Wednesday, May 6, 2009
Specter says party switch driven partly by desire to keep seat
Yes, this was pretty much the basis for my blog post this week but I thought it was an important point to focus on. This article emphasizes the biggest motive behind Arlen Specters party switch.
RepubliCrat
I think this recent switch in Parties is both an upholding of our party system in the United States and a mockery of it. Is it really possible for a person to flip-flop with no true party loyalty just to keep his/her job? In general I think Fiorina would be irritated and Aldrich would not be surprised.
The whole idea behind the Culture War book was to emphasize the point that just because the elites in office are heavily polarized against each other, this does not mean that it is a clear representation of the voting public as a whole. Fiorina does not suggest party switching as a solution to the problem. He states that he believes most candidates sincerely believe they are at war. Specter is now choosing to fight
that war from a different side of the political fence. He is doing this mainly because he wants to keep his seat in the senate which brings me to Aldrich.
“The elective Office Seekers’ and holders’ interests are to win (Aldrich p. 24). Specter was very concerned about losing his senate seat and was “"unwilling to subject my 29-year record in the U.S. Senate to the Pennsylvania Republican primary electorate," (http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/04/29/specter.party.switch/index.html) Specter says that it is his ongoing disagreement with the right-shifting philosophies of the Republican party that play a big role in his decision to change, and that he will put people over party and be bipartisan, but I think that any comment after “don’t want to lose my seat in the senate” becomes far less believable as a main source. And what do the Democrats care? They are now one seat shy of being filibuster proof while they wait on Al Franken.
Answering the question of how something like this could happen in 2009 with such polarized elites is apparently pretty easy. For Arlen Specter it is not about fighting the political war as a loyalist for his team, it’s about being able to fight a war in general, and get paid for it. I cannot even pretend to draw the allusion that Specter is just a reflection of the voter and not really extreme on either side, he requested a transfer to a different team because he knew his own was not going to have him around the next year.
The whole idea behind the Culture War book was to emphasize the point that just because the elites in office are heavily polarized against each other, this does not mean that it is a clear representation of the voting public as a whole. Fiorina does not suggest party switching as a solution to the problem. He states that he believes most candidates sincerely believe they are at war. Specter is now choosing to fight
that war from a different side of the political fence. He is doing this mainly because he wants to keep his seat in the senate which brings me to Aldrich.
“The elective Office Seekers’ and holders’ interests are to win (Aldrich p. 24). Specter was very concerned about losing his senate seat and was “"unwilling to subject my 29-year record in the U.S. Senate to the Pennsylvania Republican primary electorate," (http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/04/29/specter.party.switch/index.html) Specter says that it is his ongoing disagreement with the right-shifting philosophies of the Republican party that play a big role in his decision to change, and that he will put people over party and be bipartisan, but I think that any comment after “don’t want to lose my seat in the senate” becomes far less believable as a main source. And what do the Democrats care? They are now one seat shy of being filibuster proof while they wait on Al Franken.
Answering the question of how something like this could happen in 2009 with such polarized elites is apparently pretty easy. For Arlen Specter it is not about fighting the political war as a loyalist for his team, it’s about being able to fight a war in general, and get paid for it. I cannot even pretend to draw the allusion that Specter is just a reflection of the voter and not really extreme on either side, he requested a transfer to a different team because he knew his own was not going to have him around the next year.
Wednesday, April 22, 2009
What the Stevens conviction means for the GOP
How this changes Nov. prospects, party reputation and GOP pecking order
Speaking of parties collapsing.... This article discusses the potential hardships facing the republican party. There are a lot of members in the senate retiring and on top of that, a conviction of a current senator hits the party hard as well.
Consider how devastating it must be for John McCain and a whole herd of GOP incumbents to see the words "Senator," "Republican,” “convicted," and "corruption" in the news just eight days before the election.
Speaking of parties collapsing.... This article discusses the potential hardships facing the republican party. There are a lot of members in the senate retiring and on top of that, a conviction of a current senator hits the party hard as well.
Consider how devastating it must be for John McCain and a whole herd of GOP incumbents to see the words "Senator," "Republican,” “convicted," and "corruption" in the news just eight days before the election.
A New Party
Because we have a two party system and one of the two has collapsed (The Republican Party), we obviously cannot reinvent that same party, but at the same time we cannot create that party’s opposite. If we did this we would “technically” have the Democratic Party, at least in the eyes of most Conservative voters. I think the best party would have to be a combination of both.
First we would have to assess why the Republican Party failed in the first place. I would find it highly unlikely that all aspects of the party failed. It is hard to say which policies would be emphasized without this information, but the new platform would include policies that have had the greatest success in both parties, new policies attempting to correct mistakes of the past, and as suggested in our readings “a set of desirable policies different from the status quo.” Just as in the 1992 election with Ross Perot, playing to weaknesses of both parties and attempting to offer a solution that neither can could provide big results.Just as noted in the Spatial Model, voters are looking for a candidate who will provide them with the most utility, and in order to be competitive in a Nation would election, it is important to portray that, even if it is an illusion.
It would also be important not to come off as too similar to the Democratic Party because this may cause a division in that party and most likely have a lesser chance of getting a Conservative vote. Equally as important, the new party would have to make sure they do not adopt the negative reputation associated with the fallen party.
The leaders would include members with a strong political history but with very few ties to extremist acts of voting leaning to one side or the other. John McCain would have been a good example prior to the 2008 election. Interest groups and voting blocs for issues on both ends of the political scale would be helpful. Research would be needed to assess which groups carried the greatest push in the voting population and then a plea to them would surely boost popularity. With enough backing from interest groups and voting blocs the party should be ready for competition as soon as the Democratic Party screws up.
