Specter says he's switching from GOP to Democrats

(AP)

WASHINGTON — Veteran Republican Sen. Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania abruptly switched parties Tuesday, a move intended to boost his re-election chances that also pushed Democrats within one seat of a 60-vote filibuster-resistant majority.

At a news conference, Specter said his switch to the Democratic Party was a "painful decision," but he found himself increasingly at odds with a Republican Party that has moved to the right.

The Pennsylvania lawmaker said his philosophy was more in line with the Democratic Party. He said in the last few months he surveyed the sentiments of the GOP and found prospects for winning next year's primary looked bleak.

Specter faced a tough challenge from former GOP foe Pat Toomey.

Specter stunned Capitol Hill with word that he would switch parties. At the news conference, he told Democrats that he won't be an automatic 60th vote. He said he will follow his own approach to legislating.

President Barack Obama called Specter almost immediately after he was informed of the switch to say the Democratic Party was "thrilled to have you," according to a White House official.

Spurned Republicans said his defection was motivated by ambition, not principle.

Republican National Committee Chairman Michael Steele said, "Let's be honest: Senator Specter didn't leave the GOP based on principles of any kind. He left to further his personal political interests because he knew that he was going to lose a Republican primary due to his left-wing voting record. Republicans look forward to beating Senator Specter in 2010, assuming the Democrats don't do it first."

Specter, 79 and in his fifth term, is one of a handful of Republican moderates remaining in Congress in a party now dominated by conservatives. Several officials said secret talks that preceded his decision reached into the White House, involving both Obama and Vice President Joseph Biden, a longtime colleague in the Senate. Pennsylvania Gov. Ed Rendell as well as Democratic leaders in Congress also were involved.

With Specter, Democrats would have 59 Senate seats. Democrat Al Franken is ahead in a marathon recount in Minnesota, and if he ultimately wins his race against Republican Norm Coleman, he would become the party's 60th vote. That is the number needed to overcome a filibuster.

Specter faced an extraordinarily difficult re-election challenge in his home state in 2010, having first to confront a challenge from his right in the Republican primary before pivoting to a general election campaign against a Democrat in a state that has trended increasingly Democratic in recent elections. Former Rep. Pat Toomey, whom Specter defeated in a close primary race in 2004, is expected to run again.

Specter has acknowledged in recent months that in order to win a sixth term, he would need the support of thousands of Pennsylvania Republicans who sided with Obama in last fall's presidential election.

"I am unwilling to have my twenty-nine year Senate record judged by the Pennsylvania Republican primary electorate," he said in the statement.

Asked by a reporter what he had to say to his constituents, Specter replied with a smile, "I don't have to say anything to them. They said it to me."

Specter has long been an independent Republican, and he proved it most recently when he became one of only three members of the GOP in Congress to vote for Obama's economic stimulus legislation. Then, he proved it once more, pivoting not long afterward to say he did not support legislation making it easier to form unions, a bill that is organized labor's top priority in the current Congress.

In Pennsylvania, the chairman of the state Republican Party, Rob Gleason, said that Specter should offer a refund to Republicans who have helped fatten his war chest, which totaled $5.8 million at the end of 2008. "He should give them the option," Gleason said.

Even before Gleason made his comments, Specter announced he would return donations he has received this election cycle "upon request."

Specter has long been one of the most durable politicians of either party in Pennsylvania. In recent years, he has battled Hodgkin's disease, a cancer of the lymphatic system, but maintains a busy schedule that includes daily games of squash.

As one of the most senior Republicans in the Senate, Specter held powerful positions on the Judiciary and Appropriations committees. It was not clear how Democrats would calculate his seniority in assigning committee perches.

As recently as late winter, he was asked by a reporter why he had not taken Democrats up on past offers to switch parties.

"Because I am a Republican," he said at the time.

"I welcome Sen. Specter and his moderate voice to our diverse caucus," Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., said in a statement.

Specter would have lost the 2010 primary as a Republican despite having served 5 terms. He will likely win the Democratic primary and will probably run, unopposed.

I hope he loses the 2010 election as a Dem. I just wonder what the Whitehouse and the other Dems offered him to switch?

There goes the system of checks and balances.

They probably didn't have to offer him anything. As klydon pointed out, his best chance of getting re-elected is as a Dem, and he knows that.

What does this have to do with the system of checks and balances?

Probably:

*A committee chairmanship or high seniority, if he had been a Dem all this time instead of a GOPer.
*Promised national/state money/support in 2010, and this especially from Rendell, VP Biden, the President, etc.
*A chance to electorally seek to keep his seat, and a good shot of winning against a super conservative like Toomey.



Remember when the GOP had total control of Congress 2003-2007?

Don't be so doomsday on us. Besides, the national Democratic Party has the country's political centre ("Blue Dogs") and again, Specter sees the handwriting on the wall.

is he the guy who rubbed the undercover offercer foot in the stalls?

