Sen. Arlen Specter Switches to Democrat " at odds with GOP

[candygirl]

Specter switches to Democrat, 'at odds' with GOP
… By DAVID ESPO, AP Special Correspondent David Espo,

WASHINGTON – Veteran Republican Sen. Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania switched parties Tuesday with a suddenness that stunned the Senate, a moderate's defection that left Democrats one seat shy of a 60-vote filibuster-resistant majority with many of President Barack Obama's key legislative priorities on the horizon.

Specter, 79 and seeking a sixth term in 2010, conceded bluntly that his chances of winning a Pennsylvania Republican primary next year were bleak in a party grown increasingly conservative. But he cast his decision as one of principle, rather than fueled by political ambition as spurned GOP leaders alleged.

"I have found myself increasingly at odds with the Republican philosophy and more in line with the philosophy of the Democratic Party," he said at a news conference. He added, "I am not prepared to have my 29 years' record in the United States Senate decided by the Pennsylvania Republican primary electorate."

Not long after Specter met privately with Republican senators to explain his decision, the party's leader, Sen. Mitch McConnell, said the switch posed a "threat to the country." The issue, he said, "really relates to ... whether or not in the United States of America our people want the majority party to have whatever it wants, without restraint, without a check or balance."

As a result of last fall's elections, Democrats control the White House and have a large majority in the House. Specter's switch leaves them with 59 Senate seats. Democrat Al Franken is ahead in a marathon recount in Minnesota. If he ultimately defeats Republican Norm Coleman, he would become the party's 60th vote — the number needed to overcome a filibuster.

Specter, who has a lifelong record of independence, told reporters, "I will not be an automatic 60th vote." As evidence, he pointed out he opposes legislation to make it easier for workers to form unions, a bill that is organized labor's top priority this year.

[tngirl]

He has been a RHINO for a while now, so this really isn't a big surprise. I loved what he said "I am not prepared to have my 29 years' record in the United States Senate decided by the Pennsylvania Republican primary electorate."

Uh, isn't that the way it works bud?

[Jolie Rouge]

He has been a RHINO for a while now, so this really isn't a big surprise.


:yeah:


Well, it appears that the head of the Turncoat Caucus is finally making it official. Arlen Specter, we have just 10 words for you:

Don’t let the door hit you on the way out. :byebye:


Pennsylvania Sen. Arlen Specter will switch his party affiliation from Republican to Democrat, according to sources informed on the decision.

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.”

“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.”

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/thefix/senate/specter-to-switch-parties.html


The readers at Human Events give Specter a nice send-off. http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=31639


***

The Hill reminds us of the value of Specter’s word: Worthless: http://briefingroom.thehill.com/2009/04/28/specter-had-disavowed-a-switch/

In a March 17th interview with The Hill, Specter said he absolutely would not switch parties: :nono:


[Democrats] are trying very hard for the 60th vote. Got to give them credit for trying. But the answer is no.

I’m not going to discuss private talks I had with other people who may or may not be considered influential. But since those three people are in the public domain, I think it is appropriative to respond to those questions.

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.


Specter says today he won’t change his opposition to Big Labor’s Card Check bill. :sheep:

Snort. :slap:

In 2001, Specter Favored Rule Change to Discourage Mid-Session Party-Switching


When Jim Jeffords became an "Independent" in 2001, Specter wasn't happy. He said, "I intend to propose a rule change which would preclude a future recurrence of a Senator's change in parties, in midsession, organizing with the opposition, to cause the upheaval which is now resulting."

You can find a full transcript if you follow the link. http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=ZmU4MDUzNTAxMTU4OGViNjE4YTljZmY3ZDg5MDljZGQ=

[Jolie Rouge]

"I have found myself increasingly at odds with the Republican philosophy and more in line with the philosophy of the Democratic Party," he said at a news conference. He added, "I am not prepared to have my 29 years' record in the United States Senate decided by the Pennsylvania Republican primary electorate."


Will political expediency sell in Pennsylvania

Since Arlen Specter has made it very clear that the only reason he switched parties is because he was going to lose the GOP primary, we'll see how attractive such political cynicism will be to Pennsylvanian voters. It not totally obvious that the Democrats are going to clear out the primary for him.


The only Democratic candidate who entered the Senate race prior to Specter’s announcement is Joe Torsella, a former deputy mayor of Philadelphia who headed the National Constitution Center on the city’s Independence Mall.

Torsella, whose wife once worked for Specter on the Senate Judiciary Committee when the incumbent was its chairman, said in a statement that “nothing about today’s news regarding Sen. Specter changes ... my intention to run for the Democratic nomination to the Senate in 2010 — an election that is still a full year away.”

Democratic state Rep. Josh Shapiro, who had been weighing a Senate campaign, told the political Web site PoliticsPA that he would not run, saying Specter “is now the incumbent Democratic senator.”

