home

Specter Switches To Dems, Obama Welcomes Him With Open Arms

By Big Tent Democrat, Section Other Politics
Posted on Tue Apr 28, 2009 at 11:41:09 AM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

Kos has the details. President Obama welcomes him with open arms:

[T]he president reached Specter to express his thrill at having him in the party and to offer his full support. According to a White House aide, the president found out about the switch at 10:25 AM while in the Oval Office receiving his Economic Daily Briefing.

The president was handed a note, the aide said, that read: "Specter is announcing he is changing parties." Seven minutes later, President Obama reached Specter to tell him, according to the aide, "You have my full support" and that we are "thrilled to have you."

My own theory is that President Obama is being entirely too modest. I find it hard to believe that President Obama was not an integral part of wooing Specter to the Democratic Party. I think this may be one of the most important achievements President Obama has yet had. He is denying involvement in the process, but I am giving him a lion's share of the credit for it.

Speaking for me only

< Richard Cohen: Dim Bulb | Tuesday Afternoon Open Thread >

  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    Specter Switches To Dems, Obama Welcomes Him With Open Arms | 201 comments (201 topical)
    I give the 2009 Republican Party most of the (5.00 / 12) (#1)
    by steviez314 on Tue Apr 28, 2009 at 11:43:25 AM EST
    credit, as it were.

    No question (5.00 / 1) (#3)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Apr 28, 2009 at 11:44:41 AM EST


    Parent
    Yup (5.00 / 2) (#7)
    by andgarden on Tue Apr 28, 2009 at 11:47:24 AM EST
    They pushed him away.

    Parent
    Specifically the Club for Growth (5.00 / 2) (#35)
    by Molly Bloom on Tue Apr 28, 2009 at 11:59:54 AM EST


    Parent
    Big deal, no question (5.00 / 1) (#2)
    by andgarden on Tue Apr 28, 2009 at 11:43:48 AM EST
    Ed Rendell telegraphed that he would support Specter switching.

    Specter pretty much just guaranteed himself another term.

    He is contiuining to oppose EFCA so that (5.00 / 1) (#9)
    by BobTinKY on Tue Apr 28, 2009 at 11:49:33 AM EST
    may prompt a Democratic primary opponent.  I hope so, Toomey can't win anyway.

    While it is great to have one more Dem, Specter's slimy, changing parties solely to maximize his re-election chances.  The originator and sole remianing adherent to the single bullet theory.  What a guy.  

    Parent

    I believe that (5.00 / 0) (#15)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Apr 28, 2009 at 11:52:27 AM EST
    given a reasonable period of time, he will switch back.

    Parent
    I think his statement is hedged (none / 0) (#28)
    by andgarden on Tue Apr 28, 2009 at 11:56:54 AM EST
    And hell, he did already vote for it last Congress.

    Parent
    Exactly (5.00 / 1) (#40)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Apr 28, 2009 at 12:03:17 PM EST
    And remember, the big thing on EFCA is the cloture vote.

    Parent
    Agree - If EFCA is modified somehow (none / 0) (#41)
    by magster on Tue Apr 28, 2009 at 12:03:21 PM EST
    to give Specter cover.

    Parent
    The big question (none / 0) (#168)
    by Platypus on Tue Apr 28, 2009 at 02:31:43 PM EST
    then, is how EFCA is going to be modified. Is it just going to be "fig leaf" modification as BTD surmises in this thread or more "substantial" modification--perhaps in the line of the Starbucks/Whole Foods/Costco "alternative", which would pretty much water it down to next to nothing.

    Sadly, I think the second option is more likely to happen.

    Parent

    I have come to believe the single bullet theory (5.00 / 3) (#50)
    by MKS on Tue Apr 28, 2009 at 12:18:05 PM EST
    Apparently the jump seat in the front was lower and in a different position than the Oliver Stone view...

    But primary Specter--if anything to convince all those Blue Dog Dems in Blue states that they had better not obstruct.

    Parent

    thats 60 (5.00 / 2) (#5)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue Apr 28, 2009 at 11:45:45 AM EST
    with Franken, right.  maybe not a reliable 60 but 60?

    Yes (5.00 / 4) (#6)
    by andgarden on Tue Apr 28, 2009 at 11:47:08 AM EST
    We will now find that 60 doesn't really mean 60. But I'll tell you this: it's MUCH better than not having 60.

    Obama now gets to play LBJ.

    Parent

    If any of you had been paying attention (5.00 / 4) (#22)
    by scribe on Tue Apr 28, 2009 at 11:54:27 AM EST
    during the salad days of the post-partisan unity schtick, you would remember that 60 is meaningless because 80 is the new 60.

    Get with the program, people.

    Parent

    Specter as a Dem (5.00 / 2) (#24)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Apr 28, 2009 at 11:55:36 AM EST
    is not Specter facing a GOP primary challenge.

    It is huge.

    Parent

    My recollection (none / 0) (#128)
    by NMvoiceofreason on Tue Apr 28, 2009 at 01:40:39 PM EST
    is that during the stimulus negotiations, the Rethugs let loose the dogs, saying "if you don't back up our side..." nasty things will happen. Things like running a "real conservative" who will have the party backing and funding... witchhunting...leaks and rumors...gossip...manufactured evidence...outright lies...

    Oh, sorry, O/T. I was thinking Rumsfeld on Abu Ghraib. Rumsfeld says "he also accepts the further responsibility to evaluate what happened at the prison, to bring those who broke laws to justice and to make changes to make sure such horrific actions do not happen again."

    Parent

    But will he? (5.00 / 1) (#93)
    by Dr Molly on Tue Apr 28, 2009 at 12:56:04 PM EST
    No excuses now, right?

    Parent
    He shows (none / 0) (#115)
    by cal1942 on Tue Apr 28, 2009 at 01:23:37 PM EST
    no sign of being up to an LBJ performance.

    If Obama could be half as big as LBJ it would make me believe there is some hope of at least slowing our general decline.

    Parent

    and look where it got LBJ (none / 0) (#130)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue Apr 28, 2009 at 01:41:35 PM EST
    hounded out of office and reviled.


    Parent
    No, social programs were not the "it" (5.00 / 5) (#137)
    by Cream City on Tue Apr 28, 2009 at 01:48:59 PM EST
    that took down LBJ.  And I bet that you know it.

    Let us not allow that myth to provide cover for another president to not at least attempt a Great Society.  (And let us also underscore the reality that unending wars, and especially those in which Americans break international conventions by not doing enough about My Lai's or Abu Ghraib's, are what can bring down presidents. . . .)

    Parent

    fair enough (5.00 / 1) (#140)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue Apr 28, 2009 at 01:50:56 PM EST


    Parent
    however (none / 0) (#141)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue Apr 28, 2009 at 01:52:37 PM EST
    I was around then and I believe that the social programs had the effect of making the people turn against him who would have normally been supportive of him in his war leaving him with virtually no support.

    it is to his credit that he probably knew this would ultimately be the effect.

    Parent

    I was around then, too (5.00 / 1) (#156)
    by Cream City on Tue Apr 28, 2009 at 02:08:47 PM EST
    and of course there were critics of his programs.  Some even had voted Dem.  But his programs brought more voters to the Dems -- in part because of one of his programs, of course: the Voting Rights Act.

    Parent
    If (5.00 / 0) (#173)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Apr 28, 2009 at 02:43:08 PM EST
    you are truthful you know that it's the Civil Rights Act that really did the party in electorally. There was a huge base in the south that more or less left the party over it. Vietnam exacerbated the problem because that alienated even more people.

    Parent
    If you ever visit Austin (none / 0) (#183)
    by Makarov on Tue Apr 28, 2009 at 03:05:41 PM EST
    I highly recommend seeing the LBJ Presidential Library. It's on the Univ of Texas campus. The most impressive display is a wall of the legislation he signed into law.

    Parent
    Can we seat (5.00 / 4) (#10)
    by CST on Tue Apr 28, 2009 at 11:49:49 AM EST
    Franken yet????

    all they are doing (none / 0) (#33)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue Apr 28, 2009 at 11:59:31 AM EST
    by dragging it out is making a bigger in your face party when it finally happens.
    as pretty much everyone but Coleman expects now.

