The disheartening fall of Jeff Smith

This week, State Sen. Jeff Smith (D-St. Louis), State Rep. Steve Brown (D-Clayton) and Nick Adams, a graduate student who served as Smith’s campaign treasurer in his 2004 congressional campaign, pled guilty to federal charges concerning a cover-up of their involvement in illegal (but less serious) coordination of that campaign with purported “independent expenditures” by a separate one-man committee. That guy would later get involved with serious, unrelated charges that led federal investigators to stumble upon evidence tying Brown to a coverup of the election infractions. Brown was apparently the domino that took down the others.

Authorities did not announce any action against Clay Haynes, another member of the 2004 Smith campaign who plea documents indicate also agreed to cover up his role in the improper coordination. Haynes went on to serve as a field director for last year’s presidential campaign of Hillary Clinton.

I won’t comment on Brown, whom I never knew (or even met). But in the case of Smith, this sad episode marks the apparent end of the most promising progressive political career that the St. Louis area had seen in at least a generation. Smith had progressive principles, and he used his political career to advance those principles, not the other way around. As a rookie senator in the body’s minority party, he demonstrated an ability to get positive things done by finding common ground with his political opposites, much better than his fellow Democrats whose “blue dog” credentials put them in closer ideological proximity to the Republican majority.

But what set Smith apart most was his inspiring charisma that motivated thousands of citizens, mostly young and mostly progressive, to care about and get involved in politics and government for the first time. People had been justifiably cynical about politicians, and Smith seemed to be the breath of fresh air that we all craved. His overriding goal in all things seemed to us to be to do the right thing, whether that resulted in winning or losing. In the congressional campaign, he fought a political family dynasty that tarred the Democratic Party with an elitist brand that betrayed its natural populism, a brand that is certain to haunt Missouri Democrats in 2010.

Unfortunately, things weren’t completely as they seemed. Jeff now admits doing things I didn’t think he would even consider doing. First, in the congressional campaign, he worked with campaign volunteers (apparently including long-time friend Brown, campaign manager to then Attorney General and now Gov. Jay Nixon) to coordinate the production and distribution of anti-Carnahan attack mailers that were disguised as being “independently” produced by a supposedly independent committee. Jeff’s campaign provided the guy who was the committee with the information to put in the mailers and mailing lists for their distribution, and Jeff caused his treasurer Adams to get Jeff’s donors to make separate contributions to the “independent” committee to pay for the mailers. That’s the kind of thing we’d expect from the campaigns we were fighting, not Jeff’s.

And then Jeff made the same classic (and criminal) mistake that politicians have been making regularly ever since Richard Nixon. After “sore winner” Russ Carnahan pursued a complaint against that mailing with the Federal Election Commission, Jeff tried to cover it up. Jeff now admits misleading FEC investigators by denying his knowledge of what transpired and signing a false affidavit to that effect. Brown, Adams, Haynes and campaign manager Artie Harris apparently did the same. That worked for Jeff, until the residence of the guy who did the mailing got raided by federal investigators looking into unrelated charges, and incriminating evidence against Brown in the Smith matter was found. Asked again by FEC investigators, Jeff lied again. And he compounded the problem by encouraging Brown and Adams to do the same. That transformed mere lies (serious enough) into conspiracy.

Brown, already doomed by evidence found in the raid, agreed to wear a wire in further discussions with the others. Thereafter, this past June, Smith met at least twice more with Brown and Adams, in which he was taped suggesting lies that Brown should tell the FBI. Especially disappointing to me, Jeff went on to pursue the classic “old politics” ploy, “blame the dead guy.” That was Harris, the campaign manager who, suffering from depression, had committed suicide in 2007, about two months after he had admitted to the FBI his own role in providing information to the guy who did the flyers. The St. Louis Post-Dispatch (my source of information for these events) quoted Jeff as saying, with uncharacteristic insensitivity, “Artie would totally want us to throw him under the bus here.”

What had made Jeff so appealing was the impression that he really was better than other politicians. What makes Jeff’s fall from grace so discouraging is the continuing feeling that, in spite of this conviction, he is still better than the rest. Put another way, the other pols out there probably really did do similar acts or worse, and they continue to ply their trade with impunity. It makes me question whether participation in the process is really worth it.

Smith can (and I hope will) still provide valuable and progressive public service to the community, but in ways that realistically do not include ever holding elective public office again. I am deeply disappointed, but I wish him well. The other qualities that made Jeff a great guy are still there.

