"Realistically, is there any way in the world Specter would be demanding a public option and demanding punishment for Joe Wilson if he didn't have to impress Democratic primary voters? It's hard to imagine."

I hope PA Dems aren't fooled by Specter's pandering. Upon re-election, he'll immediately return to his old ways and his mostly conservative voting record.

"It's tough, for example, to threaten Sen. Ben Nelson with a primary challenge from the left."

Bull. Most of the residents of these red states only hear caricatures of actual left-leaning, progressive ideas, not the real thing. It would be in the interest of the Democratic party to go out there and run people that espouse the true ideals that we hold. If you don't define yourself, then your opponent will define you for you.

Like I keep on saying about Indiana: if the entire Democratic Party in Indiana couldn't come up with an opponent to Sen. Lugar the last time he was up for re-election, what makes anyone think there's someone who's going to challenge Bayh in a primary?

Much as I'd like to see Bayh get primaried, it just isn't gonna happen.

DiFi definitely needs a challenger. The problem there is that California's a very expensive state to run in, and she's undoubtedly got a well-stocked war chest. Still, even a pro-forma challenge could move her in the right direction. The question is, how do we libruls make this happen?

I don't know if campaign finance law allows an organization to be created to pool funds for a prospective primary challenger, but it sure ought to.

Much as I'd like to see Bayh get primaried, it just isn't gonna happen.

I would have agreed with you a year ago. Not anymore. Why, you ask? Consider who won the state in the most recent Presidential election. It wasn't Cranky McSame.

As a CA resident, I would enthusiastically support a primary challenger to Dianne Feinstein.

She is definitely an underlying cause for the problems facing the Democratic Party today.

Steve. When you reference Evan Bayh as a dumbocrap who needs a primary challenge, you are engaging in wishful thinking of a sort that leads me to think you must believe in the tooth fairy!

Per OpenSecrets.org, Evan Bayh has a current campaign war chest exceeding $12 million. When he last ran for reelection in 2004, he raised $7.6 M & only spent $2.9 M.

Among the many 'secrets' of incumbency that the corporate media will never discuss is the power of incumbents to raise so much money that no serious candidates will oppose them. In Indiana, if any progressive would dare challenge him in the dumbocrat primary, they would be drowned in Bayh's advertising blitz. In fact, there does not even appear to be anyone of republican stature who is willing to take on Bayh's cash.

Even Bush's first budget director (now the governator of Indiana) is unwilling to take on Bayh.

Today's Quick Quiz: What is the purpose state and local politics?

Answer: To prove to the wealthy and corporate interests that a politician, before he is promoted to national politics, can be bought and will stay bought!

Quiz #2: What do Dianne Feinstein and Evan Bayh have most in common?

Answer: They both know that the reason to go into politics is to increase the wealth of their families.

Arlen Specter...was just on the Bill Press radio show suggesting the South Carolina firebrand Joe Wilson be censured for his heckle heard round the world.

Politico is wrong. Specter stated that he was open to the idea of censuring Rep. Wilson on the Bill Press show.

The main point of Steve's post is still correct, however.

I'm a poll of 1 (fwiw) who agrees with what OhNoNotAgain said. I'm a lifelong Rethug that remains a limited gov-mint, pay-as-you-go, strong oversight, prosecute telecoms, prosecute war crimes and bust wall street monopolies type of guy. (Yea, I know - I've been redefined a RINO.) I'm very receptive to progressive ideas like health care overhaul, a sane energy policy and an aggressive policy to address global warming. If I lived in Nebraska, I very much would want a viable progressive alternative to Ben Nelson. Even if the candidate was GOP :)

Sen. Feinstein will next stand for election in 2012. At that time she will be approximately eighty years old.

If she runs again, a primary challenge from the left would be more than salutary.

Evan BAYH? Indiana is where Chicago Republicans go so they can be heard. It's a purple state, but it leans definitively to the right.

I don't care if Specter says he's for single payer, I'm voting for Sestak next year. It's as certain as death and taxes that Specter only says these things to get re-elected, then turns around and stabs you in the back afterward.

To me, the great mystery remains why a sick old man like Specter, who doesn't stand for anything, isn't associated with any cause or issue that I can think of, why he wants to stay in the Senate? He could run out the clock with lots of money and all teh attention he wanted. Chris Matthews would give him a weekly segment if he wanted it, hell, MSNBC would probably fill up an hour in the afternoon if he asked. I guess normal people can't understand that combination of emotional neediness, vanity and power lust that makes people like Specter cling to office.

Whether the letter next to Snarlin' Arlen's name is D or R, he's really a member of only one party: The Arlen Specter Party. A party of one.

-Z

I would have agreed with you a year ago. Not anymore. Why, you ask? Consider who won the state in the most recent Presidential election. It wasn't Cranky McSame.

Yeah, but fielding a candidate for a Senate seat is something both parties do in almost every race. And the Indiana Dems literally did not contest Lugar his last time out - not even a sacrificial lamb. That demonstrates a pretty remarkable level of weakness. Going from there to the level of vigor involved to support a primary challenge is a pretty huge step.

"I'm a lifelong Rethug that remains a limited gov-mint, pay-as-you-go, strong oversight, prosecute telecoms, prosecute war crimes and bust wall street monopolies type of guy."

IOW, you're a Teddy Roosevelt Republican, i.e. the good kind. :-)

For the record, I was a lifelong Republican until 2002. Our government's reactionary response to 9/11 scared the shit out of me, and the succeeding years just got worse and worse.