....Former Rep. Joseph M. Hoeffel (1999-2005), who was Specter’s Democratic opponent in 2004, said there will be some Democrats who won’t be thrilled with Specter’s switch. But, Hoeffel added, “The bottom line is, I don’t think there will be a competitive Democratic primary now.”

Wearing a new party label after nearly 30 years in the Senate, Specter will have to persuade Pennsylvania Democrats that his party switch is sincere — and not, as Republican strategists allege, a desperate move attributed to his big early deficit to Toomey in GOP primary polls.

How can he convince them that his change was sincere when his own statement lays out the role that his primary poll numbers played in his decision?


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 re-election in 2010 in the Democratic primary.

I am ready, willing and anxious to take on all comers and have my candidacy for re-election 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.

But why would Pennsylvania Democrats who would be going into 2010 against Pat Toomey with a strong chance of victory choose a weasely Democrat/Republican/Democrat like Specter when they could pick a real Democrat for that seat? If anything, Specter could possibly be the weakest possible Democratic candidate that Toomey could face. I still think that Toomey loses, unless the economy is in a deep furrow next year and there has been a big backlash against Obama's economic policies. Specter would then bear the burden of having voted for those policies along with the distaste that many people might feel for a turncoat who went back on his strong promise just a month ago that he would not switch.

And will Labor lie down quietly for Specter, who reiterated his opposition to Card Check in his statement today, when they could throw their support behind a more reliable pro-Union Democrat? Are they going to want to vote for a guy who supported Bush's judicial nominees and helped lead the fight for Clarence Thomas?

Mary Katherine Ham notes that two possible Democratic candidates for the Pennsylvania primary, who both sound like more attractive Democratic candidates than Specter, seem like they're ready for the fight.

This is still terribly demoralizing for the Republicans but it's not clear that this would change any actual vote in the Senate. Specter was always rather iffy and was already going to be a vote for Obama's budget and health care proposals. We'll see if he falls in with cloture votes with the rest of the Democrats. Meanwhile Bill Pascoe runs the numbers on Specter's ratings from the American Conservative Union and it turns out that there has only been one time when Specter's numbers moved strongly into conservative territory.

Arlen Specter's lifetime ACU rating is a left-of-center 44.47.

But that's not because Specter has moved, over the course of his career, from the right to the left.

As far as the ACU's Rating is concerned, he has always been on the left.

See the link for his numbers from his election in 1980.
Can Arlen Specter's ACU Ratings tell us anything, then?

Why, yes, they can.

Turns out Specter's highest-ever single-year ACU Rating was a 75 he scored in ... 2004, when he was being seriously challenged from the Right by one Pat Toomey.

We all know that he'd still be a Republican if he hadn't faced an impossible-to-win primary. That's just about what he told Mitch McConnell.

U.S. Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell issued the following statement Tuesday about Sen. Specter:


“Well, obviously we are not happy that Senator Specter has decided to become a Democrat. He visited with me in my office late yesterday afternoon and told me quite candidly that he’d been informed by his pollster that it would be impossible for him to be re-elected in Pennsylvania as a Republican because he could not win the primary. And he was also informed by his pollster that he could not get elected as an Independent and indicated that he had decided to become a Democrat.”

I assume that Specter's pollster already polled how Specter would do running as a Democrat. But answers in a poll question might be something totally different from real votes as Democrats absorb all the stories about why the guy switched and see the comparisons in the primaries to fresh Democratic faces. The irony will be if statements like that are enough to convince Pennsylvania Democratic Party primary voters that, instead of voting for a cynical and opportunistic Democrat, they'd prefer to vote for a real one.

http://betsyspage.blogspot.com/2009/04/will-political-expediency-sell-in.html

[hblueeyes]

I do not like the democratic party. Too many bleeding hearts. Too many handout programs with no accountability and focus on the individual. I do not like the republican party, they only care about promoting their party, at least the dems support their members. I think party time is over and we need to focus on more pressing issues like country, safety, security, education. But these things will never get better when the focus is on the individual instead of what is best for the masses. My how times have changed.

Me

[ElleGee]

Good for him!
http://i270.photobucket.com/albums/jj116/LadyGwenII/clap.gif

[Jolie Rouge]

John Cornyn: What the Specter Switch Means
April 29, 2009 Posted by John at 3:14 PM

Senator John Cornyn of Texas wrote these observations on the significance of Arlen Specter's defection for Power Line:


During the last 24 hours, much has been written about U.S. Senator Arlen Specter's (D-PA) defection to the Democrat Party.

Unsurprisingly, the Washington media have cast Specter's announcement as a devastating blow to the Republican Party, and are predicting doom and gloom for us in the months and years ahead.

Senator Specter's decision indeed carries important ramifications, but there is another side to this story that has been largely ignored by the Beltway pundits.

