Sen. Arlen Specter to switch parties

  • News
  • Thread starter Ivan Seeking
  • Start date
  • Tags
    Switch
In summary: I don't want to spoil it for you. It's a depressing read.In summary, Arlen Specter - one of the most senior Republican Senators - will become a Democrat. If Al Franken does assume office for Minnosota, which we expect to happen, that would give the Democrats a fillibuster-proof 60 vote majority in the Senate.
  • #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.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #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:
  • #91
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?
 
  • #92
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
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #93
LowlyPion said:
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.
 
  • #94
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.
 
  • #95
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.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Similar threads

Replies
6
Views
2K
Replies
10
Views
3K
Replies
3
Views
3K
Replies
5
Views
4K
Replies
2
Views
3K
Replies
82
Views
19K
Replies
36
Views
6K
Replies
27
Views
5K
Back
Top