Specter’s Party Switch Underscores Moderates Need To Fight For A Home in Republican P

[mash107]

Spector neer followed what the GoP considers it's basic principles, he should never have been one to begin with.

How ironic, given that he was elected with Ronald Reagan in 1980.

Didn't he vote with his party 70% of the time?

This is the problem with the GOP - it has become an ideological litmus test.

A political party is not an ideological circle-jerk. It is a coalition of like-minded people to attain power. By its very definition, it is a political compromise. The narrower the coalition, the less likely it has to attain and maintain power. The Small Tent Republicans are intent upon making themselves feel better while making themselves more irrelevant. What a brilliant strategy.

So if the GOP wants to become the party of Southern, rural baptists, be my guest. Its bad for the country but a decade of cold showers will be good for the party.

As I said before... the problem with the GOP is that they've become Statists. The quicker they lose the love for government, the better for their party. The main opposition to the GOP in 2008 was its support for war, invasion of privacy, support for torture, inflation and a housing bubble, and the list goes on and on; in other words, everything Statists love.

 

[Toro]

As soon as you say "like minded," you limit the size of the "tent." The Republican Party is no more "ideological" than the Democrat Party is. The Democratic Party clearly has ideological litmus tests. You see one, the "pro choice" litmus test, applied every time a Republican President nominates a Supreme Court justice. Regardless of anything else, Democrats are going to try to torpedo any nominee who says he disagrees with the Roe v. Wade. And no "pro life" Democrat need apply for the Democratic Party Presidential nomination. It's not going to happen regardless of how "good" his or her positions in other areas or their capabilities are perceived to be. Another example might be something like affirmative action. Nobody who says they disagree with affirmative action is going to gain much power in the Democratic Party. Whatever his other positions are, that stance would "disqualify" them because it conflicts with a cherished aspect of Democratic Party ideology.

You are living in the past century. The Democratic Party has been reaching out to pro-gun, anti-abortion voters. Look at whom they have elected.

If Jon Tester, the Democrat’s Senate candidate in Montana, wins his race against Conrad Burns — he declared victory last night but votes were still being counted — the chamber will have a Democrat who is an anti-abortion, pro-gun, three-generation farmer with a buzz cut, three missing fingers on his left hand and no big fan of Hillary Clinton.

Jim Webb, the Democrat favoured to win a probable recount in the Virginia Senate race, was Reagan’s Navy Secretary. A social conservative, he hates liberals and likes guns so much he gave one to his son at the age of 8. He champions, as he puts it, “Southern redneck culture”. A decorated Vietnam veteran, he converted to the Democrats only over his opposition to the Iraq war.

Bob Casey, who soundly defeated the Republican Rick Santorum in Pennsylvania’s Senate race, is also anti-abortion. Like many of the new Democrats, he ran a profoundly populist protectionist economic message which attracted many blue-collar “Reagan Democrats” back to the party in the Midwest, where job losses and economic pessimism combined with Iraq to make the region one of the bleakest landscapes for Republicans yesterday.

Heath Shuler, a former quarterback for the Washington Redskins, was once courted by the Republicans as a possible congressional candidate. He is anti-abortion, pro-gun, anti-free trade — and is now the Democrat representative for the North Carolina 11th District.

In Indiana, a state overwhelmingly won by President Bush in 2004, three Republicans in the House of Representatives lost seats. All faced conservative Democrats. One, Brad Ellsworth, a county sheriff, is a social conservative who signed a no-tax-rise pledge during the campaign. Joe Donnelly was another cultural conservative winner in Indiana.

Meet the Blue Dogs: pro-gun, anti-abortion - and Democrat - Times Online

Look at all these blue dogs

Blue Dog Coalition Members

Now, where are all the moderate Republicans? They are being squeezed out of the party by the Small Tent Republicans. Look at the derision the conservatives on USMB have towards guys like Specter, as well as other moderates such as Snow.

