Veteran Republican Sen. Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania disclosed plans Tuesday to switch parties, a move intended to boost his chances of winning re-election next year that also will push Democrats within one seat of a 60-vote filibuster-resistant majority.
“I now find my political philosophy more in line with Democrats than Republicans,” Specter said in a statement posted on a Web site devoted to Pennsylvania politics and confirmed by his office. Several Senate officials said a formal announcement was expected later in the day or Wednesday.
President Barack Obama called Specter almost immediately after he was informed of the decision to say the Democratic Party was “thrilled to have you,” according to a White House official.
Specter, 79 and in his fifth term, is one of a handful of Republican moderates remaining in Congress in a party now dominated by conservatives. Several officials said secret talks that preceded his decision reached into the White House, involving both Obama and Vice President Joseph Biden, a longtime colleague in the Senate. Pennsylvania Gov. Ed Rendell as well as Democratic leaders in Congress also were involved, added the officials, who spoke on condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to disclose details.
With Specter, Democrats would have 59 Senate seats. Democrat Al Franken is ahead in a marathon recount in Minnesota, and if he ultimately wins his race against Republican Norm Coleman, he would become the party’s 60th vote. That is the number needed to overcome a filibuster.
Specter faced an extraordinarily difficult re-election challenge in his home state in 2010, having first to confront a challenge from his right in the Republican primary before pivoting to a general election campaign against a Democrat in a state that has trended increasingly Democratic in recent elections.
He has publicly acknowledged in recent months that in order to win a sixth term, he would need the support of thousands of Pennsylvania Republicans who sided with Obama in last fall’s presidential election.
“I am unwilling to have my twenty-nine year Senate record judged by the Pennsylvania Republican primary electorate,” he said in the statement.
Asked by a reporter what he had to say to his constituents, Specter replied with a smile, “I don’t have to say anything to them. They said it to me.”
In Pennsylvania, the chairman of the state Republican Party, Rob Gleason, said that Specter should offer a refund to Republicans who have helped fatten his war chest, which totaled $5.8 million at the end of 2008. “He should give them the option,” Gleason said.
Specter has long been one of the most durable politicians of either party in Pennsylvania. In recent years, he has battled Hodgkin’s disease, a cancer of the lymphatic system, but maintains a busy schedule that includes daily games of squash.
As one of the most senior Republicans in the Senate, Specter held powerful positions on the Judiciary and Appropriations committees. It was not clear how Democrats would calculate his seniority in assigning committee perches.
Specter has long been an independent Republican, and he proved it most recently when he became one of only three members of the GOP in Congress to vote for Obama’s economic stimulus legislation.
As recently as late winter, he was asked by a reporter why he had not taken Democrats up on past offers to switch parties.
“Because I am a Republican,” he said at the time.
“I welcome Sen. Specter and his moderate voice to our diverse caucus,” Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., said in a statement.
A senior White House official, speaking on the condition of anonymity because no announcement has yet been made, said at 10:25 a.m. EDT Tuesday President Barack Obama was handed a note while in the Oval Office during his daily economic briefing. The note said: “Specter is announcing he is changing parties.” At 10:32, Obama reached Specter by phone and told him “you have my full support” and that the Democratic Party is “thrilled to have you.”
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.
(Source: Associated Press / YWN Desk)
14 Responses
1. It will make for more moderate Democrats.
2. It will hurt the Republicans in close elections.
A Republican party focused on being a Christian party may have problems.
3. On close issues, party loyalty in less important that waht constituent want.
It’s the “Democratic Party” , not the “Democrat Party.”
well he really wasn’t a right thinking person anyway. he said the party was ‘too right’ for him. that’s bull!! the party is too left and there isn’t much of a diff between the parties. one day IYH the conservatives will run the party again & maybe we could try to reverse all these horrendous laws passed by the left.
