Arlen Specter changes party

[Partha]

Statement by Senator Arlen Specter

I have been a Republican since 1966. I have been working extremely hard for the Party, for its candidates and for the ideals of a Republican Party whose tent is big enough to welcome diverse points of view. While I have been comfortable being a Republican, my Party has not defined who I am. I have taken each issue one at a time and have exercised independent judgment to do what I thought was best for Pennsylvania and the nation.

Since my election in 1980, as part of the Reagan Big Tent, the Republican Party has moved far to the right. Last year, more than 200,000 Republicans in Pennsylvania changed their registration to become Democrats. I now find my political philosophy more in line with Democrats than Republicans.

When I supported the stimulus package, I knew that it would not be popular with the Republican Party. But, I saw the stimulus as necessary to lessen the risk of a far more serious recession than we are now experiencing.

Since then, I have traveled the State, talked to Republican leaders and office-holders and my supporters and I have carefully examined public opinion. It has become clear to me that the stimulus vote caused a schism which makes our differences irreconcilable. On this state of the record, I am unwilling to have my twenty-nine year Senate record judged by the Pennsylvania Republican primary electorate. I have not represented the Republican Party. I have represented the people of Pennsylvania.

I have decided to run for re-election in 2010 in the Democratic primary.

I am ready, willing and anxious to take on all comers and have my candidacy for re-election determined in a general election.

I deeply regret that I will be disappointing many friends and supporters. I can understand their disappointment. I am also disappointed that so many in the Party I have worked for for more than four decades do not want me to be their candidate. It is very painful on both sides. I thank specially Senators McConnell and Cornyn for their forbearance.

I am not making this decision because there are no important and interesting opportunities outside the Senate. I take on this complicated run for re-election because I am deeply concerned about the future of our country and I believe I have a significant contribution to make on many of the key issues of the day, especially medical research. NIH funding has saved or lengthened thousands of lives, including mine, and much more needs to be done. And my seniority is very important to continue to bring important projects vital to Pennsylvania’s economy.

I am taking this action now because there are fewer than thirteen months to the 2010 Pennsylvania Primary and there is much to be done in preparation for that election. Upon request, I will return campaign contributions contributed during this cycle.

While each member of the Senate caucuses with his Party, what each of us hopes to accomplish is distinct from his party affiliation. The American people do not care which Party solves the problems confronting our nation. And no Senator, no matter how loyal he is to his Party, should or would put party loyalty above his duty to the state and nation.

My change in party affiliation does not mean that I will be a party-line voter any more for the Democrats that I have been for the Republicans. Unlike Senator Jeffords’ switch which changed party control, I will not be an automatic 60th vote for cloture. For example, my position on Employees Free Choice (Card Check) will not change.

Whatever my party affiliation, I will continue to be guided by President Kennedy’s statement that sometimes Party asks too much. When it does, I will continue my independent voting and follow my conscience on what I think is best for Pennsylvania and America.

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/thefix/

With Franken due to be seated any time now, that gives the Democrats 60, and puts tremendous pressure on Snowe and Collins to bolt as well.

[Ddrak]

Damn... that's gonna put a few GOP members in difficult positions.

Dd

[Harlowe]

David Frum isn't drinking the "good riddance, now take McCain & his daughter with you" Limbaugh/Kristol Kool Aid. I think this is a good article and I couldn't agree with thim more. The whole RINO bs is killing the party. It's eating it's own. A hardcore, ideologically pure party is a losing one. Latest polls have only 21% of the population identifying themselves as Republican. Probably because the majority of Americans are not going to vote or identify themselves with something "looney" and desperate, they are not going to vote extremist and that's what the GOP party spokespeople offer right now. Rabid, foaming at the mouth, loons. Look at the Fox line up ....its a bunch of fucking nuts and we have our GOP elected officials bending over to take one up the ass everytime they piss off Rush Limbaugh. A political party beholden to that bloated, hateful sack of shit??? Really?


http://newmajority.com/ShowScroll.aspx? ... c32fc9acef

Tuesday, April 28, 2009 10:49 AM
With Arlen Specter’s defection, all that stands between the Democrats and a 60-seat Senate majority are Norman Coleman’s lawyers. I wish them every success – but they have not exactly been on a winning streak to date.

Which means that Democrats won’t need to resort to unorthodox tactics to push, say, their healthcare bill through Congress. They’ll have the votes.

