![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
pecuniumSo, 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?
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?
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2009-05-01 04:27 am (UTC)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?