Listening to talk radio while driving to and from work last night and this morning, and reviewing some of the conservative blogs this morning, one could not help but be struck by the level of anger at three Republican Senators – Susan Collins and Olympia Snowe of Maine, and Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania – who agreed to a deal with congressional Democrats on the stimulus plan.
The reasons for anger are not hard to discern or understand. If two of these three had stood with the other 38 Republican Senators and 178 House members, the stimulus bill would be dead, and most Republicans – including me – think we’d be better off if the bill were dead. I don’t want to debate the bill, however, but rather the reaction of Republicans to these three moderates.
The rage is palpable, and the call is for revenge, ousting them from the party. Not only callers and blog commentators, but also the talk hosts and bloggers, are demanding that these three be challenged and “real Republicans” put in their places.
Of course, people tend to reserve their hottest anger for “traitors,” but would it not be more constructive to devote this rage over the stimulus bill to ousting Democratic senators, who voted unanimously for passage? Surely there are many juicy targets out there, if not in 2010 (when, of the “traitorous three,” only Specter is up for re-election) then down the road. Why do Max Baucus, Byron Dorgan, Tim Johnson, Kent Conrad, and Mark Begich hold seats in what are generally reliable Republican states at every level? Is it not possible to defeat Harry Reid in Nevada, Mary Landrieu in Louisiana, Robert Byrd in West Virginia, or Sherrod Brown in Ohio? How is it that Democrats control both of Virginia’s senate seats? Not that long ago, Republicans controlled seats in Washington, Oregon, Minnesota, Delaware, New Mexico and Michigan. Is it really impossible to elect a second Republican Senator to join Chuck Grassley from Iowa or Dick Lugar from Indiana? Is there no way to defeat appointed Senators Roland Burris of Illinois or Mike Bennett of Colorado in 2010?
For a forward looking party that is prepared to tolerate some ideological diversity in favor of a more conservative Congress overall, there is no end to Democratic targets, each of whom voted for the stimulus, and each of whom has a more liberal voting record than Collins, Snowe, or Specter. So where, if talk radio and the blogs are any indication, are conservatives focusing their rage and preparing to focus a great deal of time and money? On primary challenges to Specter (in 2010), Snowe (in 2012), and Collins (in 2014). Are these seats really more winnable for “true conservatives” (whatever that means to you) than the seats listed above?
Those outraged by RINOs have had some success, if you can call it that. Linc Chafee no longer serves in the Senate, replaced by the more liberal Sheldon Whitehouse. The RINO hunters no longer have to complain about Gordon Smith, who has been replaced by the far more liberal Jeff Merkley. RINO Norm Coleman sits on the critical list, apparently to be replaced by the ridiculous and far more liberal Al Franken. The GOP is indeed becoming a small, disciplined minority, with the emphasis on “small” and “minority.”
I don’t mean to suggest that incumbents should never be challenged in party primaries. Of course they should. And there assuredly are times when a state or district would elect a more conservative Republican than the one holding office. But care needs to be taken in identifying those situations, separating them out from situations where a RINO might be the best available option, or even more, where it is better to let the RINO be and use our resources to unseat Democrats. RINOs – the dreaded “Republicans in Name Only – are almost always more conservative than their Democratic successors. A Republican in Name Only meets with other Republicans, gets info from the Republican staff, feels the pull of the caucus and party loyalty. This effort of the last decade to rid the party of RINOs has done just that – and perhaps also rid us of Congressional majorities as well. People join the party for a reason, for some sense of affinity. We should encourage that, not push them away as RINOs.
The solution to regaining congressional majorities may not be easy, but it is simple. Target liberal Democrats, not RINOs.
65 responses so far
1 ireign // Feb 12, 2009 at 10:12 pm
You make some good points, Mr. Smith. However, you go too far. Lincoln Chafee was a liberal Democrat who only voted for Republicans on procedural matters. There was also almost no difference between him and Whitehouse on any major policy issue. For godsakes, their fathers were former roommates. The RSC supported not only Chafee in the general election but provided him with economic and advertising support in the primary. That money could have been better spent elsewhere as Chafee who didn’t vote for Bush also chose to support Obama in this go-around.
Few, if anyone would call Norm Coleman a “RINO” and Gordon Smith was given tremendous support but still lost.
In fact, the Clue for Growth and other conservative organizations did hurt the Republican party but in Congress not the Senate. Your article has a good theme but the fact that you make a lot of outlandish claims hurts your arguments.
People are angry now. Do you think that either Collins or Snowe will get a serious primary challenge? The GOP has 41 votes (maybe 42 if Coleman pulls off a miracle). The only way the GOP can exert any sort of influence if Republicans stick together. Perhaps this anger and the threat of a primary, will help the Republicans with unity.
Until there is a primary where a Republican Senator is replaced with someone who cannot win, lets not make a mountain out of a molehill.
2 Brad Smith // Feb 13, 2009 at 6:34 am
ireign, I have to disagree. Your failure to distinguish between Linc Chafee and Sheldon Whitehouse is exactly the type of failure to which I am referring.
According to National Journal, during Chafee’s last year in the Senate (2006), he was the 43rd most liberal member of the Senate, with a liberal score of 59. Only two Democrats, Mary Landreiu and Ben Nelson, were more conservative. Whitehouse, who replaced him in 2007, was, in a more liberal senate, the second most liberal Senator, with a liberal score of 94.3. The American Conservative Union scored Whitehouse a 0 (zero) in his first year in office. Linc Chafee was a lifetime 35 score.
The distinction between a Chafee and a Whitehouse is exactly the distinction RINO mad Republicans need to make. Chafee was not a “Republican in name only.” He was “Republican.” If we want to build winning coalitions, we have to recognize the differences between the Chafees and Whitehouses of the world.
On your other points, I don’t know if there will be primary challenges to Snowe or Collins but from talk radio and the blogosphere, it is clear that many Republicans are more fired up by that prospect than the prospect of replacing, say, Kent Conrad and Byron Dorgan. As for who is a RINO (the word seems to me whomever one is mad at at a given moment), a quick Google of Gordon Smith or Norm Coleman and “RINO” produces quite a few hits. I agree that the problem is even more acute in the House, which underscores my point.
