http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/30456741/?from=ET (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/30456741/?from=ET)
WASHINGTON - Veteran Republican Sen. Arlen Specter is in talks to switch parties, sources told The Associated Press on Tuesday.
Separately, the Washington Post reported that Specter will switch parties.
The move would give Democrats a filibuster-proof 60 seats if Al Franken is seated in the Minnesota.
this is huge.
Wow. Big stuff right there.
Horrible news.
Not that I care about who switches parties where. But to have any party enjoy a super majority is just bad business. When the country was founded EXCLUDING political parties as much as possible it was never imagined one party would be able to control the Senate entirely. It's just not good for Democracy.
Can you imaged how screwed we would be if GW had a super majority in 2002-2004 (prior to record low approval ratings)?
I hate the two party system.
Can't say that I'm surprised.
Specter was a lot more moderate than his fellow Republicans. I think he was getting tired of dealing with fellow GOP lawmakers who were doubling down on the crazy and obstructing, instead of trying to form new ideas to win back the electorate.
The future of the GOP is abysmal because the demographics are so against the party. Even Neil Boortz admitted this on his show a couple of weeks ago.
Quote from: cannon_fodder on April 28, 2009, 11:54:17 AM
Horrible news.
Not that I care about who switches parties where. But to have any party enjoy a super majority is just bad business. When the country was founded EXCLUDING political parties as much as possible it was never imagined one party would be able to control the Senate entirely. It's just not good for Democracy.
Can you imaged how screwed we would be if GW had a super majority in 2002-2004 (prior to record low approval ratings)?
I hate the two party system.
You're probably right.
I have mixed emotions. By Oklahoma standards, I'm pretty liberal, but my national standards I'm probably closer to someone like Specter. Part of me is a little happy because I want to see what Obama can accomplish. But I'd also like to see someone like Specter stay in the GOP and keep it more in the middle. I feel the GOP, and the country as a whole, benefit when it sticks to small government, limited taxes, and a generally pro-business mentality; when they get into things like Terri Schiavo or other similar crusades, it accomplishes nothing other than draining political capital.
But the real fear is unfettered power. Obama won't need to hide behind executive privilege or similar doctrines in the short term; he can push a lot through out in the open. I hope he does so wisely.
I totally saw it. The guy is Dr. No...
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/b/be/DrNoSPECTRE.JPG)(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/d/d0/Arlen_Specter%2C_official_Senate_photo_portrait.jpg/160px-Arlen_Specter%2C_official_Senate_photo_portrait.jpg)
Blofield FINALLY has his supermajority.
The Republican party deserves this.
Sometimes you've got to hit rock bottom before you realize you've got a problem. Perhaps they can scrap some of their idiocy, or lose a couple more pandering buffoons.
I don't think the Dems should be too proud of gaining this one man pork machine, but I suppose he'll meet less criticism from the blind right.
Congrats on the seat at least.
Good riddance. His switching just makes a difference on paper.
Quote from: cannon_fodder on April 28, 2009, 11:54:17 AM
Horrible news.
Not that I care about who switches parties where. But to have any party enjoy a super majority is just bad business. When the country was founded EXCLUDING political parties as much as possible it was never imagined one party would be able to control the Senate entirely. It's just not good for Democracy.
Can you imaged how screwed we would be if GW had a super majority in 2002-2004 (prior to record low approval ratings)?
I hate the two party system.
It short circuits some immediate checks and balances, but hopefully kicks into high gear a longer term check on the power of the Dems . . . it's an indicator to the Reps that they're not offering stuff that the people like.
It's the marketplace of ideology, baby. If your customers aren't buying what you're selling, it's time to switch it up or declare Chp 11. Either change the marketing or the product or both. Something's got to give.
Quote from: we vs us on April 28, 2009, 12:19:43 PM
It short circuits some immediate checks and balances, but hopefully kicks into high gear a longer term check on the power of the Dems . . . it's an indicator to the Reps that they're not offering stuff that the people like.
It's the marketplace of ideology, baby. If your customers aren't buying what you're selling, it's time to switch it up or declare Chp 11. Either change the marketing or the product or both. Something's got to give.
