How the Far Right Handed Dems a 60-Vote Majority

The reason Pennsylvania Senator Arlen Specter switched parties on Tuesday is rather obvious. Though Specter explained in a statement released today that it's due to the GOP's rightward shift ("I now find my political philosophy more in line with Democrats than Republicans," he said), the more likely reason is that Specter's political career would end if he remained a Republican. Unlike Vermont Senator Jim Jeffords, who abandoned the GOP and caucused with the Democrats in 2001 in a principled decision, declining to run for reelection, Specter is simply reading the tea leaves. Most available polling indicates that the moderate Specter would be trounced in the 2010 Republican primary by a conservative challenger named Pat Toomey.
Advertisement
Advertisement
Specter barely beat Toomey in the 2004 Republican primary. Since then the Republican Party in Pennsylvania has shrunk while the Democratic Party has grown. Toomey, the former head of the anti-tax group Club for Growth and a committed fiscal conservative, was particularly well suited to bash Specter for being one of the three Republican votes for President Barack Obama's stimulus bill. Pennsylvania's GOP base has become more rigid and extreme as it has gotten smaller. Specter acknowledged this in his statement: "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." Toomey, who once wrote that Hillary Clinton's economic views are based on a "fundamental mistrust of individual freedom," is a better fit the new, more conservative Pennsylvania GOP. Specter could win among Republicans in 2004. He likely couldn't do it in 2010.
So credit the far right's ascendancy in the modern GOP for handing Senate Democrats a 60-vote majority (pending the expected seating of Al Franken). The Republican Party has moved dramatically rightward in the age of Obama, and allowed people like Newt Gingrich, Dick Cheney, Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck, and Sarah Palin to become its most vocal representatives. Not only did this alienate the moderate Specter (and cause him to fear for his future in the GOP); it created space for a right-wing purist like Toomey to run and win in a primary. (Toomey recently said that Obama's agenda is so scary that "there's a real danger that capitalism is going to go on strike, because the capitalists don't know what the government is going to do next.") With today's GOP jeering its moderates and pushing away sympathetic independents, Toomey has a winning profile. Specter switched parties to save his skin (reportedly making a deal that the Democratic Party would support him and no one else in the primary). Though Specter says he will be no rubber stamp, it will now be easier for Democrats to overcome Republican filibusters.
All this has happened before. On November 9, 1994, a day after the Republicans gained control of both the House and the Senate for the first time in decades, Alabama Sen. Richard Shelby switched to the winning side, giving the GOP 53 votes in the upper house. By the end of the next year, five House Dems and Colorado Senator Ben Nighthorse Campbell had also become Republicans.
Could party-switching become contagious again? Specter's switch reduces the influence of Maine Republicans Olympia Snowe and Susan Collins, who each voted for the stimulus package and who represent a state that went dramatically for Barack Obama in 2008. Once Al Franken is sworn in as the Dems' 60th vote (probably sometime in late summer), the administration will have less need for Collins and Snowe when it comes to getting around a filibuster. They'll just have to worry about keeping their own moderates in line.
In his statement on Specter's switch, Harry Reid, the Senate majority leader, said he "welcomed" Specter's "moderate voice" to the Dems' "diverse caucus." That seems, by some lights, an open invitation to Specter's fellow moderates Collins and Snowe. They might find it more attractive to serve in the Senate as members of the Democrats' powerful "moderate" bloc instead of serving in an almost-powerless Republican minority that stands a good chance of losing members in 2010.
The big difference between the Maine senators and Specter, however, is that he faces an election next year. Snowe's term is up in 2012. Collins isn't up until 2014, but are either willing to spend more years in the shadows after having once served in the majority? The temptation to join the party in power might prove too strong.
(Kevin Drum has more.)
Comments
Complete and utter B.S.
It's Time To End The Era of Neocon Control of the GOP
Spector
Neocon Control
One Party State
Don't blame the Dems for doing something right for once.
Say What?
Easy, there.
Nope.
You may be right
rational opposition
Totally agree...
WRONG
Ron Paul, Texas Straight Talk
Just for the heck of it...
Repaired Links
A dishonest article
Arlen Specter... No Rubber Stamp!
Two parties?
Re: Two Parties?
You're such a blind idiot!!!
Two parties?
I am a centrist. I know
Two Parties? Repubs Centrist?? You've got to be joking!
ARE YOU ON DRUGS?
You're missing the point
WormTongue voted down the HealthCare budget
Switching from Republican to
Spector switch
Obama-Blinders
blinders?
Yes, Blinders.
that is how bush ended up in office in the first place
Yes, Blinders!
You effectively boycotted this election
The Only Vote That Matters Is About Principles, Not Electability
But still...
Pragmatism? Or Action?
Completely different circumstances
"ITS A BINARY CHOICE!!!"
Jump now, ladies.
An Oasis in the Desert
Key Point:
A. Specter
Lighten up.
Heard that one before
Not worried.
Obama is Carter
Once again...
You obviously need something.
You live in California, under a Republican governor, and, until recently, a Republican president and Congress. Exactly how are your state's problems the fault of Obama the new Democratic majority again? You're a voter. I'd say it's on you. Do something about it if you can get a majority of people to believe you. Your problem right now is that a majority of them do not, based on the increase in people who now think the US is doing the right thing.
History Lesson:
1. Nixon went to China, not Carter.
2. Ignoring Taiwan has been US policy across administrations since that trip and as our two countries grow ever closer economically.
3. Carter made the mistake of allowing the Shah of Iran into the US after his ouster and the imposition of theocracy there. He took in a relative moderate and sparked radicalism, an unfortunate outcome. He also authorized the CIA to arm and train the mujahideen against the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan. The rise of radicalism there followed when Reagan, and, to a lesser extent, Bush and Clinton failed to help rebuild Afghan society after the withdrawal of Soviet troops and abject poverty gripped the nation. I've already admitted that Carter was not one of our better presidents but your assertion that he "embraced radical Islam" is flat wrong.
4. The religious right of Israel, along with Hamas, is preventing the resumption of negotiations for a peace settlement that could remove the heat from many conflicts around the world. Both sides need to stand down and the US only has influence over one of them at this point, as the Palestinian Authority has already accepted the broad outlines of an agreement. Carter attempted to make peace, and succeeded with Sadat and Begin. Obama is working towards the same goal. Peace is a worthwhile pursuit and I support any attempt to bring it about.
Don't forget.........
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.



