(POL) Arlen Specter switching parties

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by kcchief19

A moderate party forged in the middle and leaving the GOP to the social conservatives and the Democratic party to the social liberals would carve out small niche of people who will actually vote strictly on fiscal policy

Fixed that for you.

There aren't enough people in the U.S. who can correctly spell fiscal to win an election by themselves. And even those who can spell the word don't always center their entire life around money.

[path12]

Originally Posted by kcchief19

Which begs the question when moderate Dems and moderate GOPers will realize they are better off starting a third party. There are a slow of "alternative" parties out there and every single one of them will always be a marginalized party because they cater only to the extremes. Perot's Reform Party was the closest yet to becoming a real third party until he lost control and it simply became another right-wing fringe party.

I don't expect it to happen because the political will is simply not there. A moderate party forged in the middle and leaving the GOP to the social conservatives and the Democratic party to the social liberals would carve out a powerful niche for a moderate party based on sound fiscal policies and without a strong social agenda either way. But who would lead it? You need both someone charismatic and someone who could motivate people (or a person) with money. You're not going to start a new party without a lot of dough. But no one is willing to lay it on the line and take the chance.

There will be no major new party until one of the current two collapses because we're conditioned to think in terms of two parties.

However, the current crop of crazies who have hijacked the Republican party might well be collapsing if they keep deciding that the very best thing they can do is try and drive the moderates away. Palin/Bachmann '12 here we come!

And even as a liberal, I think it is very important to have a serious opposition party so while the schadenfreude is sweet in a way it is also really kind of concerning in the long run.

[Tigercat]

Screw opposition party, lets get a boatload of them involved by getting proportional representation started. Not that that will happen in my lifetime, but one can dream....

[sterlingice]

Originally Posted by path12

There will be no major new party until one of the current two collapses because we're conditioned to think in terms of two parties.

It has nothing-- no, that's not correct- but it has a hell of a lot more to do with campaign finance rules than voter's mindsets. Unless someone's about to put up, I dunno, at least $500M for this middle of the road party so they can run their campaigns. There's a reason why incumbents have a huge advantage, particularly in the House. It has something to do with name recognition but if you swapped incumbent and challenger money totals- that would buy a hell of a lot of name recognition for the challengers. And that $500M is probably a low number considering what it would cost to create a ground game in all 50 states.

Again, this goes back to why I'm a huge fan of publicly funded elections.

SI

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by Abe Sargent

McCain's loss is the wrost thing for this. They have deluded themselves into thinking it was because he wasn;t conservative instead of the real reasons - i.e. everything was against him - bad curren t president, hard for you to win third term in office, unpopular war, negative economics, etc.

Ross Douthat in his first column for the NY Times had a great spin on this, basically positing that Cheney being the Republican nominee would have been the best for the party (since the Republicans couldn't say they were not conservative enough and that's why they lost):

Op-Ed Columnist - Cheney for President - NYTimes.com

[Galaril]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

I honestly would hate to be in Michael Steele's position. You can cater to your socially conservative elements that are loyal to the party and continue to get slaughtered in elections. Or you can try and expand the party which in turn pisses off those socially conservative people who will want your head.

They went all in on the socially conservative crowds over the years and are now in a corner where the country's demographics have changed and the only way to get out of it is to open things up.

I heard on CNN that some polls not theirs stated that only 21% of Americans (either nationwide or just PA not sure I missed that part of it) now label; themselves Republicans. No matter which it is 20%sure is not good.

[Abe Sargent]

Originally Posted by sterlingice

It has nothing-- no, that's not correct- but it has a hell of a lot more to do with campaign finance rules than voter's mindsets. Unless someone's about to put up, I dunno, at least $500M for this middle of the road party so they can run their campaigns. There's a reason why incumbents have a huge advantage, particularly in the House. It has something to do with name recognition but if you swapped incumbent and challenger money totals- that would buy a hell of a lot of name recognition for the challengers. And that $500M is probably a low number considering what it would cost to create a ground game in all 50 states.

