The more knee-jerk partisan side o' me crows, of course. One step closer to a philibuster-proof 60...
...With all the one-party excesses that may entail, murmurs another...
And a third says, isn't this a bad sign for bipartisanship? That one of the most veteran senators feels that there's no more room for moderation in his party, and/or no ability for members of the minority to be heard and achieve workable comproise?
I haven't seen any topics on this subject yet, let me know if I missed one.
Posts: 3826 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
This sucks on so many levels. 538 wrote a very good analysis -- basically, it's good for Specter, bad for the Democrats, and terrible for the Republicans.
Specter was going to lose in 2010, but now -- assuming the Democrats don't have the balls to replace him, which is typical -- he'll stay and be a worthless Lieberman-esque milquetoast. We could've had a genuine progressive there instead.
But yeah, Specter's defection is representative of the fact that the Republican party is quickly losing whatever moderates were dumb enough to stick with them through the 1990's. Palin 2012.
Posts: 3293 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
"One step closer to a philibuster-proof 60"
Unlike the Republicans, the Democrats are not an organised political party. After the 1936Elections, Senate Democrats held a 76to17 majority over Republicans.....plus one former Republican who had declared himself Independent. And still didn't have a filibuster-proof majority cuz of Democrats crossing over to vote with the Republicans.
I wouldn't bet on the Democrats cloturing a filibuster on any politically controversial bill or appointment that didn't have 60-or-more Senators supporting it before the filibuster began.
posted
Thats because time and time again shows the Democratic party to be much more diverse then the Republican party. People are so afraid of democratic party majority. I really don't get it. The democratic party is not wielding a rubber stamp by *any* sense of the term.
Like many examples in the history of politcal parties in the United States, parties die out and new parties spring up. I suspect that in our lifetime, the Republican party will disappear and the democratic party will split up into what we now know as the "conservative liberals" and the "progressive liberals".
What we know today as "liberal" will slowly become "moderate" as the US population continues to become more liberal.
Not that I have a problem with conservative ways of thinking (in terms of fiscal responsibility), but I think it's clear that much of America is tired of the fundamentalist ideologies and intolerances that are commonly associated with the R. Party.
Posts: 180 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't think this is automatically bad for Democrats. Replacing Specter has nothing to do with whether or not the Democrats have balls, which is good, because I don't really think they do when it comes to stuff like this. Whether he stays on or not, and I think Toomey will lose almost regardless, will depend on who the Democratic nominee is. We won't know until November when we see who his primary challengers will be, and Specter will have to run as a recently changed long-standing Republican who switched parties for personal gain against established Democrats at a time when Democratic popularity is in ascendancy. His reelection is nowhere near assured, he's just priming the engine.
Also, as far as filibusters go, this is meaningless. Cloture breaking votes are ad hoc alliances that are determined more by state or region, not by straight line party votes.
The Republicans aren't going to die out as a party, but this will be a pretty decent publicity nightmare for them for awhile. So much depends on what happens with the economy as far as the midterms go, but as of now, this announcement is about jawboning and morale, not anything concrete.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Republicans have positioned themselves more and more as the party of the white, rich, old people. So demographics are changing now. The white, rich, old people are becoming a minority. Rather than become more mainstream, it seems that Republicans become ever more stridently extreme year by year. So it doesn't surprise me that moderates are leaving them and crossing over to the Dems. I mean, just listen to Fox News and Rush Limbaugh! Who wants to be like that?
Posts: 6246 | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I enjoyed the part of his press conference where he was going off on the republicans asking where they were when moderate republicans needed support. And it was a really valid point. By leaving moderate republicans out to dry and backing mostly right wing conservatives, those on the far right would win the primaries, but lose to democrats in the general, where they may have had a better chance had the moderate won the primary.
I don't doubt that Specter was doing this for his own reasons, but he wasn't trying to hide this fact at all. He said straight out that his chances of winning a republican primary were slim, and yet his chances of winning a general election are good. And that he doesn't want to bear the brunt of a republican party shifting to the right. And while I was upset with him over the Employee free choice act, he does have a pretty moderate voting record. It's a very real problem for him, all the moderate republicans who might've voted for him in the primary jumped ship to the democratic party last year.
if anything, this whole thing just goes to show for me how silly the whole two party system is, when someone can one day step over the smallest of lines and suddenly be "the other side".
Posts: 8741 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
. I think I just made a new friend in Tatiana.
