Arlen Specter to switch parties to Democrat

[bascule]

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/thefix/senate/specter-to-switch-parties.html

 

...and as soon as Al Franken is sworn in, this means Democrats will have a 60 seat filibuster-proof majority in the Senate.

 

I'd certainly hoped for the 60 seat thing but didn't really think it was actually going to happen. I certainly never thought it would happen this way.

 

Wonder what his constituents make of this.

[john5746]

I think its better to change to independent. Switching like that just to try and keep his job is kind of.... crappy.

[jackson33]

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/thefix/senate/specter-to-switch-parties.html

 

...and as soon as Al Franken is sworn in, this means Democrats will have a 60 seat filibuster-proof majority in the Senate.

 

I'd certainly hoped for the 60 seat thing but didn't really think it was actually going to happen. I certainly never thought it would happen this way.

 

Wonder what his constituents make of this.

 

The 60 seat thing has meant nothing and will mean nothing with both Franken and Specter being seated. The power will flow away away from Olympia Snow, Susan Collins, Republican's in no dagger of losing their seats to a hand full of Democrats that ran as Moderate to Conservative Democrats, during an election years politics. Might add any conservative could defeat either of these ladies in a primary, but lose badly in the State Election...

 

The rest of the story is rather sad to me...Senator Specter is 78 yo, in 2005 was diagnosed with Hodgkin's Lymphoma (cancer), went through chemotherapy, thought successfully, but returned in 2008 and again went through chemo in July 2008. While this was all going on, he did become the lightning round in Senate Actions, along with Snow/Collins, culminating in the passage of the Stimulus Package. He would probably lose to a more conservative Republican in a PRIMARY race in Pennsylvania, but that conservative would have surely lost against any Democrat. No less happened with Joe Lieberman, who defeated both the apparent Democrat front runner, but the Republican opposition in Connecticut 2008. I'd have rather seen him go Independent (as Lieberman) but there are probably no current Democrats and just a convenient way to go...

 

His constituents, probably don't care what he is called and would vote for him, in any case. It is ashame as a Republican, he became the voice and power he was in his party, earned a certain respect from both parties and will go out fighting much of what he helped to create since 1980.

[Kyrisch]

What does filibuster-proof actually mean?

[jackson33]

The Senate has a built in system to stop any legislation in its track. Originally it meant the party could just start talking 'filibuster' until the rest got tired or fed up or the talker quit 'give the floor up' and allowing the vote. Then they went to 'threat of filibuster' no actual talking (waste of time) but stopped both actions or voting while negotiations were underway. A 60 seat margin was placed to stop any of these actions or in short where most legislation can be forced on the minority. Filibuster Proof...

[Pangloss]

It's not the filibuster we need to be worrying about.

 

I've posted many times here already about how Specter wants to take the stimulus spending and MAKE IT PERMANENT. Of COURSE he's switching parties -- that's because every Democrat on the Hill wants to do exactly the same thing. The deficit doesn't matter, the debt is irrelevent, and the poor need to be rescued using money which grows on trees in younger people's back yards. Of COURSE this puts him at odds with the Republican party, which is desperately trying to throw that exact same reputation under the bus and reinvent itself as a party that doesn't believe in big government (not that anyone believes them).

 

I've also explained here that the 2011 budget is going to be debated during the months leading up to the mid-term election. This is just one more indication of how hard it's going to be for Obama to stop a colossal mushrooming in the 2011 discretionary budget.

 

So yeah, keep focusing on how great it is that we're free of thoes evil Republicans and how much better off we are now that Democrats are in charge. It's working out great, isn't it?

[bascule]

So yeah, keep focusing on how great it is that we're free of thoes evil Republicans and how much better off we are now that Democrats are in charge. It's working out great, isn't it?

 

So far, yes. I have some minor complaints, but overall I am very happy with the change.

 

Regarding spending: I am not too concerned until after we're out of the recession/depression. Then it will be time to be concerned. I haven't heard about Arlen Specter wanting to make the stimulus permanent but that sounds like a bad idea.

[Pangloss]

Interesting article in the LA Times about Democrats skeptical about Specter's switch:

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-specter-assess29-2009apr29,0,1532737.story

 

My favorite bit:

But some key players in the party base viewed the move with suspicion -- demanding that if Specter wants to call himself a Democrat, he had better start acting like one.

 

Goodness! Yes sir, we certainly want him to toe the party line! As opposed to, oh I don't know, maybe... representing his constituents? Heavens no, he's a Democrat and he'd better act like one, or else! (rofl) (Yeah, that didn't work out so good for Harry Reid when he tried to steamroll Lieberman, did it?)

 

Actually this quote is even better:

 

Neil Oxman, a Democratic strategist who advises Pennsylvania Gov. Edward G. Rendell, described Specter as a politician who "transforms himself for every election" and is now "disguising the fact he supported Bush 76% of the time and voted for all of these Republican judges." Oxman's criticism previewed a likely attack that the newly minted Democrat will face in a party primary, possibly from another Oxman client, state Board of Education Chairman Joseph Torsella.

 

HAHAHAHA!! I'm sure Oxman knows full well that voting 76% with your party is, by Washington standards, an official rating of "HOLY SWEET MOTHER OF CHRIST HOW DID THIS PERSON GET INTO OUR PARTY?!" The two most recent presidential candidates, both of whom were seen as moderates, each had track records in the nineties. That is a hilarious piece of spin! The insiders will be chuckling about that one for months.

 

You just gotta love party-changes as a news event. They really bring out all the best political stuff.

Edited April 29, 2009 by Pangloss

[scrappy]

Just a dumb question here: Does the House have the same filibuster rule as the Senate?

[Mokele]

Apparently, the large number of Representatives in the House means they don't get infinite speaking time, thus filibusters aren't even possible.

[scrappy]

Apparently, the large number of Representatives in the House means they don't get infinite speaking time, thus filibusters aren't even possible.

Thank you for the education.

[jackson33]

Just a dumb question here: Does the House have the same filibuster rule as the Senate?

 

No; Any 'Bill' proposed and having a sponsor, goes straight to the 'Rules Commitee'. They can pass to the floor, pass on to some advisory commitee,

table for further consideration (generally meaning will die) or return to the sponsor for any number of reasons. Both the House and Senate, sets a time limit per member for arguments. Technically (to my understsnding) in open session, these time limits are not enforcable, however nearly all members honor these limits.

 

Keep in mind, only when one party controls both the Executive and Congress, does any of this mean much. Any Bill sent on to the Executive for approval and a signature is subject to a VETO. Congress, both chambers require a 2/3rd's vote to over ride or 67 Senators and 290 House members.

 

Any one truely interested in the 'Filibustor Rule', which deleloped over time can visit;

-------------------------------------------

 

A filibuster, or "talking out a bill", is a form of obstruction in a legislature or other decision-making body. An attempt is made to extend indefinitely a debate upon a proposal in order to delay the progress or completely prevent a vote on the proposal taking place.

 

The term 'filibuster' was first used in 1851. It was derived from the Spanish filibustero meaning 'pirate' or 'freebooter'. This term had in turn evolved from the French word flibustier, which itself evolved from the Dutch vrijbuiter (freebooter). This term was applied at the time to American adventurers, mostly from Southern states, who sought to overthrow the governments of Central American states, and was transferred to the users of the filibuster, seen as a tactic for pirating or hijacking debate.

 

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Filibuster