BAS
3 Chekote // Feb 13, 2009 at 8:17 am
Count me among those who wish to see Collins, Specter and Snowe gone from the Republican Party. I have never hunted RINOs before. As a matter of fact, I have been called a RINO many times simply because of my position on social issues. So why am I joining the RINO hunt? Because we are at a critical time for our country and our party. Despite all the talk that Obama would govern as a centrist, it is quite clear now that he has veered left. Hard left. He fully intends to “remake” America into a socialist country along the lines of Western Europe. This is the time to stand up against Obama and preserve freedom. It is not the time to go along in the name of “working together” or some other feel good slogan.
After the 2008 elections, the Republican Party finds itself at the edge of irrelevancy. How did we get here? By abandoning first principles. The GOP lost its edge over foreign policy because of the Iraq War. The “Compassionate Conservatism” agenda of expanding the size and role of the federal government, undercut our limited federal government argument. The record deficits under Bush decimated our fiscal discipline argument. What was left for the GOP to run on? Social issues. That was enough to win a national election. This “stimulus” bill has provided the GOP the opportunity to find its limited government, fiscal discipline roots. If Republicans cannot unite along said principles, it is over. Shut down the RNC. Give up the office space.
Snowe, Collins and Specter are not Republicans. They are Independents. That is the label they should wear. If they were to leave the Republican Party, they can still caucus with us. They will vote with us when they agree and not vote with us when they don’t. Nothing will change except they will not get campaign funds contributed by party members. If Snowe, Collins and Specter continue to misrepresent themselves as Republicans, it will allow Obama, Pelosi and Reid to claim that this bill is bipartisan when it is not. When the media reports that three moderate Republicans support the bill, it gives the perception that anyone opposing the bill is a right wing extremist. In conclusion, those three HAVE GOT TO GO!
4 Oneon1isto // Feb 13, 2009 at 8:49 am
“It’s not the time to work together”? Who says this?
5 HollywoodBill // Feb 13, 2009 at 9:02 am
The Republican Party does not yet have a Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith, although with the dominance of the socons, that may be coming. The voters ultimately decide who is going to represent them and not some politboro member. Despite the constant chatter from the one and only pure Republicans, when elections happen, the hard right candidates usually lose in primaries, particularly when up against incumbents. Expelling members will formalize the deep rifts within the GOP.
6 ireign // Feb 13, 2009 at 9:17 am
Mr Smith writes, “According to National Journal, during Chafee’s last year in the Senate (2006), he was the 43rd most liberal member of the Senate, with a liberal score of 59.”
As many have pointed out the National Journal’s score are not necessarily accurate. Obama was rated the most liberal Senator but most would concede that the self-described socialist Bernie Sanders as well as others like Russ Feingold are to the left of Obama.
National Journal is limited in that they can only count votes take in the Senate. They obviously are not privvy to what goes on behind closed doors and what issues are never brought up because of more liberal or conservative members. For example, John McCain generally scores a very high conservative rating because issues like campaign finance reform which he pushed to get a vote on do not count as liberal votes. And issues like support for a patitent “bill of rights” are never voted on. Another example, would be John Bolton. He never got a vote on the floor of the Senate because Chafee and a few others wouldn’t vote him out of the foreign relations committee. But of course, that does not get factored into the ratings.
It is also unclear what counts as conservative and what counts as liberal. I would guess that immigration reform and the prescription bill could count either way. Most of the votes where Chafee voted with the GOP are PROCEDURAL. That is definitely helpful but it is not the same thing as actually getting votes on substantive matters.
As you point out with the term RINO, plenty of Republicans are characterized as RINOs including Bush, McCain, and Lindsay Grahan. So the term has really lost any meaning (assuming it ever had one).
As for your claim, again, I will point out that Republicans spent tons of money on Lincoln Chafee’s re-election bid, both primary and general election. That money could have been spent in Montana and Virginia on Republicans that narrowly lost and would have been solid votes. If Chafee had won, it’s not even clear that he would have caucused with the Republican Party. As you will note, Jim Jeffords after switching parties was a reliable liberal vote without switching any core beliefs. http://www.nationaljournal.com/members/news/2007/voteratings/sen/cons.htm The reason being is when he caused with Republicans, he voted with them on PROCEDURAL matters not SUBSTANTIVE matters.
If you want to continue to make the argument that Lincoln Chafee is a solid Republican when he voted against George W. Bush and voted against John McCain. This was Lincoln Chafee right after the 2006 election on the Daily Show:
Jon Stewart: Can you point to anything in the last five years you think Congress should be proud of? In the last five years, since 911, in your mind?
Chafee: Uh…
7 ireign // Feb 13, 2009 at 9:30 am
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2006/10/rhode_island_senate_race_purel.html
“In no other race are the political stakes so nakedly stated. And one reason for that is the candidates’ astounding similarity, party aside. Chafee and Whitehouse are, in the words of The Hotline’s Chuck Todd, “the same guy.”
If elected, Whitehouse would probably vote the same way Chafee would have voted. Both candidates are against deficits and the war in Iraq. Both are pro-choice and for gay-marriage.
Voters who want to compare the contenders’ backgrounds can’t, because they have the same background.”
Mr. Smith, your inability to distinguish between Snowe, Collins and Specter who are liberal to moderate Republicans and from Lincoln Chafee who was and is essentially a Democrat except by birth takes away from a valid point.
I preferred Chafee to Whitehouse from a political standpoint (although Chafee came off as such a dope) but the RSCC would have better off using their limited resources in 2006 on other races. Your continued defense of Chafee makes me less eager to embrace your other more valid points.
8 HollywoodBill // Feb 13, 2009 at 10:54 am
Grover Norquist had the best line about Lincoln Chaffee: ” A Republican from Rhode Island is a gift from the gods and should be treated as such.” Ultimately, the electorate decided the fate of Senator Chaffee. An expulsion of the three so called heretics makes an assumption that they would caucus with the GOP. Public humiliation could just as easily make the Democratic Party an option. Unleashed forces are hard to get back under control. As usual, talkradio windbags don’t answer to voters. This is a terrible idea that benefits no one.