As some right wing pundits are putting it, there is a more immediate lemayse. If he starts voting Dem now and Franken gets in sooner than later, the Dems will have their filibuster-proof majority now. (Though I’d bet that after the 2010 elections that may not be the case.)
Lev melachim v’sarim beyad Elokim. Guess Specter was bigger than I though.
Whoops, just read the next to the last paragraph. Time to exhale.
StamYid1 and Akuperma:
According to Wikipedia:
“Democrat Party” is a political epithet used in the United States instead of the name (or more precisely, the proper noun) Democratic Party. The term has been used by some conservative commentators and some members of the Republican Party in speeches and press releases. Some Democratic Party candidates, party officials, and non-partisan commentators have objected to the term. New Yorker commentator Hendrik Hertzberg wrote:
‘There’s no great mystery about the motives behind this deliberate misnaming. ‘Democrat Party’ is a slur, or intended to be – a handy way to express contempt. Aesthetic judgments are subjective, of course, but ‘Democrat Party’ is jarring verging on ugly. It fairly screams ‘rat’
He is nothing more than a Benedict Arnold!
(“It’s the “Democratic Party” , not the “Democrat Party.”)– StamYid1 (NO.2):
–WRONG. It’s the “DemoNcrap Party”–The party of evil and Shtuss!
deepthinker – Shallow reactionary non-thinker maybe?
Individuals with your outlook you fought Social Security in the 30s, Medicare in the 60s (saying they were the first step to “socialism”), resisted the Civil Rights acts that today protect your Shabbos observance, resisted food safety legislation a hundred years ago, clean air legislation over the past 20 years, fought the 40-hour work week, are anti-union, are intolerant of those who disagree with you, use the word “schvartze” with a sneer . . . . and today are just in an appoplectic fit that a progressive party is in power, and that (according to a CBS/NY Times Poll released yesterday) a sizeable majority of Americans approve of the Job Obama is doing and agree with him on all major issues.
But an individual member is a “Democrat” (plural: Democrats), with a capital “D”, rather than “Democratics”.
P.S. To Deepthinker: so are you refusing to accept subsidies to transit, health, etc. It’s one think to disagree with someone but you should have derekh eretz.
To Wolffman and akuperma; it is you two gentlemen or ladies whatever you two are that need to learn derekh eretz.
Yes, we fought government funded programs such as Social Security, The Great Society, and more because we predicted that a huge number of Americans would become dependent on governmental largesse to survive. Before then there was no massive starvation or suffering as FDR or Johnson claimed. A matter of fact, studies have been done to prove that FDR’s programs elongated the Depression by seven years.
To lump together the ability for a Shomer Shabbos Jew to work a flexible work week to fit his Shmiras Hamitzvos with anti-black rhetoric or with the unions is making an invidious comparison. It is being facetious and confusing the arguments. One has nothing to do with the other. But, if you do not mind paying higher taxes and finding it harder to cover your tuition bills because of the costs of Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, et al. than go ahead and make my day!
TO THE WOLFFMAN (in sheep’s clothing?):
Well, you certainly are an effective propagandist for the DemoNcraP Party.
I won’t bother to bore the readers of this site with a point-by-point rebuttal, but I will simply tell you that a very great Talmid Chochom, Rav Avigdor Miller, clearly stated that the Democratic Party of today promotes everything that HaShem hates–Abortion-on demand, Sodomy “Rights,” “Feminis rights,” andthe abandonment of the Jews in Eretz Yisroel.
Rav Miller made it very clear: A jew should, with very few exceptions (like Ahrele Spector), support Republicans, because they are enerally against the degenerate forces that seek to rebel against HaShem and his Torah.
Charliehall, that’s an interesting point about Specter being the last Republican Jewish senator. Norm Coleman is planning to appeal to the MN Supreme Court, but his chances are not that good.
Who cares if they are jewish or not?! Personally i dont look at it as a plus especially when their values are not too jewish. v’hamayvin yovin.