Arlen Specter

Wow changing parties to get re elected. Any of you see a problem with this?

Nah. He never claimed to have any principles, to my knowledge. Worry about his votes, not his party maneuvers, those'll annoy the parties and therefore help us.

Ah, how many Democratic senators are there now?

I guarantee this was a manouver made by the Dems to grab more senate seats so they could have that filibuster-proof majority of 60.

yes and due to the fact specter was going to lose the republican primary for his seat. The conservative candidate was polling about 20 points higher than specter. He basically had no chance to win.

At 4/28/2009 7:30:20 PM, Volkov wrote:
Ah, how many Democratic senators are there now?

I guarantee this was a manouver made by the Dems to grab more senate seats so they could have that filibuster-proof majority of 60.

They'd have it anyway. Specter was already on their side of the isle votewise. It's a maneuver so they can pretend they convinced someone away instead of planting a mole :).

er, aisle

At 4/28/2009 8:46:54 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:

At 4/28/2009 7:30:20 PM, Volkov wrote:
Ah, how many Democratic senators are there now?

I guarantee this was a manouver made by the Dems to grab more senate seats so they could have that filibuster-proof majority of 60.

They'd have it anyway. Specter was already on their side of the isle votewise. It's a maneuver so they can pretend they convinced someone away instead of planting a mole :).

That makes a sad kind of sense from a voter's perspective, but just a good strategy from a politicians.

I know the Americam Senate is different from Canada's, but do you have senators crossing the floor to sit as 'Independent Democrat', 'Independent Republican', stuff like that? Seems like a safer bet than switching parties automatically, you don't lose your voters confidence if you sit as a 'Independent blank', but you're not tied down to any party lines specifically. But then again its a little different for me to understand, since we don't elect our Senate.

At 4/28/2009 9:45:16 PM, Volkov wrote:

At 4/28/2009 8:46:54 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:

At 4/28/2009 7:30:20 PM, Volkov wrote:
Ah, how many Democratic senators are there now?

I guarantee this was a manouver made by the Dems to grab more senate seats so they could have that filibuster-proof majority of 60.

They'd have it anyway. Specter was already on their side of the isle votewise. It's a maneuver so they can pretend they convinced someone away instead of planting a mole :).

That makes a sad kind of sense from a voter's perspective, but just a good strategy from a politicians.

I know the Americam Senate is different from Canada's, but do you have senators crossing the floor to sit as 'Independent Democrat', 'Independent Republican', stuff like that?

I'm not an expert on congressional procedure, but no, there's nowhere in the middle to sit:
http://www.senate.gov...
BUT.... Joe Lieberman, when he couldn't get his party's nomination, actually ran as an "Independent Democrat" a few years back, actually received the Republican endorsement (the Republican candidate lost their endorsement to him), won the election, is listed as that nonexistent party, and is a member of the "Senate Democratic Caucus" but hasn't attended it's party meetings or policy lunches since he endorsed Mccain, despite usually voting with Democrats on any non-national-security issue. Bernie Sanders von Vermont Socialism is also an Independent caucusing withe the Democrats.

At 4/28/2009 9:45:16 PM, Volkov wrote:

At 4/28/2009 8:46:54 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:

At 4/28/2009 7:30:20 PM, Volkov wrote:
Ah, how many Democratic senators are there now?

I guarantee this was a manouver made by the Dems to grab more senate seats so they could have that filibuster-proof majority of 60.

They'd have it anyway. Specter was already on their side of the isle votewise. It's a maneuver so they can pretend they convinced someone away instead of planting a mole :).

That makes a sad kind of sense from a voter's perspective, but just a good strategy from a politicians.

I know the Americam Senate is different from Canada's, but do you have senators crossing the floor to sit as 'Independent Democrat', 'Independent Republican', stuff like that? Seems like a safer bet than switching parties automatically, you don't lose your voters confidence if you sit as a 'Independent blank', but you're not tied down to any party lines specifically. But then again its a little different for me to understand, since we don't elect our Senate.

Why Specter did not go independent or run as an independent is simple, money. He needs the funding to win his race regardless of party. Just seems like politicians have no values or principles these days.

At 4/29/2009 4:51:03 AM, Lawsonishere wrote:
Why Specter did not go independent or run as an independent is simple, money. He needs the funding to win his race regardless of party. Just seems like politicians have no values or principles these days.

That may be one of the reasons but I think the Dems would have wanted him to come over as well, they're looking for anyone they can get. They have two independents and one Democratic-senator-in-waiting in Minnesota, which on top of the 57 Dem senators already there including our friend Specter here, that makes 60. Dems have a filibuster proof majority!
What that means is that gay marriage can now be approved federally, and the Republicans have no way to stop it.