Senator Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania talks with reporters outside of the Senate chamber in the U.S. Capitol in Washington Tuesday. Specter announced he is switching political parties and will become a Democrat.
(HARRY HAMBURG/AP)Photos (1 of 1)
Senator Specter defects to Democrats, strenghtening Obama’s hand
Tuesday's switch by the independent-minded Pennsylvanian also helps Democrats to solidify power in the Senate.
By Linda Feldmann | Staff writer/ April 28, 2009 edition
Reporter Linda Feldmann discusses some reasons behind Sen. Arlen Specter's decision to switch parties.
Reporter Linda Feldmann
Washington
Pennsylvania’s Arlen Specter, a veteran Senate Republican, shocked the political world Tuesday when he announced he is becoming a Democrat.
The move by the 79-year-old, four-term senator could potentially give the Democratic Party its 60th vote in the Senate, allowing the party to halt filibusters without the help of any Republicans. The implications for President Obama’s agenda are significant, as he prepares reforms to the healthcare system, energy, and financial regulation.
Currently, Democrats hold 58 of the Senate’s 100 seats, but if Democrat Al Franken prevails in his protracted battle with Republican Norm Coleman in their close Minnesota Senate contest, the addition of Senator Specter brings the number to 60. Mr. Franken is currently ahead, and Senator Coleman’s prospects look dim in his continuing court battle.
Which one changed?
Specter framed his decision to quit the troubled GOP as one of the party leaving him, not changes within himself.
“Since my election in 1980, as part of the Reagan Big Tent, the Republican Party has moved far to the right,” he said in a statement released early Tuesday afternoon. “Last year, more than 200,000 Republicans changed their registration to become Democrats. I now find my political philosophy more in line with Democrats than Republicans.”
Senate majority leader Harry Reid immediately welcomed Specter to his team and hinted that he had been wooing him for some time: “Senator Specter and I have had a long dialogue about his place in an evolving Republican Party,” Senator Reid said in a statement. “We have not always agreed on every issue, but Senator Specter has shown a willingness to work in a bipartisan manner, put people over party, and do what is right for Pennsylvanians and all Americans.”
Specter is known for his independent streak, and by no means will the “D” after his name instead of an “R” guarantee his cooperation on any given vote. But it at least creates a presumption of a Democratic leaning.
A reelection calculation
Specter’s switch also changes the calculation in what was shaping up to be a tough reelection battle in 2010. He faced a rerun of his 2004 primary against Pat Toomey, a former Pennsylvania congressman and former head of the fiscally conservative Club for Growth, which Specter barely won 51 to 49 percent.
Now, Specter should breeze to victory in the Democratic primary, with few declared candidates and none of his stature, and could face Mr. Toomey in the general. But given the travails of the Republican Party, both nationally and in Pennsylvania, Specter at this stage looks to be the favorite.
GOP’s retort
A statement from the chairman of the Republican National Committee, Michael Steele, had a “good riddance” tone to it, even though there is no doubt that the party is smarting over the high-profile rejection.
“Some in the Republican Party are happy about this. I am not,” Mr. Steele said.
“Let’s be honest – Senator Specter didn’t leave the GOP based on principles of any kind. He left to further his personal political interests because he knew that he was going to lose a Republican primary due to his left-wing voting record.
“Republicans look forward to beating Sen. Specter in 2010, assuming the Democrats don’t do it first.”
The chairman of the National Republican Senatorial Committee also framed Specter’s decision as a self-centered one.
“Senator Specter’s decision today represents the height of political self-preservation,” said John Cornyn (R) of Texas in a statement. “While this presents a short-term disappointment, voters next year will have a clear choice to cast their ballots for a potentially unbridled Democrat supermajority versus the system of checks and balances that Americans deserve.”
Liberals not overjoyed
Reaction from the left, which has long sought to oust Specter from his seat, was tempered. And Specter’s opposition to the Employee Free Choice Act (EFCA), legislation aimed at helping unions boost their membership, could make him a tough sell to a key Democratic constituency in Pennsylvania: organized labor. In his statement announcing his party switch, Specter said his position on EFCA, also known as “card check,” would not change.
“Even as we applaud Specter for switching parties, we shouldn’t simply concede the primary,” writes liberal activist and columnist David Sirota on Huffington Post. “Indeed, there needs to be a contested and vigorous primary, especially since Specter’s EFCA announcement means he will need pressure on his left, and especially since the primary winner in the increasingly blue state of Pennsylvania has a great shot of defeating someone like Toomey.”
Comments
3. David K. McClurkin | 04.28.09
With the mercurial Senator Specter switching to run as a Democratic Party member, Democrats must take the time to reflect on just what they are or are not getting in the bargain. His past support of Justice Thomas, his Republican party line voting on President Bush’s initiatives, and his reaffirmed opposition to the EFCA make him demonstrably unreliable as some kind of filibuster protection.
