From NPR:

NPR has learned that Supreme Court Justice David Souter is planning to retire at the end of the court’s current term.

The court has completed hearing oral arguments for the year and will be issuing rulings and opinions until the end of June.

Souter is expected to remain on the bench until a successor has been chosen and confirmed, which may or may not be accomplished before the court reconvenes in October.

At 69, Souter is nowhere near the oldest member of the court, but he has made clear to friends for some time now that he wanted to leave Washington, a city he has never liked, and return to his native New Hampshire.

Now, according to reliable sources, he has decided to take the plunge and has informed the White House of his decision.

Souter’s retirement would give President Obama his first appointment to the high court, and most observers expect that he will appoint a woman.

The court currently has one female justice — Ruth Bader Ginsburg, who is recovering from cancer surgery.

Obama was elected with strong support from women.

An Obama pick would be unlikely to change the ideological makeup of the court. Souter, though appointed by the first President Bush, generally votes with the more liberal members of the court, a group of four that is in a rather consistent minority.

Bunning out. Grayson in.

Roll Call has the details here.

April 30, 2009

Dear Diary,

I’m sitting near the Rio Grande, scratching this entry out on the back of a piece of sterilized bark.  I’ve been trying to keep to open fields, but Barack’s super-train isn’t ready yet and surprisingly, there aren’t many open fields between DC and Texas.  On the plus side, as the sun beats down on my forehead, I’m reminded of my days on Amtrak.  Man, it was something to be hot and sticky from the press of average American flesh.  Back then, I knew the people bunched together and suffocating me just wanted a job and a leg up.  Now, even the White House is too enclosed to stop the spread of HNV12DFHD11.   I just had to get out, to someplace safe.

I thought about staying, I really did.  You know,  FDR went on video-podcast during the 1918 pandemic to dance a jig and show Americans that, if he could overcome polio, they shouldn’t be so worried about a little sneezing.  It probably helped him with the Irish vote too.  But, this is worse than polio and, let’s face it, nowadays the Irish are too busy hanging out in bars to vote.

Anyway, I’ve been sitting here, just trying to remember that tearful goodbye with Jill.  I gave her a loving pat on the shoulder- with a 7 foot piece of bamboo- and a brave smile.  I’m hoping she makes it ok without me.  Even though it’s hard, being out here on my own, I’ve been through worse.  Like that time when Storm troopers water-boarded me to find out the location of the rebel fleet.  I told Bush all about it and confronted him on the use of torture.  I just walked right up to him and said, “sir, I know you think you’re being strong, but real strength comes from within”.  He was pretty chastened and, to tell ya the truth, I think that was the moment he decided not to run for a third term.

A poor gringo- god love im- beeps at me as he drives up in a busted jeep.  My Spanish is a little broken, but I think he’s asking me if I want a ride across the border.  I think I’m going to tell him yes and end this entry here.  I just hope he doesn’t beg me for any cash- I dropped a buck 12 and a forever stamp in the collection plate, last Mass.

Initiated by Rep. Eric Cantor, this group will focus on developing Republican ideas on energy, education, health care, national security and the economy.   

Today, we are launching the National Council for a New America (NCNA), a caucus of Congressional leaders gathering the expertise of national leaders and doers. We hope that will form the foundation of a concerted, policy-based forum to listen to, partner with, and empower the American people with ideas and solutions that speak directly to the needs of our great nation. This forum will engage in a conversation with America that seeks to remove ideological filters, addresses the realities we are confronting, and speaks to the challenges our citizens are facing.

I’ll spare the hyperbole on how this effort will renew the GOP and bring about a sequel to the Contract with America (although it may).  This is Race42012, so let me focus on the sexy part of this story/initiative. 

Five of the six confirmed ‘figureheads’ of this organization are potential 2012 candidates.  Thank you Eric ‘Newt’ Cantor for providing our site with steady content over the next 2-3 years, although I do wonder if it is a coincidence that your national panel of experts include six of the most recognizable Republican faces in the nation, one or two of which may occupy the White House one day.        

Over the next two or three years we are going to observe these individuals working together, hosting town hall events and speaking to the media.  According to Senator McCain’s Twitter feed, he participated in a NCNA conference call at 11:00AM this morning, so this initiative has already begun.  Early this afternoon, Senator McCain confirmed that Governor Palin has joined this team.  Will others soon follow?  

I appreciate and support Rep. Cantor’s initiative, but the prospect of these individuals working together is more exciting than the actual program itself.  I will fly to Guam if it means I have the opportunity to watch Romney, Jindal and Palin conduct a joint town hall, even if it is focuses on fishing rights for the Chamorro people.

What are the thoughts of the R412 readers?  Will this initiative benefit any of the potential 2012 candidates?  Is this a positive step forward for the GOP?  Will this relationship building between prospective candidates, impact the 2012 primary?          
 

Kristofer Lorelli can be contacted at lorville@rogers.com, on Facebook and twitter/Kris_Lorelli. 

“The man who grasps principles can successfully select his own methods. The man who tries methods, ignoring principles, is sure to have trouble.” -Ralph Waldo Emerson

In the debate about how to return the Republican Party to power, I subscribe to the belief that the GOP must re-establish its credibility with voters by embracing our timeless principles – limited government, individual freedom and choice, deference to the Constitution, free markets and commerce and a strong national defense – and adapting them to issues we face, in the spirit of the above quote from Emerson.

If we support candidates with questionable records for the sake of maintaining influence in Washington, we mimic the flawed thinking that far too many individuals in the party leadership displayed during the Bush administration – that Republican actions need not adhere to Republican principles, as long as the party has power.  That line of thinking – to use a simple analogy, caring more about “winning” than how we “play the game” – contributed to the surge in government spending that occurred over those eight years, which led to deficits that shattered the party’s reputation for fiscal responsibility  (how the hell did Obama get away with convincing people he would enact a “net spending cut” and cut their taxes more than McCain?).

So, where do we go from here?  Again, the party must continue to re-discover the timeless conservative principles that have achieved so much success in the past.  As the economy continues to struggle, unemployment rates remain high and inflation begins to rear its ugly head, the public’s superficial love affair with Obama (remember, voters like him, but not his policies) will fade, and the Democratic Party and the general establishment, which have invested so much in him, will see grave repercussions.  People will see Democrats as what they (for the most part) really are – serial opportunists (with Biden courting Specter multiple times this decade and party officials attempting to bring McCain over to their side after his 2000 primary loss) who will do or say anything to gain power and influence.  Republicans, if they remain committed to principle, will gain a new reputation as courageous individuals willing to stand up for their beliefs, even if it costs short-term pain or political loss.

And what about the party’s need for a big tent?  Well, we can also make inroads in that area by sticking to principle.  After all, most Hispanic- and African-Americans are self-professed social conservatives.  Younger voters, often viewed as libertarians, should identify with the party’s respect for liberty and fiscal conservatism.

So in conclusion, the party should look toward principle, not moderation, as a means to return to power and re-setting (we all know how much the Obama administration loves resetting things) America down the road toward freedom, opportunity and prosperity.  As Adam Graham showed us, Reagan phrased it perfectly:

A political party cannot be all things to all people. It must represent certain fundamental beliefs which must not be compromised to political expediency, or simply to swell its numbers.

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.

After hearing the Vice President’s remarks this morning – I realized that my coming trip to Colorado was more than just an opportunity to watch my little sister receive her high school diploma (you rock, Katie Bug!), it was a potential opportunity to sacrifice my life for public health research.

Tomorrow morning, I will be boarding a plane to Colorado at Reagan National Airport. Coincidentally, the easiest way to access said airport is via the DC subway system. Hence, I will be testing not one, but two of Joe Biden’s “closed spaces to avoid”.

I may not be blogging much during my trip, but I will be checking in occasionally to inform you as to whether or not I have died of swine flu.

