News Sen. Arlen Specter to switch parties

[WhoWee]

I'd like to see some comments on this opinion/prediction of mine: Do people agree/disagree with my prediction and if you agree, what does that say about Specter and/or the way our political system currently works? Ie, I could see him moving fully halfway across the US political spectrum with this. To me that says he's more of an opportunist than someone who does what he believes is right (a gradual shift would imply a gradual change in values). And I expect he's the rule, not the exception.

And if his voting record doesn't change, but instead remains moderately conservative while he wears a "democrat" button on his lappel, does that say anything better about him? I believe he's stuck in a course of action that regardless of how it plays out will reflect badly on him and I believe his transparent opportunism will cost him in the next election.

I think you are on-target Russ...with one addition.

I think Specter realized the importance/full potential of his swing vote during the stimulus debate. By crossing over, he gets the support of the Dems for re-election, is no longer the Repub Black Sheep, and will be courted by both side for future votes.

This was the best move for Specter...he (probably) saved his seat (still has to get through Dem primary) and his power has increased substantially. He's no dummy.

 

[WhoWee]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Party_switching_in_the_United_States

Among some notables: Ronald Reagan, Norm Coleman, Hillary Clinton, Howard Dean

I think I noticed something (not based on this list, just a general observation). You'd think that people who undergo a change (lose/change/gain religion, political inclination, (non)popular, etc.) have more of an understanding of, or inclination towards those that they left behind, but the exact opposite seems to be true (hatred of, becoming the antithesis of what they were, etc.) I don't know whether that's just projection (total rejection of what they once were, illustrated by taking it out on others), or the zeal of conversion, or that the noisy switchers tend to extremes whatever they believe in, or what, but I thought it was kind of remarkable. Instead of being a bridge, they turn out to be moats.

I guess the bridges (or moderate converters?) tend to be the people that wear the identity pretty loosely in the first place.

I don't want to muddy the thread...but consider Dick Morris under your template.

 

[LowlyPion]

I don't want to muddy the thread...but consider Dick Morris under your template.

Consider him for what? Tax cheat? Philanderer? Hilary-hater? Surely you don't think Dick Morris is a man of any non-dollar denominated principle. I'd say he's hardly a moat so much as a sink hole.

Check out his bio in detail.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dick_Morris

A close reading reveals that he has changed nothing. His guiding principle looks to have always been Dick Morris.

 

[WhoWee]

Consider him for what? Tax cheat? Philanderer? Hilary-hater? Surely you don't think Dick Morris is a man of any non-dollar denominated principle. I'd say he's hardly a moat so much as a sink hole.

Check out his bio in detail.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dick_Morris

A close reading reveals that he has changed nothing. His guiding principle looks to have always been Dick Morris.

Forget the moat thing. This is the post I responded to...please read. I think Morris is a good example.



Originally Posted by MATLABdude View Post

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Party_s..._United_States

Among some notables: Ronald Reagan, Norm Coleman, Hillary Clinton, Howard Dean

I think I noticed something (not based on this list, just a general observation). You'd think that people who undergo a change (lose/change/gain religion, political inclination, (non)popular, etc.) have more of an understanding of, or inclination towards those that they left behind, but the exact opposite seems to be true (hatred of, becoming the antithesis of what they were, etc.) I don't know whether that's just projection (total rejection of what they once were, illustrated by taking it out on others), or the zeal of conversion, or that the noisy switchers tend to extremes whatever they believe in, or what, but I thought it was kind of remarkable.

 

[LowlyPion]

On a slightly more relevant note I see it written that:

Democrats Block Bachmann's Attempt To Switch Parties

..."We're telling Congresswoman Bachmann that we already have maxed out the number of Democrats allowed," said Democratic Majority Leader, Nancy Pelosi. "If that doesn't work we're just going to bolt the door."

Unfortunately it is on the Huffington Post and so it must be discounted as to its accuracy or partisan free pov or satirical take on the state of the Republican Party.

