If Specter wanted to do a "Lieberman"

[Bluerthanblue]

wouldn't he have just become an 'independent'?

Why align himself with us?


:shrug:

[ClarkUSA]

1. Because he couldn't win re-election as an independent.

[Drunken Irishman]

3. And he would have thrown the election to a right-wing nut.

Since he would have split the Democratic vote.

[Bluerthanblue]

6. I'm glad he came over-

but i've heard people saying he was just "doing a Lieberman" - then saying his switch meant little or nothing good to us.

I'm confused.(frequent problem :P)

:shrug:

[ClarkUSA]

7. "Spector's Switch - Why It Matters" (link-->)

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.

[Bluerthanblue]

9. thanks- that was

a helpful perspective. If nothing else, maybe it will help move things along better.

I also think his move has a negative effect on the morale of the republican party- and that isn't a bad thing.

:hi:

[ClarkUSA]

10. You're right about that. Republicans must be so-o-o-o demoralized.

:hi:

[iamthebandfanman]

2. you forget, NEITHER party wanted LIEberman

so not really a good comparison.

[blueclown]

4. He can't do that in Pennsylvania.

There is a sore loser law in Pennsylvania. So he can't pull a Lieberman.

[Bobbie Jo]

5. Well we all see how that turned out.

major buyer's remorse. His re-election chances aren't exactly solid.

[Thrill]

8. Because he knows a Democrat will have a tough time beating him in a Primary there

.