As I spent the better part of Tuesday away from the web and from any source of news, I did not read or hear what others have been saying about Arlen Specter’s sudden decision to switch parties.
My sense is that anything I might have to say has already been said. I’ve only read one post on the matter, that of my co-blogger; I pretty much agree with Bruce that Specter’s “only principle has always been self-preservation.” Though I might change tbe word “only” to “primarily.”
It’s clear he made the decision he did today not out of principle (as he claims) but out of concern for his political survival. He stands a better chance of winning the Democratic primary than the Republican one, though I daresay it won’t be smooth sailing for him next year in the Democratic contest.
Interesting that in the one news article I did see on the switch, Specter did cite “public opinion polls.” Even he acknowledged he was making the switch so as to better stay in to power. I’d read that he’d only registered as a Republican because that party affiliation would have made it easier for him to run for Philadelphia District Attorney back in the 1960s.*
Finally, it seems that the Democrats were bound and determined to get to 60 votes in the Senate. My sense is that they began working on this as soon as New Hampshire’s Judd Gregg withdrew from consideration as Commerce Secretary.
Interesting that no news of this leaked out until today.
In short, this is all about Democrats increasing their political power and Arlen Specter’s trying to assure his political survival.
*UPDATE: We can always count on Michael Barone to be able to answer such questions for us: “Party-switching is something Specter is adept at. He switched from the Democratic to the Republican party to run for District Attorney of Philadelphia County in 1965“.
Your assessment is correct. Specter is self serving. It was the one thing that stood out to me when I heard his speech today. The truth of the matter is his switch was for naught. Republicans will vote against him in the general election and Democrats will obviously support a real Democrat against him (especially if he sticks to his words about being not being an automatic 60th vote).
Politically speaking, Specter is a dead man walking and doesn’t even know it yet.
This puts the so-called “socially liberal-fiscally conservative” unicorns* in a bit of a bind, since Benedict Arlen’s break with the base was over fiscal policy, and specifically, his support of Chairman Zero’s massive spending and deficits. They really can’t smear the social cons with this one; unless they also want to admit that opposition to ruinous deficits is also part of some “Purity Test.”
* I call “socially liberal-fiscally conservatives” unicorns, because I don’t believe any actually exist.
I’d argue that this spells the doom of the Republican party for a basic premise. If Toomy doesn’t beat Spector, expect castigation of conservative principals across the board, gutting the Republicans of their right flank and rendering them ‘democrat light’. If that happens, why vote for ‘Democrat light’ when you get the real thing?
The follow up is, when, in the past 12 years, has the RNC been able to find/fund a winning issue? If they’d gone with Toomy 6 years ago, then this entire conversation would be moot.
The real test for me is this; If Toomy loses, it’s the death knell for conservatism as a way of government. Because it means despite the rightness of the belief structure, people prefer the Nanny state.
People usually do prefer the Nanny State, Livewire. But the Nanny State is an unsustainable premise in the long term. The left has made a Devil’s bargain, “We will let you do whatever you want in the bedroom, but once you step outside, your life is ours to micromanage,” which many, many people have bought into. And this bargain, coupled with the bargain of, “Vote for us, do nothing else, we’ll tax others to take care of you,” is what keeps the left in power.
But I don’t believe that either of those premises are sustainable in the long term. The greed of the lazy can not be satiated indefinitely by the labor of the taxed, especially not in a society that micromanages every human activity and enterprise. It make take generations to work it out, and we may very well be living in the Twilight of Liberty for this generation of humanity, but we have a formula that works very well when it is applied; the U.S. Constitution. Someday, somewhere, people will rediscover the virtues of limited government and capitalism.
When the Voice of the Republican Party say:
“Obama goes to Mexico — they have an earthquake. Obama goes to Mexico — get pig flu.”
And a leading republican legislator spews lies such as:
“I find it interesting that it was back in the 1970s that the swine flu broke out then under another Democrat president Jimmy Carter,” said Bachmann. “And I’m not blaming this on President Obama, I just think it’s an interesting coincidence.”
Is it any wonder Spector wants to leave such a party that is full of hatred and contemptibility?
…and join the party of “Bush caused 9-11” and “President Bush hates black people” and “God Damn Amerikka!”, gillie? Because civility just RULES, where you are.
