This will be a short diary but I was disappointed by the less than enthusiastic reception here of Specter's party switch which made my day. So, to combat claims he will remain as "anti-Democrat as ever" (Specter was never a very anti-Democrat Republican), I'll point out what has happened in recent history when someone switches parties.
Lets go way back to the last pair of Democrats to defect to the Republican party, Richard Shelby of Alabama and Ben Nighthorse Campbell of Colorado. Now both this men were very conservative Democrats, the prototypical Reagan Democrats that finally came home to Republicans in the 1990s.
Shelby switch in 1994 and Campbell switched in 1995. While both were conservative Dems they moved hard to the right after switching parties, becoming stalwart Republicans. The case of Representative Nathan Deal of Georgia, who switched in 1996, is even more drastic, he went from being one of the more conservative to moderate Democrats to a radical conservative. His American Conservative Union score went up from 60 to 90 and he switched from pro-choice to pro-life. Representative Bill Tauzin of southern Louisiana is another good example. Although a conservative Democrat he was a major figure and founder of the blue dogs and Deputy Minority whip. He veered radically into the Republican party's right and became a member of their leadership.
Perhaps Louisiana Rep Rodney Alexander would be another good recent example. Since switching parties he has rarely if ever backed any Democratic bill in major situations.
A Democratic example would be Jim Jeffords whose name is on everybody's tongue right now. A fairly liberal Republican he switched parties and by the end of his tenure was on of the most liberal members of the Senate, period, more than many Democrats.
My basic point is this: that switching parties tends to drive that switching member much further into that parties corner. The pressure to make votes against your beliefs because your party needs you or you need to get reelected shifts in the opposite direction; instead of getting pulled to the right Specter will now get pulled to the left on many major issues. Keeping a primary challenge, a serious one, only does more to keep him self-conscious and honest.
As for still being against EFCA? Specter simply can't back it without it making him look like a hypocrite, even if he did only come against it due to his primary. What happened was probably frustration. Specter looked at his polls and saw he continued to fall even after a more conservative twist to his rhetoric and voting record and realized the situation was hopeless and became disenchanted with his own party. What will probably happen the bill will change some minor clause to water it down then the moderates will vote against the filibuster while voting against the actual passage of the bill. It happens so often, or they'll change it enough to where the moderates like Lincoln could stand up and say, "I used my influence to improve and moderate this bill to give a fair deal to both sides." Even if one side doesn't really deserve a spare deal.
This is huge though. I really have to say that it has made my day. Sen. Arlen Specter, more than Collins and much more than the quiet Snowe, is the public face of moderate Republicans. I've always liked him more than Snowe or Collins, whom I've often thought as more along the lines of posers; they are very good at looking moderate. Specter, while he has often been haggled and pressured to vote a party line and as a Republican was expected to follow a certain degree of party unity, has always struck as someone who personally might be more Democratically inclined. He's been my favorite Senate Republican for many years, and while I expect him to remain a moderate I feel certain that Democrats can welcome a new supporter of Obama's agenda. We've all seen what Obama's influence can do; Lieberman has scarcely been before a camera this year except to actually argue the Democratic position and he hasn't strayed on a single major issue. While I don't expect that much from Specter I think the fears of those on this site are a little misplaced and misguided.
This damages the Republican party, it makes them look to extreme and makes them look like a regional party more now than ever. We can't turn right around and kick Specter out because then Democrats would lose the image battle. Getting voters is all about image, I feel we are so close to winning over that middle, the moderates. They've stuck by Obama overwhelmingly, Democrats don't have to do anything but show results and let Republicans radical rhetoric drive these voters from what is now moderacy into all out liberalism. I feel that Democrats have a huge chance right now to take a long term political lock on the country based on changing Demographics and evolving viewpoints among moderate and younger voters. Within 10 years I think a solid majority of Americans could be describing themselves as "liberals" and the conservative movement would be defeated and removed from objective politics. This should be our real goal, its not Republicans so much as it is conservative politics, which have no moderacy in them, have to be defeated once and for all.
They are for the most part outdated, and their largest supporters are quite removed from reality or very ignorant to complexities in the issues of government and foreign affairs. We are on the verge of winning the war and we have just won a major battle. Above all this gives Democrats a possibly functioning filibuster proof majority when Franken is seated, though they will still have to occasionally deal with the more conservative members like Ben and Bill Nelson, Mary Landrieu and now Arlen Specter and compromise with them, but no longer will they have to deal with McConnell or Susan Collins, and in-caucus negotiations are likely to result in far fewer capitulations.
P.S. Please vote in my poll. I use it as a counter to see what kind of response something is getting.