Alex makes the same old case.  He writes:

Specter is not a partisan conservative; he is not dedicated to any particular movement. He is a true centrist interested in advancing a consensus agenda. He has usually leaned more toward the Republicans than the Democrats, and thus properly belongs in the Republican Party. He is not a party man, though, and doesn’t feel especially out of place siding with Democrats. Being neither a conservative nor a strong Republican, it begs the question: how could he betray what he was never committed to?

This is just inexplicable.  Specter is a “true centrist interested in advancing a consensus agenda”?  Really?  I’d look at Jonathan Chait’s piece in TNR.  Specter’s “consistency” over the years reveals him to be, in Chait’s words, an opportunistic hack.  Nor do I understand Alex’s point about betrayal.  Specter may not have been a conservative or a strong Republican, but he sure played one when Toomey primaried him in 2004, and every Republican establishment figure in creation saved his behind.  So he swears up and down, to Republican Pennsylvanians, that he’s one of them, and adheres to the principles of Ronald Reagan (watch the videos of the that campaign)…and 4 years later he becomes a Democrat.  And yet this isn’t a betrayal, according to Alex’s logic.  Loyalty is awfully strange.  Later, he writes:

And it’s why it’s absurd to declare Specter a “traitor” of any sort. Aren’t we the ones constantly saying that we’re conservatives first and Republicans second? Why is Specter not allowed to be a centrist first and a Republican — or Democrat — second? If the party doesn’t want him, why should he stay?

Does Alex expect us burn Specter at the stake?  This isn’t Salem.  Specter is certainly allowed to a centrist first, and a Republican second.  But, it would help of course, if he’d told us that in the first place, instead of declaring ad nauseam, over the last decade, that he was a genuine and committed Republican.  Next time someone gets elected on the Republican line and says “hey guys, I’m really just trying to spread my flowery centrism and I’m just using you guys, since you’re in the ascendancy” then I’ll watch passively when he defects.  Until then, I reserve the right to call a spade a spade and I refuse, absolutely refuse, to rewrite the definition of a word to fit my political agenda.  Specter betrayed Republicans who elected him, with the understanding that he would remain a Republican.  No other explanation fits the action. Alex continues:

The party must stop whining about Specter, because it won’t do us any good in winning Specter types — which we need — back. Stop this ‘traitor’ talk, and start with the values talk.

Let’s take aim at liberal Democrats first. It’s something that we all — yes, including moderates like Specter — can agree on. Specter left because he consistently found himself, rather than liberal Democrats, the target of conservative ire.

We now live in a political era in which the Republican Party is more interested in purifying its own ranks than taking down leftists. In what kind of warped world is Arlen Specter a larger enemy than Jean Carnahan or Ted Strickland? Not a world in which the Republican Party is the majority.

This is the most bizarre bit yet.  We’re supposed to “talk values”, apparently.  But, of course we musn’t talk them too loudly, because then we might give someone, anyone, the idea that they don’t fit into our political tent.  This is the incoherency of most of the reformist wing of the GOP.  On the one hand, they’re upset because we’re forming “circular firing squads”.  On the other hand, they insist that we need to focus on principle and values.  There’s no mention, of course, that we’re forming circular firing squads because we’ve finally started to talk values.  I’d rather not make this into a false dicotomy, but I’ll point out that the last band of Republicans, the Bush Republicans, spent an awful lot of time being inclusive and avoiding circular firing squads, and not very much time at all talking values (see the campaigns to save Specter, Chaffee, Burns, etc, etc, etc).  Or they talked values that could encompass the whole universe, because they were happy to have a tent without bounds.  Funny thing about a boundless tent; it’s easy to get lost.  I suspect that this is what Alex and co. have in mind, even if they’re rather shy about citing their most obvious ally: George W. Bush.

-

Matthew E. Miller can be contacted at Obilisk18@yahoo.com

The cries of treachery and betrayal have hit a fever pitch. Kavon has bizarrely declared Justice Souter’s decision to resign during a time when a president bound to replace him with a justice of similar legal sentiments to be akin to the treason of Benedict Arnold. In this, he’s echoing Michael Steele, who declared similar thoughts about Arlen Specter.

