Demographics & Economics
OMB
Congressional Budget Office
The Federal Budget
U.S. Census Quickfacts
Inflation Calculator
CIA World Factbook
NationMaster
State Healthcare Facts
UN HDR stats
US Bureau of Economic Analysis
US Bureau of Labor Statistics
US CDC health stats
US DOJ Bureau of Justice Statistics
US DOJ crime stats
Constitution
The Constitution
The Founders' Constitution
The Avalon Project
The Federalist Papers
The antifederalist papers
Founding documents
Politics
ADA (liberal) Voting Records
ACU (conservative) Voting Records
Census Voter Turnout
Congressional Research Service
Memeorandum
NOW list of voting scorecards
PolitiFact
PorkBusters
Project VoteSmart list of voting scorecards
RealClearPolitics
Roll call votes--House
Roll call votes--Senate
Survey USA
WaPo Votes Database
Iraq/Terrorism
CentCom
Brookings Institute Iraq Index
Project on Defense Alternatives War Report
Nat'l Defense Univ Iraq
Nat'l Defense Univ Afghanistan
MERLIN, Nat'l Defense Univ Library Network
STRATFOR
Nat'l Memorial Inst for Prevention of Terrorism
West Point's Combating Terrorism Center
Politics blogs
Baldilocks
Blue Mass Group
Cadillac Tight
California Conservative
Jon Chait
Confederate Yankee
Crooked Timber
Democracy Project
Dinocrat
First Read
Gateway Pundit
GenerationPatriot
Horse Race Blog
Just One Minute
Hugh Hewitt
Michelle Malkin
Patterico's Pontifications
Power Line
Red State
RNCC blog
Scrappleface
Sister Toldjah
Talking Points Memo
The Blogometer
The Corner
The Next Right
The Moderate Voice
Think Progress
Wizbang
Moderate / centrist
Ambivablog
Bipartisan Rules
Booker Rising
Centerfield
Charging RINO
Donklephant
Liberal War Journal
Militant Moderates
The Buck Stops Here
The Glittering Eye
The Iconic Midwest
The PoliGazette
The Walrus Said
Legal & academic
How Appealing
Becker-Posner
Bench Memos
Concurring Opinions
Economists Do It With Models
Legalities
Prawfsblawg
SCOTUSblog
Sentencing Law & Policy
UCFB
The Volokh Conspiracy
Christian
Archbp Dolan: Gospel in the Digital Age
Bp Chris Coyne: Let Us Walk Together
ADW blog
Simon Dodd: Motu Proprio
Fr Zuhlsdorf: WDTPRS
Fr Longenecker: Standing On My Head
Elizabeth Scalia: The Anchoress
First Thoughts
Mirror of Justice
Rorate Cæli
Veritas Rex
Middle East & Muslim affairs
Eteraz
Iraq the Model
Lebanese Political Journal
Michael Totten
Michael Yon
General interest
Althouse
Ambiance
Chris Muir's Day by Day
Instapundit
IowaHawk
JAC
Professor Bainbridge
Prettier than Napoleon
Rachel Lucas
The Right Coast
Science Blog
Sippican Cottage
Whatever
Consistent with what I've previously said about Jim Jeffords and Joe Lieberman (here, for example; cf. this (per Tully)), if this breaking news is true, Specter must resign immediately. If Specter wants to be a Democrat, he must resign and stand for reelection as a Democrat.
Post facto:
It's time to pay the piper (4/30/09)
Representative Griffith (R-Ala.) (12/22/09)
Our RSS feed
I understand your point, Simon, but I disagree now, as I
disagreed then--Specter was elected to serve as the senator from Pennsylvania, and to the people of Pennsylvania, not the GOP. Yes, he ran as a Republican, but when the Party goes out of its way to send a message that Specter's moderate liberal positions aren't welcome, then he has every right to seek political residence elsewhere, as Lieberman could've done, if the Dems had actually decided to listen to the Kossacks and strip him of his post.
