Veteran GOP Sen. Specter switches parties

[darth los]

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/30456741/ Once they stop lolligagging over in Minnesota that'll 60 votes folks!! So much for Bipartisanship huh? It's sounds good when you actually NEED votes from the other side. Let's see how far the hand is extended once all 40 rep senators can vote the other way and still not have it make a difference.

[Yojimbo]

Spector did this because he realizes that he had no chance of winning the election as a Republican against the opposing Repblican candidate. As there is no democratic candidate, this at least allows him few months down the line a bit of a fighting chance.

[darth los]

Spector did this because he realizes that he had no chance of winning the election as a Republican against the opposing Repblican candidate. As there is no democratic candidate, this at least allows him few months down the line a bit of a fighting chance. Furthermore, there is no place for a moderate like Specter in his own party. Listen to all the heads of the party talk, it's all far right ideology and wedge issues coming out of their mouths. And if they don't want it to be 62 Democratic Senetors they'd best to change their tone. How many times do you think that Senators Collins and Snow from Maine can vote on a right wing agenda before they get their asses booted right out of office as well?

[SRP76]

Fuck Specter. He's more interested in beating the dead horse about getting his Philadelphia Eagles a retroactive SuperBowl championship than he is about doing his fucking job, anyway. He's been in Congress long enough. Being there 30 fucking years means he's part of the problem, not the solution. If anyone had any sense at all, they'd refuse to vote for him regardless of what party he's in. He needs to be out on his ass, along with all the other lifers that have served a thousand terms.

[darth los]

Fuck Specter. He's more interested in beating the dead horse about getting his Philadelphia Eagles a retroactive SuperBowl championship than he is about doing his fucking job, anyway. He's been in Congress long enough. Being there 30 fucking years means he's part of the problem, not the solution. If anyone had any sense at all, they'd refuse to vote for him regardless of what party he's in. He needs to be out on his ass, along with all the other lifers that have served a thousand terms. Term limits could be the way to go. It's so hard to defeat an incumbent. Many of them vote the way they want to regardless of where their constituents are on the issue because their seats are that safe. It might not be a perfect solution but atleast it'll get some new blood in there. Good luck getting them to vote on it though.

[Yojimbo]

Term limits could be the way to go. It's so hard to defeat an incumbent. Many of them vote the way they want to regardless of where their constituents are on the issue because their seats are that safe. It might not be a perfect solution but atleast it'll get some new blood in there. Good luck getting them to vote on it though. On the issue of incumbents-and forgive me for this digression from the topic under discussion - here in Los Angeles we have Mayor Antonio Villaragosa who recently came up for reelection. For those of you fortunate enough not to live in Los Angeles, this Mayor is one of the smarmiest, self-interested, self-aggrandizing, press-hungry narcissts that have ever held office here in Los Angeles. This is a dude that spends 10% of his time doing official city business and the other 90% of his time mugging for the camera at press opportunities and doing his own personal shit. Not a great mayor, so when he came up for reelection, he won by a very thin margin against an underfunded candidate who had virtually no name recognition and who did the most minimal ad campaign. Even though Villaragosa kept his office he only barely managed to do so, and came very close to losing it. I only mention this because sometimes incumbents can be so incompentent that their status as an incumbent barely makes a difference. I guess the point I am trying to make is moot since this fool is still in office, but as a guy who finds major faults with his administration I found it telling that even as an incumbent he failed to sweep the vote at the polls, and very much came close to losing. OK, digression over!

[Mike70]

How many times do you think that Senators Collins and Snow from Maine can vote on a right wing agenda before they get their asses booted right out of office as well? collins and snowe are both about as moderate as republicans get these days. plus, both are popular as all hell in maine. no one is going to beat either in an election up there any time soon. collins got 61 % of the vote in 2008 and her winning percentages have gone up every time she's stood for re-election to the senate. susan collins has often be referred to as "republican in name only" by many on the far right. snowe is even more popular, winning 74% of the vote in 2006 (the start of the great republican congressional meltdown). a list of olympia snowe's achievements and firsts would take up several pages and like collins she isn't trusted by the far right. in my not so humble opinion, both are among the finest politicians in the country and either one of the them would've made a damn good running mate for mccain instead of that vapid airhead he choose. but wait, both are pro-choice and pro stem cell research which makes them unattractive to the lunatic elements in the republican party.

[Crappingbear]

On the issue of incumbents-and forgive me for this digression from the topic under discussion - here in Los Angeles we have Mayor Antonio Villaragosa who recently came up for reelection. For those of you fortunate enough not to live in Los Angeles, this Mayor is one of the smarmiest, self-interested, self-aggrandizing, press-hungry narcissts that have ever held office here in Los Angeles. This is a dude that spends 10% of his time doing official city business and the other 90% of his time mugging for the camera at press opportunities and doing his own personal shit. Not a great mayor, so when he came up for reelection, he won by a very thin margin against an underfunded candidate who had virtually no name recognition and who did the most minimal ad campaign. Even though Villaragosa kept his office he only barely managed to do so, and came very close to losing it. I only mention this because sometimes incumbents can be so incompentent that their status as an incumbent barely makes a difference. I guess the point I am trying to make is moot since this fool is still in office, but as a guy who finds major faults with his administration I found it telling that even as an incumbent he failed to sweep the vote at the polls, and very much came close to losing. OK, digression over! Can he be worse than Ray Nagin of N'awlins who failed his city miserably only for the idiots to happily re-elect him?

[Purge]

Even as a Conservative, I have to admit to enjoying the writhing that the Republican't party is going through right now. Serves them right for being the sycophantic rank-and-file supporters of one of the worst, most fiscally Liberal presidents this country has ever seen. (Yes, Bush.) Libertarian uprising in 2012.

