Pennsylvania Sen. Arlen Specter will switch his party affiliation from Republican to Democrat and announced today that he will run in 2010 as a Democrat, according to a statement he released this morning.
Specter's decision would give Democrats a 60 seat filibuster proof majority in the Senate assuming Democrat Al Franken is eventually sworn in as the next Senator from Minnesota. (Former Sen. Norm Coleman is appealing Franken's victory in the state Supreme Court.)
"I have decided to run for re-election in 2010 in the Democratic primary," said Specter in a statement. "I am ready, willing and anxious to take on all comers and have my candidacy for re-election determined in a general election."
He added: "Since my election in 1980, as part of the Reagan Big Tent, the Republican Party has moved far to the right. 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 as a Democrat would also fundamentally alter the 2010 calculus in Pennsylvania as he was expected to face a difficult primary challenge next year from former Rep. Pat Toomey. The only announced Democrat in the race is former National Constitution Center head Joe Torsella although several other candidates are looking at the race.
The precariousness of Specter's political position -- a Republican in a Democratic-leaning state -- was on display earlier this year when he was one of three GOP Senators to back President Barack Obama's $787 billion economic stimulus plan. That vote was strongly condemned by conservative Republicans and Toomey used that vote as the launching pad for his candidacy.
Because of the shrinking Republican vote in the state, Specter was seen as a dead man walking politically in the primary with polling showing him trailing Toomey by ten or more points. The bar for Specter to run as an independent was also extremely high due to the rules governing such a third party candidacy.
That left a Democratic candidacy as Specter's best option if he wanted to remain in the Senate beyond 2010.
- Steve Benen adds:
Democrats are poised to have a 60-seat majority, though Specter emphasized in his statement, "Unlike Senator Jeffords' switch which changed party control, I will not be an automatic 60th vote for cloture."It's an important point. In fact, Dems like Ben Nelson aren't automatic votes for the party, either. It's tempting to think otherwise, but Specter's switch will not mean that the majority will be able to necessarily block all efforts at Republican obstructionism.
But Specter's vote just got considerably more reliable than it was, say, yesterday.
It's a huge development, and further evidence of a shrinking Republican Party.
- atrios says: Crap I hope this works out better than I expect, but 60 nominal Ds doesn't equal 60 votes. Specter's still free to be a dick in the Senate, and I expect the state Dem party to welcome him with open arms and push all challengers away from the primary. Though it does open the door for a non-insider candidate to run and perhaps have a more realistic chance than they would have otherwise.
- kos finds the Club for Growth is speechless. "“I’m still at a loss,” said Soloveichik. “I don’t know if we’re going to put anything out.” The Club was taken completely by surprise and is not yet discussing the effect that Toomey’s decision may have had on forcing Specter over to the Democrats."
- John Cole adds Been There, Done That:
Once you get over the patchouli smell and get used to all the barefoot hippies, it isn’t so bad: ...I’m still waiting on my Soros check and forty virgins, so don’t get too excited, Arlen. Oh, and by the way, wingnuts- how is that Republican purity treating you? Is the GOP small enough to drown in a bathtub yet? Going to love hearing how a loyal foot soldier for three decades in the GOP wasn’t “conservative enough.”
And on a serious note, I think this is how party switching should be done. At the end of the term and then run on the ticket with your new party, not right after an election. Additionally, the weirdest thing about being a Democrat is I don’t feel any different than I did when I was a Republican, other than that I no longer have to make excuses for crazy and stupid people.
Maybe this is one reason?
Gee, I wonder why Arlen would want to leave these guys behind?
The DCCC has a new website: BachmannWatch which chronicles her lunacy.Sargent: How Many Republicans Will Vote Against Sebelius?
A good question from Chuck Todd and the gang at MSNBC:
At a time when the swine flu is dominating headlines and TV news, how many Republicans today will vote against Kansas Gov. Kathleen Sebelius’ nomination to be President Obama’s Health and Human Services secretary?
With the Senate set today to vote on Sebelius’ confirmation, and with Republicans continuing to filibuster her, that is certainly one of the questions of the day.
It’s worth noting here that the Democrats have done a very good job at navigating what might be called the politics of crisis. They’ve used the economic meltdown to construct a frame that, if polls are to be believed, is working: Republicans have two choices — either they want to help Obama succeed in helping America, or they want America to fail for partisan gain.
One thing that makes this frame so effective politically is that it doesn’t allow room for actual policy disagreement, and makes everything all about the GOP’s motives — either Republicans want America to succeed, or they want it to fail. Dems, naturally, will use the swine flu crisis and the Sebelius vote to tighten the nuts and bolts on that frame if and when many GOPers oppose her nomination. So that vote is something to watch today.
Benen: WHY DOES THE LA TIMES RUN PIECES LIKE THESE?....
