Arlen Specter to Switch From (R-Penn) to (D-Penn) [Archive]

bradl

Apr 28, 2009, 12:34 PM

Will it really change anything though? He is still going to vote the same way he has just with a new letter next to his name.

I see what you mean, but this is more strategery anything. If his views are more in line with the Blues, he'll align with them. Nothing different than how he was with the Reds. But what this will gain, is more of a spotlight on Franken/Coleman, especially now that Franken has a bigger lead than he did before, and now there are calls for Coleman to concede.

With Specter changing, and Franken looking to win, the Blues would be filibuster-proof.

BL.

MacNut

Apr 28, 2009, 12:34 PM

Why do you say that? Besides, 60 is significant because it's the magic number needed to prevent filibuster.That doesn't mean anything, Specter will not vote the party just for the sake of it.

Little HZ

Apr 28, 2009, 12:39 PM

He won't have to worry about the far right in the GOP sinking him in a primary election, and so can be even more a voice of reason in the Senate. :D

mactastic

Apr 28, 2009, 12:40 PM

That doesn't mean anything, Specter will not vote the party just for the sake of it.
I think the big impact of this will be that Specter is likely to come out and say that it wasn't his views that changed, but rather that the GOP of today has left him behind. It will further cement the image of the GOP as a party unable to keep moderate members within it's caucus, a party beholden to it's most extreme elements.

It'll be interesting to see if Specter walks back his assertion that he will vote against EFCA. He has angered many union members that he will need in his 2010 reelection bid by saying he would vote against it, but that was when he was trying to out-crazy Pat Toomey. Now that he's likely to face little Democratic opposition for the primary nomination, perhaps he'll change his tune...

kavika411

Apr 28, 2009, 01:01 PM

I think this is a good thing. As I said before in another thread, I think one party "in charge" is better for the country at this juncture.

MacNut

Apr 28, 2009, 01:04 PM

I think this is a good thing. As I said before in another thread, I think one party "in charge" is better for the country at this juncture.One party in charge is never a good thing. It doesn't matter what party it is.

Peace

Apr 28, 2009, 01:08 PM

One party in charge is never a good thing. It doesn't matter what party it is.

At this time in history I have to disagree. The republican party has become so extremist that having the Democrats run the show for at least four years has to be a good thing in the short-term.

Long term I would agree. But we are at a time when major decisions must be made and the republicans have nothing to offer.

MacNut

Apr 28, 2009, 01:10 PM

But the Democrats could get power hungry and bury us in another hole just like the Republicans did for 8 years. We need checks and balances of some sort. We have crooks on both sides.

Peace

Apr 28, 2009, 01:12 PM

The democratic party is so diverse there would be checks and balances within the party itself.

It's not as if the Dems are all going to vote together every time. This switch doesn't really mean a filibuster free Senate.

Thanatoast

Apr 28, 2009, 01:23 PM

Arlen Spector just became the king-maker. Lieberman must be pissed :D

leekohler

Apr 28, 2009, 01:30 PM

Arlen Spector just became the king-maker. Lieberman must be pissed :D

Anything that pisses off that idiot is OK by me.

Analog Kid

Apr 28, 2009, 02:44 PM

It's now official-- the GOP has been reduced to the lunatic fringe...

Zombie Acorn

Apr 28, 2009, 03:02 PM

It's now official-- the GOP has been reduced to the lunatic fringe...

I personally don't want either party to be in full power, that is when the lunacy starts.

mactastic

Apr 28, 2009, 03:15 PM

It's now official-- the GOP has been reduced to the lunatic fringe...
Almost... the two ladies from Maine would be well advised to jump ship along with Specter.

Eraserhead

Apr 28, 2009, 03:25 PM

I personally don't want either party to be in full power, that is when the lunacy starts.

Except when we are talking about the current republican party, they are crazier than the UK Labour party in the early 1980's.

freeny

Apr 28, 2009, 03:35 PM

GOP is PISSED
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2009/04/28/steele-specter-fipped-the-bird-at-gop/

mactastic

Apr 28, 2009, 03:40 PM

GOP is PISSED
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2009/04/28/steele-specter-fipped-the-bird-at-gop/
LOL... Steele sure sounds bitter, particularly coming on the heels of losing NY-20.

freeny

Apr 28, 2009, 03:49 PM

LOL... Steele sure sounds bitter, particularly coming on the heels of losing NY-20.
Bitter?

quote-
"If Sen. Specter survives in the fall — get ready to go to the mat, baby, because we're coming after you and taking you out," added Steele.