 

[WhoWee]

On a slightly more relevant note I see it written that:


Unfortunately it is on the Huffington Post and so it must be discounted as to its accuracy or partisan free pov or satirical take on the state of the Republican Party.

That's why I like you LP...too funny...good find!

 

[Jimmy Snyder]

By switching, Specter has increased the average intelligence of both parties.

 

[WhoWee]

By switching, Specter has increased the average intelligence of both parties.

I think you can prove that.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Cheap shots from the fringe.

 

[Jimmy Snyder]

The mark of the artist is to make it seem easy.

 

[LowlyPion]

Olympia Snowe's Op-Ed in the NY Times.

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.

... 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.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/29/opinion/29snowe.html?_r=1&em

Apparently this is not acceptable to the Club for Growth that has sought to purge the party of the ideologically impure - to their way of thinking anyway - at the expense of destroying what fragile balance the party needs to be a viable alternative to the very thing that they are afraid of the most - the Dems.

Olympia Snowe ... Come on over. Join the Party.

 

[turbo]

Olympia and Susan Collins should both cross over. The GOP has lost its conservative roots and is forcing out moderates to become the party of the neo-cons.

Around 1980 my boss (who was also a close friend) left the GOP and registered as a Democrat just before the party caucuses. When I asked him why, he said that the GOP had become the slave of big business and he wanted to participate in a party in which he could actually have a voice. Like me, he was a fiscal conservative, but unlike me, he felt the need to actually belong to a political party so he could exercise some influence at the grass-roots level. The ideological polarization of the GOP didn't happen overnight - it's been going on for decades. It accelerated during the Reagan years, and again when Gingrich hijacked the party with his "contract with America".

 

[Astronuc]

The demise of the Republican party was a topic of discussion this morning on the local NPR affiliate. The host interviewed a political commentator from Pennsylvania and they discussed the switch by Specter and the fact that 100,000's of Pennsylvanians switch from the GOP to Dem party last year. The commentator mentioned that Pennsylvanians are traditionally conservative, but they apparently have the notion that the GOP has abandoned its traditional conservative values and become the party of Wall Street, Big Banks and corruption.

The host also asked whether the GOP should attempt to broaden it's appeal or purge itself of moderates and move further to the right. The commmentator from Pennsylvania indicated that if the GOP did the latter, then the GOP would have fewer people to talk to, or represent.

 

[LowlyPion]

Michael Steele sides with Rush in saying good riddance to Specter.

April 30, 2009 8:02 AM
Steele, Rush In Lock-Step On Specter
After backtracking last month from comments that conservative talk radio giant Rush Limbaugh was "incendiary" and a mere "entertainer," Republican National Committee Chairman Michael Steele is following the firebrand host's lead on the latest issue dogging the GOP.

When asked on CBS' The Early Show Thursday whether his view of Arlen Specter's defection to the Democrats mirrored Sen. Olympia Snowe's (regret) or Limbaugh's (good riddance), Steele was quick to side with the controversial radio host.

"Rush (is right)," Steele said. "I'm sorry, I'm not weeping here."

http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2009/04/30/politics/politicalhotsheet/entry4979800.shtml

Unfortunately Steele is not much of a deep thinker. In his own statements he contradicts himself. On the one hand he says Specter is an opportunist because he knows he can't get past a Republican Primary and on the other he says the Party is not driving moderates away?

Steele called Specter's maneuver a "cold, crass political calculation by a senator who could not get reelected through a nominating process in the Republican party." ... But he rejected the idea that conservatives are running moderates out of the party.

They can stay with the Party, but they won't be re-elected?

No wonder the RNC is trying to clip his financial wings.

 

[LowlyPion]

With statements like this, why would Specter ever think that he wasn't welcome in the GOP? This was Michael Steel's idea of "outreach" and being inclusive of the 3 remaining moderates left in the party? Now Steele says he's not weeping he's gone? Don't look now Michael, but the GOP iceberg is getting smaller and smaller under the Obama sun.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ocqIEAaPVok

 

[WhoWee]

Don't look now Michael, but the GOP iceberg is getting smaller and smaller under the Obama sun.