Strider, we never supposed to be a party system. Geroge Washington himself warned of the danger of political parties, and how they would turn the government from a group of people interested in their nation's future to a rabbling mob of power hungry professional politicians.
quote:The alternate domination of one faction over another, sharpened by the spirit of revenge, natural to party dissension, which in different ages and countries has perpetrated the most horrid enormities, is itself a frightful despotism
posted
The idea that we were never going to have parties was pretty naive given the factions that already existed when the Constitution went into force.
They were, perhaps idealistically, fooling themselves.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Hey, my history teacher just told us about this change of parties. He straight out told us that politicians are whores. They'll do anything to get elected.
Posts: 312 | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm in the "This Screws The Republicans" camp but I'm a little more optimistic about what this entails for democratic interests and progressive agendas.
First: the big news this week is going to be that the GOP ceded supermajority through defection. It's the worst kind of bad news piled on top of other bad news for the conservatives and it entails more actionable (as in, 'can be spun good, at least') news for an Obama administration that is seeing an overall increase in support and power.
Second: Spectre is seen primarily as being a 'middle road' sort of a moderate. Now that he's switched, the GOP is going to react vociferously in a way that calcifies their less-electable extremism. Right now, the right wing blogs are going pretty much nuts shouting down Spectre as a traitor and a worthless and/or spineless moderate and/or appeaser and how they don't really need that 'scum' in their party anyway.
This is the inverse of the 'big tent' strategy that served the GOP throughout its history.
They're reacting to their losses by entrenching hostility to moderacy and the moderates.
What they are doing to themselves is terrible.
Think about it. If you are a moderate party-member in a moderate state, the last thing your party wants to do is offer you less support because you are not towing a party line. This is why the GOP is falling.
Paul Krugman's words about the Republican death spiral — "the smaller it gets, the more it's dominated by the hard right, which makes it even smaller" perfectly encapsulates the serious vicious cycle they face, which is compounded by the fact that the people making this party change happen either can not or do not want to realize why this pushes the party further away from electability.
Third: The republicans were boned in Specter's joint whether or not there was a politically expedient defection. In Spectre's PA realm, any sapient democrat will win against the republican contender. The group in the "We could take it or leave it" category are the Democrats, in terms of political control. But they'll happily take it, seeing as this event is another black eye stacked on top of a GOP that is doing remarkably poorly.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Sterling: That one of the most veteran senators feels that there's no more room for moderation in his party, and/or no ability for members of the minority to be heard and achieve workable comproise?
Note that he ain't the only one, and that this event has already inspired the GOP to react in a way that further erodes their support and their capacity to attract moderates.
quote:Two leading Republicans say Sen. Arlen Specter's decision to become a Democrat highlights the hostility moderates feel from an increasingly conservative GOP.
“You haven't certainly heard warm encouraging words about how [the GOP] views moderates,” said Maine Sen. Olympia Snowe, one of the few remaining moderate Republicans in the Senate.
Snowe said the party's message has been, “Either you're with us or you’re against us.”
..
"I don't want to be a member of the Club for Growth,” said Graham. “I want to be a member of a vibrant national Republican party that can attract people from all corners of the country — and we can govern the country from a center-right perspective.”
“As Republicans, we got a problem,” he said.
The internal criticism came less than an hour before Specter walked into the Republicans' weekly Senate luncheon, where members discuss strategy, policy and other key items on the party agenda.
Snowe criticized party leadership for failing to change its tone after Republicans lost six Senate seats in the 2006 election.
“I happened to win with 74 percent of the vote in a blue-collar state, but no one asked me, 'How did you do it?'” she said. “Seems to me that would have been the first question that would have come from the Republican Party to find out so we could avoid further losses."
“Ultimately, we're heading to having the smallest political tent in history, the way things are unfolding,” Snowe said.
posted
I'd love to see specific comments from Olympia Snowe and Susan Collins from Maine on this. Considering they're virtually in the same boat as far as political alignment and voting record, I'm curious to see how they react, and I'd love to sit down with them and ask them questions about their own place in the party.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I didn't expect Specter's defection. That said, I'm not surprised.
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: I'd love to see specific comments from Olympia Snowe and Susan Collins from Maine on this. Considering they're virtually in the same boat as far as political alignment and voting record, I'm curious to see how they react, and I'd love to sit down with them and ask them questions about their own place in the party.
