Specter’s defection from GOP may not lead to drastic change

specter With U.S. Sen. Arlen Specter’s defection from the Republican Party on Tuesday rocking Capitol Hill, the big question is: Will the Pennsylvania lawmaker’s big splash turn a sizable Democratic majority into a 60-vote filibuster-proof majority?

New Mexico’s senior senator, Jeff Bingaman, while steering clear of partisan rhetoric, expressed hope Tuesday that Specter’s decision to join the Democratic caucus would translate into an easier time for President Obama’s agenda in the U.S. Senate.

“Sen. Specter has already supported many pieces of President Obama’s agenda this year, but I hope his decision to switch parties means we’ll get the support we need to enact even more of this administration’s initiatives,” Bingaman said in a statement.

When pressed if Specter’s defection might mean big changes on policy questions involving energy, the environment, border security and immigration reform, a Bingaman spokesman later said: “Sen. Specter has said he’s going to continue to be an independent voice, and to my knowledge he’s not laying out his specific positions at this point.”

Bingaman did point out that he and Specter had worked on climate change legislation together.

Michael Rocca, a professor of political science at the University of New Mexico, said the firestorm over Specter’s party switch may end up being more flash than substance.

“I think the switch of any senior partisan … can send shockwaves through D.C.,” Rocca said. “I think the Democrats scored some PR points with this one.”

But, Rocca added: “I don’t think it will make that big of a deal.”

That’s because Specter has been aligned with Democrats on a number of hot-button issues, like global climate change and a women’s right to choose. That has put him out of step with conservative Republicans in Pennsylvania, who were rallying behind a bid by former U.S. Rep. Pat Toomey to unseat the moderate incumbent in the GOP primary. Despite Specter’s support by many Democrats in Pennsylvania, Rocca said it’s unlikely the lawmaker will suddenly become more liberal as a Democrat. “He’s a maverick and he’ll continue to be one.”

Specter himself said as much Tuesday in a statement sure to unsettle Democratic Party loyalists who might be dreaming of a super-Democratic majority.

“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,” the Pennsylvania senator said in a statement.

Specter contrasted his political defection with that of former U.S. Sen. Jim Jeffords of Vermont, whose defection from the GOP in 2001 shifted control of the chamber to the Democrats until Republicans recaptured the majority after the 2002 elections.

“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.”

Specter continues to oppose the Employees Free Choice Act, which is organized labor’s top priority and would make it much easier for workers to organize and gain first-time contracts with their employers.

And once the recount drama in Minnesota between Republican Norm Coleman and Democrat Al Franken is finally settled — Franken is expected to be seated once Coleman’s remaining legal appeals are exhausted — Senate Democrats would have the 60 votes needed to invoke the cloture rule, blocking fillibuster attempts by Republicans.

“It’s very important to have a two-party system, a moderate wing of the two-party system,” Specter said during a news conference on Tuesday. “When you take a look at the Pennsylvania Republican electorate, several hundred thousand Republicans shifted last year. We do not have a dominant voice there. We find — I think regrettably — that the extremes of both parties are taking over.”

Leave a comment

Become a fan on Facebook

ReaganiteRepublican

This cynical, self-serving move of Specter's had absolutely nothing to do with values, policy, or any high-minded thinking of any kind- though President Obama surely would like for you to think that.

Everybody knows he did it because he was down 21% in the polls leading-up to the GOP primary for his seat- and Joey Pluggs made a deal with him, he already admitted as such. The sad truth is that this hack has spent three decades in the Senate, while accomplishing little.

And Barack and him have a lot in common- as unprincipled political opportunists, I’m sure they’ll get along just great. Just a little over a month ago, the Senator said in an interview that he wouldn’t switch parties due to the importance of checks and balances.

And back in 2001, Sen. Arlen Specter, then a Republican, proposed a rule forbidding party switches… he was upset when Vt Sen. Jim Jeffords’ left the GOP to become an independent.

Who knows what the truth is with this guy, you’ll never get it from him.

With all due respect, Senator- don’t let the door hit your butt on the way out. Nobody on our side’s going to miss you.

http://reaganiterepublicanresistance.blogspot.com

babyfatt

Specter's defection will not make much difference, but it is another step in the winnowing away of the Republicon party into a niche party. It's also reflective of the totally opposite philosophies of party building manifested by each party: the Democrats, for all the criticism that they are a party of special interests, blah blah blah, are actually a big tent party that works hard to be inclusive (Baby Fatt's a left wing anarchist, but was once represented by Charles Stenholm, and although there are fundamental differences between us, there's room for both conservatives and liberals--in NM John Arthur Smith is an example--in the Democratic party and I would vote for Stenholm--or Smith--today against any Republicon). The challenge for the Dems is to remain inclusive.

The Republicons, by contrast, have decided on a good old fashioned party purge (the Leninists against the Mensheviks). Their tent continues to shrink, and if they don't decide to become more inclusive they are on their way to becoming the 21st century version of the Whigs.

The Republicons made a series of Machiavellian moves in the 70's that served them well for 30 years, but which are now biting them in the ass: they embraced the "Southern strategy" (i.e., an appeal to the racism of southern whites through code words like 'law and order' and 'patriotism'); and they allied themselves with the intolerance and small-mindedness of religious fundamentalists (to whom the concept 'judge not lest ye be judged' is as foreign as April in Paris).

The Republicons dominated politics for 30 years, from Reagan through Bush II, but what finally did them in is simple demographics. Young people have no knowledge of the cold war, are culturally multi-racial, want government to help make things better, and are unmoved by the politics of resentment. As ye sow....

What's really interesting is how the media (including several of the writers of NMI) totally missed out on what was happening around them. The media bought into the Reagan world-view long ago, and even today frames the debate in an effectively right-wing manner (witness all the recent hand-wringing about budget deficits, when they stood by silently when Dick Cheney said 'deficits don't matter'). The media tut-tuts the progressive agenda, like a bunch of school marms decrying the times; meanwhile, the paradigm shifted under their feet. As ye sow....

Top Stories:

Related Posts

Specter’s defection from GOP may not lead to drastic change

Donate to The New Mexico Independent: