Senator Arlen Specter’s calculated jump to the Democrats displays a survival instinct far keener than that of the Republican Party he abandoned. After years of working the imaginary middle ground of the Bush incumbency, the cagey Senator Specter took his poll soundings, confirmed he could no longer win as a Pennsylvania Republican and jumped forthwith to the other side.
The senator’s defection signals encouraging chances for President Obama’s agenda, with a filibuster-proof margin theoretically possible for foiling Republican obstructionism.
Periods of intense partisanship and turmoil occasionally lead to a smattering of Congressional party-switching. But changing affiliation is no guarantee of political survival …
Representative Chris Van Hollen of Maryland, chairman of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, said he … does not anticipate more desertions.
“People don’t like finger-to-the-wind politicians,” Mr. Van Hollen said. “I am very confident that we are not going to see any more people switching parties.”
Discuss.
Related posts:
- Elizabeth Edwards Sounds Ready for a Do-Over Courtesy of Mickey Kaus, here’s Elizabeth on The Charlie Rose...
- Jennifer Love Hewitt Is Ready for Her Bikini Close-Up Everybody knows Jennifer Love Hewitt hates the media and their...
- A Political Two-Fer from the Vast Right-Wing Conspiracy Presented without snark. (Even I have off-days.) Am I missing...
- Arlen Specter Gives Up the Ghost Sometimes they just make it too easy. The Hill, March...
- Arlen Specter’s Honor Is Untouchable Last week, the Democrats (yay!) got an infusion of fresh...
Every time I hear Republican obstructionism I think to myself, wait, they can’t even filibuster anything. It’s like calling a speed bump (hump?) an obstacle.
I don’t agree with Rush on everything but he is right about one thing, liberals are never happy. 60% majorities in the House & Senate, in control of the White House and they’re still complaining about Republicans.
I would never vote for a party member who switched parties.
Just seems like self centered maneuvering a la Survivor.
Love how the NYT pretends there wasn’t a Senate and House Democratic Majority since 2006.
Again, a typically poorly-considered Oversneer post.
OK, I get that Specter switched parties and became a Democrat. And I get that, shortly after, a Democrat said something to the effect that people don’t like pols who switch their party affiliations.
So what is the hypocrisy here? Where’s the contradictory link between what Specter did and what Van Hollen said?
Fact is, Specter got himself re-upped. The switch worked for him at a time when the Republicans were REALLY foundering. On the other hand, Van Hollen is correct in his remarks. One of the most widely-held public views of politicians is that they have no firm convictions. No arguing with Van Hollen there.
Switching parties is not always effective or practical – and it’s not terribly common. So Van Hollen is correct on THOSE counts as well.
If Van Hollen had said something like: “Party jumpers are traitors and dirtbags,” well, then you’d have something. Or if he’d attacked someone for jumping over to the GOP after praising Specter for defecting, sure, that’s an ‘aha’ moment.
If Specter had claimed some abiding principle that drove him into the arms of the Dems, and then was seen violating that principle – well, you’d have something there, too.
But… there’s just nothing here. This post is pointless.
I think Van Hollen is saying he hopes no Ds jump to Rs
“I think Van Hollen is saying he hopes no Ds jump to Rs”
I’m sure he feels that way. But he does not actually say that anywhere in the quote cited above. A case for any idea can (or should, anyway) only be built well on actual fats.
Um… actual faCts. Not to be confused with Facts Waller, the singing, piano-playing detective.
This is the second time Specter has switched parties. His party loyality goes as far as what it takes for him to stay in power. He faces a tough re-election bid this year.
I don’t think the Dems have to worry so much about party jumpers as a large number of them are going to lose their seats in the 2010 elections.
Reaching across the aisle and bipartisanship are only ever acceptable if it’s Republicans kowtowing to Democrats–NEVER the reverse. Ditto for switching parties.
Frankly, I don’t trust anybody who switches parties. Do it more than once, and the oft-applied tag of “whore” becomes more apt than ever. Dance with the one who brought you.
I live in PA and voted in 2004 for Pat Tommey, the Republican challenger. Specter won 529,000 to 500,000 and that was with Bush campaigning for him. I am SO glad I didn’t vote for him. The Dems here in PA aren’t happy with him either. I bet he loses.
Clearly the post is right on. NYT’s says: Becoming a Dem: clever and insightful. Becoming a Repub: foolish and opportunistic.
