Traitor – Michael Steele Reacts
Earlier today, Senator Arlen Specter announced he would leave the Republican Party and join its rival, the Democratic Party. Although the GOP’s leaders said they were surprised by Specter’s departure, rank and file Republicans saw it coming.
Since it is almost certain that Al Franken will become Senator for Minnesota, Democrats now have 60 votes in the Senate: a filibuster-proof majority.
Specter explained why he left the party as follows:
Since my election in 1980, as part of the Reagan Big Tent, the Republican Party has moved far to the right. Last year, more than 200,000 Republicans in Pennsylvania changed their registration to become Democrats. I now find my political philosophy more in line with Democrats than Republicans…
I deeply regret that I will be disappointing many friends and supporters. I can understand their disappointment. I am also disappointed that so many in the Party I have worked for for more than four decades do not want me to be their candidate. It is very painful on both sides.
A part of his explanation is ludicrous, of course. The Republican Party did not truly become more right-wing. The only thing you could say is that politics in general have moved to the left in recent decades, and that the GOP did not change accordingly. But a Reagan-Republican cannot honestly say that the GOP has become ‘too conservative.’ Let us not forget that Senator John McCain was the party’s presidential nominee last year. McCain, of course, is one of the most moderate Republicans out there. And he beat every true Republican candidate. Relatively easily, even.
What is most interesting about Specter’s words is the following tidbit:
I am also disappointed that so many in the Party I have worked for for more than four decades do not want me to be their candidate.
That is the real reason right there. He left the party because Pat Toomey, a true conservative, challenged him. In fact, polls among Republican voters in Pennsylvania had Toomey up by as much as 21% in recent weeks. Shorter: Specter would have been without a job if he would have remained a Republican.
You have to wonder about such a man: the worst kind of politician is the ambitious one. They do not act in the country’s but in their own interest. Principles do not matter to Specter: Specter matters to Specter.
Now the most important question, does Specter’s move matter?
There are two possible answers, both have their strengths:
1. Yes. The Republican Party is becoming a small tent party this way; small tent parties seldom win national elections. Additionally, it gives Obama a filibuster-proof majority. Lastly, it will be very difficult indeed for a conservative Republican to win next year’s election in PA: Pennsylvania is not a conservative state.
2. No. Since Obama became president, Specter supported the Democrats’ plans whole heartedly. He may have been a Republican in name, but he joined forces with Democrats earlier this year when Republicans had to unite. At least this way voters know what party stands for what.
Again, both answers have their strengths. I personally lean more towards the first; if all moderates defect, the GOP has a major problem since moderate states are generally represented by moderate politicians. But there is a difference between moderates and moderates: a moderate Democrat will vote more often with the rest of the Democratic Party than a moderate Republican, and vice versa.
Finally, another point: more moderate Republicans may leave. It is fascinating that they are thinking about leaving their party, considering the fact that the Democratic Party is determined to push extremely liberal bills through Congress. If you are a moderate, you should support the GOP now. It does not take a rocket scientist to figure that out. Be that as it may, the Grand Old Party will have a major problem if more (like Snow, Graham, etc.) defect: it will make the Democratic majority even bigger – and you have to wonder whether conservative Republicans will be able to beat the incumbents during the next elections.
UPDATE: be sure to watch RNC Chairman Michael Steele’s reaction. Here is the video:
Some key quotes:
- “To me this was not a question of [...] principles [...], this was about political survival.”
- “This puts Democrats one step closer to 60 votes, which is a huge problem, not for the party per sée but for the country.” – He went on to explain that one-party rule is highly “problematic.”
- “If spending the hard earned dollars of the American people [...] if that helps you realize you’re Democrat, good riddance.”
- Explaining that Sen. Cornyn defended him, and that so many Republican leaders supported him in 2004, Steele said: “To me is not only disrespectful, it’s downright rude. I’m sure his mama didn’t raise him this way.”
- “If the Democrats don’t don’t beat ‘em in the primary, we’ll take care of him in the general.”
This is Steele’s best performance as RNC chair to date.
This is a pipe dream, of course, but now would be an interesting time to form a third party of moderates. Not only would they give a gut-punch to the Republicans, they’d deny the Democrats a supermajority.
And on the off chance Toomey wins next year, and if Rob Simmons makes it, the supermajority would fall away. We’ll see.
I would not call this treason.
We in America put way too much emphasis upon political parties. We actually hire people or rather vote for people to represent us and what really happens is they go to Washington D.C. get in line and are told what to do by the PECKING ORDER that is established by the politicians there.
The GOP is not exactly great friends of the Unions and yet they have one of the strongest unions around. You are told what to do and SENIORITY rulz.
The only person he is betraying is himself. The only reason he is switching parties is because he wants to be in the proper pecking order.
GAWD people. This more than anything should tell us how much we need term limits on both Politicians and staffers.
Doomed: no but he is a backstabber. The inflammatory headline was chosen on purpose
The rest of the article is pretty ‘moderate’ (hehehe) I’d say.
So I’m not allowed to sleep tonight. Fair enough.
From the looks of it, the guy seems to have lacked principles to begin with, so it may be hasty to read too much into it. However, I agree that the GOP also have to blame themselves a bit – he may have been shaky but it takes a lot of shaking to make someone switch sides. It is also an example of how ridiculously similar DC politicians really are compared to the expectations of their base.
Well, one less person to send to the ideological realignment facilities when… Yeah, I’ve said too much.
Just for the sake of discussion. How is this different than what Joe Leiberman did?
He was what he was. A Conservative he was not. He used the R label to get elected, nothing more.
Of course it’s an unprincipled move- it has nothing to do with ideology. It’s all about personal desire and ambition. Truth is that he’d run as an Independent if he thought he could win. What’s striking (and few mention this) is the astonishing level of entitlement that these guys have. Whether it’s Teddy Kennedy or Larry Craig or Joe Lieberman or David Vetter or Arlen Specter, they’ll do whatever it takes to keep the job. I’m not cynical enough to think that there’s part of them that are motivated by public service. But they’re not entitled to keep the position.
Specter’s been an astonishing senator- he’s served 5 full terms and is 79 years old. Retire, for god’s sake. Let someone else try his/her hand at it for the next few decades.
Is 79 the new 49? Wish I could ask Strom Thurmond- another example of unflagging narcissism.
The word “not” is missing somewhere in that ‘cynical’ sentence. My bad.
LMAO! Got to love the internet
Since I was in high school in the 1970s, the Republican Party has moved much further to the right and the Democratic Party has moved much further to the left. In those days, my parents were Republicans.
Oops
With his integrity level, he’s certainly at home now
Holly,
What you say is true about both parties. The problem is that ONLY the Republicans get criticized for their move to the extremes. But most self-identified moderates/centrists give the Democrats a pass for their corresponding move to the extreme. Thus, one party pays a political cost for moving to the extreme while the other party pays none. And that skew of incentives inevitably finds its way into policy as Democrats face no disincentive to indulge their base essentially without limit. Right now, for example, they are throwing conservative Democrat Ben Nelson under the bus without even a hint of the kind of outcry that Republicans got for throwing Spector under the bus.