Last week, Republican Senator Arlen Specter from Pennsylvania became Democratic Senator Arlen Specter from Pennsylvania. Specter, long the scourge of Republicans everywhere, can now add “scourge of Democrats everywhere” to his resume.
How does this transition affect federal politics? The nicest thing Republicans ever said about the 79 year old senator was that he was liberal. However, Specter’s consistently supported the Bush Administration and played a major role in easing the path to Supreme Court confirmation for Clarence Thomas in 1991.
Specter is basically a rogue politician who holds independent and hard to predict beliefs on various issues. He is pro-choice (though anti-abortion) while being a fervent supporter of gun ownership rights.
Why did he switch parties? Political survival is the logical answer. Specter faced a long climb to win the GOP primary in 2010. The Democratic primary is much more winnable for him. President Obama and Pennsylvania Governor Ed Rendell will stump for Specter which certainly helps his chances.
As for the general election, the current GOP front-runner is Pat Toomey. However, many Pennsylvania Republicans are wooing former governor and Homeland Security Czar Tom Ridge. Ridge presents a steeper challenge to re-election.
Does this switch by one senator doom the Republican Party to the ash heap of irrelevance on the national stage? Specter’s switch would give the Democrats 60 Senate seats IF Al Franken ever emerges from the Minnesota quagmire. This is the fabled filibuster proof majority. However, we have already established that Specter could be an unreliable vote for Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid.
Beyond the Senate, it is clear that the GOP has much work to do with Democrats enjoying control of Congress and the White House. Why Republicans are in this position and how they can recover are topics for future posts!
I always found it odd that Lieberman could get out of a primary defeat simply by switching party affiliations, and now Specter seems to be switching party for a similar reason. Intuitively that seems to go against the spirit of the system where people should be able to recall their representative if they grow dissatisfied with that person.
ReplyDeleteLieberman actually lost the Democratic primary but won the general election as an independent.
ReplyDeleteI am okay with the switcheroo since Specter must still win the general election to stay in office. The good people of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania will have the final say!
Jekabs raises an interesting issue: is the will of "the people" expressed in partisan primaries?
ReplyDeleteGeneral elections exist to enforce the "will of the people" so that is not a concern for me.
ReplyDeleteThe "primary" concern (sorry) is when the state is so partisan that the primary takes on greater significance than the general election. For example, Texas (like other southern states) was a Democratic state for nearly a century. The Democratic primary was effectively the general election since the GOP candidate stood no chance of winning.
That being said, most states do not bar anyone from voting in a primary. For example, Texas voters can vote in the GOP primary one election and the Democratic primary during the next election cycle. However, they cannot vote in both primaries during the same cycle.