PAtownhall.com
Pennsylvania's Marketplace of Ideas
Pennsylvania's Marketplace of Ideas
PAtownhall.com
Pennsylvania's Marketplace of Ideas
Pennsylvania's Marketplace of Ideas
by Chris Freind
Above everything else, U.S. Senator Arlen Specter is a survivor. The longest serving Senator in the history of Pennsylvania, he has weathered bruising challenges from both the Right and the Left. A member of the Senate for nearly thirty years, his seniority and clout continue to pay big dividends for the Keystone State. Perhaps even more important than Specter's political power is his work ethic--- he makes it a point to travel to each of Pennsylvania's sixty seven counties at least once a year. Like him or not, no one outworks Arlen Specter.
Regardless of party affiliation, three decades in any legislative body creates constituencies pledged to defeat the incumbent. While some of Specter's races have been very close, he's still standing, one of only two statewide elected Republicans. That's no easy feat, considering that Pennsylvania hasn't voted Republican in a presidential election since 1988.
Will the Senator run again in 2010? What does he think happened to the GOP in 2006, and does he see the Republicans' fortunes turning around? And what does he want to be most remembered for accomplishing?
Freindly Fire recently sat down with Specter to seek answers from the ultimate political survivor:
Freindly Fire: When your current term is up in 2010, you will have served thirty years in the Senate. Do you plan to seek re-election?
Arlen Specter: Yes, I am running again!
FF: Let's talk about that election. As you know, today is the 35 year anniversary of Roe vs. Wade, the court case making abortion legal. Given that a significant percentage of Pennsylvania's primary voters are Pro-Life, and you are known as a pro-abortion senator, how will you attract these people in particular to vote for you, and the conservative base in general?
AS: I approach all of the issues one at a time, and exercise my best judgment on what is the best public policy for the state, the nation, my constituency...I make individualized judgments. I am personally very much opposed to abortion, but I think it is a matter for the individuals, and for ministers, priests and rabbis, not the government. I think the Barry Goldwater approach ---keep the government off of our backs, out of our pocketbooks and out of our bedrooms--- is the correct approach. But there are limits. When we dealt with the issue of partial birth abortion, I did not apply a knee-jerk reaction to it. I took a look at it, studied the medical evidence in great detail, and came to agree with Senator Moynihan---who said it was infanticide. And that's a subject I know something about from when I was D. A. That displeased a lot of people, and it pleased some people, but if you start to count who you're pleasing and who you're not, and start to run your office on a poll, you might as well (elect) a poll, because it's a lot cheaper than paying my salary.
There are a lot of issues that I (am involved in)... which are of value to people in the pro-life movement. Disliking abortion as much as I do, I think the best way to avoid abortion is to avoid having extra-marital sex, especially with teenagers. I have taken the national lead on the abstinence funding. Right now, there is a lot of controversy as to whether abstention-only education is effective. I support Planned Parenthood, which teaches contraception, but I believe that for people who believe in abstention, there ought to be programs for their children. When I came out in favor of stem cell research, I took the lead in putting up $2 billion for embryo adoption.
There are ways of finding areas where I can do things for a diverse constituency. I am consistent with my own conscience.
FF: A follow up question. There are critics who say that the Arlen Specter "cycle" is in full swing again---namely, that you are one of the most liberal senators for the first four years of your term, but then become much more conservative as primary election season rolls around. Is this a conscious political decision? How do you address that charge?
AS: Well, it's not true. You take Supreme Court Justices Roberts and Alito (being confirmed). My positions were taken without regard to the calendar. I got a lot of credit from the conservative community, and I think that, had I not handled Alito the way I did...with the controversy with Senator Kennedy, he wouldn't have been confirmed. Go back to (Justices) Thomas and Scalia, Kennedy and O'Connor. Those are all strong pro-life people. I supported O'Connor in 1981, my first year in the Senate. So it's not a matter of voting one side for four years and then changing...