If a Senator makes a certain
If a Senator makes a certain claim the central plank of their election bid, and that claim is later revealed to have been a deliberate lie on their part, that Senator ought to resign. The party on whose ticket one was elected is the most fundamental and central plank on which any politician runs - indeed, it is the scaffold on which all other planks rest. It is the source of their ability to raise funds and the single piece of information on which all voters may be said to evaluate a candidate. When a Senator then proposes to bail out, it's only slightly different to having lied to the electorate, and is in every way morally equivalent. I have no particular objection to Senator Specter becoming a Democrat, and I certainly have no objection to Senator Lieberman becoming a Republican -- but in order to do so, in my own view, they are absolutely and without qualification required to resign and seek reelection on that basis. They have essentially defrauded the electorate and the people who donated time and money; they have to do penance for that, and the electorate should get to express their view as to whether they wanted this person, or the nominee of that party.
Party trumps the individual?
I suppose, if we were in a parliamentary system where people are elected off of a party list, you would be correct. However, in the United States, we do vote for the person first, hence, party affiliation is not the first thing listed, it is the name. U.S. political parties are only marginally useful in deciding a candidate since there is no strong way to compel party adherence, unlike a parliamentary system. Sure, the party does help a person get elected; but it matters more the person in most cases.
You are giving political parties far too much power. While they allow for an easier intellectual containering of a candidate( I think I just made a new verb, it is ultimately the person who is being voted for. I agree that a lot of people use party labels to decide their vote and that is their option. However, it is not a good idea to ascribe political parties any more control than they already have. If the GOP wanted to drive Specter out, which I feel they did, they succeeded. However, that does not mean that it was "their" seat. The seat belongs to Arlen Specter. The GOP has a chance to elect someone to that seat in a few years. Even then, the victor is the person who holds the seat. There is no Constitutional protection for political parties other than the first amendment right to exist. If party was the primary focus of election, non-partisan elections would not exist. If the parties actually had real power, there would be no such thing as a primary since the party would choose the candidate. By law, the people have prevented the parties from wielding such power. If someone donates money to a candidate simply because they have an R after their name, then buyer beware.
Plus, you can add the cost of a state wide election to the mix. Not that I consider a change in party a valid argument to hold another election; but if it was, I think the party calling for the election should fund the entire cost of the state portion of the election. However, parties don't fund the actual elections. If they did, I might give more sway to the argument. Elections are of people, not parties.
Legally, yes... morally, no...
Jim, you are certainly correct as a legal matter. Arlen Specter was elected, and Arlen Specter has a right to stay in that seat, even if he changes party. Is that what he SHOULD do, however?
We often talk about holding our politicians to a higher standard, but then when push comes to shove, we often revert back to a minimal concept of their "rights" (or the rights of those who voted for them) rather than their higher obligations as public servants.
When party switching, I think the appropriate standard was set by Phil Gramm, who was initially elected as a Democratic Senator from Texas. When he switched parties, he resigned from his seat, ran in the special election, and was re-elected as a Republican. That's the standard I believe all members of Congress should follow when switching parties. I criticized Louisiana's now-GOP Congressman Rodney Alexander when he switched parties on the last day of qualifying for his first attempt at reelection, denying the Democrats an opportunity to timely field an opponent against him.
While you are correct that party is not as important in our system as it is in a parliamentary system, it is hardly immaterial. I believe that many voters consider party (and, more importantly in the instance of Specter and the duplicitous Jeffords, the impact a particular election may have on the overall control of the Senate) when making their decision. There are at least some voters who would say: "I'd be ok with a Democrat representing me, but not if it meant that one party would have a super-majority in the Senate; I want more divided government." Switching control of a chamber of Congress from one party to the other should be decided by the voters, not the individual office holder. In that light, Specter's defection is not as wrong as Jeffords' because filibuster votes are not purely party-line affairs, unlike votes for majority leader and the like. But it's still wrong.
Also...
Also, I'd point out that Specter is just out-and-out lying about his reasons. The GOP is not notably more conservative in any respect since the last time Specter stood for election. No significant GOP policies or pressures have changed since then, other than perhaps to have become slightly more fiscally conservative (finally). The party's presidential candidate in the last election was notably less conservative than in 2004 (the last time he ran for reelection). The ONLY thing that has significantly changed is that the polls now show that Pat Toomey would very likely have defeated him in the GOP primary.
