Benedict Arlen is losing his seniority:
Senate Democrats have denied Arlen Specter seniority on the committees on which he will now serve as a Democrat. That means Specter, who has been a senator for 28 years, will now occupy the most junior position among Senate Democrats. A few minutes ago, I asked a GOP Senate source for his reaction. “I don’t know if it says more about [Senate Majority Leader Harry] Reid’s lack of commitment or Specter’s naiveté,” he told me. “But either way, it’s going to be hard for Specter to argue that dumping him now would cost his constituents seniority and clout — he has the same ranking on committees that his successor will have in 2011.”
My schadenfreude runneth over.
[Evening update]
Normally, I’d say that this would be the move of the Stupid Party, except that the Republicans now have some leverage over this creature. And of course, vice versa.
At this point, I’d say that he’s a man without a party…
Doesn’t this mean his bizzaro ideas ALSO go to the bottom of the opinion heap? And that can’t be a bad thing.
He’ll get voted out, I hope.
Oh the irony, and it is very likely that he will be retired by the voters next year if Tom Ridge runs against him.
I wonder what Scottish law says about this?
I wonder what Scottish law says about this?
One is tempted to say that it is no longer “not proved” that he is an unprincipled idiot. He’s a member of the Arlen Specter Party.
“Idiot” is also the Russian word for “[he] walks”. I’m sure there’s a pun in there somewhere.
That’s “Arlen Specter Society,” surely.
Sometimes justice is indeed served…
http://voices.washingtonpost.com/thefix/senate/arlen-specter-and-the-perils-o.html?hpid=topnews
“Since 1990, there have been 17 members of the House (11) and Senate (6) who have switched sides. Nearly half of those switches came either during or in the immediate aftermath of the 1994 Republican revolution when seven total members switched from Democrat to GOP before 1995 ended. (Thanks to the crack Post research team for the data.)”
The GOP historically has let Party Switchers retain seniority, the Dems usually wait until after the first survival election to establish seniority.
The Dems should have left him alone, let him switch but retain ranking membership on judiciary and approps until after they reset the seniority in 2010.
I’m not sure why you call specter “Benedict” when you aren’t a republican. Only Republicans should seem to have any basis to call specter a traitor.
I don’t have to be a Republican to call him a traitor to the Republicans.
FWIW, I kinda like Tom Ridge myself.
Choosing Tom Ridge rather than Pat Toomey as the Republican candidate for that PA Senate seat offers us an opportunity to gauge whether GOP fortunes shall start heading up, or shall continue heading down.
If Ridge is rejected by his party as being yet another RINO, prospects for continued Democratic ascendancy will increase.
For the first time this year I can say: Thank you D.C. Democrats! You done good!
FWIW, I kinda like Tom Ridge myself.
Of course you do. He’s a RINO.
If Ridge is rejected by his party as being yet another RINO, prospects for continued Democratic ascendancy will increase.
He is a RINO, but your conclusion doesn’t follow from your premise. When Republicans start to act like Republicans they’ll have a lot better chance of winning. Particularly after the ongoing overreach by the Democrats.
They did the same thing to Jeffords. Indeed, I recall some constituents complaining, because there was some desired Dairy legislation that Jeffords could have helped in committee. IIRC, because he jumped, the legislation he was sponsoring died in committee. It was pretty clear at that point that his move was entirely for his own benefit and not for the voters that supported him.
JFTR, Dennis Wingo brought up Tom Ridge, first.
Rand, do you believe Pat Toomey is the type of Republican who can be expected to “act like a Republican?”
Rand, do you believe Pat Toomey is the type of Republican who can be expected to “act like a Republican?”
A hell of a lot more than Tom Ridge can.
Here is an interesting link:
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0409/21869.html
Orrin Hatch says Toomey cannot win and Lindsay Graham brought up Ridge as a viable alternative to Toomey:
Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) suggested that former Pennsylvana Gov. Tom Ridge, a moderate, could be a viable candidate instead.
“A guy like Tom could win,” Graham said, adding he hadn’t spoken with him about it.
OK, I’m scratching my head, trying to figure out why that link is “interesting.”
I’m trying to figure out why I, or anyone, should care what a moron like Orrin Hatch thinks. Or McCain sycophant Lindsay Graham, for that matter.