9 Chekote // Feb 13, 2009 at 11:13 am
HBIll. Let them go with the Dems. They will break with Dems whenever they disagree and vote with us. In the meantime, the Dems will be footing their campaign costs instead of us.
10 ireign // Feb 13, 2009 at 11:52 am
Chekote-I usually agree with you but you are wrong on this one. If they switch to the Democratic Party and they want to run for re-election than they will not vote with the Republican Party very often because they will fear a primary in their blue states. In general, most party-switchers become loyalists. k Shelby was a conservative Democrat who switched during the Clinton years. Other than striking a more populist tone on economic issues and being sympathetic to trial lawyers, he is a fairly solid Republican. The same would be true of Collins and Snowe.
11 larryo // Feb 13, 2009 at 1:35 pm
“For a forward looking party that is prepared to tolerate some ideological diversity . . .” That is a laudable goal, but not one shared by the majority of Republicans, I fear. This is from an open letter from Frank Schaeffer, formerly one of your own, to President Obama: “As someone who appeared numerous times on the 700 Club with Pat Robertson, as someone for whom Jerry Falwell used to send his private jet to bring me to speak at his college, as an author who had James Dobson giveaway 150,000 copies of my one of my fundamentalist “books” allow me to explain something: the Republican Party is controlled by two ideological groups. First, is the Religious Right. Second, are the neoconservatives. Both groups share one thing in common: they are driven by fear and paranoia. Between them there is no Republican “center” for you to appeal to, just two versions of hate-filled extremes.” So sorry.
12 Chekote // Feb 13, 2009 at 3:21 pm
larryo. The only party peddling fear these days are the Dems. Let me correct that. The Dems always peddle fear every election cycle. They scare seniors by telling them that the GOP will take away their social security. Scare blacks by telling them that the GOP wants to bring back Jim Crow laws. Scare the hispanics by saying that the GOP wants to deport anybody who speaks Spanish. Scare women but telling them that the GOP wants to put them in jail for having abortion. I could go on but I think I made my point.
13 Brad Smith // Feb 13, 2009 at 3:57 pm
ireign, you can use any ranking formula out there – any group or organization at all that publishes rankings. Whitehouse is considerably more liberal than was Linc Chafee.
And don’t underestimate the importance of procedural matters and nominations.
But most of all, it’s a question of figuring out where your opponents really are, and where your time and resources (including anger and passion) are best spent. Are they really best spent chasing Snowe, Specter, and Collins? Remember, Lincoln Chafee had the best rating of any Rhode Island Senator since the American Conservative Union began keeping rankings – in fact, he had the best ranking of any Rhode Island congressman or senator since the ACU began keeping rankings. Are we better off with Sheldon Whitehouse? Of course not.
14 Chekote // Feb 13, 2009 at 4:29 pm
“Are we better off with Sheldon Whitehouse? Of course not.” I would say we are neutral. No change. Chaffee could not be counted on anymore that we can count on Whitehouse. No change. Except we wasted a ton of money trying to re-elect Chafee that could have been used to help other candidates that had a chance to win.
15 Brad Smith // Feb 13, 2009 at 4:46 pm
Come on, Chekote. Don’t close your eyes to the evidence – Chafee was clearly more conservative than Whitehouse, by the scale of literally every organization that rates senators. Beyond that, we also wasted a ton of money running a primary challenger to Chafee – which may also be why he lost. My point is this: part of being a majority party, a winning party, is having a broad party. All this steam about challenging Snowe and Collins and Specter and trying to replace them with “real Republicans” is misguided. They are not the enemy. All three are more conservative than ANY Democrat in the Senate. It’s the Democrats we need to replace.
16 Chekote // Feb 13, 2009 at 4:57 pm
Brad, I outlined my logic for asking Snowe, Collins and Specter to leave the party below. I agree that we need a broad party. But we also need a glue that keeps us together. I say the glue should be fiscal discipline, limited government. We can disagree about social issues, we can disagree about foreign policy approaches. Lots of room to disagree, i.e. broad coalition. However, the party has decided to make a stand on this ONE bill and those three decided not to stand with the rest. By doing so, they have declared that they are independents. As Reagan said, “Let them go their on way”.
17 HollywoodBill // Feb 13, 2009 at 5:15 pm
The ACU gave Chafee a rating of 41 for 2004 and a lifetime rating of 40. Whitehouse for 2007 was zero. Reagan gave a famous quote about how the man who is with you 70% of the time is not your enemy. Okay Lincoln Chafee was a close call. But ComradeC, don’t be naive about the matter. The SoCons freak over pro choice Republicans and would like nothing better than the opportunity to cast us heathens out. Eventually the forces work themselves out. But no central party impramaturs please.
18 ireign // Feb 13, 2009 at 5:21 pm
Brad, I don’t have the time to fully address your points right now but hopefully this weekend. But fairly quickly
1. You can make your points without being misleading. “in fact, he had the best ranking of any Rhode Island congressman or senator since the ACU began keeping rankings.” The ACU has only been around 1964. It appears that the ACUs rankings began in 1971 (or at least only archived since then). Rhode Island has had only one other Republican Senator in that time, Chafee’s father. Chafee, had a considerably more conservative ranking at the beginning of his term than at the end. For what reason, I am not sure. In 2005, he was at 12% http://www.acuratings.org/ratingsarchive/2005/2005Senate.htm and Russ Feingold had a higher rating. Let’s also be clear that Chafee might have switched parties in 2006 or 2008 had he been re-elected (he left the GOP and switched to an independent shortly after the RSCC spent millions on his campaign, which I felt was pretty disloyal) and had he done so, we would have lost procedural votes and his ACU rating would have been close to Whitehouse’s (although slightly better). Even after he lost his election, he wouldn’t allow for an up or down vote on Bolton.