That's pretty good...you should forward it to them.

 

[LowlyPion]

I'm not sure that Michael can process metaphor.

 

[WhoWee]

The demise of the Republican party was a topic of discussion this morning on the local NPR affiliate. The host interviewed a political commentator from Pennsylvania and they discussed the switch by Specter and the fact that 100,000's of Pennsylvanians switch from the GOP to Dem party last year. The commentator mentioned that Pennsylvanians are traditionally conservative, but they apparently have the notion that the GOP has abandoned its traditional conservative values and become the party of Wall Street, Big Banks and corruption.

The host also asked whether the GOP should attempt to broaden it's appeal or purge itself of moderates and move further to the right. The commmentator from Pennsylvania indicated that if the GOP did the latter, then the GOP would have fewer people to talk to, or represent.

It's not surprising. But when politicians cross, often it's for survival...that is funding and party support...not necessarily because they are a "believer" or will ever be a "hardliner".

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/interactives/independents/
A poll demonstrating 3 out of 10 independent is very significant.

It's unfortunate a 3rd party hasn't been sustainable.

I hoped (for a fleeting moment) the "Tea Party" might morph and form into an actual party...consisting of micro/small/medium sized business owners/managers. I was in Johnstown and Pittsburgh PA on tax day, and that WAS the buzz.

This group is largely unrepresented and could sustain funding if organized nationally. This group doesn't typically fare well with pro-labor or big business policies.

 

[WhoWee]

I'm not sure that Michael can process metaphor.

I meant the Obama people...Rahm and James.

 

[Astronuc]

It's not surprising. But when politicians cross, often it's for survival...that is funding and party support...not necessarily because they are a "believer" or will ever be a "hardliner".

That was a point made. Listening to commentators, I get the impression that Specter saw that his chances of winning in the GOP primary against an opponent he barely beat 5+ years ago were nil based on the moderates leaving the party and registering independent or democratic.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/interactives/independents/
A poll demonstrating 3 out of 10 independent is very significant.

It's unfortunate a 3rd party hasn't been sustainable.

I hoped (for a fleeting moment) the "Tea Party" might morph and form into an actual party...consisting of micro/small/medium sized business owners/managers. I was in Johnstown and Pittsburgh PA on tax day, and that WAS the buzz.

This group is largely unrepresented and could sustain funding if organized nationally. This group doesn't typically fare well with pro-labor or big business policies.

Were the "Tea Party" folks primarily republican/conservative, libertarian, United We Stand, or a mix of those. In our area, we have people registered as republican/conservative, and independent/conservative, as well as democrat.

I'm afraid that 'politics' has become a big business unto itself, and there is little room for the independent (small business person) to enter. I would very much like to see more independents, whose core values include stewarship and doing what's best for the country.

 

[turbo]

Maine is a small state population-wise, so the voters can get familiar with the candidates more easily. As a result, two of the last five governors were Independents who successfully challenged the candidates of the major parties. It would not hurt senators Snowe and Collins one little bit to drop their GOP affiliation - their Senate seats are secure. In fact, if they declared themselves as Independents, they could conceivably get a lot more powerful and influential in DC than they could as declared members of either major party. It would be better for their current statuses on the Armed Services and Homeland Security committees, respectively, if they would switch to the Democratic party with assurances that they would keep their committee assignments. The RNC should read the hand-writing on the wall.

 

[WhoWee]

Were the "Tea Party" folks primarily republican/conservative, libertarian, United We Stand, or a mix of those. In our area, we have people registered as republican/conservative, and independent/conservative, as well as democrat.

I'm afraid that 'politics' has become a big business unto itself, and there is little room for the independent (small business person) to enter. I would very much like to see more independents, whose core values include stewarship and doing what's best for the country.

