Specter Switches Parties

[Bando]

Apr 29, 2009 11:14:30 GMT -5 HoyaNyr320 said:

Apr 29, 2009 10:56:55 GMT -5 EasyEd said:

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#*%.

Related to this, a fundraiser in Kent County, MI for presidential hopeful Gov. Jon Huntsman (R-Utah) was canceled by the county GOP this week because Huntsman isn't conservative enough.

[PhillyHoya]

This was the statement from Specter that really got me today: "I was unwilling to subject my 29-year record in the U.S. Senate to the Pennsylvania Republican primary electorate."

Unwilling to risk my cushy job despite the fact that those people are responsible for me having said job for the past 29 years.

Ugh.

[EasyEd]

From some of the comments so far it seems that Democrats want some Republicans to be more centrist; in other words, more like Democrats in many of their views. I happen to believe just the opposite. We don't need two parties with the same core values. What we need is a party that presents a real choice in vision that differs from the Democrats; and a party that actually performs in accord with that vision, rather than functioning like the Democrats.

George Bush and the Republican Congress, when they were in power, were not fiscal conservatives. They were not small-government. They expanded government's role (e.g. Medicare Prescription Drugs). They spent almost as badly as Democrats. I would have said worse than Democrats but then Obama came along. The Republicans did not govern to their supposed values.

I want a Republican (or other) party that stands for a balanced budget and achieves that primarily through spending cuts. I want a party that reduces the government role in our lives and in the economy. I want a party that stands for a strong national defense but who uses its power only in defense of real American self interests. I want a party that pursues real energy independence through conservation and through the use of whatever sources of energy that can be used rather than deluding ourselves into thinking we can achieve independence through alternative sources. This is a national defense priority. I want a party that controls our borders as this, also, is a national defense issue as well as a fiscal issue. I want a party that puts the Social Security "trust fund" in an actual "lock box" so it cannot be touched; and, that alters Social Security in such a manner that it is sustainable. I want a party that recognizes we can't do everything for everybody and who knows we can't extend health care to everyone while cutting the costs. And, yes, I want a party that protects human life from the first moment of conception.

I also believe such a party can, with the proper messengers, deliver its message and plan for governing in a manner that appeals to a majority of Americans. Some may not agree with that assessment but, to me, any other vision is doomed to be an echo of what the Democrats have to offer.

The key to the above is a fiscal plan and fiscal discipline. The United States cannot survive the fiscal path the Democrats have put it on and I grant it did not start with the current administration but it has been horribly expanded under it. We need a party that shows the American people what is going to happen to the financial health of the United States if we continue on this path of financial disaster and a party which presents a real plan for altering that path to fiscal sanity.

[The Stig]

Apr 29, 2009 14:06:22 GMT -5 EasyEd said:

From some of the comments so far it seems that Democrats want some Republicans to be more centrist; in other words, more like Democrats in many of their views. I happen to believe just the opposite. We don't need two parties with the same core values. What we need is a party that presents a real choice in vision that differs from the Democrats; and a party that actually performs in accord with that vision, rather than functioning like the Democrats.

George Bush and the Republican Congress, when they were in power, were not fiscal conservatives. They were not small-government. They expanded government's role (e.g. Medicare Prescription Drugs). They spent almost as badly as Democrats. I would have said worse than Democrats but then Obama came along. The Republicans did not govern to their supposed values.

I want a Republican (or other) party that stands for a balanced budget and achieves that primarily through spending cuts. I want a party that reduces the government role in our lives and in the economy. I want a party that stands for a strong national defense but who uses its power only in defense of real American self interests. I want a party that pursues real energy independence through conservation and through the use of whatever sources of energy that can be used rather than deluding ourselves into thinking we can achieve independence through alternative sources. This is a national defense priority. I want a party that controls our borders as this, also, is a national defense issue as well as a fiscal issue. I want a party that puts the Social Security "trust fund" in an actual "lock box" so it cannot be touched; and, that alters Social Security in such a manner that it is sustainable. I want a party that recognizes we can't do everything for everybody and who knows we can't extend health care to everyone while cutting the costs. And, yes, I want a party that protects human life from the first moment of conception.

