Arlen Specter to Change Parties?

By Alan Stewart Carl | Related entries in Democrats, Pennsylvania, Republicans, Senate

null

This is pretty big news. Reports out of Washington indicate Pennsylvania Senator Arlen Specter will switch parties moving from a Republican to a Democrat. The announcement is expected today or tomorrow.

Republicans in Pennsylvania have been planning to mount a primary challenge against Specter because the senator is viewed by party operatives as too liberal. Well, looks like they got their wish to get rid of Specter. Too bad the result will almost certainly give Democrats a 60 vote majority in the Senate (assuming Al Franken officially wins in Minnesota, which looks very likely).

More as the story develops.


This entry was posted on Tuesday, April 28th, 2009 and is filed under Democrats, Pennsylvania, Republicans, Senate. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.

31 Responses to “Arlen Specter to Change Parties?”

  1. kranky kritter Says:

    Oh goodie. Now progressives can get to work trying to kick out all those nasty blue dogs. That should push the numbers back down.

  2. michael reynolds Says:

    KK:

    Arlen will be a Blue Dog. We’re not kicking anyone out. We’re not as dumb as the current GOP.

    The Republican party now has zero political power in Washington. Zero.

    The most powerful Republicans in the country are now a handful of relatively moderate governors. Guys like Crist and Schwarzzenegger and Huntsman.

    And I wonder how long Olympia Snowe and Susan Collins will want to remain in an impotent Party of Dixie.

  3. Brian Krenz Says:

    It’s an indication of how sad the Republican Party has become when they feel the need to kick out Specter b/c he’s too liberal. He’s a moderate. And now the GOP has practically none of them left.

  4. Alistair Says:

    He maybe Blue Dog but this is a blow the Republican Party because they have kicked out the moderate.

  5. Polimom Says:

    And I wonder how long Olympia Snowe and Susan Collins will want to remain in an impotent Party of Dixie.

    I wouldn’t be at all surprised to see a switch there in the near future, as well.

  6. Trescml Says:

    The people who will benefit the most are Norm Colman’s lawyers because they are going to try and drag this out to the end of time now. OK, they were doing that anyway, but they are going to be better financed now.

  7. kranky kritter Says:

    Why are two people saying the GOP kicked Specter out? IS this like when democrats call level funding a cut?

    We’re not kicking anyone out. We’re not as dumb as the current GOP.

    That makes a grand total of one time I’ve heard a democrat/liberal say this about blue dogs. In contrast, I have heard multiple liberals say that something needs to be done to get rid of those blue dogs. They’re not real democrats, etc., etc.

    For the sake of argument, I am happy to stipulate the current GOP is dumb. That makes democrats not quite as dumb as dirt, I guess. Once all the RINOs are dead, all there will be is DINOs. I fully expect that progressives crowing today about their nascent veto-proof majority will soon be confused by all the blue dog DINOs who just won’t toe the line.

    Newsflash: the arguments about spending have not evaporated, they’ve just moved within the party. The turd is now within the party punchbowl. Drink up!

  8. ExiledIndependent Says:

    Ok, from what I can tell, Specter knew that he wouldn’t win re-election because of a stronger candidate. So in order to preserve his job as a politician, he switched parties to garner the support of Obama, his governor, and an (obviously) eager-to-greet-him group of Dems.

    This isn’t about ideology or voting one’s conscience, it’s about political expediency, self-preservation, and a desire to hold onto power. The GOP is going to have a loooong road back, but it might just begin with bidding political carrion birds like Specter adieu.

  9. michael reynolds Says:

    KK and Ex:

    One of the things a political party is supposed to do is protect its members. The GOP had made it crystal clear it would do nothing for Specter.

    But don’t overlook the larger point of the primary threat by Toomey. Toomey is a right winger with zero chance of carrying PA against the Dems. So the message the GOP was sending to Specter was: we’d rather lose the seat to the Dems than help you.

    The GOP would rather lose than compromise with an occasionally independent member.

    This differentiates them from us, despite your attempt at finding a silver lining, KK. We love us some Webb and some Tester and some Nelson over here in the Democratic Party. We certainly have some ideologues on our side, but they don’t drive our bus.

    The GOP is its ideologues. And nothing else. The Money! Republicans and the Bombs! Republicans thought they could use the Jesus! Republicans as unpaid foot soldiers. And now the rabble . . . excuse me, I mean the GOP base is driving the bus and tossing their moderates to the curb.

