Arlen Specter to switch parties

He's worthless. If he was not defined by party, he would have been independant. I've never been a fan of party switching while in office.

Huh.

I meant as a person.

As to the 60, unless they plan to keep trotting out Ted "Brain tumor" Kennedy every vote, it isn't 60... they'll still need to swoon one of the liberal "republican" senators, an easy task.

This means that the court battle over Franken is just going to get nastier. But I can't help but get a little excited over this.

Hopefully this will free up Specter to vote how he wants into instead of towing the GOP party line.

Spector's a fucking tool. He folded like a card table on habeas during the MCA debate.

Still, this should tweak the GOP. I'm always in favor of that.

So why is he worthless, because he refuses to vote against his own principles?

The Republican party is truly in shambles. This is yet another example of its lack of leadership, vision and organization. The timing is great for at least a 3rd party, although I still don't see that happening soon.

I'll say it--I generally agree with Snaieke. Not that this is in any way good news for the GOP, and an "ugly" 60 is still better than an easy 59, but Specter is no more "Democratic" than he was yesterday, and I wouldn't trust his vote with the caucus any further than I can throw him. The Dems now have two not-really-Dems (Lieberman and Specter), one unseated Senator, and one incapacitated Senator. They still can't push through whatever the fuck they want.

Coincidentally, he was on track to get completely steamrolled in the next primary against Toomey, and switching parties is actually his best/only shot at getting re-elected.

Although this could easily be seen as switching to the winning team, if it's what makes him happy then good for him.

I don't like the idea of any party having a filibuster proof majority, I'm sure this will no doubt serve as another kick in the pants to a party that so drastically needs to get it's head out of it's ass.

It's good to know the term "compassionate conservative" is dead and gone.

The idea that Lieberman is a not-really-Dem is kinda funny. The only thing he disagreed with the Dems on was Iraq and national security issues. He's lockstep with them on everything else.


As for Specter... this is what the Republicans get for fucking around with their moderate pols.

Iraq and national security issues are kind of big things to disagree with. But yes, presumably they'd have his vote on health care and whatnot. But then he's also well aware of how precious and valuable and important his vote just became.

Yep. And instead of wising up and becoming centrist they're becoming even more batshit crazy.

Anything that may possibly speed up health care reform is fine in my book. I'm graduating in a year and won't be able to mooch off my parents' plan anymore.

Why any party? Do you have any examples of abuses of the public trust with a Dem 60-seat majority? There's no shortage of Repub examples, I'm just curious if you're saying this with any kind of reason on the Dem side.

ps. I just heard that Specter is still going to vote against the Employee Free Choice Act.

Believe it or not, it's possible for this to not be a partisan thing for me. I just don't like the idea. If the situation was reversed I would be saying the same thing).

I just wonder why that is. I've seen abuses and corruption ensue from the Gingrich "Revolution" era. I'm just wondering if Dems have given you any examples of this. Otherwise, what would you base a statement like that on?

A healthy distrust of politicians and their political parties, specially when they gain too much control? Does this really have to be explained?

You kinda answered your own question there. I know that in your mind only a Republican majority would lead to abuses, but I disagree.

I feel this way for the same reason I always buckle up even though I've never been ejected from my car through the windshield during a crash. I'd rather try to prevent it from happening at all.

Did you read the story? He switched because he wants to be reelected* and his stance to welcome all on comers in the democratic primary is an empty bluff because the Democrats will stand behind him for this Senate vote.

This weekend the Dems said they would push Obama's budget through for his 100th day and they wouldn't need to sway any Republicans, this was why.

(edit to clarify) It had nothing to do with his principles.

* It looked like he was going to lose the Republican primary.

Is that really what I said?

And what you're saying is: you don't need examples of Dems abusing a majority power because since Repubs did it Dems would do it? Have Dems ever impeached a sitting President for lying about a sex act?

I'll bite. A filibuster proof majority basically ensures that the minority will never be heard. Regardless of who holds the majority, the minority should always be allowed a voice.

