After 34 years as a Republican politician, Sen. Arlen Specter (?-PA), at 79 years of age, has finally figured it out….he's a Democrat.
Here's Specter's statement about making the switch:
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.
As you can see, Arlen Specter is making his decision based upon his own deeply held personal convictions.
The fact that Specter's Pennsylvania Republican primary opponent, Pat Toomey, was leading Specter by 21 points in the polls was just a convenient coincidence, I guess. And as for Specter's contention that the Republican party has "moved far to the right," I seem to recall the GOP's last presidential candidate was John McCain, a moderate Republican, hardly a conservative ideologue. I also remember ex-President Bush as not being much of a limited government proponent either. Neither Bush nor McCain was an actual conservative in the mold of Ronald Reagan, who became President the same year Arlen Specter entered the Senate so proudly under "Reagan's Big Tent."
If I didn't know better, I'd think Arlen Specter was nothing more than a conviction-free political opportunist. But whatever Specter's convictions are now, he held far different convictions way, way, way back in March 2009, ONE MONTH AGO. Here's Specter in an interview with The Hill:
I am staying a Republican because I think I have an important role, a more important role, to play there. The United States very desperately needs a two-party system. That's the basis of politics in America. I'm afraid we are becoming a one-party system, with Republicans becoming just a regional party with so little representation of the northeast or in the middle atlantic. I think as a governmental matter, it is very important to have a check and balance. That's a very important principle in the operation of our government. In the constitution on Separation of powers.
Looks like those principles iterated by Specter, such as checks and balances, separation of power, and the importance of the two-party system, all run a distant second to Specter's overarching principle, which is….Arlen Specter comes first.
I just love politicians more and more by the day, don't you ? Their beliefs are malleable, their principles are negotiable, and they lie all the live long day. How could our country ever go wrong with such distinguished leadership ? And some people wonder why I beat my limited government drum over and over. This is why. We're governed by a bunch of narcissistic, power-hungry con-men (and women).
The Democrats, who've been trying to coax Specter over to their side for some time, are "thrilled to have [him]," as President Barockstar Obama said to Specter. Obama also told Specter, “You have my full support," whatever that is supposed to mean. What's Obama going to say, "no, you can't join my party" ??? The Dems don't care who is on their side. They only care that they ARE on their side.
The Dems see Specter as the possible 60th Senate seat, which would give the Dems their coveted filibuster-proof majority, especially if the comedian Al Franken makes an even bigger joke out of the Senate than it already is by becoming the Saturday Night Live Senator from Minnesota.
My personal opinion is that I could care less which party the spine-free Specter represents. In fact, I wish more GOP'ers would defect along with Specter. Olympia Snowe and Susan Collins come readily to mind. I could be interested in the Republican party again if they cut loose all the phonies and Democrat-lite impostors, and if the Republicans ever did actually become the conservative party of freedom and limited government they like to say they are. When the inevitable backlash comes against the insane tax and spend policies of the Obamanation, it would be quite nice if the alternative to the Democrats was REALLY A VIABLE ALTERNATIVE, and not an alternative full of jellyfish like Arlen Specter. It would be nice if the lines of distinction were clearly drawn when Obama crashes and burns.
My favorite quote regarding Specter's defection came from Sen. Jim Demint (R-SC), who said, "I would rather have 30 Republicans in the Senate who really believe in principles of limited government, free markets, free people, than to have 60 that don’t have a set of beliefs.” I'll second that. Nothing is gained by abandoning principles, and the only way to ultimate political success is to adhere to your principles and then convince the electorate you're right.
{ 20 comments… read them below or add one }
King, you are right, this whole thing was self preservation for Spectors career. We'll see if the Libs welcome him with open arms. They should because he is their kind, someone that defected or turned coat and ran when the going got tough or all of a sudden recieved a "great awakening". Of course they will forgive him for his role in the taking Clinton down in the 90's because he has apparently "seen the light" and "come out"!! Hallelujah!!! How do you trust a guy like that? He was more of a liberal like Bush and Snow. I hope this will be a wake-up call for people to get to know who they are voting for. I would be pissed if I gave to his campaign and he went to the other side. Was he planning this for a long time? Was he bought by George Soros or Barrack Obama? (He is a weak man and a follower and one inclined to take the path of least resistance.)Obama should step in and stop this, but he isn't in fact he has his full support. I think his constituents deserve a refund. Maybe conservatives need to purge the weak to get America going in the right direction. Something's in the wood shed and it doesn't smell right.
DeMint's comment, which I take, King endorses, is more evidence of why Republicans are fading in popularity in America.
