President (To Win Colorado) See Full Big Line

(D) Kamala Harris

(R) Donald Trump

80%↑

20%

CO-01 (Denver) See Full Big Line

(D) Diana DeGette*

(R) V. Archuleta

98%

2%

CO-02 (Boulder-ish) See Full Big Line

(D) Joe Neguse*

(R) Marshall Dawson

95%

5%

CO-03 (West & Southern CO) See Full Big Line

(R) Jeff Hurd

(D) Adam Frisch

52%↑

48%

CO-04 (Northeast-ish Colorado) See Full Big Line

(R) Lauren Boebert

(D) Trisha Calvarese

90%

10%

CO-05 (Colorado Springs) See Full Big Line

(R) Jeff Crank

(D) River Gassen

80%

20%

CO-06 (Aurora) See Full Big Line

(D) Jason Crow*

(R) John Fabbricatore

90%

10%

CO-07 (Jefferson County) See Full Big Line

(D) B. Pettersen

(R) Sergei Matveyuk

90%

10%

CO-08 (Northern Colo.) See Full Big Line

(D) Yadira Caraveo

(R) Gabe Evans

60%

40%

State Senate Majority See Full Big Line

DEMOCRATS

REPUBLICANS

80%

20%

State House Majority See Full Big Line

DEMOCRATS

REPUBLICANS

95%

5%

Generic selectors
Exact matches only
Search in title
Search in content
Post Type Selectors
April 28, 2009 07:11 PM UTC

Sen. Arlen Specter Switches Parties, Now a Democrat

  • 83 Comments
  • by: Colorado Pols

Pennsylvania Sen. Arlen Specter is apparently switching parties from Republican to Democrat. As The Fix reports (h/t Phoenix Rising):

Specter’s decision would give Democrats a 60 seat filibuster proof majority in the Senate assuming Democrat Al Franken is eventually sworn in as the next Senator from Minnesota. (Former Sen. Norm Coleman is appealing Franken’s victory in the state Supreme Court.)

“I have decided to run for re-election in 2010 in the Democratic primary,” said Specter in a statement. “I am ready, willing and anxious to take on all comers and have my candidacy for re-election determined in a general election.”

He added: “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.”

Specter as a Democrat would also fundamentally alter the 2010 calculus in Pennsylvania as he was expected to face a difficult primary challenge next year from former Rep. Pat Toomey. The only announced Democrat in the race is former National Constitution Center head Joe Torsella although several other candidates are looking at the race.

The precariousness of Specter’s political position — a Republican in a Democratic-leaning state — was on display earlier this year when he was one of three GOP Senators to back President Barack Obama’s $787 billion economic stimulus plan. That vote was strongly condemned by conservative Republicans and Toomey used that vote as the launching pad for his candidacy.

Tweet
Share

Comments

83 thoughts on “Sen. Arlen Specter Switches Parties, Now a Democrat”

    1. Here’s the Specter looming in the Senator’s future:

      Rasmussen, 2010 GOP PA-Sen primary:

      Specter: 30

      Toomey: 51

      Quinnipiac, 2010 GOP PA-Sen primary:

      Specter: 27

      Toomey: 41

      Pat Toomey (former head of the Club for Growth) cleans Sen. Specter’s clock in a future GOP primary.  Toomey lost to Specter in the 2004 primary 49-51, but the party’s composition has changed drastically since then.  Sen. Specter’s statement says it all: he didn’t leave the party, the party left him.

        1. Schumer was in on this, and you can bet Ed Rendell had a hand in it.  Rendell can redirect the Philly party machine and half the potential opposition will run for cover.

          He obviously hasn’t been winning the General Election based solely on Republican support – he’s pretty popular with the moderate Dem. part of the state.  Specter could win the Dem. primary against all but a few top Democratic candidates, IMHO.

        2. There weren’t many Democrats who were expected to beat him in a Senate race; I think Joe Sestak, Allyson Schwartz, and Patrick Murphy (Congresspeople from Philly suburbs) were mentioned most. But they all would have struggled even in a general election as Democrats.

          If Specter is just a bit more friendly to Democrats, he shouldn’t have any trouble in the primary.

          Have to view this as Michael Steele’s bumbling. In 2004 Specter had the full support of the Republican party; this time around Steele refused to commit to supporting him in the primary.

                    1. Watching his press conference now, and he just said he would not vote for cloture on EFCA.

                      Of course, that’s this week.

