Senator Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania said on Tuesday he would switch to the Democratic party, presenting Democrats with a possible 60th vote and the power to break Senate filibusters as they try to advance the Obama administration's new agenda.In a statement issued about noon as the Capitol was digesting the stunning turn of events, Mr. Specter said he had concluded that his party had moved too far to the right, a fact demonstrated by the migration of 200,000 Pennsylvania Republicans to the Democratic Party.
"I now find my political philosophy more in line with Democrats than Republicans," Mr. Specter said, acknowledging that his decision was certain to disappoint colleagues and supporters.
If Al Franken prevails in his ongoing court case in Minnesota and Mr. Specter begins caucusing with Democrats, Democrats would have 60 votes and the ability to deny Republicans the chance to stall legislation. Mr. Specter was one of only three Republicans to support President Obama's economic recovery legislation.
I don't blame Specter for doing this, as he may well have lost the GOP primary to Pat Toomey. Besides, he's not popular among Republicans in general. But if he weren't facing a Toomey challenge, I doubt that changing parties would have crossed Specter's mind. Still: boy, are the Republicans screwed.
Add to Del.icio.us
Add to Technorati
Add to Digg
Add to Newsvine
Add to Facebook
Add to StumbleUpon
Subscribe
I had to stop the last post before finishing (family first!).
Basically, parties should purge the morally or fiscally corrupt (David Duke, Ted Stevens). But parties should keep those who vote with them most of the time, but not as much as they would like (Joe Lieberman) and those who are personally annoying (again Joe Lieberman).
Arlen Specter was the Republican version of Joe Lieberman. Lieberman is venal, self-serving, and annoying. But he votes with the D's more than he votes against the D's. We'd be insane to kick him out and make him vote more against us than for us. Fortunately, the Democrats have adult (albeit imperfect) leadership. That's something the Republicans lack right now.
Thomas R
I was counting after Bush Pere's win. Obama's majority was the highest for a non-incumbent President or VP election since Ike's in 1952 - and the 4th highest in the past century (after FDR in '32 and Harding in '20). The majorities (as opposed to margins) for people who are running without already being president or VP is usually razor thin - Obama bested Reagan in '80, for example.
Liam, great posts. I am a nearly lifelong Democrat who recently changed my party to Republican (because there's no 3rd Party). However, I find myself still voting for Democrats, at least in the general elections. Fed up as I am with the Democratic Party, it seems to me that the Republican Party is worse.
I was happy the Democrats didn't have a filibuster-proof Senate (because I thought it would encourage more bi-partisan action) until I witnessed the past 100 days. The Republicans in Congress haven't been opposing Obama for any rational reasons that I can see. The idea that the Party that presided over 6 of the past 8 years has suddenly "returned to its roots" is laughable.
I think some of those roots may be rotten. Gingrich on the Today Show this morning saying that people don't want big government to stay big permanently. What a joke. Other than ideologues, ordinary people don't care whether government is big or small. They care whether it is effective. They care about good government. By those standards the Republicans in 6 of the past 8 years created one of the least competent governments that I can remember in my lifetime.
Does anyone else here find it very sad that a "statesman" would switch parties and allow a filibuster proof majority? I am not so irritated by the party switching as I am about the fact that with the party swtiching, the presumption is that his votes would also change. Why do we put up with so many politicians who seem to have no principles beyond party affiliation??
"Obama's majority was the highest for a non-incumbent President or VP election since Ike's in 1952"
In most such cases there was a strong or moderately strong third party vote, but this election there wasn't. Also this is kind of a specific subset.
Post a Comment
By submitting these comments, I agree to the beliefnet.com terms of service, rules of conduct and privacy policy (the "agreements"). I understand and agree that any content I post is licensed to beliefnet.com and may be used by beliefnet.com in accordance with the agreements.