DeMint, Specter and the rest of the Republicans voted FOR Bush's many "charge and spend" big government projects. The Republicans made government bigger and ran up high deficits under Bush. Republicans in Congress fully supported their Republican president's initiatives.
What's laughable is DeMint's reference to the "free markets." Unregulated, free markets led us into the economic catastrophe we are enjoying today.
Worthy of comment also is King's total agreement with the purging of the Republican Party. No big tent for King in the GOP. Of course, that philosophy will only marginalize, and regionalize, an already very unpopular political party.
When only 21% of Americans want to be identified with the GOP…..it would seem inclusion, not exclusion, would be the road back to respectability. For the GOP, it's just the opposite.
Rev,
If you don't believe in free markets, you're in the wrong country. Maybe the old USSR was more to your liking, but, darn the luck, that no longer exists. The ABSCENCE of free markets killed it.
Then again, with the Barockstar in control of the vertical and the horizontal, maybe you are in the right country after all.
I'm wondering how you can rightly oppose the GOP's Bush era deficits, and then heartily endorse Obama doubling those deficits. That requires a total mental checkout.
I'm also wondering how you can oppose the GOP Bush deficits, but then criticize Demint's call to eliminate from the party those Republicans who are for them, like Arlen Specter.
As for the GOP's low polling numbers – when you refer to the GOP becoming more "inclusive," I assume you mean the GOP should become more like the Democrats, who divide the country into special interests and then pander to each and every one of them. In other words, you think the Republicans should sell out their conservative principles of limited government, free markets, low taxes, and a strong defense, in favor of a big nanny state government, high taxes, welfare expansion, etc. That way, we'd actually have a one party system, which would inevitably lead to the totalitarian state you evidently crave. I most respectfully disagree with every fiber of my being. I don't want to become anyone's slave, least of all a slave to the biggest plantation owner in the world.
joe,
I saw Obama singing Specter's praises outside the White House. Specter is now a most noble man of principle, according to our Teleprompter In Chief. Specter sells out his own constituents, and the President actually praises him for it. I never thought I'd be this creeped out by Obama after only one hundred days, but I am.
I said "unregulated free markets." Republicans, and especially the far-right GOP of today, still stand firmly on the deregulation of free markets. Or am I mistaken?
The fact that Bush ran deficits is not the main issue for me. It's WHY he ran deficits. He did so to reward his "base" of very rich, mainly white, guys. He ran deficits, off budget naturally, to wage an illegal world war of choice, complete with gulags and torture.
Obama is running deficits, first because he inherited them, and second…in an attempt to restore an American economy thrown to the dogs over the last 28 years, for the sake of those very same, very rich, mainly white, guys.
You are mistaken. No Republican I know of wants completely unregulated markets. They just don't want government to dominate the market with excessive regulation (as in the EPA dictating the entire energy market or the government dictating the entire health care market, as will be with Obama and friends). And for the hundredth time, it wasn't Bush who deregulated the financial markets, but surely you know that by now. That started with Carter and continued up through Clinton. Bush actually tried to regulate some of the risks in the housing market, but failed.
The war was not illegal. Congress authorized it. Let's try to be factual, okay ?
Obama is not running deficits because he inherited them. That's political hogwash. The bulk of Obama's projected budget deficits are due to Obama's own choices. You are not being honest.
I'm also not buying the argument you are making that long term deficits are okay as long as Obama has a good reason. There is NO good reason to bankrupt America over the long term, as Obama has signaled with his insane policies. Every single president in my adult lifetime has come up with a "good reason" to run up the deficits. That's why we're in an unsustainable financial position now, in debt up to our asses. I'm sick to death of it, and I'm not about to excuse what appears to be the biggest offender to ever come down the pike, Barockstar Obama, just because the inexperienced and naive dumbass has "good intentions."
You're being less than honest about Republicans and deregulation.
And I understand that you are very exercised about Obama deficits….not like when Bush was running up his….but he was a Republican saving all of us from Islamic nuts who were going to kill us in our beds.
Reagan began the deregulation of the financial markets and corporate Democrats joined Phil Graham in finishing it off. Bush turned his back unless he had to grant authority for insolvent money shufflers to leverage more money so they could gamble. That's all Bush did.
Democrats, on average, regulate big money. Republicans, on average, deregulate big money. You're not a Republican, so you should recognize the truth in that comparison.
I will be curious to see how Obama will pay for this debt. This morning an announcement came out that our GDP was down almost 7%. Consumer price index up almost 3. That is huge. With the increase in taxes. The sending of industrial jobs and now service jobs out of the country at lightening speed. Well see.
avgjoe, he isnt going to pay for it. thats the thing.
