Arlen Specter
April 30th 2009 16:08
I haven't commented about Arlen Specter's switch from the GOP to the Democrats, but here are a few thoughts on the matter:
* It wasn't unexpected. The Dems have been lobbying him to join them for a long time and there have been rumors that he would change over. He finally did.
* He won't be much of a "60th vote" for the Dems. He will vote independently and won't be an automatic 60th vote for the Dems. He said as much in his announcement. I suspect that he will be just as frustrating for the Dems as he has been for the Republicans.
* He changed over because he was about to get voted off the island. That's it. If polls showed him on track to win the GOP primary, he'd still be a Republican. They didn't and he's not. He's a political opportunist (which, granted, is not unusual in Washington).
* He is a poster child for term limits. He is addicted to the power and prestige (and money?) of holding office. In 2010, he will have been a Senator for 30 years. We need new blood and new ideas in Washington. His blood is anything but new.
* The GOP's judiciary committee situation improved with the switch. Specter, who opposed Robert Bork for the Supreme Court in 1987, has been a thorn in the side of conservatives when it comes to judicial nominees. He was the senior Republican member of the judiciary. With him gone, a more conservative member will assume that post and will improve the prospects for getting more conservative judges -- particularly if/when the GOP regains control of the Senate.
* Liberal Democrats won't like Specter. They would have had a chance in 2010 to get a true liberal in that Senate seat. Specter would've lost the GOP primary and they had a decent shot of beating Pat Toomey. Now, they are saddled with an unreliable self-described moderate. If he wins as a Dem, Specter's presence will help shift the numbers -- but not the ideology -- of the Senate.
Personally, I think what Specter did was despicable. However, I largely blame the RNC. They backed him in 2004 in a very tight primary and Specter eked out a narrow win. He has now thanked them by switching parties. I guess you truly should be careful what you ask for.
* It wasn't unexpected. The Dems have been lobbying him to join them for a long time and there have been rumors that he would change over. He finally did.
* He won't be much of a "60th vote" for the Dems. He will vote independently and won't be an automatic 60th vote for the Dems. He said as much in his announcement. I suspect that he will be just as frustrating for the Dems as he has been for the Republicans.
* He changed over because he was about to get voted off the island. That's it. If polls showed him on track to win the GOP primary, he'd still be a Republican. They didn't and he's not. He's a political opportunist (which, granted, is not unusual in Washington).
* He is a poster child for term limits. He is addicted to the power and prestige (and money?) of holding office. In 2010, he will have been a Senator for 30 years. We need new blood and new ideas in Washington. His blood is anything but new.
* The GOP's judiciary committee situation improved with the switch. Specter, who opposed Robert Bork for the Supreme Court in 1987, has been a thorn in the side of conservatives when it comes to judicial nominees. He was the senior Republican member of the judiciary. With him gone, a more conservative member will assume that post and will improve the prospects for getting more conservative judges -- particularly if/when the GOP regains control of the Senate.
* Liberal Democrats won't like Specter. They would have had a chance in 2010 to get a true liberal in that Senate seat. Specter would've lost the GOP primary and they had a decent shot of beating Pat Toomey. Now, they are saddled with an unreliable self-described moderate. If he wins as a Dem, Specter's presence will help shift the numbers -- but not the ideology -- of the Senate.
Personally, I think what Specter did was despicable. However, I largely blame the RNC. They backed him in 2004 in a very tight primary and Specter eked out a narrow win. He has now thanked them by switching parties. I guess you truly should be careful what you ask for.
| 69 |
| Vote |
Comment by Jim Stillman
Political Certainty
The Republicans first aimed at the white, southern male voter who was disenchanted with LBJ’s pushing civil rights legislation, and then it was the evangelical right which was unhappy with primarily social issues to the exclusion of nearly everything else.
Believe it or not, I am in favor of a strong principled opposition to the Democrats but the GOP seems bent on continuing to be marginalized. Ronald Reagan stressed that the party should stand for limited government, a strong national defense and lower taxes, leaving all other issues for individual conscience. Thus, the GOP could embrace those who had a less rigid stance on abortion as well as those categorically opposed, those in favor or accepting gay marriage as well as those to whom it was anathema, and so forth.
Republicans should and can be more inclusive, retaining core beliefs. Their decision to reject this point of view led Senator Spector to leave.