Wish me luck, and we’ll see if pigs (or at least pig flu) really can fly. I only wish I had a T-shirt that said “Official Swine Flu Test Subject – Please Cough”

Partly motivated by desperation, partly by revenge, it appears as if the Republican Party heirarchy is preparing to rally around Tom Ridge for the 2010 PA Senate election.

We are twelve and a half months away from the primary, but already the establishment is rallying around Tom Ridge and developing a negative theme against Pat Toomey’s candidacy.  The slick DC Pols have begun their campaign in support of Ridge by distributing talking points (subtly and non-subtly) to the media in no less than 24 hours after the defection of Senator Specter.  Lindsay Graham came out in support of Tom Ridge within hours of the Specter announcement.

David Frum attacks Toomey, supports Ridge;

It was another such intra-party challenge—this time by conservative Pat Toomey—that drove Arlen Specter out of the Republican caucus.

Hatch attacks Toomey, Cornyn backs away from Toomey;   

“I don’t think there is anybody in the world who believes he can get elected senator there,” – Senator Hatch

NRSC to abandon Toomey for another candidate (Ridge);

The NRSC offered no comment today when I asked them to clarify the Chairman’s stance on Toomey’s campaign.

Will state GOP get Ridge to run?;

“Now the question is, how much do they hate Arlen Specter? Do they want to drive a stake in Arlen’s heart? They know they can’t do that with Pat Toomey,”

After hearing that Specter had switched parties, Pennsylvania Republican Party Chairman Robert Gleason said his first call was going to be to Tom Ridge.

Kristofer Lorelli can be contacted at lorville@rogers.com, on Facebook and twitter/Kris_Lorelli.

I love this!

The NRSC’s new site, Meet Democrat Arlen Specter, is trying to “properly introduce” Arlen Specter to the left.

It’s filled with press clippings and media of Specter extolling Republicans and Republican virtues.

It’s wonderful. The message? He’s your problem now, Democrats.

Here’s the link. I think you’ll find it amusing. And it demonstrates just how opportunistic and low Specter is. (It also demonstrates why he actually belongs in the Republican Party, but I’ll leave that aside.)

This is my favorite video from the site:

Gird your loins, everyone!

Vice president Joe Biden said today he would tell his family members not to use subways in the U.S. and implied schools should be shuttered as the swine flu outbreak spread to 11 states and forced school closures amid confirmation of the first U.S. death.

“I wouldn’t go anywhere in confined places now,” Biden said when asked whether he would advise family members to use public transportation.

Biden made his comments during a brief interview on NBC’s “Today” show during an interview with Matt Lauer.

“I would tell members of my family, and I have, I wouldn’t go anywhere in confined places now. It’s not that it’s going to Mexico, it’s you’re in a confined aircraft when one person sneezes it goes all the way through the aircraft. That’s me. I would not be, at this point, if they had another way of transportation suggesting they ride the subway. ”

The vice president also implied that schools should be closed as the threat of swine flu increases.

What should we file this under? “What If Bush Had Said This?”

I say no. I say we follow his advice and gird our loins for swine flu. Anyone curious about how to gird loins should consult this article.

He’s comin’ to getcha!

I may not be the world’s biggest Twitter freak – but I’ve grudgingly come to accept the infernal thing as an essential social networking tool. So, I am happy to see that my favorite Governor has now joined the Twitter revolution. You can follow her @AKGovSarahPalin.

This may also be be a valuable tool for 2012 prognosticators, as we can track the number of followers each candidate gets. Among the “Big Three” @GovMikeHuckabee has a big head start with 14,438 followers. However, Sarah has amassed over 4,000 in just 18 hours – so it looks like we will soon have our first competitive “Twitter primary” between those two. Meanwhile, @MittRomney has yet to come into existence – better get on that quick, Mitt.

You knew it was going to happen.

Before you scoff at the notion of a former beauty queen pursuing a career in politics, let me just remind you that the two most recognizable active politicians in the United States are a former and current beauty queen.  Of course I am talking about Sarah Palin and Barack Obama.

NEW YORK – The reigning Miss California has gone to Washington to help launch a campaign opposing same-sex marriage.

Carrie Prejean told NBC’s “Today” show Thursday that she’ll be working with the National Organization for Marriage to “protect traditional marriages.” The 21-year-old says that marriage is “something that is very dear to my heart” and she’s in Washington to help save it.

She says many people have thanked her for standing up for traditional marriage.

Prejean was named the first runner-up to Miss North Carolina in the Miss USA pageant April 19.

Her response to celebrity blogger Perez Hilton’s question about legalizing same-sex marriage may have cost her the title.

Kristofer Lorelli can be contacted at lorville@rogers.com, on Facebook and twitter/Kris_Lorelli.

Okay, I promised no more Specter posts, but I couldn’t post this up. Recall on Tuesday, Mr. Knepper wrote:

Is Specter a DINO now? I can hear the left now: “Gosh, he votes with the Republicans half the time! We can’t tolerate that!”

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.

Are Democrats all happy? Not exactly. Via local Idaho blog, The Political Game, we have this post at Crooks and Liars:

A bigger problem I have is that Specter will be given a huge megaphone by the Villagers to voice his “independence” and denounce any policy he so chooses whenever he wants without a second thought about it. He said over and over again that John Kennedy believed the party can ask too much of you. He’ll have more power as a new Democratic politician than he ever did as a Republican.

As Digby says:

I confess that I’m more than a little bit irked that the Democratic Party has already pledged to support Specter against a primary challenger. It’s fundamentally undemocratic, not to mention dumb. Specter now has carte blanche to remain an incoherent obstructionist for the next two years when they could have at least let us pull him to the left with a primary challenge.My pal Adam Green has a good idea.

On the very day Arlen Specter became a Democrat, he lamented that not enough right-wing Bush judges got confirmed, he opposed workers’ right to organize, and he compared himself to Joe Lieberman. The DSCC and Pennsylvania Democratic Party will be supporting Specter in the primary.

If there is a potential progressive challenger to Arlen Specter in Pennsylvania, they are probably scratching their head right now asking, “Would I have any chance at all if I ran, or is the fix in?”

What can progressives to do create an environment where this person feels they can run? Legally, we can’t put money in a pot for a fictional candidate. But we can pledge now that if a real progressive steps up, we’ll get their back. So, here’s a little experiment. I just created a Facebook fan page (like a Facebook group) called “I support a real progressive against Arlen Specter.”

Specter’s situation is made challenging by the fact that he’s in an uncomfortable ideological range in either party. If you vote with your party 40-60% of the time, you’re going to not be liked. Second, is the fact that Specter is a political exhibitionist whose every action screams, “Look at me.” And the way you get attention is by hurting your own party.  Specter’s been doing this since 1986 at least. Now that he’s a Democrat, lest he fades from the political spotlight ala Jim Jeffords, he’s going to have to start ripping Democrats.

It would be ironic if the end result of this were that Pennsylvania Dems decided they wanted one of their own in the Democrat Primary. Sweet, sweet irony.

UPDATE

Via Red State. Supply and Demand.  Progressives demand a challenger to Specter, and Rep. Joe Sestak (D-PA) is considering it. Yes, President Obama doesn’t want him to, but who won the Pennsylvania primary again? Oh, yeah…

My latest Pajamas Media piece is up.

Since the election, the debate has raged. Who is responsible for the 2008 election debacle and the defeat of the Republican Party?

So far this question has centered on various groups’ attempts to reenact the scapegoat scene from Leviticus and cast all the sins of the Republican Party onto cultural conservatives and release their concerns into the wilderness.

The battle has been as entertaining as it has been misguided and pointless. Is there a war between economic conservatives and social conservatives? As someone actively involved in both social and fiscal issues, I’ve seen a lot of crossover between the two sides in terms of people who show up. This crossover is quite common. A leading economic conservative group, Club for Growth, often backed the same candidates as socially conservative groups like National Right to Life, Government Is Not God-PAC, and Focus on the Family Action. Newt Gingrich has begun to go around with slides showing that the most socially conservative members of Congress were also the most fiscally conservative.

