This move by Senator Specter does not surprise me.
WASHINGTON (CNN) — Veteran Pennsylvania Sen. Arlen Specter said Tuesday that he switched from the Republican to the Democratic Party.
“I know I’m disappointing many of my colleagues,” he said at a news conference. “The disappointment runs in both directions.
“I’m putting principle at the top of the list,” he added.
When asked how and when he made the decision, Specter said, “the decision has been reached as I have traveled the state [Pennsylvania] in the last several months. Specifically, I got my home poll results last Friday … and consulted with my campaign managers and had a long discussion. … I came to a decision over this past weekend.”
Specter also said that President Obama and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid would campaign for him as he runs for re-election — now on the Democratic ticket — in the 2010 race.
The Specter party switch would give Democrats a filibuster-proof Senate majority of 60 seats if Al Franken holds his current lead in the disputed Minnesota Senate race.
“Since my election in 1980, as part of the Reagan Big Tent, the Republican Party has moved far to the right,” Specter said in a statement posted by his office on PoliticsPA.com.
“Last year, more than 200,000 Republicans in Pennsylvania changed their registration to become Democrats. I now find my political philosophy more in line with Democrats than Republicans.”
Specter, a five-term Senate veteran, was greeted by a loud, sustained round of applause by dozens of constituents outside his Washington office shortly after the news broke.
“I don’t have to say anything to them,” a smiling Specter said. “They’ve said it to me
Elena, I mind rudeness, especially when it is so unnecessary. Some people here think that bloggers are just sitting around waiting for the next word to fall.
If this strategy of attacking the middle instead of appealing to the middle continues, our government will hinge on the relationship between Democratic moderates, left-leaning Democrats, and the public which will be a mixture of both. The echo chamber on the far right, which excludes 85 to 90 percent of the population due to ideological purity tests, will become increasingly irrelevant. All the sensible people are saying the same thing. But the far right echo chamber keeps on echoing itself as the party they dominate becomes smaller and smaller.
Can anyone explain what the end game is? Absolute control over the minds and opinions of 10 percent of our population? What good will that do? It’s bad for the Republican party and bad for the country.
And the first person to die in the US of the swine flu is………TADA!!! Not a US Citizen!!! A traveler, as you say!
I am going to bite, Slowpoke. What good do you think closing the Mexican border will do?
Should the Canadians do the same to us? I just don’t see how it would help things at this point.
Slowpoke-
Do you suppose that Mexico has the right to keep foreign visitors from leaving the country? If you want the border closed, that’s what it would mean because there are borders in the air and at sea as well.
What if it had been a virus that originated in the USA, and other countries asked us to “close the border”?
IOW – Get real!
@Moon-howler
You’re quite right….it wouldn’t do a thing at this point. We couldn’t “close the border” if we really wanted to! Just glad it’s nothing serious!
Maybe that’s the fundamental problem…..people just don’t understand the concept of a border in its most basic definition. Borders aren’t meant to keep people in (unless, of course, you learned about borders behind the iron curtain)….they’re meant to keep people out. Get Real??? Learn how borders work!!!
Slowpoke –
“Borders aren’t meant….. they’re meant to keep people out.”
I take that to mean that Mexico should do all they can to keep people out, so they won’t get the flu. Close the airports and harbors…?
Talk about getting real!
@Punchak
You’re probably right, Mexico can’t successfully ties its own shoes, let alone enforce a national border. Then again, why would they? People aren’t exactly risking their lives to get into Mexico, are they? As for your inability to understand how borders work…….there are certain things that I just don’t have the time or energy to fix.
Response to Elena, MH:
1) I am a man, not a woman;
2) When it comes to national security and the rule of law, I deal in facts, not supposition. It is a fact that the Democrats will have a filibuster-proof majority if Al Franken is seated. Regardless of whether the Republicans tried to change the rules or not, they never achieved the same overwhelming majorities. If you cannot agree to that, then there is really no basis for discussion at all.
3) I think that you two have been quite uncivil at various times to those with whom you disagree. I do not mind sharp discourse, but I do mind your uneven sensitivity to it.
4) I am more of a Conservative than a Republican. I feel no great need to defend Republican actions.
5) I am a military veteran.
If you wish to ban my comments, so be it. But I will not change my tone to suit you or anybody else.
Well, Slowpoke
Maybe USA can “ties” it shoes, but it seems that folks around here complain that we, the USA, can’t control our borders. Right?
Oh, don’t expend any more of your time and energy to fix ‘”WHAT”? The border?
Aww, Punjab…you found a mistake!!! Aren’t you clever!!!
Kelly, sorry about the gender error.
I am not impolite to people with whom I disagree. I have been known to be impolite, if you choose to call it that, with people who are not respectful of others.
I believe that those with whom I disagree the most will hand me that one.
