Arlen Spector has switched to the Democratic Party:
"I have found myself increasingly at odds with the Republican philosophy and more in line with the philosophy of the Democratic Party," he said at a news conference. He added, "I am not prepared to have my 29 year record in the United States Senate decided by the Pennsylvania Republican primary electorate."
Republican reaction was predictably histrionic and out of touch:
Not long after Specter met privately with Republican senators to explain his decision, the party's leader, Sen. Mitch McConnell, said the switch posed a "threat to the country." The issue, he said, "really relates to ... whether or not in the United States of America our people want the majority party to have whatever it wants, without restraint, without a check or balance."
Well gee Mitch, here's a wild thought: instead of blaming your political opponents for having a more attractive position than your own, so much so that they are not only attracting the voters, but some in your own party as well, how about you lead in recrafting the GOP's platform to get more in line with the realities of the 21st century (or at least the 20th). If Americans elect Democrats in such numbers that you cannot muster a check on their power, it would be best not to assume they are ignorant of the effects of those choices. Perhaps you should give serious thought to the notion that most Americans have such a poor opinion of your platform that they'd rather give complete control to the other side.
Personally I think it would be just fine to leave the GOP to the Palinists, about 28% of the populace as I read the polls, and let the major decisions in the country be worked out in debate between the tree-hugging Euro-Democrats and the libertarian-leaning individualist Democrats. We have little to fear in the way of disciplined, unified dominance from majority Democratic control, for Will Rogers' wry wit stands as true today as it did then:
"I don't belong to an organized political party. I'm a Democrat"
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
8 comments:
The issue, he said, "really relates to ... whether or not in the United States of America our people want the majority party to have whatever it wants, without restraint, without a check or balance."And yet, I have this strange feeling that he didn't complain one bit when his side didn't have to worry about those pesky limitations.
Besides, it's not like it'd matter - in the absence of a powerful GOP, we Democrats seem to be just fine with picking up their slack.
Have I reached the syllogism blog?
"Mitch McConnell is a Republican."
"Mitch McConnell had a histrionic and out-of-touch reaction."
Therefore:
"Republican reaction was predictably histrionic and out of touch."
How'd I do?
Off the mark as usual Alex. The problem is your first premise. Mitch McConnell isn't "a" Republican, he is arguably THE Republican. Using his reaction as representative of Republican reaction is hardly some radical notions.
To be more specific, Mitch McConnell is the Senate Minority Leader. If you want to look for somebody who has more of a legitimate claim to represent the Republican Party, you're pretty much stuck looking to Michael Steele.
I don't know what Steele had to say about the situation, but he doesn't exactly have a history of wowing America with his take on things either.
Whose reaction should we be looking at?
Concerning the swine flu: "Don't fly on a plane, stay off trains."
-- Joe Biden.
Yep, Democrat "reaction was predictably histrionic and out of touch"
Try to stay on topic Alex. Sadly, histrionic, out of touch reactions to medical problems effecting a tiny proportion of the populace has a bipartisan history.
And I notice you didn't answer Troublesome Frog's question.
My point was:
As ridiculous as my example of bringing up Biden was, so was your statement of "Republican reaction was predictably histrionic and out of touch" -- when just one leading Republican said what he said.
But it isn't just one Republican acting that way, it's the whole gang. The GOP blogs are aflame with rhetoric like this, as were the TEA parties. They just don't seem to get, or hope their constituents don't get, that when you lose, the other side is going to get their way, and if you lose by a lot, they'll get their way a lot.
Post a Comment