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.

TenuredVulture wrote:

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?

The latter. Parties need to be strengthened. There's no conspiracy here, but the fact is that a legislator's independence from party line voting is dependent on his or her ability to raise large sums of money from interest groups. This does not serve the American people well.

allentown wrote:

TenuredVulture wrote:

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?

The latter. Parties need to be strengthened. There's no conspiracy here, but the fact is that a legislator's independence from party line voting is dependent on his or her ability to raise large sums of money from interest groups. This does not serve the American people well.

I think this a severe stretch. The parties raise money primarily from interest groups, certainly to a larger extent than fairly independent candidates do. The partisan loyalty in Congress ends up as basically a celebration of seniority in which tons of pork flow to the states/districts of the old bulls. We have moved to far in this direction. If it continues, Congress will be nothing more than the Pennsylvania Legislature, where 98% of members are ciphers who are told how to vote and all important decisions are made by the caucus leaders, the governor, and perhaps a key committee chair.

jerseyhoya wrote: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.

Bakestar wrote:

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

QFT

Macho Row wrote:

jerseyhoya wrote: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.

The field was pretty empty from a Democrat standpoint. Joe Torsella has potential, but he couldn't beat Allyson Schwartz in a congressional primary a few years back. State Reps. Shapiro and Kortz were longshots. Terry Madonna, one of the state's more respected political analysts, was publicly lamenting Democrats for a lack of interest knowing the possibility of facing Toomey in a very winnable general election.

If Sestak or Schwartz are upset at Specter switching parties and the state's Democratic organization (Rendell) for promising Arlen support, they should look in the mirror. Sestak didn't have a credible opponent this past election cycle. He easily could have shifted his warchest to a senate account and position himself as the state's preferred choice in a primary weeks ago. The lack of a viable Democrat in the race is one of the major reasons why Specter is switching parties and running as a D.

Mr. SPECTER . Mr. President, I have sought recognition this morning to comment on Senator Jeffords ' announcement that he will vote with the Democrats on organization of the Senate. I have delayed in expressing these thoughts to further reflect upon them and perhaps avoid saying something that I would later regret. I have written them down, which is unusual for me because I believe that floor statements, as speeches generally, are best made from the heart rather than text.

When I first heard last Tuesday that Senator Jeffords was considering this move, I told the news media: ``It shouldn't happen—it won't happen—it can't happen.'' Well, I was wrong.

When Senator Jeffords confirmed that he was about to vote with the Democrats, I joined five other Senators who tried to dissuade him in a morning meeting last Wednesday. The group reconvened for an afternoon meeting, with some ten other Senators and Senator Jeffords . Between the two meetings, we conferred with the Republican leadership on what suggestions we could make to Senator Jeffords to keep him in the fold.

For 13 years, JIM JEFFORDS has been one of my closest friends in the Senate and he still is. We have had lunch together every Wednesday for years. First, with Senator John Chafee, and later with Senator OLYMPIA SNOWE, Senator SUSAN COLLINS, and Senator Lincoln Chafee. He had never given any hint to me of such a move.

Before discussing the suggestions which would be made to Senator Jeffords , we first pleaded with him, saying his change would disrupt the Senate, it would change the balance of power in the Federal Government generally, it would severely weaken the Republican Party —of which he was a lifelong member, it would hurt his Senate friends, and likely cost many staffers to lose their jobs.

Senator Jeffords replied that he was opposed to the party's policies on many items and believed he could do more for his principles by organizing with the Democrats.

We then told Senator Jeffords that we were authorized by the Republican leadership to tell him that if he stayed, the term limits on his chairmanship would be waived, he would have a seat at the Republican leadership table as the moderate's representative, and IDEA, special education, would become an entitlement which would enrich that program by billions of dollars for children across America.

At the end of our second long meeting, I felt we had a significant chance to keep him. On Thursday morning, I was deeply disappointed by his announcement that he would organize with the Democrats. My immediate response to the news media was that it felt as if there had been a death in the family. Other Senators from our close-knit group were, candidly, hurt and confused. For some, that has turned to anger. Most of the Republican Senate caucus has had little to say, trying to put the best face on what is really a devastating loss.