[Yojimbo]

Can he be worse than Ray Nagin of N'awlins who failed his city miserably only for the idiots to happily re-elect him? Ray "Chocolate City" Nagin and Antonio Villaragosa have so much in common that should hold hands and go out bowling. They are both incompetent fools that managed to stay in office when they should have been ousted. Though I suspect that Nagin won his reelection with a greater margin than Villaragosa did since even those who supported Villaragosa's first run are pretty frustrated with his antics now. If it were not for the apathy of the general voting public, I think Villaragosa would have been replaced.

[darth los]

collins and snowe are both about as moderate as republicans get these days. plus, both are popular as all hell in maine. no one is going to beat either in an election up there any time soon. collins got 61 % of the vote in 2008 and her winning percentages have gone up every time she's stood for re-election to the senate. susan collins has often be referred to as "republican in name only" by many on the far right. snowe is even more popular, winning 74% of the vote in 2006 (the start of the great republican congressional meltdown). a list of olympia snowe's achievements and firsts would take up several pages and like collins she isn't trusted by the far right. in my not so humble opinion, both are among the finest politicians in the country and either one of the them would've made a damn good running mate for mccain instead of that vapid airhead he choose. but wait, both are pro-choice and pro stem cell research which makes them unattractive to the lunatic elements in the republican party. I think you just supplemented my point. I was just trying to say the same things. That They are indeed reps in name only and how the far right can't count on them to vote too many times on a right wing agenda based on their geographical locations. I don't care how independent minded the citizens of maine are, let one of them turn into Sarah Palin or Michelle Bachman and see how long they keep those seats. On the issue of incumbents-and forgive me for this digression from the topic under discussion - here in Los Angeles we have Mayor Antonio Villaragosa who recently came up for reelection. For those of you fortunate enough not to live in Los Angeles, this Mayor is one of the smarmiest, self-interested, self-aggrandizing, press-hungry narcissts that have ever held office here in Los Angeles. This is a dude that spends 10% of his time doing official city business and the other 90% of his time mugging for the camera at press opportunities and doing his own personal shit. Not a great mayor, so when he came up for reelection, he won by a very thin margin against an underfunded candidate who had virtually no name recognition and who did the most minimal ad campaign. Even though Villaragosa kept his office he only barely managed to do so, and came very close to losing it. I only mention this because sometimes incumbents can be so incompentent that their status as an incumbent barely makes a difference. I guess the point I am trying to make is moot since this fool is still in office, but as a guy who finds major faults with his administration I found it telling that even as an incumbent he failed to sweep the vote at the polls, and very much came close to losing. OK, digression over! That was basically my point as well. However incompetant an incumbent may be they fact that they are incumbents make them very hard to defeat. There's usually a scandal or an extremely contoversial vote that goes down when an incumbent loses. The name recognition alone coupled with the comfort level of having someone familiar in office is priceless.

[Publius]

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/30456741/ Once they stop lolligagging over in Minnesota that'll 60 votes folks!! Yawn. A lot of Democrats are saying "hooray, we'll have a filibuster-proof majority!" Some Republicans are saying "ohs noes, the Dems will have a filibuster-proof majority!" Others are saying "good riddance, he was a RINO." It's all much ado about nothing. Specter is a slightly right of center moderate in the Senate. He was not a reliable vote against cloture for the Republicans before the switch, and he won't be a reliable vote FOR cloture for the Democrats after the switch. This is just a tactical move by him to avoid a primary defeat. If Specter were to disappear tomorrow, Snowe and Collins still wouldn't be a reliable vote for either side on cloture. All three of them will side with the Democrats when they feel it's appropriate and side with the Republicans when they feel it's appropriate. And there are a couple Democratic senators who aren't reliable votes for cloture either. The 60 vote line is more symbol than substance. I agree with you that term limits are probably the only way to get a substantial infusion of new blood into Congress on a regular basis. It'll take a constitutional amendment, though, and I don't see that happening any time soon.

[strayrider]

I think this a good thing. Let the Dems have unchecked power in both the House and Senate, I say. Let President. () pass each and every one of his Socialist schemes. How long would it take before even the most Liberal of ('s) supporters come to realize that his call for sacrifice not only includes the wealthy, but also includes them? Like Sipe said during that concert for Whiskey Bill Clinton: "Give 'em what they want!" -stray-

[darth los]

Yawn. A lot of Democrats are saying "hooray, we'll have a filibuster-proof majority!" Some Republicans are saying "ohs noes, the Dems will have a filibuster-proof majority!" Others are saying "good riddance, he was a RINO." It's all much ado about nothing. Specter is a slightly right of center moderate in the Senate. He was not a reliable vote against cloture for the Republicans before the switch, and he won't be a reliable vote FOR cloture for the Democrats after the switch. This is just a tactical move by him to avoid a primary defeat. If Specter were to disappear tomorrow, Snowe and Collins still wouldn't be a reliable vote for either side on cloture. All three of them will side with the Democrats when they feel it's appropriate and side with the Republicans when they feel it's appropriate. And there are a couple Democratic senators who aren't reliable votes for cloture either. The 60 vote line is more symbol than substance. I agree with you that term limits are probably the only way to get a substantial infusion of new blood into Congress on a regular basis. It'll take a constitutional amendment, though, and I don't see that happening any time soon. Well, I definitely agree with you that the number 60 is more symbolic than anything. Let's not forget that among that number we have Specter and the most hated man in the dem caucus, Joe Leiberman. Those two, among others as you have pointed out, can hardly be counted on to vote on a democratic agenda. They would need about 65 seats minimum for that to happen.

[FoodFight]

Is anyone actually surprised by his switch? He was a Dem until he was 36, so switching is nothing new for him. It's just further evidence that both parties are part of the same big-government coin.