Arlen Specter, a United States Senator from Pennsylvania, has decided to switch parties. He is switching over to the Democratic Party, from the GOP. My question is, “What took him so long?”
I wonder if Arlen is willing to take Liberal Republican Senators Susan Collins and Olympia Snowe with him?
The liberal press is loving this. The New York Times is saying how “shocked” the Republicans are. The liberals are slobbering over the opportunity, should Franken finish his steal in Minnesota too, to have a filibuster-proof Senate. The sky’s the limit for them, they seem to think. They can pass any legislation they want, with that kind of majority, and there isn’t a thing the Republicans can do about it.
“Moderates are abandoning the party,” the Left is proclaiming. This is the beginning of the end for the GOP, say the liberals. After all, the Republican Party, as far as liberals are concerned, can only win an election if they move more to the left - and with the moderates abandoning ship, “Those right-wing extremist Conservatives will gain control of the party, and they will never win with that kind of platform.”
First, I would like to correct the Left in their assessment of the situation. Arlen Specter is not a moderate Republican. I know, the liberals think that any Republican that isn’t a gun clinging, Bible totin’, Constitution loving politician automatically falls into the “moderate” category. Specter is not a moderate in any way, shape or form. He was a “Liberal Republican,” that so happened to vote conservative about a third of the time. Arlen Specter has always had more in common with the Democrats than the Republicans, anyway. The only reason he became a Republican in the first place, way back in 1966 (he changed parties then, too), was because he felt he would have a better chance of winning an election with an “R” after his name, back then, than a “D.”
Hmmmm, looks like a pattern forming.
I heard Specter’s explanation for the jump across the aisle. It is his opinion that ever since 1980, when the Reagan Revolution began, the Republican Party has moved too far to the right. Note that the GOP is hardly farther to the Right than it was during the Reagan years. Since 1988, the Republican Party has been steadily veering left, to be honest. Specter, however, disagrees with that. In fact, he pointed out in a statement, that because of the Republican’s right-wing lean, over 200,000 Republicans in Pennsylvania became Democrats last year, and like those voters, he is finding his philosophy to be more in line with the Democrats, than the Republicans.
If that is true, then why didn’t he have a beef with the party during the Reagan years?
Remember, his explanation is full of hooey. He wasn’t about to abandon the winning team in the eighties, regardless of what he thought of them, just like now, since he is so sure the Obama-maniacs are the current unbeatable winners, he wants to join what he thinks to be the winning team.
Like most Liberals, his real reason for jumping parties echoes his reasoning back in 1966. Specter, like any good liberal, is doing what is best for him. He believes he’ll have a better chance of being re-elected in 2010 by becoming a Democrat. If changing parties will spell a win for him in 2010, then why not make the jump? Seems like a reasonable gamble. The dice have been rolling well for him so far, so why not bet on the hard numbers now? After all, for Leftists, it’s all about power. That is what Liberals are all about. They do what they can to be elected. Everything else is secondary. It’s not about what is best for the country, or what loyalties he may have. Liberals never make their decisions for what is best for anyone other than themselves, and their liberal brethren.
With Franken slowly surviving Coleman’s appeals in Minnesota, Arlen Specter equals Democrat number 60 in the U.S. Senate. 60 Democrats makes the Senate filibuster proof. But that means nothing, really. They were already filibuster proof, for the most part, because the Democrats know that in a pinch they can depend on Republicans Specter, Collins, and Snowe to vote with them often. Changing a “D” to an “R” just makes it official on paper too.
Arlen Specter was supported by Conservative Rick Santorum in 2004, and some would see this as a burn to Santorum. I understand why Santorum threw his support behind Specter. It wasn’t because he necessarily agreed with Specter’s politics. It was simply because as liberal as Specter is, Specter’s Democrat opponent was more so.
Don’t fool yourself into falling for the liberal propaganda, however. Arlen Specter leaving the Republican Party does not spell doom for the GOP. Specter belongs in the Democratic Party. I am happy to see him go. This is what we want, as Conservatives. We don’t want Liberals trying to change the Republican Party into a clone of the Democratic Party. Enough damage has been done already by these Lefties. We want them to leave. We desire that they go to the Democrat Party, where they belong. That way, the real Conservatives can turn the Republican Party around and lead it back to a Conservative victory, as it did in 1980 and 1984.
