Althouse: Suddenly, Arlen Specter is a Democrat.

April 28, 2009

Suddenly, Arlen Specter is a Democrat.

Sources say.

240 comments:

«Oldest ‹Older 201 – 240 of 240

Revenant said...: Wait- many are saying he was virtually a Democrat anyway and this is just making things official(There was a good Clay Aiken gag) and now according to you, its solely because he is scared of losing a primary. Which is it exactly?

Um, where's the contradiction? He was getting his ass kicked in the primary because he kept siding with the Democrats.

His impending primary loss is the reason he left. The fact that he was pretty much a Dem to begin with is the reason few Republican voters will miss him. :); 4/28/09, 5:55 PM
Jeremy said...: Minzo said..."You know, Jeremy, he didn't switch because of any of that. He switched because he was going to get his ass kicked by Pat Toomey in the Republican Primary. So he went to Obama, Emanuel and Ed Rendell to save his butt."

I don't care why he switched, I'm just glad he did.

Probably the same way the Republicans felt when Ronnie made the move.

Ya think?; 4/28/09, 6:10 PM
I'm Full of Soup said...: Santorum is working for a think tank I believe and filling in occasionally on radio shows.

I was not a big fan of him but at least he was clear on where he stood on the issues.; 4/28/09, 6:15 PM
Jeremy said...: Leland said..."...nothing but vile cursing from liberal supporters of the move. One would think they would be gleeful, but instead they still seem angry and hateful."

Cry me a fucking river.

I think all of the wingnuts here should get together, join their little hands, and let loose with a collective W-H-I-N-E.; 4/28/09, 6:18 PM
Jeremy said...: LonewackoDotCom said..."If there's anyone out there who's smart and who wants to oppose BHO in an effective way, start a local group as described at the link above or even just encourage others to start such groups."

You mean kind of like...a "community organizer?"

Funny stuff indeed.; 4/28/09, 6:20 PM
DaLawGiver said...: Michael,

I think all of the wingnuts here should get together, join their little hands, and let loose with a collective W-H-I-N-E.God, you're an idiot. How many different ways can you be told? Nobody here cares.; 4/28/09, 6:28 PM
Eric said...: Wait- many are saying he was virtually a Democrat anyway and this is just making things official(There was a good Clay Aiken gag) and now according to you, its solely because he is scared of losing a primary. Which is it exactly?

It's that he was due to lose the primary. The part about him already being a Democrat is the reason most Republicans hope the door doesn't hit him in the ass. What possible reason would Republicans want him in the party when he votes Democrat so often?; 4/28/09, 6:30 PM
Jeremy said...: This should give many here a good idea of how completely insane the Republican Party has become:

Gun owners attack Rush Limbaugh

Rush Limbaugh's new pet project -- fighting animal cruelty for the Humane Society of the United States -- is riling sportsmen from coast to coast, prompting fears that the talkster typically supportive of gun rights is aiding a group they say has a secret agenda to end all hunting in America.

Twenty-eight groups representing millions of hunters and sportsmen are demanding that the conservative radio commentator end his collaboration with the HSUS and stop "helping them to mainstream their image in the minds of reasonable people."

Turning on the Supreme Leader of their own party because he's...fighting animal cruelty for the Humane Society.

It just keeps getting better every day...; 4/28/09, 6:32 PM
Jeremy said...: Eric - "What possible reason would Republicans want him in the party when he votes Democrat so often?"

He votes with the Democrats about 35% of the time.; 4/28/09, 6:33 PM
hombre said...: Alex is right. The Repubs are done. Not even the Dems inability to govern can save them.

Republican stupidity aside, demographic changes, Alinsky/ACORN/Chicago tactics, liberal fascism, and the liberal judicial oligarchy will perpetuate the Democrats in power until they run the country into the ground or surrender it to jihadists.

Or until the revolution....