If the Democrats do succeed in pushing through national health insurance, they really should set aside a little extra money to erect a statue to Pat Toomey. They couldn’t have done it without him!

Pat Toomey is of course the former president of the Club for Growth who planned to challenge Arlen Specter in the 2010 Pennsylvania Republican primary. Polls showed Toomey well ahead – not because he is so hugely popular in the state, but because the Pennsylvania GOP has shriveled to a small, ideologically intense core. Toomey now looks likely to gain the nomination he has sought – and then to be crushed by Specter or some other Democrat next November.

The Specter defection is too severe a catastrophe to qualify as a “wake-up call.” His defection is the thing we needed the wake-up call to warn us against! For a long time, the loudest and most powerful voices in the conservative world have told us that people like Specter aren’t real Republicans – that they don’t belong in the party. Now he’s gone, and with him the last Republican leverage within any of the elected branches of government.

For years, many in the conservative world have wished for an ideologically purer GOP. Their wish has been granted. Happy?

Let’s take this moment to nail some colors to the mast. I submit it is better for conservatives to have 60% sway within a majority party than to have 100% control of a minority party. And until and unless there is an honored place made in the Republican party for people who think like Arlen Specter, we will remain a minority party.

[Partha]

...

[Garrdor]

[Trollbait]

Looks like the Dems really know how to welcome a guy.

http://www.rollcall.com/news/34648-1.html

Specter Will Be Junior Democrat on Committees
By John Stanton
Roll Call Staff
May 5, 2009, 8:55 p.m.

Despite promises from Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) that Sen. Arlen Specter would retain his seniority after switching parties, Specter will be put at the end of the seniority line on all his committees but one under a resolution expected to be passed on the floor late Tuesday.

A Democratic aide acknowledged Tuesday that under the modified organizing resolution, Specter would not keep his committee seniority on any of the five committees that he serves on and would be the junior Democrat on all but one — the chamber’s Special Committee on Aging. On that committee, he will be next to last in seniority.

As a result, Specter — who as a Republican was ranking member on the Judiciary Committee and a senior member of the Appropriations Committee, as well as ranking member of the panel’s Subcommittee on Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education — will rank behind all other Democrats, at least until the end of this Congress.

According to the Democratic aide, it remains unclear whether Specter — who will still retain his seniority in the Senate outside of the committees — will see a boost in his committee seniority should he be re-elected for the next session. The status of his seniority for the next Congress will be determined once the 112th Congress convenes in 2011, the aide said.

Democrats said that while unrelated, Specter’s comments to the New York Times Magazine this weekend indicating he would support former Sen. Norm Coleman’s (R-Minn.) disputed re-election bid against Al Franken have angered many Democrats.

“Sen. Specter better watch comments like these. They won’t help him in the caucus,” a Democratic leadership aide said, adding that the comments have ‘caused a lot of heartburn in the caucus.”

David Drucker and Emily Pierce contributed to this report.

[Lurker]

Allowing Specter to retain his seniority and control committees as a Dem (while not supporting any of Obama's agenda) would have been pure insanity. Reid is the worst Senate majority leader in my lifetime. Luckily the Democratic Caucus killed that deal.

Next step... primary Specter out of the party.

[Trollbait]

Ahh, but they tipped their hand, Lurker.

I would be suprised if Snowe or Collins switched now.

They know what is waiting for them on the other side.

Jackals.

[Lurker]

Oh Noes! They tipped their hand! Spare me.

Specter voted against Obama's budget, opposed his pick for the DOJ position, said he was against a public option on health care, and has repeatedly said that he's not a loyal Democrat. Sorry, that doesn't earn you a committee position.

The entire Republican Party is batshit crazy from the leadership on down. They have nothing to offer but ignorant and/or insane commentary and policy proposals. If Snowe and Collins want to remain Republicans more power to them. They can either support Obama's popular agenda or they can support the crazy, and they can do that with a 'D' or an 'R' behind their name.

And speaking of batshit crazy... how's JTP doing these days. Hope no queers have gotten near his children.

[Trollbait]

The entire Republican Party is batshit crazy from the leadership on down. They have nothing to offer but ignorant and/or insane commentary and policy proposals.

Ok, so there is nothing else to discuss with you on this board, ever.

You sound like Bush.

If you are not with us then...........