2. You wrote, Are they really best spent chasing Snowe, Specter, and Collins? Please stop trying to imply or attribute views that I do not have. I fully support Snow, Specter, and Collins. I once again, will reiterate that I preferred Chafee to Whitehouse. So let us not obfuscate the point. Republican rank and file in Rhode Island and elsewhere did not particularly like Chafee. His challenger, Steve Laffey was able to raise a lot of money from this group. This money was not going to go to Chafee regardless of the primary challenge. So I am not sure where you got the notion that somehow Republican money was lost on the primary except that spent by the RSCC (the DSCC does not take sides in primaries).
I believe the money spent from the RSCC that was significantly outraised by Chuck Schumer would have been better spent on other races. By the RSCC spending significant amounts of money on Chafee during the primary, they dissuaded certain people from giving to their organization. Moreover, given that the RSCC did not have infinite resources that money could have been elsewhere (at least the primary money). There were close races in Missouri, Virginia, and Montana where the differences between the two candidates were sizable unlike in Rhode Island. Who would you rather have in the Senate, George Allen, Jim Talent, or Lincoln Chafee?
Do you still disagree with anything that I wrote above?
19 ireign // Feb 13, 2009 at 5:23 pm
HB-It was the club for growth that really went after Chafee. The club for growth is primary an economic-conservative organization that is very anti-tax and generally supports believers in supply-side economics.
20 sinz54 // Feb 13, 2009 at 5:30 pm
Chekote: I don’t want the GOP to just be a small party of the principled “loyal opposition.” I want it to be a majority party again, back in control of Congress. Now look at the map. More and more states are tipping Blue, or at least Purple. The GOP has no idea how to elect Senators in Blue States; yet if it wins only in Red States, it will be a permanent minority party. Even worse, some in the GOP don’t even seem to care if the GOP wins any Senate seats outside of Red States; their reaction to the GOP’s loss of the Northeast states was “Good riddance to those states!” A hard-right, doctrinaire conservative (say one who agrees with the whole 2004 GOP platform) could never win in Maine, or in Rhode Island, or in Oregon or Washington State. Running doctrinaire conservatives in those types of states, or even in Colorado, may make the conservative base feel good, but it won’t bring the GOP to a majority. If you want to win a Senate seat in Oregon, or Rhode Island, you have to find a moderate Republican to run there. Even if the whole GOP base thinks that moderate Republican is a “RINO.”
21 HollywoodBill // Feb 13, 2009 at 5:32 pm
The Club for Growth has a GREAT name with some pretty poor results. Their boy Toomey lost. Their candidate lost against Chafee and may have been a factor in Chafee’s loss. They had a win in Michigan. They also tend to be hard right social conservatives which turns off a good section of the electorate.
22 sinz54 // Feb 13, 2009 at 5:34 pm
I agree with the point of this article. The GOP needs to stop throwing people out, and start bringing new people in. Expel Collins and Snowe, whom the voters of Maine like even if you don’t, and those voters aren’t going to think kindly toward the GOP in the future. The GOP should target Democrats in “red” areas first. If the GOP gets on a winning streak again, it might even persuade some conservative Democrats to switch parties to the GOP, as happened with Ben Nighthorse-Campbell and a few others.
23 ireign // Feb 13, 2009 at 5:41 pm
Apologies, I kept writing RSCC. I meant to say NRSC (National Republican Senate Committee). And yes, the club for growth has done some stupid things. The general point of Brad’s article is correct.
24 Chekote // Feb 13, 2009 at 5:57 pm
HBill. Collins, Snowe and Specter don’t represent my point of view anymore than Tony Perkins. I am not a moderate. I am a conservative. What everybody here seems ignore is why Republicans lost. Iraq was a big part of it. But we also lost because we expanded government and grew the deficits. I cannot tell you how many Republican voters I have come across that were absolutely disgusted with all the spending under Bush. Once social moderates saw that there was no difference between the Dems and the GOP on economic issues, they jumped ship. For us to regain a majority, we need to send a loud and clear message to ex-Republican voters that we understand that we screwed up. We spent too much. We expanded a bloated federal government too much. This stimulus bill is providing the GOP an oportunity to send that loud and clear message. If Snowe, Collins and Specter can’t understand this, then they need to leave. HBill, if we don’t get back our economic, limited government street creds, the social issues will continue to dominate the agenda. Just admit that I am right and let’s move on comrade.
25 Chekote // Feb 13, 2009 at 6:01 pm
Sinz. We lost the blue states because we lost our economic, limited government creds. As a result, the social issues started dominating the GOP agenda and those don’t play well outside of the South and some mountain states. We are not going to win in the blue states by continuing the Bush big government, big spending policies. Why do you think we lost?
26 Brad Smith // Feb 13, 2009 at 7:10 pm
Ireign, this will probably be my last post as it’s time to move on, and anyway, I think we largely agree. Let me clarify a couple points. First, when I said Chafee had the most conservative voting record of any Rhode Island Congressman or Senator since the ACU began keeping rankings, I meant just that. That’s House or Senate, Democratic or Republican. Yes, it goes back to 1970. I think that’s a pretty significant stat. I’m glad that you do agree that Chafee was better than Whitehouse. You’ll understand why that wasn’t clear to me from your earlier posts, where you wrote, among other things, that “there was almost major difference” between them on “any major policy issue.” I think that statement is flat out wrong, and that the various rankings by a wide variety of groups and organizations shows that. On the money end, you interpret “money” more narrowly than my intention. I do not use that to refer only to NRSC money (or RNC or NRCC), but to all money that would normally go to support Republican candidates, party organizations, and allied groups. And by that definition, we spent a lot to try to take out Chafee (and may have succeeded, weakening him so that the considerably more liberal Whitehouse could win the seat), and the people I hear on the radio and read on the blogs want to spend more money to try to unseat moderate Republicans rather than liberal Democrats. In my mind, that is just foolish, and obviously so. I did not say that the party organizations should necessarily spend money to support Chafee or anyone else in particular – my main point is that we shouldn’t be wasting lots of conservative/Republican money on efforts to rid ourselves of our own elected officials. That’s not a luxury you have when you have narrow majorities, or as now are in the minority. My comments on Snowe, Collins, and Specter were to refocus the argument on my main point, that it is not constructive for people to direct their anger there rather than at the majority Democrats. On that key point I think we are in agreement.