FIVETHIRTYEIGHT posted this in November of 2008:
Specter knew he was history. The fact is, Specter has cultivated a lot of Democrat votes and he will keep and build on them. It is going to be hard to defeat him. But the Senate is beginning to build a stable of octogenarian Democrat members who fumble their way along.
Specter is so wedded to being a Senator that he can not imagine having to return to the land of the common people. There really should be a C-Span channel where retired windbags can inflate their egos to near bursting and then bloviate until it time for the warm milk and cookies.
Robert Byrd (D-WV) 91, Frank Lautenberg, (D-NJ) 85, Daniel Inouye (D-HI) 84 , Daniel Akaka (D-HI) 84, Arlen Specter (D-PA) 79.
Gillie is just proud to belong to the party of tax cheats (Tim Geithner, Tom Daschle, Charlie Rangel) and pederasts (Sam Adams, Gerry Studds, Gary Becker, Jeff Rosato, and Mel Reynolds).
I don’t think pushing for ideological purity is the way to rebuild a party but that seems to be the main response of Republicans, at least on here. I believe there is something to be said for electability and being able to make yourself appealing across the political specturm, which is what Spector had. You cannot expect every Republican to be as conversative as the base, especially when they are coming from states with different political make ups. The Northeast is the graveyard of Republicans now, its hard to believe it used to be a solidly red era at one point.
Yes you may all dislike Snowe and Collins but they can win in their states, just because they are moderates doesn’t mean they should constantly hounded about it. I get the impression most would rather they lose to a “real” republican in a primary and risk losing the seat altogether in pursuit of an ideology.
From the Barone piece:
Gee. I see a bunch of losses where Specter DIDN’T switch parties, so maybe he’s no quite as power-hungry and unprincipled as you make him out to be. I seem to recall another politician switching parties back in 62. Who could that be? Hmmmmm. Perhaps, like that other guy, Specter feels that he isn’t leaving the party, the party is leaving him.
WHAT? DON’T THROW OUT THE MODERATES??????? Well, I see Barone will have to be thrown on the stake and burned. HERETIC!!!!!!!
I wish that some of you guys, who I do consider to be friends, would put thinking caps on every once in a while, instead of simply reacting out of instinct and being blind reactionaries.
spam f’d again
I don’t think pushing for ideological purity is the way to rebuild a party but that seems to be the main response of Republicans
I’m a little tired of this “ideological purity” canard. Who, exactly, is demanding “Ideological Purity?” Arlen Specter sided with the Democrats 100% on spending, taxes, Amnesty, judges, abortion, and was waffling on card check. With the Republicans already an ineffectual minority, why bother?
What I am a little tired of is the notion that the Republican party should just abandon its ideals of limited government, opposition to confiscatory taxation, and protection of innocent human life, and national security. Good Lord, what’s left? What’s the point of having a Republican party that’s a carbon copy of the Democrats?
Someday, the pendulum will swing back. When it does, I don’t mind if Snowe and Collins are in the party, but I don’t want their ilk running it.
No it doesn’t, V. As you yourself just touched upon, Specter already wasn’t a fiscal conservative.
Darkeyedresolve: Look at it this way. The left likes big government and entitlement programs and greater socialism. The “moderates” like smaller government and “sensible” entitlements and quasi-socialism. The right is skeptical of government, especially big government and is opposed to broad entitlement welfare and champions private ownership and a market that is free as possible from government control.
The “moderates” are camped on the ground of eternal gray where everything is compromise. Quasi-socialism is still socialism, just socialism-lite. Why should a party compromise on such a fundamental issue?
The Republicans are not purging moderates, they are firming up core principles. If the moderates want to work with to “bridge” the gap between a fiscal conservatism and fiscal liberalism, they are welcome to try.
Perhaps you can explain why a “moderate” is more satisfied working with the left than the right. It would seem to me that the job of the “moderate” is the same no matter which party he is in.
Would the democrats prefer a leftist candidate to a moderate one? Why shouldn’t the Republicans prefer a conservative candidate to a moderate one?
