Condescension, Flaming, Politics (in that order) Here

by **FTN** » Tue Apr 28, 2009 12:04:09

Arlen Specter to run for re-election as a Democrat.

by **jerseyhoya** » Tue Apr 28, 2009 12:11:18

Reelected solely due to W and Santorum's intervention. What a jackass. At least I don't have to be ambivalent anymore about him. Hopefully we win the statehouse back so we can appoint his replacement when he dies next term.

by **dajafi** » Tue Apr 28, 2009 12:16:00

That's pretty freakin' nuts. All the flip-flops, all the hemming and hawing... wow.

I get the rage--I'd feel the same way if I were a Republican--but the other important point might be that it's tough to win majorities when your moderates keep fleeing.

by **dajafi** » Tue Apr 28, 2009 12:18:09

Statement by Senator Arlen Specter

I have been a Republican since 1966. I have been working extremely hard for the Party, for its candidates and for the ideals of a Republican Party whose tent is big enough to welcome diverse points of view. While I have been comfortable being a Republican, my Party has not defined who I am. I have taken each issue one at a time and have exercised independent judgment to do what I thought was best for Pennsylvania and the nation.

Since my election in 1980, as part of the Reagan Big Tent, the Republican Party has moved far to the right. Last year, more than 200,000 Republicans in Pennsylvania changed their registration to become Democrats. I now find my political philosophy more in line with Democrats than Republicans.

When I supported the stimulus package, I knew that it would not be popular with the Republican Party. But, I saw the stimulus as necessary to lessen the risk of a far more serious recession than we are now experiencing.

Since then, I have traveled the State, talked to Republican leaders and office-holders and my supporters and I have carefully examined public opinion. It has become clear to me that the stimulus vote caused a schism which makes our differences irreconcilable. On this state of the record, I am unwilling to have my twenty-nine year Senate record judged by the Pennsylvania Republican primary electorate. I have not represented the Republican Party. I have represented the people of Pennsylvania.

I have decided to run for re-election in 2010 in the Democratic primary.

I am ready, willing and anxious to take on all comers and have my candidacy for re-election determined in a general election.

I deeply regret that I will be disappointing many friends and supporters. I can understand their disappointment. I am also disappointed that so many in the Party I have worked for for more than four decades do not want me to be their candidate. It is very painful on both sides. I thank specially Senators McConnell and Cornyn for their forbearance.

I am not making this decision because there are no important and interesting opportunities outside the Senate. I take on this complicated run for re-election because I am deeply concerned about the future of our country and I believe I have a significant contribution to make on many of the key issues of the day, especially medical research. NIH funding has saved or lengthened thousands of lives, including mine, and much more needs to be done. And my seniority is very important to continue to bring important projects vital to Pennsylvania’s economy.

I am taking this action now because there are fewer than thirteen months to the 2010 Pennsylvania Primary and there is much to be done in preparation for that election. Upon request, I will return campaign contributions contributed during this cycle.

While each member of the Senate caucuses with his Party, what each of us hopes to accomplish is distinct from his party affiliation. The American people do not care which Party solves the problems confronting our nation. And no Senator, no matter how loyal he is to his Party, should or would put party loyalty above his duty to the state and nation.

My change in party affiliation does not mean that I will be a party-line voter any more for the Democrats that I have been for the Republicans. Unlike Senator Jeffords’ switch which changed party control, I will not be an automatic 60th vote for cloture. For example, my position on Employees Free Choice (Card Check) will not change.

Whatever my party affiliation, I will continue to be guided by President Kennedy’s statement that sometimes Party asks too much. When it does, I will continue my independent voting and follow my conscience on what I think is best for Pennsylvania and America.

by gr » Tue Apr 28, 2009 12:22:07

I have three words for Arlen Spector: "Single Bullet Theory."

by **FTN** » Tue Apr 28, 2009 12:23:31

Ive always liked Specter.

I like him even more now.

by **Bakestar** » Tue Apr 28, 2009 12:25:54

Yuck, he's a craven ass.

by **cshort** » Tue Apr 28, 2009 12:37:49

What an ass. At least Leiberman had the stones to run in his party's primary before running as an independent in the general election. Rather than go to the Dems, why not become an independent, and go against both parties in the general election? I used to defend Specter, but after this move, I have little respect left for the man.

by **lethal** » Tue Apr 28, 2009 12:46:04

So what does this mean right now in the Senate? Are the R's going to kick him out of their caucus and he's joining the D's effective immediately?

by **Bakestar** » Tue Apr 28, 2009 12:47:32

lethal wrote:So what does this mean right now in the Senate? Are the R's going to kick him out of their caucus and he's joining the D's effective immediately?

Kind of what it sounds like.

by **dajafi** » Tue Apr 28, 2009 12:47:43

cshort wrote:What an ass. At least Leiberman had the stones to run in his party's primary before running as an independent in the general election. Rather than go to the Dems, why not become an independent, and go against both parties in the general election? I used to defend Specter, but after this move, I have little respect left for the man.

