Kristol: Specter Defection Another Big Win for GOP!!

I adore Bill Kristol, from his floppy, over-sized shoes all the way to that shiny red nose -- in fact, the only thing I like better than Bill Kristol is ten Bill Kristols piling out of a Volkswagen...

Good News for Republicans!

On May 24, 2001, I wrote an op-ed for The Post in the wake of Vermont Sen. James Jeffords’s party switch. I argued that the switch, which cost Republicans control of the Senate, could well turn out to be good for President Bush.

Not entirely for the reasons I speculated on in the op-ed I turned out to be right.

Translation: 'as usual, it turned out I was full of shit, but let's pretend the opposite is true.'

Bush was still able to get enough cooperation to govern over the next year and a half, and he was also able to run successfully against the Democratic Senate in the fall of 2002. The GOP regained control that November.

Forget 9/11; forget that Bush didn't run against Congress in 2002, the GOP ran with Americans' fears. Let's also ignore the fact that Paul Wellstone died two weeks before the election, and that Jean Carnahan had never won her seat (she'd been appointed after the death of her husband, Mel, in 2000, and was defeated by Jim Talent in 2002) -- it was Jeffords switching parties that produced that two-seat GOP pick-up in '02, proving once again that Kristol was right!

And definitely forget that the Republicans controlled all the organs of government when Bill made that prediction seven years ago and are now a rump, regional party of the deep south -- it was a victory, I tell ya!

Similarly and contrarianly ...

That is, 'partisanly and hyper-partisanly'

... I wonder if today’s Arlen Specter party switch, this time to the president’s party, won’t end up being bad for President Obama and the Democrats. With the likely seating of Al Franken from Minnesota, Democrats will have 60 seats in the Senate, giving Obama unambiguous governing majorities in both bodies. He’ll be responsible for everything. GOP obstructionism will go away as an issue, and Democratic defections will become the constant worry and story line. This will make it easier for GOP candidates in 2010 to ask to be elected to help restore some checks and balance in Washington -- and, meanwhile, Specter’s party change won’t likely have made much difference in getting key legislation passed or not. So, losing Specter may help produce greater GOP gains in November 2010, and a brighter Republican future.

Let's parse that last sentence. I think Kristol's prediction may prove right in the short term; the country is in a very deep hole, people don't tend to have a lot of patience when things are looking bleak, and while the public blames the GOP for creating the mess we're in right now it's entirely possible that Americans' ire will rest on the Dems if things don't improve significantly by Election Day of 2010 (my prediction: they won't -- the economy will be looking better but not a whole lot better).

But that's in the short-term. As for the Republicans, they still face long-term structural problems. Here's Jonathan Capeheart, also writing on the WaPo's website ...

... there is also something to Specter's public explanation of his decision: "Since my election in 1980, as part of the Reagan Big Tent, the Republican Party has moved far to the right. Last year, more than 200,000 Republicans in Pennsylvania changed their registration to become Democrats. I now find my political philosophy more in line with Democrats than Republicans."

Moderates like Specter have been run out of what, as November's election showed, has become a niche regional party in thrall to its far right wing. Just take a look at this map that illustrates how votes shifted between the 2004 and 2008 presidential elections. Although nationally the country trended blue, as did most of Specter's Pennsylvania, the GOP gains were concentrated in Louisiana, Arkansas, Tennessee, Oklahoma and parts of Texas, Kentucky and West Virginia.

• 1
• 2
• Next page »

View as a single page