First we would have to assess why the Republican Party failed in the first place. I would find it highly unlikely that all aspects of the party failed. It is hard to say which policies would be emphasized without this information, but the new platform would include policies that have had the greatest success in both parties, new policies attempting to correct mistakes of the past, and as suggested in our readings “a set of desirable policies different from the status quo.” Just as in the 1992 election with Ross Perot, playing to weaknesses of both parties and attempting to offer a solution that neither can could provide big results.Just as noted in the Spatial Model, voters are looking for a candidate who will provide them with the most utility, and in order to be competitive in a Nation would election, it is important to portray that, even if it is an illusion.
It would also be important not to come off as too similar to the Democratic Party because this may cause a division in that party and most likely have a lesser chance of getting a Conservative vote. Equally as important, the new party would have to make sure they do not adopt the negative reputation associated with the fallen party.
The leaders would include members with a strong political history but with very few ties to extremist acts of voting leaning to one side or the other. John McCain would have been a good example prior to the 2008 election. Interest groups and voting blocs for issues on both ends of the political scale would be helpful. Research would be needed to assess which groups carried the greatest push in the voting population and then a plea to them would surely boost popularity. With enough backing from interest groups and voting blocs the party should be ready for competition as soon as the Democratic Party screws up.
Tuesday, April 7, 2009
Analysis: Cheering but mixed bag for Obama
World must wait and see on issues like nuclear arms and economic reform
I thought this article matched our blog topic for this week. We talk about how long it will be for the GOP to get the upper hand again. So for the world and the country is please with our president. However, they are still waiting on the results on some very critical issues. These success or failure of these issues could result in a greater delay of GOP success or the opposite. Then again, a Failure in ares of Nuclear Arms and Economic Reform could result in far more than that. FINGERS CROSSED!
I thought this article matched our blog topic for this week. We talk about how long it will be for the GOP to get the upper hand again. So for the world and the country is please with our president. However, they are still waiting on the results on some very critical issues. These success or failure of these issues could result in a greater delay of GOP success or the opposite. Then again, a Failure in ares of Nuclear Arms and Economic Reform could result in far more than that. FINGERS CROSSED!
GOP on the Back Burner
I think it has come to a time where the Republican Party is going to take a massive back seat. Forever? Definitely not. I think the public definitely shows a pattern of flipping between favored parties depending on the success of the previous President or seatholder.
I do think the Republican Party will have a significantly difficult time rebounding with out some serious effort. Aldrich talks about Van Buren’s effort to revive the Republican Party and I think some of his strategies would be helpful (Pg. 122). The party needs to get back in touch with its principles. They also need to work on not neglecting those groups and states that already support them. This election the Republican Party lost some states that used to be “red” states (Indiana, Florida, North Carolina) and I believe that has to do with the lack of faith in the party. Page 112 states the party needs to cater to those who could be made to benefit from the revival of the Republican party as well s creating an alliance with those who are already in support.
http://ohiogop.blogs.com/ Shares their view on how to rebuild the party and it parallels the Aldrich reading quite well with some more modern ideas as well:
Returning to our roots of fiscal conservatism
Building beyond our traditional base
Developing bold solutions to pocketbook issues impacting Ohio (economy, jobs, health care, energy)
Re-engaging the middle class
Improving our message delivery
Connecting on campuses
Implementing a zero-tolerance policy for misconduct
They also discuss their need for the definition of clear policies and agenda which has definitely been lacking. (Aldrich pg 109 brings up the same issue)
The bottom line is the Republican Party is not dead, but it will definitely be very sick until it takes the proper action to regain its strength.
Wisconsin Congressman Paul Ryan: Our party has become too fearful of our own ideas. Since 1997, congressional Republicans began a steady retreat from principled leadership to political expediency. A party built on spending discipline and government reform succumbed to the siren songs of government expansion and earmarked giveaways. Republicans squandered the opportunity to limit and reshape the relationship between the federal government and the individual.
I do think the Republican Party will have a significantly difficult time rebounding with out some serious effort. Aldrich talks about Van Buren’s effort to revive the Republican Party and I think some of his strategies would be helpful (Pg. 122). The party needs to get back in touch with its principles. They also need to work on not neglecting those groups and states that already support them. This election the Republican Party lost some states that used to be “red” states (Indiana, Florida, North Carolina) and I believe that has to do with the lack of faith in the party. Page 112 states the party needs to cater to those who could be made to benefit from the revival of the Republican party as well s creating an alliance with those who are already in support.
http://ohiogop.blogs.com/ Shares their view on how to rebuild the party and it parallels the Aldrich reading quite well with some more modern ideas as well:
Returning to our roots of fiscal conservatism
Building beyond our traditional base
Developing bold solutions to pocketbook issues impacting Ohio (economy, jobs, health care, energy)
Re-engaging the middle class
Improving our message delivery
Connecting on campuses
Implementing a zero-tolerance policy for misconduct
They also discuss their need for the definition of clear policies and agenda which has definitely been lacking. (Aldrich pg 109 brings up the same issue)
The bottom line is the Republican Party is not dead, but it will definitely be very sick until it takes the proper action to regain its strength.
Wisconsin Congressman Paul Ryan: Our party has become too fearful of our own ideas. Since 1997, congressional Republicans began a steady retreat from principled leadership to political expediency. A party built on spending discipline and government reform succumbed to the siren songs of government expansion and earmarked giveaways. Republicans squandered the opportunity to limit and reshape the relationship between the federal government and the individual.
Wednesday, April 1, 2009
It's a bird, it's a plane, it's Super Prez!
Another title that pretty much says it all. I thought this article fit perfectly with my blog and the talks over whether or not President Obama has a mandate. A perfect battle between numbers and actions.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
