Arlen Specter switches parties; Democrats are now filibuster proof

I get what you're saying about his voting record, but it really doesn't alter what I'm trying to say. Let's be more specific - you voted for Obama last November. He announces this morning that he's switching to become a Republican. How would you feel about it? We all know you're diametrically opposed to conservatism and anything resembling it, so there's no fucking way you would be anything other than outraged. And yeah, I'm sure a percentage of the voters are OK with it. But what about the others?

If he has the same ideology as before, if he supports the same policies, and doesn't start ranting about "teh gayz!" and "taken mah guns" he can call himself a Mexican Space Clown for all I care. It's just a title.

The party's both have a basic ideological platform that they agree to work towards, it's the core of what they believe and are supposed to represent. You guys are either being deliberately obtuse or are just trying to fuck with me or something.

Uh Oh, your starting to enter Glen Beck levels of paranoia

MSP, what do you believe this "switch" really changes?

Actually this is the point. The platforms, as they move to the right or the left (or become narrower and less inclusive of opposing points of view), tend to dump off those at the edges of the platform. As the Party confuses it's base and the voters at it's peril, so do we confuse the Party and specific candidates at our peril.

Specter's constituents aren't Republican or Democrat or Independent, but rather, they are Pennsylvanians, and if switching from the moderate/liberal fringe of the Republican minority to the moderate/conservative fringe of the Democratic Majority gives Pennsylvania more political pull in events, it's the Pennsylvanian voting constituency that is being served well. Specter will have more voice in committees, and won't be isolated and voiceless as he was in his own party, after the stimulus vote backlash.

If the Republicans didn't want this to happen, they shouldn't have started sharpening their knives at those who broke party ranks quite so obviously. Don't make 'em walk the plank, if you don't want them to leave the ship!

I understand MSP's frustration but he really wasn't a Conservative.

Arlen Specter on the Issues

Let me be clear. I whole heartedly disagree with anyone doing this AFTER being voted into office. If they wish to change their party affiliation they should do it only when running for reelection IMHO. I think that's pretty fair to ask regardless of what party you represent.

Joe Liebermann

Alas, the precedent was set back when the Republicans last became a majority, and some Southern Democrats switched Party affiliation just like this. I feel this will be an established tradition from here on out, since Party affiliation doesn't really mean what it used to back in the days of Tip O'Neil and Reagan. As has been mentioned by some here, the very idea of Parties is more negative than positive among most voters, who now claim they are "independent" in greater numbers than ever before.

You know there's a distinct difference between being labeled obtuse versus deliberately obtuse? Which makes what you said funny but not for the reason you believe.

I'm not obtuse... I'm just big boned.

Mmhmm.

That's pretty much the reason Obama won though.

This just shows you how fucked up the party system is. People voting for a candidate solely on the basis of his/her party affiliation makes me want to start a revolution.

Actually, it's because he was black(ish).

Yeah, I'm pretty much there myself.

no, if obama was a republican, i would have voted republican. i thin the party system is stupid and vote based on the individuals ideas and empty promises. like i said, you should be voting for a person, not a party

i don't agree with what you are saying whatsoever. who gives a shit if he changes parties. vote for the candidate. if he starts towing the party line, thats a different story.

but i do know that our resident dems would be going apeshit about your theoretical situation.

I guess I just look at politics differently. I view a president or senator or supreme court justice as simply a mechanism within the government to achieve my ideological goals. I mean, I don't give a rats ass about the cult of personality or what he's like as a person - I just want someone in office who's going to uphold what I believe to be right and true. Now, would I prefer a honorable, capable person in that role? Absolutely. But for me the person is secondary to the ideology.

Tru dat. Hence my comment about them playing dumb with me, because they all know it's true.

I don't get it. They are all mechanisms (tools too) that are performing a function, yes. His function hasn't changed, his produced work will not be different, the idealogical goals he works for haven't digressed. What diffence does it matter if he's a Demublican or a Republicrat or Samoflange or Tricorder, he's still doing the same thing under the same ideals.

and in that case, you shouldn't give a shit what party label they have affixed. I think you're going into this with the mindset that he is going to surely start voting differently.

oh, and to all you assholes who are pumped about no filibustering - fuck you. Its bad enough having a large majority and presidential control for one party.

Well I certainly hope you're all right. I think he knew his chances of re-election were better switching to the Dems, so I don't buy for one second that he did this out of principle. But there goes my "half glass empty" attitude I guess.

EDIT: The party's do put enormous pressure on the candidate to vote the party line though. Lieberman was mentioned in this thread and he's a good example. The party can cut funding, remove them from important committees, and otherwise marginalize them in a million little ways. He will be pressured to vote Democratic, and I'll lay 50 bucks on the table right now that his voting will shift, if only marginally. And THAT is why I was outraged. He will not be serving the Republicans who put him in his office.

We actually agree on that. Of course Government is a collection of human beings rather than a mechanism, which means that in any group of 100 people of the same "ideology", there are 100 different variations of that ideology, and some of those variations are "non-trivial" in their scope.

Specter has always been on the fringe of Republican ideology, and Pennsylvania voted for him knowing this fact. It's not a cult of Specter personality, but Specter's ideology that Pennsylvania elected him for (a good thing for him; my dentist has more personality than Specter! ). He has declared himself that he's not going to be some agreeable lapdog of the Democrats, and will continue to vote as he sees fit. Most of the folks who voted for him have themselves moved over to the Democratic Party, and he is being undercut by those in his party who want a Senator who is closer to the Republican base. In a sense, he is in exactly the same situation as Joe Lieberman was in when he went independent.

Folks like Specter and Lieberman have an ideology they follow, and which their States understand and voted for, but it's not the Party ideology, which they did NOT vote for. Lieberman trounced the "orthodox" candidate that the Democrats put out to replace him in the Primary, because the voters of that State didn't want "orthodoxy" in their candidate. The same applies to Specter. His core ideology has not changed, and he will now make Democrats as uncomfortable as he made his former Republican colleagues. That's why you really don't have to be bothered by the switch. I meant it, when I said the only change will be the Animal Mascot over his door. He isn't changing his voting stand, and has pretty much baldly stated that the change was to get re-elected, and he didn't think getting the Republican nomination was feasible anymore (I was listening on NPR as these very words pretty much came straight out of his mouth).

My radically conservative buddy John lives in that district, and he was surprisingly calm about the whole thing. His take on it was they can finally vote for a Republican versus having to chose between two Democrats. So at least in the one personal example I have you appear to be right. They're glad to be rid of him. Still shouldn't be allowed without the say of the voters though.