Specter joins the Dems

[SteamWake]

Senator Arlan Spector to change to the Democrat party.

Democrats now have a fillibuster proof majority.

http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=31639

[Max2147]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/in_depth/8023460.stm

30-year Senator Arlen Specter has left the Republican Party and joined the Democrats.

[Platapus]

Maybe they have better cookies on that side.

[Platapus]

Well before getting too excited about whether there will be 60 Democrats or no in the Senate, please remember that it takes 60 votes to invoke cloture in the Senate. Not 60 Democrats. Just 60 votes

Specifically, since 1975 three-fifths of those Senators "duly chosen and sworn"

All Democrats do not vote alike. There can be 60 Democrats in the Senate and they can still fail to invoke cloture if some of the Democrats disagree (Senators have a habit of doing that)

Likewise, if the Democrats do not have 60 members in the Senate, they still may be able to invoke cloture if some of the Republicans or Independents decide to vote in favour of cloture.

The fixation on the number 60 is sophistry as it presumes that all Senators always vote with their party all the time. And this just does not happen.

So the chances of the Democrats defeating a filibuster after Spector becomes a Democrat are pretty close to the chances the Democrats had of defeating a filibuster before Spector became a Democrat.

In the Senate there is no such thing as a "filibuster proof majority"

The best or worst that can be said is that party X is now more likely to be able to invoke cloture then they were before.

[SteamWake]

All true but it makes it much more likely. As of late both sides of the aisle have been more or less in lockstep with their own agendas.

Honestly Spector is not a great loss since he was a rino anyhow.

His main motive evidently was he dident have a chance of remaining in office as a republican.

[SteamWake]

Merge please :oops:

http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/showthread.php?t=151173

[Platapus]

That can sometimes backfire. Sometimes the citizens don't like their representatives jumping parties like that.

There is a quality to commitment.

[Aramike]

Specter is the embodiment of everything that is wrong with American politics. A quote from him:"I am unwilling to have my twenty-nine year Senate record judged by the Pennsylvania Republican primary electorate."He's specifically dodging accountability to his constituents - and saying he's UNWILLING to be judged by his record.

Specter's been a RINO for years, so this isn't really going to impact anything. However, his statements and perception of the purpose of the Senate is a complete outrage.

[Platapus]

Specter is the embodiment of everything that is wrong with American politics. A quote from him:He's specifically dodging accountability to his constituents - and saying he's UNWILLING to be judged by his record.

Specter's been a RINO for years, so this isn't really going to impact anything. However, his statements and perception of the purpose of the Senate is a complete outrage.

Read what he said. He is actually saying that he is unwilling to be judged by the Penn Republican primary electorate

Republican does not equal everyone

Senators are supposed to represent their entire state, not just their political party.

That is the purpose of the Senate.

[SteamWake]

Talk about hypocrasy.

Spector was just saying a month or so that he would 'never' change parties that he "Thought it important to have a balance in the senate".

I guess getting re-elected is more important than either representing his people or party allegiance.

[Platapus]

Talk about hypocrasy.

Spector was just saying a month or so that he would 'never' change parties that he "Thought it important to have a balance in the senate".

I guess getting re-elected is more important than either representing his people or party allegiance.


You mean he is a politician who would lie to get reelected???

Oh my, what ever has become of US politics. :haha::har::haha::har:

[Max2147]

Specter is still free to vote against the Dems on a filibuster, just like he was free to vote with them before the switch. So this doesn't really change the balance of power in the Senate.

The bigger worry is that his defection (and the reason for it) shows that there isn't much of a place for moderates in the Republican Party anymore.

[Platapus]

That is the problem with being a moderate. Sometimes you are hated by both sides. :)

[August]

Read what he said. He is actually saying that he is unwilling to be judged by the Penn Republican primary electorate

Republican does not equal everyone

Senators are supposed to represent their entire state, not just their political party.

That is the purpose of the Senate.

But apparently he IS willing to be judged by the Penn Democrat party electorate?

I see this as a last ditch effort to save his career. He's not Dem enough for the Democrats.

[Max2147]

Sheesh, I looked for a thread on this and couldn't find one. What does this place have against clear thread titles?

[Max2147]

But apparently he IS willing to be judged by the Penn Democrat party electorate?

I see this as a last ditch effort to save his career. He's not Dem enough for the Democrats.
But it looks like this move will please the Dems enough to discourage anybody serious from running against him in the primary.

[August]

But it looks like this move will please the Dems enough to discourage anybody serious from running against him in the primary.

We'll see, but state party organizations tend to not go in lockstep with the nationals on a fairly regular basis.

After all look at it from a Pennsylvania Democrats standpoint. All those years working for the party just to see the nationals hand the nomination to a turncoat former Republican?

