Club For Growth: Specter's Stimulus Support "The Ultimate Act of Treason"
One thing worth thinking about in the Senate's compromise bill is that one Senator is really putting his neck out here: Arlen Specter, who may be leaving himself wide open to a challenge in the Republican primary.
Unlike his fellow pro-stimulus Republicans Olympia Snowe and Susan Collins, Specter is up for re-election in 2010. And there exists an active element in the party that is always eager to push him out the door, even if it meant endangering the GOP's hold on the seat -- in fact, Specter just barely survived a conservative primary challenge 51%-49% in 2004, when the Club For Growth threw its weight behind then-Congressman Pat Toomey.
I spoke today with Nachama Soloveichik, the Club's communications director, and she confirmed that they're hearing a lot of anger over the compromise. "Grassroots Republicans are infuriated. They're fed up. They've had it," Soloveichik said, even going so far as to add that for many, "this is the ultimate act of treason."
Soloveichik said that no specific potential primary challengers have stepped forward just yet. Toomey, who now serves as the Club's president, is currently eyeing a possible campaign for governor of Pennsylvania, not Senate. But she sounded optimistic: "Whenever there is a constituency for a challenger, then people start looking at the opportunities."
Meanwhile, a Democrat has now thrown his hat in the ring for this race: Joe Torsella, a former deputy mayor of Philadelphia and the founder of the National Constitution Center. Other Dems are looking at the race, too. If a Republican candidate is able to successfully mobilize right-wing ire against Specter in the primary, then that Democratic nomination could become a very valuable thing, indeed.
Josh
Matt
Eric
Brian
This is exactly what the Republican party needs - more purity tests. Purge out those heretics that place reality and progress over ideology.
February 10, 2009 2:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
Gosh, now that you mention it, I totally think both parties could do with more of that.
February 10, 2009 4:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
Awesome. Gotta love the circular firing squad. Can they use any more hyperbole? Treason? Totally absurd. They sure are looking for a long time in the wilderness if they survive as a party. What was rove saying in 04? I forget now.
February 10, 2009 2:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well, keep in mind, the only treason wingnuts recognize is treason against conservative orthodoxy.
February 10, 2009 3:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
You'd think that Specter's Warren Commission "magic bullet" would have insulated him for a lifetime against attacks by rich fascist Randian geekdom.
They certainly have a "mean" test for their betters.
February 10, 2009 3:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
Getting a viable Dem candidate now in Penn. will save Specter from being primaried by the GOP. Because if Specter is challenged in a primary, it will be by a further right candidate, meaning the Dem could claim the moderate/centrist ground should the primary challenger defeat Specter.
The way I see it, it will either be Specter holding the seat, or a moderate Dem beating a wingnut in 2010.
February 10, 2009 2:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
Surprisingly brave of Specter, actually. Pennsylvania has a primary closed to voters who are registered to a party so only registered Republicans will be voting in the primary. If these folks remain upset with Arlen, then he really could be in jeopardy in his party's primary.
February 10, 2009 3:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
Not so much, really. Pennsylvania is a pretty blue state. Specter is in a damned-if-you-do, damned-if-you-don't situation. He's banking on this package working, which will pretty much undercut the wingnut faction.
February 10, 2009 3:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
So the Club for Contraction is at it again, shrinking the economy, shrinking the Republican Party, speaking out of their collective behinds.
Let the circular firing squad commence.
February 10, 2009 3:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
The CfG are total wackos, but it's really the content I object to, not the tactics. I have often wished there was a left-wing Club For Growth. It could be called the Team For Redistribution. Or maybe the Group For You Suck, Ben Nelson.
February 10, 2009 3:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
Riiight, we totally need that because the CFG's been been so spectacularly succcessful in expanding the Republican majority these last eight ten years.
February 10, 2009 4:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
Okay, that was unnecessarily sarcastic.
The CFG has a brilliant record of either replacing winning more or less sane Republicans with losing right wing nutjob Republicans or of so weakening the less insane Republican that he loses in the general.
One would think that that would be food for thought for those in the Democratic Party who are constantly clamoring to replace "bad" Democrats with "good" ones.
You want "better" Democrats? Then stop trying to bump off the only kind of Democrats who can win the red tinged purple districts and help Democrats win the state legislatures that will draw us better Congressional districts in 2010. (Granted, only time can change the electorate for Senate seats).
February 10, 2009 4:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
My question to you is, given the structure of the federal government, would the Democratic party be more effective with fewer, but more left-wing and dedicated, congresspersons and senators? We've seen the havoc that the Republicans can cause, even in the minority, because they are a coherent unit and will do anything to win.
