« previous | MUCK HOME | next »
Specter Indicates that He Will Vote against GOP on Cloture Vote
Not a good sign for the Republicans Just now on the Senate floor, Sen. Arlen Specter (R-PA) spoke against the Senate Republican leadership's attempt to invoke cloture on the surveillance bill, indicating that he'll vote with the Democrats.
Among the amendments that the Republicans seek to block is one of Specter's own amendments, one he's sponsoring along with Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI). The amendment would, rather than granting the telecoms retroactive immunity for cooperating with the administration's warrantless wiretapping program, substitute the government as the defendant in the numerous lawsuits against the telecoms.
Update: We have a rough transcript of some of his floor remarks below.
"I've sought recognition to speak briefly in opposition to the motion to invoke cloture.... We have gone through a long session last year where the argument was weighed repeatedly and persuasively not to invoke cloture. The argument advanced on this side of the aisle in order to give members on this side of the aisle an opportunity to propose their amendments. Now we have the reverse situation sought to be applied and it is my hope that this body will reject the cloture motion."There has been very little time spent on this very important subject in this body and when you have a matter of the importance of retroactive immunity where you're going to shut off the courts of the United States from hearing cases that are already pending there ought to be time for consideration of amendments like the one which Senator Whitehouse and I have offered to substitute the United States government. And the purpose of our amendment is to comport with the basic Constitutional provision of separation of powers which is the cornerstone of the constitution and we have found regrettably that it has been inadequate to have Congressional supervision, Congressional oversight because of its ineffectiveness.
For example, when the Judiciary Committee seeks to obtain records on the destruction of CIA tapes you find the administration resisting and the inevitable argument of politics. When the court issues an order, as a federal court did last week, for a report on the destruction of documents seeking to find out what happened on the destruction of the CIA documents, the court can't be charged with politics. And we find in Rasul, and in other litigation matters, the judicial branch has been effective in maintaining the separation of powers."
Comments (28)
Johann wrote on January 28, 2008 3:23 PM:Finally some bi-partisanship from a Republican.
The Republicans keep screaming for bi-partisanship, but keep voting en-block for anything the Bush Administration wants.
This is a ray of hope for the future of the American democracy.
Anonymous wrote on January 28, 2008 3:25 PM:Spector cannot ever be trusted to follow through. He's up to something else, for sure.
CT Voter wrote on January 28, 2008 3:33 PM:Sorry, but I agree with Anonymous.
How many times have we gone through this dance with Spector? And how many times has he actually "broken" with his party?
But boy, he sure picks up a lot of attention in the process. And gets the reputation of being "independent". Hilarious.
notanumber wrote on January 28, 2008 3:34 PM:Specter is Lucy, you are Charlie Brown.
How many times does Specter have to do this shuffle before you wise up?
John H. Farr wrote on January 28, 2008 3:39 PM:Spector will vote FOR cloture at the last moment, as always. The other commenters are correct.
Duckman GR wrote on January 28, 2008 3:40 PM:Did he INDICATE he was going to do it, or did he SAY he was going to do it?
The first would be typical, the 2nd would be a different critter altogether.
The 2nd would be good, the 1st, bad.
Dusty wrote on January 28, 2008 3:46 PM:Methinks Arlen speaks out of both sides of his piehole.
Mark wrote on January 28, 2008 3:49 PM:Do yourself a favor. Wait to see if he actually does it before you treat it as news. Arlen's got no spine.
Dennis wrote on January 28, 2008 3:51 PM:Sen. Spector is playing both ends against the middle. While trying to appear that he is opposed to immunity for the illegal telecom industry spying on Americans prior to 9/11001, his amendment will, in effect, accomplish exactly what the Republicans want, no accountability.
You don't have to be a blind conservative not to see it, just an ignorant one to deny it.
EH wrote on January 28, 2008 3:53 PM:If he wasn't actually going to vote this way, why would he say anything? What could be the effect, that Dems might think they don't need to, and/or that Repubs might feel OK in voting the same way?
Legalize wrote on January 28, 2008 4:03 PM:Specter will fail to live up to what he promises - again. He will make a deal and claim that the deal passes the siff test, and in the interest national security, and of blah blah blah blah
Ed Goldstein wrote on January 28, 2008 4:05 PM:I too am a democrat, but I think we need to give Sen. Specter a little more credit. He has taken stands apart from the rest of his party. A few examples: I'm pretty sure he asked for Gonzales to resign. I also think he was one of the group of senators who made the deal to avoid the judicial filibusters. (Though addmitedly(sp?) I'd prefer that we did filibuster the nominations.)
correctnotright wrote on January 28, 2008 4:06 PM:Anyway, my point is that despite his being a republican, Sen. Specter is not nearly the devil you make him out to be.