There is some utility in a party chairman asserting such a case: although Steele’s words were, in my judgment, over-the-top, he had little choice but to declare Specter a turncoat and a political opportunist. Certainly it is not the job of a party chairman to engage in public, dispassionate analysis with the party base. Perhaps Kavon, at times like these, views himself as fulfilling a similar role.

A problem arises, though, when political strategists and commentators actually buy into their own rhetoric. Quite simply, a political world in which virtue, loyalty, and the pursuit of pure principle over self-interest is an utter fantasy. Of course Specter is an opportunist. Of course he’s self-interested. Our question as tacticians is not to rage at him for not giving us our way, but to ask: how can we make his self-interest work for us?

Specter is not a partisan conservative; he is not dedicated to any particular movement. He is a true centrist interested in advancing a consensus agenda. He has usually leaned more toward the Republicans than the Democrats, and thus properly belongs in the Republican Party. He is not a party man, though, and doesn’t feel especially out of place siding with Democrats. Being neither a conservative nor a strong Republican, it begs the question: how could he betray what he was never committed to?

Let’s step out of the world we’d like to exist and into the world that does: majority parties are not made up solely of committed conservatives. As Newt Gingrich himself has noted, majorities are by their very nature messy, as it is difficult to get half of a delegation to agree to an entire agenda. Defectors here and there are inevitable; some will defect more than others.

Such people are needed in majorities, however. If we’re actually interested in being a majority party again — which we ought to be, given that we’d like to advance the conservative cause — it would behoove us to shoot the opponent, rather than our feet. People who sign up for the Republican Party are not necessarily signing up to be agents of the conservative agenda. It’s about coalitions. And it’s why it’s absurd to declare Specter a “traitor” of any sort. Aren’t we the ones constantly saying that we’re conservatives first and Republicans second? Why is Specter not allowed to be a centrist first and a Republican — or Democrat — second? If the party doesn’t want him, why should he stay?

The party must stop whining about Specter, because it won’t do us any good in winning Specter types — which we need — back. Stop this ‘traitor’ talk, and start with the values talk.

Let’s take aim at liberal Democrats first. It’s something that we all — yes, including moderates like Specter — can agree on. Specter left because he consistently found himself, rather than liberal Democrats, the target of conservative ire.

We now live in a political era in which the Republican Party is more interested in purifying its own ranks than taking down leftists. In what kind of warped world is Arlen Specter a larger enemy than Jean Carnahan or Ted Strickland? Not a world in which the Republican Party is the majority.

Try not to think about it too much. It becomes very depressing.

The guys from American Chopper are visiting Alaska to help commemorate the 50th anniversary of Statehood (of course, they are building a bike). 

I cannot wait for Palin to campaign in small, intimate States during the 2011-2012 primary.  No one can match her retail politics!

______________________________________________________________

Kristofer Lorelli can be contacted at lorville@rogers.com, on Facebook and twitter/Kris_Lorelli.

Monmouth University/Gannett New Jersey Gubernatorial Survey

General Election

• Chris Christie 39%
• Jon Corzine 35%

 

• Jon Corzine 37%
• Steve Lonegan 33%

Do you approve or disapprove of the job Jon Corzine is doing as governor?

• Approve 40%
• Disapprove 49%

Favorable / Unfavorable (Net)

• Chris Christie 41% / 16% (+25%)
• Steve Lonegan 28% / 10% (+18%)
• Jon Corzine 43% / 47% (-4%)

Survey of 690 registered voters was conducted April 23-27. The margin of error is ±3.7 percentage points. Party ID breakdown: 41% (D), 33% (I), 26% (R). In the 2008 presidential election, the party ID breakdown in New Jersey was 44% (D), 28% (I), 28% (R).

The timing of David Souter’s retirement has really provided me with a certain amount of peace regarding my new found appreciation of the so-called practice of “RINO hunting”, which was prompted by Sen Specter’s defection earlier this week.

David Souter was the recipient of the highest honor that an American political movement can bestow: a supreme court nomination. Implicit in this unparalleled honor is the understanding that with its acceptance, you are the final line of defense of the values and principles of that movement. And in the case of a Republican appointment, that you are one of the nine people in all of the United States that are charged with the ensuring the survival of the Classical Liberal ideals which have propelled Western Civilization to the apex of human accomplishment.