I’m going to suggest an alternate conclusion. I’m going to reject the conventional wisdom that the election was lost because of the party grassroots and go out on a limb and suggest that maybe the problem is not the party’s activists. Perhaps (and I know this is shocking) the people who led the party over the cliff are the ones to blame.

The GOP doesn’t have a religious problem, a gay rights problem, or an abortion problem. It fundamentally has a good old boy problem. Let us tell the story of a primary, and we don’t have to name names, because the story is the same across the country.

Read the rest here.

SALT LAKE CITY — If two Utah favorite sons ran for president in 2012, which one would draw more support in the Beehive State? A new Dan Jones poll for KSL-TV and the Deseret News finds Mitt Romney outpacing Gov. Jon Huntsman.

Neither man has said they intend to run, but both Romney and Huntsman are considered possible presidential candidates for the 2012 GOP presidential nomination.

In our statewide poll this week of 254 Utahns, we asked: “Which of the two do you prefer?” 55 percent say Romney; 32 percent say Huntsman.

“Well, I think Romney has run a national campaign, so people are more comfortable seeing him as a Republican presidential candidate,” said Tod Weiler, vice chair of the Utah Republican Party.

Utah Democratic Party Chairman Wayne Holland said, “Romney is just coming off a presidential run. He still has a lot of the base of the party in Utah on the bandwagon, hoping for 2012.”

Against President Obama, 67 percent of Utahns would pick Romney to Obama’s 27 percent.

Huntsman also outpaces Obama, with 58 percent of Utahns saying they would vote for him compared to 25 percent for Obama.

Meanwhile, Republicans seem to be having an identity crisis. Gov. Huntsman, for example, was disinvited from a Republican Party fundraising event in Michigan, apparently because of his support for civil unions.

On Tuesday, Pennsylvania Sen. Arlen Specter jumped ship and became a Democrat, suggesting the GOP was veering too far to the right.

Some political observers say the Specter defection should serve as a wakeup call to a party in danger of becoming a mostly regional party, in part because of a narrow focus on social issues, the so-called 3Gs: God, gays and guns.

“The more Republicans stay on some of these social issues, the so-called 3Gs issues, the more you are going to have probably a shrinking party, which is going to have a difficult time ever gaining a majority again,” said Kirk Jowers, director of the Hinckley Institute of Politics at the University of Utah.

Between the 2004 and 2008 presidential elections, the country trended Democratic, as did most of Specter’s home state. Still, GOP gains were concentrated in a few states: Louisiana, Arkansas, Tennessee, Oklahoma and parts of Texas, Kentucky and West Virginia.

Both Romney and Huntsman could be key players in charting the future direction for the party.

Kristofer Lorelli can be contacted at lorville@rogers.com, on Facebook and twitter/Kris_Lorelli.

As it turns out, CNN is actually good for some things:

Coming soon to a battleground state near you: a new effort to revive the image of the Republican Party and to counter President Obama’s characterization of Republicans as “the party of ‘no.’”

CNN has learned that the new initiative, called the National Council for a New America, will be announced Thursday.

It will involve an outreach by an interesting mix of GOP officials, ranging from 2008 Republican presidential nominee John McCain to Jeb Bush, the former Florida governor and the younger brother of the man many Republicans blame for the party’s battered brand: former President George W. Bush.

In addition to Sen. McCain and Gov. Bush, GOP sources familiar with the plans tell CNN others involved in the new group’s “National Panel Of Experts” will include:

*Mississippi Gov. Haley Barbour, a former national GOP chairman
*Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal
*Former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney

It will report to GOP congressional leaders, and among those signing the announcement that will be made public Thursday are:

*House GOP Leader John Boehner
*House GOP Whip Eric Cantor
*House GOP Conference Chairman Mike Pence
*Senate GOP Leader Mitch McConnell
*The No. 2 Senate Republican, Jon Kyl
*And the Senate GOP Conference Chairman, Lamar Alexander

“However, this is not a Republican-only forum,” reads the letter announcing the new effort, a copy of which was obtained by CNN from Republican sources involved in the effort. “While we will be guided by our principles of freedom and security, we will seek to include more than just our ideas.

“This forum will include a wide open policy debate that every American can feel free to participate in,” the announcement letter reads. “We do this not just to offer an alternative point of view or to be disagreeable. Instead, we want to ask the American people what their hopes and dreams are. Since January, the President and the Democratic Majority in Congress have – rightfully so – put forward their plan for the future, now we must listen, learn and lead through an honest, open conversation with the American people that will result in building policy proposals that will yield the best results for our nation’s long-term success.”

The first meeting is planned this Saturday in Arlington, Virginia, just outside of the nation’s capital. Northern Virginia is one of the suburban areas that has shifted decidedly in favor of the Democrats in recent years, helping President Obama carry the state for the Democrats for president for the first time since 1964.

Sources familiar with the effort say it was born of conversations between Cantor and the members of the experts panel. After Bush and Romney agreed to take part, the conversations expanded and the idea won the blessing of both the House and Senate GOP leadership. Additional town halls are planned in the weeks ahead, each likely dedicated to a specific issue, with health care, the economy, energy and national security leading the issues menu the group says it hopes to discuss heading into the 2010 midterm elections, and possibly beyond.

UPDATE: South Dakota Sen. John Thune will also participate in the group. The Republican congressional leadership is also slated to travel the country and attend town-hall meetings as part of the new effort.

This seems like a masterful decision by the party leadership.  And look at that roster; talk about some heavy hitters!  Now the GOP will have some real ammunition to rebut the Dems’ portrayals of us as the Party of “No”.  Let’s hope the individuals participating can turn the National Council for a New America into concrete proposals.  All in all, great news!

Jay Cost has a nice piece on PA’s changing political reality, over at realclearpolitics. He writes:

This statewide consistency masks major changes within the state. There have been two big developments in Pennsylvania’s political geography in the last 20 years that have counteracted each other – so that neither party has really gained a net benefit on the presidential level. However, these changes have cut decisively against Arlen Specter. I believe they are key to understanding why he left the GOP.

For the last twenty years or so, metropolitan Philadelphia in the southeast has been moving to the Democratic Party. However, this movement has so far been countered by movement toward the GOP in metro Pittsburgh in particular and the west in general. That, plus the population growth of the strongly Republican, exurban counties of Lancaster and York, means that the state as a whole still votes for President as it has for fifty years….metro Philadelphia continued its movement to the left while metro Pittsburgh moved to the right. McCain did better than Bush in five of the seven counties that make up the latter. He did no worse in Allegheny County, where the city of Pittsburgh is located. And he did only a point worse in heavily Republican Butler County, which has voted for the GOP in every election but 1964…

This part of the country [metro Western PA] was staunchly New Deal Democratic for decades following the Great Depression. Ronald Reagan lost every county of metro Pittsburgh save one in 1984. However, in the last twenty years the steel industry has all but disappeared – with only the Edgar Thompson Works and the Steelers insignia as the last vestiges of what used to be. As the industrial jobs have gone overseas, greater Pittsburgh has moved to the right. This is a movement that has also been exhibited in the tri-state area. George W. Bush and John McCain did well in southern and western Ohio, as well as West Virginia. It’s not coincidental that John McCain and Sarah Palin made their final stand here in Western PA…

In 1980 four of the five counties in Philadelphia voted for Reagan while five of the seven counties in metro Pittsburgh voted for Carter. This has basically been inverted in the last quarter century – and while neither party’s presidential candidate has been better off statewide for this shift, Arlen Specter has personally been on the losing end.

