i'd wager most poli-sci majors would argue new england is the kernel/blueprint for our country. fiscally conservative/socially liberal and no republican party worthy of their vote in sight.
Senator Spector Switches Parties
- Thread starter GoodWitch58
- Start date
-
Trouble logging in? Send us a message with your username and/or email address for help.
I think 2010 will be a blood bath regardless of party. Don't know about y'all, but I am ready for new faces! ;-)
.
Sen. Olympia Snowe gives an pretty good analysis of Specters switch and why she doesn't think Repubs can prevail without keeping moderates like Specter: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/29/opinion/29snowe.html?emc=eta1
.
" .................................
Regrettably, we failed to learn the lessons of Jim Jeffords’s defection in 2001. To the contrary, we overreached in interpreting the results of the presidential election of 2004 as a mandate for the party. This resulted in the disastrous elections of 2006 and 2008, which combined for a total loss of 51 Republicans in the House and 13 in the Senate — with a corresponding shift of the Congressional majority and the White House to the Democrats.
It was as though beginning with Senator Jeffords’s decision, Republicans turned a blind eye to the iceberg under the surface, failing to undertake the re-evaluation of our inclusiveness as a party that could have forestalled many of the losses we have suffered.
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.
Senator Specter indicated that his decision was based on the political situation in Pennsylvania, where he faced a tough primary battle. In my view, the political environment that has made it inhospitable for a moderate Republican in Pennsylvania is a microcosm of a deeper, more pervasive problem that places our party in jeopardy nationwide. ............................................
We can’t continue to fold our philosophical tent into an umbrella under which only a select few are worthy to stand. ...................."
.
Last edited:
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/02/opinion/02herbert.htmlOp-Ed Columnist
Out of Touch
Article Tools Sponsored By
By BOB HERBERT
Published: May 1, 2009
The incredibly clueless stewards of the incredibly shrinking Republican Party would do well to recall that it was supposedly Abe Lincoln, a Republican, who said you can?t fool all of the people all of the time.
Skip to next paragraph
Not only has the G.O.P. spent years trying to fool everybody in sight with its phony-baloney, dime-store philosophies, it?s now trapped in the patently pathetic phase of fooling itself.
The economy has imploded, the auto industry is in danger of being vaporized and more than half of all working Americans are worried that they may lose their jobs in the next year. So what?s the Republican response? To build a wall of obstruction in front of efforts to get the economy moving again, and then to stand in front of that wall chanting gibberish about smaller government, lower taxes, spending cuts and Ronald Reagan.
Out of Touch
Article Tools Sponsored By
By BOB HERBERT
Published: May 1, 2009
The incredibly clueless stewards of the incredibly shrinking Republican Party would do well to recall that it was supposedly Abe Lincoln, a Republican, who said you can?t fool all of the people all of the time.
Skip to next paragraph
Not only has the G.O.P. spent years trying to fool everybody in sight with its phony-baloney, dime-store philosophies, it?s now trapped in the patently pathetic phase of fooling itself.
The economy has imploded, the auto industry is in danger of being vaporized and more than half of all working Americans are worried that they may lose their jobs in the next year. So what?s the Republican response? To build a wall of obstruction in front of efforts to get the economy moving again, and then to stand in front of that wall chanting gibberish about smaller government, lower taxes, spending cuts and Ronald Reagan.
A lack of "gibberish" like this over the last eight years is the reason why the party is such a mess right now. I would rather see the reps go down for the count standing up for what they should believe in than survive as the "big government / low taxes" social conservative party they've been for the last eight years.
As far as the NYT article goes - "chanting gibberish" - now that's rich. I wonder if the liberals of the NYT are frightened by the idea of a renewed party of Reagan? Maybe that's why they feel compelled to denigrate it in it's infancy? Sounds to me like the party is hitting on all eight cylinders again.
Last edited:
Doesn't Specters's move benefit him in two ways? For one he can't get nominated as a Republican. The other is that voters in the northeast simply don't want to risk giving the Republicans a majority in the senate. Even longstanding favorite Republicans, once capable of winning democratic crossover vote are now on the voter's s-list, not because of who they are but because of what party they belong to. This is what happened with Chaffee of RI and I think there is every reason to think the trend will continue.
Hmmm....based on statements and action, I think he already did, just has not sent in the card.
But like I said, he is a really nice guy, that is why we need to www.keepcharliecrist.com.