First, his departure likely spares Republicans from spending valuable resources in what would have been an expensive and divisive Republican primary - a primary battle that Specter appeared extremely unlikely to win. Indeed, Specter cited recent polls showing him trailing former U.S. Representative Pat Toomey (R-PA) by more than 20 points as his main reason to bolt the Party.

Second, in the unfortunate and unlikely event that Senator Norm Coleman loses his legal battle in Minnesota, Harry Reid will now have his long-coveted 60-seat, filibuster-proof supermajority in the United States Senate. With Nancy Pelosi firmly in control of the U.S. House of Representatives and President Obama just 100 days into his administration, Republicans will have lost the ability to meaningfully impact legislation in any way.

The Democrats will be able to pass their left-wing agenda completely unchecked, and if they intend to fulfill their campaign promises, the American people can look forward to higher taxes, socialized medicine, record deficits and the loss of secret ballots for our workers.

While this would unquestionably damage our country's interests in the short-term, the complete absence of any checks and balances in Washington could have a significant impact on next year's midterm elections.

Democrats would own everything that happens in our government. They will be unable to cast the GOP as "obstructionists" who are blocking Obama's agenda, robbing them of one of their oft-repeated political attacks.

A recent Public Opinion Strategies poll indicates that voters, by an overwhelming margin of 22 points, would prefer candidates in 2010 that would be a "check and balance" to President Obama over candidates "who will help Barack Obama and the Democrats in Congress" pass their agenda.

America's founders designed a government based upon checks and balances specifically to prevent a majority faction from imposing its unchecked will on the minority. American voters have traditionally acted to preserve this check and balance system, and accountability in Washington, by refusing to entrust one political party with total control of government. Nothing suggests that 2010 will be any different.

During the first 100 days of the Obama administration, we have seen record amounts of government spending, Cabinet nominees who didn't pay their taxes and "stimulus" bills laden with pork-barrel spending. For more examples of Democrat missteps during this time, see our new web ad released today:

The idea of Democrats in complete control of Washington without the threat of a Senate filibuster is enough to make most Americans shudder. This is a message our Senate candidates will carry across our great country as we work to rebuild the Republican Party in November 2010.

While Senator Specter's decision was indeed disappointing, it did allow us to realize - perhaps sooner than we would have liked - the dangerous ramifications of unbridled, one-party rule in Washington. Come November 2010, this may ultimately be viewed as a positive development in the Republican Party's climb back to power.

Senator Cornyn is Chairman of the National Republican Senatorial Committee.

http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2009/04/023450.php

[candygirl]

" Republicans struggle for direction in wake of Sen. Arlen Specter's defection"

More from NYTimes
April 30, 2009
By Adam Nagourney and David M. Herszenhorn

WASHINGTON - A fundamental debate broke out among Republicans on Wednesday over how to rebuild the party in the wake of Senator Arlen Specter’s departure: Should it purge moderate voices like Mr. Specter and embrace its conservative roots or seek to broaden its appeal to regain a competitive position against Democrats?

With consensus growing among Republicans that the party is in its worst political position in recent memory, some conservatives applauded Mr. Specter’s departure. They said it cleared the way for the party to distance itself from its record of expanding government during the Bush years and to re-emphasize the calls for tax cuts and reduced federal spending that have dominated Republican thought for more than 30 years.

“We strayed from our principles of limited government, individual responsibility and economic freedom,” said Chris Chocola, a former Indiana congressman who is head of Club for Growth, a group that has financed primary challenges against Republicans it considers insufficiently conservative. “We have to adhere to those principles to rebuild the party. Those are the brand of the Republican Party, and people feel that we betrayed the brand.”


But Republican leaders in Washington argued that Republicans would be permanently marginalized unless they showed flexibility on social issues as well as economic ones.

Senator John Cornyn of Texas, the head of the National Republican Senatorial Committee, said he would seek to recruit candidates who he thought could win in Democratic or swing states, even if it meant supporting candidates who might disagree with his own conservative views.

'Inviolable principles'
Mr. Cornyn said he was taking a page from Senator Charles E. Schumer of New York, the last head of the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee, who led his party to big gains by embracing candidates who, for example, opposed abortion rights or gun control.

“If you think about it, Schumer has been very good at this; I complimented him this morning in the gym,” Mr. Cornyn said, adding, “Some conservatives would rather lose than be seen as compromising on what they regard as inviolable principles.”

Senator Lindsay Graham, Republican of South Carolina, said: “We are not losing blue states and shrinking as a party because we are not conservative enough. If we pursue a party that has no place for someone who agrees with me 70 percent of the time, that is based on an ideological purity test rather than a coalition test, then we are going to keep losing.”


The debate broke out as the party found itself in a particularly dire state. Mr. Specter’s departure came a week after Republicans lost a special Congressional election in an upstate New York district with a significant Republican voter edge; as such, it underlined the extent the party was contracting, not only ideologically but also geographically.

