|
 In an April 28 statement released about noon at the nation's Capitol, Pennsylvania Senator Arlen Specter announced his departure from the Republican Party and his plans to run for reelection as a Democrat.
"I have decided to run for re-election in 2010 in the Democratic primary," said the statement. "I am ready, willing and anxious to take on all comers and have my candidacy for re-election determined in a general election."
Specter continued: "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."
President Obama was informed of Specter's decision at around 10:25 a.m., according to White House officials, when an aide handed him a note during his daily economic briefing that reportedly said: "Specter is announcing he is changing parties." The president contacted the senator shortly thereafter to tell him "you have my full support," and we are "thrilled to have you."
At the White House press briefing held that afternoon, White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs confirmed that Mr. Obama pledged his full support to Mr. Specter, stating: "Full support means full support."
During an afternoon news conference, Specter told reporters: "The prospects for winning a Republican primary are bleak," and he criticized the Republican party for not doing more for "moderate" Republicans. He stated he was not prepared to have his fate determined by a "Pennsylvania Republican primary electorate."
"I have decided to be a candidate for election in 2010 in the Democratic primary," Specter said. "This is a painful decision. I know I am disappointing many of my friends and colleagues. Frankly I have been disappointed by some of the response, so the disappointment runs in both directions."
The statement underscored what most astute political observers believe — that Specter's decision was purely pragmatic. Following the senator's vote in favor of President Obama's $787 billion economic stimulus plan — he was one of only three GOP senators to vote affirmatively — Specter came under fire from more conservative Republicans and had already drawn a strong challenger in the next primary. Former Rep. Pat Toomey seized on Specter's stimulus plan vote as an issue and presented a formidable obstacle to Specter's reelection, leading the incumbent in the polls.
Running as a Democrat with strong support from the national party and the White House, Specter's nomination is all but assured. White House officials have assured Mr. Specter that Mr. Obama would be willing to campaign for him and raise money for him if necessary There has not yet been any word whether Rep. Toomey would still seek the GOP nomination to oppose Specter in the general election.
The day after Specter's announcement, the Washington Post reported that President Obama said he doesn't expect the Pennsylvania senator to "be a rubber stamp" now that he has joined the president's party, and said he welcomes Specter's "counsel and advice, especially when we disagree."
The only notable legislation about which Specter has disagreed with Democrats has been H.R. 1409 and S.560, the Employee Free Choice Act. The pro-union bill would take away the employer's right to request a secret-ballot election on unionism. However, Senate Majority Leader Harry M. Reid (D-Nev.), told reporters that the bill's supporters are attempting to modify the legislation to gain Specter's support. Specter originally supported the Employee Free Choice Act in 2007 but later changed his stance in the face of the increasing challenge from former Representative Toomey.
However, Specter's voting record suggests that pressure from Democratic leaders will hardly be necessary to gain the Pennsylvanian's support for most bills. In the last "Freedom Index" (a measure of votes in accord with the Constitution) compiled by The New American magazine for the 110th Congress, Specter voted with the constitutionalists only 28 percent of the time. This percentage is only slightly higher than several Democrats in the Senate, such as Tom Harkin (22), Harry Reid ( 23), Debbie Stabenow (23), Jack Reed (25), Sherrod Brown (25), and Mary Landrieu (26); and is actually lower than Democrat Senators Robert Byrd (29), Jon Tester (30), and Byron Dorgan (31).
Furthermore, Specter's statement that: "Since my election in 1980, as part of the Reagan Big Tent, the Republican Party has moved far to the right" is nothing short of absurd. In the final "Freedom Index" for the 110th Congress, only two Republican senators scored 75 percent or higher. Yet in the index's predecessor, "The Conservative Index," published in 1982, which measured the cumulative scores for the Congress since the 1980 elections, 12 Republican senators achieved scores of 75 percent or higher. Senate Republicans have clearly moved not to the right, but to the left, and scores for the House of Representatives would show similar results.
The traditional left-right designations (as indicators of liberalism and conservatism), if they ever meant anything, have become increasingly meaningless, however. They originally referred to the seating arrangements in the French legislature, where moderate royalists sat on the right side of the chamber, and radical opponents of the old regime sat on the left. The terms have long since ceased to serve any meaningful purpose to describe the modern political spectrum.
For many years, the terms liberal and conservative were useful, especially to describe one's views on interpreting the Constitution (loose constructionist versus strict constructionist). However, since the term conservative has been appropriated and abused by the neoconservatives who have gained control of the Republican Party, it, too, has lost its original meaning.
Arlen Specter undoubtedly will feel at home in the Democratic Party, but only because it is a place where his willingness to bend the Constitution requires little pretense. It is the political equivalent of "coming out of the closet," a place where many of his former Republican colleagues still reside — pretending to be "conservative" or "moderate" (whatever those terms mean nowadays), while voting to trash the Constitution.
Voters would do much better in evaluating their elected representatives if they ignored party and spectrum labels entirely and focused exclusively on the Constitution.
Trackback(0)
|
TrackBack URI for this entry
Subscribe to this comment's feed
Show/Hide comments
