Specter to switch parties

[Keystone Phil]

Specter is not switching to the Democrat Party, he is returning to it.  Remember, after he lost won his 1965 race for District Attorney as a Democrat, he switched to Republican.

Wrong

He wasn't getting the backing of the local Dems so he had to leave. He won the GOP backing and "stuck with us" until today.

he still ran as a registered Democrat.

By the way, I confirmed that this is true - he ran as a Dem but had our nomination and switched after he won.

[Sam Spade]

Ask the New York State Democratic Party about how much they've been doing while in power with their 1-vote State Senate majority.  And since the Democrats control everything, everything is their fault.

I really don't think that's the dynamic yet. Everyone recognizes that the Senate Dem majority is dysfunctional because it is no majority at all, and that a larger Dem majority would behave differently. We will see a larger Dem majority before we see Republicans ride backlash into control of the NY Senate again because "everything is bad and the Dems own it." 

Dems will definitely lose the NY Senate if Paterson is on the top of the ticket.

Can't speak if someone else, of course, so we probably agree to some extent, since I presume you don't expect it to be him at the top.

Although this is getting really off topic, I would observe that the long-term thing that will hurt the Dems is the WFP.  We're not there yet, however.

[Sam Spade]

How has every other western country managed the astonishing combination of a public health system and a (pre-2008) functioning bond market?

Not to drag this thread too far into the ditch but I have to agree that I doubt the introduction of a government health-care program will cause the destruction of the American economy as we know it..

Also, both President Bush and President Obama have already played games with the deficits ten times the size of those that the bond market smacked down viciously when Clinton tried them.

I know, because like many Democrats, I kept hoping and waiting for the bond market to discipline President Bush and punish him for what he was doing. Never happened.

Very different dynamic now than during the Bush or Clinton era in terms of the bond market.  

1) We weren't buying our own treasuries (or buying as much crap - yes we were still buying it, in the case of GSEs) in order to artificially keep rates low.  And trying to function with a ZIRP forever. (roughly)
2) There wasn't a global economic collapse occurring (probably the most important)
3) The supply of treasuries going out this year is much greater than ever before (actually quite scary and is increasingly being funded on the short-end. (connects with point #2)

Now, in comparison to the Clinton years - one issue you might be ignoring is that in 1994 the debt as a % of GDP ratio was higher than it was during the Bush administration except for the tail end (obviously).  Keynesians seem to care about that, so why not.  Of course, the folks who traded weren't making the money in 1994 than they were say, in 2004.

Anyway, it should have happened when the prescription drug plan passed, IMO.  Of course, much like now, the government wanted to pass something without really describing what it was and how much it costs because of the 1994 fears.

[Torie]

What is "WFP" Sam?  Welfare for peasants? 

[JSojourner]

Specter's own words: “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.”


Translation: I have slighted and flat out betrayed my loyal Republican constituents over 29 years one time too many and they won't put up with it any longer. I must therefore leave the party, retire from politics or end my career with a humiliating primary defeat. If the economy tanks more like I think it will this is going to be fun...

flat out betrayed? Seems more like the party betrayed him to me.

Pretty much my take, too.  I recall Virgil Goode, Ben Nighthorse Campbell, Richard Shelby and several others switching from the Democratic to the Republican party some years ago.  With them, as with Specter, it was almost certainly based on a fear of losing re-election in addition tosincere concerns about the ideological drift of the respective party.

When those Democrats switched, many liberals called them traitors and said "good riddance to bad rubbish".  Now, a lot of Republicans are saying the same thing about Specter.  Politics as usual.

As a Democrat, I guess I am glad to have another vote in the Senate.  As a human being, I just wish Arlen would retire so he could enjoy the time he has left and spend it with his family.

[Keystone Phil]

Specter's own words: “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.”


Translation: I have slighted and flat out betrayed my loyal Republican constituents over 29 years one time too many and they won't put up with it any longer. I must therefore leave the party, retire from politics or end my career with a humiliating primary defeat. If the economy tanks more like I think it will this is going to be fun...

flat out betrayed? Seems more like the party betrayed him to me.