Not just a vacancy. A vacuum.

It isn’t exactly a Pulitzer Prize worthy observation to note the obvious, that Sen. Edward M. “Ted” Kennedy (D-MA), who succumbed to brain cancer this week at the age of 77, will be sorely missed. Almost anyone who served in Congress’ senior chamber for over 46 years would be missed after they were gone, but Kennedy was something special.

Kennedy, in spite of his privileged background, was a principled progressive whose leadership was more important than his vote. His legislative worth transcended personal problems that would have brought down a lesser man. He realistically had a greater impact on our nation than his brother, a president who inspired a generation.

But Kennedy’s real worth will probably be best quantified by the effect of his absence. One of his life’s longstanding goals, health care reform, may well be doomed because he is no longer there to advocate it. Kennedy did what the leaders he left behind are not doing: he spoke to the merits of his proposals, and advocated their passage with facts and reasoning based on their substance. His friend and committee surrogate, the ethically challenged Sen. Christopher Dodd (D-CT), and even our golden tongued President aren’t up to the task.

Republican critics and conservative citizens at town halls are punching huge holes in supporters’ talking points for the proposal, and its defenders have been caught flatfooted. Democrats have responded lamely with personal attacks against the critics instead of defending the substance of the legislation. The critics have been reading the bill and documenting their scary charges with page citations, while the bill’s supporters do little more than impugn the critics’ motives. Facts trump character assassination every time. Leaving the substance of critics’ arguments more or less unchallenged, Democrats are losing the public debate so badly that even the presumed support from allies in the media can’t save them.

I have to admit that, after having clamored for single-payer health care (which the current legislation isn’t) for the past decade, even I am beginning to get uneasy with the current proposals. As I approach Medicare eligibility, I have come to be concerned that the health care for which I paid my entire working career is in serious jeopardy under Congress’ and the President’s proposals.

I am convinced that Ted Kennedy would have had a substantive answer to my concerns. The bozos he left behind do not (or at least they haven’t yet).

Kennedy didn’t just leave a vacancy. His passing leaves a vacuum.

Koster ‘pays back’ mentor Nixon with whitewash of E.coli scandal

Attorney General Chris “The Imposter” Koster swept the first major scandal of Gov. Jay Nixon’s Administration under the rug. What a team player!

The scandal involved the Nixon Administration’s Department of Natural Resources’ month-long delay in releasing the results of the May monthly water quality tests taken at Lake of the Ozarks until after Memorial Day weekend, so that tourists (mostly from Missouri) wouldn’t avoid going to the Lake on that high-usage holiday weekend. As a result, thousands of people were exposed to unsafe levels of coliform bacteria (E.coli) in the lake.

The Department finally released the results on June 26, along with the test results for June.

The issue was brought to a head by a complaint filed by Ken Midkiff of Columbia, director of the Sierra Club Clean Water Campaign, that claimed that the DNR had denied environmentalist Donna Swall’s request for the water quality data. Koster whitewashed it. While admitting that DNR officials clearly understood that a number of people and organizations wanted this information made public and did make requests that the information be released in an expedited fashion, Koster let the administration off on the technicality that “ no one at DNR interpreted these communications as Sunshine Law requests." Well, that settles that!

The St. Louis Post-Dispatch quoted Midkiff as responding that Koster’s investigation had been conducted "in a shabby manner and in a partisan snowjob fashion. From this report, I can only surmise that the office of the attorney general is much more interested in protecting state agencies than ensuring that the laws of the state of Missouri are followed."

For his part, Nixon reacted to the scandal by promoting the responsible person out of the department. In late June, Nixon appointed Deputy Director Joe Bindbeutel to a position as an administrative law judge.

The incident clearly questions Koster’s ability to conduct his job independently of influence from or sympathy with the governor’s office. Koster pretty much owes his job to Nixon, whose donors financed Koster’s victory in the Democratic Primary shortly after he switched to the Democratic Party from the Republicans. He defeated two well-respected, progressive, long-time Democrats for the nomination, Clayton State Rep. Margaret Donnelly and House Minority Leader Jeff Harris of Columbia, in the Democratic primary. One of those campaigns (I think Harris’) dubbed Koster “The Imposter.” Koster had been a loyal supporter of the conservative programs of then-Gov. Matt Blunt (R) right up until the time of the party switch.

