Senator Arlen Specter (R-PA)

[LTC8K6]

http://briefingroom.thehill.co...ad-disavowed-a-switch/

News of Sen. Arlen Specter's party switch today comes after months of strong statements to the contrary by the Pennsylvania Senator.
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.

 

[wpshooter]

Another, good riddance !!!

 

[mugs]

Originally posted by: RyanPaulShaffer

Originally posted by: QuantumPion
good riddance.

I hope he takes McCain and Snowe with him on the way out.

Yes. I forgot about the two RINO senators up in Maine. Take them with you too, Arlen!

The way you guys are trying to push powerful senators out of the party, it's almost like you don't want the Republicans to regain power for a long, long time.

 

[Pens1566]

Originally posted by: RyanPaulShaffer

Originally posted by: Pens1566

Originally posted by: RyanPaulShaffer

Originally posted by: Pens1566

Originally posted by: RyanPaulShaffer

Originally posted by: MikeyLSU
From the beginning I really haven't minded the dems having complete control. This way, everything is on them. When something doesn't work or get better, it is 100% their fault since repubs have no control to do anything.

I hope things do get better, but with that lot in control I seriously doubt it.

Exactly. The Dems can only blame Bush for so long. This is their show now, and really has been since they had the majority in the House and Senate since 2006. When things are worse in 2011, what are they going to do? Keep blaming Bush? Sorry, you can only play that card for so long.

Not until Iraq/Afghanistan/Economy are no longer issues. Those are all part of the Albatross left from the last administration.

Ah...so you can blame Bush for the rest of infinity with that circular logic. If the economy still sucks in 2020, I can see the headlines on CNN and MSNBC (if they still exist then since they have like five viewers amongst them currently):

"IT IS BUSH'S FAULT NEVERMIND THAT HE HASN'T BEEN IN OFFICE FOR TWELVE YEARS AND THE DEMS HAVE CONTROLLED CONGRESS SINCE 2006!"

:roll:

Three giant problems all with causes based on choices made by the previous administration. Of course its BHO's fault that he can't fix them all in 7 years.

Just edited your post to reflect the excuses that will still be uttered in 2015 when things keep getting worse and worse.

Nah, W is gone.

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
Let's back up a few years to the mid-90s when multiple Democrats switched parties.

That was obviously a sign that the Democrat Party was on its way to permanent minority status.

The Democrats were doing terribly for a while, and can thank the Republicans for putting the *disasters* like DeLay and Bush for helping them - at great expense to the country.

Right now the country is swinging to the left (after 20+ years of going to the right) If anything him switching parties may accelerate the end of the leftward swing and hasten a return to swinging back to the right.

First, try 15 years. The Republicans begane this era not with the election of Clinton over Republican incumbent Bush in 1992 - along with both houses of Congress.

Only you would call a Democratic White House, Senate and House a 'swing to the right'.

Now we have Obama with a Democrat congress. It is just a matter of time before they lurch too far to the left for most Americans and we see 'balance' restored.

Democrats did blow it before. You assume they won't learn a lesson. I don't. Last time, they had bad leaders like Rostenkowski - now, they don't.

Look at our history for the past 50 years. Any time one party controls both the White House and Congress it is only a matter of time before they screw up and lose that hold.

Wrong. Democrats did not 'screw up' to get Eisenhower elected - the Republicans came up with the 'Red Scare' that oh by the way gave us a terrible cold war policy and McCarthyism. What's a little risking nuclear war and our culture of freedom and civil rights, for an election? LBJ did not 'screw up' - Viet Nam did him in, and the nation can thank Nixon for treasonously sabotaging LBJ's peace talks with a secret deal with the South Vietnamese for his election. Next up - the 'southern strategy' to turn the South Republican by appealing to the racism in the South and take advantage to the backlash over the nation's perhapsproudet moment in 50 years, the 1965 Civil Rights acts to end segregation.

