Who Left Who(m)?
Ronald Reagan famously switched parties decades ago, saying he didn't leave the Democrats, they left him. That's a little far-fetched for a supply-side guy who said he worshipped the New Dealer FDR. But Arlen Specter now says something similar:
"Since my election in 1980, as part of the Reagan Big Tent, the Republican Party has moved far to the right," he said in a statement released early Tuesday afternoon. "Last year, more than 200,000 Republicans changed their registration to become Democrats. I now find my political philosophy more in line with Democrats than Republicans."
That may be far-fetched too. He was always a liberal Republican. Yet he's a liberal Republican who says the Big Tent has squeezed him out. Is this a good thing for the GOP....?
He's just sucking up to the Prez.
Oh, and I meant to add, for Arlen's sake...
I voted for Ronald Reagan; I knew Ronald Reagan. Ronald Reagan was a hero of mine. Senator, you're no Ronald Reagan.
ha
Bad for the Republican party; exhilaratingly good for the Democratic party, the members of which are thrilled to see the Republicans implode.
A party can't be successful and is committing political suicide when it insists on appealing to a narrow 12- to 15-percent of the population.
The Republican Party Specter first joined was a completely different animal than the mutated monster it is today. When the Democratic Party took up the cause of equal rights for our Black citizens in the early 60s, the "Dixiecrats" left the Democratic Party in droves to join the intolerant friendly Republicans, taking their dogma driven bigotries with them, as well as their penchant for fanatic Christianity. They quickly cannibalized the party turning it into the hate driven, inflexible, intolerant monument to bellicose stupidity it is today. Little wonder Specter jumped that sinking ship leaving the rats (heretofore to be known as "goose-stepping has-beens") still clinging to the tilting deck.
There's a Pew study that shows that GOP voters want their party to skew further to the right. That seems interesting.
Speaking of intolerant fanatics with hate and dogma driven bigotries... *cough*David*cough*
How does the amusingly named Sandy Sand figure that only 12-15% of the population is being targeted by the GOP? The Pew study Rob cites argues otherwise.
It might help if you all didn't think of it in antagonistic labels ("far right"). Instead, consider that there are huge numbers of people who would like to see the federal government drastically reined in. "Hate" has nothing to do with it.
Just for grins, here's a quote from Arlen Specter in 2001, when Jim Jeffords defected to the Democrats...
"How should these issues be handled by the Senate in the future? I intend to propose a rule change which would preclude a future recurrence of a Senator's change in parties, in midsession, organizing with the opposition, to cause the upheaval which is now resulting."
ha ha ... so many politicians (especially the "career criminals") are such big fat liars
Diane's typical response to a post she can't refute is to just denigrate the poster. The facts as stated are true and you are just going to have to live with it. Your party has become meaningless, is shrinking, and will soon be dead as a national entity. Republican, Whig and Federalist are all parties that are going to have to live in the history texts. It may live on as a regional party, but will only become more reactionary and marginal as bigotry and fundy religion dies out in the South.
The big tent has definitely squeezed him out in the sense that he would likely have lost a primary election to a challenger from his own former party, even if he had the higher-up party heads' support. He's not far enough right for most Republicans, but he still stands a good chance with the population of Pennsylvania at large in a general election. I think he recognizes that he disagrees with the GOP on their much-touted platform plank of "small government, so he should align himself with a party that can better support his views and not force him into decisions he would rather not make.
That's a pretty darning quote from Specter....
Here's another quote from Specter, this one from just a month ago: "To eliminate any doubt, I am a Republican, and I am running for reelection in 2010 as a Republican on the Republican ticket."
In any event, this is a win for the Democrats - they are that much closer toward attaining a filibuster-proof majority in the Senate. However, I wonder if this will be a win for the Republicans in the long-run. The GOP hasn't much cared for Specter in quite a while, but didn't dare refrain from supporting him. Now he'll be one of their primary targets in 2010. Specter is pretty vulnerable, too - wouldn't be at all surprised if a conservative Republican takes that seat next year.
David, FYI, I know you are an absolute EXPERT on denigrating people you don't agree with, and by all means I defer to your superior skill at that. However, you didn't state facts so much as opinion and bits of history twisted to make a tortured point. Much of what you said is utter nonsense. I think the most dangerous thing you continue to emit is this idea that somehow people who don't agree with you are "hate driven." I fail to see how a political preference for a smaller federal government=hate.
Diane - We all know that the dogmatic mantra for smaller government means rule by the autocratic elites of our business interests. And we now all know what that means to income maldistribution and economy busting to keep the peons in line (see: using crisis to break the back of labor). You may take that donkey's butt and paint a flower on it, but it will still smell the same.