I used my jump to conclusions mat.


That is correct. Aside from a letter next to their name, I don't see a difference between a Republican and a Democrat. They're both self-serving politicians.

And to the best of my knowledge (I'll check wikipedia later to confirm) I don't think the Dems have had that opportunity you spoke of. But if a Republican president did commit perjury, I wouldn't object to an impeachment. Last I checked (wikipedia confirmation pending) it was against the law.

The idea that one party should have complete control over the other is anti-democratic and un-American. Regardless of which party you believe is right.

Man, that was great. Ted "Brain Tumor' Kennedy! "Get it??? I call him that becuase he has a Brain Tumor!!!"

Very Clever stuff Snaieke. It's not surprising that such a visionless and intellectually bankrupt party would attract a douche like yourself.

On the contrary, it's entirely democratic in some senses. The purpose of these representatives is to represent (obviously) the interests of the people. If the people of a particular district want their interests represented by a person who happens to be a member of a certain party, then so be it. People shouldn't have to accept someone from another party as a representative simply to achieve overall parity.

There are other ways to monitor abuses of power.

"The greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance; it is the illusion of knowledge." -- Stephen Hawking

The problem with wishing for a 2 party system is that we don't have 2 parties.

We have the Democrats, who are a big unwieldy political party. They're messy, and some are more corrupt than others, but because their constituency hits so many demographics, they generally have (or are forced to have) the public interest in mind, in their own annoying DC insider kinda way.

Then there is the modern Republican party who, minus a tiny and shrinking group of moderates, are like the Borg if they were corrupt and stupid. For the most part, they produce horrible legislation, actively seek to misinform the public so that they can use it to their own political advatange, and have so perverted the notions this country is founded on, that they are OK with torture and stampeding all of the Constitution.

We are approaching a filibuster-proof majority with Democrats in control of all branches of the federal government because the other party is so doctrinaire that if you disagree with them in the slightest, you are branded as a traitor and unAmerican. While that might just seem like coincidental irony, something tells me they are somewhat related.

"Ive been watching The Wire on DVD. I don't understand a word of it."

- Michael Scott

That's too bad. I enjoyed the way Republicans felt the need to imply that as a rule, they have no compassion.

They need our computer-things.

Sorry Dave, but we've gotta pick ten Senatorial elections to nullify.

Since we're doing quotes here.....

"Unlimited power is apt to corrupt the minds of those who possess it; and this I know, my lords, that where laws end, tyranny begins."

William Pitt the Elder, in a House of Lords speech in 1770

or the more well-known version:

"Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Great men are almost always bad men."

Lord Acton, in a letter to Bishop Mandell Creighton, 1887

The thing is that the power in question is far from unlimited or absolute. It's subject to public approval in the form of regular elections, not to mention any number of other checks and balances in place.

Plus, the division of the government into three branches is the means by which we've decided to introduce checks and balances into the system. We are not obligated as citizens to make sure that these branches don't achieve consensus internally or with each other.

Believe me- I know power corrupts. I know that in the current congress with Dems in majority they will be the ones the mega-corporations will be throwing money at and getting influence and pushing anti-consumer legislation in return. That's not what I was questioning earlier. For me, unless proven in the past, it doesn't follow that the Democratic party is even capable of the level of egregious abuse and corruption that the GOP has displayed lo these past thirty years.

The Closer, to save you some insta-answer time at wiki, I believe FDR had a Dem majority for part of his presidency. If you have examples of congress using that majority to violate the public trust, have at.

Along the same lines as this conversation, I read a truly fascinating story on the internets today. Here's an excerpt, but the whole thing is pretty gripping and an amazing read:

Way more treacheryhere.

I wonder if Spectre will try to get his Chairmanship of the Judicial Committee back in return for providing the 60th vote.

yt, again I think you're missing or ignoring my reasoning.

