Becomes the Dems 59th seat; Franken will be the 60th if he holds on to the lead.

4/28/2009 12:16:12 PM

Cool, now if only he had done this before fucking labor over.

4/28/2009 12:19:32 PM

If he does do that, I lose any and all respect for him. Giving the democrats complete control of the Senate? That isn't good for anyone, as it is right now they at least have to be reasonable in the Senate. Now if he pulled a Lieberman, that would make the most sense. But it seems the only thing he cares about is getting reelected in 2010. The dude needs to retire anyway. It's a pretty bitch move to switch parties after you are elected, especially in this case.

4/28/2009 12:25:33 PM

Supermajority, oh noes!

Looks like the Senate repubs will be shut out of all important policy discussions for the next 2 years, and there's not a damn thing they can do about it. Say hello to a public health care plan and carbon credits...

I'm reduced to hoping that Obama can somehow reign in the excessive spending habits of this congress. Given his budget that features trillion-dollar deficits over the next decade including increases in every major department, including defense spending, somehow I'm not too optimistic

4/28/2009 12:26:38 PM

I agree with Ytsejam in that this is a purely political move. Many of Pennsylvania's moderate republicans switched registration to vote in the primaries last year, leaving only the rabid free marketeers and social conservatives in the Pennsylvanian Republican base. Polling is showing Pat Toomey slaughtering Specter in a Republican primary, so it's really his only choice if he wants to remain in the Senate.

However, I disagree with him that a flibuster-proof majority is a bad thing. I'm totally down with that, I could care less if the Republicans have absolutely no say in creating policy - we're better off. I'm not sure if changing parties is suddenly going to make Specter a guaranteed liberal vote anyway. He'll almost certainly vote just like your average blue dog conservative democrat.

4/28/2009 12:37:38 PM

Between the bunker mentality, going way far right on social issues, and then for treating moderates with more contempt than they do Democrats, the Republican party has only themselves to blame.

The Republican party in it's current form can also take credit for the growth of the Libertarian party over the years, as well as the formation of the Modern Whigs.

4/28/2009 12:41:27 PM

Quote :

"However, I disagree with him that a flibuster-proof majority is a bad thing. I'm totally down with that, I could care less if the Republicans have absolutely no say in creating policy - we're better off. I'm not sure if changing parties is suddenly going to make Specter a guaranteed liberal vote anyway"

A filibuster proof majority not a bad thing? Check out the early to mid 2000's. Unchecked power is bad, regardless of party or philosophy. Having the Democrats at least have to give a bit and talk through some things is a good thing. Honestly, if you don't agree with that you are probably just a party hack.

Republicans suck, Democrats suck. If anything, the past few months should have shown people that the Democrats are just as much in the pockets of business as the Republicans, just different types.

Arlen Specter is 79 years old, the man has served 5 or so terms as a Senator. He is the poster child for why we need term limits in Congress.

4/28/2009 12:51:08 PM

The Democratic party does indeed suck, but the Republicans literally have no ideas worth implementing , and they offer little criticism that goes beyond petulant whining and vague accusations of socialism. I could care less if they are locked out of the process. They've been absolutely nothing but a pox on this country for the last 30 years or so.

If there was worthwhile opposition present I'd agree with you, but in this case the opposition amounts to a doddering bunch of reactionary mouthbreathers who have effectively driven the US into a ditch with their philosophies. Fuck 'em.

4/28/2009 12:56:19 PM

Fuck the stupid goddamn republicans. Fuck them to hell. They are simply scared to "throw their vote away" to the libertarian party, bent on making everything christian, or want american world domination. Fuck social conservatives with a rusty screwdriver. As much as I hate the mother-fucking nanny-state socialist-style liberal democrats in this country, I have a much larger hatred for everything GOP. I still deny that Ron Paul is a republican. Having an 'R' next to his name is my number criticism of him.

Also, as much as I don't want a democratic supermajority, I like Franken. I don't agree with him on a lot, but any non-lifetime-politician gets my support. I fucking hate lifetime-politicians.

4/28/2009 12:56:21 PM

There's a whole hell of a lot more to criticize about Ron Paul besides his "R" status, namely the fact that he's batshit fucking insane about almost everything.

[Edited on April 28, 2009 at 12:58 PM. Reason : doh]

4/28/2009 12:58:12 PM

GOP pwnt, stay home.

[/chit chat]

4/28/2009 12:58:44 PM

Quote :

"Giving the democrats Republicans complete control of the Senate and having Bush or Sarah Palin president? That isn't IS good for anyone"

AM I RIGHT!

Quote :

"Between the bunker mentality, going way far right on social issues, and then for treating moderates with more contempt than they do Democrats, the Republican party has only themselves to blame. "

Agreed there was a good article today on cnn.com also about Dick cheney going around bitching in front of audiences and the author
is pretty much says he needs to STFU!

