Why Specter Switched

But he couldn't win its primary because he is not far right enough. Which makes the GOP tent really, really, really, really, very small.

We takes em as we gets em. Any distance from the Bushies is a notch for rational thought. Obama is working on the hearts and minds of America. Eventually, we will get to Pat Robertson and Rush. Watch out, dancing in the streets.

That's a pretty tough piece.
But I learned this about the newest old Democrat "He introduced a bill to establish a flat tax."
.
Glad "we" got him!

You don't go to war the GOP you wish you had......

I think Grunwald is just flat out wrong. Specter probably would not have survived the Republican primary, but he's almost a lock to win another term now. It wasn't desperate opportunism. It was accepting the reality that the party he had called home had gone so far off the deep end that it represented neither Specter or his constituents.

" Specter probably would not have survived the Republican primary, but he's almost a lock to win another term now"
.
I thought that was Grunwald's point sacredh.

I still don't understand why people differentiate between politicians doing things for their own selfish ends vs doing it for the good of the voters. The whole point of the design of our Constitution is so that those forces pull in the same direction.
.
Grunwald is free to imply that Specter is doing nothing but looking out for himself, but the fact that his own best move is to bolt from the Republican party speaks volumes about how the party itself is fracturing and leaving the inmates in charge of the asylum.

Here is the video from the tweet KT sent earlier
.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k-O1e6fqk-0
.
"What the hell does that mean?"

Grunwald's mastery of teh obvious is ... yawn. Talk about your desparate opportunism.

Whups, link
.

PNNTO: The part of Grunwald's post I disagreed with was the "desperate opportunism" bit. I don't think it was desperate or opportunistic. I said months ago that the republican party was in danger of losing the few moderates they had because the party had gone bats!t crazy. I also said we should go after Collins and Snowe. When your party seems intent on destroying itself and takes positions that fly in the face of reality, switching parties is the sane recourse. I'm sure Specter does look at it as means of survival, but I also feel that he realized he had little in common with them anymore. I think Specter's switch was just facing reality.

The whole point of the design of our Constitution is so that those forces pull in the same direction.
.
Just so, PD, and it's worked pretty well. If the Founding Fathers had seen Cheney coming, they would have been too depressed to finish the document. Nothing's fool-proof.

The only way you can accept Grunwald's critique is if you really believe that Pat Toomey is a viable statewide candidate which it isn't. In Specter's mind I am sure he is thinking he is actually keeping a REAL Dem out by switching. Besides that he went down the list of Republicans who the Club For Growth had primaried only to have their candidate get their ass WHUPPED in the general which lead to in part the GOP being in the minority in the first place. True there was some self preservation inherent in Specter's move but its also true that the wingnuts in his party forced him into it after he voted for the stimulus bill which was the responsible thing to do. I am pretty sure Specter noticed that Tedisco said late in his campaign after hedging for a long time that he would have voted against the stimulus bill and you see where that got THAT bozo.

I gotta believe that Specter was tired of being in the same party as Michele Bachmann also
.
http://thinkprogress.org/2009/04/28/bachmann-flu-democrats/

"What the hell does that mean?"
.
It means that CNN isn't an automatic walkover for a Republican if he's batsh!t insane. Finally!
.
And what a lame bunch of garbage shoots out of DeMint after he gets his bluff called.

At 79 and with two bouts of cancer behind him, seems to me he could be considering his legacy in history, as these are truly historic times and many volumes will be penned about it.

Specter's heart hasn't been in the GOP for a long time, probably since '92 when the wingnuts took over. Maybe he wanted to leave a record that he wasn't on the losing side of history. Maybe he doesn't want an R by his name when he leaves this earth.

And that would be a perfectly sound reason to me if it were to be the case.

I just can't understand -other than KT's point about this being for immediate results on BHO's agenda-how this is a plus for Democrats.
.
If he was sure to lose in either a Republican primary or the general to a real Democrat this is a pretty big give away.
.
Great for Specter. Maybe good for BHO. Likely bad for the Democratic party.

Much less to that Grunwald take than meets the eye. That Specter was likely to lose in the GOP primary reflects no failure on Specter's part, only on the part of the PA GOP.

According to Greg Sargent -
.
***Only a month ago, Reid suggested to reporters that Specter's opposition to EFCA was a dealbreaker in terms of a party switch. “In coming out against card-check,” Reid said then, Specter “stopped everyone from being able to help him.”
.
Today Specter stated unequivocally that not only does he still oppose EFCA, he'll also vote against bringing it to the floor for a debate.
.
But this is now not a dealbreaker for the Senate Majority Leader. I asked Reid spokesperson Jim Manley if Reid would support Specter in the primary if his EFCA position remained what it is today.
.
“Senator Reid is going to support Senator Specter in the primary,” Manley replied. This makes it tougher for labor to mount a pro-EFCA primary challenger, obviously.
.
Specter also confirmed today that he will continue to oppose Dawn Johnsen, who is prized by many liberal Demcrats, for the crucial post of Office of Legal Counsel chief, where she would have a major role in determining what Bush-era legal practices get reversed.
.
***
Be interesting to see how this plays out.

Oh boy.
.
Bachmann: It's ‘interesting' that the last swine flu outbreak also occurred under a ‘Democrat President.'
.
http://thinkprogress.org/2009/04/28/bachmann-flu-democrats/

PNNTO
.
By next year most of the important votes will be over. Like I said before the proof will be in the pudding. All we need is for Specter to vote for cloture about 5 times this year and then its well worth it. Put another way, had he not switched we still would have been lobbying for his vote or Collins' vote or Snowe's vote on just about every single important piece of legislation. At least now we have him in our tent where we can work to influence him full time. Now like I said, if he screws the Dems behind this then you won't hear Specter's name after next year. I don't know that Reid knows it or not but we hold all the cards on this one. If Obama endorses a Dem challenger in the primary Specter is toast. And with the sore loser law he can't pull a Lieberman. Don't look at what Specter is saying today, look at how he ends up voting. He may personally vote against Dawn Johnsen for instance but vote FOR cloture so she gets an up and down vote and the effect is she still gets confirmed.

Also from Greg Sargent, because it's happy hour, a bonus Michelle Bachmann moment.
.
http://thinkprogress.org/2009/04/28/bachmann-energy-solutions/

Why did he fly leave the party? Self survival. He saw the writing on the way - he was going to lose his primary.

By the way, Specter is not a moderate. Speaking as a native Keystone stater (now removed), the last "moderate" Republican Senator from Pennsylvania was the late great, John Heinz.

sgw, since you were right early on this switch, I'm hoping you are right on the playout you outlined above. Like the way you showed it happening.

The GOP is truly becoming the party of "Lord of the Flies"