    Parent
    Kos had a post earlier (5.00 / 2) (#11)
    by magster on Tue Apr 28, 2009 at 11:50:52 AM EST
    about the dying GOP as it continues to spiral inward on its own extremism.  

    At this rate, the Dems main concern could come from a centrist party splintering off from the Democratic party.

    And to respond to Saul in comment #4, MSNBC is reporting that Specter was promised that the nat'l Dems would support him in any Dem. primary (which sucks, given Specter's reiteration of his opposition to EFCA).

    Color me skeptical that this (5.00 / 1) (#14)
    by Anne on Tue Apr 28, 2009 at 11:51:39 AM EST
    is about Specter rejecting the GOP's ideology and not about closing off the possibility that he gets primaried.

    I mean, doesn't Joe Lieberman caucus with the Democrats?  That's been such a boon for us, hasn't it?

    I think there's no question that this is a huge and stinging slap in the face and a major defeat for the GOP - I would just like it to have practical advantages for us, and that remains to be seen.

    Speaking of Lieberman, anyone want to guess that he tries to take the sting out of this and officially crosses the aisle?

    Better in the cacusu than out (5.00 / 2) (#19)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Apr 28, 2009 at 11:53:11 AM EST
    For example, Lieberman will not filibuster Dawn Johnsen.

    Parent
    What about Ben Nelson? (none / 0) (#56)
    by MKS on Tue Apr 28, 2009 at 12:21:34 PM EST
    He is in some kind of war with Obama over subsidies of one sort or another....And he has made noise about Dawn Johnson not being acceptable.

     

    Parent

    that's Ben Nelson (5.00 / 1) (#59)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Apr 28, 2009 at 12:25:32 PM EST
    Believe me, you'll be much happier with Specter than Ben Nelson.

    Parent
    I agree with you (none / 0) (#64)
    by MKS on Tue Apr 28, 2009 at 12:30:29 PM EST
    Specter should go more to the left now.  

    Nelson will hopefully stay in the tent because the Democrats are now the only game in town.

    Parent

    I hate Bill Nelson.... (none / 0) (#72)
    by magster on Tue Apr 28, 2009 at 12:37:15 PM EST
    In fact, expect Ben Nelson to switch to the GOP in response to today's news just because he's a ___ (insert your own expletive).

    Parent
    Bill Nelson is a good man (5.00 / 1) (#78)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Apr 28, 2009 at 12:40:56 PM EST


    Parent
    Agree (5.00 / 0) (#88)
    by magster on Tue Apr 28, 2009 at 12:47:47 PM EST
    typo

    Parent
    Too bad (none / 0) (#158)
    by Cream City on Tue Apr 28, 2009 at 02:11:02 PM EST
    as Bill Nelson lost me last May.

    Parent
    So are they all, all honorable men... (5.00 / 2) (#98)
    by Molly Bloom on Tue Apr 28, 2009 at 01:05:07 PM EST


    Parent
    Not really (none / 0) (#100)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Apr 28, 2009 at 01:08:02 PM EST
    I happen to think Bill Nelson IS a good man. I disagree with a lot of his positions, but I think he is a good man.

    Parent
    Couldn't resist (none / 0) (#104)
    by Molly Bloom on Tue Apr 28, 2009 at 01:14:41 PM EST
    you dug Brutus out of my memory.

    I'll take your word for it on Nelson, at least for now.

    Parent

    I lke B. Nelson too (none / 0) (#83)
    by MKS on Tue Apr 28, 2009 at 12:43:44 PM EST


    Parent
    Ben, Ben (none / 0) (#73)
    by magster on Tue Apr 28, 2009 at 12:37:38 PM EST


    Parent
    Ben, I understand and can accept (none / 0) (#80)
    by MKS on Tue Apr 28, 2009 at 12:42:44 PM EST
    Unlike Lieberman, he is in a very red state....Ben is a good as it gets for Dems there....

    Parent
    From Specter's statement (5.00 / 2) (#23)
    by standingup on Tue Apr 28, 2009 at 11:55:08 AM EST
    ...the Republican Party has moved far to the right. Last year, more than 200,000 Republicans in Pennsylvania changed their registration to become Democrats. I now find my political philosophy more in line with Democrats than Republicans.
    Not looking good for the Republicans. I wonder when they will start to get the picture.

    Actually (5.00 / 2) (#60)
    by jbindc on Tue Apr 28, 2009 at 12:27:12 PM EST
    I think the important phrase is this:

    Last year, more than 200,000 Republicans in Pennsylvania changed their registration to become Democrats.


    Parent
    So, in a twist on the famous question (5.00 / 3) (#67)
    by Anne on Tue Apr 28, 2009 at 12:33:19 PM EST
    about why people rob banks - because that's where the money is - Specter is changing parties because that's where the votes are; I think he was getting more than a little worried about his chances of being re-elected as a Republican.

    The only thing I have any hope for is that now that he's a Democrat, he can have the courage of those convictions that, when he was a Republican, he just could never seem to be able to stand up for in the end.

    Parent

    Don't disagree (5.00 / 1) (#91)
    by standingup on Tue Apr 28, 2009 at 12:50:22 PM EST
    I think it is a consequence of the Republican party moving too far to the right. Their national numbers are showing just how far out of the mainstream they have gone.

    Parent
    Worth noting: (5.00 / 1) (#148)
    by scribe on Tue Apr 28, 2009 at 01:59:43 PM EST
    In his speech (available over at Kos), Specter says
    (a) he is opposed to Dawn Johnsen for OLC;
    (b) he believes that, if the people who did/do not participate in the primary process would come out and vote, both he and Joe Lieberman would "win hands down".  Lots of comparing himself (and his primary plight) to Lieberman and Connecticut;
    (c) he believes Obama will come to PA to campaign for him;
    (d) he believes Reid will help in PA campaign;
    (e) a lot of whining about how unfair primaries are (to incumbents) - uses the example of a Repug primary in 2006 that made the candidate spend all his money on the primary and then lose the general.  If that primary hadn't happened, "I would have been the chairman of the committee and all Bush's judges would have been confirmed".

    This is all about Specter serving Specter, and not about public service.

    Parent

    Very much worth noting (none / 0) (#160)
    by Cream City on Tue Apr 28, 2009 at 02:12:24 PM EST
    and the party that would have a guy who wishes that he could have done more for Bush is a party that will get what it deserves from this guy, not the other way around.

    Parent
    Well, it's not like we have a choice (5.00 / 0) (#176)
    by MyLeftMind on Tue Apr 28, 2009 at 02:45:31 PM EST
    about who joins the party.  We may as well make the best of his deserting the GOP.  Without gloating, we should certainly criticize and demoralize those Repugs who keep trying to hijack their party to the far right.  My sense is that the GOP declaration that "the country is middle right" means many Americans support fiscal conservatism, not religious extremism.  This is a good time to reiterate that they're shrinking because their party 1) Pushes endless wars, 2) Stands for free market, not individual freedoms, 3) Supports the military, veterans and the middle class in words only, not in policies.  

    The GOP uses it's religious extremists for fundraising and GOTV efforts, but I'm guessing lots of blue dogs and moderate Repugs have only been tolerating the far right component of their party, not embracing them.  


    Parent

    Good point (none / 0) (#182)
    by jbindc on Tue Apr 28, 2009 at 03:05:20 PM EST
    My sense is that the GOP declaration that "the country is middle right" means many Americans support fiscal conservatism, not religious extremism.

    I think you are absolutely correct.  Most people in this country are in the middle somewhere and not on the extreme of either party - My guess is a majority of people in this country are a little more fiscally conservative and a little more socially liberal, so it will only hurt the Repugs to run even more to the right (of course, the Dems running far left won't win them any elections either, but it's not like that will really happen).

    Parent

    Specter is no saint (none / 0) (#199)
    by standingup on Tue Apr 28, 2009 at 04:02:46 PM EST
    but no idiot either. The Republican party has chosen a path that makes it very difficult for moderate Republicans to win elections. They are painting themselves into a very small corner electorally.

