Politics with Marc Ambinder

« Congress, The Administration, And The Financial Collapse: Document Search | Main | The Democratic Supermajority: What Does It Mean? »

Apr 28 2009, 12:04 pm

Specter To Switch Parties?

Democratic sources say that Sen. Arlen Specter (R-PA)  has signaled his intention to caucus with the Democrats, potentially giving the party a 60-seat majority by the end of the summer.


Background here.

More....

UPDATE:
Senate Republican leaders are meeting now (12:13 p.m. Eastern), according to a Senate GOP aide, presumably to discuss the development. More to come...

A statement reportedly from Specter was just posted by PoliticsPA.com. In it, Specter declares, "I have decided to run for re-election in the 2010 Democratic Primary."...

"While I have been comfortable being a Republican, my Party has not defined who I am."...

"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."...

"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."...

Full statement below:

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 (3)

EEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Happy 100 days Mr. President!

This is so awesome. Sucks he won't flip back for EFCA but God willing he'll vote for cloture to get labor to back away in the end.

So happy.

I saw this here first so thanks for the news.

According to ABC News poll only 21% people consider themselves republicans which is the lowest number for repubs. No wonder Sen Specter has also left the party. At this rate no one should be surprised if republican party is left with only 21 senators. The party of Rush, Hannity, Rove, McConell, Bohner, Cantor, Gingrich, Bachmann are preaching to their own 21% crowd. They can elect idiots like Michelle Bachmanns every once in a while but people like Specter have no future in the party. President Obama should be thankful to this 21% crowd since they are sealing the deal for Democrats for years to come.

Thank you Rush, Hannity, Rove, McConell, Bohner, Cantor, Gingrich, Bachmann!

This is, to say the least, very interesting.

I think this situation, combined with the Lieberman situation, may (should?) cause parties to consider the consequences when they decide to primary a sitting member.

So what does it mean?

The Right boards are all a twitter with predictions and wishful thinking the there will be a recall (doe to the party change), or that he will be challenged by the left. Not gonna happen. There are not enough votes for a recall, and I think Rendell has the machine at the state level to stop it even if the votes might be there. I think the idea of him being challenged from the left is not likely. The days of MoveOn and other progressive organizations mounting independent efforts are over. One of the first things Rahm and Obama did was to consolidate the Democratic machinery in the White House, and I have a feeling that part of the deal is that any one who wants to challenge Arlen from the left will have his arms broken by Rahm.

We will see if Toomey is a legitimate challenger in a general. While I think that based on todays assumptions (mainly the the change in voter registration numbers that Arlen referenced in his statement), Arlen will walk over Toomey by at least points, I can also see a situation that is much closer: If unemployment is in double digits next September/October; and/or the GM deal blows up - watch out. Wild card - The New Mexico Independent reported earlier today that the EPA had canceled/withdrawn a permit for a new coal fired plant in New Mexico. If the EPA applies this stance to other coal projects throughout the US, it may change the calculus of the race. My personal "canary in the coal mine" on the general election? Watch the governors races in Michigan and Ohio to see if there is a trend among the rust belt to reconsider the GOP.

Now what does this mean for policy? Dunno. Arlen is famously independent, and could end up being another Blue Dog thorn in the side that makes Kos, MoveOn and others gnash their teeth and plead to Rahm and Valerie Jarrett to allow them to primary him. On Card Check, Specter says his position will not change. But does that mean his position on cloture, or the legislation its self? I could see him splitting his votes (for cloture, against the measure). Which brings up a different question: Would Harry Reid want to put some of his other Blue Dogs in that bind, or would this force a compromise? My guess is that Harry Reid, when the calculus is finished, would rather save his other Blue Dogs from a bind, and would put forward a something akin to the Starbucks, Walmart proposal (labor is slated to get a pretty big gift in the auto melt down, so there may be room for Reid push back on them in regards to a compromise).

The other policy issue that he could be a sticking point on is cap and trade. On coal and environmental issues, he is not going to be the automatic 60 vote panacea that many Dem's may be thinking that they are getting today. And I just do not see him as an automatic on health care.

So given that Arlen is no guarantee on the issues that Democrats think are the most important (health care, labor, environment - heck, even future budgets), and he will displace someone on the Democratic side in terms of seniority, why do it?

It is an opportunity to score points against the GOP, and if I were on their side, I wouldn't pass it up either.