The Republicans are the ones that are abandoning the center and pushing out those who aren't True Believers. It is the Democrats who are moving back into the center. It used to be the Democrats who required a litmus test to get into the party. Now it is the Republicans who are trying to outdo the Dems while the Democrats stake out the political grounds that will keep them in power for the next decade. We all know about the RINOs. Where are the DINOs? Where are the ideological demagogues like the Club for Deficits, er, Growth in the Democratic Party who are targeting moderates in their party, even if that means losing the seat? (Yes, they nailed Lieberman, but promptly failed anyways.)

I am a moderate independent who used to support the Republicans but have become appalled at what the party has become. If I support the Democrats, it is only through default. It is important that this country have two viable parties. At some point, the GOP will realize that sitting on the sidelines, patting each other on the back for all agreeing with one another is a poor substitute for power. But for now, the ideologues in the party are intent on blowing its brains out.

 

[PubliusInfinitum]

Well you're exactly right... Education is a local issue and where standards should be established, there is no reason for the Federal government to be involved in it on any level...

Is that how you felt about No Child Left Behind? Or did you support it because Bush put it forward?

Yeah, and it's how I felt about the largest expansion of social entitlements since LBJ... with the expansion of Medicare.

What cracked me up the most was the reaction you people gave to those programs which you would have otherwise hailed as the pinnacle of humanity, if say William the Bubba would have signed them...

But at least it did prove that the entire scope of the ideological left is a deceptive joke.

How about states' rights in terms of legalization of marijuana? Gay marriage?

Works for me as long as those states don't receive a penny in federal funding to subsidize the collasal expense of sustaining the pot heads... and the ridiculous cultural decay sure to result from normalizing deviancy...

 

[PubliusInfinitum]

I am a moderate independent who used to support the Republicans but have become appalled at what the party has become. If I support the Democrats, it is only through default.

Wow... well maybe you'll run down the list of GOP policy which you 'used to support'.


Let the record reflect the certainty that this member will not return to provide such a list, because she's never supported the GOP... she simply feels she needs to say she did, so as to promote the deception that the GOP is losing support from 'moderates.'

Here's the thing... IF 'moderates' are finding a majority status in the US... then the GOP is not served in any way by following this trend...

ALL the GOP will realize as a result of such will be their being used to offset accountability... which the left has ALWAYS done, is doing NOW and will always DO.

The best thing for the GOP and America is for the Left to take the total power it has always craved and ruin themselves when there's no one left to blame for the certain catastrophe which must result from their policy failures...

It's not complex kids... it just seems that way when one lacks the means to reason.

 

[foggedinn]

I looked over the list of bluedog democrats and actually counted them. 47 bluedog democrats in the house of representatives. One of them (Gene Taylor) happens to be my representative. He's the man who replaced Trent Lott when Lott ran for and won his senate seat.

Seems Lott started out as an aide to Sen. Stennis.(D.) Lott was originally going to run as a democrat, but, Stennis convinced him that the democrats wouldn't always be in the majority and that when the change happened, Mississippi would need a strong voice in Washington.

Imagine a politician actually thinking past the next election cycle. It must have happened before, but, that's the only time I have ever heard about.

I sympathize with the moderates looking for a place in the republican party. I'm one of those rural, white, Southern Baptists who votes democrat. It can be really lonesome at times. But I'm certainly not going to allow my disagreement with my parties position on abortion or gay rights to cause me to switch my party affiliation.

 

[garyd]

What Dem positions do you agree with, foggy?

 

[Toro]

Wow... well maybe you'll run down the list of GOP policy which you 'used to support'.


Let the record reflect the certainty that this member will not return to provide such a list, because she's never supported the GOP... she simply feels she needs to say she did, so as to promote the deception that the GOP is losing support from 'moderates.'

Here's the thing... IF 'moderates' are finding a majority status in the US... then the GOP is not served in any way by following this trend...

****, you're an obnoxious idiot. I'm in a foul mood after having to deal with eots this evening, now I have to deal with the likes of you. Both of you are at about the same level.

The Republican party used to support fiscal responsibility. Now it is the party of tax cuts at all costs.

The Republican party used to be about limited government. Now it is the party of wire-tapping and torture.

The Republican party used to be about religious tolerance. Now it is the party of strident theologians, suffocating self-righteous moralists, people who think the world is 6000 years old and The Rapture crowd.

