http://danareport.com/2009/03/02/toomeys-run-against-arlen-specter-is-back-on-the-table/

Given Specter's abysmal poll numbers in Pennsylvania right now, this is interesting, to say the least. 

http://pittsburghlive.com/x/pittsburghtrib/news/s_613850.html

While liberal activists showered them with praise Sunday, the three Republicans supporting President Barack Obama’s massive stimulus package were being dissed by their conservative colleagues and denounced as turncoats on Web sites. Will they pay a political price for their support of a budget-busting package? 
FULL STORY

Republican Sen. Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania – who already had defected to support Obama’s massive stimulus package – is planning to announce that he is becoming a Democrat. The five-term senator, who narrowly survived a conservative challenger in his last election, was again facing an angry backlash for his move toward the left since the election of President Barack Obama.  
FULL STORY

http://www.newsmax.com/insidecover/specter_Democrats/2009/04/28/208225.html

More Stories

Obama 'Thrilled' To Have Specter in Party

Posted by: Greg Hengler at 12:09 PM

When Al Franken is confirmed it will make a 60 majority for the Dems (if Specter wins his 2010 run-off in Pennsylvania) which would mean a giant bowling ball rolling towards the Republicans.

Statement by Senator Arlen Specter:

http://politicspa.com/Specter%20Switches.htm 

Who else could go over there?  Brownback, Sam Brownback.  Now he's going to run for governor in Kansas.  Now, Kathleen Sebelius' confirmation hearings are today.  Of course with the swine flu out there, they're doing a Geithner.  She's the only one.  She's the only one that can head up Health and Human Services.  Doesn't matter, doesn't matter that she hasn't paid her taxes, it doesn't matter, she's the only one that can do it.  We need somebody in there. It doesn't matter that she's for every abortion that ever happened, it doesn't matter, we've got to have her in there.  Now, this vote on Sebelius is a defining moment for Republicans on the committee hearing her confirmation.  They can do one of three things: they can vote for her, to show bipartisanship; they can not vote, showing cowardice; or they can vote against her, standing up for principle.  Brownback, I think first said he was going to vote for her, now he says he may not vote, but he wants to be governor Kansas.  And, of course, any Republican seeking office somehow has been made to believe that the only way to win is to run out there and become a Democrat or moderate.

It's interesting, we have a story from the estimable Charles Babington of the AP:  "The economy will determine whether Barack Obama achieves what few presidents have: a far-reaching change in American politics that might even earn its own title and legacy. Will there be an Obama version of the New Deal, the Great Society or the Reagan Revolution? ... Of course 100 days is just the start, too little time to determine the results (let alone the wisdom) of his decisions. But it's enough time to discern the path Obama has chosen, the overarching philosophy that will shape his administration and history's eventual judgment of it.  In a way --" this is the key paragraph; it's just one little sentence.  "In a way, Obama is reversing the famous dictum of President Ronald Reagan, who said government is the problem, not the solution."

So here it is.  It's on the table.  Finally somebody has come out and said in the Drive-By Media that Obama believes government is the solution, not the problem.  A total reversal of Reaganism.  And yet, we have many conservatives and Republicans who want to throw Reagan overboard as well.  I guess now that means that those people on our side who believe Obama -- and I frankly think, and I got a very frustrated e-mail from a friend of mine today wanting to know, "Rush, could you explain to me why it is that all of these 'learned' intellectual conservatives seem so hell-bent on praising Obama as something unique and we've never seen it before and how what a great manager he is."  It's very simple.  There is a term, I cannot use the real term because it requires the use of the F-word.  And of course we don't do that on this program.  But basically let's take a look at a lot of these people who loved Reagan at the time.  They were out there and they were claiming to be within the Reagan administration, and they were in the loop, the policy advisor loop, and they were with Reagan at the Justice department, they were with Reagan wherever.  And all it was -- 'cause now a lot of these people are full-fledged with Obama -- what they are, folks, is stargazers.  

They just love stars, celebrities.  That's all that matters.  They want to bask in the glow of the moment.  They are followers, they are not leaders, and wherever the leader is that has the brightest light that's where they're going to go.  It's simple human nature.  It has nothing to do with the intellect.  It has nothing to do with how bright Obama is or how great a manager Obama is, 'cause none of that we really know for sure. We know he's a bad manager.

