60!

[Johan]

Looks like the Dems. have it all now! (http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D97RIT0G0&show_article=1)

Veteran Republican Sen. Arlen Specter disclosed plans Tuesday to switch parties, a move intended to boost his chances of winning re-election next year that will also push Democrats closer to a 60-vote filibuster-resistant majority.

With Specter, Democrats would have 59 Senate seats. Al Franken is ahead in a marathon recount in Minnesota, and if he ultimately wins his race against Republican Norm Coleman, he would become the party's 60th vote. That is the number needed to overcome a filibuster

So, during the last two years of Democratic control of Congress, Bush was to blame. Well...it's time to "put up or stfu" Dems.! You've got it all now! Solid, unstoppable majorities in the Senate, the House, and the executive (that's the White House! ;)).

Do something besides run us into the ground and bankrupt us, okay! Thanks!

Edit: This is more evidence of the problem with our entrenched politicians. (http://voices.washingtonpost.com/thefix/senate/specter-to-switch-parties.html) Why is he switching? Is it a change based upon principle, or motivated by self-preservation? I'd say self-preservation, so he can win in 2010. That's a lousy reason to make a change of party...just to win reelection. Ridiculous. Thank you, Washington, for keeping politicians gainfully employed in screwing the country for decades. :(

[Ink Asylum]

Wow. There were rumors he was going to switch back when the EFCA was first being considered, but he stuck with the Republicans and voted to filibuster. He must be really afraid of losing his seat to Toomey to switch parties now.

Expect to see Coleman stall as long as absolutely possible now to keep Dems from seating number 60.

[Slack3r78]

I'm with Glenn Greenwald on this one:

http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2009/04/28/specter/index.html

[Johan]

I'm with Glenn Greenwald on this one:

http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2009/04/28/specter/index.html

I agree with the opinions in that article.

Reports today suggest that Democratic officials promised Specter that the party establishment would support him, rather than a real Democrat, in a primary. If true, few events more vividly illustrate the complete lack of core beliefs of Democratic leaders, as well as the rapidly diminishing differences between the parties.

This "switch" is all about a politician staying in power, plain and simple.

Our political and economic systems are so fucking disgusting and corrupt. The past few decades have given me so many reasons to be disgusted with my country. It's hard to reconcile my appreciation for freedom with the impotence I feel in the face of a political and economic system rigged by the powerful and elite. I'm just...so sick of it all. To my core.

[Ox]

Greenwald's first point is deeply asinine. Specter didn't start getting described as a liberal Republican in 2001. He's been described as a liberal Republican since 1980. He's pro-choice, for God's sake. That automatically gets you described as a "liberal Republican." He got a 67% rating from HRC, a 60% rating from the ACLU, and a 46% from the AFL-CIO. He votes with the leadership 67% of the time, compared to a Republican average of 81.7%.

Greenwald's point says nothing about how politics have shifted rightward, but it does say how he has completely lost the ability to perceive anything about American politics outside of how much he hates Bush.

[Telefrog]

The RINO accusers will have a field day with this. "See? He was a RINO all along!"

[Midrael]

I've started seeing some rhetoric coming out of this that agrees with that sentiment. Take this for example: http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2009/04/28/limbaugh-to-specter-please-take-mccain-with-you/

"A lot of people say, 'Well, Specter, take [Sen. John] McCain with you. And his daughter [Meghan]. Take McCain and his daughter with you if you're gonna…" he told listeners, dissolving in laughter.

"…..It's ultimately good. You're weeding out people who aren't really Republicans," he said.

This sort of thinking is going to shoot the GOP in the foot. If they make it uncomfortable for moderates to remain in the party, then the party will only find itself even more limited as time goes on.

[Slack3r78]

Greenwald's first point is deeply asinine. Specter didn't start getting described as a liberal Republican in 2001. He's been described as a liberal Republican since 1980. He's pro-choice, for God's sake. That automatically gets you described as a "liberal Republican." He got a 67% rating from HRC, a 60% rating from the ACLU, and a 46% from the AFL-CIO. He votes with the leadership 67% of the time, compared to a Republican average of 81.7%.

Greenwald's point says nothing about how politics have shifted rightward, but it does say how he has completely lost the ability to perceive anything about American politics outside of how much he hates Bush.
Greenwald's greatest flaw is probably that he tends to hyperfocus on issues and allow them to blot out others. This is probably the primary thing I'd take from that first point:

Time and again during the Bush era, Specter stood with Republicans on the most controversial and consequential issues.

Emphasis mine. Basically he's saying Spector tended to side with Republicans on things Greenwald cares about.

[Johan]

This sort of thinking is going to shoot the GOP in the foot. If they make it uncomfortable for moderates to remain in the party, then the party will only find itself even more limited as time goes on.

I don't think that matters, actually. The inevitable backlash against the Democrats (politics is cyclical) will bring the Republican Party back better than anything the Republicans do themselves. It's already occurring, since with so many Democrats in office, we're seeing a number of corruption cases involving Dems. We're also seeing the potential for year after year after year of record-setting deficits and government intrusion into the private sector, when a recent poll found 80% of Americans prefer a privatized economy (capitalism). Also, the Democrats in office are hardly a block of unified ideologues. You've got quite a spectrum of incredibly liberal to very conservative Democrats.

I'd say it's more accurate to say that the Democratic Party has grown too large to actually represent a legitimately unified party platform, frankly.

I'm sick of the entire system. It's a joke, politically and economically.

Fuck. :(

[Midrael]

Well the Democrats right now are doing the sort of thing that the Republicans did during Reagan's era. If I remember my history right, it was during that time that the GOP was the big tent party. It's certainly no longer that way and becoming even less so.

Honestly, had I been in Specter's shoes, I would have gone for the gusto and tried to create a third party from this. Try and pull in the remaining moderate Republicans and strip off the conservative Democrats to create a part of the middle. I'd love for us to break out of the two party system we have now. But oh well, anything to get re-elected I suppose.

