I completely disagree with Arlen Specter switching parties...

[crimsonblue]

My reason for this has nothing to do with policies or idealogy, but everything with principle. I believe that all Congressman and Senators should serve the entire length of their term according to the political party they were elected from. These feelings aren't new, either. I disagreed that Jim Jeffords switched parties. I disagreed that Joe Lieberman was allowed to become a de facto Democrat. I believe it erodes the voting rights of citizens when their elected officials are able to switch parties, because the two main political parties that dominate the government are different. Many times, the (R) or (D) next to one's name on the ballot is the reason the person is elected. I believe that if an elected official chooses to switch parties, then a special election should be held.

[Guy Whitey Corngood]

1. I think you mean Jim Jeffords switching. nt

[DrDan]

3. I sure hope so - Sessions as a D gives me the willies

[Guy Whitey Corngood]

17. Can you even imagine.... no on second thought don't even it will mess up your mind. nt

[crimsonblue]

9. yeah.....

thanks.... corrected.

[Guy Whitey Corngood]

14. Yup. nt

[napoleon_in_rags]

2. I disagree with you. Voters choose people, not parties.

And that can include people who will switch if they feel a party has lost its way, just as independent voters themselves do.

[pnwmom]

22. I agree. n/t

[iamthebandfanman]

36. smart people do.

i think you give the general population of the united states WAY to much credit.

[DrToast]

4. You vote for a candidate, not a party

At least that's how it's supposed to work.

[Tempest]

7. That's how it works on the left side of the aisle

But not on the right.

Democrats vote their crooks out of office, Republicans vote thiers into office.

[OwnedByFerrets]

12. Ding, Ding Ding

[Freddie Stubbs]

21. Actually, in some states which allow straight-party voting, many people only vote for the party

[endarkenment]

29. That may be but it is a convenience

Political parties have no constitutional standing. Their existence and institutionalization is outside of an explicit constitutional basis. States can do as they want because the constitution basically steps aside and allows states to run elections as they see fit, within certain limitations, most of which were added to the constitution through amendment and/or supreme court ruling.

[TheKentuckian]

35. +1

[joeybee12]

5. I see your point, but with all the Repuke heads exploding today...

...I think it was a good move by Specter.

[Tempest]

19. He definitely made an impact

Even if it was for selfish reasons.

I hope Democrats can come up with an alternative that can beat him in the primary.

[MADem]

6. Er, Joe Lieberman WAS a Democrat. He stayed a Dem until he lost the primary.

Then he became an Independent.

Jeff Sessions never switched parties.

[crimsonblue]

10. I got it wrong. I meant Jeffords.

[MADem]

15. Jeffords never came to us, either. He simply went "I" and caucused with us, like Lieberman did.

If the WH had been halfway decent to him, he would have finished out his career as a New England "R." But no, they had to be shitty. I don't blame him for leaving--he was treated horribly by the White House and the leadership vis a vis his personal interest, education.

[predfan]

8. I agree to an extent..............Spector doesn't have to be a psychic to have seen the direction

the Repubs were headed, have been headed for the last 15 years...........if he raised money for the primary (which I'm sure he has) then every dime should be sent back to those donors. I'm sure they never intended to support a Democrat.

[cali]

11. In the case of Jeffords you're wrong

most VT voters supported his switch and had long supported it

[msallied]

13. The thing is, when politicians switch parties, it's more of an ass-saving measure.

They see they are about to lose, and are desperate to maintain their hold on their seats. Meanwhile, the voters lose the opportunity to start over with two fresh candidates. Our country has a major addiction to incumbency, and is part of the reason Congress has become so gridlocked and ineffective over the years, in my opinion. Old ways of thinking breed stagnation and creates bad blood and feuds that go on damn near forever.

Sure, let's welcome Specter to our party, but come on. The guy has been in the Senate since the 60s. I would have much rather seen him lose gracefully in the primary and let someone new get a shot at that seat.

[Hippo_Tron]

23. Ted Kennedy has also been in the senate since the 60's

And he gets far more done for this country than any newbie would in his place. It's not that we have an addiction to incumbency that is the problem, it's the fundraising advantage that comes with incumbency. Campaign finance reform is the solution to this problem.