Again, this goes back to why I'm a huge fan of publicly funded elections.

SI

You don;t delve deeply enough.

Candidates do what they need to do to get elected. I can guarantee that candidates do not like to pony up to the money express. They do it because it gets them elected, but no one wants to be beholden to someone else.

The reason that candidates need money is because voters vote money. Voters vote for the quick commercial spots, they vote the way a candidate appears, they vote the way someone who gave the candidate money (or vice versa) told them too.

If voters in America would sit down with an issues list of candidates, then vote whoever was closest to their positions, or whomever was closest to one or two position they cared about, then candidates would spend more time talking about issues and would never need to drop millions of dollars to win.

The money spent influences voters. If we simply had voters that would vote substance over flash, we would never need campaign finance reform. This is a problem the American voter has brought upon itself.

Simply publicly financing campaigns means that flash is still what people vote on. Just the candidates are less beholden. It treats the symptom and not the cause. We will still elect lousy candidates. There are a lot of qualified public servants who would be great in office but they could never win a campaign because they lack the flash.

That's the issue. Style over substance. That's why $$ wins. Change that, and you change the whole system. Keep that, and America has what it deserves.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by Galaril

I heard on CNN that some polls not theirs stated that only 21% of Americans (either nationwide or just PA not sure I missed that part of it) now label; themselves Republicans. No matter which it is 20%sure is not good.

Yeah, there are a lot more registered Democrats than there are registered Republicans. All Dems need to do these days is get their voters to show up and they win.

Take Pennsylvania for instance. There are 1 million more registered Democrats. The last Senate race had 4 million votes. That means any Republican candidate has to take a ton of votes from Democrats.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

This is pretty much a non-issue from where I stand. As everyone knows, Specter has been a RINO for some time. He's likely not going to change his voting stance much, even though he will be called a Democrat. This really doesn't affect the balance of power at all. If anything, he'll just be pissing off Democrats instead of Republicans when he doesn't hold the party line.

FWIW......I think he loses the upcoming election no matter which side of the fence he's on.

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

FWIW......I think he loses the upcoming election no matter which side of the fence he's on.

I think as a Democratic candidate (and they are clearing the field for him) he's almost unbeatable.

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

This is pretty much a non-issue from where I stand. As everyone knows, Specter has been a RINO for some time. He's likely not going to change his voting stance much, even though he will be called a Democrat. This really doesn't affect the balance of power at all. If anything, he'll just be pissing off Democrats instead of Republicans when he doesn't hold the party line.

FWIW......I think he loses the upcoming election no matter which side of the fence he's on.

The difference is that he'll be feeling pressure from the left instead of the right. I doubt it changes things on a lot of issues, but when he shifts he'll now likely shift to the left instead of the right.

The key, though, will be if he votes for cloture. That could make a very big difference.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

The key, though, will be if he votes for cloture. That could make a very big difference.

More importantly, it provides a good smoke screen if the Dems do have enough votes to block a filibuster. If it happens, all the criticism is going to come down on Specter and there's no doubt the Dems will let him take the bullet for them. Pretty smart move assuming they thought all of that out.

[larrymcg421]

If Obama campaigns for Specter, there's no way he loses the primary.

[kcchief19]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

Fixed that for you.

There aren't enough people in the U.S. who can correctly spell fiscal to win an election by themselves. And even those who can spell the word don't always center their entire life around money.

Granted, I was being overly simplistic in boiling it down to fiscal policy. There is much more to it than that.

The GOP largely consists of two groups: social conservatives and moderates. The Democrats also consist largely of two groups: social liberals and moderates. The social agenda-driven fringes of both parties are minorities yet they largely dictate the direction of both parties. The overwhelming majority of people are in the middle and they don't care about abortion, gay marriage or gun control either way to make a difference in their vote.