27 Chekote // Feb 13, 2009 at 7:16 pm
Brad. Please don’t set up false choices. We can be angry at Snowe, Collins and Specter and still work to defeat Dems. Believe me. There is so much anger out there to cover everybody.
28 Brad Smith // Feb 13, 2009 at 7:31 pm
I don’t think I have set up a false choice. There are resources – money; time; passion – and you can use them going after Snowe and Specter, or use them going after Burriss and Benton. It’s nice to think that there is enough anger and time and money to cover everybody, but at some point choices have to be made. I want Republicans to start making constructive choices that grow the party. I want people who agree with us 50% or 60% to vote for us. I want people who agree with us 100% to vote for people who agree with us 50%, rather than sitting on their hands and helping those who don’t agree with us at all win, or even working to damage the election prospect of the 50 percenter. If you believe that we have unlimited time to write letters, organize, make calls, blog, etc., or that we have enough money to adequately fund every race, well, I don’t know what to say… it’s not true. Time spent criticizing Snowe on talk radio is time not spent critcizing Jim Webb. Time spent writing about Arlen Specter is time not spent writing about Senator Casey. $50 contributed to defeating Susan Collins in a primary is $50 not spent trying to defeat Sherrod Brown. That’s the reality of life.
29 uphuffheinz // Feb 13, 2009 at 7:41 pm
I’m sorry, but when three GOP Senators enable one of the worse bills in US history to be passed into law, I think I’m entitled to be mad about it.
Eight…hundred…billion dollars. Be careful about letting that figure sink into your consciousness—it might make you sick.
It was obvious today that any one of the three had leverage over the bill. Reid needed 60 votes to bring the bill to a vote—these three provided the votes Reid needed.
OK—I’ll bite. Just what should we DO to Specter, Snowe and Collins, for enabling this monstrosity to pass? Just laugh it off?
Well, I find it hard to let bygones be bygones when we’re dealing with BILLIONS of wasted dollars.
Don’t you?
30 uphuffheinz // Feb 13, 2009 at 7:47 pm
I’m sorry, but when three GOP Senators enable one of the worse bills in US history to be passed into law, I think I’m entitled to be mad about it.
Eight hundred billion dollars! Be careful about letting that figure sink into your consciousness—it might make you sick.
It was obvious today that any one of the three had leverage over the bill. Reid needed 60 votes to bring the bill to a vote—these three provided the votes Reid needed.
OK—I’ll bite. Just what should we DO to Specter, Snowe and Collins, for enabling this monstrosity to pass? Just laugh it off?
Well, I find it hard to let bygones be bygones when we’re dealing with BILLIONS of wasted dollars.
Don’t you?
31 uphuffheinz // Feb 13, 2009 at 7:50 pm
Sorry—hit the post button twice. Still getting used to this new site.
32 uphuffheinz // Feb 13, 2009 at 7:56 pm
Mr. Smith, here’s another item about this whole Porkulus affair that really concerns me: too many people in Washington are too blase about spending HUNDREDS OF BILLIONS OF DOLLARS!
For some of us, that’s still a lot of money. Especially when those checks are being written on our childrens’ and grandchildrens’ accounts.
If my 20 month old son is going to have to help pay for Porkulus, doesn’t that give me the right to be really mad?
Isn’t it natural I’d direct my anger at the three Senators from my party, who (in my opinion) seemed way too blase about spending HUNDREDS OF BILLIONS OF DOLLARS.
I fear that, unless we get upset, our country will go broke before too long. I don’t sense the same level of concern from Senators Snowe, Collins and Specter.
Do you?
33 Chekote // Feb 13, 2009 at 7:56 pm
Brad. I guess you don’t understand what the GOP is trying to do with this ONE vote. I am talking about this ONE, SINGULAR vote. The GOP is trying to send a message to the voters that we understand that we screw up. That we spent too much. We didn’t cut government as we promised with the Contract with America. Only by regaining the confidence of the American people on economic issues we will come back. So while the GOP was trying to send a message to the American people about fiscal discipline, Snowe, Collins and Specter shouted over the GOP and basically said: “We are the good guys. We are the moderates. We care about the country more than the party.” Of course, Obama picked up their shout by saying that they were patriots for voting with him. What does that make the rest of the GOP? Unpatriotic. The anger is justified in this case. Snowe, Collins and Specter will have plenty of other opportunities to disagree with the party. This was not the right time. They need to go.
34 Chekote // Feb 13, 2009 at 8:02 pm
uphuffheinz. You mean, you are upset about those pesky, porky amendments? You mean, Collins “working together” approach didn’t make you feel better? You must be a hardcore rightwinger. You probably listen to Rush. Eee gaz!
35 Brad Smith // Feb 13, 2009 at 8:02 pm
Uphufheinz, I understand the anger. Feel it myself. I’m just saying that ultimately we need to be constructive. Anti-RINOism has not been constructive for Republicans. It’s Democrats, not RINOs, who are the bigger problem.
36 Chekote // Feb 13, 2009 at 8:11 pm
Actually, give me a Zell Miller any day over a Lincoln Chafee or the 3 amigos who enabled this monstruosity to pass.
37 uphuffheinz // Feb 13, 2009 at 9:10 pm
Mr Smith, if I’m Snowe or Specter or Collins, and I’m reading your last comment, I’m sitting back and relaxing. Why wouldn’t they relax? And, why wouldn’t they spend like drunken sailors again? If our party is willing to let bygones be bygones, after HUNDREDS OF BILLIONS OF DOLLARS are wasted and all respectable Congressional procedures are trampled into the dust—then, why wouldn’t they do it again? If I were them, reading your last comment, I’d certainly think about it. Someone in American politics needs to stand up for fiscal conservatism, and I want it to be the Republican Party. With fiscal conservatism like we’ve seen from these three over the past week, my son won’t have to worry about government finances when he grows up. We’ll be broke.
