PDA

View Full Version : Arlen Specter switching sides



Jim T.
04-28-2009, 08:10 AM
According to CNN.com.

Wowzers.

Joe Kalicki
04-28-2009, 08:13 AM
Huh.

Kirblar
04-28-2009, 08:14 AM
Holy shit.

Gregory
04-28-2009, 08:15 AM
Where are you seeing that on the site?

Also, his senate page doesn't have it.

EDIT: Oh, it's the BRIGHT YELLOW BANNER.

jamestolliver
04-28-2009, 08:16 AM
I didn't see that one coming but I'm admittedly don't know a lot about Pennsylvanian politics. He's always been pretty moderate, right? Especially with social issues excluding gun rights, I think.

Joe Kalicki
04-28-2009, 08:16 AM
Where are you seeing that on the site?

Also, his senate page doesn't have it.

It's a big yellow bar across the top, but there's no link to a story.

jamestolliver
04-28-2009, 08:16 AM
Where are you seeing that on the site?

Also, his senate page doesn't have it.

The breaking news banner at the top of CNN's front page.

Gregory
04-28-2009, 08:17 AM
Swine flu's a helluva drug.

Ryan Elliott
04-28-2009, 08:17 AM
Who?

jamestolliver
04-28-2009, 08:18 AM
pecter To Switch Parties

Pennsylvania Sen. Arlen Specter will switch his party affiliation from Republican to Democrat and announced today that he will run in 2010 as a Democrat, according to a statement he released this morning.

Specter's decision would give Democrats a 60 seat filibuster proof majority in the Senate assuming Democrat Al Franken is eventually sworn in as the next Senator from Minnesota. (Former Sen. Norm Coleman is appealing Franken's victory in the state Supreme Court.)

"I have decided to run for re-election in 2010 in the Democratic primary," said Specter in a statement. "I am ready, willing and anxious to take on all comers and have my candidacy for re-election determined in a general election."

He added: "Since my election in 1980, as part of the Reagan Big Tent, the Republican Party has moved far to the right. Last year, more than 200,000 Republicans in Pennsylvania changed their registration to become Democrats. I now find my political philosophy more in line with Democrats than Republicans."

Specter as a Democrat would also fundamentally alter the 2010 calculus in Pennsylvania as he was expected to face a difficult primary challenge next year from former Rep. Pat Toomey. The only announced Democrat in the race is former National Constitution Center head Joe Torsella although several other candidates are looking at the race.

The precariousness of Specter's political position -- a Republican in a Democratic-leaning state -- was on display earlier this year when he was one of three GOP Senators to back President Barack Obama's $787 billion economic stimulus plan. That vote was strongly condemned by conservative Republicans and Toomey used that vote as the launching pad for his candidacy.

Because of the shrinking Republican vote in the state, Specter was seen as a dead man walking politically in the primary with polling showing him trailing Toomey by ten or more points. The bar for Specter to run as an independent was also extremely high due to the rules governing such a third party candidacy.

That left a Democratic candidacy as Specter's best option if he wanted to remain in the Senate beyond 2010.

source: http://voices.washingtonpost.com/thefix/senate/specter-to-switch-parties.html?hpid=topnews

andeparks
04-28-2009, 08:18 AM
Wow. It's just a headline, "According to Several Sources".

I respect Arlen... more so since I moved out of Pennsylvania, I must admit. He's a pretty straight shooter (no magic bullet pun intended).

Good for him!

Anj

AndrewG
04-28-2009, 08:20 AM
He was a key vote in a hotly debated issue regarding unions recently. A lot of people thought that he was in a lose lose situation by taking the side he did, either jeapordizing his chances to win the primary or the general election. Switching to the Dem side sort of keeps him alive. Good for him.

TIP
04-28-2009, 08:21 AM
Arlen Specter switching sides.

Doo dah.

Doo dah.

T

Xander Boune
04-28-2009, 08:22 AM
This was his only way to survive his next election in PA. Good for him, now move back to your original position on EFCA and all is forgiven.

TheTravis!
04-28-2009, 08:23 AM
But we don't want him. :(

Kirblar
04-28-2009, 08:23 AM
He was a key vote in a hotly debated issue regarding unions recently. A lot of people thought that he was in a lose lose situation by taking the side he did, either jeapordizing his chances to win the primary or the general election. Switching to the Dem side sort of keeps him alive. Good for him.
The problem is that the GOP has turned into a party controlled by it's hardcore base, which is the road to ruin (just like when this happened to the Democrats in the 70s.) There are huge, seismic demographic shifts going on- the young people today are so much more liberal than the GOP evangelical base on social issues its ridiculous, and it's going to probably take nearly a decade for them to start to rebuild out of this (and for the dems to well, overkill it, as supermajorities always do.)


This was his only way to survive his next election in PA. Good for him, now move back to your original position on EFCA and all is forgiven.
EFCA as is is too far- there's gotta be some middle of the road option there.

Kurt Russell Crowe
04-28-2009, 08:25 AM
Guess it just isnt feasible to be a repub and hope to get elected in some areas. Sweet!

