Spector's Switch: Why It Matters

[ClarkUSA]

Many OPs have addressed the efficacy of Spector's return to his Democratic Party roots. Here's why:

Sixty is the magic number in the Senate -- but only if the party can muster 60 votes. Sixty members alone doesn't do it, a point emphasized by conservative Democratic Sen. Ben Nelson of Nebraska when asked by the Huffington Post what Specter's move does to his own position as a power broker in the Senate.

"Nothing. Sixty members doesn't translate to 60 votes, so it doesn't really change anything for me," he said. "The automatic assumption that people will take from this is, 'Ah, things are changing.' And maybe they will, but it's not automatic."

There is, however, one automatic change that comes with having 60 votes. The greatest power that the minority has in the Senate is the power to grind things to a halt. By filibustering, the GOP not only blocks the piece of legislation it's opposing, but also any other action that is bottle-necked behind it. The threat to grind things to a halt is one that the majority takes seriously. It gives the minority veto power over small (but important) pieces of legislation that the majority wants but can't afford to lose several weeks pushing. With 60 votes, the majority can push through those smaller measures over the objections of the GOP.

It's a point Sen. Charles Schumer of New York, the third-ranking Democrat, underscored. "The bottom line is, it's still not going to be easy. This is a bold, comprehensive agenda. But the sort-of-just-doing-a-filibuster-at-every-whim to block us is not there and that makes legislating a lot easier," he said.

In other words:

Schumer probably said it best: “It's still not going to be easy, this is a bold, comprehensive agenda but doing the filibuster at every whim to block us is not there and that makes legislating a lot easier.”... Since the Dems took control of the Senate in January 2007 a whopping 158 motions for cloture have been filed. Though many of that number were eventually withdrawn, the GOP has succeeded in gumming up the Senate's procedural cogs. Assuming Franken is seated and the 60 votes materialize the biggest change will simply be expediency on the Senate floor. The debates... will happen at a much quicker pace.

[Clear Blue Sky]

1. You assume Specter will vote with the Democrats on every issue.

Ask the Repukes how that assumption worked out for them.

[ClarkUSA]

3. You wouldn't have reached that assumption if you had bothered to actually read my OP.

[PassingFair]

10. Just the "pro-corporate" ones...and isn't that what really matters?

:sarcasm:

[Political Heretic]

21. Maybe they tied DNC aid in 2010 to him being on board for Health Care....

... :shrug:

[valerief]

2. Now they'll blackmail a Dem senator to vote for the Dark Side. nt

[ClarkUSA]

8. Of course.

I'd be surprised if they didn't try but they really don't have much leverage at the moment. However, I'm sure Evan Bayh and his fellow
DLC corporate whore Senate buddies are always up for a tickle.

[Political Heretic]

4. How can so many writers be this fucking stupid.

Thanks writer-guy. Did it ever occur to you that LETTERS (D) or (R) don't vote for cloture. Senators do.

So why is a right-of-center republican going to suddenly vote with democrats on every cloture motion?

Oh yeah.... that's right... HE WONT.

It is a good thing because it embarrasses the party. It is not some "magic bullet" (ha ha) for Democrats.

[ClarkUSA]

5. WTF are you talking to?

[Political Heretic]

6. Whoever you're quoting, plus the 50 other yay we have 60 votes now! Editorials and Blogs

of the last 24 hours.

[ClarkUSA]

7. You're making a strawman argument. Did you even read the OP?

No one said "yay we have 60 votes now" considering Al Franken is still unseated. Also, it's the Senate Republicans who've been
voting for cloture as an effective means of legislative obstructionism, not Senate Democrats. Having 60 Democrats - once Sen.
Franken is sworn in - in the chamber will prevent that from happening as often as it has since January 2009, which will make
Democratic-sponsored and WH approved legislation move much more quickly to a final vote, which is a significant plus if we
want Pres. Obama's first-term policy plans - healthcare reform among them - to succeed and be implemented as early as
possible.

[Political Heretic]

13. It won't prevent that from happening on the most important issues

This isn't about some numerical talley. (D)s and (R)s don't vote for cloture. Senators do. Nothing about Specter's basic positions have changed, there's no guarantee that we're aware of that he'll vote for cloture on anything.

To be fair, I would assume he would vote with his new party at least some of the time, because he wants to be re-elected and now depends on the DNC for support. I hope that means great and wonderful things. But people doing this whole "yay 60 votes" things are just being ridiculous.

Basically, we don't know what we've bought. And forgive me for being skeptical, but after enduring 30 years of this fucker being wrong I have no faith that suddenly he'll be doing the Democrats a bunch of favors.

I expect him to be about like Joe Lieberman - more a liability than he is EVER an asset.

The main reasons for being happy about this split is only because its embarrassing to the GOP. As far as what it gets us, I think that will be very little.