His “independent” streak may ultimately pigeonhole him as “not to be counted on when the chips are down.” The Keystone State makes for a nice analogy if he can be counted on to support consensus of so-called left and right ideas. Let’s wait and see. Maybe he has received some coaching in switch hitting from Senator Joseph Lieberman.
It will be interesting to see if this Blue Dog can hunt.
4. S. Sandlin | 04.28.09
Hope Specter talks more with President Obama and the administration than with Mr. Reid…
5. Shawn | 04.28.09
Actually it’s not bad he is gone.
All through his political career, he has never been a true GOP rather a rat disguising himself as a Republican calculating which side of the fence he can get more cheese. I think it’s good for the GOP to get rid of those rats (right now I believe there are two more from Maine). The numbers are down, the party should start form from here with better purity and better determination to get the House and the Senate back, and may I say 2010?
6. jmkeg | 04.28.09
if he is already voting with the democrats, what difference does it make which party he is in. from what i have read, one of the main reasons he is changing parties is that he is concerned that he may not be reelected in 2010 as a republican given other strong candidates, so he is switching to the other side….pathetic.
8. Charles | 04.28.09
To be fair to their constituents, shouldn’t Senators and Congressmen resign before changing parties?
9. dj | 04.28.09
If Specter’s leaving purifies the Republican Party, then woe to the Party. Any more “purfication” and the “party” will be so small that it won’t even be a competitive regional party. Why don’t we see that the Party is so marginalized now that we need to start taking some moderate positions. We’re losing every national election because we are perceived as so extremist. I think it will help Specter to be rid of the Albatross that is the current Republican Party.
10. ChrisMarks | 04.28.09
I can remember back when opportunistic Democratic politicians were switching over to the Republican party. It says volumes about which way politics in this country is going.
11. ishmaeldaro | 04.28.09
Part of me welcomes this move since today’s GOP is utterly bereft of ideas and only knows how to say ‘No’ without putting forth any ideas. Still, an unbridled majority for either party is not wholly desirable.
12. Woody Porter | 04.29.09
So many of the conservative posts on this site (and others) are geriatric in nature — 1950’s-style paranoia about “communists,” “socialists” and “UN conspiracies.” It’s refreshing to read something by a fellow, Shawn (#5), who sounds (…at least a little bit) like he might be under the age of 60, or (…who knows?) even 50.
Shawn says (in brief summary) — “it’s good for the GOP to get rid of those rats…there are two more from Maine…the party should start form from here with better purity and better determination to get the House and the Senate back, and may I say 2010?”
You may say so, Shawn — but you’ll sound like a jerk if you do. History, particularly US history, seems to move in 40-year cycles…conservative to liberal to conservative to liberal, back and forth like a pendulum. And right now, you’re on the wrong side of history, the wrong side of the pendulum.
“May I say 2010?” No — but you may say 2050…and you’d probably be right.
What should you do in the meantime? Stick to your guns. Try to moderate the ship of state. Maximize human freedom and expand the scope of the individual mind.
But whatever you do, don’t get sucked into 1950’s cold-war cliches. Have you read some of the postings on these pages? People (…often nasty people) whose minds seem to have shut down 35 or 40 years ago. They’ve missed out on the (just-about) most wonderful thing in life: thinking something new…saying to oneself: wow, I hadn’t thought about that — maybe I’ve been wrong.
Set your mind on 2050, Shawn. In the meantime, remember — the point in life is not to have, the point in life is to grow.
13. John Howard Wolf | 04.29.09
As a former Philadelphian, I have followed Specter´s political life with disgust. He supported the War in Iraq, helped stack the Supreme Court.He is not a maverick, he is the lowest type of opportunist, without principles, I am surprised and disappointed that the Democrats would accept him.
14. Mike Vet | 04.29.09
He had a for sale around his neck for yrs, he finally gets to hang the sold sign out now
Trackbacks/Pingbacks
Leave a Comment
We do not publish all comments, and we do not publish comments immediately. The comments feature is a forum to discuss the ideas in our stories. Constructive debate - even pointed disagreement - is welcome, but personal attacks on other commenters are not, and will not be published.
Tip: Do not write a novel. Keep it short. We will not publish lengthy comments. Come up with your own statements. This is not a place to cut and paste an email you received. If we recognize it as such, we won't post it.
Please do not post any comments that are commercial in nature or that violate copyrights.
Finally, we will not publish any comments that we regard as obscene, defamatory, or intended to incite violence.
1. John Paul Manuel | 04.28.09
Aren’t there currently 59 Democrats (well technically 57 Democrats and 2 Independents that caucus with them, Joe Lieberman and Bernie Sanders)? Specter switching would make 60 Dems, and if Franken finally gets seated thats 61.