(POL) Arlen Specter switching parties
 

Just saw a news flash on this. Should make for some interesting conversation.

It looks like this is his only chance of getting through the primaries next year. I'm surprised this doesn't happen more often.

I can't say I'm surprised. The current GOP doesn't really have a lot of room for many of his views. Plus, as molson said, he'd likely face a strong primary challenge.

damn - you beat me to it!

i think it's like flere said - he doesn't want to be associated with the "current GOP" (trying to be polite)

It will be interesting to see how far to the left he tacks. I wonder if he is actually more to the left than his voting record demonstrates and he has been voting more in line with the GOP b/c of his affiliation. Or, will nothing change in his behavior except for the letter by his name?

He is only doing this as a pretext to get the new administration on his side to keep the pressure on Goodell over the Belichick cheating thing.

Career politicians are a rare breed. It was pretty much a forgone conclusion he was going to lose the primary. Unfortunately it was going to be because of some big "right to life" push. Instead of what should be the real reason, him being in washington way too long.

Employee Free Choice will be his first big test. He's supported it in the past, but came out strongly against it a few weeks ago, presumably to shore up right wing support. Once Toomey declared he was in it was a foregone conclusion that Specter wasn't going to be a Republican Senator past 2010.

In his released statement, he said he won't be voting party line now any more than he did before, and specifically mentioned still being against this.

Good spin: goes to show that moderates have no place in the modern GOP

Bad spin: another non-liberal with a D next to his name

Any chance he could lose the Democrats' primary?

Gee, what a shock. I can't believe Spector actually did something honest, in this case something quite overdue. Good riddance to bad rubbish.

Though voting against it and joining a fillibuster against it are two different things.

Ironically he'd probably say the same thing about not being a member of the Republican Party anymore :D

Politics is a cynical game, but this move is very cynical. If his poll numbers were up on Toomey, he'd never have switched.

I do wonder how quickly he's going to be labeled a DINO (Dem In Name Only)... oh wait, I think I've already seen some.

That gives the Dems a filibuster proof majority assuming Franken gets in...

Well... according to Specter's statement:

In some ways, the GOP has to be happy. Specter was probably going to lose the primary in 2010 to that right wing guy running against him. Then that guy was going to lose in the general to whoever the Dems put up. So, by Specter switching, the GOP can be happy that he will have the seat as a moderate Dem instead of the more left wing dem who would have taken over in 2010.

I'm sure that's a great comfort to the two people left in today's GOP who are actually moderate.

I KEED! I KEED! :D

Yeah, GOP is not a party for me anymore. If I were still working in poltics, I'd have jumped to Dems several years ago. I'm a conservative fiscally amd moderate middle of the road, but the GOP abandoned fiscal conservatism during the Bush yeras. That party that was about balanced budget amendments and term limits for congress and the line item veto for an enemy party President because it is the right thing to do is now about even handouts and overly spending and such.

Why would I want to be in that party anymore? Sure, I'm pro-life and anti gun control, but I'm also pro-gay marriage, pro-legalization of marijuana, pro-legalization of prostitution, pro-human rights, and anti-war. There's not much there in the modern GOP, but there was when the libertarian wing was strongly represented in Congress and the leaders were very fiscally sound with solid common sense legislation.

I think I truly left the GOP in spirit when the GOP was considering the nuke option in the Senate to bust filibusters of judicial candidates. That just seemed wrong. The spending had been irritating me for forever, and the rights abuse was bad, but that was bullying of the highest order.

And Specter seems to be someone who will vigorously protect his independence in the Senate. So, its much better than it could have been... still worrying.

This just increases the time in the wilderness (was hoping the moderates would put up more of a fight in the best time they can do so).

It's amazing to me how many Republicans are happy that the party is shrinking. A lot of the response I've read mirrors Jon's "good riddance" stance.

On the other hand, an argument could be made that this was mostly electorally-based (as opposed to moderates abandoning the GOP) on the basis that neither Snowe or Collins seem close to dropping out of the GOP (given that neither have experienced significant electoral challenges recently, nor will they probably).

