Diary makes great sense, but I still say McCain, maybe even Snowe and Collins, need to go. They are the cancer in the Republican party and need to be neutralized before they kill the party.

On the whole you can’t beat Democrats by imitating them. I will allow for some exceptions but exceptions don’t create a strong party.
Brit Hume was disappointing in his defense of Spectator, prattling on about his being a survivor. Well I guess that’s all that counts.
Meanwhile the Republican Party, if it’s lucky, continues to go the way of the British Conservatives, and the economy and nation will pay the price for it’s downward slide.

I do not believe I have proposed anything that is contrary to what has been considered Republican principle. It is at the same time the very basis of conservatism. It is time to reassert that principle and raise it to full view. And if there are those who cannot subscribe to these principles, then let them go their way.

Seems you all have very short memories.

“And the GOP is incapable of finding its way back with Arlen Specter in senior leadership.”

I’ve crossed swords more than once with some of the self-described rock-ribbed conservatives here because I’ll take a vote in my caucus over a vote in the other caucus. I find it difficult to criticize many of those so often characterized as RINOs because I don’t see much of a definition of what a Congressional Republican is. There has been NO discipline of nominal Republicans who left the reservation. We, in fact, nominated one of the most notorious reservation leavers to be our candidate for President. It can be said that rather than discipline mavericks, free agents, and RINOs, the Republican Party kowtows to and rewards them.

Arlen Specter has been a perinnial PITA to the Republican Party, yet he was chairman of one of the most important committees and has remained as ranking member. In a disciplined party, he should have had no committee assignment at all and no staff. That would clarify his position and give him good reason to become a Democrat. Likewise, McCain should have lost his committees and all his power and position and never should have been able to even entertain thoughts of being the Republican nominee over his collaboration with the Democrats. People here loved to hate Sen. Stevens for “porking,” yet Sen. Stevens was the Chairman of Appropriations; somebody in the Party must have liked what he did. I can go on.

In any event, unless and until the Party has a definition of what an elected Republican must be in order to remain a member of the caucus, we’re going to be the party of “Not Democrats,” and the last two elections should give a pretty good idea of how that’s working.

But when Arlen was winning as a Republican it was the same thing as losing. It was a totally hollow victory. His vote never could be counted on when it was critical.

Despite all the hand-wringing and knashing of teeth, the Republican’s ability in the Senate to sustain a filibuster did not change one iota yesterday. Just like the day before, Arlen can still be counted on to vote with the Democrats.

Nice diary.

urging the party not to compromise it’s fundamental beliefs,and welcome the likes of McCain,Snowe,and Collins in the same diary!Every RINO should be primaried by conservative challengers.And every challenger should be supported by every conservative as a matter of principle.If they are not up for re-election,pressure must be brought to bear on the GOP leadership to reprimand these Dem-lites with the removal of plum committee assignments.We will never regain control of the GOP by sacrificing our principles to insure that a RINO seat remains a RINO seat.

nt

let’s cough him up. Like Spectre, and KRistol and Dr K, Mara, (fill-in-the -blank).

I have a set of core beliefs that don’t change over time. I’m sure other people have their own set. I can forward my views and try to persuade people that there is a better way, but in the end, it’s their choice, not mine.

It’s when the government decides that it should regulate everyone’s core beliefs to fit one definition, theirs, that we have to worry about the Specters of the world.

You’re spot on with the lack of message. The Republicans have no message and it shows. Conservatives have a message but we don’t promote it because we’re too busy trying to help Republicans with no message win elections.

I believe it’s time for conservatives to cut some ties as well and focus on our message and let the Republicans who aren’t conservative fend for themselves for awhile. Why don’t we create some “events” for the government to focus upon? You did say, after all, there are 400 days until the 2010 elections.

