# Sen. Arlen Specter (PA) to become a Democrat **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [April 28, 2009, 4:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sen-arlen-specter-pa-to-become-a-democrat/494627 "2009-04-28T16:09:49Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 4\ **Page:** 8
**Author:** ![Little\_Nemo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/little_nemo/32/3120_2.png) [@Little\_Nemo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Little_Nemo)\ **Post date:** [April 29, 2009, 8:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sen-arlen-specter-pa-to-become-a-democrat/494627/141 "2009-04-29T20:14:40Z")
> [@](#): > > Frankly, at this point I wouldn’t mind if he just ran off. Another person in the seat, even if it is a Democrat, is preferable to this man of little conviction, who mere months ago was saying how he couldn’t become a Democrat because it wouldn’t be good for “balance”. I’ll admit the timing is questionable. Specter was apparently willing to swallow any qualms he had about what direction the Republican were going for all the years they were in power. But now once the Democrats have taken over he’s decided it’s finally the right time to make the switch. ---
**Author:** ![Merijeek](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/f05b48/32.png) [@Merijeek](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Merijeek)\ **Post date:** [April 29, 2009, 8:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sen-arlen-specter-pa-to-become-a-democrat/494627/142 "2009-04-29T20:55:50Z")
> [@Mr.Moto](#): > > Keep your new pony happy now. Tantrums are ugly, huh? -Joe ---
**Author:** ![tds1273](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/df705f/32.png) [@tds1273](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tds1273)\ **Post date:** [April 29, 2009, 9:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sen-arlen-specter-pa-to-become-a-democrat/494627/143 "2009-04-29T21:00:56Z")
> [@Voyager](#): > > Not going to happen, until the GOP really melts down, since the Republicans in general seem to have the same opinion as you about who should be let into a party. Perhaps I’m being a bit too over the top, I’m fine with having varying opinions with in the party, but I also have no qualms about either side being critical to those deemed \_inos(D or R). It is just a matter of tact, political bias aside, there is huge difference in the way that Rachel Maddow calls out Ben Nelson as opposed to how Rush Limbaugh calls Arlen Specter. > [@](#): > > Crowding out? I don’t see that being happy to let Specter in implies the desire to push Kucinich out. I’m a former (liberal) Republican also, and I left for the same reason as Specter - the party of Rockefeller no longer existed. Plus I saw Dubya as a putz from day one. It does go towards drowning out the voices of the Kucinichs in the party; particularly in the corporately inclined media. As well, allowing Specter to keep his seniority and to already have the President’s support in the Democratic primary automatically puts a wall up to more progressive Democratic challengers. It has pretty much established the general election as being a Republican versus a slightly less-Republican. > [@](#): > > You know where people stand. What you don’t have is a simple list of must-believes for membership, which is pretty much what the Republicans have today. Abortion rights? Not allowed. Tax increases for the rich? No way. Reasonable regulations? Uh-uh. Do you want the Dems to have such narrow criteria for membership? I know where the politicians stand, most people on this board know where they stand, but for the majority of a Americans who might watch only a little bit of the News-tainment and not know of the all the games and nuances of political positioning, they will probably only hear CNN say-“Senior Democrat Arlen Specter said…” This essentially allows what was the rightwing to become the face of the left. > [@](#): > > A single party in power does have its dangers, but I feel a lot more comfortable when that single party has a very wide range of opinions in it, so that there are arguments on both sides to be heard and resolved before a position is arrived at. That used to be the way Congress worked as a whole, but with most Republicans adopting a “just say no” platform, we’ve lost the compromise. Notice they’re pushing out anyone who wants to negotiate. Particularly frustrating to me about seeing emerging trend of moderates jumping to the “popular” party, is that here in Seattle, our local voting is now essentially “non-partisan” and not in a good way. People running for local offices now no longer have to identify to a particular party. This makes things hairy because it makes it much easier for someone to run on claims being a Democrat but actually have very Republican leaning and connections. By not having the party identification, you can’t even have the comfort of their being held to their positions by party officials. [Here](http://www.thestranger.com/seattle/closet-case/Content?oid=1393918)is