Perhaps it shouldn’t come as a surprise that Michael Steele has put on the face that he has in the Specter aftermath, given that he’s the same man who refused to rule out running primary challengers against Olympia Snowe and Susan Collins. But there’s something particularly annoying about reading his latest thoughts, which were distributed to the RNC mailing list yesterday.
“Arlen Specter committed a purely political and self-serving act today. He simply believes he has a better chance of saving his political hide and his job as a Democrat,” Steele begins.
Well, obviously. Given that his approval rating hovers around 70% with the state’s Democrats and that his political record is one of a true centrist, what other sort of calculation should he make? He likely does not feel like he has a true home in either party, but he certainly knows which one wants him more. Centrists have to go somewhere, after all.
Furthermore, what principle did Steele want Specter to adhere to? The rank-and-file of the party were telling him to get lost (and putting their money where their mouths are), while his mushy centrism doesn’t really lend itself to party loyalty. Maybe instead of whining about Arlen Specter, we could work to expand our party’s reach. As Harry Truman once noted: if you want a friend in Washington, get a dog.
The chairman goes on: “Arlen Specter handed Barack Obama and his band of radical leftists nearly absolute power in the United States Senate. In leaving the Republican Party–and joining the Democrats–he absolutely undercut Republicans’ efforts to slow down Obama’s radical agenda through the threat of filibuster. Facing defeat in Pennsylvania’s 2010 Republican primary due to his left-wing voting record…he has peddled his services–and his vote–to the leftist Obama Democrats who aim to remake America with their leftist plan.”
Specter’s record really isn’t left-wing. He certainly belongs in the Republican Party, which makes it all the more tragic that it’s kicked him out. The National Journal’s 2007 rankings placed him within a few points of senators like Norm Coleman, Richard Lugar, and George Voinovich. Ben Nelson is ranked as less conservative than Specter. Conservatives are currently lamenting the fact that Coleman is about to be replaced with a leftist. Why were they unable to apply similar sentiments to Specter? Ben Nelson is routinely praised by the right. Will Arlen Specter now be the conservative example of a “reasonable Democrat”? Don’t count on it.
Steele continues: “Some will use Specter’s defection as an excuse to fold the tent and give up.” Fold up what tent? Give up what? What is he talking about?
In fairness, there is some utility in the outrage, real or contrived, that Steele is expressing: certainly a party chairman cannot, in public, be the reflective political philosopher. But he is supposed to be a behind-the-scenes tactician. Steele has hedged his bets: he did not thank Arlen Specter for his years of service, but went straight for the jugular, comparing him to Benedict Arnold and labeling him a craven liar. (This strategy worked out so well for the Democrats in 2006, if you’ll recall.)
The real tragedy behind the Specter defection is that it sends a green light to centrists all around the country to leave the party. The message has been sent that there really is no room in the Republican Party for them anymore; that it is a secret club rather than a big tent and that it’s pointless to stay at the moment. The fact that it is once again a minority of the party that seems to realize this is bad for America, for if anything is the true engine of one-party left-wing rule in a two-party system, it is a no-compromise opposition party that refuses to stay in touch with the wants of the American people.
April 29th, 2009 at 12:17 pm
I have a question on the RNC and that is I am guessing in 2012 Obama will have the oprah factor again but Does the rnc have a person like that can help us next time was the oprah help thing what made us do so badly in nov. 2008? was that what put obama over the top in the nov election? Also I was wondering if your a 2012 candidate do you call former President George W to help campaign with you or is that hurt then good in 2012?
April 29th, 2009 at 12:26 pm
Alex, what are you?
A liberal, Conservative, Moderate?
I mean you are all over the place man.
April 29th, 2009 at 12:27 pm
I’m totally in favor of purging the party. A hostile takeover from the disloyal likes of Specter. Only then can we once again afford the luxury of letting pretenders back in the tent, but never so many that it changes the message of conservatism.
April 29th, 2009 at 12:29 pm
The rank and file can be conservatives in name only, but the LEADERSHIP must truly be conservative. And loyal. And have a little courage.
April 29th, 2009 at 12:30 pm
If I may be so bold, Alex is a liberal who understands that only Conservative leadership keeps us free and gives us prosperity. There’s room for Alex, he simply should never EVER run for a leadership position. That kills conservativism, an office at a time.
April 29th, 2009 at 12:33 pm
Alex, what are you? A liberal, Conservative, Moderate?
I mean you are all over the place man.
I’m a classical liberal.
In popular parlance: On defense matters, I’m a neo-conservative. Economically, I am a capitalist. Socially, I am a secularist and a humanist. I am strongly culturally conservative, however; a defender of the West. Tactically, however, I am strongly pragmatic, pro-incrementalism, and highly inclusive.
April 29th, 2009 at 12:36 pm
Because Arlen Specter isn’t someone who believes in individual freedom and free markets and generally presents himself as someone who is embarrassed to have a (R) next to his name. We don’t need people in our party that believe they have to constantly apologize for our party’s core values. I personally heard him rail against fiscal conservatism at a private gathering in St. Paul during the RNC last year. He basically called fiscally conservative Republicans Neanderthals.