Yep, and now the dems officially own everything. No more excuses that the repubs are blocking anything, like the Sebelius confirmation.
Great news! Alren said definitively that he is NOT switching parties. Wait, that was almost a month ago:
Quote[Democrats] are trying very hard for the 60th vote. Got to give them credit for trying. But the answer is no.
I'm not going to discuss private talks I had with other people who may or may not be considered influential. But since those three people are in the public domain, I think it is appropriative to respond to those questions.
I am staying a Republican because I think I have an important role, a more important role, to play there. The United States very desperately needs a two-party system. That's the basis of politics in America. I'm afraid we are becoming a one-party system, with Republicans becoming just a regional party with so little representation of the northeast or in the middle atlantic. I think as a governmental matter, it is very important to have a check and balance. That's a very important principle in the operation of our government. In the constitution on Separation of powers.
http://briefingroom.thehill.com/2009/04/28/specter-had-disavowed-a-switch/
I love our government. It works well. It is full of integrity. It offers a variety of viewpoints.
/fail
Quote from: we vs us on April 28, 2009, 12:19:43 PM
It short circuits some immediate checks and balances, but hopefully kicks into high gear a longer term check on the power of the Dems . . . it's an indicator to the Reps that they're not offering stuff that the people like.
It's the marketplace of ideology, baby. If your customers aren't buying what you're selling, it's time to switch it up or declare Chp 11. Either change the marketing or the product or both. Something's got to give.
You're exactly right!
Well not Right, but right. heck! you know what I mean. ;)
Does this mean the Republicans will stop trying to throw him out :D
No seriously though. It doesn't matter who is affiliated with what party because they can vote to stop a filibuster no matter the party.
Goodie. Now AL FRANKEN can suit up!
Guido you are correct when you state "His switching just makes a difference on paper."This changes nothing. And Cannon, don't be afraid of the new majority.
Change has come to America. Love it or leave it.
Quote from: FOTD on April 28, 2009, 12:56:13 PMChange has come to America. Love it or leave it.
Oh ho ho, that's rich.
No change here, anyway. Some rotten politician acting in bald-faced self interest.
Bold move by Specter if what happened in the '94 mid-term happens again in '10. I think this move speaks more to himself and his own preservation than what's wrong with the GOP as a whole. He's going to get tough opposition in a GOP primary. Someone at the DNC has helped clear the way for him to have a walk-through Democratic primary.
Quote from: Conan71 on April 28, 2009, 02:18:14 PM
Bold move by Specter if what happened in the '94 mid-term happens again in '10. I think this move speaks more to himself and his own preservation than what's wrong with the GOP as a whole.
Well, duh. Self-preservation is a powerful thing.
"Hmmm ... I could stay in a party that's become more right-leaning than I'd like and less popular. Or I could align myself with a party that's more in standing with my views and has become more popular.
"I think I'll take what's behind Door No. 2, Monty!"
As for a repeat in 2010 of what happened in 1994, I don't see it happening. The demographics are strongly against it.
He was a liberal republican whose party left him first.
The only republicans who got elected or re-elected this last time were the far right of the party. I don't blame him from wanting to join the party that most closely follows his beliefs.
Quote from: rwarn17588 on April 28, 2009, 02:26:06 PM
Well, duh. Self-preservation is a powerful thing.
"Hmmm ... I could stay in a party that's become more right-leaning than I'd like and less popular. Or I could align myself with a party that's more in standing with my views and has become more popular.
"I think I'll take what's behind Door No. 2, Monty!"
As for a repeat in 2010 of what happened in 1994, I don't see it happening. The demographics are strongly against it.
No one was predicting the '94 overhaul in May 1993 either. Specter is running from his voting record and probably looking at Dem support of the national races in '08 in Pennsylvania. My personal bet is Specter knows he's going to be crucified by conservative Republicans in Pa. He's worried about facing Pat Toomey in a primary. He's gambling that he can beat Toomey in a general election with the backing of Democrats.
http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2009/04/less-than-2-wee.html
I don't know what you are angling at with "demographics". Public sentiment on how well Congress is dealing with the economy, environment, and foreign relations will determine the outcome of the mid-terms and whether or not the overall direction of the country seems to be going the right way. By demographics, if you mean younger, more idealistic voters, they generally aren't going to turn out in droves like a Presidential year.