President Obama has made a concerted effort to improve the nation's standing in the world, reestablishing ties with allies that have frayed in recent years. Conservative media hacks are not only livid about the president's efforts, but have also begun repeating a hackneyed talking point: Obama has gone on an "apology tour."
With that in mind, the perpetually frustrating James Kirchick has a column in today's LA Times, repeating many of the now-tired canards, including a ridiculous line accusing the president of being "disturbingly ebullient in glad-handing" Hugo Chavez. Indeed, it was filled with a series of nonsensical attacks against Obama, accusing him of "emboldening" U.S. enemies, "squandering" America's reputation, and "paving the way for America's decline."
If Rush Limbaugh, Sarah Palin, and a few RNC interns got together to write a fundraising letter, it would read something like this.
But this was the part of Kirchick's op-ed that stood out for me:
At a stop on his grand global apology tour this spring, President Obama was asked by a reporter in France if he believed in "American exceptionalism." This is the notion that our history as the world's oldest democracy, our immigrant founding and our devotion to liberty endow the United States with a unique, providential role in world affairs.
Rather than endorse the proposition -- as every president in recent memory has done one way or another -- Obama offered a strange response: "I believe in American exceptionalism, just as I suspect that the Brits believe in British exceptionalism and the Greeks believe in Greek exceptionalism."
This is impossible. If all countries are "exceptional," then none are, and to claim otherwise robs the word, and the idea of American exceptionalism, of any meaning.
I'd encourage readers to read exactly what President Obama said when asked about "American exceptionalism." His response to the question was thoughtful and nuanced -- and apparently went right over Kirchick's head.
Indeed, the whole piece reflects a bizarre confusion about a) why the nation's reputation declined under Bush/Cheney; b) how Obama is using diplomacy to improve the nation's standing; and c) why it's likely to work.
On American exceptionalism, the question carried with it some potential consequences. If Obama endorsed the concept of American exceptionalism, and explained during an overseas visit that he believes the U.S. is above all countries, he runs the risk of reinforcing the notion of American jingoism. American exceptionalism is, after all, a favorite of the neocons, and undergirds the idea that we operate on a different level than everyone else. But if Obama rejects the concept, he might give the impression that he sees his own country as less than special. His critics would pounce, insisting that to give up on American exceptionalism is to give up on America's role as leader of the free world. The president's careful response threaded the needle in ways that Kirchick didn't understand.
What Kirchick doesn't understand is that American exceptionalism means one thing to Americans and quite the opposite to most of the rest of the world, especially after the Bush fiasco. To Americans, it refers to our most obvious and unique strength -- that ours is the only nation where citizenship is not dependent on ethnic identity, but on the willingness to subscribe to the ideas of freedom, equality and democracy. When we're at our best, America tends to mean that to the rest of the world as well.
But in recent years, much of the rest of the world came to see American exceptionalism as a belief that we can make our own rules, make exceptions, as it were. We could unilaterally decide to make war in Iraq, withdraw from the global warming negotiations, allow India and Israel to abide by one set of rules when it came to nuclear proliferation and Iran to another. What Obama was actually saying was this: While America regards itself as extraordinary, we will no longer act on the international stage as if we are the ultimate repository of wisdom and righteousness.
Kirchick argues this kind of approach "paves the way for America's decline." I suspect he had it backwards.
Sargent: Despite D.C. Media Reticence, Huge Majority Says Waterboarding Is “Torture”
New York Times public editor Clark Hoyt had a fascinating Sunday article about his paper’s controversial reluctance to describe waterboarding as “torture.” Hoyt concluded that “precision and caution” urged against the word, a position apparently shared by many in the Beltway press who have grappled with this dilemma.
But now the Times has just released a poll finding that a surprisingly large majority has reached the opposite conclusion.
The relevant numbers are buried in the poll’s internals: Seventy one percent think waterboarding is torture, while only 26% say it isn’t.
Intriguingly, the paper’s article about the poll doesn’t mention this finding, perhaps because that might have necessitated using the word “torture.”
Seriously, why won’t the paper use the T-word? Times Washington editor Douglas Jehl told Hoyt that the current administration describes waterboarding as torture, but the Bush administration doesn’t. “On what basis should a newspaper render its own verdict, short of charges being filed or a legal judgment rendered?” Jehl asked.
But the bottom line is that by not using the term, the paper is rendering a verdict, too — in favor of the Bush administration. There’s a reason the Bushies don’t call waterboarding torture: It happened on their watch, and calling it torture would be an admission of guilt. Naturally, their official position is that they didn’t torture. By not describing the acts committed under Bush as “torture,” the paper is propping up the Bush argument. Period.
That’s the paper’s own choice, but it might as well admit it, instead of imagining that there’s some kind of middle ground to stake out here.
No comments:
Post a Comment