I don’t mind folks who disagree with elements of policy but who are rigorous defenders of core Republican/Conservative values, such as Norm Coleman. But I am sick and tired of having people in our party who feel embarrassed of and constantly apologize for the principles of Free Markets, Individual Freedom, Limited and Responsible Government, Strong National Defense, and American Values. How can we take the majority back if we have elected officials who feel embarrassed of what our party stands for?
That is the difference between Arlen Specter and Norm Coleman.
April 29th, 2009 at 12:38 pm
Steele is making a large mistake here. the point of dividing people up is to ensure that you get the bigger share – but when you’re saying the “left wing” (and yes, he clearly means that as a negative) starts at Specter, you are telling everyone in the vicinity of Specter to take a hike.
if Arlen Specter is what you consider “left wing,” then i apologize to everyone here who just discovered that they live in a left-wing country, where a pure and angrily exclusive conservative party is going to be in the minority.
April 29th, 2009 at 12:40 pm
7 – Kavon. Fair enough. I think that Specter is generally a hack. But the man had one term left. He’s a feeble old man and a cancer survivor. Given that we only had 41 (now 40) seats, couldn’t we have waited for him to just go away, rather than try to push him out at the last minute? What an utterly pointless exercise.
April 29th, 2009 at 12:42 pm
What did you expect Steele to say. “We’re soooo sorry to see you go. Pwwease come back Specter-wecter, snookiekums”? I mean, honestly. Even if you view the Specter defection as a disaster, surely the only appropriate response, at this point, is to paint him as a political opportunist, with no convictions.
April 29th, 2009 at 12:46 pm
This is gibberish, as is Sen. Snowe’s editorial in the NYT. In it, she quotes Ronald Reagan and says “We should emphasize the things that unite us and make these the only ‘litmus test’ of what constitutes a Republican: our belief in restraining government spending, pro-growth policies, tax reduction, sound national defense, and maximum individual liberty.”
The problem with Senator Specter and our Senators from Maine is that they are not even following the principle above which she is quoting from! All 3 voted for TARP (which no good republican should have…although most did, God help us) and then they again voted for a stimulus package that will indebt our country for generations!! This is not abortion where many of us have different points of view…I understand the big tent, however, this is a vote on the heart of Republican economic principles!!!
Senator Specter could have been the hero of the Republican party and won a landslide in the nomination process (as well as the general election) if he voted against the stimulus package. However, he didn’t. He was probably calculating the political ramifications of the vote in the general election (vs. taking a principle stand). The problem is his calculations were wrong as we are now seeing in the generic congressional ballot.
This is in stark contrast to Joe Liebermann. Joe took a principle stand on Iraq (which he was right about) and did what he needed to do to fight his way back to win the Senate seat. He ran as an independent and the Republicans helped him get reelected as they appreciated his stand. If Senator Specter is so loved by the Democrats for his vote, he could have done the exact same thing this time around. However, Senator Specter seems to care about his future more than his party OR country.
Do I want to the Sentors from Maine to leave…no…but I do want them to rallying around a consistent Republican economic agenda (even if we cannot agree on the moral agenda). Senator Snowe asks seems to ask for the very same thing in her op-ed piece in the NYT…What she does not recognize is that the first step is for her to to recognize that her vote on the stimulus package was wrong and goes against the heart of the Republican party.
April 29th, 2009 at 12:47 pm
Alex,
But, why should we wait? If Specter’s as “principled” as he claims, his votes shouldn’t change much except organizationally, which can’t possibly matter when you’re hanging around the 40-41 vote mark. And it’s not like he was siding with us on many of the big cloture votes; in fact, he seems likely to stick by his promise to vote against cloture on card check. Sure, it would have been nicer to beat him in the primary, because this represents at least a temporary PR victory for the Democrats, but I’m struggling to understand the substantive distinction between a 79 year old Democrat who votes with us 40% of the time, and a 79 year old Republican who votes with us 40% of the time. Or do you think we’re likely to get to 50 votes, in the Senate, sometime in the next years, thus making the Specter organizational vote absolutely critical?
April 29th, 2009 at 12:51 pm
12 – First of all, he votes with us 55% of the time.
But — why wait?
How about the organizational aspect of him being the 60th Democratic senator?
How about the fact that it’s a PR coup for the Democrats?
How about the fact that it makes us look like whiny, party-shrinking brats who are conforming that moderates have no place in the party?
How about the fact that it’s a total waste of resources?
April 29th, 2009 at 12:54 pm
Arlen Specter voted for the stimulus because he believed in it. End of story.
April 29th, 2009 at 12:59 pm
Alex,
It’s cute of you to bring up that 55% number. Nevermind, that his lifetime ACU is only 44.47 and his 2008 ACU was only 42, and that it was 40 and 43 in 2007 and 2006 respectively.
The organizational point simply doesn’t matter. Democrats don’t get a special prize for reaching 60. They need to hold all of their senators, on cloture, for it to matter and Specter’s more than intimidating that he doesn’t expect much to change about his major cloture votes. Nelson, Bayh, and various other moderate Democrats certainly aren’t rubber stamps on cloture, for the more extreme elements of the Democratic program. On the important votes, Specter’s likely to be as frustrating (to all party’s_ as ever.
