News Sen. Arlen Specter to switch parties

[turbo]

Maine is a small state population-wise, so the voters can get familiar with the candidates more easily. As a result, two of the last five governors were Independents who successfully challenged the candidates of the major parties. It would not hurt senators Snowe and Collins one little bit to drop their GOP affiliation - their Senate seats are secure. In fact, if they declared themselves as Independents, they could conceivably get a lot more powerful and influential in DC than they could as declared members of either major party. It would be better for their current statuses on the Armed Services and Homeland Security committees, respectively, if they would switch to the Democratic party with assurances that they would keep their committee assignments. The RNC should read the hand-writing on the wall.

 

[WhoWee]

Were the "Tea Party" folks primarily republican/conservative, libertarian, United We Stand, or a mix of those. In our area, we have people registered as republican/conservative, and independent/conservative, as well as democrat.

I'm afraid that 'politics' has become a big business unto itself, and there is little room for the independent (small business person) to enter. I would very much like to see more independents, whose core values include stewarship and doing what's best for the country.

I think the mix varied by location. Obviously, the big events broadcast by Fox were heavily conservative/Republican. However, the events I'm aware of in N.E. OH and W. PA were a diverse mix. The interesting thing to me was that it rained all day and there was still a reasonably strong turnout.

The problem with any independent or true grass roots movement is SOMEONE will need to step up and lead/organize/finance. Unfortunately, as soon as someone prominent gets involved...the news media associates the movement to that person...not the diverse group or the message.

I think an independent movement would need to begin locally, with a mayor that started out as a business leader or (similar to Obama) an unknown and relatively new state level politician, grow regionally...fill a few regional seats, duplicate the effort, pick up some momentum...then the funding will follow to support and attract Congressional candidates.

To be competitive, the grass roots effort has to make the transition into a business (unfortunately).

 

[turbo]

To be competitive, the grass roots effort has to make the transition into a business (unfortunately).

Not if we enacted REAL campaign finance reform to take the millions of dollars/campaign out of the issue. When there is that much money sloshing around, there will be influence-peddling, bribery, and general dishonesty and greed corrupting the parties. Take away the parties' ability to direct millions to their members' campaigns, and you will take our government back out of party control. It's that simple.

 

[WhoWee]

Not if we enacted REAL campaign finance reform to take the millions of dollars/campaign out of the issue. When there is that much money sloshing around, there will be influence-peddling, bribery, and general dishonesty and greed corrupting the parties. Take away the parties' ability to direct millions to their members' campaigns, and you will take our government back out of party control. It's that simple.

Unfortunately, the only people who can bring that reform...would lose their base of support...unless change came fast...and that's not likely.

There is one possibility...if enough independent-leaning office holders were to unite as a new party, some of their supporters might follow. Then a finance reform movement based around a taxpayer funded pool...distributed evenly to the (3) parties (?) along with stricter limits on corporate/union donations and cross-state contributions might be realistic.

 

[LowlyPion]

Looks like Reich called it 5 years ago. Right at the time that Rove was about to crow about building the Republican Party into a "permanent majority" around the transcendental leadership of George Bush. Now they wonder if they will ever get a sniff of being able to influence the consent on an ambassadorial appointment.

June 14, 2004
Robert B. Reich, Author of "Reason: Why Liberals Will Win the Battle for America," on the "Radcons"

In his timely book, "Reason: Why Liberals Will Win the Battle for America," Robert Reich calls the forces of darkness who have taken over America "Radcons." That's because the Bush breed of "conservatives" aren't conservatives in the traditional sense at all. They are radical ideologues who are committed to a Darwinian notion of the "reign of the rich" and unbridled corporate greed. Add a slathering of Victorian moral posturing, religious zealotry, and a view of rule by powerful elites.

True democracy is an obstacle to the goals of the Radcons. While pandering to the cultural wars to attract blue collar and church-going voters, the Radcons are deeply suspicious of democracy. Who needs democracy when you can rule by divine will and Supreme Court intervention?

Liberals will win the battle for democracy, Reich argues, if they get off their duffs and fight for it. In many ways, it is a commitment to the democratic process -- and the concept of one person, one vote -- that distinguishes liberals from Radcons, who would rather follow the Neo-Confederacy precedent of suppressing votes from non "Radcons."

"Centrism is bogus," Reich argues. It's up to the Democrats to attract the largest political block in America -- the non-voters -- by defining an agenda that leads the nation, rather than one that tries to mirror the latest poll.

