Rob Simmons didn’t waste any time using the abrupt departure of Sen. Arlen Specter from the Republican Party as an opportunity to advance his own cause, and raise some money in the process. From an email to supporters:
By now, you’ve surely heard the news that Sen. Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania has switched his party affiliation to become a Democrat, giving Democrat Majority Leader Harry Reid a filibuster-proof Senate majority. This is devastating news to our party and deeply injures our ability to be an effective minority. And it raises greatly the stakes in the race for U.S. Senate in Connecticut.
Why Connecticut specifically? It’s simple math: in order for the GOP to be able to stop the worst excesses of the super-majority in Congress, we need 41 senators to be able to protect a filibuster, and right now we only have 40 (assuming Democrats succeed in seating Al Franken in Minnesota). So, we have to beat at least one Democrat in 2010 in order to give our government any semblance of a two-party system. And the only Democrat who looks beatable right now is Sen. Chris Dodd, and it just so happens I’m the candidate who is best positioned to send Dodd into well-deserved retirement.
Simmons goes on to paint Connecticut as the front line in the battle for the Republican Party, and for the country as a whole:
The Republican Party has been weakened. We need to stop the bleeding, quickly begin to rebuild and give voters a real choice once again. After all, the GOP can never be in the majority, and can barely be a useful minority, without representation from all parts of our great nation. Connecticut is now ground zero in determining whether or not we continue the slide, or whether we re-assert our traditional principles of fiscal responsibility, individual liberty and personal responsibility and begin to win again!
I know I’ve quoted an awful lot of this, but I find it a fascinating piece of campaign email, and there’s so much here that I want to talk about.
The Effective Opposition
First, let’s examine the central argument. Rob Simmons is arguing that the two-party system of government and a strong opposition are essential pieces of the democratic puzzle. This is an argument parties out of power often make, and there’s usually a lot of truth to it. Simmons then points out the math. The Democrats currently have 60 Senators (assuming Al Franken is eventually seated–which seems likely), enough to end a filibuster. To restore that two-party system, all Connecticut voters need to do is elect a single Republican to replace a disliked Democrat.
This ignores reality to a certain extent. Republicans stood to lose the PA seat anyway, and they may also lose KY and NH as well, just to name a few. There are not many Democrats in danger in 2010. Dodd is one of them (Harry Reid, the hapless Senate majority leader, is another, though his danger is not nearly as great as Dodd’s).
Another problem is the premise itself. Divided government is nice in theory, and Connecticut residents do seem to have a soft spot for it. However, Connecticut broadly approves of President Obama, and also approves of policies like the economic stimulus plan. If Rob Simmons is campaigning for an effective opposition, won’t that mean opposing policies and people Connecticut voters currently like? Also, voters in Connecticut like their state government divided between Democrats and Connecticut Republicans (embodied by the very moderate Gov. Rell). Division between Democrats and national Republicans is something else, and something they have been voting against for the past five years.
And just what is this opposition, anyway? Simmons says that it’s necessary to “stop the worst excesses of the super-majority in Congress,” (Dems don’t hold a super-majority, by the way, that’s 2/3rds, or 67 seats), but Senate Republicans have been adept at trying to stop just about everything the Democrats try to do. Take the slow approval of Kathleen Sebelius as Secretary of Health and Human Services. She was approved tonight, but not before her nomination had been slowed by Republicans because of her support for abortion. This is ideological lunacy at its finest, and it’s part of the reason why voters nationwide washed their hands of the GOP in 2006 and 2008.
This isn’t opposition. It’s obstruction, and I doubt that Connecticut voters are all that eager to simply block the agenda of a popular president and a party which controls all five of the state’s House seats.
A Message to Republicans
However, let’s keep in mind that this email was intended for Simmons’s supporters, who presumably are conservatives or independents fed up with Chris Dodd. Many will be Republicans. For them, there is a message about the dire straits the GOP is currently in. Simmons says that the party is “weakened,” and acknowledges (in a roundabout way) the fact that northeastern Republicans are a vanishing species. This is interesting stuff for a Republican candidate to bring up. So the message is that the GOP needs representation from all parts of the country, and that the GOP needs to rebuild, so elect Rob Simmons because he’s in the best position to actually win and be one of a few token northeasterners in the Republican caucus (again).
This argument may be compelling for Republicans looking to rebuild, but it does nothing for me. The question that Simmons leaves unanswered is why the Republicans are in such terrible shape in this part of the country. There have been two defections from the GOP in the Senate this decade, both from northeastern states (VT and PA). There are no House Republicans representing New England states, and precious few senators.
Why is that? And what, exactly, can Rob Simmons do about it?