I'm pretty sure it had to do with election laws in the two states. PA's primary is closed, not sure about CT. Also, I think PA might have a "sore loser law" in which if you're beaten in the primary (as Lieberman was), you can't then run as another party's candidate.

by **jerseyhoya** » Tue Apr 28, 2009 12:50:33

Bakestar wrote:
lethal wrote:So what does this mean right now in the Senate? Are the R's going to kick him out of their caucus and he's joining the D's effective immediately?

Kind of what it sounds like.

I don't think this is "kicking him out" of our caucus. I think this would pretty comfortably be categorized as leaving of his own accord.

by **TenuredVulture** » Tue Apr 28, 2009 12:51:44

cshort wrote:What an ass. At least Leiberman had the stones to run in his party's primary before running as an independent in the general election. Rather than go to the Dems, why not become an independent, and go against both parties in the general election? I used to defend Specter, but after this move, I have little respect left for the man.

Because "going against both parties" is how you lose elections. There's no earthly reason why a sitting Senator would want to demote himself to spoiler.

by **Bakestar** » Tue Apr 28, 2009 12:52:00

jerseyhoya wrote:
Bakestar wrote:
lethal wrote:So what does this mean right now in the Senate? Are the R's going to kick him out of their caucus and he's joining the D's effective immediately?

Kind of what it sounds like.

I don't think this is "kicking him out" of our caucus. I think this would pretty comfortably be categorized as leaving of his own accord.

I was talking more to the point of him becoming a Democrat with the swiftness.

by **cshort** » Tue Apr 28, 2009 12:55:07

TenuredVulture wrote:
cshort wrote:What an ass. At least Leiberman had the stones to run in his party's primary before running as an independent in the general election. Rather than go to the Dems, why not become an independent, and go against both parties in the general election? I used to defend Specter, but after this move, I have little respect left for the man.

Because "going against both parties" is how you lose elections. There's no earthly reason why a sitting Senator would want to demote himself to spoiler.

Worked for Leiberman. He ends up getting the moderates, who make up the majority anyway.

by **Bakestar** » Tue Apr 28, 2009 12:56:01

cshort wrote:
TenuredVulture wrote:
cshort wrote:What an ass. At least Leiberman had the stones to run in his party's primary before running as an independent in the general election. Rather than go to the Dems, why not become an independent, and go against both parties in the general election? I used to defend Specter, but after this move, I have little respect left for the man.

Because "going against both parties" is how you lose elections. There's no earthly reason why a sitting Senator would want to demote himself to spoiler.

Worked for Leiberman

Pennsylvania is not Connecticut.

by **Bakestar** » Tue Apr 28, 2009 12:57:32

Chuck Pennacchio to the rescue!!

by **TenuredVulture** » Tue Apr 28, 2009 12:58:47

Bakestar wrote:
cshort wrote:
TenuredVulture wrote:
cshort wrote:What an ass. At least Leiberman had the stones to run in his party's primary before running as an independent in the general election. Rather than go to the Dems, why not become an independent, and go against both parties in the general election? I used to defend Specter, but after this move, I have little respect left for the man.

Because "going against both parties" is how you lose elections. There's no earthly reason why a sitting Senator would want to demote himself to spoiler.

Worked for Leiberman

Pennsylvania is not Connecticut.

Right. Parties are stronger in PA than in CT. And, I actually think Lieberman would have shown more integrity by switching and becoming a Republican, rather than "independent". Anyone who holds up Lieberman as some kind of paragon of virtue is well, I dunno.

by **jerseyhoya** » Tue Apr 28, 2009 13:04:40

dajafi wrote:That's pretty freakin' nuts. All the flip-flops, all the hemming and hawing... wow.

I get the rage--I'd feel the same way if I were a Republican--but the other important point might be that it's tough to win majorities when your moderates keep fleeing.

I'm not even that angry. I didn't like him at all when he was a Republican, and it will be even easier to continue hating him now that he's a Democrat. He has very few core convictions other than his desire to remain a senator. I said a few months back that he was our Lieberman, someone we should be allowed to hate regardless of how he votes. He's a sanctimonious jackass.

I understand the point about moderates fleeing, and that being bad, but Specter, at least for me, has always been different. I wanted Chafee to beat Laffey. I like the women from Maine. I can't stand Specter. His self serving "Not Proven" bs during the Clinton impeachment, his remarkable ability to promote bipartisanship like it was an end, regardless of what the product of the compromise was, the fact that by all accounts he's a mean sonuvabitch. Fuck him. He'll continue all these traits and once the initial shine wears off, I'm sure the Dem base will hate him too.

by **Bakestar** » Tue Apr 28, 2009 13:06:41

jerseyhoya wrote:He has very few core convictions other than his desire to remain a senator.

QFT

Archived

Condescension, Flaming, Politics (in that order) Here