38 uphuffheinz // Feb 13, 2009 at 10:23 pm
I didn’t want to close my participation in this discussion thread with what was…well, for the most part a venting. Instead, I’ll leave this as my last comment: In 2010, I want to see the GOP run against this stimulus bill. I want to see our candidates point to this bill as an example of why Democrats shouldn’t be trusted with the fiscal future of our country. Naturally, that will play into the hands of anyone opposing Specter,Snowe or Collins, because they volunteered to be human shields for this bill. So be it; they deserve their medicine. Now, if their overall Republican bona fides are as strong as Mr. Smith thinks they are, they should do fine in the primaries. If not… What I really fear is that the GOP will not make a huge issue nationwide of this stimulus bill, out of concern they might be imperiling these three GOP seats. Well, IMO, a Senator who votes to add hundreds of billions of dollars of debt onto the backs of future generations is no conservative. Best to be rid of them now. If we want our government to spend like Democrats, let’s go ahead and elect the real thing.
39 mpolito // Feb 13, 2009 at 10:34 pm
Unfortunately, these RINOs are, for all intents and purposes, Democrats. They want to be seen as “bipartisan” (which means “tending to capitulate) and be told by Harry Reid that they are wonderful. If they could not stand up and fight this stimulus, what can they be counted to stand up for? What principles do they have, if any? I certainly feel that there is a place for moderates (obviously, we are not going to get a conservative from ME). But even moderates should have opposed this absurd bill. And take note- the “moderate” Democrats all lined up behind Reid. In other words, the moderate Dems and lib Dems agreeed, and the moderate Republicans and the conservative Republicans did not. If these three RINOs are going to just be another Dem vote, let an actual Dem vote!
40 Brad Smith // Feb 14, 2009 at 7:53 am
One last comment, re mpolito’s comment. These RINOs are NOT for all intents and purposes Democrats. They consistently have more conservative voting records, according to every ranking organization, than all Democrats (some years) or all but a handful of Democrats (other years), and this is true of even the most liberal of the bunch, such as Chafee. Whatever one feels is good political strategy, let’s not base it on emotional sentiments that are simply wrong. Maybe moderates should have opposed this bill (for my money, obviously, even liberals SHOULD have opposed it), but the bill did not pass because of Snowe, Specter, and Collins. It passed because Democrats have 58 Senate seats and we have 41; because Democrats control both Senate seats in ostensibly “Red” states such as Virginia, Montana, and North Dakota; because they have slowed turned purple states such as Washington and Oregon blue, and red states such as Colorado purple. I can think of 58 senators (soon to be 59) I would rather see defeated than Snowe, Collins or Specter, and all of them happen to be Democrats. But if you still think it is more important to defeat moderate Republicans than liberal Democrats, I guess this argument is played out.
41 Chekote // Feb 14, 2009 at 8:13 am
Obama’s Enablers in Chief By KIMBERLEY A. STRASSEL
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123448441005079959.html?mod=rss_opinion_main
42 larryo // Feb 14, 2009 at 4:10 pm
“Dems always peddle fear every election cycle. They scare seniors by telling them that the GOP will take away their social security. Scare blacks by telling them that the GOP wants to bring back Jim Crow laws. Scare the hispanics by saying that the GOP wants to deport anybody who speaks Spanish. Scare women but telling them that the GOP wants to put them in jail for having abortion.” Chekote, it is not fear-mongering to tell the truth!
43 sinz54 // Feb 14, 2009 at 6:36 pm
mpolito: What you fail to understand is that so-called “RINOs” are the only type of Republican that can win in Blue States. Karl Rove’s playbook of “Red States plus Ohio” is dead now, due to Ohio tipping Blue. Without Ohio, the GOP can’t win another national election via Red States alone. You’re not going to be able to run a doctrinaire conservative like Shelby in Maine, New Hampshire, Connecticut, Oregon, Washington State., or even New Jersey. Only a moderate Republican has a chance there. So I’m still waiting to hear YOUR plan for winning back states the GOP has lost to the Democrats. I’ll say it one more time: The GOP can no longer win a majority, if it can only win in Red States.
44 sinz54 // Feb 14, 2009 at 6:39 pm
Brad Smith: There is a certain segment of the GOP base that thinks it’s more important to preserve their clout within the GOP, than for the GOP to reach out to others. James Dobson let that particular cat out of the bag in an interview last year, when he said that for his organization Focus on the Family, it would actually be better if the Democrats won than if McCain won. If the Democrats won, he expected a lot more donations to his organization from angry and worried Republicans. Whereas if McCain won, it would demonstrate that a Republican presidential candidate can win an election without being beholden to Dobson–and Dobson’s organization would lose clout.
45 sinz54 // Feb 14, 2009 at 6:43 pm
larryo: How old are you? You obviously haven’t learned these “facts” from personal life experience. Even Reagan didn’t try to take away Social Security. In fact, he reached a bipartisan deal with then Dem Speaker of the House Tip O’Neill to ensure solvency of the system for a couple of decades to come. The notion that the GOP is “racist,” I won’t even dignify by responding directly to it. But I will tell you this: In 1980, the Dems, frantic to stop Reagan from winning, dragged poor Coretta Scott King out of retirement to charge that Reagan, if elected, would unleash the KKK to lynch blacks. No white people bought that ludicrous charge, and Reagan won handily. But that type of fear-mongering terrified African-Americans for nothing, from Election Day till Inauguration Day. I never heard any Democrats ever apologize for such ghastly tactics. But I have a long memory, as you can see. And when (not if) we right-wingers take power again, I’ll recommend dealing with it then.
46 Chekote // Feb 14, 2009 at 9:41 pm
“Chekote, it is not fear-mongering to tell the truth!” larryo, the GOP control the white house and Congress for several years. How many seniors lost the SS? How many blacks were told to get to the back of the bus?