BREAK TRANSCRIPT

RUSH:  I have the template, folks, the Drive-By Media is using here to report on the Arlen Specter change of parties.  The Drive-By Media template is this: "How can the Republican Party be a national party? How can it claim to be a national party if it cannot keep a moderate Republican like Arlen Specter in the party?"  What's wrong with that question, Mr. Snerdley?  Do you have an idea what's wrong...? (interruption) Exactly right.  What's wrong with the question is that Arlen Specter's not a "moderate" Republican.  Arlen Specter is a liberal Republican, and he has been ideologically closer tied to the Democrat Party for years.  I have his whole statement here announcing his switch: "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." Senator Specter, that was Operation Chaos!  A large part of that was just a game.  A large part of that was a trick. It was Operation Chaos. "I now find my political philosophy," he says, "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 reelection in 2010 in the Democratic primary.  I am ready, willing and anxious to take on all comers and have my candidacy for reelection determined in a general election.  I deeply regret that I will be disappointing many friends and supporters. I can understand their disappointment," blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, biddy, biddy, biddy.  It's a stimulus, part of it.  

Really. It really is about card check.  I really do believe that he expected accolades and huge support for voting against card check, and it didn't happen to the degree that he wanted it. So the stimulus is now a way to back out.  But here, again, the Drive-By Media template is: "How can the GOP claim to be a national party if it cannot keep a moderate Senator like Senator Specter in the party?"  He's not a moderate.  He is a liberal Republican, and this is a natural winnowing process that is taking place out of necessity.  Defeats have a tendency to do this. Within the Republican Party, people who are not really Republicans are now leaving. People who are not really conservatives are now really leaving.  So it's going to be not much smaller, but it's going to be a little bit more focused a party and a base, and this may cause some ripples elsewhere with others making similar moves.

But, as I say: If this is to be the order of the day, next to go could be Senator McCain and his daughter, Meghan.  Get them officially moved over and it just facilitates reality. 

BREAK TRANSCRIPT

RUSH:  Folks, come on. I'm reading this e-mail here. Okay, I have to explain everything, and I will explain it.  Arlen Specter, it's not a big loss.  Come on, folks.  It's not a loss. The only reason Specter is doing this... Well, I can't say "the only."  What is a politician's first job?  A politician's first job is to get reelected.  Specter knows he's going to have trouble even winning a primary.  He's going to be running against Pat Toomey again.  This is about Specter's political survival.  He knows that he's more at home in the Democrat Party with the way he's been voting in recent years and the things that he's been saying.  This is all about the fact that he faces a strong primary challenge.  He wouldn't be changing parties if there were no Pat Toomey out there, if there weren't anybody challenging him on the Republican side.  He doesn't want to lose his upcoming election.  

This does not say anything bad about the Republican Party.  That's why I tell you the media template is going to be and is, "Well, this just shows the Republican Party's no longer a national party. They can't have big-tent guy like Specter in there."  Notice we never, ever hear about the giant, big tent that is the Democrat Party?  Nooooo, we never hear about all the diversity of views that you can find in the Democrat Party.  There are a bunch of pro-lifers in there, aren't there?  Bunch of pro-life Democrats, a bunch of them, right?  And they have a voice at the Democrat convention.  It's a giant, giant myth.  The effort here by the Drive-Bys is going to be to paint the Republican Party as finished.  All right. It'll be interesting to watch Specter on card check, because he was the deciding vote. He was the guy who was going to vote against it.  

I guarantee you, folks, I know this without knowing it.  I don't know it specifically, but I know that one of the things, in addition to facing a tough primary fight with Toomey, is he really thought he was going to get back in everybody's good graces by opposing card check, and he didn't get the big band. He didn't get the big fanfare. He didn't get the bow-downs. "Oh, thank you, Senator Specter! Oh, thank you, thank you, thank you!" So he's saying, "Oh, the stimulus bill made everybody mad at me. I can't go on in this party."  We'll see if he changes his tune on card check now since he's gonna become a Democrat.  It will be interesting to see.  But regardless, this is good.  This is good.  Toomey doesn't have to spend a lot of money now on a primary, a bruising primary.  Specter, I mean, there's no guarantee Specter is going to get the Democrat nomination in the primary.  He's gotta secure that.

So any time you have liberals leaving the Republican Party rather than trying to change the party to become liberal, it's a good thing.  I wish more people who are not really Republicans who claim to be liberal Republicans, would do the same thing.  Yeah.  Here's another thing.  This is another way to look at this.  If you listen to people like David Brooks and the other conservative intelligentsia out there, you'll be reading, "Moderates and independents are on the march.  Moderates are now taking over, because the country hates partisans.  The country hates partisanship.  They just want everybody to get along.  Moderates are in the ascendancy."  Moderates are in the ascendancy?  Moderates have to become Democrats.  Moderates, if they're fleeing anywhere, it is to the Democrat Party. 

