Politics: Sestak's Dilemma

To recap, Joe Sestak claims that he was offered a high ranking job by someone in the Obama administration if he stepped assigned so that Arlen Specter could be re-nominated in the Democratic primary in Pennsylvania.  That was before Sestak defeated Specter in that primary. Now, like the Red October, he's gone silent.

Incumbency sir, is a crime...

...or so it would seem.  Last night there were a number of interesting developments in primaries and an important special election. From Kentucky to Arkansas to Pennsylvania, results seemed to be be tailor-made to the Democrat, and soon to be mainstream media talking points about the mood of the country being anti-incumbency rather than anti-Democrat or anti-Obama.  The talking points will eventually transition from that to the fact that the Tea Party is losing steam.  But that's not what's really happening.

Arlen Specter, Cautionary Tale

When Arlen Specter switch from the Republican party to the Democratic party in exchange for a few shiny trinkets and a chance to avoid facing Pat Toomey in the next primary for his Senate seat, he had hoped that in exchange for the changed allegiance he could extend his own political career.

Now it looks like he will likely be defeated in the next Democrat primary for the same seat. Ironic. Some would say short-sighted and moronic.

But he sold out his party. The one that threw a lot of financial support behind him in the last election for his Senate seat. Now, with the confirmation of Al Franken as the Senator from Minnesota, the Democrats have a 60 seat majority in the Senate. And the Republicans have no option for a filibuster. Meanwhile Specter looks to have no additional life in his career. Maybe it's too soon to be sure, but if things hold up the way they are now, it looks like that would be the case.

Arlen Specter serves as a cautionary tale. Two in fact.

The first and most obvious for Specter - don't sell out your allies for personal gain. It will harm you in the end.

The second cautionary tale is for the GOP - don't back weak allies so fiercely without strings attached. Better yet, you can't trust RINOs, so if they make it into the GOP past the primaries, then leave them to fend for themselves and use your war chest to back close races with quality candidates instead.

Specter blames Kemp's death on GOP agenda

This is classy. There's nothing like spinning a sad death for political leverage. The Washington Times is reporting;

Sen. Arlen Specter, Pennsylvania Democrat, said part of the reason that he left the Republican Party last week was disillusionment with its health-care priorities, and suggested that had the Republicans taken a more moderate track, Jack Kemp may have won his battle with cancer.

...

Mr. Specter continued: "If we had pursued what President Nixon declared in 1970 as the war on cancer, we would have cured many strains. I think Jack Kemp would be alive today. And that research has saved or prolonged many lives, including mine."

Ah. Enjoy your new Senator, Democrats.

What to make of Arlen "the Defector" Specter

It's pretty easy to say good riddance to bad rubbish. While that's seemingly the prevailing sentiment, including my own, a deeper analysis is required since it's a political event and it holds political implications.

First off though, the fun part. Specter was not helpful to conservative causes in very large part. He was self-serving to the end. Look in the dictionary under the term Specter.

spec~ter  –noun

1. a visible incorporeal spirit, esp. one of a terrifying nature; ghost;
phantom; apparition.
2. some object or source of terror or dread: the specter
of disease or famine.
Also, especially British, spectre.

Origin: 1595–1605; spectrum
Synonyms:1. shade. See ghost.
Dictionary.com Unabridged Based on the Random House Dictionary, © Random House, Inc. 2009.

While Arlen wasn't really terrifying, his voting record could be. He was a ghost on a lot of conservative positions, and it certainly proved to be an object of dread to conservatives. In other words, he lived up to his name. He was a conservative version of the undead - sucking the like life out of the GOP for his own nefarious purpose - to cling to power as a member of the undead would try to cling to life.

That Specter does not understand core conservative principles is summed up in his illogical foray into the NFL's Spygate issue in 2007/2008.

...there is nothing estimable about Specter's call for a Senate Judiciary Committee investigation into the league's Spygate incident involving the New England Patriots and coach Bill Belichick, and his suggestion that Goodell should be called to testify about why the NFL destroyed the videotape evidence of cheating.

In fact, by putting his nose into an in-house league issue, Specter has portrayed himself as even sillier than Upshaw, who Thursday responded to a question about health benefits for retired players by noting, "The disability program is for the disabled." Duh.

Addressing league matters such as Spygate, some of his colleagues ought to remind Specter, is for the league.

Core principles - free market versus government meddling. Which side did Specter come down on? The same side he's coming down on now - government intervention where it is unwarranted.

