So I was about to come out with a new senate ratings update when all of a sudden something crazy happened. It was one of those things I never could have predicted happening and never saw coming. Republican Senator Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania switched sides and became a Democrat today...holy kamole batman.
Specter was going to have a difficult time surviving in the Republican primary because most of the moderates in Pennsylvania registered as Democrats last year. The Republicans in Pennsylvania are actually really conservative and were probably going to select wing-nut Pat Toomey. Now Specter will run as a Democrat and face Toomey (should he still run) in a statewide election with all of his former support available, along with the forces that are the Democratic Party and Barack Obama. Obama has already called him pledging his full support. Apparently Joe Biden was talking to Specter trying to convince him to switch parties. And oh how well it worked.
This is symbolically huge, however, because it just gave Democrats their sixtieth seat (assuming Al Franken is seated, which he will be). 60 is a magic number in the Senate because 60 votes are needed to stop a filibuster. This is really only symbolically important because the Democrats were fairly successful in getting either Specter, Susan Collins of ME, or Olympia Snowe of ME to vote with them already.
Tuesday, April 28, 2009
WOAH
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
I fail to see how you get what you got out of this. I look and see nothing but the party machines chugging along, doing what they do best. It's not really a success for the Democrats if they get another seat, if the same person is there, nor is it a failure for the Republicans.
Moreover, the fact is that the majority of filibusters will still stand. If you honestly think that every Democrat will support a bill that the Republicans find a need to filibuster, you are being far too optimistic.
As for symbolism, I can understand that. This is a symbol of how flawed the two-party system is. So flawed, in fact, that one can not change one's politics and be accepted into the other party. I find this to be the quintessential example of narrow-viewed American politics.
And now I'll be quiet, because that was far too long.
Bryan, I almost agree with you. Specter's main reason was mainly survival, although he really can belong in either party.
Statistically people who switch parties do change their voting habits to some degree. I expect Specter to vote with Obama on most issues, including health care.
The main reason why this is important, however, is because the Republican Party is NOT chugging along. Few filibusters are occurring. You must realize that the Republicans are trying to filibuster everything, largely because it only takes one Republican to filibuster (aka crazy Tom Coburn of Oklahoma who tries to filibuster everything he doesn't like, even if his party supports it). They are poised to lose more senate seats in 2010. They are becoming less moderate because their moderates are losing or, in the case of Specter, jumping ship by switching parties or retiring. Specter said that he no longer could associate with the current Republican party. He isn't the only one in the United States feeling that way. That is why he had to switch parties. A lot of his base in Pennsylvania is made up of moderates. However, a huge chunk of these moderates switched parties and registered as Democrats. The resulting Republican Party in Pennsylvania is more conservative than it was previously, and that is happening to the nation as well. The Republicans are turning into a regional party.
Specter's switch is so important because it embraces a trend, rather than having a huge initial impact.
By the way, I agree that our single member districts isn't always best, but parliaments aren't too hot either.
Post a Comment