    Parent
    The republican base will never get the picture (none / 0) (#49)
    by easilydistracted on Tue Apr 28, 2009 at 12:16:52 PM EST
    because as far as its concerned there is no picture to get -- it is convinced that its radical views are correct. The base will undoubtedly view this in positive terms because a "moderate" republican conflicts with their right-wing ideology. Indeed, they'll say good riddance and view this as an opportunity to elect a republican more aligned with their extremism and therefore, hopefully further solidify its grip on the party.  

    Parent
    I don't know (5.00 / 1) (#25)
    by TChris on Tue Apr 28, 2009 at 11:55:52 AM EST
    what role President Obama played, but I suspect that Specter's ego played the largest role.  Specter desperately wants to be relevant -- he wants to be a player -- and as an aging member of the Republican Party he risked never seeing his name in the news again unless he switched parties.  I imagine he was also still stinging from the slap-down his party gave him a few years ago when he suggested that the Judiciary Committee wasn't likely to confirm judges who had strong anti-abortion opinions (a remark that nearly cost him his committee position).

    President Obama played to that ego (none / 0) (#38)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Apr 28, 2009 at 12:02:17 PM EST
    this is speculation on my part of course, but I just can not believe President Obama did not do some heavy lifting here.

    Parent
    Not for nothing that Obama had (none / 0) (#57)
    by scribe on Tue Apr 28, 2009 at 12:22:32 PM EST
    Specter over to the WH for the Super Bowl party.

    He also had to the party Repug Rep. Charlie Dent (PA-15), who was one of the kabuki Republican moderates who went to the Bush WH to beg Bushie to moderate himself post the 2006 elections.  Lot of good that did....

    Parent

    So much for (5.00 / 2) (#101)
    by TChris on Tue Apr 28, 2009 at 01:08:27 PM EST
    the gripers who complained about Obama making nice with Republicans.

    Parent
    I don't understand this. (5.00 / 3) (#129)
    by Dr Molly on Tue Apr 28, 2009 at 01:40:59 PM EST
    The "gripers" seemed to be "griping" because making nice with Republicans doesn't necessarily mean much for progressive policy in the end. And this could still be the case with the Specter addition, no? We really don't know yet.

    Parent
    Center left is better than Center Right (none / 0) (#139)
    by NMvoiceofreason on Tue Apr 28, 2009 at 01:50:37 PM EST
    Specter gave Bush too much cover, but I still like him. I tend to be more moderate in general, unless you are talking Constitution, Law, or social issues (I'm a fiscal conservative with a social conscience, much like the Clintons). Yet I supported Obama over Clinton, because he gave me a small sliver of hope that the bastards in the Bush administration might someday be held accountable.

    Specter doesn't help us get there. He's not going to tell tales out of school, and he's not a big fan of social justice. But as he goes, so go Snowe and Collins. Pretty soon, there won't be any Republicans above the Manson-Nixon line.

    Parent

    Like the judge said in (none / 0) (#109)
    by scribe on Tue Apr 28, 2009 at 01:17:06 PM EST
    my copy of The Art of Cross-examination:  "It pays to be a gentleman."

    Parent
    And (none / 0) (#75)
    by jbindc on Tue Apr 28, 2009 at 12:38:49 PM EST
    The whole swine-flu pandemic is getting the news cycle, when they should be lauding the 100th day of the Obama presidency.  This brings the news cycle back to where the administration wants it.

    Parent
    Rove did it. (5.00 / 1) (#84)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Tue Apr 28, 2009 at 12:44:12 PM EST
    The whole swine-flu pandemic is getting the news cycle, when they should be lauding the 100th day of the Obama presidency.


    Parent
    Rove = swine (2.00 / 1) (#92)
    by jbindc on Tue Apr 28, 2009 at 12:53:40 PM EST
    Sorry,that was nasty, and I am supposed to be better than that.

    But the timing of this couldn't have been played better for what Axelrove called "A Hallmark Holiday".

    Parent

    correction (none / 0) (#102)
    by TChris on Tue Apr 28, 2009 at 01:09:27 PM EST
    anti-abortion should have been pro-abortion in comment 25

    Parent
    This is, at best, a big so what (5.00 / 3) (#27)
    by Pol C on Tue Apr 28, 2009 at 11:56:18 AM EST
    All that's going on is that Specter is sick of his own party sniping at him. Switching parties means no more leash tightening from the GOP leadership in the Senate, no serious primary challenge next year, and the likelihood of significant committee chairmanships in the next
    Congress. It's a win for nobody but himself. He's going to vote the same way he always has. If Reid isn't going to crack down on the Nelsons, Landrieu, and (especially) Joe Lieberman, he isn't going to do it to Specter. The number of Senators in the caucus means nothing if they don't vote as a bloc.

    Actually, I think it's a bad thing. The possibility of getting a good Democrat elected to that seat next year is now all but gone.

    The typical behavior of party switchers (5.00 / 1) (#29)
    by andgarden on Tue Apr 28, 2009 at 11:57:36 AM EST
    suggests that we won't be disappointed.

    Parent
    So wrong (5.00 / 1) (#37)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Apr 28, 2009 at 12:01:21 PM EST
    Just watch.

    Parent
    A good thing. (5.00 / 1) (#31)
    by Salo on Tue Apr 28, 2009 at 11:58:51 AM EST
    The rat leaves the sinking ship.  But only for that reason. Specter is a still a backstabbing rat.

    but now he is our (5.00 / 6) (#36)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue Apr 28, 2009 at 12:00:30 PM EST
    backstabbing rat.
    seriously, how many pols could you NOT say that about?

    Parent
    touché (5.00 / 2) (#43)
    by Salo on Tue Apr 28, 2009 at 12:05:36 PM EST
    But he's got the instincts of a ship rat.

    Parent
    This helps solidify... (5.00 / 0) (#51)
    by desertswine on Tue Apr 28, 2009 at 12:18:46 PM EST
    the gop's standing as not so much a national political party, but as a regional gang of rednecks.

    I don't much like Republicans at all (none / 0) (#171)
    by DFLer on Tue Apr 28, 2009 at 02:37:47 PM EST
    but that comment is an insult to rednecks! ;)

    Parent
    I am happy at least. It is my state (5.00 / 1) (#94)
    by BarnBabe on Tue Apr 28, 2009 at 12:58:05 PM EST
    My first thought is, wow, this is huge. Of course, now some Dem would want to switch to make it even again. The next thought is that this is good for him as there was always the threat of Ed Rendell jumping in to run for Senator against him. IMO.

    BTW, I was smiling as I read this. Specter is popular in the state and he gets a lot of Democratic votes already.  

    Ugh, I can't believe it (5.00 / 2) (#99)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Apr 28, 2009 at 01:07:27 PM EST
    CNN just claimed that Specter divorced the Republican party and ran to the open arms of the Dems.  Why do the Democrats have to always be characterized as the marriage destroying party or a bunch of philanderers?  CNN can KMA today.

    CNN can (5.00 / 1) (#118)
    by cal1942 on Tue Apr 28, 2009 at 01:29:50 PM EST
    KMA almost everyday.

    Parent
    For the same reason(s) (none / 0) (#110)
    by scribe on Tue Apr 28, 2009 at 01:18:19 PM EST
    even Republicans want to date Democrats:  they're just too much fun to go out with?

    Parent
    Remembering distasteful bumper stickers (none / 0) (#113)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Apr 28, 2009 at 01:22:53 PM EST
    Ever heard of a great piece of elephant?  Seriously though, there is obviously way too much kissing and telling about how terrific Democrats are. Then they chase them and chase them followed by complaining when Democrats run out of breath and eventually get tagged and then caught.

    Parent
    Specter's ready to be one of em (none / 0) (#116)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Apr 28, 2009 at 01:28:27 PM EST
    He just said he's full of Vim, Vigor, and Vitality.  What more could he need to become a Democrat?

    Parent
    He was going to loose in Rep primary (5.00 / 2) (#103)
    by Saul on Tue Apr 28, 2009 at 01:14:11 PM EST
    was the reason he switched.  Had his re election not been on the line as a republican he  would not have switched.

    Arlen better (5.00 / 2) (#105)
    by JThomas on Tue Apr 28, 2009 at 01:14:48 PM EST
    remember where he hangs his hat now or he will still be primaried by a dem.