With his decision to delay his retirement until a Democratic President could appoint his successor, David Souter joins the pantheon of the greatest scoundrels and traitors in all of American History. Arnold…. Burr… And now, Souter.

And for what reason would David Souter commit such a treacherous act? Because a Republican President would have appoint a Justice who would have interpreted the meaning of the Constitution to be as it was intended by its authors, or is explicitly stated in its words.

He did not make the decision to retire now because the Republican Party has moved too far to the Right on social issues. Or due to his desire to see the Republican Party become more receptive to the use of the governmental power to solve the problems of the Middle Class. David Souter did not retire because of the War in Iraq. David Souter retired under a Democratic President because he wanted an activist judge to replace him.

And it is in this misunderstanding of the rationale behind Souter and Specter’s betrayals that the “Big Tenter’s” have it all wrong.

Maintaining a Big Tent is fine as long as the points of disagreement are in the realm of policy. It is fine and healthy to argue over who may have the best conservative solution to health care, or immigration, or education.

But the Big Tent becomes self-defeating when you allow people who have disagreements with the foundational principles of your movement inside, as they will invariably turn on you when you need them the most. I certainly hope that the traitorous acts of Specter and Souter have brought this point home to all Republicans.

For his part, Arlen Specter was strongly supported by the Republican Party for all of his years in the U.S. Senate. From President Bush, to Rick Santorum, to the NRSC, to the national party at large–Arlen Specter’s Senate seat was saved time and again by the Republican Party. But all of the support he received throughout the years was conveniently forgotten when his decision to vote against the wishes of the majority of the members of his own state party permanently estranged him from them.

The bottom line is this: there is room in the Big Tent for officeholders who do not enjoy an ACU rating in the 80′s as long as the variance comes at the policy, not the philosophic, level.The Republican Party needs more Norm Colemans to become the majority party again.

But we can certainly accomplish this without any more Benedict Specters or Aaron Souters.

Former House of Representative and conservative reformer John Kasich, will be announcing that he is running for Governor of Ohio in 2010.  The announcement is expected this evening at the Steubenville Rotary club.

Kasich brings a spotless record of reform and public service to the Governors office.  He was one of the key Republican leaders during the 1994 Republican electoral take-over of Congress.  Some of his many successes include;

*Elected to the House in 1982, defeating a Democratic incumbent and was successfully re-elected to an additional 8 terms before retiring in 2001.

*He was on Bob Dole’s short list for Vice President.

*Kasich assumed the role of Budget Chairman of the House Budget and Welfare Reform Committee’s during the Clinton administration and oversaw a surplus in the Federal Budget (he wrote the Balanced Budget Act of 1997) and welfare (workfare) reform.

Kasich is a powerful speaker and tireless campaigner who appeals to both working and business class voters.  His brings a common-sense approach to his legislation and private sector work.  Kasich will face Democratic Governor Ted Strickland.

You can follow John Kasich on Facebook, Twitter and at JohnKasich.com.

Update – 3:28PM CST;  From Kasich on Twitter, “Filed papers w/Sec. of State today at 3:22pm”

New website launched:  KasichforOhio

______________________________________________________________

Kristofer Lorelli can be contacted at lorville@rogers.com, on Facebook and twitter/Kris_Lorelli.

A recent survey of likely Louisiana voters pegged Bobby Jindal’s approval at 67/30 (+37).  However, the governor also appears to have an Obama-esque superficiality problem:

On specific issues, Jindal’s performance rating falls below 50 percent on K-12 education, highways and roads, and improving health care. He garnered slim majority approval on handling state finances and attracting new industries.

Further, on a question about Jindal’s national ambitions, two-thirds of those polled endorsed the statement that the governor “should stay here … and work on Louisiana’s problems.” Less than a quarter agreed that Jindal’s frequent out-of-state travel is “good for Louisiana’s image.”

The poll also shows mixed results for Sen. Vitter:

Pinsonat said Vitter’s 58 percent job approval rating is solid, given the controversy over his admission of a “very serious sin” in connection with a Washington, D.C., escort service.