[Ox]

This sort of thinking is going to shoot the GOP in the foot. If they make it uncomfortable for moderates to remain in the party, then the party will only find itself even more limited as time goes on.
Which is why, after the Democrats ran Joe Lieberman out of town on a rail, they were trounced in the 2006 and 2008 elections.

EDIT: Or, for that matter, after Jim Jeffords left the Republicans in 2001, they lost the 2002 and 2004 elections.

[Johan]

Which is why, after the Democrats ran Joe Lieberman out of town on a rail, they were trounced in the 2006 and 2008 elections.

Did you forget the plum, or am I not understanding something? :confused: Didn't the Dems. win in '06 and '08?

[Ox]

I did forget the plum.

[Midrael]

I believe Ox is suggesting that one party member switching sides doesn't support what I was suggesting. :) Which I agree with. I'm not intending to make a mountain out of a molehill. Really, I was just criticizing the knee-jerk reaction by some members of the GOP to say "Good riddance and take the other RINOs with you."

[Generation ABXY]

Did you forget the plum, or am I not understanding something? :confused: Didn't the Dems. win in '06 and '08?

Ox doesn't need plum; just assume everything he says has a hint of sarcasm. ;)

[Johan]

Ox doesn't need plum; just assume everything he says has a hint of sarcasm. ;)

Did you forget the plum, too?

EVERYONE: USE THE DAMN PLUM!

I forgot the plum. ;)

[ShivaX]

I don't see it as a huge deal myself. Yeah he'll have (D) next to his name instead of (R). Ultimately I don't see it changing much. He swapped parties to try to stay in office.

My bigger issue is crap like this:
Not long after Specter met privately with Republican senators to explain his decision, the party's leader, Sen. Mitch McConnell, said the switch posed a "threat to the country."

Drama queen much?

[Slack3r78]

My bigger issue is crap like this:


Drama queen much?
OBAMA IS MAKING US LESS SAFE EVERYDAY :'(

z

[Esquilax1138]

This is right up there, but not quite as interesting, as when Hulk Hogan turned heel for the first time. Politics = Wrestling, just with less oiled up muscle guys rolling around, so I'll stick to watching wrestling :p

[MagGnome]

The "drama" coming out of Republicans after Specter's announcement is ridiculous.

Someone earlier brought up Norm Coleman. He actually switched from Democrat to Republican back in 1996.

[Ink Asylum]

This is less of an earth shaker than it might first seem, but it will lead to more broken filibusters. Pennsylvania's primaries are closed, so only registered members of the party can vote in them. Specter was doomed in a potential Republican primary against Toomey, but he has been trying to change that by going with the base on issues like EFCA. Now that he might have to run against a Democrat in the primary, being the political opportunist he is, he will likely vote for cloture more often to win their support.

[Ox]

He says he won't change his stance on EFCA. You may emphasize whichever word in that sentence you wish.

[Generation ABXY]

This is less of an earth shaker than it might first seem, but it will lead to more broken filibusters. Pennsylvania's primaries are closed, so only registered members of the party can vote in them. Specter was doomed in a potential Republican primary against Toomey, but he has been trying to change that by going with the base on issues like EFCA. Now that he might have to run against a Democrat in the primary, being the political opportunist he is, he will likely vote for cloture more often to win their support.

That's my problem with it. He may not have always voted as I would have liked, but I fear he may do so much worse simply to curry favor.

[Ox]

Ink: does it bother you that you offered precisely the same analysis as this guy (http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=MDU1ZDIwMDlhZDY3NTBhNTBmMjUyZWQ3YmY0YzY4Mjg=)? ;)

[BlackPete]

Let's see what a Bush strategist had to say: (http://newmajority.com/ShowScroll.aspx?ID=13e86822-61d6-459a-9aab-4fc32fc9acef)

The Specter defection is too severe a catastrophe to qualify as a “wake-up call.” His defection is the thing we needed the wake-up call to warn us against! For a long time, the loudest and most powerful voices in the conservative world have told us that people like Specter aren’t real Republicans – that they don’t belong in the party. Now he’s gone, and with him the last Republican leverage within any of the elected branches of government.

For years, many in the conservative world have wished for an ideologically purer GOP. Their wish has been granted. Happy?

He might as well have posted that DOOMED! pic.

[Slack3r78]

Let's see what a Bush strategist had to say: (http://newmajority.com/ShowScroll.aspx?ID=13e86822-61d6-459a-9aab-4fc32fc9acef)



He might as well have posted that DOOMED! pic.

He's a strategist. His counterparts are the reason Specter is now ostensibly a Democrat.

[Ink Asylum]

Ink: does it bother you that you offered precisely the same analysis as this guy (http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=MDU1ZDIwMDlhZDY3NTBhNTBmMjUyZWQ3YmY0YzY4Mjg=)? ;)

No. Should it? It's not like I'm making any radical guesses. Everyone, Republicans and Democrats alike, knows Specter's a huge political opportunist, he pretty much admitted as much during his announcement.

[Ox]

No, it shouldn't bother you. Actually, it was pretty cool: I saw your post, said, "huh, I hadn't thought of that," then checked out what NR was saying and said, "huh, I already read that."

[Johan]

I don't know how anyone could see this as a good thing, considering the Senate, House, and White House are now all firmly in the hands of one political party, with no real immediate (the courts take a long time) obstacle at all in the way of whatever legislation they choose to write.

This isn't separation of powers or checks and balances in a democracy, is it? If it is, all I can say is, "WTF?" :confused:

[MagGnome]

I don't know how anyone could see this as a good thing, considering the Senate, House, and White House are now all firmly in the hands of one political party, with no real immediate (the courts take a long time) obstacle at all in the way of whatever legislation they choose to write.