This isn't a democrat vs republican thing for me. I don't look at things in such a simplistic way. I don't automatically trust democrats because of what some of them have done in the past, and I don't distrust republicans because of what some of them have done in the past. There are very, very few politicians I trust at all, and although I could easily count them all on one hand, they sit on both sides of the aisle.

No offense intended but I don't see why that's difficult to grasp.

Specter noted that 200,000 of his constituents left the Republican party in 2008. Also his comments that he joined the Senate as a Republican in 1980 under "Reagan's Big Tent" : meaning the party included moderates. Now they exclude and marginalize moderates.

So Specter did some simple electoral math: Party losing Voters + Party no longer responsive to non-Crazy positions + marginalizing of non-Crazies = Time to go

So yeah he's a self serving calculating politician, but if had no principles he's just start suggesting PA should secede from the US like they do down there in Texas

The FDR example is as relevant as saying "Lincon was a Republican".

And the quote you put is a bit insulting, if not unintentionally ironic.

No offense but your reasoning isn't difficult to grasp at all, and I'm not missing or ignoring it; I'm examining it and finding it to be both lazy and conveniently broad. Unless you have evidence that a Democratic party majority is even capable of the level of ignominy we've seen in a Republican majority in the very recent past.

Wow.

Maybe so. If you have a more recent example of a Dem-controlled congress that you see as more analogous, I'd love to hear it. And my Hawking quote is based on an observation of how arguments from the right have evolved in the age of richly funded think tanks, corporate owned media and right wing hacks on tv and the radio. I think it's the illusion of knowledge that these self-contained talking points give that makes the right-aligned arguments so hollow and impenetrable.

All right, if that was offensive, sorry. I've been reading about torture all morning and am bitter and angry as a result.

Why is everything a talking point for you? It gets to the point that sometimes you ask people "where did you hear about this first"? As if nobody here can come up with an original thought.

In principle I like more parties, I think the 2 party system is restrictive enough and doesn't offer more choice. Most of the world has more than 2 parties. You think there's a set of talking point memos that people follow to arrive at this conclusion? I'm lamenting the fact that we don't have enough competitiveness in the political system, and by that I'm not saying that we should artificially prop up the Rep. party as it stands ... but I'm not going to applaud the potential of a single party ignoring the "opposition".

As for illusion of knowledge, again, that's a pretty insulting and dismissive type of thing to say. Why don't you just give the benefit of the doubt to fellow posters and assume what they post is what they believe?

There is no lazier statement in politics than this. You get to dismiss everything with zero intellectual effort while simultaneously implying that you're smarter than everyone else for not falling for "it".

It's lazy, and it's simply not true.

It wasn't really offensive. Moreso confusing. By that I mean I didn't realize that degree of blind partisanship was actually possible.

I mean, I've had to defend my opinions against left-leaning folks on this forum and right-leaning folks on other forums, but I've never really been attacked (for the lack of a better word) for having a general distrust of both republicans and democrats as a whole.

If you are of the opinion that a republican majority has no business even having the opportunity to exist in this world due to the potential abuses of power that may or may not (that's right) occur yet believe that the opportunity of that does exist in a world with a democrat majority that's fine. You're entitled to that opinion and I respect that.

Just don't expect me to waste my iPhone battery trying to convince you otherwise. As awesome as I am I think I would have greater chance creating a cure for cancer using whatever expired condiments are sitting in my refrigerator.

We can keep talking economics, though.

Ok. I disagree.


And I don't claim to be smarter than everyone else when I bring that up. I mean that 95% of the politicians I know of have contributed little to nothing with regards to the degree of forward progress we as a country need (and expect them to provide) and would rather spend their time worrying about what other people in their party think about them. In short, it reminds me a lot of high school.

But you're right...maybe I should just pick one of the two parties to permanently stand behind. I'll pick Democrats for now and continue praising Spector.

Remind me to call Lieberman a coward and a turncoat down the road whn he decides to switch his party affiliation.

Bingo. It's the same thing as narcissism disguised as armchair misanthropy - "I just hate all people, so I'm not going to pretend to give a shit about anyone but myself."