News Sen. Arlen Specter to switch parties

  • Thread starter Thread starter Ivan Seeking
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Switch
Click For Summary
Arlen Specter, a long-serving Republican Senator, announced his switch to the Democratic Party, citing a shift in his political philosophy and the Republican Party's move further to the right. He expressed that his support for the stimulus package created a rift with the GOP, making his re-election prospects uncertain within the party. Specter emphasized his commitment to representing the people of Pennsylvania rather than party lines, indicating he would continue to vote independently on key issues. His change in affiliation could potentially give Democrats a filibuster-proof majority in the Senate if Al Franken is seated. The discussion reflects broader concerns about the Republican Party's direction, with many moderates feeling alienated and considering their political futures. Specter's move is seen as a response to the changing political landscape, particularly in Pennsylvania, where many Republicans have switched to the Democratic Party. The conversation also touches on the implications for other moderate Republicans and the potential for a third-party movement, as well as the ethical considerations of party switching in politics.
  • #61
Astronuc said:
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.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #62
LowlyPion said:
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.
 
  • #63
russ_watters said:
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.
 
  • #64
russ_watters said:
... 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.)
 
  • #65
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.
 
  • #66
drankin said:
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?
 
  • #67
drankin said:
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.
 
  • #68
turbo-1 said:
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.
 
Last edited:
  • #69
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.
 
  • #70
russ_watters said:
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.
 
  • #71
russ_watters said:
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.
 
  • #72
russ_watters said:
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...:smile:
 
  • #73
LowlyPion said:
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?
 
  • #74
jaap de vries said:
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.
 
  • #75
NeoDevin said:
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? :rolleyes:
 
  • #76
jaap de vries said:
That's funny, I drive a 94 Chrystler Lebaron

What Factory? :rolleyes:

Mine's a Dodge.
 
  • #77
LowlyPion said:
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.)

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

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)
 
  • #78
russ_watters said:
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.
 
  • #79
jaap de vries said:
That's funny, I drive a 94 Chrystler Lebaron

What Factory? :rolleyes:

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.
 
  • #80
WhoWee said:
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
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #81
MATLABdude said:
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.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #82
WhoWee said:
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.
 
  • #83
russ_watters said:
...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
 
  • #84
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?
 
  • #85


chemisttree said:
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.
 
  • #86


chemisttree said:
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
 
  • #87


turbo-1 said:
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.
 
  • #88


LowlyPion said:
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?
 
  • #89
chemisttree said:
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?
 
  • #90
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
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Similar threads

News Was the White House Involvement in the Sestak Senate Race Legal or Bribery?
  • · Replies 19 ·
Replies
19
Views
4K
News Sen. Kennedy's Letter: Preparations for Possible Vacancy
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
3K
News Democrats may lose senate majority; Tim Johnson's stroke
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
3K
News Did Scott Brown's Win Signal a Shift in American Political Landscape?
  • · Replies 65 ·
3
Replies
65
Views
8K
News Maine GOP alleges rampant voter fraud, stolen elections.
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
4K
News Pension halt for Congress' crooks
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K
News What were the top issues in the 2008 presidential election?
  • · Replies 82 ·
3
Replies
82
Views
20K
News Bush is leaving a fiscal train wreck for the next president
  • · Replies 27 ·
Replies
27
Views
5K
News War may be criminal - GOP Sen Smith
  • · Replies 36 ·
2
Replies
36
Views
7K
News Was the 2008 election a repudiation of Bush and the Republican Party?
  • · Replies 21 ·
Replies
21
Views
4K