Big Tent candidates and office holders are fine. If they vote mostly with conservative idealogy when it counts.
Our problem is not the elected, but the electorate. The Progressives have created an electorate that votes for them. Our battle now is the hearts and minds of the electorate, not the elected. They need to see that the Here and Now is better with Conservative ideas as well as the future is better. The branding of Conservative is bad, it equates to stick in the mud and anti-progress in the hearts and minds of the people. This is bad, and it is wrong. That branding needs to truthful, and not what the Progressives have made it. When the electorate is with the conservative idealoy most of the time, the elected conservatives will follow.

and announce more of a Common Sense platform. It is not mean-spiritedness.
It is just common sense addressing of all these issues. We know what that is too as do millions of Americans.

What are the tenants of the Republican Party? In my mind (and as I heard Rudy say this morning in F&F) there are four main points, with three of those being the most important; the fourth being a more personal choice.

• National Security – First and foremost the role of government is to keep us safe, period end of story.
• Fiscal Conservative – That the role of government is to be a fair moderator, without interfering in, the national economy. The government should not be in the business of competing with the private sector, but should be like a good referee; it does such a good job that you do not even notice it in the economy. It should be neutral, but yet enforce and regulate fairly.
• Law and Order – What makes America great is that we have laws and they are enforced fairly. When we stop enforcing laws, e.g. immigration laws, we tend to lose a little of ourselves, because what is the next law that we don’t want to enforce?
• Social Issues – The most polarizing issue, there are those who live and die (no pun intended) on these issues. While, I agree wholeheartedly on the abortion and ethics of stem cell issues, I find the biggest disagreements on these issues not only within our government, but at times within our churches and synagogues. Then there is the libertarian stance that many have and are concerned about too much government interference in our daily lives. What should be foremost in this area is a real debate on ethics and the value of human life with room for varying opinions.

While not a perfect request for RedState, we should outline what it is to be a Republican and move forward with supporting candidates that fit in this role. The previous example of Rudy is good, in the sense that he is fully on board with the first three items and is willing to discuss the ethics of the fourth.

If the Congressional Republican leaders continue on their present course, and particularly arrogently interfere with grass roots activity on the basis that they know better, they will destroy the Republican Party.

It’s cowardice; they’re so wedded to the polls and are so willing to be “tossed about by every wind of doctrine” in the hope of keeping their positions that they are willing to spend the Republican treasury to keep out any more conservatives rather than recruit for Republicans to run against Democratic incumbents in Red States.

The result wil be to demoralize the base and drive a wedge between them and the party leaders who think the world revolves around them.

What they will do is perpetuate the continuing attrition in Republican numbers, until the point arises where no one will run under the Republican label because they are doomed to impotence.

Without contributions and without people on the ground, you don’t have a party - you have a ghost, and as remining token leaders age and leave Congress, that will just confirm the demise.

In that regard, Specter is the canary - he did not want to stay in the minority when he could join the Demcrats and share in the plunder.

At that point, when the opportunity arises for conservatives to address the economic and foreign policy failures of Democratic, there will be no stucture (the Republican Party) to be heard.

The only debate left will be various factions of the Democratic party fighting over the scraps.

but I also don’t understand the hand wringing over this guy. Sure, the dems will now speed up their agenda and Specter will vote more to the left, but otherwise it makes no difference, they still only needed Specter or one of the Maine girls to continue to go along.

These national conservative commentators are doing exactly what the dems want, keep inching republicans to the left, in which case, “we are only haggling over the price”.

“As much as someone like John McCain is an annoyance, Arlen Specter has actively worked to undermine not conservatives, but Republicans, on a host of issues from judges to spending.”

What, and McCain hasn’t? Have we forgotten McCain-Finegold? McCain-Kennedy? The Gang of Fourteen?

I’m not going to put a boot to the backside of the senator from Arizona, but if he should decide he wants to follow Specter out the door, I’ll hold it open for him.

Rasmussen has been doing some interesting polling contrasting the current populist trend of the US public vs. the views of the Political Class in Washington. It’s been very enlightening, and it shows the problem that congressional Republicans are facing: by sticking with the conventional wisdom in Washington, they’re throwing their lot in with their political enemies against the will of the People.

Not all congressional Republicans are guilty of this, but the ones that aren’t are being ignored by the rest, which is a Bad Thing. Republicans in DC need to wake up and realize that they can get on board with the People and ride that wave to wash out the corruption in Congress, but to do that they have to reject the current power structure, and I think that too many of them have become entrenched in that power structure to do that.