            2. I think Phoenix is probably right that you couldn’t predict it, but as I said Specter needs to be friendlier to Democrats to sail through a primary.

              Voting for EFCA would be one way to shut down all Democratic critics. The problem is that a lot of Democratic Senators have also said they won’t vote for EFCA, largely because Specter was providing them cover among conservative critics. If EFCA passes this year, it’ll be because a bunch of conservative Democrats (now including Specter) voted for cloture and against the bill. Unions should start campaigning for an up-or-down vote on EFCA.

              Sestak was just on TV saying he might still challenge Specter in a primary depending how he votes. Specter is doing this to solve all his problems at once. He is not up for a fight this year.

                1. Did the Arkansas delegation say they wouldn’t vote for the bill or that they wouldn’t vote for cloture? I think that’s where the fight will be.

                  Remember Holy Joe Lieberman campaigned in the Democratic primary on his vote against (IIRC) Alito, despite voting for cloture on that vote. Actually cloture on Alito won 72-25, while the actual confirmation won only by 58-42. So it’s quite possible to pass EFCA that way.

                  The AK Senators are just barely against it, but are they actually willing to filibuster it?

              3. may very well dream of challenging Specter, but Obama, Menendez, and Reid are going to make sure that no serious challenger shows up. That was the deal. I can’t imagine Specter will vote for EFCA, or even cloture. His switch is enough to placate the power brokers and they will take care of any other serious democratic critics. End of game.

  2.        Statement by Senator Arlen Specter

          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.

    1. But he is, you know, a US Senator after all.  I’ve always really liked Arlen Specter, even moreso after the way he has handled his Senate duties coupled with his health issues in the past few years.  This is one campaign I just may have to open my pocketbook for.  

    1. This has made sense for long time, with the threat to Specter of a primary attack from the right combined with the fact that he should have NO trouble winning as a Dem in his state. Still didn’t quite believe it would really happen. Guess Specter decided a divisive battle between him and a righty would hand the seat to a Dem so why not BE the Dem. Welcome Sen. Specter!  

  5. As Pennsylvania is my home state, I have followed its politics all my life.

    Specter has always been one of the old line Rockefeller type moderate Republicans. Hugh Scott, Richard Schweiker (who entered into an unholy alliance with Ronald Reagan as his  preconvention running mate in 1976) come to mind as well. This strain has always had a difficult time in the Republican Party given the ideological bent of the “Goldwater-Reagan” faction. Rick Santorum was hard core, but look what happened to him. Obviously Specter did.

    Given his age you’d think the guy would just retire, but Potomac fever is more contagious than swine flu. And Specter didn’t need a weatherman to know which way the wind blows…..

    1. This guy will be 80 when he runs for reelection – 30 friggin years in the Senate (and counting if he gets his way)

      This is a big part of the problem with our dysfunctional system. We need a constitutional amendment limiting service in Congress to no more than 12 years, House and Senate.

      Get rid of Byrd, Kennedy, Specter, and the rest of the institutional dinosaurs. No wonder we’re trillions in debt.

      1. I voted for term limits way back in the 70’s.

        Now I’m older and wiser and see the advantage in having men and women around for a long time is institutional knowledge.  

        If the people back in the states that have the list you provide don’t like them, they won’t vote for them.  

  6. I was on the Hill when Jeffords switched.  It was great politics, made everybody on the Dem side giddy, and had impacts that lasted through multiple sessions.  But when the following midterms hit, the R’s got control back and made the Dems pay big time, mostly through giving the Environment and Public Works chairmanship to James Inhofe, easily the most hostile anti-enviro anybody could think of.

    1. Technicality, sure, but “unaffiliated, caucusing with the Democrats” doesn’t quite have the same ring as Converting to the One and Only True Party (Praise the Lord!). Plus, chances of the Rs regaining a Senate or House majority in ’10 are ranked the same as the chances that GWB will score over 70 on his next IQ test. The Rs have got way, way too many vulnerable seats at risk next time; just a question, really, how far over 60 the Ds will go. Great news today is that we don’t have to wait another 21 months for the inevitable.

      1. Was that his defection switched party control of the Senate.  That’s not in play this time, so Specter switching isn’t nearly as important as Jeffords switching (that’s the point of my other comment)

        1. …there are at least two important thresholds, seems to me. One is 50%+1 for committee chairs; another is thwarting the filibuster. Not directly comparable, but both worth having, and I’ll welcome any excuse to stop working and break out the joyjuice. BTW, did the sun come out where you are in the past hour? It sure as hell did here.