Smaller government? Not insane.

Less intrusive government? Not insane.

More personal responsibility? Not insane.

The neo-cons and religious zealots that have hijacked the party are not representitive of it's goals or traditions. There is a large number of Republicans that are NOT batshit crazy and have true conservatism at their heart.

I can't say I can say the same for Liberal Democrats, however. Bunch of fucking loonies.

Allow me to leave you with some choice quotes by REAL conservatives. I think the first Buckley quote applies to you specifically, Lurker.

“Liberals claim to want to give a hearing to other views, but then are shocked and offended to discover that there are other views.” William F. Buckley Jr.

“Back in the thirties we were told we must collectivize the nation because the people were so poor. Now we are told we must collectivize the nation because the people are so rich.” William F. Buckley Jr.

“There is an inverse relationship between reliance on the state and self-reliance.” William F. Buckley Jr.

“Liberals, it has been said, are generous with other peoples' money, except when it comes to questions of national survival when they prefer to be generous with other people's freedom and security.” William F. Buckley Jr.

“Remember that a government big enough to give you everything you want is also big enough to take away everything you have.” Barry Goldwater

“The income tax created more criminals than any other single act of government.” Barry Goldwater

“I think every good Christian ought to kick Falwell right in the ass.” Barry Goldwater

“Equality, rightly understood as our founding fathers understood it, leads to liberty and to the emancipation of creative differences; wrongly understood, as it has been so tragically in our time, it leads first to conformity and then to despotism” Barry Goldwater

[Lurker]

Ok, so there is nothing else to discuss with you on this board, ever.

You sound like Bush.

If you are not with us then...........

Smaller government? Not insane.

Less intrusive government? Not insane.

More personal responsibility? Not insane.

The neo-cons and religious zealots that have hijacked the party are not representitive of it's goals or traditions. There is a large number of Republicans that are NOT batshit crazy and have true conservatism at their heart.

Oh, the drama.

You misunderstand what I'm saying. I don't mean that Obama has a lock on all the good ideas. I'm just saying that the current Republican Party, from the leaders on down, have nothing useful to add. More tax cuts for the wealthy and a spending freeze in the face of massive deficits and a demand recession; it doesn't get more insane than that. If there are a large number of Republicans that aren't crazy and are offering good policy ideas, please list some. None of them seem to be in Congress or the media.

Smaller, less intrusive government are meaningless terms that the Republicans have no interest in. Ditto on "personal responsibility". They are meaningless terms because "conservatives" never follow through on any of this when they are in power. What we end up with when Republicans are in power is bigger, more intrusive, more poorly run government.

That''s true no matter how many Buckley quotes you vomit up.

P.S. You never answered the JTP question.

[Harlowe]

Liberal Democrats are only modestly less batshit insane than Neo-con zeolots. Neo-cons are more dangerous imo, however, the liberal far left part of the Democratic party are not in power.They do not control the party by a long shot. That is the only reason they are the lesser of the evils right now.

As far as your comments go

Smaller government? Not insane.

Less intrusive government? Not insane.

More personal responsibility? Not insane.

Oh give it a rest, if the Republican party truly represented ANY of that, they would still be in power. If you believe they still stand for any of those, you are delusional, ignorant or both. Once they actually do go back to their foundation and shitcan the beholden to zeolots and Rush Limbaugh thing, they will be in power again. People want moderates, they want fiscal conservatism. They (the majority of Americans) are not going to have the stomach for hate-mongering and social conservatism. Since the Republicans spent like they were buying hookers and blow for 8 years and allowed businesses to have a financial Spring Break in Ft Lauderdale....people aren't buying it..

"Smaller government" - not by a long shot, it's grown exponentially
"less intrusive"- wtf, defense of marriage act, wire-tapping,
"personal responsibility" - again wtf are you talking about .....there is no demonstration of this


Cato Institute itself says

http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=9781

Under President Bush, domestic discretionary spending has increased faster than under any president since Lyndon Johnson launched the Great Society.

Not a single major government program or agency was eliminated.

According to an analysis of 25 major government programs by USA Today, enrollment increased an average of 17 percent in the programs, while the nation's population grew by only 5 percent. John McCain and George W. Bush lost this election. This increase represents the largest five-year expansion of the welfare state since the Great Society in the 1960s. Spending on these social programs is up an inflation-adjusted 22 percent since President Bush took office. Growing enrollment was responsible for most of the spending increase, but higher benefits also contributed.