In 2006, there were 55 Republicans in the Senate, compared with 45 Democrats. With Mr. Specter’s departure, there will be 40 Republicans. Depending on the outcome of the election between Norm Coleman and Al Franken in Minnesota, Democrats could end up with 60 votes, enough, assuming they hold the party together, to take away the minority party’s most powerful weapon, the filibuster.

The wide margin puts Democrats in a strong position as they prepare to deal with President Obama’s agenda on issues like health care and global warming.

Politics are cyclical; not long ago Karl Rove, at the time the chief political adviser to President George W. Bush, was boasting about the Republican Party enjoying a permanent majority. :rolling:rolling

[Jolie Rouge]

:dancing: :dancing: :dancing:


When Jim Jeffords became an "Independent" in 2001, Specter wasn't happy. He said, "I intend to propose a rule change which would preclude a future recurrence of a Senator's change in parties, in midsession, organizing with the opposition, to cause the upheaval which is now resulting."

Remember ... you get what you pay for ... :rolling: :rolling:


In a March 17th interview with The Hill, Specter said he absolutely would not switch parties: :

[Democrats] are trying very hard for the 60th vote. Got to give them credit for trying. But the answer is no.

I’m not going to discuss private talks I had with other people who may or may not be considered influential. But since those three people are in the public domain, I think it is appropriative to respond to those questions.

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.

:2in1:

David Broder : Specter consistent about one thing — he’s an opportunist
5:56 PM Wednesday, April 29, 2009

It’s been more than four decades since Arlen Specter, the senator from Pennsylvania, earned the nickname “Specter the Defector.” This week, he confirmed that it is indeed an accurate description of his political character.

I was a kid reporter for The New York Times back in 1965, when Specter’s flip-flopping first attracted attention, and the report I filed recounts the circumstances that led to his unflattering nickname.

Specter, then a Democrat, had been an assistant district attorney in Philadelphia, and he harbored an ambition to run against his lackluster boss, a man named James Crumlish. The Democratic bosses of Philadelphia were not encouraging Specter because, as one of them told me, “We don’t want another young Tom Dewey,” the reform-minded New York prosecutor who launched himself into the governorship and two presidential nominations by sending a string of prominent officeholders of both parties off to jail.

So Specter, with the encouragement of such prominent Pennsylvania Republicans as Sen. Hugh Scott and Gov. William Scranton, said he would run against Crumlish on the GOP ticket. To hedge his bets, and to help himself gain Democratic votes, he waited until he won that race to change his own party registration.

Over the decades since, Specter has become one of the senior Republican senators and the best Republican vote-getter in Pennsylvania. But his frequent defections from GOP orthodoxy, not just on abortion but on labor issues, taxes and spending, have made him vulnerable to challenge in the state’s Republican primary.

Former Rep. Pat Toomey, a right-wing ideologue, came close to upsetting Specter in the 2004 Senate primary, and next year, Toomey looked to be a better than even money bet to knock off the incumbent.

At one level, Specter’s decision is symptomatic of the narrowing of the GOP spectrum, a sign of the increasing dominance of that shrunken party by its most conservative, Southern-accented members. There are no Republican House members left in New England. A traditionally Republican House seat in upstate New York has just flipped to the Democrats, and both coasts, the Southwest and the upper Midwest are increasingly voting for Democrats.

That is why Republicans have lost their majority and their veto power over legislation in the House and why they may soon lose the ability to filibuster and delay Democratic measures in the Senate, when Specter switches and Al Franken finally claims the Minnesota seat.

But much as Specter’s decision reflects an increasingly serious weakness in the Republican Party, there is no escaping the fact that it is also an opportunistic move by one of the most opportunistic politicians of modern times.

The one consistency in the history of Arlen Specter has been his willingness to do whatever will best protect and advance the career of Arlen Specter.

When some Republicans in 2004 challenged in the GOP caucus his elevation to the chairmanship of the Judiciary Committee, Specter assured them that he would not use the post to block any Supreme Court nominees of President Bush. And despite his sometimes liberal record, he voted for both Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Samuel Alito.

Just a few weeks ago, when he was still calculating how he might survive a Republican primary against Toomey, he announced that — despite his friendship with labor — he would not support the so-called card check legislation that is the No. 1 priority of the unions.

This is the man who now claims the Democratic nomination in Pennsylvania.

Specter has been welcomed to the Democratic Party by President Obama and by Pennsylvania Gov. Ed Rendell, the most influential Democrat in Harrisburg. That makes it unlikely that Specter will face any serious challenge in next year’s Senate primary. And, if his health holds up, he will be a strong favorite against Toomey in the November election.

So once again, Specter is likely to reap the political reward from his maneuvering. But the Democrats should be open-eyed about what they are gaining from his return to his original political home.

Specter’s history shouts the lesson that he will stick with you only as long as it serves his own interests — and not a day longer.

http://www.daytondailynews.com/opinion/columnists/david-broder-specter-consistent-about-one-thing--hes-an-opportunist-100988.html

Enjoy ....

