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.
How Rich People Smoke Pot
Paul Schrodt is a writer living in New York City. He has contributed to New York magazine, Radar, and Esquire.com.
Justice Clinton?
As vice chairman of Public Strategies and president of Maverick Media, Mark McKinnon has helped meet strategic challenges for candidates, corporations and causes, including George W. Bush, John McCain, Governor Ann Richards, Charlie Wilson, Lance Armstrong, and Bono. McKinnon is co-chair of Arts & Labs, a collaboration between technology and creative communities that have embraced today's rich Internet environment to deliver innovative and creative digital products to consumers.
Politicians Need Privacy, Too
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.
Yes, I'm a Pure Republican
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.
America's Boob Police
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.
teejay1324
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.
dee123
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..
Maezeppa
She's a shill.
ElLamer
@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.
jrk1964
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.
CorrineT
Agreed dee123! Meghan, you are a pleasure to read. I love the thoughtful analysis!
This user is no longer registered.
n--Y--monet767ElLamer
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.
ted-scheriff
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)
teejay1324
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.
ted-scheriff
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)
jsdc007
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.
ted-scheriff
healthcare. end of story.
;)
JohnHWDoe
Good analysis. Better than a lot of the hot air we're getting from national pundits.
grannybike
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?
NickiNicole5351
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.
ElLamer
@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.
gotalife
"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.
Garyind
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.
n--Y--monet767dixie-chik
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.
pkimelman
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.
Rockguy65
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.
DeniseFlores
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...
connorsmith
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.
n--Y--monet767Jaydawg
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?
nomadicsoul1129
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.
n--Y--monet767connorsmith
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?)
Checkers
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.
n--Y--monet767Beeznitchio
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.
aimmee
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.
Ritarita
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.
n--Y--monet767Rdschenkel
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
cristixcore
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.
DeaconDrJones
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.
sippewissett
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.
tiotom77
Spectre thinks like a democrat and votes like a democrat. Now it's official. Party politics sucks. These politicans can't think for themselves.
sippewissett
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.
n--Y--monet767Thank 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.