As an alternate explanation for Specter’s defection, it’s worth more than a look, but Cost’s analysis seems particularly useful for a broader perspective on changing demographic realities. Pittsburgh was one of the center’s of the New Deal coalition and, despite the loss of the steel industry which Cost highlights, is still an urban and blue-collar area. Yet, it’s becoming increasingly Republican (in 2008 McCain actually made net gains here). Reagan couldn’t crack the nut; McCain and Palin split it open. This sort of development isn’t trivial. To be sure, Democrats have numerous stories like this; of former Republican bastions, becoming increasingly Democratic. But, we should be thankful for small miracles, and looking to expand them into bigger miracles. The story of the 60’s and early 70’s was the story of the Republican Party peeling off various centerpieces of the New Deal coalition; in particular, they made enormous gains with Southerners and among white-Catholics, two groups that had nearly reflexively voted Democratic for more than half a century.

Remarkably, despite all of our recent losses, those two groups remain among the most stable elements of the Republican coalition. The reliably Republican Mainer left. The ethnic Catholic who’d beaten down doors to vote for Al Smith and JFK stayed. And it seems to me that if old Republican bastions are collapsing, while New Deal strongholds are becoming Republican firewalls, then it makes all kinds of sense to complete the journey. Why not make the New Deal coalition, the New Republican coalition? There are perils to this analogy; for obvious reasons, Republicans are unlikely to re-align black voters, another crucial element of FDR’s gains in the 30’s, into the Republican Party. And arguably the demographics that made up the New Deal coalition are a smaller chunk of the population today. But, there’s an awful lot of margin for error if your baseline is roughly 60-65% of the vote. The ethnic Catholic, the Solid South, and the Industrial North (such as it is) are still capable of forming the backbone of a strong coalition. We should focus on completing the transformation of places like Pittsburgh, to make that coalition a reality.

-

Matthew E. Miller can be contacted at Obilisk18@yahoo.com

We’ve had a lively dialogue on the frontpage over this issue, and I know it’s probably wearing thin. But I feel compelled to respond to Alex’s first post of the day.

Before I do that, let me state this. Specter is our opponent. It is the duty of all good Republicans to do what they can to see Arlen Specter not re-elected and to take this Senate seat back for the Republicans. Those who are right now making a political martyr out of Senator Specter are doing a disservice to the Republican Party. The debate over Specter-Toomey ended yesterday. The job of Republicans now is to defeat Arlen Specter.

Alex asks:

1. Why are you celebrating Specter’s defection while championing Norm Coleman, who was ranked just as moderate as Specter in the National Journal’s 2007 rankings?

3. Which party does Arlen Specter belong in? Is he a DINO now? You praise Ben Nelson as being a reasonable Democrat. Is Arlen Specter a reasonable Democrat?

5. Tom Coburn once told me that he would not have welcomed Joe Lieberman into the party if he had wanted to switch. Do you agree?

The first question makes a poor assumption. It assumes that all that matters is the 2007 National Journal ratings. Specter has an entire career of screwing conservatives. Take a look at American Conservative Union Ratings and you’ll see that Norm Coleman has a career ACU rating of 68.83% v. 44.47% for Specter. In addition, while Coleman may be a moderate, he does share common cause with many conservatives on  the pro-life issues as well as other key conservative points. Coleman may have disappointed conservatives from time to time, but he hasn’t turned annoying conservatives into performance art as Senator Specter has.

With regards to Senator Specter, I would consider a Democrat capable of being reasoned with. The same category I’d place Senator Nelson and Senator Lieberman in. That doesn’t mean that I’d want either of these three gentlemen in the Republican Party. I’d like there to be people on the other side who I can genuinely respect as capable reasonable human beings and not just a party of shrill left-wing Zombies.  So I would agree with Dr. Coburn.

2. Are you aware that the ladies from Maine got more cut from the stimulus bill than any of the efforts of the likes of Jim DeMint?

And it’s still far too big. Once one begins talking about these hundreds of billions dollar bills, it really doesn’t matter. One might as well say, “Thanks to the ladies from Maine, they only shot you ten times rather than twelve times.” Great, but I’m still dead.

4. Do you agree with Jim DeMint when he says that he’d rather have a party of 30 senators who all think like him than a majority party with people like Arlen Specter in it? How, then, do you intend to pass conservative legislation?

Actually, DeMint didn’t says Senators who all thought like him, but rather, “”I would rather have 30 Republicans in the Senate who really believe in principles of limited government, free markets, free people, than to have 60 that don’t have a set of beliefs.”

I wouldnt’ agree with DeMint that far, because in that situation you lose 70-30. I’d like there to be 30 Senators like Jim DeMint and Tom Coburn, 22 like my Senators Jim Risch and Michael Crapo who are not always right but most of the time get it right and their hearts are in the right place, seven like Norm Coleman and George Voinovich who are squishy on some issues but can win their seats, and two like the ladies from Maine who we only keep around because we couldn’t possibly get anyone more conservative.

John Hawkins has a pretty good piece on this I’d reccomend:

The majority of Republican voters are conservative and we provide most of the money, the volunteers, the ideas, the energy, and the enthusiasm. We conservatives are involved with politics because we have principles and ideals we believe in deeply and want to see them implemented.

Cutting to the chase, we conservatives feel deeply betrayed by what has happened over the last 8 years. The GOP managed to get control of all three branches of government and other than a couple of great Supreme Court Justices, the Right has very little to show for it.

We suffered through Bush’s selection of Harriet Miers, the Medicare Prescription Drug Plan, the GOP trying to force amnesty and open borders on the country, growing deficits, increasing government, a GOP sponsored takeover of banks, a President who refused to defend himself or conservatism publicly, and a “Republican elite” in DC who often seemed to hold their biggest supporters in contempt.

Let me give you a comparable example:

Imagine you’re the owner of a small business and you have a problem employee (the Republican Party). He shows up late. He takes two hour lunches. He won’t do his work. He makes fun of you to the other employees. It gets so bad that it affects your business and you start to lose money, but unfortunately, with the job market in your area, replacing him would be almost impossible.

Now, after a few months of this, how much patience are you going to have with this guy when you ask him why he isn’t doing what you told him to do? Zero, right?

Well, that’s where conservatives are with the Republican Party. We’re not interested in excuses. Exhortations to “be reasonable” aren’t going to work. After eight years of being sneered at by arrogant incompetents who owe their jobs to us, we’re not really in the mood for compromise.

Which brings us to the moderates in the GOP. Make no mistake about it, the GOP needs moderate voters and moderate politicians. We cannot expect a hard core conservative to win a district where Democrats outnumber Republicans 3 to 2. We can’t expect a Republican senator from Vermont or California to be as conservative as a Republican senator from Oklahoma or Georgia. Yes, people like this can make conservatives pull their hair out at times, but it’s impossible for us to have a majority or get things done without them.

However, the flip side to this is that moderates are not the majority of Republicans, they’re not ideologically coherent as a group, and they simply don’t bring enough manpower, money, or energy to the table to drive a successful political party. What that means is moderates have to be the Robin to our Batman. Conservatives, who have stronger beliefs, more numbers, and just bring so much more to the Party are not going to happily fall in line over the long haul in a moderate Republican Party.

Indeed, if moderates want to win and have seats, conservatives need to be happy at the results of the people they elected and you need a thriving conservative movement that’s actually accomplishing something worthwhile. If that’s happening, you don’t have huge challenges to moderates.

On moderates, I would probably also have a narrower of moderates in most cases, somebody in the Al D’Amato/Norm Coleman range (60-80%) rather than people like Specter.  And folks like Snowe and Collins can be tolerated only if that’s the best we can get.

In addition, I think there are some things that can generate some worthy pariah status. Speaking of which, Senator Olympia Snowe writes in the New York Times:

It is for this reason that we should heed the words of President Ronald Reagan, who urged, “We should emphasize the things that unite us and make these the only ‘litmus test’ of what constitutes a Republican: our belief in restraining government spending, pro-growth policies, tax reduction, sound national defense, and maximum individual liberty.” He continued, “As to the other issues that draw on the deep springs of morality and emotion, let us decide that we can disagree among ourselves as Republicans and tolerate the disagreement.”