5 election campaigns talking about how important it was to defeat Spectre the Republican and now he's their preferred candidate? I have a difficult time believing the state party would just roll over like that.

[Aramike]

Read what he said. He is actually saying that he is unwilling to be judged by the Penn Republican primary electorate

Republican does not equal everyone

Senators are supposed to represent their entire state, not just their political party.

That is the purpose of the Senate.I did read what he said. Now, you should read what I said.

In case you forgot, the Republicans are the ones who elected him. Now, he's avoiding their judgement on his record.

Senators are supposed to represent the people who elect them, because in order to be elected, that's the majority.

[Aramike]

Sheesh, I looked for a thread on this and couldn't find one. What does this place have against clear thread titles?I was wondering that too. If you start a thread with a cryptic title, you shouldn't be surprised when another springs up.

[AVGWarhawk]

:yawn:

nough said.....

[Platapus]

Senators are supposed to represent the people who elect them, because in order to be elected, that's the majority.

Do you have a citation to back up you viewpoint?

Are you sure Senators are not supposed to represent their entire state?

In all my government studies, I have never come across any citation that states that Senators only represent the people who voted for him or her.

[Platapus]

Sheesh, I looked for a thread on this and couldn't find one. What does this place have against clear thread titles?


That would make sense and we can't have that.

Cryptic titles bug me almost as much as when people make a new thread and only include a hyperlink... no comment.. no discussion, just a hyperlink :damn:

[Stealth Hunter]

That would make sense and we can't have that.

Cryptic titles bug me almost as much as when people make a new thread and only include a hyperlink... no comment.. no discussion, just a hyperlink :damn:

This.

[OneToughHerring]

He's the guy who came up with the "magic bullet theory". Wonder what's going on...:hmmm:

[Aramike]

Do you have a citation to back up you viewpoint?

Are you sure Senators are not supposed to represent their entire state?

In all my government studies, I have never come across any citation that states that Senators only represent the people who voted for him or her.Umm, that's the nature of a democratic republic. That's why the majority selects the representative, and representing that majority would constitute representing the state.

I thought this would be a pretty obvious point. Especially considering that it is completely impossible to represent all of the diverse viewpoints held in a state.

[Skybird]

It takes the veto of 60 (of 100) senators to prevent the degeneration of democratic basic principles and freedom of speech by filibustering, and every step and every measurement making such a majority to prevent filibusters more likely should be welcomed and seen as a step to give the house back some of its intended dignity, no matter all other things that can be said about politics, politicians and the senate. That filibusters still are considered a legal tool of parliamentary debate, is a scandal. One could as well consider it legal to serve members of opposing opinion drinks with knockout drops. The basic attitude is the same like behind filibustering.

[Platapus]

Umm, that's the nature of a democratic republic. That's why the majority selects the representative, and representing that majority would constitute representing the state.

I thought this would be a pretty obvious point. Especially considering that it is completely impossible to represent all of the diverse viewpoints held in a state.

That is an interesting opinion on civics. Thanks for sharing. :)

[Aramike]

That is an interesting opinion on civics. Thanks for sharing. :)Here, to better summarize: A senator represents his entire state - but, does so via the viewpoint of the majority, who is determined by who elects said senator. Understand?

[Zachstar]

Hold the phone people!

At best he will be a blue dog democrat. He opposes the Employee Free Choice Act. And the only reason he switched is because he could not take the heat of an upcoming GOP primary.

Why some Dems think this + Franken finally being seated will be the end of all problems is beyond me!

[Zachstar]

Merge please :oops:

http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/showthread.php?t=151173

SteamW if you make a title that is so confusing you ought to expect multiple threads.

Please be clear with the thread titles in the future.. Thanks.

[Enigma]

I love it. I've always had great respect for the man, despite our few differences. He's great at what he does. I for one am thankful for him becoming a Dem. :yeah:

[Enigma]

Honestly Spector is not a great loss

Ha! :har:

[surf_ten]

I would really laugh if the democrats in PA would primary his butt out of office, but seeing that he is senior senator wielding alot of power and influence I am sure the PA democratic party will welcome him with open arms.

[SUBMAN1]

Specter is just wearing appropriate clothes now. He was always dem.

-S

[Max2147]

It takes the veto of 60 (of 100) senators to prevent the degeneration of democratic basic principles and freedom of speech by filibustering, and every step and every measurement making such a majority to prevent filibusters more likely should be welcomed and seen as a step to give the house back some of its intended dignity, no matter all other things that can be said about politics, politicians and the senate. That filibusters still are considered a legal tool of parliamentary debate, is a scandal. One could as well consider it legal to serve members of opposing opinion drinks with knockout drops. The basic attitude is the same like behind filibustering.
I'm actually a fan of the filibuster. Complete rule by one party is dangerous - and I'm saying that as a liberal. The filibuster gives the majority party a reason to still listen to the minority party. It's a useful tool to stop the tyranny of the majority. From 2002 to 2006 the filibuster was almost the only check on Republican power. I was absolutely terrified when the GOP started talking about the nuclear option.

