Specter to Switch Parties

[William Kelly]

http://edition.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/04/28...r.party.switch/

xxx

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Veteran Sen. Arlen Specter, R-Pennsylvania, intends to switch from the Republican to the Democratic Party on Tuesday, multiple sources said.

A Specter party switch would give Democrats a filibuster-proof Senate majority of 60 seats if Al Franken holds his current lead in the disputed Minnesota Senate race.

Specter, a five-term Senate veteran, was expected to face a very tough primary challenge in 2010 from former Rep. Pat Toomey, who nearly defeated Specter in the Pennsylvania GOP Senate primary in 2004.

A Quinnipiac University survey of registered Pennsylvania voters released last month showed Specter trailing the more conservative Toomey in a hypothetical primary matchup, 41 to 27 percent.

A separate Franklin & Marshall survey showed Specter leading Toomey 33 to 18 percent. Another 42 percent, however, were undecided.

More than half of the Republicans polled in the Franklin & Marshall survey said they would prefer to see someone new in the Senate.

AP

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/articl...VaYSVwD97RIK2O3

Numerous Republicans are angry with Specter over his recent vote in support of President Obama's $787 billion stimulus plan.

Specter, one of only three GOP senators to vote for the measure, has been part of a dwindling group of GOP moderates from the northeastern part of the country

[Christopher Hall]

Bye, bye, Arlen.

Take your magic bullet to the other side of the aisle.

He doesn't have a prayer in 2010 irrespective of what party he claims.

[Terry Adams]

Bill,

I was just about to make a new post concerning Specter's switch to the Democrat party, but decided t see if someone had beat me to it. And, a good thing that I did look, because there it was. My thoughts were that this may cause him to be more receptive to look at his infamous "theory". I do believe that he is probably the one person, with the exception of the president, (which, BTW, I do not see any present or future president doing) that could get the assassination of JFK brought to the forefront. I know that you are calling for the formation of a new grand jury to look into it. So, do you think that he may consider some kind of action in that direction, especially with 70 plus percent of the voters (which, it seems, he desperately needs right now) already saying that there was a conspiracy. What I'm obviously getting at is that he might do such a thing to keep his prestigious place in Washington circles. Any thoughts?

Terry

Edited April 28, 2009 by Terry Adams

[William Kelly]

Bill,

I was just about to make a new post concerning Specter's switch to the Democrat party, but decided t see if someone had beat me to it. And, a good thing that I did look, because there it was. My thoughts were that this may cause him to be more receptive to look at his infamous "theory". I do believe that he is probably the one person, with the exception of the president, (which, BTW, I do not see any present or future president doing) that could get the assassination of JFK brought to the forefront. I know that you are calling for the formation of a new grand jury to look into it. So, do you think that he may consider some kind of action in that direction, especially with 70 plus percent of the voters (which, it seems, he desperately needs right now) already saying that there was a conspiracy. What I'm obviously getting at is that he might do such a thing to keep his prestigious place in Washington circles. Any thoughts?

Terry

Hey Terry,

I don't think the Single Bullet Theory has anything to do with it at all.

He won't change his opinion on it because he has it written in stone and is married to it.

The only thing that will ever change the Single Bullet Theory debate is the digging up the body and have a proper forensic autopsy done so the course of that bullet is determined by the forensic pathologists.

I think there's more of a chance at convincing him that even if the Single Bullet Theory is correct, and his suspect is Lee Harvey Oswald, that Oswald was either not the Sixth Floor Sniper, that he was framed, or that even if he did everything by himself, he was a covert operator and therefor part of an intelligence network that should be exposed as a matter of national security.

There are some people on this forum from Pennsylvania, who actually vote in that state and could have more to say about it.

BK

[Christopher Hall]

Terry-

I certainly wouldn't look to the person who single-handedly helped the WC obstruct a real investigation of the JFK assassination for help in getting to the truth of what happened.

Why would you expect the architect of the SBT to change his position now?

He has had 45 years to reconsider it.

Re-visiting his creative forensics at this point would only further discredit his credibility in the face of the 2010 election.

Why would stepping across the aisle make him want to reveal his dishonesty?