A well-funded party where the core values are a balanced budget and the main issues are security, health care and education would dominate national politics in today's environment.

[kcchief19]

Originally Posted by Abe Sargent

McCain's loss is the wrost thing for this. They have deluded themselves into thinking it was because he wasn;t conservative instead of the real reasons - i.e. everything was against him - bad curren t president, hard for you to win third term in office, unpopular war, negative economics, etc.

If McCain ran the campaign he ran in 2000, he would have won in 2008. He ran hard right in the primaries and kept running right. Had he run toward the middle and picked a moderate VP, I think he beats Obama. McCain didn't lose the election in October, he lost it in March when he didn't bolt toward the middle.

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

Ross Douthat in his first column for the NY Times had a great spin on this, basically positing that Cheney being the Republican nominee would have been the best for the party (since the Republicans couldn't say they were not conservative enough and that's why they lost):
Op-Ed Columnist - Cheney for President - NYTimes.com

Interesting theory. Cheney wouldn't have won -- he would have got the stuffing beat out of him and made Obama look even more dominant. But it might have been good for the GOP to have the patron saint of the 15% of the furthest right people in the country get clobbered. I'll admit I'm perplexed by the GOP strategy today, which appears to be turning further to the right even when the country is going more centrist. Perhaps that is simply because all the moderate Republicans are gone from office and all that remains are the far right.

Bush lost the 2008 election for the Republicans the moment he won in 2004 and sealed the deal he started in 2000 when he picked Cheney. Cheney already had health problems before 2000 and it was clear he would never been able to handle the rigor of a campaign. Plus, even though he served in the House back in the day, he's a horrible campaigner. Add to that he said from the get-go that he wouldn't run, and you instantly setup a scenario that once Bush left office in 2004 or 2008, there would be no self-identified front-runner for the nomination and it would be a party free-for-all.

I've said it before and I'll say it again, Bush made a horrible choice in 2000. Cheney was in charge of Bush's VP selection team and he went to Bush and gave him one name for the ticket: former Missouri Sen. Jack Danforth. Instead, Bush asked Cheney and the rest is history. If Danforth were on the ticket in 2000, I think Bush/Danforth would have more comfortably won in 2000 -- Danforth is a much more effective campaigner and much more substantial. Plus, Danforth wouldn't have meddled in Iraq and the war and left that to the professional military.

As you can tell I'm a pretty staunch Democrat. Jack Danforth is the only Republican I know I'd vote for president, and I would have done it in a heartbeat.

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by kcchief19

If McCain ran the campaign he ran in 2000, he would have won in 2008

I don't think there was a chance of that. After 8 years of Bush/Cheney, a Dem was going to win. The only thing was that Obama had to convince people that he was experienced enough. Nothing McCain did would have really changed that.

But it might have been good for the GOP to have the patron saint of the 15% of the furthest right people in the country get clobbered. I'll admit I'm perplexed by the GOP strategy today, which appears to be turning further to the right even when the country is going more centrist. Perhaps that is simply because all the moderate Republicans are gone from office and all that remains are the far right.

The attacks that the moderates lost the election are working to rally the base because they believe it and the moderates are... well, being moderates and not yelling or carrying on.

Hell, even McCain is facing a primary challenge for 2010 (though very unlikely to succeed, unlike in PA)

[sterlingice]

Originally Posted by kcchief19

If McCain ran the campaign he ran in 2000, he would have won in 2008. He ran hard right in the primaries and kept running right. Had he run toward the middle and picked a moderate VP, I think he beats Obama. McCain didn't lose the election in October, he lost it in March when he didn't bolt toward the middle.

Not sure that's true or not. Let's assume he grabs, say, Romney as a running mate and had been running toward the middle, it's probably close. However, I think the bottom falling out of the economy and Bush presiding over that doomed whoever was running for the GOP. McCain might have had a shot but he didn't distance himself far enough from Bush in the last couple of years- heading closer than he had ever been politically.

