(POL) Arlen Specter switching parties

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by Tekneek

Texas was loving the idea of joking about leaving the Union and such, but now they are demanding "their share" of the "national stockpile" of swine flu treatment. Why not just leave the damn USA and find your own stockpile, bitches?

I did find that a little funny. Perry goes on his rants about secession and how the federal government is too big. Swine flu hits and he's begging the socialist CDC to send over their socialized medicine.

[flere-imsaho]

I wonder if we could argue that the Democratic Party has already had its "split" that JiMGA is talking about - those who've left the party for the Greens/Nader. Maybe the corresponding "split" in the GOP are the hard-core social conservatives leaving for a similar movement. What are the numbers there, do you think?

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

That's still an extremely small percent of the population. Around 20% of Georgians. Much less if you polled Republicans outside that region.

You'd get similar numbers in most of the Southern states, give or take, as well as some of the low population Western states (it was Montana I believe who is working on the latest salvo exerting state sovereignty). And Texans have never really been completely comfortable with the arrangement anyway.

My point about the secession numbers wasn't really about the viability of that, but rather just to illustrate the point that leaving a political party really isn't that big a deal for a lot of people, and especially not in many of the current GOP states.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by lungs

And I'd hate for us northerners to make the same mistake a second time of bringing you all back into the Union.

I tend to agree. If it weren't for that miserable war mongering bastard Lincoln, or if someone had only shot his worthless ass sooner, both nations would be collectively happier today.

[Arles]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

I do agree with you for the most part. Democrats didn't magically become better politicians. The shift was essentially the Republicans fucking everything up and people deciding they'll vote anyone but Republican in the election.

But I do disagree with the last part. I wouldn't call it a "mental awakening", but it's hard to deny that socially we've changed a lot.

We changed a lot in the 1960s, 70s and 80s as well. Democrats in the 1960s were more like Republicans in the 1990s. Things will adjust on both sides. Right now we are tending more to a "libertarian" view on things like gay marriage and abortion and more variety in how we express our religious beliefs. But, I don't see that as only an issue for republicans. There are certain parts of the republican party that will face some battles, but ultimately the political parties are about survival and a balance will be reached. But, again, don't underestimate the aspect of being the majority. Often, at the end of a run at the majority, some changes need to be made (hence why you may now not be the majority).

Two demographics (blacks and hispanics) are growing tremendously. Do you really see them voting Republican if things go bad?

I think both groups are going to go through a bit of a political transformation. African Americans and Hispanics have both seen increased prosperity through the past decade and I don't see their voting blocks continuing. The African American-gay marriage rift in the democratic party is something that will work itself out and I'm not sure what will happen there.

In the end, both parties will position themselves to survive (as in Steele leading the party now) and the republicans will wait all these issues out until things go south. Then, Rush Limbaugh, Hannity and others will swoop in to start putting blame on the current people in power and more republicans will end up in office.

It may not be the prettiest thought, but it's probably what's going to happen in the next 4-6 years.

[flere-imsaho]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

My point about the secession numbers wasn't really about the viability of that, but rather just to illustrate the point that leaving a political party really isn't that big a deal for a lot of people, and especially not in many of the current GOP states.

Given most people's natural gravatation towards apathy, however, it's one thing to say you'd secede from the Union or leave your party, and another to actually do it. I'd imagine a lot of people will come back to the GOP once Obama's approval ratings go down.

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

I tend to agree. If it weren't for that miserable war mongering bastard Lincoln, or if someone had only shot his worthless ass sooner, both nations would be collectively happier today.

Yeah, the South would be like Mexico, only without the rich cultural heritage.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

I'd imagine a lot of people will come back to the GOP once Obama's approval ratings go down.

That might be true IF the GOP was the natural home of a lot of the people we're talking about. But it isn't, at least not in the South. If the GOP shifts away from what appealed, those folks don't have to move away, the party will be doing the moving & we'll find (or make) a new home just as we did when the Dems swung further & further to the left.

Yeah, the South would be like Mexico, only without the rich cultural heritage.

Better that than what we've become/are becoming. Hell, better nearly anything than that.

[flere-imsaho]

While it's true that both parties have advanced on a number of social issues in the past few decades, those who have held the reins of power in the GOP for the past 10-15 years are beholden very much to the social conservative wing of the party, and the views of this wing have not advanced with the views of the national population at large. I think that's where the demographic argument needs to be considered.