"The big differences in American politics today are between those with courage and those without it, those who can inspire and those who can't...On the other side is a large group of hard-boiled poll-watchers and ***-kissers who spend most of their time raising money from people and groups with a lot of it."

http://www.buzzflash.com/interviews/04/06/int04030.html

Now the Radcons are reaping the whirlwind.

 

[russ_watters]

I think you are on-target Russ...with one addition.

I think Specter realized the importance/full potential of his swing vote during the stimulus debate. By crossing over, he gets the support of the Dems for re-election, is no longer the Repub Black Sheep, and will be courted by both side for future votes.

This was the best move for Specter...he (probably) saved his seat (still has to get through Dem primary) and his power has increased substantially. He's no dummy.

I said before that I thought it would hurt him in his next election - that was probably wishful thinking. Since the much pulicised swinging of PA towards the blue side, he's probably just decided that he stands a better chance of re-election if he rebrands himself as a democrat. And he may be right. One should not underestimate the public's ability to respond to pleasant fictions and contradictions.

 

[russ_watters]

Cheap shots from the fringe.

One-liners from those with nothing to contribute to a discussion...

Please try responding to the many actual discussion points that have been made. Your failure to do so only highlights the pointlessness.

[edit] And which fringe? The Huffington joke was a shot at both parties!

 

[russ_watters]

Among some notables: Ronald Reagan, Norm Coleman, Hillary Clinton, Howard Dean...

Another notable from the before Arlen Specter: Arlen Specter.

There are legitimate and illegitimate reasons why one would switch parties (already discussed) and the fact that his voting record last year was republican puts only the illegitimate ones in play.

In any case...

I think I noticed something (not based on this list, just a general observation). You'd think that people who undergo a change (lose/change/gain religion, political inclination, (non)popular, etc.) have more of an understanding of, or inclination towards those that they left behind, but the exact opposite seems to be true (hatred of, becoming the antithesis of what they were, etc.) I don't know whether that's just projection (total rejection of what they once were, illustrated by taking it out on others), or the zeal of conversion, or that the noisy switchers tend to extremes whatever they believe in, or what, but I thought it was kind of remarkable. Instead of being a bridge, they turn out to be moats.

I guess the bridges (or moderate converters?) tend to be the people that wear the identity pretty loosely in the first place.

I tend to agree with all of that.

 

[russ_watters]

The host also asked whether the GOP should attempt to broaden it's appeal or purge itself of moderates and move further to the right. The commmentator from Pennsylvania indicated that if the GOP did the latter, then the GOP would have fewer people to talk to, or represent.

Quite obviously, if the GOP wants to remain a viable party and get back to being the dominant one, they have to shed the fringe and embrace moderate conservativism.

It is my hope and belief that what we have seen in the past 10 years or so with the growth of the religious right is ultimately going to be a self-defeating shift. Many of the major issues that the religious right (and those even further on the fringe) go after end up being spectacular failures. And we may be already seeing the split: there is no way a guy like John McCain should have ever won the Republican primary. He was sabbotaged by the religious right the last time, but this time his moderate popular support carried him through.

The current state of opinion in the US is a reflection on Bush and his economic and foreign policy, but it is very important to realize that none of the major candidates - and in particular the winner of the primary - were anywhere close to as far right as Bush. I also think Bush was further right than people realized he would be. So while the Republican party is as beaten down right now as any party has been in a long time, I believe a lot of that is an illusion brought on by unusual - and temporary - circumstances.

People in the middle class and above want to be republicans. But they feel betrayed and have switched sides as a reaction to that. As soon as the party starts offering what it is historically supposed to be offering, the people will flock back to it.

 

[LowlyPion]

I said before that I thought it would hurt him in his next election - that was probably wishful thinking. Since the much pulicised swinging of PA towards the blue side, he's probably just decided that he stands a better chance of re-election if he rebrands himself as a democrat. And he may be right. One should not underestimate the public's ability to respond to pleasant fictions and contradictions.

Well, he's not out of the woods yet. Ed Rendell could run in the Democratic Primary. It's not clear that he could win against Ed. In which case ...

To stand a chance he will have to be looking a lot more like a Democrat by the time the Dems go to the polls in their primary. So I suspect this leopard will be more a Democrat than he would have as a Republican in the mean time. Looks like a no lose situation for the Dems, as they act to undo the past 8 years of Bush and Cheney and Rove mucking about.