I concur with John and anonymous:
specter will cave like always and vote against his conscience and the will of the American people and for George Bush and torture and amnesty for illegal spying by private telecoms.
Coin wrote on January 28, 2008 4:06 PM:[Spector's] amendment would, rather than granting the telecoms retroactive immunity for cooperating with the administration's warrantless wiretapping program, substitute the government as the defendant in the numerous lawsuits against the telecoms.
*scratches head*
You know, I think I might actually consider that preferable to the Feinstein amendment. Is there a downside here?
CT Voter wrote on January 28, 2008 4:09 PM:I'd like to give Specter more credit, but I just can't stop piling on again. From the remarks:
it is my hope that this body will reject the cloture motion.
Yeah, hope is a lovely thing, Arlen. What, though, will you be doing to, you know, give hope a chance?
Will you be rejecting the cloture motion, or just hoping that the magically, somehow, it will be rejected??
readerOfTeaLeaves wrote on January 28, 2008 4:09 PM:Very interesting development.
Arlen must finally have had enough of the b.s., he sees the Dems have finally started to stand their ground, and he saw what happened to Santorum in his own state last year.
Something must have really gotten under his skin; he was already fed up with the wackos before they tried to strip him of his chairmanship. Lott is headed out the door, and what's McConnell got on Arlen? Probably not all that much -- it's a safe bet that many of his constituents do not support retroactive immunity, so why should he kill his political career by bowing to Cheney?
phil james wrote on January 28, 2008 4:13 PM:Agree with all those who question Specter's motivation. He is a Bushco water-carrier who hides his true agenda until way, way late in the game. Don't ever bet he will actually challenge the unitary executive on anything substantive. He is a very serious liar.
EH wrote on January 28, 2008 4:15 PM:Coin: The problem with the substitution amendment is that it will allow state secrets to trump the case entirely. if the case continues against the telcos, the state secrets problems will only apply to the evidence desired from the government. there would still be a chance of discovery against the telcos themselves.
phil james wrote on January 28, 2008 4:24 PM:Arlen is not running again so his motivation has nothing to do with that. Also the notion that he is aligning with the Dems because he finally sees Bushco for what it is is laughable. He is simply one of the slickest of the slick.
cjop wrote on January 28, 2008 4:40 PM:Let's see. Arlen says he will vote no. Some chicken shit democrat that would rather save his sorry political ass instead of voting for the Constitution decides he can now vote yes because they won't get the 60 votes anyway. Looks like my Senator Tim Johnson can vote to save his sorry political ass.
cjop wrote on January 28, 2008 4:42 PM:(forgot to finish). Then Arlen votes yes and pushes the cloture vote over the top. How can any reader of TPM even begin to trust Arlen?
BombIranForChrist wrote on January 28, 2008 4:53 PM:Yeah, right.
Let's see what Arlen actually does.
Remember Arlen's chief campaign strategy, one that has kept him in office:
1. He goes on the TV.
2. He hems and haws and sounds all moderate-like.
3. During voice votes, he coughs vague words into the microphone like "Ayahanay!" and "Nayahawkayeay!" during yay or nay voice votes.
4. He votes exactly as the Republican leadership tells him to vote.
He's one of the worst kinds of scoundrels: one who smiles to your face as he sticks the knife in your back.
acf wrote on January 28, 2008 4:57 PM:Don't trust any leaks from any Republicans that they would vote against their party leadership in this. Pressure comes from leadership and they always fall in line. Maine's two Senators are famous for this routine. They can't be trusted until the lever is pulled and voting is closed.
Mark F wrote on January 28, 2008 5:11 PM:I'll believe it when I see it. Specter is a world-class waffler.
JTM wrote on January 28, 2008 6:12 PM:I assume you believe it now.
john d sotherden wrote on January 28, 2008 8:15 PM:Dusty, actually he's talkin out of his ass --- his mouth knows better and so should we .....
cjop wrote on January 28, 2008 8:29 PM:I have written a note of thanks to Senator Johnson. It took awhile to get the crow out of my mouth. In the final analysis I hope I can write and thank him again.
Mark Hessel wrote on January 29, 2008 2:22 PM:Couldn't the government just say the
lawsuits are invalid because of secrecy
privilege based on the Supreme Court's
decision United States v. Reynolds.
Please see http://www.slate.com/id/2142155/
The actual case was shown to be a bunch
of crap, but the ruling still holds.
I don't trust Specter either.