There are few things you may not know: Fast Eddie owes Arlen Specter, will work for him, will endeavor to bully the party faithful into working against Joe Sestak, and controls the state Democratic funds. When Fast Eddie talks about how Arlen won over Joe Hoeffel, he neglects to mention how he personally worked against Joe Hoeffel, and bullied members of the state party to do the same. When he says that Pennsylvania Democrats are the party of conservadems like Bob Casey, he neglects to mention that Bob Casey was elected because most people voted against Rick Santorum, and not for Bob Casey.
Fast Eddie's view greatly concerns me, because the idea of free and open elections is that people should be allowed a choice, not have a choice crammed down their throats by the establishment. Hillary Clinton would not have won Pennsylvania last year without the support of Ed and his machine.
It concerns me in a more general sense because President Obama forced Steve Israel out of the New York Senatorial primary being held next year.
The idea of the Democratic Party is that it has always been a big tent. Not a lock-step party like the wingnuts. What does it say if the established people are the only ones allowed to make the choice? You know, the "inevitable candidate" scenario. Barack Obama won because he went against the establishment, built a grass roots effort, engaged not only moderates and progressives, but also the disenfranchised. Was that an anomaly? I sure hope not.
Finally, there is an upside to Joe Sestak having dipped his toe in the water without committing to the swim: it helps to make Arlen more Democratic than he would have been otherwise. An example: Arlen decimated Anita Hill during the Thomas hearings. He won't get away with anything like that during the Sotomayor hearings because that would cost him terribly amoung the Democratic base. If he wants the support of Labor, he's not going to be able to vote against Card Check (EFCA). He's going to have a lot of trouble working against a public option in the health care package. Whether or not Sestak runs, the possibility will hang over Arlen from now until the last filing date in January. And that is a good thing.
This is an article on the Pennsylvania Democratic Senate primary, and the potential entry of Joe Sestak into the race. If you don't live here, it's a different thing. It's the politics of whether you want a kinda-sorta Democrat to hold his seat, or a newbie House rep to run against him. These are macro political considerations.
I live here, and the concerns are different. To understand it, you need to look at geography, geopolitics, and economics.
So let's start with geography. (By the way, and I apologize, but you know me: Harrisburg is the capital of Pennsylvania, it's about 70 miles west of the area we're going to be looking at, and has no bearing on this discussion.)
This is map of Southeastern Pennsylvania, by Congressional District. CDs 1 and 2 are all Philadelphia, 8 and 13 have a scunch of Philly and some northern suburbs. CDs 6 and 7 are the western burbs, and 6 was gerrymandered by the Republican-controlled state houses after the 2000 census just for Jim Gerlach. We're not concerned with 15, 16 and 17 for the purposes of this discussion. To win the Democratic primary, a candidate needs to carry the area (or at least the vast majority of it.)
To understand the local problem, let's look at bigger maps of CDs 6 and 7. Right now, Joe Sestak represents the 7th in Congress.
If you notice, the uppermost tip of CD 7 fits like an interesting puzzle piece into CD 6. If you're unfamiliar with the area, find King of Prussia in CD 7 and notice 422 headed northwest. It's the red line that cuts from Norristown to Pottstown on the CD 6 map. (In reality, KoP and Norristown abut one another.)
These two CDs contain VERY varied demographics. Jim Gerlach, who represents the 6th, is somewhat declared for the Governor's race, but people close to him will not rule out that he might jump over and challenge Pat Toomey in the Republican Senatorial primary.
The counties include Delaware, Montgomery, most of Chester, and a bit of Berks and Lehigh. Lehigh County, by the way, has its first Democratic County Executive: a man named Don Cunningham, who will stand reelection for that position this November, and is already raising money for a Gubernatorial run next year. One of Montco's Commissioners is Chris Matthew's brother. All the counties except Berks have actual, working, local Democratic parties which do not always jibe with the State Democratic Party currently led by Ed Rendell.
In each area there are seriously poor areas, and areas of great wealth. There are similar spreads for education, unemployment, age, ethnicity and all the other demographics.
Another morning, and again I awake to Arlen Specter nonsense.
