How to interpret Arlen Specter's probable demise.

Honestly, I can't help but think that the news media as a whole are over analyzing the senate primary race between Sestak and Specter.  They're kicking around what Specter's win or loss might foretell for the November general election.  If he loses, does it mean there really is an anti incumbent sentiment out there Etc. (I hope so)?  I think they picked the wrong race to analyze. I think Mr. Specter time of service to his country has run its course,

I sit in front of the TV and just shake my head. It seems pretty apparent there are a few major reasons why Mr. Specter ought to lose tomorrow's primary. Firstly, he suddenly had a crisis of conscience and changed his party affiliation stating, "I now find my political philosophy more in line with Democrats than Republicans," Mr. Specter said in his statement, acknowledging that his decision was certain to disappoint colleagues and supporters. Though the real reason was not a disparity in philosophy, it was to save a job his job "I'm not prepared to have my 29-year record in the United States Senate decided by the Pennsylvania Republican primary electorate, not prepared to have that record decided by that jury," Mr. Specter declared in a rather defiant and dismissive tone. Specter's move has sown resentment and feelings of betrayal among some of the. Republican friends and associates who were loyal to him at great cost to their own career Not least of them is Rick Santorum, the conservative former senator who recently said he supported the more liberal Specter in 2004 because Specter promised to back George W. Bush's court nominees. Specter has denied he ever made that commitment and he bristled at the press club lunch when asked if he and Santorum should take lie detector tests to settle the question. "My integrity, established over a long career, doesn't need a lie detector test to establish its veracity," he said stiffly. On the other hand Santorum said he would take the test.

He most certainly misjudged Obama mania, believing as I'm sure President Obama himself did that it would continue for years.  His abrupt change in parties looked spurious then, and nowadays one has to wonder just what he stands for.  As a Republican he leaned to the left of the isle and was more of an impediment to the party than asset, and in just slightly over 370 days as a Democrat he has helped to devastate and possibly bankrupt an entire country, and give us Obama care of which only 30% of the population wanted. Over the past year, Specter went from opposing to supporting a public option in the health care bill, from opposing to supporting some form of a bill making it easier for workers to form unions, from criticizing to supporting Dawn Johnsen's controversial nomination for a key Justice Department post (now a moot issue; she has withdrawn). He even sided with liberals on Afghanistan, opposing Obama's troop surge there. At the press club lunch here in Harrisburg, the moderator read a question that asked why Specter, if he is so worried about spending and deficits, voted for the banks bailout and Obama's $787 billion stimulus bill. Specter said Vice President Dick Cheney had come to the GOP Senate caucus and told his fellow Republicans that if they didn't support the bailout fund, they would turn George W. Bush into a modern Herbert Hoover.
So there, you go -- Cheney made me do it. As for the stimulus, Specter says it averted a 1929-style Depression and may have been the most important vote he ever cast in Congress, Right behind his vote against Reagan nominee Bork.

I don't think you can read too much anti-incumbency theory into Arlen Specter's probable loss in the primary election.  In point of fact, I'd kind of like to see him win, he'd be a much better bet to lose in November than his primary opponent, Joe Sestak.