Blogs and Stories
Arlen, You Let Me Down
Alex Wong / Getty Images
Meghan McCain writes that she was disappointed in Arlen Specter’s decision to bolt from the GOP. No matter what some Republicans say, he’s exactly what the party needs.
The frenzy over Sen. Arlen Specter's decision to switch parties has only just begun. As usual whenever there is major political news, my email inbox explodes with reader reactions. One in particular stood out: “You are not a new face for the Republican Party. You are the problem with the Republican Party. If you'd like to be a feel-good liberal, there's a party for you. Do like Specter and stop wrecking the GOP. Your 15 minutes are about up.” (This was from Shawn in Oceanside, California.)
This was an opportunity for Specter to hold his ground and set an example for progressive-minded Republicans. Instead, he turned his back.
It’s one thing to say that about me, but it’s another to attack Sen. Specter—the longest-serving U.S. senator from Pennsylvania (he was first elected in 1980), and a man who has stood for some of the best elements of the Republican Party for decades. Granted, he has at times been a very vocal critic of conservative leaders and policies. But Specter has never shied away from putting the needs of his constituents first, nor has he ever been deterred from ruffling the feathers of some of the GOP's elite in order to do so.
For the record, less than 20 percent of my emails are negative in nature. But messages like the one I received from Shawn illustrate why Sen. Specter may have felt there was no more room for him in today's Republican Party. I certainly know the feeling. Being in the spotlight these last few months has been enlightening in so many ways. And I regularly hear from thousands of amazingly encouraging supporters, from 40-year-old mothers to 79-year-old retired Marine Corps veterans. But then there are the Shawns of the world. I don’t blame him personally for his opinion. It’s the unfortunate, still-unraveling mess left in the wake of “strategic” decisions made by conservative leaders over the last decade.
Which brings me back to the Specter incident, how it illustrates what’s wrong with the party, and why I so strongly believe that what people like me are saying matters.
Let me be clear: I have a lot of respect for Sen. Specter. But I also can't help but feel like he's let us down. I'm sure this was a long, hard decision. The polls were looking very bleak in his primary contest. His probable opponent was nearly 20 points ahead in many polls. And I understand how he’s been made to feel like an outcast by a small, vocal group. Still, this was an opportunity for Specter to hold his ground and set an example for progressive-minded Republicans trying to overcome one of their biggest obstacles: winning the party primaries.
Of course, this speaks to much larger problem in the GOP. We need to attract more centrist and progressive conservative voters at the primary level, so that level-headed candidates stand a chance. We need courageous Republicans more than ever. And this week, Sen. Specter turned his back. But he wasn’t the only one.
Shortly after the senator's announcement, Republican National Committee Chairman Michael Steele released the following statement:
"Some in the Republican Party are happy about this. I am not. Let’s be honest—Senator Specter didn’t leave the GOP based on principles of any kind. He left to further his personal political interests because he knew that he was going to lose a Republican primary due to his left-wing voting record. Republicans look forward to beating Sen. Specter in 2010, assuming the Democrats don’t do it first."
At its core, there is not much different about what the chairman said and what I’ve written here. Specter's decision was most likely motivated by political reasons. But that's where the similarities end. What's left is the same, tired rhetoric conservatives simply cannot seem to get past. Even someone like Mr. Steele—who was elected to be a more inclusive, open voice for Republicans—can’t escape it.
His statement speaks volumes about the kind of party the GOP has become. Sen. Specter's voting record may not please many Republicans all the time. But you can’t avoid the fact that he's been re-elected four times—his votes clearly mean something to the people of Pennsylvania. Steele also ignored the real opportunity Specter's decision presented. The chairman could have dealt with the real issues plaguing the GOP, perhaps by saying something like this:
"It is unfortunate Senator Specter has decided to leave the Republican Party he has called home for decades. It's also unfortunate that he most likely did so for political purposes. But we will use this as an opportunity to acknowledge today's GOP has its work cut out for it. We clearly need to work on defining who we are, not just by our words, but by our actions. This is how we will reverse the shrinking of our ranks and invite old and new members to the table so that Republicans’ core goals can help lead America once again."
I guess that type of statement would have been too "off-message" for the RNC to release. It's too bad, because the party needs brave, articulate leaders who can balance a strong stance for core Republican beliefs with an inclusive message aimed at the electorate. Both Specter and Steele failed this week: One didn't stand up and fight for the soul of this party, and the other shrank to appeal to one of its most destructive characteristics.
