Thoughts on Specter
Posted by Bryant Daniels on 04.29.2009
Arlen Specter's political reawakening as a Democrat...
Arlen Specter's political reawakening as a Democrat is a shrewd move from an old political hand. This is a man who knows where he stands amongst his constituents, and how steep the prospect of his reelection has already become, some 17 months before the election will take place. His moderate stance has now outlived it's usefulness in a party that has moved so far to the right, that anything less than a card carrying conservative on both economic and social issues cannot be had. I watched the Specter press conference, and was especially interested when he began listing all the moderate Republicans in the past few election cycles that had been dismissed by their party in the primary, only to get destroyed in the general election. This is a man who seems very aware of his own legacy, his own political mortality and his own agenda. He makes no bones about wanting to be reelected, so much so that he was willing to detach himself from what he considered a political albatross. Specter's jive about 200,000 Republicans switching party affiliation may have factored in, but I doubt he would have departed his party of sixty-some odd years if the brand wasn't so toxic.
Democrats have welcomed Specter with open arms, and rightly so. They should however be hesitant about having the 60 seat-majority and all the power that would accompany it (how trustworthy is a politician who switches party affiliations twice anyway?) But for now, this is a big win for them, albeit a fragile one. Expect the Coleman-Franken debacle to drag-on even longer now to prevent the 60 seat majority. Surely, Democrats cannot expect this amazing power for any prolonged period of time, certainly not beyond 2010, so they should act fast on health care reform. The Republican narrative remains the same; they must decide on a party direction and stick to it. Either modernize and move closer to the center, or grasp tighter to the conservatism that has seemingly been rejected at this current point in time by the country as a whole. Only 21 percent of Americans call themselves Republican, according to the latest Washington Post-ABC News poll.
Good riddance is what I say. Just another example of a RINO that saw the writing on the wall. It's just more evidence that the party hasn't gone right, it has gone left. It's the ones like Specter who have been getting ousted in the past 2 election cycles and it's because they spent 6 years acting like democrats. What's the choice? Democrats view this as a victory, and it will be until 2011, but if they continue down this path, look for the country to demand some checks and balances with the nutcase in the white house, and get rid of the even nuttier congress. And then maybe some real things can get done. Unfortunately, Obama, Reid, and Pelosi still have a lot of time to REALLY screw things up in the next year and a half. The irony of Specter is if it wasn't for Bush campaigning for him 2004, he probably wouldn't have even won the republican primary then either. Specter was gonna get mauled in the primary this time around, and no sitting gop president to bail his sorry ass out. Hell he knows he can't even go the Lieberman route, and win as an independent. So again, I say good riddance.
Posted By: gwpbrian (Guest) on April 29, 2009 at 12:30 AM
Surely, Democrats cannot expect this amazing power for any prolonged period of time, certainly not beyond 2010.
^^^ So you are saying that the dems will meet their maker in 2010 huh Daniels?
Posted By: Dent Kelly (Guest) on April 29, 2009 at 12:45 AM
Five of the seven tossup races in 2010 Senate races feature Republican incumbents. You'd really have to be pretty deep in denial to see Republicans actually gain Senate seats in 2010--they might gain House seats, but they're likely to lose even more Senate seats.
Posted By: The Great Hibachi (Guest) on April 29, 2009 at 01:23 AM
boy and how hyporctical is arlen specter, this is the same guy back in 2001 when jim jeffords switched from r to i, he said it was bad for the country and that he would push for a bill in congress to stop this and now becuase he saw that he was gonna be beat by pat toomey badly in the primary, he switches and oh yeah u know what he probably p'ed off the pennsylavania dems, and oh yeag it's not also a lock he will win the dems primary, as patrick murphy is not going to drop out and probably will campaign his butt of and say unlike spcetre i've been a lifelong dem who doesn't switch parties after i see i'm going to be voted out by my constiuents, who had enough, and what pushed the pennsylvania repub's over the line is when he supported the 787 billion stimulus, without even him or his staff looking at it
Posted By: coby preimesbereger (Guest) on April 29, 2009 at 01:44 AM
Since Arlen Specter was a moderate, it is nice to seem him switch to another party. gwpbrian and coby preimesbereger do not understand that political ideology=/=political party. Either they are under the age of 15, or they never studied Government in their lives.
Posted By: David (Guest) on April 29, 2009 at 04:24 AM
The so-called "filibuster proof majority" only holds as long as all Democrats are willing to sign on to every vote. The fact of the matter is, that there are quite a few moderate democrats, including the newcomer Specter, who will not vote for cloture. My guess is that Specter will be tested quite a bit, but will also be handled with kid gloves, much like Lieberman is these days.
Posted By: Michael L (Guest) on April 29, 2009 at 08:58 AM
The author said "a party that has moved so far to the right, that anything less than a card carrying conservative on both economic and social issues cannot be had."
====> Ron Paul says you're full of shit.