Prof.

Apr 28, 2009, 03:53 PM

*waits for the GOP to collapse completely.*

Shivetya

Apr 28, 2009, 04:15 PM

First I am a conservative though not a Republican. I am all for this.

I want the Democrats to have to own what happens the next few years. After all the years of hearing them harp on Bush deficits I want them to have undeniable majority so they are undeniably responsible for the economy busting budgets they are signing off on. I want ownership to be a non question. While there are good people on both sides of the aisle as a whole I think the entire Congress stinks.

Their actions have become the best reason for term limits. Too many of them think themselves as kings and queens, benevolent in their view because they know better and they are better - in their own minds. They game the system ensuring two party rule and the American people are more enamored with American idol personalities and similar : see Obama.

Now we just need Snowe to flip. She is nothing more than a RINO as well. Make them honest - if you vote one way consistently then be willing to take up the mantle of the party you align with. That way when it comes time to swap parties in power you can get outed. The tragedy is that most won't. They have so many connections and so much power from their office that unseating them takes serious criminal acts and even that is not a guarantee they don't get back in.

Its a great day. Now the Democrats have their "majority" and the hot seat is all theirs. The question becomes, do they do to Obama what they did to Clinton? See the flip side is that when one group has a real majority they don't answer to anyone - including the President. After all they no longer need them. It also leads to internal factions which happened to them in the early nineties. That majority benefits and hurts them.

But the key is, they cannot escape the responsibility for the spending spree or legislation. It will give Obama a convincing excuse too for what he signs off. So he can claim its not what he really wants "but the reality of the situation..."

So, awesome, and lol. Can't wait to see all the excuses for doing stuff that people would eviscerate Republicans for doing.
--
* Winners compare their achievements to their goals, losers compare theirs to that of others.

yg17

Apr 28, 2009, 04:16 PM

GOP is PISSED
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2009/04/28/steele-specter-fipped-the-bird-at-gop/

When the GOP is pissed that means a majority of the country is happy, so thank you to the GOP for brightening up everyone's day. Maybe the few GOPers left in this country can go teabag each other, that might make them feel better.

it5five

Apr 28, 2009, 04:19 PM

If anyone actually thinks this changes anything, they're nuts. Like someone said earlier in the tread, the Democrats could have 99 seats in the Senate and still not find a way to get 60 votes. Specter isn't likely to change the way he votes on anything. He still hasn't come out in support of EFCA (though the news of switching did only come today), he would have still wanted a smaller stimulus bill. Specter is now just another conservative Democrat in the Senate, a pretty conservative chamber to begin with.

rdowns

Apr 28, 2009, 04:19 PM

Wasn't long go he has this to say. Wonder what sent him over the edge.

In a March 17th interview with The Hill, Specter said he absolutely would not switch parties:
[Democrats] are trying very hard for the 60th vote. Got to give them credit for trying. But the answer is no.
I’m not going to discuss private talks I had with other people who may or may not be considered influential. But since those three people are in the public domain, I think it is appropriative to respond to those questions.

I am staying a Republican because I think I have an important role, a more important role, to play there. The United States very desperately needs a two-party system. That’s the basis of politics in America. I’m afraid we are becoming a one-party system, with Republicans becoming just a regional party with so little representation of the northeast or in the middle atlantic. I think as a governmental matter, it is very important to have a check and balance. That’s a very important principle in the operation of our government. In the constitution on Separation of powers.

Cleverboy

Apr 28, 2009, 04:40 PM

Wasn't long go he has this to say. Wonder what sent him over the edge. Good quote. I think he's just watched as the Republican party has continued to shoot blanks for the last few months. I love that Michael Steele uses the word "baby" to emphasize his intensity.

-----
STEELE: Oh, yes, I'm always open to everything, baby, absolutely.
CAVUTO: So by being open to that, baby, does that mean you would consider punishing them for that vote?
-----
STEELE: If Sen. Specter survives in the fall — get ready to go to the mat, baby, because we're coming after you and taking you out.
-----

So, look out Spectre, Michael Steele's coming at you like a spider-monkey... baby. That's a fact, Jack. That's what I'm talkin' 'bout.

~ CB

mactastic

Apr 28, 2009, 05:11 PM

Wasn't long go he has this to say. Wonder what sent him over the edge.
What pushed him over the edge was the polling in Pennsylvania showing a major shift in the electorate over the past 4 years. Pennsylvania has a closed primary system, meaning only those registered to the Republican party are allowed to vote in the Republican primary election. Several hundred thousand registered Republicans switched parties in order to vote in the Democratic primary. Presumably those voters are in large part moderates and independents.