Outside of that, Democrats had an excellent record of prosperity, low deficits, world leadership, largely championing liberty at home and abroad, opening the door to peace with the Soviets and the first nuclear arms treaties, ending our support for European colonization of the third world, standing up for a strong middle class and labor rights, implementing a variety of new government services from expanded medical care to consumer protections, cutting the number below the poverty line by a third...

Oh ya, and a man on the moon, with the benefits that brought to science and the economy.

A proud record of the Democrats 'screwing up', indeed.

 

[Jaskalas]

Originally posted by: miketheidiot

Originally posted by: Atreus21

Originally posted by: miketheidiot
he was pretty much the only democrat left in the republican party.

Fixed.

great, now republicans are saying even moderate conservatives are too liberal.

If liberal means holding dear to the Democrat's ideals of government expansion, then GWB was far too liberal.

 

[SirStev0]

Originally posted by: RyanPaulShaffer
He was already a Democrat in every way, shape and form except for name. Now, he's just made it official.

Maybe he'll take his liberal "Republican" buddy McCain with him. We can only hope.

Yep, keep alienating the moderates... that'll win elections /eyeroll.

 

[Jaskalas]

What difference does Specter's party make? I really fail to see any significance or news story here.

He was voting with Democrats before, and he'll vote with Democrats now. The Democratic party will still have to pander to the less radical among them, the entire party isn't lockstep on everything they are going to want to push through.

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: quest55720
I am happy he is switched. The minute he voted for Porkulus is the minute he was no longer a republican. It is time to rid the party of all those who are not fiscally conservative. Anyone who votes for trillions in spending for pet projects is no fiscal conservative. I hope others who voted for porkulus follow his lead and leave the party.

You obviously think that calling it a name is an argument why it's wrong. TARP was badly done, even if arguably better than nothing, like a tourniquet

The Democrats' stimulus package is done much better. Except for the compromises they made with Republicans, in order to make it bi-partisan, and get their zero House votes.

 

[Hacp]

Doesn't really matter. Its still 59 vs 40. Democrats don't have 60 votes either way. In 2010, when the country sees what high taxes and reckless spending has done to our economy, I predict a republican sweep. Maybe by then Senator Sector will have seen through his mistakes.

 

[mugs]

Originally posted by: loki8481

Originally posted by: SP33Demon
Repub party is a dying breed, and Specter is smart enough to realize that. RIP Republicans.

am I the only one in this thread who was alive in the 90's and early 00's when calling someone a liberal or democrat was like throwing out the N-word?

Things really do change quickly. I remember back when the Republicans had all of the power, the Democrats were all acting crazy and foaming at the mouth, and I had to wonder who was going to do something to counter the far right. It was like the Democrats couldn't do anything right, which is exactly how it is with the Republicans now. Things change quickly when the people get pissed about something.

It looks like the turntables have... ... ... ...
</Michael Scott>

 

[Genx87]

Originally posted by: Lemon law
Gotta love some of the GOP sour grapes arguments, but my guess is that Specter got tired of being told to toe the GOP line like some errant school boy.

Of course its HUGE, now unless the GOP can seat Coleman, they can only sustain a filibuster by peeling away democrats. Look for that Minnesota dispute to really heat up.

At 79, I have to wonder if Specter wants another term. But he can probably easily win by running as a democrat. And short term he may get some plum positions and have a better say in getting what he wants done accomplished while securing a key place in history.

And hopefully get the GOP to rethink its we must be an exclusive party of only like minded individuals who lock step think alike and shun any alternative ideas. If nothing else, its back to the drawing board for Mitch McConnell.

But its alos my understanding the decision is not final, but it well may be later today or tomorrow.

If you read his statement it is clear he knows to win in 2010 he needs to be a democrat as 200,000 republicans changed party affiliation in 2008. So he is going with the political winds and changing parties as well. Might as well if a large portion of your voting base is now democrat.

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: LTC8K6
http://briefingroom.thehill.co...ad-disavowed-a-switch/

News of Sen. Arlen Specter's party switch today comes after months of strong statements to the contrary by the Pennsylvania Senator.
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.

