Authored by: Christian Avard on Tuesday, April 28 2009 @ 01:25 PM GMT+4

Kos weighs in. His verdict: "Don't expect much.

But Daily Kos front-pager and Green Mountain Daily co-founder Kagro X (Dave Waldman) begs to differ. Sorta.

Authored by: pjmelton on Tuesday, April 28 2009 @ 02:56 PM GMT+4

I don't expect much, but it makes me so happy anyway. It is a very public and explicit declaration of what we already knew: the Republican party is no place for anyone who is willing to compromise for the good of the country.

I expect Specter to be about as valuable an ally for Dems as he has already been in the last couple years, perhaps slightly more so. But the symbolism is something, isn't it?

---
"Economic laws are not made by nature. They are made by human beings." -- FDR

Authored by: cgrotke on Tuesday, April 28 2009 @ 03:30 PM GMT+4

Sounds like this is a move to get ready to run again now that
Pennsylvania is tipping lefterly. Seems like a move to stay a Senator.

With his voting record, it's as if we've gained a Lieberman! This tilts the
Dems to the right a bit overall.

Authored by: Mr. Buddy Love on Tuesday, April 28 2009 @ 03:39 PM GMT+4

Senator Spincter is no flaming liberal, and he worked early in his legal
career to ram the "single bullet theory" down everyone's throats for
the Warren Commission, so he doesn't get much praise from me.

Still, you have to look at this not from the Democratic Party
perspective, but from the Republican Party's end: This is a disaster for
a shrinking brand which increasingly has become far right wing and
alienated most Americans from it's support.

He says he'll vote a few times not with the Democrats, which plants
him firmly in the "Blue Dog" wing of the party. This is more a
symbolic blow for the Republicans than it is a gain for the Democrats,
except for one thing: If you look at where Obama is making crucial
decisions that tilt away from Bush, it's potentially huge. When
Franken is brought in sometime after June 1, Obama will have what
Clinton NEVER had: a real majority. And to those of you on the left
who whine that this means nothing or that the Dems are turning
rightward, remember that when LBJ had this kind of majority, blacks
got voting rights. It means a lot to some people, people who don't
have health care who might now get it, and to people who want a
stronger stand taken to curb carbon emissions. Remember: Lincoln got
slavery defeated just a few months before he was assassinated by just
ONE VOTE in the Senate. One vote! Remember that.

Authored by: pjmelton on Tuesday, April 28 2009 @ 03:51 PM GMT+4

I agree, Buddy. I'm not a Democrat and therefore don't care much about the Party's overall ideological purity. I think Specter is not in the position of power that he might have been in an even more conservative state. Pennsylvania is sliding very rapidly out of the Republicans' grasp, and in order to win the Democratic primary there, Specter will need to show more loyalty to Obama's agenda than, say, Bob Casey would. Otherwise Democrats just won't vote for him.

This fact keeps him on a much shorter leash than will ever be around the neck of Ben Nelson or Evan Bayh, to name two. Since he's already said he will still vote against EFCA, he's going to have to work pretty darn hard to pass other important Democratic legislation if he wants to return to the senate.

I'm pretty amazed that he had the guts to make the switch. He is losing a lot of friends right now.

---
"Economic laws are not made by nature. They are made by human beings." -- FDR

Authored by: SpudHill on Tuesday, April 28 2009 @ 03:53 PM GMT+4

It appears to me a somewhat calculated move to hold onto his seat, even he has talked about the state becoming more liberal. But I'll take it.

Thanks for the tidbit about Lincoln and the one vote Buddy...didn't know that, very interesting.

Authored by: pjmelton on Tuesday, April 28 2009 @ 04:05 PM GMT+4

Might seem cynical to switch sides in response to voters switching sides. However...isn't that the point of a representative democracy? To represent the people in your district/state/country?

Senators have very few opportunities to feel the consequences of their actions. Every six years, the voters get to decide whether they think the person has been representing them as they want to be represented. Responsiveness to changes in the electorate is not a bad thing, but a built-in incentive for politicians, who overall have far too few incentives to do the right thing.

---
"Economic laws are not made by nature. They are made by human beings." -- FDR

Authored by: Mr. Buddy Love on Tuesday, April 28 2009 @ 06:44 PM GMT+4

I got it wrong on the abolition of slavery in our Constitution. It's true
that Lincoln faced opposition from the conservatives (in those days
they were the Democrats) who blocked passage in the House before
Lincoln made it a campaign plank issue in 1864, when he defeated
McClellan and won reelection.

