But any one who would switch parties rather than run in a primary and accept the will of the voters isn't really much of a member of that party to begin with.
See also: Lieberman, Joseph
Incorrect, as usual, Snarf. Lieberman ran in the primary. He became an independent when he didn't win the party nomination and won the general election against both parties' candidates.
whomod said: I generally don't like it when people decide to play by the rules against people who don't play by the rules. It tends to put you immediately at a disadvantage and IMO is a sign of true weakness. This is true both in politics and on the internet."
This probably doesn't change things all that much. I doubt that Specter is going to be voting the party line now that he's democrat. That isn't a bad thing either.
But any one who would switch parties rather than run in a primary and accept the will of the voters isn't really much of a member of that party to begin with.
See also: Lieberman, Joseph
Incorrect, as usual, Snarf. Lieberman ran in the primary. He became an independent when he didn't win the party nomination and won the general election against both parties' candidates.
Yes, but he didn't accept the will of the voters. And once he won, he became a Republican.
Knutreturns said: Spoken like the true Greatest RDCW Champ!
But any one who would switch parties rather than run in a primary and accept the will of the voters isn't really much of a member of that party to begin with.
See also: Lieberman, Joseph
Incorrect, as usual, Snarf. Lieberman ran in the primary. He became an independent when he didn't win the party nomination and won the general election against both parties' candidates.
Yes, but he didn't accept the will of the voters. And once he won, he became a Republican.
As bsams pointed out, Lieberman never became a Republican. He's an independent who caucuses with the Dems still. He did accept the will of the Democrat voters and left their party. He then accepted the will of the voters of the entire state of Conn. and remained their Senator. Facts, Snarf. Facts.
whomod said: I generally don't like it when people decide to play by the rules against people who don't play by the rules. It tends to put you immediately at a disadvantage and IMO is a sign of true weakness. This is true both in politics and on the internet."
It's understandable that somebody could mistake Lieberman for being a republican. During the election he campaigned for McCain and there were upset democrats calling him all sorts of things.
It's understandable that somebody could mistake Lieberman for being a republican. During the election he campaigned for McCain and there were upset democrats calling him all sorts of things.
yeah I remember you were pretty pissy about that...
It's understandable that somebody could mistake Lieberman for being a republican. During the election he campaigned for McCain and there were upset democrats calling him all sorts of things.
yeah I remember you were pretty pissy about that...
Originally Posted By: Matter-eater Man
....
Lieberman did a great job endorsing McCain. He doesn't have much clout as a democrat these days but less than 8yrs ago he was running for the VP slot himself. He did it without sounding like he was crazy but as an old friend stepping across party lines to endorse somebody he really respects & likes.
It didn't take long for Sen. Arlen Specter to let his new colleagues in the Democratic Party know that his vote won't be taken for granted.
A day after abandoning the Republican Party for the Democrats, saying the latter better represented his political philosophy, Specter voted against President Obama's budget.
Whomod really got to BASAMS I see. Anyhoo I called this one correctly. Specter isn't going to be voting a strict party line just like he didn't as a republican.
Specter isn't going to be voting a strict party line just like he didn't as a republican.
btw thats why i and everyone else were laughing at whomod. it's not a big deal. Specter has never voted party line, it doesnt really change anything, he'll vote for whatever he feels is in his best interests regardless of party affiliation. most intelligent people understand this was strictly a shrewd re-election move. his state does not have open primaries so he picked the party that he stood the best chance winning in. i expect to still agree and disagree with him on the same issues regardless of his affiliation, like i do all politicians.
how far has whomod fallen when MEM is forced to come to the rescue?
Ooops sorry I shouldn't have pointed out how your obsessed with him. Please continue on with whatever you think your doing. I'm sure it's upsetting whomod something terrible
how far has whomod fallen when MEM is forced to come to the rescue?
Ooops sorry I shouldn't have pointed out how your obsessed with him. Please continue on with whatever you think your doing. I'm sure it's upsetting whomod something terrible
Specter isn't going to be voting a strict party line just like he didn't as a republican.
btw thats why i and everyone else were laughing at whomod. it's not a big deal. Specter has never voted party line, it doesnt really change anything, he'll vote for whatever he feels is in his best interests regardless of party affiliation. most intelligent people understand this was strictly a shrewd re-election move. his state does not have open primaries so he picked the party that he stood the best chance winning in. i expect to still agree and disagree with him on the same issues regardless of his affiliation, like i do all politicians.
