Senator Arlen Specter (R-PA)

[DealMonkey]

:laugh: Bwwaaaahahahaha! Things couldn't possibly get any worse for the GOP.

 

[KK]

Originally posted by: miketheidiot

Originally posted by: Atreus21

Originally posted by: miketheidiot
he was pretty much the only democrat left in the republican party.

Fixed.

great, now republicans are saying even moderate conservatives are too liberal.

What did they say about Zell?

Anyways, good, now the stupid democrats will screw this country so bad, if the republicans stop their stupidity, they can easily gain some seats next election.

 

[Carmen813]

Specter has released a statement

Statement by Senator Arlen Specter

I have been a Republican since 1966. I have been working extremely hard for the Party, for its candidates and for the ideals of a Republican Party whose tent is big enough to welcome diverse points of view. While I have been comfortable being a Republican, my Party has not defined who I am. I have taken each issue one at a time and have exercised independent judgment to do what I thought was best for Pennsylvania and the nation.

Since my election in 1980, as part of the Reagan Big Tent, 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.

When I supported the stimulus package, I knew that it would not be popular with the Republican Party. But, I saw the stimulus as necessary to lessen the risk of a far more serious recession than we are now experiencing.

Since then, I have traveled the State, talked to Republican leaders and office-holders and my supporters and I have carefully examined public opinion. It has become clear to me that the stimulus vote caused a schism which makes our differences irreconcilable. On this state of the record, I am unwilling to have my twenty-nine year Senate record judged by the Pennsylvania Republican primary electorate. I have not represented the Republican Party. I have represented the people of Pennsylvania.

I have decided to run for re-election in 2010 in the Democratic primary.

I am ready, willing and anxious to take on all comers and have my candidacy for re-election determined in a general election.

I deeply regret that I will be disappointing many friends and supporters. I can understand their disappointment. I am also disappointed that so many in the Party I have worked for for more than four decades do not want me to be their candidate. It is very painful on both sides. I thank specially Senators McConnell and Cornyn for their forbearance.

I am not making this decision because there are no important and interesting opportunities outside the Senate. I take on this complicated run for re-election because I am deeply concerned about the future of our country and I believe I have a significant contribution to make on many of the key issues of the day, especially medical research. NIH funding has saved or lengthened thousands of lives, including mine, and much more needs to be done. And my seniority is very important to continue to bring important projects vital to Pennsylvania's economy.

I am taking this action now because there are fewer than thirteen months to the 2010 Pennsylvania Primary and there is much to be done in preparation for that election. Upon request, I will return campaign contributions contributed during this cycle.

While each member of the Senate caucuses with his Party, what each of us hopes to accomplish is distinct from his party affiliation. The American people do not care which Party solves the problems confronting our nation. And no Senator, no matter how loyal he is to his Party, should or would put party loyalty above his duty to the state and nation.

My change in party affiliation does not mean that I will be a party-line voter any more for the Democrats that I have been for the Republicans. Unlike Senator Jeffords' switch which changed party control, I will not be an automatic 60th vote for cloture. For example, my position on Employees Free Choice (Card Check) will not change.

Whatever my party affiliation, I will continue to be guided by President Kennedy's statement that sometimes Party asks too much. When it does, I will continue my independent voting and follow my conscience on what I think is best for Pennsylvania and America.

 

[nageov3t]

Originally posted by: KarlRove
democrats building a permanent minority party Great for America.

fixed because stupid people can't understand cyclical politics.

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: QuantumPion

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: RyanPaulShaffer
He was already a Democrat in every way, shape and form except for name. Now, he's just made it official.

Maybe he'll take his liberal "Republican" buddy McCain with him. We can only hope.

He was rated at 87% by the Chamber of Commerce, which means he is very pro business.
He's rated at 81% by the Christian Coalition.
He voted with Republicans about 70% of the time.

He's a moderate Republican, not some sort of 'Democrat in every way, shape, and form'.

Someone whom votes with republicans when republicans are doing liberal things that conservatives don't like, and with democrats the rest of the time, is a moderate republican?

Huh? The measure by the chamber of commerce tells you approximately how conservative someone's voting record is on economic issues. 87% is quite conservative. The Christian Coalition's rating tells you approximately how socially conservative someone is, and 81% is pretty conservative on that too.

 

[Lemon law]

Gotta love some of the GOP sour grapes arguments, but my guess is that Specter got tired of being told to toe the GOP line like some errant school boy.

