Rendell: I've Tried To Get Specter To Switch -- And So Has Joe Biden
Ed Rendell told RNN-TV, a regional cable news channel in the Northeast, that he has in fact tried to talk GOP Senator Arlen Specter into switching to the Democrats -- oh, and so have some other important people, who Rendell probably shouldn't have mentioned.
"We've tried," said Rendell. "Myself, Senator Casey, Vice President Biden have tried to talk him into it, but he's bound and determined to stay a Republican."
When asked for comment by RNN-TV, Specter's office pointed them to an interview he gave recently where he said he was "prepared to run as a Republican," and did not directly confirm or deny that Specter has been approached by Joe Biden, Ed Rendell or Bob Casey about switching parties.
Late Update: Here's the relevant clip from Rendell's interview with RNN's Andrew Whitman:
More of the interview will run tonight at 6 p.m. ET.
Josh
Matt
Eric
Brian
"Prepared to run as a Republican" sounds irresolute indeed, but "bound and determined" doesn't have a promising ring.
March 16, 2009 11:06 AM | Reply | Permalink
I'm not certain he's a lock for the Democratic nomination if he switches parties. I'm confident he'd win in the general election on either ticket though.
March 16, 2009 11:19 AM | Reply | Permalink
If he switched and voted for EFCA, the unions have already pledged they'd go all out for him. In PA, that's a very big deal and might well scare off any serious Dem primary challengers.
March 16, 2009 11:23 AM | Reply | Permalink
And if he won as a Democrat, you would be calling for him to be kicked out of the party because he's insufficiently "pure" and doesn't vote with the Democrats 100% of the time.
LOL!
March 16, 2009 11:57 AM | Reply | Permalink
Ah, the idiot troll is at it again. For the record, I think (and have said before)that it's a BAD idea to try to get Specter to switch- I'd rather see Toomey beat him and then lose badly to a real Democrat. My comment was not an endorsement of the switch idea.
March 16, 2009 12:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
Made you look! I knew you couldn't resist my posts. You see, that's your problem, Labonne. You lack self-control. That's why it's so easy to bait you.
And you think anyone with a brain would take political advice from you. HA!
March 16, 2009 12:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks for confirming, with this bit of juvenile chest-beating, that you're indeed nothing but a troll.
But this is actually a very revealing comment, because, you see, I really don't care about "political advice", or about politics at all in the way people like you care about it- as a game. Unlike you, I put country above party. To you, and all the partisan hacks of your ilk, having more officeholders with "D" after their name is an end in itself. Whereas to those who are actually worried about the state of this country, Democrats and Democratic officeholders are of value only to the extent that they have actual convictions and will work to solve the country's very serious problems, rather than just to serve themselves.
March 16, 2009 12:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
Man, you're not just lacking in self-control, you're a total bore!
Why on earth would your bother explaining your raison d'etre to a troll?
You do this quite often, as if I care what makes you tick. I don't. It's enough that I know you're an intolerant myopic blowhard and I just love fucking with you!
March 16, 2009 1:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
Dude. STFU. Troll is probably the wrong word for you, but 'fucking obnoxious and juvenile' seems to fit the bill perfectly.
Make your comments and shut up.
March 16, 2009 1:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
I really, really care what you think. No. Really I do. How shall I ever go on?
March 16, 2009 4:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
FreeRider,
Maybe you're brain dead and that's why you can't see you're actually guilty of what you accuse Labonne of.
March 16, 2009 2:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
Man, it's just like junior high. Labonne gets his ass kicked and runs away like a little girl then his butt boys come in to defend him.
I don't like Labonne. He doesn't like me. Why this is any of your business I'll never know. But if you want to wade into it, I'm game. Just make sure you don't pee your pants. OK?
March 16, 2009 4:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
heh heh heh,
say, shouldn't you be leaving about now to Chair the late afternoon meeting of MENSA?
heh heh heh
March 16, 2009 5:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
I guess this means you will pee your pants?
