Sometimes they just make it too easy.
The Hill, March 16, 2009:
Democrats want Sen. Arlen Specter (R-Pa.) in their ranks — and they’ve been sending in their big guns to lobby him to make the switch.
Pennsylvania Gov. Ed Rendell (D) said he, Vice President Biden and Sen. Bob Casey Jr. (D-Pa.) have tried to get the longtime senator and centrist Republican to come to their side of aisle but that so far he won’t budge…
Rendell told a Northeast cable station that he, Biden and Casey have all tried to convince Specter to switch parties.
In the interview with the Regional News Network, Rendell also said Specter would be a shoo-in as a Democrat.
“We’ve tried — myself, Sen. Casey, Vice President Biden,” Rendell said. “We’ve tried to talk him into it, but he’s bound and determined to stay a Republican.”
Washington Post, April 28, 2009:
Pennsylvania Sen. Arlen Specter will switch his party affiliation from Republican to Democrat and announced today that he will run in 2010 as a Democrat, according to a statement he released this morning…
“I have decided to run for re-election in 2010 in the Democratic primary,” said Specter in a statement. “I am ready, willing and anxious to take on all comers and have my candidacy for re-election determined in a general election.”
He forgot “bound and determined.”
We already know about the war of words between Present Obama and Past Obama. Now Specter’s getting into the spirit!
Update: The Hill reminds us that they interviewed him on March 17, and he said the following:
“I am staying a Republican because I think I have an important role, a more important role, to play there. The United States very desperately needs a two-party system. That’s the basis of politics in America. I’m afraid we are becoming a one-party system, with Republicans becoming just a regional party with so little representation of the northeast or in the middle atlantic. I think as a governmental matter, it is very important to have a check and balance. That’s a very important principle in the operation of our government. In the constitution on Separation of powers.”
But hey, a lot can happen in 6 weeks! Like realizing that unless you do something quick, you might have to start looking for another job at the age of 150. What good are checks and balances when compared to that?
Update: Jake Tapper: “Less Than 2 Weeks Ago, Specter Warned of ‘Big Obama Spending Programs’”
Update: In 2001, Specter proposed a Senate rule to prevent senators from changing parties.
Related posts:
- Arlen Specter’s Honor Is Untouchable Last week, the Democrats (yay!) got an infusion of fresh...
- Specter’s a Ghost, but Sestak Can’t Coast… Democrat Joe Sestak was such a spoiler last week when...
- Ready to switch political parties? Not so fast! Or… Okay? April 29, 2009: Senator Arlen Specter’s calculated jump to the...
Good! Finally calling himself a Democrat will at least make him honest.
LOL Simon.
Well, it’s about time that he made it official.
And good riddance!
Though I’ve heard he’s switching because he’s sure he can’t win the Republican primary. This makes me wonder why he thinks he can win the Democratic primary. I hope some lifelong Democrat puts this weak Republican, fly by night Democrat on the unemployment line where he can see how much benefit that “stimulus” plan he voted for is to non-politicians.
Don’t let the door hit ya where the good lord split ya! About dang time you went to the correct side of the aisle. Now, how can we get some other ones to follow you so we can really get some change we can believe in?
I generally vote for people based on their ties. His is ugly, so he’s out. I’ll be sure to inform Pennsylvania immediately.
Vagrant Dog – can you also inform them that Murtha needs to go as well? For some reason they keep voting him back in even though he calls them racist rednecks.
I’ll bet voters feel deceived!
I hope Arlen realizes that Reid will stop sending flowers, chocolates, and diamond studded thongs after the wedding…
Now if all the other RINO’s in the party would pack their bags and go to the party they really belong to the RBC can firm up their members and make some headway.
McCain, are you taking a hint here??
Damn I meant RNC
LMAO, Minnow!! Ooooh, unnecessary mental images.