That Specter is self-serving is obvious. He bolted on the 28th, this poll came out on the 21st, indicating Specter was in trouble heading into a GOP primary;


And Specter said this on the 19th of March; "To eliminate any doubt, I am a Republican, and I am running for reelection in 2010 as a Republican on the Republican ticket."

Self-serving, not constituent-serving.

So how will the Specter defection affect Democrats and Republicans? There's already been a lot of speculation. He's the Democrats' headache now. He'll be challenged and defeated in the Democratic primary for his re-election bid. Toomey is too far to the right. This is good for the GOP, it purges a RINO. This is bad for the GOP, it weakens the party in the Senate and gives the Democrats a super-majority in the Senate. A lot of speculation, not all correct.

If the conservatism of the GOP is helped by this and they still lose a seat in 2010, the problem is bigger than Specter. The GOP needs to have principles guiding their decision making. But in politics every advantage is an advantage to be taken.

Specter is a symptom of a greater problem. Is there room for RINOs in the party? That question misses the mark. At 39 GOP Senators in the Senate the answer is no - there's no point. If there were 65 Republican Senators in the Senate the answer could be yes. But you need to get to 65 any way you can, in order to carry RINOs. If you had say 12 RINOs and the GOP held those 65 seats, you still have have more than 50 reliable votes and RINOs that you can split issue by issue and perhaps maintain a near filibuster proof majority. The Democrats see it that way on their side. The supposed conservative Democrats, aren't as conservative as you've been told, they're staying on the Democrat reservation. RINOs could be brought in line frequently enough to be useful to the GOP.

In reality, the solution is not to go to the Democrat-lite ground. The solution is to find a better way to communicate to the American public. THAT'S THE REAL SOLUTION. The Democrats and their victories have the GOP fighting a civil war and it's mere distraction. The Democrats hold the keys to the kingdom because they have a better message machine - organized, supported by the MSM and they are on campus, in union halls, at town halls. The GOP is flat-footed and on the defensive on all of those. THAT'S WHERE THE REAL BATTLE NEEDS TO BE FOUGHT. I've pointed this out before.

The problem of Specter would disappear if the GOP were better at getting their message into communities and had a better combat strategy for a partisan mainstream media. The real question then becomes, "So where's Michael Steele?"

RINO Karma

It seems that Karma has a Republican side to it after all. After a dismal few years for Republican fortunes, since 2006 anyway, a new Rasmussen poll finds that Senator Arlen Specter has lost support at home due to his stance on the stinkulus bill that was eventually made law by President Obama.

Just 31% of Keystone State voters say are more likely to vote for Specter because of his position on the stimulus package while 40% are less likely to do so.

A look inside the numbers shows the problem for Specter may be even more significant. Fifty-eight percent (58%) of Republican voters in the state are less likely to vote for Specter. Among voters not affiliated with either major party, just 27% are more likely to support the long-time incumbent while 48% are less likely to do so.

These numbers are not surprising given the partisan response to the stimulus bill itself. Nationwide, support for the stimulus legislation increased following President Obama’s nationally televised press conference earlier this week. Still, the legislation is perceived as being what Democrats want rather than a bipartisan product.

Good thing he has Democrat support in exchange for backing the bill:

In Pennsylvania, 69% of Republicans oppose the package while 73% of Democrats favor it. Those not affiliated with either major party are evenly divided. That artisan divide places Specter in a difficult position. Even though Specter has aligned himself with the president and other Democrats on the stimulus, the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee has announced that the Pennsylvania Republican is one of their top targets for the 2010 election cycle.

Specter won re-election in 2004 by a 53% to 42% margin. However, he barely survived a conservative primary challenge from then-Congressman Pat Toomey. Even though he had the support of the state’s Republican establishment, Specter was able to defeat Toomey only by two points, 51% to 49%.

(emphasis added)

Oops. That Karma's a b*#ch, ain't it Phil?

Gregg Aftermath III

Previous Gregg analysis - impact on Gregg, impact on Obama.

There seems to be so many impacts from this, I'm beginning to think that maybe Gregg is not a Senator but rather a named Hurricane. Although I could be mistaken.

The Senator Gregg resignation as President Obama's nominee for Commerce Secretary has a ripple effect on the conservative movement. How big those ripples turn out to be is still unknown. But there are three people for whom it should reverberate fairly loudly - Arlen Specter, Olympia Snowe and Susan Collins. These three Turncoats, who should be drummed out of the Republican party with all the speed of a Democrat spending spree, will feel some impact from the Gregg resignation.

It's coming to the surface that all three benefited from their betrayal of conservative principle (if they ever even had it). According to a Newsmax article;

“From auto dealers to the home-building industry, big business appears to be the biggest loser in the final economic stimulus plan . . .” The Wall Street Journal online reported, noting that Democrats removed key tax cuts and benefits for business as political payback for Republicans who failed to support the plan.

