Senator Arlen Specter (Democrat - PA)
To paraphrase idiotic, "THIS IS EXCELLENT NEWS!!!...FOR THE REPUBLICANS!!!"
Statement by Senator Arlen Specter
I have been a Republican since 1966. I have been working extremely hard for the Party, for its candidates and for the ideals of a Republican Party whose tent is big enough to welcome diverse points of view. While I have been comfortable being a Republican, my Party has not defined who I am. I have taken each issue one at a time and have exercised independent judgment to do what I thought was best for Pennsylvania and the nation.
Since my election in 1980, as part of the Reagan Big Tent, the Republican Party has moved far to the right. Last year, more than 200,000 Republicans in Pennsylvania changed their registration to become Democrats. I now find my political philosophy more in line with Democrats than Republicans.
When I supported the stimulus package, I knew that it would not be popular with the Republican Party. But, I saw the stimulus as necessary to lessen the risk of a far more serious recession than we are now experiencing.
Since then, I have traveled the State, talked to Republican leaders and office-holders and my supporters and I have carefully examined public opinion. It has become clear to me that the stimulus vote caused a schism which makes our differences irreconcilable. On this state of the record, I am unwilling to have my twenty-nine year Senate record judged by the Pennsylvania Republican primary electorate. I have not represented the Republican Party. I have represented the people of Pennsylvania.
I have decided to run for re-election in 2010 in the Democratic primary.
I am ready, willing and anxious to take on all comers and have my candidacy for re-election determined in a general election.
I deeply regret that I will be disappointing many friends and supporters. I can understand their disappointment. I am also disappointed that so many in the Party I have worked for for more than four decades do not want me to be their candidate. It is very painful on both sides. I thank specially Senators McConnell and Cornyn for their forbearance.
I am not making this decision because there are no important and interesting opportunities outside the Senate. I take on this complicated run for re-election because I am deeply concerned about the future of our country and I believe I have a significant contribution to make on many of the key issues of the day, especially medical research. NIH funding has saved or lengthened thousands of lives, including mine, and much more needs to be done. And my seniority is very important to continue to bring important projects vital to Pennsylvania's economy.
I am taking this action now because there are fewer than thirteen months to the 2010 Pennsylvania Primary and there is much to be done in preparation for that election. Upon request, I will return campaign contributions contributed during this cycle.
While each member of the Senate caucuses with his Party, what each of us hopes to accomplish is distinct from his party affiliation. The American people do not care which Party solves the problems confronting our nation. And no Senator, no matter how loyal he is to his Party, should or would put party loyalty above his duty to the state and nation.
My change in party affiliation does not mean that I will be a party-line voter any more for the Democrats that I have been for the Republicans. Unlike Senator Jeffords' switch which changed party control, I will not be an automatic 60th vote for cloture. For example, my position on Employees Free Choice (Card Check) will not change.
Whatever my party affiliation, I will continue to be guided by President Kennedy's statement that sometimes Party asks too much. When it does, I will continue my independent voting and follow my conscience on what I think is best for Pennsylvania and America.
Comments? I only have this to add:

















I wish I could see Rush Limbaugh's head, Glenn Beck's head, and Sean Hannity's head all exploding right now.
Woo f-ing Hoo for Obama today!
April 28, 2009 12:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
All the anger at the feckless Harry Reid...the old dog apparently had a few tricks up his sleeve. In a few months, Coleman will have to surrender. Lieberman is still in the fold due to the magnanimity of the President, in opposition to a lot of people here. Think about that.
Yes, he will be a Blue Dog, but a Blue Dog Democrat is an awful lot more likely to support the President's agenda than even the most liberal Republican from Maine.
This is a MAJOR coup people!!!
April 28, 2009 12:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
As a native Pennsylvanian, I've never cared much for Specter, especially in his capacity as creator of the "Single Bullet Theory" of the Kennedy assassination, but this is such a huge psychological boost for Obama and the Democrats (hooray us!), as well as such a complete slam against the Republicans.
I wish I knew a good sing-song rhyme built around the term "schadenfreude".
April 28, 2009 12:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
It's a major coup alright, against the political will of the people of Pennsylvania by circumventing the system. It's disgusting.
April 29, 2009 11:41 AM | Reply | Permalink
Yeah, it took forty years to come to the conclusion that the Republican Party had been taken over by extreme ideology?
Nothing that has gone on this year (or for the last eight years) is substantially different from what has been going on for decades. He would best be served by staying in the party and changing it into something he does support rather than quitting the field and leaving it in the hands of demagogues and ideologues.
Specter is apparently an opportunistic weasel rather than the ethical man I thought him to be by speaking the truth despite the political consequences.
April 28, 2009 12:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
It's gotta be a disappointment for you, Jason. And I don't think anyone believes this is other than a calculated political move. "Weasel" works!