He could have just voted party line more if it was all just about his self interest. There are benefits to running with the herd you may have noticed.
And it's not a given that he won't have some competition in the next democratic primary either.
At first glance, with Democrats a hair away from a filibuster-proof majority in the Senate, one would expect President Obama to have no trouble hand-picking a replacement for retiring Supreme Court Justice David Souter.
But in an ironic twist, Pennsylvania Sen. Arlen Specter's switch to the Democratic Party this week could give Republicans on the Senate Judiciary Committee the upper hand in rejecting a nominee they find unacceptable.
That's because the Judiciary Committee, where Specter was the ranking minority member, requires the consent of at least one Republican to end debate and move a nominee to the full Senate for a vote.
"I think, in narrow terms, it could present a procedural problem at the committee level, unless the Democrats are going to change the rules of the committee midstream," William Jacobson, a professor of law at Cornell University, told FOXNews.com.
"Most people presume in a controversial nomination that Arlen Specter would have been the one most likely to vote with Democrats, since he prides himself on being independent of Republicans. But now that he moves over to the Democratic side, the president and Democrats lost their most likely minority vote."
A committee aide to Sen. Patrick Leahy, chairman of the panel, declined to comment on anything connected to Souter's expected retirement or a Supreme Court nomination.
Before the Republicans on the Judiciary Committee can form an opposition strategy, they will have to elect a new committee party leader. Sen. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah, has served as chairman before and would need a waiver from members to serve again. Next in line would be Iowa Sen. Charles Grassley.
Jacobson believes the most likely Republican to help Democrats on the committee is South Carolina Sen. Lindsey Graham, who was one of the Gang of 14, a group of seven Democrats and seven Republicans who averted a showdown on President Bush's judicial nominees in 2005.
"If Obama were to nominate someone clearly viewed as a political appointee ... then I think Lindsey Graham would be subject to pressure," Jacobson said. "On the other hand, if he were to nominate someone Republicans don't like but is qualified, like (Solicitor General) Elena Kagan, would Lindsey Graham feel compelled to go along with the gang of 14? I think that is something that remains to be seen."
Graham's office did not respond to a request for comment.
Democrats aren't powerless to stop a potential filibuster at the committee level. They could change the rules to allow the committee to vote on the nominee and send a recommendation to the full Senate without Republican consent.
But Jacobson believes that's unlikely to happen.
"The senators, as political as they can be, they have tended to put value on the rules of conduct," he said. "To change the rules to get a particular nominee confirmed would set a dangerous precedent. I doubt Democrats would want to do that."
He added that changing the rules might tick off the unpredictable Specter who has developed a strong respect for tradition.
"If Democrats were to change the rule to force through a nominee, he might vote with Republicans," Jacobson said.
The Senate dealt a blow tonight to Sen. Arlen Specter's hold on seniority in several key committees, a week after the Pennsylvanian's party switch placed Democrats on the precipice of a 60-seat majority.
Democrats placed Specter in one of the two most junior slots on each of the five committees for the remainder of this Congress, which goes through December 2010. Democrats have suggested that they will consider revisiting Specter's seniority claim at the committee level only after the midterm elections next year.
Without any assurance of seniority, Specter loses a major weapon in his campaign to win reelection in 2010: the ability to claim that his nearly 30 years of Senate service places him in key positions to benefit his constituents.
Whoopsie! Maybe he should have gotten that deal in writing before he stabbed his own party in the back.
Yes, let's mock and ridicule a man who has served his state proudly in the Senate for over 3 decades simply because he's switched parties.
God, you are stupid.
Originally Posted By: allan1
Where I'm at in PA,Sen. Specter isn't well liked anyway.....this mess just cinches it.
No, Allan. Didn't you read what King Stupid wrote? Everyone LOVED Spector until this. Now people are simply mocking and ridiculing "a man who has served his state proudly in the Senate for over 3 decades simply because he's switched parties."
Yes, let's mock and ridicule a man who has served his state proudly in the Senate for over 3 decades simply because he's switched parties.
God, you are stupid.
Originally Posted By: allan1
Where I'm at in PA,Sen. Specter isn't well liked anyway.....this mess just cinches it.