March 16, 2009 6:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
True, but I am sure that if he did switch the deal would include no opposition from prominent dems in the primary. Also, if he changed his tune in the next year and a half, I think that he would have a good shot. In any event, he probably has a better shot winning the dem primary than the republican one. He barely squeaked by toomey last time and the republican party lost about 300,000 moderates since then.
March 16, 2009 11:24 AM | Reply | Permalink
The smart money says he can't win a Republican primary. I really wish he'd switch, but he doesn't sound ready to do it.
March 16, 2009 11:35 AM | Reply | Permalink
Every time I see that photo of Arlen Specter I think of the henchman in Beverly Hills Cop. You know the guy Eddie Murphy threw into the salad bar.
On a more serious note: Come on Arlen, jump ship. Move over to the winners' side. Get now while the getting is good! Those Rethugs are going to screw you and you know it. Beat them to the punch!
Hope you aren't offended by my comparing you to a movie henchman. It's just that one photo. Honest.
March 16, 2009 11:20 AM | Reply | Permalink
Why are the Democrats so eager to bend over for Specter? It should be the other way around. PA has a huge Democratic registration advantage, and by any measure, a viable Dem should be in a strong position to defeat Specter.
Enough with this kowtowing to Specter. We should be interested in defeating him.
March 16, 2009 11:32 AM | Reply | Permalink
Seniority. He's worth more switching to the Democratic Party than getting a fresh face. Plus he'd draw a few Republicans with him, maybe. Plus switching now is worth more than hypothetically-possible gains in the next election.
If you mean trusting his voting record, though, you're right. He'd be a blue dog-like Dem, which is a far cry from having a main stream Dem in there waving the flag.
March 16, 2009 11:38 AM | Reply | Permalink
The problem is with pa demographics, you are likely to get a blue dog dem. Look at casey. He sure isn't a "pure" dem.
The problem with specter is if by some fluke he winds up winning the republican primary, ie the national party pulls the rug out from under toomey, then he will keep the seat. The only dem that could probably unseat him is rendell and he will not run against specter. They have a friendship that goes back a long, long time.
March 16, 2009 11:43 AM | Reply | Permalink
I'm not sure Pennsylvania's political demographics are the same that they were several years ago. Its hard to guess, though, how much of the change is only a temporary reaction to the Bush Administration.
I also wouldn't draw too many conclusions from Senator Casey's election. I think that name recognition was a large part of his ability to prevail over other Democrats.
March 16, 2009 12:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
Oh, pennsylvania is very conservative dem. Very large catholic population. Casey being anti-choice helped him tremendously. Pa is nothing like ny or ne. Also, the dem party in pa absorbed something like more than 300,000 former republicans in their ranks. They wouldn't be jumping up and down for a boxer or a kennedy.
You remember throughout the election and primaries they were always talking about the alabama t. You will never get a boxer or a kennedy type dem in pa. Odds are you will get a blue dog, so why not just assimilate specter now? You won't wind up with a "pure" dem in any event.
March 16, 2009 12:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
So's Ohio. Which sent Sherrod Brown to the Senate.
March 16, 2009 12:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
True. And when ohio was sending brown, pa was sending casey, a blue dog. Who is the pa brown waiting in the wings? Nobody. Pa is more conservative dem than ohio by leaps and bounds. I don't think that they have but maybe one or two "pure" dems in the house. The bulk are blue dogs. The best shot dems would have would be rendell and he won't run against specter. Who would be the "pure" dem to take specter down in pa? Specter will get a ton of cross-over dem voters in the general.
March 16, 2009 12:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
As QuiteAlarmed has already noted, this is a very questionable premise in the light of PA's rapid demographic changes.
March 16, 2009 1:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
What rapid demographic changes? What are you talking about? The demographics are changing more in line with blue dogs. Pennsylvania is getting older and the younger population is moving out of the state. Throw in the republicans crossing over to the dem party for primary purposes and you have a very conservative democratic party in pa.
What on earth are you talking about?
Tell me the "pure" dem who is a lock in the dem primary? Who is it?
March 16, 2009 1:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
See El Puerco's post below. He explains it very well.