I always get ticked off when libertarians whine that our government needs to be more efficient. Our government is deliberately inefficient for a very good reason, and the filibuster is an important part of that.

[Aramike]

I'm actually a fan of the filibuster. Complete rule by one party is dangerous - and I'm saying that as a liberal. The filibuster gives the majority party a reason to still listen to the minority party. It's a useful tool to stop the tyranny of the majority. From 2002 to 2006 the filibuster was almost the only check on Republican power. I was absolutely terrified when the GOP started talking about the nuclear option.

I always get ticked off when libertarians whine that our government needs to be more efficient. Our government is deliberately inefficient for a very good reason, and the filibuster is an important part of that.Although I think libertarians are referring to a different type of efficiency (fiscal), I do see your point and agree with a lot of what this post says.

[UnderseaLcpl]

I always get ticked off when libertarians whine that our government needs to be more efficient. Our government is deliberately inefficient for a very good reason, and the filibuster is an important part of that.

As Aramike pointed out, we are usually referring to fiscal efficiency.
When it comes to legislation or other issues we simply prefer to limit the power of the state as much as possible. Imo, since the state does everything wrong and wastes a lot of money doing it, why let them do anything at all? The Constitution, when strictly adhered to, does a pretty good job of that, why not use it?
That is not to say that there cannot be states that have significant legislative power, we just want to make sure that that power is not centralized. When California's liberal agenda rips the state economy all to hell, people have the freedom to move to other states. When the Federal government ruins the economy or makes unwise policy decisions, the only choice is to move to another country. Granted, they are still free to move, but it is a lot more difficult.
Of course, decentralizing the government makes it more efficient in the legislative capacity as well. Representatives are closer to their constituency and can address their needs more effectively, without involving other states.

Like you, I also favor fillibustering because I think concentrations of power are dangerous. Is it such a leap to simply limit and decentralize state power so that they are not necessary? We wouldn't all have to pay for each other's policy mistakes, and we'd be free to adopt successful policy. It would be more effective, and more efficient;)

[Enigma]

Specter is just wearing appropriate clothes now. He was always dem.

False. And absurd.

[Skybird]

I'm actually a fan of the filibuster. Complete rule by one party is dangerous - and I'm saying that as a liberal. The filibuster gives the majority party a reason to still listen to the minority party. It's a useful tool to stop the tyranny of the majority. From 2002 to 2006 the filibuster was almost the only check on Republican power. I was absolutely terrified when the GOP started talking about the nuclear option.

I always get ticked off when libertarians whine that our government needs to be more efficient. Our government is deliberately inefficient for a very good reason, and the filibuster is an important part of that.

Disagree.

[August]

Disagree.


Somehow I don't think Skybird would be disagreeing if it were the Republicans in control...

[Subnuts]

He didn't leave the Republican Party. The Republican Party left him. ;)

[OneToughHerring]

Specter is just wearing appropriate clothes now. He was always dem.

-S

Yea right, he basically singlehandedly defiled Kennedy's still warm corpse.

[SteamWake]

He didn't leave the Republican Party. The Republican Party left him. ;)

Heh.. when I heard spector say "The republican party had become too conservative for him" I busted out laughing.

The man was too far left of center to begin with then claims the party left him. Funny stuff.

This whole thing started when Spector voted yes on the stimulous bill against the will of his consituants. Its just now comming to a head.

"Balance of the parties is a national treasure"... woops so much for that ideal.

[Max2147]

Olympia Snowe (moderate Republican senator from Maine) agrees with the 'party left Specter' line: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/29/opinion/29snowe.html?_r=2&ref=opinion

Reading that, you have to wonder if Specter will be the last defection. The conservative Christian takeover of the GOP means that there really isn't any room for moderates in that party anymore.

[SteamWake]

Wow Christian Conservative take over... :yeah:

What ever happened to the zionist puppet masters?

[Max2147]

Wow Christian Conservative take over... :yeah:

What ever happened to the zionist puppet masters?
I didn't mean it in a sinister way. Conservative Christians are the Republicans' main supporters right now. When people said that the Republicans needed somebody who would energize "the base," that's who they were talking about. It's why Mitt Romney, who has very strong conservative credentials on economic matters, never stood a chance in the GOP race, and why Sarah Palin, whose idea of fiscal conservatism is putting a jet on sale on eBay (where nobody bought it) became the darling of the party. The Bush Administration was one of the least fiscally conservative of all time, yet they won two terms thanks to "the base."

Look at the issues that are at the center of the Republican Party these days - they're all the moral issues that are most important to the conservative Christians. People on this board might like to think it's all about guns and national defense, but it's not. There's room for gun control supporters in the GOP, but there's not room for pro-choicers anymore.

