Boz
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
123 Fireballs!
Posts: 10,355
|
Post by Boz on Apr 28, 2009 13:17:28 GMT -5
Counting Al Franken/Norm Coleman as a loss for Michael Steele is cynical beyond anything imaginable - Steele was elected two months ago - that's basically blaming Steele because Republican lawyers can't work the courts to get a 300 vote swing. I don't think Boz said it would be fair to blame it on Steele, just that it might be perceived that way since it happened on his watch. Yeah, sorry, that's what I was getting at. It wouldn't have made any difference in the overall House count, one seat, but for strengthening his position as a nascent chairman in an unfavorable landscape, Steele could have really used a win in NY-20. That's about as close as they come.
|
|
HealyHoya
Golden Hoya (over 1000 posts)
Victory!!!
Posts: 1,059
|
Post by HealyHoya on Apr 28, 2009 13:23:36 GMT -5
Primary campaigns tend to to accentuate the extremes. Among Pennsylvania Republicans living in the socially conservative T (think vertical running N-S between Philly and Pittsburgh and horizontal running E-W across the top of the state) Your map and my map do not match. ON EDIT: Never mind. I read that as "a N-S line from Philly to Pittsburgh." Also, do you think that with PA becoming more and more Democratic, it's possible that more and more primary voters will not be rabid liberals, making Specter's chances of success in spring 2010 far more likely? Steele can't be blamed for the outcome in MN given the timing of that election and his election but it doesn't excuse his early bumbles. He needs to show that he has the ability to lead the GOP during a time of evolution, change and challenges. That requires superb communication skills, dynamism in presentation and a coherent short- and long-term vision for the GOP. To date, I have seen/heard nothing from Steele that leads me to believe he is capable of that. Will it come? Can he tighten up his performance and get it done? Does he inspire confidence? TBD... (I wouldn't bet on it.) Re above: I think Specter's chances in the Dem primary are great -- just short of a lock as of today. PA State Rep. Josh Shapiro (D) just announced he won't run against Specter saying Specter is now the "incumbent Democrat." I expect more of that from state level PA D's since crossing Specter would be a mistake. On the Congressional level I think there's still some horse-trading to do before we can say the field has been cleared. Rendell, a Philly guy like Arlen, will be a big boost on clearing the field, fundraising and reassuring troubled long-time, old school, machine Dems that Arlen can be trusted. Primary voters tend to be primary voters -- in both parties they tend to be one-two issue voters. On the right they tend to be disproportionately those focused on life/abortion, 2nd Amendment and, increasingly, the definition of marriage. To paint with a broad bush, they are the PA voters who could get Santorum through any primary but couldn't get him back to the Senate. On the left, it's the mirror of the life/abortion issue and over the past six years the anti-Cheney-Rumsfeld-Bush-WMDs-Iraq voters. PA's changing demographics probably won't change the primary voter numbers enough to, by themselves, determine the outcome. If/When Specter wins the primary it will have more to do with horse-trading, his name recognition, ability to fundraise, national issue/media dynamics, etc. -- IMO. To me this isn't a reflection of a radical shift in PA but rather the confirmation of a trend that has been progressing for 6-7 years. Call Specter the tipping point.
|
|
vcjack
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 3,875
|
Post by vcjack on Apr 28, 2009 13:27:58 GMT -5
I think the more undemocratic thing about this is that the casual assumption that all Pennsylvania Democrats will accept the judgment of the DNC that Specter represents their interests or the worse slap to the face to all of the Republicans who voted for him under the assumption that they were voting for a member of the Republican party. When the inevitable GOP rebound happens in 2010, they will go headhunting. Well, he'll have to go before voters in a year, this time running as a Democrat. My guess is that he'll win easily. In fact, that's why he made the switch: he was favored to win the general, but was going to lose handily the GOP primary. Since PA has a sore loser law, he couldn't pull a Lieberman and run as an independent. Also, I wouldn't call a 2010 GOP revival "inevitable" by any stretch. The last polling I checked, the GOP was still playing defense. And in 2003 Karl Rove was talking about making the Democratic party into a "permanent minority". No party has ever maintained large bicameral majorities for more than a few electoral cycles, and there's no evidence that a correction won't come this time
|
|
TC
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 9,459
|
Post by TC on Apr 28, 2009 13:43:31 GMT -5
It's true that the Dems need 60 votes regardless of what party they come from, so in that sense Specter's move doesn't automatically give them anything. However, when you think you need to run in the Republican primary, you might cast a few votes differently than you might otherwise have done. I guess the question I have is that does it change any major votes? EFCA still likely doesn't have the votes to pass, Specter has never been the firewall on cap-and-trade, and the budget-shenanigans make Specter's healthcare vote moot (although I'm betting he goes with the D's on that).
|
|
Bando
Golden Hoya (over 1000 posts)
I've got some regrets!