Blaming Bush
It’s easy to blame George W. Bush for the Republican Party’s sad state here in New England, but the reality of the situation is that the Bush years first delayed, then sped up trends that were going against the GOP anyway. Connecticut last voted for a Republican president in 1988, and the last Republican to unseat a Democratic incumbent was (ahem) Rob Simmons (Nancy Johnson in 2002 doesn’t count, as she was already an incumbent–her district was merged with Democrat Jim Maloney’s). Democrats have held large majorities in the state House of Representatives for a very long time, and last lost their majority in the state Senate in the 1990s. As the values of Republicans drifted south and west, towards religious conservatism and libertarian economics, they steadily lost voters in the northeast. Republicans here have long had to survive by proclaiming their own moderation, and how different they were from “regular” Republicans.
Because of this strange identity crisis, they had little to no influence on the direction of the national party, which has become more and more conservative over the past few decades. Jodi Rell is one of the most popular governors in the entire country, winning a landslide election in a very Democratic state in 2006, a Democratic year nationally. However, she would never be considered as a potential candidate for her party’s presidential nomination, largely because she does not pass several important litmus tests. She is not a “real” Republican to the base of the party.
To put it simply, this is a part of the country where Republicans have been fading for some time as the national party changes. It isn’t just Bush’s fault–and things are not going to return to whatever normal was now that he’s gone. This is a common delusion that a lot of people suffer from.
Rob Simmons is proposing that he can reverse this trend, and make northeastern Republicans relevant (and extant) again.
But how?
Conclusion
Specter’s defection is a symptom of a larger problem for Republican–namely, that they are not seen as inclusive anymore. This is Specter’s complaint, certainly. Simmons’s message is an attempt to try and control the damage and look to the future, but so far his nascent campaign has been notable for what it’s against (the stimulus, Chris Dodd in general) than what it’s for. If Rob Simmons and the Republicans can figure out what they’re for, and craft ideas and policies that resonate with a broad spectrum of voters, they’ll do fine in 2010. If not, that future, especially in the northeast, will be bleak for a while to come.
86 responses so far ↓
Just a couple of quibbles:
Arlen has come out of the closet – partially. He has gone over to the Democrats because… because…
Well, no one short of his conscience – the conscience of a moderate – knows why.
But here’s a wholesome guess: Arlen is getting along in years; the power vector has shifted from Republicans to Democrats, which means Republicans can not expect in a government controlled by Democrats to wield any influence as party chairmen. But Arlen can – if he switches parties and wins.
Is this pragmatisn or opportunism?
One expects Democrats to be appreciative and buy the guy off with a chairmanship of something or other. Judas at least demanded thirty pieces of silver, but to betray one’s comrades — for a chairmanship!
Still, we get it: Better to go out as a traitorous influential dog than a clawless, toothless upright lion.
You note that there are no more moderate Republicans in New England, but do not bother to ask why.
Here is one reason: Voters in New England are mostly liberal, which is why Barry Goldwater said that if you cut off the Northeast and California, you’ll have a pretty good country.
The indisputable fact is this: It is NOT conservativism in the Northeast that has failed – because here have been no conservatives in the Northeast. Moderates have failed because 1) Republicans regard them as opportunistic rather than pragmatic, and 2) as the moderate Republican Party in the Northeast slides into irrelevance, Republicans become more dispirited.
And moderates, most of whom in the Northeast are Democrat defectors with a bitch on, reason: Why not vote for the real Democrat over the Republican in drag with the wig?
Arlen Spector is Lowell Weicker. His day is done.
Somewhere lies salvation — but not with the Specters in the closet.
That reminds me of the old saw that communism never failed because it’s never been tried.
And there are conservatives here! They just don’t win elections. Why is that?
Politico is reporting: “Obama first talked to Specter about his decision at 10:32 this morning from the Oval Office, and said Democrats are “thrilled to have you,” according to a White House aide” –http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0409/21800.html
Specter, no doubt, is thrilled to be had.
Because they are strangled in their cribs by a co-opted liberal press that just cannot abide political competition.
Because Republicans are timid and cowardly.
Because the correlation of forces are arrayed against them: http://donpesci.blogspot.com/2009/04/correlation-of-forces-in-connecticut.html
Because… Eh! Forget about it!
Sam and Rob (and others) can duke it out.
Come Election Day, it will be a referendum on Dodd. And we can speculate about how Rs will “out-conservative” each other… and that will be relevant on Election Day. But in the end, it’s gonna be a referendum on Dodd. And if the voters don’t trust the Senator, then he’s toast. CT strongly trends blue, but trust trumps party line.
As for Rob’s letter, it sounds like he hit all the right points for a GOP primary. He’s focused on his trump card – electability. Rob can’t (and shouldn’t try to) outconservative Sam. And best of all, Rob didn’t say a word about Sam. And Sam shouldn’t say a word about Rob.
Lame excuse!
Will it? I wonder. If the election were held now, I’d agree, that’s what it would be about.
Yeah but my point is that elections are always referendums on the incumbent. Typically, the referendum gives a thumb’s up. In Dodd’s case, if the election were today… it’d almost certainly be a thumb’s down. Either way though, it’s all about the incumbent… particulary with Dodd. I mean, except for possibly Blumie… Dodd has got to be the best known political name in CT.
I don’t mean to say that an election is “a referendum on the incumbent” only in the case of an incumbent losing.