He should have never been elected to the Senate after perptrating the fraudulent JFK assassination investigation, along with the WC, with the predetermined result dictated by LBJ.

Chris

Edited April 29, 2009 by Christopher Hall

[Barb Junkkarinen]

Bill,

I was just about to make a new post concerning Specter's switch to the Democrat party, but decided t see if someone had beat me to it. And, a good thing that I did look, because there it was. My thoughts were that this may cause him to be more receptive to look at his infamous "theory". I do believe that he is probably the one person, with the exception of the president, (which, BTW, I do not see any present or future president doing) that could get the assassination of JFK brought to the forefront. I know that you are calling for the formation of a new grand jury to look into it. So, do you think that he may consider some kind of action in that direction, especially with 70 plus percent of the voters (which, it seems, he desperately needs right now) already saying that there was a conspiracy. What I'm obviously getting at is that he might do such a thing to keep his prestigious place in Washington circles. Any thoughts?

Terry

Hey Terry,

I don't think the Single Bullet Theory has anything to do with it at all.

He won't change his opinion on it because he has it written in stone and is married to it.

The only thing that will ever change the Single Bullet Theory debate is the digging up the body and have a proper forensic autopsy done so the course of that bullet is determined by the forensic pathologists.

I think there's more of a chance at convincing him that even if the Single Bullet Theory is correct, and his suspect is Lee Harvey Oswald, that Oswald was either not the Sixth Floor Sniper, that he was framed, or that even if he did everything by himself, he was a covert operator and therefor part of an intelligence network that should be exposed as a matter of national security.

There are some people on this forum from Pennsylvania, who actually vote in that state and could have more to say about it.

BK

I agree on all counts, Bill.

The SBT is Arlen's claim to fame ... his baby, he'll never abandon it. Well, unless it finally becomes accepted that the SBT never happened, then he'll find some face saving excuse. (Not that I am at all peevish, spleenish or skeptical when it comes to the spectre of Specter...LOL)

I think Specter's motivation is survival in the Senate ... he still wants to be a senator and knows he needs to abandon ship to have a chance of doing that. I'm really not sure why he thinks democrats in PA are likely to elect him than republicans though ... desperate times make a desperate attempt worth a shot, I suppose.

Will be interesting to see what any PA voters think about this!

Bests,

Barb :-)

[Pat Speer]

For a clear demonstration of Specter's vulnerability regarding the SBT, one can take a look at Part 2 of my video series:

The second half proves Specter guilty of deliberate deception, IMO, not because he initially pushed the SBT, but because he allowed the Rydberg drawings to be published, and the SBT to be pushed, AFTER he knew they were dubious. It also seems clear that he orchestrated the false testimony of Thomas Kelley in furtherance of this deception. The HSCA, if it hadn't been a gutless political body, SHOULD have investigated Specter. He knew this, and showed up in full defense mode, telling them as little as possible, and acting guilty as heck.

Somewhere along the line, I wrote someone in the Democratic Party telling them of this video, and suggesting they use it against Specter in his next election. Maybe they used it instead to blackmail him into changing parties. Now, that would be a hoot.

Edited April 28, 2009 by Pat Speer

[Guest Tom Scully]

....Numerous Republicans are angry with Specter over his recent vote in support of President Obama's $787 billion stimulus plan.

Specter, one of only three GOP senators to vote for the measure, has been part of a dwindling group of GOP moderates from the northeastern part of the country

"Moderates"????? "Moderates"?????? Only one senator voted again the patriot act in 2001, Russ Feingold, and he is so

lockstep pro Israel, vs. the best interests of the U.S. that I cannot even use him as an example of a "moderate".

One party....two right wings..... "reforms" or calculated political moves like Specter's, make little difference, with the

possible exception of a few social issues and reforms..... As you can guess, I believe there is nothing to see here....

move along.....

http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/200...recy/index.html

...In rejecting this radical secrecy theory, the court emphasized how the Bush/Obama doctrine, if accepted, would essentially place the President above and beyond the rule of law:

..."According to the government's theory, the judiciary should effectively cordon off off

all secret government actions from judicial scrutiny, immunizing the CIA and its partners from

the demands and limits of the law."....