Since, as I see from the 6:32 post by Jeremy, et al., "gun owners" and "sportsmen" are all per se Republicans, why should they let the pussies rule?; 4/28/09, 6:48 PM
jr565 said...: Minzo wrote:
"Wait- many are saying he was virtually a Democrat anyway and this is just making things official(There was a good Clay Aiken gag) and now according to you, its solely because he is scared of losing a primary. Which is it exactly?"
Are the two mutually exclusive? Can it not be both?
Many have held that Specter was a RINO for the longest. Thats in regard to your first sentence. So while short term it leaves us on seat shorter, it's not as if conservatives were expecting excessive loyalty.
In regards to the second sentence Specter was getting shellacked by a conservative conservative. (meaning one who espoused not voting with Obama on tripling our debt). Being one of only 3 squishes on the republican side to vote for Obamas big govt boondoggle, Specter was suddenly feeling the heat from conservatives who felt betrayed by his vote on the stimulus package. Thus he was losing his primary (and incidentally, makes republicans who found him to be pretty much a democrat, to believe even more strongly that he was).
For his own political survival he felt the need to bolt to the other party, and those who felt he was a RINO always expected as much (or as little) from him anyway and were trying to get him removed by voting in actual fiscal conservatives.
I say, good riddance to bad rubbish. Ultimately those who had little faith in him were proven right as he certainly showed no loyalty to the party or its principles while in it, though demanded that we increase the size of the tent to accommodate him, and showed no loyalty to the party in leaving it.; 4/28/09, 6:49 PM
Sofa King said...: This should give many here a good idea of how completely insane the Republican Party has become:

Gun owners attack Rush Limbaugh

What's this? The Washington Times is suddenly a credible source? We'll hold you to that in the future, you know...

Why am I not surprised you plagiarized this without attribution?; 4/28/09, 6:51 PM
Sofa King said...: I for one am shocked that Jeremy supports the Moonies. I never suspected he was one of them.; 4/28/09, 6:52 PM
Sofa King said...: Jeremy - Speaking of he Washington Times as a source:

It's owned by Sun Myung Moon believes the Holocaust was payback owed by the Jews, a consequence of Jewish leaders not supporting Jesus.

And here's one of his more interesting quotes, considering all the talk here about Obama the "Messiah":

"He [God] is living in me and I am the incarnation of Himself. ... The whole world is in my hand, and I will conquer and subjugate the world."; 4/28/09, 7:01 PM
Jeremy said...: Sofa King said..."What's this? The Washington Times is suddenly a credible source? We'll hold you to that in the future, you know..."

I told you before; I read all kinds of newspapers, the Washington Times included. And I've never said that everything they print is wrong or inaccurate, mostly just slanted to the right...especially their Op-eds.

Are you implying the article is not accurate?

And you can't possibly believe this isn't all over the internet...are you?; 4/28/09, 7:04 PM
hombre said...: I think at this time of day the Jeremy, et al., swing shift comes on duty and is even dimmer than the Jeremy, et al., early shift.

But probably not a moonie.; 4/28/09, 7:05 PM
Jeremy said...: Sofa King said..."I for one am shocked that Jeremy supports the Moonies. I never suspected he was one of them."

What in the world does reading the Washington Times have to do with actually being or supporting Moonies? Sun Myung Moon owns the paper...he doesn't write most of what appears.

I also read the Wall Street Journal and San Diego Union and I'm certainly not a Republican.

Do you think the Washington Times hasn't reported the Specter switch?

You're grasping at straws because you can't articulate a reasonable counter-argument to anything I say.; 4/28/09, 7:09 PM
Jeremy said...: As for Specter not really being a Republicans (sure), keep in mind that without Specter there's a very good chance we wouldn't have Clarence Thomas on the Supreme Court.; 4/28/09, 7:11 PM
Sofa King said...: Are you implying the article is not accurate?

No, I'm implying that your selective plagiarization misrepresents the article and that your hypocrisy as concerns the use of the WashTimes as a news source is beyond parody.; 4/28/09, 7:11 PM
Sofa King said...: What in the world does reading the Washington Times have to do with actually being or supporting Moonies? Sun Myung Moon owns the paper...he doesn't write most of what appears.

I was hoping you might clear that up, since you yourself wrote that post in response to someone who quoted a WashTimes article. The only word I changed was the name.; 4/28/09, 7:16 PM
kenaroni said...: Arlen Specter is a walking, talking argument for term limits. I include my Senators Lugar and Bayh in this category, along with just about every other person serving in the Senate. Of course, I'd be happiest if Senators were still appointed by the individual state governments.; 4/28/09, 7:33 PM
John Stodder said...: I suspect this day's events will be seen as an point of no return for the Republican Party.

Even though, of course, I get it, anyone with a brain gets it, Specter did this to save his electability. This was not reflective of a sea change in opinion. The sea change happened awhile ago.

No, what makes this a turning point is what happens as a result. As many have observed, the party is both irrelevant (powerless to stop Obama and the Democrats) and out of touch (listening to lobbyists more than to the American people -- loyal Republicans and independents alike.) It goes deeper than "the brand is damaged." The product is being rejected.

In the short run, this is very good for the Democrats.

But I suspect the right-leaning party that will emerge as the main competition to the Democrats will be a lot harder to typecast. It will not be the anti-abortion, anti-gay party. It will be the shrinking government party. At some point in the next few years, that option will seem VERY attractive to voters.