Save the Rino's.....
(http://rlv.zcache.com/anti_rhino_republican_bumper_sticker-p128365378385589733trl0_400.jpg)
Quote from: Conan71 on April 28, 2009, 03:11:53 PM
I don't know what you are angling at with "demographics". Public sentiment on how well Congress is dealing with the economy, environment, and foreign relations will determine the outcome of the mid-terms and whether or not the overall direction of the country seems to be going the right way. By demographics, if you mean younger, more idealistic voters, they generally aren't going to turn out in droves like a Presidential year.
A poll a few days ago had just 21 percent of voters identifying themselves as Republican, which hit a 26-year low. The rest are independents or Democrats. It's an overall trend, not just young voters.
And more young voters are coming online in the next 18 months. As the old conservatives die out or more are driven away from the GOP, it's not looking good. Demonizing Hispanics, gay marriage and a slew of other issues will do that.
Quote from: rwarn17588 on April 28, 2009, 03:35:33 PM
A poll a few days ago had just 21 percent of voters identifying themselves as Republican, which hit a 26-year low. The rest are independents or Democrats. It's an overall trend, not just young voters.
And more young voters are coming online in the next 18 months. As the old conservatives die out or more are driven away from the GOP, it's not looking good. Demonizing Hispanics, gay marriage and a slew of other issues will do that.
Again, where was the poll taken? Downtown Detroit? I'm as disaffected as anyone could be by the far right of the GOP. They "identify" themselves this way or are they "registered" this way? 21% sounds suspect, considering exit polls from the November elections showed 32% of voters as being R. I could easily "categorize" myself as Independent, but I'm "registered" Republican. I'm registered as a Republican mainly because in Tulsa we generally send Republicans to the House and Senate overwhelmingly and I want to have a say starting with the primaries.
It's entirely possible that if the actions of Congress do nothing and the economy worsens in two years that people are going to be much more worried about fiscal issues and draconian laws than gay marriage, Hispanics, and horned owls.
It only boiled down to one thing.... he was about to lose re-election to a different Republican because his own electorate had enough of how far left he was voting. He was against most Republican principles, so he shouldn't have been surprised the Republican voters were about to kick him out.
How much difference does it make? Depends on politics. What is his promised? He'll vote more Democrat if the Democrats paid him off. If he does what he says, nothing changes since not all Democrats/Republicans vote in lock step on most issues anyway.
Quote from: Conan71 on April 28, 2009, 04:43:37 PM
Again, where was the poll taken? Downtown Detroit? I'm as disaffected as anyone could be by the far right of the GOP. They "identify" themselves this way or are they "registered" this way? 21% sounds suspect, considering exit polls from the November elections showed 32% of voters as being R.
Poll was taken nationwide by ABC/Washington Post on April 24. Other polls in recent months also have shown the voting public trending away from Republicans. As the GOP keeps shrinking, they keep acting more extreme, and the more people are turned off by them. Apparently your disaffection has gone nationwide.
You can say they're suspect all you want. You also voiced your suspicions about Obama having a solid lead over McCain during the last few months of the election campaign. Sure, a poll or two can be an outlier. But when you have 400 polls taken in the last few weeks of an election, and a total of about five show a lead for McCain, that's what you call a solid trend for the other guy. And guess what? Obama posts a solid win on Election Day.
You can doubt polls if you wish. But doubt them at your peril.
Quote from: FOTD on April 28, 2009, 12:56:13 PM
And Cannon, don't be afraid of the new majority.
Change has come to America. Love it or leave it.
1) There is NEW majority? I thought the Dems have had the Senate for a long time now.
2) I was very clear that I fear a super majority of any party. It's a bad idea.
3) I wondered how long it would take the Liberals to change their tune and adopt this stupid "love it or leave it" attitude. Didn't take very long.
Quote from: RecycleMichael on April 28, 2009, 02:29:20 PM
He was a liberal republican whose party left him first.