Susan Collins is probably reflecting the spongy middle that elected her. There is nothing much the Republicans can do in the short run with a state that is tending leftist. When the Republicans have a strong presence in the Senate, Susan Collins is of marginal importance to the party. When the Republicans have a weak presence in the Senate, Susan Collins is just a Democrat-lite carbuncle.
The Democrats are working to weed out their moderates and replace them with stronger leftists. Why would you expect the Republicans to do anything different. The real war, which caused the massive Republican defeats is when the Republicans try to outspend and out entitlement the Democrats.
If the Republicans came out full bore for gay marriage and promised a million dollar “reparations” payment to every couple who tied the knot, do you think gays would immediately switch parties and become loyal Republicans?
Democrats have an amalgamation of “victim” groups they have courted. The republicans are coming back to their core principles which do not vary on the basis of “victimhood.”
Perhaps you could succinctly state the core principles of the Democrats. It would make for interesting reading.
Specter is the classic Washington Elite Republican who thinks, “I wish I had a different base.” He didn’t want to engage with his base: not to win them over, not to lead them or persuade them, not to gain their trust and support. He thinks he’s big enough to simply substitute bases.
Everybody loves a turncoat when they first turn to their side, but anyone with brains will later or secretly think to themselves, “yuck”. It will be interesting to see if the Democratic base is still behind Specter, a year from now when it counts.
100%????? That’s a bit of a stretch me thinks. And if he’s waffling on card check, then wouldn’t he be siding with the Democrats 98% ± 2? 🙂
PS. Plus / Minus HTML is “& plusmn ;” with no spaces. Learning new HTML tricks is fun!
Yes, the Dems are within a hair of a filibuster proof Senate. Even so, Arlen Specter will vote the same way he’s always voted, regardless of whether there is a D or R after his name. Becoming a Democrat does not mean he votes in lockstep with them.
On my part, I say good riddance to Specter. He’s a RINO who dilutes the Republican message of fiscal responsibility.
IT would be interesting to see the repubs run on the following:
Abolition of Social Security
Abolition of Medicare
Abolition of Food Stamps
Abolition of College Aid
Abolition of EPA
All 5 are the “quasi socialism†that you folks seem to rail against.
My bet is you guys wouldn’t even win Mississippi.
What are the “moderate” positions on abortion, taxes, and spending, anyway? To judge from Snow, Specter, and Collins… they seem to be no different than the hard left positions. Is there a *more* radically left position than unlimited abortion-on-demand? Is there a more radically left position than quadrupling the deficit with tax increases to follow? (Perhaps only in the sense that gradually socializing the economy is less radical than instantly socializing it.)
#16. Unfortunately for you, Gillie, the Republicans run real people and not straw men.
Go back to your NAMBLA meeting. I hear Barney Frank is bringing obscenely shaped pastries.
#18 wait so you now are saying that some socialist type programs are OK?
I thought “quasi socialism” was the problem?
BTW, Gillie, since you think it’s so great for the government to hand out goodies… why shouldn’t the government just guarantee everybody a high-paying job, a nice home, and free food for life. Since, in your view, the party that plays Santa Claus is the party that deserve power.
#20 because those things are not needed.
I simply think that the government should do all its can to make sure that old folks don’t have to be homeless, poor people don’t starve, a good education is available, the environment is clean and people have access to health care.
Those principles are “quasi socialism†and my bet is 90% of the country is for the above.
That is why you see republicans struggle when in power, they promise dramatic cuts, but when they look at the budget, the programs are needed. So they refuse to cut spending, but refuse to pay for them.
That is what happened during the Regan and Bush II years. Hopefully when we come out of the economic crisis, Obama will be smart and raise revenue to pay for the services your country wants and get back to the balanced budgets of the Clinton Years.
I simply think that the government should do all its can to make sure that old folks don’t have to be homeless, poor people don’t starve, a good education is available, the environment is clean and people have access to health care.
Well, that’s pretty greedy of you, denying people access to housing and high paying jobs just because you think they “aren’t needed.” Why are they any less necessary than those things you are in favor of?