First, it appears that there are people who are surprised that he was stripped of his seniority. They think it's a big deal. And yeah, okay, it's a big deal to Specter, who thought that by saying "I'm a Democrat" it made him a Democrat. Seniority in the Senate is a function of years with the Party as a Senator, not a function of years of service in the Senate. You don't get the benefit (seniority) of being a Democratic Senator once you announce you won't be loyal to the party, you vote nay on major issues, and you come out in favour of the other party's guy (Coleman).
Let's remember that Specter's only concern was getting re-elected. His first shot would have been to win the Republican primary. The SEIU and the AFL/CIO said they would have 100,000 of their members register as Republicans to get him the win next year if, and only if, he voted in favour of EFCA. Specter declined, and lost his shot, any shot at that primary. So he comes over to the Democratic primary, and the seniority slap-down shows that he'll actually have to vote as a Democrat to get any traction. (Read: the ability to deliver for his constituency.) So he backtracks on EFCA:
A spokesperson for Sen. Tom Harkin (D-Iowa), the lead sponsor of the Employee Free Choice Act, confirmed today that an agreement is near that will allow Sen. Arlen Specter (D-Pa.) to return to his earlier position of support for the legislation.
Specter, originally a co-sponsor of the bill, announced on March 24 that he had switched to the opposition. At the time, as a Republican senator, he was under pressure from business lobbyists and right-wing Republicans lining up against him in that party’s coming primary election.
Since then he switched to the Democratic Party, and today he signaled his willingness to switch back to the pro-union side on the Employee Free Choice Act. He said, “I’m opposed to giving up the secret ballot or mandatory arbitration, as they are set forth in the bill, but I do believe that labor law reform is past overdue.”
We'll see.
In lieu of a poll this morning there is this poll: about drafting Joe Sestak to run against him.
So Arlen Specter is now a member of the Democratic Party. A lot of people are happy about this. Most Democrats, for example, are ecstatic that once Al Franken prevails in court, we'll be at 60. Joe Biden is happy. Harry Reid is happy. Eddie Rendell wanted this so much, he promised Arlen he could run unopposed back in March.
The pundit class has been arguing about whether Arlen switched parties because he couldn't win the GOP primary against Toomey, or whether, as he said, he had truly been abandoned by his party. Actually, both are equally true. There is no place left in the current IIE for moderate voices. Further, Arlen's chance of winning the GOP primary was close to nil. And the Arlen switch is like red meat to a starving animal for the pundit class: it's been a while since there has been such a political story.
Me? I have a different view.
By switching parties, Arlen Specter screwed over every progressive Democrat in the state of Pennsylvania. Again.
Arlen is old. He's been doing this a long time, and he won't vote any differently as a Democrat than he did as a Republican. He's standing firm on "NO" for Card Check and a public option in health care. Incredibly Republican positions. His votes on most judges have not been what we progressives like to see. (Yes, I know, except for Robert Bork.) He delivered Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, and John Roberts. He might call himself a Democrat, but he will act no differently from the "moderate" Republican he has been since 1966, the last time he switched parties for his personal benefit.
We had a good, progressive candidate in Joe Torsella, who has informed us that he is still running. Josh Shapiro was considering a run, but announced that he was giving that up in light of Arlen's announcement. Perhaps we could have had Joe Sestak, who already has a national presence.
Arlen will run with the full backing of the state machine, READ: Eddie Rendell's current organization. He will attract all of those Republicans who switched parties and now feel vindicated, and can vote for the same guy they've been voting for for decades. Arlen will have the backing of Vice President Biden, who'll be here, his second home, a lot. In addition, count on seeing the President out doing a little campaigning for the latest member of the party.
Will we have a bruising primary battle? Unlikely. Labor and progressives will come out for Torsella, if he can raise enough money to raise his profile. But while Pennsylvania is officially a blue state (registration, Presidential vote, 2 Senators, 11 of 19 House members, the Governor, and 1 of two state chambers), this is not yet a progressively Democratic state. But it won't be enough to overcome the "moderate" Democrats, many of whom were, before last year, "moderate" Republicans.
Remember, the vast majority of voters are not politically engaged. More than most states, we are still healing from the Clinton-Obama bloodbath from last year. There are still open wounds. We, the politically engaged, cannot afford to re-open them. So, we are left between a rock and hard place, created by the ego of an 80 year old politician who is unwilling to retire.