McCaskill suffers wasted hit over ‘card check’

Sen. Claire McCaskill (D-MO) wasted some of her political capital this month defending the “card check” provision of the proposed Employee Free Choice Act (EFCA). That provision would have required employers to recognize a union as soon as a majority of workers signed cards saying they wanted a union, without a secret-ballot election. While supporting that provision in a conference call with Missouri radio reporters, Sen. McCaskill downplayed charges that card check would allow union organizers to intimidate workers into signing union representation cards. According to Missourinet the blog, McCaskill stated,

I think that this notion that thugs are going to go out and slash people's tires in order to get them to check a card is ludicrous and insulting to working people. That's not going to happen. And, there have been literally a handful of instances where there has been any kind of allegation that has been proven in that regard in the last 20 years.

That quote caused some opponents of the bill to charge that McCaskill had admitted the existence of proven allegations of tire slashing in union organizing efforts in “a handful of instances,” and that she had been too dismissive of the seriousness of such incidents.

That’s the kind of thing that could find its way into future Republican negative attack ads.

McCaskill endured that criticism for nothing, though, because less than 10 days later, Democratic Party leadership let her hang out to dry when key senators dropped that provision from EFCA.

Organized Labor still supports the bill without card check, because its current provisions require that the representation election be held more promptly, reducing the employer’s opportunity to lobby its employees to vote against the union, and because of its binding arbitration provisions. The latter provisions would allow federal arbitrators named by the government to decide disputes over wages and benefits. Unions are hopeful (and business leaders are fearful) that federal arbitrators, especially those appointed by a labor-friendly administration, would be likely to require employers to pay wages and benefits that approach what the unions demand. Many business lobbyists fear the arbitration provision the most, but opposing it won’t be as easy as appealing to Americans’ devotion to the secret ballot.

Realistically the revised bill is better, and it will pass without further bloodshed.

National 2010 preview: candidate recruitment is key

This appears to be one of those times when a mid-term election will be an important trendsetter. The 2010 elections will determine whether President Obama is able to translate his personal popularity into a generation-long realignment that gives the Democratic Party - and especially its progressive wing - total control over government policy, or whether the public will react negatively and pare back the current Democratic majorities and perhaps even return control of one house of Congress to the Republicans.

The most important factor that will answer that question is the economy (and the electorate’s perception of it) in the fall of 2010. But the magnitude of any shift will depend on something much more organizational - the parties’ respective ability to recruit good candidates for close contests. It is very seldom when a vulnerable incumbent loses to an unsophisticated, underfinanced ticket filler. And blank spots on the ballot never win.

The Democrats have a leg up on candidate recruitment, because their candidates already hold most of the seats that are in play and will be seeking reelection with the advantages (in most cases) that incumbency provides. Republicans will be fighting a dispirited mood left over from 2008 and more retirements creating open seats to defend. And both parties, when seeking either challengers or open-seat contestants, will have to fight the usual reluctance of potential candidates to run when they fear they might lose. Unfortunately, most candidates (and nearly all recruitees who decide against running) give paramount consideration to their own careers, instead of serving to advance the party or ideology they support.

In the House, the ying and yang of politics should favor Republicans. After consecutive elections with big gains by Democrats, the President’s party now already holds nearly all of the seats they have a realistic chance of winning (and even a few they shouldn’t). Around 50 current Democrat seats are in districts that elected a Republican to the seat within the last four years. While some are suburban districts whose demographic or political changes should continue to favor Democrats, many new rural incumbents will be vulnerable. So will some longer tenured Democrats who are personally popular but represent districts carried by both George W. Bush and John McCain.

Different mechanics favor Democrats in the Senate, because the senators that are up in 2010 were elected in 2004, a Republican year. Most vulnerable seats (New Hampshire, Ohio, North Carolina, Kentucky, Louisiana, Florida and Missouri) are currently held by Republicans. Democrats, on the other hand, “de-recruited” their most vulnerable incumbent, Illinois’ Roland Burris, and Democratic Primary voters may do the same to embattled Connecticut Sen. Chris Dodd. If Dodd loses his primary, the most vulnerable seat to Republican takeover might be that of Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid of Nevada, whose defense is certain to be well-funded. Other potential seats for Republican takeover are Democrat-trending Colorado, a popular incumbent in North Dakota, and an Arkansas seat with a Republican Party in serious disarray. The Democratic nominees for the seats now held by party-switcher Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania and appointed Sen. Kristen Gillibrand in New York will probably be bloodied after tough primary fights, but those are both really expensive seats for cash-strapped Republicans to contest. From a GOP point of view, the same dollars that it would take to run just a respectable losing campaign in either of those states would be enough to buy three other seats (in New Hampshire, North Dakota and Arkansas). These factors favor Democrats expanding their filibuster-proof senate majority, even if the country’s mood favors a Republican resurgence.