I agree with the good riddance. One RINO down, a billion more to go… maybe Olympia Snow, Susan Collins, Lindsey Graham, John McCain, Chuck Hagel, Richard Lugar, and my own senator George Voinovich will join him now??
Add our spineless governor Ahhnold to that list!!
The problem with politics in this country – at least as far as I can tell – is that there barely ARE two parties anymore. The only reason I didn’t go into an convulsive fit when I pulled the lever for McCain was that the only other viable option was Obama.
When Republicans act like Republicans, they almost always win. Reagan and Bush were despised by the left, but they both managed to get elected to two terms – which would seem to prove false the idea that we need to win over the other side to pull a national election.
If anything is responsible for the recent decline of the party, it’s the total lack of coherent fiscal policy. Republicans are supposed to be about lower taxes and decreased spending. You can get away with a deficit, but only for pressing issues of national security – for instance, I’d say toppling the Soviet Union once and for all was well worth the massive defense budgets of the Reagan years. But if you try to run up a huge tab for a bunch of bullshit social engineering programs, you might as well pay for the castration surgery and smack a (D) next to your name. Which I’m glad Specter finally got around to doing.
What I’m wondering, is how long before Specter changes his stance on card check, yet again.
I’m in, I’m out, I’m pro, I’m con, I like, I don’t…
I’m guessing Katy Perry was singing about ol’ Arlen.
I wonder if he wears cherry chapstick too…
He is the Specter of Death. At least that’s what I call him (and I’m a Pennsylvanian so I know.)
Amen to ousting the RINOs, although I’ve already had it up to here with the GOP, RINOs or not.
Assuming Obama doesn’t actually succeed in utterly destroying America, which definitely seems to be his plan, I’m thinking the Libertarians may see their first real shot at political viability sometime soon.
Hey, a girl can hope. For change, change that I can believe in.
Beige, I’m with you. Wouldn’t that be a day to celebrate?
Scott, it’s a conversation I’ve had many times before. I just don’t get it–why Republicans are so ashamed to behave like themselves. I think it’s one of the most frustrating things about politics altogether.
I’d be wittier, but it’s late and I’m sleepy. Somebody be witty for me. Pasta? You in the house? Not, like, my literal house, ’cause that’d freak me out, but I mean, the figurative house of this comment board.
Republicans welcomed the religious right with open arms. They courted them, and are now married to them.
Funny thing is, they haven’t learned a thing. Who do they still tout as possibles in 2012? Jindal? Palin? Are you kidding?
They will lob up another creationist/pro-life candidate to the national level and lose in 2012. Badly.
I hope the Libertarians can actually pull their heads out and get in the game. Here’s a hint: Ron Paul is a terrible candidate.
Do you actually think Obama won by openly alienating Christians?
I have to say that so far my Senator, Austria, has been right in line with what I have wanted him to do. Stand up for the fiscal conservatives. This stimulus package was a joke. I did not like what Bush did at the end of his reign last year but sooner or later Obama needs to stop blaming him for everything.
Beige, I agree, Obama is sending us on a path of destruction that I can only “hope” can “change” soon, but if you believe that then I have some ocean front property in Arizona to sell you.
The Republicans needs someone strong to come out running. If not, we are all screwed.
Simon makes an EXCELLENT point. Obama played church until he got what he wanted, only lapsing now and then (such as the “clinging to guns and religion” gaffe, which has since been followed by…well, by his entire crappy, condescending Presidency so far).
I have a feeling that a lot of Democrats are going to be losing their seats in the coming elections. Most normal Americans don’t like a one party rule of Washington so they fill the other side of the scale with the opposing party. Happened under both Clinton and Bush so if Obama thinks he is going to have easy mode for the next 4 years he needs to get ready.
Hey anyone want a ride in Air Force one?? I hear they crusie really low over NY so you can get some good shots.
No, Obama simply made it clear that he was a Christian, therefore a comfortable enough choice. Just enough.