SI

[larrymcg421]

Interesting thing about Danforth is that he was asked to help out with Bush's legal strategy in the 2000 election recount. However, he was emphatic that they not take the casse to federal court, because it went against the GOP's emphasis on state's rights. So they told him they didn't need him anymore.

[Fighter of Foo]

Why does anyone who's not stupidly partisan care what faction a US senator belongs to?

[chesapeake]

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

More importantly, it provides a good smoke screen if the Dems do have enough votes to block a filibuster. If it happens, all the criticism is going to come down on Specter and there's no doubt the Dems will let him take the bullet for them. Pretty smart move assuming they thought all of that out.

The Dems didn't think all of that out. We're not that devious.

And as Specter himself said yesterday, changing parties will not mean that he will be a sure vote on anything. I will also say that Obama, Reid and Senate Dems will go out of their way to ensure that Specter does not have to take any political bullets over the next two years.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

FWIW......I think he loses the upcoming election no matter which side of the fence he's on.

Not as a Democrat. I'm fairly certain the Dems cut a deal with him that they wouldn't put up anyone in the primaries. Obama has said he'll campaign for him as well. There is little chance he loses the Democratic primary.

That's really all he has to worry about. Toomey will probably get the Republican nod unless Ridge runs, and Specter will slaughter Toomey.

[chesapeake]

Originally Posted by kcchief19

If McCain ran the campaign he ran in 2000, he would have won in 2008.

If McCain had run the campaign he ran in 2000, Barack Obama would have soundly beaten Mitt Romney in the general election. You have to win your primary to be the nominee, and McCain never would have won that if he hadn't reversed his position on many of the things he supported back in 2000.

If you want to understand why Specter returned to the Democratic Party after so many years on the other side, you can start by examining how McCain had to reinvent himself as a right winger in order to win the GOP primary.

[chesapeake]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

Not as a Democrat. I'm fairly certain the Dems cut a deal with him that they wouldn't put up anyone in the primaries. Obama has said he'll campaign for him as well. There is little chance he loses the Democratic primary.

That's really all he has to worry about. Toomey will probably get the Republican nod unless Ridge runs, and Specter will slaughter Toomey.

The party will back Specter. The Democratic Senate Campaign Committee -- the official campaign entity of the Caucus -- always backs its incumbent, of which Specter is now one. Likewise with the NRSC for the other side.

But there is a Dem primary shaping up. The chair of the PA Board of Education said he's running as a Dem.

Specter would likely beat Toomey again. Ridge as an opponent would be interesting. But I've got to think that labor will continue to support Specter, despite this EFCA problem, and that Obama and Governor Rendell, both pretty popular in PA, will be able to keep the left placated and turned out.

Arlen is so darn prickly, however, that you just never know how constituents will respond. He could also get sick again and not run.

[Big Fo]

Originally Posted by Fighter of Foo

Why does anyone who's not stupidly partisan care what faction a US senator belongs to?

Going from 59 senators of one party to 60 gives them certain advantages that aren't there when going from 44 to 45, 53 to 54, etc.

[Flasch186]

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

FWIW......I think he loses the upcoming election no matter which side of the fence he's on.

Not to troll but since you put a speculative bet out there again, I'll state that your track record on calling these things seems to be awful.

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by chesapeake

The party will back Specter. The Democratic Senate Campaign Committee -- the official campaign entity of the Caucus -- always backs its incumbent, of which Specter is now one. Likewise with the NRSC for the other side.

But there is a Dem primary shaping up. The chair of the PA Board of Education said he's running as a Dem.

Specter would likely beat Toomey again. Ridge as an opponent would be interesting. But I've got to think that labor will continue to support Specter, despite this EFCA problem, and that Obama and Governor Rendell, both pretty popular in PA, will be able to keep the left placated and turned out.

Arlen is so darn prickly, however, that you just never know how constituents will respond. He could also get sick again and not run.

Do you think Sestak stays out now?