A recent survey suggests less then 25 percent of Americans are willing to label themselves as a Republican. What kind of message do we send by continuing to applaud the exodus of people like Arlen Specter or calling for the departure of 24-year-old women like myself? I, for one, hope we get back to solving problems. I promise to do my part by continuing the discussion both in funny and serious ways. I hope you all do, too. Even those 20 percent of readers who think I'm a Democrat. I'm sorry to disappoint you, I'm still a Republican.
Meghan McCain is originally from Phoenix. She graduated from Columbia University in 2007. She previously wrote for Newsweek magazine and created the Web site mccainblogette.com.
The Right Dumps Carrie
Jacob Bernstein is a senior reporter at The Daily Beast. Previously, he was a features writer at WWD and W Magazine. He has also written for New York magazine, Paper, and The Huffington Post.
What's Joe's Problem?
Lloyd Grove is editor at large for The Daily Beast. He is also a frequent contributor to New York magazine and was a contributing editor for Condé Nast Portfolio. He wrote a gossip column for the New York Daily News from 2003 to 2006. Prior to that, he wrote the Reliable Source column for the Washington Post, where he spent 23 years covering politics, the media, and other subjects.
Geithner's Stock Plummeting
Jeff Madrick is a contributor to the New York Review of Books and a former economics columnist for the New York Times. He is editor of Challenge Magazine, visiting professor of humanities at Cooper Union, and senior fellow at the New School's Schwartz Center for Economic Policy Analysis. He is the author of Taking America, The End of Affluence (Random House) and The Case for Big Government.
Do Sex Tapes Matter?
Meghan McCain is a columnist for The Daily Beast. Originally from Phoenix, she graduated from Columbia University in 2007. She is a New York Times bestselling children's author, previously wrote for Newsweek magazine, and created the Web site mccainblogette.com.
Hillary and Sarah's Common Theme
Meghan McCain is a columnist for The Daily Beast. Originally from Phoenix, she graduated from Columbia University in 2007. She is a New York Times bestselling children's author, previously wrote for Newsweek magazine, and created the Web site mccainblogette.com.
Joe's No Traitor
Meghan McCain is a columnist for The Daily Beast. Originally from Phoenix, she graduated from Columbia University in 2007. She is a New York Times bestselling children's author, previously wrote for Newsweek magazine, and created the Web site mccainblogette.com.
The fact that he has been re-elected four times is not relevant now. He must be losing those supporters that he had to be re-elected all those times if he feels the need to switch parties.
It's also an incredibly sad state of American politics when someone does something like this that is blatantly for the purpose of self preservation. He is now serving himself and his own interests not those of the people who voted to put him in office.
Finally, how much is this really going to effect his voting? Not at all. He wasn't totally inline with the Republicans and right off the bat he isn't totally inline with Democrats as he voted against the budget bill today which was widely supported by Democrats and received no Republican support.
Hopefully, one way or another he loses his re-election bid to either another Dem or a Republican and his seat is taken by someone who will work harder to serve the people he represents and not his own self preservation. That's why these guys are there in the first place and clearly Spector has forgotten that.
Meghan you make alot of sense. I;m a democrat . I think you are one of the young up coming shining stars for the republican party.I think many young republicans do have similar opinions like yours but you will have to get rid of the old worn out tired men leading your party first before they will step up to the challenge. Keep up the good work trying to be inclusive, and open to re energise your party..
She's a shill.
@Maezeppa
how insightful, I bet it took a lot of research to come up with such a sophisticated comment.
Seriously either have an opinion or not but just calling names is something our kindergarten teachers taught us all years ago.
You are right "dee123". Megan is the new generation in the US Political ground. What she needs now is support from young americans from all backgrounds, irrespective of what party affliation they have.
Hats off to you, Megan.
Agreed dee123! Meghan, you are a pleasure to read. I love the thoughtful analysis!
This user is no longer registered.
I hope the GOP dosn't fade away. Not that I hope more people will start agreeing with Rush Limbaugh and similar crazies, that by no means, but a few of the republican ideas are OK. This idea that the RNC needs to be in lock step and that the party can never evolve seem kinda dumb to me. I am donating money th the first 2010 GOP candidate who represents any real alternative to the idiots running the party right now. I was going to donate to Specter but now hes no longer GOP.
teejay,
The 'supporters that he's losing in order to be re-elected all those times' are the same 'supporters' that the RNC is losing. They go by the name "Republicans". Specter is not only losing what all Republicans are losing, but he's also been receiving less and less support from what is left of the party as it continues the self-defeating 'all or nothing' divisiveness that has gotten it to it's current dire situation.