The PR bit, I’ll grant you. But, what resources have we wasted? We’re going to fund Toomey’s campaign probably to no greater extent that we would have funded Specter’s. And there’s no evidence that donations to Toomey are somehow lost donations elsewhere.
April 29th, 2009 at 1:01 pm
False alternative, Matthew. The Club for Growth’s money need not have gone to Specter, but to candidates in Missouri, Florida, Ohio, California, etc.
I mean, seriously — of all the freaking candidates to bother with, we were going to go after Specter? HE was our priority?
April 29th, 2009 at 1:02 pm
Kavon…No Republican believed in the stimulus bill being offered…He believed in “a” stimulus bill…not the one passed….
If this was not political, the least he could have done was negotiated a better bill (Make it $400 billion vs. $800, make it in effect for 1 year vs. multiple years, etc.) He didn’t…
No matter how you cut it, it was a political move, not a principled one… He voted for it becuase he was scared of the general elections…
And even if I grant you this is his true his principles (which I highly doubt), than he should be a Democrat anyway…
April 29th, 2009 at 1:17 pm
Alex,
Do you own the Club for Growth? Apparently, you’re not a member and don’t share its priorities, and yet you feel free to lay claim to its resources. Are organizations that share some Republican priorities allowed to have goals of their own or are they required to follow Alex Knepper, grand strategist, in his quest to turn the Republican Party into a beautiful soup of pragmatism- with lots of salt, and don’t forget the bullion. It’s kinda similar to the Republican voters of Pennsylvania I guess; they get to vote once, and after that, they should simply submit unthinkingly to the party hierarchy, for all eternity. Heck, if these characters want to promote their own agenda, they ought to get an organization or identity of their own. Or something. Don’t tread on the collective.
April 29th, 2009 at 1:17 pm
Kavon makes an excellent point.
I do not understand why all of these socially moderate Republicans are getting lumped together???
In a previous post I attemtped to explain the feelings of libertarian leaning Republicans, like Colemen, but no one seems to care or listen. It seems as if most people divide Republicans by their stances on social issues, not economic.
http://race42008.com/2009/04/26/excuse-me-its-their-party-as-well/
April 29th, 2009 at 1:20 pm
Words have consequences. I don’t think that conservatives should use the term ‘purge’.
With Rasmuusen claiming that the the Generic Congressional ballot stands now at 41-38 for the GOP why is there all this negative talk. The next election is not till 2010 and it is a mid-term election and NOT a general election.
I’m not claiming now that the GOP will make significant gains in the House and/or Senate in 2010 but it’s not looking terrible either.
Let’s resolve to ignore the MSM’s take on anything to do with the GOP. After all we conservatives do have an independent brain and can interpret current events and snd witness the emerging issues and scene through the unfiltered lens of our own eyes. We don’t need pundits to tell us how to think.
April 29th, 2009 at 1:24 pm
The Party didn’t kick Specter out, he left. Yes, of course he left because the political situation was right for him to leave, but the party doesn’t control the political situation it has to work with it. I don’t really no what you think the party should have done to keep Specter. I agree with you that Steele shouldn’t have called Specter, Benedict Arnold, as the party is not owed loyalty, its not right to confuse betraying the party with betraying the country. However, beyond that I don’t know what you think the party should have done. The cards are stacked against you and there not a thing you can do about it – and that’s pragmatism.
April 29th, 2009 at 1:26 pm
I’ll say, for the record, that if I were a member of the Club for Growth, knocking Specter off wouldn’t be my first priority. But, then, I’m not primarily interested in purifying Republican ranks of fiscal moderates/liberals. I’m not a member of the Club for Growth. Maybe those two points are related. If I was upset enough that the Club for Growth, instead of following Republicans off whatever cliff they get themselves on, had its own agenda, I would form my own organization; maybe the Club for Promoting Hackery, Ideological Mushiness, and the Party Line Lenin style. Since I’m not, I just about my business, and promote my own agenda. Autonomous individuals and groups are funny that way.
April 29th, 2009 at 1:29 pm
So much for Pawlenty being a defender of freedom:
http://finance.yahoo.com/news/Novel-effort-in-Minnesota-apf-15071832.html?.v=2
April 29th, 2009 at 1:34 pm
Heavens! Poor Arlen certainly can’t have deserved the ire of his partisan constituents. And isn’t it a life-long social contract that once you’re elected, the office is yours until you tire of it?
Get serious! Specter has been wooed by the Dems, as reports have it, for several years now. He got the deal that best matched his ambitions and took it.
I’d much prefer congressmen with enough principle and scruples simply to retire when they’ve served long enough, such as Domenici or Warner, say.
Besides, if you’re so concerned that poor Arlen didn’t receive enough kudos for his near 30 years of service, you can take comfort in the fact that there are plenty of public roads and buildings throughout PA named for him. (Public monuments to living, office-holding politicians disgust me — they’re overt billboards permanently advertising them for reelection.)
