The Bishop and the Butterfly: Murder, Politics, and the End of the Jazz Age
    Orlando's picture

    Arlen Specter: Welcome to the Party

    By Orlando on Tue, 04/28/2009 - 4:03pm | Politics

    I've always been a "the more, the merrier" type of person. So, I think Arlen Specter's decision to switch his party affiliation is a great. Sure, he's made the switch out of pure political survival: he can't win a Republican primary in Pennsylvania next year. But so what? We've got conservative Democrats already. They're a pain in the ass, but they're our pain in the ass.

    Steve Benen at the Washington Monthly makes the case that from a policy and legislative perspective, Specter's move is far from earth shattering. 

    ...talk of a "filibuster-proof" Democratic majority is a stretch. For one thing, Norm Coleman just received a powerful reminder incentive to keep his legal fight going for as long as humanly possible. For another, the Democratic caucus, even at 60, still has Ben Nelson and Evan Bayh to consider.

    He argues that the real issue is that:

    ...it sends a signal to voters: the Republican Party is home to Limbaugh, Tea Baggers, Palin, right-wing blogs, the Rove/Cheney/Gingrich triumvirate -- and no one else. The party that's been shrinking to generational lows just got even smaller.

    I think Benen is absolutely correct. Arlen Specter probably won't change his position much on the things that he's believed for eons. But he'll likely vote for cloture on judicial nominees and other key issues. And more importantly, this is a rather large setback for the Republican party. Specter rode into office on the tide of the Regan Revolution in 1980. He's been in the senate longer than all but four Republicans. And he's had enough. 

    The Republican party made a gamble in the 1990s that they could grow strong with a base of ultra-conservatives and uber-Christians. For a while, they were right. But when the base became the leadership, the party was left without the intellectual flexibility to adjust to a populace that constantly changes in make up and attitude.

    Until someone in their party has the fortitude to pull their collective heads out of their collective asses, they will remain stuck in 1994. I hope they like Ace of Base. 

    Topics: 
    Politics

    Comments

    What are the chances we will start hearing more about a third party?


    by elliottness on Tue, 04/28/2009 - 4:09pm

    I think if the Republicans don't do something to correct themselves, within the next decade, another party probably will emerge. But I don't think it will be a third party for long. The Republicans would continue their long, slow march into nothingness and we'd have the Democrats and whomever.


    by Orlando on Tue, 04/28/2009 - 4:15pm

    The Republicans will be back soon enough, sadly. They survived much worse than this. And it was only 4 years ago that everyone was writing epitaphs for the Democrats.


    by Michael Wolraich on Tue, 04/28/2009 - 4:43pm

    A third party is virtually impossible because our electoral institutions cater to a two party system. Unless how we vote and how our votes are counted change there will never be a viable third party. And since the two parties in the two party system are always in control they never have motivation to change things (why would they willingly change things to take away their power?). Sadly, our children's children's children will be having the same tired debates we are having about the Democrats and Republicans.

    by Larry Jankens on Wed, 04/29/2009 - 12:21am

    I know. That's what I meant. When one party declines, another party takes its place, but we won't have 3 parties. For the reasons you said.


    by Orlando on Wed, 04/29/2009 - 12:35am

    A spectre of evil has crossed our path....


    by Marquis de Sea ... on Tue, 04/28/2009 - 4:18pm

    For the next year, at least, the switch gives Dems a lot more leverage over Specter. If he doesn't play the dutiful Democratic on key votes, he won't win the Democratic nomination. Not because the party leaders won't support him--they'll support him as long as they think that he will win--but because Democratic voters won't support him if he bucks Obama on key votes. He can't just get away with just talking the talk. He has to vote the vote.


    by Michael Wolraich on Tue, 04/28/2009 - 4:40pm

    I just want to add that the official word is that my arrival in Pennsylvania had nothing do with Specter's switch.


    by Michael Wolraich on Tue, 04/28/2009 - 4:53pm

    Aw, don't sell yourself short, G. I'm sure you had something to do with it.