Read that last sentenc- that, said the court, is the power of lawlessness which the Obama

administration was attempting to preserve for itself.

http://roomfordebate.blogs.nytimes.com/200...ill-specter-be/

A Dyed-in-the-Wool Republican

....Democrats will understandably celebrate today’s announcement, but beyond the questions of raw political power, it is mystifying why they would want to build their majority by embracing politicians who reject most of their ostensible views. Reports today suggest that Democratic officials promised Mr. Specter that the party establishment would support him, rather than a real Democrat, in a primary.

If true, few events more vividly illustrate the complete lack of core beliefs of Democratic leaders, as well as the rapidly diminishing differences between the parties. Why would Democrats want a full-blooded Republican representing them in the blue state of Pennsylvania? Senator Specter is highly likely to reprise the Joe Lieberman role for Democrats: a “Democrat” who leads the way in criticizing and blocking Democratic initiatives, forcing the party still further towards Republican policies.

The G.O.P. now resembles a religion more than a political party, where any deviance from established dogma is considered heresy that warrants excommunication. Its collapse into a Southern regional party has taken one large step forward. It is remarkable to watch an already marginalized party purposely shrink itself further. Nonetheless, given that Arlen Specter will still be Arlen Specter, the Republicans’ loss is not necessarily the Democrats’ gain.

Edited April 28, 2009 by Tom Scully

[Ken Pierce]

I am no fan of the two party system; but, like the Republicans or not, or the Democrats for that matter, Specter ran and was elected as a Republican. He should have to fulfill his term as he was elected. That is only fair to those who elected him. If after his term is completed he chooses to switch parties, so be it. What a tool he's been for nearly 50 years.

[Thomas H. Purvis]

Terry-

I certainly wouldn't look to the person who single-handedly helped the WC obstruct a real investigation of the JFK assassination coffin for help in getting to the truth of what happened.

Why would you expect the architect of the SBT to change his position now?

He has had 45 years to reconsider it.

Re-visiting his creative forensics at this point would only further discredit his credibility in the face of the 2010 election.

Why would stepping across the aisle make him want to reveal his dishonesty?

He should have never been elected to the Senate after perptrating the fraudulent JFK assassination investigation, along with the WC, with the predetermined result dictated by LBJ.

Chris

He should have never been elected to the Senate after perptrating the fraudulent JFK assassination investigation, along with the WC, with the predetermined result dictated by LBJ.

Chris

================================================================================

Chris:

Exactly what "horse" was it that he "rode" into the Senate?

(Answer: The WC)

Specter had run as the Democratic Nominee for DA of Philidelphia, and was soundly defeated.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arlen_Specter

Specter became an assistant district attorney under District Attorney James Crumlish, and was a Democrat.

At the recommendation of Representative Gerald R. Ford, he worked for the Warren Commission, investigating the assassination of John F. Kennedy.

In 1965, Specter ran for District Attorney, on the Republican ticket as a registered Democrat. He handily beat incumbent Jim Crumlish, and subsequently changed his registration to Republican.

1967, he was the Republican Party standard bearer together with City Controller candidate, Tom Gola, in the mayoral campaign against the Democrat incumbent James H. J. Tate. One of their slogans was, "We need THESE guys to watch THOSE guys."[13] He served two terms as District Attorney for the City of Philadelphia.

In 1976, Specter ran in the Republican primary for the U.S. Senate and was defeated by John Heinz. In 1978, he was defeated in the primary for Governor of Pennsylvania by Dick Thornburgh.[14] After several years of private practice with the prestigious Philadelphia law firm Dechert, Price & Rhoads, Specter ran for the Senate in 1980, this time, successfully. He assumed office in January, 1981.

=========================================

Then came the "switch" to the Republican Party which fully backed his entry into true politics through the election as the DA of Philidelphia, and then ultimately on to the US Senate.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Just perhaps a little "blackmail" along the way helped and assisted his "Career Jump".

Not to mention the membership with a specific "Fraternity" of which many associated with the WC lie were also members.

Just good ole US "Politics as Usual". Money/Greed/ & Power!

