Specter & 'card check': Politics as usual
Did Arlen Specter really come to his senses over the deceptively titled Employee Free Choice Act, a piece of legislation loaded with sops to union chicanery• Or is it just another in a long line of sneaky political calculations from Pennsylvania's senior U.S. senator?
Clearly, it's the latter.
The "card-check bill" would eliminate the secret ballot in union-organizing efforts. Worse, it also creates a binding arbitration process allowing government to set wage rates.
Specter, however, is in a bind. Support card check and he angers the business community he'll need in the 2010 primary in his likely and difficult rematch against Pat Toomey. Oppose card check and he honks off the organized labor lobby he'll need in the general election.
But Democrats really don't need the Philadelphia Republicrat. Specter says that by the time any actual voting occurs, Al Franken will have been certified the winner of the Minnesota Senate race. "Card check" will have all the votes it needs.
Should Specter survive next year's primary, he'll employ that rationalization for the fall campaign. In fact, should Specter win renomination, count on him to say he's "reconsidered" this week's decision. He'll then break out an even larger screwdriver and even longer screw against business to win back union support.
After all, that's Arlen being Arlen, who never lets principles get in the way of politics.
Show commenting policy
TribLive commenting policy
You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.
We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.
While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.
We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers.
We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.
We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.
We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.
We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.