 |
 |
   Twenty years after the fall of the Berlin Wall, Gnter Grass still thinks reunification was a bad idea.
 Forty years of writing from Taylor Branch, James Fallows, Katherine Boo, Marjorie Williams, Joshua Micah Marshall, and more.
 With help from Washington, the for-profit college industry is loading up millions of low-income students with debt they'll never pay off.
 The best recent memoir from republican Washington is a hoax. That should tell you something.
|
   |
|
|
May 5, 2009
REPLACING ONE MODERATE WITH ANOTHER.... Arlen Specter left the Republican Party when Pennsylvania Republicans rejected his relative moderation. Pessimistic about Pat Toomey's chances, GOP leaders have been scrambling, looking for a credible Republican alternative. It appears the party has rallied behind former Gov. Tom Ridge (R) as their new go-to guy. Ridge, a two-term chief executive and the first DHS Secretary, is probably the only Republican with a realistic shot at winning the statewide race. There are, however, a couple of problems. First, Ridge lives in Maryland, not Pennsylvania, and as Rick Santorum can attest, Keystone State voters tend to care about whether their candidates live in the same state as they do. Second, there's the inconvenient fact that Ridge isn't that much more conservative than Specter. If the party's far-right base found Specter intolerable, Ridge, whose pro-choice views were rumored to have kept him off the McCain ticket, may find himself vulnerable to attacks from the right. They've apparently already started.
Conservative Matt Lewis, after noting some of Ridge's controversial lobbying work, questions how Pennsylvania primary voters might react when the former governor's record draws closer scrutiny.
It's very early, and there's at least some evidence that Ridge would be heavily favored to beat Toomey in a GOP primary. But given Ridge's occasional moderation, Toomey and other conservative activists are no doubt drawing up plans to make the former governor look like their up-until-recently Republican senator, and they'll have plenty of material to work with. —Steve Benen 4:45 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (22)Comments
According to Huffington Post, Specter has said that he hopes they seat Norm Coleman, why on earth did they accept this man in the Democratic party? Posted by: JS on May 5, 2009 at 4:43 PM | PERMALINKRidge or Specter what is the difference? The problem is the new Senate not the new Senator. In the current Senate Republicans are expected to vote against whatever President Obama wants and to filibuster everything and anything proposed by the Democratic leadership. Under those rules why would a supporter of President Obama vote for any republican candidate in the Senate be he or she in Maine, Illinois, New Hampshire, Pennsylvania or any state? Posted by: Stuart Shiffman on May 5, 2009 at 4:44 PM | PERMALINKIn it's rapidly evolving state toward reaching the Chrystaline Entity state of destructive purity, Ridge would need to grow industrial strength thick skin. My impression is that, though he is not a mental giant, he is smart enough and decent enough not to put himself and his family under Malkin's Microscope and relentless kitchen counter top inspections. We shall see. Posted by: Mr. Stuck on May 5, 2009 at 4:46 PM | PERMALINKNo idea who this Matt Lewis is, but what on earth is he talking about when he writes "Ridge voted to send taxpayer dollars to the National Endowment for the Arts to be spent on obscene and indecent work, including child pornography?" I mean, NEA=obscene & indecent, sure. All of us satantards know that. But when did child porn enter the casual conservative NEA lexicon in such a way that it doesn't even have to be backed up by an example? Is this the same thing as using "fascist" because "socialist" has lost its bite? Posted by: dilford on May 5, 2009 at 4:53 PM | PERMALINKThe National Endowment for the Arts is funding child pornography? I know at best this is a really shady distortion of the facts, so what's the real story here? Posted by: Joshua on May 5, 2009 at 4:55 PM | PERMALINKOne possibility that explains all this: The deal Specter got was if he voted for the stimulus and Toomey came after him, that Obama would back his switch to a Dem. Call it the 'quo pro quid' scenario. Posted by: eightnine2718281828mu5 on May 5, 2009 at 5:05 PM | PERMALINK. I'm certainly glad the Republicans prefer ideological purity over winning elections, but it is a sight to behold. These idiots don't seem to realize what they're actual options are. As far as the next senator from Pennsylvania, the choice is not between a conservative Republican and a moderate Republican, it's between a moderate Republican and either Arlen Specter or a real Democrat. But again, if all they care about is getting the conservative Republican on the ballot, no matter how badly he loses, that's fine with me. Posted by: Stephen Stralka on May 5, 2009 at 5:42 PM | PERMALINKPretty soon they'll have the GOP so purged and purified that they'll be able to have their convention in a phone booth. Posted by: Speed on May 5, 2009 at 6:10 PM | PERMALINKThe moderate republicans are going to steal the Democratic party. They realize they can't have success