    by Orlando on Tue, 04/28/2009 - 4:54pm

    As I said, the official word is that my arrival had nothing to do with it.


    by Michael Wolraich on Tue, 04/28/2009 - 5:08pm

    I think that this is the biggest upside for the Dems here.  It's a full year until the primary and he's going to have to prove himself to Dem voters over that period of time.


    by DF on Tue, 04/28/2009 - 7:01pm

    And he's going to need the President to campaign for him. That puts a gigantic smile on my face.


    by Orlando on Tue, 04/28/2009 - 7:25pm

    I would quibble with "And he's had enough."  I think we all know that he's done this save to his own political ass.  There have been plenty of moments for him to become fed up with his party over the past thirty years, but it was not until he was staring down the barrel of losing an election that he decided to jump.  His comments about reading his internal poll numbers last Friday and deciding the pull the trigger on this stand to confirm this.

    Otherwise, I would agree with your assessment.  And I'll also add that

    THIS IS EXCELLENT NEWS!! FOR THE GRAND OLD PARTY!!


    by DF on Tue, 04/28/2009 - 7:00pm

    You're totally right. Call it dramatic license. My bad.

    by Orlando on Tue, 04/28/2009 - 7:26pm

    No need to apologize for dramatic license.  It just struck me as out of place in a piece that otherwise nailed it.


    by DF on Tue, 04/28/2009 - 7:40pm

    Chuckle. I just did a little googling to find out what happened to idiotic. No update to his (or her) blog since June '08. But impressively, "this is excellent news for hillary" popped up in the search box when I typed "this is exc." It also seems that our little idiotic was quite prolific and left his tagline across the blogosphere.

    For those who are unfamiliar, idiotic was a TPM reader whose only comments during the Democratic primary consisted of "THIS IS EXCELLENT NEWS!!! FOR HILLARY!!!!" or some variation delivered ironically any time something happened that hurt Clinton's chances. Doesn't sounds like much, but somehow, it made be and many other Obama supporters crack up every time. Others picked up the battle cry, but for some reason, no one could deliver it with as much aplomb has idiotic himself. Or herself.


    by Michael Wolraich on Tue, 04/28/2009 - 7:55pm

    Idiotic has actually made some fairly recent appearances at TPM.  See here.


    by DF on Tue, 04/28/2009 - 8:39pm

    That link was hillary-ous! (Haven't used that one in a while.)

    I especially enjoyed the reactions of new TPM folks who don't have the historical context. 


    by Orlando on Tue, 04/28/2009 - 8:44pm

    I'm ecstatic the Dems will soon have their highly symbolic 60 seats. If Harry Reid weren't so damn collegial, it might actually make a difference in getting Obama's agenda enacted and his appointees confirmed.

    But I'll wait a bit before becoming a full-fledged Arlen Specter fan. I haven't liked him since, as an up-and-coming lawyer for the Warren Commission, he came up with the "magic bullet theory" in order to explain how just three shots (the first of which missed completely) could cause all the wounds to JFK and Texas governor Connolly. Yeah, you heard me right: Lee Harvey Oswald did not act alone.


    by acanuck on Tue, 04/28/2009 - 9:06pm

    I heard his imaginary friend did it.


    by Orlando on Tue, 04/28/2009 - 9:21pm

    Arlen Specter's imaginary friend killed JFK?


    by Michael Wolraich on Tue, 04/28/2009 - 11:28pm

    Look, Specter just knows things that Einstein didn't.


    by DF on Tue, 04/28/2009 - 11:23pm

    I like the bold new avatar, O.


    by acanuck on Wed, 04/29/2009 - 5:49pm

    Thanks. I figure if Rachel Maddow and Ana Marie Cox can do double entendre, so can I.


    by Orlando on Thu, 04/30/2009 - 2:27am

    Didn't realize it had a sexual connotation. Story of O?


    by acanuck on Thu, 04/30/2009 - 3:28am

    Yeah, I didn't really realize it either. But it works.


    by Orlando on Thu, 04/30/2009 - 7:36am