[Fighter of Foo]

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

FWIW......I think he loses the upcoming election no matter which side of the fence he's on.

I am now betting on Specter immediately. Thank you!

[Fighter of Foo]

Originally Posted by Big Fo

Going from 59 senators of one party to 60 gives them certain advantages that aren't there when going from 44 to 45, 53 to 54, etc.

Maybe I'm an idiot, but don't you still have to court the swing votes anyway?

[ISiddiqui]

Btw, the awesome:

Specter condemned Jim Jeffords' party switch in 2001 - Los Angeles Times

When a Senate Republican left his party in 2001, elevating the Democrats to majority status, one member of the GOP was especially vocal about his displeasure: Arlen Specter.

Specter said then- Vermont Sen. Jim Jeffords' decision to become an independent was disruptive to the functioning of Congress. He proposed a rule forbidding party switches that had the effect of vaulting the minority to majority status in the middle of a congressional session.

[Glengoyne]

Heck who can blame him. His own party came hard at him last time around. The Republicans are crazy. This is a long time party member whose only failing is that he retained some semblance of his own opinion. He failed to drink the Kool-Aid, so the same right wing party insiders that brought us Bush and Cheney set their sites on him. How stupid can you be? He is a shoe in for that seat. He can deliver a guaranteed senate, yet there is no room for that guy in the Republican party. It makes a lot more sense to take him out in the primary with someone who will never reach 40% in the general election.

[Glengoyne]

Originally Posted by chesapeake

If McCain had run the campaign he ran in 2000, Barack Obama would have soundly beaten Mitt Romney in the general election. You have to win your primary to be the nominee, and McCain never would have won that if he hadn't reversed his position on many of the things he supported back in 2000.

If you want to understand why Specter returned to the Democratic Party after so many years on the other side, you can start by examining how McCain had to reinvent himself as a right winger in order to win the GOP primary.

I'm not so sure about McCain needing to change that much. The field was pretty darned weak, and the public was pretty soured on Bush era republicanism as it was.

Man what I'd give to have had my dream scenario have come true in 2000. Gore wins, but the economy slumps ousting him in 2004, in favor of McCain who wins the Republican primary as the party hard liners understand why a right wing toady like Bush just can't win an election. Even against a loser like Gore.

[ISiddiqui]

Recall that in 2000, Bush positioned himself as a moderate "Compassionate Conservative".

[larrymcg421]

Originally Posted by Glengoyne

I'm not so sure about McCain needing to change that much. The field was pretty darned weak, and the public was pretty soured on Bush era republicanism as it was.

But even against that weak field, McCain was dead in the water. His polls were in single digits, he was out of money, and campaign staff were abandoning him by the boatload. The fact he got the nomination is a great comeback, but how do you think he achieved that comeback? Why do you think, in the midst of Bush's plummeting approval ratings, he's giving an interview proudly boasting of how commonly he voted with Bush?

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by larrymcg421

But even against that weak field, McCain was dead in the water. His polls were in single digits, he was out of money, and campaign staff were abandoning him by the boatload. The fact he got the nomination is a great comeback, but how do you think he achieved that comeback? Why do you think, in the midst of Bush's plummeting approval ratings, he's giving an interview proudly boasting of how commonly he voted with Bush?

Indeed. Lost in Obama's historic win is the fact that McCain staged one of the greatest political comebacks of all time. No one, probably not even himself, thought he'd get the nomination back in November of 2007. He was written off by every single person. Had no money. Staff abandoning him in droves (partially because he couldn't pay them, partially because they thought he was dead). Polling horribly. He should have left the race in December by all measures.

[sterlingice]

Wasn't it basically that him and Huckabee teamed up against Romney early on? They essentially traded support on Iowa and New Hampshire because it looked like otherwise, Romney would have won both and probably ran away to the nomination, iirc.