I take the point that at intervals the populace gets tired of the same old people (Reagan/Bush to Clinton, Clinton to Bush, House Dems to "Republican Revolution"), but in every case the other party has to offer a tent in which the majority of the electorate can fit. Now clearly the last three Presidents downplayed their parties' fringes to win their initial election, and 1994 wasn't really a "radical" message, but you'd have to say now that the strongest public figures in the GOP firmament are really some of their more divisive ones as well. And there's a strong pipeline for more. It's like the string of uninspiring wonks on the Democratic bench that kept them from the Presidency for so long (Kerry, Gore, Dukakis, Mondale).

In today's GOP the social conservatives control the majority of the message, apparently a lot of the money, and clearly almost all of the GOTV operation. That hasn't been the case for Democratic left-wing fringe groups for ages.

I wonder what it will take for that message to moderate enough to compete again. Or, maybe like Arles is suggesting, people will just ignore it to vote for the "other guy".

And the thing is that I assume that the balance will shift the other way. It always does. I'm just trying to speculate on how it happens.

[flere-imsaho]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

That might be true IF the GOP was the natural home of a lot of the people we're talking about. But it isn't, at least not in the South. If the GOP shifts away from what appealed, those folks don't have to move away, the party will be doing the moving & we'll find (or make) a new home just as we did when the Dems swung further & further to the left.

I hear you. As I posted previously, the South(East) certainly does have a precedent of switching out of one party, and into a third, even if they got back to the "other" party eventually.

Maybe that's how the third party finally comes about. Enough social conservatism in the SE plus with a few outposts, combined with fiscal conservatives taking back the GOP and the Democrats losing ground due to hubris, and you've got a 3-way split.

[kcchief19]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

And anybody who thinks the party won't split just isn't paying attention. What was the study released over the weekend, that 36% of Georgia Republicans responded favorably to the idea of secession, one out of five Georgia voters in total. We're ready to leave the Union entirely, leaving a party (that most of us haven't been associated with all that long anyway) isn't really an issue at all. We left the D's when they abandoned us, if the R's abandon us we'll leave them as well.

But was this 36% ready to leave the union six months ago? Anyone talking about secession to me just sounds just like the reaction of not getting the girl. My gut tells me that a year ago this 36% wasn't ready to leave the U.S. but they would have taken California seceding gladly. My guess is that they may "hate" America now but five years ago would have told you that anyone who didn't think like them was unamerican.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

I hear you. As I posted previously, the South(East) certainly does have a precedent of switching out of one party, and into a third, even if they got back to the "other" party eventually.

Maybe that's how the third party finally comes about. Enough social conservatism in the SE plus with a few outposts, combined with fiscal conservatives taking back the GOP and the Democrats losing ground due to hubris, and you've got a 3-way split.

Funny, but I feel as though I've heard that in the thread somewhere before

[flere-imsaho]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

Funny, but I feel as though I've heard that in the thread somewhere before

Well, I am re-reading Page 4.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by kcchief19

But was this 36% ready to leave the union six months ago? Anyone talking about secession to me just sounds just like the reaction of not getting the girl. My gut tells me that a year ago this 36% wasn't ready to leave the U.S. but they would have taken California seceding gladly. My guess is that they may "hate" America now but five years ago would have told you that anyone who didn't think like them was unamerican.

I might not argue that point, other than to say that I think it may have taken November for a lot of people to realize just how far we've slipped, a wake up call or reality check if you will. I pretty much already figured it out but I don't know that a lot of people had.

The point about removing California is pretty relevant I think. We simply want separation from it (really more accurately what you used it to represent). Removing it was preferrable but failing that then whatever it takes is preferable to continued sufferance of it (again here, I think California is just easy shorthand, more symbolic than specific).

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by Arles

We changed a lot in the 1960s, 70s and 80s as well. Democrats in the 1960s were more like Republicans in the 1990s. Things will adjust on both sides. Right now we are tending more to a "libertarian" view on things like gay marriage and abortion and more variety in how we express our religious beliefs. But, I don't see that as only an issue for republicans. There are certain parts of the republican party that will face some battles, but ultimately the political parties are about survival and a balance will be reached. But, again, don't underestimate the aspect of being the majority. Often, at the end of a run at the majority, some changes need to be made (hence why you may now not be the majority).

I think that's the point though. The party will have to change to get back those votes just as much as the Democrats will have to screw up. If the GOP doesn't change any of their stances on social issues, there is no chance atheists, blacks, hispanics, or homosexuals vote for them. Simply put, a lot of these people are not going to vote against their best interests.