I don't think they'd really comment on it. Afterall, they can just say that they represent the great state of Maine, Specter represents Pennsylvania and therefore is an issue between him and his constituents. Also, Maine is an 'edgy' state in that they're fairly independent and proud of it. I wouldn't be surprised if they take their moderate Republican senators with pride. I haven't seen any polling on Snowe and Collins' popularity, but I imagine they're pretty safe avoiding this issue.
Posts: 1831 | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Olympia Snowe has an Op-Ed in the NYT about it.
And I think Vadon is right. Snowe and Collins are safe, electorally; Specter recently polled at more than 20 points down against a more conservative Republican opponent. He probably wouldn't have survived the primary. This is the only way he keeps his seat.
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: I'd love to see specific comments from Olympia Snowe and Susan Collins from Maine on this. Considering they're virtually in the same boat as far as political alignment and voting record, I'm curious to see how they react, and I'd love to sit down with them and ask them questions about their own place in the party.
Here you go, Sen. Collins on Arlen Spector:
quote:"I have great respect for Senator Specter who has worked hard for many years on behalf of the people of Pennsylvania.
"I am, however, extremely surprised and disappointed with his decision to leave the Republican party.
"Senator Specter has long been a leading moderate voice in the Senate, and I believe that his decision is more a reflection of Pennsylvania politics than anything else."
She is taking the party line at this point, while it seems Snowe is going the other direction.
If either one of them were to defect from the Republican Party, it would be Snowe and not Collins, but I don't think either will ever do it. Maine is fairly independent, they have at least 3 members of the Green Party and at least 3 independents in the state legislature, a Democratic Gov., and 2 moderate Republican Senators, and so many differing views are represented in Maine Politics. Plus, neither is up for re-election until 2012 (Collins) and 2014 (Snowe), so they can continue to do what they have been doing.
What I think is interesting is whether this will change how the Republicans deal with Snowe and Collins in Maine. Michael Steele has intimated that there would be retribution for their stimulus bill votes, but I wonder if that will change now that Sen. Specter has changed parties. The extreme elements of the Republican Party are hurting the party, but they are also hurting America. I think the solution to this has to be a strong Republican party that can temper it's own extremist elements because I think the country needs two strong and intelligent parties.
It's the same strategy we have to have for Islamic extremists and terrorists, we have to appeal to the moderate forces of the region and allow them to temper the voices of the extremists that give them bad names. Sean Hannity and Rush Limbaugh cannot be the voices of the Republican Party, at least if they want to help America and win a national election, and in that sense, they only have themselves to blame. They must stand up or the extremists will run them over.
Posts: 457 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I didn't mean to suggest that either Snowe or Collins were in any trouble as far as reelection goes. They're wildly popular in Maine, despite the fact that the state is trending Democrat more and more, and that's a testament to both their connection to their constituents, and to their being centrists in a truer sense of the word. I just wanted to know what someone from the center had to say about this, someone who wouldn't say "good riddance!" but who would really understand his position and them comment on it.
But I ventured my musing because this is exactly what I wanted to see come out of her mouth:
quote:From Olympia Snowe: 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.
and this:
quote: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.
Someone had to say it out loud, and I think it was most likely to come from one of those two, because she isn't talking about Specter, she's talking about herself and her fellow Senator from Maine. If the Republicans have learned even half of what they should have from last November, they'll pay really close attention to what she's saying there, but part of me feels, especially after putting Steele in charge of the RNC (which is the goofiest publicity stunt I've ever seen since the guy has been a gaffe machine), that they haven't learned a thing, and that Specter is only going to push them further into entrenchment rather than force a real crisis of confidence and introspective self-analysis.
Rush Limbaugh's "good riddance" approach is the absolute worst stance the GOP could take right now, but it remains to be seen how they'll handle it.
What sort of retribution can Steele possibly threaten Snowe and Collins with? Especially with Specter gone, those two have even more power now than they had before. They're lynch pins that Steele can't possibly afford to alienate, for while I don't really see the danger of them switching parties, not with their local political situations, pissing them off isn't going to help Steele at all. When you're down as many votes as the Republicans are, rallying the troops is too important to start pushing people even further to the outskirts.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:What sort of retribution can Steele possibly threaten Snowe and Collins with? Especially with Specter gone, those two have even more power now than they had before. They're lynch pins that Steele can't possibly afford to alienate, for while I don't really see the danger of them switching parties, not with their local political situations, pissing them off isn't going to help Steele at all. When you're down as many votes as the Republicans are, rallying the troops is too important to start pushing people even further to the outskirts.
