Specter Swap: Winners and Losers

After decades of Republicans accusing Arlen Specter of being a Republican in Name Only, he obliged by casting off the Republican name. In an official statement today, Specter announced he was switching parties in order to seek re-election as a Democrat.

Of course, there has been some vitriol against the Pennsylvanian on Twitter and on various conservative blogs - but according to recent polls, this move is as much about the party leaving Specter as it is about Specter leaving the party. Staring down a primary rematch with 2004 challenger (and near winner) Pat Toomey, Specter also had to face the reality that many moderate Republicans had switched their registration since then to participate in the Obama/Clinton presidential primary in 2008. The remaining Republican voters were more conservative and likely to react to Specter's support for some of the Obama Administrations fiscal policies.

Simply put, had Specter remained a Republican, he would not have remained a Senator. For that reason alone, he's a winner in this deal - and more so if there were any payoffs from his now-fellow-Democrats to jump on board. And if he does have to face off against Toomey, it will be against a full electorate, rather than a conservative base.

Specter does have a key vulnerability: his 2004 primary victory came with some help from then-Senator Rick Santorum (who lost in 2006) and President George W. Bush. Video from those campaign rallies may make it easy for Democratic primary opponents, and could also make it easier for Pat Toomey to separate himself from the Bush Republican Party brand.

To that end, Toomey will be a winner if he doesn't draw a moderate primary challenger. His campaign can now focus on his economic bona fides and take on a more broad, moderate town early on - rather than playing to the conservative base in order to win a primary. It also allows him to seal up establishment Republican support early on, rather than trying to mend fences after a bruising primary.

In the short term, the Democrats win as well, both nationally and in Pennsylvania. The Democratic race for the Senate was wide open after TV's Chris Matthews bowed out; now they have a strong candidate. The 60-seat majority in the Senate is obviously the biggest win for the Democrats. The Obama Administration had suggested using fast-track Senate rules for some controversial initiatives (like socializing health care) to get around a Republican filibuster. Now, the adminsitration will be able to contiue paying lip service to an open legislative process.

But oddly enough, the Democrats also have the most to lose from Specter's switch. Having attained 60 seats, a loss of even a couple in the next election is magnified. And though Toomey was probably toast against any reasonable Democratic challenger, his chances are arguably better - with a unified Pennsyvania GOP in his corner - against a Democrat who has spent the last 40 years on the other side of the people he is now depending on. After all, are Pennsylvania Democrats going to be excited about Arlen Specter? Or will they view this as a race between two Republicans?

And of course, if Specter wins, the Democrats may still find themselves the big losers; then they'd be stuck with Arlen Specter.

The Specter of an early loss

Q: What are the three things every politician cares about?

A: Re-election, re-election, and re-election.

And Sen. Arlen Specter is no different - which is why he suddenly cares enough about the economy to oppose the abolition of secret ballots in union elections - publicly reversing a past decision to support the Employee Free Choice Act, which removes the freedom of choice from workers' unionization elections.

Pennsylvania Republicans might have handed him a primary loss in 2004, if President George W. Bush hadn't hit the campaign trail for him. Then-Congressman Pat Toomey went the distance in that first Rocky-vs.-Apollo match-up; as a Philly native, Specter doesn't need to be reminded of what happened to Apollo in the sequel. And if he did, a 41-27 deficit in recent polls of GOP primary voters should do the trick.

In the end, it may be too little too late from Specter - one vote, even on a critical issue like forced unionization, won't convince conservative Pennsylvanians he's their man. A 2004 Toomey supporter and campaign volunteer recently pointed out that Specter is even more vulnerable than in 2004, noting that many moderates changed their registration to vote in the contentious Pennsylvania Democratic primary. Specter finds himself facing a smaller, more conservative electorate for this go-around - so, he changed his mind.

Some are warning that without labor's support, Specter is a sitting duck for his general election, too. That may be true, but not if he's careful - and he need only look to the Yuengling brewery in his own backyard for an example of how simple economic facts can make union support evaporate.

I'm not even sure what channel Rush Limbaugh is on in DC

Nothing happens by accident in politics. The latest case in point is the flap over Rush Limbaugh.

