Just like a bankruptcy, we are eliminating our liabilities and will emerge lean, strong and focused. You, on the other hand, can load up on spineless walking pustules like Specter and hope they hold their newfound views on critical votes.

Isn't it a pustule on Limpbaughs backside that keep his patriotic self from Vietnam? Thew wingnuts chirp…

The “specter” of party purity surely burns brightly when fed with the absolute certainty of unquestioning partisanship.

Only a clear, concise, conservative message can revive the Republican Party. By reuniting the conservatives with the republicans, the party could once again win 49 state victories.

After the Democrats bring the U6 unemployment numbers down to 6% and real wages start going up 3 to 4 % a year for ten, fifteen years, maybe, just maybe people will forget what a cluster-f**k the Bush administration was and start voting for Conservative Republicans.

This dovetails nicely with yesterday's discussion of what moderates must do to be part of the Republican party. I guess the absolutism of the Club for Growth sure showed that RINO the door; same for moderate Republicans in Maryland, Michigan, New Mexico and Rhode Island. Maybe absolutism is not the answer for political growth, but by all means, let the GOP demonstrate I'm wrong.

What's interesting is that McCain was known as a maverick and in order to shore up the conservative base he had to choose someone like Palin, who also claimed she was a maverick from Alaska.

Yet the GOP wants its elected officials to vote party line. They like the idea of mavericks but I guess they only like mavericks if those mavericks will do what the party wants them to do.

It's seems that the moderates are their own brand of mavericks, just more moderate and the GOP does not welcome them….

How should these issues be handled by the Senate for the future? I intend to propose a rule change which would preclude a future recurrence of a Senator's change in parties, in midsession, organizing with the opposition, to cause the upheaval which is now resulting.

I take second place to no one on independence voting. But, it is my view that the organizational vote belongs to the party which supported the election of a particular Senator. I believe that is the expectation. And certainly it has been a very abrupt party change, although they have occurred in the past with only minor ripples, none have caused the major dislocation which this one has.

When I first ran in 1980, Congressman Bud Shuster sponsored a fundraiser for me in Altoona where Congressman Jack Kemp was the principal speaker. When some questions were raised as to my political philosophy, Congressman Shuster said my most important vote would be the organizational vote. From that day to this, I have believed that the organizational vote belonged to the party which supported my election.

When the Democrats urged me to switch parties some time ago, I gave them a flat “no.'' I have been asked in the last several days if I intended to switch parties. I have said absolutely not.

Senator PHIL GRAMM faced this issue when he decided to switch parties. He resigned his seat, which he had won as a Democrat, and ran for reelection as a Republican. As he told me, his last vote in January 1983 was for the Speaker of the House of Representatives, and he voted for Tip O'Neill with the view that he was elected as a Democrat and should vote that way on organizational control. Even though, he intended to become a Republican and would have preferred another person to be Speaker.

To repeat, I intend to propose a Senate rule which would preclude a change in control of the Senate when a Senator decides to vote with the opposing party for organizational purposes.

One other aspect does deserve comment, and that is the issue of personal benefit to a changing Senator. In our society, political arrangements avoid the consequences of similar conduct in other contexts.

For example, if company A induces a competitor's employee to break his contract with company B and join company A, company B can collect damages for company A's wrongful conduct. If A gives a benefit to an employee of B to induce the employee to breach a duty, that conduct can have serious consequences in other contexts which are not applied to political arrangements.

On the Lehrer news show on Thursday night, the day before yesterday, Senator HARRY REID and I sparred over this point. I expressed my concern about reliable reports that Democrats had told Senator Jeffords that Senator Reid would step aside so Senator Jeffords could become chairman of the Environment and Public Works Committee. Senator Reid replied that there was no quid pro quo, an expression I had not used.

Accepting Senator Jeffords ' decision was based on principle for the reasons he gave at his news conference on Thursday morning, a question still remains as to whether any such inducement was offered and whether it played any part in Senator JEFFORDS' decision. Questions on such offers and counteroffers should be considered by Senators and by the Senate in an ethical context, but at this moment I do not see any way to effect such conduct by rulemaking or legislation.