  10. mike mcEachran Says:

    @ Exiled “Ok, from what I can tell, Specter knew that he wouldn’t win re-election because of a stronger candidate….This isn’t about ideology or voting one’s conscience, it’s about political expediency, self-preservation, and a desire to hold onto power.”

    By stronger candidate, you mean in the eyes of the primary voting Republican base. Spector’s switch is called democracy. When the candidate and the base no longer see eye to eye – the candidate is free to find a constituency that wants him. Once again I see a Republican fringe utterly unwilling to recognize and take any responsibility for all the evidence of their impending demise. Its sad to watch.

  11. Simon Says:

    Last year, it was rumored that Senator Lieberman would begin caucusing with the GOP. I called foul: as much as I would welcome Sen. Lieberman’s vote, I said, he must resign and seek reelection as a Republican. It is unconscionable – tantamount to fraud – to go before the voters and win election as the nominee of one political party (or of no party) and then renounce that party and join another one. It applied to Lieberman (ind to GOP); it applied to Jeffords (GOP to ind); and it applies to Specter. If Arlen wants out, I say good riddance; if Joe (or anyone else) wants in, I say welcome aboard. But in either instance, you must — no ifs, no buts — resign and seek reelection.

  12. Simon Says:

    Of course, my comment above means that I disagree entirely with Mike McEachran’s comment above that “Spector’s switch is called democracy”; it is no such thing. Lieberman’s reelection as an independent having shed the mantle of the Democratic party could certainly be called democracy at work: the voters showed that they wanted the man more than the party. Likewise, Spector’s switch will rightly be called democracy at work if he is now reelected as a Democrat. But in no sense can his defection be called democracy — ex vi termini, since the people have not consented. He has done this unilaterally. That makes it closer to bait-and-switch than democracy.

  13. michael reynolds Says:

    “No ifs, no buts.” Grrr!

    I didn’t think this could get any sweeter. But I was wrong: there’s nothing that isn’t improved by hearing the impotent cries of your political opponents.

  14. Kevin Jackson Says:

    Simon-
    So are you saying his supporters were too dumb to know what his stands on the issues are and they were just voting for a party? I doubt we will see him in lockstep with the Democrats. The way the GOP generally votes they should run and just keep the vote but not the staff, the office or the perks and save us all some money. I had a Republican congresswoman here who voted against something I cared about and she said she voted against it even though she never indicated any such plan on the position and furthermore had never read the bill, but her party was against it. Who needs anyone that is just taking up space? I can’t imagine anyone in PA not realizing who Specter is and how he votes. I wouldn’t be surprised if there are a few more in line. The GOP led by their extremes is into cannibal time and if I were a moderate one, I’d realize I had nothing in common with where Limbaugh, Rove and Co want to take it.

    I would also add that with your logic since Bush was the most divisive and dismissive President in a lifetime and pledged to be a Uniter he was much worse. Specter is being the same, Bush decieved to get elected.

  15. Simon Says:

    Kevin, he ran as a Republican, he was elected as a Republican, and he should serve his term as a Republican. If he no longer wants to be the Republican Senator from Pennsylvania, he must resign not only his party allegiance but his seat. If he wants to be a Democrat, fine – but he has to resign and stand as a Democrat.

    It would be no different if Ben Nelson proposed to switch to the GOP. Would I welcome an extra vote? Sure. It doesn’t work that way, though. He would be absolutely bound to resign and seek reelection as a Republican, just as Lieberman would have been (some might argue that it’s a little different to go into or out from independent status, à la Lieberman or Jeffords, than to cross the aisle, as did Specter. Nor would it be any different, to take a slightly less realistic hypothetical, had President Obama gone before the nation on January 21 to announce that the previous evening he had brought Newt Gingrich in for a conversation, that Newt had converted him, and that henceforth, Obama would renounce his campaign pledges and implement Newt’s book “Real Change Requires Real Change,” I would call for his resignation. I would do so even though I think Gingrich’s plan is vastly superior to Obama’s, and even though I regard the prospect of Joe Biden becoming President tantamount to a national disgrace. Obama was elected as a Democrat; if he wises up and changes his mind, I say welcome aboard, but you’re going to have to resign. It is a fraud to run as one party’s nominee and then remain in office having changed to the other one.

