Arlen Specter Switches Party
Heh.
US Republican Senator Arlen Specter is to switch sides and become a Democrat.
The move would give the Democrats 59 votes in the US Senate, just one short of the 60 needed to overturn Republican attempts to block legislation.
The reality is that he switched parties because he knew he would get creamed in the primary next year if he didn’t. So… whatever. He’s an unprincipled politician struggling to hold onto power. There are a lot of those in office.
As far as the 60 seat majority, it’s not that big a deal. The 60 members of a party isn’t as important as the 60 votes it takes to end a filibuster. I suspect that Specter will just become the unreliable thorn in the side of the Democrats as he has been for the Republicans for years.
I’d LOVE to see him lose next year despite this. It would just be poetic justice.
The game now becomes putting heavy pressure on Dem Senators from more conservative States. Which Dems are up for re-election in 2010? That should be the GOP focus from here on out.
Spector will win his seat next year. PA is too much a blue State at this point.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on April 28, 2009 at 2227 hrs
I think it’s fun to watch people complain that Specter is unprincipled for doing this. I’m willing to bet that Arlen Specter yesterday will have the same beliefs as Arlen Specter tomorrow. And most Democrats seem to recognize that it’s not so much that they’re gaining a whole lot by picking up Specter as it is more egg on the GOP’s face for being unable to protect a five-term incumbent from another kamikaze run by Pat Toomey, who couldn’t win in a general if his life depended on it.
So unless you believe that switching parties is inherently unprincipled, then this issue isn’t really about principle at all. It’s about pragmatism. Specter is the incumbent and wants the opportunity to win or lose in a general. That’s not unprincipled. In a political system where the role of parties are diminished and the role of the individual is elevated, it doesn’t really matter what Arlen Specter calls himself.
And Steve, the GOP’s 2010 problem is that there aren’t many opportunities for pick-ups in the Senate. Chris Dodd could be vulnerable, but only if the conservatives are willing to accept that you’re going to need a guy like Chris Shays to beat him. Otherwise, it’s the seats vacated by Obama and Ken Salazar, both of which are in states trending Democratic. Meanwhile, the GOP has huge headaches in NH (Gregg’s leaving), KY (Jim Bunning is broke and crazy and determined to run), FL (Mel Martinez trails just about every Democrat imaginable in head-to-head polls), OH (wide open), and MO (also wide open). And who knows what’s going to happen with Olympia Snowe and Susan Collins once they recognize that there’s no power in a 40-seat minority dominated by old, white, southern men.
Owen’s right. Getting to 60 doesn’t do much for the Democrats. But after 2010, they could well be at 64 or 65 - a margin we haven’t seen since 1966 and one that took 14 years for the GOP to overcome. That’s a problem.
Posted by Recess Supervisor on April 28, 2009 at 2315 hrs
The reality is that he switched parties because he knew he would get creamed in the primary next year if he didn’t.
So he would. But that is because he would be running for membership in a rapidly shrinking club.
Should this be a big surprise? Specter would have been a victim of a purity purge. So he had no choice and in the process, the conservatives have shot themselves in the foot.
The really lovely part is that you guys do not get it, but absolutely refuse to get it. Clinging to your ideas is a beautiful thing, but so long as you persist the roasting smells wonderful.
Gotta remind you how this site simply crowed over the state GOP a few years back proclaiming that they would only support doctrinaire conservatives.
Enjoy!
I am sure every subsequent post is going to reinforce my point.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on April 29, 2009 at 0843 hrs
RS
This is why he is unprincipled. These are his own words discussing Jim Jeffords:
“But, it is my view that the organizational vote belongs to the party which supported the election of a particular Senator. I believe that is the expectation.”
http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=ZmU4MDUzNTAxMTU4OGViNjE4YTljZmY3ZDg5MDljZGQ=
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on April 29, 2009 at 0847 hrs
Independents now outnumber Republicans and Democrats.
The Republicans appear fixated with marginalizing any moderate thinking within their ranks.
In-fact, I think they burned their Big Tent at some sort of silly rally meant to keep the radical right’s short attention span.
The Republicans will continue to lose elections.
What a winning formula.
Posted by Swamp Gas on April 29, 2009 at 0854 hrs
Swamp Gas,
Yeah, ‘cause running Mr. Moderate McCain the Maverick worked out so well, right?