I have a lot of positions on the conservative side. We voted on a constitutional amendment for a balanced budget a number of times, and every time I voted in favor of it. Same on the line-item veto. Same on the death penalty. I'm Pennsylvania's major proponent for the death penalty. When it was declared unconstitutional in a case called Furman vs. Georgia in 1972, I led the fight to bring it back---I wrote the statute that brought it back. I supported the Strategic Defense Initiative, President Reagan's main conservative issue for a strong national defense. Those are just a few issues (about my conservative record).
FF: The presidential campaigns on both sides have been very contentious this year, and neither nominee has been determined. What are your thoughts on the current candidates? Which Republican has the best chance of winning Pennsylvania?
AS: I have not taken a position because the field is so muddled. A few months ago when Rudy Giuliani looked like he was in the thick of it, I asked many pro-life Republicans around the state, "Would you take Giuliani?", and I found a lot of receptivity because of the great concern about Hillary Clinton. I talked with Giuliani about that, and it seemed to me that he could have attracted a lot of voters in the suburban counties, but I wasn't about to go for him until I found out the (feelings) of the pro-life community. Right now, I am looking at the whole field. We may have a brokered convention, and if we do, Pennsylvania's interest may be best served by not having a position right now.
As far as the Democrats, I think they're going to slug it out to the end...it's good theater, good television. Their (highly-charged) South Carolina debate made the front page of the New York Times!
FF: 2006 was disastrous for the Republican Party, when it lost control of the House and Senate. Many say 2008 will not be much better. What happened to the GOP—did it lose its way? And what needs to happen to get back on track in this year's election? Has that catalyst for change occurred?
AS: The party lost because it was afraid to tackle a lot of tough issues, and cast a lot of tough votes. The American people said "You have both houses of Congress and the White House. What good are you if you can't deliver?" I think our way out of it is to take principled positions, and to try to appeal to the broad mix of Americana. We need to take the issues one at a time and stick to the core principles. A strong national defense is indispensable---that's a core Republican principle. No tax increases. Tough law enforcement. Within that framework, (we should) try to approach these issues on a non-ideological basis.
And speak candidly! Candor is the most important quality an elected official has---that anybody has.
FF: Pennsylvania was the most Republican state in the country in 1994, in terms of elected officials. Now there are only two statewide elected Republicans, and Republican registrations continue to fall off...how do you reverse that trend, especially in the voter-rich southeastern part of the state, home of 40% of the electorate?
AS: We're working on that right now. We're trying to appeal to the voters with candidates--- we've recruited some pretty good candidates, especially in the southeast. Lt. Colonel Tom Manion (running for Congress in Bucks County) poses a good, sharp distinction to the incumbent, especially talking about concluding (our business) in Iraq as soon as we can but not leaving it in a state of turmoil. Craig Williams in Delaware County is another one...and we may have a candidate in Montgomery County who might give that incumbent a run... if you pick good candidates, that's a good place to start.
FF: Speaking of Republican party troubles, how would you characterize the situation in Montgomery Country where Commissioner Jim Matthews sided with Democrat Joe Hoeffel to form a power-sharing alliance, even though Matthews' running mate, Republican Bruce Castor, was the top vote-getter on either side? This seems to be the low point for the county---a county once so powerful that it supplied President Reagan with not one but three cabinet officials.
AS: It's a personality clash and a failure to observe Ronald Reagan's "Eleventh Commandment"---don't speak ill of fellow Republicans. Especially when they're right down the hall from each other....(laughing)...so that answer was carefully given to be responsive but not speak ill of fellow Republicans!
FF: How would you rate the Bush-Cheyney Administration over the last seven years?
AS: Overall, I would rate it good. I think that the reorganization of the intelligence community---which was a long time in coming---was a good idea, especially putting the CIA and the FBI under one Director. I think that if there had been coordination before, 9/11 may well have been avoided. I think their efforts at democratization, which is a big point on the Bush agenda, is a lofty goal and pretty hard to get. But Afghanistan is a democracy, and I think that, before we're finished, Iraq will stabilize and has a chance to become a democracy.