 

[russ_watters]

Were the "Tea Party" folks primarily republican/conservative, libertarian, United We Stand, or a mix of those. In our area, we have people registered as republican/conservative, and independent/conservative, as well as democrat.

It was my understanding that they were republican organized. But you can always get people from all sides into a "free money" protest.

 

[russ_watters]

Well, he's not out of the woods yet. Ed Rendell could run in the Democratic Primary. It's not clear that he could win against Ed. In which case ...

I'm not up on this enough for someone who lives in PA, but Ed is governor...you saying he could run for Senate next? In any case, I'm a big fan of Ed Rendell and would certainly vote for him over Specter.

To stand a chance he will have to be looking a lot more like a Democrat by the time the Dems go to the polls in their primary. So I suspect this leopard will be more a Democrat than he would have as a Republican in the mean time.

No doubt.

 

[drankin]

Quite obviously, if the GOP wants to remain a viable party and get back to being the dominant one, they have to shed the fringe and embrace moderate conservativism.

It is my hope and belief that what we have seen in the past 10 years or so with the growth of the religious right is ultimately going to be a self-defeating shift. Many of the major issues that the religious right (and those even further on the fringe) go after end up being spectacular failures. And we may be already seeing the split: there is no way a guy like John McCain should have ever won the Republican primary. He was sabbotaged by the religious right the last time, but this time his moderate popular support carried him through.

The current state of opinion in the US is a reflection on Bush and his economic and foreign policy, but it is very important to realize that none of the major candidates - and in particular the winner of the primary - were anywhere close to as far right as Bush. I also think Bush was further right than people realized he would be. So while the Republican party is as beaten down right now as any party has been in a long time, I believe a lot of that is an illusion brought on by unusual - and temporary - circumstances.

People in the middle class and above want to be republicans. But they feel betrayed and have switched sides as a reaction to that. As soon as the party starts offering what it is historically supposed to be offering, the people will flock back to it.

I think you have pretty well nailed it. Conservatives, who are many, are waiting for a party they can get behind. The Republican party has blown it. Palin stood for the conservative ideals which McCain needed but turned out to be too much of a ditz for conservitives to really get behind. It will all swing back eventually like it always does but meanwhile, DC is on a shopping spree.

 

[LowlyPion]

... there is no way a guy like John McCain should have ever won the Republican primary. He was sabbotaged by the religious right the last time, but this time his moderate popular support carried him through.

Anecdotally, I voted for McCain in the primary, not because I ever thought McCain was fit for leadership, or that Republicans should ever have been given any more time to screw things up any more, but because of the idea that someone like Romney and his flip flop ideals might ascend. I don't think my crossover to influence the Republican outcome was necessarily all that unique either. As I look at it I think it would be a mistake to think that the success of McCain reflects any particular shift. (Most especially with the likes of Michael Steele's brand of apparent organizational ineptness and frequent feet in mouth and the willingness of the GOP money directed by the Club for Growth to work to continue to cull moderate candidates.)

 

[russ_watters]

You know, in some ways I think the US political system has two parties for a 3 party public. The past few presidential elections have been radicals vs radicals and radicals vs moderates. We got two terms of radical Bush because the dems put a radical up against him and lost. This time around, the fallout from the Bush presidency allowed a radical to defeat a moderate. We're going to get a lot of new democratic policies and given a choice between radical republicans and radical liberals, people are going to choose radical liberals for a while. But I think when the dust settles from the current financial crisis and wars, people will again start to demand more moderate candidates from both sides.

In fact, though dems are cheering the demise of the Repubilican party, that demise would be the worst possible outcome for the democrats. A re-made Republican party can only be a moderate one and that would mean a fast return to republican dominance.

 

[turbo]

I think you have pretty well nailed it. Conservatives, who are many, are waiting for a party they can get behind. The Republican party has blown it. Palin stood for the conservative ideals which McCain needed but turned out to be too much of a ditz for conservitives to really get behind. It will all swing back eventually like it always does but meanwhile, DC is on a shopping spree.

There are many conservatives who want to see the emergence of a viable party (myself included) and we have been cheated for decades by faux-conservatives who intend to enrich themselves at the public trough instead of trimming government and reducing our tax-burdens. They claim to be for tax-reduction, but it seems that their efforts are concentrated on reducing the tax liabilities of the very wealthy. Why is that?

