The Washington Post

pa2010.com is proud to partner with The Washington Post in bringing our originally reported insider political news to a wide audience of decision makers and opinion leaders across the country.

Close it
advertisement
Whiteboard

Specter says he’ll support Johnsen

Specter says he’ll support Johnsen

Senator Arlen Specter signaled Tuesday that he would vote to confirm the Obama administration’s nominee to head the Office of Legal Counsel, effectively neutralizing for now yet another disagreement with primary opponent Joe Sestak.

Specter had originally held up Johnsen’s nomination to the Justice Department post in the Spring, after Johnsen came under criticism for her opposition to the Bush administration’s national security policies and her past work for an abortion rights group. Specter reiterated his opposition to Johnsen in the days after after he switched to the Democratic Party, and her nomination eventually died.

But with President Obama resubmitting the nomination, Specter signaled in a statement that Johnsen would get his support.

“After voting ‘pass’ (which means no position) in the Judiciary Committee, I had a second extensive meeting with Ms. Johnsen and have been prepared to support her nomination when it reaches the Senate floor,” Specter said.

A day earlier, Sestak hit Specter anew over the Johnsen situation, saying in one of his campaign’s “memos” to Specter that “President Obama is giving you a second chance to support his nominee to lead the Office of Legal Counsel.”

“I understand that when you switched parties you pointed to your unequivocal opposition to the health care public option, your condemnation of the Employee Free Choice Act as a ‘bad bill,’ and your rejection of Professor Johnsen as demonstrations of your commitment to not be a ‘loyal Democrat,’” Sestak said. “But you switched your position on the first two, and coming through on a second chance to again change your position and support Professor Johnsen would be a tremendous benefit to the nation.”

January 12, 2010 at 4:18 pm

--pa2010.com Staff

Tags: , ,

comments

comments [7] | post a comment

  1. [...] Specter joins Sestak in backing Johnson for Justice Dept post… [...]

  2. Matt

    Jan 12th, 2010

    Is this huge news? This has been on the radar for awhile.

    From Adam Schwartzbaum’s Oct 9 pa2010 article:

    “19. don’t ask don’t tell, and also Dawn Johnsen – my question
    a. Johnsen: he likes her positions on a woman’s right to chose, but her views on exec power are different. Had a second meeting with her, and he is thinking about it- may change if it is brought to the floor”

  3. Adam Schwartzbaum

    Jan 12th, 2010

    Thanks Matt for noticing what I reported on back on October. I knew based on his answer to my question at the UPenn town hall that he had changed his position on this issue. This is just validation of what Specter basically promised back in the Fall.

  4. David Diano

    Jan 12th, 2010

    This is another example of Sestak getting advanced word of Specter announcing a position, then jumping ahead to pretend Specter is reacting to Sestak’s challenge.

    As Matt points out, among those following the issue, Specter’s position was already known. Specter’s not going to oppose a Dem nomination unless there is a major controversy.

    With Obama resubmitting, Sestak had to know Specter would be making an announcement. So, he jumped out ahead. This is a recurring tactic.

  5. Dan Hirschhorn

    Jan 12th, 2010

    Hey everyone,

    Just to clarify, Adam did indeed report that Specter was increasingly leaning toward this a while back. However, I’m pretty sure this is the first time he’s said more explicitly that he’ll support her nomination.

    Dan Hirschhorn

  6. David Diano

    Jan 12th, 2010

    Dan-
    Agreed that it wasn’t explicit before, but the resubmit was going to require a definitive answer.

    Adam seems convinced (“knew”) that Specter had changed his position. The exact quote doesn’t convey all the tone and other clues that formed Adam’s opinion.

    The direction was clear enough for Sestak to jump the gun ahead of Specter’s announcement.

  7. Adam Schwartzbaum

    Jan 13th, 2010

    What struck me about my exchange with Specter at the time was the conspiratorial air with which he told me to pay attention to what he does “when her vote comes up on the floor.” As Specter said this, he looked me straight in the eye, and there was sort of a wink-nod expression on his face that seemed to say, “people like you and I who know about these things understand that I am going to go along now with the President’s desires on this nomination like a good party member should.” I didn’t report on this at the time, because it was more a feeling than hard news – indeed, the facts were as Dan described them, that he was “reevaluating” his position. But I probably should have.

    I say I “knew” because I could discern, based on the way in which Specter was positioning himself as a solid supporter of the President, that his “reevaluation” was actually a signal that, after the passage of a little time, he would eventually be voting for the Johnsen nomination.

Leave a Reply


- will not be published