http://www.facebook.com/pages/I-support-a-real-progressive-against-Arlen-Specter/76951643702

I see all of this and expect that all of this will prevent the Senate seat from going to a real progressive and it'll be done with the help of the current Democratic leadership.

Previously I was hoping Specter would lose to a right wing extremist in the GOP primary who wouldn't have a chance in the general election.

Now we'll probably get Lamont vs Lieberman Part II.

The end of Harry Reid's tenure as Majority 'Leader'.

The shrot term PR boost of getting Specter will not outweight the long term consequences of:

A - Potentially pulling the Democratic cacus even further right and giving DINOs like Bayh and Nelson even more power to block or water down progressive legislation.

B - Snubbing long standing Democrats in favor of an admitted opportunist.

C - Undercutting a true Democrat from taking over the senate seat in Penn (especially if Reid and the DNC back Specter in the primary).

Reid puts the Senate and its privilages before party and the public. It has been the only consistent element of his 'leadership'. The sooner he goes the better off the country will be.

>The end of Harry Reid's tenure as Majority 'Leader'.

I was sort of hoping the 2008 elections would do the same thing. No such luck.

I wish the Democratic party leadership wasn't so afraid of being called Liberals by the Republicans.

Seriously, they're now being called Socialists and haven't even moved to the left yet as far as I can tell. Might as well start putting actual Liberals in charge.

To allow someone to slip in and replace progressive Senators in leadership positions is no way to reward or honor those who have taken the slings and arrows of GOP attacks over the years. To replace real Democrats with a fair-weather "Democrat" is insulting.

... seeking only self-preservation. Wait till the first vote to see where his sympathies lie.

We need to primary his ass off.

I am a Demcrat, but ahve alwasy admired Sepcter indepndence. I think both parites need a BIG tent. I amnot in favor of either Dmecrats or repubican votign the party line at all time. That's not Demcracy.

However I think allowing Specter to transfer his seniority to the Democrats is out of line. Harry Reid is not a good leader,and I hope the Democrats elect a stronger leader next time. He is not only a poor speaker, he appeqrs lacks the ability to negotiate among Democrats and agressively push the Democrats agenda. We need and LBJ type now. Of course when LBJ was a Senate leader, the republicans were more reasonable.

If anyone needs to lose their chairmanship, it is Harry Reid. Totally useless as a leader. Why do the Democrats select a leader from an unsafe state? Why can't they pick someone with a backbone (There must be at least one there) from a safe state? They screwed up with Daschle for that and a number of other reasons. Just find someone from a BLUE state who is not up to their ears with lobbyist connections.

In 1992, Clinton swept in with control of the Senate and the House. In two years, he lost the Senate and the House in a historic defeat. Do you think this country has changed this much in 19 years. I do not think so. The Republicans have lost because they lost the middle. Specter is pro-choice, tough on crime, and fiscally responsible and the people on this page are complaining? Will you please tell me what you want? We need to govern this country and stop dreaming about seeing Bush and Cheney being led away in handcuffs. It is not going to happen.

Let's face it, Spector is a very red state kind of guy. Sure he voted for the stimulus package, but he's also slightly to the right of Joe Lieberman on war issues.

His defection is a short term advantage to the Democrats (assuming he actually bothers to vote democratic after his reelection) but his charimanship means that his fairly radical stances on many issues (judiciary, espionage, etc.) are now part and parcel of the big tent Democrats.

Changing party's doesn't change who you are. And ofcourse all of this is based on the assumption that Spector is reelected.

As was pointed out by his former benefactors, all one needs to do is run the footage of GWB and Spector together to communicate to Democrats in Pennsylvania who they are really voting for.

Nothing to see here. Move along, you dirty hippies. Good of the country and all that.

As for what "we" want, personally, someone who talks a good game, and then backs it up with the votes. That would be the opposite of Specter.

Oh, right, in every other system where seniority is totally broken.

Chairmanships should go to the best possible people for the job. That often *will* go along with being senior, but nobody should get one just because they *are* senior.

It doesn't matter if you're a teacher or a pilot or a senator. As long as seniority gets treated as more important than ability and performance, the system breaks down.

Imagine if the military was led by generals who were just whoever had served longest. Imagine if the CEO of a company was just the employee who'd worked there the longest. We'd call that absolutely stupid. Why is it less stupid when it's in government?

If there are areas where Specter has clear expertise, I have no problem with giving him some leadership responsibilities. I don't think that *only* serious progressives should be in charge at this point; there need to be some other voices involved. But this isn't about expertise, it's turning into a pissing contest about who's entitled to a chairmanship. Nobody should be *entitled* to that kind of responsibility. It should be given to those who have earned it.

If Obama could get his party under control when it comes to earmarks then rank and committee chairmanships would mean a whole lot less and maybe our we would start seeing some real change in Washington. I don't mean to blame Obama. It's not his fault. But unfortunately McCain campaigned as anti-earmark so Obama had to be anti-anti-earmark and he has not been able to take a strong stance against the practice. It has been clear from some of his statements that earmarks really bother him but it appears that congressional Democrats are as wedded to the practice as Republicans. I'd love to see Obama use his popularity with the voters to really challenge the House and Senate on this. Then we'd see some real change...a Washington where seniority means less, incumbents face true challengers, and representative think of their constituents before their contributors...a Washington that is truly changed and ready to get to the business of the people. It's a longshot but Obama might be the only one who could make headway here.