The only republicans who got elected or re-elected this last time were the far right of the party. I don't blame him from wanting to join the party that most closely follows his beliefs.
RM, bud, stick to city and environmental threads. You just hardly ever get the right political takes. Nothing personal, but good golly. The only reason he switched over is to retain a Senate seat. He'll have a tough time in the upcoming primary and the general has the prospect of opening a seat for a Real Democrat. He's bailing to avoid that fight and will block real Dems from getting in. Screw him, he's been worthless a long time. The only thing going for this guy is he's an OU grad.
Quote from: cannon_fodder on April 28, 2009, 09:42:11 PM
1) There is NEW majority? I thought the Dems have had the Senate for a long time now.
2) I was very clear that I fear a super majority of any party. It's a bad idea.
3) I wondered how long it would take the Liberals to change their tune and adopt this stupid "love it or leave it" attitude. Didn't take very long.
YOU BETCHA!
(turnabout IS fair play)
Quote from: rwarn17588 on April 28, 2009, 09:26:06 PM
Poll was taken nationwide by ABC/Washington Post on April 24. Other polls in recent months also have shown the voting public trending away from Republicans. As the GOP keeps shrinking, they keep acting more extreme, and the more people are turned off by them. Apparently your disaffection has gone nationwide.
You can say they're suspect all you want. You also voiced your suspicions about Obama having a solid lead over McCain during the last few months of the election campaign. Sure, a poll or two can be an outlier. But when you have 400 polls taken in the last few weeks of an election, and a total of about five show a lead for McCain, that's what you call a solid trend for the other guy. And guess what? Obama posts a solid win on Election Day.
You can doubt polls if you wish. But doubt them at your peril.
Yeah, well the election was rigged, Diebold messed everything up after the Israeli's ran all the polls for ABC News that showed a closer race. Some kind of landslide those voting machines conjured up....
Quote from: Conan71 on April 29, 2009, 12:33:35 AM
"Yeah, well the election was rigged, Diebold messed everything up"
I know this is completely out of context and completely off the thread topic. But Diebold had their voting machines recording votes to ACCESS DATABASES. If you used their "vote" program it required a password. But you could just browse the folders on the computer, open the database and change the votes in a table. That is all there was that you had to do to change the votes. Not secure at ALL. You could teach just about anybody who could use a mouse how to change the votes. If you were more advanced and had the systems networked you could change all of them at once.
*Off topic rant ending*
Supermajority is bad. However, how else are we going to get rid of the moron Republicans that are in office now. A supermajority is worth it to get rid of the dead weight on the other end.
Political party:
Democratic (c. 1948–1965)
Republican (1966–2009)
Democratic (2009-Present)
Any way the wind blow . . .
There's a pretty standard timeline to majority rule. It follows the same general path, regardless of party. We just happen to be sitting on one of the bigger transitions in awhile. It's being pushed along by the basic ebb and flow of the parties, but also by 1) historical event, 2) demographic trends, and 3) worldwide geopolitical shifts. There're just lots of arrows pointing to the Democrats and away from the Republicans right now, some of which the Dems deserve, some of which are simply accidental.
In other words, this too shall pass.
Is that T.L. Osbourn or The Burger King?
Quote from: buckeye on April 29, 2009, 10:57:12 AM
Is that T.L. Osbourn or The Burger King?
I just spit coffee on my computer...
Rep. Parker Griffith (D-AL) switches to GOP
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1209/30896.html
Griffith, like Coburn, doesn't have a clue about health care Guido. Don't you read the lib-tard blogs?
Oh good. Another thing to tie up any kind of progress one way or another.
Quote from: Townsend on December 22, 2009, 11:02:12 AM
Oh good. Another thing to tie up any kind of progress change one way or another.
Fixed that for you.
Quote from: Conan71 on December 22, 2009, 11:00:59 AM
Don't you read the lib-tard blogs?
Don't need to, just have to read the posts of all the non-health care workers in this forum for that information. Seriously, what do doctors know about health care.
http://www.standwithdrdean.com/about
(http://dsmith77.files.wordpress.com/2009/02/howard-dean.jpg)