I also think, looking at Brian Schweitzer as a possible example, that winning in conservative areas or states does not require that we run a Republican calling themselves a Democrat. I don't agree with everything Schweitzer says but he seems to be a legitimate Democrat.
February 10, 2009 4:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
"My question to you is, given the structure of the federal government, would the Democratic party be more effective with fewer, but more left-wing and dedicated, congresspersons and senators?"
There's a name for a party of that description. The name is "minority party".
February 10, 2009 4:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
And I would add that there wouldn't even be enough senators to mount a filibuster. Really short sighted and would work in the favor of republicans. Republicans don't want the government to do a gd thing, so they would be happy with that situation and are actually probably happier in the minority and obstructing. Republicans can't run the government, because they don't know how and want to wipe it out. Dems have to reach out to get their agenda to move forward. Republicans could care less. It really is a non-starter.
February 10, 2009 4:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
Its true we don't have to go out of our way to recruit obnoxious blue dogs like some of the representatives from my state in order to win reddish purple states--Schweitzer's a good example as is Sherrod Brown. But once one has won, we have to restrain the urge to purge, because the dog is right, that's how you end up in the minority.
You know, unless they're someone like Lieberman who's to the right of the majority in his state. And even then, well, look how that worked out. Lieberman won and then was off the reservation and on the war path for the next two years.
February 10, 2009 4:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'd contribute to Specter's primary campaign just to make sure the Club for Shrinkage goes down on its tiny treasonous testicles.
February 10, 2009 6:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
Right, so you agree that we can move the party to the left without destroying it utterly?
February 11, 2009 4:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
Right, so you agree that we can move the party to the left without destroying it utterly?
February 11, 2009 4:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
Club for what? Growth, did you say?
February 10, 2009 6:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
is there anything to stop pat toomey
from changing his mind and jumping
back in '10 primary?
February 10, 2009 3:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
Specter must be somewhat worried because I was a recipient of a mass email he sent out yesterday, justifying his reasons for supporting the Stimulus. (Not even sure how he has my email address--I'm certainly not in any kind of Republican database. I may have emailed his office once, though I'm not sure, as my usual method of expressing my righteous anger to Congresscritters is via faxed letter.)
February 10, 2009 3:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
is arlen specter the gop's joe lieberman?
February 10, 2009 4:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
Isn't this much like those McCain trolls or PUMAS who popped up every 30 seconds to announce "Obama just lost my vote FOREVER" (only to pop back up and make the same pronouncement again every time a new issue would flit across the media's fancy)?
The CfG already made their choice about Specter - they attacked him last election. IMO, they were fully planning on attacking him this time also regardless of his stance. I don't see how he could have benefited from pandering to these folks even if he were so inclined.
February 10, 2009 4:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
Specter probably did those geniuses a favor. Given the GOP poll numbers and the American people's desire to act instead of obstruct, he's kept his party from being reduced to the 20% it actually represents.
I hate to wish for an OK Corral type of standoff over this, for sheer longer-term political reasons, but it's tempting.
But I have a job and it's easier for me to say....
February 10, 2009 4:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
Pennsylvania is actually a rather moderate state.
Yes, there's Philadelphia in the east and Pittsburgh in the west and Arkansas in between, but the net result is a moderate state.
And if you look at Senators like Hugh Scott and Arlen Specter, you see a moderate state. (Harris Wofford and Rick Santorum cancel each other out.)
Portraying Specter as a traitor is going to do nothing for long-term Republican prospects in the state, and everything for increasing the majorities in both houses in 2010.
February 10, 2009 10:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
As a former resident of Pennsylvania (lived there about 20 years), I think I know some of the context. Some Republicans still call Arlen Specter "Benedict Arlen," because he voted against the confirmation of Robert Bork as a Supreme Court Justice. Some anti-abortionists in Pennsylvania probably blame him for blowing an opportunity to get Roe v. Wade overturned. I had even heard rumors that Bork had planned to buy property in Pennsylvania and run against Specter, long before the Club for Growth had been targeting Specter.
February 11, 2009 12:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
As a former resident of Pennsylvania (lived there about 20 years), I think I know some of the context. Some Republicans still call Arlen Specter "Benedict Arlen," because he voted against the confirmation of Robert Bork as a Supreme Court Justice. Some anti-abortionists in Pennsylvania probably blame him for blowing an opportunity to get Roe v. Wade overturned. I had even heard rumors that Bork had planned to buy property in Pennsylvania and run against Specter, long before the Club for Growth had been targeting Specter.
February 11, 2009 12:31 PM | Reply | Permalink