BREAK TRANSCRIPT

RUSH:  It was just last March 17th in an interview with The Hill newspaper on Capitol Hill, that Arlen Specter said he absolutely would not switch parties.  He said, "[Democrats] are trying very hard for the 60th vote. Got to give them credit for trying. But the answer is no.  I'm not going to discuss private talks I had with other people who may or may not be considered influential. But since those three people are in the public domain, I think it is appropriative to respond to those questions. I am staying a Republican because I think I have an important role, a more important role, to play there. The United States very desperately needs a two-party system. That's the basis of politics in America. I'm afraid we are becoming a one-party system, with Republicans becoming just a regional party with so little representation of the Northeast or in the middle Atlantic. I think as a governmental matter, it is very important to have a check and balance. That's a very important principle in the operation of our government. In the constitution on Separation of powers."

This is March 17th at The Hill, Specter flatly denying he's going to change parties.  Now, something's happened, it's called polling data.  It's got to be really dramatic, it's got to be something untenable for Senator Specter to switch parties here after just over a month ago, six weeks ago, saying, "Ain't no way.  We need a two-party system. We need Republicans in the Northeast.  I'm going nowhere, no way Jose."  Six weeks later, sayonara.  Something happened.  Trust me on this, folks, do not discount the notion. People are people, human beings are human beings, he wanted accolades for hanging tough on card check, and the polling data demonstrates it didn't help him much.  I haven't seen any polling data, but the only reason you'd do a six-week change of heart 180 like this is if your fortunes look hopeless where you at present are, which was as a Republican.  

All right, let me grab a phone call or two here before we have to wrap up the hour.  Montclair, Virginia, Mary, nice to have you.  Thanks for calling.

CALLER:  Thanks, Rush.  It's good to talk to you.

RUSH:  Yes.

CALLER:  It's a great day in America and there's a party at the big house tonight.  I've got six bottles of old port downstairs and one of those cocks -- whoops, sorry -- corks is going to be popping tonight.  We have been waiting for Arlen Specter --

RUSH:  Did she say she's going to pop some cocks?  

CALLER:  No, I didn't say -- (laughing)

RUSH:  You going to pop some cocks of port?  

CALLER:  You're a very bad guy.  No, I did not say that.  We're popping the cork on that bottle, and we are absolutely thrilled.  I've been waiting for him to either succumb to his Alzheimer's or just plain get defeated in the polls, or switch parties and join the party he really belongs to.

RUSH:  What kind of port?  I'm curious.  You've got six bottles of old vintage port.  Tell me which one you're going to open, if you can, off the top of your head.

CALLER:  Okay, well, you know what, it's probably not going to be as impressive to you, because I'm sure you have a great and fantastic wine cellar, which we don't, but I think Graham is the name of it.

RUSH:  That's excellent, excellent.  

CALLER:  Is it?

RUSH:  What's the year?  

CALLER:  Oh, it's just 1998, but, you know what?  We've been waiting a long time --

RUSH:  That's fine and dandy.

CALLER:  Is it good?

RUSH:  That's fine and dandy.  Graham's '98 is fine.  You'll love it.

CALLER:  I've got five more bottles --

RUSH:  Perfect --

CALLER:  I've got five more bottles and I'll let you just kind of give some thought as to when we're going to be popping the corks on those babies.

RUSH:  If it were me I would of course light a fine cigar.

CALLER:  Would you?  Well, I might try that. I'm pretty old; I think a cigar would kill me. (laughing)

RUSH:  Are you going to be doing this alone?  You said we are going to pop the cocks on the --

CALLER:  I did not say that. (laughing)

RUSH:  Pop the corks, I'm sorry.

CALLER:  Thank you.

RUSH:  You said we're going to pop the corks on the port.

CALLER:  Well, unfortunately my husband's on travel out in the West Coast, but I'll be doing it, we'll be talking on the phone, we'll be having a big party.  Whoo-hoo, it's a good day in America!

RUSH:  This is I think going to be a common reaction, many Republicans.  This is why I say it's ultimately good.  We're weaning out, I won't say deadwood, but weaning out people that are not really Republicans here and haven't been for a long time.  Let's see.  Not enough time to be fair with another caller.  Yes, a lot of popping cocks -- corks, all over Republicanville tonight.  Remember, now, the Drive-Bys, folks, are going to tell you, this is the end of the Republican Party.  If you can't keep a moderate in the big tent, why, how can you claim to be a national party?  Don't buy it.  