[Jolie Rouge]

You know, it’s one thing for far Left bloggers to go bananas and blame the Republican Party for killing people because they opposed increased federal spending on principle — as the dextrosphere did last week over swine flu funding in the porkulus.

Arlen Specter, Turncoat-Pennsylvania, takes it to a whole ‘nother level — blaming Republicans for not adopting his research spending priorities and actually exploiting Jack Kemp’s death from cancer to take a shot at fiscal conservatives.

Reason number 999,769 we are glad Specter has taken off the elephant costume and made his conversion official:
http://michellemalkin.com/2009/05/04/arlen-specter-human-ipecac/

Morrissey debunks Specter’s lie:

During Republican control of Congress, federal spending on health research and regulation increased 46% after inflation, from $49 billion a year to $72 billion a year, or about 7% increase each year. That’s almost the same rate of increase as Defense spending got in the same period (48%), when we actually had a real war on our hands, and not a political contrivance for excusing federal spending.

And Specter wonders why he can’t get within 20 points of Pat Toomey in a primary race?

See also http://nicedeb.wordpress.com/2009/05/04/specter-wastes-no-time-in-politicizing-jack-kemps-death/



Reason number 999,770 we are glad Specter has taken off the elephant costume and made his conversion official: Now all the idiotic, screamingly stupid things that he says will be followed in the Press with a (D) ... :rolling:

[anothersta]

Reason number 999,770 we are glad Specter has taken off the elephant costume and made his conversion official: Now all the idiotic, screamingly stupid things that he says will be followed in the Press with a (D) ... :

That's the BEST reason :) Good one!

I also saw where a bunch of senior D senators are ticked that Spector will keep his seniority and bump them for committee appointments.

I say the only way to solve this infighting....

Thunderdome!!

[mikej]

So, how do you feel about Olympia Snow and Susan Collins? They are politically aligned with Specter. Socially, they're liberal.

Should they also leave?

[Jolie Rouge]

How to file an FEC complaint against “Specter for the Cure”

Arlen Specter’s campaign finance travesty deserves more than just mockery. It deserves action. There are screenshots of his misleading “Specter for the Cure” website, which is a slimy front to raise campaign funds:
http://www.specterforthecure.com

And the fine print buried at the bottom of the home page:

"Paid for by Citizens for Arlen Specter"

Here is how you file an FEC complaint. http://fec.gov/ans/answers_compliance.shtml#How_do_I_file_a_complaint

Here are the FEC rules governing disclaimer notices on fundraising solicitiations, which Specter’s website do not seem to follow — unless you are reading it with a magnifying glass: http://www.fec.gov/pages/brochures/notices.shtml


How and Where must the Disclaimer Appear?

In order to give the reader sufficient notice about the person(s) paying for or authorizing a public communication regardless of its medium, the disclaimer notice must be “clear and conspicuous” on the committee’s communications, solicitations and response materials. The notice will not be considered to be “clear and conspicuous” if:

* It is difficult to read or hear; or
* The notification is placed where it can be easily overlooked.

11 CFR 110.11(c)(1).

The Specter camp will point to the disclosures at the bottom of the “Donate Now” page (which you have to click through on the front page to access) as evidence of FEC compliance.

“Clear and conspicuous?”

You be the judge.

---

I think it's time for the Blogospheric Neologian to coin a new political phrase: http://legalinsurrection.blogspot.com/2009/05/specterenfreude.html


Specterenfreude

The pleasure derived from watching Arlen Specter do unto Democrats that which Specter did unto Republicans.

In the course of his first week as a Democrat Specter voted against the Democratic budget, rejected a Democratic measure on mortgage foreclosures, announced his opposition to the president's Office of Legal Counsel nominee, and clarified that he never pledged to be a "loyal Democrat" or to support Obama's agenda. At that point, liberals went into emotional hypothermia.

Now Specter has announced that Norm Coleman should be declared winner of the Minnesota Senate contest. Which of course would take the burden off of Specter of being the filibuster-breaking Democratic vote.

:dancing: :dancing: :dancing: :dancing:

The nutroots are going bananas.

From TPM:
"Memo to Sen. Arlen Specter (RD-PA): You're supposed to be a Democrat now."

Wonkette:
"Arlen Specter Is Only Human On Earth To Continue Supporting Norm Coleman."

DailyKOS:
"Keep it up Arlen, your Joe Lieberman impersonation is so spot-on, that we can't wait to take you on in the Democratic primary."

Whiskey Fire:
"... because he's just overall kind of a douchebag."

The news hasn't been this much fun since Monica remembered she kept that blue dress.

UPDATE: The hits just keep coming. Asked whether he regretted any of the roughly 10,000 votes he has cast as a Senator, Specter could think of just one:


Sen. Arlen Specter said Tuesday he regrets his vote against Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-Ala.) two decades ago that helped kill his nomination to the federal bench.