OF course, Snowe quotes this to argue, “Hey, lay off on Collins and me like Reagan said.” It seems Senator Snowe hasn’t bothered to read the actual quote. It’d have some validity if Pat Toomey’s primary reason for a primary challenge to Specter was abortion, but it wasn’t. Voters began to call Specter “Benedict Arlen” when he voted for a $787 billion stimulus package that he, Snow, and Collins could have killed. This was the final straw for Pennsylvania conservative.

How can you claim to be for “restrained government spending” when you support $787 billion monstrosity that’s primary function is to be a Christmas tree for every liberal interest under the sun. This betrayal came in exchange for parochial Maine and Pennsylvania pork, unconcerned with the national interests. Don’t claim defense under any quotes about “restraining government spending” after voting for Obama’s stimulus.

I originally started this piece as a public endorsement of Pat Toomey over Arlen Specter about a month ago. As that boat has sailed, I figure the best use of the time I invested in writing it would be to cannibalize my arguments to explain how the Republicans who are upset with the supposed result of Pat Toomey’s primary challenge are missing the point entirely.

The main argument emanating from these Republican defenders of Sen. Arlen Specter is that he was the only candidate capable of keeping the seat in Republican hands.

Not only are these people wrong about this race, the reality of the situation is completely the opposite. The renomination of Sen. Arlen Specter would have, in fact, ensured that the GOP lost this seat.

History will record Sen. Specter’s support of the stimulus bill as the final act that permanently alienated him from the base of his party. Already on shaky ground with the grassroots, his actions as one of three Republican Senators who supported the bill (thereby enabling its passage) meant that Specter could not win a contested Republican primary. Remember, it took the endorsement of the sitting Republican President–as well as the help of his more conservative junior Republican Senator–for him to beat former Congressman Pat Toomey by about 17,000 votes out of approximately 1,000,000 cast.

Polls of this race showed Pat Toomey with a double-digit lead in the Republican Primary, as well as Sen. Specter having around an -18% to -20% approval rating among Pennsylvania Republicans. Regardless of his approval rating among Democrats and Independents (they are satisfactory by any rate), Arlen Specter simply no longer had the support of enough members of his own party to win in the general election.

And that is really the most important point to remember in all of this. Arlen Specter sealed his fate with his own state party by his own actions. Pat Toomey, nor the Club for Growth, was the cause-merely the instrument. If not Toomey, then it would have been Pat Meehan, or Jim Gerlach, or Tom Corbett, or one of the other Republican A-listers who are considering running for Governor.

Sen. Specter’s approval rating is significant for another reason. Even if a challenger had refrained from entering the Republican Senatorial primary, the wisdom of placing a candidate on the ticket come November of 2010 who sports a negative 18% approval rating among members of his own party must be fully considered.

Pennsylvania has not been, to put it mildly, a bastion of Republican success of late. And no matter how strong the winds may be blowing the GOP’s way in 2010, it will likely take every last vote to emerge victorious in any race come election night with the Democrats enjoying a 500,000+ registered voter advantage.

Added into this consideration is the fact that the Pennsylvania GOP has been able to attract the interest of at least three top-tier candidates into the gubernatorial primary, the aforementioned Attorney General Tom Corbett, Rep. Jim Gerlach, and former U.S. Attorney Pat Meehan. Any one of these three candidates would make a strong general election contest and may be, overall, the best gubernatorial candidate the GOP has fielded in years. To jeopardize the chance of recapturing the Governor’s Mansion by allowing Arlen Specter’s presence on the ballot to suppress Republican enthusiasm and/or turnout and waste a candidate like a Jim Gerlach or a Tom Corbett would be incredibly short-sighted. This is not even taking into account the effect that Specter would have had down-ticket on Congressional or state legislative races.

So to any Republican who is still championing Sen. Specter in the name of maintaining the “Big Tent”: would the incredibly unlikely prospect of six more years of Arlen Specter really have been worth the very real risk of suppressing Republican grassroots turnout and enthusiasm in the election that will seat the legislatures (both state and federal) which will conduct redistricting beginning in 2011?

The bottom-line is that Arlen Specter would not have been seated in the Senate with an “R” next to his name come January of 2011 in any respect, which was the direct result of the choice which he made to stick his finger in the collective eyes of his own state party. So let us begin talking about the candidates that can be. Fortunately for the Republican Party, there are two A-List candidates for us to support in former Governor Tom Ridge and Pat Toomey.

Well, I might as well try to offer some form of opinion on the ongoing debate on the front page – especially as I think a lot of people are really missing the point on both Arlen Specter and Jim DeMint.

With as much ranting as we’re doing about Pat Toomey, Jim DeMint,  and the Club for Growth – we should probably note that none of these people have anything to do with Specter’s underlying problem. Arlen’s problems go back at least to 1996, when he ran for President. Just two years after the GOP won a majority under Gingrich, Specter prefaced his entire campaign on the idea that conservatives were totally unelectable and that Republicans could only win if they became hard-line centrists – and frankly this has been the focus of most of his career. His moderate views were not the issue, his attitude problem was the issue.

Arlen Specter’s distaste for conservatives caused him to devote himself to undermining the party from inside. So, instead of working within the party, he spent his time kvetching about how horrible we were. He might as well have stood on a mountain and shouted, “Hey, moderates….WE SUCK!!! Please, please, please don’t vote Republican!”. That is why I was not sorry to see him go – not because I like “RINO hunting”.

Specter was digging his own grave long before anyone heard of Pat Toomey. The challenge from Toomey was merely a symptom, Specter himself was the disease.

He wanted a purge of conservatives and total rebirth of the GOP as a center or center-left party. As opposed to compromise builders such as Susan Collins and Olympia Snowe, Arlen Specter was as much of a “hardline true believer”  as Jim DeMint – just with radically different goals.

And while we’re on the subject of Senator DeMint, let’s do a reality check. Yes, the man is a conservative “true believer” if there ever was one. He also finds himself to be a minority of one on a surprising number of issues. It is madness to assume that he had any effect on Specter, or even that he has much power within the GOP caucus. That said, while I do not share his taste for “RINO hunting”, I do have a great deal of respect for the man and think he plays a very valuable role.

On one hand, moderates like Collins and Snowe rightly get credit for slashing billions from the stimulus. However, it was DeMint who actually dared to offer a counter-proposal based on massive tax cuts and deep cuts in spending. While the moderates are busy crafting compromises, it is the true believers who are actually crafting the alternative ideas that we will need to win the next election.  Will they pass their bills? No, but they still contribute in a major way.

I don’t want to drop to 30 Senators, but DeMint did have a point. If a party is divided against itself and lacks any real commitment to principle, then it undermines its viability and – and the long run – sabotages it’s ability to win. Now, that doesn’t mean that we need to purge moderates, but it does mean that we occasionally have to cut out individuals who have become cancers (Arlen Specter, Larry Craig, Ted Stevens, David Vitter). If you are so concerned with numbers that you are willing to tolerate destructive influences, then you do serious long term damage – as we witnessed over the last eight years.

Furthermore, you can really afford to cut the fat when the next election is relatively meaningless in terms of numbers – which happens both when you are a very large majority and when you are a very small minority. I would argue that the 2010 election will be largely  inconsequential, as the Dems are almost certain to hold their 60 seats. Even if we defeat Dodd in Connecticut – we are still likely to lose Gregg’s seat in New Hampshire and at least one other seat. Hence, in my opinion, this is the perfect time to be cutting out people like Specter – who can do serious long term damage to the party.

This does not mean we need to throw out moderates – and in some cases I think there is a big opening for moderate Republicans. Not only does Rob Simmons have a good shot in Connecticut, but Mike Castle could make a serious run for Biden’s old seat in Delaware (I would also mention Joseph Cao taking out David Vitter here, but certain people in the comments section would probably tar and feather me).  However, we do need to get rid of certain people who hurt our ability to define ourselves as an honest, viable party for the 21st century.