Though Republicans who crossed party lines apparently got rewarded. The New York Times reported Thursday that Specter got $6.5 billion for medical research.

Well, well, well, isn't that a little better than a simple wining and dining? Now you have a liberal Republican Senator, bought off for the purpose of local pork, juxtaposed against another Republican Senator, Gregg, who on principle, withdrew his name from consideration because he realized how bad this stinkulus bill is. And worse for Collins and Snowe, in nearby territory Maine (Gregg is from New Hampshire), the effects might be even more obvious.

The net effect is that they seem even less principled in light of Gregg's resignation. The Senators shouldn't be expecting to remain untouched in the primaries for 2010. They are more likely to face opponents, hopefully decent ones, in primaries and will be harder pressed to win against an angry Republican base. Then again, if they make it past the primaries, they are probably well-positioned for the general elections, since they've managed to be the rare Republican Senators who've brought the investment back to their constituencies. And unfortunately, there's probably a pretty good chance they'd win their re-elections.

We'll have to wait to see if that's the case - hopefully they don't make it past the primaries next time around, and better still they get removed from caucusing with Republicans and lose GOP financial support.

Gregg Aftermath I

According to the Motley Fool;

Third time’s a charm? That’s what President Obama is hoping for after another one of his cabinet picks didn’t pan out. This time it was Senator Judd Gregg, nominated for the crucial Secretary of Commerce. His nomination came after New Mexico Governor Bill Richardson withdrew as a result of an investigation into improper business dealings.

Senator Gregg’s reason for bailing?:

"We are functioning from a different set of views on many critical items of policy. Obviously the president requires a team that is fully supportive of all his initiatives." -Judd Gregg, N.H. Republican Senator

Gregg cited “irresolvable conflicts” over the stimulus package and the Census. Gregg was to be a calming influence and a counterweight to the more liberal members of Obama’s cabinet. Let’s just hope that his withdrawal was an isolated incident and not the result of an intolerable, partisan or far-too-left-leaning administration.

There's a lot of fallout from this. It affects Gregg, it affects Obama and it affects the Turncoat 3 (Specter, Collins and Snow).

The most obvious impact is to Gregg himself. Jim Geraghty at National Review refers to him as now being the one of most powerful people in Washington. While Larry Kudlow thinks he should run for President. Let's not get carried away. Let's not forget that even considering the post was probably not a good idea to begin with. Let's not forget that Gregg, while solid isn't even a guaranteed lock for his seat in 2010.

Either Gregg to begin with was interested in furthering his own career, or if he is as solid on his principles as Kudlow believes to be the case, then he's a bit naive to think that he would be able to make a difference in an Obama administration. Either way, there is a trait that isn't what we need to see in the White House (self-serving or naive). [Insert ironic note here]

All that said, Gregg, did the right thing and it quite is impressive that he did. I applaud his fortitude and courage for stepping back from what was clearly a bad option, particularly in the way he did it - with integrity and for sound, principled reasons. He now has the honor of returning to his Senate seat and fighting for conservative principles in the most effective way possible. And for that he also deserves our appreciation as conservatives.

He will likely have helped his own chances in New Hampshire's 2010 election, being independent enough to both try to reach out and then stand up and be counted when he saw the degeneration of the position and the negative impacts of the stinkulus bill he could not bring himself to stomach. The impact to Gregg is another Senate term. It doesn't mean a run at the Presidency and it doesn't mean more power within the GOP.

He is the hero of the moment, but he only did what he should have done. He deserves our respect for standing up, but to get more, he still has to show more. That's not to say he won't become a more prominent figure - he will have more attention now, and he can use that to make more fiscally conservative arguments. If he does that, maybe a shot at the Presidency is not beyond the realm of possibility.

UPDATE: Gregg has stated he won't seek re-election in 2010. I for one wouldn't count on that statement. I think he'll return.

A line in the sand

Legislation is the art of compromise, consensus building, and that's what we did," Senate majority leader, Harry Reid, announcing the House and Senate stinkulus deal .



If by compromise he means between Senate and Congressional Democrats, then he's not full of it. But according to Connie Hair, the only Republicans involved were the three defectors, Specter, Snowe and Collins. They got the bill down to 789.5 billion, not exactly the 100 billion Collins bragged about axing in her negotiations. But Reid's results don't smack of consensus building, or compromise. If you get everybody on the same side of an issue to agree, you may have an internal consensus but you do not have bi-partisan consensus and you certainly don't have any significant compromise.