No, Allan. Didn't you read what King Stupid wrote? Everyone LOVED Spector until this. Now people are simply mocking and ridiculing "a man who has served his state proudly in the Senate for over 3 decades simply because he's switched parties."
Sen. Arlen Specter (D-Pa.) today said he was guaranteed seniority on committees by Majority Leader Harry M. Reid (D-Nev.) in the final negotiations before his party switch last week, talks that, according to Specter, also included a pledge that he would become the next chairman of the Judiciary Committee in several years.
Specter stood by his version of the one-on-one talks with Reid, despite the Senate leader's contradictory statements on the matter and the resolution that passed last night placing Specter in the most junior slot on most committees on which he serves.
"When I talked to Senator Reid he assured me that my seniority would be as if I came in (as a Democrat) in 1980, and I relied . . . on his representation, and that's the long and short of it," Specter said in an interview in his Capitol "hideaway" office.
Specter said he understood that he would not vault into any committee or subcommittee chairmanships in the midst of this two-year 111th Congress, but he remained confident that Reid would live up to his commitment by 2011, because Reid will convince the other Democrats to go along with their gentleman's agreement. The issue of seniority -- usually an arcane internal Senate matter -- is essential to the political rationale behind Specter's bid for re-election in 2010. Upon making the switch last week, Specter cited his nearly 30-year tenure as evidence of his ability to deliver projects for his constituents and, in fact, cited that seniority as the main purpose driving him to remain in the Senate.
Now, he'll be relegated to the most junior end of the committee tables without even a subcommittee chairmanship, and no guarantee of claiming seniority any time soon. This could give an opening to potential Democratic primary challengers and GOP challengers, who may try to portray Specter as nothing more than a 79-year-old freshman.
In a brief interview, Reid said today he never gave any guarantees to Specter, saying that the issue was always going to be left up to the rest of the Democratic caucus after the 2010 midterm elections. "Senator Specter and his chief of staff, we thought, understood. . . . It's up to the caucus," Reid said.
That statement is contradicted by Reid's own comments to reporters last Tuesday, when he said Specter's seniority on committees would definitely apply after the 2010 elections. Specter also has a printed out copy of the transcript from that Reid press conference, with key phrases placed in bold fonts.
But senior Democrats said that over the past week Reid faced a rebellion from veterans in his caucus who were infuriated that Specter would jump in front of them in the race for key chairmanships, particularly those serving on the powerful Appropriations Committee. If granted his more than 20 years as a Republican on that committee, Specter would vault to the fourth most senior slot, ahead of 13 other colleagues, and have his pick of critical subcommittee chairmanships that dole out tens of billions of dollars each year.
Specter acknowledged the "concerns" from other Democrats but said that was never an issue Reid raised in their discussions.
"There was no mention of the caucus when we talked. We talked more particularly about if Leahy became chairman of Appropriations, I would become chairman of the Judiciary. Ask him about that. That was the arrangement," Specter said.
Sen. Patrick J. Leahy (D-Vt.) currently chairs the Judiciary Committee, but is next in line to take the gavel on the Appropriations Committee. If Specter were given his seniority, he would be in line to chair Judiciary if Leahy were to leave, a prospect liberal Democratic activists might find a bit uncomfortable given Specter's outspoken support of the Bush White House's judicial nominees.
Specter's discussions with Reid included two face-to-face meetings in the majority leader's office -- one on the evening of April 27, and then a sitdown with the two senators and their chiefs of staff April 28, the day the switch was announced. "We made the deal on Monday," Specter said, adding that the follow-up talk was to assure that his staff would get committee jobs.
Specter said Reid called him this morning to clear the air, and that the two are on good terms. A Reid spokesman said the leader "looks forward to doing whatever he can for Senator Specter's re-election effort."
Assuming he wins that reelection, Specter is confident Reid will convince the Democrats to stand down from their concerns and give him his seniority back.
"I think Senator Reid speaks for the caucus, he's a very strong leader," Specter said.
![[Linked Image from i13.photobucket.com]](http://i13.photobucket.com/albums/a275/captainsammitch/boards/banners/blogban3.jpg)
[/center]![[Linked Image from i13.photobucket.com]](http://i13.photobucket.com/albums/a275/captainsammitch/boards/banners/jlamiska.jpg)
[/center]