    But, this has to pull him left if he actually wants it to stick. Or at least keep him from going right to stay alive in a GOP primary vs Toomey.

    Either way, the big ticket items that the President wants to get thru gives Arlen ample opportunity to prove his bona fides...or else.

    Bottom line, the Confederate Party/Seccessionist Party continues its cold water shrinkage...and that is fine by me.

    The Republicans deserve a big share (5.00 / 1) (#106)
    by esmense on Tue Apr 28, 2009 at 01:15:01 PM EST
    of the credit. The threat to support a far right primary opponent against him had to have had some part in his decision. The Republicans have been getting away with using constantly escalating bullying tactics for so long -- from witness bullying and abuses of power during Whitewater to bullying lobbying firms when they controlled the government to wars undertaken merely to "shock and awe" to disgraceful detainee torture to primary threats against their own office holders (who they need to hold onto). They no longer can imagine any other way of dealing with ANY situation and they haven't yet, despite all their troubles, figured out the great short-comings to this approach.

    Heh heh heh (5.00 / 2) (#108)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Apr 28, 2009 at 01:16:41 PM EST
    Mitch McConnell ain't lookin too spiffy today.  I'm all broke up.  He said that the Republican party wants America to have what America wants without restraint or checks and balances.  What the heck does that mean?  Is he after the underage beer bong vote?

    LOL - Can see the headlines now (5.00 / 2) (#125)
    by MO Blue on Tue Apr 28, 2009 at 01:39:15 PM EST
    "Republicans come out in support of legalizing marijuana."  Roach clips sporting the GOP elephant replace campaign buttons in an attempt to appeal to young voters .

    Parent
    I don't see this as a big plus (5.00 / 1) (#114)
    by tokin librul on Tue Apr 28, 2009 at 01:23:17 PM EST
     Why would anyone think that Specter, let alone Nelson and other red state dems will give up on ridiculous filibusters?

    It's when the Dims are at 60 precisely that the red state/bluedog Dim senators have the most power and leverage, and that power stems from their willingness to support GOPuke filibusters.

    There are at least 10 Dim senators whose vote could not be relied upon in any contentious, politically divisive issue, like EFCA...

    The Dims need 67 votes MINIMUM to have a reliable cloture vote...

    McConnell says that Specter told him (5.00 / 2) (#157)
    by andgarden on Tue Apr 28, 2009 at 02:08:48 PM EST
    that his pollster found that this was the only way for him to win. No shock, but it's interesting to hear that he checked.

    Obama's forgiveness of Lieberman (5.00 / 1) (#172)
    by Joelarama on Tue Apr 28, 2009 at 02:42:15 PM EST
    is looking very smart right now.

    Don't get me wrong, I despise Lieberman, but I was wrong if I ever suggested Obama should have pushed Lieberman out.

    Nobody's heard a peep out of him in months (5.00 / 1) (#174)
    by andgarden on Tue Apr 28, 2009 at 02:44:44 PM EST
    so yes, it was a good call.

    Parent
    Well he co-signed that letter with McCain (none / 0) (#184)
    by Joelarama on Tue Apr 28, 2009 at 03:11:01 PM EST
    and (another Senator I'm forgetting right now) urging no prosecutions on torture.

    But that's nary a peep, I agree.

    Parent

    Well, you can only do so much (none / 0) (#186)
    by andgarden on Tue Apr 28, 2009 at 03:19:48 PM EST
    In any case, he hasn't been as much of a thorn as he would have been had he been kicked out of the caucus.

    Parent
    61? (5.00 / 1) (#192)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue Apr 28, 2009 at 03:50:23 PM EST
        Sen. Olympia Snowe (R-Maine) a fellow moderate, didn't seem suprised. On the national level, she says, "you haven't certainly heard warm encouraging words of how they [Republicans] view moderates. Either you are with us or against us."

        "Ultimately we're heading to having the smallest political tent in history they way things are unfolding," Snowe said. "We should have learned from the 2006 election, which I was a party of. I happened to win with 74% of the vote in a blue collar state but no one asked me how did you do it. Seems to me that would have been the first question that would have come from the Republican party to find out so we could avoid further losses."

    I keep (none / 0) (#197)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Apr 28, 2009 at 04:01:28 PM EST
    telling the foolish Republicans here in Ga that the way to win nationally is to go back to their Eisenhower roots. They spit out that he's a "liberal". I said well, it seems odd then that only "liberals" have managed to balance budgets since WWII when at the same time you're talking about "reigning in spending" is a conservative value or some such.

    The whole country has now seen what we in the south have been seeing from these guys for quite a while.

    Parent

    So a political (3.50 / 2) (#61)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Tue Apr 28, 2009 at 12:27:16 PM EST
    sock puppet for the corporate world puts on a different colored sock!

    Now the Demos have absolute power, which means corruption absolutely and nobody else to blame for it but themselves.

    Woo-hoo, break out the champale.

    But don't forget, the pendulum swings.

    I agree that this is big. (none / 0) (#185)
    by Joelarama on Tue Apr 28, 2009 at 03:14:19 PM EST
    No matter what Specter says now, there is a much bigger chance that a good version of EFCA will pass now, if Obama is willing to get LBJ-medieval on some Senators.

    That would be a sea change, long term.

    Parent

    With a tepid president (3.00 / 2) (#42)
    by Dadler on Tue Apr 28, 2009 at 12:04:38 PM EST
    Another tepid "democrat" ain't gonna help much.  Obama, let's remember, thinks Reagan deserves praised and admiration.  While, obviously, in some ways this COULD work to a Dem advantage, I just a magic wand touching either Specter or Obama and making them what we wish they were.

    Obama cannot even bring himself to be strong and fight hard against a dying Repub party.

    Disappointment has reigned supreme from the day Obama took office.  He has been an intellectual wimp and an economic corpse (must as the Repubs have).  Recruiting another wimp and corpse to the party, hey, I suppose it could work magic.

    But, for good, very good, more than very good, reasons, I have my doubts.

    But, yes, better than nothing.  However, I'm sick of better than nothing being what we get from a supposedly Democratic administration.

    Disagree (5.00 / 1) (#44)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Apr 28, 2009 at 12:07:48 PM EST
    While it is true that Obama is timid on too many issues, on many others he is quite bold.

    Health care.

    Climate change.

    Tax policy.

    Filibusters.

    This is big and great.

    Parent

    So (5.00 / 1) (#177)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Apr 28, 2009 at 02:53:12 PM EST
    far I've seen Obama starting to cave on healthcare. I think the best we'll see is the Federal Employee's Plan being opened up to the public.

    Parent
    well (none / 0) (#178)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue Apr 28, 2009 at 02:55:45 PM EST
    he has actually never been for single payer.  but I think the pressure is growing for that from many places.

    and we know how flexible his positions can be when it is called for, dont we?

    Parent

    Well (5.00 / 1) (#181)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Apr 28, 2009 at 03:04:42 PM EST
    actually he said he was for single payer when he was in the IL senate but then all he ending up putting forth was a committee to "study" the issue. There's a lot of pressure to can the Geither Plan but he doesn't seem to be responding to that does he?

    Obama does what's right for Obama. He really doesn't care about issues like heathcare that I've seen. And he's handed the GOP a million bullets to kill any plan he proposes with his own behavior during the primaries.

    Parent

    I meant since (none / 0) (#187)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue Apr 28, 2009 at 03:22:19 PM EST
    he was a presidential candidate

    Parent
    Obama is going to make us all wish (4.62 / 8) (#54)
    by Anne on Tue Apr 28, 2009 at 12:20:05 PM EST
    he never took up the health care issue.

    I have serious doubts that the same guy who has made protecting the banksters a priority will  give us a health care proposal that does not have protection of the health insurance industry and Big Pharma as a major priority.

    I can see it coming.

    Parent

    Agree (4.50 / 6) (#62)
    by Spamlet on Tue Apr 28, 2009 at 12:27:43 PM EST
    Obama is for (universal?) health insurance, not health care.

    Parent
    Thats' what I am for too (none / 0) (#89)
    by BobTinKY on Tue Apr 28, 2009 at 12:48:23 PM EST
    single, nationwide (or state-wide so long as all 50 must play) risk pool for which private companies compete with allowed rate of return, regulated like utilities.  And, perhaps most importantly, public health insurance option.