It hasn’t been THAT long since Santorum won there? Have the demographics changed that much in a few years? It isn’t like PA is one of the states filling with California refugees? As usual, what am I missing here?

p.s. I had promised a contribution to someone here who was starting a blog. I spaced it, could someone remind me who it was. Thanks.

DLTDHYOTWO?

I suppose I could say: Let the battle of the narcissists begin.

As anyone who knows me over the past several years understands, I could very easily fall into the category of being a “Republican Moderate” or “Moderate Republican” or whatever it is being called today.

But I’m not missing Arlen Specter in the slightest this morning. The Washington Post is doing its best to frame this as some kind of “great rift” in the Party, but my exact reaction to his announcement yesterday was:

“Meh.”

Anyone who couldn’t have predicted Specter’s leaving the party ignores the massive pile of evidence that he already had one foot out the door for the past several years. He’s like the guy who was standing at the threshold, wondering whether he should stay or go, and making statements that were flatly contradictory given his record and his self-professed “governing philosophy.”

I don’t mourn his loss per se and we need to separate that from the various legislative problems it causes. But Specter was never a Republican in my book, and particularly in the past several years. He was someone that I would have had a very tough time supporting even if I lived in Pennsylvania.

He left because of his checkbook. Hey, Arlen: I hope you take the bank account and shove it where the sun doesn’t shine. I wouldn’t have written you a check anyway.

And to the people at the Washington Post and elsewhere trying to portray this as some kind of a big rift:

Speaking as a “Moderate Republican” — It’s not.

Great post, Erick. Arlen Specter wasn’t going to change from being a twisting weathervane, and it’s actually a happy day for me to see him leave.

you’re welcome to continue admiring them of course, but on this at least you are far smarter than they are. Being out of touch with your base hurts. And it is going to keep on hurting until they reconnect to it. They should attend some tea parties. Note the verb, “attend.” Not speak at. Not campaign at. ‘Attend’ where they should listen, not talk. And then they should spend some time alone thinking about what they’ve heard.

I’m glad snarlin Arlen is gone. I’m originally from the great state of PA, and he’s been an embarrassment the whole time he’s been a senator. He won his senate seat on Reagan’s coattails. I wish he’d left no more than four years after Reagan did. The only part of this I’m looking forward to is when Arlen gets whupped by an even further left loony in the Democrat primary. Toomey might not win the general, but at least it will finally be a clean fight (ideologically speaking, I always expect the usual mud slinging). And right now, my money is on Toomey.

I wonder how much money Toomey raised yesterday?

Martin Knight couldn’t have done better. (^:^)

*Republicans don’t win by being Republicans. They win by providing a reason to choose them over the Democrats.*

Every Republican should have a copy of that in his pocket, to look at when he loses his way.

Some incomplete observations:

If Specter were just a wishy-washy Republican/conservative, that would be one thing. It may turn out to be the only kind of Republican that Pennsylvanians will elect to Congress. But Specter was worse than that–he turned out to be an extortionist. “If you won’t guarantee me the nomination, I’m going to join the other side.” The comparisons to Benedict Arnold are apt, and it could as easily be “Aaron” Specter. Both Arnold and Burr turned on their compatriots when they lost in the marketplace of ideas and saw competitors promoted or elected over them. Arlen Specter made a political decision to promote his personal indispensability at the expense of some serious ethical principles. We may miss some of his votes, but we won’t miss his presence in the party.

Pat Toomey may lose in the end, but how it happens will tell us something, and we gain even more if he wins. Either way, the party HAS to establish its principles again. This will be a start.

Specter’s move is not insignificant. Rick Santorum reported last night that he was formerly the man assigned to convince Specter to vote conservative when Specter’s vote was necessary. His comment was that Specter usually would reluctantly comply. He feels that Specter will not have to be convinced to go along with the liberals on those occasions, so we’ll lose his votes on some issues where before we could get them. As near as I can tell, that’s about all we lose, though. And we gain a certain clarity of purpose with Specter no longer identified as a “Republican leader.”

Specter may not even GET the Democrat nomination.

The discussion has gotten muddied by confusing the candidates put forward and tactics used in state-wide elections with the strategies necessary to exist as a viable national party. There may be some states where only a “moderate” Republican (conservative on only certain issues) can be elected, but to be a national party of “moderation” is to guarantee irrelevancy. That doesn’t advocate extremism, it advocates having firm positions on a variety of issues and supporting them with both logical and emotional arguments, while still allowing individuals to make personal decisons to disagree with some of those principles if they so choose.

Some of the press has been treating Specter’s defection as if he had been expelled, rather than chose to leave. It’s a big error, and to argue anything on that basis is futile. But you said that, better.

Pat’s doing a pretty good job in his today’s interviews articulating about what he is against and why the voters won’t trust Specter- wonderful. I suspect at some point there will be developed proposals and a message to explain what Pat is all about and why Pennsylvanians should vote for him. Otherwise get used to the sound of Senator Specter (or possibly Sestack- who incidentally could show Toomey how to master the soundbite with his I know to stand for something rather than against it).

Speaking of soundbites a message to Pat; when you blurt out platitudes about being a “Reagan Republican” it should be followed by why and some substance regarding how that is proven- lest you beclown yourself. Not many people have forgotten how Specter made that an empty phrase as he occasionally spoke about coming into government under the Reagan Revolution.

Long term strategic success= generating real cash flow from good products
short term success= cooking the books through accounting magic

Reps need to get back to long term strategy with good ideas and good people, and less on short term success resulting from diluting the brand w/ wish washy opportunistic career politicians.

The only hope is readopting true conservatism not playing short term political games.

under the bus may find he is actually driving the bus.

They should be careful.

Got to love a guy who sticks to conservative principles and cares not one “whit” what the Columbia papers write about him.

Other Republicans could take a lesson from him.

But then, what he does only works if you’re genuine.
Guess that leaves out a lot of the GOP’s inside the beltway “great minds.”

Regards

.

Reid’s promise that the traitor (Spectre), would keep his seniority over the likes of Harkin, Mikulski and Sen. Dianne Feinstein. This is raising ire already.
http://thehill.com/leading-the-news/democrats-push-back-on-specter-deal-2009-04-29.html
Hope you enjoy it as much as I did!

Regards

People on both sides of the political spectrum realize that the reason for Specter changes comes down to the following:

1) Specter wants to be re-elected.
2) Toomey can get about or more than the same number of votes in a Primary against Specter as he did last time (assuming no other Conservative candidates)
3) Specter can’t get as many votes in a Primary against Toomey as he did last time because a chunk of the Registered Republicans six years ago have reregistered as Democrats and thus can’t vote in PA’s closed primary.
4) The Dem powers that be in both Pennsylvania and DC are willing to try to keep other Democrats from primarying him in 2010 in exchange for his switch.
5) Specter believes he has a better chance of beating Toomey in the General than he does in the Republican Primary.

If there were any possibility that the democrat agenda could work, than, yes, we conservatives might have something to worry about. It is not going to work. Not even a little bit. It is going to be a catastrophic failure. The only question is how long will it take to fail, not if it will fail. It does not matter how powerful your enemy is, if they have determined to go charging over a cliff, why stop them? Will it harm the country? Yes, it will. But the country only has itself to blame for that. If we conservatives believe we have the answers, and we do, all we need do is stand fast, hold our ground, and wait. The battle will be ours. The only thing that is going to destroy liberalism is liberalism, and we conservatives have no choice but to let that happen. There is nothing that can, or should, be done about it.

Rush mentioned today how The Club for Growth is now supposedly an enemy of the people per these great GOP leaders (who brought us Barack Obama) (my words added in parentheses).. But having a Soros confidant in the defense department is OK. The party must be rebuilt anyway, Rush continued, so get rid of all these guys. In other words, sooner or later they’ve got to go. (I thought this before I heard Rush say it). I vote get them out today.