Many years ago, Senator Arlen Specter from Pennsylvania was one of the main architects of the "single bullet theory" of the Kennedy assassination. I happen to believe that theory is correct and I have a new one. It's the "double Arlen Specter theory." My theory is that there are two senators from Pennsylvania named Arlen Specter who look exactly alike but who have totally different sets of principles and moral conduct.
Anyone who has followed this man's career (or rather, these men's careers) could cite many examples. No representative who has held office for any length of time has had quite the capacity to get both parties mad at him, often for the same actions. Browse Democratic websites and you'll see people cursing him as a Republican. Browse Republican sites and you'll see them cursing him louder as a "RINO" (Republican in Name Only). Ordinarily, I'd admire the seeming unwillingness to toe any party's line. But in this case, it's mostly a matter of one Arlen Specter subverting the other's agenda, making sure that any stand that puts principle over partisan concerns is soon neutralized.
The other day, UPI reported…
Sen. Arlen Specter, R-Pa., chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, says President George W. Bush's warrantless surveillance program appears to be illegal. Appearing on NBC's Meet the Press, Specter called the administration's legal reasoning "strained and unrealistic" and said the program appears to be "in flat violation" of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act.
Now, the lede is a bit overstated, given that Specter also said the problem may have been with the law itself. But it takes a certain amount of political courage to say as much as he did, and to make all those other statements about pursuing the truth, no matter who it embarrasses.
This morning, chairing the committee investigating these charges, we got an Arlen Specter who didn't feel the Attorney General needed to be sworn in before testifying. If you or I testified in a case involving a discrepancy of twenty dollars somewhere, we'd have to be sworn in and say whatever we said under oath. Judge Judy puts people under oath before she'll let them state their names in her TV court. Today, rather than spend the thirty seconds necessary to do that, Specter spent many long minutes defending that decision. He stated that the Attorney General had said he was quite willing to take the oath but that this particular Arlen Specter decided it wasn't necessary because, if I understand him correctly, somewhere there was precedent that showed this occasionally was not done and he didn't feel like doing it this time.
Sorry…I don't get it. The only conceivable reason to not take any kind of testimony under oath is to give the witness a smidgen of wiggle room if later, it's necessary to prosecute them for lying. This should not even be an option and I'll bet you that one of the Arlen Specters agrees. At least one of them must remember John Mitchell, a former attorney general who was convicted and sent to prison on charges that included obstruction of justice and perjury.
Some of you may be skeptical of my theory, and I can certainly understand that. You might be thinking, "Hey, how can Pennsylvania have two Senator Specters? States only get two senators and don't they have another one? No, not really. Take a look at some of the posturings and contradictions of this Rick Santorum guy who is sometimes passed off as "the other" senator from Pennsylvania. That's not a real senator. He's just some sham someone arranged to mask the fact that there are two Arlen Specters.
Come back later and I'll tell you about the three Joe Bidens. That's how many there'd have to be for there to be that many Joe Biden speeches and Sunday morning news show appearances.