Quote :

"The Democratic party does indeed suck, but the Republicans literally have no ideas worth implementing , and they offer little criticism that goes beyond petulant whining and vague accusations of socialism."

Quote :

"bent on making everything christian, or want american world domination. Fuck social conservatives with a rusty screwdriver. As much as I hate the mother-fucking nanny-state socialist-style liberal democrats in this country, I have a much larger hatred for everything GOP"

Agreed also. While I disagree with the policies of the democratic party the issues i disagree about from those taht actually have power
in the GOP weigh heavier.

4/28/2009 1:08:24 PM

Im not a huge fan of the democratic party as an entity, but the way things have been going in recent years, anything but a supermajority just tends to be worthless. Nothing gets done and any legislation that does get passed is totally immasculated and ineffective. I'm curious to see if today's democrats would actually do some good, given the chance.

4/28/2009 1:14:26 PM

the best thing we can hope for is a deadlocked congress that does nothing. Either party controlling the gov is just going to lead to shit.

4/28/2009 1:39:10 PM

Quote :

"Say hello to a public health care plan and carbon credits... "

Im afraid so.

4/28/2009 1:56:59 PM

I wonder how much it costs the democrats to pay him off...

4/28/2009 2:26:58 PM

Quote :

"the best thing we can hope for is a deadlocked congress that does nothing. Either party controlling the gov is just going to lead to shit."

The best thing we can hope for is both the elimination of the two-party system, and the implementation of approval-vote ballots. With a multi-party system, there would be a couple issues:

- With just two parties, there's always the majority party and the minority party, but in a multi-party system you'd have the plurality party and the penultimate party (whichever came in 2nd.) I think most of the functions of the majority party and the minority party could easily be adapted to the plurality party and the penultimate party.

- This sort-of bullshit party-switching, as we've just seen with Specter, would also be different -- dare I suggest more benign.

- With just two parties, gridlock still happens, and many suppose that a multi-party system would only increase this tendency. Others are convinced that any multi-party system would experience the formation of coalition parties, resulting in only 2 or 3 "main" candidates anyway -- not that different from what we've got. However, if approval-voting were to be implemented, parties would be less unilateral and partisan, and people would generally approve of that. So while super-majorities would almost never happen, the alternative wouldn't necessarily be gridlock.

4/28/2009 2:31:50 PM

Governments with multiple parties can also deadlock and breakdown.

Ours is the most productive I've come across.

4/28/2009 2:44:45 PM

^^^

the same thing it always cost

chairs of important influential committees

4/28/2009 2:48:06 PM

The thing about multiple party systems I've been seeing a lot of is that several of the parties just get fed up and form a coalition party and then you're just back to majority vs. minority again.

4/28/2009 2:57:27 PM

They don't form permanent coalitions. They just cooperate on the issue at hand. For example, if we had a social conservative party and a libertarian party, they would probably cooperate to vote down a tax increase, but they wouldn't cooperate on an constitutional ammendment to keep marraige between a man and a woman.

4/28/2009 3:01:06 PM

Or perhaps it's the other way around.

4/28/2009 3:16:25 PM

I don't think the democratic party will operate as unanimously as some fear, but it will be interesting to see how a government functions when it doesn't have half of it having a self-interest in making the president look bad.

4/28/2009 3:22:22 PM

^^ya think?


(oh look i pulled a hooksaw)

4/28/2009 3:22:26 PM

Strikes me as the same kind of political opportunism seen a dozen times before, from Zell Miller to Joe Lieberman.

Other than committee assignments and procedural BS, don't expect a lot to change.

For serious here - do you think anything on the "Left-Wing Agenda" - from "universal healthcare!" to cap 'n trade was going to fail with Specter having an "R" in back of his name rather than a "D"? Have you seen the guy's voting record?

Good riddance. The only problem of course is that modern Republicans will end up taking exactly the wrong message from this, and instead of realigning themselves into a coherent opposition party, will bunker down into an even more corporatist alternative to the Democrats. (Now with 50% more war!)

4/28/2009 3:29:53 PM

Quote :

"The switch puts Senate Democrats one vote shy of a filibuster-proof majority of 60 seats. They can reach the 60-seat mark if Al Franken holds his current lead in the disputed Minnesota Senate race. "

Why does he have to officially be a "democrat" in order to provide a super majority or vote for a democrats sponsored bills. Why can't politicians vote on issues based on their own interpreation, the benefit/harm to their voters, and the recomendation of their advisors; instead of towing the party line turning every issue into a Dem v repub, us v them, black or white, liberal v conservative battle.

[Edited on April 28, 2009 at 3:34 PM. Reason : b]

4/28/2009 3:32:44 PM

well in specter's case i assume it has to do with him disagreeing with the direction of the republican party and not wanting to lose any committee positions through the dissension that would come with voting the way he feels is right. that's a complete guess though.