Kirblar
04-28-2009, 08:26 AM
Guess it just isnt feasible to be a repub and hope to get elected in some areas. Sweet!
When you have to face a social issues litmus test that puts you at odds with the majority of the U.S. population, it tends to screw you over in the general.

Ryan Elliott
04-28-2009, 08:27 AM
Arlen Specter switching sides.

Doo dah.

Doo dah.

T


:lol:

AndrewG
04-28-2009, 08:28 AM
The problem is that the GOP has turned into a party controlled by it's hardcore base, which is the road to ruin (just like when this happened to the Democrats in the 70s.) There are huge, seismic demographic shifts going on- the young people today are so much more liberal than the GOP evangelical base on social issues its ridiculous, and it's going to probably take nearly a decade for them to start to rebuild out of this (and for the dems to well, overkill it, as supermajorities always do.)

Absolutely. We're infighting each other to death and allowing fringe groups to overtake the party. A good ole fashion implosion is what we need. Besides the fact that I think President Obama needs 2 terms to accomplish anything in office I hope the Reps get a few stinging defeats up and down the board from the White House to Congress until they figure out what we want out of an elected official. I could always give or take Specter but I'm more impressed that he switched and I'm now more inclined to vote for him next election.

RebootedCorpse
04-28-2009, 08:35 AM
President Obama just gave Spector a hardy Welcome to the Democratic Party! :lol:

AndrewG
04-28-2009, 08:35 AM
From the Post: "Since my election in 1980, as part of the Reagan Big Tent, the Republican Party has moved far to the right. Last year, more than 200,000 Republicans in Pennsylvania changed their registration to become Democrats. I now find my political philosophy more in line with Democrats than Republicans."

I'd like to think this could be a wake up call to the Rep party but I doubt it will be.

Kirblar
04-28-2009, 08:36 AM
From the Post: "Since my election in 1980, as part of the Reagan Big Tent, the Republican Party has moved far to the right. Last year, more than 200,000 Republicans in Pennsylvania changed their registration to become Democrats. I now find my political philosophy more in line with Democrats than Republicans."

I'd like to think this could be a wake up call to the Rep party but I doubt it will be.
They're a regional party of evangelicals now.

They don't want the wake up call.

Kurt Russell Crowe
04-28-2009, 08:36 AM
When you have to face a social issues litmus test that puts you at odds with the majority of the U.S. population, it tends to screw you over in the general.

mos def. Nice to see it happening instead of just being a theory.

RebootedCorpse
04-28-2009, 08:36 AM
All you talk radio listeners should have some fun today!

Xander Boune
04-28-2009, 08:37 AM
Listening to Rush now. IT"S NOT A BIG DEAL!! Toomey won't have to spend a lot of money! This is a good thing, because instead of convincing people to become liberal, the democratic party can only grow by embracing conservatives!

Kirblar
04-28-2009, 08:38 AM
Listening to Rush now. IT"S NOT A BIG DEAL!!
:rofl:

AndrewG
04-28-2009, 08:38 AM
All you talk radio listeners should have some fun today!

Can't stand Rush but I'm tempted to switch him on to see how he spins this.

Ryan Elliott
04-28-2009, 08:38 AM
From the Post: "Since my election in 1980, as part of the Reagan Big Tent, the Republican Party has moved far to the right. Last year, more than 200,000 Republicans in Pennsylvania changed their registration to become Democrats. I now find my political philosophy more in line with Democrats than Republicans."

I'd like to think this could be a wake up call to the Rep party but I doubt it will be.

http://www.mrimask.com/images/uploads/MRI_Mask.JPG

http://www.aces-eng.com.au/images/Web-Ear-Plugs.jpg




...

http://botev1912.com/Jack_Daniels_Whiskey.jpg

:shifty:

AndrewG
04-28-2009, 08:38 AM
Listening to Rush now. IT"S NOT A BIG DEAL!!

Or not

Akira
04-28-2009, 08:39 AM
From the Post: "Since my election in 1980, as part of the Reagan Big Tent, the Republican Party has moved far to the right. Last year, more than 200,000 Republicans in Pennsylvania changed their registration to become Democrats. I now find my political philosophy more in line with Democrats than Republicans."

I'd like to think this could be a wake up call to the Rep party but I doubt it will be.

when they realize this gives the dems a filibusterer-proof majority, it'll sink in

AndrewG
04-28-2009, 08:39 AM
http://www.mrimask.com/images/uploads/MRI_Mask.JPG

http://www.aces-eng.com.au/images/Web-Ear-Plugs.jpg




...

http://botev1912.com/Jack_Daniels_Whiskey.jpg

:shifty:

What the hell is that second picture of!?!

Marcdachamp
04-28-2009, 08:39 AM
Very interesting. Guess nobody wants to be associated with that sinking ship anymore.

Ryan Elliott
04-28-2009, 08:41 AM
What the hell is that second picture of!?!


Earplugs.