Posted By: Eric (Guest) on April 29, 2009 at 09:09 AM
I'm truly of two minds on this. On one hand I believe: One should define their political party, not have their political party define them. Since 1980 the Republican party has gradually moved more and more to the Right. Most moderate voices are getting drowned out and thrown to the curb. Groups like Club for Growth have been forcing moderates out of the party. Its a very "You're either with us completely or your against us" mentality. No room for deviation. And those people who toe the party line are very happy to see those who they view as dissenters leave the party. The same way the extreme liberal wing of the Democratic party were very happy to see Joe Lieberman leave the party. Lieberman pulled the same thing back when it looked like he was going to lose the Democratic primary, but he went independent instead. Both Lieberman and Specter say that their respective former parties no longer held the same values they held dear. Or maybe their beliefs changed over time? If political parties can change over time, so can people. It shows growth. Hell most people forget, Ronald Reagan started his career as a Democrat and changed political parties.
Now on the other hand: All politics is theater. Specter rather than bowing out gracefully (as some people complained about Lieberman) jumped ship. As a moderate he knew he would not be able to stand up to the right wing of his own (former) party, but has a much better chance of winning the general election. So, it can very easily be argued, that transparently Specter did this for his own personal career rather than the people of Pennsylvania. Some people value loyalty over ideology. Which is why all that is left over are the "lock-step" Republicans. Those are the ones who feel there is no room for other opinions. In Specter's defense he was never one of the lock step Republicans. His voting record proves that. So I don't think he will be a lock-step Democrat either.
Posted By: Elliot (Guest) on April 29, 2009 at 10:34 AM
david, the facts speak for themselves. The republicans that have been getting whooped on, have been the more moderate ones. The reality is, Specter lasted all this time, because he had an R by his name. Nothing more nothing less. Now, the R by his name being that he is just another in the long list of moderate repubs getting trounced, the R isn't politically good for him anymore, so he'll try his luck with a D by it. It's not difficult to figure out. He can't even win his own republican primary, he knows he can't win as an independent, so he will be what he should've been for a good long time, a democrat.
Posted By: gwpbrian (Guest) on April 29, 2009 at 10:58 AM
Remember when Arlen Spector, the prostitute, defended the murderer Ira Einhorn? The same guy he said wouldn't skip bail but did and wasnt caught until 2002?
Posted By: Michael (Guest) on April 29, 2009 at 11:09 AM
I know as a general rule of thumb we are discouraged from joining in on the comments but I just wanted to clarify, I wasn't suggesting in 2010 the Democratic 60 seat majority will be gone, just that they have to govern without thinking they have that safety net. They can't expect to sustain that much power, although they may. 60 Senate seats can do a hell of a lot to galvanize the other party. And since I am here, while Ron Paul is the very definition of conservative in terms of government size and economics, he is so conservative that socially his views aren't in line with what we have come to associate with conservatism. But yes, in its truest sense, there is not a man in congress more conservative than Ron Paul.
Posted By: Bryant Daniels (Registered) on April 29, 2009 at 11:25 AM
This does hurt the GOP greatly, however I think what Daniels is trying to say is that complete unified government rarely lasts. I don't think it will come as early as 2010, but the Republicans will capture at least one house of Congress or the presidency in 2012.
Furthermore, politics exists in a cycle like everything else. People never thought a Republican could be president again after the terms FDR had in the 1930s-1940s. People had also damned the Democrats to permanent minority status in Congress after the 1994 congressional elections. The balance will shift back as it always does, it's just a question of when.
As far as what the GOP needs to do, I believe the trick is to find a candidate that is conservative both socially and fiscally, however prioritizes the economic aspects more. Yes, you must win over moderates and independents, however at the same time you must placate your base as well. If the GOP can get a candidate that is socially conservative, but leaves that more in the background and focuses on fiscal issues they will have a chance, ESPECIALLY if the economy is still in bad shape in the next few years.
Posted By: Adam B. (Guest) on April 29, 2009 at 11:39 AM
Coby, I know there are some good points in what you make somewhere, but – I will ask once then go away...Please, for the love of GOD, use some punctuation! If you have time to use a (,) you have time to use a (.) No one is gonna take you seriously if you look like you write at a grade 3 level with your run-on sentence postings. And I’m saying this as a fellow Republican. You’re making us look bad, man.
Posted By: Guest#3300 (Guest) on April 29, 2009 at 11:58 AM
boy and how hyporctical is arlen specter, this is the same guy back in 2001 when jim jeffords switched from r to i, he said it was bad for the country and that he would push for a bill in congress to stop this and now becuase he saw that he was gonna be beat by pat toomey badly in the primary, he switches and oh yeah u know what he probably p'ed off the pennsylavania dems, and oh yeag it's not also a lock he will win the dems primary, as patrick murphy is not going to drop out and probably will campaign his butt of and say unlike spcetre i've been a lifelong dem who doesn't switch parties after i see i'm going to be voted out by my constiuents, who had enough, and what pushed the pennsylvania repub's over the line is when he supported the 787 billion stimulus, without even him or his staff looking at it
Posted By: coby preimesbereger (Guest) on April 29, 2009 at 01:44 AM
Next time, use punctuation? What kind of bullshit is this, one long run on? I can't comment on what was said because it was a ramble.
Posted By: Joe (Guest) on April 29, 2009 at 12:30 PM
He was a RINO. We don't need RINO's! Wah wah wah...*piss whine moan*
Posted By: Boss Limbaugh (Guest) on April 29, 2009 at 01:14 PM
bottom line is Specter is a great example of why the GOP has been getting trounced in the last 2 elections. That's not spin, that's reality.
Posted By: gwpbrian (Guest) on April 29, 2009 at 10:06 PM
STAY CURRENT