Tuesday, April 28th, 2009...9:16 am
Breaking: 60!
Specter To Switch Parties
Pennsylvania Sen. Arlen Specter will switch his party affiliation from Republican to Democrat, according to sources informed on the decision.
Specter’s decision would give Democrats a 60 seat filibuster proof majority in the Senate assuming Democrat Al Franken is eventually sworn in as the next Senator from Minnesota. (Former Sen. Norm Coleman is appealing Franken’s victory in the state Supreme Court.)
Specter as a Democrat would also fundamentally alter the 2010 calculus in Pennsylvania as he was expected to face a difficult primary challenge next year from former Rep. Pat Toomey. The only announced Democrat in the race is former National Constitution Center head Joe Torsella although several other candidates are looking at the race.
NB: Yes, this means I will have to stop refering to him as “Arlen Sphincter.”
26 Comments
April 28th, 2009 at 9:37 am
A nice little present for Obama leading up to his 100th day in office!
April 28th, 2009 at 9:54 am
Wow…that is pretty seriously interesting and impressive. I wonder if any others will switch out. Let me throw some cold water on this though…how likely is it for the Democrat caucus to remain together on big issues where the 60 proof majority will matter?
On the other hand, this has a bigger threat as a threat, if you will. The fact that the GOP could always threaten (with real teeth) a filibuster affected negotiations early in a bill and what people are willing to sign on to or committ to. The removal of the filibuster threat will pull some constraints away in writing bills, forming concensus, etc.
April 28th, 2009 at 11:30 am
krajmajales:
There is no requirement for the Democrats to remain 100% together. The sixty votes is only to end debate, after which any Senator is free to vote for or against a bill. So there is a moderate (and politically defensible) position a Senator can take that supports the leadership but not the legislation which is not to line up with a filibuster but once the floor vote is taken to vote ‘no’ on the bill.
April 28th, 2009 at 11:34 am
The real story though is this:
Specter had planned to run for another term as a Rino (as he’s always been) but the Pennsylvania Republicans (apparently forgetting the pounding that their hero Rick Santorum took in 2006 for being too conservative) were lining up behind conservative Pat Toomey to dump Specter.
So Specter moved to the left.
Now, about a third of Americans usually identify themselves as ‘conservative’ in most polls. So as long as conservative Republicans insist on chasing moderates out of the party (remember Jim Jeffords left after the Bush White House tried to punish him for forcing them to cut taxes less than they wanted) and Democrats don’t overreach (I’m a liberal but I can accept a compromise with moderates in order to get most of what I want) Republicans will continue to be the minority party.
April 28th, 2009 at 12:08 pm
Very interesting. Though I must admit that I find the end of Rockefeller Republicans rather sad. I’m old school and like a good opposition party/ideas and the ability to work together on the big issues. Unfortunately, it looks like this will happen less and is yet another sign of how out of touch so many Republicans are.
April 28th, 2009 at 12:32 pm
He’s simply attempting to make himself more powerful. If you want my vote to break the fillibuster, you’d better give me lots o gooddies.
April 28th, 2009 at 1:06 pm
I agree with Crabby Pirate-and I also find it sad that a man who stayed with one party for so long felt he had to leave.
Spector once was not a RINO, but his party forced to be one. Now he has left and become a Democrat (probably a DINO though.)
April 28th, 2009 at 6:09 pm
I am a former Republican and remember attending a meeting of the Pima County GOP back in 1996 when Sen. Specter spoke to us as a prospective presidential candidate. He was booed and jeered by most of the audience when he spoke of the philosophical basis for his pro-chice position on abortion and how his views were more aligned with traditional Republican values. I stood and applauded him, along with a few others, and thanked him after the meeting for being so candid and brave.
As someone who left the GOP in 2000 and finally joined the Democrats in 2004, I am proud to be in the same party once again with Sen. Specter. He is a man of great conviction and personal courage. Just like Jim Jeffords before him, he found there was no place left for him in a Republican Party dominated by ideologues, corporate apologists and “agents of intolerance.”
How can Susan Collins and Olympia Snowe fail to be the next to leave the increasingly marginalized and elitist Republican Party?
April 28th, 2009 at 7:00 pm
Specter was the Republican in the Senate Judiciary Committee that caught Janet Napolitano coaching Karchner into a big lie against Clarence Thomas during confirmation hearings. Karchner claimed Thomas made sexual comments to her during a month that pre-dated when she knew him. Napolitano asked for recess of the committee after Specter busted her. Napolitano and Karchner returned from the hallway later and Karchner changed her story.
It will be interesting to see how Janet Napolitano and Arlen Specter get along.
April 28th, 2009 at 7:45 pm
Rockafeller Republicans are still around they are called Blue Democrats…….
April 28th, 2009 at 8:26 pm
Her name is Susan Hoerchner, not Karchner, and she claimed that Hill had confided to her that Thomas had made offensive remarks, not that he’d made the comments to her. For criminy’s sake, at least get the basic details right if you’re going to bring up that old chestnut.
April 28th, 2009 at 9:35 pm
The use of “RINO” and “DINO” designations are foolish. Why do you think that Independents are the fastest growing non-party? The party that repudiates (its) moderates will remain an opposition party.
