How to power-vault modestly.

I'm reading the headline of the new Dana Milbank column out loud to Meade:

ME: "Elizabeth Warren is not the left’s Ted Cruz. She is the left’s Jim DeMint." What does that even mean?

MEADE: Who is Jim DeMint?

ME: I know.

It's not that we don't know anything about Jim DeMint. He's... a Senator... right?

ME (reading from the Milbank column): "DeMint, the former Republican senator from South Carolina who now runs the conservative Heritage Foundation, is widely seen as the godfather of the tea-party movement."

MEADE: So much for my Tea Party credentials, then. I guess I'm not much of a tea-bagger after all.

Back to the column:

The left’s tea-party equivalent is still in its infancy. But it could be seen recently in the opposition by environmental activists to the reelection of Sen. Mary Landrieu (D-La.), who lost her seat this month. They wanted to punish her for opposing them on energy issues — even though the conservative replacing her is less to their liking.

This was very much the logic of DeMint, who said he’d prefer a minority of conservative senators to a majority of moderates: “I’d rather have 30 Marco Rubios than 60 Arlen Specters.”

But where's Cruz in all this?

Cruz, long an establishment man, arrived late in the tea party movement, opportunistically embracing its themes to vault himself to power in 2012. His stands in Washington have been less about advancing a policy agenda than about causing mayhem and positioning himself to run for the Republican presidential nomination in 2016.

DeMint, by contrast, cared about policy and took a long view of politics....

So you see Milbank's point. Elizabeth Warren is not vaulting herself. She's building a movement, a group project. You can see that — in Milbank's mind — this makes Warren a much better candidate for President. Of course, Warren could just be clever enough to figure out how to seem to lack individualistic, personal lust for power. If so, good for you. There is nobody in this country who can become President on his own....

Arlen Specter has died.

He was 82.

ADDED: He played an important role in Supreme Court nominations:

"Former Pennsylvania senator Arlen Specter said Thursday that Rick Santorum got his facts wrong..."

"... when he said that he endorsed Specter only after securing a promise that Specter would support GOP Supreme Court nominees."

Santorum, last night:

"I said will you support the president's nominees? We had a 51-to-49 majority in the Senate. He said, 'I'll support the president's nominees as chairman.'"

Specter, today:

"He is not correct. I made no commitment to him about supporting judges... I made no deal."

Arlen Specter accuses John Roberts and Samuel Alito of violating the oath they took at their confirmation hearings.

The former Republican, on the way out of the Senate, thinks this is worth saying:

"The Supreme Court has been eating Congress' lunch by invalidating legislation with judicial activism after nominees commit under oath in confirmation proceedings to respect congressional fact finding and precedents...

"Ignoring a massive congressional record and reversing recent decisions, Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Alito repudiated their confirmation testimony given under oath and provided the key votes to permit corporations and unions to secretly pay for political advertising — thus effectively undermining the basic Democratic principle of the power of one person, one vote...  Chief Justice Roberts promised to just call balls and strikes and then he moved the bases."

Bleh. You just disagree with the call.  I hate this sort of political posturing. It's not the massiveness of the congressional record that makes a statute constitutional. It's fitting within the Constitution.

Specter is acting as if the question at the confirmation hearing was: If we put a really, really huge number of words into the record, do you promise to let us do anything we want? And the answer was: Yes, of course. When I see a lot of pages, I always think, wow, that must be true.

Obama, referring to the "narrow window" of time when he had 60 votes in the Senate: "after Franken finally got seated and Arlen had flipped, but before Scott Brown won in Massachusetts."

Arlen had flipped.

Rand Paul is in. And Specter is out.

It's been a big night.

"It’s been a great privilege to serve the people of Pennsylvania,” said Mr. Specter, looking drawn and downcast as he delivered a brief concession speech.... “And I’ll be working hard for the people of Pennsylvania very hard for the coming months.”...

“I have a message,” Mr. Paul said, delivering a victory speech in Bowling Green. “A message from the Tea Party. A message that is loud and clear and does not mince words: We have come to take our government back.”

"Elena Kagan's nomination couldn't come at a worse time for Arlen Specter."

"Unlike his fellow Democrats, he's been unable to fawn over President Obama's Supreme Court pick, or push Republicans to grant her swift confirmation. That's because, just last year, Specter voted against confirming Kagan as Solicitor General...when he was a member of the GOP."

And there's only 1 week left before the primary. His challenger Joe Sestak has closed in on Specter and is running this ad:



Ouch. I'm assuming ouch — from the perspective of Democratic primary voters. For me, when George W. Bush popped up, I felt... Oh! It doesn't matter what I felt. The point is GWB is the bogeyman for true-blue Democrats.

Arlen Specter wants Justice Stevens not to retire this year.

"I think the gridlock in the Senate might well produce a filibuster which would tie up the Senate about a Supreme Court nominee. I think if a year passes, there's a much better chance we could come to a consensus."