Here are the facts, from a very good site:
http://www.sethkaller.net/catalogs/55-election/370-13th-amendment-
abolishing-slavery

Lincoln, believing slavery to be morally wrong, had championed
against it for most of his political career. However, he also recognized
that the president did not possess the Constitutional power to outlaw
the institution, except, perhaps, as a matter of military necessity. The
power to fully abolish slavery, he acknowledged, rested with Congress.
Therefore, he carefully crafted the Emancipation Proclamation to
affect only those states still in rebellion as of January 1, 1863.
He then began to push for a Constitutional amendment that would
forever abolish slavery in the United States. Such an amendment was
passed by the Senate on April 8, 1864, with a vote of 38 to 6. Two
months later, however, it was defeated in the House of
Representatives, 93 to 65. Lincoln, not about to give up, made
abolition a central plank of the Republican platform and his re-election
campaign. The 1864 election gave Lincoln and his party enough seats
in the House to guarantee passage of the amendment. Not content to
wait until the new Congress met in March, however, supporters
brought the measure to another vote in the House on January 31,
1865. This time it passed, 119 to 56, with 8 abstentions.
The outcome of the vote had been in doubt up until the final hour. A
Pennsylvania Democrat, Archibald McAllister, opened the debate by
explaining why he had changed his vote from a “Nay” to an “Aye.” He
had been in favor of exhausting all means of conciliation, McAllister
stated, but was now satisfied that nothing short of independence
would satisfy the Southern Confederacy, and that therefore it must be
destroyed, and he must cast his vote against its cornerstone, and
declare eternal war with the enemies of the country. Fellow
Pennsylvania Democrat Alexander Hamilton Coffroth, who was also
changing his vote, followed, urging approval of the amendment.
Arguments continued until, finally, the votes were tallied. When
Speaker Colfax declared the results, “a moment of silence succeeded,
and then, from floor and galleries, burst a simultaneous shout of joy
and triumph, spontaneous, irrepressible and uncontrollable, swelling
and prolonged in one vast volume of reverberating thunder…” (Report
of the special committee on the passage by the House of
Representatives of the constitutional amendment for the abolition of
slavery. January 31st, 1865: The Action of the Union League Club on
the Amendment, February 9, 1865. “From Slavery to Freedom.”
American Memory, Library of Congress).
After its passage, and publication with the Acts of Congress, and
before the amendment could become law, ratification by three-fourths
of the state legislatures was required. Accordingly, Secretary of State
William H. Seward immediately sent certified copies of the resolution
to each governor. But even before a formal copy was received, one
state had ratified the thirteenth amendment: In a show of support for
the president, his home state had voted in favor of ratification on
February 1, the same day that Lincoln signed the measure. Governor
Richard J. Oglesby telegraphed the news to Lincoln at 7:25 that
evening, informing him that “[T]he Legislature has by a large majority
ratified the amendment to the Constitution. All suppose you had
signed the Joint resolution of Congress. Great enthusiasm” (Oglesby
to Lincoln, February 1, 1865, AL Papers at the Library of Congress).
Five minutes later, Ward H. Lamon, the president’s old law partner,
and Edward L. Baker, editor of the Illinois State Journal, relayed the
same news. The amendment had passed, they exclaimed
triumphantly, “with a great hurrah” (Lamon and Baker to Lincoln,
February 1, 1865, AL Papers at the Library of Congress).

Authored by: Maus Anon E on Tuesday, April 28 2009 @ 04:24 PM GMT+4

This will further isolate and radicalize the Republican Party.

---
We Rock!

Authored by: Christian Avard on Tuesday, April 28 2009 @ 05:02 PM GMT+4

Huffington Post reports Rush Limbaugh is already telling Specter (via his
listeners) to take McCain and his daughter with him.

On a sidenote, Limbaugh blamed Mexico's bad outbreak of the Swine
Virus due to its socialized medicine plan. Not joking.

Authored by: Maus Anon E on Tuesday, April 28 2009 @ 07:47 PM GMT+4

Good. When Collins and Snowe become independents, the republican Party will finally become the ultimate small tent party. Anyone who disagrees with Limbaugh will be harassed right out of the party.

I have to say, it has been amazing to watch the republicans' continued meltdown. Never in my wildest dreams did I think they'd manage to, not just fail, but to keep failing. Even their implosions have imploded.


---
We Rock!

Authored by: Christian Avard on Tuesday, April 28 2009 @ 08:13 PM GMT+4

Good movie.

But seriously, Rush Limbaugh really seems to be filling in the vacuum
and calling the shots for the GOP. This is where things are heading.