Why can’t you acknowledge that Specter’s choice (!) here helps the conservative cause more over the medium-to-long term — if the party plays it right. The administration and majority party can no longer select between the two postures they’ve selected since the election: If a rogue Repub sides with us, it shows we’re bipartisan. If no Repub backs us, they’re obstructionists from the Party of No.
Good grief, you’d almost conclude the world must be coming to an end.
April 29th, 2009 at 1:36 pm
23 – Disgusting.
These things don’t exist in a vacuum, of course.
On the presidential level, we should be more strict. Pawlenty’s just gone down my list.
April 29th, 2009 at 1:40 pm
Besides, if you’re so concerned that poor Arlen didn’t receive enough kudos for his near 30 years of service,
I’m not. I’m just saying that Steele didn’t do it.
April 29th, 2009 at 1:41 pm
Alex,
I’ve never seen Pawlenty on your list. Curiously enough you, Mr. Pragmatist, don’t seem to ever have any…pragmatists on your lists. Oh, pragmatists and moderates are good enough for everyone else…Pennsylvania should be annexed if they dare to question Arlen Specter. But, on the national level, where it really counts, and where you get to vote, pragmatists are disallowed. Don’t you understand: the nation doesn’t like FREEDOM anymore. The climate has changed. We need to elect the sort of Republicans that can sell, and take what we can get. And anyone who says different should go sit on a pot of boiling potatoes.
April 29th, 2009 at 1:44 pm
Are you kidding?
I supported McCain wholeheartedly, even though I think his economic views and social views are crap.
I’d still vote for Pawlenty if he became the nominee.
April 29th, 2009 at 1:46 pm
Did it ever occur to you that polls which show that nearly 40% of Americans openly prefer socialism, and polls which show that Democrats are preferred on a whole host of policy issues, are a fairly good a reason to support a national “shift” to the left? I mean, if we’re going on the theory that Pennsylvania, and Maine, and every other state under the sun should elect pragmatists and moderates, because that’s what their region wants, then shouldn’t we elect…I don’t know, mild fiscal liberals at the national level, because that’s what the region of the US wants? Why is that not pragmatic?
April 29th, 2009 at 1:47 pm
I’m no-compromise on national security, and I can afford to be, because the entire party seems to agree on that.
Domestic policy, I’m willing to give a bit on. Economic or social. George W. Bush, John McCain — I supported pro-life, anti-gay marriage, government-expanding candidates. I have. C’mon.
April 29th, 2009 at 1:49 pm
Did it ever occur to you that polls which show that nearly 40% of Americans openly prefer socialism, and polls which show that Democrats are preferred on a whole host of policy issues, are a fairly good a reason to support a national “shift” to the left? I mean, if we’re going on the theory that Pennsylvania, and Maine, and every other state under the sun should elect pragmatists and moderates, because that’s what their region wants, then shouldn’t we elect…I don’t know, mild fiscal liberals at the national level, because that’s what the region of the US wants? Why is that not pragmatic?
HELLO? SPECTER IS A FISCAL LIBERAL AND I SUPPORTED HIM OVER TOOMEY. Think!!!!
April 29th, 2009 at 1:52 pm
Alex,
I’m not talking about in a general election. Most of the folks who preferred Toomey to Specter, would have held their noses had Specter won the primary. But, where is your calculation, at the national level, that is equivalent to your calculation for Pennsylvanians? Why are Pennsylvanian Republicans insane for preferring a candidate that comes much closer to their priorities, but you’re allowed to “knock” Pawlenty down your list, because he deviates on a vague and obscure policy issue, which couldn’t possibly affect you? Is Pawlenty further away from the Republican mainstream, than is Specter? Shouldn’t you just say, “well, yes, Pawlenty deviates here, and here, and here, but really his blue-state background, his ability to appeal to evangelicals without turning into a preacher, and his ability to appeal to the rural and urban blue-collar whites Obama struggled with, make up for that…and make him a clear pragmatic choice”. But, no in the primary, YOU can vote your conscience, while Pennsylvanian Republicans must vote for a “pragmatist” who’d change his party without blinking.
April 29th, 2009 at 1:56 pm
Because the calculus for the national level is different than at a regional level. Maine moderates will never become national leaders. They’re a “best we can get” type of deal. We don’t have to play that game at the national level. The best we can get is actually very conservative, so long as he plays his cards right.
Your hagiography of Pawlenty is not one that I necessarily subscribe to, by the way, so check your premises.
April 29th, 2009 at 1:56 pm
Alex,
Sure, you supported him. You’re not from Pennsylvania and you can always council yourself that, when it really matters at the Presidential level, you’ll be free to give Republicans who don’t meet your purity standards demerits. Pennsylvanians are unreasonable for preferring someone other than Specter, when he votes for maybe the biggest fiscal monstrosity in the history of the Republic, but you’re perfectly reasonable preferring someone other than Pawlenty because he…supports tracking IP addresses to sites already banned…or something? Tricky, this pragmatism.