Yeah, placing Steele in charge just showed a lack of ideas and leadership on the part of the Republicans. But look at what they were going to do with Specter, they were going to run a Conservative Republican against him that would have been destroyed by a Democrat with a pulse in Pennsylvania and the seat would have been lost by both Specter and the Republicans. I don't think the Republicans care at this point whether they can win general elections or whether they will be severely weakened or whether they can rally the troops, they are more intent on purifying their party of any moderate elements.
Besides, I think that the hard-core elements of the Republican Party believe that they *can* win general elections and build majorities by becoming more conservative and more exclusive. Politicians like Sarah Palin, Bobby Jindal, and Gov. Sanford are seen as the future of the Republican Party, whereas moderates like Charlie Crist, Colin Powell, and others are seen to be weak and out of touch. All of which means that I could see scenarios where Steele and other conservative groups attack Sens. Collins and Snowe in an attempt to defeat them, and I don't think it matters what the electorate looks like or what the reality of the situation is at the time.
You know what's sad? The litmus test for the Republican party won't be anything about policy or governance, it will be whether someone in the party can stand up and claim that Rush Limbaugh is not it's leader. And then not apologize for it the next day...
Posts: 457 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote: "We are cooling. We are not warming. The warming you see out there, the supposed warming, and I use my fingers as quotation marks, is part of the cooling process. Greenland, which is covered in ice, it was once called Greenland for a reason, right?"
I think when it comes to little tidbits like this, I'm either shocked at how stupid the person sounds, or offended at how stupid the person speaking expects the listeners to be. Only a very stupid, or a very cocky person would choose to say something like this.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Wow, he doesn't know Greenland was named that as a bit of propaganda to try to get people to go there?
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by fugu13: Wow, he doesn't know Greenland was named that as a bit of propaganda to try to get people to go there?
Not to mention that Greenland does have a sizable portion of arable land on it- even if it is mostly not inhabitable.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Paul Krugman's words about the Republican death spiral — "the smaller it gets, the more it's dominated by the hard right, which makes it even smaller" perfectly encapsulates the serious vicious cycle they face, which is compounded by the fact that the people making this party change happen either can not or do not want to realize why this pushes the party further away from electability.
Part of the trouble is the influence that conservative talk radio and Fox News have. By distorting the facts into an alternate reality, conservative media leaves the impression that this is all inevitably going to be good for the party, that there's a conservative revolution waiting to happen once all the moderates get pushed out. Just look at the "tea party" coverage.
Posts: 8120 | Registered: Jul 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Specter left because he knows he cannot win reelection. He cannot beat a Republican challenger like Toomey so he jumped ship to hopefully stay in office. This is just about a politician clinging to his power and not about a moderate being forced to out of the Republican party. I know his office was flooded with calls and emails about not voting for the stimulus package and he did anyway. His email response was basically I will do whatever I think is best and not what my voters feel is best.
Posts: 1918 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote: Part of the trouble is the influence that conservative talk radio and Fox News have. By distorting the facts into an alternate reality, conservative media leaves the impression that this is all inevitably going to be good for the party, that there's a conservative revolution waiting to happen once all the moderates get pushed out. Just look at the "tea party" coverage.
The same can be said for CNN, NBC, CBS, and other news outlets that are spinning all of the stories in the opposite direction.
Posts: 1918 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:The same can be said for CNN, NBC, CBS, and other news outlets that are spinning all of the stories in the opposite direction.
Not really. Despite what Rush might say, those networks don't spin things remotely as much as conservative radio or Fox News does. There are a few shows like Obermann that do, but I don't think they wield nearly as much influence.
Posts: 8120 | Registered: Jul 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote: You know what's sad? The litmus test for the Republican party won't be anything about policy or governance, it will be whether someone in the party can stand up and claim that Rush Limbaugh is not it's leader. And then not apologize for it the next day...
Except that isn't what happened and is completely false. Specter switching parties proves it.
Posts: 1918 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote: You know what's sad? The litmus test for the Republican party won't be anything about policy or governance, it will be whether someone in the party can stand up and claim that Rush Limbaugh is not it's leader. And then not apologize for it the next day...
