How can anyone Betray the people who elected him to be Senator of their State and than when he’s going to be Defeated in the coming election(in ‘65 he became Republican to gain the Senate, the people shouldn’t have voted for him than,shouldn’t vote for him this time.)retreat to being a Democract,Which he’ll lose Senate.If your elected as a Dem. or Rep.,you want to change parties, First resign your Senate seat,Than run for office again.He’s back where he should never have left the Democrats,The Party of Death.God Help,Surely he blessed us Always,But,We turned against him by electing a man who seeks Adulation and praise to the point he thinks he’s Godlike.

Good riddance to bad rubbish. Let him go and be a pain in the ass to the democrats.
I think it should be against the law to switch. He should resign and run again as a democrat. People gave money and voted for this jerk. and then he pulls this?  What an ass, Oh, thats right, he is an ass, Democrat ass that is.  always has been.
this country is going to Hell anyway.

Considering the growing anger toward Obama and the Dimocrats, it is a wonder that anyone would want to position himself with that party for the upcoming election UNLESS there is a GUARANTEE of winning. Mr. Specter’s ability to switch parties at will should warn voters he has no loyalties to anyone other than himself. Therefore, he has not switched (again) because he belives it is a better party but rather, because he has a GUARANTEE of keeping his employment. Mr. Toomey should be prepared for dirty tricks against his upcoming election.

Former DEM (circa 1960s)Specter switching back to the DEMs is a matter entirely for Pennsylvanians to contend with and make judgements on.  And, if Pennsylvanians re-elect him – then it’ll be obvious that a majority of his constituents approve of his work in the senate on their behalf – and, apparently, that a majority also approve of his party switch.

In reality, at this time, it seems the GOP is just about dead in the water in the highly-populated northeast – and, in fact, the registered DEM voters in Pennsylvania now outnumber registered GOP voters there by at least 1,500,000.

And, of course, Lieberman went from DEM to Independent after he LOST the Connecticut DEM primary a couple of years ago; Giuliani was an elected DEM before he switched to the GOP to run for mayor of NYC – and a lot of other well-known politicos have done the same.

If Specter accomplishes some things or achieves some things for The Common Good as a DEM that he couldn’t have accomplished or achieved as a GOP – great – and THAT justifies the switch!

There is NO VALUE WHATSOEVER to be in opposition just for the sake of being in opposition.

TK:

In a true democratic system your observation of “..matter entirely for Pennsylvanians to contend with and make judgements (sic) on.” Would be entirely correct,

BUT…I submit… in a Republic two party system, such as ours, such an observations is utterly false and dangerous on its face. The near corruption or the two party systems through parliamentary rules and maneuvering distort the fundament idea of representation. Specter maneuver has nothing to do with better governments but was nothing more than a lame attempt to garner artificial support vis-a-vie the democratic fund line.  I agree with the other writer, I someone wishes to change parties, they should have to resign at least 1 year before the election – to insure no deal cutting– and run for office. 

And with all reasonable respect YOU REALLY need to get off the Democratic-GOP conflict wagon. It is time to realize and understand this is no longer the relevant issue. The real issue is, IMHO, a failing of a representational democracy, and this continued two party system is dangerous.

There is much to be learned from Acton’s famous quote, “Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely.” (Lord Acton, 1887). The necessity of multiparty systems is more and more apparent –  so no one party can achieve and KEEP dominance. When neither dominates – they must work collectively–and in so doing are more likely to listen to constituents. It also tends to keep equilibrium towards the sane middle ground. The moment any political group obtains dominance is the moment their deep corruption begins. I can provide a litany of history that supports this and it is invariably true for any group.

Also according to records April 29, 2009 the Progress a reasonable centrist publican in PA “….Of that total, 4.4 million voters registered as Democrats; 3.2 million as Republicans; 458,617 under no affiliation; and 568,065 as other. There were 8.36 million registered Pennsylvania voters prior to the 2004 General Election.”  So the total difference in republican democrats is less than a million…but that is not the real issue… 

With respect …..to be in the opposition … one is generally in the opposition from an ethical, moral, philosophical, legal (just to name a few) reasons. To switch your position – particularly when you benefit directly from the change –calls into question (reasonably so) ones ethics and perhaps values. We live in a society based on “reasonableness.” But “Reasonableness” is in the eye of the beholder, and what we behold largely depends on whether we’re in positions of authority, or among those subject to authority.
So questioning the action of those who exercise that authority –in this case elected officials whose influence and actions reach far beyond their state– is in my belief appropriate.

In fact, I would argue failing to do so is an abdication of civil responsibility, if not naïve.  We are moving to a “tipping point” in our democracy that if the American people do not take responsibility for our government and demand change, we may face some serious danger in the future.  Our legislative branch of our government is self absorbed and self “surveying”.

They lack the INTESTINAL FORTITUDE, ETHICS AND MORAL COMPASS to do what is right because it is the right thing to do.

I can agree to some degree with the following comment made in Post 5 – - ESPECIALLY the part of keeping equilibrium toward the same middle ground.

“The necessity of multiparty systems is more and more apparent –  so no one party can achieve and KEEP dominance. When neither dominates – they must work collectively–and in so doing are more likely to listen to constituents. It also tends to keep equilibrium towards the sane middle ground.”

And, I can also generally agree with the following comment in Post 5:

“To switch your position – particularly when you benefit directly from the change – calls into question (reasonably so) ones ethics and perhaps values.”

And, I can also generally agree, to a point, with this final comment in Post 5:

“We are moving to a “tipping point” in our democracy that if the American people do not take responsibility for our government and demand change, we may face some serious danger in the future.”

Personally, I don’t think Specter’s switch of party will have any significant effect except upon the next senatorial election in Pennsylvania.  And, the voters there will decide the matter.

I do believe the two existing major parties, as currently constituted, have probably outlived their usefulness.  NEITHER seems to truly represent “the people” anymore but, rather, only those corporate and other special interests who keep the money coming in to finance the parties’ activities – - as is also the case, I believe, with most representatives and senators and, maybe especially, many state-level officeholders.

From my perspective – I think that the BIGGEST problem might be that the typical American citizen and potential voter today is, unfortunately, probably much more interested in who the winner of “American Idol” will be than who wins House, Senate, Presidential and relevant local elections.

For most, “Civics” and “civic responsibility” seem to be anachronistic things relevant only to some other time in the far distant past.

In my opinion, America today is being ruled by Wall Street rather than by Main Street – and I think government emphasis should ALWAYS be on the furthering of the prospects and the opportunities of the working middle-class – and NOT on feathering the nests of the investor-class – as has seemingly been the case for the last 25 years, or so.

(Today, I’m happy Obama took the side of the union and the workers at Chrysler – rather the side of the 2-3 Wall Street hedgefunds which refused to cooperate in the financial restructuring of Chrysler by willingly writing down some of their investment in the company.  Maybe it’s a start in the right direction?)