Yes, this shows him to be duplicitous. I was not a fan of Specter before, and I'm not now.

I do prefer having him supporting the Democrats with a 60th vote, because I support their policies, not because I'm a fan of Specter.

He's far from the worst, however.

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: RyanPaulShaffer

Originally posted by: MikeyLSU
From the beginning I really haven't minded the dems having complete control. This way, everything is on them. When something doesn't work or get better, it is 100% their fault since repubs have no control to do anything.

I hope things do get better, but with that lot in control I seriously doubt it.

Exactly. The Dems can only blame Bush for so long. This is their show now, and really has been since they had the majority in the House and Senate since 2006. When things are worse in 2011, what are they going to do? Keep blaming Bush? Sorry, you can only play that card for so long.

The fact is, there's a reason people said 'the harm done by Republicans during the Bush administration will take decades to fix'. But no, they can't just run against Bush. They have to have a record they can run on of good policies that are undoing that damage, even if they can say there is still damage from them.

 

[Engineer]

Originally posted by: Hacp
Doesn't really matter. Its still 59 vs 40. Democrats don't have 60 votes either way. In 2010, when the country sees what high taxes and reckless spending has done to our economy, I predict a republican sweep. Maybe by then Senator Sector will have seen through his mistakes.

I might agree on the spending but taxes are lower now than they have been in over 50 (possibly 100) years, at least on the Federal level and IIRC, they are not scheduled to go up (yet?) in 2010. 2011 possibly as the Bush tax cuts expire. I'm guess people are jumping the gun when stating that we are currently paying "higher" taxes.

 

[Lemon law]

The sad part is that almost all of the moderates the GOP will need to rebuild the party when they come to their senses are becoming a vanishing breed.
People in the GOP who know how to operate in a bi-partisan manner are almost gone, Warner and DiMedici were lost to retirement in 08.

And all this just to defend the failed and no longer there GWB&co.

How stupid can the GOP get as they seemingly have a death wish. Are they just waiting for the next comet to vacuum them up?

 

[Drakkon]

So instead to adapting to the ideal of the people they represent Republicans would rather kick a senator out of their party? I mean really thats the answer? You do remember senators (and other elected officials) are supposed to serve the will of the people right? and vote based on what their constituents elect them for and not just with a symbol next to their name? Thats all I read from the comments posted here and other places. 'Good riddance' 'we have a few more that should leave with you' etc. Makes you wonder why more haven't left.

 

[Genx87]

Originally posted by: Drakkon
So instead to adapting to the ideal of the people they represent Republicans would rather kick a senator out of their party? I mean really thats the answer? You do remember senators (and other elected officials) are supposed to serve the will of the people right? and vote based on what their constituents elect them for and not just with a symbol next to their name? Thats all I read from the comments posted here and other places. 'Good riddance' 'we have a few more that should leave with you' etc. Makes you wonder why more haven't left.

Becasue they were replaced by moderate democrats the last two election cycles.

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn

Originally posted by: loki8481

Originally posted by: SP33Demon
Repub party is a dying breed, and Specter is smart enough to realize that. RIP Republicans.

am I the only one in this thread who was alive in the 90's and early 00's when calling someone a liberal or democrat was like throwing out the N-word?

You, me and a few others.

Again, the more power you give the Republican party the quicker they will use that power to self-destruct.

Fixed. As my other post showed, the Democrats have usually not 'screwed it up'.

 

[Jschmuck2]

Originally posted by: KK

Originally posted by: miketheidiot

Originally posted by: Atreus21

Originally posted by: miketheidiot
he was pretty much the only democrat left in the republican party.

Fixed.

great, now republicans are saying even moderate conservatives are too liberal.

What did they say about Zell?

Anyways, good, now the stupid democrats will screw this country so bad, if the republicans stop their stupidity, they can easily gain some seats next election.