I think the Bush tax cuts have helped the economy; right now, we're in a very rough time, and the President is responding. I think his sitting down with the leaders of the Democratic Congress is good. And I have some legislation being introduced this afternoon on depreciation acceleration (as part of economic stimulus).
Up close, George Bush is a very engaged person. His private persona is very different from his public one; I've gotten to know him very well because he's come to Pennsylvania so much---more than forty times in 2004. He likes to talk---and he listens, too. But the media will shoot hours and hours of footage and focus in on one grammatical mistake...you do that to a professor of English, and you're going to find grammatical mistakes too! You can make anyone look bad---if that what you set out to do.
There are disappointments....they couldn't get the social security package together that the President talked about. And I've disagreed with the President on not being more willing to have more direct, bilateral talks. I think the success in North Korea is the result of having bilateral talks, and I think it's not just the United States success' with (regard to) Muammar Quaddafi (on his about-face)---he was the worst terrorist in the history of the world. He blew up Pan Am 103, blew up the discoteque in Germany where American soldiers were killed---and then he walks back into the family of nations and makes reparations.
FF: Let's turn to some key issues. Perhaps the biggest hot-button issue this year is illegal immigration, with all its facets: the border wall, amnesty, sanctuary cities, depressed wages and lost jobs, and exponentially higher taxes due to taxpayers paying illegals' heath care and education. What is your position on illegal immigration, and how do we solve the problem of the 12-20 million already here?
AS: I believe you have to look at all parts of it, but there have to be priorities. The first thing that has to be done is that stopping the flow of illegals. We passed legislation that provides for a 700 mile fence---(near) the metropolitan areas such as San Diego and border towns in Arizona, etc. But the fence alone will not do it. No matter how high you build it, they will climb over it---unless you remove the magnet. And that requires very tough enforcement against employers who knowingly hire illegals. We now have the technology where they can be absolutely sure (who they are hiring); it's expensive, but we have to do that. That's point number one. Point number two is that you have to recognize that the immigrant workforce is a good workforce, and there are ways to deal with them without taking away American jobs. For example, advertising. You want a guest worker? Then you would have to advertise, to make a reasonable effort to find someone (an American) for that job in the United States.
The guest worker program brings people in for a limited period of time and then sends them home---they're not here permanently, and they're not on the citizenship track.
Then you have the 12-20 million undocumented immigrants---what do you do with them? Attrition will help to some extent---if you cut down on employment (opportunities), some will leave. I think the legislation that was proposed did something it shouldn't have done---putting illegals in line for citizenship. That led to the cry of amnesty. No matter how much of a fine you (levied), no matter how many years you had to be here, it rewarded people who had violated the law in coming to this country.
The idea which may bring the parties together is to leave out citizenship. If you just eliminated fugitive status for their being undocumented, you could then focus on those who commit crimes while they're here. The new idea would be to require people to register within a year, or else they would be committing a separate crime. Once we get a handle on which of the undocumented are committing crimes....you can deport those who are here and are charged with crimes, and if you get the people registered, you can put them on the tax rolls and start to collect from them. But the 12-20 million are not going to go away, and they have to be dealt with. According to news reports, you have 140 municipalities which are legislating on this...counties, states, like Arizona, (passing) their own immigration law---you can't do that.
FF: Let's follow up on that. From a legal perspective----it is against federal law to assist and encourage illegal immigrants, yet time after time that's exactly what state and local governments do (drivers licenses, sanctuary cities, the Governor of North Carolina requiring illegals be allowed in that state's community college system). Why isn't the Justice Department investigating these types of activities?
AS: I think the federal government ought to start deportation proceedings against people in detention---and there are a lot of undocumented illegals in detention.. You ought to have hearings to make the determination whether they are guilty or innocent, and you don't have to wait for them to be tried in criminal courts. Those people ought to be deported. I think you start to run up against a lot of ill will when you start to give preferential treatment to people who are here illegally. That's where the huge cries come from.
Freindly Fire's exclusive one-on-one interview with Senator Specter will continue next week, covering issues including national security, the Middle East, race relations and his Senate accomplishments.
Chris Freind can be contacted at CF@TheBulletin.us