This isn't separation of powers or checks and balances in a democracy, is it? If it is, all I can say is, "WTF?" :confused:

To be fair, the Democrats came to power through the democratic process, just as the Republicans did in 2000, 2002, and 2004.

[Johan]

To be fair, the Democrats came to power through the democratic process, just as the Republicans did in 2000, 2002, and 2004.

Of course they did, but I don't recall the Republicans having a filibuster-proof majority in the Senate and an unstoppable majority in the House. Also, the Dems. have been the majority in the Senate since the 2006 elections, so we went from five decades of Democratic majorities in Congress, to a decade of Republicans in Congress, and now to an unchecked Democratic majority in the Senate, House, and of course the White House.

I don't see that as a good thing, any more than I would see it as a good thing if Bush were in office with the same circumstances on the Republican side. Unchecked power doesn't take long to be abused.

Fuck that whole situation. It's ridiculous.

[Slack3r78]

I don't know how anyone could see this as a good thing, considering the Senate, House, and White House are now all firmly in the hands of one political party, with no real immediate (the courts take a long time) obstacle at all in the way of whatever legislation they choose to write.

This isn't separation of powers or checks and balances in a democracy, is it? If it is, all I can say is, "WTF?" :confused:
I actually agree. The Bush admin having a similar situation lead to a lot of big problems which won't go away any time soon. Useful opposition is vital to a healthy democracy.

[Generation ABXY]

Luckily, our cycle works in such a way that there's a chance the monopoly on power won't last too long. In fact, even when checks and balances "fails," voting seems to ensure that they have to watch their step, or the party might be out on the next election day.

Still, small comfort given how much can be screwed up in such a small amount of time.

[Ox]

This isn't separation of powers or checks and balances in a democracy, is it? If it is, all I can say is, "WTF?" :confused:
Sure it is. Congress and the White House are never going to get along, even when both ostensibly belong to the same party. There are strong institutional interests that trump mere philosophy. For example, Congress always wants more oversight and less responsibility, so it will be inclined to grant sweeping power to the bureaucracy and then have interminable hearings on how the Administration has abused that power. The White House wants a blank check of authority and its name on every popular piece of legislation.

Different political parties are useful for ensuring that different philosophies are represented, but it should be obvious by 2009 that philosophy is far less important to politicians than whatever is politically advantageous to them at the moment. And since Congress and the President face fundamentally different electoral issues and have different structures, they necessarily will come into conflict.

[BlackPete]

Sure it is. Congress and the White House are never going to get along, even when both ostensibly belong to the same party. There are strong institutional interests that trump mere philosophy.

I don't deny that last bit but didn't Bush gain the "rubber stamp president" moniker by not vetoing a single bill under a Republican-controlled congress? They seemed pretty well in sync for a while (even if Bush couldn't resist slipping in signing statements of his own every now and then...)

I'm not saying "B-b-Bush", but rather it's the "never going to get along" bit that I question.

[Narradisall]

I think the Republicans already did a good job of running you into the ground and bankrupting you. (Yes I am aware the bailouts were mainly proposed by Democrats and opposed by republicans).

[Johan]

I think the Republicans already did a good job of running you into the ground and bankrupting you. (Yes I am aware the bailouts were mainly proposed by Democrats and opposed by republicans).

I don't disagree with the proposition that the Republicans fucked up royally (Iraq was a totally unnecessary war, the prescription drug benefit adds a financial burden we don't need and can't afford, and on and on), but I find it interesting that a Democrat-controlled Congress (since 2006) gets a free pass, including Dems who voted for the Iraq misadventure and approved, by their silence and their votes, with torture and the Patriot Act.

Also, I'd like to let everyone and anyone know that if you're going to back up the dump truck and dump all the shit of the last eight years on the door of the Republicans, when they never had an unstoppable majority as the Dems do now, and didn't even control Congress at all from '06 on, then get the fuck ready to have that truck back up to your doorstep in a few years, because it's ALL ON THE DEMS right now to put up or shut the fuck up.

They have the keys to the kingdom. Don't make excuses when they change all the locks, fuck up the plumbing, take out a few thousand extra mortgages on the property, tell you to turn off your pirated music or they'll call the RIAA, and the like.

It's on THEM now. Do something besides fucking it up, eh?

:doubtful:

[quidmonkey]

He says he won't change his stance on EFCA. You may emphasize whichever word in that sentence you wish.

So someone explain this "card check" bit of the EFCA to me.

[Ox]

So someone explain this "card check" bit of the EFCA to me.
Okay. Under current labor laws, if a union wants to organize a non-union shop, it has to campaign for a vote. It goes around to the workers and gets as many as possible to sign a card saying they want a vote about whether to unionize (the card is non-binding; you can sign even if you want to vote against the union). There have been allegations in the past that management have made it difficult for the union to campaign during work hours, so the union (but not management) is also allowed to approach the workers in the evenings and on the weekends to get them to sign the card. There are also strict limits on the opposition campaigning management is permitted to do: it is not allowed to threaten to fire workers for signing the card or unionizing, and it's not allowed to give workers raises to mollify their grievances.

After a certain proportion (I think 33%) of the eligible workers sign the card, a secret vote takes place. If a majority in the secret vote choose to unionize, then the union is formed and management has to deal with the union. If the unionization vote fails, the union can start over again.

EFCA's card check provision proposes to change this setup. The union may continue to use the old system, but if it manages to get a majority of the workers to sign the card, there is no secret ballot and the union is automatically formed. There are concerns that, inter alia, it is possible for the union organizers to intimidate workers into signing the card, since that's not secret at all and they can come to the workers' homes. Anyone familiar with the Teamsters in the 1970s and 1980s knows that that union did routinely use violence and threats of violence to intimidate voters in non-secret union elections, as a consequence of which the Justice Department compelled the Teamsters to institute secret balloting.