April 29th, 2009 at 2:01 pm
34 – Oh, stop it. I’m not ruling out supporting Pawlenty if he emerges as the alternative to the Big 3. I’d support Pawlenty for governor enthusiastically if I were from Minnesota.
April 29th, 2009 at 2:04 pm
Alex,
“Because the calculus for the national level is different than at a regional level. Maine moderates will never become national leaders. They’re a “best we can get” type of deal. We don’t have to play that game at the national level. The best we can get is actually very conservative, so long as he plays his cards right.
Your hagiography of Pawlenty is not one that I necessarily subscribe to, by the way, so check your premises.”
But, there are plenty of good arguments that we CAN’T get someone terribly conservative at the national level, using many of the same premises you use to dismiss conservatives for various statewide offices. Americans now express alarming levels of support for programs that can only be termed unabashedly liberal; they’ve barely blinked at the prospect of trillion dollar deficits as far as the eye can see. They’ve apparently surrendered their opposition to universal health care. They’ve abandoned their reflexive Cold War fears of socialism. They have no taste, whatever, for interventionism in the war on terror and view both Iraq and Afghanistan as mistakes. They’re yawning at gay marriage, and drug legalization at state levels; they aren’t too excited by the prospect of state ownership of newspapers; or the unions owning over 50% of auto-companies. What cards do we have, and where did we get them? You pilfered them from that little girl playing Go Fish with her grandmother, didn’t you? Don’t lie. This fiction that nationally, Americans are still receptive to conservatism, while they aren’t at the state level, is simply a fiction. And you don’t need to subscribe to my so-called Pawlenty hagiography to notice that. We need to, starting now, and one state at a time, start converting the regions of the country who’ve had conservative impulses in the past, back to a vision of sensible conservatism. Because we’re not going to get there, as a nation, by pretending that there’s some sort of iron-divider between national and state trends.
April 29th, 2009 at 2:04 pm
Alex,
Aren’t you the guy who won’t vote for Palin or Romney and will vote for Obama if Huck is the GOP nominee? You’ve got some nerve lecturing people (the PA GOP) about taking a hard line on certain candidates/issues.
April 29th, 2009 at 2:09 pm
mac,
Somehow, I’d temporarily forgotten Alex’s position vis-a-vis Romney and Huck. Amazing. I’d vote for nearly any clown the GOP put up at the national level, and yet I’m somehow a hardliner for insisting that 40% conservatives are as useful (or useless) as Democrats as they were as Republicans. But, if you refuse to vote for two guy’s who’ve opposed the majority of Obama’s big government initiatives, because they just personally offend you in some way, you’re just being principled.
April 29th, 2009 at 2:09 pm
Haha mac, we are all hardline at some point.
April 29th, 2009 at 2:10 pm
Alex, the Dems just passed a $3.4 Trillion dollar budget today that will probably allow Obama to push through universal health care…and we are talking about a self-serving Arlen Specter’s being “pushed out of the big tent”…come on…get over it…he left over his own political ambitions…PERIOD
Right now we are now handing over the keys of capitalism and turning our country to socialism. Plus we are about to give our children even more debt with a nice bow on top…If Specter could not stand up for what is right, let’s turn to those who can…
AND IF YOU ARE A REPUBLICAN AND THIS DOES NOT PISS YOU OFF, I AM NOT SURE WHAT WILL…
Really, let’s focus on what is going on before we let the Dems destroy what country we have left….
April 29th, 2009 at 2:14 pm
“Right now we are now handing over the keys of capitalism and turning our country to socialism.” This would have made the FiCons angry 10 or 15 years ago, but now, some of them are willing to tolerate Socialism as long as it is their Socialism.
April 29th, 2009 at 2:20 pm
But, there are plenty of good arguments that we CAN’T get someone terribly conservative at the national level, using many of the same premises you use to dismiss conservatives for various statewide offices. Americans now express alarming levels of support for programs that can only be termed unabashedly liberal; they’ve barely blinked at the prospect of trillion dollar deficits as far as the eye can see. They’ve apparently surrendered their opposition to universal health care. They’ve abandoned their reflexive Cold War fears of socialism. They have no taste, whatever, for interventionism in the war on terror and view both Iraq and Afghanistan as mistakes. They’re yawning at gay marriage, and drug legalization at state levels; they aren’t too excited by the prospect of state ownership of newspapers; or the unions owning over 50% of auto-companies. What cards do we have, and where did we get them? You pilfered them from that little girl playing Go Fish with her grandmother, didn’t you? Don’t lie. This fiction that nationally, Americans are still receptive to conservatism, while they aren’t at the state level, is simply a fiction. And you don’t need to subscribe to my so-called Pawlenty hagiography to notice that. We need to, starting now, and one state at a time, start converting the regions of the country who’ve had conservative impulses in the past, back to a vision of sensible conservatism. Because we’re not going to get there, as a nation, by pretending that there’s some sort of iron-divider between national and state trends.
Well, gosh, we might as well just give up, then.
Yes, we should try to persuade. National candidates have that leverage. State candidates really don’t.
April 29th, 2009 at 2:21 pm
38 – I’d vote for Huck in Arkansas.