Specter could have followed the example of Joe Lieberman, become a nominal independent while still caucusing with his party, and run for reelection as an independent against the nominees of BOTH parties. But Specter is not that honorable. No, he switched because he thinks this gives him the best chance of reelection.
Don't get me wrong, I'm not assigning that much nobility to
Specter here--he was quite upfront about this having a lot to do with his political future, but I think there is somrthing to be said for acknowledging that your party doesn't want you around, and seeking a new home.
Yeah, the cleanest thing for him to do would be to resign and run again, but...
We all agree that Specter is
We all agree that Specter is perfectly within his rights to seek a new home - it's a question of how, and what are his obligations in regard to how.
His obligations are to the people of Pennsylvania, not the GOP.
And yes, I get that doing things the way he did changes the game in a way the GOP didn't plan for, but these things do happen.
He has obligations to both,
He has obligations to both, and also to the subset of the former that is part of the latter. He was elected because he was the GOP nominee; as my comment lower down points out, it's plausible but highly unlikely that he would be a Senator today but for that fact. We can speculate on that question, but the only thing we know with absolute certainty is that he was elected qua the GOP nominee.
It has nothing to do with the GOP's game plan - I would be saying the same thing if Ben Nelson had defected the other way. If you change parties as an elected official, you must resign. Period. That doesn't mean "go, and never darken our door again,: but it does mean that the voters must be given a chance to weigh in. If Specter truly has in mind "[h]is obligations [] to the people of Pennsylvania," he will respect and trust them enough to allow the opportunity for them to clarify: did they vote for the man, as the voters of connecticut did, or did they vote for the party? It is not for him or us to make that determination. It is for them.
In any event, his those obligations are not in tension. They are all adequately discharged by his resignation, which is the only honorable course open to him, although I have no reason to believe he is a man of honor.
3 Faustian bargains
Specter joined the GOP in 1965. Since then it became dominated by corporate wealthy interests, it added millions of disaffected segregationists who left the Democratic Party, it added more millions of conservative religious voters, basically becoming the "Christian Party".
In the past 8 years, the GOP totally threw out the concepts of small government, competent and accountable government, fiscal responsibility, the rule of law etc. Thousands of his constituents have fled the GOP and have moved over to the Democratic party. In 2008 democratic registration went up 4% while GOP went down 2%.
The Republicans I respected in the 60's, George Christopher, Everett Dirksen, Eisenhower, Schwieker, Jackson et al are all gone.
BTW Pat and Simon, did you call for the resignation of John Nighthorse Campbell?
You mean Ben Nighthorse
You mean Ben Nighthorse Campbell, presumably, Marcus.
The answer to your question is no, of course I didn't blog a call for his resignation. That isn't surprising given that he switched parties a decade before I started blogging (indeed, three years before the term "blog" was even coined). Needless to say the same principle applies to him.
But that's really a sideshow, isn't it? What you appear to be driving at by raising his defection is the insinuation that Pat and I are being hypocrites (or at least playing to partisan advantage) by criticizing Specter when we didn't criticize Campbell. I'm going to hope that isn't your intent, because if it were, that would make you look ridiculous: this post simply and expressly applies a principle that was enunciated in a situation where it worked against my partisan interests.
As to the state of the party, it's pretty inarguable which way the party establishment in Washington have gone. That's not the same thing as saying that the party itself has gone that way, however. Indeed, most in the rank and file have vocally criticized the establishment for heresy, and it's fairly clear that a desire by conservatives and republicans more broadly to punish elected officials for defaulting on "the concepts of small government, competent and accountable government, fiscal responsibility, the rule of law etc." that lead to the drubbing in 2006 and 2008. I would have thought that there was a better way than cutting off our noses to spite our faces, but c'est la vie.
I don't know.
Did he switch because it gives him a better chance or just because he was tired of being beaten up by his own party? I kind of agree with Specter in a way. I think the far right portion of the GOP has upped the "purity" ante and is on an all out assault to rid the party of anyone who is not in lock step with their ideals. I have always been a strong fiscal conservative. Yet, the hypocritical stances of some of the party leadership has made me ill. Where was all this the last eight years??? Are they only on this ship now because they ran the war on terror ship into the reef along with the economy?