The Republican party used to be about national defense. Now it is the party of pre-emptive invasions.

The Republican party used to be Barry Goldwater. Now its the party of Rush Limbaugh.

The Republican party used to be relevant. Now it is not.

Reagan's party was a big tent. Now it is a party of Small Tent Republicans.

 

[garyd]

And all that happened because we expended the damn tent to make room for the moderates.

 

[Bfgrn]

And all that happened because we expended the damn tent to make room for the moderates.

So, the GOP became a party of narrow right wing ideology, BECAUSE they included moderates?

So including moderates chased away moderates...

Do you drink from puddles?

 

[Old Rocks]

The lesson from the Arlen Specter story is that Republicans have to make a good home for moderates and independents in the Republican Party.

I don't think a political party should exist for the purpose of getting elected. I think it should exist for the purpose of promoting and working for a certain set of governing philsophies and positions. The objective should be to make the arguments for those positions in a convincing manner then let the chips fall where they may. If the result is that enough people are convinced so that the party gains power, that's great. But the party should not start off by identifying how it can gain power then adjust its "principles" accordingly.

Take research on embryonic stem cells. You either believe it's wrong or you don't. It's not "moderate" to say it's OK as opposed to "right wing" to say it's not. So the party adopts a position. If someone doesn't like the position, that someone can opt not to support the party.

Precisely. Exactly what happened. 60 Dem Senators. 265 Dem Representatives. 365 Electorial votes for Obama. The nation opted out of the Rushpublican Party.

 

[Old Rocks]

Hell, I consider most modern day Republics are just Democrats that enjoy a more aggressive foreign policy. (Even though, Obama threatening to invade Pakistan is just more of the same warhawk rhetoric). These "Republicans" are the same ones that mandated Education be controlled by the central government, though that is explicitly forbidden in the Constitution. The same ones that invaded two countries to nation build. The same ones that vastly expanded Medicare. The same ones that added a multitude of bureaucracies like the Department of Homeland Security. And so on, and so forth. All those that voted for any of that should all just defect to the Democrat side, so that either a Barry Goldwater type of Republican party can resurface, that actually stand for the rights of people and a return to the Constitution... or a third party will have to emerge.

Well you're exactly right... Education is a local issue and where standards should be established, there is no reason for the Federal government to be involved in it on any level...

With regard to the war on terror, I agree again... we should have destroyed those governments and those in support of those governments and left those who survived to form whatever governemnt they were capable of forming; with the certain provision that, should they choose poorly, we will not hesitate to return to do the same to whatever government comes along to attack the US, her interests and allies. The whole thing could have been over in a matter of months...

Homeland security is little more than common sense and is intrinsic in the American spirit. What caused the problem was left-think rationalizations which stood in opposition to common sense; wherein the federal government took the position that associations born on the principle of attacking the US through attempts of murdering as many Americans as possible is a simple violation of criminal statutes and NOT an incontestable act of WAR... lending credence to PC notions which reject profiling and refusing to allow intelligence to share information with law enforcement.

Allow the 2nd amendment to be followed and see if we have a problem again with hijacking or any sort of terrorism. If the government allowed people to carry guns, criminals will not have a monopoly on gun ownership, thus the field will be evened out. What we certainly don't need are added bureaucracies telling the masses that everything will be taken care of, while they're too inept, in reality, to do anything. Remember FEMA?

FEMA? I remember that Bush appointed a failed horse show manager to head a vital agency, and that between those two incompetants the Katrina response looked like something from a third world nation.

 

[Old Rocks]

And all that happened because we expended the damn tent to make room for the moderates.

LOL. Just keep on living in that alternative reality, Rushpublican.

In reality, that is not funny. We need at least two viable political parties in this nation in order to avoid the kind of errors that we have seen in the last eight years. The present mindset of the Rushpublicans gaurantiees the irrelevance of the former Republican Party for at least another elections cycle.

 

[editec]

We need at least two viable political parties in this nation in order to avoid the kind of errors that we have seen in the last eight years.