I remember attending to Dodd Jr. High School in ‘84-86. Then I “grew up” and thought it was funny how some politician happened to have the same name as my school… then I really grew up.
True, but they can also be about national politics. I’m betting that if Obama is still flying high then, they’ll try to make the election about Obama instead!
Don, please keep thinking that the problem is Republicans are not conservative enough. As a Democrat I pray that this strategy continues. We’re gaining seats without trying or having elections. NY special election and now Specter.
The difference to me has always been that in the Democratic party we’ve viewed people like Michael Moore as the guy who makes an okay bullshit fakeumentary flick once in a blue moon, but other than that, eh…whatever. No one’s ever taken an endorsement or policy idea from him seriously in any real world sense and run with it. On the other side, you’ve let Limbaugh (an entertainer who can be just as funny as Moore) lead your party. That is insane. That’s fucking nuts. You guys let a thrice divorced, drug addicted, childless, college dropout become the leader of the….party of ideas and values??? The worst part is, compared to Sean Hannity, Sarah Palin, and Glenn Beck……he comes off like the stable moderate one.
I’m sure Dodd and Obama would try that… but I really don’t think that’ll fly with Nutmeggers. Even Lieberman accrues something from Obama’s forgiveness of him. But with Dodd, it’s about trust. And I don’t see Obama having much impact, if a 30 year incumbent is not trusted. With Joe, I recall accusations of lying and such… but it never hit the front page of all the CT dailies (that I recall). So there were ideological / philosophical differences… but not an issue with breaking the trust of the electorate.
Dodd may be able to overcome his problems. I don’t know. But I don’t think Obama will have any serious impact in CT… at least not with any sort of endorsements or public appearances… fundraising is important though. If it’s close, Dodd will need to know his supporters and get them to the polls… and with no POTUS election on the ballot… turnout will be down and Dodd will need to turn his people out… so money may have an impact.
Furthermore, with 60 Senate votes… it’s not as if Obama can claim a need for Dodd’s vote IF it appears on national TV that the dems will be picking up more seats. In other words… if things are trending Democratic nationally… that may hurt Dodd even more.
Just to be sure, we are talking about the same Rob Simmons who had no problem Tea Party-ing with the anti-gay, anti-choice, anti-black, brown, yellow & red, anti-Obama, anti-government, paranoid freaks out on New Haven’s Long Wharf park.
Poor Rob. If he runs as a Rell moderate, he loses to Sam the Man, who loves to eat his own. If he appeals to his base by making love to Hannity and the Tea Party crowd, he wins the nomination, but forfeits his electability.
And you ‘wingers won’t wake up and realize how you’ve chased hundreds of thousands of traditional New England Republicans away with your divisive rhetoric and ideology?
Specter switched sides because he faced a brusing primary fight on the Republican side. In 1998, Specter nearly lost the primary to Toomey. This time, Specter may have lost the primary. Now he’ll almost certainly get the Democratic nomination. I think that is probably the main reason he switched.
So now the Democrats have 60 votes in the Senate. They can no longer claim that the Republicans will use the filibuster to stop things like card check. Specter came out against that, and then a bunch of Democratic senators sort of came out against. But they didn’t come out until it was apparent that Republicans had 41 votes. So now what will they do?
That’s the problem right there. Who gets the blame for the seat switch, and losing the filibuster? Club for Growth.
Looks loke the “Just Say No” party has instantaneously turned into the “Oh No” party.
-Rob Simmons thinks the GOP will lose it’s “effective” minority status with 60 dems – Oh No?
-We’ll lose our 2 party system if the Senate gets to make decisions – Oh No?
-Simmons thinks he can be a GOP hero by knocking out Dodd and bringing back the “Just Say No” for 2 more years –
Oh No?
-With a fillibuster proof majority Obama and Dodd gets to work on real changes to get the economy back on track -
Oh My
So then Reals, if left Republicanism is the future of the Republican Party in Connecticut, why does the party not have a Lowell Weicker in its future? Limbaugh is an entertainer; the springs and freshets of conservativism lie elsewhere. Why are there no more moderate Republicans in New England? Just wondering.
There aren’t? Snowe? Collins? Rell? John McKinney? John Kissel? Rob Simmons? Everyone else?
Specter switched sides because Specter COULD switch sides in a way that someone like, say, Mark Sanford of South Carolina COULDN’T.
In the US Congress: No Nancy, no Rob, no Shays — something wrong there, right?
Where’s Chaffee?
Something tells me that being less moderate wouldn’t have helped them much.
Don, I love the question and I’d have to in some way turn it around on your own party’s mantra regarding Islam. For years we always heard (on Foxnews) why aren’t moderate Muslims denouncing the fundamentalists???
I honestly think the same thing is true here. The second one Republican has the balls to stand up and say, screw your talking snake bullshit to the fundies, he or she will dominate. The constitution is the only thing that matters to most Americans and unfortunately, your party has religious literalists crawling all over it. It’s not enough to “be a moderate” (that doesn’t work and I agree).