Except that isn't what happened and is completely false. Specter switching parties proves it.
quote: Part of the trouble is the influence that conservative talk radio and Fox News have. By distorting the facts into an alternate reality, conservative media leaves the impression that this is all inevitably going to be good for the party, that there's a conservative revolution waiting to happen once all the moderates get pushed out. Just look at the "tea party" coverage.
The same can be said for CNN, NBC, CBS, and other news outlets that are spinning all of the stories in the opposite direction.
The same can be said, but the same is not necessarily true. I'm pretty independent politically, but it's not at all hard for me to see that the networks you named are not nearly as biased or tailored to a specific view as Fox is. Hell, Jon Stewart shows less hardcore political bias than fox news, and he does it while hosting a decidedly liberal program. By "hardcore" bias, I mean to say that Fox news continually pretends to be reporting the news, while they are in fact towing various corporate and party lines, while Stewart makes no claim to objectivity, but nevertheless refuses to tow party lines- the bias is at the foundation of what Fox does, while fairness and honesty are at the foundation of Stewart's show. The main problem I see with the Republican party in the media is that it has been bought up and junked together like a frankenstein creation of mass marketing. The non-republican dominated media, or the rest of the media, is diverse and competitive, while Republican dominated media interests are conglomerated into media empires with Rush Limbaugh on 600 stations whether he is listened to or not.
Rush can claim he is the number one most listened to radio host in America and be right, except he won't tell you he is the most widely broadcast, and that in his tenure as a media figure, the radio business has suffered fatal losses in all the markets he controls. So I feel as if the Republican party is constantly thinking that way, putting one message on the air, one voice, as Clearchannel did with Rush, then looking at the numbers and going "awesome!" Except it never occured to them that the radio markets they were serving were drying up, even as the numbers *appeared* to be good. It's not impressive that a million or ten million people listen to Rush in 600 markets, if 50 million together used to listen to all the other personalities that used to be represented where Rush now sits. And that's more or less the story- I'll be quite surprised if radio can afford Limbaugh for his next contract, and in fact I'm fairly sure he'll take a massive pay-cut just to keep himself on the air.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Up until recently, I used to be a registered Republican, and one in Pennsylvania too. One aspect of this story that I haven't seen touched on here is that this is not an isolated trend. The Republicans have been hemorrhaging voters in PA since at least 2006. I think the number I saw was over 300,000 have switched their political party away from the GOP during that time, most of whom went to the Democrats. There was definitely a shift to get in on the Democratic primaries of 2008, but that is far from the whole story. And I'm willing to bet that most of those people were Arlen Specter voters.
For myself, I was a registered Republican because, as I see it, the party was split between different influences, some of which I think are very valuable, some of which I think are misguided, and some of which I think are a disgrace. I registered Republican to try to do my bit to influence the party towards the good stuff and away from the bad stuff. But the 2000s have been one long stretch of the GOP abandoning and often spitting on the things I thought were good about their platform while playing to the some of the very worst elements.
At this point, unless they pull a 180 (or the much more likely Democrats really, really screwing themselves) I think they are committed to becoming a regional party that caters almost exclusively to people who live in Limbaughland. Even if I felt like I could have some slight influence, why should I bother. The bad people are marginalizing themselves without any help from me.
posted
Joining the majority party makes it possible for you to have more power on Senate and House Committees, such as being named chairman.
Rush "Red Herring" Limbaugh is in no way representative of the Republican party. He isn't a politician, for one thing. Is the New York Times (which is now in crisis mode because of declining readership) representative of Democrats?
Posts: 3742 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote: The litmus test for the Republican party won't be anything about policy or governance, it will be whether someone in the party can stand up and claim that Rush Limbaugh is not it's leader. And then not apologize for it the next day...
is false. Specter failed the litmus test for the Repulican party when he voted for the $3+trillion stimulus package.
Posts: 1918 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote: I eagerly await the next Republican who dares to say so aloud and is then forced to apologize.
Rush Limbaugh has stated many many times that he does not represent the Republican party despite the left's attempts to paint him that way. Rush Limbaugh has always said he promotes the conservative viewpoint. So if a Republican said that Rush does not represent the Republican party, that he is not a Republican hack, but that he is a conservative and promotes a conservative point of view I would imagine Rush would loudly applaud.
Posts: 1918 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by DarkKnight: Specter left because he knows he cannot win reelection. He cannot beat a Republican challenger like Toomey so he jumped ship to hopefully stay in office. This is just about a politician clinging to his power and not about a moderate being forced to out of the Republican party.
