And now, for something completely different: some half-baked political analysis!
A couple things come to mind regarding a certain Senator's party switch. (I speak, of course, of last week's decision by PA Republican Arlen Specter to become a Democrat.)
First, the guy may well have done it for self-preservation, as he admitted himself. That doesn't change the fact that a party that loses moderates is going in the wrong direction. We'll see if this move causes the GOP leadership to reach out more to the center or to move even further to the right. (Assuming that's possible.) In any case, I'm going to write a massive post on the plight of the Republican Party later this month. But that issue needs a lot more mulling first.
Second, the hidden effects of Specter's reDemocratification may be greater than the obvious ones. He'll vote to advance many bills and appointments forward in the legislative process, even if he ends up voting against the bill or the appointment... which will move Obama's agenda forward quite a bit faster. Civics lesson: The U.S. Senate can approve a bill or a presidential appointment by a 51-49 vote, but the minority party can vote against "cloture," or against ending debate, and thus prevent a vote from ever taking place. (The Democrats did this plenty under W., who then just pushed his judges through in recess appointments anyway.)
So a committed group of 41 Senators can block whatever they want for a while. But Specter's defection leaves the R's with a scant 40, which will not be enough when Al Franken is seated later this year as the D's 60th Senator. And Specter is in an enviable position in his new digs. He can vote for cloture with his caucus buddies, then vote against the bill itself and campaign next year on his moderateness. With Obama's promised endorsement. In a state where registered Democrats outnumber Republicans by 1.2 million, yes, million.
(Bonus point: Both of Maine's Senators are moderate Republicans. Keep an eye on them. Just saying.)
1.) This becomes more interesting to me as David Souter announces his retirement since Specter was the ranking Republican on the Judiciary committee. Even though it really does little to change the makeup of the court, there should be very little to challenge an Obama appointee to the high court let alone other courts. This discourages me as I beleive that judges really should be well vetted to have the best in place.
ReplyDeleteI also disagree with the views of those like Patrick Leahy that we should choose someone outside the judicial ranks. That is like putting a cropduster in an F-22 and hoping for the best...that only works well in Independence Day.
2.) The party line should be an artificial construct that politicians use to give a general "cliff notes" view of their beliefs to the public that fails to take the time to understand the person before punching a ballot. Makes it easy for the "I vote the ticket" crowd. However, I find it to be misleading to be elected under one flag and then change when the wind blows another political way. Would he have changed if McCain won? Doubt it. But I didn't think McCain would win anyway...
Andy: You doubt the Obama team's vetting ability? Forsooth! Eleven strikes and you're out, I always say.
ReplyDeleteLeahy must just have wanted free publicity with that remark. Idiotic. Your Supreme Court justices should be the most experienced jurists in the land. The SC is not a social laboratory. It's not an entry-level law job.
Certainly, Specter would be facing a far different set of circumstances had McCain inexplicably won. But here's the important point of all this. Specter leaving the GOP cedes even more power to the extremist wing of the party. To an extent, it doesn't matter that one guy switched for motives of self-preservation. What matters immensely (beyond the 60th vote) is that one less moderate voice will be associated with the Republicans. They need all the non-McConnells and anti-Coburns they can get.