The Republicans managed to accidentally do something reasonable with McCain, and then…they just couldn’t resist. Palin. She energized the Dems like a red flag in front of a bull. Undecided voters couldn’t run away fast enough.
This is the 2nd time that he has switched parties. Back in the ’60′s he was a democrat and realized he could not win re-election as one but he could win as a republican so he switchd parties. 30 years later – same scenario. Power trumps principles.
Stop blaming Bush for everything?! I don’t know where you’ve been lately, AAW, but I think that’s known as “Democrat policy.”
The 2 party system does work in America. It provides a good balance of views without making it too unduly difficult to get things done. What we need is for people like the Libertarians to figure out how to infiltrate the Republican Party. Why do all the hard work when the voter base support structure and financing has already been built and developed? Most Republicans already support the fiscal concepts of the the Libertarians. How can you hope to convince a whole nation that you are the right candidate for the job, if you can’t even convince the (relatively) small group of hardcore party followers (either party) that you are the right guy? Third party candidates to date have only taken votes away from the main political party candidate with views most similar to his. Giving advantage to the candidate with opposing views. How does that help the third party cause? Instead of trying to start a third party, get involved in the existing parties and influence it from the inside. Democrats used to be the conservative party and Republicans were the flaming liberals when they first started. America has always been a 2 party system. Even the Republican party has never been a third party. When the GOP formed, their timing coincided with the downfall of the Whig Party. Whig supporters just shifted their loyalties to the existing and newly formed parties. So all you third party supporters need to start convincing your folks to infiltrate the 2 main political parties if you want to affect real change.
Whereas Palin and Jindal… what? Handle snakes? (Please keep in mind that cries of “Exorcism!” and “Witch doctor!” will be met with pics of Obama in Muslim garb. Both are out of context. Just because you choose to swallow the prevailing narrative doesn’t mean the rest of us have to share your tastes.)
“Energy” is one word for it. Another, more accurate term is “frenzy.”
And that mass exodus of undecideds was why Obama got a whole 53%, huh? Yeah, you could really feel the excitement surrounding the McCain campaign right up until he saddled himself with Caribou Barbie.
Sadly we don’t have a 2 party system anymore. The Republicans are Democrats and vice versa. I would like to see a party that actually beleived in a smaller government both fiscally and legislatively. We have to many laws in an attempt to protect us from ourselves and pay to many taxes in an attempt to fix and even the playing field everyone. The field of life ain’t even or fair, lets except it and move on. The best will rise to the top, the government just needs to get out of the way.
Habanada – Oh, I know that. I know exactly that the dems look to blame others. I am sure they would have blamed Bush for the top secret fly over in NYC, but for some reason chose not to. If it snows, they blame Bush. I am not saying that the Republicans are Angels, but when will Obama start taking responsibility for his actions.
Wow, Palin. Now there’s a stark contrast to someone like Specter. I think we need more people like Palin (people who’ve had jobs and lives outside politics and then decide to run based on a drive to get things done) and less like Specter (life-long politicians who’ve become more obsessed with power and self-preservation than with looking out for the best interests of the people they represent). Specter has said flat out that he’s making this move because he wants to be re-elected and is interested in being chairman of the house appropriations committee. His entire focus is himself, he doesn’t care about the people at all. He’s forgotten what it’s like to be a regular citizen that has to work for a living. Palin connected with those people because she isn’t a career politician; she had passion for the same things that people like us who follow politics do. Specter’s only passion is for his cushy job, and I hope the voters there realize that no matter what he calls himself now, he represents nobody’s interests but his own.
D—, you just described the conservative philosophy. My husband and I watched “Serenity” again the other night (the movie, not the adult diaper). When Mal Reynolds denounced the Alliance’s assertion that they could “show people how to think” and “make people…better”, we looked at each other and said, “You wouldn’t be allowed to make an anti-government movie like this NOW.”
To most liberals, there’s nothing that can’t be fixed with more regulation and more taxation. If the conservative idol is John Galt, the liberal counterpart is Diana Moon Glampers.
