Greg Sargent’s take on Arlen Specter’s Meet the Press denial that he had promised President Obama that he would be a “loyal Democrat” is a spot-on analysis of what Democrats need to take away from this first week with Arlen and how his behavior relates to their need to manage a successful agenda.

So Specter wants us to believe that this story is false — even though he and his office stayed quiet about it and didn’t dispute it for a full five days after it appeared. If Specter privately fibbed to Obama in vowing loyalty to him and the Dems, and is now publicly fibbing about having ever said this, it seems like something Dems might want to keep in mind about their newly-minted Senator.

Specter will be a useful member of the Democratic caucus insofar as he deems it politically expedient for him to be a “loyal Democrat,” regardless of promises to the President.  This obviously isn’t a problem limited to Specter, but what we also see from conservative Democrats like Lincoln, Landrieu, Ben Nelson, and a couple others. Managing these Senators will almost certainly determine how successful the Obama agenda is in the early going.

Personally I think these people should be put on a short leash and threatened electorally by the party institution if they stand in the way of the agenda the American public overwhelmingly voted to put in place last November. But I’m just a DFH…

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.