As far as 'serving the interests of the people who put him into office' - those people go by the name "PENNSYLVANIANS" first and foremost. THEY have put him into office and will continue to put him into office regardless of which party supports him - as long as he is supporting the voters of Pennsylvania. THEY are the people whom he represents and votes in the name of regardless of party affiliation. Because he has put them before his party, his party often criticizes him. By placing himself as a representative of THE PEOPLE OF PENNSYLVANIA before a representative of any particular party, Arlen Specter has shown a rare and invaluable understanding of the foundation of our government, better than most who work inside of it. He has continuously stood up to ANY party lines that were not in line with his true beliefs in regard to what is best for the people whom he represents. He has never represented ONLY the Republicans of Pennsylvania as it seems the RNC would prefer all officials would do in their respective electorates.
This RNC Berlin Wall strategy is finally failing itself. A house divided against itself cannot stand. The RNC has failed to understand that ALL AMERICANS make up the structure of this American Democratic Republic.
All that seems to be left in the make up of this Republican party is the very angry, particularly divisive, prejudicial fear-mongers who have embarassed, repulsed, or otherwise repelled all other from it's ranks. Anger and fear are not a platform, they are a fire. This fire seems to have burned down every bit of structure there once was of the Republican party and all that seems to be left is the smoldering hate and judgment of the very far right. This fire's days are numbered. It simply has no more fuel, no more targets. It is beginning to consume itself and it is only a matter of time before it's divisive hate and judgment bring it's own total destruction.
-ted scheriff
(aka teejai)
If he would get elected "regardless of which party supports him" then why would he feel the need to switch parties?
And if he really does speak for and only for the people he represents and doesn't tow the party lines, then why have a party? If the people will follow him wherever he goes as you say then why not run as an independent? Then he could truely vote free of criticism from his party if he didn't have one.
But that's not what he did, instead it looks like he blatantly ran from a tough battle for reelection to another party. Which he didn't side with in his first vote with his new party. Whatever motivated his move you can't help but think it was self serving first and foremost.
teejay,
He had to switch parties because (A) Pennsylvanian voters are only able to vote in the primaries of their registered party (B) much like elsewhere in the country, only the far right seems to be left in the dwindling ranks of the Pennsylvanian Republican party = (C) the majority of Pennsylanian voters would have been unable to support him against the minority far right, unless he switched parties. The majority of Pennsylvanian voters in general would have never had a say about Arlen Specter's re-election had he been defeated inside of the primaries of the ever decreasing and right leaning Republican party.
As far as the need for some kind of party support in our two-party system goes, unless you can bankroll your own campaign, you unfortunately need a party to help fund and organize it for you. I do firmly believe that loyalty to such organizations over those you represent is exactly what concerned George Washington leading to his warnings against the establishment of political parties. While the world's population has perhaps tripled since his time, such wise men seem harder to come by these days.
Arlen Specter surely is making moves for preservation - as a Representative of the people. Since the Republican party has moved so much further right of him and the people he's been representing, there are now less Pennsylvanians willing to indentify themselves as Republicans. The party has moved away from the people in this case and if Arlen Specter is going to preserve his ability to represent the people of Pennsylvania, he must follow them.
Again, if you're looking to understand this particularly rare politician's motivations and yet you feel you must use labels in order to do so - label him as a Representative of Pennsylvanians first. Let the parties sort out the rest for themselves. If Pennsylvanians want him to represent them, they will have him. All he can do is make himself most available to them. It's a mistake to assume that all R's vote for all R's or that all D's vote for all D's - especially in Pennsylvania - and especially since there are now more registered Independents than Republicans, nationwide.
An all or nothing, red or blue mindset cannot intake the complexities of a politcal system such as ours OR the foundation that was built to avoid it - and that is perhaps why some political strategists have worked so hard to sell such a mindset to the people. 'Divide and Conquer' is effective by way of control through chaos. Divide a house against itself and it surely will fall, but it's easier to lead people when they're scared not to follow you. If they can make you believe that one color is the enemy, then they can count on you pushing the other colored button. Our lives are not such a simple equation of 'red or blue'. Anybody who follows such an equation has handed their power over, most likely without their conscious awareness of such a surrender or power. Getting back to the original point, truth in politics is much more complex than a choice of one or the other. There are few who seem to understand that these days. Arlen Specter as you have pointed out more than once, does not vote with one party or the other. He votes with his belief of what is right for the people he represents - parties be damned. It is rare to find this kind of integrity today, when so many seem so willing to believe in the 'US vs. THEM' illusion that strategists have, do and will use in order to program and control voters willing enough to trade their power for a red or blue identity.
I applaud anybody who stands up for who they truly are whether one club or another likes it or not - even, and perhaps especially, if they are a member of that club!