While the direction of 2010's political wave is still uncertain, the benefitting party won’t be able to ride that wave without credible, adequately financed candidates. That battle is being waged right now. I can’t begin to cover the house races, but recruiting a candidate with the name recognition and gravitas to raise the funds necessary to challenge an incumbent will be crucial to Republican chances.

In the Senate, both parties are pleased with their candidates for open Republican-held seats in Missouri and Ohio. Republicans appear to have won the recruiting war to keep their Florida seat with popular centrist Gov. Charlie Crist, but Democrats have the recruiting edge for the Republican-held seat in New Hampshire. Poor recruiting may doom Democrat chances to unseat Republican Senators Richard Burr in North Carolina and sex-scandal tarnished David Vittert in Louisiana, as well as Republican chances to topple Reid in Nevada and appointed incumbents Gillibrand (NY) and Michael Bennet (who has never run for public office!) in Colorado. Republican takeover chances in several states depend on their ability to recruit reluctant stars who could ride the expected wave. These include Gov. John Hoeven in North Dakota, Attorney General Kelly Ayotte in New Hampshire and former Gov. (and current Fox News personality) Mike Huckabee in Arkansas, none of whom are yet on board. Kentucky Democrats have too many recruits, as two statewide officeholders will compete to take on embattled Sen. Jim Bunning.

Special interests wreck 'cap and trade' bill

Last week the U.S. House of Representatives passed the so-called American Clean Energy and Security Act (commonly referred to as “cap and trade”), but what it passed was a severely watered-down version that takes only the smallest steps toward reducing greenhouse gases. While it may be marginally better than no act at all, it fails the people in these ways:

• The bill’s targets are far less ambitious than what is achievable with already existing technology, far weaker than science says is necessary to avoid catastrophic climate change.
• The bill’s targets are undermined by massive loopholes that could allow the most polluting industries to avoid real emission reductions until 2027.
• Rather than provide relief and support to consumers, the bill showers polluting industries with hundreds of billions of dollars in free allowances and direct subsidies that will slow renewable energy development and lock in a new generation of dirty coal-fired power plants.
• The bill removes the President’s authority to address global warming pollution using laws already on the books.

The final bill contained those flaws because the decision-making process was co-opted by oil and coal lobbyists determined to sustain our addiction to dirty fossil fuels. This occurred with the Democratic Party in total control over that process.

For these reasons, the Waxman-Markey bill was actively opposed by a broad coalition of environmental protection activist organizations, including Greenpeace USA, Public Citizen, Friends of the Earth, Citizen Power, Center for Biological Diversity, The Utility Reform Network (TURN), the Sustainable Energy and Economy Network, Coal Moratorium Now!, the Rainforest Action Network, International Rivers, and the Energy Justice Network. A joint public statement by these and various local groups observed that the bill “failed to adequately strengthen protections for consumers, communities, and the climate” and “it erased all doubt of who will benefit most from it: Big Business. The resulting bill reflects the triumph of politics over science, and the triumph of industry influence over the public interest.”

While the bill was opposed by Republican congressmen (all but 8) plus an assortment of "blue dog" energy producing and farm state Democrats, it also drew the active opposition of Rep. Dennis Kucinich (D-OH), perhaps the most progressive member of Congress. "It won’t address the problem," he said. "In fact, it might make the problem worse. It sets targets that are too weak, especially in the short term, and sets about meeting those targets through Enron-style accounting methods." He outdid the environmental organizations by listing 13 detailed reasons why the bill that passed the House is bad for the country.

The biggest problem is the bill's subsidies to the coal industry, which Kucinich described as "one of the primary sources of the problem that should be on its way out." Kucinich criticized these "massive corporate giveaways at taxpayer expense," pointing out, "There is $60 billion for a single technology which may or may not work, but which enables coal power plants to keep warming the planet at least another 20 years."

Kucinich offered or co-sponsored 10 separate amendments that collectively would have turned the bill into an acceptable starting point, but the Democratic House leadership refused to allow any of them to be offered to the full House.

Apparently the Democrats’ seizing control of Congress from corporate-owned Republicans in 2006 meant nothing. Now we get bad legislation from corporate-owned Democrats instead.

Sotomayor is good progressive court pick

President Obama is to be congratulated for his nomination of 2nd Circuit Judge Sonia Sotomayor to the U.S. Supreme Court.