April 28th, 2009 at 10:43 pm
A lot of your are right on target.
I’m a Democrat. I happen to be pro-gun rights, and tend often to disagree with many other Democrats on second amendment issues.
And I’ve never felt unwelcome over it. Occasionally challenged over it, but never ordered to change or asked to leave.
Contrast that to Limbaugh’s rhetoric today (he invited John McCain to walk out the door with Specter, ‘and take his daughter with him.’)
’nuff said. Except for masochists, most people go where they are welcome.
April 29th, 2009 at 7:26 am
I think that this is really fascinating. What all this signals to me is more and more evidence that we are in the midst of a political realignment. Everything from the “tea-bag” party, to the GOP getting more and more right wing, and more and more people shifting parties, all creates a dominant Democrat party that could govern for a generation. The idea I see here is that a moderate like Spector is not just shifting parties, but why he is doing it. More and more GOP moderate voters are shifting independent or democrat, the voters that used to support him are now on the other side of the fence. What this also means is fewer and fewer (but more ideologically “correct”) GOPers left. That is a recipe for a party that cannot muster the support to govern. Last, their tone is more and more populist. With apologies to this blog and its title, populism has never gone much beyond a political movement. It has always been a minority opinion in the US because it attacks business, which is the lifeblood of the economy and politics.
By all means Rush, keep up the populism and scare more voters—and with them Senators and Congressmen–with them.
April 29th, 2009 at 8:17 am
Even in a Senate that includes John McCain, Specter stands out as insufferable and arrogant. I hate to rain on anybody’s parade, but it seems to me that Specter is going to be as much a pain in the ass to Democrats as he was to Republicans.
April 29th, 2009 at 9:19 am
I am pleased that the Republican Party is forcing its members to choose between ideology and actual governing practices. The more moderate, reasonable, and socially conscious members are being backed to the wall by their own designated leaders. That some will come over to our side is predictable. Those who choose to become independents haven’t figured out where they stand yet. A real viable third party is still many years away. Long live the Democratic Party and those for whom it works.
April 29th, 2009 at 10:20 am
Arlen’s switch won’t give the Dems one override of a filibuster. Arlen just wants to get re-elected and can’t make it through the GOP Primary. He admited to it last night.
I doubt the Dems in PA are excited that they guy they’ve attempted to ouster for 29 years is now their man, forced upon them.
Say a similar event occured in Arizona, and Giffords or Kolbe switched parties due to polling numbers. I’d expect their new found friends would not be very accepting.
This has nothing to do with Dems or Reps, just Arlen wanting to get re-elected.
April 29th, 2009 at 12:20 pm
He is now officially “Bad Ass” of the week!
April 29th, 2009 at 12:37 pm
Eli, you make some good points. I think we mainly “pick” one of the two main parties that we most “agree” with. I consider myself pretty moderate of a democrat (sometimes even leaning purple) but I will still continue to back the democratic party as I believe they better represent middle class working America.
Especially in Arizona, I truly believe that both sides need to be able to meet in the middle in order to move Arizona forward – Arizona in my mind is a very purple with a nice dash of libertarian. (Think of all those Independent registrations in Arizona that just don’t exsist in other States) I like that we are a “special” State(and I say that with love), but the State Legislators need to be mindful of our unique wonderful State.
April 29th, 2009 at 2:38 pm
I’ve got an solution to the problem of extremism within our state.
Open primaries.
stick that in your pick and smoke it.
r.
April 29th, 2009 at 3:19 pm
Open primaries basically mean that there is no reason to have a general.
April 29th, 2009 at 4:49 pm
I have a better solution to extremism:
Redistricting. The last redistricting commission drew the lines as being very uncompetitive, most districts can only elect members of one party. Draw me competitive districts and I’ll show you a lot more moderates in the legislature. Imagine Ron Gould or Russell Pearce having to win in a district that included almost as many Democrats as Republicans?
April 29th, 2009 at 5:01 pm
I doubt competitive districts will happen. Open primaries are good for voters in general and would probably result in moderate Republican pickups.
http://www3.signonsandiego.com/stories/2009/feb/20/1n20primary004711-open-primary-proposal-could-shak/
April 29th, 2009 at 6:43 pm
Crabby, sorry it still makes no sense to have a primary where anyone can vote for anyone running regardless of party affiliation.
The parties are deciding who best to represent them in the general election. This is why in the Presidential Primary race, only party members can vote for a particular candidate and not Independents or Party Not Declared.
April 29th, 2009 at 8:56 pm
Does open really matter or not, I can change my registration within 2 minutes online as long as I meet the deadline to vote in the primary. I can then register back after the election in two minutes. Doesn’t take that much to do it anyway, so why not open primaries? The closed primaries we have only really restrict those who just happen to show up that day and wish they could vote differently than they registered.
April 29th, 2009 at 10:35 pm
Eli, I think that you have that right on redistricting. The lines are generally very uncompetitive and favor only one party. The way that they were drawn between CD 7 & CD 8 were favoring Grijalva and Kolbe. Giffords was able to over come the difficulties with a strong campaign and Republican infighting.