Originally Posted by Arles

I think both groups are going to go through a bit of a political transformation. African Americans and Hispanics have both seen increased prosperity through the past decade and I don't see their voting blocks continuing. The African American-gay marriage rift in the democratic party is something that will work itself out and I'm not sure what will happen there.

They have seen increased prosperity, but we're finding that isn't going to help with the vote. The rich voted in favor of Obama in this last election. The GOP no longer has that demographic in their pocket. In fact, blacks are voting even more in favor of Democrats.

The biggest problem facing the GOP and minorities is the vague hint of racism in the party still. The confederate flag waving group. That fringe element that things Obama is a Muslim and will post signs on their lawn about not voting for a n***er. They recently had party leaders sending out CDs with a song called Barack the Magic Negro on it. Like it or not, this is an element of the base of the Republican Party and it's still going to be very difficult to get the hispanic and black vote.

Originally Posted by Arles

In the end, both parties will position themselves to survive (as in Steele leading the party now) and the republicans will wait all these issues out until things go south. Then, Rush Limbaugh, Hannity and others will swoop in to start putting blame on the current people in power and more republicans will end up in office.

I think that era is over. Rush is hated and he's seen negatively by most of the population. He'll always have his group of listeners who will do as he says and get riled up on whatever he tells them to. But guys like Rush and Hannity don't carry over into mainstream. They don't resonate with suburban housewives.

I don't think it's as easy as saying people will get frustrated and change their vote. That can happen if the other party is open and accepting of you into it. But the hardcore conservatives have made it clear that they don't want any diversity in their party.

[Glengoyne]

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

While it's true that both parties have advanced on a number of social issues in the past few decades, those who have held the reins of power in the GOP for the past 10-15 years are beholden very much to the social conservative wing of the party, and the views of this wing have not advanced with the views of the national population at large. I think that's where the demographic argument needs to be considered.

My take is that 15 years ago the GOP took control to with a very moderate anti corruption agenda. You know that evil bastard Newt Gingrich. Once Newt was gone and the truly evil Tom Delay came to power as lord of the House, that was when the GOP started the slide toward the 2006 elections. It didn't take Delay all that long to undo all of the reforms Newt put into place.

So, while I see where you're coming from. I often characterize myself as a member of the religious right that believes the republican party needs to run from others of my ilk at top speed.

Christine Todd Whitman...now she's my kind of Republican. Oh same for Arlen Specter.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

They don't resonate with suburban housewives.

Those suburban housewives tend to be significantly more represented with Hannity than any other talk host. Whole different ballgame than Rush. It's not a genre that ever pulls big numbers with women don't get me wrong, but within the genre Hannity gets over about as well as anyone doing that bit ever has.

[Arles]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

I think that's the point though. The party will have to change to get back those votes just as much as the Democrats will have to screw up. If the GOP doesn't change any of their stances on social issues, there is no chance atheists, blacks, hispanics, or homosexuals vote for them. Simply put, a lot of these people are not going to vote against their best interests.

I don't buy it. If the country goes south in the next 4 years, republicans will simply run on the economy and no one will care about a nuanced stance on "civil unions" for homosexuals or how accepting of pro-choice voters "the base" is. People make way too much about social issues. If this were the case, we would have been pro choice in 1992, pro life in 1994, pro choice again in 1996, pro life in 2000, pro choice in 2002, pro life in 2004 and pro choice in 2008. You can believe that, or believe in each case that when times were good - the party in power was fine. Went times went south, the party in power lost. That's the consistent message from the voters.

They have seen increased prosperity, but we're finding that isn't going to help with the vote. The rich voted in favor of Obama in this last election. The GOP no longer has that demographic in their pocket. In fact, blacks are voting even more in favor of Democrats.

It was the first black president - it's not a stretch to see a higher black turnout. I'm sure Obama will get a vast majority of the black vote in 2012. But what happens after that? Are we sure this is a permanent thing?

The biggest problem facing the GOP and minorities is the vague hint of racism in the party still.

The GOP's biggest problem was a black nominee from the other party. The republicans could have run Jesus Christ himself as a nominee and got no more than 10% of the black vote against Obama.

Like it or not, this is an element of the base of the Republican Party and it's still going to be very difficult to get the hispanic and black vote.

I think the poor minority vote is always going to be tough for the GOP as a stable of middle and lower class is how terrible and heartless republicans are. It was even worse in the 1980s. My point is that a lot of the "2000s" minorities are not poor or poorly educated. They will be making informed decisions based on their own well beings and I think (over time) some of that will cause an erosion in the "democratic block" we have seen (esp with Hispanics).

In the end, though, most people vote with their wallet and that will happen again in 2010, 2012 and beyond.