I also believe such a party can, with the proper messengers, deliver its message and plan for governing in a manner that appeals to a majority of Americans. Some may not agree with that assessment but, to me, any other vision is doomed to be an echo of what the Democrats have to offer.

The key to the above is a fiscal plan and fiscal discipline. The United States cannot survive the fiscal path the Democrats have put it on and I grant it did not start with the current administration but it has been horribly expanded under it. We need a party that shows the American people what is going to happen to the financial health of the United States if we continue on this path of financial disaster and a party which presents a real plan for altering that path to fiscal sanity.

Suppose there was a Republican candidate who supported everything you just said, except the part in bold. Would you still vote for them?

The problem with the Republicans right now is that a lot of their supporters would answer "no" to that question.

I also have to disagree with your first paragraph. The Democrats aren't calling for the Republicans to be centrist. In fact, a lot of Democrats love the way the Republicans are going right now, because the GOP is losing touch in a big way. Take a look at the comments SirSaxa posted. The ones who are calling for the Republicans to re-focus on the center are moderate Republicans.

[vcjack]

Apr 28, 2009 16:04:16 GMT -5 Bando said:

Apr 28, 2009 13:27:58 GMT -5 vcjack said:

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?

I have no numbers and you are wrong if you think I'm rooting for the Republicans (in fact I'm hoping for the opposite, because further Democratic gains in 2010 will mean that the Economy has rebounded and that's when I'm hitting the job market), I am just making the observation that the current dominance by the Democratic party seems out of whack of where the nation's political compass is. There probably won't be a switch of power in either house but the margins could shrink if Steele or his replacement play the game well

[Bando]

Apr 29, 2009 19:56:33 GMT -5 vcjack said:

Apr 28, 2009 16:04:16 GMT -5 Bando said:

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?

I have no numbers and you are wrong if you think I'm rooting for the Republicans (in fact I'm hoping for the opposite, because further Democratic gains in 2010 will mean that the Economy has rebounded and that's when I'm hitting the job market), I am just making the observation that the current dominance by the Democratic party seems out of whack of where the nation's political compass is. There probably won't be a switch of power in either house but the margins could shrink if Steele or his replacement play the game well

Regardless of who your rooting for, you conclusions seem to be based off intuitions and senses rather than evidence. How is the Democratic party "out of whack" with the nation's political compass? They won two freaking elections in a row!!! I just don't understand where you're getting this idea from, as it seems contrary to all evidence on hand.

And if you haven't noticed, Steele is not playing the game well.

[Bando]

Apr 29, 2009 14:06:22 GMT -5 EasyEd said:

From some of the comments so far it seems that Democrats want some Republicans to be more centrist; in other words, more like Democrats in many of their views. I happen to believe just the opposite. We don't need two parties with the same core values. What we need is a party that presents a real choice in vision that differs from the Democrats; and a party that actually performs in accord with that vision, rather than functioning like the Democrats.

George Bush and the Republican Congress, when they were in power, were not fiscal conservatives. They were not small-government. They expanded government's role (e.g. Medicare Prescription Drugs). They spent almost as badly as Democrats. I would have said worse than Democrats but then Obama came along. The Republicans did not govern to their supposed values.

I want a Republican (or other) party that stands for a balanced budget and achieves that primarily through spending cuts. I want a party that reduces the government role in our lives and in the economy. I want a party that stands for a strong national defense but who uses its power only in defense of real American self interests. I want a party that pursues real energy independence through conservation and through the use of whatever sources of energy that can be used rather than deluding ourselves into thinking we can achieve independence through alternative sources. This is a national defense priority. I want a party that controls our borders as this, also, is a national defense issue as well as a fiscal issue. I want a party that puts the Social Security "trust fund" in an actual "lock box" so it cannot be touched; and, that alters Social Security in such a manner that it is sustainable. I want a party that recognizes we can't do everything for everybody and who knows we can't extend health care to everyone while cutting the costs. And, yes, I want a party that protects human life from the first moment of conception.