I think the other MAJOR thing is that you can't "pull a Libermann" in PA. In that if you lose the primary, you can't run as an independent.

I'm not trying to flame or anything, just understand. I completely get you leaving the GOP, they don't fit you at all from what you have said. However, I don't understand going DEM. You say you are pro-life, anti-gun control and fiscally conservative. None of those are DEM standards, either. Have you gone Libertarian? That seems the best fit for you, outside of the pro-life stance.

The one thing I dont get is why he wont switch on the EFCA. If he would support that he would have labor support and probably wouldnt get primaried from the left and could join the Blue Dogs caucus. As it stands he is taking the worst of it from both sides.

He'll flip on it. As I understand it you're not going to get away with an unchallenged Dem primary in PA if you piss on the union.

My guess is there was some deal made between him and the Democratic Party. He'll side with them on a few key issues and not be contested in the primary. Toomey will win the Republican Party nomination but get slaughtered in the general like Santorum did.

One question to those more politically involved. Why is EFCA such a hot button issue? I can understand union workers and heads of companies being interested, but the amount of mainstream attention it has garnered is rather odd. I've seen it on political blogs everywhere. As someone who doesn't work for a union and doesn't own a company that has union labor, I literally couldn't care less about this issue.

Look, marijuana is never getting legalized, so I don;t need to be in a party with it as a major plank, you know what I'm saying? On the other hand, gay marriage is coming someday, and I'd rather it be sooner. That you can do from Democrats a ot more than Repubs.

Problem is of course the Libertarians really don't have much of a say in national politics. I consider myself more of a Swarteneggerian "moderate libertarian" (or I guess Will Wilkerson would called it a "Liberaltarian"), but that's kind of an entirely different type of moderate than the standard and one has to decide on major party support sometime.

I look at it this way, my vote is a voice to the party on various issues in the primaries. I can;t influence most of my views in the republican primary, they are almost all pro-life anyway, and gun control is then the one thing I can influence with my vote.

However, may of my views can be used in the democratic primary to influnce the debate on vaious topics.

I'm cynical on this because he switched parties instead of declaring himself Independent.

If it were a purely apolitical move, Independent would probably make the most sense. If he intends to run for re-election, though, doing so as a member of a party major enough that the party apparatus can assist with the re-election campaign means that (D-PA) was the only realistic choice.

It's not like the Libertarians or American Independents or whomever would have significant enough resources to devote to a three-way fight between Specter and the Republican/Democratic nominees.

He just guaranteed himself another term if the Dems don't contest him in the primary. It was a political move based on survival, nothing more.

Yup, hence the cynicism. His goal is reelection, not doing what's best for the country...

Well, presumably in his mind him being re-elected is what's best for the country. Surely that's not cynical. Myopic, maybe, but not cynical. :D

It goes without saying that, for Specter, this was all about his personal survival on the Hill. So, it is really more interesting for the effect that it will have and for what, if anything, we can glean from it.

The early buzz seems to be that it won't change much of anything, other than making that seat more moderate than it would be in 2010. In terms of what we can read from it--I guess it seems like at least one GOP moderate decided that it was easier to become a Democrat than to wait for the GOP to become moderate again. So, as a guy who wants a moderate GOP to provide a reasonable alternative to the dems, I'm kind of bummed.

I think you've got a pretty good pearl of wisdom there actually. Maybe not a massive saltwater pearl of great opulence but at least a decent freshwater pearl of some value.

Even I don't think there's too many people running for office with a mind set of "Yeah, I really suck but I want to do this on a whim". Maybe a decent amount of "well I'm not going to be any worse than the others, so why not" but **not out & out candidacy knowing that they'll suck hard for every single constituency.

**Not valid in Illinois

Ah Illinois, where every election is a selection of the "least worst".

(Obama-Keyes excepted) :D

Obama to campaign for him in the primary.

Specter says Obama promised to campaign for him

I guess it's a good move for the Dems. They probably get some concessions from Specter in becoming a Dem and supporting him and ensure that the seat doesn't go Red in 2010. Others I guess could argue that a Democrat was going to win that seat anyway so why cut a deal with Specter.

