Arlen makes it official...

**Pete Hanlin** · 04-28-2009, 11:40 AM

Faced with the probability that he would lose the GOP primary in the next election, Sen. Arlen Specter has (finally) officially switched his affiliation to the Democratic Party.

When I lived in PA, I voted for Specter twice- but its been obvious for years that he is more closely aligned with the other side of the aisle.

So, by my count if the Dems can only squeeze out another seat or two, they should have total control of the Senate (i.e., they will be filibuster-proof). On the positive side, this means the President should be no problem getting an agenda through Congress- for better or worse!

Good luck in the future, Sen. Specter- I'm sure you won't need to change many of the speed dial settings on your phone as you settle into your new family!

**braheem24** · 04-28-2009, 02:41 PM

...and to think i actually came here thinking it wasArlen from King of the Hill. :(

**Uncle Fester** · 04-28-2009, 02:51 PM

And the biggest loser in this?

Al Franken--- Hello endless appeals---

**DragonLensmanWV** · 04-29-2009, 07:44 AM

What really irks me is the statement Mitch McConnell made. He said Specter's switching was a "threat to the country" and the issue "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."

More typical Repub fear-mongering.
Do these people actually hear what comes out of their mouth?

After all he is correct to be afraid, since look what happened to the country after Bush enjoyed the same and wrecked the country with no checks of balances. Fortunately he didn't get all eight years of it or we'd be even worse off.
Now we'll just have to see if the Dems can rise above the dreck the Repubs left behind.

**Spexvet** · 04-29-2009, 08:09 AM

Originally Posted by Pete Hanlin

Faced with the probability that he would lose the GOP primary in the next election, Sen. Arlen Specter has (finally) officially switched his affiliation to the Democratic Party.

When I lived in PA, I voted for Specter twice- but its been obvious for years that he is more closely aligned with the other side of the aisle.

So, by my count if the Dems can only squeeze out another seat or two, they should have total control of the Senate (i.e., they will be filibuster-proof). On the positive side, this means the President should be no problem getting an agenda through Congress- for better or worse!

Good luck in the future, Sen. Specter- I'm sure you won't need to change many of the speed dial settings on your phone as you settle into your new family!

I voted for Specter, too, and I am a Democrat. Specter has been moderate in most of his positions. I know, Pete, that if you are not in 100% lockstep with the gop that you're disloyal, and a RINO. But I don't think that Specter will be any more Liberal than he was a repubican.

**Night Train** · 04-29-2009, 08:31 AM

If the Republicans don't change a few things very soon, then I will be joining the good senator from Pennsylvania. I just received an incredibly stupid survey from my grand old party in my mailbox. I wrote back with a very strongly worded letter. The Republican party is not the party I joined when I was 18.

**DragonLensmanWV** · 04-29-2009, 09:07 AM

Originally Posted by Night Train

If the Republicans don't change a few things very soon, then I will be joining the good senator from Pennsylvania. I just received an incredibly stupid survey from my grand old party in my mailbox. I wrote back with a very strongly worded letter. The Republican party is not the party I joined when I was 18.

My wife, who is a registered Republican, also got that survey. She too thought it was incredibly stupid as well as an attempt to frighten so she just tore it up and threw it away.

I might also add the Republican party is not what it was when I was a young Republican, though not registered because of my age. I liked Ike, even though he ended up letting me down and Nixon tore it finally for me. Though he did get us out of Nam.

**Pete Hanlin** · 05-01-2009, 10:09 AM

I know, Pete, that if you are not in 100% lockstep with the gop that you're disloyal, and a RINO.
Yep Spexvet... that's why I voted for Specter, twice- because he was obviously such a loyal Republican! Your own statements demonstrate you are far more blindly loyal to your affiliations than I am to mine.

Now we'll just have to see if the Dems can rise above the dreck the Repubs left behind.
Yeah, well hopefully we can all pray that the Democrats will rescue us from the unilateral bungling of the Republicans... but, hold it- haven't the Dems held a majority in Congress for at least a couple years now? Oh, that's right! President Bush singlehandedly drove the economy into the gutter, demoralized our country with a needless war, tortured innocent foreign citizens, and accelerated global warming...

He said Specter's switching was a "threat to the country" and the issue "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."
Like I said in my original post, it just means the President should be able to get his agenda through- for better or worse. However, I'm sure the Dems would be making similar statements if the GOP was nearing a 60-40 majority (in fact, they did just a decade or so ago).
Given that President Obama ran on the theme of "Change, change, change," he'll have to be accountable for the direction of the country over the next couple years. No excuses about Congress being a roadblock- because he has very healthy majorities with which to work.

Of course, one of the sad truths of the Bush admin was an inability to get an agenda through in the first few years (when he inherited a healthy majority in Congress). Perhaps Obama will fare better.

Do these people actually hear what comes out of their mouth?
Funny, that's exactly what I ask myself when I listen to Pelosi, Clinton, Obama (and when I read some of the posts here)!

Politics are so fun!

**hcjilson** · 05-01-2009, 11:53 AM

Pete,
You don't actually believe the things you hear on Fox news do you??? The administration has been in place for a little over 100 days and I'll wager you have a better handle on what your government is doing than at any time during the last 8 years.