Judge Sotomayor’s record of decisions is encouraging. The only question mark is the absence of a record on abortion rights. Some have raised the prospect that, as a Hispanic Catholic, Sotomayor could actually provide the decisive vote to overturn Roe v. Wade. It wouldn’t be the first time a president’s court pick backfired. However, the strong endorsement given to Sotomayor’s candidacy by women’s organizations that are dedicated to protecting abortion rights gives me confidence that Sotomayor is on board. While she may well bob and weave and avoid questions on the subject at her confirmation hearing, I am confident that the women’s groups would not have backed her without convincing assurances of where she stands. They can (and presumable did) get candid responses that mere senators cannot.

But the best insight to Sotomayor’s potential was in her taped remarks in which she candidly admitted appellate courts’ role in shaping public policy. It was clear as soon as the vacancy occurred that Obama understood the court’s potential for long-term impact in this regard. The President explained that he wanted someone who had empathy and who'd temper the court's decisions with a concern for the downtrodden, the powerless and the voiceless. A court with a majority of like-minded justices could grasp the opportunity to create progressive policy that elected officials can’t risk implementing because of fear of possible voter backlash. Sotomayor gets it.

The court’s have almost always had progressives’ backs during the past generation or so, but now is the time and the opportunity for the Supreme Court to lead the way in cementing progressive legislative gains in place, immunizing them from attempts by future, less progressive Congresses and presidents to repeal them or even water them down. A court that is sensitive to outcomes and their impact on the disadvantaged will not let minor technicalities get in the way of necessary progress. While today’s President and Congress can implement reforms like universal health care, tomorrow’s courts can protect them from excessive reaction from future legislators, or even over-zealous populist ballot initiatives, by recognizing the reforms as the constitutional rights that they ought to be. The court can transform today’s new legislative innovations into
tomorrow’s irrevocable entitlements. Lock in the change!

Thus, in replacing Justice Souter, Sotomayor will do more than merely replace one reliable progressive vote with another. She is positioned to lead the charge as soon as one of the five conservative justices leaves the court, enabling Obama to appoint another progressive justice to change the court’s balance of power. Judge Sotomayor has demonstrated that she understands these dynamics.

Big banks’ ‘briar patch’ strategy

Remember the Uncle Remus fairy tale in which Br’er Rabbit pled to his captors not to throw him into the thorny briar patch, the very place the conniving rabbit wanted to be all along? Representatives for big banks seemed to have that tale in mind when they cried crocodile tears and warned of disastrous consequences if Congress passed the so-called credit card reform bill.

The banks got their secret wish last week when Congress passed the bill and President Obama quickly signed it into law.

The bill was dressed up with seemingly consumer-friendly features like eliminating over-the-limit charges and a few other no-brainer reforms that even most Republicans supported, like advance notice of rate increases and prohibiting abuses like double-cycle billing and universal default. But some of the bill’s provisions were already scheduled to go into effect anyway by order of the Federal Reserve. Congress and the President merely jumped onto the moving bandwagon and claimed credit.

As a whole, the bill is a Trojan horse that will hurt consumers and give the banks the cover they need to make even more money at our expense. The bill left untouched the banking industry’s single largest abuse, its right to charge usurious interest. Banks locate their credit card operations in South Dakota because that state has no usury laws, and other states are helpless because the legality of the charges is determined by the law of the state of the lender, regardless of where the consumer lives or the transactions take place. Congress could have changed that, but didn’t. So, every charge that banks will no longer be allowed to levy will be made up by higher interest.

The bill also provides cover to the banks to deny credit to young consumers by prohibiting them from issuing a card to anyone under the age of 21, unless the application is co-signed by a parent or guardian or proof of ability to repay the debt can be supplied. The briar patch, indeed! Congress has imposed its elitist judgment that 18-20 year olds who can vote, drive, go to war and carry a gun are somehow incapable of making a decision about getting a credit card! It means that young people will now have to delay building up their credit. Obama and congressional Democrats hosed the very voters that supported them the most!

And let’s not forget the unrelated rider that got enacted with the bill, allowing people to bring loaded guns into national parks and wildlife refuges. Hmm, endangered species and hunting rifles. What could possibly go wrong there?

Of course, the bill’s biggest problem is its impact on our vulnerable economy. Banks will clearly extend a lot less credit, especially to the very people who need it the most. People will buy less, so businesses of all kinds will sell less, and real people will lose their jobs. The recession will get worse instead of better.