The last time Specter faced the voters, he barely survived the GOP primary against former CfG president Pat Toomey. Specter won that election by a bare two points. As noted above, since that election, a large number of moderate republicans have removed themselves from the pool of available GOP voters. The loss of those voters would have been fatal to Specter's primary bid; Toomey would have won the primary and then gotten crushed in the general election, effectively handing the seat over to the Democrats.

The Pennsylvania GOP has been whittled down to it's most extreme members, who actively dislike Specter. Specter saw the polling numbers, and decided that the best way to save his own hide was to switch (back) to the Democratic party.

Specter's no dummy. He can read polls as well as the next guy.

rdowns

Apr 28, 2009, 05:41 PM

My question was rhetorical but thanks for the answer. We know it's all about getting re-elected.

Don't panic

Apr 28, 2009, 06:37 PM

i hope he gets re-elected, whatever party he is in.
he is the staunchest supporter of scientific research in Congress.
plus other desirable ploitical traits (from my perspective).

Mactastic, i don't think it's fair to paint this as a purely opportunistic move.
by your comment, this would actually be a com pletely reasonable thing to do to stay in sync with his electorate (and his values).
The point is that the GOP has switched so much to the right (the dems too), that any remotely moderate conservative would find himself solidly into democratic political territory.

MacNut

Apr 28, 2009, 07:05 PM

How is this any different then what Lieberman did.

rdowns

Apr 28, 2009, 07:13 PM

How is this any different then what Lieberman did.

Lieberman didn't have the balls to actually switch to the opposition party. He switched to Independent, which as we all know, is a Republican who came running back tot he Democrats with his tail between his legs.

MacNut

Apr 28, 2009, 07:34 PM

Lieberman didn't have the balls to actually switch to the opposition party. He switched to Independent, which as we all know, is a Republican who came running back tot he Democrats with his tail between his legs.In the end they are doing it for the same reasons, they both want to get re-elected. I think Lieberman really thought he would win the parties nomination. Specter knows he has no chance. Will the voters in PA elect him as a Democrat is the question.

Peace

Apr 28, 2009, 07:41 PM

In the end they are doing it for the same reasons, they both want to get re-elected. I think Lieberman really thought he would win the parties nomination. Specter knows he has no chance. Will the voters in PA elect him as a Democrat is the question.

I believe they will.

There's nothing wrong with trying to get re-elected. It's part of the job. Arlen Specter just got smart and knew his constituency had become more moderately leaning or switching over to the Democratic party so he did the same thing.

Sure he did it to get re-elected but in this case it was for a good reason. Unlike Leiberman who was too chicken to say he was a Republican.

Analog Kid

Apr 28, 2009, 08:17 PM

Almost... the two ladies from Maine would be well advised to jump ship along with Specter.
Oh yeah, I always forget about Maine...
I personally don't want either party to be in full power, that is when the lunacy starts.
Which is all the more reason to want to see the Republican party die away. Having your government balanced by a few raving lunatics is not divided power. The majority party knows they'll never win support from the fringe, and they know they're not likely to lose it to the fringe. It gives a false conception of balance. Look at the Communist party in Russia. They consistently come in second, but they're not a legitimate threat to United Russia. Zyuganov is a laughing stock, but they don't give him the psychiatric help he needs because without him there might be fertile ground for a real second party to emerge.
I want the Democrats to have to own what happens the next few years. After all the years of hearing them harp on Bush deficits I want them to have undeniable majority so they are undeniably responsible for the economy busting budgets they are signing off on. I want ownership to be a non question.
Sorry, but things are never that simple. You can't take a plane, run it out of fuel, put it in a nose dive, hand the controls to someone else and say "whatever happens now is yours". It does take away the argument that they weren't able to implement their agenda, but all that means is that they can use both hands to pull back on the stick-- it doesn't mean they'll regain control.

If we go bankrupt now, it's not because we ran a deficit in an economic down turn, it's because we ran a deficit for the 8 years of the "Bush Boom" and now we don't have the headroom to do what's necessary.
Wasn't long go he has this to say. Wonder what sent him over the edge.
In what I thought was a very refreshing move, Specter explained quite clearly why he was changing parties. He doesn't think he'll survive a Republican primary fight-- and he said it outright.

I don't care what side of the aisle Specter is on, the Senate is better for his being in it.