Troll B Gone.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on April 29, 2009 at 0912 hrs
Why would anyone trust Specter anyway? He switched from Dem to Repub. Now he’s gone back. Does anyone here thing Democrats will trust him, (if they do, they’re fools) or that he wouldn’t have an opponent in the Democrat primary in Pa.?
Posted by Billiam on April 29, 2009 at 0953 hrs
I agree that Specter is unprincipled and that he ran away from an ass-kicking in the primary, but the state and nat’l party bears some of the blame here, too. Hundreds of thousand of Republicans left the party last year in PA. Santorum got beat the cycle before that. And what is the reaction of PA Republicans? Run a wingnut conservative against Specter in the primary!
GMan, McCain ran on a far-right platform in which he disavowed most of his former moderate views. And except on a few issues, he was already a staunch conservative.
One of the best posts I’ve seen on the GOP’s reaction to the Specter switch.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on April 29, 2009 at 1002 hrs
Steve-O
Lol at the McCain running as far right…just, no.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on April 29, 2009 at 1012 hrs
Good riddance. If the voters in PA are smart they will see through his self preservation act.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on April 29, 2009 at 1232 hrs
Are PA voters more savvy than CT voters? This seems like a fair trade - Lieberman for Specter. Both long ago became parodies of themselves.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on April 29, 2009 at 1304 hrs
‘Quisling’ comes to mind. He was a RINO anyway.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on April 29, 2009 at 1316 hrs
But after 2010, they could well be at 64 or 65 - a margin we haven’t seen since 1966 and one that took 14 years for the GOP to overcome. That’s a problem.
If the democrats continue their current economic policies, they’ll be lucky to hold on to a 60 vote majority, much less add to it.
The Republicans will continue to lose elections.
You know, considering the margin of victory in the presidential election, and many senate races was 49 - 51 or there abouts..
I have to laugh REALLY hard at the audacity of people to claim that they have mandates and that the trend is moving “their” direction.
You guys are getting to much celebratory champagne in your eyes. People are NOT HAPPY with their government.
Given these precarious margins, I think the party that should worry most is the party that is in power. They will take the blame.
Obama was elected on a tidal wave of fear and desperation. NOT on a change in values of the majority of the american people.
Yet democrats have picked up the “government everything” ball and run with it. Government bailouts for everyone. Monstrous spending increases.
I think when the economy settles and people have their feet back under them the democrats are going to wake up and realize the reason they have had an open field in front of them is they are running towards the wrong endzone.
By that time, I think reality will have set in for a lot of Obama voters that “their mortgage didnt’ magically get paid and they still had to worry about putting gas in their car” apathy will run wild.
I think democrats have their WORK cut out for them to hang onto the position they are in now. I see things getting NO better for democrats. Not with all this spending. (and in statewide politics the gaul of tax increases in a recession is sealing the fate for democrats)
just my opinion of course.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on April 29, 2009 at 1328 hrs
People are NOT HAPPY with their government.
Whatever XX.
Have you looked at opinion polls lately? People are happier with the government and the direction it is headed now than they were when Republicans were running things.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on April 29, 2009 at 1402 hrs
I have to laugh REALLY hard at the audacity of people to claim that they have mandates and that the trend is moving “their” direction.
Well, I guess it’s a good thing I am not one of those people. That makes it harder to dismiss me.
Look, I’m just working off the numbers. There are no rose-colored glasses here, and I’m not confusing what I want to happen with what I think will happen. That’s tricky and not so many people around here are very good at it.
“People are NOT HAPPY with their government?” Really? You do know that the right direction/wrong track question has gone from 12/78 just before the election to 43/43 now, right? So maybe it’s just that you and your friends aren’t happy. You can laugh all you want it makes you feel better but know that the actual numbers disagree with your assertion.
The GOP has two reasonable shots at pickups (IL and CO) and if you want to get past that, a real outside shot at NV and NY. There’s just nothing else on the board in 2010 unless you think the GOP is going to knock off folks like Barbara Boxer and Byron Dorgan.
Meanwhile, the GOP is a train wreck of open seats and weak incumbents in places that are hardly Republican strongholds (MO, OH, FL, and NH).
That some races were close in 2008 is irrelevant. Those folks aren’t up again until 2014. That guys like Franken and Begich squeak in will matter five-and-a-half years from now. It’s not going to matter a tinker’s damn in terms of what happens in NH or FL.
