Dems to reach 60 votes in Senate with Specter!
April 28, 2009 at 3:11 pm by Scott Henry in News
OK, I was at a lunch meeting, so I’m late on this, but holy shit! Sen. Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania announced around noon that he’ll switch parties, running as a Democrat next year. That would give the Democrats a filibuster-proof majority of 60 in the U.S. Senate. That’s not to say, of course, that Specter can be counted on to always vote with his party — he’s always been more of a free radical in that regard — but it would give Pres. Obama a helluva weapon for pushing through his agenda.
“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.
Assuming Al Franken is finally confirmed as the winner in Minnesota, the Democrats would possess 60 seats for the first time since the Carter era. For all Karl Rove’s talk of a “permanent Republican majority,” the Bush-led GOP never managed to reach that magic number. In your face, Karl!
For those who’d prefer an alt-weekly version of the story, check out the Jackson Free Press story, Arlen Specter To Join the Wu-Tang Clan.
April 28th, 2009 at 3:19 pm
Nothing like having principles, eh Arlen?
April 28th, 2009 at 3:32 pm
apparently the man realized his principles were more in line with the democratic party than republican.
something similar happened to me years ago, though i consider myself independent these days.
and it has also happened to a number of my friends in the past 6-8 years, for reasons which should be obvious to anyone paying attention to politics.
who knows – it could even happen to u, dalec!
April 28th, 2009 at 3:37 pm
Much like Democrats with Liberman, the Republicans have practically forced Specter into this position. They were all but openly supporting Toomey as his primary challenger, and he has butted heads with leadership a LOT in the last few years. Honestly, I’d like the D’s to play a little Red Rover with the R’s…now you can have Lieberman. We don’t want him anymore.
April 28th, 2009 at 5:55 pm
Wesleywhatwhat – If he is in line with the current Democratic party, then it is impossible for him to have been in line with the Republican Party at any time in his career.
Specter, like many (most?) pols, main principle is re-election. He knew he was going to lose the Republican primary, so he is switching parties. It has nothing to do with any deeply held convictions.
I can give him respect on one point. He announced it before he was re-elected as a Republican, rather than taking the safe vote and then switching like Jim Jeffords.
There is no way I will ever agree with the platform of the Democrat party as it has been stated at any time since about 1978.
Sara – ok, give the GOP Lieberman. Unlike Dems, who can’t tolerate ANY independence in voting on war and defense issues, at least the GOP will appreciate him. Lieberman voted with the Dems on EVERYTHING except the Iraq War and they tried to screw him. BTW, that would eliminate the 60 vote party majority that Specter traded for Obama’s support. Real smart.
April 28th, 2009 at 5:57 pm
That Wu-Tang bit was laugh-out-loud funny. Specter was probably jealous of Jesse Helms hanging with Bono a while back.
April 28th, 2009 at 7:58 pm
Lieberman has broken with Democratic leadership on other issues besides Iraq. And I actually think he’ll screw over the Democrats when it comes to cloture on hot button issues anyhow, so we might as well make it official.
April 28th, 2009 at 9:13 pm
The whole 60 seat argument assumes 1) Specter wins and 2) no Dems lose Senate seats next year. I’ll give you 1 but I think 2 is arguable, at the very least. If the economy isn’t moving up by summer 2010 (only a year or so away), Dems will lose quite a few seats in both houses.
And Dale, my friend, I can’t stomach any horseshit about principles and party, especially in a state where the Governor was a elected to the general assembly four times as a Democrat and only switched parties FOUR years before being elected Governor as Republican. I mean, he was f’in Democratic Majority Leader in the State Senate. How many times have you voted for Sonny? Tell the truth.
April 28th, 2009 at 9:28 pm
DaleC’s statement that ‘Dems…can’t tolerate ANY independence in voting on war and defense issues’ is total horseshit. Do the names Jim Marshall and Sam Nunn ring a bell? Those are just two names that I can think of off the top of my head. The Republican’s on the other hand, are purging the ranks in the search for ideological purity at the moment. At this rate there won’t be any Senate Republicans from north of the Mason-Dixon in a few years.
April 28th, 2009 at 10:36 pm
the republican party ain’t what it used to be…
April 29th, 2009 at 10:19 am
Mr T – I have not voted for Sonny, because I think he is a tool. I have only lived here for one gubernatorial election and I voted for Mr Hayes.
Like you, I cannot tolerate horseshit about principles and party, which is exactly the point I was making about Sen Specter’s statement. It is horseshit. There is no way possible that a member fo the Reagan Revolution who EVER supported the GOP could now be more in line with the Dems. It is not possible, unless he has changed deeply and that is NOT what he is saying.
Atlpaddy – Nunn voted against the Gulf War and I can’t find him breaking with his party on anything except gays openly serving in the military. Can you point me to something?
Jim Marshall voted against the surge, which is not really breaking with the party, since numerous members of the party ridiculed it publicly. He also voted against a bill that would offer increased protections to detainees. That’s about all I could find and it is minor. As with Nunn, I would like to learn more, if you have it.
the two examples you gave voted against war and increasing troop levels, hardly a major break with the Dem party.
April 29th, 2009 at 10:27 am
Mr T – on the point of Perdue, I could see a conservative Democrat moving to the GOP, like Richard Shelby did years ago. I could also see several liberal GOP Senators (Snowe, Chafee) moving to the Dems. There is some difference here in that Perdue was already to the right and he did it four years ahead of time. Specter has given it a year, so some props to him for that. At least he didn’t do like Jeffords and get elected as a Repub before having a “crisis of conscience”.