March 16, 2009 1:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
No he doesn't. He is saying the same thing that I am saying. Socially liberal does not equate with a "pure" dem. The blue dogs are socially liberal by and large and fiscally conservative. Also, catholic dems are not socially liberal and make up a huge chunk of the dem party in pa. Biden is a catholic and casey is a catholic.
Pennsylvania has been bleeding population for decades. The young people move out and the population is getting older and older. My family is from south eastern pennsylvania between the t and the philly suburbs. I know what the f*ck I am talking about.
What basis do you have for your claim of a rapid demographic change. The change is the population is getting older. How does that help a "pure" dem? Also, the state has a high concentration of catholic dems who sure aren't "socially liberal."
March 16, 2009 1:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
Nobody's talking about "pure" Dems except you.And frankly I have no idea what the hell you imagine you're trying to say.
Ed Rendell is a good example of an "impure" Democrat whom I like a good bit better than I like Specter, or Bob Casey for that matter, and who would have an excellent chance of beating Specter. I'm sure he's not the only one.
March 16, 2009 1:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
Here is the portion of El Puerco's post that addresses the demographic shift in Pennsylvania:
I don't see anything in the post about social liberals versus pure Democrats. Perhaps you were thinking of a different post?
March 16, 2009 1:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
The more conservative part of the state is losing ground compared to the more liberal part. Is that really so hard for you to understand? And again, this business about "pure" Democrats is a straw man constructed by you. There are plenty of electable Dems who are better then Specter, especially on labor issues like EFCA.
March 16, 2009 1:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
No it is not. That is the problem with your analysis. The whole state is losing population. I give up. Keep on dreaming.
March 16, 2009 1:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
It's not losing it equally from all areas, and some areas (eg. the Philly suburbs) are actually growing. Really, these are not difficult concepts I'm amazed at your elementary lack of comprehension here.
March 16, 2009 1:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
The state has been stagnant in population for decades, which basically means it is losing population vis a vis the rest of the country. What do you know about the philly suburbs? I am shocked at your lack of elementary comprehension of the state of pennsylvania. Not every state is like vermont. Sorry to burst your bubble.
March 16, 2009 2:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
Michael,
U S Census re: Pa Population;
1950 10,498,012 6.0%
1960 11,319,366 7.8%
1970 11,793,909 4.2%
1980 11,863,895 0.6%
1990 11,881,643 0.1%
2000 12,281,054 3.4%
March 16, 2009 2:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
And the us population growth during that same time was:
1950 151,325,798 14.5%
1960 179,323,175 18.5%
1970 203,211,926 13.3%
1980 226,545,805 11.5%
1990 248,709,873 9.8%
2000 281,421,906 13.2%
That's why pa keeps losing representatives, it is shrinking vis a vis the rest of the united states. Based on us population growth I would say pa was stagnant.
March 16, 2009 2:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
I just wanted to see how narrow my reply would be. This is pretty narrow!!!
March 16, 2009 2:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
How many replies will it take for one word per line?
March 16, 2009 2:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
Ohhh. I'm starting to get closer!
March 16, 2009 2:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
I've officially broken TMP!!!
March 16, 2009 2:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
Michale, you don't lose Representatives if your population is growing, regardless of what the rest of the country is doing.
March 16, 2009 2:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
In 1962 PA had 27 house members in its delegation. In 2008 PA had 19 house members in its delegation. They change apportionment every ten years based on population.
March 16, 2009 3:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
Michael,
did the number of people in a Congressional district change between 1960 and 2009?
March 16, 2009 6:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
The whole state is bleeding populuation. Pennsylvania will never vote in a hard left senator. I'm tired of repeating my self. Keep believing what you want to believe.
Also, rendell will never run against specter. They are friends from way back. Specter gave rendell his first job. Also, rendell is a blue dog. I thought you wanted to primary out all blue dogs.
March 16, 2009 1:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
Blanket assertions of what will never happen never prove correct. =)
March 16, 2009 1:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
Michael,
you need to do some research on Pa population trends, we aren't losing population, in fact, we've been gaining since at least 1950.