What will work is what Steve Schmidt is trying. To stand up and say, “Look, it’s 2009, most Americans agree with fiscal responsibility, and social libertarian values,…including gay marriage, marijuana decriminalization, free speech, and strongly oppose moral demagoguery from self righteous assholes who willfully ignore the Sermon on the Mount and the Gospels and instead focus on bullshit ‘gay stuff creeps me out’ nonsense.
Once a moderate Republican stands up (that’s key) and shouts from the rooftops for fiscal responsibility and sane secular human values, they will dominate the political landscape.
At a minimum, all these dead moderate Connecticut Republicans mean that the Dems have figured out a way to slay them. Go ahead Ghengis, you explain it.
But also regarding your question about why don’t Republicans have a Lowell Weicker. I’m not sure. Maybe Healy has something to do with it. He seems to think he lives in Kansas. He’s up there with Roy O. right now for nothing but net losses in a political career. He hasn’t gained any seats in any chamber in CT….ever. Might be time to rethink his strategy of AM radio-esque chairmanship.
I think McKinney could easily knock off Himes. I also think McKinney is a big time moderate and is the party’s best hope right now.
Reals,
Lowell Weicker’s position on the first amendment was that it provided a right of freedom FROM religion, and he said it numerous times. You are banging down a straw man. There are no conservative politicians in Connecticut. So, we reason from this that the fall of moderate Republicans in Connecticut is not due to their ideological affiliation with what you regard as southern rednecks. Okay. Got that? Now, if that is not the reason why Republicans in Connecticut can no longer hang onto their seats, what is the reason? Again, just asking. Whatever your answer is, it cannot be in the form of: Because Connecticut Republicans have been too conservative. Try something else.
Sure there are. Again, they do not win elections, so we don’t hear from them. But if you’d like to try making the CT GOP more conservative instead of less, let me ask you: where are you going to get the votes to win elections from? Independents? Democrats?
No, the reason is, THEY ARE PUSSIES! (can I be any clearer?) They have let ultra right wing demagogues run the show for far too long and haven’t stood up for themsleves (other than their voting records). They need to come out and denounce the Limbaughs, the Hannity’s etc….
They could still hang their hats on small business, fiscal responsibility, job growth, ideas…ideas…ideas. It’s not like the left has thrown out a ton of new ideas lately to confront crisis. The problem is, the right made being an intellectual a ‘bad thing’. That’s insane.
My idea of “more moderate” than, say, Nancy Johnson is Chaffe. Didn’t help right?
Reals, reals, reals, reals reals … name one New England ultra, right wing, demogogic congressional Republican who has actually held office. None. They are all moderates, non-loonies, all gone. Still asking why.
Ghengis,
I have no idea where the future of the Republican Party in Connecticut lies — my guess would be in opposition to spendthrift Democrats. But I dunno. Everone apears to like unsutainable deficits: How else to you expalin the popularity of a president who, so far, has spent two and three times as much money as Bush?
Well, no. It didn’t. But do you think a conservative Republican could have won, or even lost by as small a margin?
Again, where are the votes going to come from? Democrats can go left and win because there are enough Dems and left-leaning independents to draw on.
Because Obama is spending the money on things the people want and need, I imagine, instead of on two wars that (eventually) became deeply unpopular.
Or maybe people think that the huge size of the crisis warrants an equally outsize response.
You are right, did either of the two stand up for rationale secular thought while elected? No, neither did. They were pussies who kowtowed to the AM radio retards.
American politics isn’t that hard to figure out. An enormous percentage of the population is fiscally conservative and socially liberal. Dems have one half of that, the Republicans have the other. Currently, moral self righteousness is far more obnoxious than spending. The second on politician holds on to both and runs with it, (loudly, that’s the key) they will be in a good spot in my opinion (as a youngin).
Don, the key to all of this is standing up and saying NO to Bob Jones types, Robertson, telling Michelle Bachman she’s a complete insult to intelligent design, telling Rush Limbaugh to get off his high horse, and engaging with the likes of Thomas Sowell and other intellectual conservatives on real ideas and initiatives that can actually solve problems.
Name one intellectual in the Republican party who holds any sort of power anywhere near Sarah Palin.
By not saying “NO” to the ‘ultra right wing’ you are in a sense (to use your party’s attitude regarding moderate Islam and the lack of denouncing by moderate Muslims)….. supporting it. This works both ways.
Unlike Reals, my idea of a conservative is a reality based, fiscally responsible politician who can tell you why deficits are bad, punishing taxes destroy the entrepreneurial spirit, and large scale governmental enterprises like union infested public schools in fatherless urban areas don’t work, won’t work and can’t work. The conservative is the guy who knows that ideas have consequences and knows what they are. At a minimum, he has an idea to defend that is larger than a chairmanship of a party, or crass opportunism. He’s not Specter.
I think that Reals’ point is that it’s hard to separate that stuff out from the social conservatism that seems to turn a lot of people off in the northeast.