47 Chekote // Feb 14, 2009 at 9:45 pm
Sinz. Who is talking about running a doctrinaire conservative in blue state? No one except you. Is Tom Ridge a doctrinare conservative? That’s my choice for replacing Specter. What about Chris Shays? Is he a doctrinaire conservative? That’s who I would run in CT. So please knock it off. We are talking about 3 people who sold the country so that they could get some money for Medicaid and other funding for their states. There is nothing principled, admirable about what they have done. They sold their vote to the highest bidder. THEY NEED TO GO!
48 Chekote // Feb 14, 2009 at 9:48 pm
sinz. Dobson’s days are coming to an end. Now that the GOP is in the process of refocusin the party on fiscal discipline and limited government, the SoCons will lose their influence. This is why this vote was so critical. BTW, fiscal discipline, limited government plays well in many blue states.
49 sinz54 // Feb 15, 2009 at 11:23 am
Chekote: From your mouth to God’s ears. I would love to see the economic conservatives gain more clout within the GOP at the *expense* of the SoCons. Where does Limbaugh stand on that issue?
50 ireign // Feb 15, 2009 at 11:42 am
larryo, you have nothing constructive to say on this blog. Your entire goal is to destroy the Republican Party. Go back to posting on the dailykos.
51 ireign // Feb 15, 2009 at 12:13 pm
Brad Smith wrote, -You’ll understand why that wasn’t clear to me from your earlier posts, where you wrote, among other things, that “there was almost major difference” between them on “any major policy issue.” I think that statement is flat out wrong, and that the various rankings by a wide variety of groups and organizations shows that
Reality-I was hoping to drop the topic but you seem to insist on providing either no empirical evidence to support your contentions or to provide dubious evidence without any kind of links. There was almost no major policy difference between the two. They were both anti-Iraq War, pro-labor, in no restrictions on abortion, pro-gun control, anti-tax cuts, both against Alito, both anti-drilling in the Arctic, etc Chafee reluctantly supported John Roberts who was going to get confirmed regardless and he supported a few free trade agreements that Whitehouse would not have been able to support as a Democrat from Rhode Island.
Once again, the rankings are limited in value. No one on the planet would argue that Chafee was more conservative than John Breaux, Zell Miller, Ben Nelson, Mary Landrieu (although she is more liberal than her voting record), or a handful of other Democratic Senators. The rankings for Chafees last few years in the Senate demonstrate that.
I supported Chafee because the procedural votes as you note have value. However, I am pretty angry with Chafees actions post-election and generally believe that his re-election efforts should have been one of the lowest priorities for the GOP.
YOU HAVE LOST THE ARGUMENT AND THE LONGER YOU PERSIST IN TRYING TO WIN ON THIS POINT, THE LESS WEIGHT WILL BE GIVEN BY OTHERS ON THIS BLOG TO YOUR OTHER MORE LOGICAL POINTS.
Brad Smith wrote, On the money end, you interpret “money” more narrowly than my intention. I do not use that to refer only to NRSC money (or RNC or NRCC), but to all money that would normally go to support Republican candidates, party organizations, and allied groups.
Reality-You are making the assumption that money that went to Laffey to defeat Chafee in the primary would have gone to support other candidates. That is a dubious assumption.
52 ireign // Feb 15, 2009 at 12:15 pm
Chekote, Sinz, and others-Unfortunately, the limited government message is not playing well right now. In David’ Fruns previous on NRO he pointed out that Bush’s more economically liberal positions such as the prescription drug bill derived more popular support than his conservative positions such as tax cuts.
Why do you think this is?
53 ireign // Feb 15, 2009 at 12:17 pm
Brad Smith-On a different topic, and one that still annoys me, according to your biography, you went to Harvard Law School at the same time as President Barack Obama. According to numerous reports, Obama despite having no political record of uniting people across the spectrum had a record of uniting people based on his tenure at Harvard Law School, specifically his time on the law review where he was able to become editor-in-chief because of the backing of the conservative faction on the law review. So his whole post-partisanship campaign message was premised on his record on the Harvard Law Review (which is why there was so many articles on it). It was never put into context that he was moderate in comparison to what was then characterized by some as a radical place and that he was already contemplating a run for public office.
You and other conservatives at Harvard chose to stay silent and allow this uniter myth to perpetuate. However, the truth was that Obama won with overwhelming support. http://nymag.com/news/features/39321/index5.html No one pointed out that there was only small a percentage of conservatives were actually at Harvard at the time and thus, it was unlikely that there were more than a handful on the law review. Harvards conservative professor Charles Fried did not even vote for McCain.
The obvious context was that there were only a very small number of conservatives on the law review and so it wasnt a matter of winning over this influential faction but trying to make a few people feel comfortable. There is a big distinction between that and uniting conservatives and liberals on the law review. Yet conservatives like you at Harvard chose to stay silent. While President Obama appears to be an affable guy and probably was much friendlier to conservatives at Harvard than some of his fellow students that does not mean that one should not have allowed this myth to go unanswered.
This was an important part of Obamas narrative that conservatives at Harvard Law at the time allowed to go unchallenged and in Mr. Berensons case helped push.
54 Chekote // Feb 15, 2009 at 4:41 pm
sinz. Rush is primarily a economic conservative, limited government guy. He is pro-life by that’s not his main focus. Also, his basis for being pro-life is not religious. He is pro-life based on the founding principles of this country. You know? Right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. SoCons make a big part of his audience, so I don’t expect him to take on Dobson. But social issues are not Rush’s thing.
55 Brad Smith // Feb 15, 2009 at 4:47 pm
ireign, re Harvard: I understand your point, but being realistic, it’s not like one could get a lot of media play criticizing Barack Obama’s time at Harvard Law School nearly two decades ago. I was not on Law Review, but my recollection was that the choice was Obama, an intelligent, thoughtful, decent lefty, and a nutjob lefty. I expect that Obama did treat the conservatives on law review with respect, but again, I wouldn’t much know. I did post on Obama at Harvard here: http://divisionoflabour.com/archives/002258.php. I’ve made similar comments many times. But not really knowing Obama, there’s little for me to say. I agree with you that nothing in Obama’s career shows a penchant for seriously reaching out to the other side. I published similar comments in my various commentaries at Politico’s Arena. http://www.politico.com/arena, noting that Obama’s history was not one of cooperation but conquering opponents. I doubt any of this had much to do with Obama’s election. You’re still wrong on the big point, by the way.
