Biden says Specter felt GOP had abandoned him

This article is about Specter's switch. The article claims that Specter feels like after so many years, the GOP "abandoned" him. It also quotes Biden saying "I think he knows he's going to be with a lot more people who are much more like minded on the major issues with him than he was in the very shrinking Republican caucus as it related to centrist and moderates." The article goes on with Biden defending Obama's agenda and talks briefly about Specter's support of it.

Party Switching

This past week’s readings have suggested that a polarized nation does exist, just not in the way we might have thought. Fiorina and company claim that it is not so much the American voters that are polarized, but the American elites. Many Americans do not pay attention to politics until the presidential elections come up, but political elites and activists are zealous about their party and its policies, which makes them more polarized. However, the recent party switch by Arlen Specter is kind of contradictory. If political elites are so polarized, how can they just switch parties and abandon their ideology at the drop of a hat?

It all comes down to the “politics.” Beginning his campaign for re-election, it became clear that Specter had a very slim chance of defeating Pat Toomey. Throughout this semester, we have talked a lot about Congress and their failure to vote with their party because it might jeopardize their re-election. Specter saw that the Republicans were not going to save his career so he decided to try to save it himself, by switching to the Democratic Party. This move could help support the idea that the Republican Party is starting to collapse. Specter voiced that his ideals and position on policy were not so much in line with the Republicans anymore as they were with the Democrats. He may just be saying this to avoid speculation and he may mean it. If he does mean it, it could show that support for the Republican Party and their ideology is starting to dwindle, as this past election has illustrated.

I think this shift would surprise Fiorina. The main theme of his argument is that political elites and activists are very polarized and true to their parties. Specter’s switch turns his arguments completely upside down. Aldrich, however, would not be as surprised. He argues that parties aren’t so important and candidates tend to choose the party that will get them elected. Aldrich talks about switching parties on pages 188-189 and suggests that if another party possesses a more viable route to winning, a candidate could abandon their current party. He states that, “as the other party becomes more viable…the challenger might switch,” and this is exactly what Specter did (189).

Ryan shines as GOP seeks vision

In the last blog, I talked about the fall op the Republican Party and the rise of a new one. I was asked at the time, who should run this party and I wasn’t quite sure? Then I found this article on Paul, a rising star of the GOP. Although he is conservative, he does tend to lean towards moderation, such as supporting federal legislation banning employment discrimination based on sexual orientation. There is more information on him in this article.

Bartels vs Frank

Although Thomas Frank seems to be a little bitter, I would definitely argue that he is right and Bartels is wrong. They both try to offer explanations for the “working class” voting Republican instead of their usual Democratic stance, but Bartels’ analysis is very narrow and close-minded.

The biggest problem with Bartels’ argument is his definition of the working class. As Frank’s rebuttal stated, Bartels’ definition of the working class is anyone with a household income below $35,000. This is not a good enough definition to make an analysis. What about the young professionals who are just starting out, or the people on disability or who are unemployed or who are retired or –hey!- who are students. To help refute Bartels’ definition, Frank goes on to explain that only one third of those he labels as “working class” are actually employed. Also, Bartels’ implies that when Frank considers the “working class” he is talking about whites only. And the fact that Bartels’ definition makes little sense completely discredits his entire argument.

As far as the 2008 election goes, this debate isn’t really salient anymore. The two debate why the poorer working class voted Republican. However, this past year, they leaned toward the Democratic Party, which basically makes the debate a moot point. Also, I do not think this switch in party partisanship is that shocking and monumental as is it portrayed. From election to election, what the people find most important changes. When the working class voted Republican, they were more concerned with moral decay, and the Republicans offered a better solution for them. This year, the main concerns were the economy, the environment, and the Iraq war, and the Democratic Party offered more enticing solutions. This switch in voting is something that has happened in the past and I presume, will continue to happen in the future.

Save the date: National tea party is September 12

This is a link I found from the Journal Sentinel to a blog that talks about the Republican Party’s effort to save the conservative cause through “tea parties.” They are an anti-tax, anti-Obama movement. The blog also includes links for more information.

New Party

If the Republican Party were to collapse, en entire part of the nation would go unrepresented and a new party would need to take it’s place, hopefully being able to appeal to even more voters.

I think the party would start out with an ambitious group of people. In 1960, JKF did not initially have the support of a party, he “built his own organization, developing lists of activists to approach, traveling the nation, and securing services of a great number of experts, the “best and the brightest,” to conjure up the national organization to win delegate support,” (Aldrich, 271). Because of this, I think the party would rise out a strong candidate running instead of forming the other way around.

As I stated, the collapse of the Republican Party would leave a lot of people with no representation and no one to turn to. Because of this, the new party would have to take on some more conservative stances, while trying to remain more moderate. It would have to appeal the religious and frequent church goers as well as the wealthy and small business owners. It will have to take on a more conservative stance on foreign policy and defense than the Democrats, but remain more moderate that the current Republican party. This party will be different and more moderate than the current, but it does have to keep a more conservative overtone to keep many people happy. By loosening the belt on conservatism however, it will able to appeal to more people than just the current conservatives.

One subject the new party needs to recognize is the environment. Going green is huge lately amongst many people, and not just liberals. If the new party can work environmental conservation into their new platform, along with a little more lenience on gay rights and more emphasis on minority voters, this party will eventually gain momentum and make it into Congress and the White House.

This party would probably grow out of the South, with many voters already leaning that way. It will still contain some of the older more conservative members of the current party, but the younger, more moderate members will be the new face of this party.

Ryan, GOP propose big tax cuts, spending curbs

Since we are talking about the decline of the Republican Party this week, I found an article about their opposition of the Stimulus Bill. Although it did not have much of a chance of passing, it shows that although the Republicans are a minority in Congress, they are still fighting to get their voice heard.