Great News for Democrats

[Mr.Yankees]

About an hour ago, my Blackberry made the usual annoying noise when someone sends me a text message. When I read it, I was rather shocked, which usually doesn't happen. Arlen Specter, longtime Republican Senator, has switched to the Democratic Party. It was very apparent that he would not be able to win the primaries and the decision was supposedly made yesterday afternoon.

So, what do you guys think? Are the Democrats just in a roll? And do you think a filibuster proof majority is good for this country?

[Woxor]

I tend to think it's a good idea, since my views align pretty well with the party in power. The hoopla about how there "won't be any checks and balances" is unfounded IMO, since all the usual checks and balances are still there. It's not like one person is controlling multiple branches of the government; you simply have political alignment between two of the branches. I like what the Democrats are trying to do, so I'd rather have them do it than be filibustered by the Republicans.

The way we have it set up, a simple majority actually does much less than it should. Needing 60% on every major piece of legislation is a huge impediment to getting anything done. The filibuster has been used irresponsibly over the last 20 years as an obstructionist device to prevent ANY legislation that the minority disagrees with. It was once used, wisely, as a last resort to oppose legislation that the minority felt was just too abhorrent to allow. Now, it's just an unrestricted button to press when you want to stop the other side from doing its thing. So yeah, I support a situation where it would be useless, in my party's favor.

EDIT: Furthermore, they would only have 60 votes if Franken wins, so if any single Democrat disagreed with a bill, it wouldn't have to pass without some Republican support. So it's not like there's going to be one person passing bills to legalize slavery; it has to at least be something all represented Democrats agree with.

[JosephJ]

My major concern really in giving the Democrats an easily-available filibuster-proof majority is...well...

Quite simply, although the Democrats being able to defeat attempts by the Republicans to block bills is good, it may be completely cancelled out by the fact that it now makes (well, will make, once they seat Franken) Joe a very powerful man, because he can stop any bill that the Republicans unite against from getting through a filibuster.

Now, this isn't as bad as it may sound, of course; with the Maine Republicans still around, his support won't always be needed, and the Democrats aren't going to always be united either. Yet, there is potential for a good few votes to end up in his hands; the difference between 57-41-1-1, and 58-40-1-1, as I see it, is that the filibuster breaker is too tangible. The Democrats will now KNOW they can get it without Republican support, and they'll be more inclined to pursue the agreement of Lieberman in order to secure a solid 60-seat majority on bills. This gives him power, power that is probably undue and is borne out of perception rather than his real influence, but power nonetheless.

I may be overreacting slightly, however. Yet, I still don't think Specter's defection is really as good as it's being made out. They don't even have the benefit of a lot of publicity on account of the hideously poor (from a partisan standpoint) timing.

[Eldascar]

The Democrats might be tough, but if they do anything stupid they have to deal with Texas.

[AdJeCtIv3]

The difference between Republicans and Democrats is almost imperceptible to anyone outside of the US.

Switching between the two parties = no real change, and smacks of political opportunism.

When your team has the shit kicked out of it, you don't try to join the other side. You suck it up and demonstrate loyalty - just when your party/team/family need it most.

[Sam]

Even if the Democrats had a filibuster-proof majority, they still can't get anything done, because they can never agree with each other on anything.

Also, Yankees, I'm presuming you're a Democrat?

[Mr.Yankees]

Sam, I work for the Democrats.

And AdJeCtIv3, it is not as simple as loyalty. There are many other variables involved and to Specter's defense, he was having a very tough time with the Republicans.

[AdJeCtIv3]

I guess us Commies can't be that malleable, and I tend judge others who move between parties in a 'pragmatic' fashion as someone who lacks commitment.

But politically it's hardly a shift in ideology, the point is I can bet he made speeches against policies of the Democrats, but when it suited him he switched.

If he had problems as you say, maybe he should have considered resigning... and standing as an independent? Nooo.. that would mean he was effectively outside the party-political system.

I'm married to Dogma too much. It's late at night. I'm making even less sense than I usually do.

[Xanathos]

Specter was ideologicaly a democrat anyway, a leftist one even. The Blue Dog coalition is still in there, so I dont think it will change much.

[JuliaAJA]

The Democrats might be tough, but if they do anything stupid they have to deal with Texas.

Long live the Texas-Oklahoma-Kansas Area, the other, Better South. Although, Republicans are only good at speeches and comedy, like Bush.

Sam, I work for the Democrats.

You told us, vive le Democrats! Are you in Congress? No, no, you're too smart for congress. Are you a mayor? My mayor is smart and Jewish. Vive Oscar Goodman!