    The point isn’t whether Specter was a liberal Republican or that everyone knew it – the point is that he defrauded the people who voted for him, who worked for him, who gave him money. If a Senator makes a certain claim the central plank of their election bid, and that claim is later revealed to have been a deliberate lie on their part, that Senator is morally obligated to resign. The party on whose ticket one was elected is the most fundamental and central plank on which any politician runs – indeed, it is the scaffold on which all other planks rest. On a practical level, it is the source of their ability to raise funds, for example, and on the level of democratic theory, it is the single piece of information on which all voters may be said to evaluate a candidate. Cf. Cook v. Gralike, 531 U.S. 510, 532 (2001) (Rehnquist, C.J., concurring) (the ballot, including the candidate’s party label ,”is the last thing the voter sees before he makes his choice”); see also Tashjian v. Republican Party of Connecticut, 479 U.S. 208, 220 (1986) (“[t]o the extent that party labels provide a shorthand designation of the views of party candidates on matters of public concern, the identification of candidates with particular parties plays a role in the process by which voters inform themselves for the exercise of the franchise”); Republican, Democratic, and Libertarian Parties of Washington v. Washington, 460 F. 3d 1108 (9th Cir. 2006), rev’d sub nom. Washington State Grange v. Washington State Republican Party et al, 128 S.Ct. 1184 (2008) (“political parties’ names matter; they are shorthand identifiers that voters traditionally rely upon to signal a candidate’s substantive and ideological positions”); Washington Grange, supra, 128 S.Ct. at __ (Scalia, J., dissenting) (“all evidence suggests party labels are … a central consideration for most voters” (citing Cain, Party Autonomy and Two-Party Electoral Competition, 149 U. Pa. L. Rev. 793, 804 n.34 (2001); Rahn, The Role of Partisan Stereotypes in Information Processing About Political Candidates, 37 Am. J. Pol. Sci. 472 (1993); Klein & Baum, Ballot Information and Voting Decisions in Judicial Elections, 54 Pol. Research Q. 709 (2001)). When a Senator, having stood on one party’s ticket, then proposes to change parties, this trust is broken. It is only slightly different to having lied to the electorate, and is in every way morally equivalent. I have no particular objection to Senator Specter becoming a Democrat, and I certainly have no objection to Senator Lieberman becoming a Republican — but in order to do so, in my own view, they are absolutely and without qualification required to resign and seek reelection on that basis. They have essentially defrauded the electorate and the people who donated time and money; they have to do penance for that, and the electorate should get to express their view as to whether they wanted this person, or the nominee of that party.

    Lastly, even assuming it’s comparable, your premise is wrong: Bush did indeed unite the country. By the end of his term, Republicans and Democrats alike were united in contempt.

  16. Tillyosu Says:

    2 things immediately stand out about this for me:

    1) Specter called Obama (or at least Joe Biden) to inform him of the switch, but not Michael Steele.
    2) Obama has agreed to campaign for Specter over long time Pennsylvania Democrat challengers.

    I’m wondering, what votes has Specter agreed to trade in return for Obama’s support?

  17. David Says:

    One person closer to removing every last person with a functioning brain from the republican party. It’s too bad. They used to actually be conservatives.

  18. michael reynolds Says:

    Tilly:

    He hasn’t agreed to anything. He doesn’t have to.

    The way this works is that Obama and Rendell can control whether Specter faces a Democratic primary challenge. That’s why Specter will behave on a lot of issues.

    But we don’t have to extract promises from him, we just got the opportunity to land a haymaker on the jaw of the GOP. You don’t look too hard at that kind of gift horse.

  19. Tillyosu Says:

    “The way this works is that Obama and Rendell can control whether Specter faces a Democratic primary challenge.”

    I suspect if that were true then Obama would not have publicly promised to campaign for him.

  20. TerenceC Says:

    This isn’t a surprise in PA – this has been discussed for years that Specter would switch parties – but with a Republican majority it didn’t make much sense at the time. I don’t think politicians owe any loyalty to political parties – as much as many would like to think otherwise. Politicians do owe their voters loyalty however, and Specter is doing exactly that for the voters of PA. He’s been in the Senate for 30 years (and is way too old in my opinion, but that’s another story) and his seniority can only help Pennsylvanians since the Dem’s are the majority for quite some time to come.

    Specter is a decent legislator – a bad Republican, and will probably be a bad Democrat – but this move makes him a good politician doesn’t it? The Republican party is all but dead now. They have become nothing more than a fringe party of hard right conservatives, and primarily from the South East region of the US. A third party is a virtual certainty for 2012 at this point.

  21. michael reynolds Says:

    The party on whose ticket one was elected is the most fundamental and central plank on which any politician runs – indeed, it is the scaffold on which all other planks rest.