[Max2147]

Some very interesting comments from both sides of the aisle: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/04/28/AR2009042802261.html

Some snippets...

William Cohen (R): "At this moment, many Americans are struggling with the same decision that Arlen just confronted. Polls show (http://www.harrisinteractive.com/harris_poll/pubs/Harris_Poll_2009_03_03.pdf) that Republican self-identification has dropped significantly -- though, unlike Arlen, many of those leaving the Republican Party have not yet made the jump to the Democratic side. The ranks of independents is growing -- which means that while many Americans are frustrated with the GOP's failure to practice fiscal discipline and its intolerance of social moderation, they are not quite willing to sign up with the other side."

Lincoln Chafee (R): "After the election, it was reported that some Republicans were happy to be free of the "wobbly-kneed Republicans." Happy in their 41-seat minority! I assume that Sen. Specter told the right-wing fundraising juggernaut, "If you fund my primary opponent, I'll switch parties." The likely response? "Don't let the door hit you on the way out." That attitude signals the demise of the Republican Party as a viable national party. The ramifications of the collapse are especially acute in states such as Rhode Island, where presently there is no alternative to the Democratic Party. Everybody here agrees that that is not good for a healthy democracy."

Thomas Davis III (R): "To end this cycle Republicans must do two things. First, we must focus on the broad principles that made our party strong: limited government, free trade, free markets and a strong defense. That's it. Believe anything else you want, but don't make those beliefs a litmus test for admission. Litmus tests are fine for a private club, but they're no formula for a successful political coalition."

Ed Rodgers (R): "Notice to Republicans: Arlen Specter changing parties is good for the Democrats and President Obama and bad for us. If you think otherwise, put down the Ann Coulter book and go get some fresh air. There's always a delusional element within the GOP that thinks if we lose badly enough the Democrats will gain so much power they will implement all their crazy plans, the people will revolt and purest Republicans will then be swept back into power. Even if this were true, it doesn't take into account the damage done while our opponents are in control."

Jim Leach (R): "The Republican Party was founded as a party of individual rights and individual initiative. It led the fight to end slavery, give women the right to vote, expand national parks and break up corporate monopolies. Today the party is more movement-oriented: pro-life, pro-gun, pro-tax cut and anti-U.N., with recent pandering in Texas and Alaska to irrational secessionist anger. Arlen Specter didn't fit. He's not the only one. Many traditional Republicans respect movement values but do not support efforts to impose them on society as a whole. They are instinctively pragmatic rather than ideological, tolerant rather than supportive of state regulation of values. They can vote for Democrats when given compelling choices, but for a variety of reasons they aren't comfortable with either modern conservatism or old-fashioned liberalism."

Mary Beth Cahill (D): "One of the most remarkable occurrences of this 2008 election cycle is the decline in self-identified Republicans in state after state. If the voters are leaving the party, can the politicians be far behind?"

[Max2147]

More evidence that moderates who disagree with Christian conservatives are no longer welcome in the GOP: http://www.sltrib.com/ci_12248321

The Michigan GOP cancelled an event for Utah's Republican governor Jon Huntsman Jr. because he supports Civil Unions.

[Zachstar]

I cant believe what hubhub this is causing.

He does not support many so called dem causes including the EFCA. At best he MIGHT vote yes in a few areas he would vote no before but that is it.

Yet people are breaking out the champagne like dems have won.. WHat?

Has the EFCA been passed?

Are we out of Iraq?

Do we have a serious future for NASA?

That's just a random pick of the thousands of issues the party and congress has to tackle in 4 years. If anyone thinks this switch makes it tons easier needs to get an edumacation in politics.

[August]

The article itself is spot on:

This switch is a function of personal survival and will make clearer the profound difference between the Democratic Party of big government, big bureaucracy, high taxes and big unions and the Republican Party of lower taxes, less bureaucracy and small business, with its emphasis on the work ethic, civil society and local control back home.When congressional Republicans forgot that their party was the party of taxpayers and government reformers, they lost control in 2006. When they accepted the Bush big-spending plans of 2008, they further lost ground.

When Sen. Specter voted for a $787 billion big-spending bill no elected official had even read, he widened the gap between himself and the tax-paying small-government conservatives who are the base of the Republican Party.


It is clear that Specter concluded he would lose the coming Republican primary, and he admits in his statement on switching parties that the vote for the $787 billion spending bill was the final straw.


This is what people mean when they say "not Republican enough".

[Max2147]

If you're defining "Republican" strictly by fiscal conservatism, then Bill Clinton was a much better Republican than George W. Bush.

The Republican Party today is all about social issues - the three G's (God, Gays, Guns). It's more the party of Jerry Falwell than the party of Dwight Eisenhower.