The problem I have with the typical “conservative philosophy” is that the people involved start wanting to tell others how to live (i.e. religion, prayer in school, abortion, etc.). You can teach and support morals without getting into religion and legisilating how I choose to live my life in the pursuit of happiness.
Helmet and seat belt laws are ridiculous. Insurance companies should be able to limit medical pay outs if you were not wearing a seat belt or a helmet and get into an accident.
Smoking laws are first step in a nanny state. Let the business owner decide. I smoke but I don’t like eating at a restaurant that allows smoking.
Marijuana laws makes no sense. Lets make alcohol, a drug far more dangerous and addictive, legal. Really? I can’t name one person who has died from a pot overdose.
When I say smaller governement I mean less laws across the board.
D— you are a embracing libertarian ideals. If that party could just get some leadership it could gain some traction.
Jenn- More people with libertarian ideals need to join the Republican Party!
First, the Republicans need to go more conservative, not toward the middle at all. Like Simon said, the enthusiasm for the “great uniter” McCain was just so overwhelming no conservative I knew wanted to vote for him until he got that awful, evil Sarah Palin on his side. The Republican party should be the conservative party, and if you want to be all “middle” (which keeps losing us freaking elections except in liberal states like Pennsylvania, Maine, Ohio, Florida, etc.) go join another party because this one’s getting ruined when we elect a weakling like Michael Steele. If you (and all of these are general yous) don’t agree with the party, then leave, quit trying to change it for those of us who liked it until started to change into the Democrats. Uh hum! Off the soap box, sorry.
And on one hand, I agree with you completely, D—–. People should have the freedoms to do what they want and more business owners should have a say in how they choose to run their businesses/restaurants instead of the government. However, it’s so hard to want to see that enacted when you see how stupid and selfish people have become, and how manipulative some people/organizations can be in brainwashing people to believe something is okay for them when it isn’t. I am all for educating in morals instead of enacting them through law, but as a society, anyone with any moral basis or code of ethics who might tell you something is wrong is automatically discredited, no matter how much evidence backs it up (ie, the harmful effects of abortions groups like NARAL don’t want to mention). It’s a debate I have with myself often, and generally determine that people will make dumb decisions either way, so I might as well just have as little government as possible along the way — the restrictions certainly aren’t helping at all.
D– and I think the Liberals like to tell people how to live. Especially now with all of these new rules and regulations — taking over companies, fixing salaries. Oh, and now wanting those of us who work hard to give more to people who do not work. How fair is that?
I WISH the Republicans believed in Libertarian ideals! They are NOT fiscally conservative anymore.
The fugging Neo-cons and the Evangelicals have really cut the party off at the knees; Neo-cons on spending, and Evangelicals on legislating morality.
The Republicans USED to be much more about spending less, taxing less, and leaving people alone.
I realize a lot of people don’t agree. Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity…they still believe a “true Conservative” is somebody like Jindal or Palin. That is a huge mistake. Pro-life creationists are going to be an anchor around the Republican party’s neck.
Every time I hear someone chirp, “But you can’t legislate MORALITY”, I roll my eyes so hard I glimpse my frontal lobe. OF COURSE we can legislate morality; that’s what laws are–the codified moral and ethical beliefs of a society. What you can’t legislate: Intelligence or competence. Ergo Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi, et al.
Beige is absolutely right. When government passes such-and-such a law, it is use morality as the basis. The law against murder is there because murder is defined as “wrong”. Same with rape. Robbery. Fraud. And the list goes on…
Morality is nothing more than right vs. wrong. To say that murder is wrong and therefore outlawed is to legislate morality. Society is stating that an action is wrong (i.e. immoral) and through government banning it.
That is exactly how it should be.
Those who say we cannot or should not “legislate morality” simply aren’t thinking it through. The question is just how much morality should we legislate? Not whether or not morality should be legislated at all.
“The only reason I didn’t go into an convulsive fit when I pulled the lever for McCain was that the only other viable option was Obama.”