BREAK TRANSCRIPT

RUSH: Arlen Specter six weeks ago said he was not going to leave the Republican Party, we need a Republican Party because there's a one-party rule in Washington; we need northeastern Republicans.  Today he walked out of his office in the Senate building and said he's announced that he's changing to the Democrat Party, and the assembled Drive-By reporters cheered.  The Drive-By reporters cheered and applauded.  President Obama has called Senator Specter, said we're thrilled to have you, and Specter said I'm thrilled to be here.  The truth of this is in Senator Specter's statement, he became a Republican during the big tent era of Reagan and then the party has moved just too far to the right, become dominated by the right wing.  It's just the exact opposite.  The right wing has gone away.  The conservative movement is being shut out of the Republican Party.  The Republican Party is more like Arlen Specter than it has ever been if you want to know the truth about it.  The truth is polls show he's getting skunked in the Republican primary by his opponent there, his challenger, Pat Toomey.  And the first obligation of every politician is to get reelected, and he's not going to get reelected.

BREAK TRANSCRIPT

RUSH: Here is John in Marshalltown, Iowa, nice to have you on the EIB Network, sir.  Hello.

CALLER:  Hello, Rush.  What a thrill to talk to you.  Thanks for taking my call.

RUSH:  You bet, sir.  Any time.

CALLER:  Snerdley tells me that I missed your thoughts about Arlen Specter in the first hour, and I beg your forgiveness for that, but that's what I was calling about, to find out what you thought about that.

RUSH:  Very briefly, I'll go through the reasons for the switch.  Number one, polling data shows him losing to his primary challenger Pat Toomey.  Number one job of a politician is to get reelected.  He doesn't think he can get reelected.  He's not going to say that.  What he's saying is the Republican Party's gone too far right, since the Reagan big tent eighties, it's not true.  The party has veered away from the right.  Just six weeks ago, Arlen Specter said to The Hill newspaper in Washington that he would never leave the Republican Party, that we need two-party system, need checks in balances, we're too close to a one-party system, and we need Republicans in the Northeast.  Six weeks later, he leaves the party.  This is all about the fact he's not going to have an easy time winning reelection or even the primary in 2010, and he wants to win reelection. 

It's no great loss for the conservative movement and really not for the Republican Party.  He was pretty much liberal.  He wasn't a moderate Republican.  He was a liberal Republican most of the time and I think probably the last straw with him is something that he was really hoping for that didn't happen.  He was the senator that killed card check in the Senate, 'cause he came out against it, this ability to be able to organize union shops with open ballots anywhere the union wants to try it.  And I thought he really wanted accolades for that and big cheers and celebrations.  He didn't get that because you don't get a medal for doing the right thing.  So he put it all together and he figured out he wasn't going to win, or going to have a tough time winning the Republican primary.  His speech today, he's making his comments right now, but his statement laid it all out.  The Republicans are just too freaky right-wingish, he hasn't been on the same page as them in a long, long time, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah.

CALLER:  Very good.  Don't you think that it would be good if he'd just take the rest of the RINOs with him as well?

RUSH:  Well, take McCain with him, take McCain's daughter with him, Meghan and some others.  This is ultimately good.  I mean this is winnowing out the people that end up misdefining or preventing the party from having a singular identity.  I never hear about the Democrat Party big tent.  It's only the Republicans that need to welcome people in who are not Republicans.  It's only the Republicans who have to go out and win elections by being moderate or attracting Democrat voters by offering Democrat philosophy, it's only the Republicans have to do that.  We never hear about the Democrat Party and its need to be a big tent.  You know, let some religious people in there and let some pro-life people in there, never hear about that.  This is a smoke screen.  Also you need to know as you watch the media today, John, that the media template is, how can the Republican Party claim it's a national party?  If they can't even have a moderate Republican like Arlen Specter want to stay in the party, how can the party be a national party?  But he's not a moderate Republican.  He's a liberal, period.  Republican sometimes, but he was a liberal.  Bruce in Fort Wayne, Indiana.  You're next on the EIB Network Sir.  Hello.

CALLER:  A pleasure.  What is Specter's legacy?  What is the postmortem of Specter as a Republican?

RUSH:  Who cares?  Why do we need a legacy for a senator?  Okay, what's Ted Kennedy's legacy?

CALLER:  Exactly.  Bigger government, boozing over a bridge, being an incompetent and all the fat and pork that went with it.