40 – Of COURSE it pisses me off. But it would piss me off MORE to have a DEMOCRAT in office as a sycophant to President Obama who ALSO would support, uncritically, every OTHER part of his agenda…I’d rather have Specter than another Casey!
April 29th, 2009 at 2:26 pm
Amen Cincinnati!!
April 29th, 2009 at 2:26 pm
mac, I’ve been thinking the same thing. Alex is not pragmatic with regards to the three leading GOP contenders.
April 29th, 2009 at 2:28 pm
Alex you should follow the clown Specter and please take with you all the others trolls.
April 29th, 2009 at 2:30 pm
“Of COURSE it pisses me off. But it would piss me off MORE to have a DEMOCRAT in office as a sycophant to President Obama who ALSO would support, uncritically, every OTHER part of his agenda…I’d rather have Specter than another Casey!”
It’s kinda funny, but if the country is gonna be destroyed I would rather that it were the dems who destroy our country than the GOP.
April 29th, 2009 at 2:34 pm
Alex,
Say what? Doesn’t it seem likely that, with all the attention Specter has received, his race against Toomey will be front and center come next November? Mightn’t Toomey have an opportunity to make a few arguments before a national audience then? I don’t favor the sort of pragmatism you advocate- where every place that’s not keen on conservatives, RIGHT NOW, should just be abandoned to moderates- because I think coalitions are built, not by Presidential candidates, but by an organized and grounded movement acting in places where a conservative message might be recognizable. You’re not going to get anywhere by running moderates in states that could plausibly be center’s of a future majority (Penn, Florida, Ohio, etc), and then just hoping that a miracle national candidate converts everyone away from the moderation you’ve just encouraged them to adopt. Moderates in Maine, Rhode Island, Vermont, Massachusetts…fine. In no conceivable universe do those states make up anything but a 400+ electoral vote for a conservative coalition. But, in places where conservatism might reasonably gain a foothold, you need to start constructing the building, one brick at a time, and with every candidate and organization available to you. Miracle National Candidate X doesn’t have the capacity.
April 29th, 2009 at 2:44 pm
“Alex you should follow the clown Specter and please take with you all the others trolls.” Alex himself is not a troll, he just is on the same side as the trolls.
April 29th, 2009 at 3:02 pm
You know what. One silver lining out of all of this is that if Toomey can at least keep it close in Pennsylvania, say a 10 point race or less, at least we’ll be able to say that with the right message and at the right time a conservative CAN STILL WIN in the Keystone state.
In 2006, the waters were muddied in the senate race because Santorum and Dim Bulb Casey were both supposedly “pro-life”. Now, this year, there will be a clear delineation. Obama won’t be at the top of the ticket and it is reasonable to assume that conservatives will be just as energized as liberals in the state.
The seat is already gone now – so it will be interesting to sit back and see just how close a down-the-line conservative can get in the state.
April 29th, 2009 at 3:03 pm
If it’s a 20-point blowout or more, our party is in trouble in Pennsylvania.
April 29th, 2009 at 3:04 pm
“If it’s a 20-point blowout or more, our party is in trouble in Pennsylvania.” Agreed. Than I will concede that PA is true Blue instead of Purple Blue.
April 29th, 2009 at 3:07 pm
I want to see some polling between Specter and Toomey in a general election matchup.
April 29th, 2009 at 3:07 pm
A Path Not to Take
By Ramesh Ponnuru
http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=Y2JkNWVlZjY4MzU1NWQzMWI5NDNjMmIwOWFjZjdlNzg=
Former Republican congressman Tom Davis says that following Specter’s defection Republicans “must focus on the broad principles that made our party strong: limited government, free trade, free markets and a strong defense. That’s it. Believe anything else you want, but don’t make those beliefs a litmus test for admission.” As a reaction to the Specter news, this makes no sense. If free trade were a litmus test, Specter would have been booted out long ago—Max Baucus is a better free trader than he is (based on the Cato Institute’s vote scores). And while I yield to very few people in the strength of my support for free trade, it isn’t an issue that has made the GOP strong. In 2006, national-security issues hurt Republicans badly; in 2008, economic ones did. It takes a certain single-mindedness to conclude that social issues are therefore the problem.
But Rep. Davis is not alone. Senator Olympia Snowe writes that “it was when we began to emphasize social issues to the detriment of some of our basic tenets as a party that we encountered an electoral backlash.” Really? Abortion, marriage, and the courts were much bigger issues in 2002 and 2004 than in 2006 and 2008. Like Davis, she says she wants Republicans to concentrate on restraining government spending. Apart from everything else that might be said about this prescription, didn’t Snowe just vote for the stimulus bill a few weeks ago?
April 29th, 2009 at 3:09 pm
In no conceivable universe do those states make up anything but a 400+ electoral vote for a conservative coalition. But, in places where conservatism might reasonably gain a foothold, you need to start constructing the building, one brick at a time, and with every candidate and organization available to you. Miracle National Candidate X doesn’t have the capacity.
Actually, most presidential elections are won in blowouts.
Only the Bush elections were highly polarized.
Most others have been pretty decisive, with the exception of 1976, which had weird circumstances.