Posts: 2,431
|
Post by Bando on Apr 28, 2009 16:04:16 GMT -5
Well, he'll have to go before voters in a year, this time running as a Democrat. My guess is that he'll win easily. In fact, that's why he made the switch: he was favored to win the general, but was going to lose handily the GOP primary. Since PA has a sore loser law, he couldn't pull a Lieberman and run as an independent. Also, I wouldn't call a 2010 GOP revival "inevitable" by any stretch. The last polling I checked, the GOP was still playing defense. And in 2003 Karl Rove was talking about making the Democratic party into a "permanent minority". No party has ever maintained large bicameral majorities for more than a few electoral cycles, and there's no evidence that a correction won't come this time I'm sorry, but this just isn't true at all. The Democrats controlled both houses during the following times: 1949-1952, 1955-1980, and 1987-1994. With a short break in the Senate, Republicans controlled both houses from 1995-2006. And your hopes for a GOP resurgence in 2010 smacks of a lot of wishful thinking. Sure things could change, but right now due to retirements, the Dems look poised to make gains in the Senate. Not to mention that demographic shifts heavily favor the Democrats right now. What numbers are you looking at that's leading you to think the GOP might take control of the House or Senate?
|
|
Elvado
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 6,080
|
Post by Elvado on Apr 28, 2009 16:53:47 GMT -5
With regard to Mr. Specter, good riddance to bad rubbish for this GOP member. He's been a fraud all the way back to the magic bullet. The fact that he has finally dived headlong into the cesspool that is the Philadelphia Democrat machine is just late-acquired evidence.
|
|
PhillyHoya
Golden Hoya (over 1000 posts)
Posts: 2,016
|
Post by PhillyHoya on Apr 28, 2009 17:15:04 GMT -5
With regard to Mr. Specter, good riddance to bad rubbish for this GOP member. He's been a fraud all the way back to the magic bullet. The fact that he has finally dived headlong into the cesspool that is the Philadelphia Democrat machine is just late-acquired evidence. Oh the Magic Bullet. On a visit to my high school some kid brought up the Magic Bullet and Arlen looked like he was gonna strangle the kid right there. Not only is he from the Philly Democratic machine, he's a trial lawyer and is backed by them ::shudders::
|
|
TC
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 9,459
|
Post by TC on Apr 28, 2009 17:48:22 GMT -5
And your hopes for a GOP resurgence in 2010 smacks of a lot of wishful thinking. Sure things could change, but right now due to retirements, the Dems look poised to make gains in the Senate. Not to mention that demographic shifts heavily favor the Democrats right now. What numbers are you looking at that's leading you to think the GOP might take control of the House or Senate? Even some of the races that Democrats aren't going to win are wins - Charlie Crist over Mel Martinez? I'll buy that for a dollar!
|
|
|
Post by strummer8526 on Apr 28, 2009 17:58:03 GMT -5
With regard to Mr. Specter, good riddance to bad rubbish for this GOP member. He's been a fraud all the way back to the magic bullet. The fact that he has finally dived headlong into the cesspool that is the Philadelphia Democrat machine is just late-acquired evidence. Oh the Magic Bullet. On a visit to my high school some kid brought up the Magic Bullet and Arlen looked like he was gonna strangle the kid right there. Not only is he from the Philly Democratic machine, he's a trial lawyer and is backed by them ::shudders:: NOT THE TRIAL LAWYERS!!
|
|
EasyEd
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 7,272
|
Post by EasyEd on Apr 28, 2009 18:18:50 GMT -5
Maybe he was drinking too much Guinness on St. Patrick's Day (about 6 weeks ago) when he went on about how important it was to have a two party system instead of one-party rule; and, he was not going to switch. How's that for standing on principle? briefingroom.thehill.com/2009/04/28/specter-had-disavowed-a-switch/There is only one reason he switched and that is he knew he was going to lose in the Republican primary. I don't see the switch as changing any votes since he was going to vote with the Democrats on many issues already, just as he voted for the stimulus package.