Non-secret voting is actually a pretty old concept: most elections in the early Republic were non-secret. This is why the old political corruption machines, such as Tammany Hall, were so effective: it was very easy to see whether every member of the community voted "the right way," and maybe to send over Paddy and Vinny to "talk" to the recalcitrant voters. In the early 20th century, the Progressive movement successfully pushed American states and localities to adopt the secret ballot, innovated in Australia (which is why this is sometimes called the "Australian ballot" here).

There's another factor about EFCA besides the card check which I want to mention: arbitration. If a corporation and its union cannot agree on a contract within three months, the National Labor Relations Board will bring in a third party who will impose a contract on both parties. On the one hand, this means lengthy strikes will be far less necessary -- or even permitted. On the other, some people are concerned at the notion that a third party will effectively just make up a contract and compel two unwilling parties to comply with it.

[Ink Asylum]

In Pennsylvania the AFL-CIO, a union group in favor of EFCA, has 900,000 members in a state population of 12,400,000. It's easy to see why it's THE issue that could decide Specter's political future.

[Narradisall]

Oh I don't disagree that the Dems have made some bad choicesw since having the senate, but economic blame is hard to pin on someone. It takes time for these decisions to make any real changes.

I wouldn't give them a free pass either, unless things start to turn round in the next 1-2 years then you'll know they aren't making any progress.

[ShivaX]

I wouldn't give them a free pass either, unless things start to turn round in the next 1-2 years then you'll know they aren't making any progress.

Even then you can't be sure. We wont know how this all panned out for another 10 years or so in all likelyhood.

[Ox]

We're still arguing over whether the New Deal helped or hurt the economy in the 1930s. Unless the Democrats do something very clearly stupid (Smoot-Hawley!), we'll never be completely sure what effect they had.

And as Nasser said, "The genius of you Americans is that you never make clear-cut stupid moves. You always make very complicated stupid moves that make the rest of us wonder if there's something we're missing."

[MagGnome]

And as Nasser said, "The genius of you Americans is that you never make clear-cut stupid moves. You always make very complicated stupid moves that make the rest of us wonder if there's something we're missing."

Ha, that's a great quote.

[BlackPete]

Just WTF are the Republicans doing (http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2009/04/29/gop-using-specters-own-campaign-ads-against-him/) now?

After Arlen Specter bolted the GOP Tuesday, Republicans like party chair Michael Steele attacked him as a "leftist" with a history of "left-wing" stands.

That was yesterday.

Twenty-four hours later, his former colleagues in the Senate GOP are rushing to embrace Specter's past in a new campaign designed to highlight the consistency of his Republican record.
...
"I'm here to say it as plainly as I can, Arlen Specter is the right man for the United States Senate," says Bush in comments included in the new [Pennsylvania robocall]. "I can count on this man — see, that's important. He's a firm ally when it matters most. I'm proud to tell you I think he's earned another term as the United States senator."


Not an exact quote from the article, but that's pretty much the essence.

So basically now they're trying to tie Spector to Bush, the former Republican president, as a... bad thing I guess? They're seriously trying to remind voters of how much they hate Bush (the ex-Republican president)? Or they could honestly be trying to praise him now. Who the fuck knows what they're even doing at this point?

Also, Olympia Snowe wrote a pretty good editorial (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/29/opinion/29snowe.html), and these are my favorite quotes:

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.
...
There is no plausible scenario under which Republicans can grow into a majority while shrinking our ideological confines and continuing to retract into a regional party. Ideological purity is not the ticket back to the promised land of governing majorities — indeed, it was when we began to emphasize social issues to the detriment of some of our basic tenets as a party that we encountered an electoral backlash.

It is for this reason that we should heed the words of President Ronald Reagan, who urged, “We should emphasize the things that unite us and make these the only ‘litmus test’ of what constitutes a Republican: our belief in restraining government spending, pro-growth policies, tax reduction, sound national defense, and maximum individual liberty.” He continued, “As to the other issues that draw on the deep springs of morality and emotion, let us decide that we can disagree among ourselves as Republicans and tolerate the disagreement.”

This is exactly how I feel about the current state of the Republicans and what they SHOULD be. The GOP as it is today is a complete joke.

[MagGnome]

I read Olympia Snowe's editorial yesterday and thought that she made a lot of good points. It's well worth reading.

[Ink Asylum]

I think the odds of a Snowe defection to the Democrats in the next year is probably 50/50, now that she wouldn't be the one bringing the Dems to 60.

[Johan]

Who needs the Republican Party? :confused:

Obama and the Democrats will fix things up right good! :D

[Ox]

This is exactly how I feel about the current state of the Republicans and what they SHOULD be. The GOP as it is today is a complete joke.
I've never really understood this. Reagan identified several issues -- "our belief in restraining government spending, pro-growth policies, tax reduction, sound national defense, and maximum individual liberty" -- that all Republicans have to agree on, and said other issues they should agree to disagree.

Fine, but why are those the issues? Restrained government spending, for example, is not a political winner. Shouldn't Republicans drop that policy for one that routinely polls higher?

[Slack3r78]

maximum individual liberty
Unless it involves sex, drugs, and/or rock and roll.

[MagGnome]

Who needs the Republican Party? :confused:

Obama and the Democrats will fix things up right good! :D

The Republican party apparently doesn't want moderates ruining the purity of the party, so there you go. :p

[Johan]

The Republican party apparently doesn't want moderates ruining the purity of the party, so there you go. :p

Please. Let's be real. Specter quit for one reason, and only one reason. Branding. He knew from polling that he couldn't win in PA in 2010 as either a Republican or independent. He chose to take himself, and his views (many of which are quite conservative, but not all) and switch his brand to a more popular product. He hasn't changed his views. He hasn't changed a thing but the packaging (party affiliation) of the product (himself).

That's what this is about. Bandwagon jumping, to the successful 'team.' It's that simple.

