Could Specter's Switch Affect Texas U.S. Senate Race?

Re-election more important than constitution? (0.00 / 0)

In March Specter said how important it was to stay Republican to maintain checks and balances;

"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 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."

But no quite so important as getting re-elected.  Think he a perfect fit.

---

by: sdhook @ Tue Apr 28, 2009 at 12:45:51 PM CDT

Congress is always a check and balance (0.00 / 0)

SDHook:

The Constitution was designed without parties in mind.  Congress is a check on the President even when controlled by the same party as the White House (unless that party is the 2000-2006 GOP).

One of the main themes that the GOP will use this coming year and through the next elections is somehow that the Party of "NO" is the only party that can be a check and balance on Obama.

To the contrary,

First, as Democrats we should stand up for the fact that members of Congress have as their primary duty to be a  check on the Presidency even if the President is in your own Party.  One of the reasons that the Democrats controlled the Congress for so many decades after 1932 was because the Congress was an effective body even with a Democratic President.  Whether it is Kucinich and Feingold on the Left, of the Blue Dogs in the middle, we should strengthen the concept that we govern better when we all work to purify our ideas and insure they will work in the real world. One of the Reasons that the GOP is falling apart is that they did not check their own President for the 6 years of GOP control of the House during G.W. Bush's presidency.

Second, the GOP is making itself into a toothless tiger.  By becoming the party of "No," they have become the party of "No Consequences."  Any robot can say, "No."  It takes a mature member of the loyal opposition to engage the majority and make an impact.  By being naysayers, the GOP has become meaningless and shown themselves to be the party of immature thought.

Third, by forcing the moderates out of their "big tent," the GOP has guaranteed itself an electoral minority for years to come.  If Democrats can keep the moderates voting for us, we can govern for decades.  The way to do that is by focusing on practical governance, not ideology.  The way to sell any idea, progressive or not, is not be proving its ideological purity, but by showing that it will actually work in the real world and fix a real problem.  By focusing on whether ideas work or not, Congress serves as a natural check and balance.

---

by: Eric Roberson @ Tue Apr 28, 2009 at 14:24:48 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

You lost me at to the contrary. . . (0.00 / 0)

First, their primary duty is to support and defend the Constitution.  Unfortunately I think that has not been a priority for quite some time.  

Second, being the party of NO only means they do not agree with a socialist agenda.  In fact by saying NO they are supporting and defending the Constitution.

Third, we tried running a moderate during the last election.  All we saw was each candidate vying for votes by seeing who could promise the most. Politics 101; you can't out promise a Democrat.

---

by: sdhook @ Tue Apr 28, 2009 at 15:17:14 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

You realize (0.00 / 0)

that Rick Perry switched parties to run for statewide office, right?  

---

by: David Mauro @ Tue Apr 28, 2009 at 22:02:01 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

So did Ronald Regan (0.00 / 0)

but this is not apples & apples. Specter in his press conference, in the first sentence, said he's doing it to get re-elected.  Re-election over Ideology  

---

by: sdhook @ Wed Apr 29, 2009 at 07:20:39 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Burka's take is to have Kay Hutchison switch and run as a democrat (0.00 / 0)

Wow, he lays the whole strategy on how she could win.  But would democrats welcome her with open arms?  Can all this talk be helpful for her?  Will she resign now?  What's her motive?  Self enhancement has been her guiding principle for 18 years so far.

Will folks salute this trial balloon?  BTW Burka and Kay went to law school together they are very close.  Not as close as some former lobbyists are/were but the two remain BFF

---

by: hamiltonfan @ Tue Apr 28, 2009 at 14:07:42 PM CDT

Burka's tactics are on target, but his ideological math is wrong (0.00 / 0)

I do not know if either Specter or KBH could win their Democratic primary, but if either do, then each would have to be the heavy favorite to win in November.

A check of their voting records shows KBH is rated more conservative and less liberal than Specter, though.  She certainly will have a harder time selling herself to Democrats.

In the 2007 ratings from the non-partisan National Journal, KBH was rated the 29th most conservative Senator.  In contrast Specter was the 45th, and was adjacent to Democratic Sen. Nelson of Nebraska. see http://www.nationaljournal.com...

Similar results occur when 7 liberal think tanks and advocacy groups rated the Senate.  See  http://www.electoral-vote.com/...  Specter was rated more liberal than Senator Tim Johnson (D-SD) and KBH was in the middle of the GOP pack, scoring miserably (below 25%) on all but the Children's Defense Fund ranking.  

Thus, even after the Specter switch, both right and left groups agree that Specter has been voting within the Democratic Circle.  Even more, after Specter's switch, the only overlaps between GOP and Democratic circles are the two Maine moderate Republicans (Snowe and Collins), both of whom are rated more liberal than Democrats  Johnson, Specter, Nelson and Landrieu.  (Note - there is no overlap in the House - just a gulf between two sides)

KBH, on the other hand, would flop over 20 GOP senators who are less conservative than her to reach into the Democratic Party.