Ditto. (Except I filled the circle, but, yeah.) Pretty much the only thing I actually liked about McCain was his military service.
“And that mass exodus of undecideds was why Obama got a whole 53%, huh? Yeah, you could really feel the excitement surrounding the McCain campaign right up until he saddled himself with Caribou Barbie.”
*snort* Yep. People against Obama were planning to vote against Obama until Sarah Palin showed up. Then they were voting for her.
I’m pretty sure the phrase “you can’t legislate morality” is specific to private acts. Drug use, pornography, prostitution, smoking, abortion.
Murder, kidnapping….things that directly affect the rights of others via use of force…those are a different category altogether. You cannot make a moral argument for these things.
Hey, everybody, abortion and prostitution are private acts. I think you’re doing it wrong, Jason.
Jason, I’ve really got to disagree with you.
I’m an active Republican. I’ll bet that you and I align pretty well on most political issues.
I’d love to vote Libertarian, but I can’t vote for a party that bitches about weed while ignoring the fact that the federal government is about to start scheduling our bowel movements. Until then I belong under the Republican tent.
And so does the religious right.
I may not like having a bible thumped in my face, I may not think Jesus is coming back to rescue me tomorrow from Obama (who might have 666 tatooed on his left ass cheek), and I’m really against teaching children that Adam & Eve enjoyed Brontoburgers, but there are many things that I share with the religious and the devout.
When I see an Evangelical mother homeschool her 4 children because the local school system sucks… I can identify with her.
The Mormon father who pulls his daughter out of school on Sex Ed days, because the teacher makes it sound like condoms will protect you from everything, including a broken heart… I can identify with him.
The Catholic pharmacist who refuses to fill birth control prescriptions or stock morning-after pills… I can identify with her.
The hunter who stockpiled ammunition after Obama took office, the parent who found out from the school guidance counselor that their 17 year old had an abortion, the town that promotes a live nativity scene in the park, the kid that bows his head to thank God for his school lunch, the family of a coma patient who is being encouraged to pull the plug, hell, even the complete nutjob living out on a mountainside so that the government can’t listen in on his thoughts… I can identify with them.
We don’t have to agree on every issue to vote together for the common good.
All Republicans can come together on the most important things: Small government, fiscal responsibility, security at home and when we travel abroad, enforcing rational immigration laws, maintaining a healthy GDP, helping the less fortunate to help themselves. Then we seek out common sense compromises on the sticky issues like abortion, end of life care, religion in public life. It can be done, but not while we’re pointing fingers at each other and snickering over each other’s peculiarities.
I’m a common sense agnostic, but I fully supported Sarah Palin. She was the only reason I voted for McCain rather than against Obama. We can debate forever if Sarah’s really thinks the earth is only 4,000 years old. What you can’t debate is that she was a truer Republican, a far better conservative than McCain. He was the reason we lost the election, NOT her.
Specteresque Republicans we can do without. But we need the Palin wing as much as they need us.
You know what? We’ll see. We can argue until we’re blue in the face, but it’ll be settled in 2010 and 2012.
I’d love for the Republican party to learn before then…but they won’t. As long as Jindal is pushing creationism and they are pushing Jindal…it won’t work out.
HATE SPEECH! HATE SPEECH! Fortunate Son is guilty of HATE SPEECH! Racist, xenophobic hate speaker. Or hate speech quoter, as the case may be. Heh.
Minnow, that was beautiful. *sniff* And I’m an independent who thinks both parties are full of BS!
Jason M, your dissenting comments and your mature responses to criticism are admirable. Too many people get defensive and flounce off into cyberspace when their views are questioned, and you didn’t. Yay! Please stick around – there’s a lot of good stuff here.
Specter’s move reeks of opportunism, but maybe everyone should just admit that politicians are no less ambitious than private sector executives and forget all the hoo-hah about “the nobility of public service.”