But the banks will be sitting pretty.

RIP, Compassionate Conservative

Former President George W. Bush coined the term "compassionate conservative" when running for his first term. It turns out he never was compassionate as most of us understand the term, and his administration's moves to nationalize banks with its TARP program also undercut his claim to have been conservative. Bush has ruined the brand for the foreseeable future.

Yesterday, the nation lost a political figure who really was a compassionate conservative, long before Bush claimed the moniker. Jack Kemp was a conservative's conservative. He and former Delaware Sen. William Roth were the political parents of Professor Arthur Laffer's "supply side economics," now better know as Reaganomics.

But unlike the stereotype conservative who glorified greed, Kemp really was compassionate. He cared about the poor and the consequences of policy on the underprivileged. While his star power as a former NFL quarterbacked certainly helped, what really got him elected (and reelected 8 times) as a Republican from a blue-collar district in industrial Buffalo, NY, was his sincere concern for working families. He sought conservative solutions to real problems.

Kemp championed the empowerment of disadvantaged people. He favored and encouraged tenant management of public housing, and spotlighted local leaders in that effort (including St. Louis' own Bertha Gilkey). Many of us forget that the purpose of his precious Reaganomics was to increase market-driven employment for low-income people. We can debate whether it worked, but it was clear that Kemp's heart was in the right place.

Jack Kemp was a worthy adversary. He will be missed.

Dems should be wary of Specter party switch

There's "less than meets the eye" in the surprise switch of Sen. Arlen Specter (PA) from Republican to Democrat.

All the talk about Specter giving the Democrats the magic 60th vote (counting the expected seating of Democrat Al Franken of Minnesota) overlooks the fact that the Democrats already had Specter's vote in every meaningful vote this session, including the stimulus bill and the budget. Moreover, Specter has announced that the party change will not change his opposition to the card-check bill coveted by organized labor. Specter's still a maverick. The party switch only matters in the senate if Specter's vote depends on his party, and the only vote of that kind is the organizational vote on which party controls the chamber. That mattered in 2001, when Vermont Republican Jim Jefford's party change gave senate control to the Democrats. That's not the case now, and isn't likely to be so in the foreseeable future.

What it does mean is that Specter is likely to keep his senate seat for another election. As he stated so candidly, he would have lost renomination in the Republican Primary if he had stayed. (Polls already showed primary challenger former Rep. Pat Toomey leading him by double digits.) The same polls showed Democrats taking the seat in the general election by beating Toomey. The difference is which Democrat wins the seat. Instead of a more traditional liberal Democrat, the party is now likely to nominate Specter as one of its own.

This means that the senate will be less progressive after 2010 than it would have been if Pennsylvania would have been represented by a traditional northeastern Democrat instead of the same old Specter. Instead of being a thorn in the side of Republicans by siding with Democrats, Specter will now be a thorn in the side of Democrats by siding with Republicans.

Except for card-check, that may not matter much in the short term, with Democrats controlling the agenda in both Congress and the White House. The main area where the moderate Specter was valuable to Republicans (and frustrating to Democrats) was the confirmation of judicial nominees of Republican presidents. The razor-thin confirmations of Supreme Court Justices Clarence Thomas, John Roberts and Samuel Alito all occurred because of Specter's support. But Specter also supported confirmation of President Clinton's nominees, and he was not expected to oppose any Obama judicial nominee regardless of which side of the aisle he sat.

But it could be a different story if Republicans rebound by 2012. Obama's reelection will hinge on the success or failure of his economic policies. If they haven't worked their promised magic by then, we could be looking at a Republican president making judicial appointments during the last four years of Specter's next term, and Specter's defection then from Democrat orthodoxy could be key.

Democrats could also suffer another way from giving Specter the opportunity to hold the senate seat the party would have won anyway. Seven years older than John McCain, Specter will be 80 when he wins reelection, and would have to live to 86 to serve out his term. If the economy has not turned the corner within the next two years, conservative economic populism could bring down Specter's running mate, Gov. Ed Rendell, even if Specter wins. That could give a Republican governor the power to pick Specter's replacement if Specter dies in office. In fact, if such a populist revolt takes place then, a 30-year incumbent running in the party of the President might become a vulnerable target for defeat, regardless of what polls say a year and a half before the election.

Perhaps Democrats, especially those of a more progressive persuation, should consider the possibility of running a traditional northeastern liberal Democrat for senate in 2010 instead of a frail Republican retread.