Arlen Specter has been a friend of mine for more than 30 years.
Our family does not see him often, however. At our daughter's
wedding, she welcomed him, thinking he was someone else. I told her
not to feel bad. Throughout his political life, Specter has been
called far worse than the wrong name.
From the first moment Specter, a Democrat, received the
Republicans' nod to run on their ticket as a Democrat for the office
of district attorney, he has been controversial. After his 1966
election as D.A., he became a Republican and has remained one ever
since. That's not enough for many right-wing conservatives, who
insist that he remains in his core "a dangerous liberal." Liberals,
on the other hand, often label him a turncoat, a wild-card
opportunist who cares about nothing but his own power. The truth
about this brilliant and complex man cannot be simplistically
assessed.
For many liberals, the apex of sheer antagonism toward Specter
was the Clarence Thomas hearings in 1991, an episode that threatened
Specter's reelection and one that caused the New York Times to
describe his treatment of Anita Hill as that of a "mean-spirited
prosecutor."
Ah, but turn back the clock just four years to 1987. That is when
Specter helped torpedo Robert Bork's candidacy for the Supreme
Court, and a new verb, "to bork," was birthed. That time,
conservatives were sickened and liberals were delighted.
Indeed, some conservatives wanted to bring Specter down at his
next reelection. I think the reason Dick Thornburgh did not stand
against him in 1992, as he wanted to, was that Thornburgh was told
by other Republicans that Specter could win, but he couldn't. And
Specter has always appreciated that support, as I'll mention.
In any assessment of Specter, it is necessary to see that above
all, he is a lawyer and prosecutor. And, he is pragmatic and
determined to survive. He is also exceptionally loyal to friends and
supporters. I have always viewed his support of Clarence Thomas as
his payback to those who supported him in 1992.
To appreciate his leadership, it is necessary to look back on his
initial win as D.A. in 1966. Before Specter, the D.A.'s office was a
home to those with political clout and connection, regardless of
degree of competence, skill, work ethic or character. Specter
changed all that. Richard Sprague was brought in as first assistant.
Specter hired excellent, much sought-after assistant D.A.s
regardless of their political views or persuasion. What he wanted
was brilliance and competence, and he was the most loyal of bosses
and mentors. Among the many Republican and Democratic future stars
he hired are Gov. Ed Rendell (who may have returned to New York had
it not been for Specter); Lynne Abraham (hired and nurtured when few
women were given opportunity); federal Judge Mike Baylson; Don
Marino, former chancellor of the city bar; Common Pleas judges
Esther Sylvester and Jim Fitzgerald; and top Philadelphia attorneys
Jim Crawford, Alan Davis, and Art Makedon. He was one of the first
D.A.s in the country to see that a lack of education and family and
community stability led to rises in crime. The community programs he
initiated broke dramatic new ground.
This year, we saw a brutal Republican primary in which right-wing
ideologues were determined to destroy Specter. It's said that many
of his Democratic supporters (including me and my husband)
temporarily changed their registration to vote for him in the
primary against Congressman Pat Toomey. Specter won by just 17,200
votes, and his entire campaign chest of $15.3 million was depleted.
Specter's war with the far right has continued with his recent
remarks about being a moderate, and his recent assurances - very
comforting to many of us who voted for him - that he hopes Supreme
Court nominees will not be rigidly opposed to Roe v. Wade. He
has since softened those remarks - but again, he made them out of
conviction, and out of loyalty to the people who voted for him.
Arlen Specter is no Don Quixote, and he does not possess a Bill
Clinton or John McCain charisma gene. Since political opportunity
and survival have been his oxygen since early adulthood, he has made
enemies. But only the large picture reveals the true priorities
affecting his decisions. He loves his city, his state, and his
country. He has always fought hard for the economic viability of
Philadelphia - consider his toil on behalf of the shipyards. He
loves the practice of law; and he believes in the law of the land
and the promise of the highest courts. Never handed a brass ring, he
went after one, fighting hard year after year to make and continue
his own luck and to serve. He will seek excellence - without
ideological litmus tests - for the Supreme Court. If the enemies out
to destroy this talent are able to mute him, they will endanger all
respect for the quality and competence of the highest court of the
land.