Pretty much my take, too.  I recall Virgil Goode, Ben Nighthorse Campbell, Richard Shelby and several others switching from the Democratic to the Republican party some years ago.  With them, as with Specter, it was almost certainly based on a fear of losing re-election in addition tosincere concerns about the ideological drift of the respective party.

When those Democrats switched, many liberals called them traitors and said "good riddance to bad rubbish".  Now, a lot of Republicans are saying the same thing about Specter.  Politics as usual.

As a Democrat, I guess I am glad to have another vote in the Senate.  As a human being, I just wish Arlen would retire so he could enjoy the time he has left and spend it with his family.

Yeah, Specter was so concerned about the ideological shift of the party that he was kissing up to the conservative groups. He was so concerned about it that he had to be saved by Bush and Santorum in 2004.

Arlen Specter was a Democrat before. He was never really a Republican. He didn't give a damn about this party and he has stuck it to us time after time. He didn't care which direction this party went as long as the powers that be saw to it that they defended him. 2004 is the perfect example.

It's all about Arlen, folks. Why can't you realize that?

[Lief 🗽]

What is "WFP" Sam?  Welfare for peasants? 

Working Families Party in New York. I have no idea what Sam is talking about, and am generally curious about what kind of hackish point he's trying to make this time.

[Brittain33]

What is "WFP" Sam?  Welfare for peasants? 

Working Families Party in New York. I have no idea what Sam is talking about, and am generally curious about what kind of hackish point he's trying to make this time.

My guess: the WFP forces Democrats to run to the left on fiscal and labor in order to keep their ballot line, which would drive New York's policies so far to the left that they cause the destruction of the state's budget and economy a la California and give the Republicans an opening to come back into power.

As far as Patterson having negative coattails for Democratic senate candidates, I don't see it. I think there are too many other factors at play, not the least of which is that this is the first election where Republican senators won't have the many strong financial and institutional advantages of running as the majority party, while Democratic candidates will have a real prize to compete for.

[cinyc]

Ask the New York State Democratic Party about how much they've been doing while in power with their 1-vote State Senate majority.  And since the Democrats control everything, everything is their fault.

I really don't think that's the dynamic yet. Everyone recognizes that the Senate Dem majority is dysfunctional because it is no majority at all, and that a larger Dem majority would behave differently. We will see a larger Dem majority before we see Republicans ride backlash into control of the NY Senate again because "everything is bad and the Dems own it." 

Well, no, everyone doesn't recognize that - a majority is a majority.  And that's my point, anyway.  A 1-vote "filibuster-proof" majority is just large enough so that every Democrat can extort his or her own agenda, like what's happening in the NYS Senate.  So nothing ultimately gets done, and what does get done is a bloated joke that is loaded with crap.  Yet the NYS Democrats are in complete control of the government and if NYS Republicans had any political sense, they'd be harping on the Democrat disfunction every day.

Be careful what you wish for - you just might get it.

[Brittain33]

Well, no, everyone doesn't recognize that - a majority is a majority.  And that's my point, anyway.  A 1-vote "filibuster-proof" majority is just large enough so that every Democrat can extort his or her own agenda, like what's happening in the NYS Senate.  So nothing ultimately gets done, and what does get done is a bloated joke that is loaded with crap.  Yet the NYS Democrats are in complete control of the government and if NYS Republicans had any political sense, they'd be harping on the Democrat disfunction every day.

We agree about the current state of the NY Senate, sure, I guess we just disagree on where things go from here. The Senate Republicans can not credibly call themselves a force for change as long as they are a gerontocracy that racked up an embarrassing amount of wasteful projects and in-house perks as recently as last November. Anything they call out, Democrats have 30 years of responses to. The Senate Republicans will have to bottom out before they can regroup, much like Texas Democrats. They may then regroup quickly, but it will take more than technical management of the Senate by the other party for one year to do it.