I’ve always been a fan of the “McCain was alright and then he picked Palin” because it’s flawed logic like that that put the country where it is. There was a lot more going on than Palin. There was the first black looking President (v. the haggard looking white man), Bush fatigue (that Obama and every Democrat exploited), the schism in the Republican party (that McCain couldn’t fix), the flagging economy (that McCain didn’t sound like he could fix), and two still unpopular wars (one Obama pledge to end and the other to continue). None of which has changed in the first 100 days by the way so stop blaming Palin. The only thing she did was accept McCain’s offer.
McCain the moderate Republican lost on his own terms.
As long as Jindal is pushing creationism and they are pushing Jindal…it won’t work out.
You know, I haven’t felt the Jindal push. Maybe I’m not listening to the right radio station, perhaps I’m too far north, or maybe it’s because I live in Michigan where automotive woes suck all the oxygen from any other news stories.
I see Newt rising, Giuliani’s rumbling (but I think that’s gubernatorial), Mitt still seems like he’s interested. I’m just glad the forces behind Schwartzeneggar, Crist, and Huckabee seem to have died off.
But you’re right, 2010 will tell us more. Michigan looks like we’ll trend Republican that year, with no incumbents running for governor and the continuing anger with our incompetant state Dems, we’re primed to switch from a blue state to red. MI is the birthplace of the Reagan Democrats, so when we flip red, that’s a strong hint of a greater national movement.
But we can’t get there by chopping off body parts.
I will begin comparing politicians to executives the moment politicians start voting to give themselves bonuses.
Wait, that didn’t sound venomous enough. How about this– when the net worth of those who ask for government bailouts dips below my state’s annual budget, I’ll start thinking of politicians and executives in the same light.
No, still too light. Wait, I got it– Executives are like PeTA. Perfect!
That’s it. Minnow and Scott F both have my votes for Congress. I could not nor can I say it better than the two of them.
Holy Crap, once again, the republican party messes up. How dare they try to push ideas and solutions when the obvious winning strategy is to fluff up a candidate and ignore the issues!
They should be more like the Democrats, swinging to popular opinion as the wind blows. How dare they stick with that dated opinion that family values and constitutionalism are core american values!
At the end of the day, it is one thing to believe in something, and quite another to legislate it.
Minnow, of course Mitt’s still interested. The $64 jillion question is whether he can come across as sincere and not like someone who’d sell his own grandma if it’d buy a few votes. Plus he masqueraded as a moderate while he was Gov here.
Vagrant Dog, politicians vote to give themselves bonuses all the time. Maybe not quite as, erm, *extravagant* as Wall Street’s, but still.
And Rocko’s right. McCain had his own problems – the media just saw Palin as rallying point/comic relief and it dwarfed the substantive issues. Wow, buzz over substance? *That’s* never happened before.
Oh yeah, MC. I forgot that we share the Mittster.
He’s a too plastic for my taste but he understands the role of manufacturing in strong economies. I wasn’t thrilled enough to give him my primary vote, but I understand why he took Michigan easily, even capturing a bit of labor support.
I’d have taken Mitt over McCain anyday, despite the Ken doll hair.
Minnow, I’m not saying Mitt’s not wicked smart, but he needs to lose some of the artificial. And decisively convince the general voting public that Mormon does not equal wackjob, which is no easy task.
After reading “Under the Banner of Heaven” (which, admittedly, is not so much about the mainstream Mormon church as about the FLDS) I’m leery of Mormonism in general. However, what I’ve heard of Romney’s managerial acumen makes me wish he’d gotten the nomination.
Yeah, wish in one hand, spit in the other…
Beige, I know too much about how the LDS church started (in upstate New York, of all places) and what Joseph Smith and his followers got up to in their cross-country march to ever be un-leery of Mormonism.
That said, however, I’ve met a lot of really great LDS folks and Mitt is a pretty smart guy… and has more actual leadership/managerial skills than just about anyone else who ran.