[Christopher Hall]

Terry-

I certainly wouldn't look to the person who single-handedly helped the WC obstruct a real investigation of the JFK assassination coffin for help in getting to the truth of what happened.

Why would you expect the architect of the SBT to change his position now?

He has had 45 years to reconsider it.

Re-visiting his creative forensics at this point would only further discredit his credibility in the face of the 2010 election.

Why would stepping across the aisle make him want to reveal his dishonesty?

He should have never been elected to the Senate after perptrating the fraudulent JFK assassination investigation, along with the WC, with the predetermined result dictated by LBJ.

Chris

He should have never been elected to the Senate after perptrating the fraudulent JFK assassination investigation, along with the WC, with the predetermined result dictated by LBJ.

Chris

================================================================================

Chris:

Exactly what "horse" was it that he "rode" into the Senate?

(Answer: The WC)

Specter had run as the Democratic Nominee for DA of Philidelphia, and was soundly defeated.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arlen_Specter

Specter became an assistant district attorney under District Attorney James Crumlish, and was a Democrat.

At the recommendation of Representative Gerald R. Ford, he worked for the Warren Commission, investigating the assassination of John F. Kennedy.

In 1965, Specter ran for District Attorney, on the Republican ticket as a registered Democrat. He handily beat incumbent Jim Crumlish, and subsequently changed his registration to Republican.

1967, he was the Republican Party standard bearer together with City Controller candidate, Tom Gola, in the mayoral campaign against the Democrat incumbent James H. J. Tate. One of their slogans was, "We need THESE guys to watch THOSE guys."[13] He served two terms as District Attorney for the City of Philadelphia.

In 1976, Specter ran in the Republican primary for the U.S. Senate and was defeated by John Heinz. In 1978, he was defeated in the primary for Governor of Pennsylvania by Dick Thornburgh.[14] After several years of private practice with the prestigious Philadelphia law firm Dechert, Price & Rhoads, Specter ran for the Senate in 1980, this time, successfully. He assumed office in January, 1981.

=========================================

Then came the "switch" to the Republican Party which fully backed his entry into true politics through the election as the DA of Philidelphia, and then ultimately on to the US Senate.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Just perhaps a little "blackmail" along the way helped and assisted his "Career Jump".

Not to mention the membership with a specific "Fraternity" of which many associated with the WC lie were also members.

Just good ole US "Politics as Usual". Money/Greed/ & Power!

Thanks, Tom.

This is good info.

I didn't know that John Heinz beat Specter in 1976.

[Robert Howard]

Terry-

I certainly wouldn't look to the person who single-handedly helped the WC obstruct a real investigation of the JFK assassination coffin for help in getting to the truth of what happened.

Why would you expect the architect of the SBT to change his position now?

He has had 45 years to reconsider it.

Re-visiting his creative forensics at this point would only further discredit his credibility in the face of the 2010 election.

Why would stepping across the aisle make him want to reveal his dishonesty?

He should have never been elected to the Senate after perptrating the fraudulent JFK assassination investigation, along with the WC, with the predetermined result dictated by LBJ.

Chris

He should have never been elected to the Senate after perptrating the fraudulent JFK assassination investigation, along with the WC, with the predetermined result dictated by LBJ.

Chris

================================================================================

Chris:

Exactly what "horse" was it that he "rode" into the Senate?

(Answer: The WC)

Specter had run as the Democratic Nominee for DA of Philidelphia, and was soundly defeated.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arlen_Specter

Specter became an assistant district attorney under District Attorney James Crumlish, and was a Democrat.

At the recommendation of Representative Gerald R. Ford, he worked for the Warren Commission, investigating the assassination of John F. Kennedy.

In 1965, Specter ran for District Attorney, on the Republican ticket as a registered Democrat. He handily beat incumbent Jim Crumlish, and subsequently changed his registration to Republican.

1967, he was the Republican Party standard bearer together with City Controller candidate, Tom Gola, in the mayoral campaign against the Democrat incumbent James H. J. Tate. One of their slogans was, "We need THESE guys to watch THOSE guys."[13] He served two terms as District Attorney for the City of Philadelphia.