March 16, 2009 2:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
Michael,
From 1996 to 2006 Demographics
Males ages 18 to 64 8.5% Increase
65 to 74 11.7% Decrease
75 and over 17.8 Increase
Females ages 18 to 64 5.4% Increase
65 to 74 16.9% Decrease
75 and over 11.8% Increase
Registered voters
Democrats 4,480,691
Republicans 3,243,391
March 16, 2009 2:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
P.S. And the late, great Howard Metzenbaum before him.
March 16, 2009 12:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
Casey crushed Santorium in 2006 with a 17.4 point victory margin, practically unheard of for a challenger unseating an incumbent. Any Democrat with decent name recognition would have won that year.
In the primary, Casey was endorsed by every state Democrat from Fast Eddie himself to Barbara Hafer. His only opponents were complete unknowns: a college professor and a pension lawyer.
I think its difficult to argue that Casey's election tells us much about the ability of more progressive candidates to prevail here.
March 16, 2009 12:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
See above response to labonne. Who is the "pure" dem waiting in the wings who could take down specter?
By the way, casey crushed the wacko in part because of his anti-choice stance and his name recognition obviously. National dems were not taking a chance on not taking out santorum. I do agree about the analysis concerning casey's election telling us about a "pure" dem winning.
I am talking demographics as pointed out in my post. The demographics of pa are tailor made for a blue dog, not a "pure" dem.
March 16, 2009 1:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
As mentioned above, see this post on Pennsylvania demographics. I'll continue this discussion in the responses to that comment.
March 16, 2009 1:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
Here is a link on demographics. Pennsylvania is 1/3 roman catholic, has had a stagnant population for 50 years almost, which means it is losing population and is old. It's probably the oldest state in the country. You don't think roman catholic voters, who actually would be socially conservative, aren't blue dogs?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pennsylvania
Also, I have addressed the demographic issue. My family has lived for generations between the t and the philly suburbs. I guess I don't know what the f*ck I am talking about. Of course they are losing population in the t. Young people move out because of no jobs. The same problem they have throughout the state. Almost every single person in my high school graduating class has moved out to various parts of the country. They aren't moving to the philly suburbs, they are moving out of the state.
Let's look at the dem reps from the philly suburbs that just got elected murphy and sestak. You don't consider them blue dogs?
March 16, 2009 1:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
Shockingly, you are not the only person with long-standing family connections to the "T" and the Philly suburbs.
I think that a lot of the choices made in Pennsylvania Democratic primaries are premised on truisms that need to be more closely scrutinized. They may, or may not, remain accurate in light of recent changes.
March 16, 2009 2:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
Agree on all points.
March 16, 2009 2:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
rose,
I'm in PA. I think if a strong Democrat from western Pa (if there is one) was being rumored as a candidate to run against Specter then Specter might reconsider switching.
Franco Harris? :-)
March 16, 2009 2:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
Specter would just be another centrist joining whatever "Gang of X" exists for a specific bill. He'll do that from the right anyways, so let him get primaried out and get a better Dem to run against Toomey.
It's not like the Dems get 60 votes and all of a sudden Nelson, Landrieu, Bayh and the like stop fighting to bring every bill to the middle. They'd just have one more centrist in their ranks.
I guess they want his EFCA and Healthcare vote over the next year and a half.
Either way Biden shouldn't be getting involved, or more specifically Rendell should keep his fat mouth shut.
March 16, 2009 11:41 AM | Reply | Permalink
Rendell's mouth is his problem and always has been. It must be a pa thing. Biden is from pa and can't keep his mouth shut either.
March 16, 2009 11:44 AM | Reply | Permalink
Oh, so now you're thinking Toomey will run after all, Mr. Mitty? Well, well! :)
March 16, 2009 11:54 AM | Reply | Permalink
I still believe it's nothing more than an attempt to control Specter's vote. I'm simply saying let him get primaried if that's what the GOP wants to do.
I think all of this talk (reach out from Dems) is designed to give Specter the ground to push back against the GOP making the threats. Basically showing Specter that he does have options and either the GOP stops pressuring him with primary threats.