When you look at the numbers, the Democrats are far more likely to gain seats in the Senate in 2010 than lose seats. The House is probably a different story. There, I wouldn’t be surprised to see the GOP make some modest gains. But the Senate map is terrible for the GOP.
Posted by Recess Supervisor on April 29, 2009 at 1405 hrs
Swamp Gas,
Yeah, ‘cause running Mr. Moderate McCain the Maverick worked out so well,
right?Troll B Gone.
I liked Giuliani - McCain was a good pick.
Wouldn’t it be comforting to have Romney at the helm right about now?
Palin was toxic to McCain’s campaign.
Yeah - I know eye candy for the far right – but as cogent as a box of rocks. No brain no pain, eh?
I suggested Pawlenty.
But nobody listens to me.
Posted by Swamp Gas on April 29, 2009 at 1427 hrs
Swamp - do you really find this fine video example of our Lord Obama any more cogent than a box of rocks? Seriously?
http://www.620wtmj.com/shows/charliesykes/43810657.html?blog=y
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on April 29, 2009 at 1532 hrs
That clip was funny. And that said, the guy skipping ahead on the prompter probably got to be president of the Harvard Law Review without the help of it. You can disagree with him, and that’s fine. And we can both agree that he looked pretty silly in that clip. We can even agree that he’s too dependent on the prompter. But anyone challenging his intelligence or attempting to equate him to Sarah Palin (or a box of rocks) is fighting a losing battle.
Posted by Recess Supervisor on April 29, 2009 at 1545 hrs
Swamp - do you really find this fine video example of our Lord Obama any more cogent than a box of rocks? Seriously?
It’s a funny video for sure - but I didn’t vote for him and I’m not a fan of his. So what’s your point?
Incidentally, I am serious. Palin was, uh - shall we politely say - not up to the task and she torpedoed McCain’s chances to win over the moderates and the big fat middle.
There are more of us you know than those smaller populations who inhabit the edges on the left and right.
(Thank you Sonora Rebel for so eloquently reinforcing my point)
Name-calling and tea parties - Don’t you think the GOP has devolved into a caricature of its former self?
They should go out and find another big tent.
I’m sure someone could use the work.
Posted by Swamp Gas on April 29, 2009 at 1648 hrs
Honestly, I don’t think Sarah Palin was any less up to the task than the joke of a VP we actually got. Disclosure - I’m not a Republican - I’m one of those unaffiliated “Independent” types - voted Clinton, Clinton, Gore, Bush, McCain. The first time I ever really got involved in politics was when I volunteered for the local office in 2008.
From the “on the ground” perspective - if McCain had chosen Leiberman, he would have lost by a much larger margin because about 20% of the conservative base - who didn’t like him to begin with - would have stayed home. Not sure of how a Pawlenty would have played, but it didn’t sound like he was really on the short list anyway. But as my husband so succinctly put it - it was the year of the Rock Star. Obama could have been caught on camera smoking crack with Osama bin Laden and he still would have won.
The clip above was to, albeit clumsily, point out that anybody can be made to look like a complete moron. Palin isn’t as dumb as the media portrayed her during the campaign - and the McCain campaign “handling” of her was abysmal. As you probably know, not every State University (be it Idaho, Wisconsin, or Kansas) is an idiot, neither is every Harvard student a genious. The Ivy League litmus test as proving that someone is fit for office is intellectual snobbery for a very elite few. Just ask them, they’ll tell you.
And don’t buy the “Tea Parties are Republican astro-turfing” schtick either. In most places, Republicans were politely told to stay the hell away and were soundly boo’d when they tried to glom on to the stage in many places. Most of the actually attendees (myself among them) have never protested anything - ever. But a couple hundred thousand took time off of work to do it a couple of weeks ago. We had men, women, minorites, Republicans, Democrats and Independents at ours. That is real.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on April 29, 2009 at 1725 hrs
If we were talking about someone who just went to Harvard and never did anything and graduated at the bottom of his class, I’d totally agree. That’s not the case with Obama. What’d Sarah Palin do at any of the 28 colleges she attended (maybe it was closer to five)?
I also don’t buy the astroturfing argument, although the fact that Hannity/Beck/Limbaugh/countless other media whores glommed on basically ruined how the whole thing played out. There’s a group of people out there who are frustrated, and I think they’re frustrated with both parties. I’m not sure the Republicans are any better a home for them right now than the Democrats.