As for the Republicans, I don't care. I'm perfectly happy to let the Dems. fuck things up for a term or two or three before the cycle repeats.

[MagGnome]

Please. Let's be real. Specter quit for one reason, and only one reason. Branding. He knew from polling that he couldn't win in PA in 2010 as either a Republican or independent. He chose to take himself, and his views (many of which are quite conservative, but not all) and switch his brand to a more popular product. He hasn't changed his views. He hasn't changed a thing but the packaging (party affiliation) of the product (himself).

I understand that, I just don't see how it is in any way a bad thing. Now if he starts changing all of his view points and does whatever Obama says, then yeah, I'll be able to understand the criticism being directed at Specter. Until then I don't see the problem with him leaving a party that didn't seem to want him all that much.

[Ink Asylum]

Neither do I see his switching parties as all that bad. He is free to choose which primary voting group he wants to bet his political future on. If his views are entirely detestable to the Democrats in Pennsylvania, then he will be beaten in the primary. If his views are detestable to Pennsylvanians as a whole then he'll lose in the general election.

[Johan]

I find it thoroughly amusing, and revealing of American politics, that people who would never have considered voting for Specter when he was a Republican will vote for him with a different label attached to his name...and that people who voted for him happily as a Republican won't do so now.

THIS is the PROBLEM with American politics. People vote for the packaging, blindly and across the board for one party or another.

:facepalm to America:

Are people so damned stupid that the wrapping is the significant part on a politician? Really? Yes.

[Slack3r78]

I find it thoroughly amusing, and revealing of American politics, that people who would never have considered voting for Specter when he was a Republican will vote for him with a different label attached to his name...and that people who voted for him happily as a Republican won't do so now.

THIS is the PROBLEM with American politics. People vote for the packaging, blindly and across the board for one party or another.

:facepalm to America:

Are people so damned stupid that the wrapping is the significant part on a politician? Really? Yes.
Well, part of the reasoning for Specter switching is that he was ostensibly having to lean more rightward on some issues to appease the Republican base to keep from losing them. He was in a Catch 22 in that he had to make his base happy, but doing so was making it increasingly less likely that he could survive another election.

So while I don't think this is an earth-shattering change, I think it is slightly deeper than a rebranding.

[Ink Asylum]

Like it or not, we have a two party system. In the general election people are mostly going to vote for which of the two main candidates are closest to their views. If Specter hadn't switched (and had somehow won his primary against Toomey), the choice for Pennsylvania voters would have been Specter or Mr. Democrat. Democrats, given that choice, would pick Mr. Democrat, as he is likely closer to their views.

Now Specter has joined the Democratic party. If he wins the Democratic primary (not a certainty), Pennsylvania Democrats will have a choice between Toomey, a far right republican, and Specter, a moderate Republican turned Democrat. Again, they will vote for who is closest to their views, and that person is now Specter.

Are those voters stupid? No. Are they voting for a Democrat wrapper? No, they're picking the candidate closest to their views that has a chance to win.

[Johan]

Like it or not, we have a two party system.

We do?

I'm actually a bit confused by the Democratic Party, really. There is such a variation of extremes that it seems to me there's no real ideological core; it's more a matter of branding and getting as far from "Republican" as possible.

As for the Republicans, they're like someone trying to sell a Domino's pizza right now. Nobody wants to "buy" the product after Bush shoved the ingredients up his nose and butt for eight years. ;)

[ShivaX]

I'm actually a bit confused by the Democratic Party, really. There is such a variation of extremes that it seems to me there's no real ideological cor

Honestly I think thats a good thing. The day people have to actually do something and have their own ideas without hiding behing a party label will be a great day imo.

[Johan]

Honestly I think thats a good thing. The day people have to actually do something and have their own ideas without hiding behing a party label will be a great day imo.

If you're saying that there's "thought" involved, I'm afraid I couldn't disagree more. At least on behalf of the voters, it often comes down to pushing one button or pulling one lever to vote on the basis of party alone. There's little that's more ridiculous or destructive politically, in my opinion, than voting on the basis of the "wrapper" rather than the "content" of the politician's views. Also, at least in the Democratic Party, just pulling a lever for a straight-party vote gets you a range of views so diverse you'll have diametrically opposed ideological beliefs in the same "tent."

Besides; the big issues that either party supposedly supports? They don't really do ANYTHING about them. Is gay marriage legal at the federal level? No (Bill Clinton, DOMA). The Dems have done nothing about it. Obama won't even stick his neck out for it, and states it's between a "man and woman." Is there a push for gun control? No. The Dems have done nothing about it. Is abortion on its way out? No. The Republicans have done nothing about it. Is government smaller? No. Republicans have grown government.

It's a gigantic lie, in my opinion, perpetrated by people more interested in staying in office than actually working on what they pledge lip service to.

[Slack3r78]

Besides; the big issues that either party supposedly supports? They don't really do ANYTHING about them. Is gay marriage legal at the federal level? No (Bill Clinton, DOMA). The Dems have done nothing about it. Obama won't even stick his neck out for it, and states it's between a "man and woman.
While I don't disagree with the general gist of your argument, I can't really agree on this one. Gay marriage isn't anything near what I'd call a core plank of the Democratic platform. It does well with younger progressives, but among older party members and the African-American wing of the party, it's a total non-starter. It's far more of a hot-button issue for the GOP than it is the Democrats.

[BlackPete]

Who needs the Republican Party? :confused:

Obama and the Democrats will fix things up right good! :D

One thing I can say about Obama: He at least talks and behaves like an adult. I've disagreed with him on many things, but at least he tries to explain his actions, rather than simply say, "I do what I want because I have a mandate!"

I've never really understood this. Reagan identified several issues -- "our belief in restraining government spending, pro-growth policies, tax reduction, sound national defense, and maximum individual liberty" -- that all Republicans have to agree on, and said other issues they should agree to disagree.