[AndrewTX]

As long as Specter stays in the Senate, I'm happy.

[cinyc]

Well, no, everyone doesn't recognize that - a majority is a majority.  And that's my point, anyway.  A 1-vote "filibuster-proof" majority is just large enough so that every Democrat can extort his or her own agenda, like what's happening in the NYS Senate.  So nothing ultimately gets done, and what does get done is a bloated joke that is loaded with crap.  Yet the NYS Democrats are in complete control of the government and if NYS Republicans had any political sense, they'd be harping on the Democrat disfunction every day.

We agree about the current state of the NY Senate, sure, I guess we just disagree on where things go from here. The Senate Republicans can not credibly call themselves a force for change as long as they are a gerontocracy that racked up an embarrassing amount of wasteful projects and in-house perks as recently as last November. Anything they call out, Democrats have 30 years of responses to. The Senate Republicans will have to bottom out before they can regroup, much like Texas Democrats. They may then regroup quickly, but it will take more than technical management of the Senate by the other party for one year to do it.

I never said Republicans were gaining control of the NYS Senate - or anything else in this state - any time soon.  This state has gone too far to the Democrats for that realistically to happen.  Well, unless the Democrats do something stupid like elect Paterson in the 2010 primary.

And as Sam Spade points out, the Working Families Party will be the NY Democrats' ruination.  Being owned and operated by the public service employee unions will ultimately bankrupt the state and turn (what's left of) the rest of the population against them.

[Sam Spade]

What is "WFP" Sam?  Welfare for peasants? 

Working Families Party in New York. I have no idea what Sam is talking about, and am generally curious about what kind of hackish point he's trying to make this time.

My guess: the WFP forces Democrats to run to the left on fiscal and labor in order to keep their ballot line, which would drive New York's policies so far to the left that they cause the destruction of the state's budget and economy a la California and give the Republicans an opening to come back into power.

New York's economy/budget is already California if the financial industry does not resuscitate.  NYC personal income tax revenues were down 51% this past quarter, for example.  Much more of that and it's dead, Jim.  Bloomberg understands this, oddly enough, which given his dictatorial techniques, is about the only reason to vote for him.

I don't know whether you've read through the budget they put together up in Albany, but it may be a bigger joke than the budget in California, just generally.  And most of the more ridiculous stuff (which cannot be funded long-term) was put in by the afore-mentioned WFP.

Torie, if you knew what the Working Families Party was, you would despise it immensely, knowing you.  

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I'm sorry to disagree, but any time you have a candidate with under-30% approvals heading your ticket, it always affects downballot, unless you decide to run Mickey Mouse as a candidate (and sometimes not then).  I'm trying to think of an example otherwise, but can't come up with any (and will listen to such).  And I really doubt Paterson's approvals can ever move above 40% again, at best.  He's kind of become like a GWB figure - viewed as incompetent - which is incredibly difficult to overcome.

Oh, and the Republicans do have one financial source that you're missing, though I do agree about institutional changes.

And even if what I'm saying does happen, I do want to clarify that it doesn't necessarily mean that Republicans have bottomed in NY.  Hindsight usually only can nail those.  For example, in hindsight we can recognize that the nationwide Democratic bottom of the past 50 years was probably 1995.  

[Brittain33]

I don't know whether you've read through the budget they put together up in Albany, but it may be a bigger joke than the budget in California, just generally.  And most of the more ridiculous stuff (which cannot be funded long-term) was put in by the afore-mentioned WFP.

I haven't, but I don't doubt it.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I'm sure it will have an effect, but it is one effect among many, and I think the countervailing forces for Democrats are so strong given their prevalence in the state. You're familiar with the many factors working in Democrats' favor. Perhaps having Patterson at the top of the ticket (which I hope won't happen, but who knows) could dampen their success, but I can't see it generating new Republican senators out of the Tedisco-type seeds available to the party.