  7. As far right as the Bush Administration dragged the country, the bounce back is equal.

    Specter should beat Toomey 18 months hence, but in the meantime, to quote the disgraced Delay, “It’s our majority, our agenda”.

    The conservative Democrats and the bluedogs will keep the needle in the middle, but the reds won’t have the juice to bog things down with childish threats to filibuster.

    Time to jam Franken’s seating through.

    Then it’s 60.  

    1. …and Minnesota election commission/courts ended up as the joke. But he’s comin’, even if not soon enough. Our job: keep the Colorado Cowboys closely in line at all times of day and night.

  8. ….but all the more so since it came at the hands of the Republicans themselves! Amazing how Specter transforms himself from a mild version of Pompous Asshole to The Greatest Thing Since Sliced Bread in just one sentence! Welcome, Arlen. Let us take your coat. Dom Perignon ’84? Or ’76? Both said to be among the best.

    Meantime, we are faced with a vocabulary crisis: what is the word to describe the electrical activity among neurons inside the skulls of self-described Republicans? It’s not like “what were they thinking?” It’s more like: “What were they….” ah, ah, ah.

    1. The Club For Growth is speechless (for now – they plan to release a statement “later today”).

      Malkin’s followers want more RINOs to switch so that the GOP can regain the majority.  The Free Republic and RedState folks are on that bandwagon, too.

  10. Specter switching doesn’t change his personal politics.  In most cases, especially for the big stuff, he’s still going to vote how he has been voting.  The main reason a party switch is crucial is for party chairmanships, and the Dems don’t need him for that now, and won’t in 2010.  Just because he switched his plate from R to D doesn’t mean the D’s automatically get his vote when cloture is at 59 votes.  On the smaller stuff he’s now more likely to vote for cloture with the D’s just for the intra-chamber and caucus benefits, but he’s not more likely now than he already was to vote for cloture on health care or cap-and-trade.

    1. He has shown that he could cave to GOP leadership on some important positions, if they cared to ask strongly enough.

      I think Specter as a Democrat will be more liberal than Specter as a Republican if only for that reason – no more constant “we’ll actively support Toomey if you don’t vote our way…”.  If he remains on Judiciary, he’ll probably be a more rational voice than he has been.  And it sounds like he really wants to work on health care in a way that perhaps the GOP might have stifled.

      We’ll have to see what we get, but this could be a Good Thing.

      1. but this is still not a ground-shifter.  I think he’ll feel free to be “more left” but it’s not going to change things drastically  

    1. One less person the GOP leadership has to “defend against” when dealing with the rapidly dwindling moderate members of the Senate GOP caucus.

      The two gentle ladies from Maine would be welcome on the other side of the aisle; they just don’t want to leave the party of their heritage.  Too bad it’s left them.

  12. to a party of far right extremist uber-cons, I wonder if Scooty McInnis will now become a D if primaryed against the extremist Josh Penry.

  13. Spector is an R whose party has shifted so far away from him he is now on the D side of right. So he changed party but will keep voting the same way.

    He has constantly stated he will not vote Dem. Only that he will look at each bill “on it’s own merits”.

    I do not look for any Progressive votes from him.  

    1. He won’t vote with Progressives…but maybe he’ll be under severe pressure to at least put the bills to a vote, i.e. take away Mitchy McC’s little “let’s not vote” plaything. Let’s face it, not every Democrat in the Senate exactly qualifies as a Progressive! Hell, I can think of a certain Interior Secretary….

    2. was looking at running for this seat.  If he sticks to his plan (doubtful at this point) then I would expect Spector’s votes to move to the left quite a bit in order to appel to the primary electorate.

      Spector has always been pretty difficult to push around though, so who knows…

      1. is viewed as a slave-driver on the Hill, and has the worst staff turnover ratio of any member of Congress. He also is pretty moderate, and wouldn’t excite liberal Dems. They’re really the only ones who would oust Specter in a primary.

        The only Dems that could give Arlen a run in the primary are Allyson Schwartz and possibly Dan Onorato (Alleghany Executive, who’s very close with big labor). Onorato has his eyes on the Governor’s mansion, and Schwartz won’t risk her safe House seat to take on Arlen, instead waiting until he retires.

      2. He’s pretty moderate, and doesn’t offer enough contrast to Specter in a Dem primary to make it worth his while; he’d lose on name recognition alone.

