Arlen Specter is crossing the aisle
 

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Veteran Sen. Arlen Specter, R-Pennsylvania, intends to switch from the Republican to the Democratic Party on Tuesday, multiple sources said.


Sen. Arlen Specter was expected to face a tough primary challenge in 2010.

A Specter party switch would give Democrats a filibuster-proof Senate majority of 60 seats if Al Franken holds his current lead in the disputed Minnesota Senate race.

Specter, a five-term Senate veteran, was expected to face a very tough primary challenge in 2010 from former Rep. Pat Toomey, who nearly defeated Specter in the Pennsylvania GOP Senate primary in 2004.


link

Allow me to put on my shocked face...

Rats fleeing a sinking ship is the image that comes to mind.

ditto to what you 2 just said.

or a leopard with a can of spot remover.

I don't want to stop this lovely imagery going on between you two, equating Republicans to "rats" and "leopards"...but it's also possible it's just a guy who's always been moderate-to-liberal making a decision calculated to secure his re-election.

ETA: As a Republican I'm not terribly bothered by his leaving the party. It stinks from a numbers perspective, but realistically it doesn't change a whole lot.

Go right ahead, Captain Renault.

Just as an FYI...I would say the same if it was Joe Leiberman...or any other Dem for that matter, hehe!

I'm shocked, shocked to find out that party changing is going on here!

Haha, fair enough.

It's a metaphor - it doesn't mean Republicans are necessarily rats (although I can think of a few who are, just as I can a few Democrats) but it does mean I think he is leaving because he perceives it to be, as you noted, a calculated decision based on purely pragmatic reasoning. I think most Republicans would say that their party is currently floundering a bit - perhaps "sinking" is overstating it, but that's the way the expression goes. I'd have used the same expression when Phil Gramm made his famous switch from Dem. to Rep.

Long story short - YES - your point is exactly the point I was making.

The guy is in bad health and ideologically fairly neutral. Rather than facing a primary which he'll probably lose, he's taking the safe route, ensuring his reelection with minimal effort. At the same time, he'll probably be well rewarded -- chairmanships, committee assignments, etc. The move makes a lot of sense for him and as much crap as the GOP 'true believers' have been giving him, this makes a lot of sense.

Plus, he was originally a Democrat (at least he was when he was on the Warren Commission). He only changed to Republican in the late 60s/early 70s.

Specter will not be reelected. He is trailing Pat Toomey by 21 points. Specter lost his base. He lost the Republicans when he supported Obama's spending package and he lost the Dems/unions who give him a ton of support when he voted against the card check bill.

Who is left to support Specter? I guess that leaves DaemonSaid.

You know,

If I didn't know any better, I'd say that I have an internet stalker.

Kinda funny tho is that I always pictured my first stalker to be a bit deranged, cuter....and most of all, feminine.


Not that you can't be feminine, max (you do tend to have some bitchy issues with your racial hangups which causes you to whine quite a bit) but...to be clear, A WOMAN.


I'm sure you can post in a thread without making me the object of your hateful worship.

Yeah, pretty much. He's flip flopped more than Shamu at a Saturday afternoon water show.

Unfortunately the current GOP climate doesn't make room for "moderates" and I think that's a bad step for the party. Steele basically chased him not just out of the GOP but into the Dems (vs. going Ind like Lieberman) by pretty much guaranteeing that the party wouldn't be giving him any support in his reelection since he voted for the stimulus bill. Specter's been a good Senator for the state, Pennsylvanians will be smart to reelect him, whatever party, for their own good.

Spector has been a "RINO" for so long, this is probably a very sensible mood from where he sits. Plus, as was mentioned, he stood a huge chance of not being reelected. The polls released last Friday gave him only a one in three chance of making the Primary. With his health being the way it has been, he should be thinking very seriously about retirement.

And give the guy his due - he is the source of the JFK assassion "Magic Bullet" theory.

This isn't news. He is still going to vote the same way on every issue, he just knew that he was going to have a lot of trouble getting the republican nomination next year if he stayed in the GOP. The only thing changing is the letter next to his name.

Between this and all of the hubbub over swine flu it seems like the news networks are really grasping at straws to come up with stories.

I would argue that anyone who voted for the stimulus bill is not a moderate and DEFINITELY not a conservative.

Moderates, in general, face a lot of problems in the American political system because they don't receive support from their own parties or any funding from lobbyists and interest groups. To make that problem exclusive to the GOP is very close-minded. The GOP's big problem is the public perception of the Bush presidency, not their lack of moderate representatives. I do think that power will begin to re-align in 2010 when people don't see a positive upswing in the economy (most forecasts are shifting that back to 2014). Americans want change that can happen in 2 years, not 20. This mindset is the same thing that damned the Bush administration (in my humble opinion) and it is this mindset that will do the same to the democrats (maybe not Obama though.)

........anything to keep the focus off of Obama and his administration.

I don't think so. What it changes is the ability to stop a filibuster. While he often voted with the Dems, as long as he was a Republican in name, he couldn't be counted on for a cloture vote. As part of the Democratic Caucus now, presumably he will be expected to follow the party line on a cloture vote. If the Minnesota "race" ever ends, and if Al Franken remains the winner, then there is a filibuster-proof Democratic majority in the Senate. That's major, whether you think it's good major or bad major.

He's a moderate and will continue to vote the same way that he always has. If he agrees with the republicans on an issue then he will not vote for cloture. I like Specter because he refuses to vote along party lines and wish that we had 100 senators like him. If Specter sees an easier road to re-election as a republican in six years then expect him to switch again. This means absolutely nothing for a fillibuster, regardless of what the blowhards on TV would have you believe.

We'll see. But I tend to think that this will matter with cloture votes . . . and I haven't been listening to anyone -- blowhard or not -- on TV or radio about it.

You know, the problem I have with this changing of parties during your term (whether it be by Repubs or Dems - Spector and Leiberman) is that you were elected in your district by people and supported by the party from which you ran.

I know I may be naive, but supposedly, we live in a democracy, where you are elected as a representative of your constituents, and you vote and act for their interests while in Congress. Your not supposed to be acting in your own self interest (in order to keep your phony baloney job!!). Changing parties, mid term, is basically telling your constituents, the people who voted for you - to **** off!

This is all about him trying to get reelected. It's not because of some noble ideological change (which would still be wrong, because he's supposed to be voting for his constituents, not his own opinions or purposes).

I have no problem with people changing parties after their term is over, or announcing toward the next election cycle that they plan on doing so. At least then, they would be honest about what they are actually there for.

What does ANY of this have to do with party affiliation? Does party affiliation really have anything to do with voting in their interests?

If you're going to play the ideal-world card, then voting along party lines kind of craps in the punch bowl.

Well, I'll give credit where it is due - Phil Gramm had an election called when he switched to confirm his election (although I should also point out that there was little doubt he would win it!).

Maybe, maybe not. Some constituents vote for the person, others vote for the party. To many (very many, I would hazard to guess) constituents what matters is that they are represented by a Democrat or a Republican. Who that Democrat or Republican is may be of secondary importance.

Forget the party affiliation of the people who voted for him (although in my idealism, I would hope that they and their wishes would be considered). But, in the real world of politics - just ask this - who funded his campaign? Did the Democrat Party organization in his district fund his latest campaign? I don't think so...

And, if the bulk of the people who voted for you sent you up there to supposedly represent their "conservative" or "moderate" positions on issues, then jumping ship to the other side just because it looks like you are going to lose the next primary is disingenuous at best, and outright con-artist like at worst.

I am not saying that one must vote along party lines - I'm saying that a representative should "represent" his constituency, not do the expedient thing to get reelected..

?? How does this take the focus off of his administration when this has an indirect affect on his administration particularly any bill that may need to become law?

If this works the way I think this works, then it pretty much covers what was reported in the OP.

I was responding more to Swine Flu and the hubbub created over it and the news networks grasping at straws to find stories to cover.

Although I don't think this is really news to people who know about him.....I realize Arlen Specter officially becoming a Democrat has fairly important implications with the current administration.

I guess that may be just where you are because here I am getting double doses of it.

BTW...I just came froma conference on the Hill and there is a lot of concern about what the Admin plans to do as far as putting a stop to it.

I mean hey...if you have people dying of something that you don't have a vaccine for, it's a pretty serious problem

What the hell is the government going to do about this? Suspend the laws of science and create vaccines where there once were no vaccines and faster than otherwise possible? Order a 3-week quarantine of all U.S. citizens? What?

The administration can't do a damned thing about it and I hope they don't. CNN thankfully has been pretty good on this thing pointing out that the regular flu killed 13,000 people in January alone. I think with the 24/7 new coverage, we're getting a bit carried away and thinking this thing is worse than it is.

Yes.

We are the USA.

We can do anything .

'cept catch Osama.

*dead*

Well, you know it's the apocalypse when the Texas UIL suspends all high school sports activities!! :eek:

This whole Spector thing doesn't surprise me one bit.... There are so many RINOs out there.....

John McCain was one for a LONG time! He may have gotten his party's nomination but he is still liberal a lot of time.

Charlie Crist....I am tired of these polls saying is the most popular governor....I don't know many people in Florida that like him....maybe they are polling Georgia?

No offense intended, but RINO is such a dumb term. It seeks to belittle those who depart from the party line for their own reasons. We don't elect these men and women as Republicans and Democrats, we elect individuals who happen to be Republicans and Democrats. Republicans are not conservative (and haven't been since Goldwater) and Democrats aren't liberal (and haven't really been ever). Each party's platform consists of a hodgepodge of values and agendas which they think is best calculated to convince voters to keep them in power.

RINO/DINO are terms which to me really smack of anti-intellectualism.

Actually if you look at McCain's voting record, he voted for a number of conservative issues and has been pretty conservative his entire Senate career. The "Maverick" label and idea that he was liberal are inaccurate.

Nice guess but wrong. Specter's key support came from organized labor in Philly which for the most part are Dems.

In Pa there was a shift in registration. Part of his base already switched parties.

Specter's base is as much Dems as Republicans because Specter's key support comes from organized labor. The kicker is that Specter told organized labor to F-off when he did not support the card check bill.