But the pollster said Vitter should be particularly aware of opinions among the white voters who dominate Republican primaries. Fewer than 35 percent of white voters said they will definitely vote to re-elect Vitter; 39 percent said they would consider someone else; and 22 percent said they will definitely vote for someone else.

Vitter approaches his first re-election attempt with $2.5 million in his campaign account at the end of March, a total that suggests anything but weakness. A Washington Post political handicapper recently tabbed Vitter’s seat as the 10th most likely to change parties in 2010, but Chris Cilizza noted that state Democrats have yet to rally around a strong candidate.

Another recent poll revealed less encouraging numbers for Gov. Pawlenty:

A Star Tribune Minnesota Poll conducted last week found that 48 percent of the state’s adults approve of the way he’s handling his job, while 36 percent disapprove.

…Pawlenty spokesman Brian McClung responded by e-mail: “In light of the fact that the state leans DFL, the economy is challenged, and we’re in the closing weeks of a tough session, a 12-point advantage for approval over disapproval shows that most Minnesotans support Gov. Pawlenty holding government accountable by controlling spending and keeping a lid on taxes.”

The new ratings are a decline from last September, when 54 percent of Minnesotans gave Pawlenty’s performance a thumbs-up at a time when his national profile had soared as a potential Republican vice-presidential candidate.

Still, as T-Paw’s spokesman noted, a +12 net approval in a light blue state in the heat of a “tough” legislative session addressing contentious issues is nothing to sneeze at.

Given the Democratic Party’s huge majority in the U.S. Senate, conservatives and Republicans cannot prevent President Barack Obama from appointing a replacement for the retiring Justice David Souter that will echo the Left’s unconstitutional judicial philosophy that regularly re-writes our founding documents.

All the more reason to focus on setting the stage for future nomination fights and establishing and maintaining credibility on the issue of the proper judicial philosophy expressed by Chief Justice Roberts of a justice as an “umpire”.

We must eschew the old Orrin Hatch (R-UT) mantra that since a President was elected, he gets his nominee so long as they can read and write; never smoked pot and were never discovered with a live girl or a dead boy or vice versa. That philosophy is fine when considering cabinet nominations but not for members of the third branch of government that serve for life.

The main thing the GOP needs to do is finally come up with a strategy for the confirmation hearing that can educate the public on the insidiousness of the judicial philosophy of the so-called “living constitution”. We must not confirm a nominee that gives indications that they will not uphold their oath to uphold the actual dead constitution under which the capital “L” Liberty of We the People to self govern is guaranteed.

Republican senators are elected too, and also take an oath to uphold that Constitution that grants them the right of advice and consent, and they mustn’t repeat their mistakes in affirming Clinton’s Ginsburg and Breyer.

For more than 45 years, liberal judges have been re-writing the Constitution so that during times when Democrats didn’t have super filibuster-proof majorities in Congress, the liberal agenda could be imposed oligarchically via five lawyers.

So, the Hatch strategy was inappropriate even before the Democrats smeared Robert Bork and Clarence Thomas to try and keep justices off the U.S. Supreme Court that would leave the matter of self government to a center right people in their states and localities.

Even more so post-Borking, the GOP must not give up their “co-equal” status.

No, we should never stoop to defamatory smear tactics, but we must use the hearings to try and make headway is educating the public on this critical, yet difficult to explain matter of judicial abuse.

Mike DeVine’s Charlotte Observer, Examiner.com and Minority Report columns

“One man with courage makes a majority.” – Andrew Jackson

Originally published @ Examiner.com, where all for verification links may be accessed.

So, it appears that Justice David Souter will be bidding farewell to the Supreme Court next term. Given that the Constitution spells out no requirements for a Supreme Court justice, the president is looking at quite a few options for his replacement! It’s going to take a lot of work to weed out the bad candidates, so we here at Race42012 should help our esteemed president. What do you think, everyone? Who should replace Justice Souter?

I have a few ideas:

* Joe the Plumber (brilliant all around)

* Meghan McCain (just make her go away!)

* Joe Biden (Obama would surely like him to go away…)

* Britney Spears (a better legal theorist than Justice Ginsberg, I imagine)

* Aron Goldman (his 2012 prospects look dim, so we might need him on the High Court!)

* Harriet Miers (why not?)

Others?