My question to myself is whether or not I will work actively against Arlen Specter up until primary day. I know that's the question a lot of my progressive, politically active friends are asking themselves also. I know what will be going into my decision. First, now that there is an opening on the Supreme Court, I'll take a hard look at how Arlen behaves. If he gets to stay on the Judiciary Committee and he works actively against President Obama's choice, I'll work as hard as I can to make sure that he loses the primary.
Secondly, there is the issue of health care. If Arlen gives on the issue of a public option, I'll be less inclined to work against him. And that's THE VOTE and not the rhetoric.
The potential game changer here is whether or not Arlen stays in remission. A third set of chemo may cause him to decide against running again. I do not wish him ill, but I am cognizant of the possibility.
I am changing my rating of this race to "Strong Democratic", which will be reflected in our chart when Matt puts out the next iteration of it. I don't know whether Arlen will be the Democratic candidate for Senate next year, but I don't see a strong challenger to Toomey on the Republican side, and therefore, I believe we keep the seat.
CNN is reporting that Arlen Specter raised $1.3 million for his Senate re-election campaign in the first three months of this year. So far, 15 donors have asked for their money back. Arlen said he would only return individual donations if requested.
First reported earlier today by Human Events, now confirmed by Politico.
Details to follow as they either become available, or we find out this is an untrue rumour.
UPDATE: Arlen's Press Release
Statement by Senator Arlen Specter
I have been a Republican since 1966. I have been working extremely hard for the Party, for its candidates and for the ideals of a Republican Party whose tent is big enough to welcome diverse points of view. While I have been comfortable being a Republican, my Party has not defined who I am. I have taken each issue one at a time and have exercised independent judgment to do what I thought was best for Pennsylvania and the nation.
Since my election in 1980, as part of the Reagan Big Tent, the Republican Party has moved far to the right. Last year, more than 200,000 Republicans in Pennsylvania changed their registration to become Democrats. I now find my political philosophy more in line with Democrats than Republicans.
When I supported the stimulus package, I knew that it would not be popular with the Republican Party. But, I saw the stimulus as necessary to lessen the risk of a far more serious recession than we are now experiencing.
Since then, I have traveled the State, talked to Republican leaders and office-holders and my supporters and I have carefully examined public opinion. It has become clear to me that the stimulus vote caused a schism which makes our differences irreconcilable. On this state of the record, I am unwilling to have my twenty-nine year Senate record judged by the Pennsylvania Republican primary electorate. I have not represented the Republican Party. I have represented the people of Pennsylvania.
I have decided to run for re-election in 2010 in the Democratic primary.
I am ready, willing and anxious to take on all comers and have my candidacy for re-election determined in a general election.
I deeply regret that I will be disappointing many friends and supporters. I can understand their disappointment. I am also disappointed that so many in the Party I have worked for for more than four decades do not want me to be their candidate. It is very painful on both sides. I thank specially Senators McConnell and Cornyn for their forbearance.
I am not making this decision because there are no important and interesting opportunities outside the Senate. I take on this complicated run for re-election because I am deeply concerned about the future of our country and I believe I have a significant contribution to make on many of the key issues of the day, especially medical research. NIH funding has saved or lengthened thousands of lives, including mine, and much more needs to be done. And my seniority is very important to continue to bring important projects vital to Pennsylvania's economy.
I am taking this action now because there are fewer than thirteen months to the 2010 Pennsylvania Primary and there is much to be done in preparation for that election. Upon request, I will return campaign contributions contributed during this cycle.
While each member of the Senate caucuses with his Party, what each of us hopes to accomplish is distinct from his party affiliation. The American people do not care which Party solves the problems confronting our nation. And no Senator, no matter how loyal he is to his Party, should or would put party loyalty above his duty to the state and nation.
My change in party affiliation does not mean that I will be a party-line voter any more for the Democrats that I have been for the Republicans. Unlike Senator Jeffords' switch which changed party control, I will not be an automatic 60th vote for cloture. For example, my position on Employees Free Choice (Card Check) will not change.
Whatever my party affiliation, I will continue to be guided by President Kennedy's statement that sometimes Party asks too much. When it does, I will continue my independent voting and follow my conscience on what I think is best for Pennsylvania and America.
Arlen Specter went up with a 30 second TV ad against Pat Toomey in the Philadelphia markets last week.
“Pat Toomey – as a Wall Street trader, he sold risky derivatives called credit default swaps. The same swaps that have now plunged us into this financial crisis,” a narrator in the ad says. “In Congress, Toomey fought for less oversight on Wall Street. He even wants to gamble our Social Security accounts in the stock market.”