|
|
|
Post by jerseyhoya34 on Apr 28, 2009 21:00:09 GMT -5
In my mind, Specter's change is not as reprehensible as Lieberman's switch. In fact, I'd be curious to hear of any nuanced arguments that disagree on that front. Specter switched early enough that the candidates in both primaries are well-identified, and only the winners of such primaries will run in the general election. In Lieberman's case, he flat out lost and switched parties despite the clear will of the primary voters that he seek other opportunities. Strangely, I seem to recall great cheerleading from the right when Lieberman switched parties
I am also curious to hear any arguments taking the view that Norm Coleman's legal defense is more democratic than Arlen Specter's defection. In that sense, Specter does not give the Dems 60 slots on a ledger since election results are under dispute. If you think Specter has given the Dems 60 votes, perhaps you then think that Al Franken is the rightful Senator of Minnesota. In any event, I don't have an opinion on Specter one way or the other. I think he adds something on legal issues/judiciary. Before his defection, I think most Senate Republicans would have agreed with that. After all, he was Chairman of Senate Judiciary for a good while. Unfortunately for his place in history, he perhaps took a hit with his Iraq War vote given that the war was waged under empirically incorrect pretenses (WMD, 9/11 linkage, etc.). In this sense, today's news is not much better/worse than the Powell endorsement of now-President Obama.
I think the import of this is lost on many Republicans. The Senate minority leader - a powerful intellect among Senate Republicans - referred to this as a local issue. Steele, who is the "Fake Sting" of Washington politics right now, cites Specter's electoral issues. This is utter nonsense when viewed against the statements of Senator Snowe and Senator Graham. The Republican Party - 100 days into the Obama Presidency - is now more in the wilderness than the Democrats ever were during Rove's campaign for a permanent Republican majority. Admittedly, I am grasping at straws to find where the Republicans can hang their hat intellectually in terms of campaign platforms/positions etc., and my only answer thus far is that Newt Gingrich may not be that bad - truly a startling thought.
|
|
TC
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 9,459
|
Post by TC on Apr 28, 2009 22:19:48 GMT -5
In my mind, Specter's change is not as reprehensible as Lieberman's switch. In fact, I'd be curious to hear of any nuanced arguments that disagree on that front. Specter switched early enough that the candidates in both primaries are well-identified, and only the winners of such primaries will run in the general election. In Lieberman's case, he flat out lost and switched parties despite the clear will of the primary voters that he seek other opportunities. Strangely, I seem to recall great cheerleading from the right when Lieberman switched parties Isn't it just the same thing? PA just doesn't allow the loser of a primary to run as an independent like CT does. If Specter had that option, and he thought he could win as an independent, doesn't everyone think he'd do that instead?
|
|
|
Post by jerseyhoya34 on Apr 28, 2009 22:29:40 GMT -5
In my mind, Specter's change is not as reprehensible as Lieberman's switch. In fact, I'd be curious to hear of any nuanced arguments that disagree on that front. Specter switched early enough that the candidates in both primaries are well-identified, and only the winners of such primaries will run in the general election. In Lieberman's case, he flat out lost and switched parties despite the clear will of the primary voters that he seek other opportunities. Strangely, I seem to recall great cheerleading from the right when Lieberman switched parties Isn't it just the same thing? PA just doesn't allow the loser of a primary to run as an independent like CT does. If Specter had that option, and he thought he could win as an independent, doesn't everyone think he'd do that instead? I am not sure about that. While Specter believed he would lose, stranger things have happened in politics... In making the decision, Specter is taking a lot of things at face value, including primary election opinion polls. Lieberman had the cold, hard vote numbers to stare at in the light of day, and he chose to game the system in the face of them.
|
|
Boz
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
123 Fireballs!
Posts: 10,355
|
Post by Boz on Apr 29, 2009 9:09:13 GMT -5
What is this "reprehensible" nonsense? In either case?
Look, Lieberman lost a primary. He thought that he still could and should serve in the Senate, and the voters in Connecticut agreed with him.
Specter KNEW he was going to lose in the primary, but he still wants to serve in the Senate. Now, the voters in Pennsylvania will get to decide whether they agree with him or not.....With a year or so in between when Specter is probably not going to vote any differently than he would have as a Republican.
I don't get how either case is reprehensible, but if you're going to level criticisms, it's worth noting the numerous and repeated occasions from the past few months and as recently as a couple of weeks ago when Specter publicly and pretty emphatically repudiated the notion of switching parties.
If you've got a bug up your ass about Lieberman because he supported and continues to support the war and a more conservative foreign policy position, then that's your issue. With all due respect, we get that already. Connecticut voters had a chance to reject him because of this and they didn't. Connecticut liberals may have, but they're not the only people in the state.
|
|
SirSaxa
Silver Hoya (over 500 posts)
Posts: 747
|
Post by SirSaxa on Apr 29, 2009 9:22:26 GMT -5
Senator Snowe on Spector's SwitchRepublican Senator Olympia Snowe has an insightful OpEd on the subject today. Essentially, she is advocating for a more inclusive Republican party, not the one that is further marginalizing itself as a regional, minority non-factor.
|
|
Bando
Golden Hoya (over 1000 posts)
I've got some regrets!