PS – Alex, if you believe that DeMint is a such a destructive force in the GOP – would you be open to drafting a primary challenger for him? If so, how does this differ from the Toomey-Specter race?

I’m the only conservative here.  No, but really….I interrupt this broadcast of Specter’s lame/cool and I’m awesome/conservative posts, to bring you news from our sponsors; Mitt Romney fans.  By popular demand, a bit from a Steve Schmidt interview:

If I had to bet money on it, if I had to bet money on it today, you’d have to say that the people that I think look very good, very strong right now are Governor Romney, Governor Huntsman. I think Newt Gingrich, should he run, is going to be a very formidable, very formidable candidate. But the history of the Republican Party nominating process is that it almost always goes to someone who’s been around the track once before. And in that instance, in this instance, it would be Governor Romney. I thought he was a very scary opponent looking from the other side of the table in that he was almost like a learning organism at the end. He just kept getting better week by week by week, and kept becoming stronger. And I think these national campaigns are very unique, and I think most people learn a great deal with they go through them. And I think one of the reasons that President Bush was able to make it through the process the first time, unlike most people on the Republican side, is because he had been up close and personal through a couple of national races. And I think Mitt Romney is a candidate, is a far stronger candidate, prospectively, for the ’12 race because of his experience in ’08 than he was heading into the ’08 race.

As you were.

First of all, let me outline my conservative credentials, Kristofer: I support bombing Iran. I support the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. I support the Patriot Act. I am a laissez-faire capitalist. I vociferously oppose multiculturalism. I think that Harry Reid is a traitor. I volunteered for George Bush, Bob Ehrlich, and Michael Steele. I’ve also written lots of articles on this site in support of the positions I mentioned, as you very well know. I am a member of several conservative campus organizations, including the College Republicans, Youth for Western Civilization, and Students for the Preservation of the Second Amendment. The most recent article of mine published on RealClearPolitics was a list of obnoxious liberal buzzwords that I created in order to make fun of leftist campus activists. My messenger bag has pins of Goldwater, Reagan, and Giuliani on it. My personal library includes books such as “World War IV,” “In Defense of Globalization,” “Islamic Imperialism,” “Capitalism and Freedom,” “How Capitalism Saved America,” “The Case for Democracy,” “Party of Defeat,” and even Ann Coulter’s “Treason.”

You is right, of course, though, Kristofer. This is a conservative website. And that is why I feel perfectly at home, here: because it is a wonderful outlet to discuss how best to further conservative ideas and ideals.

The thing is, Kristofer…

Some of us think that those ideals are better served by shooting ourselves in the foot. Others of us think that it is better to shoot the opponent.

Some of us think that those ideals are better served by having only thirty members of the Senate. Others of us would like to have sixty members of the Senate.

Some of us think that those ideals are better served by pretending that we don’t have a problem as a party connecting with the American people. Others of us think that it is better to speak to the priorities of the electorate.

Some of us think that those ideals are better served by dismissing all dissenters by saying that they’re “agents of Kos.” Others of us want to revive the intellectual tradition of the party — the torch carried by men like Charles Krauthammer, David Horowitz, and, yes, David Frum.

Some of us think that those ideals are better served by having a discussion with the mirror. Others of us prefer more honest reflection.

If that makes me a “liberal agent of Kos,” then so be it, Kristofer. But please realize that you have not refuted any of my ideas.

PS – Kristofer supports partial-birth abortion. You don’t want to start this war with me, Kristofer.

In the last 24 hours, Alex Knepper has attacked Pat Toomey, Republican ‘Hardliners‘ (85% of the party), Michael Steele and Jim DeMint.  I have not seen this much anti-Republican rhetoric since I opened the Huffington Post or MSNBC.com.

Although I congratulate and support Alex with his success, I have begun to wonder why most of his posts that are re-printed or linked on other sites (ex. RCP), either highlight liberal criticism of conservatism or directly attack Republican leadership and policy?  Most of Mr. Knepper’s talking points mirror those found on Daily Kos. 

While Alex is a highly articulate and thoughtful writer, his lack of experience and awareness of the viciousness of the political world is allowing himself to be exploited by Democratics.  While I usually agree with Meghan McCain, I am insightful enough to realize that she is being exploited by progressives and socialists, with the goal to drive a larger wedge into the cultural divide of the Republican party.  In fact, this political tactic is being used by the Obama administration, the DNC and liberal media on our entire center-right movement.  Their strategy has targeted Rush Limbaugh, socially moderate Republican Governors, the GOP House leadership and other senior party leaders.  Liberals involved in this strategy range from the veteran party strategist James Carville, to independent site developers, such as the posers over at gop12.        

I admit, I have a track record of being very critical of some Republican leaders and their strategy and when the opportunity has arisen, I have fought against the majority in my party on such issues as Prop. 8.  I may have only had one R42012 article posted on RCP, but I am proud to say it was an article in support of the McCain/Palin campaign.  I can also state that most of my posts that are linked by other blogs and news organizations are in support of our party, especially at the grassroots level.  I oppose those who want to purge the pro-choice/libertarian leaning Republicans from our party as much I oppose those who want to vanish culturally conservative members.  We cannot win back a majority in Congress without having both wings of the party working together.    

Knepper’s continued attacks on Governor Palin and other party leaders is done as a service for himself, not for his party and not in the best interests of this conservative site.  Alex fails to realize that the organized groups that support Toomey and Palin are the only groups attempting to match Obama’s domination of cyberspace, his number of volunteers and fundraising capacity.  Even more surprising is the fact that Alex claims to be a laissez-faire capitalist, yet supports a politician like Alren Specter who has voted against these principles.  Alex seems to enjoy attacking the Republican party for turning its back on federalist values, yet he violently scolds the grassroots effort to fight against the status quo.   

For Alex, being critical of Palin, Romney, Toomy, Steele and conservative groups such as The CFG, mean that he is acceptable to Republican mouthpieces like Andrew Sullivan, Meghan McCain, David Frum and David Brooks.  Although all of these individuals are successful and hold some conservative views on public policy, liberals view them only as outsourced whores of the political punditry.  The question these individuals need to ask themselves (Alex included), is will liberals have a need for them after Obama and Pelosi pass legislation on universal health care, increase our tax rates to match those in Germany, provide citizenship to 10 million illegal aliens and stock the Supreme Court with activist judges? 

Although I (and other FPP’s) have been critical of Mitt Romney and Mike Huckabee, I have been able to place my ego aside and recognize that both of these men are contributing to the rebuilding of our party and play an important role in the opposition to President Obama.  I have even managed to write a few positive posts about them.  Alex has publically stated that he will support President Obama or a third party candidate over a potential Romney or Huckabee lead Republican ticket.  I fail to understand this logic?  Would he not rather support a candidate he agrees with 70% of the time, instead of supporting President Obama who he claims to disagree with most of the time?  Or maybe that is the issue?  Maybe Alex is finding himself in agreement with President Obama more often than not, as I cannot find recent evidence that Knepper agrees with the Republican party any of the time.            

I used to believe that Alex was a federalist, loyal to the reform agenda of the Contract with America, but this appears not to be the case, because if you believe in the Reagan and Gingrich revolutions, you believe in a Republican party built from, and controlled at the grassroots.  You believe that no politician should be appointed for life and when possible, you believe in voter recall and legislating term limits.  A Gingrich/Reagan Republican believes in a trickle up approach to party organization, not a trickle down one and if a politician has lost his/her way, like Senator Specter, you believe that our democracy and the Constitution of the Republican party allows for a primary challenge.  I vaguely remember when Alex used to write about how only the wealthy and connected use to be able to run for Congress, but in Senator Specter’s case, Alex wants us to place principle and party rebuilding aside to prevent President Obama from reaching filibuster-proof majority of 60 Senate seats.     

