My OperaSwitching party
Sunday, May 3, 2009 4:40:37 PM
Thursday, Arlen Specter announced he would switch parties, and join the Democrats. Impacts? Possibly a filibuster- proof majority in the Senate. Others - no obvious ones. And, since any other senator not intent on sending half of the states into bankruptcy will agree that the stimulus package needs to happen, even if they disagree with how ideologically pure something it is, it.. sure makes sense to switch if you're at odds with your party... But this was the same way everyone else voted when Bush was in office - they crafted excuses to vote and do the opposite of what they "philosophically" were committed to. It was just necessary to keep the economy going, etc. So then what's the point? Shouldn't Specter just go riding the GOP line for votes, and keep voting the same way?
I've written before about Specter's problems in the Judiciary committee - his argument that he was unable to push for certain things in committee, since the republicans were not backing him - that was probably honest enough. We of course wanted to see Specter respond to the crisis by standing on principle and push along with some of the democrats (who happened to find their arse with both hands for once).
But the practical point then as now is that if he wanted to do this, he would be pushed out of the party. That was made perfectly clear, and was his real argument then as well. He could not simply spite his constituency, or what the GOP relied on for a constituency, because then he would not be reelected. He was, and they knew, that he was dependent on appearing like an old GOP stalwart to woo the GOP votes needed. And at that time, this meant supporting Bush in hushing everything up, and doing the right thing for protecting the country, and so on. So in a strong democratic state, it makes sense for Specter to switch parties, and try his platform with the democrats.
So is Specter just riding the polls? Or is he finally getting fed up with philosophically committed to one thing for votes, and deliberately doing another? Sure could seem there's a bit more to it than polls with the torture issue, or the legal justifications he's been hated pretty harshly for actually attempting to fish out of the Justice department about the torture practices, and so on.
And now he can do the same thing as before, and perhaps even succeed because of the majority - as well as gain support from the voters who lean towards the democratic party. Instead of losing votes with the GOP.
Obviously, it's not getting much real commentary in the US. Most of it seems like descriptions of something unexpected that people don't know what means - or it's completely predictable, because Specter is always going for the popular vote, etc.
It made someone wonder about whether the GOP is in a "philosophical" crisis over at the Wall Street Journal, though. And the answer is: apparently not.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124113372096875105.html
*shakes head*
If we look at this practically, and accept that these people are insane, the situation looks like this: when Lieberman switched caucuses and eventually went independent - it of course had nothing to do with his actual policies, but with appearance. He couldn't be on the team of the democrats if he wanted to vote with the GOP in practice. But he needed the appearance of being a moderate, and it was popular with the GOP and the local voters to appear being a moderate that joined with the GOP. And that's basically the reasoning behind the switch.
They're not so good at actually describing the mechanism their party works on, though, because they lack the clarity mentioned above. Because when Specter leaves the party and does the same thing as before - it's of course an indication of how far right the message and philosophy of the GOP has actually become.
I.e. - not only do you have to say crazy shit to be in the GOP - you need to be philosophically committed to it as well. And the only way to rescue the party, as the Op-ed suggests above, is to be "clear" about what to do, and how that's different from what's being said.
I've written before about Specter's problems in the Judiciary committee - his argument that he was unable to push for certain things in committee, since the republicans were not backing him - that was probably honest enough. We of course wanted to see Specter respond to the crisis by standing on principle and push along with some of the democrats (who happened to find their arse with both hands for once).
But the practical point then as now is that if he wanted to do this, he would be pushed out of the party. That was made perfectly clear, and was his real argument then as well. He could not simply spite his constituency, or what the GOP relied on for a constituency, because then he would not be reelected. He was, and they knew, that he was dependent on appearing like an old GOP stalwart to woo the GOP votes needed. And at that time, this meant supporting Bush in hushing everything up, and doing the right thing for protecting the country, and so on. So in a strong democratic state, it makes sense for Specter to switch parties, and try his platform with the democrats.
So is Specter just riding the polls? Or is he finally getting fed up with philosophically committed to one thing for votes, and deliberately doing another? Sure could seem there's a bit more to it than polls with the torture issue, or the legal justifications he's been hated pretty harshly for actually attempting to fish out of the Justice department about the torture practices, and so on.
And now he can do the same thing as before, and perhaps even succeed because of the majority - as well as gain support from the voters who lean towards the democratic party. Instead of losing votes with the GOP.
Obviously, it's not getting much real commentary in the US. Most of it seems like descriptions of something unexpected that people don't know what means - or it's completely predictable, because Specter is always going for the popular vote, etc.
It made someone wonder about whether the GOP is in a "philosophical" crisis over at the Wall Street Journal, though. And the answer is: apparently not.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124113372096875105.html
That's not to say the GOP doesn't need to work this through, and soon. But to do it productively, as one wise Republican put it to me, the GOP needs to be "clear about the difference between philosophy and message."
*shakes head*
If we look at this practically, and accept that these people are insane, the situation looks like this: when Lieberman switched caucuses and eventually went independent - it of course had nothing to do with his actual policies, but with appearance. He couldn't be on the team of the democrats if he wanted to vote with the GOP in practice. But he needed the appearance of being a moderate, and it was popular with the GOP and the local voters to appear being a moderate that joined with the GOP. And that's basically the reasoning behind the switch.
They're not so good at actually describing the mechanism their party works on, though, because they lack the clarity mentioned above. Because when Specter leaves the party and does the same thing as before - it's of course an indication of how far right the message and philosophy of the GOP has actually become.
I.e. - not only do you have to say crazy shit to be in the GOP - you need to be philosophically committed to it as well. And the only way to rescue the party, as the Op-ed suggests above, is to be "clear" about what to do, and how that's different from what's being said.