I think that era is over. Rush is hated and he's seen negatively by most of the population. He'll always have his group of listeners who will do as he says and get riled up on whatever he tells them to. But guys like Rush and Hannity don't carry over into mainstream. They don't resonate with suburban housewives.

They never did. Rush's approval rating has fluctuated between 15 and 30% his entire career. It doesn't change the fact that he is "New York Times" for conservative bloggers/writers and a lot of their material comes from him. He's certainly not going anywhere any time soon and if things go south, people will want a "quick fix" for blame and the right will be ready to hand over the current administration and congress. Pelosi's approval rating is no better than Rush's.

I don't think it's as easy as saying people will get frustrated and change their vote. That can happen if the other party is open and accepting of you into it.

This is what people would like to think, but history doesn't support it. If you are a moderate who voted for Obama and this country is struggling in 2012, there's a good chance you will vote for a somewhat attractive republican candidate. Even if that candidate double-talks civil union/gay marriage and is pro life, the moderates will vote for them because they are frustrated with job/financial uncertainty and desperate for new answers. Whether the republican base is "more understanding" to gay marriage the next four years is irrelevant.

The reality is that Republicans have been branded as heartless, gun-toting, bible freaks who want to attack everyone and starve the homeless for 20 years. Democrats have been painted as bleeding heart, tax-and-spend, teach sex ed to infant socialists over the same time. At the end of the day, many (myself included) have voted both parties based primarily on the state of the country and I don't see this process changing now - just like I didn't see it changing when I voted democrat in 1996/1998 and was told by my republican friends that the democratic party was done for.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

Those suburban housewives tend to be significantly more represented with Hannity than any other talk host. Whole different ballgame than Rush. It's not a genre that ever pulls big numbers with women don't get me wrong, but within the genre Hannity gets over about as well as anyone doing that bit ever has.

Hannity's audience is almost as heavily male as Limbaughs. And if they are more represented, it's not carrying over to the polls. The GOP is getting slaughtered by women come election time.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by Arles

I don't buy it. If the country goes south in the next 4 years, republicans will simply run on the economy and no one will care about a nuanced stance on "civil unions" for homosexuals or how accepting of pro-choice voters "the base" is. People make way too much about social issues. If this were the case, we would have been pro choice in 1992, pro life in 1994, pro choice again in 1996, pro life in 2000, pro choice in 2002, pro life in 2004 and pro choice in 2008. You can believe that, or believe in each case that when times were good - the party in power was fine. Went times went south, the party in power lost. That's the consistent message from the voters.

Social issues do matter. Maybe not a ton, but they have an effect. If your theory was correct that it's all based on how well the economy runs, the segregationist parties from the 40's and 50's would still be around today. They would have never needed to change their stance.

I'm a fiscal conservative but have voted Democrat lately because of social issues. I don't want creationism taught in schools, funding cut for important scientific research, and discrimination against people for things they can't control. I certainly weigh the pros and cons, but I think it's silly to assume that social issues don't play some roles in elections.

Originally Posted by Arles

It was the first black president - it's not a stretch to see a higher black turnout. I'm sure Obama will get a vast majority of the black vote in 2012. But what happens after that? Are we sure this is a permanent thing?

Well it's been permanent since Kennedy. Going back to exit polls over the last 30 years, the GOP hasn't gotten even 20% of the black vote. They got 5% in the last election. Millions of black voters registered as Democrats this election. Even if they lose some of that margin in future elections, their demographic is growing faster than others and will still be a major advantage for Democrats. The same can be said for Hispanics.

Originally Posted by Arles

The GOP's biggest problem was a black nominee from the other party. The republicans could have run Jesus Christ himself as a nominee and got no more than 10% of the black vote against Obama.

Obama got a higher percentage of the white vote than Kerry, Gore, and Clinton. Kerry got nearly 90% of the black vote in 2004. This isnt' an Obama is black thing, it's a blacks don't vote for the GOP thing.

Originally Posted by Arles

I think the poor minority vote is always going to be tough for the GOP as a stable of middle and lower class is how terrible and heartless republicans are. It was even worse in the 1980s. My point is that a lot of the "2000s" minorities are not poor or poorly educated. They will be making informed decisions based on their own well beings and I think (over time) some of that will cause an erosion in the "democratic block" we have seen (esp with Hispanics).

They can cut into those minorities, but as long as those minorities are growing faster than the white vote, it's not going to help the GOP.

