Faced with dim prospects for reelection in Pennsylvania, Sen. Arlen Specter has announced that he will switch parties. The question is how democrats in Pennsylvania will feel about Specter who supported Bush on critical issues. After eight years under George W. Bush, Specter has come to the conclusion that he is really a Democrat and does not share the same GOP values as his former party.
Specter issued a statement that “I now find my political philosophy more in line with Democrats than Republicans.” Specter came to this epiphany not during the torture debate or the unlawful surveillance debate (which he publicly criticized the Administration but ultimately voted to back up the president), but rather when Republicans are failing like leaves and Democrats are preparing for a highly likely victory. By resigning now, Specter hopes to start to vote in line with his state to erase the memories of the last six years in his votes on Supreme Court nominees, immunity and other issues. Spector has often played Hamlet on such issues publicly, but largely worked with the Administration in securing votes on most of these issues. Indeed, his Chairmanship (before the fall of the GOP in the Senate) was based on his assured loyalty to the Bush agenda.
What is interesting is that in the statement below, Specter focuses on the unpopularity of the stimulus vote to Republicans and says that he regrets that so many in the GOP do not want him for their candidate. It falls a bit flat as a statement of principle and value differences.
The Senate Democrats have welcomed Specter into the fold and are expected to give him some seniority benefits for his defection.
Specter, 79 is in his fifth term and his new strategy will test how short the memory of Pennsylvania voters is. , is one of a handful of Republican moderates remaining in Congress in a party now dominated by conservatives. Several officials said the White House as well as leaders in both parties had been involved in discussions leading to his move.
If Franken wins in Minnesota, it will give Democrats total control and filibuster proof in the Senate.
Here is his full statement this afternoon:
Statement by Sen. Arlen Specter:
I have been a Republican since 1966. I have been working extremely hard for the Party, for its candidates and for the ideals of a Republican Party whose tent is big enough to welcome diverse points of view. While I have been comfortable being a Republican, my Party has not defined who I am. I have taken each issue one at a time and have exercised independent judgment to do what I thought was best for Pennsylvania and the nation.
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.
When I supported the stimulus package, I knew that it would not be popular with the Republican Party. But I saw the stimulus as necessary to lessen the risk of a far more serious recession than we are now experiencing.
Since then, I have traveled the state, talked to Republican leaders and office-holders and my supporters and I have carefully examined public opinion. It has become clear to me that the stimulus vote caused a schism which makes our differences irreconcilable. On this state of the record, I am unwilling to have my twenty-nine year Senate record judged by the Pennsylvania Republican primary electorate. I have not represented the Republican Party. I have represented the people of Pennsylvania.
I have decided to run for reelection in 2010 in the Democratic primary.
I am ready, willing and anxious to take on all comers and have my candidacy for reelection determined in a general election.
I deeply regret that I will be disappointing many friends and supporters. I can understand their disappointment. I am also disappointed that so many in the Party I have worked for for more than four decades do not want me to be their candidate. It is very painful on both sides. I thank specially Senators McConnell and Cornyn for their forbearance.
I am not making this decision because there are no important and interesting opportunities outside the Senate. I take on this complicated run for reelection because I am deeply concerned about the future of our country and I believe I have a significant contribution to make on many of the key issues of the day, especially medical research. NIH funding has saved or lengthened thousands of lives, including mine, and much more needs to be done. And my seniority is very important to continue to bring important projects vital to Pennsylvania’s economy.
I am taking this action now because there are fewer than thirteen months to the 2010 Pennsylvania Primary and there is much to be done in preparation for that election. Upon request, I will return campaign contributions contributed during this cycle.
While each member of the Senate caucuses with his Party, what each of us hopes to accomplish is distinct from his party affiliation. The American people do not care which Party solves the problems confronting our nation. And no Senator, no matter how loyal he is to his Party, should or would put party loyalty above his duty to the state and nation.
My change in party affiliation does not mean that I will be a party-line voter any more for the Democrats that I have been for the Republicans. Unlike Senator Jeffords’ switch, which changed party control, I will not be an automatic 60th vote for cloture. For example, my position on Employees Free Choice (card check) will not change.