The move by Specter, despite the hoopla by the Left, is actually good for the GOP. Remember, I said that Specter has voted conservative a third of the time, and some would even say 40% of the time. He is against “Card Check,” and he supported the war. However, remember that the Democrats skewered Joe Liebermann for his leanings to the right on some issues. Despite how liberal Arlen Specter is, he has a history of having more right-side attributes than Liebermann. This creates a good situation for the GOP.
On April 15th, Pat Toomey announced he will run for the Republican nomination in the Republican senatorial primary in 2010. Toomey was a U.S. Representative from 1999 to 2005, and has gained significant popularity of late. Up to the point of Specter’s announcement he was leaving the Republican Party, Toomey has held a lead in the polls over Arlen Specter. This is part of the reason for Specter’s decision to change parties. He is under the impression that with the “popularity” of the anointed one, Barack Obama, behind him, re-election as a Democrat into the U.S. Senate should be a lock.
Here is where this works to the GOP’s advantage. Not only is Obama’s radical policies leaving enough of a bad taste in the mouth of voters that conservative candidates will appear to be appealing in 2010, especially to Republican voters that stayed at home this last election, disgusted by the offerings of the GOP, but also, Democratic voters are not going to be real thrilled about Specter being their “guy” to vote for. After all, remember that though Arlen Specter was essentially a liberal Republican, he still has many conservative leanings. Specter doesn’t seem to realize that the Democratic base does not welcome folks that aren’t as radical as the rest of the party has become, or at least there in Pennsylvania. I have to admit, there were a lot of blue dog Democrats elected in this last cycle who are very conservative on a number of issues. But, for the most part, the Democrats have moved so far to the left that someone like Specter is darn near a replica of Bush, for all they are concerned. As liberal as Specter is, the base is more liberal than he is. For these reasons, he may not be accepted by a number of Democratic voters. And with a drop in the number of Democrats voting for a Democrat, and an increase in the energized conservative turnout for someone like Toomey, the ride to the left side of the U.S. Senate may not be as smooth for Arlen as he thinks.
Specter is thinking that Democrats, like they normally do, are voting strictly along party lines, and are hardly considering the name, or the political history of the person in front of that “D” in parentheses on their ballot. He is figuring the party in power is getting all the votes, when in reality, if you look at the figures, it is not as one sided as the Democrats think. After all, George Bush won his last election with 51% of the vote in 2004, and McCain lost with 46% of the vote in 2008. This means that Obama won because of a 5% change in the vote. Hardly a landslide, when you look at all the factors aside from the Electoral College. To account for the 5% change, one must consider the number of Republicans that decided not to vote, and a percentage that is probably close to 5% of folks that voted for Bush in 2004, and wound up voting for Obama in 2008 because they fell for the propaganda of demonizing Bush, hence the whole GOP, by the mainstream press.
5%. It was a whole 5% change. I know the liberals say that it was a landslide last November. They have determined in their narrow little minds that the country has somehow suddenly shifted left. 5% of a change in the vote is hardly anything other than a slight change, and is more of a close election, than a landslide.
Arlen Specter is too liberal to be a Republican, and too conservative to be a Democrat. And like most of the Leftists, he has fallen for that “the country has shifted left” propaganda. But he will not win in 2010, and his shift to the Democratic party is not only not a sign the GOP is in trouble, but actually is a blessing for the Right.
In 2010, along with a few other races around the nation, the Senate seat from Pennsylvania will go to a conservative Republican, and the strangle-hold on America by the Democrat-led Congress will be broken.
Douglas V. Gibbs of Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary, has been featured on “Hannity” and “Fox and Friends” on Fox News Channel, and other television shows and networks. Doug is a Radio Host on KMET 1490-AM on Saturdays with his Constitution Radio program, as well as a longtime podcaster, conservative political activist, writer and commentator. Doug can be reached at douglasvgibbs [at] yahoo.com or constitutionspeaker [at] yahoo.com.
Pursuant to Title 17 U.S.C. 107, other copyrighted work is provided for educational purposes, research, critical comment, or debate without profit or payment. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for your own purposes beyond the 'fair use' exception, you must obtain permission from the copyright owner. Views are those of authors and not necessarily those of Canada Free Press. Content is Copyright 1997-2017 the individual authors. Site Copyright 1997-2017 Canada Free Press.Com Privacy Statement