The Bush administration strong-armed Congress into passing the first new entitlement program in 40 years, an unfunded Medicare prescription drug benefit that could add as much as $11.2 trillion to the program's unfunded liabilities. The administration dramatically increased federal control over local schools while increasing federal education spending by nearly 61 percent. Farm price supports, pork- barrel spending and earmarks all increased under Bush.

Nor has Bush been a champion of deregulation.

In fact, one searches in vain for a major piece of deregulation that passed during the last eight years. On the contrary, it was the Bush administration that pushed through Sarbanes-Oxley and other regulatory measures. Overall, the Bush administration has added more than 7,000 pages of regulations to the Federal Register.

True, President Bush did push through some modest tax cuts. But they were tiny when measured against total tax revenues — just 1.6 percent of the government's take. In 2006, federal taxes represented 18.4 percent of GDP, just one-tenth of a percent less than they did in 1995, during the Clinton administration.

By almost every measure, government grew bigger, more expensive and more intrusive under President Bush and the Republican Congress.

McCain may have rhetorically criticized government spending, notably earmarks, but he consistently backed bigger and more activist government, whether backing the Wall Street bailout or calling for a $300 billion bailout of delinquent mortgages. By most measures he supported only slightly less government spending than did Obama.

Polls show that Republican losses were heaviest among upscale suburban voters who tend to be economically conservative but socially moderate. These formerly reliable Republican voters did not suddenly decide that they wanted a bigger, more expensive and more intrusive government. Faced with the big-government status quo or big-government "change," they opted for change.

[Harlowe]

One more time .....in case you missed the important part

The Cato Institute is saying By almost every measure, government grew bigger, more expensive and more intrusive under President Bush and the Republican Congress.

[Kulaf]

By in large "government" grew in response to 9/11. And if it hadn't the Dems would have been saying that the President was irresponsible and not protecting the nation.

[Lurker]

The article Harlowe linked didn't include war spending or 9/11 response at all.

Or did you misspeak? Maybe you meant to say government grew more intrusive in response to 9/11.

[Harlowe]

By in large "government" grew in response to 9/11. And if it hadn't the Dems would have been saying that the President was irresponsible and not protecting the nation.

Did you even read the Cato article? We're talking about entitlements not the 9/11 response.

And this isn't about what the Dems are saying, this is about Jecks claim that the party stands for any of those things and Cato saying that for the past 8 years it hasn't.

The Cato Institute isn't the Dems.

[Trollbait]

P.S. You never answered the JTP question.

For several reasons:

1) It is irrelevant to this discussion. If you would like to start a new thread to discuss Joe then do so.

2) I don't really care what his position on gays is. I am not the thought police.

3) My kids are my responsibility. His kids are his responsibility.

Back to the matter at hand. There are several factions in the Republican party. The one most likely to retake control at this point is the Goldwater faction of which I am a member. The Neo-cons are likely to leave the party. An article I recently read said it was likely they would go to the Democratic party now that they are in power. All that remains is to wrest platform and agenda control from the religious nuts.

[Lurker]

There are several factions in the Republican party. The one most likely to retake control at this point is the Goldwater faction of which I am a member.

Who are the members of the "Goldwater faction" that are poised to retake control of the party? What useful policy ideas are they bringing to the table?

[Trollbait]

Who are the members of the "Goldwater faction" that are poised to retake control of the party? What useful policy ideas are they bringing to the table?

Most of the true Goldwater conservatives are in state offices. Many are not in the national limelight. Because of this their policy ideas are fairly localized so as far as "bringing to the table" I assume you mean the national table that is not yet happening.

Most of this comes from Republican party discussion groups and such so linking them would be pointless. I can say that I get fairly involved in the party as of late and there are a lot of disgruntled conservatives.

Nobody in these groups are discussing social religious agendas such as abortion, gay marriage, prohibitive immigration policies, or the like. In fact people have been met with a swift ban hammer for starting discussion threads of that nature.

I can tell you this. If my wing of the party cannot take control then they will separate.

[Partha]

An article I recently read said it was likely they would go to the Democratic party now that they are in power.

BWAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAH

Most of the true Goldwater conservatives are in state offices.

You mean like the ones who were eager to primary Specter? BWAHAHAHHAHAHAHA