Especially since you have no intention of using your own resources to make sure the poor are fed and the elderly are housed. You just want the government to tax everyone who is richer than you to pay for it. And then you can congratulate yourself on how compassionate you are because of your willingness to take away other people’s money and spend it in ways that make you feel good about yourself.
gillie: I used the term quasi-socialism in #12 above. However, in the same post I stated :
You will note I said broad entitlement welfare. You make the following leap:
Conserservatives are extremely concerned about how underfunded and off the tracks this train wreck in the making is positioned. The reforms available involve higher taxation, changing the access portals to the entitlement or a combination of the two. Either way, fiscal conservatism is required. Ditto Medicare. Ditto Food Stamps.
It is fascinating that colleges are overpopulated with leftists and the colleges have enormous endowments and yet the costs keep rising faster than even medical costs do. Is there no way that colleges can not be more tuition friendly before they tap the US taxpayer? (My own university is chopping the number of doctoral students it will take on because they are horrendously expensive. They are largely funded by higher tuitions on undergraduates.)
The EPA is only one of hundreds of regulatory agencies. Law and order are not the enemy of conservatives. On the other hand, micromanagement and experimentation on the free market had best have some powerful factual basis behind it.
gillie, you are turd in the punch bowl artist. I have taken the time to speak reasonably to your flameout, because I hope that somewhere within you lies an ability to understand what the concept of “balance” is all about.
So far as socialism is concerned, you can make the argument the post office is a socialist enterprise. That would make Ben Franklin a socialist. But in the modern world, socialism is more like the government taking over health care, owning automobile companies, nationalizing banks, dictating whether people may eat transfat, when and if they may smoke, what kind of light bulbs they may use, and whether they may escape public schools to obtain a quality education.
Every liberal I know believes that government needs to take over the lives of the poor and make sure they have food, housing, education, medical care, a “living wage,” etc. No conservative I know says the poor deserve to be miserable. But every conservative I know understands that reliance on welfare is addictive and more often than not puts the recipient in a prison of stale hopelessness. We believe that welfare is a safety net, not a way of life.
One of the reasons that Republicans donate to charity by far greater amounts than Democrats is because we know that properly run charities get far more bang for the buck than government entitlement programs. The amount of a dollar that reaches the recipient after the costs of government bureaucracy has been deducted is shameful. It is usually under 15 cents of the original dollar. That is the true cost of socialism: bureaucrats living large while the poor stay miserable. But it makes you feel so good. And you don’t have to get your own hands dirty.
I would say the moderates probably work more with the left than with the right now a days, and not saying it was always like this, is because the left seems more willing to compromise.
A sizeable chunk of the conversative base is against any form of same sex union, a a sizeable chunk of the left base is for only for gay marriage. A moderate republican, who wants civil union, would have a a better shot at working a deal with the leftist side on the issue than with the right.
If as a moderate who supports some government spending on welfare projects, and you have the right which says no to all and the left that wants lots of money for it…you are going work with the people open to spending the money. You will have much better luck in tempering down excessive spending than prying money from a clenched fist.
Another fact is the government is now a center left government, Republicans have no levers of power. Why would a politican go out of their way to work with a minority party with no power?
Conversative Democrats make up an important part of the party, they will have a much bigger impact on Obama’s agenda than Republicans will. The fact that the Democratic party has a conversative wing and the Republicans barely have a moderate wing is proof that one party is growing and another is shrinking. The Dems, for the time being, have the mantle of big tent right now. During the more conversative 80’s and 90s, moderates probably worked with the right since it was in power.
Conversative primary challengers have done more to hurt the Republican party than to help it. Chafee’s costly and draining primary is why he lost his re-election in 06. Yes he only voted with Republicans about half the time but he got replaced with someone who never votes with Republicans and tipped control of the senate to the democrats.
Susan Collins and Olympia Snowe might not be Republican enough for you but they are the lesser of two evils at least. Its quite possible you would lose an ally on some issues and gain an enemy on all of your issues.
Hopefully when we come out of the economic crisis, Obama will be smart and raise revenue to pay for the services your country wants
( Is he going to start paying down the National Debt too? Even better.)
OK. You’re on. But this has to be done by raising taxes, and not selling any more bonds to China. The American people MUST PAY for what they want, and not just the rich either. There is a huge disconnect between what people want, and the recognition that those things have a real cost. People think that government handouts are free, and it’s because the ones benefiting don’t ever have to pay for the stuff. I’m not talking about the truly needy, I’m talking about those who have stable incomes, but want to have government provide all. EVERYONE, especially the middle class, must be forced to pay from their own wallets to support what they want. Only then will they come to understand just how expensive the largess in government has grown to become.