The party leadership (and Steele in particular) had every opportunity to do what they normally do in these situations, which is to call Toomey and firmly tell him not to pursue the challenge. Instead, they all but endorsed Toomey outright. In American party politics, that is virtually the definition of "forcing someone out of the party." The Democrats did the exact same thing to Lieberman back in aught six, and nobody had the audacity then to claim that they were doing anything but primarying him out of the party.
quote:I know his office was flooded with calls and emails about not voting for the stimulus package and he did anyway. His email response was basically I will do whatever I think is best and not what my voters feel is best. [/QB]
Close, but not quite. His response was, "I will do whatever I think is best because my voters elected me to do so."
If Pennsylvanian voters are so disgusted with his vote on the stimulus, then they'll vote him out of office in the coming election. Sure, his fate will no longer depend upon the increasingly-marginal Republican minority in Pennsylvania, but he still has to deal with a Democratic primary and a general election.
Posts: 1321 | Registered: Sep 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
DarkKnight, you would much more credible on this subject if the proclamation-and-apology had not recently happened.
Rush Limbaugh is, God help us, so strong amongst Republicans - or is perceived as so strong, which amounts to the same thing - that the official leader of the party has to kowtow to him. In short order, no less.
Now, whatever you think about Rush Limbaugh, or the GOP, or its leadership, certain facts remain.
1. Steele hears Limbaugh referred to as the leader of the GOP in an interview. 2. Steele denies that, asserts his own leadership, and goes on to criticize Limbaugh as incendiary, ugly, and points out that he is 'just an entertainer'. 3. Right-wing gets super-pissed 4. Less than two days later, Steele apologizes.
All of those things happened, DarkKnight, as sure as God made little apples and the sky is blue. Frankly you're just making yourself look silly suggesting it didn't or things were somehow 'spun'.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
It's sort of funny that the consequence of this move is likely to be a more moderate Senate than if Sen Specter stayed a Republican. Pat Toomey would beat him handily in the primary, but would get crushed in the general. But Arlen Specter has a pretty good chance of winning the Democratic primary, taking the place of the likely more liberal candidate that the Dems would have run against Pat Toomey.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote: I eagerly await the next Republican who dares to say so aloud and is then forced to apologize.
Rush Limbaugh has stated many many times that he does not represent the Republican party despite the left's attempts to paint him that way. Rush Limbaugh has always said he promotes the conservative viewpoint. So if a Republican said that Rush does not represent the Republican party, that he is not a Republican hack, but that he is a conservative and promotes a conservative point of view I would imagine Rush would loudly applaud.
Of course he loudly proclaims that he isn't the voice of the Republican Party and that if he was, he would "fire himself." Rush's ambitions are not limited to that rabble of fools, he wants to be thought of as the, "voice of conservatism." He wants William F. Buckley's old position. It's why David Frum wrote a long piece for Newsweek about why Rush Limbaugh is terrible for modern conservatism. Call up Rush Limbaugh and call him the voice of the American conservatism and see if he rejects the title.
How can Rush be the voice of the Republican party, he isn't even an elected official? -----
I'm essentially like Mr. Squicky in that I used to be a registered Republican because I do think there are some important concepts in conservatism, but what I liked about the party was jettisoned when I came back to US in 2003. Until they get their platform wired tight and return to some actual principles I have no idea what I'm getting when I vote for one, and so my vote will never be theirs.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote: The litmus test for the Republican party won't be anything about policy or governance, it will be whether someone in the party can stand up and claim that Rush Limbaugh is not it's leader. And then not apologize for it the next day...
is false. Specter failed the litmus test for the Repulican party when he voted for the $3+trillion stimulus package.
I wasn't speaking about Specter, the litmus test for whether the Republican party can be a national party free of extremism is what I claim above. In other words, if the Republican wants to be useful and free of extremism, they have to exorcise Rush Limbaugh.
Ron Lambert:
quote: Rush "Red Herring" Limbaugh is in no way representative of the Republican party. He isn't a politician, for one thing. Is the New York Times (which is now in crisis mode because of declining readership) representative of Democrats?
See, I think this is absolutely true. So why don't you get the leaders of the party to say the same thing?