But I guess they can be misconstrued as buttplugs. We ARE talking about Republican Conservatives. :cool:

thatguyfromsyracuse
04-28-2009, 08:42 AM
What the hell is that second picture of!?!

Butt plugs.

Xander Boune
04-28-2009, 08:43 AM
From politico:


Officials close to the White House say that Vice President Joe Biden, who served in the Senate with Specter for 28 years from next door Delaware and became close to him through their work on the Judiciary Committee, played a pivotal if quiet role in persuading the five-term senator to switch parties.

Yay! Joe Biden is useful!

AndrewG
04-28-2009, 08:44 AM
Earplugs.

But I guess they can be misconstrued as buttplugs. We ARE talking about Republican Conservatives. :cool:

Well coupled with the blindfold and the whiskey...I wasn't sure.

AndrewG
04-28-2009, 08:44 AM
Butt plugs.

:)

Ryan Elliott
04-28-2009, 08:52 AM
Well coupled with the blindfold and the whiskey...I wasn't sure.


The blindfold is one of those sleep blindfolds. And some people use earplugs when they sleep as well.


See, I was going with the whole "wake-up call" theme. But I failed. :(


And I put the whiskey in there because I'm pretty sure a lot of higher up republicans are alcoholics.

Morrison_Lad
04-28-2009, 08:53 AM
This isn't surprising at all, really. If 200k people in his state changed registration, then it makes sense.

And really, as others have pointed out, the Republican Party has become a party based on a very few issues. Also, who the heck wants to be associated with the Republicans these days, anyways?

Horizon Drive
04-28-2009, 09:02 AM
So wait, let me see if I understand this correctly.

Arlen Specter is now gay?

Ray G.
04-28-2009, 09:42 AM
The asshats in the primary base were going to vote him out and give up the seat anyway.

Now the Democratic senator from Pennsylvania will be a respected moderate. :)

Evan Wiener
04-28-2009, 09:43 AM
So Fox News will most likely use the RINO (Republican In Name Only) term to convince themselves they didn't need him, while GOP moderates realize they need to become more vocal to actually keep the party from being a niche group.

As a PA resident who switched party affiliation 9 years ago, I welcome Specter to the real big tent party.

I knew I was in the wrong party when George Bush was nominated over John McCain. There really was no going back from that.

This is as much a strategic move to stay in office while the population shifted. He's been an incredible advocate for someone I know and their struggles with their idiotic health insurance company playing games with them. His office wrote them back and said they'd handle it, and they did. He's a rare, good politician in my view. This just saves me trouble of a cross party ticket and I'll be sure to vote for him in the primaries now that I can.

information
04-28-2009, 09:55 AM
I knew I was in the wrong party when George Bush was nominated over John McCain. There really was no going back from that.

Hey, that was my moment too!

Foolish Mortal
04-28-2009, 10:09 AM
So wait, let me see if I understand this correctly.

Arlen Specter is now gay?
Damn, it took 40 posts before someone made that joke? This board is slipping. :nonono2:

Doc Randy
04-28-2009, 10:14 AM
Didn't the GOP run someone against him during the last primary season?
Why would you stay with a party that withdraws support and financially funds someone to run against you?

Foolish Mortal
04-28-2009, 10:16 AM
Didn't the GOP run someone against him during the last primary season?
Why would you stay with a party that withdraws support and financially funds someone to run against you?
Yep, the GOP base has been giving him the finger for awhile now.

Dan-C
04-28-2009, 10:24 AM
Do we have to take him? I mean, this is basically just retribution for Lieberman, right?

ImLactoseIntolerantUJerk
04-28-2009, 10:33 AM
he was getting a primary challenge from someone from the far right, i'm sure that has something to do with it.

Xander Boune
04-28-2009, 10:40 AM
Didn't the GOP run someone against him during the last primary season?
Why would you stay with a party that withdraws support and financially funds someone to run against you?

Toomey (the guy who was planning to run against him again) narrowly lost to Specter in 2004. However, back then, the Republican establishment (including Santorum of all people) closed ranks around Specter, realizing it was better to have a moderate than no seat at all. They lost that perspective in the last few years, and current RNC chairman Steele has said bone-headed things about challenging Republicans who aren't voting in line with the part.

Jason California
04-28-2009, 10:49 AM
From the Post: "Since my election in 1980, as part of the Reagan Big Tent, the Republican Party has moved far to the right. Last year, more than 200,000 Republicans in Pennsylvania changed their registration to become Democrats. I now find my political philosophy more in line with Democrats than Republicans."

I'd like to think this could be a wake up call to the Rep party but I doubt it will be.


Hannity will most likely be on air tonight saying that this is a good thing. THe Republicans don't want people like him in the party diluting the work of real Americans.

Nick Spencer
04-28-2009, 10:50 AM
Can't wait to see him beat Toomey by 25 points.

Nick Spencer
04-28-2009, 10:52 AM
I'd pretty much assume this officially starts the Countdown to Steele's Resignation clock.

Man, what a shit week, make that month, make that year, make that couple years, make that three years for the once mighty Republicans.