SI

[Tekneek]

It isn't a news flash that the GOP has swung hard to the right. It was what drove me from the party. I like the idea of conservative fiscal policy. I hate the idea of religion in government. Unfortunately, the GOP tries to force both and for that reason I hope they fail. Drop the religious nonsense and I could be brought back on board.

[stevew]

Any word out of Ed Rendell? Or is he basically going to let this go. He will certainly serve out some of specters term cause homeboy is not going to be alive in 5 years.

If we ever elect another statewide R I will be shocked.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by Glengoyne

Heck who can blame him. His own party came hard at him last time around. The Republicans are crazy. This is a long time party member whose only failing is that he retained some semblance of his own opinion. He failed to drink the Kool-Aid, so the same right wing party insiders that brought us Bush and Cheney set their sites on him. How stupid can you be? He is a shoe in for that seat. He can deliver a guaranteed senate, yet there is no room for that guy in the Republican party. It makes a lot more sense to take him out in the primary with someone who will never reach 40% in the general election.

Parties do come after people from time to time. The Democrats went hard after Lieberman in 2006 simply because he disagreed with them on one major issue. I don't think this is a party specific case.

However, it is plain fucking stupid on the Republican side. When the Dems tried to ouster Lieberman, it was in a liberal state that was going to elect the Democratic nominee regardless. In Pennsylvania, ousting Specter for a conservative like Toomey just guarantees a 20 point loss in 2010. The only Republican who stands a chance in the state are moderate ones. So I wouldn't call them crazy, just really fucking stupid.

[flere-imsaho]

Op-Ed in today's New York Times by Senator Olympia Snowe (R-ME):

IT is disheartening and disconcerting, at the very least, that here we are today — almost exactly eight years after Senator Jim Jeffords left the Republican Party — witnessing the departure of my good friend and fellow moderate Republican, Senator Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania, for the Democratic Party. And the announcement of his switch was all the more painful because I believe it didn’t have to be this way.

When Senator Jeffords became an independent in 2001, I said it was a sad day for the Republicans, but it would be even sadder if we failed to confront and learn from the devaluation of diversity within the party that contributed to his defection. I also noted that we were far from the heady days of 1998, when Republicans were envisioning the possibility of a filibuster-proof 60-vote margin. (Recall that in the 2000 election, most pundits were shocked when Republicans lost five seats, resulting in a 50-50 Senate.)

I could have hardly imagined then that, in 2009, we would fondly reminisce about the time when we were disappointed to fall short of 60 votes in the Senate. Regrettably, we failed to learn the lessons of Jim Jeffords’s defection in 2001. To the contrary, we overreached in interpreting the results of the presidential election of 2004 as a mandate for the party. This resulted in the disastrous elections of 2006 and 2008, which combined for a total loss of 51 Republicans in the House and 13 in the Senate — with a corresponding shift of the Congressional majority and the White House to the Democrats.

It was as though beginning with Senator Jeffords’s decision, Republicans turned a blind eye to the iceberg under the surface, failing to undertake the re-evaluation of our inclusiveness as a party that could have forestalled many of the losses we have suffered.

It is true that being a Republican moderate sometimes feels like being a cast member of “Survivor” — you are presented with multiple challenges, and you often get the distinct feeling that you’re no longer welcome in the tribe. But it is truly a dangerous signal that a Republican senator of nearly three decades no longer felt able to remain in the party.

Senator Specter indicated that his decision was based on the political situation in Pennsylvania, where he faced a tough primary battle. In my view, the political environment that has made it inhospitable for a moderate Republican in Pennsylvania is a microcosm of a deeper, more pervasive problem that places our party in jeopardy nationwide.

I have said that, without question, we cannot prevail as a party without conservatives. But it is equally certain we cannot prevail in the future without moderates.

In that same vein, I am reminded of a briefing by a prominent Republican pollster after the 2004 election. He was asked what voter groups Republicans might be able to win over. He responded: women in general, married women with children, Hispanics, the middle class in general, and independents.

