Author Topic: Arlen Specter gives Democrats 60 votes in the Senate  (Read 263 times)

0 Members and 0 Guests are viewing this topic.

BuddhasWench

  • Equites
  • Cives
  • ****
  • Posts: 9
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
Arlen Specter gives Democrats 60 votes in the Senate
« on: April 28, 2009, 02:53:36 pm »
Quote
Specter would give Democrats at least 59 Senate seats. There is one vacancy from Minnesota, where Democrat Al Franken holds a narrow lead in a race still being disputed in the courts.

Under Senate rules, a single senator can object to consideration of a bill, in which case it takes that 60-vote majority to bring a bill to the floor or to end debate so a final vote can be taken.

Ref: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/30456741/

Of course when Al Franken wins they will have 60 seats.


Quote
When asked how and when he made the decision, Specter said, "the decision has been reached as I have traveled the state [Pennsylvania] in the last several months. Specifically, I got my home poll results last Friday ... and consulted with my campaign managers and had a long discussion. ... I came to a decision over this past weekend."

Ref: http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/04/28/specter.party.switch/index.html


I don't care all that much, but I am actually watching the news conference right now so I thought this would be a good thing to post here.  Personally, aside from social issues (which I don't believe the government should be involved in anyway) the parties don't really seem that different to me (especially in the last few years) as they are just full of corrupt politicians that are pretty much only interested in holding their seat from year to year, and only stage outrage when they are up for re-election.

From the conference what I got was he's switching parties (after being a proponent of a two party system the main difference being the name) because he doesn't think the Republican party has a future (and doesn't feel he could get re-elected as a republican) so he wants to stick with the sure thing, despite being elected as a republican.

Edit: I think this is the right place to post this anyway.
« Last Edit: April 28, 2009, 02:56:26 pm by BuddhasWench »

Social Buttons


Giuliano Taverna

  • Dominus et deus
  • Cives
  • *****
  • Posts: 439
  • Karma: +0/-0
  • Gender: Male
  • Location: Chelsea MA USA
    • View Profile
excellent topic!

Under normal circumstances I would support the gentleman from Pennsylvania because I also consider myself a moderate republican apposed to the far right... However the issue that Mr Specter broke with the GOP on is one of those issue on which I am staunchly conservative. The issue of spending, specifically his support of the Obama stimulus Package which I was extremely apposed to and which I consider beyond the line of how far one should go in the way of bi partisanship. There is such a thing as compromise and there is such a thing as abject capitulation. The latter describes Mr Specter's actions assuming he is in fact fiscally conservative which I tend to doubt.

I'd like to trust his promise that he won't be a given vote for the democrats and thus won't signify a filibuster proof majority whether he is a republican or a democrat. But considering the nature of the issue on which he broke ranks, I have my doubts.

I would also mention that I am absolutely against Al Franken's candidacy. I think its beyond appalling that someone as radical, immature, crude, and ignorant as that hack of a comedian is being considered for such an important office. He isn't fit to rake mud let alone represent an entire state in the senate.

Finally, I am against one party rule. We have far too many Democrats in Washington already. We should have an even mix of republicans and democrats to keep things balanced, but instead we have wide majorities in both houses, and the most liberal person in the 2008 senate as president. In my mind both Democrats and republicans should be fighting to bring down the wide majority of democrats because such a majority puts our checks and balances in a state of confusion such that its almost impossible to have proper oversight, accountability, and proper representation.

The democrats believe they have a mandate from the people allowing them to do whatever the want, I seriously doubt the majority of Americans had a 3 trillion dollar deficit in mind when they elected these politicians.
"It is the duty of a good shepherd to shear his sheep, not to skin them." Tiberius Caesar

BuddhasWench

  • Equites
  • Cives
  • ****
  • Posts: 9
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
Quote
I'd like to trust his promise that he won't be a given vote for the democrats and thus won't signify a filibuster proof majority whether he is a republican or a democrat. But considering the nature of the issue on which he broke ranks, I have my doubts.

I'm pretty sure he is going to be a party line voter on many issues, mainly because he is going to need to prove himself to the democratic party so he can get re-elected to the senate, which I'm pretty sure why this is the biggest reason he is breaking with the republican party, although he says it's about the party going to far right.  I just don't see his reason for switching as genuine, maybe it is, but it just seems like it's all about holding a seat in the senate and nothing more.

I think one party rule is what a lot of people want, not to mention having only two options is ridiculous anyway.  I understand the difference in ideology of the parties but the people that are actually representing the parties all seem the same (unless of course when they are up for re-election).

A majority of Americans may not have had a 3 trillion dollar deficit in mind, but that's what they wanted, a bigger government that can solve and deal with problems in the so called "free market".  If you want the government to solve your problems it comes at a terrible price, and once it gets that power it's probably never going to give it up.

Also, yeah Al Franken getting a seat in the senate is rather sad, but it happens I guess, especially when people don't understand issues other than polarizing social ones (which I don't think the government has any business regulating ever).

Giuliano Taverna

  • Dominus et deus
  • Cives
  • *****
  • Posts: 439
  • Karma: +0/-0
  • Gender: Male
  • Location: Chelsea MA USA
    • View Profile
That's a brutally accurate assessment, and I agree whole heartedly.  Aside from meaningless social issues, both parties are identical in all except rhetoric.

The bigger issue lies with the people, the mindless Obamanite that believes the government can get bigger without getting more expensive and oppressive needs to be force feed reality. And while we are at it we should force feed social cons the simple truth that a government which dictates how people live can't be small.

Easier said than done.

It will be interesting to see what happens first. Things get so screwed up that people wake up, or things get so screwed up that the country collapses. Somehow I think the latter is probable.
"It is the duty of a good shepherd to shear his sheep, not to skin them." Tiberius Caesar