The IIE response? Per Glenn Thrush:
Toomey's spokesman Mark Harris called Specter's ad desperate and full of lies in a statement.
"Pennsylvanians have come to expect bizarre behavior from Arlen Specter, but this takes his desperation to a new and very strange level," Harris said in a statement. "Specter can't defend his own liberal record, so he's attacking Pat Toomey, who isn't even in the race yet, with lies about work Pat did 20 years ago. It looks like Specter wants to put Pennsylvanians through a long, dishonest campaign ... for one final time."
I hate the thought of having to defend something that a Republican said, but, not only is what Arlen said correct, but it didn't quite go far enough.
There used to be a magazine called "Derivatives." Yup, a magazine dedicated to credit default swaps and all that goes with them. You know, the things that were suddenly allowed when the Republican Congress removed the protections against Wall-Street-Goes-Wild activities which had existed since the last Great Depression. This was in 1999, which was 10 years ago, and not the 20 years ago cited by Mark Harris. Who was one of the sponsors of this legislation? Yes, again, Freshman Congressman Pat Toomey.
Selected quotes from the 1999 "Derivatives" archives:
[T]he derivatives industry can claim representation by one of its own. Last November, Rep. Patrick Toomey (R-Pa.), a former swaps dealer, was elected to represent his Lehigh Valley district.
Toomey has already helped draft House Resolution 10, a proposal to roll back some of the Glass-Steagall legislation of the 1930s. Not surprisingly, Toomey is virulently opposed to unnecessary regulation. “The trend in deregulation, beginning in the early 1980s, is one of the biggest reasons for the sustained economic expansion,” he says. “I would like to see us continue to deregulate on many fronts, including the financial services industry.”
And what of the much-ballyhooed hedge fund regulation talk emanating from Washington lately? “It’s not clear to me that the problem with Long-Term Capital Management requires new regulation,” he says. “I think we need to continue to work on understanding what really happened there and what the magnitude of the threat to the infrastructure of our financial services industry was. Frankly, I think that the outcome was appropriate. The equity investors lost everything—and under the circumstances that had to happen—but the bailout essentially worked. I would be very leery about, and I will resist, any effort to impose inappropriate regulations as a knee-jerk reaction to what was a big problem but was essentially solved.”
Such passionate discourse is music to the ears of derivatives players around the country.
I'm thinking that Toomey and his Club for Growth won't end up playing well in 2010. I give Arlen credit for trying to play to the Republican middle, but I'm wondering who to whom he's really playing: the equity owners of Lehman, Bear Steans, and GM? The people who used to live in $800,000 houses and are now renting? The median wage families who still have roofs over their heads, but whose 401(k)s have been so raped that retirement isn't even a pipe dream anymore? Arlen can't play to the social conservatives, because he has never really supported their causes. (Well, not most of the time.) WAIT!!! He CAN play both sides against the middle. He has a role model. Ladies and Gentlemen, the potential Lieberman of Pennsylvania. Do you think people can fall for the same "it's still me" rhetoric again? So, perhaps it will work with the Republican base, but this time, it won't play in the General.
The problems of the recession make this a particularly bad time to enact Employees Free Choice legislation. Employers understandably complain that adding a burden would result in further job losses. If efforts are unsuccessful to give Labor sufficient bargaining power through amendments to the NLRA, then I would be willing to reconsider Employees' Free Choice legislation when the economy returns to normalcy.
I am announcing my decision now because I have consulted with a very large number of interested parties on both sides and I have made up my mind... This announcement should end the rumor mill that I have made some deal for my political advantage. I have not traded my vote in the past and I would not do so now.
That just cost him the Republican primary.
If he doesn't switch to the Democratic Party, it costs him the election.
Think "toast".
Update from Matt: Toast is right. Latest Quinnipiac poll: Pennsylvania U.S. Sen. Arlen Specter trails former Congressman Pat Toomey 41 - 27 percent.
Arlen Specter is being courted by big-gun Democrats, like Joe Biden, Ed Rendell and Bob Casey, to come home to the Democratic Party. So far, no dice. It appears that he wants a moderate Republican to remain. Good luck with that, Arlen.
