A reptilian blogger -- the site is called Big Lizards --
hisses that I was "unable (or afraid) to draw the obvious
conclusion" in my Arlen Specter
post yesterday: when Republican legislators stop voting like
Republicans on "most critical, bedrock, GOP issues,"
Republican voters must send them packing. Now, I don't have a
problem with any of this and suspect I've been in favor of
tossing more Republican incumbents than this fellow. I also don't
carry any particular brief for Snarlin' Arlen, who I think is
wrong on almost all the issues where he dissents from the GOP
line and wrong on several issues where he toes it.
But Republicans shouldn't start counting their 2010 chickens
before they're hatched. Yes, there are good reasons --
historical, economic, and based on the possible consequences of
the Obama administration's policies -- to hope for strong
Republican gains. There are equally sound reasons, however, for
the Democrats to continue licking their chops in anticipation of
a filibuster-proof Senate majority. Until there is some actual,
you know, evidence in the form of polling and what have you,
Republicans -- and, frankly, conservatives -- should be more
focused on preventing a 60-seat Democratic supermajority than
measuring the drapes in Harry Reid's office.
So, assuming for now the worst-case scenario, the relevant
questions become: Can Specter hold his Senate seat? Could a
conservative primary challenger like Pat Toomey hold it? How
often would conservatives be able to count on Specter's crucial
41st vote in a filibuster versus how frequenly he would simply
provide bipartisan cover to the Obama administration? Even if
Specter wins renomination, would a credible primary challenge
nevertheless alter his political incentives on key votes like
card check? (See Dave
Weigel for Specter's existing political calculations on that
score.)
Again: I haven't arrived at a definitive answer on any of these
questions. But I do think they are the questions conservatives
should be asking.
Hey, Jim! Just one caveat first -- This is a question for
conservatives and Republicans *in Pennsylvania*, as they know the
temper of the times in their state better than the rest of us do.
But I think what you're mulling around about here is a subset of
the "leaky roof" conundrum as applied in GOP politics. When it's
sunny, you don't realize you need to repair the hole in your
roof; when it's raining, you can't safely get atop the roof to
fix it.
Ah, but once it has rained, you have been forewarned -- which
makes the George W. Bush push on behalf of Snarlin' Arlen versus
Pat Toomey last time out so despicable ... such a waste, such a
lost opportunity. When it was politically possible to consolidate
conservative gains with more reliable candidates offered in
primary contests, the GOP was unforgivably flaccid. To translate
for the obtuse: We knew Specter was a "hole " in our roof six
years back, and we failed to repair that "hole" by electing a
reliable Republican Senator in his place, so now it's "raining"
Democrat policies and Specter's "leaking" all over us.
Thomas| 3.3.09 @ 10:45PM
I don't know. Was Specter really a "turncoat"? I find it very
interesting that exactly the number of Republicans necessary to
pass the Porkulous bill voted for it. No more, no less.
Now, if the people of Pennsylvania don't like Arlen's vote, maybe
it is time for a recall petition. I'm sure that the Republican
Party would support that effort. If Arlen is really a rogue
cannon.
…despite these policies, rather than because of them.” Phil Klein reports that the healthcare czarina made a fortune on boards of companies which will now come under her purview. Not very changey. James Antle asks some good questions about Specter and his seat. Steny Hoyer says the president can’t do anything about earmarks. “Won’t” is more accurate. There is this veto thing. Chris…
BJC| 3.3.09 @ 4:30PM
Hey, Jim! Just one caveat first -- This is a question for conservatives and Republicans *in Pennsylvania*, as they know the temper of the times in their state better than the rest of us do. But I think what you're mulling around about here is a subset of the "leaky roof" conundrum as applied in GOP politics. When it's sunny, you don't realize you need to repair the hole in your roof; when it's raining, you can't safely get atop the roof to fix it.
Ah, but once it has rained, you have been forewarned -- which makes the George W. Bush push on behalf of Snarlin' Arlen versus Pat Toomey last time out so despicable ... such a waste, such a lost opportunity. When it was politically possible to consolidate conservative gains with more reliable candidates offered in primary contests, the GOP was unforgivably flaccid. To translate for the obtuse: We knew Specter was a "hole " in our roof six years back, and we failed to repair that "hole" by electing a reliable Republican Senator in his place, so now it's "raining" Democrat policies and Specter's "leaking" all over us.
Thomas| 3.3.09 @ 10:45PM
I don't know. Was Specter really a "turncoat"? I find it very interesting that exactly the number of Republicans necessary to pass the Porkulous bill voted for it. No more, no less.
Now, if the people of Pennsylvania don't like Arlen's vote, maybe it is time for a recall petition. I'm sure that the Republican Party would support that effort. If Arlen is really a rogue cannon.
Pingback| 3.4.09 @ 7:46AM
Commentary » Blog Archive » Flotsam and Jetsam links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
Pingback| 3.4.09 @ 11:33AM
Haunted by Specter, Cont’d — But As For Me links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
Zoltan Newberry| 3.4.09 @ 12:02PM
And, what about the babes from Maine?
Why is Maine such a weird state?
They seem like lovely, interesting people.
Why can't they "get it?"