The best analogies I could come up with for pitiful incumbents running for governor and winning are California and Ohio, 2002. I can't find how their legislative parties did, but I don't think it was that badly.  (Redistricting comes into play.) What's significant was that the party majorities in each state legislature were firmly established, moreso in Ohio than California; you'd expect a backlash against the governor to have some resonance against the legislature. Yet they easily held control. In the case of Ohio, it's because the opposition was fractured, underfunded, and at least as unpopular. (Sound like anyone else we know?) The N.Y. Senate Democrats are a young majority, much like Republican majorities in Georgia a few years ago or in Texas or Virginia several years before that.

[cinyc]

Torie, if you knew what the Working Families Party was, you would despise it immensely, knowing you.  

It's basically the political wing of Acorn, owned and operated by the public service employee unions, especially the hospital workers' union.

[Torie]

Torie, if you knew what the Working Families Party was, you would despise it immensely, knowing you.  

It's basically the political wing of Acorn, owned and operated by the public service employee unions, especially the hospital workers' union.

Ya, that is akin to what inhabits the innermost ring of Dante's hell, no doubt about it. Sam has my number on that one! 

[bullmoose88]

I will say that the most amusing thing for me was that about four months ago I received a mass mail type letter from Specter asking me to re-register as a Republican saying he needed my vote in the primary.

1) I have never been anything other than a registered Republican and
2) It was my parents who switched to vote for Obama.

Just amusing to look back on it.

[??????????]

Switching parties to survive politically is the pinnacle of being a loser. Sorry Arlen.

[The Mikado]

Switching parties to survive politically is the pinnacle of being a loser. Sorry Arlen.

I could see that as a viable definition, but what would you say to Richard Shelby, Strom Thurmond, Phil Gramm, etc?  (Even Gramm would've gone down if he'd stayed a Dem into the 90s.)

[??????????]

Switching parties to survive politically is the pinnacle of being a loser. Sorry Arlen.

I could see that as a viable definition, but what would you say to Richard Shelby, Strom Thurmond, Phil Gramm, etc?  (Even Gramm would've gone down if he'd stayed a Dem into the 90s.)

If they knew they were going down for sure and jumped ship.

[Rob]

As might be expected, Free Republic's response has been great. For example, this thread:

$#%@ you Hatch.

Please God let Toomey get elected and dumbfound all these elitist out of touch politicians and pundits!

Time to purge the RINOs and their pathetic apologists.

NOTE TO MR. Hatch:
Hey Orrin - eat $hit and die. Toomey is the right man for the time. You need to either follow Specter's lead and become a democrat or retire. Mind you own freakin business.

Toomey is very conservative but in addition I think he has lost a number of races and I saw him on Fox last night and was surprised how goofy he looks. [lol]

Senator Hatch, you sir may follow Arlen Specter or get out of the way, Sir, for you are not a leader. Stand aside, or join your buddy! We don’t need you, you sir are part of the problem, you spineless character. [hahahaha]

Truth be told, Hatch is another warm bucket of horse sweat.

[Keystone Phil]

Switching parties to survive politically is the pinnacle of being a loser. Sorry Arlen.

I could see that as a viable definition, but what would you say to Richard Shelby, Strom Thurmond, Phil Gramm, etc?  (Even Gramm would've gone down if he'd stayed a Dem into the 90s.)

If you want to switch, do it the Gramm way - switch, resign and run in the special. It's an honorable way of doing things.

[Kaine for Senate '18]

(Even Gramm would've gone down if he'd stayed a Dem into the 90s.)

I think he would have been reelected, but it would've been slightly tougher.

[Brittain33]

(Even Gramm would've gone down if he'd stayed a Dem into the 90s.)

I think he would have been reelected, but it would've been slightly tougher.

College Station has shown it will vote for a Democrat.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Today, Specter, who is listed as R-PA joined 3 "Democrats" (Byrd decided to join the 100% useless Ben Nelson and Bayh) in voting nay on a bill. Not exactly a promising sign. It's pretty clear that Specter has nothing to do with the mainstream of the Democratic party, he just wants to avoid losing a Republican primary by 20 points.

http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=111&session=1&vote=00173