I also believe such a party can, with the proper messengers, deliver its message and plan for governing in a manner that appeals to a majority of Americans. Some may not agree with that assessment but, to me, any other vision is doomed to be an echo of what the Democrats have to offer.

The key to the above is a fiscal plan and fiscal discipline. The United States cannot survive the fiscal path the Democrats have put it on and I grant it did not start with the current administration but it has been horribly expanded under it. We need a party that shows the American people what is going to happen to the financial health of the United States if we continue on this path of financial disaster and a party which presents a real plan for altering that path to fiscal sanity.

It's not really the Democrats saying this (needless to say, I'm happy to see the GOP's fortunes continue to fail), but the more socially liberal members of the Republican party. The problem with their critique is that as much as they'd like it to be true, the GOP's social conservatism didn't lose them the last two elections. In 2006, it was about foreign policy, and in 2008, it was largely about the economy.

At the same time, the way our government was set up produces two parties, which are always going to be large coalition parties. You simply can't win national elections while keeping each member of that coalition ideologically pure. Something has to give, and you do have to make calculations balancing what you want to achieve against how much leeway you can afford to give coalition members.

The challenge for the GOP is to rebuild their coalition. Between 2004 and 2008, they lost Hispanics (which had been split roughly equally) and, most importantly, suburban voters. The youth vote was heavily skewed Democratic in 2008, and people who became politically aware during the Bush presidency are going to be a long-term problem. The GOP now is largely a Southern, white, older, and evangelical party, and that's not a big enough group to win Congress.

The coalition could grow by changing positions. For example, support for gay marriage among the young is very high, regardless of party, meaning opposition to such is likely to become more of a losing issue (by the way, the same does not happen support for abortion; the pro-life position stays the same or gets higher as you go younger). Or the coalition could grow from a better perception of the GOP. Many who thought the Republicans were the party of fiscal responsibility were probably disabused of this notion during the Bush years; if the GOP improves their performance and rhetoric here, they could win back some of those voters. Demographic trends are not in the GOP's favor in the near future, but that doesn't mean their coalition can't be rebuilt.

Wow, I didn't mean to write a treatise on the future of the Republican party, but oh well.

[The Stig]

I think Thomas Davis III put it well in the article SirSaxa posted: "To end this cycle Republicans must do two things. First, we must focus on the broad principles that made our party strong: limited government, free trade, free markets and a strong defense. That's it. Believe anything else you want, but don't make those beliefs a litmus test for admission. Litmus tests are fine for a private club, but they're no formula for a successful political coalition."

The GOP has to make fiscal conservatism and small government their core beliefs again, not conservative social issues. A lot of Americans are uneasy about the absolutely huge government spending right now, and the GOP can capitalize on that.

That's not "being like the Democrats" as easyed accused. That's more being like the Republicans of old, not the Jerry Falwell Republicans we've seen lately.

[Filo]

Apr 29, 2009 22:55:00 GMT -5 The Stig said:

I think Thomas Davis III put it well in the article SirSaxa posted: "To end this cycle Republicans must do two things. First, we must focus on the broad principles that made our party strong: limited government, free trade, free markets and a strong defense. That's it. Believe anything else you want, but don't make those beliefs a litmus test for admission. Litmus tests are fine for a private club, but they're no formula for a successful political coalition."

The GOP has to make fiscal conservatism and small government their core beliefs again, not conservative social issues. A lot of Americans are uneasy about the absolutely huge government spending right now, and the GOP can capitalize on that.

That's not "being like the Democrats" as easyed accused. That's more being like the Republicans of old, not the Jerry Falwell Republicans we've seen lately.

This is a very good post. The Republicans under Bush have moved so far away from small government / fiscal conservatism principles that they are essentially a third party now. The GOP leadership needs to figure out whether they are going to go back to those principles or if they are now the party of Bush. If they choose the former, the next cycle may come sooner rather than later, especially if there is a backlash against Obama. If they choose the latter, it is going to be a long time before the party gets back on its feet.