Glad to hear you like this country so much that you want it to get screwed up :thumbsup:

Congrats! You're what's wrong with America!

 

[jonks]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
Let's back up a few years to the mid-90s when multiple Democrats switched parties.

That was obviously a sign that the Democrat Party was on its way to permanent minority status.

Right now the country is swinging to the left (after 20+ years of going to the right) If anything him switching parties may accelerate the end of the leftward swing and hasten a return to swinging back to the right.

And here is why:
Republicans controlled the White House for 12 years in the 80s, but Democrats controlled congress and kept the White House in check.

Then in the 90s Clinton controlled the White House, with a Republican congress. This again kept both parties in check so to speak.

Then Bush comes along and with a Republican congress self destructs and 6 years later the Democrats take over congress.

Now we have Obama with a Democrat congress. It is just a matter of time before they lurch too far to the left for most Americans and we see 'balance' restored.

Look at our history for the past 50 years. Any time one party controls both the White House and Congress it is only a matter of time before they screw up and lose that hold.

http://online.wsj.com/public/a...58917747.html?mod=blog

I suppose we'll see, but the demographic makeup of the Rep party hasn't changed much in years. It's been the party of white people. The demo of the US is moving toward a white plurality, no longer a majority. The Rep party member's average age has also risen dramatically. Unless the Reps make major headway into minority groups, they will not win a nationwide election for the forseeable future.

Eventually a shift might come, if the conservatives/religious among the "new americans" move to the Rep party. But the Reps would first have to overcome the image of bigoted caucasion cigar chomping fat cats. Michael Steele is not the current face of the Rep party, Rush Limbaugh, Cheney and Rove are. Bitching about gay people, affirmative action, illegal immigration, denying global warming, and promoting religion over science is not a pathway to the future.

 

[Fern]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
This might help the Republicans because Specter sits on the judicial committee I believe and now we can replace him with a 'real' Republican.

This will not help Republicans.

I don't see how it hurts.

How many party line votes do we have in the Senate?

It sounds like Specter is only doing this to keep his seat in 2010. If he keeps voting the way has does now then not much will change. Except party line votes where 60 votes are needed and there aren't a whole lot of those that actually count.

Neither do I.

This isn't anywhere near as significant as when Jeffords switched affiliation; that changed a lot including all chairmenships and control of committees etc.

Spector is switching parties, not ideology.

He'll vote all he always has. Posters here are acting silly, as if he had always voted the party line as a Repub, but will now change 100% and vote Dem party line. That ridiculous.

And all this about a big change in 'filibusters'? H3ll, the Repubs couldn't filibuster the Porkulus bill, I don't see much, if any, change.

Fern

 

[Genx87]

Originally posted by: jonks

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
Let's back up a few years to the mid-90s when multiple Democrats switched parties.

That was obviously a sign that the Democrat Party was on its way to permanent minority status.

Right now the country is swinging to the left (after 20+ years of going to the right) If anything him switching parties may accelerate the end of the leftward swing and hasten a return to swinging back to the right.

And here is why:
Republicans controlled the White House for 12 years in the 80s, but Democrats controlled congress and kept the White House in check.

Then in the 90s Clinton controlled the White House, with a Republican congress. This again kept both parties in check so to speak.

Then Bush comes along and with a Republican congress self destructs and 6 years later the Democrats take over congress.

Now we have Obama with a Democrat congress. It is just a matter of time before they lurch too far to the left for most Americans and we see 'balance' restored.

Look at our history for the past 50 years. Any time one party controls both the White House and Congress it is only a matter of time before they screw up and lose that hold.

http://online.wsj.com/public/a...58917747.html?mod=blog

I suppose we'll see, but the demographic makeup of the Rep party hasn't changed much in years. It's been the party of white people. The demo of the US is moving toward a white plurality, no longer a majority. The Rep party member's average age has also risen dramatically. Unless the Reps make major headway into minority groups, they will not win a nationwide election for the forseeable future.

