crazietalk.net

Well, we don't have a PPB here, so we'll see how this goes. Arlen Specter is becoming a Democrat according to "sources". It doesn't surprise me too much, he always seemed a bit left leaning for a Republican. Pa. voted Democrat in the general election, but is a pretty conservative state. Anyways, interesting bit of news.

Oh yeah, if he turns Democrat, and they finally sit Al Franken, then the dems will have 60 seats and be filibuster proof. That I'm not a big fan of, too much power in one party's hand, I don't care which party it is. Bright side, it usually bites whichever party is in control in the ass, and they get beat up in the next next election.

Yea, that is a little scary. I'm not a fan of either party having that much autonomy either, but I'm actually a little more afraid of the democrats having it. This could be ugly. I hope I'm wrong, believe me I do, but I've never seen anything to indicate otherwise.

We've had a couple of politicians here cross the aisle and join another party and, to be honest, it bugs me a bit. They were elected as representatives of one party and, in my opinion, shouldn't be allowed to cross over without facing the electorate again in a by-election.

colchar wrote:We've had a couple of politicians here cross the aisle and join another party and, to be honest, it bugs me a bit. They were elected as representatives of one party and, in my opinion, shouldn't be allowed to cross over without facing the electorate again in a by-election.

I'd have more issues with someone whom I voted for due to what they believed, or what they wanted to do, then changed their beliefs, i.e. went from being pro-Duke to pro-UNC (didn't want to incite any riots here ;) ) than changing parties. Sometimes the parties believe in the same thing, just a different way of getting to the end point.

I'm really beginning to think our forefathers are rolling in their graves knowing we have become a two party system.

TillyGalore wrote:

colchar wrote:We've had a couple of politicians here cross the aisle and join another party and, to be honest, it bugs me a bit. They were elected as representatives of one party and, in my opinion, shouldn't be allowed to cross over without facing the electorate again in a by-election.

I'd have more issues with someone whom I voted for due to what they believed, or what they wanted to do, then changed their beliefs, i.e. went from being pro-Duke to pro-UNC (didn't want to incite any riots here ;) ) than changing parties. Sometimes the parties believe in the same thing, just a different way of getting to the end point.

I'm really beginning to think our forefathers are rolling in their graves knowing we have become a two party system.

I'm afraid that the two-party system wouldn't be the only reason they're rolling in their graves.

I have a feeling it's not going to affect the reality of his voting. He's been pretty moderate for quite some time and I doubt he's suddenly going to jump into Nancy Pelosi's lap.

I'm not a fan of any party having such a clear majority, but don't worry - if there's any party that can fracture and self-implode it's this Democratic party. No way they ever get all 60 Dems to vote for cloture.

He's just setting himself up to have any shot at all in his re-election campaign.

I've been intrigued at the possibility of the Republicans attempting a filibuster for quite some time given that just a few years ago they were advancing the "nuclear option" to prevent the Democrats from using it on judicial nominees. With that said, today's events change little to nothing. On most major issues Specter was already siding with the Democrats. In addition, the big upcoming battle over EFCA isn't going to get 60 Democrats to support it, meaning fears of "too much control" are a bit overblown. On issues of war, Specter will remain one of the Senate's biggest hawks.

I also have no problem with him allegedly turning his back on the type of politician his constituents thought they were voting for. To begin with, Specter was last elected in 2004 which was, by most accounts, the climax of the late 1990s/early 2000s Republican rise. At that time, Pennsylvania had two Republican Senators and a very moderate Democratic Governor. The 2004 PA Republican Party was undoubtedly larger than it is today (and he won his re-election with substantial support from Ds). A natural conclusion is that today that state is more blue than it was then (note that Ed Rendell won the 2006 gubernatorial election by 20 points; Bob Casey won the 2006 Senate election by 17 points; President Obama won the state by 10 points--all landslides)

Thus, it makes sense for an already moderate Republican Senator to formally align with the party that better represents the ideology of his state. This was bolstered by what he described as a vast shift to the right by the Republican Party (the All-Stars of today's Republican Party are re-treads like Gingrich and extremists like Palin). It's hard to believe Specter's seat would be for the Rs if he had to run for re-election in 2008/10 as a Republican (both because of the increase in blue support and because, as the Senator admitted, the far right controls the party right now and he would've lost in the primary; this would set a far-right candidate up for slaughter against whoever the Ds put up--tough to find a state outside of the SE that elected a far right candidate to a major office in the last 2+ years).

In the end, the beauty of all this is that in 2010 if the people of PA don't like Senator Specter's actions/politics, they can vote him out of office.

It's not directly on point with this thread, but I didn't see the need for a new thread. With Justice Souter retiring, we now get to see how the Republican's previous comments condemning filibustering of judicial nominees plays when it isn't a Republican President picking the judge. Several Republicans who specifically decried filibustering several years ago have already promised to use the tool to prevent President Obama's selection from ever getting a vote. Pot, meet kettle.

As a way to tie this back into the original thread, I highly doubt that the Republicans can achieve a filibuster. Spector, as he's fond of reminding us, is very involved in the judicial nominee process. He takes it very seriously and, as a moderate Republican on this issue, was the only one to oppose the nomination of Robert Bork. He's likely to cast his vote for cloture meaning the only hope the Republicans have is to continue to stall the seating of Senator Franken.