Bush I, Reagan, Nixon — they all won in blowouts. Why can’t one of our future candidates?
April 29th, 2009 at 3:10 pm
Free trade is killing us in the rust belt. I’m not talking about the merits of whether or not it’s good overall policy. Politically, free trade is killing the GOP from PA to OH, MI and now even IN.
April 29th, 2009 at 3:16 pm
Adam,
Support for Free Trade Recovers Despite Recession
http://people-press.org/report/511/free-trade-support-recovers
“Despite the economic recession, public support for free trade agreements has recovered after declining a year ago. Currently, 44% say that free trade agreements like NAFTA and the policies of the World Trade Organization are good for the country, up from 35% a year ago. Slightly more than a third (35%) say that such agreements and policies are bad for the country, down from 48% in April 2008….
The public expresses more support for unspecified free trade agreements with other countries than it does for free trade agreements “like NAFTA and the policies of the World Trade Organization.” While most respondents were asked a question that mentioned these specific agreements and policies, a smaller group was asked their opinion of “free trade agreements between the U.S. and other countries;” 52% say such agreements are a good thing for the United States while 14% say they are a bad thing; 14% offer no opinion.”
April 29th, 2009 at 3:17 pm
Well, he said in the Rust Belt, not overall, Tommy Boy.
He’s right.
However, free trade is so fundamental to growth and to the world economy now that it’s a no-compromise issue. No protectionists.
April 29th, 2009 at 3:18 pm
Before Matthew asks me why I didn’t support Toomey over free trade, I’ll say that it’s because I take what I can get, where I can get it.
At a presidential level: no protectionists.
April 29th, 2009 at 3:20 pm
Tommy Boy,
44 to 35 is not an overwhelming vote of confidence. And even those national numbers are not shared everywhere. It’s hard to see how free trade doesn’t benefit Texas in the short and long-term. The sentiments are just not the same along the Great Lakes where factories have been closing left and right over the past couple of decades.
I am of the opinion that free trade does more good than harm, but that sentiment is not shared by a majority in OH, PA, MI.
April 29th, 2009 at 3:25 pm
Alex,
“Why can’t one of our future candidates?”
My point was, if Maine is voting for a Republican, it’s precisely because we’re heading towards a blowout. Maine will never be the 270th electoral vote, so it doesn’t bother me that we’re electing moderates there. If those folks want to come along for the ride, in some future where the GOP has regained majority party status, they’re more than welcome. But, while we’re rebuilding, I’d like it if we could start converting states, that might plausibly be that 270th electoral vote, into something resembling conservatism. Moderates in Maine, because Maine will never be conservative. Conservatives in Pennsylvania because, until Pennsylvania is something like conservative, the COUNTRY will never be conservative. And if you look at Democratic senators, you see almost exactly this dynamic. With the exception of Nelson in Florida, you don’t see any genuinely moderate Democrats in swing states. Casey’s a hardcore lib on all but 3 issues. Tester and McCaskill have ACU’s under 20. Webb has an ACU under 10. Etc.
April 29th, 2009 at 3:27 pm
This could either be a wake up call or an obituary for the GOP: embrace
centrists or hurry up and die so that the Democratic coalition can realize
it is as messy as the Republican coalition – leading to a split into two
major parties. There are only two times in American history when one party
rule was viable – the few months after Washington was elected (and then not
for long) and the Era of Good Feelings.
April 29th, 2009 at 3:31 pm
My point was, if Maine is voting for a Republican, it’s precisely because we’re heading towards a blowout. Maine will never be the 270th electoral vote, so it doesn’t bother me that we’re electing moderates there. If those folks want to come along for the ride, in some future where the GOP has regained majority party status, they’re more than welcome. But, while we’re rebuilding, I’d like it if we could start converting states, that might plausibly be that 270th electoral vote, into something resembling conservatism. Moderates in Maine, because Maine will never be conservative. Conservatives in Pennsylvania because, until Pennsylvania is something like conservative, the COUNTRY will never be conservative. And if you look at Democratic senators, you see almost exactly this dynamic. With the exception of Nelson in Florida, you don’t see any genuinely moderate Democrats in swing states. Casey’s a hardcore lib on all but 3 issues. Tester and McCaskill have ACU’s under 20. Webb has an ACU under 10. Etc.
But a blowout is a sign of a viable majority party. One of the awful parts of the Bush polarization was the fact that he wasn’t even a Reagan-style conservative that we were forcing through: he was a mediocre candidate that we had to force through and piss off half of the country with.
We can get much better than Specter in PA. You’re right. I think we can get a McCain type in Pennsylvania. But I reeeeally think we could have waited until 2014 to do that, for PR reasons and for practical ones. Specter had one more term in him.
April 29th, 2009 at 3:31 pm
Yes, but what if you can only get “fair trade” at the national level? What if we simply can’t win majorities anymore without the rust belt, and the rust belt simply refuses to vote for true free traders? Why aren’t you “taking what you can get, where you can get it” there? You just refuse to extend any of your principles to their logical conclusion. If certain states simply won’t accept particular policies, it follows that the country might not accept certain policies. But, when one of those policies is a policy you hold dear you insist that, somehow, we’ll convert them without compromising, or that it’s ok to lose rather than compromise. Yet, it’s simply impossible for you to envision a state that is a whole three points bluer than the country as a whole, being converted on anything, to the point where Arlen Specter is simply the best we can do. It’s just incoherent.