Sean Jackson
04-28-2009, 10:53 AM
You know, I don't mind people deciding they want to switch party. But there should have to be a special election. People voted for a representative / Senator / whatever partially based on the party they were running for. To change that, well, potentially they don't want that party as their representation and would not have voted for that person.

But no one asked me, I guess.

Jason California
04-28-2009, 10:54 AM
I'd pretty much assume this officially starts the Countdown to Steele's Resignation clock.

Man, what a shit week, make that month, make that year, make that couple years, make that three years for the once mighty Republicans.


Steele is still bringing in money.

Xander Boune
04-28-2009, 10:54 AM
2 Republican reactions

RNC Chairman Michael Steele

Some in the Republican Party are happy about this. I am not. Let's be honest-Senator Specter didn't leave the GOP based on principles of any kind. He left to further his personal political interests because he knew that he was going to lose a Republican primary due to his left-wing voting record. Republicans look forward to beating Sen. Specter in 2010, assuming the Democrats don't do it first."

Republican Senator Lindsay Graham

"While I often disagreed and voted opposite Senator Specter, I am very disappointed with his decision. Senator Specter's switch puts Senate Democrats on the verge of hitting the magic 60 vote threshold. I hope Senator Specter will hold his ground on card check and other important issues working their way through the Senate.

"The situation in Pennsylvania highlights the dilemma facing the Republican Party. Ideologically, we are a center-right party and I am committed to maintaining that position. However, for us to have national relevance we have to run and win in blue states. As a party we have to expand our base and diversify our membership while maintaining our fiscally conservative, limited government approach."

"Today's decision by Senator Specter puts a great deal of pressure on red-state Democratic Senators. Their constituents will look to them to reject a far left-wing agenda. President Obama and the Democratic majority will likely see this as an opportunity to pass card check and nationalize our health care system. I hope moderate Democrats will be willing to speak out against what could be a radical left-wing agenda that may be forthcoming."

HOOKS
04-28-2009, 10:59 AM
Hey, that was my moment too!

Stop being me, information. It's scary.

Dan-C
04-28-2009, 11:00 AM
You know, I don't mind people deciding they want to switch party. But there should have to be a special election. People voted for a representative / Senator / whatever partially based on the party they were running for. To change that, well, potentially they don't want that party as their representation and would not have voted for that person.

But no one asked me, I guess.

I'm not sure I really agree with that. For these kinds of reresentatives, their positions on things are usually pretty clear, whether it falls in line with the party or not. If he's not going to represent his constituants faithfully, he'll be voted out.

Its also the reason there really should be a third party (which I know is clearly a pipe dream at this point.)

information
04-28-2009, 11:09 AM
Stop being me, information. It's scary.

Deal with it, me.

Morrison_Lad
04-28-2009, 11:16 AM
Toomey (the guy who was planning to run against him again) narrowly lost to Specter in 2004. However, back then, the Republican establishment (including Santorum of all people) closed ranks around Specter, realizing it was better to have a moderate than no seat at all. They lost that perspective in the last few years, and current RNC chairman Steele has said bone-headed things about challenging Republicans who aren't voting in line with the part.

Didn't Steele say that Specter is "left-wing" now? I thought I heard something about that.

Anyhow, this is far more important for what it says about the current state of the Republican Party than what it says about either Spectre or the situation in the Senate.


EDIT: Now I saw the "left-wing" quote at the top of the page. Steele's a douchenozzle.

AndrewG
04-28-2009, 11:23 AM
Didn't Steele say that Specter is "left-wing" now? I thought I heard something about that.

Anyhow, this is far more important for what it says about the current state of the Republican Party than what it says about either Spectre or the situation in the Senate.

He was commenting on his 'left wing' voting record, I believe. But yeah, it was still a dig. Steele's reaction was douchy and out of line. Whether you're a fan of the man's politics he served his public and party for several decades. You may be pissed he's leaving, but thank him for the work he's done and if you have to take a dig, make it something silly like 'Arlen has served his state and his country and his party admirably but we now look forward to letting him retire after the next election'.

Morrison_Lad
04-28-2009, 11:32 AM
He was commenting on his 'left wing' voting record, I believe. But yeah, it was still a dig. Steele's reaction was douchy and out of line. Whether you're a fan of the man's politics he served his public and party for several decades. You may be pissed he's leaving, but thank him for the work he's done and if you have to take a dig, make it something silly like 'Arlen has served his state and his country and his party admirably but we now look forward to letting him retire after the next election'.

And it underlines how much I despise this right-wing/left-wing dichotomy which doesn't even come close to being an accurate way of assessing the political situation in the US.

OK, maybe it was a decent way of looking at things in France, after the Revolution. But what the hell that has to do with the United States in 2009, I have no idea.

RickLM
04-28-2009, 11:39 AM
Even though Specter is probably more of a Dem than Republican in his ideology, this is quite a surprise. First of all, he's really an old dude to be jumping parties. And although I like seeing the Dems with a big majority, it strikes me as opportunistic. It's weird that Specter suddenly sees the Dems as his buddies now, whereas back in 2004 (when the party was soundly defeated by Bush but still believed all the same damn things) he was happy to be a Republican even though he's pro-choice and moderate on everything else.

Oh well. He must sense that his state is getting bluer and decided to jump. Come on over, dude.

Ray G.
04-28-2009, 12:43 PM
2 Republican reactions

RNC Chairman Michael Steele


Republican Senator Lindsay Graham

Lindsay Graham, along with Charlie Crist, Rudy Giuliani, Chris Christie, Jon Huntsman, and a few others, seem to be the last reasonable GOPers left.

Nick Spencer
04-28-2009, 12:46 PM
It's exciting to see the Republicans really gear up for a fight on health care. Watching them lose that one will be SPECTACULAR.

bartleby
04-28-2009, 12:47 PM
Lindsay Graham, along with Charlie Crist, Rudy Giuliani, Chris Christie, Jon Huntsman, and a few others, seem to be the last reasonable GOPers left.

It blows my mind that Lindsay Graham and Rudy Giuliani could be on any list using the word "reasonable."

Morrison_Lad
04-28-2009, 12:48 PM
Lindsay Graham, along with Charlie Crist, Rudy Giuliani, Chris Christie, Jon Huntsman, and a few others, seem to be the last reasonable GOPers left.

Graham's an idiot.

But then, I've had to deal with his moronic comments and total lack of understanding for years now, so I don't know why I should be surprised.

Nick Spencer
04-28-2009, 12:49 PM
It blows my mind that Lindsay Graham and Rudy Giuliani could be on any list using the word "reasonable."

Relative to the word that follows it, they almost meet the criteria.

Ray G.
04-28-2009, 12:49 PM
It blows my mind that Lindsay Graham and Rudy Giuliani could be on any list using the word "reasonable."

Why?

bartleby
04-28-2009, 12:52 PM
Why?

Because I find them to be largely unreasonable?

Bill!
04-28-2009, 12:53 PM
Why?

Lindsay Graham is really creepy and a real bozo too. I've seen him work up close.

Ray G.
04-28-2009, 12:54 PM
Because I find them to be largely unreasonable?

Are there any GOPers you'd consider reasonable?


Lindsay Graham is really creepy and a real bozo too. I've seen him work up close.

Hm, that's interesting. You and Morrison_lad are pretty much saying the same thing. It seems to me like he's more likely to stand up to the ideologues. He's solidly conservative, but a lot more flexible than most of the old guard.

Xander Boune
04-28-2009, 12:56 PM
Olympia Snow also chimes in


Sen. Olympia Snowe of Maine, one of the few remaining moderate Republicans in the Senate, said Tuesday that Arlen Specter's abandonment of the GOP is "devastating," both "personally and I think for the party."

"I've always been deeply concerned about the views of the Republican Party nationally in terms of their exclusionary policies and views towards moderate Republicans," said Snowe, who has been approached, she said, by Democrats in the past about switching parties.

Specter's switch to the Democratic Party "underscores the blunt reality" that the GOP is not a welcome place for moderates, she said.

So far, she said, she's staying put. "I believe in the traditional tenets of the Republican Party: strong national defense, fiscal responsibility, individual opportunity. I haven't abandoned those principles that have been the essence of the Republican Party. I think the Republican Party has abandoned those principles.

She added that being a Republican is simply part of who she is. "It's my ethnic heritage, Spartan side, that continues to fight," she said.

The Republican party better solve its identity crisis soon. If there's a further exodus of moderates they'll be a minority party for a generation.

Bill!
04-28-2009, 12:57 PM
Hm, that's interesting. You and Morrison_lad are pretty much saying the same thing. It seems to me like he's more likely to stand up to the ideologues. He's solidly conservative, but a lot more flexible than most of the old guard.

He always looks really sweaty too. He reminds me of Dracula's sidekick.

Ray G.
04-28-2009, 12:59 PM
He always looks really sweaty too. He reminds me of Dracula's sidekick.

:lol:

I think he looks good in comparison to the other Senator from SC.

Xander Boune
04-28-2009, 01:00 PM
I'm not a Lindsay Graham fan, but he's at least been critical of his party and the Bush administration on occasion. The Republican party can and has done a lot worse.

Morrison_Lad
04-28-2009, 01:02 PM
If I were absolutely FORCED to choose Republicans I found "reasonable," I would go with Olympia Snowe and Susan Collins.

But they're from Maine, so they barely count. :)

Foolish Mortal
04-28-2009, 01:04 PM
You know, I don't mind people deciding they want to switch party. But there should have to be a special election. People voted for a representative / Senator / whatever partially based on the party they were running for. To change that, well, potentially they don't want that party as their representation and would not have voted for that person.

But no one asked me, I guess.
Specter's five-term voting record speaks for itself. I seriously doubt him switching parties will amount to any significant change in his ideology.

The voters have to decide if they're voting for a party, or voting for an individual.