Thanks Ghengis. That’s the point I’ve been trying to make this whole night.
If you don’t denounce the dumbing down of the ‘political culture’ done by certain prominent figures on the right, then one is left only to assume you support it. Which, in the northeast, an intelligent area is a death sentence.
Had Shays condemned the idiots on AM radio he might have had a better chance, who knows, I’d like to think he would for your sake. That would suck for you if I was wrong.
Look, I as a young man, own dvd’s of William F. Buckley’s debates in the late 60’s. There ain’t anything close to that politeness, respect and intelligence coming out of the mainstream right wing right now.
Again, this isn’t hard to figure out, to me it seems simple what most Americans want. The only problem is primaries. For your party it’s even worse than ours. You have to please basement dwelling bedwetting morons who live in a fictional world of ideological litmus tests. Only after these artards vote, does the public come out and cast their ballots.
President Obama has in effect nationalized banks. What need does this meet? Are there any unintended consequences lurking behind this action that later will return to bite us on our rumps? He is continuing in Afghanistan the military strategy Bush employed successfully in Iraq. What need does this meet? Chris Dodd, who is in trouble, was a reluctant warrior in Iraq, where there is oil and the remnants of a secular government. Afghanistan, by any measure, will be a more difficult military enterprise than Iraq. It’s a quagmire with mountains. Pakistan is crumbling under the fists of jihadists, and candidate for president Obama very clearly said during his campaign that he would be willing to rout out jihadist forces in Pakistan, a sovereign country with which we are not at war, if it were necessary. Dodd at first opposed the Persian Gulf War under Bush’s father, and said it would be a quagmire. It wasn’t then. He then supported George W’s foray into Iraq – upon what principle we know not. He then opposed it.
Now, Ghengis, time to fess up. I assume from your remarks here that you oppose Obama’s military adventure in Afghanistan. It will be awfully expensive at a time when President Obama is running up huge national debts. So then you oppose that intervention, right? Any idea how Dodd feels about all this? Haven’t heard much about that. If enemy troops are taken in the new military theatre, will Dodd innsist on supplying them with ACLU lawyers. Would he favor the sort of rendition utilized during the Clinton administration, there being no Gitmo to send these guys to? Any idea why Dodd hasn’t been given the opportunity to flesh out his views on the matter of Obama’s good war? Would it have something to do with Connecticut compromised press? Maybe not, eh?
Bush started the nationalizing of corporations.
With regards to Afghanistan, Obama is not ’surging’ Afghanistan. I heard Gen. Patraeus speak recently when he was in CT and even he said that a surge does not work and can not be accomplished in Afghanistan. The strategy is different.
Your intense interest on Dodd though is good metaphor for tonight’s discussion.
Dodd at this point is somewhat like shooting fish in a barrel. You don’t need new ideas or solutions. You just point at him and laugh. You just need to point out why he’s ‘bad.’ It works, I agree.
Okay,…so he’s off the Senate Chairmanship of Banks (and out of some bazzarro world craziness), the Republican that beats him gets placed there in the chairmanship,…the solution to the current financial crisis is……….???????
(crickets chirping, more deregulation that lead us to where we are and teabags dropping).
At this moment, within the GOP there is a problem reconciling war and fiscal responsibility. Ron Paul tried, but to no avail within a GOP primary.
I still wish RP coulda gotten the GOP nod. Even if he failed, he would’ve added monetary policy to the debate last fall… a policy central to a functioning state… and entirely absent from any governing philosophy seen in either Obama or McCain. (Recall when the Bush Bailout was announced, McCain cancelled his campaign to save the day and Obama wanted to first hear from the experts.)
It really would’ve been fascinating and healthy for America to experience the first significant debate on monetary policy since the birth of The Beast that Andrew Jackson already killed once.
1) Increase regulation by starting here:
The Congress shall have Power… To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures
2) In the spirit of the Democratic Party’s founder, Andrew Jackson – End The Fed and
3) Eliminate fractional reserve banking.
Painful? Yes. But America would then be well-positioned for another 200 years… until The Political Class again rises.
Is there anything sadder than a published columnist bitching about media bias? We can talk bias when they fire your ass.
The biggest problem in even debating these issues is that American Presidents have been largely illiterate on them for decades. Instead, they outsource monetary policy to the likes of:
Paulson (R-Goldman)
Rubin (D-Goldman)
Sununu was pretty right wing.
He still needs convincing on the first one, sadly.
Tim, I like your honesty, the problem is, the Foxnews pundits, the Glenn Becks, and all the right wing celebrities who raped your tea parties think your monetary policy such as abolishing the Fed is insane. At least that’s what Vicevich said on the radio when a caller asked him about it.
And there in lies the problem. ‘Republiterians’. Republicans who are ashamed of being deemed Republicans (kind of a weeny a label in this climate) trying to glom on to libertarian momentum without embracing libertarian ideals. Charlatans.