Sessions, who has now assumed Specter's former position as the top Republican on the Judiciary Committee, was nominated by President Ronald Reagan in 1986 to be a federal judge — but Specter provided a key "no" vote after allegations were made that Sessions had a poor record on race relations as Alabama attorney general. Sessions has called those allegations false and unfounded.


To which DailyKOS responded: "But it's clear that his body is rejecting his (D) transplant, because he keeps rejecting any semblance of respect or appreciation for his new party."

We'll see about that, when the real votes take place.

See also : http://www.sundriesshack.com/2009/05/05/specterenfreud-turncoat-demoted-to-committee-coffee-boy/

[pepperpot]

How to file an FEC complaint against “Specter for the Cure”


Specter/Sphincter :hmmmm: not much difference..:headshake:...just a few letters.....:shrug

[Jolie Rouge]

Specter Cancels Appearance at Free Speech Conference, CAIR Claims Credit
By Philip Klein on 5.19.09 @ 1:33PM

Sen. Arlen Specter backed out of speaking at a Tuesday conference on the global effort to silence speech critical of Islam, citing a scheduling conflict, but the Council on American-Islamic Relations has taken credit for his decision.

In February Specter introduced legislation in the U.S. Senate aimed at protecting American authors who have been sued under plaintiff-friendly libel laws overseas. http://www.fas.org/sgp/congress/2009/s449.html He was scheduled to speak about the trend, known as "libel tourism," at a Washington conference being sponsored by the Legal Project of the Middle East Forum, the Federalist Society Center for National Security Law, and the Thomas Jefferson Center for the Protection of Free Expression.

CAIR branded it an "anti-Islam" conference and launched a petition drive last Friday protesting Specter's appearance, and on Monday the pressure group took credit for getting him to cancel. http://www.fas.org/sgp/congress/2009/s449.html

But Brooke Goldstein*, who organized the conference in her role as director of the Middle East Forum's Legal Project, said that Specter had canceled his scheduled appearance two days before CAIR launched its online petition. The group issued a press release responding to CAIR this morning, noting that Specter has not changed his support for the legislation he co-sponsored with Sens. Chuck Schumer and Joe Lieberman. http://news.prnewswire.com/DisplayReleaseContent.aspx?ACCT=104&STORY=/www/story/05-19-2009/0005028905&EDATE=

Specter's office wrote in an email to TAS that "he had several hearings and constituent meetings scheduled for this morning."

One of the speakers at the conference, James Taranto of the Wall Street Journal, noted: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124265566913130559.html


We do not have a strong opinion as to whether, as CAIR puts it, "American Muslims are involved in a concerted effort to suppress free speech on Islam."

Running a petition to pressure an elected official not to participate in a conference on the subject would seem, however, to fit that description.

Other speakers included Daniel Pipes, Alan Dershowitz, Frank Gaffney, and Andrew McCarthy. More on the conference itself to come.

http://spectator.org/blog/2009/05/19/specter-cancels-appearance-at


Tolerance of dissent is not a CAIR value.

Fortitude is not a Specter value.

They deserve each other.

[Jolie Rouge]

White House distances Obama from Pa.'s Specter
By Julie Pace, Associated Press Writer 1 hr 16 mins ago

WASHINGTON – President Barack Obama is keeping some distance from longtime Sen. Arlen Specter as the Pennsylvania Democrat faces a tough election in Tuesday's primary.

On the eve of the election, White House spokesman Robert Gibbs said that while Obama was following the Pennsylvania race — as well as primaries in Arkansas and Kentucky — he wasn't watching that closely.

A year ago, Obama said Specter would have his "full support" after the Republican lawmaker switched to the Democratic party. But Obama made only one personal appearance for Specter — eight months ago, at a Philadelphia rally. He told the crowd that Specter came to Washington "to fight for the working men and women of Pennsylvania."

Though there were reports that Specter aides asked Obama to make an 11th-hour trip to Pennsylvania, the White House made it clear last week that wouldn't be happening.

Gibbs said Tuesday that the White House has been involved in the primary and is proud of that.

Obama aides had been hoping to avoid a repeat of the Massachusetts Senate race earlier this year, when Obama made a last minute trip to campaign for Democrat Martha Coakley, who would go on to lose the seat by Sen. Edward Kennedy. Obama also stumped on behalf of losing candidates in Virginia and New Jersey.

Specter switched parties after GOP anger over his February 2009 vote for the stimulus bill led him to the conclusion that he was unlikely to win a Republican Party primary. Specter was the only Republican in Congress facing a 2010 re-election to support the stimulus.

His challenger, U.S. Rep. Joe Sestak, bills himself as the real Democrat in the race, saying Specter left the GOP to preserve his Senate job and can't be trusted to support Obama.

While Obama has avoided stumping for Specter, Vice President Joe Biden, who was instrumental in getting Specter to switch to the Democratic party, did headline a campaign rally for his longtime Senate colleague in April. But he didn't appear with Specter on Monday, the day before the primary, despite being in Philadelphia to deliver a commencement address.