[EasyEd]

Apr 29, 2009 22:55:00 GMT -5 The Stig said:

I think Thomas Davis III put it well in the article SirSaxa posted: "To end this cycle Republicans must do two things. First, we must focus on the broad principles that made our party strong: limited government, free trade, free markets and a strong defense. That's it. Believe anything else you want, but don't make those beliefs a litmus test for admission. Litmus tests are fine for a private club, but they're no formula for a successful political coalition."

The GOP has to make fiscal conservatism and small government their core beliefs again, not conservative social issues. A lot of Americans are uneasy about the absolutely huge government spending right now, and the GOP can capitalize on that.

That's not "being like the Democrats" as easyed accused. That's more being like the Republicans of old, not the Jerry Falwell Republicans we've seen lately.

So Tom Davis believes that fiscal conservatism and small government should be the litmus test for Republicans? So, we banish anyone who does not adhere to that set of "core values"?

All I'm saying in this post is it's two-faced to put forth one set of core values and exclude others.

As others have said, the Republican party under Bush was not one of fiscal conservatism nor of small government. The party divorced itself from that part of its core values. It became another party of spending and expansion of government - just like the Democrats. They will become a major player again when they return to fiscal sanity and reduced government. But they don't have to abandon their social issues.

It's a "fact" that the Republicans don't want those who do not adhere to the core social agenda. Why did Bush and Rove campaign for Specter in the last election and why did he retain his committee chairmanship? Why is it not a "fact" that the Democrats do not want pro-life, pro-gun rights, anti-gay marriage, spending-cutters, pro drilling, Iraq War supporters, etc. in their "tent"? Oh, you say, we have some of those! Really? I watched the last Democrat convention and I did not see any of them espousing those beliefs.

[theexorcist]

My default "left-wing" website is Slate. It's great. I love articles on their masthead about how the Republicans are going the way of the Whigs. It's fun to see their triumphalism now when, in 2004, they complained that voters were idiots.

Their problem is that the Democrats are hitched to Obama's wagon. By the end, the Republican party was essentially the party of Bush (which makes sense when the president is the face of the party). Obama is such a force of nature that it's going to be even more pronounced - and getting hitched to anyone's wagon, regardless of who they are, is dangerous. That recession and its recovery is going to get harder and harder to pin on Bush as more and more time elapses. The Republicans have 1.5 years to fight it out. When they do, their party will stand for something.

And that's the other key - the Democratic party is essentially becoming a big tent, with fewer and fewer criteria for membership (they dropped gun control, which used to be a key tenet). That big tent is going to fracture. Ideally, it will fracture when Obama makes a key error. The Democratic Party has always been markedly more unruly, and when it collapses, it will do so, hard.

Don't worry about the Republican presidential field, either - this time four years ago, Obama was just a guy who gave a good speech.

[Boz]

Until Joe Biden has his jaws wired shut by Barack Obama, there's still a future for Republicans.

;D ;D

[Bando]

Apr 30, 2009 11:52:03 GMT -5 Boz said:

Until Joe Biden has his jaws wired shut by Barack Obama, there's still a future for Republicans.

;D ;D

As long as Michelle Bachmann (R-MN) is denouncing the "Hoot-Smawley" tariff, I'm not too worried. ;D ;D

[Boz]

Yeah, 'cause she's as visible as the Vice President of the United States.......




(seriously, though, I really think Obama looks at Biden and says, "Joe, have you ever thought anything you haven't said?")

I'm derailing, I know. Please resume your discussion of the future of the Republican party. We should bookmark this thread so we can come back in November 2010 or November 2012 and see who's right.

[HealyHoya]

Apr 30, 2009 14:13:37 GMT -5 Bando said:

Apr 30, 2009 11:52:03 GMT -5 Boz said:

Until Joe Biden has his jaws wired shut by Barack Obama, there's still a future for Republicans.

;D ;D

As long as Michelle Bachmann (R-MN) is denouncing the "Hoot-Smawley" tariff, I'm not too worried. ;D ;D

Hoot-Smawley. I'm not endorsing the editorializing at the end of the clip but, well, Hoot-Smawley....that's hilarious.