    Nonsense. This isn’t a parliamentary system. Nothing about Specter rested primarily on his party ID. Rather the contrary, he has a long, long record of not caring much what his party wants. In fact, since he received a lot of Dem and Indie votes you could argue just as convincingly that he ran on a platform of ignoring party loyalty and stressing independence.

    He just displayed that independence.

    Further, it was quite obvious that his party was turning on him. Steele threatened at one point to cut him off. Various right-wingers were ready to do their best to destroy him politically. All Specter was doing was adjusting to reality.

    In fact, Specter was just demonstrating loyalty to his own voters: Dems, Independents and the 200,000 former PA Republicans who preceded Arlen to the only remaining national party.

    Of course as a Dem I’d rather he resigned. He’d have been replaced by a Democrat and we’d get the vote without the agita.

  22. Simon Says:

    Tillyosu, I have to agree with Reynolds – Obama doesn’t have to promise anything and likely hasn’t. Specter jumped because (as Pat notes) he faced certain defeat in the GOP primary, and no matter how slim his chances of winning a Democratic primary, he at least has a hope in hell of making that shot.

  23. Simon Says:

    TerenceC Says:

    A third party is a virtual certainty for 2012 at this point.

    Well, that’s the easiest prediction in the world – how many elections has Ralph Nader run in? How many elections has the “libertarian party” fielded a candidate in? Of course there will be a third party in 2012; there will be a fourth party. That’s like predicting that the sun will rise in the east. The question is whether there will be a third party of any significance–and as Perot’s two runs and Nader’s run in 2000 demonstrate, even that is a low bar to clear.

    Optimist that I am, I tend to think that we (that is, the GOP) are smart enough to learn from history, and history–both in the short term in this country, and in the long term in many countries, such as Britain–demonstrates with unmistakable clarity that when one side divides in the face of unity on the other, the result is simply to cement the latter’s hegemony. As Franklin is supposed to have put it, we must find a way to hang together, because if we do not, we will surely hang apart.

    michael reynolds says:

    The party on whose ticket one was elected is the most fundamental and central plank on which any politician runs – indeed, it is the scaffold on which all other planks rest.

    Nonsense. This isn’t a parliamentary system. Nothing about Specter rested primarily on his party ID.

    Poppycock. See my comment here.

  24. TerenceC Says:

    Well Simon – thanks for the correction. What I meant to say was that in 2012 the Republican party will be torn in half with the actual moderate public servants leaving the party in opposition to the reactionary, ultra religious, ultra-conservatives that will make up the surviving Republican party members.

    Franklins quote is actually – “We must all hang together, gentlemen…else, we shall most assuredly hang separately” said at the signing of Declaration of Independence. I don’t believe this is a fitting quote to describe any Republican efforts historically, and most certainly currently under way. A more fitting quote from Franklin in this instance is “Take it from Richard, poor and lame,what’s begun in anger ends in shame.” Or my personal favorite – which should extend to all members of the Congress, “If your head is wax, don’t walk in the sun.”

  25. Simon Says:

    Terence, we – the moderates, that is – aren’t leaving the party, and the dichotomy you suggest is dubious at best. As I said (and this was the point of the Franklin quote), it would be insane and historically ignorant to splinter the mainstream right since that would do little more than guarantee hegemony for the left. There are things on which I disagree with my religious conservative friends, but while we sometimes have to scratch our heads for political common ground, it is always abundantly clear that GOP moderates and fiscal conservatives have far less in common with the left. Why, then, would we cut our own throats? The GOP faces some significant challenges, which means that America faces some significant challenges (how to derail this unfolding catastrophe the Democrats want to visit on us, with only a few tools). We aren’t going to solve it by making things even harder.

  26. TerenceC Says:

    Simon

    Now you’re equating the challenges a political party faces to the challenges America faces – and that isn’t a fair or accurate comparison. The Republican party is in exactly the position it is due to it’s inability to govern effectively, manage an economy effectively, provide services the citizens of the United States need, and use facts to form policy rather than feelings, inuendo, and manipulation. It has proven itself to be grossly incompetent in so many areas that what we are seeing is an inevitable result.

    The USA is primarily in it’s current state of stress due in large measure to those incompetencies visited upon our nation by 30 years of inept Republican control. If you’re truly a moderate than you realize that you have more in common with the Democratic party and “liberals” then you do with the reactionary, extreme, and narrow mindedness currently in vogue in this years Republican party – although that admission may be very difficult to make.