Yes it is true that Specter does better as a Democrat. I would actually say he is probably a safe seat now. Truth is that Toomey would have likely have had his butt handed to him in the general election anyways. Once again, why would Specter want to stay with a party that does not want him?
I agree with the assertions that the GOP is moving further right. It is doing this through attrition and is in severe danger of becoming a one region party. The party is in major danger of becoming inconsequential outside the Southeast. The party has taken the circular firing squad to a new level that I don't think the Democrats even managed at its nadir. Here in Florida, the hard core right is so rabid about wanting to get rid of Charlie Crist because he is not pure. I don't get it anymore. This is not the party it was back under Reagan. The party I fell in love with. The party of new ideas. It is now about purity tests, signing no tax pledges and hiding behind semantics.
The party learned absolutely nothing in eight years of Clinton and does not seem like it learned anything during the Bush years except how to cannibalize itself.
Maybe I don't buy the morality argument of resigning to change parties because I don't see morality in the party, unless you want to count social conservative issues. Maybe it is because I feel like I don't have a party. I just don't get when the reaction to something like the turn your lights out night is a burn your lights night like I saw from so many Republican groups in this state. I don't get the idea of not recycling simply to spite the treehuggers. I don't get how the how everything has to be morphed into anti-Obama. Everything is based on anger. Angry about taxes, angry about spending, angry about bailouts, etc. Where was this anger over the last eight years on spending? I'll be the first to say I subscribe to the Laffer curve; but there is another side of the curve. It is not an infinite line where lowering taxes to zero keeps increasing revenue. [I am not saying to rais taxes; but the argument to keep cutting taxes has now lost me because I feel we are too darn close to the other side of the curve]
I will be blunt on this, the party's presidential candidate was less conservative because it was the only way to have a chance. The economy sunk him. I do not think any other candidate that was running on the GOP would have had a chance. The nation was just tired of the GOP. Dick Cheney still yapping away is not helping the party either. Unless the GOP can jettison the Bush legacy, it will be relegated to a regional party. Plus, Pennsylvania is not part of that region either.
Jim, to be clear, as I
Jim, to be clear, as I mentioned above to Rafique, my point about the morality of changing parties has nothing to do with which party one starts and finishes in. All I'm doing is applying to Specter's defection the same standard I articulated and applied when it was inconvenient (Lieberman).
I don't agree with the analysis of the 2008 election implied by your last paragraph; to my mind, as I think I said several times here and elsewhere, the only way to have a chance was to have a candidate who was independent of the Bush administration. It wasn't about the conservatism vel non of the nominee - indeed, the Bush administration wasn't particularly conservative, as many luminaries (you included) have pointed out. It was about getting a candidate who wasn't associated with the administration, and McCain rose to the top by default as the other candidates impacted.
Jim, I basically join Pat's
Jim, I basically join Pat's comment above (although I hope against expectation that there are in fact legal avenues by which Specter can be hobbled or hurt for his perfidy), but I'll add this much.
Your observation that Specter owns the seat not the GOP, and that "[e]lections are of people, not parties" are where the rubber meets the road: you take Specter's election as being an endorsement of Specter by the people. I disagree. Pennsylvania elected the duly-nominated candidate of the Republican party, who happened to be Arlen Specter. Any other conclusion rests on pure speculation; as I said above, party identification on the ballot is the only bit of knowledge we can absolutely and without question impute to the voter.1 Had Specter ran as an independent, would he have been able to raise any money? Would he have won many votes? Would he have won? It's possible; sometimes it is "ultimately the person who is being voted for," as Joe Lieberman's saga reminds us. But I think it's unlikely. Cases like Lieberman's are outliers, and Lieberman's may even be sui generis. Similarly, I didn't give money to John McCain - I gave money to my party's nominee (cf. SF: Brief comment on Huckabee's victory (1/4/08)).
Let's face reality: Had Specter had run as an independent, even without GOP candidate in the race, he would have been creamed. He's going to find that out the hard way in the next two years when he realizes that he will get only a handful of pity votes in the Democratic primary. If we're betting, I'd say he won't even suffer himself the humiliation of trying, and I expect to see him retire. It oversimplifies to say that "he" was elected.