He's still measuring EFCA support: he voted for it in 2007, and the big Pennsylvania unions have said that they'll support him if he votes for it. It appears that they would have their members register as Republicans to vote for him in the Republican primary next May. Still, that will cost him greatly in terms of the support he garners from his moderate Republican base, still angry at him for his support of the stimulus bill. Further, I'm not convinced that the rank-and-file will be willing to switch over, switch back for the general, and then comes the problem of who to support in the general? Torsella is a far better union fit than Specter.
Dawn Johnsen is President Obama's nominee to head the DOJ Office of Legal Council. She's a great candidate. She could be considered the"anti-Yoo" for she will certainly work doggedly to clean up the mess that John Yoo made. Her hearing was held on February 25th, and things went reasonably well. The vote was supposed to be today, so that work could commence towards un-eviscerating the US Constitution, and undoing the horrors of the Bush administration.
Everything was going JUST FINE until Arlen Specter showed that ugly Republican part of himself.
Leahy: Is it my understanding, Sen. Specter, you want to to holdover Dawn Johnsen?
Specter: Yes Mr. Chairman
Leahy: It will be held over.... Dawn Johnsen will be on the agenda next week. I'm getting concerned about getting the various assistants into the Department of Justice. The OLC, of course, has been an area where we've had an enormous amount of questions about some of the opinions of the former Attorney General and want those reviewed. ... I'm afraid that Attorney General Holder may be feeling "home alone" there, we want to get assistants, so this will be the first item on the agenda next week.
So basically, Arlen has decided to be a giant obstructionist for this critical nomination. The vote will be next week, if Arlen doesn't come up with some other nonsense.
Just in case you think the Senate accomplished nothing today,they confirmed two key Justice Department appointees voting 65-28 to confirm David Ogden as deputy attorney general and 72-20 to install Thomas J. Perrelli as associate attorney general.
The Hill has an interesting piece up on the 2010 Pennsylvania Republican Senate primary. Okay, to be fair, it's rehashed information except they raise the prospect that the best option for Arlen in his quest for re-election may be for him to re-join the Democratic Party that he left in 1965.
They believe, as do more than half of DCW readers, that Arlen Specter is facing a loss to Pat Toomey. They raise the idea that Joe Sestak or Pat Murphy might run now that Pat is back on track to challenge Specter. I doubt that, but, in the interest of full disclosure, I'm a Joe Fossella fan. A real fan. They also say that Ed Rendell might challenge, but he'll be facing an electorate in whose short-term memory banks will be the 2009 and 2010 state budgets, and may blame him for decreased services and/or potentially increased taxes.
So, let's consider Arlen's options. If he runs as a Republican he is facing blow-back, and non-support from Michael Steele and RNC monies. Polling indicates that he's infuriated the wing-nut and fiscal conservative branch of the IIE, which is now the majority of the registered Republicans in Pennsyvania since the voter registration shift in 2008. The ex-moderate branch of the Republican branch is now the more right portion of registered Democrats. So, it's likely that he would lose the Republican primary. And then, unlike in Connecticut, Arlen would be unable to run as an Independent in the General.
My first question is whether or not those cross-over registrations will hold. I'll have a better sense of that in about a month: the 2009 primary is in early May, and so we'll start to see whether people decide to move their registrations back to where they were before they wanted to vote in the 2008 primary. Then again, we won't be going full bore on our voter registration until after the primary, so we won't really start seeing the numbers until summer.
In the weekends leading up to the close of primary registration last year, we were running about 90% change forms, compared to 10% new registrations. About half of those changes were for party status, the remainder were a mixture of changed names or addresses, or people who were re-registering because they weren't sure if they were still registered from the last time they had voted. Our voter outreach programs were close to ubiquitous last year. If not for the drives, to re-register, people would have to either go to their local voter services office, or download a form, fill it out and mail it in. I know that while I'll be running drives at a minimum of 3 locations this year, I'm compulsive about registration. Without the Obama campaign, I'm not sure what the state and local parties will do.
So it crosses my mind that in a jungle-like Democratic primary next year, Arlen could actually win. Murphy and Sestak don't have the name recognition that will serve them well outside of Southeastern Pennsylvania, and Fast Eddie may have too much recognition.
