Whether it's your first Bonnaroo or you’re a music festival veteran, we welcome you to Inforoo.
Here you'll find info about artists, rumors, camping tips, and the infamous Roo Clues. Have a look around then create an account and join in the fun. See you at Bonnaroo!!
Now, correct me if I'm wrong... but wasn't Ridge another one of those deemed too moderate for the GOP recently? His abortion position pretty much ruled him ineligible for last year's veepstakes.
Post by nitetimeritetime on May 3, 2009 12:00:35 GMT -5
True, but they'll need a so-called moderate to run against Specter if they want to have any chance in that race. Ridge was eliminated from the VP position because they thought they needed someone perceived to be far to the right to balance McCain's perception of mavericky moderation (which has always been a sham). edit: maybe not always a sham, but certainly for the past 6 or 7 years.
Isn't that the point to begin with - that the GOP isn't too friendly with the moderates in their party?
It seems to me, looking at the numbers I posted earlier, than you can agree with Republicans 2/3 of the time and they'll still go after you over that other 1/3. Specter would've faced the same challenger from the right that he did in 2004, so it's not like that situation's changing...
Post by nitetimeritetime on May 3, 2009 15:09:19 GMT -5
Oh, I see what you're saying now.
I was thinking Ridge would get the backing of GOP leadership this time over Toomey. My suspicion is that the GOP was so quick to marginalize their moderates before because they really believed that stuff about a permanent Republican majority.
I'm guessing they won't be as reckless now that individual Senate seats matter so much this time around. I could be wrong though, and frankly I hope I am, because it would be fun to watch the GOP implode.
Rising and falling fortunes in politics happens in a somewhat cyclical nature. As the political scientists would say, individual presidencies occur within larger presidential regimes.
These regimes consist of four types of presidents: a regime starter, a regime maintainer, a placeholder of the opposing party, and finally the declining regime. At which point, lather rinse repeat.
Regime starters see a reshuffling of existing coalitions and a marked change in direction from prior administrations; they set the agenda for what's to come. The maintainer belongs to the same party as the regime starter; they stay the course and don't especially deviate from the regime starter's agenda. The placeholder belongs to the non-dominant party of the regime; though occupying power in an opposing regime, they're usually somewhat constrained and don't take things in a significantly different direction. Then you have the enervated regime; agendas go astray, coalition unity wanes, and things generally fall apart.
An example regime: FDR through Carter
FDR is obviously the regime starter; he took some bold steps after Hoover let things fall apart on his watch. Truman succeeded FDR and continued to enact his agenda; he's a maintainer. Eisenhower was a placeholder; perhaps his most lasting achievement, the Interstate system, adheres to New Deal principles. It doesn't hurt that Ike, elected as a Republican, knew he was going to run for President after WWII before he joined either party. JFK/LBJ were also maintainers; continuing and building upon Roosevelt's agenda. Nixon/Ford were also placeholders; multiple placeholders aren't a requirement for a regime, but don't discredit one. LBJ in Vietnam & RFK's assassination helped Nixon68 a great deal. Then there was Carter, under whose watch the regime fell apart. At which point, Reagan came along - fostering distrust of government and forging an expanded coalition that's become the GOP as we've known it the past few decades - and the cycle began anew...
A list of those considered regime starters: Washington Jackson Lincoln FDR Reagan
Of course, it's probably too early to make a historical assessment of sitting/recent presidents... but I'll still say we've been witnessing the same thing happen the past few years.
Obama seems to be a regime starter. He brought new portions of the electorate into his coalition, turned red states blue, etc... I've got him pegged as a regime starter.
That goes along with an enervated Reagan regime. The Gipper was able to bring fiscal conservatives, social conservatives and the national security hawks into better cooperation - assembling that new Republican coalition I previously mentioned. But that was nearly three decades ago - plenty of time for the various factions to fall into conflict. Which is what we're seeing now in the Republican party - the differing factions aren't getting along as well as they once were. It's just the further crumbling of the Reagan regime that began on W's watch.
Which brings us back to Sen. Specter. He was first elected in 1980, the year Reagan came to power. As Specter said in announcing his party switch, he felt the Republican party had left him instead of vice versa. I think there's some significance in that.
Another update on Specter... on Tuesday, the Democratic caucus voted to strip him of his seniority. Since he became a Democrat, he's been more against than for the administration's agenda - the budget, appointments, mortgages... and it probably didn't help that he said he'd like to see Norm Coleman seated. I know Feinstein & Leahy weren't too happy with the thought of Specter leapfrogging them in line. Dick Durbin gave up a Crime & Drugs subcommittee chairmanship (Judiciary, I believe) to him, though... I'm glad to see the Senate caucus choosing to defy Reid despite his assurances to Specter. Makes me hopeful for a leadership shakeup after midterms.
As I said before, the Democrats have Specter by the balls now. He didn't play along, and he's facing the consequences. I think the implicit message is to remind Specter of the threat of a 2010 primary opponent with the party's backing. I'm curious to see how his voting changes after this.
Another update on Specter... on Tuesday, the Democratic caucus voted to strip him of his seniority. Since he became a Democrat, he's been more against than for the administration's agenda - the budget, appointments, mortgages... and it probably didn't help that he said he'd like to see Norm Coleman seated.
I'm glad to see the Senate caucus choosing to defy Reid despite his assurances to Specter. Makes me hopeful for a leadership shakeup after midterms.
As I said before, the Democrats have Specter by the balls now. He didn't play along, and he's facing the consequences. I think the implicit message is to remind Specter of the threat of a 2010 primary opponent with the party's backing. I'm curious to see how his voting changes after this.
This is all good news. I hope you're right about the Dems finally growing a spine.
I just heard on the radio that Joe the Plumber has also decided to leave the Republican party. I know he's not an elected official, and considered himself an independent when Obama visited his door... but wasn't he the poster boy for the kind of voter McCain was trying to win over? That can't be good.
I just heard on the radio that Joe the Plumber has also decided to leave the Republican party. I know he's not an elected official, and considered himself an independent when Obama visited his door... but wasn't he the poster boy for the kind of voter McCain was trying to win over? That can't be good.
I can't stand it when there's news reports about Joe the Plumber, it's like hearing on CNN about Obama and Biden buying burgers or stories about the his kids dog selection
If Ridge does run for senate and does have to run against Toomey in the Republican primary i don't see Ridge losing to Toomey. I think because Specter is fairly well respected for his servicec in PA by both sides that Ridge wouldn't beat Specter.
Last Edit: May 7, 2009 14:53:31 GMT -5 by noeysasquatch - Back to Top
29 years of service is one thing; 29 years of seniority is another. Despite a reversal of partisan fortunes, a Republican with 29 years seniority still might have more individual clout than a Democrat with 1-2 years seniority.
I'm sure those of you in the Pennsylvania electorate will hear this again come primary time.
And I did hear about the Joe the Plumber thing (sadly) on the CNN hourly newsbreak on the radio today.