When asked Monday why Obama and Biden weren't making another appearance for him, Specter said "They've done everything we've asked them to do."

Obama did appear in a TV ad for Specter that started running in Pennsylvania last week. The 30-second spot shows footage from the September rally, where Obama touts Specter's "deciding vote in favor of a recovery act that has helped pull us back from the brink." He also taped a radio ad and recorded an automated phone call which went out Monday.

Gibbs said Monday that the president's involvement had not become an issue in the primaries.

"We have supported incumbent Democratic senators and we've done a lot on behalf of each campaign," he added, referring to Specter and Arkansas Sen. Blanche Lincoln, who also faces a primary challenge Tuesday.

On the eve of the Pennsylvania primary a poll shows the race too close to call, with Sestak claiming 42 percent of support among Democrats likely to vote and Specter with 41 percent, according to the Quinnipiac University survey released Monday.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100518/ap_on_el_se/us_obama_specter;_ylt=Au5yKyKVtzBYoub2fzPVtiis0NUE ;_ylu=X3oDMTFlZ2NocXYxBHBvcwM4NARzZWMDYWNjb3JkaW9u X3BvbGl0aWNzBHNsawN3aGl0ZWhvdXNlZGk-

:thump: :thump:

[Jolie Rouge]

Specter loses in Pennsylvania, Paul wins in Ky.
By David Espo, Ap Special Correspondent 7 mins ago

WASHINGTON – Veteran Sen. Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania, who switched parties hoping to prolong his career, lost his bid for a sixth term Tuesday night at the hands of impatient Democratic primary voters rejecting his plea to reward experience. :cry:


Political novice Rand Paul rode support from tea party activists to a rout in Kentucky's Republican Senate primary.

In another race with national significance, Democrat Max Critz won a special House election to fill out the term of the late Democratic Rep. John Murtha in southwestern Pennsylvania. Both political parties spent roughly $1 million to sway the outcome, and highlighted the contest as a possible bellwether for the fall.

On the busiest night of the primary season to date, Arkansas Democratic Sen. Blanche Lincoln led in her bid for nomination to a third term, but she was forced into a potentially debilitating runoff on June 8 against Lt. Gov. Bill Halter.

Taken together, the results were indisputably unkind to the political establishments of both parties. But any attempt to read into the results a probable trend for the fall campaign was hazardous — particularly given Critz's victory over Republican Tim Burns to succeed Murtha in Congress.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/us_primary_rdp/print;_ylt=ArRVDZydrBzrrvrMaSmBs1Bh24cA;_ylu=X3oDM TBvajZzaTFyBHBvcwMxNQRzZWMDdG9wBHNsawNwcmludA--

[Jolie Rouge]

Voters turn away from high-profile party switcher
By Michael Rubinkam And Laurie Kellman, Associated Press Writers 1 hr 32 mins ago

ALLENTOWN, Pa. – Centrism and just plain survival made Arlen Specter part of the nation's political fabric for nearly half a century, his cancer-fighting, party-switching story as much about evading death as writing laws.

But the very adaptability that helped Specter, 80, endure turned politically fatal Tuesday, when the Democrat-turned-Republican-turned-Democrat lost his party's Pennsylvania primary. His defeat raised a painful truth: He could not have won a sixth Senate term as a member of either party given the anti-incumbent mood of 2010.

At the polls Tuesday, some Democrats said they'd lost patience with the 30-year Senate veteran nicknamed by his opponents "Specter the Defector."

"He must think we're idiots," said Tom Cragin, a college professor who cast his vote for Rep. Joe Sestak, the retired Navy admiral who on Tuesday bested Specter in the Democratic primary.

Some took a more pragmatic approach.

"He changed parties to save his hide," said Ira Robbins, 61, a Republican who said he planned on voting for Specter in November. "But that's what politics is. It's a dirty game."

Specter has acknowledged that his party switch last year was about his own political survival in an increasingly polarized state Republican party. Specter cast one of only three GOP votes for Obama's $787 billion stimulus package — infuriating conservatives and perhaps sealing his fate as a Republican.

For that and other reasons, Specter said, he could not survive a challenge by conservative favorite Pat Toomey, who had come within 17,000 votes out of 1 million cast of ousting Specter in the 2004 GOP primary.

Specter explained his switch this way: His fierce brand of centrism and independence and his advocacy for medical research would not change with his party affiliation. His party-switch briefly gave Democrats a filibuster-proof 60-vote majority.

After it was plain he had lost Tuesday night, Specter faced his supporters, thanked President Barack Obama and other Democratic leaders for their help and said, "It's been a great privilege to serve the people of Pennsylvania, and it's been a great privilege to be in the United States Senate."

For decades before the political center morphed into a bullseye for Specter, it had been a haven that allowed "Snarlin' Arlen" to stand out amid some of the nation's most wrenching debates.