You make the party monolithic
You make the party monolithic when it is not. In this case, legal definitions do not equal the reality. However, I will take the opening you gave me to point out how hideous the primary system really is in creating our current political problems. Now changing the primary system is as pie in the sky as thinking that a politician should resign because his party wanted to force him out. As I said above, I really feel that Specter will end up being safe in the next election.
Maybe the problem is that I am not ideological in the way I approach an election and may be out of the norm. I vote and give money based on the candidate. I never give to the party directly. I may give the party some of my time if what it needs it for is something I agree with. I have only ever donated to specific candidates. I have done so for candidates in both parties. However, the vast majority have been in the GOP. If you look at the comments from your Huckabee post, you will see that I am consistent on this. If that labels me a RINO, then so be it. It seems that RINO's are an endangered species at the moment.
I would also like to point out this paragraph from your own post:
Probably the best forecast for the GOP I have seen in a long time. And while my actions may contradict this, I think this is occurring. However, it is not occurring along social/fiscal lines, it is occurring over a how loyal are you argument. It matters little if most of your philosophy is consistent with the hard core of the party. They now demand purity because an unpure candidate lost them the election, completely ignoring the fact that it would have been a miracle for any GOP candidate to come close, let alone win. This is exactly what happened with Specter, the party cut its own throat. The rush for party purity has become rabid. It is a cancer that is destroying the party. Hence, this is not the same party that existed a few years ago. It is not even the same party that existed on November 4th. It is becoming smaller and pushing further into the political wilderness. When I feel like the party has gone too far right for me, I have to wonder what someone a lot more moderate than me is saying. I think the Democrats, in spite of the net roots, is the much more open party right now as can be seen in the fact that a lot of the new people in it are more conservative. Not as conservative as I would like, however.
That's not right, Jim...
Certainly there have been cases where elements of the GOP establishment appear to have cut off their nose to spite their face. Sen. Specter is NOT a good example of that phenomenon.
As David Freddoso notes at The Corner, the GOP used up a LOT of political capital to keep Specter in his seat in 2004, with the President himself coming to campaign for him. According to Freddoso, this may even have cost Rick Santorum his own seat, because of his campaigning for a strong pro-choice candidate like Specter.
Far from being a principled moderate, Specter has long appeared to me to be mostly an opportunist, trying to have it both ways, remaining true to conservative principles of limited government and fiscal responsibility (yes, yes, I know that the GOP hasn't been very fiscally conservative lately, but even at their worst they've been far more conservative than the Democrats) only up until a certain point, when Democrats successfully painted some problem in the national media as being SO BAD that he could convince himself that he "had no choice" but to vote for whatever proposed government solution was being proffered. Specter is certainly NOT one of those mythical "fiscal conservative, social liberal" Republicans that a lot of self-described centrists or moderates want to see. He's socially liberal, and he's quite willing to be the big spender, too, when political demands warrant. He floats with the political wind. He supported the "card check" legislation until Toomey hinted at running against him, and then he announced his opposition to it, in hopes of staving off the primary challenge. When it became obvious that was too little, too late, he just took his ball and went off to the other party.
The tea parties revealed some deep unhappiness about the massive increases in federal spending. There's a lot of traditional GOP voters who are quite pissed off about the party's profligate spending when it w as in power, its abandonment of principle to Tom DeLay's K-Street Republicans. Those voters want somebody who will actually make tough decisions to be fiscally responsible. Sen. Specter has revealed that he is not willing to do so, by voting for the stimulus package, one of only 3 Republican Senators to do so. Culling him is hardly shrinking the tent that much. There are times when an issue is so important to the core of what a party should stand for that it SHOULD enforce a "litmus test." To me, if you were willing to vote for that monstrosity the Democrats rammed through Congress in February, then you are not a Republican. I myself will never vote for a politician who did vote for that package, and I'll do my damnedest not to vote for anybody who voted for the TARP bill that President Bush railroaded through.
I'm a believer in the big tent. But if you make the tent too big, it becomes meaningless. "He who stands for everything stands for nothing."
Specter was widely expected to lose the primary to Toomey (as he would have in 2004 had not the party power brokers strongly gone to bat for him, in the primary). That means that there's a substantial proportion of the voting population of Pennsylvania who was tired of having him as their Senator, because he wasn't voting the way they want their Senator to vote, on major issues. Are they supposed to just grin and bear it? Don't they have a legitimate right to try to defeat him in the primary process? This is not a case where an outside group like the Club for Growth came in to drop a fortune in campaign cash in the primary fight. The opposition to Specter has been local and growing over time.