Specter's best chance to be re-elected would be to veer right with the promise he wouldn't get a primary challenge. Once he gets the GOP nod, he'll win re-election. He can beat any Dem in a general, but he can't beat Toomey in a closed primary. Specter, running as a democrat, could beat Toomey in a general. Specter has to make a decision, veer right and stay a republican and get re-elected or jump to the Dems and get re-elected. The only thing that won't work is staying where he is now as a moderate Republican who will side with the Dems on the major issues as part of a "Gang of X".
March 16, 2009 12:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
>>Either way Biden shouldn't be getting involved, or more specifically Rendell should keep his fat mouth shut. >>
Oooh. It's so awful that Biden would try to get a republican senator to change sides. It's so awful that Rendell would say this.
I mean, when the public hears that they courted Specter, they will revolt and throw all the Democrats out of office. How dare they try to get people who vote with them to become actual Democrats. That's just intolerable.
Some of you guys belong on Cable TV where your "Chicken Little, Everything Is A Big Fucking Deal, It's The End Of Life As We Know It" punditry fits in well.
March 16, 2009 12:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
Arlen's in a tough spot. I think he'll have a tough time winning a primary, in EITHER party. But if he makes it to the general, he's almost a lock. There are a lot of moderates in the Philly suburbs who are really his base. They used to be strongly Republican in registration. Lots have switched to the Democratic party, and lots haven't. So, almost all of them would still vote for him in a general, but only about half of them can vote for him in a primary now.
I don't think he'd beat a more liberal Democrat in a primary, even though he'd be a stronger candidate in the general. And I think he'll have a brutally difficult time against Toomy in a Republican primary, even though he'd be much stronger general election candidate. I think his best bet would be as an independent, except that no Independent has ever won statewide office in PA - I'm not absolutely certain about this, but I read it recently. And he can't just run in on the two major party primaries and then go Indy if he loses - PA has a law preventing switching parties after the primary.
-Ray
March 16, 2009 11:48 AM | Reply | Permalink
Spector is a homonym for "spectre." And like a ghost, he has no substance. He's the political equivalent of the "journalist" David Brooks. I can stand neither of these mealy-mouthed "intellectuals."
March 16, 2009 12:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
The "leaders" of the Democratic Party are dumber than they appear to be apparently. Let Specter get knocked off in the primary. Who cares? The seat is going to go Democratic once he's out of the way. What a bunch of cowards those national Dems are. Oy!
March 16, 2009 12:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
As a resident of the "Alabama T" part of Pennsylvania, I am not convinced that Specter can beat every Dem in the general election. Polling has shown he re-elect numbers to be below 50%. Moreover, Republicans here in the T are not enthusiastic at all about Specter and might not turn out in big numbers in the general election (although the open-seat Governor's race could hurt him). But the biggest problem that Specter and any Republican faces in PA is the demographic change. The "Alabama T" that forms the Republican base is BLEEDING population. Take a look at the Census website, and you will see that most central PA counties are losing thousands of people, and they were not big to begin with. The big growth counties are the Philly suburbs, and they are more like suburban Maryland - highly educated, socially liberal voters. While they once formed Specter's base, they have switched to the Dems. The last nail in Specter's political coffin is his age and health.
March 16, 2009 12:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
Couple of points:
1. My family lives between the t and the suburbs.
2. The whole state has been bleeding population for decades. The population is getting older and more conservative by and large, but conservative dem.
3. The philly suburbs have flipped in recent years because of the conduct of the republicans and their position on social issues. That doesn't make the suburbs flaming liberal for pete's sake. They were solid republican two elections ago. And could easily flip again. The suburbs are "socially liberal," but fiscally conservative.
4. Oh, I think if specter makes it out of the primary he is a shoe in. His age and health is a problem, but pennsylvania has a really old population.
5. Pennsylvania will never vote in a "pure" dem that would satisfy the left wing. It's not that type of state and never has been.
March 16, 2009 1:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
Again, stop with the nonsensical straw men about "pure" Dems and the "left". It does you a disservice by making you sound as stupid as FreeRider, when many other comments show that you aren't.
March 16, 2009 1:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
I grew up in the suburbs and currently live in the "T".
I agree that the suburbs might flip again. I mentioned that possibility above. I'm not sure that the suburbs are even socially liberal. Its hard to tell.