 

[russ_watters]

I think you have pretty well nailed it. Conservatives, who are many, are waiting for a party they can get behind. The Republican party has blown it. Palin stood for the conservative ideals which McCain needed but turned out to be too much of a ditz for conservitives to really get behind. It will all swing back eventually like it always does but meanwhile, DC is on a shopping spree.

Well actually, I think Palin was an attempt to (among other things) pander to the religious right and that, more than her inexperience, was a mistake. It is almost like McCain misunderstood his own nickname - he was a maverick because he went against the party elite/fringe, yet he picked someone who talked like a far right wing conservative, perhaps thinking that young=maverick, but it didn't.

The elation of the dems today might be moderated by considering where we would be today if McCain had prevailed over the radical party elite 9 years ago. There'd be no Iraq war or torture issue, for starters. A recession was inevitable eventually, but McCain was more on top of the problems than most congressmen on either side and may have been able to moderate it. The republicans are in a tug-of-war between moderate and radical and the radicals won that battle, to the benefit of the democrats. But McCain's primary win in this round may indicate that the moderates have already won the war.

 

[russ_watters]

They claim to be for tax-reduction, but it seems that their efforts are concentrated on reducing the tax liabilities of the very wealthy. Why is that? [emphasis added]

Bad marketing, I guess. In a country where more than 40% pay no federal income taxes at all (or are net takers) and another 15% pay something under 10%, the idea that tax liabilities can be reduced for the bottom half of our population is just plain mathematically impossible. You can't cut the taxes of people who already don't pay taxes.

This point of political marketing, more than any other, has the potential to destroy the United States. The tax burden will continue to increase while continuing to get more and more progressive, eventually cutting off at the knees the very people who create the prosperity that everyone else enjoys.

There are certainly more loopholes than there should be that mostly benefit the rich (a tax loophole can only benefit someone who pays taxes...), but overall, the federal income tax is already far too progressive to be sustainable.

...faux-conservatives who intend to enrich themselves at the public trough instead of trimming government and reducing our tax-burdens.

Well that is the 2+2=3 math I've harped on before. And I don't know enough about your politics to know if you fall into that category, but virtually everyone wants lower taxes and lower government spending...just not lower spending on me. And that's a contradiction that is hurting us badly right now. A true [fiscal] conservative is someone who really wants smaller government, and that, first and foremost, means scaling back social security and medicare and other social programs.

 

[LowlyPion]

MSNBC is reporting that robo calls have started in Pennsylvania to registered Democrats, playing back Bush's endorsement of Specter as a reliable vote for his administration.

I think as long as the Republicans continue to think that disenfranchising, excluding, and engaging in divisive tactics is their only path to success, moderate or radical conservative Christian, won't matter. They will still be the party of No, at a time that the Nation has clearly spoken that they want to be the Country of Yes.

 

[jaap de vries]

People in the middle class and above want to be republicans.

I am not sure this is true. I think some want to be republicans, some want to be democrats and some (the smallest group) will vote for whoever they like most.

I would like to see a voters per income demographic (anybody?). I know white men are more prone to be republican but I am not sure how this would translate into middle class income.

 

[jaap de vries]

The past few presidential elections have been radicals vs radicals and radicals vs moderates. We got two terms of radical Bush because the dems put a radical up against him and lost. This time around, the fallout from the Bush presidency allowed a radical to defeat a moderate. We're going to get a lot of new democratic policies and given a choice between radical republicans and radical liberals, people are going to choose radical liberals for a while. But I think when the dust settles from the current financial crisis and wars, people will again start to demand more moderate candidates from both sides.

I am not sure if Obama is all that radical, granted that says more about you than about Obama it all remains opinion. When it comes to Afghanistan he has proven to be more of a hawk than McCain and the stimulus bills seem a continuations of the Bush policies. He might be a liberal "radical" since he is against torture. However, he does not seem to be willing to hold those who tortured or ordered to do so accountable. Obama might be too moderate, trying to please everybody.

 

[jaap de vries]

The elation of the dems today might be moderated by considering where we would be today if McCain had prevailed over the radical party elite 9 years ago. There'd be no Iraq war or torture issue, for starters. A recession was inevitable eventually, but McCain was more on top of the problems than most congressmen on either side and may have been able to moderate it. The republicans are in a tug-of-war between moderate and radical and the radicals won that battle, to the benefit of the democrats. But McCain's primary win in this round may indicate that the moderates have already won the war.