        Gov. Rendell almost had to be in on this deal, and is pretty soft on Specter anyway; so he won’t be running.  (Thank whatever god(s) you worship on that one…)  While it’s possible that the labor movement could find a viable primary opponent, they’ll be fighting against the DSCC and Rendell’s Philly machine the whole way.

        My prediction: Specter’s in through 2016 then retires, leaving the seat wide open for a new Dem. face at that time.

          1. My mom and sister still live there, so I occasionally get a briefing.

            Short summary: there are very few well-loved politicians in PA right now.  As far as I know, there are few political rising stars there. (U.S. Reps. may be the exception…)

            Specter is frustrating, but he’s been Senator since before I went to college.  Like former Sen. Heinz, he’s an institution in the state, and folks will vote for him in the GE regardless of his affiliation.  Unseating him, especially without the possibility of party backing for the challenge, is highly unlikely.

            1. and yes, Specter is frustrating, but today he just frustrated the hell out of the pubs.  I thought Mitch McConnell was going to blow a gasket, which was just oh so much fun to watch.

  14. WASHINGTON (AP) — Sen. Mitch McConnell said today he had always shined his shoes with Shinola, and that he had smeared the famous brand of brown polish all over his face accidentally, as a result of a longstanding case of severe myopia.

    1. he didn’t exactly have anything to offer Arlen to keep him in the fold.  “hey, you stay with us and in 10 years when I get the gavel back, you’ll get to be Chair of Approps!”  Great deal Arlen, take it! take it!  (you can hear his staff screaming behind him)

  15. First impression is “no” since now Republicans are even more desperate to keep Democrats from having 60 votes in the Senate.

    But here’s an interesting idea.

    Seat Al Franken and give him his committee assignments now, or we’ll block a new organizing resolution that would let you reassign Specter’s previously Republican committee seats to one of your own.

    Until a new organizing resolution is adopted, Specter’s committee seats (Appropriations, Judiciary, Veterans’ Affairs, Environment & Public Works, Special Aging) are locked in. He’ll be caucusing and (sometimes, anyway) voting as a Democrat, but will be occupying Republican seats.

    Democrats should demand Republican agreement to seat Franken and give him his committee assignments now, or they’ll just block a new organizing resolution until he arrives, and change it as they see fit later on. After all, with 60 Democrats (once Franken is finally seated), they can give themselves any ratios they want, whether they opt to remain true to the 60/40 split in the Senate or not, since there won’t be enough votes to filibuster an unfair organizing resolution.

    But we wouldn’t want it to come to that, would we?

    1. I like the idea of telling the RSCC to stop supporting Norm’s futile appeals.  But I don’t think it should be this heavy-handed.

      My vote: tell the GOP that a new organizing resolution is on hold so that the winner of the MN race can be given his assignments at the same time (simplifying the Senate calendar, of course…).  It’s the same effect, but doesn’t sound like a demand, just expediency.

      1. It doesn’t have to be nasty (at least not publicly nasty), but it would give us a lot of leverage which we really didn’t have.

        I think an offer phrased the way you state it would sound like a threat in any case to Republicans who knew the story. “Nice organizing resolution you got here, be a real shame if anything was to happen to it.”

    2. but ultimately Franken is going to get the seat.  And Pawlenty might want to think twice about not signing the election cerificate after a Minnesota Supremes decision in Franken’s favor. His constituents are increasingly not amused and he knows he has no chance to win the presidency running only as the darling of the just-say-no fringe. Looks like a lose/lose for Pawlenty.  Can’t imagine the GOP will forgive him if he signs promptly and he loses more middle if he doesn’t.

  16. RNC Chair Michael Steele just said live on CNN, (if he survives a democratic primary) “Arlen Specter…watch out baby, were going to take you out”.

  17. Sen. Specter was certainly gong to loose the Republican primary in 2010 because the people who normally win primaries for him have switched to the Democratic Party. It is incredible that 200,000 Republicans in one state would switch parties in the past two years. the last time this kind of thing happened was in the South after President Reagan’s victory in 1980.

    This is another indication that the Democrats are far closer to the “center-right” position than the Republican Party and certainly closer to what the majority of Americans believe. The Republican Party is dominated by the right-wing extremists (they are not conservatives)and if a candidate doesn’t pass every single litmus test with a 100% score, every single time, then they are told to get out and they are labeled a “RINO.” This mindless adherence to absolute ideology will continue to cost the Republican Party any chance of regaining the majority until either they collapse or a new more pragmatic opposition party arises.