    Ronald Reagan once said “I didn’t leave the Democratic Party, the Democratic left me”, and thirty years later the position is reversed. The Republican party represents nothing substantial, stands for nothing substantial, and like an alcoholic it’s looking for someone to blame for it’s problems – when all it has to do is look in the mirror.

  27. Simon Says:

    TerenceC Says:

    Now you’re equating the challenges a political party faces to the challenges America faces – and that isn’t a fair or accurate comparison.

    Sure it is. If the GOP can’t get itself sufficiently organized to derail the agenda of this administration and its allies in Congress, the result — the possibly irrevocable result — will be to America’s detriment.

    If you’re [sic.] truly a moderate than you realize that you have more in common with the Democratic party and “liberals” then you do with the reactionary, extreme, and narrow mindedness currently in vogue in this years Republican party….

    Even stipulating the second part of the claim — what’s in vogue wih the GOP — arguendo, this is a remarkably self-serving definition of the moderate’s position, Terence. You’re a moderate, and you feel you have more in common with X than Y, ergo moderates must have more in common with the Democratic party and “liberals.” Not so. What do I have in common with the party of Washington D.C.? The party of big government and big federal government, the party of big spending and commensurately large taxation? Of if it moves, regulate it until it stops moving then subsidize it? That may sound like an out-of-date cliche, but sadly, that out-of-date discredited dogma remains the official teaching of the Democratic party and its hangers on. The list goes on. By contrast, I have many disagreements with the more conservative elements of the party, but we have and can find common ground. I believe they love their country, rather than desiring to transform us into the westernmost outpost of Europe as our friends on the left – most of whom have never lived, as I have, in Europe – plainly desire. For example, some of my conservative friends have proposed some outlandish, statist stuff that I really can’t agree with, but not one of them has ever proposed government-run healthcare. I believe their hearts are in the right place even if sometimes they are misguided, and that gives us far more in common than those who have promised to “fundamentally transform[] the United States of America.” To be sure, there are changes that could be made that will make a more perfect union – Gingrich recommends some – but it isn’t the perfection of our union Obama has in mind. I take him at his word. It is transformation he has in mind. And that extremist vision gives me no common ground with him or his supporters whatsoever.

  28. Tillyosu Says:

    “Specter jumped because (as Pat notes) he faced certain defeat in the GOP primary, and no matter how slim his chances of winning a Democratic primary, he at least has a hope in hell of making that shot.”

    Well then why not just run as an independent? If Specter is a known independent and his constituents voted him into office knowing he was really an independent and not a Republican (as a few here have argued) then why be so quick to join the Democrats and look like a turncoat and political opportunist?

    And it’s not just Obama who has already voiced support for Specter, it’s most democratic members of Congress. My, they made their minds up quickly (especially for someone with such an “independent” streak).

    I’m telling you, Specter has promised to vote their way on a few key pieces of legislation that he wouldn’t have otherwise voted yes on. My guess is that, among them, is the EFCA.

    Oh and Michael, in regards to “We’re not kicking anyone out. We’re not as dumb as the current GOP.”

    I suggest you check out DailyKos, Glenn Greenwald, The New Republic, MyDD, and Open Left before making similar statements.

    By the way, did you mean to say “dumb” or “principled?”

  29. Kevin Jackson Says:

    Simon wrote

    Kevin, he ran as a Republican, he was elected as a Republican, and he should serve his term as a Republican.

    He’s been a pretty independant voter for decades and I would argue that the voters of Pennsylvania knew that. It’s sad that in the US we have party affiliations dictate so much but it is almost impossible to get elected without hanging your hat somewhere. There are Republicans who run as Democrats and Democrats who run as Republicans in areas where the party system is skewed. Here in Illinois, Cook County means you need to run as a Democrat. Until recently, you had to run as a Republican in DuPage Country to stand a chance. Because of the party dominance, horrible candidates of both parties have been elected. I don’t think that is a good thing. I’d rather have someone like Specter (even though I don’t agree with him on quite a few things) because I know he thinks rather than regurgitates.

    then
    If he no longer wants to be the Republican Senator from Pennsylvania, he must resign not only his party allegiance but his seat. If he wants to be a Democrat, fine – but he has to resign and stand as a Democrat.

    I’d like to see a lie cause a resignation and I don’t see that coming either.