Originally Posted by Arles

They never did. Rush's approval rating has fluctuated between 15 and 30% his entire career. It doesn't change the fact that he is "New York Times" for conservative bloggers/writers and a lot of their material comes from him. He's certainly not going anywhere any time soon and if things go south, people will want a "quick fix" for blame and the right will be ready to hand over the current administration and congress. Pelosi's approval rating is no better than Rush's.

I don't disagree with that. I still think he's a non-factor, just as Michael Moore and others are for the Democrats. A Rush listener is going to vote Republican. All he's doing is giving a daily pep rally. But some of his negative comments that get mainstream media attention hurt the GOP. I'm convinced the GOP lost the Senate in 2006 thanks to his Michael J. Fox comments that gave the Missouri Senate seat to the Democrats in the final days.

Originally Posted by Arles

This is what people would like to think, but history doesn't support it. If you are a moderate who voted for Obama and this country is struggling in 2012, there's a good chance you will vote for a somewhat attractive republican candidate. Even if that candidate double-talks civil union/gay marriage and is pro life, the moderates will vote for them because they are frustrated with job/financial uncertainty and desperate for new answers. Whether the republican base is "more understanding" to gay marriage the next four years is irrelevant.

I agree. The problem is can an attractive moderate Republican get through the primaries? I don't care where the economy is, Sarah Palin isn't beating anyone in 2012. The problem with the GOP is that the candidates that have the best shot at winning general elections are the ones their base hate the most.

[Arles]

I can't see Palin getting the nomination (I certainly wouldn't vote for her, and I was initially OK with her as VP). After the dust settled, it seemed Palin was a hail mary from McCain to get some of the disgruntled Hillary voters after she was passed over. I can't see the current GOP really pushing for her in a main election, but nothing the current GOP does would surprise me at this point.

The democrats had a similar opportunity in 2004 to what the republicans will have down the road (whether it's 12 or 16 - who knows). They blew it by nominating Kerry. I'm guessing the republicans will try and have a more likable candidate in the next contested election and, if they do, that person will probably win. If they go for a 70-year old man again, it will be very tough.

[RainMaker]

We have the candidate for the secessionist party in Georgia.

http://wonkette.com/408277/secession...on-for-liberty

[flere-imsaho]

I never realized that Arles was James Carville.

Originally Posted by RainMaker

I agree. The problem is can an attractive moderate Republican get through the primaries?

I think that's a key point. Social conservatives had a significant influence in the past two contested GOP primaries. Anyway, either speculating side could be right. It might be that the electorate ignores the fringes of either party and votes based on their weariness of one party over the other. It might be that the social conservatives' death grip on the GOP primary system will give the GOP a handicap the Democrats always had courtesy of their fractured and fractious support. It'll take a few more elections to find out.

[albionmoonlight]

I think that you need a person in the GOP who can generate support as a moderate without having to rely on the Christian right. That would mean a senator from a blue or purple state with open primaries (so they can win primaries with cross-over support) or a governor. Or someone who does not currently hold elected office. Basically, someone who can survive and raise money and get name recognition without having to go back to the Christian right every 2,4, or 6 years and suck up to them (and take positions that will doom them in a general). That person might be who can lead the GOP out of the wilderness.

Or, to shortcut the process, take someone that can generate and inspire the libertarian passion that Ron Paul did and combine it with someone who has the organizational ability of then-candidate Obama. And that person could remake the GOP in short order.

[Arles]

Let's also not forget the whole "open primaries" aspect. I could see a lot of moderates/independents voting for the republican candidate and taking some bite out of the christian right vote (esp if it's split over a couple candidates already). That's basically what got McCain through the primaries. I'm not so sure you need to be completely in bed with the religious right to win a GOP primary. If that was the case, Huckabee would have won the nomination in a landslide in 2008.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Ouch. Not exactly rolling out the red carpet for Sen. Specter.....

New Democrat Specter Loses Committee Seniority - Presidential Politics | Political News - FOXNews.com

[cartman]

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

Ouch. Not exactly rolling out the red carpet for Sen. Specter.....

New Democrat Specter Loses Committee Seniority - Presidential Politics | Political News - FOXNews.com

Yeah, this was a totally one-sided manuver.

FTFA:

The Senate passed a resolution Tuesday night that made him the most junior Democrat on the committees on which he serves. The resolution was passed after an agreement was reached between leadership in both parties and Specter

I have a feeling that his seniority status will change if he wins re-election.

[ISiddiqui]

The problem is that one of Specter's appeals for re-election is that he has so much senority and can get money back to the state, etc. If there is a doubt he'll get his senority status changed after the election, that really hurts him in the Dem primary as well as general election.

