WOW

This really is amazing news.

Statement by Senator Arlen Specter


April 28, 2009

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 especially 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.
http://www.specter2010.com/news6.html

he has to because he knows most republicans won't vote for him.
we'll see how this all turns out.

I wonder what the Republican talking heads are going to say about this?

He did it for his own personal reason to try and stay in the SEN.
He is way behind in polls within the Rep party for the senate seat and he sees it as the only way he can remain in is to run as a DEM.

I wonder what his voters think of that?

Can you say hypocrite.


Sen Specter on switching parties midterm.
May 14th, 2001 speech.

How should these issues be handled by the Senate for the future? I intend to propose a rule change which would preclude a future recurrence of a Senator’s change in parties, in mid-session, organizing with the opposition, to cause the upheaval which is now resulting.

I take second place to no one on independence voting. But, it is my view that the organizational vote belongs to the party which supported the election of a particular Senator. I believe that is the expectation. And certainly it has been a very abrupt party change, although they have occurred in the past with only minor ripples, none have caused the major dislocation which this one has.

When I first ran in 1980, Congressman Bud Shuster sponsored a fundraiser for me in Altoona where Congressman Jack Kemp was the principal speaker. When some questions were raised as to my political philosophy, Congressman Shuster said my most important vote would be the organizational vote. From that day to this, I have believed that the organizational vote belonged to the party which supported my election.

When the Democrats urged me to switch parties some time ago, I gave them a flat “no.” I have been asked in the last several days if I intended to switch parties. I have said absolutely not.

Senator Phil Gramm faced this issue when he decided to switch parties. He resigned his seat, which he had won as a Democrat, and ran for reelection as a Republican. As he told me, his last vote in January 1983 was for the Speaker of the House of Representatives, and he voted for Tip O’Neill with the view that he was elected as a Democrat and should vote that way on organizational control. Even though, he intended to become a Republican and would have preferred another person to be Speaker. To repeat, I intend to propose a Senate rule which would preclude a change in control of the Senate when a Senator decides to vote with the opposing party for organizational purposes.

One other aspect does deserve comment, and that is the issue of personal benefit to a changing Senator. In our society, political arrangements avoid the consequences of similar conduct in other contexts.

For example, if company A induces a competitor’s employee to break his contract with company B and join company A, company B can collect damages for company A’s wrongful conduct. If A gives a benefit to an employee of B to induce the employee to breach a duty, that conduct can have serious consequences in other contexts which are not applied to political arrangements.

On the Lehrer news show on Thursday night, the day before yesterday, Senator Harry Reid and I sparred over this point. I expressed my concern about reliable reports that Democrats had told Senator Jeffords that Senator Reid would step aside so Senator Jeffords could become chairman of the Environment and Public Works Committee. Senator Reid replied that there was no quid pro quo, an expression I had not used.

Accepting Senator Jeffords’ decision was based on principle for the reasons he gave at his news conference on Thursday morning, a question still remains as to whether any such inducement was offered and whether it played any part in Senator Jeffords’ decision. Questions on such offers and counteroffers should be considered by Senators and by the Senate in an ethical context, but at this moment I do not see any way to effect such conduct by rulemaking or legislation.

This week’s events raise very profound questions for the governance of our country as well as the operation of the Senate. I intend to press a rule change which would preclude a recurrence of this situation and will be discussing with my colleagues the whole idea of inducements as an incentive for a party switch.

UPDATE: The Washington Post reported at the time that the proposal didn’t seem to impress either party much:

In one of the more surreal moments of the day, Sen. Arlen Specter (R-Pa.) proposed a Senate rules change, which, if it had it been in effect when Jeffords defected, would have kept the chamber from falling into Democratic clutches.

Democrats, who soon will have the power to block all such creative political responses from the opposition party, responded with disbelief and scorn.

Specter gave a detailed description of the efforts Republicans made to keep Jeffords in their fold, including a seat at party leadership meetings, more money for education and an exception from the party’s term-limits rule that would have enabled Jeffords to remain as chairman of the Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee beyond 2002.

But then he questioned the fact that Democrats were prepared to make Jeffords chairman of the Environment and Public Works Committee and are now planning to do so. “A question still remains as to whether any such inducement was offered and whether it played any part in Senator Jeffords’s decision,” he said, suggesting the question had an “ethical context.”

Democratic Whip Harry M. Reid (D-Nev.), who was instrumental in his party’s courtship of Jeffords, was clearly peeved at Specter for singling him out while he was off the Senate floor, and Sen. Richard J. Durbin (D-Ill.) rose to Jeffords’s defense. “To suggest that there was any quid pro quo or any other reason, I think demeans the integrity of one of our colleagues whom we both respect very, very much,” Durbin said.