Jim, why is it that you want to find some way to support Specter and castigate the GOP, when Specter (which ever party he was in) is in fact the epitome of the self-interested career politician? He's not nearly as bad as a Murtha, perhaps, but he's hardly some heroic Cincinnatus, reluctantly serving and anxious to return home when no longer needed.
My argument is not for
My argument is not for Specter. Specter is the least Republican of the group, I agree on that. I think in my case, I may be to close to the some party operatives in this state and it is biasing my viewpoint nationwide. I have been getting a strong impression that people like Specter are just the tip of the iceberg. There is a blood lust in many GOPers that I know of. I am not so much defending Specter as I am raising warning flags from what I am seeing on the ground where I am.
What I am saying is beware of the victory. I already see a full out want for blood in my state. One thing I have noticed is that Florida tends to lead the pack in some of these trends. I will be interested to see how much the pack mentality grows in the state after this hard legislative session. I'm not seeing ideas of how to attract new voters. I'm not seeing any new leadership come forward from the ranks who I think can grab the party. I am seeing a lot of hate. Hate directed at democrats, hate directed at Obama and hate directed at Republicans who are not towing the line. The derangement syndrome is growing so large among the formerly stable party members I know that they scare me. I can't even tell who they are mad at. They just seem to be mad at everyone. I was angry about TARP and agree with you on not voting for anyone who voted for the stimulus. My reaction is based on seeing normally rational people I know, not here on Stubborn facts, but in real life circles coming unhinged. I'm not talking about regular people. I am talking about donors and party drivers. Maybe I am just too close to see the big picture. The picture I do see scares me.
I would modify your statement about a "substantial portion of the voting population" who was tired of Specter, though. It was just over 500K GOP primary voters who voted against him in the primary. He still received almost 3M votes in the general election. Even if you take away that 500K, he still wins. Granted it is apples and oranges to compare a primary, with its relatively low level of participation, with the general. This just returns to my contention that the primary system is a horrible way to select a candidate due to low turnout rates. As far as Santorum goes, he got stomped. I doubt his campaigning for Specter cost him but a small amount of the margin of his loss. It was a combination of his own slip ups and the fact that Pennsylvania is not really a GOP state that cost him. It was a swing state that I think has moved more toward a solid Democrat state. I actually thought Santorum was an aberration in the state.
I think, going back to the original point of resign or not, my defense of Specter is that the people of Pennsylvania knew what they were getting. I suspect he would have won if he had a D or an R after his name.
PS I concede the point on Specters moving being absolutely for reelection purposes after reading what Senator Mel Martinez said. It still does not change my red flag view on the party. Consider Mel Martinez, a man who I think is "retiring" because the state party has not seen him to be conservative enough. I have heard almost as much ripping of Martinez as I have heard of Gov. Crist.
Agree and disagree...
I continue to disagree with your analysis of the Specter case itself. As for your last paragraph, as Simon notes, your suspicion is just that. We do not know. The only thing we know for certain is that the people who voted for Specter did so while he had an R next to his name on the ballot. Simon has pointed out before that party identification is the one and only fact that we can be absolutely certain that each and every single voter was aware of. Everything else is pure speculation. That's why I don't think it's right for a politician to change parties mid-term, unless he resigns and stands for reelection. If opportunistic Specter had been a life-long Democrat, it's possible that the Dems would have gotten tired of him and run against him from the left.
I think your stated bias against the primary system may be creeping in here. Certainly there are weaknesses and potential for promoting zealots in the primary system, but there are substantial weaknesses in other systems as well... as a Louisianian, I've seen that first hand. An open primary system does NOT necessarily help elect the most moderate politicians. In fact, the "moderate" vote often winds up split between 2 or 3 guys, while there's 1 guy on each wing who attract 100% of the wing vote. In the worst (and sadly for my state the most well known) example, Edwin Edwards got the vote of the hard-core Democrats in the state, while David Duke wound up with the hard core far-right vote. Buddy Roemer, the moderate incumbent, came in 3rd place. A primary system would have avoided that God-awful choice.