Hey, Moon-Howler,
Occasionally I see folks with avatars…..is there a way to get one?
Slow, I don’t know how to do that. Maybe Alanna knows. Also, I think you get it from your own website.
I think the point of this thread is why certain Republicans are moving over to become Democrats. This in my opinion is not well understood by either Pro-religious oriented-Republicans or Pro-Foreigner/minority group-oriented Democrats.
The net result should be a reduction in the extremism of both sides to control the vote the same way they did today in the house regarding a change to the current law which allows additional prosecution of HATE CRIMES BASED on WHAT GENDER, RACE, RELIGION OR ETHNICITY you belong too. This is a protected class concept that is dividing American into opposing protected class groups and ultimately is unconstitutional and unequal protection rights under the law targeted only to privilige protected classes.
I agree with ShellyB’s approach that it is a mistake to attack the middle (for both democrats and republicans)
Passing such a resolution next in the Senate will come back to haunt BOTH parties. Here is how.
Such crazy thinking on both sides (repiblicans against gays, and democrats against white males) will result in the following court cases (maybe not a bad thing at first just to show how ridiculus the concept of ignoring un-equal protection under the law is).
HATE Crimes cannot be associated with free speech, only associated with the act of a crime regardless of what race, religion, gender or ethnicity commits it. Once Democrats allow free speech and currently the concept of hate crimes to be punished based on what GROUP or protected class you belong to and attempt to call free speech a contributing factor to hate crimes and thus a crime (such as a group of religious people demonstrating against gays or ethnic minorities demonstrating against white or black people), the majority of people in the nation will abhor the concept of suppressed free speech based on what gender, race, religion or ethnic group you associate with or belong to. Just because the majority will oppose such a concept, the ruling democrates will still not follow the majority “rule of law”, but will make up their own “rules”, that will be later challenged in the courts all the way to the supreme court. They demonstrated such stupidity today in passing the H.R.
Here are the types of lawsuits that will come out of such a change in the law (surprise it will now discrimminate based on gender, race, religion or ethnicity)
Association with ANY group (minority or majority) will be necessary to prove that a “hate” crime has gender, religous, racial or ethic group motives. The courts will first identify any individuals associate with a GROUP that expresses ANY hatred toward another GROUP (but not toward individuals, which will be set free under the current law). If you associate yourself only with individuals and commit a hate crime, you CANNOT be prosecuted UNDER THIS LAW.
ASK YOURSELF which minority orf majority CLASS associates MOST with protected classes or GROUPS that may then be involved in crimes against either the MINORITY or MAJORITY? Members of such groups can then be prosecuted for hate crimes if they are involved in violent crimes at ALL.
The following lawsuits are now possible…
In addition to the types of lawsuits you EXPECT as a democrate to now be able to process (rape, murder, battery against gays, assault against women, lynching of black people, etc).
The following lawsuits and crtimes are now possible if such a new law passes the Senate and Obama’s desk…
Any woman who associates with a group of woman who openly advocate abuse of men as a group of associated women, will now be able to be charged with hate crimes against men under the new law for the following crimes.
1. slapping your husband
2. hitting your boyfriend with a lethal or non-lethal weapon.
3. abusing men or assulting men because they will not pay for women and do not follow women’s values
4. killing or injuring your husband or boyfriend becuase you think he is a pig, unfaithful to women, made some comment about your looks, takes the children away from you with a court order, does not pay your credit card bill, does not pay your alimony, stops paying your child support
5. Falsly accusing men of rape because you hate all sexual advances from men and have stated so in the past, associate with anti-male women’s groups, and want to punish men with false or unproven allegations, anyway you can get away with it, when you cannot prove the crime, or are willing to accuse men falsely because you hate them.
Racial and ethnic lawsuits will take the following similar form as well…
In addition to the types of lawsuits you EXPECT as a democrate to now be able to process (rape, murder, battery against gays, assault against women, lynching of black people, etc).
The following lawsuits and crtimes are now possible if such a new law passes the Senate and Obama’s desk…
Lawsuits of hate crimes that involve women who hate man…
Any woman who associates with a group of woman who openly advocate abuse of men as a group of associated women, will now be able to be charged with hate crimes against men under the new law for the following crimes.
1. slapping your husband
2. hitting your boyfriend with a lethal or non-lethal weapon.
3. abusing men or assulting men because they will not pay for women and do not follow women’s values
4. killing or injuring your husband or boyfriend becuase you think he is a pig, unfaithful to women, made some comment about your looks, takes the children away from you with a court order, does not pay your credit card bill, does not pay your alimony, stops paying your child support
5. Falsly accusing men of rape because you hate all sexual advances from men and have stated so in the past, associate with anti-male women’s groups, and want to punish men with false or unproven allegations, anyway you can get away with it, when you cannot prove the crime, or are willing to accuse men falsely because you hate them.