If only Gore was president we would have no global warming...if only...if only...

 

[jaap de vries]

MSNBC is reporting that robo calls have started in Pennsylvania to registered Democrats, playing back Bush's endorsement of Specter as a reliable vote for his administration.
.

Who the hell are these people that still have land-lines?? Oh, and by the way, did you know the factory warranty of your car is about to run out?

 

[NeoDevin]

Oh, and by the way, did you know the factory warranty of your car is about to run out?

Yours too? I thought it was just mine! Those calls started about 2 days after I bought a brand new van, I thought it was funny.

 

[jaap de vries]

Yours too? I thought it was just mine! Those calls started about 2 days after I bought a brand new van, I thought it was funny.

That's funny, I drive a 94 Chrystler Lebaron

What Factory?

 

[NeoDevin]

That's funny, I drive a 94 Chrystler Lebaron

What Factory?

Mine's a Dodge.

 

[WhoWee]

Anecdotally, I voted for McCain in the primary, not because I ever thought McCain was fit for leadership, or that Republicans should ever have been given any more time to screw things up any more, but because of the idea that someone like Romney and his flip flop ideals might ascend. I don't think my crossover to influence the Republican outcome was necessarily all that unique either. As I look at it I think it would be a mistake to think that the success of McCain reflects any particular shift. (Most especially with the likes of Michael Steele's brand of apparent organizational ineptness and frequent feet in mouth and the willingness of the GOP money directed by the Club for Growth to work to continue to cull moderate candidates.)

Since we're being honest here...I voted for Hillary in the primary...because I thought Obama was too liberal and inexperienced.

It hurt me to press that button. But, I convinced myself it was ok...she did promise to fixNAFTA afterall. Also, my father in-law voted for Obama because he promised $1,000 (I've been reminding him about it given the $250 he's now expecting)

 

[WhoWee]

Bad marketing, I guess. In a country where more than 40% pay no federal income taxes at all (or are net takers) and another 15% pay something under 10%, the idea that tax liabilities can be reduced for the bottom half of our population is just plain mathematically impossible. You can't cut the taxes of people who already don't pay taxes.

This point of political marketing, more than any other, has the potential to destroy the United States. The tax burden will continue to increase while continuing to get more and more progressive, eventually cutting off at the knees the very people who create the prosperity that everyone else enjoys.

There are certainly more loopholes than there should be that mostly benefit the rich (a tax loophole can only benefit someone who pays taxes...), but overall, the federal income tax is already far too progressive to be sustainable. Well that is the 2+2=3 math I've harped on before. And I don't know enough about your politics to know if you fall into that category, but virtually everyone wants lower taxes and lower government spending...just not lower spending on me. And that's a contradiction that is hurting us badly right now. A true [fiscal] conservative is someone who really wants smaller government, and that, first and foremost, means scaling back social security and medicare and other social programs.

I agree and here is something else. I'm actually working on a tax consulting project on this topic and have fresh info. Last year, $9 billion in tax credits designed to help employers went unclaimed...mostly because the process is too complicated.

 

[WhoWee]

That's funny, I drive a 94 Chrystler Lebaron

What Factory?

Chrysler called my father in-law 3 times last week...trying to sell an extended warranty...36 mos or 36,000 miles on an 02 mini van...I think he said $2,600...I advised against.

 

[MATLABdude]

Chrysler called my father in-law 3 times last week...trying to sell an extended warranty...36 mos or 36,000 miles on an 02 mini van...I think he said $2,600...I advised against.

Are you sure it's actually Chrysler? I think others in this thread have alluded to it, but there are some sleazy high-pressure third-party companies calling around to offer pricey "extended-warranty" protection on whatever vehicle you happen to have:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/23147777/

Up here in Canada, it's an out and out scam going around, since there is no intention of honouring these "extended warranties":
http://www.edmontonjournal.com/Business/warranty+scam+keeps+phones+ringing/1280122/story.html

 

[WhoWee]

Are you sure it's actually Chrysler? I think others in this thread have alluded to it, but there are some sleazy high-pressure third-party companies calling around to offer pricey "extended-warranty" protection on whatever vehicle you happen to have:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/23147777/

Up here in Canada, it's an out and out scam going around, since there is no intention of honouring these "extended warranties":
http://www.edmontonjournal.com/Business/warranty+scam+keeps+phones+ringing/1280122/story.html

I am unable to make that determination. They identified themselves (to him) as "Chrysler". I didn't hear the call.