Whatever my party affiliation, I will continue to be guided by President Kennedy’s statement that sometimes party asks too much. When it does, I will continue my independent voting and follow my conscience on what I think is best for Pennsylvania and America.
For the full story, click here and here.
FFLEO,
I know that what you say about your family is true and I have no doubt that they are good people. All of us grew up in an America where we were somehow different and true. That the USSR and Red China were the places for propaganda and that what our media was telling us was just the news. I never blame the people of America, be they on the right or left. We have been increasingly conned by our media, by our advertisers and by the sponsoring corporations, into a view of the world that is unreal. Then too if you are a hard working, family person the odds are that you don’t have much time to ponder the nuances of political philosophy.
You and I probably are both born iconoclasts, though we come at it differently. This is perhaps why we see what other good people, just as smart as us, don’t see. I think most people in this country are just fine, even though there are many who are more prone to following orders than I am. It is the hustlers, the egotists and the outright crooks who have been screwing things up and most of us are too busy taking care of kith and kin to see it.
Mike Spindell wrote:
“I would guess that that kind of thinking is representative of perhaps 50% of self identified conservatives.”
________________
Mike, the Republican conservatism I know and cherish is extinct. When I see the “Republican” congresspersons speak, I am ashamed. However, I will die a Republican.
All of the members of my family are Republicans. I am astounded that they literally love Ms. Palin and Mr. Beck! These are hard working, god-fearin’ decent, good, honest, and accomplished people. I am an atheist while they are Bible-Belt Christians. I grew up “believing” the Southern Baptist dogma and fortunately, college instruction in the biological sciences and evolution changed my life forever.
My ‘folks’ often state that they cannot understand how I can be such a moral man without god in my heart and that I am so Christian-like. I simply reply that I *think* instead of “believe” and I try to do what is morally right; that which every human should strive for, while often failing, offering recompense, trying to accept forgiveness *without* the grace of some ghost-god, and then trying over again.
People, *can* change, look at Bron98’s marked transformation since he started this blawg.
Mike S., I completely agree. Hubert Humphrey was a progressive in the great tradition of Robert La Follette. As Johnson’s vice president during the Vietnam years, he was placed in an impossible position. But at the time, my ardor convinced me that he had sold his soul for the nomination. Ideological purity was everything.
The greatness of the Berrigans for me lay in their willingness to dramatically bear witness to their beliefs with full knowledge of the consequences. Although Philip is dead, Daniel Berrigan is still alive and still active; he strongly opposed the Iraq invasion.
In any event, ideological purity means nothing if it accomplishes nothing. I find it interesting that the Republican Party finds itself in similar circumstances. The party is purging itself of all dissenting views and aberrational tendencies, such as a willingness to compromise. The remnant will be able to take pride in its unyielding commitment to its perception of righteousness and will produce no societal benefits.
Mike A.,
As Jack Benny might have said: Well, what do you mean older I’m only 39? However, my picture either defines an Old Codger, or someone who has led a dissipated life. Some who know me would say both were true. In fact I’m almost three years older than you, so our experiences are quite congruent. I’m impressed by you meeting the Berrigans because there remains a warm spot in my heart for them and I too felt the Catonsville 9 deserved support and still do because theirs was a righteous action.
I was an RFK supporter from before his announcement and remembering watching TV that night in California, it still tears me up. Like you I voted for Humphrey, with nose held. It does my heart good to know there is a kindred spirit in certain experiences posting here, but then your comments are always thoughtful and you’ve become a very welcome addition.
Your mention of Humphrey though, brings me back to the ongoing critique of the President on the torture issue. As you well know Humphrey was the man who stood squarely against the Dixiecrats in his speech to the Democratic Convention in 1948 and led to Strom Thurmonds walkout. Humphrey was a man with an impeccable liberal record who unfortunately became Vice-President during an ill starred war and was forced to support his President. The trouble with our generation and those of us who were progressive activists, was that we convinced ourselves of our own uniqueness and purity. Any one not completely following our line of thinking and our putative purity was literally branded a pig.