How well have we done as a party with these groups? Unfortunately, the answer is obvious from the results of the last two elections. We should be reaching out to these segments of our population — not de facto ceding them to the opposing party.

There is no plausible scenario under which Republicans can grow into a majority while shrinking our ideological confines and continuing to retract into a regional party. Ideological purity is not the ticket back to the promised land of governing majorities — indeed, 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.

It is for this reason that we should heed the words of President Ronald Reagan, who urged, “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.” He continued, “As to the other issues that draw on the deep springs of morality and emotion, let us decide that we can disagree among ourselves as Republicans and tolerate the disagreement.”

I couldn’t agree more. We can’t continue to fold our philosophical tent into an umbrella under which only a select few are worthy to stand. Rather, we should view an expansion of diversity within the party as a triumph that will broaden our appeal. That is the political road map we must follow to victory.

[DaddyTorgo]

I wonder how long it will be before her and Shaheen (R-NH) abandon the party?

[larrymcg421]

Originally Posted by DaddyTorgo

I wonder how long it will be before her and Shaheen (R-NH) abandon the party?

Shaheen is a Democrat. The other female Republican moderate is Susan Collins, also from Maine.

[ISiddiqui]

That was on the website yesterday!

Today:

Op-Ed Contributor - It’s Still My Party - NYTimes.com

April 30, 2009
Op-Ed Contributor
It’s Still My Party

By
CHRISTINE TODD WHITMAN

I HAVE always admired Arlen Specter for his willingness to stand up for his principles and to put policy ahead of party when he thought it was necessary. I do, however, regret his decision to switch parties and I worry about the direction this country could go with a filibuster-proof Democratic majority. Some historians suggest that no president has had such power since 1937, when large Democratic majorities in Congress gave President Franklin Roosevelt tremendous leverage.

The United States needs two vibrant, competitive parties. With the economic crisis, the war in Iraq and countless other issues facing the nation, the stakes are too high to simply let one ideological segment of the country determine our fate. If we are to prevent this kind of one-party dominance, Republicans need to reassess where we are and what we stand for — and we need to do it now.

Unfortunately, a preview of the Republican Party’s future came from the reaction to Senator Specter’s switch — many conservatives evinced a sense of “I told you so” satisfaction and denigrated his service to the country. As was to be expected, the blogosphere is full of people saying that Arlen Specter was always a Democrat and now he’s simply proved it.
In reality, until Tuesday, Arlen Specter caucused with the Republicans, and he voted with his party 70 percent of the time in the 110th Congress. It is a sure bet that his voting record will now change. I fail to see the satisfaction in that.

Mr. Specter’s announcement portends a challenge for Republicans, in terms of both governance and political prospects. To those Republicans counting on the usual phenomenon of off-year election losses for the party holding the presidency, I say do not forget the examples of Roosevelt and George W. Bush, whose parties prospered in 1934 and 2002, respectively. Besides, given the re-election rate of incumbents and the number of Republicans from competitive districts who have retired, the chances of gaining more than a handful of seats is remote.

I also worry about the impact of this defection on the gubernatorial races this year in New Jersey and Virginia. Mr. Specter did not reach his decision in a vacuum. He was responding to what he and others saw as a trend in the party — a trend that will make it harder to get out a centrist message.

Arlen Specter made his decision to leave the party after years of being attacked by fellow Republicans. I can understand how he felt, but I believe that now, more than ever, it is important for us moderates to stay and work from within. One thing we can be sure of is that we will have no impact on the party’s direction if we leave.

Moderate Republicans should use Senator Specter’s switch as the impetus to force a re-evaluation of where our party is going — a review that can happen only from the inside. Besides, third parties in the United States don’t have a particularly successful history.

In the coming election cycle, we have the opportunity to remind the nation that our party is committed to such important values as fiscal restraint, less government interference in our everyday lives, environmental policies that promote a balanced approach between protection and economic interest, and a foreign policy that is engaged with the rest of the world. The responsibility of ensuring that the party follows the right path lies with those moderates who are willing to work to make it happen. I anticipate that centrists will convene in the coming days to discuss how we can return the party to the sensible middle.