Of course its HUGE, now unless the GOP can seat Coleman, they can only sustain a filibuster by peeling away democrats. Look for that Minnesota dispute to really heat up.

At 79, I have to wonder if Specter wants another term. But he can probably easily win by running as a democrat. And short term he may get some plum positions and have a better say in getting what he wants done accomplished while securing a key place in history.

And hopefully get the GOP to rethink its we must be an exclusive party of only like minded individuals who lock step think alike and shun any alternative ideas. If nothing else, its back to the drawing board for Mitch McConnell.

But its alos my understanding the decision is not final, but it well may be later today or tomorrow.

 

[jpeyton]

Awesome news. Anything that pushes the GOP closer to permanent minority status.

 

[racolvin]

pfft . .. Specter is the one that concocted the single-bullet theory of the JFK assassination for the Warren Report IIRC, so him doing what is politically expedient is no surprise

 

[ProfJohn]

This might help the Republicans because Specter sits on the judicial committee I believe and now we can replace him with a 'real' Republican.

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
This might help the Republicans because Specter sits on the judicial committee I believe and now we can replace him with a 'real' Republican.

This will not help Republicans.

 

[QuantumPion]

Originally posted by: Carmen813

Originally posted by: QuantumPion

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: RyanPaulShaffer
He was already a Democrat in every way, shape and form except for name. Now, he's just made it official.

Maybe he'll take his liberal "Republican" buddy McCain with him. We can only hope.

He was rated at 87% by the Chamber of Commerce, which means he is very pro business.
He's rated at 81% by the Christian Coalition.
He voted with Republicans about 70% of the time.

He's a moderate Republican, not some sort of 'Democrat in every way, shape, and form'.

Someone whom votes with republicans when republicans are doing liberal things that conservatives don't like, and with democrats the rest of the time, is a moderate republican?

So anyone who doesn't agree 100% with the Conservative agenda is a liberal? Sounds like a plan for great success.

Isn't that precisely the opposite of what I said?

 

[QuantumPion]

Originally posted by: Lemon law
Gotta love some of the GOP sour grapes arguments, but my guess is that Specter got tired of being told to toe the GOP line like some errant school boy.

Of course its HUGE, now unless the GOP can seat Coleman, they can only sustain a filibuster by peeling away democrats. Look for that Minnesota dispute to really heat up.

At 79, I have to wonder if Specter wants another term. But he can probably easily win by running as a democrat. And short term he may get some plum positions and have a better say in getting what he wants done accomplished while securing a key place in history.

And hopefully get the GOP to rethink its we must be an exclusive party of only like minded individuals who lock step think alike and shun any alternative ideas. If nothing else, its back to the drawing board for Mitch McConnell.

But its alos my understanding the decision is not final, but it well may be later today or tomorrow.

What sour grapes arguments? We never liked Specter and have been daring him to do this for years.

We are in the minority regardless. The least we can do is actually be a party that supports its stated values, rather then "democrats lite".

 

[jonks]

He's going to vote the same way he would have if he stayed R. Seems like this is just the way to keep his seniority and avoid the gop primary.

 

[Atreus21]

Originally posted by: loki8481

Originally posted by: KarlRove
democrats building a permanent minority party Great for America.

fixed because stupid people can't understand cyclical politics.

Here is a man with a clue.

 

[ProfJohn]

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
This might help the Republicans because Specter sits on the judicial committee I believe and now we can replace him with a 'real' Republican.

This will not help Republicans.

I don't see how it hurts.

How many party line votes do we have in the Senate?

It sounds like Specter is only doing this to keep his seat in 2010. If he keeps voting the way has does now then not much will change. Except party line votes where 60 votes are needed and there aren't a whole lot of those that actually count.

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: loki8481
this means the D's have a filibuster proof majority.

They will in 2011 when Coleman loses.

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: Atreus21

Originally posted by: loki8481
this means the D's have a filibuster proof majority.

Eh, they already had it with Arlen.

This doesn't change much.

BS. He voted plenty with the right - including for the terrible Supreme Court appointees Alito and Roberts.

 

[OCGuy]

Originally posted by: Craig234

Originally posted by: Atreus21

Originally posted by: loki8481
this means the D's have a filibuster proof majority.

Eh, they already had it with Arlen.

This doesn't change much.