Obama should just pick a relatively moderate liberal judge. That would avoid the filibuster this year, and it's what he'll have to do next year. So what is Specter talking about?

Specter is bouncing off what Senator Kyl said:

"I think the president will nominate a qualified person. I hope, however, he does not nominate an overly ideological person. That will be the test," Kyl said. "And if he doesn't nominate someone who is overly ideological, I don't think -- you may see Republicans voting against the nominee, but I don't think you'll see them engage in a filibuster."

So, you see my point. Maybe what Specter is really thinking is that it will hurt the Democrats in the fall to spend the summer paying attention to the subject of liberal ideology on the Supreme Court. Specter has been on the Senate Judiciary for a long time, both as a Democrat and a Republican, so he knows all about the way the 2 parties manipulate the occasion of Supreme Court nominee hearings.

"Specter got it all wrong that I ever used words ‘death boards’. Even liberal press never accused me of that. So change ur (sic) last Tweet Arlen."

So it's come to this.

Arlen Specter tells us about Bob Dole's penis — and other things.

From the Deborah Solomon interview:

You and Bob Dole share a hometown, Russell, Kan. What do they put in the water there?

Debaters’ tonic. Russell is famous for its high-school debate championship teams.

Did you know Dole in your Kansas days?

No. When I moved to Russell in the eighth grade, he was much older, but in the intervening years I’ve pretty much caught up to him.

I assume this was before he was appearing on television in Viagra commercials.

From reliable sources, he did not need Viagra then.

Okay, enough cock talk. Unless this counts;

Many women can never forgive you for your aggressive questioning of Anita Hill during the Clarence Thomas confirmation hearings. Do you regret your behavior?

No. When a serious charge is made like sexual harassment, the subject is entitled to question the accuser and find out the facts, and that’s what I did.

This doesn't count:

You’re 79 and you’ve endured two bouts of Hodgkin’s disease. Why would you want to run for re-election?

Don’t forget my brain tumors or my bypass surgery or the incorrect diagnosis of A.L.S. on the list of my maladies. But I’m full of vim, vigor and vitality....

Vanity...

Specter also accidentally says he wants Norm Coleman to win. Oops!

“In the swirl of moving from one caucus to another, I have to get used to my new teammates,” he said. “I’m ordinarily pretty correct in what I say. I’ve made a career of being precise. I conclusively misspoke.”

Asked who he’s backing now in elections, Specter said, “I’m looking for more Democratic members. Nothing personal.”

And when he finds more Democratic members, may he tell us what he knows about their members too.

Specter's seniority...

... squandered.

There will be math.

Yesterday, I said that, contrary to Arlen Specter's assertion, black people are not underrepresented on the Supreme Court. I noted the presence of Clarence Thomas, the fact that 1 is 11.1111 percent of 9, 2 is 22.2222 percent of 9, and that African-Americans make up 13.4% of the U.S. population.

In the comments, JackOfClubs defended Spector:

Technically, he's right since 11.11...% is less than 13.4%. To get an accurate representation, we would need 0.134 * 9 = 1.206 black people on the Court. This could be achieved if the next candidate were 13/64 = .203125 black, i.e. if 13 of his or her great-great-great-great grandparents were black and the other 51 were some other race. This approximation would be precise to the 2nd decimal place which is really all we can expect given that the original statistic of 13.4% is probably rounded. A slightly more precise approximation could be achieved by looking for someone 53/256 = .2070312 black, but that would just be silly.

More math satire, from Mike S:

The views of Blacks (13% of the population) are only under-represented on the court if they are on the LOSING end of an 8-1 or 9-0 decision. If they are on the losing end of 7-2, 6-3, or 5-4 decisions, or on the winning side of any decision, they are over-represented.

The views of whites (60% of the population), on the other hand, are under-represented if they are on the LOSING end of ANY decision.

Therefore, to be fair, all supreme court cases should be decided by a nationwide poll of white people.

Did Arlen Specter mean to say that Clarence Thomas doesn't count as a black person?

On "Meet the Press," David Gregory questioned Arlen Specter about who President Obama should pick to replace David Souter on the Supreme Court:

SEN. SPECTER: He should be looking for someone with a strong academic and professional background. It would be my hope that he would choose someone with diversity. Women are underrepresented on the court. We don't have an Hispanic. African-Americans are underrepresented. I would hope that he would look beyond the circuit courts of appeals which now populate the Supreme Court and pick someone with greater world experience and diversity.

African-Americans are underrepresented on the Supreme Court? There is 1 African-American on the Supreme Court, which has 9 Justices. 1 is 11.1111 percent of 9. 2 is 22.2222 percent of 9. African-Americans make up 13.4% of the U.S. population. Is Arlen Specter ignorant of these facts, or does he mean to say that Clarence Thomas doesn't count as a black person? In answering the question, take this into account:

Bad news for Obama!

"He’ll be responsible for everything."

Suddenly, Arlen Specter is a Democrat.

Sources say.