TenuredVulture wrote:

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.

jerseyhoya wrote: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. $#@! him. He'll continue all these traits and once the initial shine wears off, I'm sure the Dem base will hate him too.

gr wrote:

TenuredVulture wrote:

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.

What kind of ridiculous world is this where simply switching parties is more virtuous than becoming an independent? The logic of such a move does not follow. So, Specter expresses his disappointment with his party, quote JFK's line about "sometimes party asks too much", says he will continue to follow his independent path by...simply switching to the other party? Give me a break. It's bs. He's doing this because he doesn't want to face Toomey in the primary. He thinks he has a better chance against him in the general and he's probably right. That's it. It's not like he's going to be a party line voter for the Democrats.

Probably the most important point is here is the demographic changes going on in Specter's home state. Pennsylvania is a closed-primary state, and the ranks of registered Republicans, the folks eligible to vote in the GOP primary, shrunk last year. In 2008, between 150,000 and 200,000 registered GOPers switched to the Democratic Party in order to vote in the contentious primary between Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama.

Let's take a look at the deeper numbers -- and how the state's reduced GOP electorate has pulled harder to the right, making this move necessary as a simple matter of political survival.

Those people tended to be moderate voters -- Specter's people -- and without them he cannot win a primary. But with them staying as Democrats, he could actually start with a leg-up as a Democrat, just in case any liberal challenger might try to take him on in the Dem primary.
...
A Rasmussen poll from just a few days ago put Toomey ahead by a 51%-30% margin. Specter was viewed unfavorably by 55% of the GOP electorate, compared to only 42% favorable. The pollster's analysis also pointed out that 79% of them had a favorable view of the Tea Parties -- not exactly a receptive audience for a pro-stimulus Senator. This was the first poll since Toomey officially got in, but other polls before that also showed Specter way below 50%, with a high undecided number, and the only question was whether Toomey could pick enough support to pull ahead.

And finally, it's important to remember another aspect of Pennsylvania politics: If he had run in the Republican primary and lost, he would not have been able to pull a Joe Lieberman and run as an independent. They have a "Sore-Loser Law" that forbids that very maneuver. So his choices other than retirement were to run as a Republican and probably lose the primary, run as an independent and face some serious structural disadvantages, or to take a chance on going over to the Democrats. And given those sets of probabilities, switching to the Dems became the obvious choice.

TenuredVulture wrote:Because the only hope of our democracies lies in the strength of political parties. Now, there is a vigorous debate in political science about whether the increasingly ideological coherence of parties is a good or bad thing, but no one who really understands the role of political parties and the nature of the party system sees any virtue in "independence".

The decline in the power of parties leaves a power vacuum that is filled by interest groups, which results in a government far less responsive to the will of the people.

VoxOrion wrote:Does the hatred of those who want to "win at all costs" extend to Specter?

dajafi wrote:

VoxOrion wrote:Does the hatred of those who want to "win at all costs" extend to Specter?

I guess the answer to this would depend on how much difference one sees between "contempt" and "hatred." Certainly I think the contempt extends to him.

But in terms of political philosophy, this whole question is probably less clear than we all have made it out to be. Partisan loyalists deplore people like Specter or Lieberman (or, perhaps less loudly, Evan Bayh or Olympia Snowe) for their ideological unreliability. As thinking people who value independent judgment, though, we probably should hold at least as much distaste for the entirely predictable partisan warriors like Barbara Boxer or John Cornyn. Especially in the Senate, which is supposed to be, and once actually was, less hospitable to reflexive partisanship.

By the same token, I guess it could be argued that Specter's (or Lieberman's) political cravenness is the funhouse reflection of his intellectual independence. As irritating as both guys are, I don't think either of them is insincere, as (say) John Kerry or John McCain probably sometimes is on this or that issue.

jerseyhoya wrote:Sestak was just on MSNBC, and seemed to be rather open to opposing him, if not running against him.

dajafi wrote:

jerseyhoya wrote:Sestak was just on MSNBC, and seemed to be rather open to opposing him, if not running against him.

I think he definitely wants the job, but the conversation with Rendell ("sit it out this year and you're our man in 2016; enter the race and I will pop you like a zit") probably closes the subject.

VoxOrion wrote:Majorities and minorities are made based on votes and predictable voting outcomes, and direct party affiliation. It seems to me that the folks who frequently vote with the "other guys", whoever they may be, are doing so because a) they couldn't get elected as one of the "other guys" or b) some other political opportunism, not for the integrity of anything. Specter clearly decided a) (and says as much in his speech) and made his choice once things changed for him.

TenuredVulture wrote:Because the only hope of our democracies lies in the strength of political parties. Now, there is a vigorous debate in political science about whether the increasingly ideological coherence of parties is a good or bad thing, but no one who really understands the role of political parties and the nature of the party system sees any virtue in "independence".

The decline in the power of parties leaves a power vacuum that is filled by interest groups, which results in a government far less responsive to the will of the people.

jerseyhoya wrote:

dajafi wrote:

jerseyhoya wrote:Sestak was just on MSNBC, and seemed to be rather open to opposing him, if not running against him.

I think he definitely wants the job, but the conversation with Rendell ("sit it out this year and you're our man in 2016; enter the race and I will pop you like a zit") probably closes the subject.

How many times are ambitious, liberal Democrats expected to stand down in PA? A whole lot of liberal groups were pretty peeved that the field was cleared for Bobby Casey back in 2006, but were able to suck it up because they hated Rick Santorum so damn much. Now what is the reason? A promise has been made to a lifelong Republican, who probably will continue voting against the party on a number of key issues? Sestak has $3.4 mil on hand, Schwartz has $2.2 mil, Specter has $6.7 mil. It's a head start, for sure, but I don't know it's impossible to beat him. Sestak would be a decided underdog, especially if the DSCC/Obama/Rendell get behind Specter strongly, but he could wage a legitimate race.

A 2016 promise is empty. Who knows how Specter's health will be in 2016, but if he's alive, it's hard to picture him retiring.

gr wrote:

TenuredVulture wrote:Because the only hope of our democracies lies in the strength of political parties. Now, there is a vigorous debate in political science about whether the increasingly ideological coherence of parties is a good or bad thing, but no one who really understands the role of political parties and the nature of the party system sees any virtue in "independence".

The decline in the power of parties leaves a power vacuum that is filled by interest groups, which results in a government far less responsive to the will of the people.

Sorry, but I don't buy it. Leaving aside the 'no sensible person would disagree' angle you played, do you feel there is no pervasive interest group culture in government already? Or if you do, are you saying it would be much much worse than it already is?