Now, there's plenty of reason to be angry with Democrats - they are swindling America here. But to be fair, it's to be expected of them. We know what they want to do and are attempting to do. And now thanks to these 3 Benedict Arnolds they have carte blanche to do it. The Democrats need only 2 Senators to prevent a filibuster. And that was the last tool the Republicans had to stand up against big government for the next 2 years. The Democrats now know that they can make paltry side deals with the weakest links in the GOP chain to get their way.

Now that everyone knows that, the GOP needs to focus its efforts on what it can still control which means two things - preparing for 2010 and penalizing these 3 for taking the only weapon available out of conservative hands (to ensure this doesn't happen again in future Congresses).

To those ends, they ought to be removed from caucus, removed from RNC support mechanisms and Michael Steele ought to challenge all three hard in primaries with strong, winnable candidates. It’s not much from a stop-the-liberal-agenda standpoint, but it does accomplish a couple of things by drawing a line in the sand.

Firstly, it establishes a party unity approach to future Legislative efforts, which given the super-minority status the party finds itself past the precipice on (thanks to the Turncoat 3), is absolutely necessary. Secondly, it goes a ways towards ensuring that party loyalty – you are on THIS team, you play ONLY on this team. No switching sides every inning. Thirdly, it keeps that bi-partisan double-talk from Democrats to a minimum. Even with three Republicans on board, the Democrats are going to try to crow about bi-partisanship accomplishments, reaching across the aisle, and the art and skill of their compromise. They’ll pat themselves on the back, as long as it looks like there’s going to be some success come out of this. And if it starts to turn sour, they can claim – “Hey, those Republicans were in on this too!”

Yeah, right. Kick them out of caucus and see how far that argument goes. The Democrats are pinning their hopes on the fact that this package will kick in to high gear in 2010 and get them electoral victory in the mid-term elections. It’s a gamble. But if they are right, expect that bi-partisan praise to evaporate quickly. It’ll be their plan, their recovery; only 3 Republicans came on board.

As Republicans, we want the country to succeed but we are convinced this will not work. If we truly believe that, as most conservatives and most Republicans seem to feel strongly that it will fail, then in this poker game, we need to gamble on its failure. Not by hoping for failure like the Democrats did on Iraq, but by simply not signing on to it. Step aside and make a big deal about how if it succeeds the Democrats own it and if it fails they own it. In 2010 if the recession is still in high gear or the high inflation has started, or worse still, stagflation has kicked in, Republicans will be poised for not only an I-told-you-so moment but BIG electoral gains.

It’s not wrong or treasonous, Anti-American or wanting failure to say you believe this plan is not going to work. This is an exchange of ideas. We believe our ideas are better. In the next few years, having granted the future generations of America a mountain of debt, we’ll have a better idea of this has become America’s lost decade. And if enough people are aware of the failure WHEN it becomes obvious and they know who is to blame, and they vote accordingly, then maybe it doesn’t have to be an entire decade that gets lost like it did in Japan.

Republican Defectors: No guts, no brains!

President Obama says not passing the bill would be a national catastrophe. You've got it 180 degrees backwards Mr. President. The national catastrophe will be the passing of this bill. Senator Susan Collins is not a Republican defector on the stinkulus bill. She's not a Republican defector because my Republican detector registers a 0 on hero. A big fat ZERO. If you are a Republican, you are supposed to be a conservative.



Way to drag that bill over the finish line Senator. A bill that has a public support percentage level in the high 30's according to Rasmussen. Thankfully there's a chance in-fighting between the Senate and Congress could delay this enough for Collins, Specter and Snowe to emulate the sudden growth of internal fortitude that Senator McCain discovered a few months late. Only Senators, don't develop your guts late on this one.

Cutting $100 billion out of the bill is not sufficient. Cutting $700 billion out of it is not enough. There are better ways to revive the flagging economy. This is not it. If you are in Maine or Pennsylvania, and you are a conservative, please do America a favor and get on the phone, get on their websites and BLAST these Senators with the level of your disgust at their betraying conservatism, their betraying America and their cowardly actions of giving in to a President who has made more mis-steps in his first weeks than a 10 month old learning to walk.

This is not check your ideals at the door time. The Democrats will get their bill - your 3 votes make ZERO difference in supporting it but a wealth of difference in opposing it. If you are truly as cowardly as you are appearing now, how on earth did you get to be Senators? The weakness in the GOP senate is palpable.

Not surprisingly, I tried getting on to http://www.susancollins.com/contact, the site was off line for maintenance. Nice.