Switch hitting

So I guess I don’t understand why it’s ok for any member of congress to switch party affiliations in the middle of a term.


Arlen Specter a 29 year Republican has switched to the other side. He is now a democrat.I have no problem with someone switching their party affiliations, but I don’t think it should be allowed while you are serving an active term.


There is an old saying, "Dance with the one that brought you" By switching sides,  he has turned his back on all of his supporters. I think that you are elected both because of your views and because of the views of your constituency. All of the people that voted straight ticket republican have been disenfranchised. Their votes now don’t count.


Don’t get me wrong. I think the same rule applies to ANY member of congress. I don’t care if it’s Republican, Democrat or Independent.If you are voted in with party affiliation, you should be locked into that party until the election is over, or until you resign your post and run as another party candidate 


There have been successful switches that I think are acceptable, such as Joe Lieberman.His Party left him hanging, they gave the nomination to someone else, He hiked up his boot straps and said, fine, I'll run as an independent, and he won.Good for him.


I am attaching an article from Mr. Peter Nicholas; he shares a good insight on this as well.    Specter condemned Jim Jeffords' party switch in 2001



When the Vermont Republican became an independent, Specter lost a committee chairmanship in the Senate's resulting power shift. An angry Specter proposed a ban on such party switches.


By Peter Nicholas
3:06 PM PDT, April 28, 2009


Reporting from Washington -- When a Senate Republican left his party in 2001, elevating the Democrats to majority status, one member of the GOP was especially vocal about his displeasure: Arlen Specter.

Specter said then- Vermont Sen. Jim Jeffords' decision to become an independent was disruptive to the functioning of Congress. He proposed a rule forbidding party switches that had the effect of vaulting the minority to majority status in the middle of a congressional session.
"If somebody wants to change parties, they can do that," Specter said at the time. "But that kind of instability is not good for governance of the country and the Senate."

Now it is Specter switching parties, proclaiming himself a Democrat. While the move won't throw one party out of power, it could potentially hand the Democrats a 60-vote majority and deprive the GOP of the ability to block legislation through a filibuster.

Eight years ago, Jeffords' decision cost Specter his chairmanship of the Veterans Affairs Committee. Specter said at the time that he wanted the rule change to prevent a party switch that could decisively swing the balance of power in the Senate overnight, disrupting U.S. domestic and foreign policy.
He also said that Jeffords' move would put Senate staff members out of work as committee chairmanships changed hands, and that he had already seen "a lot of crying" among staff members worried about their future.

Donald Ritchie, associate Senate historian, said in an interview Tuesday that the Jeffords move "was terrifically disruptive. People had to move out of their offices and staffs had to change."

But Specter's proposal quickly ran into opposition. Democrats balked. Sen. Joe Lieberman (I-Conn.) called the proposal unconstitutional. (Lieberman would later leave the Democratic Party to become an independent.) The proposal was never adopted.

Ross Baker, a political science professor at Rutgers University in New Jersey, said the rule would have "deprived a senator of the free will to make a decision."

Specter's proposal, Baker said, was intended "to ingratiate himself with colleagues with whom [Specter] was on the outs" -- the Republicans. "That was one way he could do it. And it was received with the coldness it deserved."

In a statement today, Specter sought to draw a distinction between his party change and that of Jeffords, who did not seek reelection in 2006. Specter said that he would not necessarily vote in lock step with the Democrats.

"My change in party affiliation does not mean that I will be a party-line voter any more for the Democrats than I have been for the Republicans," he said. "Unlike Sen. Jeffords' switch, which changed party control, I will not be an automatic 60th vote."


This site uses Facebook comments to make it easier for you to contribute. If you see a comment you would like to flag for spam or abuse, click the "x" in the upper right of it. By posting, you agree to our Terms of Use.

Page Tools


Latest Posts