The truth is: Hatch is right. Ridge and Snarlin’ Arlen are the closest things to Republicans as you’ll see nominated, let alone elected, in Pennsylvania. The state GOP is a joke, and the electorate is still wondering when the steel mills will reopen.
You know, “deep Republicans can’t win” is the exact same kind of mypoic conventional wisdom that “real estate prices can’t fall” represents. You’re looking around you right now and assuming things will simply go on that way forever, regardless of (just or example) the consequences of what the Democratic Party has done this year.
No wonder they call Democrats the Party of Stupid. Might as well call them the ADD Party, as well, unable to think long-term, unable to realize that actions quite often have unforeseen consequences that are larger and more powerful than the foreseen consequences.
No wonder they call Democrats the Party of Stupid.
Well, actually, in traditional parlance, Republicans are the Stupid Party, and Democrats are the Evil Party…
“I don’t have to be a Republican to call him a traitor to the Republicans.”
Not that you ever called Campbell, Alexander, Shelby
or Miller traitors for leaving the Democratic Caucus.
Not that you ever called Campbell, Alexander, Shelby
or Miller traitors for leaving the Democratic Caucus.
Why would I have? Why would I care about traitors to traitors?
“If it were not for Stupidity, the Democrats would not have any voters, and the Republicans not have any leaders.”
“Why would I have? Why would I care about traitors to traitors?”
Why don’t you explain this.
“If it were not for Stupidity, the Democrats would not have any voters, and the Republicans not have any leaders.”
This deserves to be repeated. Good for Raoul!
That’s me in the corner
Outside of the spotlight
Losing my seniority
Trying to keep the power
And I don’t know if I can do it
Oh no, I’ve said too much
I haven’t said enough
I thought I heard Harry Reid laughing
I thought I heard Republicans sing
I thought I saw my committee appointments fly
As far as I’m concerned this just proves Specter found his rightful home with the Dems. They deserve each other.
Specter is well within his rights to switch parties (though lets remember that he wanted to sponsor legislation in 2001-2002 to deny this right to others, in the wake of the Jeffords switch), though the notion that his motives cannot be questioned (or mocked) is simply silly. I have no problem with Democrats who were outraged by the choices made by Shelby, et. al. (in fact I found Shelby’s choice particularly silly, but anon…), but find the defenses of Specter (whose rationale seems to be incredibly self-serving) unusually silly. Specter has always been slime, and to be honest, I am happier seeing him gone from the party even if it does mean one less vote.
As far as Ridge goes…nice guy (I have met him a few times), but he would be a disaster as a Senator. Something a lot of the ‘elect more RINOs’ crowd seems to miss is that there needs to be a purpose to electing senators beyond simply accumulating R’s in one column to benefit that group of careerists, as opposed to the ones on the D side. If the GOP doesn’t stand for anything, then we might as well have Dems, who are at least honest about what they stand for. If you support Democratic policies, by all means, elect more of them…but if you support the principles that the GOP supposedly represents (small govt, fiscal responsibility, etc.) don’t elect individuals who regularly trash those goals. The Maine sisters are classic examples of this sort of thing…why have them with an R at the end of their name if they vote like D’s?
Some here (and elsewhere) suggest that an emphasis on ‘purity’ is both hypocritical (‘Bush had big deficits!’ seems to be their favorite whine) and counterproductive (‘If we insist on purity, we will be never hold any seats’), which seems to me besides the point. Bush did run up deficits (he had plenty of help from Congress…both D and – I am sad to say – R), but that hardly makes it right and doesn’t bind me (or other intelligent individuals) to suppor them. Crooks like Ted Stevens or Jerry Lewis are every bit as noxious as Pelosi or Murtha, worse possibly as at least the Dems don’t pretend to believe otherwise. As for the potential dangers in an emphasis on ‘purity’ being counterproductive in that it loses us seats, I say once again..what are those seats for? Even if I believed that an emphasis on purity would be a losing proposition (I don’t, but the way, and would at least like to see it tried), I would rather have a group of congressthings willing to stand for principle (mind you, I am not talking about a group of Paulistas here…there are practical considerations to be sure) than the kind of cyncial careerists we have now…
Term limits would be a good first step. To return to the original topic, term limits would have made Mr Specter irrelevant and allowed us to avoid wasting our time on him…