The party switch by Pennsylvania Republican Sen. Arlen Specter could give the Democrats a huge political advantage in the U.S. Senate if the Minnesota Senate race ultimatelty falls to Democrat Al Franken. Franken holds a 312-vote lead over Republican Norm Coleman after the latest Minnesota recount.
Specter and Franken would give the Democrats 60 votes -- enough to block a Republican filibuster. The Minnesota race is not final, though, with Coleman asking the Minnesota Supreme Court to overturn his recent recount loss, according to the Associated Press. But this Senate seat could be tied up in legal wrangling for awhile, so the Democrats would not see the filibuster-proof Senate anytime soon.
Specter has been increasingly at odds with his party, and now he'll make his philosophical differences with the GOP official.
"I now find my political philosophy more in line with Democrats than Republicans," Specter said in a statement posted on a political Web site in Pennsylvania. Specter's office confirmed the statement, according to the AP.
The 79-year-old Specter is up for re-election next year. He faced a Republican primary challenge, and the move should improve his re-election chances. It will also give Republican forces added incentives to go after Specter, and you can bet next year's race will be very expensive on both sides.
President Barack Obama told Specter he was "thrilled" to have the five-term senator in the Democratic Party.
For years the National Football League and Major League Baseball placed their respective Atlanta teams in the Western Division. After repeating 8th grade geography both sports leagues realigned and moved Atlanta to the East Coast. The only news value of these moves was the realization that both leagues had come to their senses and reorganizaed their systems to reflect reality.
Arlen Specter's announcement he is now a Democrat should be received in like fashion. Specter long ago confirmed to even the most casual observer he was not a Republican and did not share traditional Republican small government, states' rights values. In that regard Specter is not alone and and should be joined by Maine's twin senators.
The Republican Party, if it has any leadership within its ranks, should seize this opportunity to reassert itself as the party of smaller government, lower spending and states' rights. It was this simple yet profound platform that served as the launching pad for the Reagan years that eventually led, with Bill Clinton's help, to Republican control of congress.
With Obama in the White House the key piece is in place for a thinking party to assert itself and begin the process of bringing sanity to government spending while simultaneously unleashing the American "can-do" spirit and putting the socialist genie back in the bottle.
That's right, Mr. Anaforian - keep on shrinking that "big tent" until it's nothing but a pup tent. I'm with Paul Krugman on this - we may need a healthy 2-party system for our democracy to work, but I'd be happy to wait until after we get universal healthcare and other elements of the progressive agenda in place before seeing a revival of the GOP.
Actually, I would vote for Phil Spector over Arlen any day of the week- seems like a more stable and sensible choice, lol.
With all due respect, Senator- don’t let the door hit your butt on the way-out. And nobody on our side’s going to miss you.
http://reaganiterepublicanresistance.blogspot.com/
Are you guys saying that Specter was actually a Republican? Noooooo ...... way!
This from the man who said on March 17th: "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.
I think each of the 41 Republican senators, in a sense — and I don’t want to overstate this — is a national asset, because if one was gone, you’d only have 40, the Democrats would have 60, and they would control all of the mechanisms of government.”
Wonder what he'll be thinking next month?
Now if Schwarzenegger and McCain could figure out what they really are you would have a huge advancement to party reform and poltentially the return of your prodigal republican electorate.
So Arlen finally comes out of the closet. You know he was born a Democrat, and either you're born a liberal progressive thinker or you're not. It's not a choice.
Scot, that is really funny, but much to highbrow for here. Fairness keeps me from posting some of the most predictable responses from some bloggers who would be clueless as to the irony of it. Why is there no computer icon for hahaha!
"Universal health care" is the insurance industry's wet-dream, and will no doubt receive wide approval from our elected representatives, and they will welcome the campaign donations sure to follow...we progressives have advocated for a single-payer model for decades, the Obamma administration just drove a nail into that coffin. pun intended. Specter hasn't joined a progressive party, rather he has distanced himself from the republican embarrassment.
Honestly, probably no party wants to claim this politician as its own. But this may finally put a stop to the incredibly wasteful and shameful moves by sleazy political idealogues who have recently proven willing to do anything to interfere with legislation and progress, merely because it is supported by the President. Thank God the government will no longer be controlled by military contractors, oil companies, overpaid Wall St. executives, and leaders of large right wing churches.
The Republican Party pushed him out.
No room for moderates anymore.
That anyone with an Grade A from the National Rifle Association could stomach the thought of waking up to the reality that he is representing the d-party is beyond me. Anyway that will probably be the biggest casualty from this incident. Now that he has become a deal maker with the d-brand that may have to go first, no tolerance for that love of liberty on the left side of the isle. I'm sure they will test him when H.R.45 is up for vote.