This week's events raise very profound questions for the governance of our country as well as the operation of the Senate. I intend to press a rule change which would preclude a recurrence of this situation and will be discussing with my colleagues the whole idea of inducements as an incentive for a party switch.

He's catching it from both sides at the moment. Really an astounding political moment.

All Specter wants to do is stay in the Senate, but in the Senate he wants to influence legislation in his direction. Specter was a Republican for a reason. He isn't going to support some things Democrats want.

Instead of a 60th vote against filibusters, maybe he'll be the 41st vote in favor of them.

Instead of enabling the Democratic agenda, maybe he'll frustrate it.

So, instead of a bruising primary against a Republican opponent, maybe he'll face a bruising primary against a Democratic opponent?

Which would work to the benefit of the Republican nominee.

Maybe all he's doing is helping Pat Toomey take over his job in the next election after all?

Considering it happened in 1965, to be honest, I wasn't publishing as much during my grade school years as I do now.

That hurts, considering that I thought our relationship had much more meaning. After all, you did slander my partner by name on Rick Moran's radio show. I'm really hurt Jazz.

Frank of PoliticalVindication.com

This is actually good news for the Republican Party. Now, the Democrats have no point of deflection to distract voters from the fact that it is now the Dems have to lead, govern and accomplish in the next 18 months.

The bad news is for Joe Gandelman and his merry band of writers……..”Gosh, Joe, do I really have to write something about the accomplishments and improvements brought about by current administration? I'm not sure I can come up with anything!”

He complained about inaction by GOP leaders in Washington when social and fiscal conservatives — largely funded by the group Club for Growth — challenged moderate Republicans in primaries. He cited four different races in which the Club for Growth had weighed in and helped a conservative challenger. Each of those seats — in Maryland, Michigan, New Mexico and Rhode Island — is now held by a Democrat.

Noses and faces, folks.

Also — I'd like to point out that there's been some noise from the lefternmost reaches of the Democratic Party to do the same thing to their own moderates. How ironic would it be if they decided to target Specter from the left?

The edges of both parties really do seem to be pretty short-sighted.

Well Jazz, I guess you can't please everyone. I guess if you're drawing fire from the left and the right here at TMV, then you must be doing something right.

JSpencer, you didn't check your calendar. I'm a left wing moonbat on the even weeks and a right wingnut fascist on the odd weeks. This is week four of the month. Just ask any of my many “fans.”

The more pressing question raise here, though, was as follows:

My initial reaction is it's better to have a Specter-R than a Specter-D……

There is something to that, for sure. It would be nice to think that each and every politician would vote their heart and their values on every single vote, no matter what letter was after their name, but we all know that the real world beltway doesn't work like that. They will vote the way their specific constituents want, along with their own values they ran on, as much of the time as they think they can get away with it. Times will arise, though, when they will need to support the party for the long term prospects of their career, even if they might not personally agree. Specter has done this in the past as well. Democrats do it too. They all do.

Apparently Specter has gotten to the point where, as he put it, the core of the party has moved too far away from him and the Dems are a better fit. The fact that he probably wouldn't have survived a primary challenge but will likely win the general with either party doubtless played into it. All politicians are pragmatic. The bottom line doesn't change, though. Certain hard core factions of the GOP are looking to purge the RINOs. Good job. You managed another victory today.

Allow me, if you will, to predict the headline at Daily KOS on the day of the first instance where a bill passes the Senate on straight party lines, 60-40.

“WE GOT YER FILLIBUSTER RIGHT HERE, LOSERS. NOW SIT DOWN AND SHUT THE F*&% UP.”

And that, in part, is some of the significance of Specter's jumping ship. It's a game of perceptions and the perceptions just shifted again.

“I don't want to be a member of the Club for Growth,” said Graham. “I want to be a member of a vibrant national Republican party that can attract people from all corners of the country — and we can govern the country from a center-right perspective.” “As Republicans, we got a problem,” he said.

Yep, and all over Fox and the blogosphere and in the comments here, the shrinking GOP continues to lash out at moderates. I do hope for, and think I can count on it, widespread rage and demonizing of Specter, and yes, please, Snowe and Graham. Tell moderates just exactly what you think of them.