Snowe: GOP Has Abandoned Principles; Specter Switch "Devastating" Sen. Olympia Snowe of Maine, one of the few remaining moderate Republicans in the Senate, said Tuesday that Arlen Specter's abandonment of the GOP is "devastating," both "personally and I think for the party." "I've always been deeply concerned about the views of the Republican Party nationally in terms of their exclusionary policies and views towards moderate Republicans," said Snowe, who has been approached, she said, by Democrats in the past about switching parties. Specter's switch to the Democratic Party "underscores the blunt reality" that the GOP is not a welcome place for moderates, she said. So far, she said, she's staying put. "I believe in the traditional tenets of the Republican Party: strong national defense, fiscal responsibility, individual opportunity. I haven't abandoned those principles that have been the essence of the Republican Party. I think the Republican Party has abandoned those principles.
I think Snowe is more apt to switch than Collins and I'd welcome her. Heck, I certainly like her more than Specter!
American Spectator's interview with Pat Toomey, released this morning before Specter's announcement: http://spectator.org/archives/2009/04/28/toomey-talks/print
I'm kind of non-plussed about the "60," as it includes Lieberman, Nelson, Specter, etc. I don't think it's a reliable 60. But what this switch (along with Snowe's/Graham's comments and Chafee's endorsement of Obama) says about the current state of the GOP is really huge. They have a serious, fundamental problem and some real soul searching ahead of them. Cheney/Gingrich/Palin is not a path out of this wilderness. Nor, thus far at least, are Jindal, Romney, Pawlenty or Cantor. In fact, I think both Huckabee and Paul make more sense as titular leaders. Today they are a headless, rudderless party. It will be very interesting to see how they choose to define themselves going forward. I'd be interested to hear weslinder's take on this. He is usually one of the only level headed conservatives that posts here.
I don't know what the Republican Party is going to do. I don't think the RNC has much of a strategy. I do know this about the conservative movement: The Bush-lackeys, and more generally, the neoconservatives are done. Running on national defense has never been a good Republican strategy, it only worked once (Bush 2004), and it's run its course. I think the strategy to a win is to emphasize libertarianism, and start with the inland West. Mark Udall is the least popular of Freshman Senators (41% approval), and Colorado is the first blue state where Obama's approval rating has dropped below 50% (49%). If the liberatarians, fiscally-conservative moderates, and non-crazy social conservatives form an alliance that concentrates on integrity, fiscal conservatism, abortion, and civil liberties, and drop opposition to gay marriage and other wedge issues (especially at a national level) they can put together a winning coalition. Whether they will or not is another question completely.
A big question mark is can the GOP win (or even survive) without social conservatives voting for them in huge numbers. Am I wrong to say their influence in the party is actually growing? I think the ability of the national GOP to moderate has decreased since the election and wedge issues are even more important.
I don't see it. NM and CO were the only intermountain West states that Obama carried. (OK, he would have won AZ if it wasn't McCain's home state.) Colorado's important, but if the Repubs keep losing the Midwest, they have no hope. You can bet Obama's political people are looking at solidifying their gains and targeting a few red states... WV, AZ, MT, and ID to name a few. Wouldn't surprise me if they also tried to help the inevitable change brought forth by Texas demographics happen a little faster.
Not bad at all, wes. That's the most reasonable strategy I've heard from a single conservative or Republican in over a year. I think it would be even stronger though if there was some way to big tent the abortion issue. But what does such a coalition do about education? True Libertarians would de-fund public education, wouldn't they? That would seem a sticky thing to do. And where would this new coalition fall on the environment? The problem with fiscal conservatism is in figuring out what to cut and then saying what you'd cut. The last few attempts at this (volcano research, pandemic expenses) have backfired. Coming out against national health care -- without a viable alternate solution -- will also not go over well with the electorate as it stands today. Correct me if I'm wrong (I probably am), but I'm under the impression that Libertarian philosophy dictates virtually no federal spending apart from national defense. Where would this coalition make its cuts? And is there anyone (other than Ron Paul) that could lead such a movement? Answer these questions right and you might be on your way to the only way to beat Obama and the Democrats apart from them beating themselves. But you'll still have a very long way to go (and a heck of a lot of 'flip-flopping' to do) to mount a credible challenge to Democrats and Obama on integrity and/or civil liberties.