    Parent
    BTD, (4.00 / 3) (#71)
    by cpinva on Tue Apr 28, 2009 at 12:36:51 PM EST
    does self-delusion run in your family, or are you the exception to the rule? i believe you're smarter than this, or maybe just an extreme optimist?

    tell you what, my bet is that by 2012, nothing significant will have occured with any of those issues, especially health care. there are just too many embedded special interests, willing to do anything necessary, to keep that cash spigot open at full bore.

    as far as tax policy is concerned, the bulk of the bennies will still go to the major players, their public whining notwithstanding.

    yes, pres. obama is far more articulate  than bush was (actually, my cat is too), and appears to have a better grasp of reality. however, when all is said and done, absent an abrupt shift, pres. obama and bush don't seem all that much different.

    Parent

    I dunno about healthcare. (none / 0) (#46)
    by Salo on Tue Apr 28, 2009 at 12:12:21 PM EST
    climate change is fuzzy as hell.  Once the permafrost on Siberia goes rising Methane levels will create a catastrophe.

    Parent
    climate change is fuzzy? (5.00 / 2) (#47)
    by CST on Tue Apr 28, 2009 at 12:16:05 PM EST
    that is the one area where he has been taking steps through the EPA without even having to go through congress first - and has really gotten the ball rolling.

    Parent
    hopeful news about the frozen methane (none / 0) (#90)
    by BobTinKY on Tue Apr 28, 2009 at 12:50:13 PM EST
    http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/04/090423142457.htm

    Parent
    very NOT bold (none / 0) (#97)
    by sj on Tue Apr 28, 2009 at 01:04:43 PM EST
    on health care.  

    Now health insurance:  different matter.  There he's gung-ho.  Still not bold though.  It seems to me like he's just along for the ride.

    Parent

    Was a deal made (none / 0) (#4)
    by Saul on Tue Apr 28, 2009 at 11:45:03 AM EST
    before the switch.  A meeting was held before the switch.  News are reporting that he wanted certain things before the switch. Not sure how accurate the news on tv is right now.

    It's worth it (5.00 / 1) (#8)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Apr 28, 2009 at 11:48:54 AM EST
    Specter is not a craxy Repbulican, he had to play one on TV.

    This is all good for Dems.

    and it is good for Specter too.

    Parent

    very good (none / 0) (#16)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue Apr 28, 2009 at 11:52:42 AM EST
    point

    Parent
    to quote a former GOP Senator from PA (none / 0) (#21)
    by BobTinKY on Tue Apr 28, 2009 at 11:54:01 AM EST
    "not proven!"

    Parent
    Watch (none / 0) (#26)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Apr 28, 2009 at 11:55:53 AM EST


    Parent
    I watched him already, (5.00 / 5) (#96)
    by scribe on Tue Apr 28, 2009 at 12:59:24 PM EST
    during the Bork hearings and, moreso, during his brutalizing Anita Hill.

    Parent
    Thank you for remembering that (5.00 / 4) (#143)
    by Cream City on Tue Apr 28, 2009 at 01:55:34 PM EST
    spectacle of the trashing of Dr. Hill.

    If Specter is now a Dem, along with so many other a**holes who can only trash women, then and now, I'm even happier that I beat him to the switch and became an Independent.

    Parent

    Joe Biden trashed Anita Hill too... (5.00 / 4) (#170)
    by sallywally on Tue Apr 28, 2009 at 02:36:32 PM EST
    I just hated him then. He did his sarcasm on her.

    Parent
    Yep. (none / 0) (#175)
    by Cream City on Tue Apr 28, 2009 at 02:45:21 PM EST
    I remember them all, and I still haven't voted for any of them.  Including one of the Senators from my state.  (But he's the wealthiest man in Congress, so he buys enough votes, anyway.)

    Parent
    Let's see how FOX deals with this (none / 0) (#77)
    by MKS on Tue Apr 28, 2009 at 12:40:51 PM EST
    That will be amusing....

    My guess:  Many Republicans will say that it is a good thing that Specter is out of the party. It makes the rest of the Republicans more pure and it was RINOs like Specter that made the Republicans lose in the first place.  

    Parent

    Fleischer is using some pretty bad words in (none / 0) (#163)
    by of1000Kings on Tue Apr 28, 2009 at 02:15:02 PM EST
    regards to Specter...

    making himself sound like a huge arse, but he is a republican, so that's nothing new...

    Parent

    Why do you feel (none / 0) (#48)
    by NYShooter on Tue Apr 28, 2009 at 12:16:51 PM EST
    he may switch back? Ideologically, he's no flame-thrower plus, the Repubs have never exactly showered him with love- balls either. (Being Jewish probably didn't help)

    And, as far as the "sleaze ball" factor goes; anyone check out the Dem roster lately?

    I think it's a great move for all (Dems) involved....and may be more permanent than you think.

    I mean, c'mon, the guy does have a brain, which automatically made him suspect, and isolated him like an amoeba in a jar of penicillin within the "R" party


    Parent

    Because (5.00 / 3) (#65)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Apr 28, 2009 at 12:30:52 PM EST
    he is a weasel. he does not want the labor unions financing a primary challenger against him in a DEMOCRATIC primary.

    Give it a month or so, a fig leaf change in the legisaltion and voila!, Specter will vote for EFCA.

    Parent

    Gotcha, (5.00 / 1) (#107)
    by NYShooter on Tue Apr 28, 2009 at 01:16:18 PM EST
    but, as for me, being an older, pragmatic, scarred-up warrior, my first instinct is to look at the end game, the bottom line. And that flashes like neon on Broadway, "welcome aboard, Arlin; here, like the Marines say, you can be all you can be. Show us what you're made of."

    People do change, not often, but some do. He must have had many private, soul searching moments within himself over the years. He couldn't have felt fulfilled. He must have had many, many mind-numbing frustrating, dilemmas he had to compromise himself over. Now, at least, he can come out of the closet, and make his Momma proud, before.......

    Having a mortal, life taking illness can do strange things to people.

    None of knows what he'll do in his new home. I'll be the wild-eyed optimist, and root for the Jewish, fish-out-of-water, (I loved "the princess bride" movie) unless, or until he proves me wrong.

    Parent

    Many Dems of today (4.00 / 2) (#190)
    by sj on Tue Apr 28, 2009 at 03:41:58 PM EST
    -- almost certainly the entire Blue Dog caucus -- would have, in my youth, been Republicans.  That was before Nixon's and Reagan's minions got hold of their party.  Back when my Party and their Party largely agreed on the problems, if not the solutions.

    Specter didn't change.  His Party did.  So did mine.  As all traces of Populism continue to be wiped out Specter should feel more and more at home.  

    I'm not being snarky.  I'm not sneering.  I'm just really sad.  And more than a little envious that he had somewhere to go.  

    Parent

    Good point, and (none / 0) (#198)
    by NYShooter on Tue Apr 28, 2009 at 04:02:18 PM EST
    i agree.

    Parent
    Or, let him be his weasely self (none / 0) (#68)
    by MKS on Tue Apr 28, 2009 at 12:34:33 PM EST
    by voting for cloture and against EFCA....He can have it both ways.

    Parent
    that's ok (none / 0) (#81)
    by BobTinKY on Tue Apr 28, 2009 at 12:43:02 PM EST
    EFCA passes that way

    Parent
    Zactly (none / 0) (#86)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Apr 28, 2009 at 12:46:12 PM EST


    Parent
    MSNBC (none / 0) (#13)
    by standingup on Tue Apr 28, 2009 at 11:51:31 AM EST
    reporting the only deal so far is the DSCC full support in the 2010 election. Nothing on committee assignments for this Congress but possibly something to come in the future.

    Parent
    they will do what the have to do (none / 0) (#30)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue Apr 28, 2009 at 11:58:03 AM EST
    to bring him along I expect.

