The Specter of Arlen Specter
In what will certainly be the biggest political story to cap off the first 100 days of the Obama administration, Senator Arlen Specter (R-PA) has announced he will be switching parties. Once Al Franken is seated in Minnesota, an inevitability expected to happen shortly, the Democratic party will have a 60 seat, filibuster-proof majority.
Specter was one of three Republicans in Congress to vote for President Obama's stimulus package, an issue that caused a split with his party that Specter described in a statement as "irreconcilable." In the wake of his vote, RNC Chairman Michael Steele suggested that Republicans who didn't tow the party line might not be supported in their re-election. Not long after, Pat Toomey, former president of the Club for Growth, announced his intention to challenge Specter in the 2010 Republican primary. Most polls showed Specter trailing by double-digits. As a moderate Republican who had sided with Obama, Specter's re-election appeared incredibly unlikely.
Specter's decisions to switch parties was based, above all else, on survival. Specter will almost assuredly claim the Democratic nomination for the Senate seat in 2010, and should defeat Toomey easily in a general election matchup in a state where Obama won by ten points. But whatever the personal politics, the most significant consequence of his decision will be the events it sets in motion.
Sure, it's true that Specter's decision will have a much smaller impact on the political agenda than Jim Jeffords' decision in 2001. When Jeffords left the Republican party, the GOP lost control of the Senate. That isn't the case here. It is also true that Specter has voted with the Democrats often, and that as a Democrat, he will often break ranks to vote with the GOP. Some will consequently argue that the actual change that's occurred here is relatively minor. Yes, there are now 60 Democratic senators, but if you can't guarantee that all those Democrats will break the filibuster, is it really better than having 59?
It is. It very much is.
Arlen Specter will be catered to by the Democratic caucus, behind closed doors. Where he has concerns, the party will work closely with him to resolve them. It is far more likely that a negotiation that begins and ends among friends will yield a more productive result than a negotiation that, prior to today, had to be hammered out among adversaries. By virtue of having Specter as part of the caucus, Democrats will be better capable of earning his vote.
Specter's voting record will start to change, as well. Though his record suggests a political philosophy not entirely aligned with either party, in his long career, he has no doubt had to cast votes to appease the Republican base, even when he disagreed. Without a doubt, not having the increasingly fringe-prone Republican base to worry about will liberalize Specter on a number of issues.
There is a broader value as well. Specter's story will dominate the news cycle for days, if not weeks; during that time, he will no doubt have opportunities to explain himself publicly. When he does, he will say that the Republican party of which he was a lifetime member is no longer. That a conservatism based on reason and rationality can no longer exist under the conspiracy-driven, anti-intellectual senselessness that has come to define the circus tent of the Republican party.
A recent Washington Post/ABC poll found that only 21% of the country self-identifies as Republican. That's almost half as many as call themselves Independents. The reality is striking - all over the country, people are walking away from a GOP that is collapsing in on itself.
Arlen Specter is now the highest profile among them.
Loading comments…
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to
Yes, the majority will be there but will the votes?
Yes, the Dems will have a 60 vote filibuster-proof majority. . .
. . . except when they won't.
Specter has already declared his intention not to vote for cloture on Card Check, among other issues. And there are plenty of Blue Dogs more than willing to throw water on the Democratic agenda.
The 60-vote margin has always been more myth than anything else.
Already making excuses. How much power must your party amass before you finally declare yourself satisfied? Do you require all 100 Senate seats? Royal title for Barack?
Here we have a real testimonial on the possibility of bipartisanship with the GOP. Now maybe we can get affordable health care.
You gotta factor in the Blue Dog DINOs. Sixty votes is beyond reach because of them.
Wah wah wah. The American people have given you Democrats extraordinary power. They won't be interested in hearing lame excuses.