a good article from our free-weekly, The Stranger, calling one such politician out. If a member is so betrayed by their party that they must jump parties, thats fine, but to say that they will not change their voting, particularly on major issues as the EFCA and then get full primary support of the President and be able to keep their seniority; well you might as well render party-caucusing useless. Either they take the political risk and stand up to and fight right their own party or they pay the political toll and enter their new party at the same rung on the totem as anyother new member of Congress. I suppose I could see a consession for them retain their seniority until the next election, however once they run under a different party that should start on the same fresh footing as those they face in the primary. Switch parties? You should no longer be considered an incumbent. > [@](#): > > There are two possibilities for the future. Either the Republicans are going to move left and back into the mainstream, or they will become irrelevant and the Democratic party will split into left and right parts, the right part being more like the old moderate Republicanism. I hope it works out that way, but the way I see it (from my admittedly more pessimistic view) is that by pushing and wedging the moderate Republicans into the leftward spectrum and with the other side moving so far to the right, it creates a big void to be taken advantage of by still influential interests to position the new moderate as being somewhere between Specter and Palin. I hope the public is smart enough to see past it, and I still carry some hope from the last election, but that scenario is not what I would consider to be a happy middle. ---
**Author:** ![Voyager](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/voyager/32/133_2.png) [@Voyager](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Voyager)\ **Post date:** [April 30, 2009, 12:58am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sen-arlen-specter-pa-to-become-a-democrat/494627/144 "2009-04-30T00:58:59Z")
> [@tds1273](#): > > Perhaps I’m being a bit too over the top, I’m fine with having varying opinions with in the party, but I also have no qualms about either side being critical to those deemed \_inos(D or R). It is just a matter of tact, political bias aside, there is huge difference in the way that Rachel Maddow calls out Ben Nelson as opposed to how Rush Limbaugh calls Arlen Specter. Commentators, who don’t have to compromise, are always going to have fairly rigid positions. The problem with Rush is not his position, but that those with real power are falling over themselves kissing his tush. If Dems did that to Maddow (however appealing it might be 🙂 ) then I’d worry. Now all these voices is very healthy. > [@](#): > > It does go towards drowning out the voices of the Kucinichs in the party; particularly in the corporately inclined media. I think his lack of success (and perceived kookiness) have more to do with it. > [@](#): > > As well, allowing Specter to keep his seniority and to already have the President’s support in the Democratic primary automatically puts a wall up to more progressive Democratic challengers. It has pretty much established the general election as being a Republican versus a slightly less-Republican. Power play, pure and simple. One thing I like about Obama is that he is deft in this. For me, if Specter crossing over gets a decent healthcare package passed, it more than makes up for losing the possibility of a more progressive senator. > [@](#): > > This essentially allows what was the rightwing to become the face of the left. > > I hope it works out that way, but the way I see it (from my admittedly more pessimistic view) is that by pushing and wedging the moderate Republicans into the leftward spectrum and with the other side moving so far to the right, it creates a big void to be taken advantage of by still influential interests to position the new moderate as being somewhere between Specter and Palin. > > I hope the public is smart enough to see past it, and I still carry some hope from the last election, but that scenario is not what I would consider to be a happy middle. If you think Specter is rightwing in the context of the country as a whole, you need to get out more. I don’t think the centerpoint of the political spectrum is to the right of Specter - it might be close to him, or even a bit to his left. It is clearly moving left as demographics change and the increasingly democratic young start taking over. If we still had smoke-filled rooms we’d be seeing more moderate Republican candidates as the far righters would get replaced just as Hoover type Republicans got replaced by the likes of Landon and Dewey. As it stands though, we’re just going to have to sit back and watch them get whupped until the voters figure it out. I can stand it if you can. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sen-arlen-specter-pa-to-become-a-democrat/494627.md?page=7)