The Road to 60
| Tue Apr. 28, 2009 8:30 AM PDT
Fascinating news out of Pennsylvania today:
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.
...."I have decided to run for re-election in 2010 in the Democratic primary," said Specter in a statement....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."
That's surprisingly forthright wording, isn't it? It's hard to avoid the conclusion that Specter finds his views more in line with Democrats these days solely because there are 200,000 more of them in Pennsylvania than there used to be. Points for honesty, I guess.
Of course, if he's really serious about this, he could switch parties now. And maybe announce his support for a few Democratic initiatives while he's at it. Interesting days.
UPDATE: Obama is "thrilled" by the news. And who can blame him?
UPDATE 2: I think I may have misunderstood Specter's statement. Apparently he does plan to begin caucusing with the Democrats immediately. I think. Press reports seem oddly fuzzy on this point, though.
UPDATE 3: In 1950, Specter participated in the National Debate Tournament, which addressed itself to the following topic: "Resolved: That the United States should nationalize the basic nonagricultural industries." How newly relevant! My father beat him, 969-964. Take that, Ivy League.
Advertisement
Advertisement
Comments
Another interpretation...
Submitted by rayrick (not verified) on Tue Apr. 28, 2009 8:57 AM PDT.
In fairness, a more charitable interpretation of Specter's statement about the 200,000 switchers is essentially..."the ever-more conservative Republican party is losing Pennsylvanians right and left, and well, frankly, I'm one them."
Is this not?
Submitted by The Lounsbury (not verified) on Tue Apr. 28, 2009 9:04 AM PDT.
The photo negative of the process by which your Democratic party lost its "conservative" wing - the Southern Democrats?
The flip side of a meltdown.
I should think one should encourage the meltdown. I would, but in my profession knee capping the opposition is considered a good thing.
I agree with tpx, though I
Submitted by anon (not verified) on Tue Apr. 28, 2009 9:07 AM PDT.
I agree with tpx, though I was going to say, "squick".
It will be interesting to see how the Democratic party and putative liberal bloggers discuss Senator Magic Bullet.
Sadly, I fear he and Obama do share similar views.
Specter's Ghost
Submitted by Keith G on Tue Apr. 28, 2009 9:42 AM PDT.
I'm not saying that Specter's departure will horribly haunt the GOP, but anything that makes Sens. Cornyn and Kyle even more unimportant is fine with me.
Put's Gov. Pawlenti into the spot lite just a bit.
No, Kevin, you shouldn't
Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on Tue Apr. 28, 2009 10:19 AM PDT.
No, Kevin, you shouldn't conclude "It's hard to avoid the conclusion that Specter finds his views more in line with Democrats these days solely because there are 200,000 more of them in Pennsylvania than there used to be." Read his quote again, and note the context:
"Since my election in 1980, as part of the Reagan Big Tent, the Republican Party has moved far to the right. [Then, noticing the results:] 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." [They moved too far to the right, so he and many voters are switching. He just took longer, being a pol. Yes it can help his re-election but that is clearly not the point.]
BTW Kevin, tell us more about your dad! But that link came up blank (went to site, but nothing there. Does Kevin read these much?)
Dad
Submitted by Kevin Drum on Tue Apr. 28, 2009 11:13 AM PDT.
Anonymous: The link works for me. I'm not sure what's going on.
As for my father, he was a high school and college debater (at USC), as was my mother. Dad went to the nationals in 1950 and apparently scored pretty well in the individual category, though USC as a team didn't even make the final 16 in the tournament. He went on to get a PhD in speech and taught speech at Cal State Long Beach for a couple of decades before retiring after he had a stroke. He died in 1991.
Moving to the left is
Submitted by Luther on Tue Apr. 28, 2009 12:38 PM PDT.
Moving to the left is symptomatic of removal of brain tissue.
On The Other Hand.....
Submitted by Keith G on Tue Apr. 28, 2009 12:55 PM PDT.
Being on the right is symptomatic of the absence of brain tissue.
"Moving to the left is
Submitted by MaynardHandley on Tue Apr. 28, 2009 4:10 PM PDT.
"Moving to the left is symptomatic of removal of brain tissue."
Exactly! I get all my medical diagnoses from Woody Allen movies.
Based on the Terry Schiavo incident, I believe diagnosing based on what you see from a distance, on a screen, is standard GOP practice.
(Yeah, yeah, quite your whining. I am perfectly aware in the movie it went in the other direction.)
Debate clarification
Submitted by David Schraub (not verified) on Tue Apr. 28, 2009 4:12 PM PDT.
There weren't two events at the 1950 NDT, or any other NDT. Basically, after each prelim round, the judges not only say which team wins, but also give each speaker a score for the round. The main thing these are used for is for seeding the teams in the outrounds -- if two teams are 7-1, for example, then the team with the higher cumulative speaker points will get the better seed. Technically, your team can have the lower speaks in a round and still win (known as a low-point win) -- this happens generally when one team is overall doing much better but loses one key issue that carries the whole round.
The tournament does give out awards for the best individual speakers, but it is something secondary to the main event, which is based on the team's record and then progression through the elimination bracket. This isn't to detract from what your dad did -- getting 9th speaker at NDT is a great honor -- but in the debate community it wouldn't be considered "beating" Specter (although we don't have the prelim brackets -- it's entirely possible your dad's team hit Specter's team and beat them in the prelim round too). The best analogy I can think of is the difference between getting to go to the playoffs, and being selected as an all-star. Your dad was an all-star, but his team missed the playoffs.
Which chair?
Submitted by jhm on Wed Apr. 29, 2009 2:53 AM PDT.
So what kind of assignment is Hon. Sen. Spector getting? what'll be his seniority? I have the suspicion that this could cause some heartburn among the new class of Dems; and how can it be good for the ideological tilt in Judiciary without him?
Post new comment
MoJo Comments: Send Us Your Feedback
We changed our spam software to better filter comments. Should you encounter any issues, please let us know.