NT1440

Apr 28, 2009, 08:34 PM

I dont get it, you can just say "im a democrat" and that makes you a dem?:confused:

Analog Kid

Apr 28, 2009, 09:04 PM

I dont get it, you can just say "im a democrat" and that makes you a dem?:confused:
Yeah, pretty much. He's just declaring which primary he's intending to enter, and (though he tempered expectations on this one a bit) which party he intends to caucus (strategize) with.

Basically he's saying-- "judge me as a Democrat from this day forward".

iPhoneNYC

Apr 28, 2009, 10:13 PM

Spector's change represents the possibility - the promise - of a more perfect union. Now, the GOP fill fight tooth and nail in MN to prevent Franken.

mgguy

Apr 28, 2009, 10:18 PM

Bye,bye now. Don't let the door...

Peace

Apr 28, 2009, 10:21 PM

Bye,bye now. Don't let the door...

That room is getting pretty empty.

Thomas Veil

Apr 28, 2009, 10:52 PM

I want the Democrats to have to own what happens the next few years. The one thing that can screw up the Dems is if they choose to be "Republican Lite". If, on the other hand, they find the courage to move in a more progressive direction, they can be more than proud to own what happens the next few years.

...and the American people are more enamored with American idol personalities and similar : see Obama.In spite of Obama's "celebrity", I think you do his voters a disservice. They're not that shallow, despite what Rush & co. would have you believe.

Now we just need Snowe to flip. She is nothing more than a RINO as well.Well, here we are with a problem in terminology again. There's the pre-1980s Republican party; and there's the post-1980s "Republican" party, which was the party of Reagan, Newt, Birchers, fundies and neocon extremists. If you're referring to the latter, then yes, Snowe is a Republican, not a "Republican".

That's why now, when Specter says he finds himself at odds with his party's philosophy, I know exactly what he means. His party turned into the pod-people, and he was still Kevin McCarthy. So he bolted.

Counterfit

Apr 29, 2009, 02:19 AM

I dont get it, you can just say "im a democrat" and that makes you a dem?:confused:

Well, you usually have to fill out a short form in most states to change party affiliation. It matters in this case because only people registered with a particular party in PA can vote in that party's primary.

MacNut

Apr 29, 2009, 02:22 AM

Isn't there usually a 90 day period were you have to be unaffiliated before joined a new party. I don't think you can just switch overnight.

Peace

Apr 29, 2009, 03:25 AM

I wonder what chairmanship he got for this.

DZ/015

Apr 29, 2009, 04:27 AM

Arlen Specter has shown that he lacks integrity by switching parties. If he were honest, he would resign and call for a special election. He represents all that is wrong with politics and politicians.

Just another scumbag politician. And in the end, we the people will lose. Again.

rdowns

Apr 29, 2009, 07:18 AM

I wonder what chairmanship he got for this.

Reports say he will get none, at least for now. Obama has pledged to campaign for him though.

iPhoneNYC

Apr 29, 2009, 07:35 AM

I think Specter's switch shows complete integrity. He has changed his position but his GOP has. The GOP doesn't have a current platform but only wants to block anything Obama does. Specter doesn't want to continue in that approach which is shrinking the GOP to nothingness. Yes the times are a-changing:

Come senators, congressmen, please head the call
Don't stand in the doorway, don't block up the hall

mactastic

Apr 29, 2009, 11:27 AM

Mactastic, i don't think it's fair to paint this as a purely opportunistic move.
by your comment, this would actually be a com pletely reasonable thing to do to stay in sync with his electorate (and his values).
Let me ask you this: If Specter thought he could win the GOP primary, would he have made the switch?
The point is that the GOP has switched so much to the right (the dems too), that any remotely moderate conservative would find himself solidly into democratic political territory.
Specter has long found himself at odds with the increasingly far-right GOP. The only thing that has changed recently is Pat Toomey's entrance into the primary race, and the makeup of the GOP voting pool in Pennsylvania which has become much more radically conservative.

I dont get it, you can just say "im a democrat" and that makes you a dem?:confused:
Well, basically, yes. You can support Green Party politics, but call yourself a member of the Constitution party if you want. However, if you don't support the politics that your chosen constituents support, you probably won't get elected. Remember, Specter will have to deal with a closed primary, where only members of the party he self-identifies with get to vote. If he calls himself a Democrat, but his politics aren't remotely Democratic, he'll lose.

jaw04005

Apr 29, 2009, 11:37 AM

At least he now admits it's about re-election:

"I was unwilling to subject my 29-year record in the U.S. Senate to the Pennsylvania Republican primary electorate," he said. "But I am pleased to run in the primary on the Democratic ticket and am ready, willing and anxious to take on all comers in the general election."