I agree with your concerns about potential. While the GOP has plenty of good thinkers at the national level among the commentary class, I'm not sure that we have as many as we need at the state level. There are certainly a lot of knee-jerkers out there.
But let's not dismiss the "unhinged" normal people too much. Look at things from their perspective. One, they keep getting told by people like you that they should vote for a "moderate" rather than someone who really represents their policy desires. Two, they've seen the size of government increase even when (nominal) Republicans have been in charge of both houses of Congress and the White House. Three, they've seen the greatest ever increase in the national debt take place within the first 100 days of a new Administration, with little prospect for any tax relief or reduction in the size and scope of government on the horizon. Four, on social issues, they've seen that despite at least 60% nationwide support for their position on gay marriage, despite success after success at the ballot box with their position, they're told even by members of their own party that they shouldn't fight on that issue, they should just give up and let the moral values of the 40% control the country. And the consistent refrain from the "moderate" wing of the GOP (in concert with all the Democrats) is to tell them to stifle it. Can you tell me why you think they shouldn't be mad as hell and not going to take it any more?
I can't say I favor the open
I can't say I favor the open primary model either. I am in the school of the Instant Runoff elections where candidates are ranked. On the issue of resign for changing parties, I think we will just have to agree to disagree because I don't think any of us are going to change our views on that at this point.
As far as the perspective goes: to one: I only offer the moderation option when I think the alternative is a no win scenario - vis a vis the 2008 election. A lot of conservatives did not show up to vote for McCain. Heck, I was disgusted with his vote for the TARP but ultimately cast my vote because I saw the danger of Obama financially that has come to pass. Even though I said I would not have voted for Huckabee during the primaries, I suspect I would have swallowed my pride and voted for him in the general election. This is the first time I have ever voted the lesser of two evils. I was voting against Obama more than I was voting for McCain. Two, where was this anger years ago? Clinton was more fiscally responsible, with the help of a GOP Congress, than Bush ever was. Yet, the party had control for six of those eight years. All I ever heard was lower taxes and get us our share of the money. I never heard anyone saying that "insert community here" should give up on their earmark for the betterment of the country. The people got exactly what they voted for and now they are angry about it??? Where were the people trying to hold the GOP Congress to the fire over Social Security reform?? Three: see number one. Four: Also see number one. A major key to social issues was holding firm and getting judicial change on the Supreme Court. I really feel that McCain would have appointed judges to replace the inevitable losses of key liberal justices during this term, who would have upheld the laws that the moral conservatives want. These are all self inflicted wounds that could have been avoided. Sure they should be mad; but there has be some introspection and not claiming it is the fault of others.
As far as National level, yes the party have good thinkers. The problem is that there are no leaders among the group. There are too many Indians and no chiefs. What is currently in power is some of the most incompetent leadership that I think the GOP has ever assembled. They are doing a great job of setting themselves up as the anti-Obama party but doing a terrible job of putting forth new and viable ideas to the public. Now they bandwagon on the tea parties. Yet, it still goes back to the voters who think that Congress sucks but his/her congresscritter is doing a fine job. Maybe that is what everyone should be angry about, the average joe voter who keeps sending the same loons back year after year. Why should we expect the loons to change if we keep rewarding them.
Anger has its place; but it is not focused on the right area. It is almost raw primitive rage right now. Is there any new grassroots organization coming out of the tea parties? I am not seeing any organizing action. I see people blowing off steam and then going back to what they were doing. It is the flash mob of political rallies. Unless some new and powerful grassroots effort can come out of these tea parties, they will have accomplished nothing.
Maybe it is just my own frustration with the ineptness in ability to communicate by the party. Michael Steele has been a disaster. Was he only put there because he is black? I'm not sure because as I see him do his work, I wonder how the heck he got the position. It is darn frustrating to me.
A couple more thoughts
I'll agree to disagree on the morality of party-switching mid-term (but you're still wrong! ;-).