    Nor would it be any different, to take a slightly less realistic hypothetical, had President Obama gone before the nation on January 21 to announce that the previous evening he had brought Newt Gingrich in for a conversation, that Newt had converted him, and that henceforth, Obama would renounce his campaign pledges and implement Newt’s book “Real Change Requires Real Change,”

    The difference would be that the candidate would have changed Specter hasn’t, but why should Specter have to stay with a party that has abandoned him and planned to run against him. In your scenario, it appears the party is more important than the will of the voter or the integrity of the candidate. The problem the GOP has is that it’s base has captured the party by capturing the primaries, then when the general comes around we all lose because either an extremist wins or the the extremist loses. In both cases, the debate is cheapened and the divide continues. Shimkus is a good example of the party winning even when someone has no business being in Congress Do you really think that a guy who believes that God will decide when the world ends should be voting on how to deal with the climate? There are reasonable arguments that can be made but when you go into a vote saying that what we do will have no impact, why are you voting? I think Specter saw not only himself losing, but the GOP and the American people. Even when I disagree with him, I think he is a thoughtful candidate. I think that is a good thing.

    The difficulty I have with your pronouncement is that you seem to think the party can do no wrong and that your representative is bound to a decision that he no longer believes is right. It’s also one way loyalty. The party isn’t with him so why should he stay with them? We live in a Republic because the representatives are there to represent us. (I think we should vote based on judgement)

    If we lived in a democracy there would probably be less say for the right wing and if you live in a Republic you can vote them out if you disagree with their positions.

    And again we agree on something
    Lastly, even assuming it’s comparable, your premise is wrong: Bush did indeed unite the country. By the end of his term, Republicans and Democrats alike were united in contempt.

  30. TerenceC Says:

    Simon

    That’s an easy claim to make that the current administrations’ agenda will be to the detriment of the USA, but a claim is all it is. How do you know? What if you’re wrong? If past performance is an indicator of future behavior any claim the Republican party can make about what it thinks is a viable political platform is derailed, a failure, and without merit.

    Big government is a holdover from Bush (largest Federal government growth in history) and will shrink in the years to come. Big taxation just doesn’t appear to be on the horizon, and the majority of Americans have or will have a tax cut. National healthcare has been discussed for 60 years – and if we don’t pass it then we are giving away a potential competitive weapon for our corporations and their workers. Regarding the fundamental changes that have to happen in the US – healthcare is keystone – or our largest corporations will continue to ship jobs overseas. I personally think “single payer” healthcare is the right way to go (because it takes the insurance companies out of the equation), but that probably won’t pass in the first go around.

    Most of the points you raise in your post stating that we are on the wrong path are tired old arguments put out by the CEO wing of the Republican party. All I can say to that is “who got the richest in the last 30 years?” – they did, to the detriment of the majority and it has to stop. The basic “glue” that holds a society together – roads,bridges, transportation, education, national defense, all suffered terribly under Republican control – while the tax payer was robbed blind. Why anyone of political power would want to associate themselves with the party of Karl, Dick, and and little dickie jr is a mystery. Specter leaving was not a surprise to me – atleast one of the sisters in Maine will be next – there are 6 or 8 others that will probably retire rather than change but it will have the same effect. Sometimes it’s good to know when to change course, and leaving the R party is a good decision for any moderate with political interest beyond the “tripod” of the Republican platform.

  31. Polimom Says:

    Simon said:

    “Terence, we – the moderates, that is – aren’t leaving the party, and the dichotomy you suggest is dubious at best. As I said (and this was the point of the Franklin quote), it would be insane and historically ignorant to splinter the mainstream right since that would do little more than guarantee hegemony for the left.”

    Simon, the most recent polls indicate that only 21% of Americans now self-identify as Republicans. Do you attribute the rapidly-shrinking numbers to some other group leaving?

    I disagree. I see moderates leaving the Republicans in droves. What I do NOT see is moderates necessarily becoming Democrats. We have a rapidly expanding group of “independents” — people who are not finding a good political fit with either major party.

Leave a Reply


NOTE TO COMMENTERS:


You must ALWAYS fill in the two word CAPTCHA below to submit a comment. And if this is your first time commenting on Donklephant, it will be held in a moderation queue for approval. Please don't resubmit the same comment a couple times. We'll get around to moderating it soon enough.


Also, sometimes even if you've commented before, it may still get placed in a moderation queue and/or sent to the spam folder. If it's just in moderation queue, it'll be published, but it may be deleted if it lands in the spam folder. My apologies if this happens but there are some keywords that push it into the spam folder.


One last note, we will not tolerate comments that disparage people based on age, sex, handicap, race, color, sexual orientation, national origin or ancestry. We reserve the right to delete these comments and ban the people who make them from ever commenting here again.


Thanks for understanding and have a pleasurable commenting experience.


Related Posts: