Republican Senator Arlen Specter to become a Democrat

As reported by MSN online, Pennsylvania Republican Senator Arlen Specter, long known for being one of the few liberal Republicans in the U.S. Senate has announced that he is switching to the Democratic Party and intends to run for reelection in 2010 as a Democrat.

Assuming he joins the Democrats in the Senate right now and Al Franken wins the Minnesota Senate race, that gives the Democrats a filibuster proof majority in the Senate.

An ill wind blows....

Meh. Six of one, half-dozen of the other . . .

Snowe and Collins should join him.

It's just one lie in an ocean of lies that any of the three are/were "Republican" in anything but the label.


Perhaps now that the Specter lie/farce has been admitted, the Dems won't have to use "budget reconciliation" as a back-door method to sneak socialized health into law with 51 votes.

People need to not worry about the letter after his name and remember how long this guy has been part of the establishment. He needs to be sent home along with all the other incumbents.

This is awesome. It's about fucking time we don't have to worry about this dipshit.

Now we just need Snowe and Collins to do the same thing.

Including Ron Paul, correct?

Well, clearly Specter can read a poll and realized he has no chance in a Republican primary. Can't say I'm particularly fond of a switch that pushes both the Democrats and the Republicans distinctly to the right, unless it means that the Democrats start completely ignoring Republicans, settling policy debates internally, and imposing reasonably strict party discipline. If the Democrats don't use the leverage of their large majority, and continue to insist on negotiating compromises with Republicans, this just means that the median in each party moves rightward, as does the "compromise" between the median of each party.

We'll see. The conniptions on both the right and the left should be fun to watch.

So, having no chance to win as a Republican, he'll just switch sides?

Do politicians always do what is convenient for them?

That was a rhetorical question, btw.

Specter has the first and most important trait for being a Democrat.

Wishy-washy.

Perfect fit.

Yep. He's proven himself completely ineffective. Send home ALL the incumbents.

But...but...WHAT ABOUT THE REVOLUTION!?!?!?

Republicans should have taken the 1994 election to heart and continued with the way they were going.

Instead, they got in bed with the religious fundies and started spending like they got hold of Dad's credit card.

If they're now losing seats in the House and the Senate, it's their own damn fault.

That comes once the RINOs have been purged and the Republicans hold 15 seats in the Senate and 90 in the House. The concentrated revolutionary power left behind will be so pure that it forms a critical mass at a much lower mass, and BOOOOOOM!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Revolution!!!!!!!!!!! Snausages and backrubs from Ann Coulter for everybody!

NO SHIT!

It's like everything about 1994 has been forgotten. The strategies, the results, the plan. Everything.

That pisses me the fuck off. These current clowns aren't even in the same universe as the GOP of 1994.

I'd have more respect for Specter if he'd done this before specifically saying he wouldn't on March 17th, falling 21 points behind Toomey in the Repub primary poll AND failing in his efforts to make that primary an open one.



Enjoy having the turncoat in your caucus lefties.

Because if it were not rhetorical, someone might mention Ronald Reagan.

Now, someone else will post how it was the Democrats who betrayed Reagan and *forced* him to go Republican, not Reagan himself being an opportunist...

Of course he was an opportunist.

But he did a fine job as President too. Specter isn't doing a 'fine' job as a Senator.

He's more of a disaster.

No argument here. But you asked about politicians switching sides. Rhetorically, of course.

Here in Canada politicians ALWAYS switch sides if it helps their cause.

No way that's going to happen. with the inevitable seating of Al Franken, this will give Dems a supermajority in the senate. I imagine he'll be a part of Evan Byah's Conservative Democrats. While it's no secret that I lean left, an unopposed supermajority is not what I'm hoping for. You are correct in the fact that this only moves congress to the right to some degree.

I guess as long as he continues to vote his concious, we should be OK.

Hmmm.... I wonder if McCain will do so too?

Oh fuck.

Take a wild guess who said that.