This isn’t just about winning elections. To the extent we lose more members of the Republican Party, we lose what ability we have left to affect policy, and that is going to be devastating to our nation. Our democracy desperately needs two vibrant parties. And for Republicans to be that second party, we need to remind the nation of the principles for which we once stood.

We cannot simply be the party of no; we need to provide a compelling counterpoint to the Obama administration’s tax-spend-and-borrow policies. The Republican Party has a proud heritage and much to add to the current debates, but only if we can return to the principles that made us the party of Abraham Lincoln, Dwight Eisenhower and Ronald Reagan.

Christine Todd Whitman, a Republican, was the governor of New Jersey from 1994 to 2001.

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by larrymcg421

Shaheen is a Democrat. The other female Republican moderate is Susan Collins, also from Maine.

And the answer is never, as they won't have any problems getting re-elected unless a massive scandel hits.

[ISiddiqui]

LOL

On First Day as Democrat, Specter (Again) Bucks His Party - washingtonpost.com

Sen. Arlen Specter (Pa.) began his first full day as a Democrat since the early 1960s at a party-switching celebration hosted by President Obama and Vice President Biden. He ended it by casting another vote against Obama, opposing his budget as too authoritarian in the rules it establishes for the health-care debate later this year.

[flere-imsaho]

Knowing a fair bit about Senator Snowe, I'd guess she'd retire before she'd switch parties. I could maybe see her going Independent if the GOP continues its rightward lurch.

Neither Snowe nor Collins will lose their seats. Collins just defeated a pretty moderate Democrat (Tom Allen, former Congressman) who was supposed to give her a good challenge. She beat him by double-digits, and it was never close.

And Snowe is a Maine institution. I'll be surprised if she even has a Democratic challenger in her next campaign (a challenger who isn't a sacrificial lamb).

[flere-imsaho]

Remind me, does the 60 number include Jeffords and Lieberman?

[DaddyTorgo]

Originally Posted by larrymcg421

Shaheen is a Democrat. The other female Republican moderate is Susan Collins, also from Maine.

whoops - my bad. that's what i meant.

*egg on face*

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

Remind me, does the 60 number include Jeffords and Lieberman?

Yes, as well as the not yet seated Franken.

[flere-imsaho]

Then, in my opinion, it's sort of a false "filibuster-proof" majority. It's not like you can ram just anything through - there's going to be some stuff with which Liebermann, Specter, Jeffords, or other Democrats just won't agree. And Reid's just not a tough enough guy to make a threat of retribution for bucking the "party line" a real threat.

I think all it means is that the Senate GOP isn't going to be able to derail any "common-sense" or moderate legislation, but then again if said legislation was "common-sense" or moderate you'd likely have some moderate GOPers not voting against cloture anyway.

So 60 is just a number. Not a magic number that suddenly lets you do anything, but a milepost on the road that says it's now incrementally easier to do something.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

Then, in my opinion, it's sort of a false "filibuster-proof" majority. It's not like you can ram just anything through - there's going to be some stuff with which Liebermann, Specter, Jeffords, or other Democrats just won't agree. And Reid's just not a tough enough guy to make a threat of retribution for bucking the "party line" a real threat.

I think all it means is that the Senate GOP isn't going to be able to derail any "common-sense" or moderate legislation, but then again if said legislation was "common-sense" or moderate you'd likely have some moderate GOPers not voting against cloture anyway.

So 60 is just a number. Not a magic number that suddenly lets you do anything, but a milepost on the road that says it's now incrementally easier to do something.

I might be wrong, but I think it's more a matter of whether the GOP can fillibuster. There is no guarantee they'll get all 60 to vote for the bill, but I don't think it's common to have someone in your own party fillibuster it. The fillibuster is the main issue, not how the vote turns out.