Fine, but why are those the issues? Restrained government spending, for example, is not a political winner. Shouldn't Republicans drop that policy for one that routinely polls higher?

It seems to me that these issues are basically what fiscal conservatism is all about. It feels like today's GOP no longer can see the big picture or look in the long term, nor care about fiscal conservatism. Reagan connected these issues together so that it's hard to follow one without another and to think in the long term.

Using your example, restrained government spending frees up money for tax cuts. You can't simply just keep cutting taxes without freeing up something, which is what the Bush admin apparently forgot to do.

[Ox]

It seems to me that these issues are basically what fiscal conservatism is all about.
Okay, but you're going to have to explain why the Republicans should be the party of fiscal conservatism as opposed to some other form of conservatism, or socialism, or whatever.

[ShivaX]

Okay, but you're going to have to explain why the Republicans should be the party of fiscal conservatism as opposed to some other form of conservatism, or socialism, or whatever.

Zombie Reagen demands it.

And really they don't have much else to run on. It was fiscal conservatism that made the party strong, imo. After the screwed the pooch on that they lost their way.

[Ink Asylum]

We do?

Functionally, we do, and that's what actually matters.

I'm actually a bit confused by the Democratic Party, really. There is such a variation of extremes that it seems to me there's no real ideological core; it's more a matter of branding and getting as far from "Republican" as possible.

That's called being a "Big Tent Party." A few moderates in the middle and extremists on the left don't make it a directionless party. There are plenty of issues anyone can name that will get a majority vote from Democrats. A party's members don't all have to agree on something for it to be part of their core values. Despite your believing otherwise, not just anyone can slap a D next to their name and get elected. Someone too far to the right won't get through the primary.

[Ox]

And really they don't have much else to run on. It was fiscal conservatism that made the party strong, imo.
By "strong", you mean "getting their asses handed to them by the Democrats in almost every major election for 50 years," right?

And I find it pretty funny to cite Zombie Reagan for the principle that fiscal, not social, conservatism should be the order of the day. Am I the only one who actually remembers the Reagan Administration? They continually tried to overturn Roe v. Wade, ban flag-burning, institute school prayer, pushed the War on Drugs. By contrast, the George W. Bush Administration, which only occasionally tried to put some limits on abortion, made no move to ban flag-burning or institute school prayer, and was relatively moderate on the War on Drugs, was practically Democratic. The whole reason Reagan was able to get those fabled "Reagan Democrats" was because of his social conservatism. Dropping the social conservatism from the platform has every indication of sending the party back to the wilderness of the 1930s-1970s. Even if you think that would be a good policy, you can't pretend there's no good reason for the party to reject it or that Reagan would have countenanced it.

[Generation ABXY]

Just WTF are the Republicans doing (http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2009/04/29/gop-using-specters-own-campaign-ads-against-him/) now?



Not an exact quote from the article, but that's pretty much the essence.

So basically now they're trying to tie Spector to Bush, the former Republican president, as a... bad thing I guess? They're seriously trying to remind voters of how much they hate Bush (the ex-Republican president)? Or they could honestly be trying to praise him now. Who the fuck knows what they're even doing at this point?

This could actually work on a number of levels, so I don't see it as that odd of a strategy.

[BlackPete]

Okay, but you're going to have to explain why the Republicans should be the party of fiscal conservatism as opposed to some other form of conservatism, or socialism, or whatever.

It doesn't have to be an either-or solution. That was another part of Reagan's point: You can and should agree to disagree on social conservatism because you will NEVER get everyone to agree on everything. You can combine both fiscal and social conservatism in the Republican party.

I focus on fiscal conservatism because that is the part of the GOP that I (used to) appreciate. If the GOP wants to embrace social conservatism, then that's where I'll just have to disagree because I'm socially liberal. For now I focus on fiscal conservatism because I am simply not seeing any evidence of it existing anywhere in both the GOP and Democratic parties. If a party that preached social liberalism and fiscal conservatism existed, that'd be my party in a heartbeat.

For the GOP's point of view, social and fiscal conservatism do not have to be mutually exclusive as you seem to imply.

And I find it pretty funny to cite Zombie Reagan for the principle that fiscal, not social, conservatism should be the order of the day. Am I the only one who actually remembers the Reagan Administration? They continually tried to overturn Roe v. Wade, ban flag-burning, institute school prayer, pushed the War on Drugs. By contrast, the George W. Bush Administration, which only occasionally tried to put some limits on abortion, made no move to ban flag-burning or institute school prayer, and was relatively moderate on the War on Drugs, was practically Democratic. The whole reason Reagan was able to get those fabled "Reagan Democrats" was because of his social conservatism. Dropping the social conservatism from the platform has every indication of sending the party back to the wilderness of the 1930s-1970s. Even if you think that would be a good policy, you can't pretend there's no good reason for the party to reject it or that Reagan would have countenanced it.

I'm fine with quoting Reagan whenever he made a good point. Hell, I'll even quote Nixon whenever he made a good point. I'd even quote GWB if he ever had a valid thought in his empty skull. That doesn't mean I thought any of them were good presidents.

[Ink Asylum]

So basically now they're trying to tie Spector to Bush, the former Republican president, as a... bad thing I guess? They're seriously trying to remind voters of how much they hate Bush (the ex-Republican president)? Or they could honestly be trying to praise him now. Who the fuck knows what they're even doing at this point?

Here's a theory I read elsewhere: If it's Specter vs Toomey in 2010, Specter wins. If it's Mr. Democrat-to-the-left-of-Specter vs Toomey in 2010, Toomey has a chance. So running an ad that ties Specter to Bush is an attempt to rile up the Democratic primary voters to pick a more liberal Democrat to run in the 2010 general election so Toomey has an actual shot at winning.

[BlackPete]

This could actually work on a number of levels, so I don't see it as that odd of a strategy.