I think the mix varied by location. Obviously, the big events broadcast by Fox were heavily conservative/Republican. However, the events I'm aware of in N.E. OH and W. PA were a diverse mix. The interesting thing to me was that it rained all day and there was still a reasonably strong turnout.

The problem with any independent or true grass roots movement is SOMEONE will need to step up and lead/organize/finance. Unfortunately, as soon as someone prominent gets involved...the news media associates the movement to that person...not the diverse group or the message.

I think an independent movement would need to begin locally, with a mayor that started out as a business leader or (similar to Obama) an unknown and relatively new state level politician, grow regionally...fill a few regional seats, duplicate the effort, pick up some momentum...then the funding will follow to support and attract Congressional candidates.

To be competitive, the grass roots effort has to make the transition into a business (unfortunately).

 

[turbo]

To be competitive, the grass roots effort has to make the transition into a business (unfortunately).

Not if we enacted REAL campaign finance reform to take the millions of dollars/campaign out of the issue. When there is that much money sloshing around, there will be influence-peddling, bribery, and general dishonesty and greed corrupting the parties. Take away the parties' ability to direct millions to their members' campaigns, and you will take our government back out of party control. It's that simple.

 

[WhoWee]

Not if we enacted REAL campaign finance reform to take the millions of dollars/campaign out of the issue. When there is that much money sloshing around, there will be influence-peddling, bribery, and general dishonesty and greed corrupting the parties. Take away the parties' ability to direct millions to their members' campaigns, and you will take our government back out of party control. It's that simple.

Unfortunately, the only people who can bring that reform...would lose their base of support...unless change came fast...and that's not likely.

There is one possibility...if enough independent-leaning office holders were to unite as a new party, some of their supporters might follow. Then a finance reform movement based around a taxpayer funded pool...distributed evenly to the (3) parties (?) along with stricter limits on corporate/union donations and cross-state contributions might be realistic.

 

[LowlyPion]

Looks like Reich called it 5 years ago. Right at the time that Rove was about to crow about building the Republican Party into a "permanent majority" around the transcendental leadership of George Bush. Now they wonder if they will ever get a sniff of being able to influence the consent on an ambassadorial appointment.

June 14, 2004
Robert B. Reich, Author of "Reason: Why Liberals Will Win the Battle for America," on the "Radcons"

In his timely book, "Reason: Why Liberals Will Win the Battle for America," Robert Reich calls the forces of darkness who have taken over America "Radcons." That's because the Bush breed of "conservatives" aren't conservatives in the traditional sense at all. They are radical ideologues who are committed to a Darwinian notion of the "reign of the rich" and unbridled corporate greed. Add a slathering of Victorian moral posturing, religious zealotry, and a view of rule by powerful elites.

True democracy is an obstacle to the goals of the Radcons. While pandering to the cultural wars to attract blue collar and church-going voters, the Radcons are deeply suspicious of democracy. Who needs democracy when you can rule by divine will and Supreme Court intervention?

Liberals will win the battle for democracy, Reich argues, if they get off their duffs and fight for it. In many ways, it is a commitment to the democratic process -- and the concept of one person, one vote -- that distinguishes liberals from Radcons, who would rather follow the Neo-Confederacy precedent of suppressing votes from non "Radcons."

"Centrism is bogus," Reich argues. It's up to the Democrats to attract the largest political block in America -- the non-voters -- by defining an agenda that leads the nation, rather than one that tries to mirror the latest poll.

"The big differences in American politics today are between those with courage and those without it, those who can inspire and those who can't...On the other side is a large group of hard-boiled poll-watchers and ***-kissers who spend most of their time raising money from people and groups with a lot of it."

http://www.buzzflash.com/interviews/04/06/int04030.html

Now the Radcons are reaping the whirlwind.

 

[russ_watters]

I think you are on-target Russ...with one addition.