[ClarkUSA]

15. How do you know?

I doubt there will be any Democrats, Spector included, who are going to obstruct their own party and vote for cloture on
"important issues" in order to delay a final vote because they'll get shit-canned by the leadership and the WH afterwards.
They all understand the political calculus.

[Political Heretic]

20. I *don't* know.

It's an opinion, or a fear.

[ClarkUSA]

23. Do you normally make strongly declarative statements about things you "don't know"?

Don't answer that... I already know.

Try prefacing your statements with a disclaimer next time. Something like "I don't know but...(statement) is something I'm afraid of."

[Occam Bandage]

9. Hey, way to not read the OP.

:thumbsup:

[PassingFair]

11. Hey, way to have the title not match the contents of the OP.

:thumbsup:

[Occam Bandage]

12. Disregarding your apparent belief

that it is fine to simply reply to a title without so much as reading the OP, the title does indeed match the contents of the OP. It explains why Specter's conversion is a good thing for defeating procedural obstruction (as opposed to filibusters on legislation).

[PassingFair]

16. Could just have easily been titled: "Why it DOESN'T matter"... n/t

[Political Heretic]

14. I read the OP just fine.

It rests on the assumption that Specter will vote for cloture on anything, thus allowing important votes to come up faster.

That's a big assumption.

[ClarkUSA]

18. I'm sure Pres. Obama, VP Biden & Gov. Rendell know more about Sen. Spector's intentions than you do.

Remember this headline? Specter To Obama: "I'm A Loyal Democrat. I Support Your Agenda"

Spector is not switching parties so he can be a Rovian mole for Eric Cantor and Newt Gingrich. I would be very surprised if he voted for cloture with the wingnut Obama-obstructing Republicans he just flipped a finger at yesterday.

[Political Heretic]

19. True also, as I said in my other post - he'll need the DNC for releection

So yes, its possible.

I know he's not switching to be a mole or something. He is switching so try and save his ass in the next election. I'm just uncertain how much loyalty that buys us.

[elocs]

17. Spector appears to deperately want to be reelected

and he knew that would not happen as a Republican. It should be made clear to him that just because he has switched parties to become a Dem does not mean he will get blind support next year. He shouldn't get to play the merry maverick and do his own thing, but he should be expected to support the Democrats in the Senate in order to get support to be reelected.

[ClarkUSA]

22. I believe that the terms of the deal from Team O's side was made clear to him.

He will be allowed to whine about certain things for show because we can't expect him to start voting like Bernie Sanders -- after all,
PA Democrats are not as liberal as those from Vermont --but he'll be voting on our side for the important stuff. He will also make a
good case to Sens. Collins and Snowe so they'll vote with Democrats on big issues, as he did on the stimulus plan.

[grantcart]

24. Another very important long term impact:

It adds years to Democratic control of the Senate, and its life blood, chairmanships

A Republican Senator knows that he has no chance of becoming a chairman of a committe in 4 or probably 8 years. If the Democrats pick up even 1 or 2 more seats in 2010 then the Republicans might not have control until 2022. If your an aging Republican Senator and know that you have no chance at getting a chairmanship, and don't particularly enjoy being a Senator without power, you are much more likely to retire (and open up the possibility of even more Democratic Senators).

[ClarkUSA]

28. True... and now, it could severely hurt Republicans as they prepare for SCOTUS confirmation hearings

As you might recall, Sen. Arlen Specter was ranking Republican on the Senate Judiciary Committee.

"Ranking Republican isn't just a courtesy title. It's a management job. That's the person who runs the staff of legal professionals who evaluate legislation and handle the behind-the-scenes work of vetting each judicial nominee. As
you can imagine, going through the paperwork on a Supreme Court nomination -- and dealing with the politics of a
Supreme Court nomination -- is a very big job."

[depakid]

25. Specter showed his true colors today

While voting against one of the most rational (and least costly) responses to the mortgage crisis to help the banksters and his "former" party.

Guys like this are the LAST thing Democrats need.

Looking forward to seeing him primaried.

[ProSense]

26. So did Tester and Dorgan.

When Specter votes against a bill every Democrat supports, then it will be time to call him out.

Why the hell did they vote against this bill?

[depakid]

27. Yep- and we need LESS not more of this sort of Republican activity

Why did they vote against the bill?

First place one ought to look is to their campaign contributions....

Having a D or an R behind one's name does't matter when folks repeatedly vote against the nation's best interests.

There was noexcuse or rational basis for this vote whatsoever.

[freddie mertz]

29. I vote in PA, and will not support Specter

Not even in the general, unless he supports EFCA at the very least.

Some of us here have had our fill of the Rendell machine and its anti-democratic thuggery (which brought us that "wonderful" DINO dullard Casey).