Still....
April 28, 2009 12:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
I don't think it does the republicans any favors for Specter to get his ass kicked in the democratic primary while ceding the republican field to candidates with only ideological axes to grind.
April 28, 2009 12:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
This assumes that in the '10 PA Democratic Primary the heavy weights of the party don't throw their support behind Specter.
You have to know some deals have already been cut re re-election spending and support for him to make the switch.
The one out front Dem challenger, former Admiral Sestak wasn't thrilled about running against Specter.
April 28, 2009 12:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
He might reconsider running against Specter as a democrat though. Anything now is speculation, but it certainly is an ostensibly sensible voice taken out of the GOP narrative.
April 28, 2009 1:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
It would be a shame if the central Demos would scotch any serious primary run against S, but understandable. S. needs to show us the money, that is, just what kind of Demo will be promise to be?
Otherwise, let him be an Independent, that would be a more ethical stance as I vaguely understand his views. If the Demos want him in their caucuses, fine with me.
What would happen in PA with a three-way race in 2010? Rabid right, S., and then that Admiral...
April 28, 2009 3:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
Chalk this one up as a victory for Obama's self-fulfilling power of positive thinking. It's a morale booster, or buster (depending on which side one is on).
If Specter seriously wants to court the Dem vote, he'll have to perform, and the card-check legislation will be a real litmus test for him.
I'd rather have a preogressive Dem run in 2010, but Specter makes an acceptable place-holder until then.
April 28, 2009 3:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
I like that view. PA voters have about a year's worth of Specter (D-PA) track record ahead. But if there is no solid primary competition then what does it matter... will Demo voters just not vote at all?
April 28, 2009 4:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
We have a Dem. governor (Rendell) and a Dem. senator (Casey) and we went big for Obama (and almost for HIllary), so the real race in 2010 will be the Dem. primary. GOPer Toomey doesn't stand a chance.
April 28, 2009 5:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
Republicans will claim that losing by double digits is still somehow a moral victory.
April 28, 2009 10:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
... and that will ring true with a majority of their 17% or so of the electorate which dislikes Obama!
April 29, 2009 12:14 AM | Reply | Permalink
Yes! Somewhere I see a role for Bachmann in that, also! :)
May 1, 2009 8:27 AM | Reply | Permalink
This has Rahm Emmanuel's sticky fingerprints all over it.
April 29, 2009 11:49 AM | Reply | Permalink
I really do not understand your logic at all, here. If the "moderates" truly are the majority of Republicans (or republicans), would it not make more sense to just start a new party, or to revive the Whigs or join the Libertarians or something?
April 28, 2009 8:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
I don't think it matters what the moderate, conservative party calls itself.
It is likely to include independents, center-left/center-right folks and could be a common sense counterweight to to the left side of the equation. We aren't balanced right now. Putting all our eggs in the basket on the left doesn't make any more sense than putting them all on the right.
We need to find a way to negate the influence of our more combustible citizens (those who blow up abortion clinics on the right or fight with police at IMF and WTO events on the left) and start governing from a more progressive and holistic place. I don't think the republican party necessarily needs to die in order to accomplish that and it might even be useful in bringing that more moderate conservative coalition together. There is a historical precedent to us in order to inspire that redefining of the right.
Or maybe something new will need to emerge because the neocons polluted the brand so much that it needs to be burned for us to move forward. I don't really care what happens as long as we get there soon. We can't handle the pendulum swings much longer.
April 29, 2009 8:35 AM | Reply | Permalink
You're right - he's a minor baron trying to maintain his hold on his fiefdom and as usual, fuck the peasants.
Another example of why we must enact term limits.
April 29, 2009 11:47 AM | Reply | Permalink
The GOP shot themselves in the foot when they began to get behind Pat Tommey's challenge for Specter's seat in 2010. They earned this one.
April 28, 2009 12:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
Just more fuel added to the cleansing fire the republican party must go through over the next few election cycles to emerge as something (perhaps even as a brand new party) that helps the country finally transition to this century.
April 28, 2009 12:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
Pretty soon you the Republicans will have cleansed themselves out of existence. You will be left with nothing except the likes of Bachmann, Ensign, DeMint and Vitter . . . great thinkers all. (please read with appropriate amount of sarcasm)
April 28, 2009 1:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think it was inevitable that the crazies would dominate the national exchange while real change occurred over a period of years starting at the local level and radiating upward. A similar thing happen in the democratic party throughout the liberalesque 90s.
April 28, 2009 1:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
Jason, man, I love you and its great that you're keeping the faith, because I'd like nothing better than to see the Republican Party reborn and dominated by people who were cogent and sane. But I've got to tell you that in most places, it really looks to me like the crazy gets worse the closer you get to the turf, not better. I'm sure that's not true where you live, but it sure as heck is here in the ol' North State.
