RuralDem offered his perspective on what Sen. Arlen Specter's switch to the Democratic Party means, and from his seat he views it as an endorsement of a centrist agenda. While I respect his opinion, I do think he's misguided on this.

I firmly believe the country can now be classified as 'center-left' and, based on existing statistical data, is trending more to the left and away from the center. The South, as evident by recent elections and its current political representation, is still firmly entrenched in the right (and, as I would also argue, is artificially deflating exactly how much the country has moved to the left in the past 10 to 20 years).

Specter's switch was about two things:

1. The protection of his own political career, which is patently obvious;

2. A judgement of how far to the right the Republican Party has moved in not just the last couple of years, but the last couple of months.

Attempting to quantify Specter's switch as an endorsement of moderate politics is to miss the point altogether since it overlooks the former and underemphasizes the latter. And it's the latter that merits focus given the GOP's hard lurch to the right coupled with a clearly defined and overwhelming popular progressive agenda adovocated for by the Obama Administration.

If Specter wasn't willing to side with Democrats on issues like the environment and health care - or at least willing to sit down at the table and find workable solutions to these challenges - then a switch to being an independent would make more sense (given that he'd attract, arguably, anywhere from 40 to 45 percent of the vote based on his long-standing history in Pennsylvania). But that isn't the case at all as Specter made a calculated decision to join the Democratic Party to, yes, save his own hide, but also to indict the Republican Party.

So, what then does Specter bring? And what to make of my original argument that this is, on the whole, a good thing for progressives?

Specter, by all indications, will vote for cloture on reforms for health care and the environment ... and that's all that he's needed for. Once cloture is achieved, then Democrats have 53 to 56 reliable votes that will be utilized to bring about much needed progressive reform in those areas.

While Specter may be a moderate, even still a conservative, his switch lays the foundation for progressive change to happen ... with or without his vote.

One other thing ... I find it almost impossible to even suggest that the moderates in the party have 'lost their voice' ... particularly in light of the stranglehold Sen. Ben Nelson, Sen. Mary Landrieu and Sen. Evan Bayh currently have on existing legislation. Right now the moderates are what is preventing a popular progressive agenda from being enacted, so I fail to see how they lack influence in the party or over the process.