Racial and ethnic lawsuits will take the following similar form as well…
“kelly”,
If I have offended anyone in the past, I believe I have apologized on those very limited occassions. You and I will just have to agree to disagree. The absolute lack of oversight by the Republicans during the Bush presidency is a travesty. I can imagine, that for conservatives, it must have been very difficult to watch,in horror, as the Republicans allowed Bush to do anything he wanted. Trying to view this past from your perspective, the idea that Democrats will allow the same unbridled power to unfold, would be quite frightening. I don’t believe that will happen. If it does, I will be the first to call them out on it. Clearly I have been displeased with President Obama’s circular answers regarding torture and future prosecutions.
Coming in late to this discussion – but Spector is wrong when he says he is putting “principle at the top of the list”. No, he is putting self preservation at the top of the list. He knows he would lose the Republican primary next year – he nearly lost it 4 1/2 years ago actually. So he did the only thing he could do, switch sides. The Dems will be disappointed in some things, he won’t always vote with him (he will a majority of the time) but on some issues he will not. Just the same way he disappointed the Republicans. He was one of the few Republicans who voted for the stimulus package by the way. HE differs from the Dems on several key issues, but will help them on things like health care and some other items in Obama’s agenda. A net plus for the Dems. A more honorable thing to do would have been what Lieberman did, went Independent, but still caucused with the Dems. Lieberman put principles at the top, Spector did not.
I believe the Dems will allow Obama to do anything he wants. I can’t imagine it being any different. Anytime when one party is in control of both sides of Congress and the Presidency, it usually does not lead to good things. Will be interesting to see how it unfolds!
Arlen Spector should just retire – what is it with these 80+ year old Senators? Most of them need to just retire already and let some new blood in, on both parties.
MH – reading backwards in the forum – I don’t think Lieberman will cross over to the Republicans. He is fairly liberal. Also, again he did it the principled way (contrary to Specter who is looking out for his own self interest in preserving his job next election). Lieberman took a chance, ran as an Independent, and won, as he could not fully agree with the Dems to run as a Democrat. He did not full abandon the Dems as he still caucuses with them and votes with them on most issues. Don’t see him voting with the Republicans on too much, despite his support of McCain.
I agree about Hagel, he was a good senator and too bad he decided to retire. But that’s what Spector and some others should do actually, as I said above.
Any minority person who associates with a minority group, and who is involved in a crimes against a person belonging to a majority group can now be charged with a hate crime…
1. a minority individual that associates with a minority group and who uses speech that shows they hate a majority group, can be charged with a hate crime if they commit a violent crime against another individual belonging to a group.
2. if an ethnic person kills or injures another ethnic person and uses any language that shows they hate them “gringo”, “homey”, or is a mamber of a gang that associates itself with a group based on race, religion, gender, or ethnicity and openly shows contempt, discrimmination or hatred of another group, and who is involved in a crime against a member of another group (rape, murder, burglery, battery, assault, car theft, fraud that results in property loss because they are willing to steal from one etrhnicity but not another, can and will be charged under hate crime laws if they can be shown to target specific ethnic, gender, religious, or racial groups (either minority or majority groups).
3. If you rape a man or woman from one ethnicity, and you are from another, you can be charged with a hate crime as well as the rape.
4. If you commit manslaughter of a person in one ethnicity and you freely associate yourself with another ethnicity that is active and vocal against another race, or ethnicity, you can be charged with a hate crime.
5. If you solicit drugs only to specific ethnicities or transmit HIV from one race to another and only sleep with women or men of one ethnicity, or race, and you associate yourself with another race or ethnicity that shows anger or hatred toward the men or women of another ethnicity, but not the men or women of yopur own ethnicity, you can be charged with a hate crime.
Any religious group that freely associates with a religious group that uses speech to show they hate all other religious groups and is involved in a crime that hurts an individual from another religious group can be charged with a hate crime.
For example if you are a muslim that hates catholics or other religious groups and you commit rape, assault, battery, robbery, fraud that has property loss or results in violence, rape, murder, killing or maiming a member of a majority religious group because you don’t like what they said about your religious group, can and will be charged with a hate crime.
If you commit a crime as an individual and do not ever associate with a GROUP or commit a violant crime against old people, pregnant women, babies, police officers, or service members, your crime and sentence will be less than for the same offense…
Not how stupid is that and how long do you think it will take for a member of a majority group to take a member of a minority group to court for a hate crime against them. Will that stand a supreme court protected class concept??
I doubt it.
Once again the problem is group association and unconstitutional protected class concepts that promote unequal laws based on your gender, race, religion or etthnicity.
This violates the equal protection under the law clauses of the US sonstitution, as do the concept of protected minority classes, genders, religions and ethnicities.
michael
Enough already – Bedtime for Bonzo!