If Arlen decides to jump parties soon, we're at 60. (I'm convinced that Senator Franken will be in DC sooner rather than later.) Would the party welcome him with open arms? Depends how he votes on not just the stimulus, but also the appropriations bills, torture, Gitmo, FISA, and a number of other issues. He is already pro-choice, so no problems there. You can see his (mixed) voting record here. There is doubt in my mind that he would change his voting stances to curry favour with the electorate. He's a long time pol, a successful one, and his policies have played well over the years in this, his adopted state.
Personally, I'd prefer to see Torsella or some other progressive in the Senate, because I'm left wing. But if the choice was Toomey v Specter, he'd win my vote, and I suspect, would win the General with something like 75% of the total vote.
Susquehanna Polling is reporting that when the choice for next year is Arlen or "someone else" the numbers come in at 53% - 38%, and the winner is "someone else." Interestingly, it was 66% of Republicans who wanted someone else, but Arlen won the Democrats 49% - 42%. Quinnipiac reports that by 43% - 40%, Specter does not deserve to be reelected.
Enter Pat Toomey. While he previously said he would not run against Arlen next year, he may be changing his mind. He garnered 49% of the vote in the last primary against Arlen, and because of voter registration changes, he's actually got a better shot of winning the nomination this time.
But would a right wing-nut stand a better chance of winning now-Blue Pennsylvania? We don't know who all of the Democrats will be, only Joe Torsella has filed so far to compete.
(I will update this post with a poll, but my polling site is down for maintenance, so I'll post as soon as their site comes back up.)
Arlen Specter was one of only 3 Republicans to vote for the economic stimulus package. Does this vote make your more or less likely to vote for Specter, or does it have no impact?
31% more likely 40% less likely 28% no impact 1% not sure
A look inside the numbers shows the problem for Specter may be even more significant. Fifty-eight percent (58%) of Republican voters in the state are less likely to vote for Specter. Among voters not affiliated with either major party, just 27% are more likely to support the long-time incumbent while 48% are less likely to do so.
"People" are going to say that this is a bad harbinger of things to come for Arlen, but I don't think so, for two reasons. First, those "Republican voters" are a far smaller percentage of the electorate than they were the last time Arlen ran. So that 58% or Republicans is somewhat specious with respect to the total number of voters. In addition, that first question is unclear. If I were polling it, I would have had answers like:
I was going to vote for him, but now I'm not I wasn't going to vote for him, and this solidifies my position I hadn't decided, but this will definitely tilt me towards him I hadn't decided, but this will definitely tilt me against) him Etc.
Had they polled me, a likely Pennsylvania voter, I would have said this makes me less likely to vote for him. And there is a 1% chance I'll vote for Arlen next year: that chance involves Rick Santorum switching parties and getting the Democratic nomination. And when that happens (which will be the day after pigs fly) I'll vote for Arlen.
But the real problem for Arlen isn't his vote for the stimulus bill, it's the other questions in the poll, and they're trouble for all of Congress. Because I think those numbers are accurate, and if the responses turn out to be objectively true, it's bad for all incumbents. Here you go:
How confident are you that Congress knows what it's doing when it comes to addressing the country's current economic problems? 7% very confident, 21% somewhat confident, 38% not very confident, 29% not at all confident, 5% not sure. Will most members of Congress understand what is in the economic recovery plan before they vote on it? 57% no, 26% yes, 17% not sure. And finally, my favourite, do you agree or disagree with the following statement: No matter how bad things are, Congress can always find a way to make them worse? 61% agree, 19% disagree, 20% not sure.
This all gets forgotten if the stimulus plan works, or begins to work, before the elections. Time will tell.
Joe Torsella has filed the appropriate paperwork to run for Arlen Specter's seat next year. From his press release:
Today I filed the necessary paperwork with the Federal Election Commission to establish the Joe Torsella for Senate Committee. I intend to be a candidate for the United States Senate in 2010 and I am taking all the necessary steps for my candidacy, including raising money, hiring staff, and traveling around the state.
Mr. Torsella used to be president of the Constitution Center, and has been active in Pennsylvania politics, and progressive causes, for many years. He has also been a self-employed businessman. He resides in Flourtown.
So let's start with geography. (By the way, and I apologize, but you know me: Harrisburg is the capital of Pennsylvania, it's about 70 miles west of the area we're going to be looking at, and has no bearing on this discussion.)
Joe Torsella has filed the appropriate paperwork to run for Arlen Specter's seat next year. From his 