The full impact has yet to sink in. It will undoubtedly be the topic of much contemporaneous columnist comment and beyond that for the historians.

Well, the question now arises, Where do we go from here? The Senate leadership, notwithstanding Senator Jeffords ' departure from our caucus, has created a moderate seat at the leadership table to address some of Senator Jeffords ' concerns. More needs to be done. And I think more will be done.

How should these issues be handled by the Senate for the future? I intend to propose a rule change which would preclude a future recurrence of a Senator's change in parties, in midsession, organizing with the opposition, to cause the upheaval which is now resulting.

I take second place to no one on independence voting. But, it is my view that the organizational vote belongs to the party which supported the election of a particular Senator. I believe that is the expectation. And certainly it has been a very abrupt party change, although they have occurred in the past with only minor ripples, none have caused the major dislocation which this one has.

When I first ran in 1980, Congressman Bud Shuster sponsored a fundraiser for me in Altoona where Congressman Jack Kemp was the principal speaker. When some questions were raised as to my political philosophy, Congressman Shuster said my most important vote would be the organizational vote. From that day to this, I have believed that the organizational vote belonged to the party which supported my election.

When the Democrats urged me to switch parties some time ago, I gave them a flat ``no.'' I have been asked in the last several days if I intended to switch parties. I have said absolutely not.

Senator PHIL GRAMM faced this issue when he decided to switch parties. He resigned his seat, which he had won as a Democrat, and ran for reelection as a Republican. As he told me, his last vote in January 1983 was for the Speaker of the House of Representatives, and he voted for Tip O'Neill with the view that he was elected as a Democrat and should vote that way on organizational control. Even though, he intended to become a Republican and would have preferred another person to be Speaker.

To repeat, I intend to propose a Senate rule which would preclude a change in control of the Senate when a Senator decides to vote with the opposing party for organizational purposes.

One other aspect does deserve comment, and that is the issue of personal benefit to a changing Senator. In our society, political arrangements avoid the consequences of similar conduct in other contexts.

For example, if company A induces a competitor's employee to break his contract with company B and join company A, company B can collect damages for company A's wrongful conduct. If A gives a benefit to an employee of B to induce the employee to breach a duty, that conduct can have serious consequences in other contexts which are not applied to political arrangements.

On the Lehrer news show on Thursday night, the day before yesterday, Senator HARRY REID and I sparred over this point. I expressed my concern about reliable reports that Democrats had told Senator Jeffords that Senator Reid would step aside so Senator Jeffords could become chairman of the Environment and Public Works Committee. Senator Reid replied that there was no quid pro quo, an expression I had not used.

Accepting Senator Jeffords ' decision was based on principle for the reasons he gave at his news conference on Thursday morning, a question still remains as to whether any such inducement was offered and whether it played any part in Senator JEFFORDS' decision. Questions on such offers and counteroffers should be considered by Senators and by the Senate in an ethical context, but at this moment I do not see any way to effect such conduct by rulemaking or legislation.

This week's events raise very profound questions for the governance of our country as well as the operation of the Senate. I intend to press a rule change which would preclude a recurrence of this situation and will be discussing with my colleagues the whole idea of inducements as an incentive for a party switch.

Bakestar wrote:
Specter's job with the Republicans (and now, it seems, the Democrats) is the be the Very Reasonable Moderate who confers legitimacy on the party in power by paying lip service to some sort of principled resistance, but never actually doing anything about it.

TenuredVulture wrote:Parties, of course in their current form do not function as well as they could. But the solution is not to celebrate independence. Or even worse 3rd parties. Then you get cults of personality, Italian style politics, and basically the end of democracy. I'm not saying strengthening parties by itself addresses these issues. What I am saying is that hoping for more independents in elected office is a mistake. What does an independent stand for? How can an independent ever sacrifice the particular interests he or she represents for the good of the whole?