Damned right we do.

If the authentic Republicans faded from view we'd miss 'em.

 

[Iriemon]

We need at least two viable political parties in this nation in order to avoid the kind of errors that we have seen in the last eight years.

Damned right we do.

If the authentic Republicans faded from view we'd miss 'em.

I agree, but that is precisely the Republicans' dilemma. The core of the party has been taken over by the religious right and tax cut zealots - neither group is willing to compromise on their core demands.

 

[Tech_Esq]

We need at least two viable political parties in this nation in order to avoid the kind of errors that we have seen in the last eight years.

Damned right we do.

If the authentic Republicans faded from view we'd miss 'em.

I agree, but that is precisely the Republicans' dilemma. The core of the party has been taken over by the religious right and tax cut zealots - neither group is willing to compromise on their core demands.

That is a correct statement of the last 10 years. There is a battle underway, we'll see who comes out on top. If neo-cons and theo-cons continue control, then you'll see permanent destruction of the party. The level of frustration with those wings is such that I think it's unlikely they will prevail.

 

[PubliusInfinitum]

Wow... well maybe you'll run down the list of GOP policy which you 'used to support'.


Let the record reflect the certainty that this member will not return to provide such a list, because she's never supported the GOP... she simply feels she needs to say she did, so as to promote the deception that the GOP is losing support from 'moderates.'

Here's the thing... IF 'moderates' are finding a majority status in the US... then the GOP is not served in any way by following this trend...

****, you're an obnoxious idiot.

Wow... so you feel that questions regarding your sophistic assertions are a sign of idiocy...

So much for that whole rant regarding 'empiricists and the superiority of Social Science crapola... but this at least serves as evidence of the fact that "moderates' aren't moderate at all, only leftists, who lack the courage to commit.

I'm in a foul mood after having to deal with eots this evening, now I have to deal with the likes of you. Both of you are at about the same level.

Congrats EOTS, you've been declared an incontestable advocate of reason...

The Republican party used to support fiscal responsibility. Now it is the party of tax cuts at all costs.

Ahh... well there ya have it kids... Fiscal responsibility doesn't include 'moderating' the liability which the government sets upon the market... and the Moderates, of course, want to believe that there's a chance in hell that the left will EVER reduce spending to cure the deficit-SPENDING problem, thus they feel that the solution is to increase taxes to pay the bills. Let's try not to forget that the Deficit-Spending realized under the GOP simple majorities, were a function of MODERATE REPUBLICANS... So the notion that Moderate Republicans are what's needed to cure deficit-SPENDING rings as hollow as the notion that outright LEFTISM was the way to solve the problem.

The fact is that the would-be moderates BELIEVE IN THE 'MIXED Economy...' thus they want to continue the unjust practice of inducing invalid rights upon people to confiscate the product of one man's labor to subsidize the NEEDS of another... which is conclusive, incontestabe evidence that THEY ARE LEFTISTS... thus they NEED THOSE TAX INCREASES to PAY for what they believe are "FAIR" exchanges for 'government services'... they're just 'fees' which 'we' pay to get those services... which of course 'we' do not get and do not WANT, because 'we' do not acccept the concept that 'we' have a RIGHT to the PRODUCT OF ANOTHER MAN'S LABOR...

Any questions?

The Republican party used to be about limited government. Now it is the party of wire-tapping and torture.

Slick non sequitur... National security and sound policy to defend against secret associations of determined individuals that plot and execute attacks upon innocent people; that are otherwise unable to defend themselves from such attacks, has NOTHING to do with the SIZE of government. It has everything to do with the moral imperative of ferreting out those secret associations and crippling their means to murder massive numbers of innocent people...
And of course, no one in the GOP has sanctioned "Torture" as a means to such an end; you simply want to redefine sound techniques which induce stress upon those known to be associates in such groups who are being interrogated to cull critical, time sensitive information from them, which is necessary to spare innocent human life. It's the classic illustration of deception through specious sophistry.

The Republican party used to be about religious tolerance. Now it is the party of strident theologians, suffocating self-righteous moralists, people who think the world is 6000 years old and The Rapture crowd.