Our party system is a complete mess right now. We have pro-life dems, republitarians, blue dog conservatives, liberals, conservatives, populists and everything in between and they are associated with different parties all over the place. The American party system requires forming a coalition outside of government whereas our european counterparts allow for governing coalitions to be formed within government. The result is that groups in the american system can not easily reorganize a governing coalition.
The republican and democratic coalitions are both in disarray. While the republican coalition is currently not doing very well electorally, the system will ultimately reorganize itself to reach equilibrium… it’s just very slow in the US due to the Federal system, bicameral legislatures, and staggered elections. Unfortunately, it is these periods that the government is hardest to hold accountable.
I’m late to the CTLP party, as usual. But a few thoughts:
1) Specter’s defection only proves two things: he’s a hack and Toomey would have beat him like a drum in a primary. The national vs. northeast issue in the GOP is real, of course, but this is a bad example. Specter wasn’t purged by the dark armies of Sarah Palin and Rush Limbaugh; he jumped ship because he was about to be purged by the rank-and-file of his moderate, northeastern, home state party.
2) You’d hope that someone in the PA Democratic Party would have the self-respect to primary Specter, in spite of the President’s comments today. Arlen Specter: Change we can believe in!
3) The national GOP, in addition to its post-1964 weakness among black voters at all income levels, is having trouble appealing to educated white professionals (Emerging Democratic Majority, et al). If the Northeastern GOP really wants to have “influence on the direction of the national party,” it needs, I think, to show how its unique brand of Republicanism can fix or lessen either of these problems. If the Rockefeller Republicans can’t do that, then they don’t deserve to be relevant.
Matt,
That won’t happen because it can’t happen. But it’s nice to know that you don’t believe there is bias in reporting. I’m sure Hannity and the others will be happy to hear it. The questions I’ve asked here ought to be put to Dodd by any non-biased media. They haven’t been. Perhaps your sorry ass can explain why, if political bias has not played a roll in it.
The longest serving editorial page editor of the Hartford Courant, John Zakarian, once allowed that conservative columnists would be hired on his paper over his dead body. That tradition has been maintained at the paper since he left, with the possible exception of Kevin Rennie. I do not know whether he is on the staff or not.
Now maybe that’s OK for you Matt. One can hardly expect someone as progressive as you to object to the last four chief political correspondents at the paper, all of whom were liberals. Two of them went to work on the campaigns of liberal Democrats. But if you’d like to make a convincing argument that there is no political bias at the only state-wide paper in Connecticut, it seems to me that you’re going to have to account for these anomalies, without resorting to personal invective.
So go ahead.
I think that’s the basic discussion above — that the Northeast GOP isn’t all that moderate, and thus, holds fewer seats every cycle.
Sununu was pretty right wing.
Yeah, right. I remember him. The one who flew over the coo-coo’s nest. And in Connectiucut?
How much more do you want the ever-vilified Courant to shit on Dodd? If your criticism is that the hit pieces haven’t been very thoroughly reported, fair enough. But the media sucking is a different issue than ideological bias.
Meant to write liberals. Charlie Morse ended up on Weicker’s campaign. He had left the Republican party at that time to run for governor on the income tax ticket.
My criticism is apparent in what I’ve written above. Those are legitimate questions. They ought to be asked and answered. They haven’t been answered because they haven’t been asked. Why not?
As an anti-war progressive, you of all people should be demanding that he answer these questions.
Okay,…so he’s off the Senate Chairmanship of Banks (and out of some bazzarro world craziness), the Republican that beats him gets placed there in the chairmanship,…the solution to the current financial crisis is……….???????
None of that will happen, as we both know. The farce will have to play itself out. But it is becoming apparent that there are things that are not helpful. For instance, it is not helpful to pursue policies that punish entrepreneurs or entrepreneurial capital, the seed corn from which the garden of prosperity grows. In some columns I’ve suggested that Glass-Stegal should not have been decimated over a period of 40 years. This was the FDR inspired program that prevented corporations from engaging in banking activities. We have gone back to that spot because commercial banking, which has not been regulated under the Dodd regime, has utterly failed. There was some attempt to regulate Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, but that failed. Ask Dodd and Barney Frank why, it if does not trouble Matt too much.
Pesci–
What Connecticut voters clearly want is someone who will embrace the Tea Party crowd. You know that backbone of the CT GOP comprised of anti-gay, anti-choice, anti-Hispanic, anti-government elements. The ones who believe America is a Christian nation, and think the Ten Commandments should be placed in every courthouse. The home-schooling fanatics. The flag-waving, gun-toting Obama haters who wonder why others can’t see Obama’s secret plan to socialize America. The people who think society will fail if gays are allowed marriage equality. The ones who want to deport all 15 million “illegals”…And oh yeah, the closted racists speaking in code.
That’s what Connecticut really wants. And that’s why Rob Simmons has embraced them, because he shares their hate.
Now if only more people would embrace the Dark Side!