-ted scheriff
(teejai to my family)
You are misconstruing Specter's decision to switch parties as one of mere self-preservation. First of all, he is NOT losing those supporters who re-elected him those numerous times. Those moderate supporters who used to vote in the GOP primaries are either (i) deceased; (ii) have switched parties; or (iii) no longer identify as Republicans. As the GOP primaries in PA are open only to Republicans, those voting in these primaries are ultra-conservative Republicans who have always hated Specter and who have never voted for him. Period. Second, he IS serving the interests of those who voted to put him in office. These people are a genuine coalition of moderate Republicans, moderate Democrats, AND liberal Democrats. Now, I'm sure that many moderate Republicans are ticked off at Specter, and may not vote for him in the general election, but they may also just skip voting in those elections altogether. Specter will, however, have to start showing Democrats in PA that while he isn't going to march to the DNC drum, he is willing to vote with his new party on at least some major issues.
healthcare. end of story.
;)
Good analysis. Better than a lot of the hot air we're getting from national pundits.
Differentiating between conservatives and Republicans would bring a lot of clarity to your writing and better advance your cause. Using them interchangably presumes that conservatives are Republicans and vice versa, which doesn't seem like the idea you're trying to advance. Identifying social conservatives, fiscal conservatives, libertarians, hawks etc. would add also help. Your insights are interesting but they lack the required reading to give them any heft-- you could do a lot to set yourself apart from other conservative pundits just from reading George Nash's The Conservative Intellectual Movement in America and familiarizing yourself better with the changing meanings of "conservative" and "Republican". Maybe your colleague Zelizer could give you some tips?
grannybike you're giving Meghan McCain far too much credit here. She needs a review of middle school civics first. A person who uses the term "progressive conservative voters" obviously has not the slightest understanding of the words coming out of her mouth.
Shine on Meghan! Keep on dancin' like no one is watching. You truly are a gem.
@Nicki
Meghan seems to be the only one pointing out the problems in the GOP and getting any traction doing so. That is worthy of a lot of credit. If there are others please name them but as long as she is the one and only I will continue to support her as actively as possible.
"You are not a new face for the Republican Party. You are the problem with the Republican Party. If you'd like to be a feel-good liberal, there's a party for you. Do like Specter and stop wrecking the GOP. You're 15 minutes are about up." (This was from Shawn in Oceanside, California.)
Typical con comment if you read Hot Air. From Rino to Dino, his main concern is saving his political career. After the last 8 years of enabling the destruction of our country, he should have retired.
Change is hard, particularly when you value your heritage. The Republicans are willing to fall on their sword and hold the line even though everyone else can see the decline of their brand. But the brand began as the underdog. In the 50's and 60's they were hard line heroes of strong principle but clearly the minority. They thrived on that, hung on, accepted defeats until the world shifted and they found a voice. Those days are over, their heroes are dead and instead of a voice, they speak in echoes. History has moved on and pride alone won't provide new and necessary ideas for this different time. As patriots, Republicans must recognize that we need two (or more) parties with ideas so the country can excel.
This user is no longer registered.
Bingo. This is a purely cynical ploy to hang onto fading power. Specter's most significant votes over the last eight years favor definitive right-wing measures including the war on Iraq, the Military Commissions Act, Patriot Act renewal, confirmation of virtually every controversial Bush appointee, retroactive telecom immunity, warrantless eavesdropping expansions, and Bush tax cuts (several times). Time and again during the Bush era, Specter stood with Republicans on the most controversial and consequential issues.
Now he is a DINO.
You and dixie-chik seem to be quick with RINO and DINO tags. Maybe that is the real problem with both parties. When all you can be is a rubber stamp for the party, else you are "in name only", then the party is just fascism. People like Specter represent the ideals of politics: those that vote their conscience and try to represent what their constituents want.
Calling it cynical is ridiculous. The Republican far-right have been calling him and the other moderates "basically Democrats" since they do not toe their extreme line. Yes, he did so to prevent the far right trying to knock him out of the Republican primary, but consider why: in his State a huge block of voters have abandoned the Republican party to become Democrats or Independents. This is happening in other places too. That is because the extremists in the party have been on a witch hunt for those who were more moderate. So, Specter now represents the more conservative North-East Democratic party member more than the bulk of what is left of the North-East Republican party. Losing the primary when the majority of voters favor him makes no sense for his constituents as a whole.
You nailed it dead on! The same old politics mentality of the Republican Leadership is driving many of us away. I find it refreshing to hear you and my own children voicing your views. You and men and women of your age group are the future of this party. I find it shameful that the so called leadership of my Party would like to silence that voice, and the response to Sen. Specter's leaving, shows how cut off from the core of the Republican Party they are becoming. Will Sen. Specter be the last to defect? I hope so, but my gut say's I think there will be more to come without serious change! Shame on Sen. Specter and my generation for letting our Party down by not holding to our principles and fighting for the values we believe in.