Eventually a shift might come, if the conservatives/religious among the "new americans" move to the Rep party. But the Reps would first have to overcome the image of bigoted caucasion cigar chomping fat cats. Michael Steele is not the current face of the Rep party, Rush Limbaugh, Cheney and Rove are. Bitching about gay people, affirmative action, illegal immigration, denying global warming, and promoting religion over science is not a pathway to the future.

Buch\Rove captured about 45% of the Latino vote in 04. One of the reasons why he won. It can be done but not with a bumbing excuse of a campaign McCain ran last year.

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: Lemon law
The sad part is that almost all of the moderates the GOP will need to rebuild the party when they come to their senses are becoming a vanishing breed.
People in the GOP who know how to operate in a bi-partisan manner are almost gone, Warner and DiMedici were lost to retirement in 08.

And all this just to defend the failed and no longer there GWB&co.

How stupid can the GOP get as they seemingly have a death wish. Are they just waiting for the next comet to vacuum them up?

Actually, they're radicalizing the party further - the thing is, while that *should* hurt them, perversely it sometimes works, as it did with Bush 43.

We can't assume they're destroying their chances by radicalizaing.

Who would have thought in 2000 that a popular Democrat who had balanced the budget after the huge Republican deficits would not be followed by his internet-inventing VP, but rather the nation would turn to an incompetent, inexperienced, inarticulate son of a former president who wouldn't stand a chance if not for nepotism, former alcoholic, who had barely been out of the country and had evaded Vietnam while supporting it, and was considered a far-right winger? Yet he almost won, and did take office. And got re-elected.

Who would have thought that after the disaster of Bush for eight years with the economy in its biggest crisis since the great depression as the result of the Republican ideology for deregulation, that 48% of the nation would choose the pathetic McCain/Palin ticket over the strong Obama/Biden ticket?

Our nation has too many ignorant and misguided people, sadly.

 

[newnameman]

Originally posted by: LTC8K6
http://briefingroom.thehill.co...ad-disavowed-a-switch/

News of Sen. Arlen Specter's party switch today comes after months of strong statements to the contrary by the Pennsylvania Senator.
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.

More:

A greatest hits list of Specter's I'm-not-switching denials in recent months, courtesy a GOP operative:

Q: ?Some Democrats have approached you to switch, why not take them up on it?? SEN. ARLEN SPECTER (R-PA): How do you know that as a fact just because Rendell and Biden said that publicly? Q: ?Sure, why not take the path of the least resistance.? SEN. ARLEN SPECTER (R-PA): ?Because I am a Republican.? (?Arlen Specter Unfiltered,? Pennsylvania Avenue, 4/16/09)

SEN. ARLEN SPECTER (R-PA): ?I?m staying a Republican because I think I have a more important role to play there.? (?Specter won?t rule out run as an Independent,? The Hill, 3/17/09)

SEN. ARLEN SPECTER (R-PA): ?I think each of the 41 Republican senators, in a sense ? and I don?t want to overstate this ? is a national asset,? he said, ?because if one was gone, you?d only have 40, the Democrats would have 60, and they would control all of the mechanisms of government.?? (?Specter Won?t Rule Out Run As An Independent,? The Hill, 3/17/09)

SEN. ARLEN SPECTER (R-PA): ?And because if we lose my seat they have 60 Democrats, they will pass card check, you will have the Obama tax increases, they will carry out his big spending plans. So the 41st Republican, whose name is Arlen Specter is vital to stopping tax increases, passage of card check, and the Obama big spending plans.? (?Arlen Specter Unfiltered,? Pennsylvania Avenue, 4/16/09)

SEN. ARLEN SPECTER (R-PA): ?All that is standing between the Democrats and an avalanche are the 41 Republican Senators to to filibuster. If hes [Toomey] the nominee we lose the seat and you have card check, and you have tax increases and you have all of the big Obama spending programs.? (?Arlen Specter Unfiltered,? Pennsylvania Avenue, 4/16/09)