April 28, 2009 4:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
One step forward, two steps back, my friend.
I forgot who said it around here (San Fernando Curt maybe?) but they posited that we eat the elephant (and the donkey) one bite at a time. That we need to realize that a lot of what we are looking to achieve may take quite some time.
I am sure the GOP will get "worse" before it gets better. The former is human nature and the latter is a requirement for continued existence. It's been a while since a political party Whiged [sic] out and the GOP is not out of the woods yet.
April 28, 2009 4:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
It doesn't help that GOP gun nuts keep shooting cops, either.
April 28, 2009 5:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
jason, it seems to me (and I'll concede that I'm probably wrong), that the more likely scenario is that the GOP will die, and the Dems will split between the center and center-left into 2 parties. The same split that formed the Whigs and Democrats from the Democratic-Republicans
my $0.02
April 28, 2009 6:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
Perhaps, though I would say the parties would be the far left joining the solid left and then contrasting with the center left and center right on the other side. Perhaps the same thing will occur within the confines of the existing party structure or a new party will emerge.
The outcome will be the same in either case, though the latter seems a stretch given the dynamics involved and long-held political identities. The republican party has been around longer than any party in the history of the Republic save the democratic party. I agree it has no choice but to transform, but I think the news of its death in a Whig-like fashion might be a bit premature.
April 28, 2009 7:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
Fair enough. My reckoning about the split in the Dems is based in a likely inability of the GOP to exorcise the Far Right from its ranks. I think the Centrists won't be fully able to take control of the GOP, and will be forced to form their own party. Then, this center-right party would need to extend a hand to the center-left conservaDems to grow its ranks and base. It would take time, but I think such a new party would gradually whittle away at the GOP's position until the GOP packed up its pup tent and went home. The core problem, of course, would be this new party's ability to keep the fringe from infecting it.
If it managed that, such a Centrist party would be liable to be in change for a long time, but at the same time moving the entire (relevant) political window to the left. Centrists become the 'conservatives'- but in the conservative sense in other countries, and the Democrats would be more free to move left- with the right at the center, the Left stops being the fringe.
Yes, that works both ways, but I'm seeing this the way I want to, of course.
And thanks for the complement.
April 28, 2009 8:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
That would be fine with me. I am not a big fan of labels, so it doesn't matter what the parties are called.
It only matters to me that we negate the toxic influence of the far right and moderate the more combustible influence of the far left by way of having two parties that speak to needs of the many over the wants of the few. I see Obama as being able to manage that transition for the democratic party over the next eight years and perhaps influence the machinations on the right.
There is simply no leader who has come to national attention that is calling those true center left-right folks. A modern Teddy Roosevelt who is able to articulate a vision of rugged individualism within the confines of a shared society and obligations. The far right has been in charge of the conversation for so long that no real, old school conservative stands a chance right now.
Until that person emerges, I suspect your interpretation will be spot on.
April 29, 2009 8:25 AM | Reply | Permalink
PS: Love the handle. "It's got big, nasty teeth!"
April 28, 2009 7:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
You're... you're not implying that the Rs are stupid are you, Astral?
April 28, 2009 2:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm more likely to come right out and say it: Dumber than a bag full of hammers!
April 28, 2009 2:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
I wonder if he will now apologize to Anita Hill!
April 28, 2009 12:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
Ha!
April 28, 2009 12:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
Served cold.
April 28, 2009 12:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
... "the liberalesque 90s."
Gee, never heard it called THAT before.
April 28, 2009 1:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
Is it like burlesquese? But without the pasties?
April 28, 2009 2:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
"burlesque" )still can't remember to check spelling)
April 28, 2009 2:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
It was "like" liberal, without any of the actual liberal policies.
April 28, 2009 2:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
Exactly.
April 28, 2009 3:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
Sorry. Forgot to rec'd!
April 28, 2009 1:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks for stopping by TherP! I've got two sick parents (mom just got diagnosed with breast cancer, dad is getting ready for his prostate cancer treatment) and I haven't been able to participate here much lately.
April 28, 2009 2:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks for telling us that. Maybe you need to stop in for moral support sometimes. Sorry to hear this. And good to see you!
April 28, 2009 2:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm not about to sign Specter up for weasel of the week. He has stood his ground against the party on several occassions. He has been scarred time and again for doing so, but he did it anyway, again and again. He is a formidable Senator and an asset to the Dems. I'm not saying I will give him a free pass. Time will tell, but he has already done good things for the Left and now that he's gotton on board the Kickin' Ass, I suspect doing things that comport with the liberals will be even more common.
April 28, 2009 2:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well my rec went through anyway.
Good post Astral. I mean it. I blogged and looked on the dash and there you were. We needed the entire statement.
And it looks like I did not take anything away from you.
