been a feature of Washington's rich political tapestry.

But a meeting that took place in the Senate dining room two weeks ago stood out for its especially peculiar pairing.

There, Sen. Arlen Specter (R., Pa.), who once ran for president on an abortion-rights platform, sat down for lunch with the Rev. Jerry Falwell, the Christian-fundamentalist preacher and educator.

Specter said the purpose was to talk about ways to bolster support for Israel on Capitol Hill.

But the sighting of Specter, normally viewed as a moderate Republican, with one of the nation's best-known religious and cultural conservatives has played into speculation that Specter is seeking to highlight his more conservative views ahead of next year's election.

Exhibit A for longtime Specter observers who sense a shift was the Feb. 28 announcement by Rep. Patrick J. Toomey, a staunch conservative from Allentown, that he would challenge Specter in the 2004 Republican primary.

The challenge by Toomey, a Harvard-educated businessman deemed likely to give Specter his toughest primary competition in years, has raised concerns among some liberal interest groups that the senator may be taking more conservative positions to solidify his primary chances.

"If you look at the totality of things, it looks as if Specter is moving to the right on environmental issues," said Joseph Minott, executive director of the Clean Air Council, based in Philadelphia.

Minott's group criticized Specter after he voted in January to clear the way for relaxing pollution controls on coal-fired power plants.

The Sierra Club has given the four-term senator a zero rating so far this year for his environmental votes; most years, Specter has gotten a 50 percent rating, said Margaret Conway, the club's political director.

"He has a zero-for-four record this year, and that does not reflect his overall record," Conway said. "We are a little bit worried about it."

Specter dismisses talk that he is moving to the right, pointing to positions he has taken over the years on budget matters, abstinence programs and late-term abortions that he says show he has been consistently conservative on some issues.

The criticisms of his recent voting record, he said, are largely the work of Democratic campaign operatives trying to weaken him before next year's general election.

"I'm a pragmatist," he said in an interview. The Democratic strategists "are trying to undercut the support I get from a lot of Democrats. They are trying to find a candidate and trying to develop a case that I am vulnerable, and so far, they don't have any takers."

It may be the very complexity of Specter's voting record that opens him to accusations of political inconsistency.

Throughout his Senate career, Specter, 73, has rankled conservatives for occasionally taking positions that contradict party orthodoxy, most notably by voting in 1987 against conservative Supreme Court nominee Robert Bork. Many conservatives felt betrayed by that vote, viewing Bork's nomination as critical to their strategy of remaking the high court.

During the 1998-99 impeachment controversy, when many Republicans pushed hard for President Bill Clinton's ouster, Specter argued that impeachment was a mistake. He insisted that most Americans did not think Clinton's offenses, even if proved, merited removing him.

But Specter also has been a loyal party stalwart on some issues, taking positions that have cost him politically. He led the Republican assault on the credibility of Anita Hill, who in 1991 accused Supreme Court nominee Clarence Thomas of having sexually harassed her. During Senate Judiciary Committee hearings, Specter harshly questioned Hill, triggering an angry feminist backlash. The next year, he was almost toppled by his Democratic opponent, first-time candidate Lynn Yeakel.

"The argument is that he emphasizes the conservative part of his agenda in the primary and the more mainstream agenda during the general election," said Terry Madonna, a Millersville University political scientist and pollster. "He tends to talk a little bit more about the things... that are a little bit more conservative than liberal."

One issue that drew attention recently was Specter's decision to vote initially for the full $726 billion tax cut proposed by the White House, after voting in 2001 to scale back President Bush's earlier $1.6 trillion tax-cut plan. If anything, Specter critics say, the nation is less able to afford a tax cut now than it was then.

But Specter says that the nation needs the stimulus of a tax cut, and argues that the problem of burgeoning deficits is the result of a weak economy, the war on terrorism, and the war in Iraq - not of tax cuts.

For those who contend that Specter tailors his politics to the political needs of the moment, he points to his March vote to ban a late-term abortion procedure that opponents call "partial-birth" abortion.

But even here, consistency appears to be in the eyes of the beholder, and divining a motive, next to impossible.

Douglas Johnson, legislative director of National Right to Life, an antiabortion group, grants that Specter has on key occasions voted for measures to ban the procedure, including last month's Senate vote.

But he says that Specter also voted for a substitute sponsored by Sen. Richard J. Durbin (D., Ill.) that his group contends would have created big loopholes in the ban. Specter says the Durbin amendment would have imposed tough restrictions.

"I would say he is inconsistent," Johnson said. The purpose of voting for the substitute, he said, was "to provide cover for senators who want to maintain a 100 percent score [with abortion-rights groups] but be able to go home and tell their constituents that they voted against 'partial-birth' abortion."

Donate to Free Republic, and Save Larry The Lobster!!!

Donate Here By Secure Server

Or mail checks to
FreeRepublic , LLC
PO BOX 9771
FRESNO, CA 93794

or you can use

PayPal at Jimrob@psnw.com

STOP BY AND BUMP THE FUNDRAISER THREAD-
It is in the breaking news sidebar!

3 posted on 04/14/2003 10:42:18 PM PDT by Support Free Republic (Your support keeps Free Republic going strong!)

The argument is that he emphasizes the conservative part of his agenda in the primary and the more mainstream agenda during the general election," said Terry Madonna, a Millersville University political scientist and pollster.

Terry, your bias is showing.

6 posted on 04/14/2003 11:50:17 PM PDT by zeugma (If you use microsoft products, you are feeding the beast.)

"Too bad someone with principles in his party won't run against him."

Somebody is, and his name is Congressman Pat Toomey.

8 posted on 04/15/2003 12:00:04 AM PDT by fieldmarshaldj (~Remember, it's not sporting to fire at RINO until charging~)

Does anyone know who the Dems are fielding yet in the Keystone State and where they are on the issues? It's an interesting political climate - pro-life DEM Casey was a big winner there; pro-abort GOP Ridge won as well. With Eddie Rendell running Harrisburg, it should be a race to watch. Spector can afford to veer right, but not too far; his voting record will be cannon fodder in the Philly/Pittsburgh news dailies if they smell blood in the air.

So far they're not fielding anyone. I heard that Bob Casey Jr. had ruled out a senate race. However, one would think that they'll eventually get at least one strong candidate who's willing to take a chance that a GOP primary will result in a weakened general election opponent, whoever wins.

So far, no takers. Hopefully someone like Chaka Fattah will run :)

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.