Yes I see it as doom. I don't feel either party should have total control.

I'm not sure what you mean by total control. Total control of what? Congressional committees have almost an equal number of Democrats and Republicans populating them. Passage of bills in either chamber still requires a majority vote.

I must be confused. Don't the Dems have the majority of votes?

Fucking politicians have the same allegiance as today's ballplayers. None.

Whatever happened to a lifelong association?

They're all fucking whores.

A politician is just like a prostitute. They'll take your money and you'll get screwed.

Cloture - The only procedure by which the Senate can vote to place a time limit on consideration of a bill or other matter, and thereby overcome a filibuster. Under the cloture rule (Rule XXII), the Senate may limit consideration of a pending matter to 30 additional hours, but only by vote of three-fifths of the full Senate, normally 60 votes. Cloture under the Senate rules means that a bill can’t get to the floor unless 60 Senators vote for it.

With 60 votes, the Dems can do as they like without any Republican support.

Specter was the staff director for the Warren Commission. He's probably the only person associated with the Kennedy assassination who's still alive.

fucking one bullet theory

Not true Lou. You should read all of the Congress' rules, especially those of the Senate. What you cited was Cloture to close off a Filibuster. Nothing else. There are Unaninmous Consent Agreements and Holds for example in the Senate which an objection by one Senator can stop in its tracks.

Mig's statement was about total control of the Congress. That betrays a fundamental misunderstanding of the compromise that is necessary in the Congress. It's a vast oversimplification to state otherwise.

Yup, as soon as the Minnesota shit is cleared up and Franken gets seated.

BTW, what irony...Mr. Specter back in 2001 proposed a (never-enacted) rule to limit party-switching.

So you believe that a Democratic Supermajority Senate, unfettered by filibusters, can be stopped by the objection of 1 Republican Senator?

Lou, you paraphrased one Senate rule among a plethora of them. Read some more of them and you will understand the compromise that is necessary to pass legislation and resolutions as I referred to in my previous post.

I'm not sure what you mean by "a Democratic Supermajority Senate, unfettered by filibusters, can be stopped." A supermajority doing what? Congressional activity does not consist only of voting. For example, study the Congressional committee system. Nothing happens to legislation unless it first receives a favorable report by the committee to which it is assigned. Such a favorable report is almost always a function of a compromise among the committee's members. Doing so will alert you to the complexity that characterizes Congressional politics.

To answer your question, yes I do. That's why there are a legion of rules in the Congress. Otherwise, Congressional action would primarily consist of a vote. Why do you think that legislation typically takes so long to weave its way through the Congress? The Senate Cloture rule (and it is just a rule subject to change) is dependent on 2 Independent Senators supporting a Democratic Cloture vote (by the way, Franken has not yet been admitted to the Senate). It also depends on all Democratic Senators voting with their Party colleagues. Democratic Senator Bayh, for one, may not since he's already shown his independence by breaking Party ranks over the President's budget.

That turncoat the last thing this country needs is a filibuster proof senate. Especially with the democrats in charge.

The article didn't mention it but this isn't the first time that the Benedict Arnold has switched parties. He did so back in 1967.

Like I said before, I hope he loses his seat.

Mate, if the GOP national establishment had been supporting Specter publicly and financially within that primary instead of sitting on the fence after the Stimulus package, maybe he would have stayed in the GOP.

and not help provide filibuster-proofing.

Does anybody have a tissue? Aw the poor guy got his feelings hurt. Let's have a pity party 1-2-3 AWWW

I have to admit, I am kind of enjoying all this shock over Specter's decision. Let's see, once Franken is finally in that makes what? 60?

Seriously, I don't think Specter is gonna be easily swayed one way or another. What I don't get is, at his age why the hell does he want to keep working? I'd be retired for 20 years by his age.

TIS

I agree with you TIS. What is he 79? I'd retire and get the hell out of DC.

BTW Why is taking so long to count those votes?

That's true. The change in party affiliation will have absolutely no effect on how he would vote. His ideology has been constant throughout his tenure in the Senate. He'll certainly be no rubber stamp for Obama.

In past elections I've voted against him. Assuming he wins the 2010 Dem. primary, I'll have to see who's running against him (possibly Toomey or former US Senator Rick Santorum) before I decide.

Specter is an opportunist, but he has serious health issues as he's battled cancer.

Wasn't it pretty close (poll-wise) between Specter and Toomey? I don't really know Toomey but I thought some predicted that Toomey stood a good chance of winning.

Yea, Specter has had and beaten cancer twice (I think). Man, hat's something isn't it?



TIS

Specter's problem was that in 2004, he barely beat Toomey by slim. But all those moderate GOPers who felt Toomey was an electoral loser, they all left to join the Democratic Party within the state, so Specter was screwed.