4/28/2009 3:37:37 PM

Quote :

"not wanting to lose any committee positions through the dissension that would come with voting the way he feels is right."

Again - are you familiar with the man's voting record? He hasn't exactly voted as a "reluctantly constrained conservative" in any real fashion, save for when the real arm-twisting comes around.

Hell, how about the Democrats trade in one of the Blue Dogs for Olympia Snowe, another "Republican," and make a two-for-one sale?

4/28/2009 3:41:08 PM

looking @ the timestamp it looks like LunaK and i got the same email i bet haha

[Edited on April 28, 2009 at 3:43 PM. Reason : .]

4/28/2009 3:42:59 PM

I actually heard it from my friend sitting next to me... I think she got it from a friend on the hill... Found out right before it hit CNN

4/28/2009 3:46:04 PM

yeah i was at lunch with a couple members of the georgia delegation and one of their press secs forwarded it from a WaPo reporter

4/28/2009 3:51:56 PM

The one thing I really respect about Specter (and a handful of others in the house and senate) is that he generally seems to vote the way he feels he should, based on the issues, best interest of his constituency, and his political philosophy.

Even if you call it political opportunism because he'd probably lose the Republican nomination next time around, it's not too self-serving to say you want want your record judged in the general election rather than in the right-wing primary. My personal opinion is that Specter and people like him (even though I don't agree with all his/their positions) are a credit to Congress and to America's political process, Democrat or Republican notwithstanding.

4/28/2009 3:55:03 PM

Quote :

"Even if you call it political opportunism because he'd probably lose the Republican nomination next time around, it's not too self-serving to say you want want your record judged in the general election rather than in the right-wing primary."

Oh really? Then, why not simply eschew the party primary process entirely and run as an independent?

Unless, of course, he would stand to gain more by switching affiliations rather than simply forsaking them for the higher cause of being judged on his record.

And oh look, he does.

4/28/2009 4:00:05 PM

Like what?

I mean if it's just down to a case of an excellent senator wanting to remain influential in the Senate, what's the big deal?

4/28/2009 4:02:32 PM

Quote :

"Why does he have to officially be a "democrat" in order to provide a super majority or vote for a democrats sponsored bills. Why can't politicians vote on issues based on their own interpreation, the benefit/harm to their voters, and the recomendation of their advisors; instead of towing the party line turning every issue into a Dem v repub, us v them, black or white, liberal v conservative battle."

If you alienate your party, then you lose all your political support. You lose re-election support. You cant get your legislation passed. You don't get into commitees. You can't get funding for your state. The political party system is built on "you scratch my back, and I scratch yours". Its incredibly difficult for someone to be politically successful without the backing of one of the two parties.

4/28/2009 4:05:54 PM

Quote :

"Like what?"

Do you really have to ask this question?

I mean, we have the standard fare; committee chairmanships, financial resources for his endless re-election campaigns, etc.

Not to mention that I'm quite certain that switching parties at juuuuuust the right time for the Democrats is not a deed which will go unrewarded.

Whether you admire his independence or whatever, let's not mistake what he's doing for a noble and selfless act of political courage. This goes primarily to serve his interests at an opportune time.

4/28/2009 4:06:35 PM

Quote :

"I mean if it's just down to a case of an excellent senator wanting to remain influential in the Senate, what's the big deal?"

Even from the things you've said though, it sounds like he just wants to remain an effective Senator. THAT BASTARD.

4/28/2009 4:10:58 PM

Every Senator think they're an excellent steward of the public trust - or at least that of their constituents - even Ted Stevens. And every Senator therefore thinks that gaining and keeping influence is somehow a noble thing.

Yes. Being self-serving and opportunistic is totally noble and selfless. Except when people you don't like do it - then it's hackery.

4/28/2009 4:17:52 PM

Oh no, a government offered version of the same sort of health insurance people get from the private sector, insurance provided to the uninsured with MY MONEY. Specter nooooooo you turned us into Cuba.

Quote :

"As much as I hate the mother-fucking nanny-state socialist-style liberal democrats in this country, I have a much larger hatred for everything GOP. I still deny that Ron Paul is a republican. Having an 'R' next to his name is my number criticism of him."

You're right, it should be a "C" for Constitution Party.

And if you think this is socialism, I'd hate to see how shrill you'd be if we lived in Europe.

[Edited on April 28, 2009 at 4:35 PM. Reason : .]

4/28/2009 4:33:23 PM

Both parties should be happy about this. Anyone who is going into hysterics about a supermajority needs to slow down and put on your thinking cap for a minute.

Specter has been known for years as an independent-thinking Republican who isn't afraid to break from the party line and vote his own way (the most recent proof being that he voted for the bailout package, but this is not new behaviour for him). Just because he's switching parties, that doesn't mean that he's an automatic 60th Democratic vote on everything.