And:

Specter vowed not to be an "automatic 60th" Democratic vote Wednesday.

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2009/04/29/specter-admits-party-switch-driven-by-desire-to-keep-seat/#comments

Personally, I would be very cautious if I was Democrat in Pennsylvania. There are likely better candidates elsewhere.

mactastic

Apr 29, 2009, 11:55 AM

Bye,bye now. Don't let the door...
That's right... chase out those infidels. Keep it up until only the True Believers are left. Exorcise Snowe and Collins while you're at it.

You know, the GOP's real problem is that the haven't gone hard-right enough. Go boy go! :p

iPhoneNYC

Apr 29, 2009, 12:18 PM

Specter was furious that the GOP would threaten him with a primary challenge. He then threatened back that rather than face a primary challenge he would consider a switch to the Dems. The GOP is out of touch and offer only one brand of super right wing politics. Specter should be very welcomed in the center but a vote for stimulus just drove the GOP crazy and they drove him out of the Party. PA was supposed to be as tight as can be and Obama won by 10%. It will be a very hard sell running a no-name GOP person.

Analog Kid

Apr 29, 2009, 01:34 PM

At least he now admits it's about re-election:
He stated that clearly from the beginning. Read his original statement:
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/28/us/politics/28caucus.specter.html?ref=politics
Almost... the two ladies from Maine would be well advised to jump ship along with Specter.
Snowe wrote an Op-Ed in the NYT today-- it's pretty clear she's feeling a bit lonely:
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/29/opinion/29snowe.html?_r=1

Thomas Veil

Apr 29, 2009, 08:26 PM

I'm really enjoying the Republicans' "ethnic cleansing". By elbowing out the moderates, they continue to shrink their own party. They may view it as "purifying" the party, but in reality they are ensuring that there is no one left but a far right fringe group that appeals to an increasingly small number of voters.

The only way this is a bad thing is that a Republican party that is so far to the right enables the Dems to continue to flounder around in the center instead of moving left.

Let me ask y'all: given the way Snowe feels, would anybody really be surprised if she was the next one to jump ship?

MacNut

Apr 29, 2009, 08:39 PM

The only way this is a bad thing is that a Republican party that is so far to the right enables the Dems to continue to flounder around in the center instead of moving left.
How is that a bad thing? I think they all should work out of the center.

mkrishnan

Apr 30, 2009, 12:05 AM

Did anyone catch the RNC's Michael Steele on NPR on this topic?

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=103618992

Siegel: But when you speak of "Barack Obama and his band of radical leftists" — your words — he now enjoys approval ratings in the high 60s. There are tea parties.

Steele: That doesn't mean that he still doesn't have a band of radicals in Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid. Look, you know, there is no doubt that the president has popularity. His policies, however, do not share that same lofty number. No one in the party likes to lose a member — particularly an elected member. I think at the same time, Arlen Specter made a calculation that focused on his self-preservation and interest as a United States senator. He saw, and he's admitted: I could not get elected, reelected — make it through a primary and get elected in the fall of next year. So he made that calculation.

It's pretty great. Someone should make Mr. Steele President of the US or King or something. :) Maybe he can be the Chairman and Bobby Jindal can be the CEO.

Macky-Mac

Apr 30, 2009, 06:32 PM

so Specter has faced up to the reality that there's no way he would the GOP senate primary next year.....next question is, can he win the Dem's primary?

mactastic

Apr 30, 2009, 07:33 PM

so Specter has faced up to the reality that there's no way he would the GOP senate primary next year.....next question is, can he win the Dem's primary?
I think that depends on how he votes over the next 15 months or so...

mkrishnan

Apr 30, 2009, 08:38 PM

I think that depends on how he votes over the next 15 months or so...

And a million other things. An election more than a year away is far from sewn up.

mactastic

Apr 30, 2009, 08:50 PM

And a million other things. An election more than a year away is far from sewn up.
Well, what I mean is that Specter's votes over the next year will determine, in large part, if the Democrats field a primary challenger against him. I think Joe Sestak would like a shot at the Senate seat, among others.

And really, I think the big one is going to be health care. Possibly EFCA, although Specter has already said he'll vote against that. Thing is, if he votes against EFCA, I doubt he gets any union support at all, which leaves him very vulnerable if he doesn't make the Democrats happy on health care and probably a few other issues as well.