    Their mindless belief that government can be reformed by subverting it continues to place them at odds with the Ameircan electorate.  

  18. From Politico:

    Sen. Olympia Snowe (R-Maine) a fellow moderate, didn’t seem suprised. On the national level, she says, “you haven’t certainly heard warm encouraging words of how they [Republicans] view moderates. Either you are with us or against us.”

    “Ultimately we’re heading to having the smallest political tent in history they way things are unfolding,” Snowe said. “We should have learned from the 2006 election, which I was a party of. I happened to win with 74% of the vote in a blue collar state but no one asked me how did you do it. Seems to me that would have been the first question that would have come from the Republican party to find out so we could avoid further losses.”

    And from CNN:

       WASHINGTON (CNN) – Sen. Olympia Snowe – one of the three moderate Republicans including Arlen Specter who supported President Obama’s stimulus package – told CNN Tuesday that she has also been approached many times about becoming a Democrat, but that it hasn’t happened for a while.

       “I’ve been asked, but not recently,” she said.

       Snowe said the Republican Party never learned its lesson from the “painful” party switch of Sen. Jim Jeffords in 2001.

       “For me personally and then for the party, its devastating,” Snowe said of Specter’s move. “I’ve always been concerned about the Republican party nationally, about their exclusionary policies towards moderate Republicans. That’s not a secretly held view on my part.”

    If that’s not a hint, I don’t know what is…

    1. Being a liberal Republican makes her much more important than being a conservative Democrat. She doesn’t face a difficult primary, and considering Susan Collins’ election last year, she doesn’t face a threat from the Democrats either. She has that seat as long as she wants it, regardless of what either party does.

        1. I agree. I respect the hell out of Snowe and also Collins. I may not always agree with them but I have absolutely no doubt that they are ethical and value integrity in themselves as well as in others.  

      2. If the GOP decides not to give her good committee positions, she could probably get a good deal under Dem leadership.  She’s been in the Senate now for 15 years, and might rate a committee chair or at least some important sub-chairs.

        Other than that, she doesn’t have much reason to stay, either.  Even with GOP party leadership pressure, she votes 67% of the time with the Democrats.  She’s obviously disgruntled at the party based on her comments.

      3. I can’t figure out how she’s important to the GOP as a liberal Republican when so much of the GOP is bent on “uniting around conservative values to retake their position of leadership”.  The GOP base wants her gone.  If they could find a Pat Toomey in Maine, they’d primary her, too.

        1. Not important to the Republicans.

          She’s important to the Democrats. They go to her on their knees for any kind of legislation.

          Blanche Lincoln is in the party and needs to be whipped on votes; sometimes that’s friendly and sometimes it’s hostile. With Snowe it’s always friendly. That stuff seems to mean a lot to Senators.

          1. have a long proud history going back to anti-slavery days and in New England  tradition matters a lot.  Would be surprised to see Snowe switch.  Besides, she can still keep the nomination as an R and win as an R in Maine. Why switch?  

            1. I think she’d only switch if the party started becoming hostile to her.  It happened to Lincoln Chaffee, so much so that he’ll be running as an Independent for the Rhode Island governor’s race.

              Still, if I were the GOP I’d take her comments today as a warning.

            2. that’s the only thing I can come up with in terms of a plum reward for switching.  The D’s wouldn’t be able to give her a good chair slot on any major committee and Commerce and Finance are the only prime committees she has seniority on right now.  

            3. As the dKos mid-day open thread reminded me: the RNC is “open to the idea” of withholding campaign funds from moderate GOP candidates who supported the stimulus.

              She might cruise to re-election, but that’s not going to improve relations.

            4. As the dKos mid-day open thread reminded me: the RNC is “open to the idea” of withholding campaign funds from moderate GOP candidates who supported the stimulus.

              She might cruise to re-election, but that’s not going to improve relations.

            5. Maine is now the last state in the country whose Republicans are not crazy extremists. It’s about time for that state to get over itself like the rest of New England did.

Leave a Comment

Recent Comments


Posts about

Donald Trump
SEE MORE

Posts about

Rep. Lauren Boebert
SEE MORE

Posts about

Rep. Yadira Caraveo
SEE MORE

Posts about

Colorado House
SEE MORE

Posts about

Colorado Senate
SEE MORE

43 readers online now

Newsletter

Subscribe to our monthly newsletter to stay in the loop with regular updates!