You spoke of the Bush agenda.....Just exactly what was that?

I haven't seen anyone lay the fault of the economy solely at the feet of Bush on these pages but I must admit, the deregulation of the banking industry which occurred during the past 8 years (and admittedly before, with a Republican majority in congress) might well have had a hand in it. Let's face it, there is plenty of blame to go around......the important thing is not to complain about it, but to DO something about it. My understanding after 100 days is that this administration is trying.

Change, change ,change, is not to be derided it's to be applauded! Does anyone think this administration is NOT doing its best to get things back in order?

**rbaker** · 05-01-2009, 01:25 PM

I'm quite surprised by Specters action. I thought that he was a Democrat.

**Pete Hanlin** · 05-01-2009, 05:57 PM

You don't actually believe the things you hear on Fox news do you???
Actually, I get most of my news from local channel 21 these days, Harry. All news services filter the news, Harry. Fox to the right, CNN way way WAY to the left (my perspective).

I haven't seen anyone lay the fault of the economy solely at the feet of Bush on these pages.
Harry, you must need an updated Rx (with Varilux lenses)! :p
Bush-bashing is rampant all over this board. The following can be found in 15 seconds using a simple search...

Yeah, no Tea Parties while Bush was spending us down the drain.Where was the outrage when Bush took a surplus and made a record deficit out of it in a very short time.

First off the Bush administration has been foolishly spending like a runaway train for the last 8 years

Once the speculators are done and Bush is done wasting our economy, we will be a third world country asking Bangladesh for help for what Bush and Cheney have done.

I'm a Republican- and have often noted here that the Bush Administration spent more than they should (guess I'm not quite as lock-step as my friend Spexvet seems to think). However, the economy tanking wasn't due solely- or even primarily- to the Bush Administration. The Executive Branch of government doesn't have the ability to influence the economy to the degree people (including those in the current admin) seem to think.

You spoke of the Bush agenda.....Just exactly what was that?
Just because you disagree with an agenda doesn't mean it doesn't exist- you're fairer than that, Harry- I know you are.

Let's face it, there is plenty of blame to go around......
See what I mean- you are a thinking man Harry (guess there's a couple left in Massachusetts :^).

Change, change ,change, is not to be derided it's to be applauded!
I can think of many MANY changes I'd be happy to have gone without. Change is not to be AVOIDED- but it should be thoughtfully examined and carefully administered (and I don't see a lot of evidence of either so far).

Does anyone think this administration is NOT doing its best to get things back in order?
You know what- I really do think the admin is trying their best. Amazing how you are soooo quick to deride the Bush Administration and discount the notion that they were trying their best to lead, but you're so quick to give this administration every benefit of the doubt! Let's face it, its all a matter of perspective- we tend to exemplify the positive and downplay the negatives in those we support- and vice versa for those we do not.

Many here feel the Bush admin wasted a lot of money on a war. A few (myself among them) feel this admin is going to fritter away $800 billion in an attempt to spend our way out of a recession. Both viewpoints (including mine) probably suffer from a lack of perspective.

I'm willing to concede that Clinton and probably Obama aren't nearly as bad as their critics portray. I just wish someone on the other side had the decency to do the same with the Bush administration (of which I'm no big fan, but come on guys).

**Pete Hanlin** · 05-01-2009, 06:03 PM

I'm quite surprised by Specters action. I thought that he was a Democrat.
That's because Sen. Specter has been a democrat (at least by his voting record) for many years. However, he's been a moderate democrat (moderates are unfortunately a dying breed on both sides of the aisle).

Actually, I'd put him right around Sen. Lieberman (whom I respect very much). The republicans were probably about to oust Specter for being too moderate in much the same way the democrats tried to oust Lieberman. The difference is Lieberman had the backbone to become an independent- Specter probably would not be re-elected as an independent. Its amazing how Specter was content to work within the Republican Party right up to the point where he wouldn't be re-elected. Then- gee whiz- he develops this sudden "the party has lost touch with my beliefs" conviction. I hope he loses re-election... to either a democrat (more likely in "Blue PA") or a republican.

**Spexvet** · 05-04-2009, 03:02 PM

Originally Posted by Pete Hanlin

I know, Pete, that if you are not in 100% lockstep with the gop that you're disloyal, and a RINO.
Yep Spexvet... that's why I voted for Specter, twice- because he was obviously such a loyal Republican! Your own statements demonstrate you are far more blindly loyal to your affiliations than I am to mine...

Originally Posted by Pete Hanlin

.... The republicans were probably about to oust Specter for being too moderate ...

My point was how the Pennsylvania repubican party treats those who aren't 100% "with" the party. As opposed to the Deomocrats who have elected Bob Casey Sr. and Bob Casey Jr., who are/were both anti-choice.

**Pete Hanlin** · 05-05-2009, 02:33 PM

I actually voted for Gov. Casey (one of the few Democrats for whom I have voted).

Looks like Specter may lose in the Dem primary anyway! Guess he's a man without a country. I respect him for the personal obstacles he's overcome, and for doing some good work on the Senate's Judiciary Committee- but I don't think he has necessarily represented the people who put him in office (but hey, that's why we have elections- and he has managed to keep winning them).