The Monkey Cage

I work in politics, although I’m not directly involved in the issue at hand, so this is no more informed than any other outside observer. But I can answer your second question—he does not have any other options. Certainly, the GOP won’t take him back now. And though he could do some damage to the Dems’ agenda—holding up nominees, joining GOP filibusters, etc—this would essentially seal his fate, as what establisment support he has managed to gain (e.g. Obama) withdraws its protection while the GOP, which never trusted him to begin with, will still not act to save him. If Specter wants to survive in 2010, he’ll put on a happy face and make nice with his new party, sincerely or not.

Old w(h)ine in new bottles may be good for salads but not for those, like Specter, whose salad days have long wilted.

In a sense, the 1970s reforms ushered in a similar effect across the board(see Crook & Hibbing). Generally speaking, though, chairmanships are usually given or not given, not “temporarily taken away.” I suppose a distant parallel (in temporary punishments) would be Lott losing out as leader but then coming back as whip. In committees, those who lose votes to chair subcomms or full comms aren’t prohibited from trying again in the future (the stripping of the biggies in the 1970s, for example, didn’t include a ban on them returning, just a current change). However, often those who have power taken from them by their party leave the institution by their own choice (Cannon, Gingrich, Livingston, the list goes on). So, to my thinking, Specter’s case is pretty unique. But I’m not really a party-switching expert.

I agree with Matt: don’t recall any such case.

One relevant issue I haven’t seen reported is whether his staff (or significant chunks of his staff) have resigned. Anyone know? My memory of the history of these things is that most party-switchers turn over their staffs, which is probably both an indication that they’ll vote differently and a cause of voting differently. (ISTR there was some work done on that aspect of the general question, but I don’t remember what it was).

A clarification on Matt’s note—Cannon lost the speakership in the 61st congress, but came back to serve 5 more terms (10 years) despite losing election to the 63rd. So he stayed around the institution, unlike Gingrich and Livingston.

Not directly on point to the original question, but about as close as we’ll get in the literature, and always worth a read is Ralph Huitt’s fascinating APSR article on the Morse switch:

“The Morse Committee Assignment Controversy: A Study in Senate Norms”
Vol. 51, No. 2 (Jun., 1957), pp. 313-329

Hmmmm…now that I think about it…

Ted Kennedy and Robert Byrd lost leadership positions and stuck around…I think the technical term is “forever.” Joe Martin stuck around for years after Hallick beat him for the leadership — and after Ford knocked off Hallick, he stuck around for a couple of terms.

(Had to check wikipedia for those…and found out the shocking news that John Rhodes page is apparently hotly contested).

Jim Wright quit Congress soon after he was bounced, so he goes with Newt. Livingston wasn’t bounced (at least not that I know of) by his party; he shocked everyone when he passed on the Speakership and resigned his seat in the same speech.

So Lott, Byrd, Kennedy, Cannon, Martin, and Hallick all stuck around; Gingrich and Wright were booted by the party and, despite having the option of staying, left. I’m not sure how to count DeLay, who resigned over the same scandal that cost him his leadership position.

Is Senator Casey reading the Monkey Cage? Sounds like he’s changed his tune since my original post.