56 Chekote // Feb 15, 2009 at 4:48 pm
ireign. It is easier to tell people, the government will help you do this or that, than to tell people, we can help but you are the one who needs to do the heavy lifting. That is why it is harder to sell the “limited government” argument. Besides, we have an entire generation that has been taught to look to the government for everything. In any case, we have tried Frum’s approach with Bush and it was a miserably failure. People will always choose a Democrat over Democrat lite. And the government expansion and spending turned off all lot of Republican voters.
57 ireign // Feb 15, 2009 at 5:29 pm
Brad-Thanks for your response. I think the Harvard Law School narrative was an important one and one I think a factchecker would have found many holes in. Do I think it woul have changed the results? No, but I think it would have made the media which even looked into the McCain’s official marriage story more curious about challenging other facts in his biography. He is the only presidential candidate that I am aware of in recent years that did not disclose his undergraduate transcript and he has to be one of the very few Harvard Law students who got in without graduating with honors from his undergraduate institution http://www.nysun.com/new-york/obamas-years-at-columbia-are-a-mystery/85015/ especially since liberal made such a big deal about both McCain and Bush’s poor grades and Obama supporters claim that he did not list race on his Harvard application http://www.tnr.com/politics/story.html?id=eceb7628-27e1-461e-b3a2-ce2ff7abb3a2&p=2 I think your characterization of his tenure at Harvard, i.e. nice conventional and cautious liberal who got along well with others is probably correct. That’s a far cry from uniting different groups of people in a divided atmosphere.
I am right on the major issue but I guess we will have to agree to disagree. I look forward to arguing with you in future posts.
58 Egli Ha // Feb 15, 2009 at 5:30 pm
Yeah I was in Pennsylvania from 1996 to 2004 and I bet if Arlen Specter goes down, he’ll be replaced by a liberal Dem. As David Frum pointed out, Pennsylvania is moving left. (Remember when Carville (?) said Pennsylvania is Philly at one end and Pittsburgh at the other and Alabama in between? Well five years earlier Pittsburgh was Alabama too. The leftward motion of Pennsylvania, especially Western Pennsylvania, is a long-term trend.) My real bet is he’ll survive though–he’s like the Casey Dynasty, you can’t imagine Pennsylvania without him. Besides, he’s amazingly tough; he survived lymphoma and Pat Toomey.
And it was funny to watch Susan Collins, uniquely in the Republican Party, sail to victory in 2008.
Targetting RINOs is very very stupid strategy. The GOP is thinking short-term. Rush Limbaugh’s goal is to increase and maintain his listening audience, not to help the GOP or Conservatism.
59 ireign // Feb 15, 2009 at 5:49 pm
Chekote, so if the limited government argument is a hard sell, how do you suggest we make it? I guess I am little skeptical in this time of bailouts and anger at Wall Street that Republicans can win on a Reaganite economic platform of limited government without some big ideas on what to limit. I don’t agree with many of David’s solutions but I think he is right that we have a problem.
60 Chekote // Feb 15, 2009 at 9:55 pm
Specter, Snowe and Collins are independents. The only reason they call themselves Republicans is because of campaign money. If they were to change label tomorrow, nothing would change. They would vote with the GOP when they agreeed and vote against it when they disagree. The only difference is campaign money. I don’t want a cent of Republican money to fund them.
61 Chekote // Feb 15, 2009 at 10:24 pm
ireign. There are two ways to sell limited federal government. First, you say that the federal government needs to do a few things but do they well. Instead of the current situation where the federal government is trying to do everything and doing it badly. Second, you need to show how services can be delivered without the federal government’s involvement. You have to show people that eliminating the Department of Education does not mean that all public schools will be shut down, Instead, it will results in a more effective allocation of resources. We need to educate people that just because the federal government is not invovled, it doesn’t mean that it won’t get done.
62 Graf // Feb 16, 2009 at 12:36 am
This is an extremely intelligent and discerning take on the “problem” of RINOs. For so long as the GOP will be in the minority (which may be quite a long time), conservatives will have to use a more sophisticated calculus than they have used so far in deciding whether or not to support a “liberal” Republican. Would you rather have someone in office who agrees with you 50% of the time, or 0%? Which are the issues on which no compromise can be tolerated (sort of like civil rights for ’60s liberals), and which are the issues that are negotiable? There seems to be a lot of intellectual reevaluation and reconstruction that has to happen on the conservative side.
63 BradWDM // Feb 16, 2009 at 5:02 pm
One problem that is not touched on in the article (at least with repsects to Maine), is that Collins and Snowe are probably the closest to a Republican that has a chance to be elected in a state such as Maine. These two get elected based off their name brand as well as their “independent streaks”. While I would love a more conservative challenger to dethrone Collins or Snowe, the truth is that challenger would most likely be defeated by Michaud, the Democrat that was so recently crushed by Collins.
64 uphuffheinz // Feb 16, 2009 at 8:29 pm
For what it’s worth, let me make it clear that I agree with Mr. Smith’s point that we should devote our energies first and foremost to unseating D senators, instead of unseating R Senators. But, if Mr. Smith is asserting that the Republican base threatens to abandon its efforts to unseat Ds, and instead focus everything on a jihad against the Porkulus Three—well, I think that’s misleading. Most R activists can maintain perspective, prioritize and “keep their eye on the prize.”
65 Gil-Galad // Mar 9, 2009 at 3:38 pm
“Target Democrats” sounds like a great message. Why don’t you send that along to Wayne Gilchrest, who worked for the Democrat after losing his primary? Or to Lincoln Chafee, who worked to elect Obama? Or to Joe Shwartz, who campaigned for the Democrat in his old seat out of spite?
You must log in to post a comment.