I don’t see where the left compromises much on anything. They reduced the Porkulus from $900 Billion to $800 Billion, then added most of it back into the Omnibus Spending Bill.
On abortion, the left’s stand is unyielding… anytime, anywhere, for any reason, without parental consent, at any stage in pregnancy, paid for by taxpayers.
On taxes… Moderate Republicans from Milliken in the 70s to Taft in the 90s to Schwarzie in the OO’s have foisted some of the largest tax increases in history on their consituents.
Being a “moderate” seems to be more of pose than an actual principle. And they reason they tend to side with liberals is… because they are liberals.
Principled conservative opposition is the only alternative to big government with an interventionist social agenda. There is no moderate alternative.
At least someone is pointing out that all of Obama’s “new” policy initiatives are warmed over seventies liberalism, even if it is the soul-less objectivists at Reason.
Me too. We finally agree on something. And HERE IS HOW government can make sure that old folks don’t have to be homeless, poor people don’t starve, a good education is available, the environment is clean and people have access to health care.
1) Stop all bailouts.
2) Dump all assets already obtained in bailouts.
3) Cut taxes.
4) Drastically cut spending.
5) Drastically cut regulations.
6) Eliminate or drastically reform the Federal Reserve so that interest rates reach market levels and government debt can’t be “monetized”.
7) Eliminate or drastically reform Medicare, allowing free markets to do their magic insurance and medical services.
8) Eliminate or drastically reform Social Security, reducing its tax burden and allowing people to direct how their own Social Security money is invested.
If we did all those things now, within 3 years the nation’s prosperity and services would be unbelievable. Old people, poor people, kids, the environment and the “uninsured” would all benefit. Even the poorest, most unskilled jobs would earn more real income or allow a higher living standard.
Put up or shut up, gillie. If you really care about “making sure that old folks don’t have to be homeless, poor people don’t starve, a good education is available, the environment is clean and people have access to health care” – which I doubt – then you need to do a 100% turnaround in your politics (from ‘statist’ to ‘libertarian’), because the Democrats and your Dear Teleprompter are busily doing the EXACT OPPOSITE of what should be done, to achieve those things.
ILC, I did a similar exercise yesterday and cut the deficit by $400 Billion in 30 minutes by canceling the stimulus and making painless cuts across all government departments.
Sonicfrog, in this case, the party hasn’t thrown out the moderates, but that Arlen Specter made a decision based on his poll numbers. Even he said as much.
And this is nothing about the party throwing out the moderates, but about Specter going out of his way to seize the limelight. No serious conservative, no honest moderate could seriously back the spendthrift “stimulus” at a time of already increasing budget deficits.
Had he not voted for that, Toomey would likely not have challenged him and he would remain a Republican today.
Unlike Reagan’s switch, Specter didn’t specify exactly what policies made the party so conservative, except to repeat the left-wing/MSM mantra about the right-wing taking over the part. On economic issues, I wish the right-wing had taken over the party, then we wouldn’t be in the state we are today. We might not be in the majority, but would have a much stronger minority–in both Houses of Congress & across the nation.
Oh, and Darkeyed, good points all, esp. about Collins/Snow, but Chafee voted with GOP far less than half the time.
Chaffee also hinted that he would switch parties after the election anyway.
The real incompetence of the RNSC under Liz Dole was spending millions to prop up Chaffee in a primary against a moderately conservative challenger. The millions wasted to prop up a RINO in a party primary could have saved Jim Talent in Missouri, Conrad Burns in Montana, or even George Allen in Virginia. Saving any of these senators who lost very narrow races in the general elections would have kept the GOP in the majority in the senate in 2006 AND preserved the filibuster after Specter’s defection.
It’s not like propping up RINO’s in primaries is a cost-free exercise.
FWIW, I think moderates are gutless people, and they will bend in whatever direction they think will be the least controversial. Since the MSM define what is controversial and what isn’t, moderates will always bend in their direction, which means they will only bend to the left.
I dunno. Mine seems to be growing larger in between birthdays! 🙂