Kudos to you for sticking to you guns, lady. I'm on the other end of the spectrum, but have plenty of Republican friends that are equally as annoyed with all of the hard-line power plays being put forth by a party bereft of ideas. :-/
Sorry.
On her show today, Stephanie Miller said something to the effect of: I applaud Senator Specter's selfish reasons to leave the GOP only because it serves my selfish needs as a Democrat.
Here, here!
But seriously....come to the light. Bring your dad. It's nice over here...
Meghan,
A party is a set of beliefs, not a name.
Belonging to a party requires agreeing with the party's beliefs, not going by the name.
If you disagree with a lot of the party's beliefs you need to find a new party that best fits with your belief system, and if none exist, start your own. You DON'T try to change the party with which you disagree so much.
By and large I don't know what you believe (I guess I'll have to wait for your book to come out to learn more about that) but it just seems strange to me that every time I hear about you in the news you are trying to change the party somehow. Are you trying to change it's position on one idea or many? What ideas specifically? If you disagree with a few things (I know you disagree about gay marriage) well than fine; work for change on that issue within the party. But if you disagree with a lot, maybe you should spare us all and just leave.
This user is no longer registered.
While I agree that Sen. Specter left the GOP for political survival, it's also true that the Republicans have become increasingly intolerant of those with moderate to liberal views. Once upon a time, the Republican Party was known as "The Big Tent". Even President Reagan said so. Remember his 11th Commandment, "Thou shalt not speak ill of any Republican"? Back in the day, the GOP had its conservatives (Bob Taft, Joe McCarthy, Reagan), moderates (Eisenhower), AND liberals (N. Rockefeller, Chuck Percy, Earl Warren). Today, there's even an intolerance within the party for members who don't vote the party line at least 95% of the time (i.e. McCain, Voinovich, Lindsay Graham)
A few years ago, Zell Miller wrote a book extremely critical of Democrats called "A National Party No More". This title actually applies more to the GOP nowadays. The Dems have gotten their act together and become more inclusive. Ever heard of the Blue Dogs?
Great article! I'm independent but know that the Republicans need more people like you in order to evolve.
This user is no longer registered.
P.S. Respectful query (I'm not calling you out, I'm sincerely interested in knowing): Why are you a Republican? What Republican beliefs and ideals do you like/agree with? It would be a welcome change to hear you extol rather than scold the party you supposedly love so dear (if you did that, though, the media might remove the soap box they've put you on right out from under your feet, you do realize that, right?)
Well said. Dead-on about how Steele could have handled this. True leaders aren't afraid to look in the mirror, and can step outside of comfort zones. The comments made of the past few days don't demonstrate those qualities.
This user is no longer registered.
It makes sense to leave the party if you are going to lose the primary because you don't vote with the party enough. If thats the case you probably no longer belong in that party. I hope John does the same thing in Arizona. I would respect going independent like Lieberman more than switching parties though.
There seems to be an acknowledgment of the problem of refusing to move anywhere near the center when it comes to conservatism in the Republican party (as stated with Steele and Spector's secondary concerns with moving parties). An even bigger problem hover over that is that the Republican party refuses to identify this as a problem, but rather, prides itself in this exclusiveness of 17th century old rules for being a conservative.
This comment has been removed by The Daily Beast's editors.
Even now
Republicans
Don't have enough
Smarts
To condemn
Sleazy torture tactics
Or even to realize
Deregulation
Ruined the world.
Specter left
Because
It's a clown
College.
So sorry Meghan
The
Party's
Over.
This user is no longer registered.
Spector only left because he could not win a new term with his electorate. That is why he left. Do your research.
People who write
In poetic stanza
Make me have the desire
To deficate in my pantsa
once again, your article hits the nail on the head. i normally love listening to rush limbaugh, but having commentators like him celebrate specter's party flop annoys me. do these people not realize the exodus of the republican party? if we cant keep our members, how will we gain new ones?
i have to place most of the blame for the weakness of our party on social republicans, or more specifically the people who want to force their religious beliefs on others. their limited views on who qualifies as a republican doesnt help at all. maybe if our republican "umbrella" opened up alot more, republican politicians would have a greater chance of striking a chord with people across the country. the republican party shouldnt die out in the deep south and midwest.
Yeah, then there's all the corruption, idiotic economic policies, racism, xenophobia, anti-intellectualism, and knee-jerk partisanism. Why blame the religious nuts when you have a bunch of gun nuts and libertarian nuts to help shoulder the blame.