The GOP should be happy with its victory and purity, even if it costs them influence.
Comment by PopulistConservative
Angry Electorate
Personally, I don't care for Specter. However, he's not my Senator. I'm more of a federalist (in theory) on this issue. If the Pennsylvania GOP likes Specter, let them keep him. If not, let them vote him out.
I vehemently disagree. this wasn't an issue of the GOP (at least the party) turning on or rejecting on Specter. It was pure self-preservation and opportunism on his part. Specter would still be a GOP moderate if he had been leading in the GOP primary polls. I'm fully convinced of this. He even said he would not switch and that he was a proud moderate Republican just a few weeks ago -- then he got those poll results.
I think the party should make sure to allow room for Specters in states where more across-the-board conservative senators can't be elected. And I do agree that they'll have to be less rigid on social issues to get there. Fiscal conservatism is the glue that binds the GOP together (or used to be and should be again). It should get most of the focus on a national level.
If you've read some of my posts, you'll see that I'm not a "conservative Republican". I am pretty conservative, but I consider myself to be an independent (having voted third-party about as much as I vote Republican). I pretty much loathe both parties -- especially the political machinery that promotes corruption and wasteful spending from both sides of the aisle.
Comment by Lester Caudill
Round Politics
Comment by PopulistConservative
Angry Electorate
Comment by Andrew Biviano
The Middle Ground
I too feel relief when a president I dislike cannot run for reelection, because it's so much easier than having to defeat him politically. But it is undemocratic. We should be able to defeat bad politicians through debate. And I know that money and special interests make this very hard, but I hate the idea of defeating these interests by ending the public's right to choose its leaders. And would the money and special interests really be defeated at all, when they would just move on to the successor?
Comment by PopulistConservative
Angry Electorate
And that's one of my biggest concerns. Ideally, the democratic process would be used to weed out the dead weight. The power of the incumbency is inherently unfair, though. There's the issue of the money and access that gives the incumbent the advantage. There's the issue of the incumbent stacking the deck in his/her favor by having some degree of control over the election process itself (excessively high bars for third parties, etc.). Of course, there's the issue of name recognition that often lets the incumbent start the election on second base with a stand-up double.
Are term limits undemocratic? Yes. However, I think they are necessary because incumbents -- even corrupt and inept ones -- are so difficult to uproot. Term limits work very well for the presidency in that they ensure fresh blood every eight years (at the most). I think they would be extremely beneficial in the House and Senate. My suggestion would be 12 years (2 Senate terms or 6 House terms).
Of course, it's a moot point. We won't be ever see term limits in Congress. I wish we would, but it will never happen.
Comment by Jim Stillman
Political Certainty
Comment by PopulistConservative
Angry Electorate
As far as the influence of the staff, that could be an issue, but the decisions ultimately lie with the elected representatives. And while a newly elected official might hire some veteran office personnel, he/she would almost certainly bring in some of his/her own people as well. That would be a check against the possibility of manipulation by those old-timers on the staff.
Comment by Andrew Biviano
The Middle Ground
And I am certain that term limits would only strengthen special interests and money. A new congressman is much more malleable and susceptible as he tries to build influence, and much more ignorant of the games being played. If I went to Washington right now, I would be a babe in the woods, and my ignorance would make me completely unable to resist back room dealings and corruption. After some time I think I could, but then I would have to leave.
But the bad guys never leave. Many are not even mortal -- they are corporations. And they would have fresh meat to devour every few years, and no one with any experience able to stop them.
Comment by PopulistConservative
Angry Electorate
Your point is valid. Experience counts for something. However, I think it's greatly outweighed by the staleness and stagnancy and corruption that so often comes from having lifers in Washington.
As far as the money goes, though, I think that could be blunted with more stringent lobbying rules. The lobbyists always do what they can to find loopholes, but Washington should be vigilant about closing those loopholes as soon as they're discovered. I know that's a pipe dream, but it would solve a lot of our problems.
Comment by Lester Caudill
Round Politics
I think term limits are a good idea, they should be allow only two consecutive terms, and then go back to their day job, and let someone else have a chance and then come back and try to get elected again. It usually after someone has left office that you see the damage they have done.
Comment by PopulistConservative
Angry Electorate