[Arles]

I'm sure Specter was eager to accept the demotion and very happy with the "agreement" between himself and the democrats. This move has been about political survival from the start and this is just another blow to the gut that Specter was forced to absorb to stay on the hill. It's not like he had a lot of leverage with the democrats on this. But to act as if Specter had any say in this demotion (or treat like some kind of negociated agreement) is silly.

[cartman]

This editorial from WaPo seems to back up my claim:

Senate Democrats Deny Specter Committee Seniority - Capitol Briefing

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by Arles

I'm sure Specter was eager to accept the demotion and very happy with the "agreement" between himself and the democrats. This move has been about political survival from the start and this is just another blow to the gut that Specter was forced to absorb to stay on the hill. It's not like he had a lot of leverage with the democrats on this. But to act as if Specter had any say in this demotion (or treat like some kind of negociated agreement) is silly.

[Arles]

I fail to see how it supports your claim. This happens last Tuesday during the move:

Tonight's committee resolution, quickly read on the Senate floor by Reid himself, contradicts Specter's assertion last Tuesday when he publicly announced his move from the Republican side of the aisle. He told reporters that he retained his seniority both in the overall chamber and in the committees on which he serves. Specter said that becoming chairman of the Appropriations Committee was a personal goal of his, one that would be within reach if he were granted his seniority on the panel and placed as the third-most senior Democrat there.

Then, after meeting with democrats he finds that he loses his seniority and is forced to say he "mispoke" earlier. This is no different than a guy asking for a loan from the mob and getting quoted at 20% interest. Then, when he takes the loan out, the mob boss says the juice is now 30%. Just because he's desperate enough to accept the new terms does not mean the agreement wasn't completely one-sided (the notion you took issue with above).

Specter got completely strong armed by the democrats and lost his seniority. There's nothing he could do about it as he had already burned his bridge with republicans and was going to lose with an (R) by his name, so he was forced to accept the "new agreement". The democrats were well within their rights to do this as Specter had no cards to play, but to say this was some kind of mutual agreement is being extremely disingenuous.

[ISiddiqui]

Yep, Specter got hosed here. All I heard was he'd get the same seniority on this... nope, guess not.

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by Arles

I fail to see how it supports your claim. This happens last Tuesday during the move:


Then, after meeting with democrats he finds that he loses his seniority and is forced to say he "mispoke" earlier. This is no different than a guy asking for a loan from the mob and getting quoted at 20% interest. Then, when he takes the loan out, the mob boss says the juice is now 30%. Just because he's desperate enough to accept the new terms does not mean the agreement wasn't completely one-sided (the notion you took issue with above).

Specter got completely strong armed by the democrats and lost his seniority. There's nothing he could do about it as he had already burned his bridge with republicans and was going to lose with an (R) by his name, so he was forced to accept the "new agreement". The democrats were well within their rights to do this as Specter had no cards to play, but to say this was some kind of mutual agreement is being extremely disingenuous.

Not exactly. To stay within your analogy it's more like:

Specter, who had long been an enemy of the Sicilian mob, found out the Jewish mafia had put a hit out on him, so he went to the Godfather of the Sicilians and asked for protection. The Godfather, without checking with any of his capos agreed. Specter spent the next week saying he wasn't loyal to the Sicilians, hoped the Jewish mafia defeated the Sicilians, and was against all the business propositions under discussion by the Sicilians.

When it cam time for the capos to decide how much of their business they would give Specter, they agreed that Specter couldn't be trusted and would have to prove his loyalty to the Sicilians before he'd get a big share of the pie. Specter, now having angered both the Jewish mafia and the Sicilian mafia, figured it was a good time to stop acting like a douche and pretend he liked the outcome.

[Big Fo]

Spector had to clarify his feelings after making this supposed joke in an interview with New York Times Magazine.

Q: With your departure from the Republican Party, there are no more Jewish Republicans in the Senate. Do you care about that?


A: I sure do. There's still time for the Minnesota courts to do justice and declare Norm Coleman the winner.

He later said when asked by someone from CQ Politics:

“In the swirl of moving from one caucus to another, I have to get used to my new teammates,” he said. “I’m ordinarily pretty correct in what I say. I’ve made a career of being precise. I conclusively misspoke.”

Asked who he’s backing now in elections, Specter said, “I’m looking for more Democratic members. Nothing personal.”