Wow... anyone getting some sign of 'religious tolerance' out of that?

It's hard to imagine how one who advances such clear intolerance of religion and religious principles, could be trying to lament the absence of religious tolerance through a position which advances pure intolerance of religion... Maybe you'll share that with us...

Here, let me start you off, with the classic position of Moderates on this particular issue:'Religious people have a right to their religious beliefs, as long as they confine the discussion and application of those ideas to their church and synogogues and KEEP IT TO THEMSELVES... The US Constitution specifically precludes religion and religious principles in government, in the 'Separation of Church and State clause...' Now take it from there and let those religious freaks REALLY know how ya feel about their spook show...

The Republican party used to be about national defense. Now it is the party of pre-emptive invasions.

Oh... Ok... So you're FOR National Defense, as long as we allow governments known for their longstanding use of terrorist proxies to continue to do so, even in the wake of ruinous attacks upon the US which cost the US economy a trillion dollars and killed 3000 innocent human beings...

This is the problem with PC terms and usage... When the US "Department of War" had it's name changed to the "Defense Department" the debate which preceded that change discussed the consequences of doing so; where those oppossed felt that such would lead people to believe that the US military would be relegated to ducking attacks and holding ground...

Iraq's former government was, in the wake of 9-11 an intolerable menace... it's gone and no longer stands as a threat to the US, her interests and allies.

This member, a self proclaimed "moderate" doesn't like that... but she's ALL ABOUT THE "National Defense" A real HAWK!
The Republican party used to be Barry Goldwater. Now its the party of Rush Limbaugh.

The Republican party used to be relevant. Now it is not.

Reagan's party was a big tent. Now it is a party of Small Tent Republicans.

No it wasn't... Reagan's philosophy simply drew Americans to it... which required a BIG TENT TO COVER ALL OF THEM...

Sadly the GOP has not had advanced Reagan's philosophy SINCE Reagan left office in 1989...

The GOP has steadily tried to out-democrat the Democrats... advancing one 'moderate' Republican after the next... which has had the effect which Reagan always said would be the case... where the GOP '...did not stand its ground and steadfastly and unapologetically defend the principles of Americanism... by following the Democrat Party to the left; the body politic of the nation as a whole would necessarily travel farther left; enticing the Republicans to follow right along with it; until that point where they failed to take a stand, is so far at their distant right that those few who remained there, keeping the light on, that the point which represents a vigilent defense of Americanisn, will be said to be that of the extremists...'

The fact is that the GOP is presently at the point where the Democrat Party was when Reagan noted that 'I didn't leave the Democrat party, the party left me...'

But President Reagan was a man steeped in common sense, so it serves reason that he understood these simple but immutable principles; which serves to explain why you do not.

Let the record reflect that this member was challenged to cite examples of REPUBLICAN POLICY which she stated that she formerly supported... and instead, lacking any such examples which could, even potentially, serve her deceitful interests, she returned to cite as vague a set of projections, in terms of broad philosophy as is possible, which she couldn't even muster the veracity to discuss within their proper context.

So sure, it's true that She's a Moderate; and its just as true that Moderates are the antithesis of Republicans and thus not well suited for membership in the Republican Party.

We, the Republicans; the advocates of AMERICANISM! want Moderates who are growing beyond the childishness of leftism to embrace the immutable principles of Americanism and join to follow us as we advance an unapologetic advocacy for those prinicples... but we will no longer follow the Moderates to the left or allow their membership to be used to coerce us to surrender those principles and move to the left in order to sustain your membership.

 

[Maple]

Spector keeps referring to Reagan as a moderate???? Give me a break he was a staunch conservative, small government, less taxes, there was absolutely nothing moderate about Reagan. The reason that Reps lost the house and the senate is that they mimicked Democrats. This party needs to go to conservative and be fiscally responsible deliniate themselves from the Democratic party and they will be in again.

BTW- did any of you watch Spector on the Sunday morning news shows. He stated twice that he voted for legilation that he did not agree with. Maybe it was that so-called stimulus bill that he now regrets.