The only way it can succeed, however, is if it can managed to avoid becoming the corporate/K Street party. A lot of people saw the tea parties and said, "astroturf." I think that's wrong. Moreover, I think that in order to survive, the tea party folks need to stay as far away from lobbyists and corporate-backed think tanks as possible.

The interesting thing to see will be -- can social media alone create a mass movement? I think the left proved that it can. The left transformed at least nominally the positions of the Democratic Party on Iraq and the GWOT. I think the independent, socially-moderate right will go that route next, but without the usual sugar daddies. More to the point, they will not settle for "influencing the direction of the Republican Party." I think they will replace it.; 4/28/09, 7:49 PM
hombre said...: Jeremy, et al., wrote: "This should give many here a good idea of how completely insane the Republican Party has become:

'Gun owners attack Rush Limbaugh.

Twenty-eight groups representing millions of hunters and sportsmen are demanding that the conservative radio commentator end his collaboration with the HSUS....'

Turning on the Supreme Leader of their own party ...."

There is, of course, no evidence that the "millions of hunters and sportsmen" are Republicans or that Limbaugh is the "Supreme Leader of their party"?

It is so-o-o difficult to "articulate reasonable counter arguments" to what Jeremy, et al., fabulizes.; 4/28/09, 7:54 PM
Sofa King said...: The only way it can succeed, however, is if it can managed to avoid becoming the corporate/K Street party.

That won't be enough. Democrats have, as you pointed out, already mastered the use of social media to utterly destroy and discredit any potential leaders that might emerge. First embarrassing "facts" (true or not) are leaked, then John Steward mocks them mercilessly, then the rest of the news media spreads the story. There really is no realistic way a new movement could go up against an entrenched powerful party, especially in the first-past-the-post system we have. The only way the Democrats can lose power now is to completely self-destruct.; 4/28/09, 7:58 PM
Sofa King said...: I think the independent, socially-moderate right will go that route next, but without the usual sugar daddies.

I'm sorry to say, this is delusional. There is just no conceivable way a disorganized group of moderates can take on a political party that controls a vast plurality of the nation's GDP, let alone do it without major financial support from so-called "sugar daddies."; 4/28/09, 8:09 PM
bagoh20 said...: The British got Ben Arnold, that didn't work out so well either. It helps when the enemy wears their own uniform.; 4/28/09, 8:50 PM
bagoh20 said...: This comment has been removed by the author.; 4/28/09, 8:55 PM
john said...: Sorry, I had to drop out of the conversation for a while.

What's happening? Has McCain switched yet?; 4/28/09, 9:37 PM
john said...: "I intend to propose a rule change which would preclude a future recurrence of a Senator’s change in parties, in midsession, organizing with the opposition, to cause the upheaval which is now resulting."

Specter was so cute when he got angry with the Jeffords switch back in 2001.; 4/28/09, 9:51 PM
John Stodder said...: Sofa King,

Everything significant that's happened in US politics the past 10 or more years would have been described as "delusional" by most clear-headed people, until it happened.; 4/28/09, 9:57 PM
jeff said...: "Wait- many are saying he was virtually a Democrat anyway and this is just making things official(There was a good Clay Aiken gag) and now according to you, its solely because he is scared of losing a primary. Which is it exactly?"

Both. He was a virtual democrat and it IS solely because he was going to lose the primary. I thought you folks were the party of nuance. Why so dense and simplistic?; 4/28/09, 10:06 PM
jeff said...: "Jeremy, et al., wrote: "This should give many here a good idea of how completely insane the Republican Party has become:

'Gun owners attack Rush Limbaugh.

Twenty-eight groups representing millions of hunters and sportsmen are demanding that the conservative radio commentator end his collaboration with the HSUS....'

Turning on the Supreme Leader of their own party"

You forget a couple of important things.
1. Jermey is a idiot.
2. Jermey, when not leaving comments here, is blowing donkeys. You expect coherence from someone that blows donkeys?

Remember, his other argument is that all Republicans only know how to follow Limbaugh, and are unable to think for themselves. Both he and DTL shamelessly refute themselves, sometimes in the same thread, dependent entirely on what the "otherside" says.; 4/28/09, 10:13 PM
Sofa King said...: Everything significant that's happened in US politics the past 10 or more years would have been described as "delusional" by most clear-headed people, until it happened.

I think that's overstating things. Is there something in particular you're thinking of? It's not like the election of Bush was completely inconceivable. The Republicans taking Congress was improbable but certainly within the realm of understandability. Even the attack on Iraq was pretty easy to see coming, as it had happened before, and the threat had been talked up even by the Clinton administration.