Who are you hatefully calling Bonzo, Punchak?
I actually have no idea what this thread is about any more.
I have it by best shot, but my head is spinning.
Regarding Joe Liebermann, I really don’t see that what he did is different than what Arlen Spector did. Lieberman lost the Democratic primary. He wanted to stay on as the SEnator from Connecticut so he ran as Connecticut for Liebermann. Both wanted to stay on. Both found a way to do it. I just don’t see much difference.
Lieberman lost because he did no longer had the support of the Conn. Democrats. He lost their support because he supported President Bush in the war Iraqi War effort. Spector no longer had the support of the PA Republicans. Isn’t Spector up for re-election this fall?
My point is Moonhowler, Specter changed sides because he has no other party to go to, but does not like the policies of eiter extreme.
Such problems will continue and possibly even result in a major third party that has the extremism of NEITHER side. The law passed today is an example of the lunacy of both the Republican extreme and the democrat extreme that is undermining rule of law, concepts of equality and concepts of equal protection under the law in favor of protected class and class concepts that benefit only specific ethnicities, religions, genders and ethnicities against others.
Such concepts are divisive and ultimately lead to group anarchy and loss of equal protection under the law FOR ALL INDIVIDUALS regardless of their gender, race, religion or ethnicity.
Such concepts undermine DEMOCRACY and promote GROUP anarchy and Racism, as well as racially based HATRED and crime based on ethnicity, gender, religion and ethnic group.
Arlin Spector’s move only makes this even more possible for the Democratic extremists to put crazy concepts that will not stand constitution tests into law.
FYI,
It looks like the senate will NOT support Pres Obama’s bankrutcy initative.
michael #82
“Enough already” was for you.
“Bedtime for Bonzo” Just talking to myself. It happens late at night.
(You are extremely verbose, IMHO)
I have not listened to tv so I don’t know what laws were passed today. At least no one can say we have grid lock as they have in the past.
I dont think a third party would be a bad idea.
The house passed some legislation to rein in credit card companies. A bunch of things to give people better rights with the credit card companies. Some of what I remember seeing was they have to give you 45 days advance notice of an interest rate change (currently there’s 0 days notice), they can’t retroactively apply higher interest rate, they can’t double charge you on some balances as far as how that applies to balances subject to interest rates. Also, they won’t allow people under the age of 18 to get credit cards. All of this doesn’t take effect though for quite some time! Not sure how the under 18 age thing figures in – I don’t think the problem is with people under age 18, but I don’t know.
The difference between Specter and Lieberman is Lieberman still caucuses with the Democratic party. He did not switch caucuses. That’s a BIG difference. Specter is up for re-election next year.
Specter also said 3 months ago he would NOT change parties – he is now going back on his word, not that it is anything new with him – he talks out of both sides of his mouth all the time.
@Gainesville Resident
I just see them as similar situations. Spector switched parties and Lieberman created a new one.
The ‘who’s worse’ probably has to do with who is more Democrat and who is more Republican. I think I am more inclined to vote Democrat than you are. I am not saying I would never…..because when I am annexed into the Brentsville District after the next census redraws our magisterial districts, I would certainly consider voting for Wally Covington.
I think the credit card news is good news. I had an awful thing happen with rate change. Someone put over a thousand dollar charge on a credit card of mine. I got an over limit notice. I went and looked and saw it was a fraudelent charge. I did all the right things…immediately contacted the company, signed their forms and sent them back. To make a long story short, they upped my credit rating to 22% and didn’t tell me. I called, raised hell, and the woman I talked to put in a special request. They put it back down but only because I had never been over my credit limit and had never had a late payment. I was furious. That will be one that gets paid off first…and forever.
Definitely unfair for you to have your credit card interest rate increased due to a fraudulent charge that made it go over limit. But the credit card companies increase people’s rates all the time for all kinds of reasons, and the increase is immediate and they only find out days later with a notice in the mail, or else on their next bill, after it has been in effect for a month or more. This does sound like good legislation, the credit card companies and banks are greedy, and they’ve gotten moreso the past few years. Unforatunate that it won’t go into effect right away, nor will it help out anyone who’s already, like you, been a victim of these unfair tactics. Definitely pay that one off, close it out – and when you do tell them why you are canceling their card! It will help out people in the future though, so that’s a good thing. Before this it seemed the credit card comapnies could do anything they wanted, raise interest rates anytime they wanted for whatever reason, and in some cases somehow even do that retroactively!
They did return it to the normal interest rate but I just didn’t like how it was done.
Of course, these some of the other companies are lowering limits. This can affect credit due to the what’s owed to credit limit. This is done now and often to good customers who have never had a late payment.
I hope this new law will fi some of the wrongs that are starting to pop up.