It could, but I also think it can just as easily backfire on them. Bush still had a core group of supporters (the 25 percenters) who'd support him even if he personally went around kicking every stray dog that crossed his way. These people were the GOP's remaining hard-core base.

By now throwing Bush under the bus, these supporters are now basically told they'd been supporting the wrong guy the entire time, and were easily swayed...

.... oh. I see what you mean.

[Ox]

For the GOP's point of view, social and fiscal conservatism do not have to be mutually exclusive as you seem to imply.
No, I don't mean to imply that at all. But what are you going to do if you're in a party with a bunch of social conservatives? They've agreed to vote for fiscal conservatism (something many of them hate) to keep your coalition together. Are you going to turn around and vote for social conservatism to pay them back?

This is the problem with the Republican electoral coalition right now: both the social and the fiscal conservatives feel betrayed by the other side, and now neither are willing to sacrifice their interests for the other.

If a coalition is to work, everyone in it must agree to sacrifice some issues. If you want social conservatives to show up and vote for Mark Sanford, you have to show up and vote for Sarah Palin. The other members of your coalition don't exist purely to help you achieve your goals.

EDIT: As for that phone call tying Specter and Bush, it was sent only to Democratic primary voters. I doubt there are a lot of Bush-supporters remaining who don't understand the tactical value of this strategy.

[Generation ABXY]

It could, but I also think it can just as easily backfire on them. Bush still had a core group of supporters (the 25 percenters) who'd support him even if he personally went around kicking every stray dog that crossed his way. These people were the GOP's remaining hard-core base.

By now throwing Bush under the bus, these supporters are now basically told they'd been supporting the wrong guy the entire time, and were easily swayed...

.... oh. I see what you mean.

No, it likely won't backfire all that much. The sort of people who supported Bush no matter what are the sort of people who vote straight party lines; they'll see that (R) behind Toomey's name and know exactly where their vote is going.

But, for Democrats, this ad could do any number of things. Some people may see it as, "Oh, he is a friend of Bush and Bush is evil." There goes one type of voter. Another may see it as, "If Bush thinks this is someone you can count on, then he may lean to the right on issues important to me." Bam! One more group down. And, finally (at least, as far as I can think of), another group will hear Bush say you can count on this guy, and then consider how this guy jumped party, and decide you can't rely on him no matter the party. There goes another.

A good attack ad can sway a wide variety of people like that.

[BlackPete]

If a coalition is to work, everyone in it must agree to sacrifice some issues. If you want social conservatives to show up and vote for Mark Sanford, you have to show up and vote for Sarah Palin. The other members of your coalition don't exist purely to help you achieve your goals.

That right there is pretty much why I think the GOP is fucked right now. Sarah Palin? Once she opened her mouth during the Gibsons interview, my first thought was, "You have got to be kidding me." I can see myself making some sacrifices to support social conservatism ideals if I had to, but I'd have to draw the line somewhere. I expect a leader to have a brain. Yet the right-wings love her (and Joe the Plumber) and are practically begging her to run again.

Compromises and sacrifices do have to be made, but Sarah Palin and Joe the Plumber are just too much for moderates. When the moderates balked, they were branded as traitors and RINOs, thus further alienating them. This tells me that it's not the fiscal conservatives turn to accept reality this time around.

EDIT: As for that phone call tying Specter and Bush, it was sent only to Democratic primary voters. I doubt there are a lot of Bush-supporters remaining who don't understand the tactical value of this strategy.

I don't live under the american system, so there's a couple of things that bother me about this:

1) A list of democratic primary voters even exists. I understand that you need to register to vote in a closed primary, but it still seems to me that there is no true way to vote anonymously -- something I truly value.

2) Bush supporters who can understand the tactical value of having your guy's name be invoked as a way to trash someone. It's hard to wrap my head around this one: If your guy is infamous enough that the mere mention of his name is enough to invoke resentment and bitterness even among people in your own party, then what does that say about you?

[National Kato]

Yet the right-wings love her (and Joe the Plumber) and are practically begging her to run again.

Left-wingers want her to run again, as well. ;)

[Ink Asylum]

Palin/Joe the Plumber 2012! Please!

[Ox]

1) A list of democratic primary voters even exists. I understand that you need to register to vote in a closed primary, but it still seems to me that there is no true way to vote anonymously -- something I truly value.
Vote anonymously? Your ballot is anonymous, but the fact that you are a registered voter is not. Canada has a similar system. I can't imagine that Canada refuses to disclose who is and is not a registered voter: that information is used for all sorts of purposes, including determining who is eligible for jury duty.

If your guy is infamous enough that the mere mention of his name is enough to invoke resentment and bitterness even among people in your own party, then what does that say about you?
Bush is a Republican. The ad was sent to Democrats. I think many Republicans take the attitude of: if Democrats hate Bush, he must have done something right.

[BlackPete]

Vote anonymously? Your ballot is anonymous, but the fact that you are a registered voter is not. Canada has a similar system. I can't imagine that Canada refuses to disclose who is and is not a registered voter: that information is used for all sorts of purposes, including determining who is eligible for jury duty.

I am a registered voter only in the sense that I am registered to vote. I am not registered with any party, though. That is the key difference. There is no way for anyone to know which party I support unless if I were to tell them myself.

Bush is a Republican. The ad was sent to Democrats. I think many Republicans take the attitude of: if Democrats hate Bush, he must have done something right.

Normally I'd agree, except that many Republicans hate him too, so it's a somewhat confusing strategy in the long term. I can't help but wonder if many Republicans simply nod their heads in secret agreement and sigh resignedly.

[Ink Asylum]

I am a registered voter only in the sense that I am registered to vote. I am not registered with any party, though. That is the key difference. There is no way for anyone to know which party I support unless if I were to tell them myself.

If you were a resident of Pennsylvania you wouldn't be allowed to vote in the Democratic Party primary, then, and the robocall wouldn't be targeted at you.