Alex claims to be a ”classic liberal”, but he has been displaying values more in line with moderate Democrats.  On defense issues, the only major policy position he has in common with the bare majority of our party, he never writes about.  Even worse, the entire blogosphere knows this and it is lending to the unfair reputation that our site is philosophical positioned at the center.   

One of the reasons why race42012 receives tens of thousands of page hits per day is because of the freedom from editorial control the front page writers and page 2 contributors receive.  In return for this freedom, we must acknowledge that this is a conservative site, representing a majority conservative opinion from our readers, fighting on behalf of a national conservative party.  Although it is healthy to challenge the majority opinion, conservatives expect a small degree of loyalty in return for opening up their tent to those of us who bring only one or two legs of the proverbial political stool to the Republican community.

Race42012 writers and readers pride themselves on the diversity of opinion on this site.  From secularism to populism and isolationism to neoconservatism, our diversity makes us one of the most popular non-corporate political sites on the Internet, but make no mistake, Race42012 is a philosophically conservative site. 

Kristofer Lorelli

Senior Editor     

Kristofer Lorelli can be contacted at lorville@rogers.com, on Facebook and twitter/Kris_Lorelli. 

Quickly emerging as a parody of himself, Senator Jim DeMint declared that he “would rather have 30 Republicans in the Senate who really believe in principles of limited government, free markets, free people, than to have 60 that don’t have a set of beliefs.”

Well, that’s an awfully silly dichotomy. How about forty conservative senators and twenty moderate — excuse me, beliefless — ones? Let’s try to break this down, though:

First of all, it’s rather ridiculous to assert that Specter has no set of beliefs — they’re just ones that DeMint doesn’t like.

Moreover, how does DeMint intend to pass any conservative legislation if his team only has thirty senators? Does he know? Does he care?

So far, the grand strategy of DeMint and his fellow Club for Growth-types for a comeback has been to direct all of our hard-earned resources…at our own party. Has this been fruitful? Thankfully, there are some objective goalposts that we can use to analyze this: Are we closer to reclaiming the majority? Is President Obama becoming more unpopular? Are we halting the Democratic agenda? Are Americans uniting around the opposition?

The indicators thus far are pretty poor.

Here’s an alternative strategy: instead of trying to purge the Senate of Republicans, we direct our resources against liberal Democrats. How’s that, Senator?

Click for the most horrifying example of media bias in modern history…

(more…)

May be beautiful, and yet…



Hat-tip: The Corner

A lefty blogger sums up the real Arlen Specter, and it turns out that he’s not the principled independent they are trying so hard to sell on MSNBC. A nice touch using Specter’s most idiotic idea, made famous by Oliver Stone, to cast one last scornful gaze on the real Senator Specter as he lurches out the door:

A career speaks a thousand words. Yet sometimes the truth is too simple for some… Arlen Specter thinks he had an open and shut case: a career built on a stubborn dedication to principle over party – but in reality, it is a case of dedication to the principal over party and principles. But, something happened that made that case virtually impossible to prove: the actual trajectory of Specter’s career. The time frame of 45 years since Specter entered politics leaves no possibility of some higher set of values. We are expected to believe that Arlen Specter’s life in politics is like a single bullet which accounts for all the phases of his career. Rather than admit to evidence of this inconsistency, or investigate further, the Press chooses to endorse the theory put forth by an ambitious junior counsellor, turned jaded elderly Senator, Arlen Specter. One of the grossest lies ever forced on the American people, we’ve come to know it as the “Magic Bullet” theory.

The Magic Bullet called young Arlen Specter had Democratic politics and a legal resume so impressive that Bobby Kennedy asked him to work in the Justice Department on his own pet project, the Jimmy Hoffa investigation, but Specter demurred saying he “wanted to get to Washington on my own steam…not as someone’s bureaucrat.” Eventually becoming a top assistant to the Philadelphia DA, the Magic Bullet took a detour to go to Washington as someone else’s bureaucrat, creating from whole cloth the Warren Report’s “Single Bullet Theory” of the JFK assassination.

Returning to the land of cream cheese and cheese steaks, in 1965 the Magic Bullet sought to enter local politics on his own steam, but found the local Democratic Machine had no room for him. He then entered it through a wound his thrust in his former mentor’s back, heading downward at an angle of 17 degrees and becoming a Republican. He then moves upward in order to enter the DA’s Office and – where, stopping in mid-air, he waited 1.6 seconds, turned left and ran for Mayor as a Lindsay Republican against a right wing Democrat, only to be defeated; wound number one. Then, the Magic Bullet headed downward at an angle of 27 degrees, losing his 1973 re-election shattering his career; wound number two. Undaunted, the Magic Bullet heads progressively rightward, and sustain wounds three and four, losing successive Republican Primaries for US Senate and Governor, continuing downward. In 1980, the Magic Bullet is miraculously found in almost “pristine” condition on a stretcher, winning a Republican Primary and general election for US Senate in the year of Reagan.

This is the key shot. Watch it again and again. For thirty years, the Senator faces a potential Republican Primary, and is going back to his right. Then he faces a potentially strong Democrat in the general…back and to the left. Primary, back and to the right; general, back and to the left. Back and to the right; back and to the left. Sink Robert Bork, savage Anita Hill; co-sponsor card check, torpedo it; back the stimulus, impeach the president… Totally inconsistent, again – … back and to the left. … back and to the right… back and to the left. And now, as in 1965, the Magic Bullet finds himself in a party with no room for his ambitions, and decides it is time for another gesture of principal.

That’s some bullet. Anyone who’s been in combat can tell you never in the history of gunfire has there been a bullet like this. Yet the Press says it can prove that Arlen Specter is a thoughtful man of principle. Of course they can. The New York Times can prove an elephant can hang from a cliff with it’s tail tied to a daisy, but use your eyes – your common sense – liberal, moderate, conservative, libertarian, reformer, hack purveyor of pork And once you conclude the Magic Bullet cannot be all of these personae, you have to conclude that it cannot be any of them.

“Treason doth never prosper,” wrote an English poet, “What’s the reason? For if it prosper, none dare call it treason.”

From Kennedy Dem to Lindsay Republican to Ford Republican to Reagan Republican to Lieberman Republican to Lieberman Democrat—Arlen Specter is the living embodiment of that crazy bouncing single bullet for which he takes pride of authorship (there being no prosecutorial version of “Alan Smithee“).

Perhaps it shouldn’t come as a surprise that Michael Steele has put on the face that he has in the Specter aftermath, given that he’s the same man who refused to rule out running primary challengers against Olympia Snowe and Susan Collins. But there’s something particularly annoying about reading his latest thoughts, which were distributed to the RNC mailing list yesterday.

“Arlen Specter committed a purely political and self-serving act today. He simply believes he has a better chance of saving his political hide and his job as a Democrat,” Steele begins.

Well, obviously. Given that his approval rating hovers around 70% with the state’s Democrats and that his political record is one of a true centrist, what other sort of calculation should he make? He likely does not feel like he has a true home in either party, but he certainly knows which one wants him more. Centrists have to go somewhere, after all.

Furthermore, what principle did Steele want Specter to adhere to? The rank-and-file of the party were telling him to get lost (and putting their money where their mouths are), while his mushy centrism doesn’t really lend itself to party loyalty. Maybe instead of whining about Arlen Specter, we could work to expand our party’s reach. As Harry Truman once noted: if you want a friend in Washington, get a dog.

The chairman goes on: “Arlen Specter handed Barack Obama and his band of radical leftists nearly absolute power in the United States Senate. In leaving the Republican Party–and joining the Democrats–he absolutely undercut Republicans’ efforts to slow down Obama’s radical agenda through the threat of filibuster. Facing defeat in Pennsylvania’s 2010 Republican primary due to his left-wing voting record…he has peddled his services–and his vote–to the leftist Obama Democrats who aim to remake America with their leftist plan.”