No on 1A-F
There is nothing principled about Specter's decision. He's a 79 year old career politician who knows from polling that his goose is cooked in the upcoming Republican primary. This is all about his political survival. Using Scot's analogy, at best, he's always been a switch hitter. Many Republicans in Pennsylvania, however, have played the role of the devoted wife in denial about Specter's tendencies. At least now there is truth in labeling. Hopefully, the majority of voters in next year's general election for his seat will vote against him.
Isabell, you have criticized others on this blog for allegedly being uncivil, but now insultingly claim Scot's e-mail is "much to highbrow for here." If you insist on being hypocritical and condescending, perhaps you can at least learn the proper usage of the homophones "to" and "too."
"much to highbrow for here."
That was a compliment. And Scot knows it. And I was right that some would not be able to grasp the sophisticated humor.
Alright Isabell. ... Let me take it slowly so you can comprehend. ... I understand you were complimenting Scot. ... But you were insulting - and continue to do so - others who you imagine might not understand Scot's interesting, yet hardly opaque or sophisticated, humor.
By the way, I disagree with Scot that liberalism is congenital. Perhaps he has a point in the sense that babies,children, and teens are dependent on others and thus require that someone else pick up their bills. That would make them liberals. But, as the old saying goes, he who is conservative at age 20 has no heart, and he who is liberal at age 40 has no brains.
My experience is that people with whom I typically associate - hard working, successful, private sector professionals - become fiscal (but not necessarily social) conservatives because so much of our hard earned income is confiscated and then wasted by government. The problem (at least for us) is that, as a percentage, we make up, at most, 5 or 10% of the adult population(hence, the reason for the shrinking Republican tent referenced by Mike D.). The rest of the citizens (the larger, less functional tent) can basically vote to have government redistribute too much of our income to themselves. In fact, if Obama has his way, an even larger percentage of Americans (nearly 50% of adults workers) will pay no federal income taxes, and the small percentage of us who pay most of the income taxes will shoulder an even higher burden. That is the Democrats' formula for maintaining power. Arlen Specter can now count himself among this pirate party.
Dizzy, your response to PJO Jr. proves his point about you being condescending. And yes Spector has proved exactly who he is of what he is made of!
Mr. O'Rourke has it exactly right. Amity Shlaes' The Forgotten Man, anyone?
I know the "Forgotten Man" is becoming required reading for right-wingers, but I'll stick to reading stuff by people who actually know the subject.
"...Amity Shlaes' The Forgotten Man, anyone?" Shipped free for orders over $25.00. But where is a forgotten man in above post? We are reminded with a few hundred words that the well-to-do pay too many taxes while the rest of don't.
Paul J. O'Rourke, Jr. | April 29, 2009 10:23 PM | Reply
"Alright Isabell. ... Let me take it slowly so you can comprehend. ... "
How kind to help a feeble old lady.
Respectfully Yours
Mr. Isabell Lawson
E-mail from "True Christian:" "Meet Serious Christian Singles, just like..." It seems real life situation comedy is alive and well. The post was in my Junk E-mail. " Good for a chuckle or two. Is the irony in it "opaque?" Or is it real solid for true Christians to send out match-making Junk E-mail?
I did not open it it because I am not looking for singles nor do I look for virus or worm (or whatever one should not let into the computer.)
As participant in the beehive blog, I can't prevent Mr. O'Rourke coming into my computer. Therefore (as once before) I am serving notice that his existence is irrelevant to my blogging. No further response to him shall be forthcoming.
"twains" Dizzy is not my pseudonym. My name is Isabell Lawson (Mrs.)
I know little about Senator Arlen Spector. On TV, his speech and his demeanor is always that of a gentleman. Judging by the the dislike he seems to generate on this blog, that's reason enough for me to like him. That is not a very sound rationale, but neither is the demonizing of Mr. Spector's person and motives. When Ronald Reagan turned from Liberal to Ultra-Conservative that was wonderful...right?
Paul has it exactly right?! That 50% of Americans will pay no income tax while he and those like him will shoulder all the income taxes for the nation?! Either he makes over $250,000 a year or he thinks Obama wants to tax only Republicans. Either way, it's absurd...and not even an intelligent interpretation of what Obama wants.
Paul, how can you be a rational, likable guy in one thread and then spew that.........oh skip it. What's the use?
Can anyone in here say they've paid one penny more (more than they would have) in taxes since Obama has been in the White House?
Scot, I believe my e-mail was entirely rational and anything but absurd. It is based on facts. While I very likely differ in political philosophy from you, I do enjoy reading your e-mails even if you and I are 180 degrees separated on an issue. Thus, I will refrain from making disparaging comments about your e-mail.