Touche. There are lots of elements of the GOP that are messed up. I actually put anti-intellectualism ahead of the social-issues nuts (reluctantly) because it's so obvious that Republicans are bereft of ideas. If there were smart leaders with vision, perhaps they could in turn manage the one-issue zealots.
Right now there's Steele, Limbaugh and the Fox talking heads and governors like Perry (secession) and Jindal (rejecting stimulus in a state with a high unemployment rate), a scary assortment from which to choose leadership to pull them out of the current morass.
Spectre thinks like a democrat and votes like a democrat. Now it's official. Party politics sucks. These politicans can't think for themselves.
Why do you love listening to Limbaugh spew hate when you state that you otherwise are looking for a more open GOP umbrella? Limbaugh's "umbrella" is closed.
BTW, a better metaphor in politics is "the big tent" since it can hold more than an umbrella. Maybe that's where the GOP problem begins. Its metaphor is too small. ;-)
This user is no longer registered.
Meghan, I am constantly suprised by the rancor you draw out of the base. Like your voice is somehow subject some doctrine. It ought to be clear that what we have been doing for the past 16 years as a party crashed hard.Part of that is bad image/brand, part of that is inflexibility, but largely we lost the center. The problem is that the center, the decisive swing in America, is not grounded in political values of any stripe are easily swayed by cylcles in the economy, wars that don't go well, and a rockstar like POTUS.The real question at hand is not will we come back into power but what kind of party will we be and how resilant will we be when we do. We need a big tent that is not so captive of social issues or we can't expect many years at the helm.
Here's the thing -- Specter left for his own personal gains, not because of any great political ideal. I wish he had -- he could very much come out and legitimately say, "Look, the Republican Party is all about the Far Right and the only loud voices ascribe to this. I don't, so I'm going to a party where I can be a moderate Democrat and be close to the middle and be respected." Instead he left so he could win an election. THAT is not admirable.
What is notable, however, is two things -- A, the fact that the Senate is now even closer to a supermajority, so that changes the face of politics, but the bigger thing, B, which is that it'll be interesting to see if there is an exodus from the party due to the Right being too harsh on the rest of the members.
To be honest, I'm waiting for a third party to emerge -- it would fit the demographic very well. Republicans == Far Right/Christian Right. Democrats == Liberals and some moderates on the left, and Third Party == Moderate Republicans and Centrist Democrats. I think that would be a GREAT solution to this whole problem. What do you think, Meghann? Then you could make some progress without having to fight the old cranks on Right that refuse to see the nose on their own faces.
I'm there for the Third Party. Can we call it the Bull Moose Party?
Did you listen to anything Specter said in his announcement? He said exactly what you claimed he should have. Some excerpts:
"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.
___
"It has become clear to me that the stimulus vote caused a schism which makes our differences irreconcilable. On this state of the record, I am unwilling to have my 29-year Senate record judged by the Pennsylvania Republican primary electorate. I have not represented the Republican Party. I have represented the people of Pennsylvania."
Nathan, nice idea about a 3rd Party. Unfortunately, the political structure (and especially the election laws) of this country are stacked in favor of the R/D 2 party system. Someone like Bloomberg, with deep pockets, would have to step up and bankroll it. Not likely.
As a former Republican, it is sad to see what has become of the Party of Lincoln. It has become the Party of Limbaugh, Fox News & Sarah Palin (who, unfortunately, we can thank Ms. McCain's father for plucking her from the frozen tundra onto the national stage).
It would behoove Ms. McCain to recognize that Arlen acknowledged what she is apparently incapable of doing-- that his political philosophy is more in line with Democrats than Republicans. Despite her desire to call herself a Republican, she fails to understand the basic tenets underlying that Party. It is not about who is hip or cool or popular. It has to do with the future of the country and different philosphies in how that is accomplished. Sen. Specter's positions on climate change, socialized health care, illegal immigration, are anathema to most Republicans, as are Ms. McCain's. The same goes for her father who fails to realize that his "brand" of politics is largely the Democratic platform with an "R" after it. It's time to get back to a TWO party system, where voters actually have a choice of two paths.
It's pretty much unanimously agreed, on both sides of the spectrum, that Specter switched parties to win a primary. Now he has to lick Biden's ass to keep his seniority in the Senate so he doens't become the "Junior Senator from PA". His philosophies are no more in line with the core political philosophies of the Democrats then they are with the GOP. He would have been more accurate calling himself an Independant or Libertarian or some other 3rd party joke. Specter has a bit of a jaded past anyway... he was the co-author of the "single bullet theory" in the Warren Commision and this is now the second time he has switched parties. And to say that " It is not about who is hip or cool or popular", is completely ignorant. One of the biggest factors in Ms. McCain's father's unsuccessful bid for the presidency was he was seen as unhip, unpopular and uncool to a candidate who twitters has a Facebook and MySpace page, gives YouTube addresses and updates and text messages from his blackberry that he can't seem to live without.