This is a political move about getting reelected in '10, and it's as much of a win-win for both parties as anything. If Specter didn't switch, he would lose in the primary to another Republican that the base is happier with, but then that Republican would get trounced by a Dem candidate who would inevitably be more liberal than Specter. Now that he's switched, chances are he'll be the Democratic candidate and will beat that Republican in the general election, even though he would have lost the Republican primary. The net result is that Specter stays in office, meaning Republicans get a PA Senator who is more aligned with them than they would have otherwise gotten if he hadn't switched.

4/28/2009 5:48:13 PM

Quote :

"Oh no, a government offered version of the same sort of health insurance people get from the private sector, insurance provided to the uninsured with MY MONEY."

If only it were that simple... But, this aint the thread for that, so I'll bite my tongue for once

4/28/2009 6:12:09 PM

Quote :

"As much as I hate the mother-fucking nanny-state socialist-style liberal democrats in this country, I have a much larger hatred for everything GOP. I still deny that Ron Paul is a republican. Having an 'R' next to his name is my number criticism of him."

If you like Capitalism you should be praising them. Without socialist-style reforms, there would have been a Communist revolution in this country a loooong time ago.

4/28/2009 6:18:19 PM

don't feed the pwny troll. It's clear that he is a partisan hack who would be bitching up a storm if the roles were reversed.

4/28/2009 6:26:18 PM

Quote :

"And if you think this is socialism, I'd hate to see how shrill you'd be if we lived in Europe. "

Not "socialism"... "socialist-style", but yeah -- I would not live in Europe.

Quote :

"If you like Capitalism you should be praising them. Without socialist-style reforms, there would have been a Communist revolution in this country a loooong time ago."

That's just it -- reforms were needed, (because republicans are just as much a bunch of corporatists as democrats are,) but socialist-style reforms weren't necessarily needed. And even if they were, they should have been very clearly and thoroughly made temporary. What's was and is still needed is an adequate market. An adequate market is one that is mostly free, but wherever something is lacking, the government works to fix it with measures that support capitalism rather than with ones that diametrically oppose capitalism. For instance, instead of putting the federal government in control, why not work to get rid of all the fucking corporate monopolies and oligopolies? If instead of socializing things, we should instead focus on the micro-economy, entrepreneurship, and functioning markets. Instead of taking turns pointing fingers as the two-party-system pendulum swings, why don't we put an end to all that fascist bullshit in the first place? Both parties seem to share responsibility for the rampant corporate concentration and frequent lack of adequate competition, not to mention the federal reserve. Small markets, market diversity, local currencies, micro-business, etc. all support capitalism, and would've been better reforms in the first place. Besides, I'm not convinced that the republican party is even really and truly opposed to socialism. With the bullshit two-party system, (that we have the fucking nerve to call "democracy",) the republicans could simply be going too far on purpose, in order to guarantee a left-wing (perhaps revolutionary,) response.

Quote :

"don't feed the pwny troll. It's clear that he is a partisan hack who would be bitching up a storm if the roles were reversed."

Which roles? Are you talking about Specter? I could care less whether D's become R's or R's become D's... I hate them both -- they are both undemocratic duopolistic bipartisan statists. Fuck 'em.

4/28/2009 7:17:07 PM

Quote :

"Spector: "I am unwilling to have my twenty-nine year Senate record judged by the Pennsylvania Republican primary electorate," "

No doubt.

Well there ya go democrats. You have two years to screw up the country. Enjoy yourselves.

4/28/2009 8:15:19 PM

Quote :

"Club for Growth members and other conservatives "don't make any bones about their willingness to lose the general election if they can purify the party," he said."

great attitude they have..

4/28/2009 8:53:29 PM

Paging supporters of Ned Lamont for a lesson in cognitive dissonance...

4/28/2009 9:00:39 PM

Quote :

"The Democratic party does indeed suck, but the Republicans literally have no ideas worth implementing , and they offer little criticism that goes beyond petulant whining and vague accusations of socialism."

Agreed. The Republican Party in its current incarnation is a disorganized mob. What they need is a few good years out in the wilderness to come up with a real alternate solution; they either come back stronger or wander out and never return. If the Democrats do well, more power to them. If they screw up badly, well, assuming the Republicans survived, then they'll just topple the Democratic majority in 2010.

4/28/2009 9:10:46 PM

Quote :

"Giving the democrats complete control of the Senate? That isn't good for anyone"

its good for republicans...will be easier to paint the democrats as bad once they get filibuster proof majorities

4/28/2009 9:18:21 PM

or nail in the coffin if things go nicely. just saying...

[Edited on April 28, 2009 at 9:35 PM. Reason : but since when have things gone nicely. ]

4/28/2009 9:35:06 PM