" the Democratic party will have a 60 seat, filibuster-proof majority." The problem with that is this. On paper there are 60 Democratic Senators in the U.S. Senate, giving them the votes to stop a filibuster. The problem is that not all 60 Democrats will be voting with the Democratic majority on all pieces of legislation. About 25% of the Democratic majority are Blue dog Democrats who vote republican on many key pieces of legislation. It is, however, better than a sharp stick in he eye. All the Democrats need are the leaders of the Senate to get all it's members to vote as a block to prevent republican filibustering in this, the 111th Congress.
the congressional dems will split into conservative and liberal factions by the end of the week. i look for baucus, conrad, and bayh- with the help of insurance, pharma, and banking- to beat back obama's agenda while obama fishes for non-existent middle ground instead of running the reactionaries over.
Dylan, the idiom is "toe the line"--not "tow the line". You're a writer. You owe it to the language to know this stuff.
maybe he's a water skier
Hah!
Me four!
Think of recruits in basic training all lining up on the same mark.
They both get across the same point so who cares? The original idiom is older and .... what.. more sacred? Correct? They get across the same point. Now if he had said "As that old saying goes Tow the line" then I could see. But now you just seem like an angry english professor. Do you need a hug? Or just to rankle you; Dew Ewe Knead uh Hug?
If indeed it does come to pass...it can't have happened soon enough.
Hit the nail on the head with your last two paragraphs. While 60 is certainly better than 59 it is no guarantee to gain cloture.
What is far more significant is the bad press that Republicans will invariably receive. Blood is in the water...all you have to do is sit back and watch the press feeding frenzy while they tear republicans to shreds.
Say what you want about MSM (personally, not a fan), but they love conflict. "If it bleeds, it leads"...and right now the Repubs are gushing blood. They arent going to have any time or platform to attack Obama from because theyll be too busy defending their own party. THIS IS EXTREMELY IMPORTANT:it forces them off their attack dog talking points to make an awkward defense of the indefensible.
The next couple weeks will be brutal for them, without a doubt...unless of course something bloodier comes along...
Oops...I mean 21% repbulican, 35% democrat, 38% independent....what do the other 6% identifiy themselves as these days?
Confused?
21% repbulican, 35% democrat, 35% independent....what do the other 6% identifiy themselves as these days?
The 21% party! Love it!
Limbaugh's comment about taking Mccain with you show that the GOP continues to be more and more "wingnut country". Mccain won the GOP presidential nomination and almost 60 million Americans voted for him. Does Limbaugh really think that alienating Mccain supporters will help the GOP ? The litmus test for Republicans continues to creep farther and farther to the right . Soon only those Limbaugh deems politically acceptable can be called Republicans.
A Lot of them didn't vote "FOR" McCain.... they just voted AGAINST Barack Obama and at the very Least they were voting FOR SARAH PALIN.
Yea maybe the wingnuts voted against Obama,but Mccain still won the GOP nomination for president over a better financed Romney and wingnut favorite Huckabee . among GOP voters nationwide moderate Mccain had the most delegates and votes. But the wingnut wing still worships the loser Limbaugh. the Wingnuts bring the GOP further down the path of irrelevance and strengthens the Democrats.
"RNC Chairman Michael Steele suggested that Republicans who didn't tow the party line might not be supported in their re-election."
More of Michael Steele's master plan?
He truly is proof that the GOP has abandoned discrimination on the grounds of ability.
This is a good day for the donkeys but make no mistake this is an ice cold political calculation by Specter. He is trailing badly in the polls to a conservative who he barely beat 6 years ago. He decided his chances of winning that Primary were slim. He talked with Obama and Rendell and made a deal. The liberals are sure to run someone against him but he figures with Obama and Rendell in his corner he has to like his chances in a Dem Primary. He will like it even more if several Dems try and take him on. He had Bush in his corner in 04 and it put him over the top. I find it humorous that liberals who have railed against him for a generation are now going to support him. I think he will find that support rather tepid, but in the end he will win.
We didn't really rail against him much, and our complaint was when it was obvious he was selling out his personal views in order to keep in line with the republicans ever-rightward march. Now he doesn't need to dance to their tune when he disagrees with them. Sure, he's not much more than a blue dog, but most blue dogs are at least left of the current repub caucus.
What makes you think we are going to support him? Just because he made a deal with the President and the Majority Leader? They committed themselves to supporting him. Not the rest of us.
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