With any luck he will lose to Toomey and lose his seat to go along with his credibility :-)
April 29th, 2009 at 10:34 am
Sara – Besides the war and filibustering judicial nominees, where did he break with the party on anything substantinve? Do you really think he was booted over anything other than the war?
Also, I have great respect for him having that “I” after his name, because I think he truly doesn’t feel at home in either party, although he is a Democrat (voter) and caucuses with the Democrats.
April 29th, 2009 at 10:46 am
This is like a bad 80’s WWF plotline. The heal turns face and the crowd goes wild. I can not speak for Spector but i differ from the Republican party on social issues. I vote democrat usually because there is nothing i hate more than someone who says they are liberal when it comes to social issues but conservative when it comes to fiscality. Well, dumbshit, that is not possible. It cost money to pay for social issues and for most people money talks. So these same fiscally conservative/socially liberal people always vote for the republican when it comes down to it completely selling out their so called values (gay rights, mass transit, etc). Maybe Arlen has seen it my way…. But i have a hard time believing a 79 year old, life long politician has suddenly seen the light.
April 29th, 2009 at 10:48 am
Not to down on old people too much, but if a man pushing 80 can handle the workload of being a US senator then that workload can not be much. I am 27 and can barely handle my stressful 45 hour a week job.
April 29th, 2009 at 11:13 am
Edgewood Adam – I think we agree on a lot here. Specter has “seen the light” of losing the seat he has held for 29 years.
I laugh when they talk about a Senators work load. Have you ever seenthe size of their staffs?
April 29th, 2009 at 1:07 pm
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/30/us/politics/30specter.html?_r=1&ref=politics
specter, as quoted in the NYT:
“he was leaving the Republican Party because it had shifted far to the right of his views and because he did not think he could overcome a primary challenge next year.”
what’s to debate about what he said?
he’s right on both counts- the GOP ain’t so grand anymore, and he wants to keep his job as senator.
April 30th, 2009 at 3:24 pm
Lieberman wasn’t booted from the Democratic party…he lost a primary and chose to become an independent. But before that time he was known as a more conservative Democrat who supported school vouchers, faith-based initiatives, and had a mixed recordd on many other issues. The reason most people think he was a “solid Democrat” is primarily because he voted pro-choice virtually all of the time and pleged to be more in line with Gore’s positions once he was picked as his running mate. But it was the voters of Connecticut, not the Democratic party, that decided he wasn’t going to stay a Democrat if he wanted to stay in the Senate. Even then, the Democratic party tiptoed very carefully around that election because they didn’t want to crap on their former colleague and they recognized he might still beat Lamont and hold his seat as an Independent.
Now once he spoke at the RNC and campaigned for McCain, I think Lieberman basically issued a massive fuck you to the Democratic party apparatus, and for that he lost my respect and support. But to say that he was forced out of the Democratic party for supporting the Iraq war is false. He chose to leave because he got beaten in the primary. He chose to support the Republican presidential candidate. And EVEN THEN, Obama told the party not to strip him of his chairmanship or kick him out of the caucus.
April 30th, 2009 at 3:57 pm
“he lost a primary and chose to become an independent”
Lost to a primary challenger supported by his opwn party.
” didn’t want to crap on their former colleague”
it was a little late for that
“But it was the voters of Connecticut, not the Democratic party, that decided he wasn’t going to stay a Democrat if he wanted to stay in the Senate”
Those very same voters sent hi back to DC as an independent.
” think Lieberman basically issued a massive fuck you to the Democratic party apparatus”
turnabout is fair play
Sorry, but the Democrat party made it very clear that he was persona non-grata.
April 30th, 2009 at 4:09 pm
To address the notion that Lieberman often bucked the Democrat Party and has a “mixed record”;
Voting record Analysis by Interest Groups
Americans for Democratic Action: 80
League of Conservation Voters: 100
American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees: 86
American Civil Liberties Union: 83
American Conservative Union: 0
Christian Coalition: 0
National Organization of Women: 75
NAACP: 85
Human Rights Campaign: 88
League of United Latin American Citizens: 100
NARAL: 75 (in 2004, it was 100, but then he voted for Justice Roberts)
Planned Parenthood: 100
Alliance for Retired Americans: 100
Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence: 90
National Right-to-Life: 0
NRA: F
How does he get such great scores from left groups, and total failure from the right, if he was such a maverick in the Democratic Party?
Easy to find this info, one good source is VoteSmart the other is http://lieberdem.blogspot.com/2006/07/truth-about-liebermans-voting-record.html .
April 30th, 2009 at 4:52 pm
Dale, did you even pay attention to that race? Virtually no prominent Democrats endorsed or supported Ned Lamont until after he won the primary. Both Obama and Bill Clinton campaigned on Lieberman’s behalf during the primary (among many others), and people only started endorsing Lamont once he’d won the primary and was going to be on the ballot listed as a Democrat. (Even then many stated their reluctance to support Lamont over their old friend and colleague Liberman.) Some Democrats continued to support Lieberman in the general despite his change to Independent. In fact, Lieberman promised in that general election campaign that he would always support Democratic presidential nominees…a promise he broke at first opportunity. He was not thrown out of the Democratic party, he let it voluntarily. The anger towards Lieberman from the Democratic establishment has come since his re-election, and almost entirely because of his decision to hit the campaign trail for McCain and other Republicans.
April 30th, 2009 at 5:38 pm
When I go back and read newspaper articles, they reinforce my memory of the race.
Lieberman acted on his principles. Despite opposing him on most of his policy views, I respect that and am glad he won.
May 1st, 2009 at 9:39 am
Sara said;
“Much like Democrats with Liberman, the Republicans have practically forced Specter into this position.”
and
“Lieberman wasn’t booted from the Democratic party…he lost a primary and chose to become an independent.”
Which is it?