For what it’s worth, the tea parties weren’t about any of the crap you’ve just spewed. If they were, chances are that Democrats Barack Obama (anti-gay marriage), Kristen Gillibrand (anti-gay marriage, pro-NRA), Robert Byrd (former KKK member), and the like, would have attended and had speaking roles. Right?
Instead, the tea parties were about stopping wasteful spending and non-stimulating stimulus bills, and they united voters from all parties — including those who were just as angry at the Bush Administration for his role in the bailouts as they were at the Obama Administration for his tax proposals and the joke presently known as the “stimulus” package.
Keep on spreading hate and trying to stifle free speech, though. We’re used to it by now.
I really don’t see the Connecticut Republican Party in your description. I quite understand the need for liberals to cough up a conservative hairball from time to time, but their targets are not home grown. As for myself, I’m all for an intensification of life – which means I’m for gays being more gay, Republicans being more Republican, Democrats being more Democrat, anti- war activists being more anti-war, and so on down the line. But I’ve noticed that your own anti-war fervor has abated since Barack Obama has become the commander-in-chief. Why? I’m beginning to slide toward the opinion that perhaps your fervor was a grand pose all along, but it lies within your power to show me wrong. You and Matt are a grievous disappointment to me. And so is Chris Dodd. So, when I voice my criticism, I find both of you cowering behind your rhetoric – or worse, changing the subject. I went to one of the tea parties; didn’t see you there. The people I spoke to were worried about their state government plucking from them the little change they have left in their pockets. Reasonable, I thought, very much in the tradition of Sam Adams who, like me, believed in an intensification of life. It’s what makes him adorable. Sam never accepted a penny for any of his political agitation, and he belonged to the party of liberty. (Liberty – says Bill Buckley, a real conservative – means the ability and the power to be your potty old self). Adams died poor; he wasted his fortune on seeing to it that the rest of us enjoyed the kind of liberty Franklin had in mind when he told the lady that the Constitutional conventioners had given the country a Republic — if they could keep it. That’s why no one could fire Adams, Matt. And no one can fire me either.
How many openly Gay people have run for congress as Democrats from Connecticut?
Oh…that’s right – none.
Meanwhile the Republicans have run an openly Gay man twice – I guess it’s the Democrats that are homophobic huh?
It was nice to see that some friends came to Connecticut to visit and protest; we all know how much some posters here love to protest.
And protest.
And protest.
I find it interesting how liberals always bring the debate to Blacks & Gays….Why can’t they just see people as people?
Because without creating the illusion of conflict they could lose complete blocks of voters who through a series of lies have been sold the notion that the left likes them and will help them elevate their collective standard of living.
In truth the opposite is true as the left fights off all Republican attempts to discontinue some unique Connecticut habits, such as garnishing the wages of former recipients of public aid once they find themselves well on their feet.
This little habit of ours serves as a disincentive towards others seeking to better their lots in life as well; and should have been jettisoned decades ago.
The last thing the left can afford is an empowered block whereas keeping an enabled block voting “correctly” is fairly simple.
What it amounts to is The New Slavery.
I have been active in politics since the late 60’s and to me it is clear that the Republican Party envisioned by my good movement conservative friends here will not happen soon.This state is not a state for extreme right wingers, so to the extent that Mr Pesci and my friend ACR advocate for Regeanites or movement conservatives to run for various positions..I say let them advocate for them as their candidates are certain losers.
ACR–
Please reveal more of your true self. Please. Pretty please.
And what could be more pro-gay and women’s rights than a CT GOP that links to the FIC freaks?
More pro-hispanic than Rob Simmons Tea Partying with SCIRI?
More pro-black than Chairman Steele?
The fact that GOP enrollment is decling here in CT, — it’s all a libural conspiracy!
That would be the same Hartford Courant editorial board that endorsed George W. Bush twice, John Rowland 4 times, and I believe also John McCain, right?
Bruce…
As a moderate Republican, I say Ditto to your observation in post # 69.
Funny, they rarely endorse a Republican so it’s interesting that when they do, who they pick.
Gillibrand is an NRA supporter, but she announced her support for marriage equality when she was appointed to the Senate, and Obama publicly opposed Prop 8 in California this last cycle.
Ah. So he was against it before he was for it? Like John Kerry?
I think Obama was against Proposition 8 as a matter of principle — he opposes changing a Constitution the way it is supposed to be changed, i.e., through the amendment process, and instead favors having judges change it for us.
The California legislature actually passed a full marriage equality bill, and Schwarzenegger vetoed it because, in his view, it was a matter for the CA Supreme Court to decide. He also opposed Prop 8.
Look, Jack, I can be a dick on here sometimes, but at least I try to have some information about the things I talk about. You’re an asshole and an idiot to boot.
Matt:
If I could only be as classy as you, and if I wanted to totally disregard Genghis’s rules here (as you have), I’d consider saying things like, “go f__k yourself,” “my IQ is higher than your weight,” or “if you said that to my face, I’d smack the fat off of you.” But, since I can only hope to have your level of class, and because I respect Genghis’s rules and the blog he has set up here, I won’t.