Authored by: Christian Avard on Tuesday, April 28 2009 @ 04:59 PM GMT+4

I highly recommend people go and check out Steve Benen's Washington Monthly blog "Political Animal." Benen writes from Essex Junction, VT and puts it all into perspective what Specter's switch may bring Check it out.

Authored by: mr.mike on Tuesday, April 28 2009 @ 09:02 PM GMT+4

Hah, I like Buddy's reference of Senator Sphincter. That's great.

This is such a non story. He's been voting like a Dem and Vermont Republicans for so long he shoulda pulled a Jefford's along time ago. Another politician that put's personal politics above the country and joins the wrong party.

I just wish some of our VTGOP's like Hube and Komline would follow his leading. Or at least. come to terms with their split personalities.

---
No representation with taxation. Spend someone elses money, not mine

Authored by: annikee on Tuesday, April 28 2009 @ 09:56 PM GMT+4

When I lived in PA Spector was King, and quite corrupt. He is a powermonger, among other sorts of monger. This is hedging his bet is all. A real old fashioned politician, he is. Up there with Honey Fitz and John Lindsay.

And yet, wasn't it by a single vote that the Continental Congress began debate over independence?

---
Down with Goldstein!

Authored by: Maus Anon E on Wednesday, April 29 2009 @ 08:51 AM GMT+4

It isn't a "non-story," but everyone seems to be missing the story. They're talking about what this means for Dems and what it means for Specter. The real story is what this means for the republican Party.

---
We Rock!

Authored by: SJD on Wednesday, April 29 2009 @ 08:29 AM GMT+4

Yes, sour grapes, but a heck of a poster-child for Term Limits, -"Specter the defector" is clearly putting his own political survival interests above his constituents, a real professional! It'll be interesting how the next PA elections turn out, does he really assume all his "fans" will vote Dem?

---
"Government's view of the economy: If it moves, tax it. If it keeps moving, regulate it. If it stops moving, subsidize it." -Ronald Reagan

Authored by: pjmelton on Wednesday, April 29 2009 @ 09:16 AM GMT+4

"putting his own political survival interests above his constituents"

I think it's the opposite, actually. Most of his constituents are Democrats now too. I think instead of "constituents" you meant "former Party," which is another thing altogether.

Like many people, I am sure he will make a disappointing Democrat, but no more disappointing than most other Democrats. And the damage to his former party is pretty deep.

I'm actually kind of sorry, though, too. I don't want to live in a one-party country. I think we should have more balance. However, that requires two parties that actually have workable agendas that can be explained rationally to voters so voters can choose. The Republicans haven't had a workable agenda for a while, but now the only agenda seems to be to define who is a "real" Republican, and it seems to consist almost entirely of justifying torture and badmouthing anything and everything that has anything to do with Obama, Reid or Pelosi. Rather self-serving, if you ask me - and not good for the healthy debate a democracy requires. It's sad. They should just change their name to the Ad Hominem Party.

---
"Economic laws are not made by nature. They are made by human beings." -- FDR

Authored by: Mr. Buddy Love on Wednesday, April 29 2009 @ 09:19 AM GMT+4

I'm frankly surprised to hear conservatives (who espouse economic
'free hand' theory which says that the individual knows best and that
regulatory rules imposed on the market kill it) argue for term limits.
Imposing term limits on elected officials means that they can't run for
re-election if they do a good job in the eyes of their constituents. Isn't
this anti-democratic (with a small 'd')? Let's face it: If you are FOR
term limits, you are in a sense saying: "I don't think that the will of
the people who vote can be trusted; I'd like government to put a stop
to their free will."

I believe in regulation of the markets to ensure fair free trade, but I
also believe that in a free democratic society, people should be
allowed to serve in office for as long as We the People want them to
serve, through the power of the free, popular vote. Anything
restricting this freedom to choose is undemocratic and a form of
tyranny.

Authored by: SJD on Wednesday, April 29 2009 @ 11:59 AM GMT+4

Yea your right... but it's just so goofy that some of these old relics just keep on ticking seemingly unchecked. Either there is poor opposition, or on the other hand these relics have greased so many and have created such a political business that their machine rarely allows a new comer to get a foot hold.

---
"Government's view of the economy: If it moves, tax it. If it keeps moving, regulate it. If it stops moving, subsidize it." -Ronald Reagan

Authored by: annikee on Wednesday, April 29 2009 @ 12:14 PM GMT+4

Yep. Term limits! Term limits!

---
Down with Goldstein!