Jeffords was not present during Specter’s speech but said later that he did not discuss the chairmanship issue with the Democrats until after he made his decision to leave the GOP.

Specter is now a member of the Senate Republican leadership, holding the moderates’ seat that Jeffords was offered before he quit the party, but GOP leadership aides said they had not heard of his proposed rules change before Specter aired it.

Democrats dismissed Specter’s proposal out of hand. “It’s a silly proposal and it has no chance,” Reid said. “It’s his [Specter's] way of of showing everyone he was a lawyer.”

“I was saddened by it,” Jeffords said. “I don’t think decisions of conscience should be precluded by a rule.”

Good Riddance. He would have lost the last primary If the Idiot Bush hadn't campaigned for him.

Its time for some new blood in Washington. This guy has been around long enough.

It also creates the preplanned goal of 60 senate seats, if you include Al Franken, which will increase the speed of the runaway train known as government.

Ahh the stunning speed...

Impressive!

How quickly they turn on their own hahah

Just like all those who turned on Bush...

wow

Are you saying that Specter is or ever was a Conservative?

I know you have stated you are a republican. He might then be your kind of Republican, but he certainly isn't mine. Id rather lose every seat held by a RINO than have them besmirching the party name.

Hint.. Hint.. Maybe its time to pull a Specter.

They have ALL been around long enough... Term limits, pay caps and such are definatly needed to rein in that disgusting institution that has infestd the concept of a senate and a congress.

We have three legs supporting our govenment. All three of them are corrupt...

From this side of MY eyes.

So, someone who votes based on what they believe is best for the country and their constituents instead of as he is instructed to by his party is bad eh?

/Heil GOP?

You should really examine what republicans have done versus what they say before you suggest any action to me.

As entertaining as you are it's getting old.

This is all about obeying the party and not your conscience I think.

But...when you are behind...any way the wind blows right? I mean didn't you just say that?

(CNN) – After Arlen Specter bolted the GOP Tuesday, Republicans like party chair Michael Steele attacked him as a "leftist" with a history of "left-wing" stands.

That was yesterday.

Twenty-four hours later, his former colleagues in the Senate GOP are rushing to embrace Specter's past in a new campaign designed to highlight the consistency of his Republican record.

"In light of Senator Specter's changing political party, we felt it was our civic duty to adequately inform Pennsylvania Democrat primary voters about their new Senator's record and his close relationship with our former President George W. Bush," National Republican Senatorial Committee spokeswoman Amber Wilkerson said in a Wednesday announcement.

The effort includes a Web page featuring YouTube clips of Specter's positive comments about conservatives like Rush Limbaugh and Rick Santorum, and criticism of Senate Democratic leader Harry Reid. It also involves robocalls to Pennsylvania voters to "help you welcome your newest Democrat senator" that use audio from Specter's old campaign ads — audio featuring what the NRSC describes as "glowing support" from former President George W. Bush.

"I'm here to say it as plainly as I can, Arlen Specter is the right man for the United States Senate," says Bush in comments included in the new call. "I can count on this man — see, that's important. He's a firm ally when it matters most. I'm proud to tell you I think he's earned another term as the United States senator."

The remarks were made back in 2004, when the Bush's endorsement was widely credited with helping Specter eke out a narrow primary win over challenger Pat Toomey.

You don't like when someone challenges you? Isn't that what debate is about? Should we just all act and think the same so there is no conflict of opinion? We can all just get along in some progressive utopia, where religion is banned, no consequences for poor decisions, and the government can take from one and give to another?

The Republican party as a whole is a joke. Im not debating that. Its been overrun with moderates and liberals. I grant you that. But as I have said before, I would rather lose every election with a true conservative candidate, than win with some liberal. You can take that however you want, but as long as you or anyone else is involved in these discussions pushing the left wing agenda, Im going to be right behind you, pushing in the opposite direction.

BTW... I find you entertaining as well.

Thanks. It's nice to get the morning started with something smart.

I believe there is a difference between debating someone and a childish threat like the one in your reply on the hate crimes thread directed at me.

Perhaps the distinction isn't evident to you.

"hate crime" ?

Come on, Lynann, who does really gives a crap about I or you or anyone? Enough crap to hate?

First, disgusting. Then a nazi reference. Now childish.

You are somehow the victim?

That is debate, left wing style. If at first you can't shut them up with insults or ridiculous comparisons to war criminals, bigots, and racists, then play the victim role.

Nice....

he's a Liberal...

The Republic party has lost it's light.They have no good ideas anymore or any real direction.The only thing they seem to be good at is complaining.They need some leadership.