 

[Astronuc]

I am unable to make that determination. They identified themselves (to him) as "Chrysler". I didn't hear the call.

Sounds fishy or phishy. I would advise against it.

I have people calling me at work claiming to be from Verizon or at least representing Verizon and offering to same me on my phone bill. In the latest case, I asked for a call-back number, and was given an 800 number. I then used *69 to determine the number from which the call originated. I called the number and it was not Verizon, but a company that specializes in outgoing services, whatever the heck that is. I called Verizon and asked a Verizon staff person about the call. Verizon informed me that they did not authorize this company to contact me. When I asked the Verizon person how I could identify a caller as a legitimate Verizon agent, they said that it is essentially impossible.

The bottom-line is never give out information over the phone, and I recommend not confirming sensitive information. That's how one's identity can get stollen. Instead, ask questions and let the caller give information. Then contact the company they the caller supposedly represents, e.g. your bank, your credit card company, . . . . and report the call.

 

[mheslep]

...There'd be no Iraq war

Maybe not in 2003, but eventually it was probably inevitable.

or torture issue, for starters.

Agreed

A recession was inevitable eventually, but McCain was more on top of the problems than most congressmen on either side and may have been able to moderate it.

Agreed

 

[chemisttree]

Arlen Specter's switch to the Dems could help the GOP.

It's being reported that Arlen Specter's defection to "those who cannot be named" will help the GOP block Obama's pick to replace Souter on the Supreme Court! It seems that for the nomination to get out of the Judiciary Committee, at least one Republican must vote for it. Great timing Arlen!

Remaining Republican members of the Senate Judiciary Committee:

Charles Grassley
Orrin Hatch
John Kyl
Jeff Sessions
Lindsey Graham
John Cornyn
Tom Coburn

Any liberal leaners on that list?

 

[LowlyPion]

It's being reported that Arlen Specter's defection to "those who cannot be named" will help the GOP block Obama's pick to replace Souter on the Supreme Court! It seems that for the nomination to get out of the Judiciary Committee, at least one Republican must vote for it. Great timing Arlen!

It won't matter. Specter will be hot to show what kind of a Democrat he can be. His primary planning isn't all that far away. And Obama won't be offering up a radical liberal. The more robocalls made to Democrats trying to sabotage his conversion to the Party, likely the testier Specter will get. Polarization and partisanship works 2 ways. In this case it may work to isolate the Republicans even more.

Besides the more the Party of No keeps digging in their heels and not cooperating, the smaller that iceberg they are clinging to will get.

In case you didn't get the memo, we're apparently the Country of Yes now and the Party of No is not getting any the more popular with their small minded gestures.

 

[turbo]

It's being reported that Arlen Specter's defection to "those who cannot be named" will help the GOP block Obama's pick to replace Souter on the Supreme Court! It seems that for the nomination to get out of the Judiciary Committee, at least one Republican must vote for it. Great timing Arlen!

Remaining Republican members of the Senate Judiciary Committee:

Charles Grassley
Orrin Hatch
John Kyl
Jeff Sessions
Lindsey Graham
John Cornyn
Tom Coburn

Any liberal leaners on that list?

Will those members allow and up-or-down vote on Obama's nominee, or will they engage in the obstructionism that they accused the Democrats of? When it was Bush's nominees on the block, they were singing of a "214 year old tradition" of approving judges by a simple majority and not filibustering them.

http://mediamattersaction.org/items/200905010001

 

[LowlyPion]

Will those members allow and up-or-down vote on Obama's nominee, or will they engage in the obstructionism that they accused the Democrats of? When it was Bush's nominees on the block, they were singing of a "214 year old tradition" of approving judges by a simple majority and not filibustering them.

http://mediamattersaction.org/items/200905010001

After Norm Coleman is told to go home and stop being such sour belly, I'd think that filiblustering will not get any real traction.

With a President with soaring popularity making an informed and thoughtful choice, I imagine that the Republican taste for obstructionism won't last very long, past some initial impotent posturing. Besides the Senate isn't quite as tactically cowed by the religious right as their brethren in the House.

Heck, I think if the Republicans keep up their obstructing, the Democratic majority might swell by a couple of more Senators.