BS. He voted plenty with the right - including for the terrible Supreme Court appointees Alito and Roberts.

So changing the letter by his name to avoid a re-election battle changes how he is going to vote how?

 

[Pens1566]

Pretty bold statement ... lays out whats wrong with the republican party today.

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
I don't see how it hurts.

How many party line votes do we have in the Senate?

It sounds like Specter is only doing this to keep his seat in 2010. If he keeps voting the way has does now then not much will change. Except party line votes where 60 votes are needed and there aren't a whole lot of those that actually count.

Because now the Republican leadership has no control over Specter, but the Democratic leadership does. The only way this doesn't hurt Republicans is if you think being a member of a caucus doesn't do anything.

This isn't some sort of sea change, but it makes everything the Democrats are trying to do just a bit easier, it further cements the image of the GOP as a dying party with people jumping ship, it means that Toomey is pretty much certain to go down to defeat in PA in an election that was otherwise in doubt, etc.. etc.

 

[Carmen813]

Originally posted by: QuantumPion

Originally posted by: Carmen813

Originally posted by: QuantumPion

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: RyanPaulShaffer
He was already a Democrat in every way, shape and form except for name. Now, he's just made it official.

Maybe he'll take his liberal "Republican" buddy McCain with him. We can only hope.

He was rated at 87% by the Chamber of Commerce, which means he is very pro business.
He's rated at 81% by the Christian Coalition.
He voted with Republicans about 70% of the time.

He's a moderate Republican, not some sort of 'Democrat in every way, shape, and form'.

Someone whom votes with republicans when republicans are doing liberal things that conservatives don't like, and with democrats the rest of the time, is a moderate republican?

So anyone who doesn't agree 100% with the Conservative agenda is a liberal? Sounds like a plan for great success.

Isn't that precisely the opposite of what I said?

Your entire supposition is wrong, as the person who posted before you demonstrated. Over his career he has voted fairly strongly pro-business and he has a high rating by the Christian Coalition. A single vote does not a Liberal make. You sound like sour grapes rather than reality.

I for one am interested in how this will impact Obama's healthcare reform plan.

 

[Lemon law]

Originally posted by: jpeyton
Awesome news. Anything that pushes the GOP closer to permanent minority status.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Even as a partisan democrat, I can't think of the GOP or their ideas as simply the enemy.
But if the Specter defection hastens the day that the GOP leadership returns to reality after GWB&co hijacked the GOP, it will have a big plus side.

Before the GOP though they could fence out reality with party discipline and the filibuster, now the GOP is going to have to compete in the arena of ideas.

In a two party system of government, a too strong single party dominance can be very bad, as we learned during most of the GWB years, and democrats without forces to check them, can go too far the other way. Maybe LBJ was a classic example, cranking out legislation with quantity rather than quality as the metric.

 

[Carmen813]

Originally posted by: Craig234

Originally posted by: loki8481
this means the D's have a filibuster proof majority.

They will in 2011 when Coleman loses.

Didn't Coleman lose in 2008?

 

[JSFLY]

LOL

Talk about bailing out republicans!

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: miketheidiot

Originally posted by: tomboy

Originally posted by: QuantumPion
good riddance.

I hope he takes McCain and Snowe with him on the way out.

it wont matter unless the republicans can get their shit together and get back to their roots and orig. ideals

define these original ideals?

Good question, but don't expect a good answer. Modern Republians don't really know, but they'll make something up.

They have this problem in part because of the inherent problem that their 'real agenda' is about representing the few wealthy, but they can't really market that, so they make up other 'principles' that sell better, and are not at odds with it, hence all the symbolism with flags and such, sort of faux patriotism, tear in the eye at the star spangled banner stuff.

This is why a phrase like 'compassionate conservatism' is so useful to them so they can vote for a big pharma drug giveaway as a top priority, why they can literally organize a terrorist army for corporate proft protection to murder Nicaraguans lest any left-wng government take hold in Central American and set an example, while calling the terrorist army 'the moral equivalent of our founding fathers'. Funny, I don't remember our founding fathers being thugs and criminals fighting against democracy.

Check my sig for a quote fom Lincoln, their first president, agianst the growth in 'big money' corporate culture. The Republicans' first big issue, led by Lincoln in Congress, was opposition to our dishonest and unjust war against Mexico to steal half of Mexico. Contrast that with the modern Republicans who have regularly used covert action, tyrants, war for our 'power and wealth interests'.