Now if Ross Perot had won the Presidency back in 92, that would be about as probable as what you are proposing, I think.; 4/28/09, 10:20 PM
Peter V. Bella said...: People please,
Jeremy, or what ever the fuck his name is, is a liar, a charlatan, and a fraud. He is a troll who is doing all he can to make fools out of you. He says things, then denies them. He lies. He quotes without attribution or links. He is the most dishonest, ignorant, lying son of a bitch on this blog. He makes DTL look good.

When he is caught lying, proven wrong, or just plain making stupid statements, he accuses people of being drunk or on drugs. This is a typical tactic of lefturd trolls and Alinskyites. If you cannot make an intelligent argument, accuse people of being drunk or high.

If you look up cretin in the dictionary, the first definition is Jeremy. Wiki has a huge article on Jeremy; titled MORON. The reason they call certain mental handicaps retardation is because Jeremy was already taken.

He is Un-American, un-patriotic, disgusting, and despicable. He hates America, hates our troops, hates the flag, and hates anything that has to do with American values, customs, traditions, culture, and mores. His idea of free expression is only he has an opinion. The rest of us should be interred in camps and reeducated.

The only way to deal with him is to insult him, prove his lies wrong, or ignore him. He isprobably paid to comment here and on other blogs by some organization that hates this country; KOS, MyDD, or others.; 4/28/09, 10:55 PM
Revenant said...: Everything significant that's happened in US politics the past 10 or more years would have been described as "delusional" by most clear-headed people, until it happened.

The only two events of the past ten years that caught most clear-headed people by surprise were (a) the 9/11 attacks and (b) the revelation that Iraq didn't actually have WMDs. And the first one of those is iffy.; 4/28/09, 11:02 PM
John Stodder said...: The only two events of the past ten years that caught most clear-headed people by surprise were (a) the 9/11 attacks and (b) the revelation that Iraq didn't actually have WMDs.Really?

Stretching it to 11 years, what about the Lewinsky/Clinton impeachment business?

The attack on the USS Cole?

Florida 2000? And Al Gore losing despite a strong economy and Clinton's popularity?

After 9/11, the rapid return of hyperpartisanship?

The rise of Howard Dean and the resultant shift of Democratic Party politics to the left, especially on the war?

The precise way in which the internet enabled this?

The utter incompetence of Donald Rumsfeld and the administration's prosecution of the war?

Abu Graibh?

The breakdown of the consensus around homeland security such that there is serious discussion of prosecuting people for trying to prevent another 9/11?

The failure to bring Osama Bin Laden to justice?

Bush's insistence on the surge and its success?

HRC not getting the Democratic nomination in 2008?

Obama getting it instead?

McCain winning the GOP nomination, rather than, say, Fred Thompson, Mitt Romney or Rudy Guiliani?

The housing bubble, the mortgage meltdown, the destruction of personal savings on a massive scale?

Maybe I'm just easily surprised.; 4/29/09, 2:45 AM
Anonymous said...: When Snowe and Collins vote with the Dems, will it be declared a bi-partisan victory? Maybe they should switch as well and just get it over with.; 4/29/09, 5:33 AM
IndyMaster said...: When Jeffords jumped it changed control of the Senate, it's leadership and agenda. Specter doesn't change anything! Oh no, the Democrats will have a filibuster proof majority - we won't be able to stop terrible bills like porkulus any more. Oh wait...porkulus passed, because of Benedict Arlen.

It's all good - In 2010 Pennsyvania's Conservatives will hopefully have someone who will represent them properly. Instead of having the choice of Bad (specter) or Awful (Hard Lefty), they will have a choice between Specter or a Conservative. The worst case scenerio is the best they could hope for until now.

If we could just get every "moderate" republican to jump ship and displace an actual democrat we'd be moving in the right direction.; 4/29/09, 8:13 PM
IndyMaster said...: SofaKing -

Your arguements are rational - however Dick Morris builds a strong case that Obama has already sowed the seeds of the Democratic self destruction - and Rasmussun's latest poll has showed that the congressional balance of power in the midterms has moved into Republican territory for the first time in many years.

Obama is getting lower approval ratings than everybody except Clinton - and there is no way his policies are going to be effective. Think about it - if Obama makes everything OK then who cares? If he doesn't (and I don't think he will) then the Republicans will get a chance - we just need to make sure that when it's our turn again, we bring out a Reagan not a McCain.; 4/29/09, 8:32 PM
Wen said...: Yellow!; 4/30/09, 8:09 PM