Certainly in the broader sense the electorate always gets what it deserves, by definition. The problem is, I don't think that, in a more utilitarian and less philosophical sense, the voters really have gotten what they wanted. They want a more reduced size of government, they want lower taxes for themselves, they want less government involvement in the economy (on the whole), but they haven't gotten that. They didn't put the GOP in power to deliver Medicare Part D. They didn't vote for Bush the first time because they wanted an adventurous foreign policy.
My own theory is that the religious right was hijacked and terribly manipulated by folks like Tom DeLay. That wing of the GOP, the wing which basically tore up the Contract with America, wanted power for its own sake, and it was inevitable that they would create the same problems that plagued the power-blinded Dan Rostenkowski Democrats. Folks like Specter (and Snowe and Collins) never pointed their finger at that manipulation. Instead, they railed against the well-intentioned religious voters back home. That was stupid. Very poor messaging.
I agree that nobody so far seems to have stepped up to the plate to provide some leadership to help focus and shape the anger shown in the tea parties (note that "nobody" includes the supposedly wonderful moderate Republicans like Specter, Snowe, and Collins). I don't know of any new Reagans tirelessly working the inner workings of the party to gain support for a new conservative movement (note that Reagan spent most of his adult life doing just that; he wasn't a Schwarzenegger who just showed up one day to turn in his "movie star" hat and run for office).
But part of the problem, I continue to maintain, is that the importance of the party has been weakened too much by several decades of campaign finance reform (as well as some unhelpful over-zealotry by hard-core single-issue folks who took over some party machinery in both parties). As you suggest, party membership is much less important in many elections today, not just because of the voters, but because the party itself is more limited in how it can directly assist the candidate. A stronger party organization would, I believe, lead to better, more centrist policy making.
Why? Well, right now campaign finance caps force political donations to be distributed more broadly. A guy who wants to give $1 million in a campaign cycle can't just write one big check to one candidate or to the party. Instead, he's got to give some money here and some money there, $5,000 to this PAC, another $2,500 to some other PAC, etc., etc., etc. This naturally causes the creation of more and more PACs to compete for those dollars. Would the Club for Growth get as many donations without these artificial limits, or would the party machinery itself have a better chance at getting the dollars? I think the party itself would have a strong leg up in getting those donations. In turn, that means that the party would want to craft as broad an appeal as possible (without violating core principles), in order to attract as much money as possible. Thus, it would impose some moderation by its control over doling out those funds. But today, money flows to Club for Growth and other single-issue organizations, which raise more money by being more ideologically pure.
Agree with the disaster of Steele. I was very concerned with how that race turned out. I had friends in the Blackwell camp, and I think he would have been a much stronger choice than any of the others. I was dismayed at how close the guy from S. Carolina came to winning it, given his past membership in a racially-exclusive country club, but at least a majority of the voting delegates saw that picking him would have been really disastrous.
I really can't argue with
I really can't argue with that at all. I never voted for Bush on foreign policy. I voted for him for Social Security reform and was very much let down both times. I also agree on the hijacking of the Religious Right. I was starting to make that argument to people back in 2001 before September 11th happened and the focus shifted away from there. As far as campaign finance goes, I agree there too. The only way a system can work is if it is all or nothing. Either 100% public money, which leads to a lot of censorship issues or open limits on donations(public reporting is a must, though).
I think we may be looking at the same issues and just seeing things at different angles. My cynical nature, that has served me well that last few years, has me seeing doom. I really hope I am wrong. I don't mind being wrong when being wrong is better for everyone. I'm just seeing a bear market for the GOP right now. I haven't found the silver lining.
or the reverse
Or they elected Arlen Specter, who happened to be the duly-nominated candidate of the Republican party. Depends on who you ask. My sense is that the vast majority of candidates are elected because their political views are deemed more representative of the voters than the other choice(s).
I'll cheerfully agree that most candidates fail to get the voters' time of day, no matter what their views, if they are not a member of one of the 2 dominant parties. That creates, in my mind, some sort of obligation of loyalty. I have little trouble seeing that loyalty end as soon as the party begins to plot your demise.
I don't see our congress as being a wholly-owned subsidiary of the parties.They exist at the convenience of the voters. And I grant them as little force as I feel they deserve, as should other voters. PA has the same senator with same political views as they had Monday. Given that most PA voters are likely to be utterly untroubled by this defection, it looks like the GOP gets to choose between liking it and lumping it.