58 Dems plus Senator Specter, makes 59.
If and when Franken is seated, we’ve broken the filibuster.
I’ll follow up with more details when I get out of class (the whole “student” thing really gets in the way sometimes).
Please share widely!
Reality-based commentary on politics.
shillelaghlaw says
Jump on in, the water’s fine!
centralmassdad says
I think this means that “moderate wing of the Republican party” can be more efficiently described as “Maine.”
demredsox says
I am really not so sure that this is a good thing.
<
p>I mean, realistically, the Democrats already have control of the Senate, so party affiliation only matters if this will lead Specter to vote in the right way on more issues. So far, there’s no indication of that.
<
p>So what do we have? A pro-war conservative Democrat who Obama and Harry Reid have promised to campaign for. So he’ll likely be in power in the relatively left-leaning state of PA for six more years.
<
p>Hooray?
born-again-democrat says
…is a wide enough margin that the GOP can’t just decide to filibuster every initiative. You’re right, there will likely be a lot of votes on Specter’s part we don’t like, but 60 Democratic Senators is crucial. Now me can get back to passing legislation through a true majority, rather than have to worry about actually having a majority and having everything shut down by these ridiculous filibusters.
<
p>This isn’t about whether he votes with us on every single issue; it’s about breaking the GOP’s effective “supefilibuster” and get the Senate to start actually moving again.
<
p>Progress is progress. I’ll take slow progress over no progress any day.
demredsox says
On, say, EFCA, one of the more important pieces of legislation faced with a filibuster, Specter has already said he still opposes it. Not exactly a reliable cloture vote, and party really doesn’t seem to affect that.
<
p>And I disagree that this is “slow progress”–post 2010, it is looking like a progressive agenda could easily be significantly worse off than otherwise.
sabutai says
…since early indications are that Rendell guaranteed a free ride in the primary for Specter, and the DSCC may be backing him on it…
demredsox says
Obama’s promise of “full support” for Specter’s reelection.
born-again-democrat says
…I’ll still take it. This is certainly a guy who’s not going to be an absolute, lock-step Democrat, and I think that’s actualy better for the Senate and for the United States.
<
p>What it really brings into clear focus is this: The GOP has made it abundantly clear that there is no room within their ranks for moderates. Despite the will of the voters, the Republican Party is continuing on with its effective purge of the moderates therein. Not only does Specter realize this, but a great number of moderate Republican voters have realized it as well, and changed parties in 2007 and 2008 in order to support Clinton and Obama in the Presidential Primaries and in the General. Specter’s change of party reflects an intent to continue to serve the voters, not the party. To borrow a phrase from the McCain Campaign, Specter seems to me to be a leader who serves “Country First.” I may, on occasion, disagree with how he serves, but the man is clearly known in Pensylvania and in the Senate for his integrity, and I believe his change of parties is reflective of that integrity.
<
p>I’m glad to have Senator Spector in the party, and even if we don’t have an automatic filibuster-proof majority (Specter won’t be on our side for everything), it is something. Recently Republicans have been filibustering, or at least, threatening to filibuster, just about every proposal or nomination from the Democratic side. With Specter crossing over, their threats will be drained of their venom.
<
p>I’ll take it. Gladly.
sabutai says
As I saw somebody say, the Democratic Part has 60 senators, but that doesn’t mean that it has 60 votes. However, this is yet another move that shows how hidebound the Republican Party has become. Here’s hoping that the reduced Senatorial caucus of the GOP continues to misunderstand that consequences of its actions.
sco says
I think the long-term best-case scenario was that Specter loses the GOP primary and a progressive Dem wins the general in 2010 against insane right-winger Toomey.
<
p>This is the next-best situation, I think, for a couple of reasons, the biggest of which is that it reinforces the narrative that the GOP has moved far over to the right and moderates are not welcome there. This narrative helps us in swing states in 2010 (though, not Pennsylvania of course).
<
p>The other thing is that this should make it completely clear — if it wasn’t before — that Specter is a craven political opportunist. Now he no longer has to cave to right-wing pressure, but he is at more risk from a challenge from the left particularly if he still is a foe of the Employee Free Choice Act. It is possible that we’ll see a more liberal Specter than we’ve seen in the past. I think this is where the D after his name will make a difference in the 100s of procedural votes that Senators end up casting.
born-again-democrat says
I hadn’t completely drawn the connection between this and upcoming elections in swing states; that’s a wonderful point.
<
p>As to the point about Specter being a political opportunist, I’ll grant you that but suggest that being an opportunist may not be a terrible thing. Not necessarily always good for the Democrats, but another way of looking at this whole thing is that he wants to consider serving his constituents, and if the mood of his electorate shifts, then he recognizes that he must also shift accordingly. I find something admirable in that, even if his intentions were something other than what I’m taking from this.