April 28, 2009 3:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hey DD, I haven't been able to put up much content lately, but this was exciting news so I did what I could. I'm glad you were able to come along and do it up proper. Cheers!
April 28, 2009 3:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
I only care how he will vote and see if he blocks key legislation. Otherwise he is number now...59...and this number don't mean jack until we see how he votes. He has always been a slick talker but a shallow politician for years...No excitement here until he helps bring change and progress!
April 28, 2009 4:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
When I registered with tpm, this is what it asked me to agree to. I'm sure it asked you all the same thing. It looks to me like a lot of people have lied.
"You agree not to use the TPM websites or the Service to:
upload, post, email, transmit or otherwise make available ("Post") any Content:
- that is unlawful, harmful, threatening, abusive, harassing, tortious, defamatory, vulgar, obscene, libelous, false or inaccurate, invasive of another's privacy, hateful, or racially, ethnically or otherwise objectionable;"
Here's my two conservative cents on this issue. Arlen Specter is to the republican party and conservatives alike as oil is to water. Point blank. You can have him. He is not one iota conservative in ANYTHING he does. It's like saying Rush Limbaugh is liberal. Sorry, not a fit. So, although the liberal side is having so much fun saying his deflection speaks volumes to our party, it just simply isn't true. Sorry to ruin your fun. Please ask him if he'll take McCain with him. We don't want him either.
April 28, 2009 5:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
You can keep your 2008 prez candidate. You chose him, he's yours.
April 28, 2009 5:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
Saying Arlen Specter is a liberal is kind of like calling Rush Limbaugh a republican. In fact, not many in our party can actually lay claim to those ideals, though most profess the ideology.
April 28, 2009 5:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
I guess the main problem for the GOP is that most of them are neither republican or conservative.
April 28, 2009 5:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
That is the main problem to be sure.
April 28, 2009 7:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
Arlen might not be a conservative, but he was a seat. Which is more important to you -- seats or purity?
This just shows me that GOP is all tactics and no strategy. They play "hardball" only to alienate people they actually didn't have much leverage over. And to what end?? They are wrecking their own party for no good reason. That is what is so delightful for us liberals.
The instinct of many GOP to say "who cares, good riddance!" just prove the point: The GOP is driven by petty instincts. It's become a surly, irritable child.
April 28, 2009 9:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
Jez like you said, a surly irritable child. Snivelling, "Go ahead. Leave. I don't care!" and bawling like a baby just to prove how little they care.
April 29, 2009 3:26 AM | Reply | Permalink
Good one astral66. Rec'd
April 28, 2009 8:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
Many of the comments posted here leave me rather depressed. They read more like the psychotic rants of the now-dying GOP than something from a now-rising Democratic Party. Are there no adults in the room?
The Senate career of Arlen Specter has been, and continues to be, one marked by integrity, ,independence, and - indeed - progressiveness. He never walked lock-step with GOP ideologues. His voting record over nearly 3 decades is pragmatic & objective. Over the past 8 years, he was often the lone voice in the GOP challenging Dubya's attempts to become am emperor without clothes.
Specter's move today is a major net plus for the Democratic Party. I refuse to be a GOP-clone and demand ideological purity. Nor, am I willing to discount the great black eye that Specter's party change has given the GOP. Specter has turned the 2010 Senate game into a question of, How many more seats will the GOP lose? It now appears there will be a Democratic majority of 63 - 65 seats come January 2011.
It is, indeed, rather distressing when so-called progressives on this blog begin acting like GOPers. That is not the way to forge a long-term Democratic majority in the Senate nor, in the country, for the next generation.
Lastly, not to welcome Specter into the Democratic fold with open arms suggests a degree of immaturity and mean spiritedness that is simply put, embarassing. We are in the majority; it is time to act like adults and not like a bunch of back bench miscreants in need a of sound razor strapping.
April 29, 2009 1:05 AM | Reply | Permalink
I am not sure what you mean. I read this entire thread, and the general impression I got is that we are all glad that Specter is aboard; and the jury is out about how he will vote. What is wrong with that?
I think that he will lean more left-ward, because clearly he wants to be re-elected, and he will be seeking Democratic votes; if he stayed in the GOP he would have to lean right-ward to capture those votes. That leaning is within the bounds of integrity; it is the kind of compromise that goes on every day.
Could you give an example or two of the "psychotic rants" that offended you? I may have just missed them.
April 29, 2009 8:59 AM | Reply | Permalink
He never walked lock-step with GOP ideologues.
Like the time he appeared on the Howard Stern show. Yes Specter is different. That doesn't mean we have to like him.
So is the Pa GOP so far-right that Tom Ridge has about the same shot against Twomey that Specter did?
Twomey's "Club for Growth" strategy of targeting Lincoln Chafee worked real well for the party, didn't it?
April 29, 2009 3:24 AM | Reply | Permalink