Rockefeller Republicans so far have proven themselves to not *be* Republicans in social, fiscal, national security or small-government issues. With the obvious sole exception of Rudy, who doesn’t really qualify because he actually has a spine.

And nowadays, with the rogues’ gallery of Jeffords, Chaffee, Specter, Leach, Gilchrest, Schwarz, Brooks, etc. they’re proving they are not even Republicans in the first place.

PS: If you’re going to argue that Specter being a nominal R denied Democrats a filibuster-proof Senate, I’ll be forced to conclude that you’re blogging while high.

But political office is not a lifetime sinecure, and if the existance of a primary challenge constitutes “chasing out Specter” then you’ve stretched the definition beyond the breaking point.

And don’t forget the Republican leaders and national party intervened to save Arlen’s butt in 2004, and that Santorum may have lost because of that support for Arlen – and the the NRSC had announced support for Arlen in 2010 – and it’s clear that they were trying to keep him.

Short of coronation, it’s hard to see what the party could have done more – the problem is that Arlen lost support of Republican voters – and rather than make his case, he decided to kick the Republican party when they were down. He had not problem when the Republicans held the majority, but now that the Democrats are running the ball, he decided to pile on.

In short, the problem is with Arlen and his values, not with the party. But he should fit in well with the Democrats, as they both subscribe to the same philosphy of governance:

My way or the highway…

Could it be that his interests were not of philosophical difference but of self perservation?

He voted 72% of the time with the Rs but on which bills? When push came to shove, when it was necessary to stand in solidarity against the thievery, he didn’t deliver.

Seriously, I will be sending Toomey all the money I can spare.

what back door deal was in the making between Obama and Specter. Specter gets Obama’s support, will have Obama campaign and raise money for him, and all of the other rights and privledges by being an Obamabot.
Obama gets his fillibuster-proof majority and can get whatever he wants rocketed through Congress.

You have to learn to recognize opportunity when it presents itself. The democrat’s radical surge to the left will ultimately alienate people. They will be seeking an alternative. If we conservatives trully believe in our principles and values, there has never been a more opportune time to hold fast to them, to unaplogetically promote them in the teeth of the most virulent and powerful opposition. If the alternative we present is merely some watered down version of the democrat world view, what difference does it make if we win or not? If the only viable alternative is conservativism, the traditional culture of American society, the choice will be us or more marxism. Let the American people decide what they want. There has never been a better time to defend our principles than now, to ‘purify’ the party of its leftward drift just as the democrats purified theirs of their coservative elements decades ago.

I sorta agree with crux of this post

Is it better to have a Specter representing PA as Republican then a Democrat? Its about controlling the committees which is real power in DC. I doubt we knock off Specter now

I worry about if Crist runs for Senate how this site will react? I think he can win easily

They same with Lingle, Castle, etc how would u all react?

I am a republican first perhaps that where this disagreement comes. I am willing to bet those who are Conservative first are more antsy on these points

“I am unwilling to have my twenty-nine year Senate record judged by the Pennsylvania Republican primary electorate.”

Is THAT what we want to endorse as one of our national leaders?

I say absolutely not – and if there are negative consequences to it, so be it.

http://www.thehayride.com/2009/04/one-final-thought-on-specter-switch.html

I say obscene, because there is no core values, if your first interest/priority in subverting them to “attract moderates”.
All you end up with is Democrat lite, and ‘Republican’ Senators like Specter, Snow and Dukasis. (I may have spelled one or more of their names wrong, sorry.)
A center right Party is not one that is just barely right of the far left Democrat party, IMO.
But that is exactly what it seems so many calling for opening up the tent want.
Conservatives, as opposed to Republicans, want smaller government, not just slightly smaller then the Democrats would impose.
Conservatives want less tax and spend, not just slightly less then the Democrats would impose.
IMO, Republicans will never be the majority, or even close, in the Congress so long as the choice is far left Liberal, or not quite so far left liberal.

that you’re an ignorant jerk. Go post at Huff&Puff.

It was Republicans like Specter who drove the Republicans out of power. Even when the GOP had the majority of the House and Senate, conservatives have been in the majority because of people like Specter.

…in the Senate. Even when there were 55 Republicans you had people like Collins, Snowe, Chaffee, Specter and Gordon Smith.

I don’t think you can blame Specter for that. Conservatives need to win more seats in red states like Arkansas, North Dakota, Virginia and Alaska.

a bucket of piss.

There are not enough Conservatives for us to win elections without reaching out to moderates

We have lost more Congressional people in suburbs district these past 2 cycles and us losing these areas why Penn has trended blue

He seems to be a likely candidate and winner in 2010. I know he is perceived as “moderate”, but is he McCain or is he Specter?

that it makes Specter look like a moderate. But there is nothing about him that is moderate.

….they are usually referring to social issues (abortion, gay marriage, affirmative action, etc.).

I’ve got no ill will toward Senator Specter. I think his move was one of convenience, but if he is more comfortable in the Democratic Party, more power to him. But all this talk about the Republican party needing to “moderate” is, quite frankly, rubbish. At the end of the day, most people don’t vote on social issues. They vote on safety issues, namely the economy and national security.

Barack Obama did not get elected because of his pro-choice stance. Nor did he get elected because of his support of traditional marriage (which is inconsistent with the far left of his party, but, oddly enough, they have yet to berate him about that). He got elected because the economy was tanking and voters gave him the benefit of the doubt.

Similarly, George Bush didn’t get elected because of his pro-life stance, or his willingness to limit stem cell funding.

These are nice issues that stir up the base, but at the end of the day, they don’t win you elections.

If Obama had run totally on a green platform about cleaning up the earth and the evil corporations that were polluting it, he would have lost handily.

Republicans and Democrats have stark differences when it comes to the real issues of the economy and national security. And that’s what people vote on. Republicans who try to pass themselves off more as Democrats on social issues just to appear more moderate or centrist aren’t doing themselves any favors.

Republicans need to accentuate what makes the GOP unique, not muddle the message so badly that people can’t tell the difference.