How smug I was and how smug our generation to be convinced of our own infallibility and that we were the ones who knew the way to a better world. This is the curse of the Left, for in our insistence upon our specific views and non-conformist tendencies, we’ve been outflanked by those on the right who are collective thinkers and strict conformists. I would guess that that kind of thinking is representative of perhaps 50% of self identified conservatives. The remainder are people like FFLEO and Bron who are comfortable in thinking for themselves and take no ones marching orders.
You can’t herd cats as the saying goes and I would be loath to try, but I am comforted by the fact that there are others like me out there who have kept the faith, but still try to be open to other possibilities.
Bron, I remember the 1968 Democratic Convention and the subsequent trial of the Chicago 7 quite well. I also met the Berrigan brothers that year and strongly supported the efforts of what were known as the Catonsville 9. I supported Gene McCarthy and was engraged at the actions of Mayor Daley and the Chicago police. I was enraged at Hubert Humphrey for what I perceived to be his complicity in the madness. I vowed never to vote for Humphrey. However, 1968 was the first time I was eligible to vote in a presidential election. I couldn’t abide the thought of Nixon, a man whom I had concluded could not be trusted after watching him debate John Kennedy, and pulled the lever for the Happy Warrior, deciding in the end that my reason should control my passion. Nixon won anyway, of course, and we all know how that turned out.
I have thought about those days frequently when considering the statements of Pres. Obama on the war crimes issue. Part of me hopes that he is attempting to avoid the use of conclusory language in his speeches so that his words are not viewed as prejudging the outcomes of investigations and prosecutions. Part of me believes that he is compromising principle for the sake of unity, and I become angry. But since I am only 62, I remember the events of 1968 as precautionary lessons against overreaction, and recognize that I must sometimes listen to my “elders,” such as Mike S., and summon the patience to wait it out, keep up the pressure and hope that the public will gradually come to the realization that we are only as sick as our secrets and that we cannot regain the health of the body politic unless we rid it of the poisons poured down its throat during the past eight years.
“Well “W” wasn’t, but not for lack of trying. I think that Austrian postcard painter had considerably more horsepower in the cranium than our privileged flyboy, and could construct an evil sentence or two in front of a crowd.”
—
mespo, we suspect Hitler was mad from late-state syphlis.
What’s W’s excuse – other than lack of trying,
in general?
MikeS:
“but the experience of aging has taught me to examine closely those who would purport to be my political allies, with as close an inspection as for those who would at first blush seem to be my political foes.”
Very good and sage advice. I think I have learned that from this web site.
“although I have read about Tom Hayden and some stuff on the Chicago 7 (8,9,6?). they do sound a little scary.”
Bron,
Hayden wasn’t great, but he was a little more responsible and thoughtful than many others. The Chicago 7 is proof that the “road to hell is paved with good intentions,” as my Daddy used to say to me frequently. They went to Chicago looking for confrontation and when they found it in the overreaction of Mayor Daley and his police, then they played surprised martyrs. Their trial was a travesty of justice, presided over by a Yokel named Hoffman. I’m not exculpating myself in this because I was supportive of their effort and did consider them martyrs at the time.
Then too,Mayor Daley (senior) was a bad man and the Chicago Police responded brutally under his orders. Judge Hoffman was a total clown and conducted a bad trial. These facts blinded those of us on the Left to the bigger picture. Nixon’s election, which this practically engineered, was a total disaster for the US, the Civil Rights Movement, Viet Nam, Cambodia, Laos and the rest of the world. So with 20/20 hindsight the Chicago protests accomplished the reverse of what they were intended to do.
Politically, I think it’s easy to see that I’m still here on the Left Wing (even though this whole right/left thing represents political shorthand rather than reality), but the experience of aging has taught me to examine closely those who would purport to be my political allies, with as close an inspection as for those who would at first blush seem to be my political foes.
Anon:
thanks for the information
Bron98,
Spell check works on mine so long as I correct it before the next paragraph. Sometimes I just forget.
Power protects power.
Prof. Turley:
can you please put in a spell check ap?
MikeA:
as a friend of mine says, “Powere protects power”.