It's a great question, and one we will probably find out soon. The voice of the social conservatives is certainly not growing and has diminished considerably, and it was by far the biggest group of defactors in the most recent election. Credit the Democrats with their much larger push of social gospel issues for that. It's a two-edged sword for Republicans. The social conservatives are their largest voting bloc, but they are the most likely (outside of the neocons) to promote liberal domestic policy and the crazies in the bunch (of which there are plenty) turn off a lot of libertarians and fiscal conservatives. Strategically, I don't think Republicans can win without social conservatives, and I don't think they can win with them in leadership. I found this interesting: Despite favorable reception and bandwagoning by many elected Republicans, all of the Tea Parties haven't grown the Republican Party at all, and have grown third parties like the Libertarian Party. The Republicans rightfully have major image problems.
They are certainly the most passionate among the GOP base and they've been the indisputable key to GOTV efforts. I guess there's some hope that the "teabaggers" will take up the anti-Dem mantle, but they're going to have a hard time maintaining enthusiasm among that group when the vast majority of them finally snap to the fact their taxes are being cut, not raised.
I'd add to A3P0's question by asking if the GOP can win without a huge advantage among poor whites, many of whom have been drawn in on social issues and matters of race. Race is slowly receding as an issue and will continue to do so. If the GOP doesn't hold strong on God and gays and if poor whites actually do better under Obama (wrt education, health care and taxes), will even that group remain reliably Republican? Turning down unemployment benefit extensions in the name of fiscal conservatism seems a particularly foolish move in the current climate.
they're influence is growing because they are the majority now that the moderates shifted. I actually think weslinder has the most common sense strategy, hold on to abortion for the social conservatives, give up gay marraige, and try to get at real fiscal responsibilty. Real fiscal responsibility has to be centered on government efficiency, and not tea bagging
The leader of the republican party -- Rush: "A lot of people said, well Specter, take McCain with you, and his daughter. Take McCain and his daughter with you," Is there no room for moderates in the republican party anymore?
Me too, but that one has become a litmus test. Fight for more local control, first by opposing federal mandates, then by school choice. Most sensible libertarians aren't against public education, and the Republicans will never get beyond a little bit libertarian-leaning. Republicans against public schools is like Democrats against private property. They exist, they might be loud, but the aren't many. Hopefully in favor of sensible, moderate regulation. There's no way any kind of cap-and-trade would be supported by Republicans, and a "carbon-tax" would have to be dedicated to infrastructure to garner much support. Again, I don't mean ideological libertarianism. I'm talking about just cutting the Federal government in general. I'd start with corporate welfare, non-strategic national defense, and administrative costs (for example, severely cutting the Transportation Administration and giving the savings to states with fewer strings), and move on from there. Basically, I would start with the things that have populist appeal. I don't know. I like Mark Sanford, but he's kinda a wonk. Many of the diehard Ron Paul supporters are trying to get former NM governor Gary Johnson to run for President in 2012, but I don't think the legalizing pot thing would get him very far in the Republican primaries.
Social programs will probably be cut. I'm actually for cutting the national defense budget, though it probably isn't popular. On a national level I would consider cutting the budget for education. I think education should be funded at the state and local level, and that they should actually increase the budget at that level and consider tax increases if necessary. I'm sure there are tons of places I would make cuts if I had time to focus more on the budget. I would change the tax code to help people afford private healthcare, and deregulate it between the states. I'm all for creating a medical system in which doctors across the country can access your medical history, though it would be something you could opt out of or limit to certain doctors. I also think forming a non-profit insurance company designed to care for the poor and the middle class. I have ideas, just don't have the time to articulate them properly, or to dertimine feasability without major research.
I should add: I think there are a lot of young Congressmen that could lead my coalition at some point, and some of them are in leadership: Jeff Flake of Arizona, Mike Pence of Indiana, Jason Chaffetz of Utah, even Eric Cantor. It's just that they wouldn't be viable national figures in 2012.