Agreed, but that begs the question of this thread.
That conclusion is simply not supported by the arguments that you have made. There's good reason to question whether the commonly accepted truisms about Pennsylvania, on which you rely, remain valid. They don't reflect the political reality that I experience in Pennsylvania. I agree that 2008 may have been the highwater mark of Pennsylvania's swing left, but that remains to be seen.
The extent of the support for Obama among my heretofor deep red central PA relatives this past year was truly astonishing. I was befuddled by agreement instead of ridicule at the family gatherings.
March 16, 2009 1:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
Now that I can agree with:
The extent of the support for Obama among my heretofor deep red central PA relatives this past year was truly astonishing. I was befuddled by agreement instead of ridicule at the family gatherings.
I couldn't believe my family either. For obama no less. If you would have asked my parents 20 years ago if they would have voted for an african american, they would have chewed my head off.
Unfortunately, ever since I was a child I witnessed the aging of the pennsylvania population. It is really sad. Outside the suburbs the population is getting older and older.
I just don't see pa going for a boxer or a kennedy. Between the religious components of the state and the age of the population. Actually, I don't perceive what happened in 08 as a "swing left." I perceive what happened as a validation of a pragmatic and responsible democratic party compared to the republican party.
March 16, 2009 1:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
You're continuing not to make sense. Nobody's talking about PA electing somebody as liberal as Boxer or Kennedy. But it's quite obvious that they could do significantly better than Specter. I've already mentioned Rendell, to your apparent surprise. Why the surprise? I'm not after perfection, just not lazily settling for less than the best Democrat a particular electorate can support. And speaking of Rendell being a "blue dog", if you really would put him in the same category as, say, Ben Nelson you're just out to lunch.
March 16, 2009 3:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
No I wouldn't say a ben nelson. You go extreme as always.
Again for the 10th time, who would you propose since you are so knowledgeable about pa? Also, I would rather have another dem now than two years from now.
March 16, 2009 3:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
No, YOU are going to extremes by claiming that I expect PA to elect a Boxer and that I should be against Rendell because I've been in favor of primarying some Blue Dogs. Both are wild misconceptions on your part. You need to acknowledge that instead of continuing to repeat the same BS.
I never (more BS on your part) claimed to be an expert on PA politics, but since you ask I would favor talking Rendell out of his apparent decision not to run simply because he would be pretty hard to beat (indeed, completely impossible if Toomey is the Repub nominee) and a significant improvement over Specter. Failing that, Rep. Patrick Murphy is another prominent potential candidate who's conservative enough to win statewide but still better than Specter.
You're the Pennsylvanian (I'm an Ohioan- not, by the way, a Vermonter, referring to one of your dumber jibes above) so I'm sure you could come up with additional names yourself.
March 16, 2009 3:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
1. Based on all your ranting about untrue dems and against blue dogs, I don't see the problem with my assumption.
2. I like rendell as well, but like I said he is adamant about not running against specter. He could always change his mind, but I doubt it. Also, he is more conservative than you think.
3. I like murphy as well. I don't know how he would do statewide though. He's a little green.
4. The problem is that I am unaware of any statewide dem, other than rendell that would be up for taking out specter. Toomey is a completely different matter, obviously.
5. I am basing most of my commentary exchanges with you based on your prior attacks against blue dogs and expecting every dem to toe a line, that isn't even the party line.
6. I would rather get the specter flip now so that he doesn't have to toe the republican party line. He used to be a dem many years ago, so it's not outside the realm of possibility. I don't particularly like him at all, but I would rather have the vote.
March 16, 2009 4:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
Very interesting comments, thanks.
March 16, 2009 2:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
Can't stand Specter...But I would trade him for Lieberman in a heart beat!
March 16, 2009 2:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'd be surprised to hear Ed Rendell say he hadn't tried to flip Arlen Spector. Of course he has! That's part of his job! Does anyone think that this doesn't go on all the time? People on one side of things trying to get people on the other side to come over to their side? What a surprise!
Please, folks.
Hell, people are even trying to flip Joe Lieberman to the Democrats.
March 16, 2009 3:33 PM | Reply | Permalink