He [McCain] might be right about the social fabric, I think a good number would have a problem with prosecution, I did and it has taken me months of thinking about this issue and reading what has been written about it on this site and others to really fully understand and/or acknowledge the necessity of doing this. However I do think there is a political component for some on the left, payback for 2000 or some other issue(s) and those people need to not have a seat at this table. And conversely republican party hacks should be excluded.
I also think there needs to be a national debate on this, good minds from both side having a true debate about all of the issues and ramifications. It needs to be talked about in bars and beauty shops as well as the salons of intellectuals.
I trust the collective intelligence and integrity of the American people to make the right choice once they are fully informed.
Bron, your comments highlight the fallacy in Sen. McCain’s statements on Face the Nation this past Sunday. His position was that we should forget the investigations and “move forward” because he is convinced that no future U.S. president will repeat the actions of Pres. Bush. He is not naive enough to believe that, but I think many politicians on both the left and the right have so little confidence in the public that they fear prosecutions will irreparably damage the social fabric.
Bron98:
“And I do hate to say it and I know GW isnt Hitler nor would be, but the next guy (I am speaking generalities and do not mean Pres. Obama) might be…”
**********
Well “W” wasn’t, but not for lack of trying. I think that Austrian postcard painter had considerably more horsepower in the cranium than our privileged flyboy, and could construct an evil sentence or two in front of a crowd.
Mespo:
Mitch McConnell has looked like that a lot lately and I know the look you are talking about. He had it the day they signed off on Bush’s TARP, he looked, I thouhgt, as a deer in the headlights but your Wicked Witch comparrison is much better.
The more I read on this sight and think about it, the angrier I become. I am really pissed at myself for even voting for Bush at this point. And I do hate to say it and I know GW isnt Hitler nor would be, but the next guy (I am speaking generalities and do not mean Pres. Obama) might be and he would use the precident and that is a scary thought. They really do need to appear before the bar and be punished, if for nothing else than making sure someone of malevolance dosent think it will be a cake walk to tyranny.
Thanks to all for shining the light on my humble head.
Watched the Frank Baum masterpiece, “The Wizard of Oz” last night, and one scene struck me as particularly apt on this topic. After being doused with water, Margaret Hamilton, playing the Wicked Witch, uttered that classic, “You cursed brat! Look what you’ve done! I’m melting! Melting! Oh, what a world, what a world! Who would’ve thought a good little girl like you could destroy my beautiful wickedness? I’m gone! I’m gone! I’m going!” Margaret’s green visage suddenly morphed into Mitch McConnell! (Add some wire rimmed spectacles and note the resemblance and bewilderment of both characters) Ding dong, indeed!
Here’s the segment:
Sorry the date of the foiled LA attack was “in 2002,” still, at least, three months before KSM was captured.
EnhancedInterogationWorks:
Do you have superior knowledge? I looked it up too and what everyone says is correct, per sources to which I looked for verification.
I suppose they could have held him incognito for a year or more to protect sources but that sounds pretty far fetched.
Maybe the Government has a time machine that can only go back 12 months and have inadvertenly let the cat out of the bag. Any conspiracy theorists want to pipe in?
MikeS:
“Like fundamentalists, political purists are a dangerous breed that usually hurt us all in their zeal to prove their view the correct one.”
No argument with that statement. Since I did not grow up in the 60’s I have had no opportunity to meet the type(s) you describe, although I have read about Tom Hayden and some stuff on the Chicago 7 (8,9,6?). they do sound a little scary.
To EnhancedInterogationWorks
You say Bush claimed that before Feb 16, 2002 that an “attack was foiled because of information given by Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, under interrogation at Gitmo.”
However, KSM wasn’t captured until in early March of 2003, more than a year later:
“WASHINGTON (CNN) — U.S. officials confirmed on Tuesday that another significant al Qaeda figure was captured in the weekend raid in Pakistan that nabbed suspected September 11 mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammed.”
(Tuesday, March 4, 2003 Posted: 9:33 AM EST (1433 GMT)
http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/asiapcf/south/03/03/pakistan.arrests/
So can we please put that myth to rest?