Last night I commented on a Greg Sargent Plumline post about the Sestak-Specter race. He said the DSCC should be backing the long-time Democrat in the race, not Arlen Specter.
I noted in the comments that Sestak wasn’t a Democrat until he was recruited by Rahm Emanuel – he was an independent. (Which Sestak explains away as “not wanting anyone to think I was biased,” but whatever. I think it had more to do with being an ambitious man and not wanting a target on his back if administrations changed.)
In fact, I said, if you counted the years Arlen Specter was a Democrat, he’d actually been a Democrat much longer than Joe. (I might have thrown a comment in there about whether Rahm had ever recruited anyone who didn’t turn out to be a Blue Dog – since that’s what Rahm does. On purpose.)
Anyway, I went back to see if Greg corrected his post and … he didn’t. Well, I’m not holding my breath.
Now, the online professional progressives* are pushing hard for Sestak because they have short memories about Sestak and a need to punish Arlen Specter. They’ve written the narrative about their shining progressive champion and they won’t acknowledge anything that contradicts it.
Let me remind you: Online Democrats gave Sestak $685K in donations when he ran for Congress because he said he would vote against the war and against FISA. As soon as he was elected, he voted for both.
Once again, he’s packaging himself (with the help of virtually every progressive blogger) as a progressive, I guess because they like his stand on “don’t ask, don’t tell.” Hey, I do, too – just not enough to vote for Joe over Arlen.
And pragmatically speaking, my state’s in big financial trouble. If Arlen stays in, he gets to keep his seniority. Sestak will be starting at the bottom, not far behind our other senator, Bob Casey. We don’t need two junior senators at such a crucial time. You can laugh all you want, but Arlen’s been crucial in getting federal funding for Philadelphia.
*the ones who do politics for a paycheck.