Federal officials knew that sending two fighter jets and a 747 from the presidential fleet to buzz ground zero and Lady Liberty might set off nightmarish fears of a 9/11 replay, but they still ordered the photo-op kept secret from the public.

In a memo obtained by CBS 2 HD, the Federal Aviation Administration's James Johnston said the agency was aware of "the possibility of public concern regarding DOD (Department of Defense) aircraft flying at low altitudes" in an around New York City. But they demanded total secrecy from the NYPD, the Secret Service, the FBI and even the mayor's office and threatened federal sanctions if the secret got out.

"To say that it should not be made public knowing that it might scare people it's just confounding," Sen. Charles Schumer said. "It's what gives Washington and government a bad name. It's sheer stupidity."

Werthless wrote:

TenuredVulture wrote:Parties, of course in their current form do not function as well as they could. But the solution is not to celebrate independence. Or even worse 3rd parties. Then you get cults of personality, Italian style politics, and basically the end of democracy. I'm not saying strengthening parties by itself addresses these issues. What I am saying is that hoping for more independents in elected office is a mistake. What does an independent stand for? How can an independent ever sacrifice the particular interests he or she represents for the good of the whole?

I just don't get it. This whole paragraph doesn't jibe. I don't see how electing independents, who are not "softly forced" how to vote by a political party, leads to the end of democracy? And I don't understand your last sentence, implying that A) it is necessary for all politicians to sacrifice the interests he represents, and B) independents are incapable of doing this.

To answer your question "what does an independent stand for:" he stands for his own principles over any party principles. Heck, they can align with Republican or Democratic on most issues, as libertarians often align with Republicans on many issues, and the Green Party often aligns with Democrats.

Werthless wrote:

TenuredVulture wrote:Parties, of course in their current form do not function as well as they could. But the solution is not to celebrate independence. Or even worse 3rd parties. Then you get cults of personality, Italian style politics, and basically the end of democracy. I'm not saying strengthening parties by itself addresses these issues. What I am saying is that hoping for more independents in elected office is a mistake. What does an independent stand for? How can an independent ever sacrifice the particular interests he or she represents for the good of the whole?

I just don't get it. This whole paragraph doesn't jibe. I don't see how electing independents, who are not "softly forced" how to vote by a political party, leads to the end of democracy? And I don't understand your last sentence, implying that A) it is necessary for all politicians to sacrifice the interests he represents, and B) independents are incapable of doing this.

To answer your question "what does an independent stand for:" he stands for his own principles over any party principles. Heck, they can align with Republican or Democratic on most issues, as libertarians often align with Republicans on many issues, and the Green Party often aligns with Democrats.

TenuredVulture wrote:Here are the benefits of a functional party system:

1. Provide political stability
2. Low cost information for voters (an easy and reliable way to determine a candidate's position on issues
3. Provide a degree of unity at different levels of government
4. Screen and recruit candidates, providing accountability at all levels of government.
5. Formulate policy--this is a key area where if parties don't do this, interest groups will in ways that do not benefit the public.

Werthless wrote:

TenuredVulture wrote:Here are the benefits of a functional party system:

1. Provide political stability
2. Low cost information for voters (an easy and reliable way to determine a candidate's position on issues
3. Provide a degree of unity at different levels of government
4. Screen and recruit candidates, providing accountability at all levels of government.
5. Formulate policy--this is a key area where if parties don't do this, interest groups will in ways that do not benefit the public.

Here's the alternative argument (against the current 2 party system):

1) Entrench political interests.
2) Encourage laziness and ignorance in voters by encouraging party-line voting
3) More easily create majorities that can legislate at will, rewarding their supporters
4) Choose candidates that sit at ideological poles, as opposed to moderates
5) I don't think political parties provide a marginal benefit here. Formulating policy can just as easily be aided by thinktanks, nonprofits, and interest groups (organizations that know issues well). Party loyalists may or may not be an improvement over this.

I don't get your assertion that a cult of personality is more likely in a 3rd party. Obama has the closest thing to a personality cult, and he came up through the party system.