Specter’s party switch was to protect his seat
Much has been made of the 60-vote, filibuster-proof Senate since Arlen Specter switched to the Democratic Party.
By his own admission, he did this because he did not think he could win his next campaign in 2010 running as a Republican.
The first time, and every time thereafter, he votes for an issue in line with the Democrats that he otherwise would not have supported as a Republican, such as “card check,” he will be even more guilty of selling a Senate seat than was the recently removed governor of Illinois, Rod Blagojevich, because he will have pulled it off.
Bruce Raynor
Greensboro
Comments (8)
To report abuse of the comment feature on this site, please use the feedback form at the bottom of any page.
Term limits for Congress, now.
Posted on May 15, 2009 5:42 AM
He's not the only one who switched parties. His red state went blue and republicans there -- like republicans all over the country -- are fleeing the party in droves. (That is the ones that weren't thrown out by party-boss Limbaugh.)
Posted on May 15, 2009 11:21 AM
I don't think an elected official should be allowed to "switch" parties during their term. They should have to resign and run in the next election.
Posted on May 15, 2009 11:22 AM
Barbati,
That's because the repubs really screwed up when they controlled the white house and both houses.
Unfortunately, when one party has near complete control, bad stuff happens.
Normally, things would reverse in a few years after the democrats screw everything up just as badly and the repubs would be fasionable again.
This time will be different.
Obama will decide to make an absolute power-grab (ala Chavez to the 10th power) and change the course of history completely.
Posted on May 15, 2009 11:28 AM
Good riddance Specter.
...and take the rinos Snow and Collins with you.
Posted on May 15, 2009 11:45 AM
don't forget Powell, Chris Buckley and Kathleen Parker. Oh, heck, just kick everyone out.
Posted on May 15, 2009 1:09 PM
Truth:
I agree with much of what you write, but then sometimes you get a little nuts. Example:
Truth said:
"...the repubs really screwed up when they controlled the white house and both houses.
Unfortunately, when one party has near complete control, bad stuff happens."
Very true, couldn't agree more. We need at least two strong political parties to keep each other honest.
Then you write this bit of crazy off-the-wall nonsense:
"Normally, things would reverse in a few years after the democrats screw everything up just as badly and the repubs would be fasionable again.
This time will be different.
Obama will decide to make an absolute power-grab (ala Chavez to the 10th power) and change the course of history completely."
Wow. That's a bit much, don't you think?
Posted on May 15, 2009 4:19 PM
"Term limits for Congress, now."
That was part of Newt Gangrene's "Contract on America" in 1994 and he was no more serious about it than you are, Dan.
Posted on May 18, 2009 7:31 PM