 

[chemisttree]

It won't matter. Specter will be hot to show what kind of a Democrat he can be. His primary planning isn't all that far away. And Obama won't be offering up a radical liberal. The more robocalls made to Democrats trying to sabotage his conversion to the Party, likely the testier Specter will get. Polarization and partisanship works 2 ways. In this case it may work to isolate the Republicans even more.

You do realize that Specter won't be on the Judicial Committee any more, right?

In case you didn't get the memo, we're apparently the Country of Yes now and the Party of No is not getting any the more popular with their small minded gestures.

What small minded gesture would that be? One similar to that offered by Harry Reid in 2005 and 2006? When the Democrat Party was the Party of No?

 

[LowlyPion]

You do realize that Specter won't be on the Judicial Committee any more, right?

He's still listed.
http://judiciary.senate.gov/about/members.cfm

Given the shrinking nature of the Republican Party, he should just stay in place to keep it representative of their relative numbers in the Senate shouldn't he?

 

[turbo]

Here's the (retired) editor's view of the situation with respect to Republican moderates. Some of the letters to the editor recently have been quite negative about Susan Collins and Olympia Snowe and their support of the economic stimulus package. The right wing of the GOP would dearly love to dump them both, but to what end? If Collins and Snowe ran as Democrats or Independents, they would still be elected handily, and the GOP would gain nothing.

http://kennebecjournal.mainetoday.com/view/columns/6289256.html

 

[LowlyPion]

Time presents an interesting view of the Republican Party now with the defection of Specter:

Republicans in the Wilderness: Is the Party Over?
By Michael Grunwald Thursday, May. 07, 2009
..."Chick-fil-A can get fabulously wealthy with a 20% market share," scoffs Mississippi Governor Haley Barbour, President Ronald Reagan's political director. "In our business, you need 50% plus one." It's probably true that since 200,000 Pennsylvania Republicans have switched parties, Specter followed them to save his own political skin, but it's hard to see how the mass exodus bodes well for the GOP. You can't have a center-right coalition when you've said good riddance to the center.

http://www.time.com/time/politics/article/0,8599,1896588,00.html

Buried within is also news that Joe the Plumber is apparently quitting the Republican Party along with Arlen Specter.

... Samuel Wurzelbacher, better known as Joe the Plumber, tells TIME he's so outraged by GOP overspending, he's quitting the party ...

They can't even keep Joe the Plumber? Where will their ideas come from?

 

[LowlyPion]

So Specter lost his seniority yesterday, but today gets a Sub-Committee chairmanship - Judiciary Crime and Drugs Sub-Committee.

Dems give Specter Judiciary subcommittee chair
By LAURIE KELLMAN and KIMBERLY HEFLING – 36 minutes ago

WASHINGTON (AP) — Senate Democrats gave party switcher Arlen Specter a plum Judiciary subcommittee chairmanship on Thursday as a potential primary challenger to the veteran Pennsylvania lawmaker stepped forward.

Majority Whip Dick Durbin of Illinois said he would give up his chairmanship of the Crime and Drugs subcommittee in exchange for becoming chairman of a panel on human rights. The move, he said, would "best utilize Senator Specter's talents and experience in our caucus."

Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., indicated later that the deal was not final and had to be worked out.

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5gVxZU8Co2GhDJbwy1R6zN6sHO-CAD981GQSG0

 

[chemisttree]

He's still listed.
http://judiciary.senate.gov/about/members.cfm

Given the shrinking nature of the Republican Party, he should just stay in place to keep it representative of their relative numbers in the Senate shouldn't he?

He's just been delisted by Reid.

 

[LowlyPion]

I suppose the website will have to catch up. It still shows Specter caucusing with the Republicans.

http://judiciary.senate.gov/about/members.cfm

Dick Durbin was rather magnanimous in ceding his sub-committee to Specter after he was stripped of seniority.

The way he's going Specter may not be running in 2010 anyway. His transition to Democratic ideals has been a little less than graceful.

When it catches up it will show Sessions as the ranking member for the Republicans. They are having to dig deep.

 

[LowlyPion]

In the race to oppose Specter, it looks like Specter is doing the right thing.

Tom Ridge has declared himself out of the race now.
http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2009/05/07/1925437.aspx

So that means that if he gets by the Democratic Primary, that he will likely have an easy go of it against the more rigidly conservative and apparently unacceptable to the general electorate Twomey.