I think it’s interesting that it was a big deal when Specter went Democrat, but hardly a whisper when the House Democrat (I am too lazy to look up his name) went Republican. Considering that the Democrats were sooo determined to get Specter to defect, it is rather rich to now see Van Hollen claiming such actions are not wise or advisable. I very much doubt he mentioned that while wooing Specter. I’m with Oversneer on this one.
Personally, I would be very wary of a party-switcher. In some cases, it may be justifiable, but quite often it is simple opportunism.
“NYT’s says: Becoming a Dem: clever and insightful. Becoming a Repub: foolish and opportunistic.”
The Times does NOT say that on the evidence presented in the post. You’re reading into it, based on a preconceived belief. Not saying the belief is right or wrong, but I am saying the evidence presented here does not support that conclusion.
We all view the world through our own prism of beliefs. The Oversneer wrote this post, and the recent post on Plain, with a foregone conclusion in mind. Therefore, anything (s)he came across that fit this view was seen as post-fodder.
Satire, like revenge, is a dish best served cold – and with a clean palate.
To be fair to The Oversneer, the post immediately following this one is a far better example of hypocrisy exposed. In that post, Democratic U.S. Senator Claire McCaskill is quoted as highly critical of cheap sniping at the President, during a Democratic administration. But during a Republican administration, she is shown doing exactly that.
It’s not a GREAT example of hypocrisy, as it contains some possible ambiguity. For one thing, sometimes a President SHOULD be criticized, and McCaskill would no doubt argue that her criticism of Bush was justified and not just the ‘politics’ she refers to.
Now, I don’t buy that myself, but that’s the case McCaskill would make for herself, and a sizable segment of the population would agree with her. Proving once again that you can fool some of the people some of the time… and so on. That’s why that post, while a decent expose of hypocrisy, is not a GREAT one. A truly great exposure of hypocrisy leaves the target with no place to hide, not even behind ‘popular’ opinion.
My beef here, just so I’m clear, is about the quality of thinking behind these writings, rather than the writer’s politics. I strongly disagreed with THe Oversneer on Plain, while I agree with him/her re the hypocrisy of politicians who switch parties out of convenience. But in neither instance was a compelling case put forward. Instead, what we’re getting is red meat thrown to the lions, as is common on political sites. Hate Palin? Here’s something to feed that. Think politicians are hypocrites? Good, here’s a tidbit for you folks to chew on.
One can get that kind of thing, on the left, from Kos or Talking Points or any other number of axe-to-grind sites. On the right, you can get your hate on with Malkin and that sort. These are opinion mills where you know exactly what you’re getting going in. No surprises. That’s why you come back, to get a fresh fix.
What I used to expect from Deceiver was an actual well-reasoned lampooning of – whoever. But not the usual targets, in the usual ways. I can get all the Cheney jokes I can stand – even now – from Bill Maher. That’s why I don’t go there. I know what guys like that will say before they even say anything, and I know how the audience will react.
That’s not thinking. That’s mob mentality. Fast food for people who want their beliefs reinforced. The Oversneer is writing for THAT sort of crowd, where reason matters much less than just getting that daily fix out. I doubt anyone ever complained on Kos that, while they agreed with the sentiment, they didn’t care for the reasoning that led to it. Most of what goes on in such sites is merely one commenter trying to one-up the others in assent (“I hate Bush more than you because of my greater virtue”).
As I say, I used to expect something better here, and as far as I could tell, so did the crowd it attracted. Now I HOPE for something better, but I by no means expect it. At this rate, though, Deceiver’s political posters will merely have to decide whether to toss out red meat for the left or right, and have at it. By then, you will indeed have attracted the crowd that goes in for that sort of thing.
Oh I agree there are much better examples, but as a frustrated Pennsylvania Voter I enjoyed it. Clearly though the NYT is not as enamored of Dems becoming Repubs as when Repubs become Dems. I feel I have a personal vested interest in this story: I sat 1 seat away from Mr Specter at a rally in 2004 that Bush spoke at (my wife sat next to the Senator) I played nice but thought then he couldn’t be trusted & I was right. I tell me wife too every chance I get; Thanks Deceiver!
“as a frustrated Pennsylvania Voter I enjoyed it… I feel I have a personal vested interest in this story…”
That demonstrates my basic contention: You felt a certain way going in. Not saying that’s invalid (I don’t like the guy either), just saying the post itself didn’t actually demonstrate the point promised by the headline.
You’re right!
Mister Snitch I’m not American so don’t give toss, it looks more like they need to worry about the D rats leaving the ship