Kedd
04-28-2009, 01:11 PM
Conservative sour grapes: Spector switched parties to secure future elections for himself.

Ray G.
04-28-2009, 01:14 PM
Conservative sour grapes: Spector switched parties to secure future elections for himself.

If they didn't want him to secure future elections for himself, they shouldn't have forced him to.

Although I do find some sweet, sweet irony in Democrats cheering this when they castigated Lieberman for doing virtually the same thing in 2006. :)

RebootedCorpse
04-28-2009, 01:22 PM
Are there any GOPers you'd consider reasonable?

Sure, that guy Arlen...oh, shit...

Morrison_Lad
04-28-2009, 01:25 PM
Conservative sour grapes: Spector switched parties to secure future elections for himself.

Of course he did. That's politics.

OTOH, it says something about the Republican Party when a guy like Specter can't feel confident in the primary. When you have primaries that appeal to ... well, to the fringe, you're going to have problems on the larger, national scene.

That's what Snowe was talking about.

As long as the Republicans are seen as the Pro-Torture, Anti-Abortion, Pro-Religion party and not a whole lot more than that, they are going to have some problems.

Graham can talk about "fiscal responsibility" and "small government" as much as he wants, but the facts are that while W was President, the spending was drunken-sailorish, and the Government grew and grew and began to invade more and more facets of people's lives.

So, what are the Republicans left with, really? Torture and Abortion and God.

This is why 20% of Americans identify themselves as Republicans.

And, yes, when people like Pat Buchanan are invoking NAZI phrases like "Blood and Soil" to make his "point," then you have a serious problem.

Bill!
04-28-2009, 01:26 PM
If they didn't want him to secure future elections for himself, they shouldn't have forced him to.

Although I do find some sweet, sweet irony in Democrats cheering this when they castigated Lieberman for doing virtually the same thing in 2006. :)

Big difference being though (besides Lieberman being a joke) is that the goals and policies of the democratic party have not changed.

Xander Boune
04-28-2009, 01:26 PM
If they didn't want him to secure future elections for himself, they shouldn't have forced him to.

Although I do find some sweet, sweet irony in Democrats cheering this when they castigated Lieberman for doing virtually the same thing in 2006. :)

Not quite. I would have loved to see Lieberman run in the Republican primary, he would have surely lost the general against Lamont in a two-man race if he was running with an (R) behind his name.

Joe Kalicki
04-28-2009, 01:27 PM
If they didn't want him to secure future elections for himself, they shouldn't have forced him to.

Although I do find some sweet, sweet irony in Democrats cheering this when they castigated Lieberman for doing virtually the same thing in 2006. :)

That happens every time someone switches parties, which seems to be an increasing trend. I think it's happened like four times in the last eight years.

Morrison_Lad
04-28-2009, 01:28 PM
If they didn't want him to secure future elections for himself, they shouldn't have forced him to.

Although I do find some sweet, sweet irony in Democrats cheering this when they castigated Lieberman for doing virtually the same thing in 2006. :)

They aren't even remotely comparable.

Kedd
04-28-2009, 01:34 PM
If they didn't want him to secure future elections for himself, they shouldn't have forced him to.

Although I do find some sweet, sweet irony in Democrats cheering this when they castigated Lieberman for doing virtually the same thing in 2006. :)

the beauty of politics. It sucks when you do it, it rocks when we do it.

Morrison_Lad
04-28-2009, 01:36 PM
the beauty of politics. It sucks when you do it, it rocks when we do it.

The two were nothing alike. It's like saying, "Wow! It was so cool when the Steelers won the Super Bowl, and I find it hilarious that you find it cool when the Marlins won the World Series!"

The two have nothing at all to do with each other.

Kedd
04-28-2009, 01:49 PM
The two were nothing alike. It's like saying, "Wow! It was so cool when the Steelers won the Super Bowl, and I find it hilarious that you find it cool when the Marlins won the World Series!"

The two have nothing at all to do with each other.

ok.

Joe Kalicki
04-28-2009, 01:53 PM
Actually, Lieberman's and Specter's defections, though not related to each other in any way as repeatedly stated, are still basically the same act made for more or less the same reason, so there's really no reason not to compare the reactions to each of them.

Morrison_Lad
04-28-2009, 01:53 PM
ok.

If you're trying to be a smartass, I'll point out that Lieberman, for good or for worse (I can't stand the jackass) is still a member of the Democratic Caucus in the Senate.

Specter is leaving the Party, leaving the Caucus, leaving it ALL.

In other words, when Lieberman "left" the Democratic Party, it didn't, effectively, change anything. Specter leaving does, in fact, change the line-up.

Horizon Drive
04-28-2009, 01:55 PM
I wonder if this decision by Spector will have any influence on the Coleman/Franken debacle. Will the republicans and Coleman quit stonewalling now that the dems have their 60 votes?

I would be curious about the above mentioned Mr. Lieberman. I wonder if Obama can seduce to the dark side and he could switch back to being a member of the democratic party?

tstouder
04-28-2009, 01:58 PM
Although it was fun to watch the Dems' heads explode here in CO when Ben Nighthorse Campbell left their party to join the Repubs.