Yes, because of hard work over many years, while I do not consider myself "wealthy" by any means, I am in Obama's target group of income earners (of course he will not tax me only because I'm a Republican). Have I paid one penny more because Obama is in office? Not yet. (Were I smoker, however, I would have paid more in federal taxes effective April 1 as a result of a bill signed by Obama). My additional federal tax burden is coming down the road (let's not even get started on the existing and future state tax burdens).
I invite you to google and read a recent opinion piece by Ari Fleischer, entitled, "Everyone Should Pay Income Taxes," which ran in the Wall Street Journal on April 13. (Yes, that is the same Ari Fleischer who was press secretary for G.W. Bush. And I know you might consider the Wall Street Journal, at least the editorial page, a propaganda piece for Wall Street capitalists.) It makes for interesting reading. His article, which I had not read before sending my earlier e-mail, supports my argument regarding the unhealthy, overly progressive nature of our federal income tax system. His facts jibe with my facts.
Some interesting excerpts include:
"A very small number of taxpayers - the 10% of the country that makes more than $92,400 a year - pay 72.4% of the nation's income taxes. They're the tip of the triangle that's supporting virtually everyone and everything. Their burden keeps getting heavier."
"According to the CBO, those who made less than $44,300 in 2001 - 60% of the country - paid a paltry 3.3% of all income taxes. By 2005, almost all of them were excused from paying any income tax. They paid less than 1% of the income tax burden. Their share shrank even when taking into account the payroll tax. In 2001, the bottom 60% paid 16.3% of all taxes; by 2005 their share was down to 14.3%. All the while, this large group of voters made 25.8% of the nation's income. ... When you make almost 26% of the income and you pay only 0.6% of the income tax [again, not considering the payroll tax], that's a good deal courtesy of those who do pay income taxes."
"Mr. Obama is adding to this trend [raising taxes on the "wealthy"] with his "Make Work Pay" tax cut that means almost 50% of the country will no longer pay any income taxes, up from a little over 40% today. A certain amount of income redistribution in a capitalistic society is healthy, but this goes too far. The economic and moral problem is that when 50% of the country gets benefits without paying for them and an increasinly small number of taxpayers foot the bill, the spinning triangle [our pyramid scheme tax system] will no longer be able to support itself."
As you can see Scot, unless you also consider Ari Fleischer irrational, the facts are the facts. Of course, you can accept the facts regarding the relative tax burdens and simply argue that such a progressive tax burden is entirely fair and just. I would disagree with you philosophically, but that would simply be a situation where we agree to disagree. But I do not believe it makes my argument absurd or an unintelligent interpretation of what Democrats in Congress or in the Obama Administration have in store in terms of tax policy.
Paul, isn't President Obama reinstating a tax that used to exist before Bush Jr. cut taxes for the wealthy? People usually pay according to what they earn. That's the way it's always been, or am I wrong? I know my tax return, if I get one, does not equal what I've paid over the year. So that supposed 50% must not earn much money at all and I'm sure they struggle day to day. Living paycheck to paycheck with a very low bank balance that sometimes goes into the red. In my opinion, not the group that we need to pin more tax on.
Remember too that George Bush Sr. raised taxes. Governors Pete Wilson and Ronald Reagan both raised taxes.
I hear a lot of griping from a select few about what is "going to happen" when a lot of it has no foundation. "Marxism," communism and socialism come to mind. I've even heard comparisons of Obama to Stalin and Hitler. So I'm quick to jump because the whining about things that haven't come to pass, or will never come to pass, is getting old already and we're just over 100 days.
I'll look for Ari's piece.
Jim Boren's lead-in " (Senator) "Specter the defector" seems to have acquired the aura of a Jack the Ripper. Though I am confident that of the (claimed) 40.000 readers of the beehive about 39.900 would not join the chorus of the demands to do away with most of the government social programs, because there are a some cheaters and freeloaders in the bunch. Though some of the government grants are bordering the absurd. But we do not tear down a house when it gets dirty....we clean it up and restore it to be a healthy, humane habitat. But not during the stormy weather of mass unemployment and economy failure induced homelessness. The most amazing thing to me, the people watcher, is the recent demand for stopping social programs . It came from a mindset that within just a couple of weeks defected from the government payroll to self-employment in the private sector. Other than being accused of practically stealing money from the Baby Boomers, these now retirees, were never on the dole. To the contrary, because of unfortunate time element, my Korean veteran husband was deprived of his Cal Vet benefits. The national hero Ronald Reagan defected from liberal to the conservative right, and Senator Arlen Spector's conscience led him in the opposite direction. And those who cannot live with that "can go chasing after moon beams or light a penny candle on a star."
Paul, I was sorry to hear about your colleague. My condolences to his family.
Scot, thank you for your kind words.