[ieoeja]

27. He was first elected to the Senate in 1980 (not hte 60s). n/t

[Zodiak]

28. I don't think Americans have an addiction to incumbency

I think they have an addiction to apathy, which leads to a ridiculous rate of incumbency. Americans do not really know much about politics on purpose (it's boring or impolite to be political), which basically makes all elections decided on familiarity.

[midnight]

16. There is something to be said about principle. The Warren Commission

is what I best remember this Congressman for. "Connally and his wife both rejected Specter’s strained theory and insisted that Connally was hit by a different bullet than the one that pierced Kennedy’s throat -- indicating a second gunman. (The first shot is believed to have missed the motorcade altogether, ricocheting off the street and slightly wounding a bystander.)" The single bullet theory is troubling still to this day. http://www.consortiumnews.com/1999/c010699b.html

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

18. Anyone voting specifically because of party ID gets what they vote for.

People, not parties, are the ones elected. While you are entitled to your opinion, I question the validity of the basis for your opinion.

[crimsonblue]

20. which part exactly?

You're fooling yourself if you don't believe that a sizable percentage of the populous votes in elections based solely on the party of the candidate, especially in local and state races.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

26. The part that THEY (the party voter) aren't fooling THEMSELVES.

They should not be voting solely based on party affiliation, and if they choose to be low information voters, that's their problem, not one with the system.

[southernyankeebelle]

24. WELL SPECTOR DID HAVE A CHANCE IF YOU LISTENED TO

HIS NEWS CONFERENCE. ONCE THE STIMULUS PACKAGED WAS PASSED AND THE 3 REPUBLICANS VOTED WITH THE DEMOCRATICS THAN HE WAS STRENTHED FROM THE RNC CHAIRMAN STEELE. HE SAW THE WRITING ON THE WALL THAT THE REPUBLICAN PARTY IS MOVING WAY TO FAR TO THE RIGHT AND HE NEW HE WOULDN'T WIN. ALOT OF PEOPLE SWITCHED PARTIES FROM REPUBLICAN TO DEMOCRATIC SO I CAN SEE WHY HE LEFT. HE WILL HAVE A BETTER CHANCE ON THE DEMOCRATIC SIDE AND HAS MANY YEARS EXPERIENCE ALREADY.

[w4rma]

25. caps lock off please. That's hard to read and is sets a poor example to other posters. (nt)

[endarkenment]

32. ...,,...,,, .... .. ,,,, ....

[crimsonblue]

33. is there a reason you used all caps in your reply?

or are you just feeling like a dick today?

[endarkenment]

30. Don't care. Cloture minus one and counting. nt.

[LynneSin]

31. Personally I think he should have gone Independant

and align with the democrats. Going democrat might make the race a bit tighter against Toomey in the general election. I think as an Independant with the guarentee from the Dems not to run an endorsed candidate would have been the better solution.

But unlike Jeffords, if there was to be a 3-way race for senate in PA it could favor Toomey. Perhaps bringing him into the party was the safest way to keep Toomey out of the senate seat.

[cboy4]

34. If you sign a lease expecting a certain way of life somewhere,

but learn it's not what you signed up for .. you should be allowed to void out the agreement and leave.

That's what Specter did.

[gmoney]

37. It's a free country... even politicians have the right to change their mind.

Voting D or R is just a convenient shorthand. His stand on issues should inform the voters, as well as the contributors, even the party mucks who channeled funds to him.

He could do a reverse-Lieberman and remain a R, but vote D, which would strike me as even more disingenuous.

But if voters expect their representative to vote party line 100% of the time, then why bother with having people in the position?

[brooklynite]

38. What difference does it make...

what Party an official chooses to label themselves with? They still have the opportunity to vote for or against their original Party's interests.

[PassingFair]

39. Jeffords is a DAMNED HERO as far as I'm concerned.

He switched when it COUNTED.

He knew an illegal and unjustified
WAR when he saw one.

They should ALL have jumped ship.

I only wish some of our OWN had been
as brave.