Arlen Specter is crossing the aisle

[Thetagirl218]

Originally Posted by honeychile

Spector has been a "RINO" for so long, this is probably a very sensible mood from where he sits.

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?

[KSigkid]

Originally Posted by Thetagirl218

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.

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.

[PhiGam]

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.

[TexasWSP]

Originally Posted by PhiGam

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.

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

[DaemonSeid]

Originally Posted by TexasWSP

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

?? 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.

[TexasWSP]

Originally Posted by DaemonSeid

?? 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.

[MysticCat]

Originally Posted by PhiGam

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.

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.

[PhiGam]

Originally Posted by MysticCat

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.

[MysticCat]

Originally Posted by PhiGam

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.

[PhiGam]

Originally Posted by nittanyalum

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.

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.)

[srmom]

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.

[KSig RC]

Originally Posted by srmom

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.

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.

[MysticCat]

Originally Posted by KSig RC

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

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.

[SWTXBelle]

Originally Posted by srmom

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.

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!).

[madmax]

Originally Posted by srmom

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! .

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.

Originally Posted by srmom

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.