To be fair, there are complete morons in the US Congress who put a D after their names, too.

[Bando]

Apr 30, 2009 14:36:48 GMT -5 Boz said:

Yeah, 'cause she's as visible as the Vice President of the United States.......




(seriously, though, I really think Obama looks at Biden and says, "Joe, have you ever thought anything you haven't said?")

I'm derailing, I know. Please resume your discussion of the future of the Republican party. We should bookmark this thread so we can come back in November 2010 or November 2012 and see who's right.

She gets a LOT of media attention, mostly because she's always eager to fill a chair on cable news. Of course, Biden's comment was also stupid. Jason Sudekis' take on him on SNL has been pretty dead-on.

[AustinHoya03]

Apr 29, 2009 20:32:59 GMT -5 Bando said:

And if you haven't noticed, Steele is not playing the game well.

Speaking of clueless party chairmen, what do the Virginians on the board think about Terry McAuliffe's run for VA governor?

[Boz]

Apr 30, 2009 15:57:31 GMT -5 Bando said:

Apr 30, 2009 14:36:48 GMT -5 Boz said:

Yeah, 'cause she's as visible as the Vice President of the United States.......




(seriously, though, I really think Obama looks at Biden and says, "Joe, have you ever thought anything you haven't said?")

I'm derailing, I know. Please resume your discussion of the future of the Republican party. We should bookmark this thread so we can come back in November 2010 or November 2012 and see who's right.

She gets a LOT of media attention, mostly because she's always eager to fill a chair on cable news. Of course, Biden's comment was also stupid. Jason Sudekis' take on him on SNL has been pretty dead-on.

Oh, she's definitely a pincushion for the left, no question and she gets a lot of attention in that arena.

But I don't think she's at the level of Tom Harkin telling her to shut the hell up, or the Washington Post running an editorial on how dumb she sounds (see Friday morning's editorial).

But hey. Bando, you and I may disagree on many, many things.

But one thing I know for sure that we can agree on:

PETA are a bunch of idiots.

As for Virginia, obviously I am no big Terry McAuliffe fan. I do think McDonnell has a chance to make some inroads in Northern Virginia and other areas that have been turning blue, but I think he's a big underdog at this point.

Luckily for all of us, both sides seems to be keenly focused on the issues that matter to Virginians.

[Bando]

Apr 30, 2009 16:25:15 GMT -5 Boz said:

Apr 30, 2009 15:57:31 GMT -5 Bando said:

She gets a LOT of media attention, mostly because she's always eager to fill a chair on cable news. Of course, Biden's comment was also stupid. Jason Sudekis' take on him on SNL has been pretty dead-on.

Oh, she's definitely a pincushion for the left, no question and she gets a lot of attention in that arena.

But I don't think she's at the level of Tom Harkin telling her to shut the hell up, or the Washington Post running an editorial on how dumb she sounds (see Friday morning's editorial).

But hey. Bando, you and I may disagree on many, many things.

But one thing I know for sure that we can agree on:

PETA are a bunch of idiots.

As for Virginia, obviously I am no big Terry McAuliffe fan. I do think McDonnell has a chance to make some inroads in Northern Virginia and other areas that have been turning blue, but I think he's a big underdog at this point.

Luckily for all of us, both sides seems to be keenly focused on the issues that matter to Virginians.

They're not just idiots, they're terrible terrible people. I'd be more Editeded about them, but they're continually Editeding off anyone who might be sympathetic towards them, so they're becoming less of a pain. The very fact that a Vegans Against PETA site exists is damning enough.

[TC]

Apr 30, 2009 15:45:56 GMT -5 HealyHoya said:

As long as Michelle Bachmann (R-MN) is denouncing the "Hoot-Smawley" tariff, I'm not too worried. ;D ;D



Hoot-Smawley. I'm not endorsing the editorializing at the end of the clip but, well, Hoot-Smawley....that's hilarious.

Just wanted to point out that this is a woman with a JD in Tax Law who is on the House Financial Services Committee - blaming "Hoot Smalley" on FDR - who was Governor of NY at the time. Makes it all the more ridiculous.