April 29th, 2009 at 3:34 pm
Anyway, I’m going to take a bike ride. Back later.
April 29th, 2009 at 4:10 pm
An Alternative View: Still Room For Moderate GOP Views In The Northeast
http://politics.theatlantic.com/2009/04/an_alternative_view_still_room_for_moderate_gop_views_in_the_northeast.php
“There’s a strong distinction between opportunistic moderates and conservatives who have moderate stances on some issues. Rudy is the latter — he is conservative on issues that matter to those in the northeast — law and order, foreign policy, taxes. You’re not going to get a candidate who’s a single-issue pro-life anti-gay marriage candidate in the northeast and expect him to be a winner. It’s not because they’re moderates up there. It’s because they just don’t much care about those issues.”
April 29th, 2009 at 4:44 pm
Alex,
“How about the fact that it makes us look like whiny, party-shrinking brats ”
You know, there was a time (before you were born) when that was called “having principles.”
April 29th, 2009 at 4:53 pm
67 – It’s also called “being a loser.”
April 29th, 2009 at 4:56 pm
Orrin Hatch: Toomey has no shot in Pennsylvania
http://dyn.politico.com/printstory.cfm?uuid=F2A56248-18FE-70B2-A8ECA08F25BCAA87
April 29th, 2009 at 5:19 pm
Specter’s Switcheroo and America’s Lurch to the Left
by Larry Kudlow
What Specter Means in the Senate
by Michael Franc
Arlen Specter’s Switch
The Washington Post asked politicians, strategists and political observers for their first thoughts on Sen. Arlen Specter’s decision to join the Democratic Party. Below are contributions from Newt Gingrich, Olympia Snowe, William Cohen, Lincoln Chafee, Kiki McLean, Tom Davis, Douglas Schoen, Ed Rogers, Jim Leach and Mary Beth Cahill.
Right-Wing College Group Riles Students on Campuses Nationwide
A student group that bills itself as “America’s right wing youth movement” focused on countering radical multiculturism, socialism and mass immigration is causing a stir on a growing number of college campuses across the country.
What Canadians think of Sikhs, Jews, Christians, Muslims . . .
Invidious Statistics
How focusing on race can make a solution look like a problem.
Montana Fires a Warning Shot over States’ Rights
Montana is trying to trigger a battle over gun control – and perhaps make a larger point about what many folks in this ruggedly independent state regard as a meddlesome federal government. In a bill passed by the Legislature earlier this month, the state is asserting that guns manufactured in Montana and sold in Montana to people who intend to keep their weapons in Montana are exempt from federal gun registration, background check and dealer-licensing rules because no state lines are crossed. That notion is all but certain to be tested in court.
Florida Senate approves religious license plates
So long to Jesus plate, part 1
Jesus License Plate Has Died for Your Sins, and No, a Brotha Can’t Get a Plate
A ‘brotha’ can get a plate, Senate says, then says no
If We’re Gonna Put Jesus on a License Plate, Can He At Least Look Happy to Be There?
April 29th, 2009 at 5:20 pm
Alex,
So what do you think the Republican Party should stand for, and do you think that those who reject the party’s core principles should be allowed to have lifetime seats and never be challanged?
Are political parties just like baseball teams? Where you can be a White Sox fan, or a Cubs fan, but at the end of the day, there is really no difference because who you root for is at its base, arbitrary? Your desire to effectively create a Party Without Principle makes being a part of one group or the other just as arbitrary.
Is there ANYTHING a sitting Senator could do that would make you think he shouldn’t be a Republican?
April 29th, 2009 at 5:28 pm
Since we’re posting a bunch of links, here’s Mitt’s latest take on the stupid auto bailout situation:
http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=YjUxYzZjNWYzYzM4OTdiZTU2Y2Y0NzEwNjlmNzFhNmU=
April 29th, 2009 at 5:33 pm
Rendell: Specter Will Probably Run Unopposed In 2010 Dem Primary
April 29th, 2009 at 5:39 pm
Dems and GOPers Treat Their Mods Differently
by Marc Ambinder
http://politics.theatlantic.com/2009/04/dems_and_gopers_treat_their_mods_differently.php
April 29th, 2009 at 5:46 pm
Rudy Responds to Specter Switching Parties
This is a rush transcript from “Your World With Neil Cavuto,” April 28, 2009.
April 29th, 2009 at 9:09 pm
This is exactly why moderates are leaving the Republican party. The fact that the conservative wing of the party basically vetoes their attempts to become leaders leaves them with no choice but to defect if they want to continue to advance their own policy ideas. It’s not like moderates don’t care deeply about issues – it’s just that their favored solutions don’t fit well with either the (D) or (R) platforms. They’ll go to whichever side gives them (and their ideas) the most influence or the biggest audience. Why is this so hard to understand?