Spector is 79 years old he has been in there for 29 years, don't you think it would be time to retire? He is more about his personal ego than he is to represent the people of Pa.

IT'S ALL ABOUT HIM.

 

[Iriemon]

Spector keeps referring to Reagan as a moderate???? Give me a break he was a staunch conservative, small government, less taxes, there was absolutely nothing moderate about Reagan. The reason that Reps lost the house and the senate is that they mimicked Democrats. This party needs to go to conservative and be fiscally responsible deliniate themselves from the Democratic party and they will be in again.

Reagan's talk and action were two different things. Govt expenditures increased rapidly under Reagan;

Year - outlays $2000 - % change

1980 1093.4
1981 1147.2 4.9%
1982 1188.8 3.6%
1983 1239.8 4.3%
1984 1259.2 1.6%
1985 1357.6 7.8%
1986 1390.0 2.4%
1987 1371.8 -1.3%
1988 1406.3 2.5%

Source: CBO expenditures in $2000 using GDP adjusment factors used by BEA.

Average: 3.2%. C ompare to Clinton: 1.4% real average increase.

Reagan cut taxes overall, but when his initial tax cut resulted in record deficits, he was pragmatic enough to realize his mistake and signed tax increases as well.

Measured by "small govt" and less taxes, Reagan arguably was pretty moderate.

A fiscal conservative used to mean someone who made sure the budget was balanced. Under Reagan, the national debt increased 180%. Using that measure, he was downright far left liberal.

 

[sealybobo]

Spector keeps referring to Reagan as a moderate???? Give me a break he was a staunch conservative, small government, less taxes, there was absolutely nothing moderate about Reagan. The reason that Reps lost the house and the senate is that they mimicked Democrats. This party needs to go to conservative and be fiscally responsible deliniate themselves from the Democratic party and they will be in again.

BTW- did any of you watch Spector on the Sunday morning news shows. He stated twice that he voted for legilation that he did not agree with. Maybe it was that so-called stimulus bill that he now regrets.

Spector is 79 years old he has been in there for 29 years, don't you think it would be time to retire? He is more about his personal ego than he is to represent the people of Pa.

IT'S ALL ABOUT HIM.

Reagan saved/bailed out the auto companies. Please don't say there was nothing moderate about the guy when it was him who did that and him who won Michigan's electorals.

PS. Did you like Reagan? I thought all politicians were scum? I thought there was no difference between the parties?

 

[Tech_Esq]

Spector keeps referring to Reagan as a moderate???? Give me a break he was a staunch conservative, small government, less taxes, there was absolutely nothing moderate about Reagan. The reason that Reps lost the house and the senate is that they mimicked Democrats. This party needs to go to conservative and be fiscally responsible deliniate themselves from the Democratic party and they will be in again.

Reagan's talk and action were two different things. Govt expenditures increased rapidly under Reagan;

Year - outlays $2000 - % change

1980 1093.4
1981 1147.2 4.9%
1982 1188.8 3.6%
1983 1239.8 4.3%
1984 1259.2 1.6%
1985 1357.6 7.8%
1986 1390.0 2.4%
1987 1371.8 -1.3%
1988 1406.3 2.5%

Source: CBO expenditures in $2000 using GDP adjusment factors used by BEA.

Average: 3.2%. C ompare to Clinton: 1.4% real average increase.

Reagan cut taxes overall, but when his initial tax cut resulted in record deficits, he was pragmatic enough to realize his mistake and signed tax increases as well.

Measured by "small govt" and less taxes, Reagan arguably was pretty moderate.

A fiscal conservative used to mean someone who made sure the budget was balanced. Under Reagan, the national debt increased 180%. Using that measure, he was downright far left liberal.

Clinton had help Reagan didn't. Clinton had a group of Repubs in control of Congress that were still for fiscal conservatism and helped him achieve that goal. Reagan was forced to strike a Faustian bargain with Tip O'Neil that he could get his program through, but there would be no cuts in social spending.

In the end, it was something we could "afford" but not something the Soviets could. It caused them to crumble and strengthened us. That was the gambit and that was the mark of success. Any other measure simply doesn't take account of the times.