Dan-
I saw this article last night. Glad you picked up on it.
Key quote:
“Specter, who faces a serious challenge in a 2010 Democratic primary, has demonstrated a higher level of party unity during his brief time as a Democrat than he did as a Republican.”

This undercuts Sestak’s arguments about Specter’s Democratic loyalty, and (so far) backs my argument that Specter’s natural Democratic leanings were inhibited while in the Republican party. (Similarly, I think that Sestak’s been holding back his natural conservative tendencies.)

If Specter’s unity numbers stay like this (or improve), Democrats will be more comfortable with him by the Primary. The other factor is that news reporters are finally starting to pick up on the fact that Specter’s only announced challenger is Bill Kortz.
If Bill stays in the race and can raise some decent money, it’s a three-way race. He can pull anti-Specter votes from Sestak, especially from the western part of the state where Sestak is less well known.

The point was made previously on this blog that Specter has been forced by the presumed Sestak candidacy to vote as he has. Thus, the Sestak candidiacy already has made a positive contribution by pushing Specter to vote more consistently Democratically than Specter initially announced he would do.

If Specter continues to vote as a progressive Democrat, he gives himself his best chance to win the 2010 primary. That’s just good politics being practiced by Specter. Comparatively, the theory about his inner Democrat having been released by changing party registration is mere speculative psychobabble.

Lee-
As I predicted months ago, Sestak (and his supporters) will try to take credit for Specter’s votes on the Left. It’s a shame it’s not as easy to make stock picks.

I also have pointed out, that Specter’s tune changed when the Dems withheld his seniority, during this probationary period. The expectation is that it would be restored for good behavior after 2010. Sestak had ZERO impact there, but he saw the same leftward move I did, and disingenuously took credit.

This is not as bad as claiming Obama (secretly, in his heart) prefers Sestak to Specter. This sounds like something a 13 year old girl writes in her flowery pink diary.

Tonight, I attended a grassroots meeting, that primarily focused on Obama and health care. This was a pretty Left, activist group. Sestak (not present) was criticized for his stand against single payer. Once of the attendees had been at a recent Sestak sponsored healthcare event, and said Sestak was at odds with the majority of the people there (including 2/3 of Sestak own panel that favored single payer).

People were talking about picketing Sestak’s office on the health care issue.

Several people were also from the peace movement. They are EXTREMELY unhappy with Joe, after having gotten specific assurances from him on Iraq during the 2006 campaign. They and I constantly running into Joe’s supporters who are unaware that he voted for Bush’s Iraq war bill.

One woman I talked to tonight agreed with me not only that Sestak can’t be trusted, but that Sestak is probably more conservative than Specter in the long term. As a female, a senior, and a left wing activist, she would be expected to be on Sestak’s side demographically. However, unlike the out-of-district Left wingers, she knows the real Joe Sestak doesn’t deserve her vote.

Joe’s “I’m the real Democrat” campaign is built on a house of cards. Once enough people see through that, Sestak is done.

David

There are 2 things you said about which I agree with you:

First, it is a shame that it’s not as easy to make stock picks as it is to recognize that Sestak’s candidacy has driven Specter’s voting record toward the Democratic agenda. If it was, we’d all be wealthy.

Second, Sestak is not the darling of the left. In fact, he’s much closer to Obama’s positions. As you know, Obama has taken a lot of criticism for not being more leftist.

It’s interesting that there was talk about the leftist group picketing Sestak’s office (but not Specter’s) for single payer health care, especially when you realize that the House (Sestak’s congressional body) has already passed a health care bill but the Senate (Specter’s congressional chamber) has not. Doesn’t that indicate they see Sestak as having the capacity to support single payer, but Specter doesn’t?

Lee-
My point was that the threat of seniority had a bigger effect moving Specter to the Left than Sestak. Actually, I feel that Specter is the one moving Sestak to the Left. Sestak had been moving toward the Right, since he would need to appeal to the more conservative elements in a statewide race. With Specter on the Dem side, Sestak has to make a (temporary) tactical shift to Left. Rest assured, Sestak will ultimately drift back toward the Right.

Sestak has been against single-payer since day one (day one being Feb 2006 when he announced). When the previous Dem Congressional candidate, Dr. Paul Scoles, stepped aside for Sestak, he highlighted that “single-payer” was the biggest disagreement he had with Sestak. In three years, Sestak hasn’t budged on this point.

If single-payer were to come to a vote, Sestak might “go with the flow” if there was strong Democratic support, but it would not be his first choice and Sestak is not an advocate for it.

Sestak’s had plenty of time to study this issue, and has made up his might. However, Sestak’s more of an opportunist with no real core than Specter. If Sestak believed that single-payer would help in beat Specter in the primary, that’s the only thing that would change his tune.

Obama’s been forced away from his natural Left and towards the middle to make compromises to get his agenda moving forward. Sestak was already in the middle, nowhere near the Left, and listing/drifting to the Right.

Sestak’s counting on being the darling of the Left, and getting most of his support from out of state where his record is not as well known.

“My point was that the threat of seniority had a bigger effect moving Specter to the Left than Sestak.”

David, are you seriously arguing that Specter cares more about having senority in the Senate than he does about getting re-elected to the Senate?

Specter has ZERO interest in being the Junior Senator from Pennsylvania. He wants to CHAIR a key committee, not sit at the kids’ table.

Reid jerked the leash and Specter barked BEFORE Sestak started making noise.

Read:
http://voices.washingtonpost.com/capitol-briefing/2009/05/senate_democrats_deny_specter.html

Key quote:
“Specter, after 43 years as an active Republican, will have to prove his Democratic loyalty over the next 20 months to his colleagues in order to win their support for his seniority.

and this:
http://voices.washingtonpost.com/capitol-briefing/2009/05/specter_reid_promised_seniorit.html

As the articles make clear: Specter can do more for Pennsylvania as a senior Senator than a junior Senator Sestak (we are already down in seniority rankings with first term Bob Casey).