If the teabaggers can keep it to fiscal responsibility, it could work. If every fringe group piles on and it turns into some catch-all, gay bashing, immigrant hating, gun loving motley of right-wing causes, it’s sunk.
Posted by Recess Supervisor on April 29, 2009 at 1737 hrs
OK RS - I’ll play….
Other than the Law Review - what did Obama do at college? We don’t know, because they won’t release his transcripts. Also, other than run for office, what has he actually done or accomplished. He self-described Frank Marshall Davis (from the US Communist Party with ties to Moscow) as his mentor in his teen years in Hawaii. Then he magically “stumbled” into amazing opportunities with very rich and powerful leftists when he got out of Columbia.
Palin - love her, hate her, don’t care about her - climbed her way up the ladder the hard way. Wasn’t wealthy, started small, bucked her own party along the way. Regardless of what anyone says, you don’t do what she did - without friends in high places - if you are an idiot. She isn’t eloquent, but she isn’t stupid either.
And yes, we are frustrated with both parties. The main theme at the parties we had locally were fiscal responsibility/reduced government spending/don’t raise taxes, term limits, and no forced annexation (a local issue).
One more thing - lose the “teabagging” schtick. It was adolescent and repulsive when Anderson Cooper and others said it, it doesn’t need to be perpetuated. Thanks.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on April 29, 2009 at 1759 hrs
Palin - love her, hate her, don’t care about her - climbed her way up the ladder the hard way.
If the “hard way” means on the coat tails of a powerful evangelical movement, than sure she did it the “hard way”. Palin would still be announcing high school basketball scores on the local news in the crystal meth capital of Alaska if it wasn’t for her belief in the supernatural. She was elected on a “values voter” platform to a position that had absolutely nothing to do with the issues she campaigned on and her supporters felt qualified her. The evangelical movement is powerful enough to put you in charge of the least populace state in this country, but thankfully the American voters are smart enough to see that someone with Palin’s abilities, background and experience shouldn’t be running this country.
If McCain had selected Romney as his running mate and played up his economic acumen they would have had a serious chance of winning last year. Romney wasn’t selected because he wasn’t Christian enough for the base. If the GOP continues to be ruled by the Christianist wing of it’s base it will eventually fizzle out into a regional party with power only in the bible belt. American’s want this country to be governed by people that try to solve our problems pragmatically, not be people whose only qualifications lie in the purity of their religious and ideological beliefs. It might take a while for the GOP to figure that out, but until they do they will be the minority.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on April 29, 2009 at 1930 hrs
3rd Way - if McCain had picked Romney - the drum beat would have been of the wicked Mormon cult wanting to turn the US into a theocracy and “See, the GOP is the party of the White Guys”. He wasn’t not selected because of his religion it was because he was milktoast. If you read the interview with the McCain VP vetter - after Lieberman became unviable, the option become one of high risk with the chance of high reward - hence Palin. After the mortgage s**t started hitting the fan, the only chance the old sailor had was to vote no on TARP. He lost the election in October when he rubber stamped the beginning of the government bailout and spending mania. After that, since the two choices were pretty much the same, the cool and froopy dude won.
Regarding Palin and the Evangelicals - seriously dude - get over the God cooties will ya’. Palin has not even remotely governed Alaska with a religious focus. Look at her actual record instead of reading the Kos/Soros daily briefings.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on April 30, 2009 at 1145 hrs
I’m like Specter. Reagan said “I didn’t leave the party, the party left me.” Let’s face it, supporting wingnuts like Glenn Grothman and Tom Reynolds has caused alot of us otherwise inclined Repub;icans to leave in droves. You need our RINO votes to win. Go ahead, keep your purity and lose elections.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on April 30, 2009 at 1628 hrs
Total Entries: 21059
Total Comments: 146944
Most Recent Entry: 05/17/2013 05:57 am
Most Recent Comment on: 05/18/2013 05:31 am
Total Members: 9751
Total Logged in members: 0
Total guests: 45
Total anonymous users: 0
Most Recent Visitor on: 06/19/2013 11:30 am
The most visitors ever was 729 on 06/19/2013 11:01 am
Protected and licensed under a Creative Commons License (some rights reserved).