with the wingnut/fundies anymore and the Democratic party has been beaten to mush; easy pickins. Curious that moderate bloggers lament the demise of a viable alternative party while never giving consideration to a party on the left. Heaven knows exceptional America would never want to be like the rest of the first world. HAHAHA Fairness Doctrine? Oh man, Ridge is so screwed. The Fairness Doctrine: the gift that keeps on giving. Posted by: MNPundit on May 5, 2009 at 6:54 PM | PERMALINKWOW. We finally found the guy that wants to bring back the Fairness Doctrine! Somebody tell Fox. Posted by: Duvall on May 5, 2009 at 7:15 PM | PERMALINKImho, the country is ready to pivot from center-right to center-left, the Democratic party cannot and will not make that happen without pressure from the left, and the issue is economics, not culture(that battle is won). The failure of the body politic to respond to this adjustment is at least as dangerous to our democracy as Bushco ever was. Posted by: Michael7843853 on May 5, 2009 at 7:29 PM | PERMALINKThe Republicans need to rebrand: they are now Neo-whigs. Posted by: jen f on May 5, 2009 at 7:54 PM | PERMALINKI think the majority in the country have turned to the left side philosophy, but only in response to failed conservative policies that have negatively impacted their lives. The center is where at least 40 percent of the country lives, which is basically non-ideological. They just want to work and feed their families and send their kids to college. And then retire somewhat comfortably. If dems can't deliver policies that accomplish this, then the right will have a chance for a comeback. And I don't think most Americans want more government in their lives than is necessary. They just want things to work, and right now are willing to give government a chance with healthcare, because the current system is not serving them well. It is not, IMHO, an ideological support, but a pragmatic one and therefore subject to change. As far as blue dog dems causing problems getting progressive legislation passed, I mostly don't have a problem with it, because it generally follows their constituents beliefs. But right now even many moderate conservatives are willing to support more progressive policies and most of these dem lawmakers will fall in line. My problem is with dems from liberal states feetdragging due to lobbying and campaign contributions. Overall, I do believe the dem party is in fairly good shape as far as cohesiveness and common purpose, though far from lockstep like repubs. And it's because so many voters are at wits end and ready to try things another way. A health care bill will only pass thru reconciliation and we will have to pressure dems to not get cold feet on taking the plunge. Even so there will still be a few, who for what other reason, will cause problems. They deserve all out scorn and hopefully won't be enough to not reach 51 votes. It appears that Specter was trying to make a very unfunny joke about Norm Coleman. But that doesn't change the fact that he's not a Democrat in any meaningful sense, and that he isn't a vote for the Democratic agenda. I am confused. I thought Tom Ridge was Governor of Penn AFTER he was in the house. The voters of PA already know about that stuff AND VOTED FOR HIM. So did Republican voters (not the crazy current PA blend. Jen, I believe the Republicans may be Flipped Whigs. Posted by: Kevin the Baker on May 5, 2009 at 9:32 PM | PERMALINK--- Tom Ridge was a moderate Republican, even pretty cool, and he treated state workers with respect and dignity. He was well regarded in Pennsylvania for his realistic, progressive views. Specter had a heart for working class families over the years, but his resistance now to union causes is difficult to reconcile. It seems his heart has hardened, and that little scene on Meet the Press this past Sunday where he insists quite strangely that "I never said I was a loyal Democrat" really seals the deal that he is the wrong man at the wrong time in our Democratic Party. Posted by: far thinker on May 5, 2009 at 10:35 PM | PERMALINKThis just in: Democrats experience extreme buyers' remorse with Arlen Specter. 
November 2009
October 2009 September 2009 August 2009 July 2009 June 2009 May 2009 April 2009 March 2009 February 2009 January 2009 December 2008 November 2008 October 2008 September 2008 August 2008 July 2008 June 2008 May 2008 April 2008 March 2008 February 2008 January 2008 December 2007 November 2007 October 2007 September 2007 August 2007 July 2007 June 2007 May 2007 April 2007 March 2007 February 2007 January 2007 December 2006 November 2006 October 2006 September 2006 August 2006 July 2006 June 2006 May 2006 April 2006 March 2006 February 2006 January 2006 December 2005 November 2005 October 2005 September 2005 August 2005 July 2005 June 2005 May 2005 April 2005 March 2005 February 2005 January 2005 December 2004 November 2004 October 2004 September 2004 August 2004 July 2004 June 2004 May 2004 April 2004 March 2004 February 2004 January 2004 December 2003 November 2003 October 2003 September 2003 August 2003 July 2003 June 2003 May 2003 April 2003 March 2003 February 2003 January 2003 December 2002 |
|
|
    |
|
||||||
|
|
|||||||
|
||||||||
|
||||||||
