What good was having Specter's seat if his views/votes better reflected D positions? Seems like nothing lost.Quote:
What did the Republicans do? They drummed Specter out of the party and lost a seat that they could have retained. Not too smart.
Specter was afraid that his constituency no longer believed he was the best man for the job. Maybe they're right? Once the Ds got Specter in their camp, he didn't get treated much better by them. It was good PR to have a high-profile guy change affiliation, but it doesn't appear that the "machine" will give him much support if there is a viable up-and-comer they think is a better vote-getter.
I think that Specter's party change lost him both R and D votes.
Sorry, I can't get over his remark that he wouldn't let the voters stand in the way of his career. Excu-u-u-se me? A 36-year career seems like it might be enough already, if he has come to think he is "entitled" to be more important than his constituents.