Arlen Specter is switching parties. With Al Franken likely winning in MN, the Democratic Party is in complete power. http://voices.washingtonpost.com/thefix/senate/specter-to-switch-parties.html?wprss=thefix They own everything that happens from here on out.
Your political naivete' is showing again. Politicians are individuals, representing ALL the individuals in their particular individual areas of the country. I for example usually vote for Democrats, but agree with maybe only 50% of their platform, and lobby them to make changes in it all the time. Oregon is known for having reps from both parties who have been willing to vote against party lines when their conscience, or their supporters, dictate they should. Mark Hatfield, Ron Widen, Peter DeFazio, even Gordon Smith have all bucked their party on key issues. It is doubtful that Arlen Specter will follow party lines very often. Party switches are usually done simply to stay in office because that's where the votes are.
He's now beholden to his new Party. He wasn't going to win the primary in Pennsylvania, so he switched parties. When there's a vote the Democrats need to stop a filibuster, they'll lean on Specter. He's theirs. And the Democrat Party now has complete control of the government. From here on out, they own everything, good and bad.
No matter how the GOP tries to spin this switch, it's a huge loss for them. They are completely out of power now. Who knows how long it will take for them to rebuild their base. The lesson is when you run one way and govern another, be prepared to pay the price.
Yeah, that's kind of the part that makes me feel queasy about this. He's not my rep, and I still have the naivete to trust that our government will end up doing the right things. BUT, changing political parties because you won't win an election if you don't? Doesn't that say that someone wouldn't vote for Arlen Specter, (R), but WILL vote for Arlen Specter, (D), even though Specter's doing the same things For instance, I am not in Norm Dicks' district, but if I was I would probably vote for the man not because he's a (D), but because he's been committed for a few decades now (voting against his party sometimes) to a strong military and urban renewal. I would hope that if Jane Schmoe in Tacoma isn't voting for him b/c he's a (D), she wouldn't think he's great now if he changes to an (R). That's one of the things I think is wrong in our country now.
I think the idea is that his ideals line up better with the Democratic party rather then Republicans, so rather than try to compromise his principles in order to be "electable" as a Republican, it's better to be a Democrat and vote the way he actually believes. Of course, that's what he'd claim. It could be that he simply sees that the wind is shifting in Pennsylvania and feels a "D" is a bigger political advantage than an "R." I think it's some of both. He's a very moderate Republican and I've read a lot of die-hard Republicans blast him as a "RINO" (Republican In Name Only), so he clearly has some ideological overlap with Democrats. But with Pennsylvania going bluer, there's no doubt he sees practical advantage in branding himself a Democrat.
Senator Specter was a registered Democrat when he initially ran for Pennsylvania AG, even though he ran on the Republican ticket. I think his sentiments fit much better with the Democrat Party than with whatever the Republicans decide they actually believe in.
But it isn't as if he's had a sudden change in principles, right? His ideals have lined up better with the Dems for quite a while now, have they not? As a senator, he's not bound to vote with his party, he's supposed to represent his constituency. It could say (D), (R), (I) or anything else after his name and he's able to vote how he wants. This smacks of expediency, or ignorant constituents, neither of which is what I deem helpful in our government.
Yeah, but for most politicians, it's not either/or, either you're a liberal or you're conservative. Most politicians have some overlap with both ideologies. Many have enough overlap with one that it's clear to them which party they "should" affiliate with. But some in the middle can legitimately be unsure. Shifts of party are rare, but they're never among clear liberals or clear conservatives. All senators should be representing their entire states by the principles that got them elected, but expediency is always going to matter when we have primaries. Which party you're in matters for which voters you have to go before in the primary. Now, I'd be quite in favour of getting rid of primaries (or having what is known as "jungle primaries") where everyone is in direct competition with one another, and you don't have Democrats voting for the Democratic candidate and Republicans voting for the Republican candidate. You simply have everyone voting for the candidate they think is best. Then, party affiliation really wouldn't matter as much. Specter could vote in the Senate however he wanted, and let all the voters in Pennsylvania decide. As long as we have this party primary system, political expediency for how one identifies will always be an issue. I wouldn't blame Specter for that, he's playing the game as it's been defined. I'd rather fix the system.
I think I see what you're saying. If he was to run as a (R) for his primary, he'd probably lose to a "more conservative" (R) before the state election, b/c only registered (R)'s are doing the voting (and probably don't like what he's doing right now). Whereas if he was a (D), he'd probably win the (D) primary and have a better-than-not shot at winning a blue state? Am I close?
Although, running as a D is not risk-free for him, since he could be outflanked to the left in the primary. barfo
Agreed. He could be caught in a squeeze play. That being said, I'm pretty sure he must have received a guaranteed from the DNC that if he switched parties, no other Democrat candidate would get a penny either from the National or State Party.
It's a risk. I've read that a lot of Pennsylvania Democrats don't like him much. A moderate always is in danger of being outflanked to the right or left. My guess is that his calculation goes like this: voting against the EFCA would be poison in a heavily unionized Pennsylvania. But voting for EFCA would be poison among the Republican base. So, the easiest path for him is to vote for EFCA, hope he survives the Democratic primary to reach the general and be benefited in the general election for having been pro-union.
That makes sense, at least for the national party. I'm not sure the state party would promise that, since they gain little from the switch. barfo