The problem with the 2 party system now, is religion (whether it's traditional Judeo-Christian ideals, or something else) is too intertwined in the social values of either party. The GOP being too heavily influenced and the Dems being hardly influenced. If you're Republican and support abortion rights or gay rights or a Democrat who opposes them, then you're considered a pariah by your fellow party members. These social stances should no longer be a litmus test to see where you true party alliance stands, because whether or not you think Roe v. Wade should be overturned, homosexuals should have the right to be married, or marijuana should be legalized... it will not fix the major problems with our country! It will not give us any answers to the current economical meltdown, the conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan, the illegal immigration problems, etc.
It would behoove groundhog to recognize that Arlen has always been center of the road. Center of the road used to be what Republicans were.
Megan Honey,
You saw where he said R's were running - ne funding Toomey. There was nowhere for Specter to run but the arms of Biden and Lieberman.
Only R's outside of Congress can save this party. You will be great at that job. I'm pulling for you.
The problem is: what "example" would Senator Specter be setting? That conservative republicans can oust a highly successful and effective moderate in order to lose an election?
That sacrifice is a lot to ask of someone who believes he has more to offer America as a Senator than as an octogenarian. And frankly, the point has already been made. The "wingnuts" have demonstrated their success at demolishing the Republican party already.
I wouldn't say that Specter is being selfish: if you have the choice of remaining fiercely independant and influencing policy in the *Nation* you love over being spat upon by the *Party* you love(d), I don't think it's selfish to choose the former.
In fact, Specter has positioned himself in a kingmaker role. He helped cut 100 billion out of a spending bill that conservatives should have thanked him for, but instead they vilified him. Now he can continue to influence legislation and policy in accordance with his own principle rather than play politics to a marginalized constituency that already holds him in contempt anyway.
Good for him.
And, as a Democrat, I would cheer the moderate democrat who defected to the Republican party in the same conditions.
Meghan the precious, Mr. Specter left because the Republican Party just doesn't make sense any longer. He left because he is eager to do things for his state and the country which is impossible to do at the Republican Party these days. There will probably be more great senators leaving the party for the same reason. The country needs a government that is bent on solving its current problems by taking bold actions. It is easy to criticize the governments stimulus package but that is like criticizing an expensive surgery when it is the only choice. Where the country is right now is because of failed policies of the last eight years. Your own wonderful father was against the tax cuts for the rich when the country was in the midst of two wars and the rich were making more money anyway. The story goes on and on but don't feel let down by Arlen Specter. It is the Republican Party that is letting everybody down. Stay well !
It's not Specter who left the Republican party, it's the Republican party who left him.
The irony is that he is more of a liability to the Democrats now than before.
Sorry Meghan, the current Republican Party leaders appear to not want people such as Specter. Don't blame Specter for leaving the GOP because he wants to serve a higher cause, the USA. He would not have won the primary, the Good Old Boys were making sure of that, yet he has much to offer this country. He had no option but to switch back to his original party and yes this was political as well as principled. I get a little tired of hearing this begrudging comment that it was just a political move. He based his decision on the principles that he believes in and has believed in for a long time. Yes there have been times when I believe he has abandoned his principles but I believe that was primarily when he was pandering to the right wing of the Republican Party which I believe has destroyed what use to be a Grand Ol' Party.
Meghan, to be honest some of your articles sound like you want to change the Republican party into something that it just isn't! Your views of what it should be and why you "love it so much" are NOT based on the facts if what the party is in 2009. Frankly even though yes you are your own person, it is obvious how your "love" of the Republican party us there because of your dad and family upbringing. This is true if almost all of us. Almost of us start our adult political lives having similar views to our parents. Then we grow and change. You keep saying the party needs people like you but honestly I bet 98% of those still registered as Republicans do not want you as the voice nor have similar opinions about gay marriage and more! I bet 90% of the real positive emails are frim 18-30 year olds who are Republicans just like their parents.
Just an observation because when you go on about loving your party it makes NO sense from a factual view, sorry!
Absolutely right - These days party lines have become as rigid as religious dogma and heretics are punished in the press and in their careers. Any rational person needs to take a look at his personal political beliefs (and religious beliefs for that matter) and decide what really makes sense to him. It's time to give up the labels. There are so many people who say "I'm pro-choice, believe in gay rights, I think divorce is acceptable, etc. but I'm STILL a catholic" - no you're not. The same is true for Megan and so many kids who cling to the political and religious labels their parents raised them with. Think about what you really believe, don't support people who completely disagree with what you stand for just because they're using the same name - that's why there are so many Protestant denominations.
