The various reactions to Arlen Specter switching to the Democratic Party seem widely varied based on who is responding and on what they are responding to. It seems to me that the difference is how people are thinking about what Specter’s switch means and whether they are applying their thoughts through a matrix of theoretical values of having 60 Democrats in the Senate caucus or an empirical one based around what Specter is specifically saying he will and will not do. Not shockingly, elected Democrats in Washington seem to have fully embraced the theoretical benefits of a 60th Democrat, regardless of who that “Democrat” is and what they are actually saying they will do as a member of our caucus.

Ron Wyden, one of the more liberal members of the Senate, said “This is transformative…It’s game-changing.” Naturally that was my first reaction too, but one look at his written statement caused me to question that. Specter came out of the gate not only saying he’ll continue to oppose Employee Free Choice, probably the most important issue his vote will be needed on this year, but that it’s the archetype of how he won’t be a reliable vote for cloture for Democrats. Specter then expanded on his opposition to Free Choice in his press conference.

Obviously going beyond Wyden, we’ve seen ecstatic responses from the likes of Harry Reid and President Obama. It seems the idea of having a supermajority is something so theoretically powerful that actual examination of what we gained is not terribly important, or at least it wasn’t yesterday. Perhaps as the reality of Specter as a member of the Democratic caucus in the Senate plays itself out, we’ll see a reduction of enthusiasm from those who are most clearly responding to the theoretical value of a supermajority. When that happens, perhaps we’ll also see Obama and Reid walk away from their pledge to campaign and fundraise for Specter and to keep other Democrats out of a primary with him.

I’ve also heard a number of commentators point out that Specter may be making noises on his areas of differences with the Democrats, but will likely come home to roost when we need his vote.  Specter may have a history of saying one thing out of principle and voting on another. He’s known as a limp noodle and his statements of certitude and principle are almost always good cues to know that he will vote in the opposite direction. But in the course of the last eight years or so, when he’s moved away from stated principle to cast a vote, it has effectively always been in the direction of the conservative Republican Party. Why in the world should we assume that when Specter says he will not back the Employee Free Choice Act or the confirmation of Dawn Johnsen at OLC that he would, in fact, vote with the Democratic caucus?

The supermajority is not a real thing. It is not like a majority. It is in flux on every single vote and can only be maintained when there is serious leadership to keep the caucus together. We have never seen that kind of hard-armed leadership from Harry Reid and we would be naive to expect it now. If anything, this move assures Reid will have even less control on keeping the liberal/Democratic agenda coming from the House and White House moving forward. Instead, the conservative/moderate Democrats ostensibly lead by Evan Bayh will have more power than before. They will have added a vote to a mini-caucus of people that just don’t like the idea of moving the fairly progressive Obama agenda forward, regardless of electoral mandate or policy imperative. As a result, the likelihood of getting good legislation originating from the House or the White House is reduced, as the Bayh caucus will consistently hold whatever offends their delicate sensibilities hostage.

I’d love to be proved wrong. I’d love to see Specter become the loyal Democrat he claimed to be seven minutes after switching parties. I’d love if he also redefined loyalty to include actually supporting the party’s agenda. I’d love to see him get some fig leaf cover to flip again and support cloture on Employee Free Choice. But I’m not going to celebrate the theoretical virtues of a supermajority that has not been proven to exist, especially on our most important issues.

* * *

NB: I haven’t even addressed the fact that Obama, Reid and the DSCC have pledged to keep Specter free from a primary opponent. This level of premature ejaculation over the theoretical virtues of having Specter be the Democrat’s “reliable” 60th vote is simply too hard to wrap my mind around just yet.

I agree with Chris Bowers, it’s time to change the rules of the Senate to end the practice of silent filibusters that Republicans are using to stifle the President’s agenda with no public debate. Bowers’ suggestion isn’t to go nuclear in the Bill Frist sense of removing all rights from the minority in the Senate to slow the majority’s legislative agenda, but to require filibusters to exist in public, with public debate, forcing the minority to defend their obstructionism. Most importantly, I don’t think the country can afford to wait until the Republicans use the lazy man’s filibuster to kill meaningful healthcare reform and energy policy reform. The time to make this change is now so we can have a fruitful public debate about the President’s agenda and why Republicans are so opposed to it.

The New York Times has a pretty good profile of Rep. Chris Murphy, one of the rising stars of the Democratic Party and a politician who will likely be the first part of a new generation of leadership from my home state of Connecticut. I think Murphy is the first clear successor to Chris Dodd, John Larson, and Rosa DeLauro.  Since Connecticut is a state that has only seven federal offices, people tend to spend a lot of time waiting for the previous generation to move along. A new generation is coming and Murphy has a bright future in front of him.

Just after hitting publish on the post below on the country’s love for President Obama qua partisan Democrat, I read this post by Chris Bowers at Open Left about the craven and cynical positioning of Democratic Senators Reid and Bayh to disingenuously appeal to moderate voters in their home states. Bowers notes, “Democrats keep saying, in public, that the only reason they support certain positions is to trick people into thinking that they are moderate.” This isn’t to say that these sorts of Democrats are actually liberal. Rather they are most likely without any strong ideology and are simply creatures of politics.  This is, again, the group that I think is a key audience for the Rasmussen poll that shows strong support for Obama’s governance as a strong Democrat. Rather than going out and lying to the public about where they really stand, senators like Bayh and Reid should stand up for real Democratic values, which at some point in their lives these politicians must have held strongly enough to decide to go into public service. President Obama is proving that this is what the American public wants. Democratic “moderates” shouldn’t stand in Obama’s way for the sake of doing what they wrongly believe makes home state voters happy. Now is the time for them to stand up for the President’s agenda and show America what real Democratic governance looks like, free from hemming, backroom deals, and cynical posturing.

Accountability Now formally launched today. The concept is for some big progressive organizations and top bloggers – people like Jane Hamsher, Markos Moulitsas, Glenn Greenwald, Nate Silver, MoveOn, SEIU, and Color of Change – to put together the resources and energies to primary bad, conservative Democrats. To me there is really nothing more exciting happening in the Democratic Party today than the prospect of having more democracy and challenging incumbents who fail to represent their district and the party.

Sam Stein of Huffington Post has the best article on Accountability Now so far.