Morrison_Lad
04-28-2009, 02:00 PM
I wonder if this decision by Spector will have any influence on the Coleman/Franken debacle. Will the republicans and Coleman quit stonewalling now that the dems have their 60 votes?

I would be curious about the above mentioned Mr. Lieberman. I wonder if Obama can seduce to the dark side and he could switch back to being a member of the democratic party?

He's a member of the Dem. Caucus, and that's all that matters. There's no seducing needed.

Now, he's a complete moron and I can't stand listening to more than 2 seconds of him speak. But that's not really politically relevant.

Bill!
04-28-2009, 02:00 PM
I wonder if this decision by Spector will have any influence on the Coleman/Franken debacle. Will the republicans and Coleman quit stonewalling now that the dems have their 60 votes?

I would be curious about the above mentioned Mr. Lieberman. I wonder if Obama can seduce to the dark side and he could switch back to being a member of the democratic party?

He caucuses with the democrats already. Has forever.

Kedd
04-28-2009, 02:00 PM
If you're trying to be a smartass, I'll point out that Lieberman, for good or for worse (I can't stand the jackass) is still a member of the Democratic Caucus in the Senate.

Specter is leaving the Party, leaving the Caucus, leaving it ALL.

In other words, when Lieberman "left" the Democratic Party, it didn't, effectively, change anything. Specter leaving does, in fact, change the line-up.

Here "ok" means I'm kind of done with that particular line of thought because I don't have anything more to add to it. Calm yourself some. Ok.

Morrison_Lad
04-28-2009, 02:01 PM
Here "ok" means I'm kind of done with that particular line of thought because I don't have anything more to add to it. Calm yourself some. Ok.

Gotcha. :)

Kedd
04-28-2009, 02:01 PM
search twitter Specter and Traitor
http://search.twitter.com/search?q=specter+traitor

Ray G.
04-28-2009, 02:08 PM
Not quite. I would have loved to see Lieberman run in the Republican primary, he would have surely lost the general against Lamont in a two-man race if he was running with an (R) behind his name.

Maybe. The GOP candidate that year was a joke who got something like 10% of the vote. And Lieberman got over 50%.

Ray G.
04-28-2009, 02:09 PM
Actually, Lieberman's and Specter's defections, though not related to each other in any way as repeatedly stated, are still basically the same act made for more or less the same reason, so there's really no reason not to compare the reactions to each of them.

The main difference is that Lieberman waited to be defeated in the primary, while Specter avoided that whole mess.

Evan Wiener
04-28-2009, 02:10 PM
The GOP can smear Specter all they want, but they pushed PA to a bluer state in metro high population areas by going along the Bush, Rove, Cheney, DeLay, Frist ride.

Fuck them. Hannity can claim Specter is betraying his voters, but only idiotic lemmings vote down party lines, regardless of the politician's message and agenda.

Jason California
04-28-2009, 02:11 PM
If they didn't want him to secure future elections for himself, they shouldn't have forced him to.

Although I do find some sweet, sweet irony in Democrats cheering this when they castigated Lieberman for doing virtually the same thing in 2006. :)


Most people in this world are hypocrites. Since the parties are full of people this is bound to happen. Your team is not any better.

Evan Wiener
04-28-2009, 02:13 PM
The main difference is that Lieberman waited to be defeated in the primary, while Specter avoided that whole mess.


Lieberman did it during the primary. Specter is giving voter ample time to know where he stands. Also, even if you're a moderate R in PA and weren't thrilled with his support of Obama's agenda, you only care about one issue? That's silly.

Xander Boune
04-28-2009, 02:22 PM
Maybe. The GOP candidate that year was a joke who got something like 10% of the vote. And Lieberman got over 50%.

Connecticut voters thought they were still voting for a Democratic candidate, one that promised to support the Democratic presidential nominee in 2008. And Lamont still got 40% of a vote. We'll never know for sure, but I'm confidant that an R next to his name would have sunk Lieberman in a two-way race.


The main difference is that Lieberman waited to be defeated in the primary, while Specter avoided that whole mess.

Correct. PA has a sore-Lieberman law that prevents someone from losing in the primary and running as an independent in the general. Specter had to throw his lot with one group or another for better or worse instead of hedging his bets.

Kirblar
04-28-2009, 02:23 PM
The other difference is that the guy who beat Lieberman in the primary would have won the general.

The GOP would have run a sure loser candidate who couldn't win.

Ryan F
04-28-2009, 03:12 PM
Most people in this world are hypocrites. Since the parties are full of people this is bound to happen. Your team is not any better.

Off topic, but when did you become a Zapatista?

PimpSlapStick!
04-28-2009, 03:25 PM
"They have a plan"

"Infiltrate the Dems'

"Destroy from within"

Foolish Mortal
04-28-2009, 04:07 PM
The GOP can smear Specter all they want, but they pushed PA to a bluer state in metro high population areas by going along the Bush, Rove, Cheney, DeLay, Frist ride.