More lies from the Reverend. You're becoming pathetic.
First this boldfaced lie – "And I understand that you are very exercised about Obama deficits….not like when Bush was running up his"
You must be talking to some other fella named King, because I have constantly complained about Bush's deficits THE ENTIRE TIME. I even complained about them IN THE LAST TWO POSTS I MADE TO YOU.
Then this colossal lie – "Reagan began the deregulation of the financial markets"
That is laughably wrong. Carter's Community Reinvestment Act in 1977 started financial deregulation, and Carter's 1980 Depository Institutions Deregulation And Monetary Control Act REALLY got the ball rolling by rescinding usury laws among other things, which gave banks the ability to create the subprime mortgage market. This stuff is EASILY verifiable, Rev. There's this new thing called Google which makes it quite simple to look up.
And the LAST significant banking deregulation came under Bill Clinton in 1999, which I guess you are admitting to. Hurray, a shred of honesty.
Your statement that Republicans have deregulated the financial industry while Democrats have regulated it does not stand up to the facts, not even close. The actual facts reveal that BOTH parties have deregulated the financial industry for the last 30 years. However, only Democrats lie about it, just as you are lying now.
joe,
That is scary. It also means the deficit projections are too optimistic. They're going to be even bigger. I don't think we even have a word for inflation and a shrinking GDP at the same time….Recessflation ? Inflacession ?
Sounds like the second wave of this irresponsible policy is hitting before the first wave is even over.
Sorry but I don't really see the advantage for the democrats to have Spector be a party member. He would have been more useful if he was a independent, or just kept voting along with the democrats . He's not exactly someone I'd support and I am a democrat. If someone else runs whose a true democrat against him he surely loose. And he knows that. Spector switch is truly his own decision because he just cant stand his fellow republicans anymore. And they dont care, they are pushing the far right conservative movement and have no place for a moderate. Mccain fell in line with them just to get the nomination.
Andrea, he isn't a democrat. He is a turncoat. The reason he became a dem is to preserve his career in the senate. His Republican opponent for his senate seat had a 21 point lead.
Sort of like Joe Lieberman huh average Joe
Actually Arlen Specter was a democrat before he became a republican . What he really is , is an independent and that what he should be. He's in the middle. A person who is in the middle can switch back and forth. What I am saying is unless no democrat opposes him,(unlikely) most likely he's not going to win a senate seat as a democrat either. Da King said the democrats were trying to coax him over to their side. What I am saying is while maybe so for votes there is no advantage for the Dems for him to actually become a democrat. He only votes with them some of the time. He be more useful running as a independent to steal away some republican votes.
You are right Andrea. It would have better that he become an independent. How do you trust someone that changes their mind mid-stream, especailly to that extent. It makes a person question his motives. Is he riding on the Democrat coat tails, since they have the mometum at the moment. Is he really commited to his constituents or is it all about him and his career? It just seems fishy to me.
I don't think there's much comparison between what Lieberman did and what Specter did. First of all, Lieberman didn't switch parties. He stayed a Dem until he lost the primary, and then he became an Independent and won. Secondly, Lieberman became an outcast to the Dems due to his support for the war on terror, so Lieberman was acting on his own convictions. Specter is only acting in his own political interests. The stuff Specter said about his party moving too far to the right was just camouflage, because Specter was saying something completely different one month earlier.
But I agree with Andrea, Specter should have become an Independent. He didn't because he thinks he'll have a better chance of winning with the Democratic machine behind him.
Keeler chimes in that Obama won't be paying for his deficit spending.
Would that, somehow, be different from Reagan and both Bushes?
And if not, what's the point?
The point is that Obama is projected to run up more deficits and debt than every other administration in history COMBINED. Therefore, the "Bush did it too !' argument is childish and useless.
No, it's not. Nah, nah, nah, nah, nah.
As a percentage of GDP, Obama's deficits do not surpass, or even come close, to Roosevelt's time. We'll manage….I'm telling ya', we'll manage.
Here's the problem I have with conservatives getting all exercised about deficits whenever it's convenient: No Republican president in my lifetime has done anything other than expand government and run up deficits. Blindly, conservatives continue to vote for, and tout, Republican candidates and the Republican Party as small government, fiscally responsible adults.
But NOW, it's a freaking emergency where the pitchforks, or tea bags, must come out in mighty protest.
It's absurd.
Obama is projected to run up more deficits and debt than every other presidential administration COMBINED. That's the truth.
There's nothing "absurd" about wanting to save your country from fiscal disaster. What's "absurd" is to look the other way and pretend nothing is wrong. Obama was supposed to bring change, not change for the worse.