[Slack3r78]

And I find it pretty funny to cite Zombie Reagan for the principle that fiscal, not social, conservatism should be the order of the day. Am I the only one who actually remembers the Reagan Administration? They continually tried to overturn Roe v. Wade, ban flag-burning, institute school prayer, pushed the War on Drugs.
Just because I was watching this again earlier due to a line of discussion on another forum:

8ISil7IHzxc

This is from 1986, smack in the middle of the Reagan era. Can you even imagine that discussion happening today?

[Johan]

Palin/Joe the Plumber 2012! Please!

It would have sounded funnier to say:

Plumber/Palin!

Say it slowly, one syllable at a time. ;)

[Ox]

I wanted to add something to the whole fiscal conservatism/social conservatism debate. Arlen Specter may be socially fairly liberal, but that's not why he left the GOP. That's not why the Pennsylvania polls turned so sharply against him. As he said in his press conference, Specter's popularity took a dive because he voted for the stimulus bill.

If you guys are bemoaning how close-minded the GOP is because of Specter, bear in mind that you're bemoaning how fiscally conservative GOP voters apparently are.

[Ink Asylum]

Do you mean his popularity amongst all Pennsylvania voters or his popularity amongst Pennsylvania registered Republicans?

[Ox]

Well, I'm talking about the polls of Pennsylvania Republican primary voters -- the ones where he wound up trailing Toomey by 21 points. I haven't seen any general polls of Pennsylvanians about Specter recently.

[Ink Asylum]

Ok. Just asking for clarification, because the way it was written could be read as his stimulus vote making him more unpopular amongst all Pennsylvania voters.

[ShivaX]

Ok. Just asking for clarification, because the way it was written could be read as his stimulus vote making him more unpopular amongst all Pennsylvania voters.

It likely made him unpopular amongst Republican Pennsylvania voters (ie the guys who vote in the primaries). Hes going to lose a GOP primary to a more conservative guy, so hes switching parties to have a shot at keeping his position.

[Johan]

Ha ha! (http://www.rollcall.com/news/34648-1.html)

Under the modified organizing resolution, Specter will not keep his committee seniority on any of the five committees that he serves on and will be the junior Democrat on all but one — the chamber’s Special Committee on Aging. On that committee, he will be next to last in seniority.

They don't need you, buddy. They really, really don't. :D

Edit: Interestingly enough, one could argue that, with the loss of seniority, Specter will serve his constituents less effectively, even if it is as a part of the majority party; further evidence that he made this choice out of political calculation, not out of concern for his constituents.

[Johan]

Specter stumbling along. (http://voices.washingtonpost.com/thefix/cheat-sheet/050709white-house-cheat-sheet.html)

Very astute analysis, and very funny.

[ShivaX]

Interestingly enough, one could argue that, with the loss of seniority, Specter will serve his constituents less effectively, even if it is as a part of the majority party; further evidence that he made this choice out of political calculation, not out of concern for his constituents.

You could argue that, I suppose, but if he doesn't get re-elected he wont be serving anyone and the new guy isn't going to get his seniority. So basically that seniority was going away no matter what happened.

Of course, ultimately, hes only doing it to try to save his own ass, but I think thats obvious to just about everyone.

[National Kato]

Joe the Plumber is also quitting the GOP. (http://www.time.com/time/politics/article/0,8599,1896588,00.html)

Samuel Wurzelbacher, better known as Joe the Plumber, tells TIME he's so outraged by GOP overspending, he's quitting the party — and he's the bull's-eye of its target audience. But he also said he wouldn't support any cuts in defense, Social Security, Medicare or Medicaid — which, along with debt payments, would put more than two-thirds of the budget off limits. It's no coincidence that many Republicans who voted against the stimulus have claimed credit for stimulus projects in their district — or that Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal stopped ridiculing volcano-monitoring programs after a volcano erupted in Alaska. "We can't be the antigovernment party," Snowe says. "That's not what people want."

Now that was a short-lived love affair.

[ShivaX]

Joe the Plumber is also quitting the GOP. (http://www.time.com/time/politics/article/0,8599,1896588,00.html)


Now that was a short-lived love affair.

Wait... hes so outraged by GOP spending... that happened before he joined the party... that hes leaving it?

Excuse me while I go lobotomize myself until that makes sense.

[Ink Asylum]

I heart Joe the Plumber. Conservatives either honestly believe he's some great intellect, or they think he pisses liberals off so they keep parading him around. In actuality we liberals find him endlessly hilarious and pray that he never goes away, because every time he opens his mouth he makes conservatives look worse. We feel the same way about Sarah Palin.

[National Kato]

Wait... hes so outraged by GOP spending... that happened before he joined the party... that hes leaving it?


Well, he stayed around long enough to get his book deal (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/02/26/AR2009022600005.html), so...

[Ink Asylum]

From the same article, a particularly candid look at the GOP's problem from a GOP Congressman:

The most urgent question is the meaning of economic conservatism. Representative Patrick McHenry of North Carolina, a conservative who keeps a bust of Reagan on his desk, surprised me by declaring that the Reagan era is over. "Marginal tax rates are the lowest they've been in generations, and all we can talk about is tax cuts," he said. "The people's desires have changed, but we're still stuck in our old issue set."

[ShivaX]

From the same article, a particularly candid look at the GOP's problem from a GOP Congressman:

The problem the GOP seems to have is that they pretty much got what they wanted on the tax front. Now people want a balanced budget and fiscal responsibility. People also don't want their benefits or the military cut.

So how can you balance the budget by cutting taxes and not cutting spending? Well you can't. Cutting spending is a good line, but the reality of it is that noone wants to really give anything up. Tax cuts tend to go over well, but that just fuels the problem. Ultimately if they want to be the fiscal conservative party they need to let the tax issue slide and focus on cutting or reigning in spending. Its really one or the other at this point.