Instead of voting for the party, you need to look at each politician's beliefs and decide if they match up enough with your own to gain your support - it's time to drop the labels of Republican and Democrat, they've changed so much anyway over the past 100, hell 50 years, they're now completely meaningless.
Nope. What about those of us who are socially in line with democrats, but when it comes to issues like taxation don't support their beliefs? What then? Be an independent? Being an independent doesn't help much when you're forced to choose between two people you don't agree with! I would love to see the day when each party has what i consider a viable candidate. And I agree with what megan is saying. Just because I believe in gay marriage and the woman's right to choose does not make me a democrat and don't tell me otherwise.
I totally disagree with you Lisabeth60. I am 49 years old and was a registered Republican from age 18 until eight years ago when I switched to independent. I had the same belief that Megan has. I believed at the time that Republicans were for smaller govt, lower taxes, personal responsibility and strong national defense. It seems as time has gone by the social ideology of the Far Right with its fear mongering, racist rhetoric and hate for all those who are "not with them" started to dominate the party. As long as the Republican party continues to let these undereducated ignorant fools take over, it will become irrelevant. The solutions sounds like a third party, maybe the "New Republicans" (which is really the original republicans!) since the Republicans can't seem to get rid of people like Glenn Beck, Limbaugh, Michelle Bachmann, Joe the plumber and the bimbo that ran for Vice President (sorry Megan, I didn't vote for your father given the VP choice). However, I am rooting for you Megan...help pull the real moderate Republicans together and I will even contribute to your campaign should you decide to run one day.
What I said is not a whole lot different from what you said. I agree with you about what the Republican party has become. It is has become a far right party. Only 21 % of Americans affiliate as Republican now and I bet you those are mostly far right ones. The others have switched to being independent (not most but all). You are saying what I am. The party has been taken over by the far right. She can keep trying to make it moderate, but that isn't what it is. If you two want to keep trying to make it a party of moderates, I think you might be spinning your wheels, but good luck trying. I truly truly hope you succeed because I do agree we need different viewpoints in the world But it seems from the outside that they don't really want you in their party. Why don't you form your own Republican party and they should call themselves the Conservative party.
Speaking as a european, it seems to me that a 3 party system (or more) might be a cure to avoid alienating the voting base further.
The european countries with high voter turnout generally do have more than 2 parties to choose from. It means you can usually find the party you agree most with even if you don't agree on absolutely every point.
When there are only 2, both parties have to compromise so much they are unable to stand for anything, or they drift towards the "current constellation" so to speak.
Just my 0.2 cents. :)
Very well said. The republican party just ain't what it used to be (a moderate, inclusive, "small government" party). And as long as they continue to allow Limbaugh, Colter, Beck, Hannity, Savage, etc. to represent them, they will continue to alienate fair-minded, moderate voters. Good luck trying to change that Meghan. I agree, we tend to join the political party our parents have raised us to believe in. Thinking it's something else doesn't make it so. If you want to be part of a progressive party, I suggest you not bang your head against the wall anymore with the republicans. Old, racist, white men cannot learn new tricks. Join a different progressive party...the Democratic party! Try it, you'll like it!
Meghan, why do the Republicans feel that Spector turned his back on them when Steele let it be known since he voted on the stimulus that the RNC was going to make sure that he did not get re-elected along with the other 2 that voted with him?
It seems as though the Republican party has a weird sense of "sticking together". What you're saying is I'll give you an example your boss is not happy with you in your position, you're told you will not have a job by a desinated date because you are going to be replaced. So, that person is suppose to remain in the position until the given date and not look out for their own well being just to be "fired"? It's to much drama I would have did the same and took my chances on my own. I hear about the "love of the party" but how can it be so much "love" when there is so much "hate"? Why all the hate when it had been already set in stone that he was no longer wanted in the party? So, basically he should have just stayed where he was and be dragged through the mud by his own party and "like it"? I'm very confused by the thinking of the political parties. I think this is a very sad thing for America what is going on here, this seems to getting bigger and bigger daily with all the confusion, bitterness, hate, pointing fingers and riducule of each other here in the US that other countries has their eyes and ears open and probally thinking "look at them, they will eventually destroy each other".
Thank you.
As a first time user, your comment has been submitted for review. It can take anywhere from a few hours to a day or two for your comment to be reviewed, depending on the time of week and the volume of comments we receive.
Please log in to leave comments.