And before someone else does some variation of it: spector fits in great he's already flip-flopping like grand messiah obama lol

[cartman]

Originally Posted by Arles

I fail to see how it supports your claim. This happens last Tuesday during the move:


Then, after meeting with democrats he finds that he loses his seniority and is forced to say he "mispoke" earlier. This is no different than a guy asking for a loan from the mob and getting quoted at 20% interest. Then, when he takes the loan out, the mob boss says the juice is now 30%. Just because he's desperate enough to accept the new terms does not mean the agreement wasn't completely one-sided (the notion you took issue with above).

Specter got completely strong armed by the democrats and lost his seniority. There's nothing he could do about it as he had already burned his bridge with republicans and was going to lose with an (R) by his name, so he was forced to accept the "new agreement". The democrats were well within their rights to do this as Specter had no cards to play, but to say this was some kind of mutual agreement is being extremely disingenuous.

He was able to retain membership on every committee he was on as a Republican. If the Democrats were simply looking to screw him over, they could have kicked him off several of the powerful committees he was on in addition to the loss in seniority. In addition, instead of the Republicans simply replacing Specter's spot on the committees, they just moved Specter from R to D, giving the Democrats a majority of the seats on those committees, at least until the midterms. Who knows what negotiations went on behind the scenes to get that done, but I'm sure Specter had to have some input into it.

And, as I speculated, the article also said that his seniority status would be up for review after the midterms, if he was re-elected.

I'm in no way saying that this was a slam dunk win for Specter and he orchestrated the whole thing to work out this way. I'm saying that it wasn't a complete slap in the face either. He still is a members of several very powerful committees, and there is a chance that his junior seniority status could change if he wins re-election.

[Arles]

The reality is that democrats put the screws to him because they don't want to embrace him, have him lose re-election and look like failures. They also want to make sure he votes the "party line" and smacking him down to junior senator with a carrot of being a senior guy after he runs for re-election is a great way to ensure he doesn't rock the boat too much as a dem.

Quite honestly, I'm glad they are treating Specter like this as it will completely dissuade any other republican from leaving and, to be honest, the fact the move is primarily for Specter's political survival makes me less willing to worry about his well being. All that said, I'll repeat what I posted earlier - to act like Specter had any say in this process (once he decided to switch) is completely disingenuous. Specter's basically been Kevin Bacon in Animal House:


Thank you sir, may I have another!

[cartman]

We'll just have to agree to disagree on that point. I think it is just as disingenuous to say that they had zero conversations about his roles on Senate committees as part of the Democratic caucus.

[CamEdwards]

This Politico article seems to suggest Specter is less than happy about the arrangement.

Meltdown: Specter stands alone

[Arles]

Originally Posted by cartman

I think it is just as disingenuous to say that they had zero conversations about his roles on Senate committees as part of the Democratic caucus.

Oh, they had conversations. The democrats told him that he would be dropped down to a junior senator level. At which point, to quote Kevin Bacon, Specter said "Thank you sir, may I have another"

[Arles]

Originally Posted by CamEdwards

This Politico article seems to suggest Specter is less than happy about the arrangement.

Meltdown: Specter stands alone

DAYUM, that is brutal for Specter. Well, as I said earlier in the thread, this will act an example for the type of "support" republicans will get from the democrats if they switch parties in hopes of staying capital hill longer. Needless to say, I don't think we'll see any additional switches anytime soon.

[Tekneek]

That is unreal. How can you vote to change somebody's tenure like that? Isn't that defying reality? Sorta like the NFL owners getting together and voting that a particular player is a rookie again? I don't understand how something like that could be subject to a vote. We all know how long he has been in the Senate.

[Big Fo]

PA primary voters might as well get nominate a proper Democrat with Spector losing his tenure. If he wins the primary this will hurt him in the election.

[flere-imsaho]

Originally Posted by Arles

Oh, they had conversations. The democrats told him that he would be dropped down to a junior senator level. At which point, to quote Kevin Bacon, Specter said "Thank you sir, may I have another"

This is Harry Reid we're talking about - perhaps the least tactically astute Senate Majority Leader ever. It's altogether possible that Reid gave Specter the impression he could keep his seniority, and then backtracked on this when senior Democrats found out and got angry about it.

I'm only half-kidding.

[Arles]

flere, I think you are dead on with that assessment. The more I watch this, the more I think the entire senate is a joke right now.

[flere-imsaho]

And I actually wrote that before reading the Politico article Cam linked. If you read that article it becomes even more clear how many Democratic senators were in the dark about the details surrounding this.

[Grammaticus]

“I think the reality is between now and then is — is he on the team or not?” a senior Democratic aide said Wednesday. “If he’s instrumental in getting health care done, I imagine his position in the caucus after 2010 will be substantially strengthened.”