    Parent
    They won't have to do much (5.00 / 1) (#32)
    by andgarden on Tue Apr 28, 2009 at 11:59:19 AM EST


    Parent
    Or (none / 0) (#52)
    by standingup on Tue Apr 28, 2009 at 12:19:15 PM EST
    what important votes can they get from Specter with a committee position hanging in the balance? Let's face it, the Republicans have decided their only strategy is to block everything that Democrats put forward. This at least gives us an opportunity to get a few pieces of legislation passed and some nominees confirmed.

    Parent
    Will be intteresting (none / 0) (#66)
    by jbindc on Tue Apr 28, 2009 at 12:31:28 PM EST
    In the next Congress because chairmanships are usually based on seniority, and he's been in the Senate for 29 years.

    Parent
    Give him (5.00 / 1) (#111)
    by MO Blue on Tue Apr 28, 2009 at 01:21:55 PM EST
    Lierberman's committees.

    Parent
    Republicans Played With Fire... (none / 0) (#12)
    by santarita on Tue Apr 28, 2009 at 11:50:58 AM EST
    and got burnt, again.  How soon they forgot Jeffords.  Thank God they are such slow learners.  

    Jeffords was not switching due to re-election (5.00 / 2) (#18)
    by BobTinKY on Tue Apr 28, 2009 at 11:53:08 AM EST
    a much more principled switch for what it is worth.

    Parent
    No difference (5.00 / 4) (#20)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Apr 28, 2009 at 11:53:35 AM EST
    for what we care about.

    Parent
    Big difference (5.00 / 2) (#145)
    by Cream City on Tue Apr 28, 2009 at 01:57:38 PM EST
    and thanks for saying so about Jeffords -- for those of us who also put issues before parties.

    Parent
    Next thing you know, Rick Santorum (none / 0) (#17)
    by scribe on Tue Apr 28, 2009 at 11:52:53 AM EST
    will announce he's divorcing so he can elope with and marry his beloved beagle.

    More seriously, this is a result of Specter reading the writing on the wall and determining that the only way he could stay in the Senate would be to "switch parties".  He has come out explicitly and said he neither supports EFCA nor will be an automatic vote for cloture.

    Will he be any less vigorous in ripping into Democratic nominees or any less obsequious in sucking up to Republican agenda items?  I kinda doubt it.

    This was the desperation move of a man desperate to maintain some semblence of a position of power in the face of realizing his split-the-baby middle-of-the-road-ness had been shown as an empty, bankrupt husk that he could no longer ride to power.

    So, what have the Democrats gained?

    About as much (5.00 / 1) (#119)
    by Makarov on Tue Apr 28, 2009 at 01:32:51 PM EST
    as we've gained electing Obama, to this point.

    The telling will be in Specter's votes - EFCA, health care, et al. If he doesn't vote for Democratic issues, he'll have a hell of a time in the primary, whether or not Ed Rendell and the state party is behind him.

    Parent

    MSNBC just read Steele's statement -- LOL (none / 0) (#34)
    by magster on Tue Apr 28, 2009 at 11:59:52 AM EST
    Paraphrasing -- As Specter is only concerned about his own self-interest, he now has a home for his "left-wing" voting record. We look forward to beating him in 2010 unless the Democrats do that first in the primary.

    While obviously a slap in the face (none / 0) (#39)
    by Slado on Tue Apr 28, 2009 at 12:03:09 PM EST
    Reality could be that conservative dems and Liberman will now hold all the power in Washington because Reid will have no excuses going forward once Franken is seated (99% probable).

    Healthcare reform and energy are the big issues that will be debated going into 2010.   Several dems oppose Obama's full plans on both these issues.  With 60votes after this summer it will be interesting if Obama gets all of what he wants or has to settle for what he can get as democrats plan their midterm strategy.

    Cloture is the issue (5.00 / 1) (#45)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Apr 28, 2009 at 12:08:21 PM EST
    Voting no not so big a deal.

    Parent
    Fair enough (5.00 / 1) (#53)
    by Slado on Tue Apr 28, 2009 at 12:19:56 PM EST
    Here's what Spector has to say...

    I will not be an automatic 60th vote for cloture


    Parent
    Of course he lied about (5.00 / 1) (#55)
    by Slado on Tue Apr 28, 2009 at 12:20:25 PM EST
    always wanting to be a republican as well.

    Parent
    Heh (none / 0) (#58)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Apr 28, 2009 at 12:24:26 PM EST
    Not an "automatic vote." Just a "reliable vote."

    Parent
    He just said (5.00 / 1) (#135)
    by gyrfalcon on Tue Apr 28, 2009 at 01:48:29 PM EST
    in his press conference firmly that he will not vote for cloture on card check.

    Parent
    one more item (none / 0) (#162)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue Apr 28, 2009 at 02:12:53 PM EST
    for "reconciliation"

    Parent
    He opposes reconciliation, too, (3.50 / 2) (#179)
    by Anne on Tue Apr 28, 2009 at 02:58:45 PM EST
    so the more I hear, the less I think there will be much to be gained, and I didn't see much there to begin with.

    Anyone wanna bet he and Lieberman had a conversation about the switch?

    I say, primary his a$$ anyway - and get a real Democrat to do it.

    Parent

    fortunately (none / 0) (#180)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue Apr 28, 2009 at 03:01:47 PM EST
    it is not his decision

    Parent
    According to KagroX .... (none / 0) (#63)
    by magster on Tue Apr 28, 2009 at 12:28:42 PM EST
    ...the Republicans lose a vote and Dems gain a vote on every committee that Specter sits on, without a new organizing resolution.  

    That may be the leverage to use to get Coleman to concede, although at this point, I say keep the lopsided ratios and wait a month and a half for Franken to win the appeal.

    Spelling Alert! (none / 0) (#69)
    by Anne on Tue Apr 28, 2009 at 12:36:03 PM EST
    "Swittches" in the post title should be "Switches."

    One too many "t's."

    Tks (none / 0) (#70)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Apr 28, 2009 at 12:36:38 PM EST


    Parent
    I just got home (none / 0) (#74)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Apr 28, 2009 at 12:37:40 PM EST
    What the double hockey sticks is going on?  Either Specter doesn't want to retire or he wants to actually be part of getting something done at this time when our country is deep in crisis.

    He wants to get re-elected (5.00 / 2) (#76)
    by jbindc on Tue Apr 28, 2009 at 12:39:48 PM EST


    Parent
    My second guess (none / 0) (#85)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Apr 28, 2009 at 12:45:49 PM EST
    would have just been too good to be true huh?  I wonder if he is going to break with the party of NO at key times when we could really really use his switch?

    Parent
    MT using a sports term??? Hmmm (5.00 / 1) (#79)
    by easilydistracted on Tue Apr 28, 2009 at 12:42:15 PM EST


    Parent
    One of the few I know :) (none / 0) (#82)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Apr 28, 2009 at 12:43:42 PM EST


    Parent
    lets be positive (5.00 / 1) (#112)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue Apr 28, 2009 at 01:21:58 PM EST
    and allow for the possibility that his recent brush with death has given him a new perspective on a variety of things.
    including healthcare and whatever "legacy" he may leave behind.

    well, its possible.


    Parent

    Hey! (none / 0) (#195)
    by NYShooter on Tue Apr 28, 2009 at 03:57:16 PM EST

    I said that...awaay back.(#107)....... lol

    What's amusing here today, however, is how many ideologically pure Democrats we've gathered for this Spector Spectacle; Taliban, Moral Majority, Democrats, circa 2009.

    Even under the worst case scenario, Arlen will vote more times with the "D's" than he would have as an "R." And no one knows what his new environment, perilous health, not too distant mano-a-mano with mortality, and for the first time in his political career, a vehicle which permits one's better angels to display themselves, can do.

    Obama said he has the unique ability to bring out the best in former opponents; "Show us your stuff Barack."


    Parent

    M.T.: Hurry and catch-up, (5.00 / 1) (#127)
    by KeysDan on Tue Apr 28, 2009 at 01:40:08 PM EST
    we are watching the new show "Survivor" starring Arlen S.

    Parent
    This IS reality tv (5.00 / 1) (#146)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Apr 28, 2009 at 01:58:33 PM EST
    All dramatic and full of it at the same time :)

    Parent
    Varying opinions (none / 0) (#87)
    by MaryGM on Tue Apr 28, 2009 at 12:46:48 PM EST
    I'm with BTD; this is huge.  I've been flipping through some of the cable news shows, and have heard a myriad of opinions on what this means and the extent of its significance.  Make no mistake:  This is huge.