• Human Events: Arlen Specter Switching Parties Today

http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=31639

• Politico: Specter's Statement: "Not Defined" by Party

http://www.politico.com/blogs/glennthrush/0409/Specters_statement.html

• The Hill: Specter Had Disavowed a Switch

http://briefingroom.thehill.com/2009/04/28/specter-had-disavowed-a-switch/

• The Hill: No Specter of Courage - Doug Heye

http://pundits.thehill.com/2009/04/28/no-specter-of-courage/

• Washington Post: Specter To Switch Parties

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/thefix/senate/specter-to-switch-parties.html

• AP: Economy Will Determine Obama Legacy

http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/ap/washington/6394418.html 

• Politico: Steele: Specter Move Not 'Based on Principles of Any Kind'

http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0409/Steele_Specter_move_not_based_on_principles_of_any_kind.html?showall

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3036789/vp/30476433#30476433  (05:45)

By OLYMPIA SNOWE
Published: April 28, 2009

IT is disheartening and disconcerting, at the very least, that here we are today — almost exactly eight years after Senator Jim Jeffords left the Republican Party — witnessing the departure of my good friend and fellow moderate Republican, Senator Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania, for the Democratic Party. And the announcement of his switch was all the more painful because I believe it didn’t have to be this way.

When Senator Jeffords became an independent in 2001, I said it was a sad day for the Republicans, but it would be even sadder if we failed to confront and learn from the devaluation of diversity within the party that contributed to his defection. I also noted that we were far from the heady days of 1998, when Republicans were envisioning the possibility of a filibuster-proof 60-vote margin. (Recall that in the 2000 election, most pundits were shocked when Republicans lost five seats, resulting in a 50-50 Senate.)

I could have hardly imagined then that, in 2009, we would fondly reminisce about the time when we were disappointed to fall short of 60 votes in the Senate. Regrettably, we failed to learn the lessons of Jim Jeffords’s defection in 2001. To the contrary, we overreached in interpreting the results of the presidential election of 2004 as a mandate for the party. This resulted in the disastrous elections of 2006 and 2008, which combined for a total loss of 51 Republicans in the House and 13 in the Senate — with a corresponding shift of the Congressional majority and the White House to the Democrats.

It was as though beginning with Senator Jeffords’s decision, Republicans turned a blind eye to the iceberg under the surface, failing to undertake the re-evaluation of our inclusiveness as a party that could have forestalled many of the losses we have suffered.

It is true that being a Republican moderate sometimes feels like being a cast member of “Survivor” — you are presented with multiple challenges, and you often get the distinct feeling that you’re no longer welcome in the tribe. But it is truly a dangerous signal that a Republican senator of nearly three decades no longer felt able to remain in the party.

Senator Specter indicated that his decision was based on the political situation in Pennsylvania, where he faced a tough primary battle. In my view, the political environment that has made it inhospitable for a moderate Republican in Pennsylvania is a microcosm of a deeper, more pervasive problem that places our party in jeopardy nationwide.

I have said that, without question, we cannot prevail as a party without conservatives. But it is equally certain we cannot prevail in the future without moderates.

In that same vein, I am reminded of a briefing by a prominent Republican pollster after the 2004 election. He was asked what voter groups Republicans might be able to win over. He responded: women in general, married women with children, Hispanics, the middle class in general, and independents.

How well have we done as a party with these groups? Unfortunately, the answer is obvious from the results of the last two elections. We should be reaching out to these segments of our population — not de facto ceding them to the opposing party.

There is no plausible scenario under which Republicans can grow into a majority while shrinking our ideological confines and continuing to retract into a regional party. Ideological purity is not the ticket back to the promised land of governing majorities — indeed, it was when we began to emphasize social issues to the detriment of some of our basic tenets as a party that we encountered an electoral backlash.

It is for this reason that we should heed the words of President Ronald Reagan, who urged, “We should emphasize the things that unite us and make these the only ‘litmus test’ of what constitutes a Republican: our belief in restraining government spending, pro-growth policies, tax reduction, sound national defense, and maximum individual liberty.” He continued, “As to the other issues that draw on the deep springs of morality and emotion, let us decide that we can disagree among ourselves as Republicans and tolerate the disagreement.”

I couldn’t agree more. We can’t continue to fold our philosophical tent into an umbrella under which only a select few are worthy to stand. Rather, we should view an expansion of diversity within the party as a triumph that will broaden our appeal. That is the political road map we must follow to victory.

Olympia Snowe is a Republican senator from Maine.

Don't Let the Door Hit You...