Too Rich

[pecunium]

So, as expected the Republicans are saying, "good riddance" and other such stuff. The party is stronger for losing a RINO, etc.. Never mind that the way they treat, "RINO"s is probably why Specter left. Those of us who count ourselves he progressives need to take this as several object lessons. Primary challenges have effects, some are not what one expects, nor wants.

Mind you I think this is the opposite of what the progressives are trying to do. We want to move the party left, yes, but I don't see us doing it with litmus tests; rigid applications of ideology. If we were, there would be more primary challenges, and the Blue Dogs would either jump to the Republicans, or vote a little left.

But the Republicans (esp. after this last election, where the number of self-declared Republicans dropped to the 20 percent range) have made themselves a small core of really dedicated; and strident, members. Specter wasn't making them happy, so he was doomed; if he stayed in the Party.

He might be doomed anyway. That depends on how he statisfies the Democrats in Penn.

And the Republicans need to ponder their role in the nation. Are they to go on, as they have in the past, with a sense of entitlement, part of which comes from them, and the press, explaining (ad nauseum) that the US is, "a center right nation", and then explaining they are that "center right" party, instead of the "leftist/socialist" party they accuse the Democrats of being.

They, however, aren't. They can't even look at the way they ran things when they were in charge.

"I think the threat to the country presented by this defection really relates to the issue of whether or not in the United States of America our people want the majority to have whatever it wants without restraint, without a check or a balance," [Senate Republican Leader Mitch] McConnell said during a Tuesday afternoon press availability.

"Obviously, we are not happy that Senator Specter has decided to become a Democrat," McConnell said. "If we are not successful in Minnesota…Democrats, at least on paper, will have 60 votes. I think the danger of that for the country is that there won't automatically be an ability to restrain the excess that is typically associated with big majorities and single-party rule."

The same note was struck by John Cornyn, “Senator Specter’s decision today represents the height of political self-preservation. While this presents a short-term disappointment, voters next year will have a clear choice to cast their ballots for a potentially unbridled Democrat super-majority versus the system of checks-and-balances that Americans deserve.”

Got that, the Republicans are saying (now) that the nation is best served when the majority party isn't large enough to not work without getting some cooperation from the minority party.

Compare that to the attitude a few years ago, when the test for bringing a bill to the floor of the house wasn't, "Is this in the best interests of the country", nor was it, "do a majority of the members support it", but rather, "do a majority of the Republicans in the House support it?"

We were told that, no matter if it was veto proof because of bipartisan support, absent a majority of Republicans being on-board, it was DOA.

Where were McConnell and Cornyn then? Oh yeah, talking about removing the Filibuster ("The Nuclear Option") so the minority Democrats would be even less capable of opposing things they disagreed with.

Who's being politically expedient here?

Comments

Thanks for that

[dragonet2.livejournal.com]

I'm doing a job at a very unorganized friend's house, organizing his third floor, the library, to get a grip on what he has, etc. It's hard work, and today I had a minor allergic attack after picking up the remains of what a squirrel left behind (now I know I'm not just allergic to mouse urine, I'm likely allergic to generic rodent urine, oh joy). I only lasted an hour and a half today, but everything obnoxious has been put into a trash bag and tomorrow I can start detailed sorting and shelving of books.

But I had some errands to do after that, and listened to NPR, and went WTF? When the repugs had it their way, they went merrily raping and pillaging without question or control. Now it's all "oh, my we're a minority, the dems are going to run rampant and destroy the government." Someone needs to get a grip, and it better not be on their gonads. (or maybe it should, and be in the process of ripping them off so the don't feel the need to wank them for what they think is going to impress the populace.)

I'm tired of my country being raped and our military people being abused by stupid, stupid rules. The Bushies were ignorant assholes who disregarded any kind of scientific evidence (like PTSD and the head injuries our soldiers are suffering, Oh, no, that must be something they came into the service with. Yeah, right.) And they deserve to be hung out to dry.

Minor rant, feel free to delete if necessary. BTW, I like your nature photos. The nymph ladybug was really kewl.



I'm not shocked or appalled, I want those bastards to suffer like the rest of us.

[don-fitch.livejournal.com]

I think the test for bringing a bill to the floor during those ten years of Republican control was not so much "do a majority of the Republicans in the House support it?" as "will every Republican in the House vote for it?" (thus assuring a majority of the whole). (I don't say "support" because there was probably some arm-twisting.) That seems to have been effective at least 98% of the time -- that was an era with a remarkable amount of Purely Partisan Voting on the part of the Republicans, though a few Democrats sided with them (as still happens, because Democrats are not good at lock-step).

It seems unlikely that Mr. Specter's switch will be really significant -- he'll probably vote with the Blue Dog Democrats, and just strengthen the trend that has converted the Democratic Party into Eisenhower Republicans. That might not be what the people want or need to have running the country at the present time.

And yes, the recent remarks by Republican Party Leaders are hipocritical. Sadly, that's come to be about what one can expect from them.

[pecunium.livejournal.com]

There was a period where Denny Hastert said it didn't matter if a Bill was sponsored by Repuplicans, and had every Democrat on board; if a majority of the Republicans weren't behind it, it was dead.

David Drier, as chairman of the Rules Committee made sure that actually happened.

[harimad.livejournal.com]

I interpreted Michael Steele's (sp?) comments as his appealing to the Rep base - or maybe what the Reps think is their base. His comments were unbecoming and mean, and pushed me away from the Reps.

Other than that, though, I don't think it's any big deal - his switch is unlikely to change history and it's mostly an inside the beltway tempest. I think he's telling the simple truth when he says that the Republican Party changed on him. I see his statement that he couldn't survive a Rep primary as evidence of the change rather than naked calculating opportunism.

Question: Steele said one reason he was angry is that the Reps went all out to get Spector elected in 2004. What I want to know is, is this during the primary or in the race itself, when Spector was the only horse the Rep Party had to back?