    Specter is definitely to the right of many Democrats, and no, we won't be guaranteed his vote, AND yes, the 2010 election played a large role in this switch.  BUT:  A 30-year Republican senator who was ushered in by the Reagan Revolution leaving the party that he's called home for over FOUR decades on the wings of a statement condemning that party is HUGE.

    Don't thank Obama (none / 0) (#95)
    by KoolJeffrey on Tue Apr 28, 2009 at 12:59:16 PM EST
    This was a "gift" from George W Bush.

    Ed Rendell (none / 0) (#117)
    by Makarov on Tue Apr 28, 2009 at 01:29:43 PM EST
    and the PA Democratic Committee can likely claim more credit for flipping Specter than anyone else.

    If Specter doesn't get Rendell and party support, he could lose the primary and be out of the general. In Pennsylvania, you can't pull a Lieberman. You're ineligible to run as an independent in the general if you lose a party primary election.

    Without clear promises of support from Ed and state party, I doubt Specter would even consider switching.

    What remains to be seen is if Specter earns primary votes. Regardless Ed's support, he'll need to support EFCA or face a big backlash from the unions. I think Specter wanted to vote for EFCA anyhow, as he did for cloture in 2007.

    I think he'll be fine (5.00 / 1) (#120)
    by jbindc on Tue Apr 28, 2009 at 01:33:26 PM EST
    Pennsylvania is blue, but it isn't Massachusetts blue.  It's a conservative Dem state.  Rendell is not a flaming liberal and Casey is a conservative Dem.  A more liberal Dem won't win there.

    Parent
    unfortunately n/t (5.00 / 0) (#169)
    by CST on Tue Apr 28, 2009 at 02:35:52 PM EST


    Parent
    Specter just said (none / 0) (#121)
    by magster on Tue Apr 28, 2009 at 01:33:46 PM EST
    that he and Reid agreed that his committee assignments should be based as if he had been elected as a Democrat back when he was first elected in 1980.  

    So, what would that mean? Is he more senior than the Dem chairman on any committee he now sits?

    He just said he's opposed to Dawn Johnsen (none / 0) (#122)
    by magster on Tue Apr 28, 2009 at 01:35:14 PM EST


    Parent
    Just heard that (none / 0) (#124)
    by andgarden on Tue Apr 28, 2009 at 01:35:42 PM EST
    Doesn't mean he'll vote against cloture, though.

    Parent
    Or, against (none / 0) (#133)
    by KeysDan on Tue Apr 28, 2009 at 01:43:15 PM EST
    Dawn.

    Parent
    What is going on with Dawn, for Pete's sake? (none / 0) (#138)
    by MKS on Tue Apr 28, 2009 at 01:49:26 PM EST
    She is pro choice and that is a problem?

    I thought maybe it was little paybeck by Ben Nelson because Obama is going to scuttle one of Nebraska's subsidies....Now, Arlen is against Dawn?

    Parent

    Doesn't give him Judiciary (none / 0) (#123)
    by andgarden on Tue Apr 28, 2009 at 01:35:22 PM EST


    Parent
    Well (none / 0) (#164)
    by jbindc on Tue Apr 28, 2009 at 02:17:58 PM EST
    he could take over Banking when Dodd loses his seat

    Parent
    Cite Wayne Gilchrist and Joe Schwartz (none / 0) (#126)
    by andgarden on Tue Apr 28, 2009 at 01:39:52 PM EST
    "Remember Linc Chaffee? They made him spend all of his money in the primary."

    He sure sounds like a Republican (5.00 / 1) (#132)
    by magster on Tue Apr 28, 2009 at 01:43:09 PM EST
    against reconciliation for health care, Linc Chafee better than Whitehouse, Bush judicial nominees left on the table.

    Maybe we should temper our glee.

    Parent

    Specter has a reputation for saying stuff (none / 0) (#134)
    by andgarden on Tue Apr 28, 2009 at 01:46:06 PM EST
    and then backing the party line at the end of the day. Let's hope that translates here.

    Parent
    Pressure from the left in a primary (5.00 / 1) (#136)
    by magster on Tue Apr 28, 2009 at 01:48:49 PM EST
    is essential.

    Parent
    Anyone actually surprised? This was expected (none / 0) (#131)
    by aeguy on Tue Apr 28, 2009 at 01:41:57 PM EST
    Specter has a crush on Obama. It was going to happen sooner or later.

    IMO, the Specter press conf was a total buzzkill (none / 0) (#142)
    by magster on Tue Apr 28, 2009 at 01:52:48 PM EST
    If Specter doesn't vote the Dem. party line more often than he already did, we'd have been better off running a new Dem against Toomey in 2010.

    More money available to spend in Missouri (5.00 / 1) (#144)
    by andgarden on Tue Apr 28, 2009 at 01:57:00 PM EST
    on Robin Carnahan.

    Parent
    Hopefully, if elected, (5.00 / 2) (#159)
    by MO Blue on Tue Apr 28, 2009 at 02:11:30 PM EST
    Robin will vote Democratic more often than McCaskill.

    McCaskill's votes in Iraq, FISA etc. were proudly casted to support Bush and the Republican positions.

    Parent

    We can only hope (none / 0) (#161)
    by andgarden on Tue Apr 28, 2009 at 02:12:53 PM EST


    Parent
    Before you start another repub bashing (none / 0) (#147)
    by Iamme on Tue Apr 28, 2009 at 01:59:18 PM EST
    Consider the fact this happens all the time.

    [edit] 2000s
    2000 - Robert J. Barham, while serving in the Louisiana State Senate
    2000 - Matthew G. Martinez, while U.S. Representative from California
    2001 - Clinton LeSueur, before running for U.S. Representative from Mississippi
    2001 - Michael Bloomberg, before running for mayor of New York City, but later became an independent
    2001 - Hunt Downer, before running for Governor of Louisiana
    2002 - Amy Tuck, while Lieutenant Governor of Mississippi
    2002 - Olga A. Méndez, while State Senator in New York
    2002 - Don Cheeks, while a Georgia State Senator
    2002 - Dan Lee, while a Georgia State Senator
    2002 - Rooney Bowen, while a Georgia State Senator
    2002 - Jack Hill, while a Georgia State Senator
    2002 - Virgil Goode, congressman from Virginia, first became an Independent in 2000, then joined the Republican Party in 2002.
    2003 - James David Cain, prior to his final election to the Louisiana Senate
    2003 - Melinda Schwegmann, while State House member in Louisiana
    2003 - Rick Sheehy, while mayor of Hastings, Nebraska
    2003 - Gabriel Vasquez, Houston City Councilmember (council seat is nonpartisan)
    2003 - Johnny Ford, Alabama Democratic state Rep., became first black Republican in the state legislature in over 100 years [9]
    2004 - Ralph Hall, while U.S. Representative from Texas [10][11]
    2004 - Rodney Alexander, while U.S. Representative from Louisiana (his switch just before the filing deadline prevented the Democrats from fielding a viable replacement candidate) [12]
    2004 - Steve Beren, before running for U.S. Representative from Washington
    2005 - Michael Diven, while in Pennsylvania state House, defeated in 2006 elections
    2006 - Sheri McInvale, Florida State Representative, defeated in 2006 elections
    2006 - Don McLeary, Tennessee state senator, defeated in 2006
    2006 - John Giannetti, Maryland State Senator, defeated in 2006
    2006 - Mickey Channell, while a Georgia State Representative
    2006 - Will Kendrick, Florida State Representative, after being reelected as a Democrat [13]
    2006 - Billy Montgomery, while serving in the Louisiana House
    2006 - Henry Burns, while serving on the Bossier Parish School Board; to run for the state legislature as a Republican
    2007 - James Walley, Mississippi State Senator. Walley was originally elected as a Democrat after defeating Tommy Dickerson, who had switched from the Democratic Party to the Republican Party. However, Walley was then defeated in the 2007 legislative elections by Tommy Dickerson, now running as a Democrat once more.
    2007 - Tommy Gollott, current Mississippi State Senator from Biloxi
    2007 - Dawn Pettengill, member of the Iowa House of Representatives
    2007 - Mike Jacobs, while a Georgia State Representative
    2007 - John N. Kennedy, while State Treasurer of Louisiana, to run in 2008 as the Republican choice for U.S. Senate against Mary Landrieu
    2007 - Robert Adley, while a member of the Louisiana State Senate (re-elected for his current term as a Democrat)
    2008 - Nolan Mettetal, member of the Mississippi State Senate [14]
    Though he never formally changed his affiliation, former U.S. Senator Zell B. Miller (D-Georgia), endorsed George W. Bush and spoke at the 2004 Republican National Convention. He also endorsed John McCain for President in 2008.
    2008 - Gil Pinac, former member of both houses of the Louisiana legislature from Crowley, a week before his announcement that he will run as a Republican in a special election for the Louisiana Public Service Commission
    2008 - Billy Nicholson, Mississippi state Rep. switched parties in February, becoming a Republican [15]
    2009 - Paul Vallas, school superintendent of the Recovery School District of New Orleans, Louisiana

    These were just the party switches from Dems to Republican in teh 2000's.  There are many more from both side.

