Why Specter's Switch Matters...

[babylonsister]

http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2009_04/017943.php

WHY SPECTER'S SWITCH MATTERS.... Following up on the last item, talk of a "filibuster-proof" Democratic majority is a stretch. For one thing, Norm Coleman just received a powerful reminder incentive to keep his legal fight going for as long as humanly possible. For another, the Democratic caucus, even at 60, still has Ben Nelson and Evan Bayh to consider.

But if reaching the 60-vote threshold doesn't make Arlen Specter's big switch "huge," what makes today's news a seismic political shift? It's further evidence of a Republican Party in steep decline, driven by a misguided ideological rigidity. Indeed, Specter suggested as much in his statement: "Since my election in 1980, as part of the Reagan Big Tent, the Republican Party has moved far to the right."

Jonathan Cohn's take sounds right to me:

Specter is one of the better-known senators in America. If you follow politics even casually, you've seen or heard him on the news before. So it's going to register with you that a major Republican senator has decided his party has become too extreme for him. And if you're a Republican, you might wonder if it's become too extreme for you, as well.

Of course, polls show voters leaving the Republican Party already. And not just in Pennsylvania, as Specter noted. The real significance here may be less about political change to come and more about political change that has already happened.

Indeed, it sends a signal to voters: the Republican Party is home to Limbaugh, Tea Baggers, Palin, right-wing blogs, the Rove/Cheney/Gingrich triumvirate -- and no one else. The party that's been shrinking to generational lows just got even smaller.

For three months, the conservative message has been that President Obama, his widespread popularity notwithstanding, is some kind of radical ideologue, far from the American mainstream. Specter's departure from the GOP sends the exact opposite message. Moderate Republicans are teaming up with Obama, and leaving the party that has "moved far to the right" behind.

[Metta]

1. I can see Spector holding out for all sorts of personal plums for his votes from Dems.

He's no friend to Democracy. We will know him by his deeds. So far, he's a Thug.

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

2. Duplicate Bayh.

That's what it means.

[provis99]

6. I disagree.

Bayh won election as a moderate/conservative Democrat in his own right. Specter is being given a lifeline by the Democratic party, and the price is a much more liberal stance. Obama's promise to campaign for Specter is excellent, since it makes Specter Obama's bitch now!

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

8. All he's doing is removing himself from a tough primary.

The ultimate cynicism.

[nichomachus]

15. I disagree too -- more like a duplicate Lieberman

Just what we needed.

[roguevalley]

21. Bayh needs a taste of the wilderness. Someone needs to slap some

party discipline into that idjit.

[David__77]

3. I fully support Specter now.

He should be warmly welcomed, and assisted in any way possible.

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

4. Lol.

Keen sarcasm.

[AndyA]

5. Face it, the Republican Party's core beliefs aren't a good fit with mainstream America.

Most Americans don't support war, bigotry, or hatred. Yet those very things seem to define today's Republicans, and their leaders are hardly stellar: there's drug-abusing Limpballs, Sarah "lies every time she opens her mouth" Palin, Bobby (I'm just strange) Jindahl, and the wack jobs known as Inhofe, Coburn, Cornyn, Vitter, etc.

The problem with moving to the right is that the road doesn't even go that direction. So, they're running off the road into a dirt ditch. You'd have to be a fool to follow them.

[Optical.Catalyst]

20. It is time to crush the Republicans and drive them from the scene

The right of center voters are hungry to start a new political party; one that does not have the name 'Republican'.

It is our obligation to the American people to send the Republicans packing and welcome in a new political party that will restore the balance and compromise our Government so desperately needs.

[John Q. Citizen]

7. i disagree. This is all about Specter's power not his political views, or the political

views of either party's elected officials. Specter said so himself

If Specter could win the Repo primary in PA as a Repo, he wouldn't be switching.

[babylonsister]

9. Perception is everything. This party has slid downhill. Even

people who don't pay much attention will recognize Specter's name, and wonder how low the rethug party can go.

And if Specter doesn't prove his worth, I'm all for getting behind Sestak.



http://briefingroom.thehill.com/2009/04/28/sestak-refuses-to-rule-out-senate-run-against-specter/

Sestak refuses to rule out Senate run against Specter
@ 2:10 pm by Jeremy P. Jacobs

Congressman Joe Sestak (D-Pa.) on Wednesday refused to rule out a run for the Senate in 2010 despite Sen. Arlen Specter's (Pa.) decision to switch parties and become a Democrat.

"I am going to have to wait," Sestak, who has been mulling a run for the Senate, just said on MSNBC.

MSNBC reported earlier that Democrats promised Specter they would support him in his reelection bid against former Congressman Pat Toomey. Sestak is the first of other potential Democratic contenders to comment on Specter's decision.

Sestak said he is waiting "to see what is running for," implying that he wants to see what Specter will proactively stand for in his campaign instead of just opposing Republican policies.

"If the alternative is Toomey, that's one thing," Sestak said, appearing to indicate that he would support Specter if he is the Democratic nominee.

[e-mail]

[nichomachus]

18. Nah -- the wingers will spin it

as an "over the hill quasi-socialist" who quit the party rather than face a primary challenge from a "real American." And the 29-percenters will believe it.

On Edit: No sooner had I posted the above, than I read this:


Republican National Committee chair Michael Steele was speedy and harsh in his reaction to the news that Sen. Arlen Specter (R-Penn.) would switch parties.

"Some in the Republican Party are happy about this. I am not," he said. "Let's be honest -- Senator Specter didn't leave the GOP based on principles of any kind. He left to further his personal political interests because he knew that he was going to lose a Republican primary due to his left-wing voting record. Republicans look forward to beating Sen. Specter in 2010, assuming the Democrats don't do it first."

Can I call it or what?

[Psychic Consortium]

10. Some Republican pols must jump ship to survive.

Their party is going down and they know it.

[sufrommich]

11. I agree. It pretty much confirms the GOP as the crazy party. nt

[Cha]

12. Rec'd~ Important piece.. coleman has already

lost the election in Minnesota and he was going to "hang on anyway as long as humanly possible".

Now he will be more exposed.

[Bluerthanblue]

13. a kind of psy-ops

k&r

:hi:

[Laelth]

14. No doubt. The great PR caused by the switch is a big bonus. n/t

:dem:

-Laelth

[jimlup]

16. Well said!

Thank You...

[nichomachus]

17. What the Democratic party needs is

someone who's going to pull them to the left, from the moderate right -- rather than one more DINO who's going to pull them closer to the nutball right.

Specter loved Reaganism (see above). That's what the Dems need to be moving away from -- not toward.

[Zodiak]

19. I can agree with this analysis

This whole thing is a mixed blessing, but there are benefits.

[pacalo]

22. Now, see, this is the way I look at Specter's switch. Anything that shines a light

on the Repukes' bizarre behavior & beliefs is only marginalizing them further. It's a no-brainer!