​

And what that means is that the Democrats will forget about Snowe, and Collins, and Voinovich, all of whom are closer than Specter to the Democratic mainstream on a number of issues, in favor of keeping Specter happy. Specter could, of course, take a left turn after switching, as per Jim Jeffords, but my impression of him is that he's unlikely to do that. He's already making noise about maintaining his rightward swing on EFCA (from sponsor in on session to filibusterer in the next) and continuing to vote against cloture on bills he opposes.

If that changes, and if Specter votes for cloture on Democratic bills he opposes, then the Democrats will have a supermajority for more-or-less their current agenda. Otherwise the party just lurched significantly right.

Reagan himself answered that question. He said he didn't leave the Democratic party. The Democratic party left him. Of course, we can now say that the Republicans have left the conservatives behind as well and are now only slightly better than the Dems.

Hey look, Caedus and I agree on something. This is nothing more than a naked play by Specter to try and keep his seat. He'd never win a primary next year with the purge of moderates out of the Republican Party in PA. I doubt his voting pattern will change much. He'll end up another Joe Lieberman. Also, what's to stop Democrats in PA from primarying him? Specter already said he will continue to oppose the Employee Free Choice Act, a rather large issue for Democrats.

Well this no great loss for the Republicans...Specter was always stabbing the GOP in the back now he can do it from the front.

As for the Dems with complete and filler buster proof control of both houses they have one party rule and have no excuses..so they can pass everything they want but they can't use the Republicans for scapegoats with things hit .

They'll find a way to keep blaming. However, the question is, will it stick?

Well, Ron Paul would be safer OUT of Congress in that case, wouldn't he?

That much seems pretty obvious. It's why Specter, and not one of the Maine Senators, is switching.

Likely, but not inevitable. The last few Senate switchers (Jeffords, Campbell, Shelby) did change their voting patterns significantly. Specter, however, has been taking a hard right turn recently, until he realized that it's not going to save him in the Republican primary and decided to switch parties. He seems to feel that following that with a left turn will lead to an overdose of wishy-washy and image problems with independent moderates in PA.

The state party has supposedly agreed to strongly back him. People could buck the state party, and that's more likely if Specter doesn't at least inch left, but party support appears to be part of the deal.

We'll see. I wouldn't be surprised to see him abstain on a cloture vote but vote against the final bill. Whether he abstains or votes in favor of cloture, the Democrats need one Republican either way to gain cloture, so the Democrats would be satisfied with that position. Specter will be under more pressure if Franken is seated before an EFCA vote, because then he wouldn't be able to cop out by abstaining given the Senate math.

If Specter votes against cloture on the EFCA, he will be primaried, regardless of any promises that have been made.

More evidence that the GOP is growing too extreme as moderates are unwelcome.

Specter has hopes for the United States that go beyond his loyalty to the GOP, and I admire him for that. At any rate, having barely won the GOP primary here in PA in 2004, it’s very unlikely that he would have squeezed it out in 2010. His approval ratings are higher with Democrats than Republicans, but that’s not saying much. Even with no guarantee that the Democrats will nominate him, switching sides was clearly his best bet for continuing his career.

I don't believe that's an accurate historical assessment. A major reason for the GOP sweeping Congress in 1994 was because of their dedication to religion and family values, not just their dedication to fiscal discipline. They had appeal particularly when the sitting president was an admitted drug user and a skirt chaser.

I seriously doubt that. Hell, most middle-of-the-aisle voters who voted for BushII said they thought he'd be a better drinking buddy than Al Gore.

I not any where near a religious fundy and I didn't like Clinton - and it isn't because he's a "skirt chaser", but because he, obviously, had no respect at all for women.

Neither Ronald Reagan nor BushI could be accused of being a religious fundy. Heck, not even Newt Gingrich - the person largely accreditted with the Republicans 'taking control' of Congress in 1994 - is in any way remotely considered a religious fundy.

And, contrary to christian teachings, one doesn't have to be christian to have values or morals.