The problem is we have seen this type of party destruction before, when liberalism became too powerful in the democratic party in 1968 the Democratic Party suffered for over 20 years. It took many years for the Democrats to sleigh their demons and become a moderate party, and that's what I see happening with the Republican Party. In some sense, the tea bag protests mirror what happened to liberals and Democrats in Chicago in 1968, and if Republicans do not want to be lost in the wilderness for the next 20 years, then Republicans will stand up and defeat the extremism that is ruining both the party and the country.
Posts: 457 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I usually vote Republican, and my views tend toward the conservative. But I have never listened to a single broadcast by Rush Limbaugh. He is no leader of anything to me.
I voted for McCain, who is largely regarded as a moderate. Conservatives make up a large portion of the Republican party, but moderates are an even larger portion.
Posts: 3742 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote: Now, whatever you think about Rush Limbaugh, or the GOP, or its leadership, certain facts remain.
1. Steele hears Limbaugh referred to as the leader of the GOP in an interview. 2. Steele denies that, asserts his own leadership, and goes on to criticize Limbaugh as incendiary, ugly, and points out that he is 'just an entertainer'. 3. Right-wing gets super-pissed 4. Less than two days later, Steele apologizes.
All of those things happened, DarkKnight, as sure as God made little apples and the sky is blue. Frankly you're just making yourself look silly suggesting it didn't or things were somehow 'spun'.
I think you are very mistaken here. The assertion was made by TomDavidson that Rush Limbaugh is a representative of the Republican party. If you carefully read your analysis you should be able to discern why people were upset at Steele's remarks. It was not that Steele said Rush is not the leader of the Republican party and that Steele is the leader. People, including Rush, were upset that the conservative viewpoint is incendiary, ugly, and disgusting. To say otherwise would swerve away from the left's mantra of Rush is just disgusting because he is a conservative and it is right and true to hate conservatives. They are all bigots anyway. DL Hughley said in the same interview that the Republican party literally looks like Nazi Germany but that isn't even worthy of a comment because Republicans all love Nazis. To make it more clear for you, your little apples, and the blue sky above. People were mad not because they think Rush is the leader of Republican party. People, including Rush, were mad that Steele sided with the inflammatory hate speech of Hughley instead of defending conversative ideals. I do understand you won't understand and that's fine.
quote: The party leadership (and Steele in particular) had every opportunity to do what they normally do in these situations, which is to call Toomey and firmly tell him not to pursue the challenge. Instead, they all but endorsed Toomey outright. In American party politics, that is virtually the definition of "forcing someone out of the party." The Democrats did the exact same thing to Lieberman back in aught six, and nobody had the audacity then to claim that they were doing anything but primarying him out of the party.
Was the news coverage the same for Lieberman as it is for Specter? Was it moderate Democrat Liberman sides with Bush? He was kicked out violently because you cannot go against the militant Democrat party. Specter could have gone independent like Liberman did but Specter switched parties because he knows he will not win an election as a Republican and will be soundly beaten as an Independant. He can only hope the Obama coattails can carry him along to possibly win the Democrat primary, and even that looks doubtful.
quote: I'm essentially like Mr. Squicky in that I used to be a registered Republican because I do think there are some important concepts in conservatism, but what I liked about the party was jettisoned when I came back to US in 2003. Until they get their platform wired tight and return to some actual principles I have no idea what I'm getting when I vote for one, and so my vote will never be theirs.
Such as? what was jettisoned and what needs to change about the platform for you to back a Republican? I keep hearing this but no one is being specific about what it is they want changed. I know I want Republicans to be more about smaller government, less taxes, much more fiscal discipline. They could back off of gay marriage as a wedge issue. Republicans should be out there speaking a much more clear point of view and pointing out the nightmare Obama is creating for the country.
Posts: 1918 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Here is the real danger where Democrats are concerned. The majority of Republicans are moderates, while the majority of Democrats are liberal. Moderates among Democrats are treated with the disfavor of the party. Specter will probably be regarded as a moderate among Democrats, so he will not have much influence with them. Actually, I think it would be good for moderates to regain control of the Democratic party.
Posts: 3742 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Ron, the majority of Democrats are Moderate, including the majority of Democrats that participate in this forum. Not being able to recognize that invaladates your previous claim that you are a Moderate.
Posts: 1167 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
It takes a special sort of person to respond to "300,000 PA Republicans switched to Democrats in the past 3 years" with "Democrats are not moderates."
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
. I think I just made a new friend in Tatiana.
