Help - Search - Members - Calendar
Full Version: Arlen Specter defects to Dem party
Outsports Discussion Board > Outsports > Politics & Religion
Munson Man
opportunism at it's best, but definitely a wow........would Collins or Snow follow suit?
Specter switching parties after 29 years

mdterp01
Just read it while going to Huffington Post. I'm in Starbucks and screamed out WHAT?!!!!! and everybody looked at me like I was crazy!!! This has HUGE political implications...the main one being that it now gives Democrats the 60 vote filibuster proof majority. WOW!!!! I did not expect this!!!
Joe in Philly
I never thought he'd have the guts to do this. As a matter of principle I think he should have done it years ago, but the fact that he's doing it now just shows how hard-right most GOP voters are now. He would have lost in the GOP primary for sure this time.
fenwayguy
QUOTE(mdterp01 @ Apr 28 2009, 01:32 PM) *

it now gives Democrats the 60 vote filibuster proof majority.

Not quite, 'cause they're still waiting to seat Franken for Minnesota. Hopefully that'll happen soon.

Still, it's a HUGE blow to the GOP, and one they fully deserve. I too wonder if one or both of the Maine delegation might follow.
WChip
No, I doubt they'd ever even consider it unless the party leaders were awful to them. They have strong support from Mainers as being independent Republicans.
George Twins fan
This isn't exactly an altruistic move or some sort of "awakening" on Specter's part. And I wouldn't count on him to side with the Dems on every issue and form some sort of 60 vote blockade. This was more about getting reelected in 2010 than it was about a philosophical change. That said, it definitely a blow to the Republican party who have hardly any representation in Congress from the northeast at all.
phillyrunner
As a Republican he was always moderate enough to carry the state even with the big cities like Philadelphia going heavily democatic in most cases. His problem was not the general election for 2010, but the republican primary where his party wanted to replace him. Well, the GOP got their wish and in doing so may have marginalized their party even more in Pennsylvania.
sportinlife
For Specter I think this was about the bottom line: getting re-elected. But in his case that is not something that I think contradicts his principals.

I've contacted his office about a couple of personal problems and they have always responded promptly, more so than Casey's office, and this was whether I was registered Unaffiliated (which I am again now) or when I was temporarily registered Democrat (to vote for Obama in that primary).

Though I think his scathing doubts about Anita Hill's veracity during the Clarence Thomas supreme court hearings was unjustified and unforgiveable, I actually considered switching party affiliation again to vote for him in the Republican primary. To be honest I had come to the conclusion that it wasn't worth it since he seemed so unlikely to pose a serious challenge to any right-wing extremist the party faithful put forward since so many moderate Republicans had deserted the party.

So I am actually relieved that it doesn't matter now.

Also on the issue of his principals I think he may have given a hint of the emotional issue that inspired his shift when in his press conference he mentioned all of the judge appointments that were not filled by the Bush administration when they had the chance, leaving their selection for the Obama administration. He obviously considers that role a critical one, which helps to explain his treatment of Hill though not justifying it.
fantomas
The only good thing about this is the momentary Schadenfreude it provided. Specter has been unreliable, or a maverick if you see it that way, throughout his Senate tenure. He also voted for all the worst Bush crap, including the Iraq War, the Patriot Act, gutting Habeas Corpus (after saying he found the bill horrible), John Roberts and Samuel Alito, and so on. Pennsylvania would be much better off either with a real Democrat like Patrick Murphy or a true right-wing Republican like Pat Toomey. The weak cup of tea that's Arlen Specter should put up or shut up. And at nearly 80, why isn't he retiring? Spend your last few years as a real Democrat as opposed to an obstructionist in the Lieberman mold, and then retire to lovely Philadelphia. I'm sure they'll be glad to have him, right, Philly people?
Bill W
There are quite a lot of Dems just as unreliable as Specter -- I would remind you all but Feingold voted for the USA Patriot Act.

The ardent Dem rooters' blinkered ecstasy is typically overheated.
Crew Chief
QUOTE(Munson Man @ Apr 28 2009, 11:54 AM) *
opportunism at it's best, but definitely a wow........would Collins or Snow follow suit?
Specter switching parties after 29 years



Never before have I seen such blatant expediency. Any respect I had for this man disappeared when he switched parties. Again. I always liked his usually calm demeanor, his ability to not go that far right or far left.