He was a pioneering staff attorney on the Warren Commission in 1964, when he helped develop the "single-bullet theory" to bolster the finding that Lee Harvey Oswald was the lone assassin of President John F. Kennedy. He sent six Teamsters union officials to prison for corruption as an assitant prosecutor, then was twice elected Philadelphia district attorney.

Swept into the Senate by the Reagan landslide of 1980, Specter never lost his prosecutorial style. He used it to raise his profile during oversight hearings and Supreme Court confirmation fights.

Specter opposed Robert Bork in 1987, saying the former federal appeals judge was too ideological. Four years later, Specter was key to confirming Clarence Thomas to the high court. He gained notoriety by questioning Anita Hill's sexual harassment allegations against Thomas and declaring afterward that "her credibility has been demolished." He barely won re-election in 1992, "The Year of the Woman."

Specter made no secret of siding with Democrats on such issues as abortion and stem cell research. He bragged he voted 400 times against the wishes of GOP Presidents Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush. He was plenty good at irritating Democrats, too, leading opposition to President Bill Clinton's ill-fated health care overhaul in the early 1990s.

Briefly, Specter explored a presidential run — as a Republican — in 1996.

But his place was at the very center of the Senate, in a spot that won him both power and powerful enemies. He voted with Democrats on a range of issues, against the 1999 GOP tax cut and for raising the minimum wage.

Underscoring his instinct for middle ground, he voted in 1999 to acquit President Bill Clinton in his impeachment trial after citing the Scottish practice of allowing a verdict of "not proved." He said he didn't necessarily believe Clinton was innocent.

Specter's relationship with President George W. Bush was especially unpredictable. He increasingly opposed Bush administration positions, such as a cap on medical malpractice suits and some parts of the Patriot Act passed in the aftermath of the September 11 terrorist attacks.

By 2005, Specter's independent streak was on full, fierce display. As the presumed next chairman of the Judiciary Committee, he warned the administration not to nominate judges who would vote to overturn Roe v Wade.

Conservative groups howled. His chairmanship threatened, Specter quickly announced he would respect the president's constitutional authority to nominate people to the bench. He also promised not to apply the litmus test of the abortion issue to nominees.

He then had to earn back the support of the Judiciary Committee Republicans — which he did — and took the chairman's gavel. As chairman, Specter presided over the confirmation hearings of Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Samuel Alito.

But bitterness crept into Specter's public statements.

"In the United States Senate, it's heresy, I mean rank heresy, to say you ... ought to recognize your independence and vote your conscience," he said in a 2005 speech.

Specter soon found himself facing off against the Bush White House where politics and the most personal matters intersected.

A brain cancer survivor, Specter was diagnosed in 2005 with Hodgkins lymphoma just as Congress and the administration were locked in battle over Bush's restrictions on federal funding of embryonic stem cell research.

Specter had authored a bill to clear the way for more public funding of the research, which could provide cures for many diseases, including some cancers. Bush had promised to veto any such legislation because the research also destroyed fertilized eggs.

The mere debate made Specter "mad as hell," he said at the time. So, undergoing chemotherapy, he appeared on television and at White House meetings as often as possible, his newly bald head and runny nose a powerful symbol, he reasoned, for both his bill and for the forbearance of cancer sufferers.

The strategy never changed Bush's mind. But Specter never missed a session that year and even kept up his squash games. In 2006, he became Pennsylvania's longest-serving senator. Two years later, Specter suffered a recurrence and published a book, "Never Give In: Battling Cancer in the Senate."

Under chemotherapy, the Ivy League-educated workhorse was candid about his survival strategy.

"When I'm totally engaged, I'm fine," Specter said. "When I'm not, it's tough."

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100519/ap_on_el_se/us_specter_s_sunset/print;_ylt=ArRVDZydrBzrrvrMaSmBs1Bh24cA;_ylu=X3oDM TBvajZzaTFyBHBvcwMxNQRzZWMDdG9wBHNsawNwcmludA--

[dv8grl]

Woo-Hoo!!!!!!!

[Jolie Rouge]

Sunday, 14 Oct 2012 02:00 PM
Longtime GOP Senate Moderate Arlen Specter Dies
Former U.S. Sen. Arlen Specter, the outspoken Pennsylvania centrist whose switch from Republican to Democrat ended a 30-year career in which he played a pivotal role in several Supreme Court nominations, died Sunday.

He was 82.

Specter, who announced in late August that he was battling cancer, died at his home in Philadelphia from complications of non-Hodgkin lymphoma, said his son Shanin.

Over the years, Arlen Specter had fought two previous bouts with Hodgkin lymphoma, overcome a brain tumor and survived cardiac arrest following bypass surgery.

http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/Arlen-Specter-died-cancer/2012/10/14/id/459894?s=al&promo_code=1061B-1

[FreeBnutt]

:goodnight: His final Good Night