This post from the NYT politics blog is all kinds of interesting. Selected bits below:


So, that's the "ideals" claim. I suppose one could take him at his word.


Pretty jarring juxtaposition there. Go back 20 years and GOP Senators like Specter and Snowe were the norm, not the exception.

I don't think Specter by himself is much of a gain for the Dems especially considering that they would have won PA in 2010 regardless. Where I think this is important is in framing the narrative that the Republicans are intolerant of moderates. As long as the story is about a forty year Republican disenchanted with the extremism of the party that has to be good for the Dems.

btw- Did anyone else see the poll where only 21% self-identified as Republicans?

Well at least Michael Steele wasn't an asshole about it.

Probably bears noting here that I typically self-identify as an Independent. Just something to keep in mind.

The GOP needs to wake up and realize that it's time to soften it's stance on social issues and actually get back to it's small government, financially conservative roots. If they don't, they'll be down until they do.

Perhaps, but I still think it's a risk for Democrats in 2010.

Put it this way, a generic Democrat would absolutely slaughter Toomey. Specter on the other hand has some negatives such as his time in the Senate and the fact he's that old school style of politics. If Obama and the Democrats want to push that narrative that it's time for change, supporting a guy like Specter doesn't make a ton of sense.

Basically what I'm saying is that a generic Dem was almost an automatic to win in that Senate seat. Specter on the other hand seems to have some risk. He will surely bring in a lot more fundraising for Toomey. I still think Specter wins in a landslide in a general election due to Democrats voting for anyone but the far right conservative and moderates leaning toward Specter. Plus there are always those old school voters who will vote for the incumbent (the Ted Stevens effect).

I honestly would hate to be in Michael Steele's position. You can cater to your socially conservative elements that are loyal to the party and continue to get slaughtered in elections. Or you can try and expand the party which in turn pisses off those socially conservative people who will want your head.

They went all in on the socially conservative crowds over the years and are now in a corner where the country's demographics have changed and the only way to get out of it is to open things up.

I kindof miss the illusion of the Senate as the "Good Ol' Boys" club where they worked with each other somewhat since they had some reasonable electoral security to balance out the crazy House.

SI

McCain's loss is the wrost thing for this. They have deluded themselves into thinking it was because he wasn;t conservative instead of the real reasons - i.e. everything was against him - bad curren t president, hard for you to win third term in office, unpopular war, negative economics, etc.

I largely agree. This is a political survival decision, not a philosophical decision. However, what we can glean from it is that even in a largely
"purple" state such as Pennsylvania, the GOP power base has shifted so far right that a moderate Republican faces an uphill challenge. Yet at the same time, the entire state is shifting further left, evidence by the real reason for Specter's bolt -- the number of moderate Republican voters who switched their affiliation to Democrat last year. As the state is shifting slightly left, the GOP is moving further right.
Which begs the question when moderate Dems and moderate GOPers will realize they are better off starting a third party. There are a slow of "alternative" parties out there and every single one of them will always be a marginalized party because they cater only to the extremes. Perot's Reform Party was the closest yet to becoming a real third party until he lost control and it simply became another right-wing fringe party.

I don't expect it to happen because the political will is simply not there. A moderate party forged in the middle and leaving the GOP to the social conservatives and the Democratic party to the social liberals would carve out a powerful niche for a moderate party based on sound fiscal policies and without a strong social agenda either way. But who would lead it? You need both someone charismatic and someone who could motivate people (or a person) with money. You're not going to start a new party without a lot of dough. But no one is willing to lay it on the line and take the chance.

I compare the political climate now to the "Reagan Revolution." A lot of this is simply swinging of the pendulum. I hate to overdramatize the current mood as anything more than a cylical change. The likelihood of a swing back toward the right in 5-10 years is always strong. But it won't happen with the GOP party of the last 10 years. The Democratic Party of the '90s under Clinton was nothing like the Democratic Party in 1981. The guard changed.

Right now the GOP shows no willingness to change that guard, but it will soon enough. However, that leader isn't Newt Gingrigh, it's not Sarah Palin and it's not Bobby Jindal. Being in the minority has a funny way of eventually making you realize you need to do something different.