He switched parties in 1965. He does so now NOT because of the GOP--really, with McCain as its nominee last year, how can anyone say it's too far to the right?--but because he saw that in a primary, he was toast.

I hope he gets creamed in the Democratic primary.
ung
Specter (as many have already said) switched to retain his seat. Not because of any disagreements with GOP big wigs. Maine being Maine, Snowe and Collins are in no danger of losing GOP primaries. Therefore, they will not switch parties.

May I remind the readers that when Senator Jeffords switched from GOP to Independent 8 years ago, Arlen Specter stated that there should be law passed that would bar switching of parties midsession.
HornFan
QUOTE
...with McCain as its nominee last year, how can anyone say it's too far to the right?


I can with two words. Sarah.Palin.

Crew Chief
If you think a nominee's VP selection makes that kind of difference, you're sorely mistaken. Gore was much farther to the left than Clinton, yet Clinton's presidency was considered by many as centrist, more moderate. Bush the First was much more liberal than Reagan, yet Reagan's presidency was considered conservative.

In the eyes of many, McCain was simply considered too moderate, perhaps even too liberal, and no VP running mate was going to change that.
Joe in Philly
The party forced Palin (or some other hard-right nut) onto McCain. Had he picked a "moderate" there would have been civil war at the convention.
fantomas
QUOTE(Crew Chief @ May 1 2009, 11:56 PM) *

If you think a nominee's VP selection makes that kind of difference, you're sorely mistaken. Gore was much farther to the left than Clinton, yet Clinton's presidency was considered by many as centrist, more moderate. Bush the First was much more liberal than Reagan, yet Reagan's presidency was considered conservative.

In the eyes of many, McCain was simply considered too moderate, perhaps even too liberal, and no VP running mate was going to change that.


Clinton governed like a moderate Republican. He pushed socially liberal policies but often backed off when the GOP and the media raised an uproar, no matter how ridiculous, and fiscally he was quite conservative. Remember, this is the man who signed DOMA, who signed off on the repeal of Glass-Steagall, who signed off on "welfare reform," devoted billions to paying down the debt and left his corrupt and criminal successor a multibillion-dollar surplus. He also had his VP, Al Gore, oversee a successful streamlining of government. (Why did the media conveniently forget in 2000 that Gore had done this?) Gore was not that much further to the left than Clinton, though; in fact, when Gore began representing Tennessee, he was a conservative Democrat, and as a Senator, was in the middle, which was why Clinton picked him. Even in 2000 he was not as far to the left as he is now, though he was miles away from W Bush ideologically, yet a (Naderite) subset of people could not or refused to see this. Well now we all know.

George H. W. Bush was a moderate Republican who tried to pass himself off as a right-winger at times, to his and the country's detriment. A good example is the Clarence Thomas nomination. His predecessor Ronald Reagan governed as a right-winger and social conservative, though even he raised taxes, withdrew troops when necessary, and even challenged people in his party who were too far out there. As bad as both of them were, neither one comes close to the right-wing mess we witnessed from 2001-2008. And don't let anyone say it wasn't a right-wing presidency; the conservatives LOVED George W. Bush and stood by him through thick and thin. They may change the story today, but he was one of them and they loved him, including the ones who used to appear regularly on here.
millerbeach
Ah, yes. Sarah Palin. Thanks for the good laugh! laugh.gif
HornFan
QUOTE
If you think a nominee's VP selection makes that kind of difference, you're sorely mistaken.



We'll have to agree to disagree because I think Sarah Palin made a HUGE difference....she was a dealbreaker with moderates. She was supposed to appease the Hillary supporters and that was an epic fail.....she did manage to garner the far right wing voters....imagine that...it's not enough.

Specter is just another in a long line of politicians to switch parties and he won't be the last.
theodoresdaddy
I honestly don't care why he did it; I'm glad that he did

I've always liked him and I'm glad he's now a Democrat
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.
Invision Power Board © 2001-2012 Invision Power Services, Inc.