So, for Specter being a Democrat makes sense based on his votes, but it is a harder pitch for KBH to make.

Even so, I think it would be the only way KBH could beat Perry.

---

by: Eric Roberson @ Tue Apr 28, 2009 at 15:23:51 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Floated by Perry, I Suspect (3.00 / 1)

Kay Bailey isn't going to run as a Democrat.  She's too conservative to be a Blue Dog Democrat.  To the extent that there is such a rumor floating around, I suspect that it emanates from the camp of Rick Perry (the erstwhile President of the Republic of Teabagistan).  That is the sort of rumor that would hurt Hutchinson with Republican primary voters.  I'd be shocked beyond belief if she became a Democrat.  She's way, way to the right of Leahey and Spector.  

---

by: MikeM @ Tue Apr 28, 2009 at 18:57:24 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

"But would democrats welcome her with open arms?" (0.00 / 0)

No.

Don't let the Blue Dogs getcha down. Primary them.

---

by: PDiddie @ Tue Apr 28, 2009 at 19:40:25 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

whatever her motives (0.00 / 0)

she's got Perry beat.  Even if Perry wins the primary, he's done in November.  Doesn't he have the same New England consultant working for him that ran Craddick's ship into the ground?  He came 19 votes in Irving short of giving up the entire Republican majority in the House.  With hacks like that leading the ship, Democrats should be able to walk all over him.

---

by: Joe @ Wed Apr 29, 2009 at 01:16:23 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

On Constitutionality (0.00 / 0)

The American institutions are not political in nature. One of the main effects of checks and balances is that they curb the negative effect of political parties and unchecked majorities. Also, KBH would greatly profit from an early return to TX.

---

by: vukvanizer @ Tue Apr 28, 2009 at 15:04:25 PM CDT

Special Election Dynamics (0.00 / 0)

It bears thinking about the dynamics of a special election.  If KBH can resign without handing the Democrats their 60 votes, as she will now be able to do once Franken is seated, why wouldn't she resign to run for Governor if indeed that is what she plans to do?  

So that sets up a Special Election.  Assuming it's after the Legislative session is over, that probably means it's Sharp, White, and Dewhurst.  Dewhurst makes the runoff, one would think, but who has the best chance among the Democrats?  Seems to me that Dewhurst keeps most of his powder dry during the first run and saves most of it for the run off.  The two Democrats burn through all their money just to make the run off.  Democrats don't turn out as well in specials, etc.  I don't see a lot of Democratic advantages here, unfortunately.  

---

by: MikeM @ Tue Apr 28, 2009 at 19:01:41 PM CDT

Just Dewhurst? (0.00 / 0)

It won't just be Dewhurst among Republicans and polling has shown Abbott is a stronger statewide candidate than Dewhurst. Perry will have to appoint someone to the seat and that will give them a significant advantage, also.

---

by: David Mauro @ Tue Apr 28, 2009 at 19:42:56 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Follow Me On This (0.00 / 0)

Where is Abbot going to get money on short notice for a special election?  He's not independently wealthy.  Dewhurst can spend his own money.  I just don't see how anyone else can get competitive on the money quicly enough to compete with Dewhurst.  

---

by: MikeM @ Wed Apr 29, 2009 at 03:17:44 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

I understand your point (0.00 / 0)

and its a good one, but Abbott is a proven fundraiser. His money was raised in state funds, so I am pretty sure it cant be used in a senate race, but he has shown he is a great fundraiser. He also could easily be the guy who Perry appoints. As an incumbent senator, Abbott would be a strong candidate among Republicans.

Bill White just raised $2.6 million in 14 weeks when the date of election is unknown. Once the election is set, don't you think Abbott could raise good money, too?

---

by: David Mauro @ Wed Apr 29, 2009 at 11:08:53 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Maybe (0.00 / 0)

I don't discount it, but I think it's going to be a long fight with a short stick.   But the issue that your bring up of an interim appointee is a good one.  Presumably the ability of the interim appointee to raise money would (or at least should be) the one of the first things that the Governor should think about (from his perspective).  So if he think Abbot can raise the money, he may well appoint Abbot.  I just think it's chancy for the Republicans to appoint someone who can't tap into his own deep pockets and assumed that they would therefore appoint Dewhurst.  

---

by: MikeM @ Wed Apr 29, 2009 at 12:03:25 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

KBH resign? No, that would change the filibuster... (5.00 / 1)

If there were temporarily only 98 senators, it would only take 59 to invoke cloture. KBH won't resign until after Franken is seated, if at all.

Apologies if I've misunderstood.

---

by: newradish @ Wed Apr 29, 2009 at 17:14:37 PM CDT