Posts: 2,431
|
Post by Bando on Apr 29, 2009 10:13:40 GMT -5
I think it will be interesting to see how Specter votes change in the coming years. Party switchers have a tendency to go from moderates to reliable votes for their party (see Jim Jeffords and Ben Nighthorse Campbell). Specter might end up voting like a conventional Northeastern Democrat by the end of this (assuming he's re-elected).
|
|
EasyEd
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 7,272
|
Post by EasyEd on Apr 29, 2009 10:56:55 GMT -5
Senator Snowe on Spector's SwitchRepublican Senator Olympia Snowe has an insightful OpEd on the subject today. Essentially, she is advocating for a more inclusive Republican party, not the one that is further marginalizing itself as a regional, minority non-factor. I am so, so surprised at Snowe. And, it's always illuminating to see her OpEd is "insightful".
|
|
SirSaxa
Silver Hoya (over 500 posts)
Posts: 747
|
Post by SirSaxa on Apr 29, 2009 11:13:19 GMT -5
A variety of opinions from members of both partiesTHOMAS M. DAVIS III Former U.S. representative from Virginia; president of the Republican Main Street Partnership
"Politics is cyclical" is a mantra many Republicans repeat to explain how in two short years we lost control of the House, the Senate and the White House. Yes, politics is cyclical. But the combination of Arlen Specter's exit, a popular Democratic president and dismal poll numbers for the Republican Party indicates that this cycle may be a long, painful one for the GOP. ......
The GOP has lost the same 18 states in five straight presidential elections, and John McCain wasn't within 10 points in any of them. Those states and the District of Columbia account for 248 electoral votes -- not a bad start to the 270 needed to win the White House. With the loss of Specter, the Senate delegations from those states are 34 Democrats and 2 Republicans. .... We need to build our party by ending the self-destructive infighting that drives out centrists such as Arlen Specter.
ED ROGERS White House staffer to Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush; chairman of BGR Group
Notice to Republicans: Arlen Specter changing parties is good for the Democrats and President Obama and bad for us. If you think otherwise, put down the Ann Coulter book and go get some fresh air. LINCOLN D. CHAFEE Republican senator (R.I.) from 1999 to 2006; fellow at Brown University's Watson Institute for International Studies
In 1964, at the Republican National Convention, at the Cow Palace in San Francisco, I was an 11-year-old watching the full-throated booing of Gov. Nelson Rockefeller by the Goldwater delegates. It was memorable in its fervency. No matter that Goldwater would carry only six states later that year in a historic Democratic landslide; the message was one of ideological purity. Now, 45 years later, we are watching the same celebration of ideological purity at the cost of winning election WILLIAM S. COHEN Republican senator (Maine) from 1979 to 1997; secretary of defense from 1997 to 2001; chairman and CEO of the Cohen Group
In the United States Senate, Arlen Specter and I were both part of something called the Wednesday Group -- a regular meeting of moderate Republicans who gathered once a week over lunch and to discuss policy and plot strategy. When I first arrived in 1979, there were about 20 to 25 Senators at the lunch each week. By the time I left the Senate in 1997, there were about five regular attendees. So it does not surprise me to see that our old group has dwindled by one more member.
Arlen Specter's decision to leave the Republican Party was both practical and ideological. ....
...voters can still be reached by the GOP -- if Republicans choose to say more than "no" and reach out to them and show them a path home. America is still a center-right country. But to win elections, Republicans must be not just the party of the right, but the party of the center as well.
|
|
HoyaNyr320
Golden Hoya (over 1000 posts)
Posts: 1,233
|
Post by HoyaNyr320 on Apr 29, 2009 11:14:30 GMT -5
Senator Snowe on Spector's SwitchRepublican Senator Olympia Snowe has an insightful OpEd on the subject today. Essentially, she is advocating for a more inclusive Republican party, not the one that is further marginalizing itself as a regional, minority non-factor. I am so, so surprised at Snowe. And, it's always illuminating to see her OpEd is "insightful". Perfect! Kick her out of the GOP too! Your party is becoming more and more of a fringe element and sentiments like this and Lindbaugh's calling for McCain to switch parties just move you more and more away from the mainstream. Meanwhile, the Democrats would accept Snowe and Collins with open arms. Do we agree with Specter, Snowe, Collins on every issue? Not at all, but unlike the Republican party, we don't treat people with opposing views like dog s#*%.
|
|
TC
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 9,459
|
Post by TC on Apr 29, 2009 11:20:56 GMT -5
When Charlie Crist gets elected to Mel Martinez's seat, please kick him out as well.
|
|