In 1976, Specter ran in the Republican primary for the U.S. Senate and was defeated by John Heinz. In 1978, he was defeated in the primary for Governor of Pennsylvania by Dick Thornburgh.[14] After several years of private practice with the prestigious Philadelphia law firm Dechert, Price & Rhoads, Specter ran for the Senate in 1980, this time, successfully. He assumed office in January, 1981.

=========================================

Then came the "switch" to the Republican Party which fully backed his entry into true politics through the election as the DA of Philidelphia, and then ultimately on to the US Senate.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Just perhaps a little "blackmail" along the way helped and assisted his "Career Jump".

Not to mention the membership with a specific "Fraternity" of which many associated with the WC lie were also members.

Just good ole US "Politics as Usual". Money/Greed/ & Power!

Thanks, Tom.

This is good info.

I didn't know that John Heinz beat Specter in 1976.

While I certainly wouldn't go against the smart money regarding the possibility that Specter would say something like "My single bullet thesis, was a lie and I knew it, all along." In fact, I would probably swallow my tongue.

For trivia buffs, Specter hasn't been wont to call it a theory, see BBC television interview circa 1964. There are varying degrees of truth as far as the world of politics goes. He has undone just a tiny fragment of his legacy by abandoning the Republican party, and saying they are too far to the right, just an observation. The last time Specter really hacked me off was when he wouldn't allow Alberto Gonzalez frmr. Attorney General to be sworn under oath the first day of the NSA wiretap hearings. Remember the words "I don't know, I don't remember, ad infinitum.

I suppose I am wishfully thinking of another, this time former high government official, that had quite a bit to do with preserving the status quo in the 1960's, in some cases people say he may have had an attack of conscience.....

His name Ramsey Clark.........Last time I looked he was working on some pretty un-American activities, if your'e a hard-core Republican, that is.

Edited April 29, 2009 by Robert Howard

[Ron Ecker]

Specter's stated reason for switching parties is as much of an indictment of the American political system as I can imagine. He says that he will not let his 29-year history in the Senate "be decided" by a Republican primary election that he might lose. Translation: "I am a career politician, and no one is going to vote me out of office."

Specter could be the poster boy for term limits, if Americans gave a crap about such things, which they don't. Seeing Obama and Biden together publicly praising Specter and welcoming him to the party is really "change we can believe in."

[Robert Howard]

Specter's stated reason for switching parties is as much of an indictment of the American political system as I can imagine. He says that he will not let his 29-year history in the Senate "be decided" by a Republican primary election that he might lose. Translation: "I am a career politician, and no one is going to vote me out of office."

Specter could be the poster boy for term limits, if Americans gave a crap about such things, which they don't. Seeing Obama and Biden together publicly praising Specter and welcoming him to the party is really "change we can believe in."

While I do not disagree in the least in your characterization of "change we believe in," as justifiably having a huge degree of sarcasm, at the same time, do not think that the single vote a Republican defector to the Dem's represent. A single vote in the Senate these day's is not exactly a trivial item. And I would venture to say that the ole Devil himself could come visiting Washington, and would be greeted en masse if he could be elected to the Senate......lol.

[Pamela Brown]

Bill,

I was just about to make a new post concerning Specter's switch to the Democrat party, but decided t see if someone had beat me to it. And, a good thing that I did look, because there it was. My thoughts were that this may cause him to be more receptive to look at his infamous "theory". I do believe that he is probably the one person, with the exception of the president, (which, BTW, I do not see any present or future president doing) that could get the assassination of JFK brought to the forefront. I know that you are calling for the formation of a new grand jury to look into it. So, do you think that he may consider some kind of action in that direction, especially with 70 plus percent of the voters (which, it seems, he desperately needs right now) already saying that there was a conspiracy. What I'm obviously getting at is that he might do such a thing to keep his prestigious place in Washington circles. Any thoughts?

Terry

If Specter has anything to say about it, any initiative on behalf of Pres. Obama to release the rest of the currently suppressed NARA JFK files will probably come to a dead end. I hope the WC apologists 2013 strategy is not a factor in his switch.