A Defector You Can Believe In

Species need to adapt to the environment in order to survive. Failure to adapt could lead to extinction.

Moderate Republicans are on the verge of political extinction. However, President Obama and the Democratic Party are not the catalytic force behind the threat to eliminate moderate Republicans from the political landscape.

Conservative Republicans want to purify the party of moderates and liberals. To conservatives, it is moderate and liberal Republicans who caused the backlash against the party.

Detecting political extinction, Pennsylvania Senator Arlen Specter changed his allegiance from the Republican Party to the Democratic Party this week. He was overcome with a moment of clarity. Senator Specter changed parties because he did not think he could defeat a conservative Republican in a primary in 2010.

The demographics changed in Pennsylvania. “Last year, more than 200,000 Republicans changed their registration to become Democrats.” With his political career in jeopardy, Senator Specter discovered his “political philosophy more in line with Democrats than Republicans.”[i]

“I am not prepared to have my 29-year record in the United States Senate decided by the Pennsylvania Republican primary electorate — not prepared to have that record decided by that jury,” said the Pennsylvania Senator at a press conference.[ii]

Instead, Mr. Specter went forum shopping, hoping a change in political affiliation would preserve his political career.

Senator Specter desperately wants to win a sixth term to the United States Senate, but the Republican Party continues to shift the right with conservatives attempting to consolidate power, or in their words – to purify the party.

Mr. Specter deserted the Republican Party’s obstructionist position because he voted for President Obama’s stimulus package. Senator Specter believed the stimulus package was “necessary to lessen the risk of a far more serious recession,” but supporting President Obama “caused a schism which makes [the] differences irreconcilable.”[iii]

He also supports abortion rights and stem cell research. He opposed the constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriages.[iv]

Senator Specter’s moderate voting record made him a target of Club for Growth, a conservative Political Action Committee (PAC) “who have financed primary challenges against Republicans they consider to have strayed too far from conservative principles.”[v]

Former Republican Pennsylvania congressman Patrick Toomey was Senator Specter’s rival for the nomination in 2010. He formerly led the Club for Growth PAC. He almost defeated Mr. Specter in the 2004 Republican primary.[vi]

The Club for Growth would rather lose a general election with a conservative candidate, than win with a moderate or liberal Republican candidate.

Republican voters, in a recent Quinnipiac public opinion poll, “preferred Mr. Toomey over Mr. Specter, 41 percent to 27 percent, with 28 percent undecided” – with a margin for error of plus/minus 5%. “The chairmen of both the Pennsylvania and national Republican parties have said they were open to backing a challenger, an unusual slight to a five-term incumbent.”[vii]

Mr. Specter preferred changing political affiliation rather than convincing conservatives that voting for the stimulus bill was the correct decision.

Vice President Biden is credited with persuading Mr. Specter to defect from the Republican Party.

President Obama and the Democratic Party were happy with Mr. Specter’s defection. The President made a commitment to support Mr. Specter in the Democratic primary because he was “appreciative of the support [Senator Specter] gave on a number of things, the stimulus package being one of them.”[viii]

In a press conference, President Obama said Senator Specter was liberated from the Republican Party, is free to vote his conscience, and will no longer be intimidated into voting with the Republican Party’s obstructionist tendencies.

In addition, President Obama “would campaign for him and raise money for him if necessary.”[ix]

In the Senate, Democrats will control 60 seats, when Senator Elect Al Franken from Minnesota overcomes the court challenges against his Election Day victory. With 60 seats, Democrats could theoretically prevent Republicans from filibusters, thus enabling President Obama to enact his ambitious agenda.

Welcoming and supporting Senator Specter is a mistake. Mr. Specter will not automatically support President Obama’s agenda.

Senator Specter intends to vote against the Employees Free Choice (Card Check) Act. Pennsylvania is a blue collar, pro-union state. Unions support the Employees Free Choice Act.[x]

He will not support Dawn Johnson who is President Obama’s nominee to be Assistant Attorney General for the Office of Legal Counsel.

Senator Specter, with 11 other Democrats, voted against S. 61: Helping Families Save Their in Homes in Bankruptcy Act of 2009. The purpose of the bill was to give bankruptcy judges greater flexibility to prevent home foreclosures. Homeowners would have greater flexibility to renegotiate their mortgages.[xi]

Senator Specter voted to authorize the war in Iraq.

Mr. Specter is the creator of the “Magic Bullet” theory. The Warren Commission used this theory to justify the conclusion that Lee Harvey Oswald acted alone as President Kennedy’s assassin (I’m not about to forget that one).

Presume Patrick Toomey defeated Senator Specter for the Republican nomination. The Democratic primary winner would have defeated Mr. Toomey in the general election.

Pennsylvania is a blue state. There are more registered Democrats than Republicans. The Democratic candidate would have run a campaign supporting President Obama’s agenda.

If President Obama maintains his approval rating throughout 2010, then the election would have been a referendum on the president. A candidate supporting a popular president would have defeated a candidate opposing a popular president.

The Democratic candidate would be more loyal to the president’s agenda than Senator Specter who clearly stated he would not be an automatic vote for President Obama.

The Pennsylvania Democratic Party should allow a viable candidate to run against Mr. Specter in 2010. Let registered Democrats decide if they want Mr. Specter to represent their interests.

Maybe Mr. Specter is right. He would have defeated a Democratic rival in the 2010 general election. Maybe his only obstacle was losing to a conservative in a primary.

But Mr. Specter is not entitled to be a United States Senator. He wants to continue his political career by taking the path of least resistance.

He is cynically manipulating the political system. Democrats and independents will be forced to choose between a moderate Republican or a conservative Republican.

Mr. Specter was part of the political problem from 2001 through 2008. He does not deserve an EZ Pass to the Senate.

Besides, what’s to stop him from switching back to the Republican Party if Governor Sarah Palin becomes the 45th president in 2012.


[i] “Specter’s Statement on His Decision to Switch Parties,” New York Times, April 28, 2009.
[ii] Carl Hulse and Adam Nagourney, “Specter Switches Parties; More Heft for Democrats,” New York Times, April 29, 2009.
[iii] “Specter’s Statement on His Decision to Switch Parties,” New York Times, April 28, 2009.
[iv] Carl Hulse and Adam Nagourney, “Specter Switches Parties; More Heft for Democrats,” New York Times, April 29, 2009.
[v] Katharine Q. Seelye, “Challenger to Specter From Right of His Party,” New York Times, April 16, 2009.
[vi] Katharine Q. Seelye, “Challenger to Specter From Right of His Party,” New York Times, April 16, 2009.
[vii] Katharine Q. Seelye, “Challenger to Specter From Right of His Party,” New York Times, April 16, 2009.
[viii] Carl Hulse and Adam Nagourney, “Specter Switches Parties; More Heft for Democrats,” New York Times, April 29, 2009.
[ix] Carl Hulse and Adam Nagourney, “Specter Switches Parties; More Heft for Democrats,” New York Times, April 29, 2009.
[x] “Specter’s Statement on His Decision to Switch Parties,” New York Times, April 28, 2009.
[xi] Patrick Rucker, “U.S. Senate Rejects Easing Mortgages in Bankruptcy,” Washington Post, April 30, 2009.