Fuck them. Hannity can claim Specter is betraying his voters, but only idiotic lemmings vote down party lines, regardless of the politician's message and agenda.
Seriously. Anyone who rubber stamp's a candidate because they belong to a certain party is a dumbass. You vote for the individual, not their group membership.

DrMachine
04-28-2009, 05:19 PM
fantastic news

dasNdanger
04-28-2009, 05:28 PM
This isn't surprising at all, really. If 200k people in his state changed registration, then it makes sense.

And really, as others have pointed out, the Republican Party has become a party based on a very few issues. Also, who the heck wants to be associated with the Republicans these days, anyways?

It didn't come to me as a surprise, either. I'm not politically inclined, but I do keep up with the news, and for the longest time I thought Specter WAS a democrat, especially for some of the things he said about the Bush Admin.


das

Kedd
04-28-2009, 07:10 PM
"They have a plan"

"Infiltrate the Dems'

"Destroy from within"

:scared:

Jason California
04-28-2009, 07:17 PM
Off topic, but when did you become a Zapatista?

I have been listening to a lot of Rage lately. I like the idea of rebel freedom fighter. I am a romantic like that.

Cth
05-06-2009, 10:59 AM
Senate Democrats Deny Specter Committee Seniority

The Senate dealt a blow tonight to Sen. Arlen Specter's hold on seniority in several key committees, a week after the Pennsylvanian's party switch placed Democrats on the precipice of a 60-seat majority.

In a unanimous voice vote, the Senate approved a resolution that added Specter to the Democratic side of the dais on the five committees on which he serves, an expected move that gives Democrats larger margins on key panels such as Judiciary and Appropriations.

But Democrats placed Specter in one of the two most junior slots on each of the five committees for the remainder of this Congress, which goes through December 2010. Democrats have suggested that they will consider revisiting Specter's seniority claim at the committee level only after the midterm elections next year.

"This is all going to be negotiated next Congress," Jim Manley, spokesman for Senate Majority Leader Harry M. Reid (D-Nev.), said tonight.

Specter's office declined to comment.

Without any assurance of seniority, Specter loses a major weapon in his campaign to win reelection in 2010: the ability to claim that his nearly 30 years of Senate service places him in key positions to benefit his constituents.

Tonight's committee resolution, quickly read on the Senate floor by Reid himself, contradicts Specter's assertion last Tuesday when he publicly announced his move from the Republican side of the aisle. He told reporters that he retained his seniority both in the overall chamber and in the committees on which he serves. Specter said that becoming chairman of the Appropriations Committee was a personal goal of his, one that would be within reach if he were granted his seniority on the panel and placed as the third-most senior Democrat there.

Specter, if granted seniority, would also be next in line to chair the Judiciary Committee behind the current chairman, Sen. Patrick J. Leahy (D-Vt.).

Without that seniority, though, Specter, 79, would not even hold an appropriations subcommittee chairmanship in 2011, a critical foothold Specter has used in the past to disperse billions of dollars to Pennsylvania.

When Supreme Court nomination hearings are held later this summer, Specter will be the last senator to ask questions of the eventual nominee -- a dramatically lower profile than in 2005 and 2006, when he chaired the committee and ran the confirmations of Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. and Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr.

Democrats could decide after the 2010 midterms to reward Specter for his move by granting him seniority on committees, but recent precedent has not been kind to such situations. In 2002, for instance, Frank Lautenberg came out of retirement to bail out New Jersey Democrats, agreeing to run in place of the ethically disgraced incumbent, Robert G. Torricelli (D). Lautenberg won a seat that was once thought to be out of reach. But despite his 18 years of prior Senate service, Democrats relegated him to the most junior positions on committees.

Specter, after 43 years as an active Republican, will have to prove his Democratic loyalty over the next 20 months to his colleagues in order to win their support for his seniority. That effort has gotten off to a rocky start following an interview he gave with the New York Times Magazine, to be published this Sunday.

Specter joked about how Norm Coleman could possibly win his legal contest and reclaim his Minnesota Senate seat, assuring there would still be at least one Jewish Republican in the chamber. Specter backtracked from those comments in an interview with Congressional Quarterly today,

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

Ryan F
05-06-2009, 11:04 AM
Good for the Dems. The only guy who's really coming out ahead in this whole thing is Specter; I don't see why he shouldn't have to prove himself.

Ray G.
05-06-2009, 11:05 AM
Good for the Dems. The only guy who's really coming out ahead in this whole thing is Specter; I don't see why he shouldn't have to prove himself.

Actually, that was a pretty dumb move on their part.

If former Gov. Tom Ridge jumps in, Specter will need every weapon he has to hold onto the seat.

Ryan F
05-06-2009, 11:10 AM
Actually, that was a pretty dumb move on their part.

If former Gov. Tom Ridge jumps in, Specter will need every weapon he has to hold onto the seat.

I don't think many voters make their selections based on committee chairmanships, and Ridge won't be able to promise any more than Specter on that front anyway. It won't make a difference in the campaign.