I think Specter realized the importance/full potential of his swing vote during the stimulus debate. By crossing over, he gets the support of the Dems for re-election, is no longer the Repub Black Sheep, and will be courted by both side for future votes.

This was the best move for Specter...he (probably) saved his seat (still has to get through Dem primary) and his power has increased substantially. He's no dummy.

I said before that I thought it would hurt him in his next election - that was probably wishful thinking. Since the much pulicised swinging of PA towards the blue side, he's probably just decided that he stands a better chance of re-election if he rebrands himself as a democrat. And he may be right. One should not underestimate the public's ability to respond to pleasant fictions and contradictions.

 

[russ_watters]

Cheap shots from the fringe.

One-liners from those with nothing to contribute to a discussion...

Please try responding to the many actual discussion points that have been made. Your failure to do so only highlights the pointlessness.

[edit] And which fringe? The Huffington joke was a shot at both parties!

 

[russ_watters]

Among some notables: Ronald Reagan, Norm Coleman, Hillary Clinton, Howard Dean...

Another notable from the before Arlen Specter: Arlen Specter.

There are legitimate and illegitimate reasons why one would switch parties (already discussed) and the fact that his voting record last year was republican puts only the illegitimate ones in play.

In any case...

I think I noticed something (not based on this list, just a general observation). You'd think that people who undergo a change (lose/change/gain religion, political inclination, (non)popular, etc.) have more of an understanding of, or inclination towards those that they left behind, but the exact opposite seems to be true (hatred of, becoming the antithesis of what they were, etc.) I don't know whether that's just projection (total rejection of what they once were, illustrated by taking it out on others), or the zeal of conversion, or that the noisy switchers tend to extremes whatever they believe in, or what, but I thought it was kind of remarkable. Instead of being a bridge, they turn out to be moats.

I guess the bridges (or moderate converters?) tend to be the people that wear the identity pretty loosely in the first place.

I tend to agree with all of that.

 

[russ_watters]

The host also asked whether the GOP should attempt to broaden it's appeal or purge itself of moderates and move further to the right. The commmentator from Pennsylvania indicated that if the GOP did the latter, then the GOP would have fewer people to talk to, or represent.

Quite obviously, if the GOP wants to remain a viable party and get back to being the dominant one, they have to shed the fringe and embrace moderate conservativism.

It is my hope and belief that what we have seen in the past 10 years or so with the growth of the religious right is ultimately going to be a self-defeating shift. Many of the major issues that the religious right (and those even further on the fringe) go after end up being spectacular failures. And we may be already seeing the split: there is no way a guy like John McCain should have ever won the Republican primary. He was sabbotaged by the religious right the last time, but this time his moderate popular support carried him through.

The current state of opinion in the US is a reflection on Bush and his economic and foreign policy, but it is very important to realize that none of the major candidates - and in particular the winner of the primary - were anywhere close to as far right as Bush. I also think Bush was further right than people realized he would be. So while the Republican party is as beaten down right now as any party has been in a long time, I believe a lot of that is an illusion brought on by unusual - and temporary - circumstances.

People in the middle class and above want to be republicans. But they feel betrayed and have switched sides as a reaction to that. As soon as the party starts offering what it is historically supposed to be offering, the people will flock back to it.

 

[LowlyPion]

I said before that I thought it would hurt him in his next election - that was probably wishful thinking. Since the much pulicised swinging of PA towards the blue side, he's probably just decided that he stands a better chance of re-election if he rebrands himself as a democrat. And he may be right. One should not underestimate the public's ability to respond to pleasant fictions and contradictions.

Well, he's not out of the woods yet. Ed Rendell could run in the Democratic Primary. It's not clear that he could win against Ed. In which case ...

To stand a chance he will have to be looking a lot more like a Democrat by the time the Dems go to the polls in their primary. So I suspect this leopard will be more a Democrat than he would have as a Republican in the mean time. Looks like a no lose situation for the Dems, as they act to undo the past 8 years of Bush and Cheney and Rove mucking about.