Ha ha, Dance Monkey Dance!

[RainMaker]

I don't think it's surprising. They'll hold this and the Democratic primary over his head to ensure he votes with them on health care and supreme court justices. The Dems probably feel they got burnt with Lieberman and are being more careful.

Personally, why wouldn't he go to the end of the line? He chose to switch parties. I would be pissed if I was a Democrat who had paid his dues and had to move behind Specter.

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by Tekneek

That is unreal. How can you vote to change somebody's tenure like that? Isn't that defying reality? Sorta like the NFL owners getting together and voting that a particular player is a rookie again? I don't understand how something like that could be subject to a vote. We all know how long he has been in the Senate.

That wouldn't work because anyone can change party registration at any time. The ;ongest serving congressmen could just claim to be whatever party is in power long enough to stay in control of their committees.

[albionmoonlight]

Originally Posted by albionmoonlight

I think that you need a person in the GOP who can generate support as a moderate without having to rely on the Christian right. That would mean a senator from a blue or purple state with open primaries (so they can win primaries with cross-over support) or a governor. Or someone who does not currently hold elected office. Basically, someone who can survive and raise money and get name recognition without having to go back to the Christian right every 2,4, or 6 years and suck up to them (and take positions that will doom them in a general). That person might be who can lead the GOP out of the wilderness.

This article Every calcified party is calcified in its own way « ACCUMULATING PERIPHERALS would disagree with me that the GOP simply needs someone to repudiate its base.

In the whither-the-GOP conversation, it’s often remarked that today’s Republican Party has reached a state of ideological rigidity that traps it just as the Democratic Party was trapped in the late 1970s and 1980s. And that’s true. But then it’s also often said, as Ross Douthat did yesterday, that the GOP has become ideologically rigid in the same way that Democrats were a generation ago:
The Reagan-era wave of Republican policy innovation — embodied, among others, by the late Jack Kemp — has calcified in much the same way that liberalism calcified a generation ago.
But that’s actually not true. Liberalism was trapped in the late 1970s and 1980s not by a single ideologically rigid formula, but by a rigid commitment to a thousand different, often unrelated interest group platforms. These platforms were usually expressed in outraged moralistic terms drawn from a common liberal vocabulary even though they often had nothing to do with each other. The Democrats were pinned down like Gulliver by a million tiny commitments: the Teamsters, blacks, Hispanics, immigrants, teachers, Jews, feminists, Amtrak, the Sierra Club, opponents of intervention in Nicaragua, the nuclear freeze movement, and on and on — all had their individual planks in the party platform, and all required a ritualistic demonstration of obeisance from every candidate. Democratic political speeches became long, tedious laundry lists of incoherent moralistic vows to deliver comically specific programs to micro-splinters of constituencies. I remember visiting colleges in 1986 and watching a Brown campus improv group, not very funny, do a sketch in which a young woman activist demanded that everyone join her campaign to help get penguins out of Nicaraguan grain elevators, and this seemed a fair lampoon of the tenor of the times on the Left. The Democrats and the Left suffered from a big-tent sort of calcification; they were immobilized by diversity.
In contrast, conservatives and the GOP are calcified in their narrowness. The only things left in their program are cutting taxes and…actually I think that’s it, with a bit of defending torture and fighting gay marriage thrown in. They’re losing everyone but white males, and they’re losing everywhere but the South. They’re trapped because anything they do to reach out threatens to lose them more of the one constituency they’re still winning. The problems are different, and in some senses opposite. The Democrats wrenched themselves out of immobility by publicly repudiating some of those rigid commitments — chiefly to poor blacks and to labor — to show that the party was able to compromise in order to move and win. It was a Sister Souljah strategy. But Republicans are looking at a different dynamic, and it’s not clear that pulling a Sister Souljah on Rush Limbaugh, say, is what they need. I’m not sure quite what they need, but it’s not really going to mirror what the Democrats did in the early ’90s to win.

[Arles]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

I don't think it's surprising. They'll hold this and the Democratic primary over his head to ensure he votes with them on health care and supreme court justices. The Dems probably feel they got burnt with Lieberman and are being more careful.

Personally, why wouldn't he go to the end of the line? He chose to switch parties. I would be pissed if I was a Democrat who had paid his dues and had to move behind Specter.

From what I can gather from the reports, it seemed that Reid told Specter he would keep his seniority when Specter first talked about switching. Then, after he made the move, Reid reneged on that promise under pressure from other democrats.

I agree with you in principle, but the way Reid handled looks pretty seedy.