Comments on: An Open Forum: Dealing with the Republican Defectors

By: Matt Abe

Matt Abe — Fri, 20 Feb 2009 14:13:55 +0000

In Minnesota, we called a group of Republicans who voted against Gov. Pawlenty’s veto of a huge tax increase “The Override Six” and targeted them with a grassroots campaign, led by the Taxpayers League of Minnesota and the House Republican Caucus. As this blog post explains, “Whether the story of the ‘Override Six’ leads to a larger and more conservative House Caucus or just represents a momentary bout of philosophical discipline still remains to be seen.”

See: http://www.truthvmachine.com/?p=8041

My opinion? At some point you have to decide to stand for something. Otherwise, you’re just Democrat Lite.

By: Steve

Steve — Wed, 18 Feb 2009 22:40:58 +0000

Heather,

My problem with Collins and Snow is the ADDITIONAL$420 million put into the bill Thursday night for Maine’s Medicaid. What does that sound like to you?

By: Matt Kauble

Matt Kauble — Wed, 18 Feb 2009 18:35:59 +0000

I think Snarlin’ Arlin’ will probably be challenged again by Club For Growth President and Former Congressman Pat Toomey will be challenging him in the Pennsylvania primary and this time Arlin may end up either losing, going the Joe Lieberman route or retiring.

By: karlub

karlub — Wed, 18 Feb 2009 14:14:47 +0000

What is important to consider is this: Regardless of how Specter and the senators from Maine would have voted, we would have gotten this dog of a bill.

Speaking of Specter– as I vote in PA– I can tell you this: It takes a pretty squishy Republican, or one of very special charisma and character, to win statewide in PA. If PA voters vote a Dem into Specter’s seat, it will take special circumstances to to unseat him or her. If it was Rendell, it would probably take death.

So Arlen is the best we got, and the only rational GOP response is to exact a price for grinning and bearing it. That price should be a reassurance that this is his last term, and he agrees to support someone young, local, and more authentically conservative as his successor. Eichelberger or Folmer from the PA Senate would do nicely. Perhaps Gerlach if it comes to that.

Please, not Ridge. You would have the same problems with Ridge that you have with Specter.

By: karlub

karlub — Wed, 18 Feb 2009 14:02:32 +0000

Not sure you’re right about the cancer, or Chris Matthews. When thinking about the appropriate response, we owe it to ourselves to simply act on the information we have and ignore rumors.

Specter is running, and Chris Matthews says he isn’t.

By: Aaron Marks

Aaron Marks — Mon, 16 Feb 2009 01:32:39 +0000

Martha — just to respond to your one point. Yes, Toomey came within striking distance of “taking out” Specter, but I believe to this day that he would have been defeated, if not trounced, in the general election, and then Joe Hoeffel would be the U.S. Senator from Pennsylvania.

By: Martha Montelongo

Martha Montelongo — Mon, 16 Feb 2009 01:11:51 +0000

In 2004, Pat Toomey came with in striking distance of taking out Arlen Specter, less than 2 percentage points. His campaign was irrevocably stalled when President Bush came to Specter’s side. It’s safe to assume Toomey would have won, had President Bush not intervened.

Our leadership needs to hold the rank and file accountable when they violate the common, basic, fundamental principles of the Republican Party. Loyal and passionate activists don’t belong to the Republican Party for the sake of power in and of itself, but for the purpose of advancing and protecting our liberties. Protecting a member out of party loyalty and not out of loyalty to principle is a losing proposition. We need to uphold our principles by holding our elected officials accountable. And when we have a viable candidate, who can win, and is within striking distance, our highest ranking and most influential leaders should not protect an incumbent who has a record of voting contrary to basic tenants of our Party, out of loyalty to his seniority.

True, you don’t see the Democrats kicking their 7 members out of Congress for voting no on the stimulus bill. But those seven may have never even been supported to run for office as Democrats, had the Democratic Party not softened its strident stand against conservative candidates in the last two congressional elections, in order to gain their majority in Congress. Republicans, on the other hand, didn’t loose their majority for being strident, or as the media wants to convince the public, for imposing limited government and free enterprise principles. No. Republicans are in the wilderness for their abandonment of these principles in large enough numbers that the people who had fervently supported them out of faith, stood home in the last two congressional elections. It is principled leadership that will bring these voters back.
If there is a principled candidate who will run and can beat Spector or Collins, or Snowe, our leadership should at least just stay out of it. Incumbancy has to stop being a shiboleth of our Party.

By: Brian Boettcher

Brian Boettcher — Sun, 15 Feb 2009 04:29:29 +0000

Here’s my problem – cutting through all the chatter – Either you can count on your friends, or you have no friends. These three, plus McCain and Graham, are not reliable whent he chips are down. I don’t know what Republican principles they share with the party that they’re willing to quickly sacrifice when they’re needed. I remember my friends, and I’ll remember those who surrendered the good fight for this sleazy alternative.

By: LibertyNow

LibertyNow — Sun, 15 Feb 2009 01:58:08 +0000

This is just another lesson of Democracy failing. Read the Bill of Rights. Does it say anything at all that would allow the economic ignoramouses on Parasite Hill to legally plunder $800 billion dollars from its citizenry in order to ‘stimulate’ our economy? This is not a Republican vs. Democrat issue, or a Specter, Collins, Snowe vs. Repubs issue. The voting turned out to portray it as that, but it is not that. It is a matter of whether you believe markets allocate monetary capital, or whether you believe governments, a.k.a politics, allocates the monetary resources. Of course Repubs are too economically clueless to think about this argument, so I don’t see things changing for the better in the near future.

By: Paul R. Huard

Paul R. Huard — Sat, 14 Feb 2009 16:57:36 +0000

Ultimately, it is up to the voters in each senator’s state to determine the final fate of those three. However, let it be noted that Democrats love so-called “moderate Republicans” like Snowe, Collins, and Specter because they offer the opposition the fig leaf of “bipartisanship” and cause problems in the rest of the caucus. I say strip them of their committee appointments and threaten them with conservative candidates that run as challengers in the Republican primaries (which would force them to spend money on re-election they didn’t plan on spending).