Instead, I’ll just point out the real issue that I mentioned in my last post — which has nothing to do with Arnold Schwarzenegger — that Barack Obama said “I believe that marriage is the union between a man and a woman,” and “I oppose the divisive and discriminatory efforts to amend the California Constitution, and similar efforts to amend the U.S. Constitution or those of other states.”
Now, setting aside the niggling little question of whether a constitutional amendment that is constitutionally enacted can EVER be “divisive” or “discriminatory,” the inconsistency in Obama’s stance should give you pause: he says he believes in a position, but also that he opposes a constitutional amendment that would support that position. Why? One reason could be that he wanted to pander to both the religious and to the homosexual community, a few months before the 2008 election. (That’s actually a pretty good one.) Another could be, as I suggested, that he generally favors having courts determine what constitutions say, and not having “divisive and discriminatory” amendments clear up what constitutions actually say. After all, if a court finds X based on a state’s constitution, and the state’s constitution is amended to specifically bar X, there can be no right to X.
My point had nothing to do with Arnold or even my own views on gay marriage (which are both different from and clearer than the President’s), and everything to do with Barack Obama’s inconsistency on an issue that is very important (for different reasons) to large sections of the American electorate. He flips and he flops based on whatever polls or his teleprompter say. If someone named Jodi Rell or George Bush did that, you’d bash them to pieces. But when Barack Obama does it, it’s called “leadership.” It’s amazing that people let him get away with that.
P.S. Matt, you might want to read these. Have a nice day.
The only rule around here is to give as good as you get. Has been for ages.
Jodi Rell didn’t do that? I thought she threatened to veto any equal marriage bill last year, then signed one this year. I certainly didn’t bash her — when people come around to my way of thinking, I try not to get in their way. Unlike with you goofballs, who keep hammering your own guys even after they’ve engaged in ritual self-criticism and re-dedicated themselves to your cause (see: Arlen Specter and his former support for pro-choice Supreme Court nominees).
I know that you’re invested in thinking that you and your allies are persecuted and misunderstood, while your opponents are unthinking hypocrites, but that you could write that whole “you’d attack Republicans for behaving this way” when I specifically mentioned (and didn’t attack) a Republican who did exactly that in the post you’re responding to is pretty incredible. Even more incredible is that you genuinely seem to believe your own bullshit.
So Genghis’s Rules page means nothing? (Apparently only to you.)
I’ve done no such thing. First of all, I didn’t get into your distortion of Arnold’s opinion (or my position) on the issue, simply because it had nothing to do with my original post. Arnold’s take on gay marriage was that the bill would contravene the will of the voters (always a bad thing), and that’s why he vetoed it:
Second, you seem to be saying that the California Supreme Court’s opinion changed Arnold’s mind, when it did no such thing: the Court’s opinion followed Arnold’s veto, and was based on the California Constitution, as it read at the time. Once the Constitution was changed, guess what? I hate to say it, but the Supreme Court’s opinion was essentially null and void.
Look, I don’t have a dog in this fight. It’s a state issue that has already been resolved where I live. My original post was that if the tea partiers really were the anti-gay, racist, pro-gun zealots that TrueBlue suggested they were, wouldn’t Obama, Gillebrand and Byrd have been among them? You changed the topic and stretched Obama’s stance on the California ballot issue into a band-aid covering up his campaign position on gay marriage (which is laughable). If that helps you reconcile your support for a guy who doesn’t believe in gay marriage, fine. I couldn’t care less.
However, when you essentially tell Genghis that his rules don’t apply to you, or you resort to calling people names from behind the safety of your keyboard (something I am sure you wouldn’t dare do in public), it’s pretty clear that you’ve lost the argument. So, again, have a nice day.
Former pugilist Sen. Harry Reid has reached a private arrangement with defecting former Republican Sen. Arlen Specter that would allow the Specter to retain his seniority, and this has got true-blue Democrats in the senate who have been patiently waiting their turn at the chairmanship trough in a snit, according to a story in The Hill.
An unnamed “senior laymaker” curtly told the Hill, “That’s his deal and not the caucus’s.
I’m moderated, and Matt isn’t? Really?
I don’t know how many different ways there are to say this.
The moderation is happening automatically. We don’t know why, which makes it very difficult to fix.
Although it may sometimes seem like the world is out to get you, the CTLP is not actually targeting individual people (except for Mr. X who is banned for LIFE).
Please be patient.
Thanks.
What I seem to be saying? What I actually said was:
Which follows from Schwarzenegger’s statement:
I know it’s harder to debate what people actually say than what they “seem to be saying” in your mind, but get with the program.
I’ve pointed out violations of those rules in the past, and was told in effect that the moderators here can’t be bothered with enforcing them. Which is fair enough, I can’t tell those cats how to spend their time.
Great, and then the people certainly did determine what they thought of the Court’s ruling, didn’t they? Either way, my comment had nothing to do with Schwarzenegger, and everything to do with Hope and Flip-Flop ‘08, so “get with the program,” Matt.
You must log in to post a comment.