Specter’s record really isn’t left-wing. He certainly belongs in the Republican Party, which makes it all the more tragic that it’s kicked him out. The National Journal’s 2007 rankings placed him within a few points of senators like Norm Coleman, Richard Lugar, and George Voinovich. Ben Nelson is ranked as less conservative than Specter. Conservatives are currently lamenting the fact that Coleman is about to be replaced with a leftist. Why were they unable to apply similar sentiments to Specter? Ben Nelson is routinely praised by the right. Will Arlen Specter now be the conservative example of a “reasonable Democrat”? Don’t count on it.

Steele continues: “Some will use Specter’s defection as an excuse to fold the tent and give up.” Fold up what tent? Give up what? What is he talking about?

In fairness, there is some utility in the outrage, real or contrived, that Steele is expressing: certainly a party chairman cannot, in public, be the reflective political philosopher. But he is supposed to be a behind-the-scenes tactician. Steele has hedged his bets: he did not thank Arlen Specter for his years of service, but went straight for the jugular, comparing him to Benedict Arnold and labeling him a craven liar. (This strategy worked out so well for the Democrats in 2006, if you’ll recall.)

The real tragedy behind the Specter defection is that it sends a green light to centrists all around the country to leave the party. The message has been sent that there really is no room in the Republican Party for them anymore; that it is a secret club rather than a big tent and that it’s pointless to stay at the moment. The fact that it is once again a minority of the party that seems to realize this is bad for America, for if anything is the true engine of one-party left-wing rule in a two-party system, it is a no-compromise opposition party that refuses to stay in touch with the wants of the American people.

Entirely off topic – but we could all use a little levity considering all of the infighting over Specter.

So, am I the only one that finds the irony of this story utterly hilarious (if a perhaps bit maccabre)? Next thing you know, people will be floating piglets down the Nile in baskets, and pigs will be making an Exodus from Egypt accross the Red Sea. 

One would have thought that Moses taught the Egyptians thier lesson in regard to attempted mass slaughter – but I guess history truly is cyclical.

A Hundred Days?

Waiting one more day won’t make President Barack Obama an FDR any more than waiting 901 days will make him JFK. One might as well wait for flu-ravaged pigs to fly over NYC.

We are to fear everything and everybody on Earth except Obama, Obama’s creations, those Obama affirms via apologies or otherwise, and foreign man-made disaster causers (formally known as terrorists) and dictators, but I repeat myself. After all, Barry was only 39 years old at the time of the man-made disaster of September 11, 2001.

Having slept through the Millennium non-bombing and 911, a Homeland Security Chief (now confident Mohammed Atta didn’t traverse Horseshoe Falls on his way to Manhattan) Janet the Napsterpolitano has been directed only to fear as potential terrorists those armed forces of the United States returning from having defeated those formerly known as terrorists in Afghanistan and Iraq and supporters of the Second Amendment and the rest of the dead Constitution, i.e. conservatives.

Fear the religious right hearers of pro-life sermons. Don’t fear 20-year pew-parked butts that heard Hate G-D, US-KKK-America sermons.

We are not to fear Barack’s Big Government non-stimulative, except for government growthulus creations, nor his $3.6 trillion budgeted Humongous Government re-creation. Yes, we should have been terrified of Bush deficits of 3.4% of GDP but not Obama’s of 12.8% for, after all, The One is now in charge.

Don’ fear the Fed’s $1.2 trillion printed dollars. Fear puny billions paid in insurance sales commissions.

Fear corporate CEOs not appointed by the President of the United States, especially those deserving of having the Da’ Boss step aside so that pitchfork-wielders can lynch them at banks in America and even more so the at the Bank of America that dares make a profit. Don’t fear CEOs appointed by Obama to preserve universal Government Medicine (GM) for autoworker retirees.

Fear Americans earning more than $250K per year unless the excess is book royalties audaciously earned hoping for a Marxist father’s dreams to come true. Don’t fear millions of more Americans earning less than a quarter of a million. Haven’t you heard that the Speaker Ordained by Obama, Pelosi stimulated unemployment benefits to the tune of $25 more per week?

Fear Edison’s light bulb. Embrace lights out parties. Fear carbon emissions unless they are expelled by Obama and his Earth Day transportation vehicles. Don’t fear a bankrupt coal industry.

Fear nose water-swabbings as a recruiting tool for man-made disaster seekers. Don’t fear aggression inviting weak horses or paper tigers.

Fear busts of Winston Churchill occupying space at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue. Don’t fear IRS busts of Cabinet members for tax fraud.

Fear tea parties that seek to slay baseless bailouts. Don’t fear the Democratic Party of Death that bails out abortion seekers abroad with your tax dollars.

Fear shopping at the non-union Wal-Mart near you that insists on secret ballots. Never fear that POTUS will ever photo-shop Air Force One publicity shots near sites of prior man-made disasters.

Fear the drafters of legal memos under the Bush Administration that didn’t authorize The Rack, disfigurement nor digital extremity removal. Never fear Ex Post FactOBAMAalism.

Even as a Democrat in the 90s, I scoffed at all the “scare” talk by the Clinton Administration of supposed “crises” ginned up to justify new or increased government spending. Quite instructive in my 2000 conservative conversion was how the Newt-Clinton adherence to Reagan style capital gains tax cuts unleashed the private sector to deliver the American Dream.

My optimism about this country’s future had known no bounds, until now.

I had a conversation with a vivacious near 30-something female insurance broker yesterday still in a week old funk, disillusioned by all those that cross her path that seem to have lost hope. Part of this is due to her coming of age at a time of economic boom times and the experience of her and so many of her acquaintances experiencing a Great Recession for the first time in their adult lives.

But I think there is much more to my friend’s depression than the recession. Yes, the President “inherited” the worst economic crisis since the one President Ronald Reagan was bequeathed in 1981. No matter that Senator Obama aided and abetted its creation via votes to keep Fannie and Freddie in the bad bank loan coercion and guarantee business.

What is truly scary about the present circumstance is that, unlike a President Roosevelt confident in an American peoples’ ability to overcome fear and a Reagan who echoed FDR’s optimism in conjunction with policies that got the government out of the way for We the People to bail ourselves out, the current occupant seems to view entrepreneurial job producers as enemies to be punished by policies that keep them on strike.

Over the past 30-45 days not one Obama supporter has come up to their known conservative columnist foil to brag on Obama’s performance and rub salt into his 2008 Election result wounds. Many do approach me quietly to admit their vote for Number 44 might have been a mistake.

Hopefully this hard time will concentrate the mind like those of the 70s did, and the majority of this center-right nation will get its mind right as the GOP gets its message right.

I fear that over the next 1362 days this hard time will turn into very hard times that are even now testing the American character. But don’t fear that at the current rate, the Commander-in-Chief won’t kill at least 39 more pirates.

Have no fear as you do the math.

Mike DeVine’s Charlotte Observer, Examiner.com and Minority Report columns

“One man with courage makes a majority.” – Andrew Jackson

Originally published @ Examiner.com, where all for verification links may be accessed.

1. Why are you celebrating Specter’s defection while championing Norm Coleman, who was ranked just as moderate as Specter in the National Journal’s 2007 rankings?

2. Are you aware that the ladies from Maine got more cut from the stimulus bill than any of the efforts of the likes of Jim DeMint?

3. Which party does Arlen Specter belong in? Is he a DINO now? You praise Ben Nelson as being a reasonable Democrat. Is Arlen Specter a reasonable Democrat?

4. Do you agree with Jim DeMint when he says that he’d rather have a party of 30 senators who all think like him than a majority party with people like Arlen Specter in it? How, then, do you intend to pass conservative legislation?

5. Tom Coburn once told me that he would not have welcomed Joe Lieberman into the party if he had wanted to switch. Do you agree?