    Lots of southern "Democrats" switching (5.00 / 1) (#149)
    by andgarden on Tue Apr 28, 2009 at 02:01:13 PM EST
    QED

    Parent
    Indeed (5.00 / 6) (#151)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Apr 28, 2009 at 02:02:36 PM EST
    The GOP is a Southern White extremist party now.

    thanks for proving that.

    Parent

    I think it is worth asking (5.00 / 2) (#155)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue Apr 28, 2009 at 02:07:46 PM EST
    if we even have a two party system anymore.

    Parent
    Interesting comment (none / 0) (#188)
    by Iamme on Tue Apr 28, 2009 at 03:31:30 PM EST
    so I looked at the reverse.  Republicans to Democrat.  A.) The states in play were roughly the same so I dont get the racist comment.  B.) The ratio of dem/repub switching was an astonishing 4 or 5 to 1 with more dems switching to the repub party than the other way around.

    The racist comment is typical of the democrats I know.  Thanks for helping ingrain the stereo type.  You cant deny the facts so you have to twist it to "racist" "bush's fault" " 8 years of bush". Thanks for proving that to me.

    Since I am new here and you dont know me.  I have democratic friends as well as republican friends.  I keep an open mind for all except when people start calling me racist because they cant come up with anything intelligent to say.  I will never call names or attack personally.  This is a free country it does not mean you can result to personal attacks.

    Parent

    are you familiar (5.00 / 2) (#189)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue Apr 28, 2009 at 03:35:40 PM EST
    with the term The Southern Strategy?

    In American politics, the Southern strategy refers to a Republican method of winning Southern states in the latter decades of the 20th century and first decade of the 21st century by exploiting racism among white voters.

    Parent

    Are you familiar with this? (none / 0) (#193)
    by Iamme on Tue Apr 28, 2009 at 03:51:58 PM EST
    The Democratic dominance originated in many white Southerners' animosity towards the Republican Party's stance in favor of political rights for Blacks during Reconstruction and Republican economic policies such as the high tariff and the support for continuing the gold standard, both of which were seen as benefiting Northern industrial interests at the expense of the agrarian South in the 19th century. It was maintained by the Democratic Party's willingness to back Jim Crow laws and racial segregation.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solid_Democratic_South

    Cant have it both ways can you?

    Parent

    I dont want it either way (5.00 / 1) (#196)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue Apr 28, 2009 at 03:59:22 PM EST
    I know enough history to know this.
    I also know the modern republican party was formed exactly the same way and for mostly the same reasons.  
    if I had to choose between them I would prefer to be associated with the party that was racist in the reconstruction era rather than the party which has used the same tactics in the modern era.
    a fact you seem to dismiss.


    Parent
    It is good to know history (none / 0) (#200)
    by Iamme on Tue Apr 28, 2009 at 04:11:09 PM EST
    However, please dont classify my generation with racist tactics.  I have never owned slaves nor been racist in any facet of my life.  Throwing around generalizations about parties is what causes the divide.  Some democrats did this some republicans did that.  As far as today goes I dont feel those ancient strategies reflect me or my generation.  I have only commented on my beliefs here.  

    I have been called racist and extremist.  Seems as if the pot is calling kettle black.  Again that is the democratic strategy.  I can only get attention by screaming racism or extremism.  Thanks for continuing the strategy.  4 yeasrs from now we will see how well that works.

    Parent

    You could have (5.00 / 2) (#153)
    by eric on Tue Apr 28, 2009 at 02:05:47 PM EST
    just linked to the Wikipedia article instead and cutting and pasting all of this.

    Parent
    Nobody's baggin on anybody (none / 0) (#150)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Apr 28, 2009 at 02:02:14 PM EST
    Got Cloture?  Na na na na na naaaa

    Parent
    from MSNBC (none / 0) (#154)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue Apr 28, 2009 at 02:06:47 PM EST
    Specter raises stakes for Franken-Coleman
    Pressure increases to carry Minnesota Senate battle into federal court

    ST. PAUL, Minn. - Pennsylvania Sen. Arlen Specter's party switch has turned up the heat on Minnesota's long-simmering U.S. Senate race, which suddenly carries the possibility of giving Democrats a filibuster-resistant majority in that chamber.

    Specter's switch from Republican to Democrat means that if Al Franken wins in Minnesota, Democrats would have 60 votes in the Senate, raising pressure on whoever loses a grueling court battle over the seat to extend the fight even longer.

    Ah, yes. "Filibuster-resistant" (5.00 / 2) (#165)
    by Cream City on Tue Apr 28, 2009 at 02:17:58 PM EST
    and not filibuster-proof.  Not with Dems such as this one now.

    Parent
    Ah (5.00 / 1) (#167)
    by jbindc on Tue Apr 28, 2009 at 02:19:44 PM EST
    Then they'd actually really be responsible for getting things done - won't have the whiny excuse built in, will they?

    Parent
    heh, yeah (none / 0) (#166)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue Apr 28, 2009 at 02:19:16 PM EST
    my point there was that the Franken/Coleman thing will probably now go federal.  if it was not likely in the first place.


    Parent
    it continues (none / 0) (#191)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue Apr 28, 2009 at 03:44:38 PM EST
    Limbaugh to Specter: Take McCain, PLEASE

    Why (none / 0) (#194)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Apr 28, 2009 at 03:55:44 PM EST
    don't they just shut the party down at this point? It seems they can't run off elected members fast enough. Keep it up and they'll only have fundamentalist clones like Dimwit Demint.

    Parent
    Hmmmm (none / 0) (#201)
    by DancingOpossum on Wed Apr 29, 2009 at 09:11:08 AM EST
    their party 1) Pushes endless wars, 2) Stands for free market, not individual freedoms, 3) Supports the military, veterans and the middle class in words only, not in policies.  

    Uh...here's what bothers me. The Democratic Party does all those things, too.

    And no, I am NOT saying that "there's no difference between them," I recognize that there are differences and even when they are minor they are enough to make me vote for/side with Democrats roughly 99% of the time. This is especially true of environmental policy; the Dems may not be all we desire but they're a HELLA lot better than the Republicans on this, and it's my pet issue, so great, good, terrific.

    But let's face it, the Democratic Party has been moving rightward, too, and become just as entrenched in endless war (Iraq, Afghanistan, bombing civilians in Pakistan); in craven obeisance to the free market (Geithner Plan anyone?); and wholesale abandonment of the middle and working classes (entitlement "reform," health care "reform" as approved by insurance companies).

    I could go on...but the point is that I think even the Democratic Party is to the right of most Americans. Most Americans would like national  health care, an end to the wars, a stronger social safety net, protectionist trade policies, abortion rights, separation of powers -- and the Democrats under Obama have not been entirely dependable on these issues and have revealed a disturbing tendency to waffle on them.

    BTD (none / 0) (#202)
    by jbindc on Wed Apr 29, 2009 at 10:23:20 AM EST
    Nice to see you quoted

    Specter Switches To Dems, Obama Welcomes Him With Open Arms | 201 comments (201 topical)