Whether the letter next to Snarlin' Arlen's name is D or R, he's really a member of only one party

Lieberman might be a member of that party as well.

Most of the residents of these red states only hear caricatures of actual left-leaning, progressive ideas, not the real thing

If both of my conservative parents are any indication, nothing can change this. I'm a moderate-liberal atheist who talks politics and religion with them on a somewhat regular basis, yet all the same, they believe the Limbaugh/O'Reilly caricature of what a liberal atheist is over the liberal atheist speaking to them. I'll repeatedly tell them what liberals and atheists believe, yet all the same, they simply refuse to believe me and insist that the caricature is real and that I'm wrong about what liberal atheists believe.

For instance, both my folks INSIST that there is a "War on Christmas" even though they know that I LOVE Christmas and insist to them that we're not trying to stop it. Similarly, my mom keeps insisting that liberals don't stand for anything, no matter how many times I tell her what we stand for. It's not for lack of trying that these people see us as caricatures. It's all they understand, and they'd rather repeat what Limbaugh tells them about us than to believe their lying eyes.

I should emphasize in all this that I firmly believe that most Americans are liberals, including my parents. And that's why Limbaugh has to lie about us, because if he told the truth, nobody would hate us. The caricature is all they've got.

low-tech, i get what you're saying but i think there is a rational case to be made that there is more gained from challenging Bayh than challenging Lugar.

neither is likely to be successful - the odds are long. but challenging Bayh from the left may have the Sestak-Specter effect; challenging Lugar from the left won't.

Moreover, a 'turncoat" on your own team is often more damaging than a relative moderate on the other side. Lugar, while conservative, is at least sane, which makes him a moderating force in his own caucus. Bayh, on the other hand, creates a source of anti-progressive dissent within the D caucus.

So if our bench is thin, I'd just as soon use what we have to press Bayh than to press Lugar.

I hate party politics. They allow scoundrels to hide behind the shield of their party affiliation, they remove thought from the political process, and they immediately set up the worst kind of divisive tribalism in public discourse. They encourage graft and corruption on a massive scale. Without parties, we'd have public health care. The scare tactics that the GOP is using right now are motivated by a desire to block a good public policy so that they can score political points, and they rely on the public not remembering that some of what they're using to terrify us are the same policy points that they've suggested in the past. Their opposition is, in part, rooted in the political fact that they cannot allow the other party to have a victory that grants health coverage to millions of Americans, thus securing their votes for years to come.

That said, a primary challenge would only do any good if the party supported the challenger, especially after he won. Otherwise, we just have Lieberman all over again. When parties stop representing the will of their members, they've stopped performing even the limited service that they ostensibly offer.

i think there is a rational case to be made that there is more gained from challenging Bayh than challenging Lugar.

Oh, I agree, and I think you've made the case well. I just don't think you're looking at it from a human relations perspective.

Nobody's going to give you flak for running for a Senate seat held by even a universally beloved member of the other party, and it's a good opportunity to get some statewide name recognition at low cost, even if you're running on a shoestring.

But primary challenges against anything less than a blatantly corrupt incumbent (and often even then) are a good way of making a lot of people in your own party upset with you.

So given that, who's going to run against Bayh in a primary now, that wasn't willing to run against Lugar in 2006 with a much better set of incentives?

Seems to me the Dems need to get a bit tougher on their rogue members... There is a party platform after all. If the incumbent doesn't stand for the party platform why should they even get the support of the Democratic Party when it comes to primaries?

Sure they want to protect their numbers in office, but what good are the numbers when they don't equal the votes? Threatening to withdraw support for incumbents in primaries would surely scare some more Dems into voting, eg, for a decent health care bill including the public option.

"If both of my conservative parents are any indication, nothing can change this."

My Dad is the same way. The older (I assume) white folks have to be written off, for the most part. They aren't going to be swayed. But, they will be more and more the minority as the years progress, which makes it very important that the Democratic party steps in with challengers that show up with the right ideas at the right time.

Di-Fi is the Dan White crime that keeps on giving.

re: primarying (word?) Bayh.
I'm also a resident of Indiana and I'm starting to wonder how much longer Hoosier Democrats are going to allow Evan to run on his father's record. His father, Birch, actually was a liberal; Evan isn't. He isn't even willing to fight for his Democratic base's welfare; ie, health care, jobs, decent environment. His attitude towards any change in the status quo marks him as an old-fashioned, middle-of-the-road Republican. More and more, Democrats that I have spoken to are wondering just why, other than his name, they still vote for him. The answer: who else is there?
The only possible primary challenger to Bayh would have to have a private income to permit a 2 year long pre-campaign campaign. Only by getting out and meeting with any- and everyone, while presenting a clear and coherent message, could a challenger have a chance of overcoming Bayh's war chest. It wouldn't be easy and, of course, there are no guarantees of winning, but I can't see any other way of combatting Bayh's advantages.
And simply by having someone pushing Bayh from on the left (actually, the center) of the party, might force Bayh to at least act like a Democrat.

Well, if Bayh (or Feinstein for that matter) can't realistically be challenged in a primary and continues to act like a Republican, why not just vote for the real thing in the next general election. If he loses, he is out of the way. Sure, you're stuck with a Republican for six years, but you're really not all that much worse off than you are now. Then you can get a better Democrat the next time around. If he squeeks by, maybe he will pay more attention to his base and not take you for granted.
P.S. I think Chris has Specter pegged. As many people have noted - he's with you except when you need him.