The Right Responds To Specter's Switch

Some mixed messages on the rightwing blogs today:

Max Twain at Race42012:

BREAKING: RINO BECOMES DINO - Specter Switches Parties

The Democrats have been given absolute power over our lives with the treason of Arlen Specter.  The voters of Pennsylvania should force a recall on this pathetic excuse for a human being.  Too gutless to face the very voters he betrayed, Specter crawls off to the Democrat Party in hopes of hanging on to his job.  I just donated to Pat Toomey, you should as well.

Alex Knepper at Race42012:

Something tells me that the Democrats are celebrating this, not clenching their fists over Specter's ideological impurity. Why? Because they have another senator in their ranks. We just lost one.

Hope you're happy, hardliners.

Jeff Emanuel at Redstate seems to be reserving judgment but reminds us of this ditty from Specter back in March:

Just over a month ago, Specter told The Hill "I am staying a Republican because I think I have an important role -- a more important role -- to play there. I think the United States desparately needs a two party system. It is the basis of politics in America. I think each of the 41 Republican Senators, in a sense, and I don't want to overstate this, is a national asset, because if one was gone you would only have 40. The Democrats would have 60 and they would control all of the mechanisms of government."

Erik Erikson at Redstate on the other hand:

I just gave money to Pat Toomey. Why don't you do the same?

Jim Geraghty at The Campaign Spot:

With Specter saying he won't change his position on Card Check, any Democratic official could run in the Senate primary and could at least count on the support of the unions. The reader adds, "If  opposed, Arlen will loses the primary after his opponent runs a few hundred points of ads showing him arm in arm with Bush and Cheney. Hell, if I were Toomey, I'd run those ads."

A diarist at The Next Right:

I imagine that a lot of people here and elsewhere will wish him a good riddance.  Given the frustration conservatives have felt with his decisions on many occasions, it's only natural.  However, all the whining about Specter, the primary challenges and the general abuse hurled towards this man has left us without enough votes to filibuster and yet another seat to claw back come the next election.

Congrats, guys.  We're a little more ideologically pure and a little smaller.  Funny how that works.

@PatrickRuffini on Twitter:

Initial thoughts. If you're a Dem, why would trust Specter any more than Republicans? He would be very vulnerable in a Dem primary.

Update [2009-4-28 13:25:24 by Todd Beeton]:The Club For Growth is speechless.

Michael Steele is defiant:

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.

Tags: Arlen Specter, rightwing blogs (all tags)

Comments

11 Comments

The analysis I want

How does this affect the rest of the 2010 races?

Is Castle less likely to run in Delaware?

Is Kirk less likely to run in Illinois? Is Roskam more likely to run? Or less likely?

Will the GOP pull resources out of Pennsylvania? Where will they go? Connecticut? Colorado? Nevada? Wisconsin?

Does Specter switching make it less likely a credible "moderate" will challenge Gillebrand? Does that make her more vulnerable in the Dem primary?

Does this make other Senators more likely to retire? McCain (Arizona)? Grassley (Iowa)? Bunning (Kentucky)? Coburn (Oklahoma)?

Does the move make KBH in Texas more likely to resign to run for governor?

by Carl Nyberg 2009-04-28 09:37AM | 0 recs
My question:

What does it say for "bipartisanship" that we now have concrete proof that not only are the Republicans incapable of working with Democrats, the Republicans are incapable of working with moderate Republicans?

by mcc 2009-04-28 10:29AM | 0 recs
Re: The Right Responds To Specter's Switch

I never thought I'd agree with hip hop Michael Steele, but he's right on the money with this one...

This sucks, really...  If Specter changes his tune n EFCA, then I'm OK with it.. otherwise, it sucks!

by LordMike 2009-04-28 09:38AM | 0 recs
Re: The Right Responds To Specter's Switch

That's Suburban Hip Hip Michael Steele to you buddy.

by Jess81 2009-04-28 09:41AM | 0 recs
Doesn't need to switch his vote.

While it would be great all he really needs to do is  flip on cloture. This was he gets it a bit of both ways. He doesn't flip again, which looks bad, but gets the bill passed because all we will need is 50 votes to pass it.

by jsfox 2009-04-28 09:53AM | 0 recs
This is exactly right

I don't give a shit how Ben Nelson or now Arlen Spector vote on any given piece of final legislation. As long as they commit to the position of majority rules on normal legislation and so support cloture votes its all good.

As the Republican Party continues to implode a lot of people who voted Republican based on single-issue politics are going to join the Democratic Party. Personally I am 100% pro-choice and in favor of renewing the assault weapons ban. And I believe we need more and stronger unions. But I can accept people who have divergent views can be good Democrats.

The reason the New Left never had any lasting political impact outside the Peoples Republics of Berkeley and Santa Monica is because it continued the same tradition the radical Left has always done, which is to demand ideological purity and strict adherence to the party line. Which is why we have who knows how many organized Socialist Parties in this country and God knows how many Trotskyite splinter groups and factions.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_pol itical_parties_in_the_United_States.

Achieving a small-d democratic majority sometimes requires compromise. And where compromise is not acceptable then dissent. If on a fair playing field we can't get 51 votes in the Senate then maybe we are not really representing the real democratic majority, or maybe we need to Primary someone. But ideological purity for its own sake is why the Republicans are in the position they are. The last God damn thing we need is some split into the Peoples' Democratic Party and the Democratic Peoples' Party because someone is only scoring 80 on NARAL's scorecard and as much as 51 on that of the NRA.

Plus another thing Spector's coming over essentially neuters the power of Lieberman and Nelson. If they want to be the loan votes on final legislation then great, they can see how that plays at home on election day. The key is not to give them the whiphand based on some illusory bi-partisanship.

This is win-win. Except to the purists with single-issue litmus tests.

by Bruce Webb 2009-04-28 10:31AM | 0 recs
Even if he votes for cloture

on Health Care Reform?

by fladem 2009-04-28 10:03AM | 0 recs
Re: The Right Responds To Specter's Switch

Erick Erickson nails the pin on the donkey, as usual:

I just gave money to Pat Toomey. Why don't you do the same?

Because I'd rather fire it out of a shotgun.  That at least would have entertainment value.

by Jess81 2009-04-28 09:40AM | 0 recs
Re: The Right Responds To Specter's Switch

If GOP contributors wanted to make things difficult for the Dems in 2010 they'd give their money to Roland Burris, not Toomey.

by Carl Nyberg 2009-04-28 09:56AM | 0 recs
Re: The Right Responds To Specter's Switch

Looking forward to your Youtube post!

by mcc 2009-04-28 10:26AM | 0 recs
Pat Toomey

is about to become an enourmous rat hole down which will pour much right wing money.

Great entertainment value will be found on the corner which will tout Toomey's chances the same way they touted Santorum's.  

by fladem 2009-04-28 10:27AM | 0 recs

Diaries

Advertise Blogads