It started with a seemingly offhand comment by President Obama, chiding Republicans for following the marching orders of the guy who, let's be honest, has gotten a ton of us interested in Republican politics. In the weeks following, the White House has taken repeated jabs at Limbaugh - to Limbaugh's delight. In a story published last week that I just stumbled across, Politico reveals that this has been a strategy months in the making. After finding high negative ratings for Rush Limbaugh in October polls, Democrats have been waiting for the right flap to arise and give them a chance to hang Limbaugh around the Republican Party's neck.

The behind-the-curtain strategy of what seem to be spontaneous events, like this Limbaugh controversy, demonstrates a key value of Washington - that governing is campaigning by other means.

Will it keep working? The Republicans won't get any overt help from Limbaugh, and why should they? As he has always said, his success "is not determined by who wins elections." Without a single Republican in Congress, Limbaugh could count on a reliable daily audience - and the longer a controversy like this goes on, the more he can add to that audience. The tete-a-tete with the President also gives Limbaugh figurative weight, as if he really is a key thinker for conservative/Republican circles.

Truth be told, it's more likely to be the other way around: Limbaugh is more likely to parrot GOP talking points than to devise his own platform for America. It's not a matter of laziness, but of reality: he's putting together a radio show, not a political movement.

Which raises an interesting point - as critical issues come before the federal government, why is the White House talking about a radio show blowhard? Aren't there real issues they should be working on?

Jin-ed up?

Without mentioning him once, Governor Bobby Jindal went a long way toward recapturing the formula for Republican success which Ronald Reagan first captured nearly three decades ago.

Despite widespread criticism - even among Republican voices - his response to the unofficial State of the Union address last night struck the right tone for the GOP moving forward.

Unlike the gaggle of 2008 GOP hopefuls who felt they could excite their base by bandying about buzzwords like "conservative" and limited government," Jindal illustrated the conservative view of government with stories. He recounted his commiseration with a local (Democrat) sheriff when federal bureaucrats stood in the way of Katrina rescue efforts. He talked about stimulating Louisiana's economy by cutting taxes and promoting business. He talked about reforming education to empower people.

(Incidentally, in one of the poignant lines of his speech, Jindal even took back Katrina - the issue that served as an illustration for Democrats' accusations that George W. Bush had lost touch with America. Jindal turned it around: "Today in Washington, some of us are promising that government will rescue us from the economic storms... those of us who lived through Katrina -- we have our doubts.")

Most importantly, Gov. Bobby Jindal talked more about what he was for than what he was against. The running theme of his speech was a line he got from his Dad: "Americans can do anything."

And in that optimistic wisdom is the conservative message. We oppose bigger government not only because it doesn't work, but because it imposes restrictions that take away the ability for Americans to use their own ingenuity and creativity to solve problems - a formula that has worked for 233 years and counting.

It isn't enough to say it - voters need to see it. Which is why Governors like Bobby Jindal are still the best torch-bearers for a renewed GOP brand. And while the detractors on the right - who were likely looking for their own version of a "conservative Obama" pan his speech, they must remember that one person will not resurrect the party.

Bobby Jindal is a piece of a much bigger puzzle. For the Republican party to establish consistent electoral victories, they need to paint a picture of a positive party with answers - and like a puzzle, creating that picture requires multiple parts.

Man of Steele

Michael Steele is the new RNC Chairman. This is big for a few reasons.

First, and most obviously, is Steele's race. The Republican Party has nominated a female vice presidential candidate and elected a black party chairman in the past six months. These events are helping answer criticism of the GOP as the "white male" party.

Second, is that Steele has experience fighting in Maryland, a deep blue state. Republicans must be aggressive in taking on their opponents. During the Bush Administration, the party seemed content with electoral losses in blue states, reasoning that those citizens just weren't receptive to Republican messages. That is exclusionary thinking; and even if it's true, the party cannot admit it as such. An optimistic party chair must at least pay lip service to the belief that all Americans would be receptive to his or her message - as Howard Dean did when he launched his 50 state strategy for the DNC.

Third, Steele is an aggressive communicator, which the GOP needs if they are to remain on offense even as the minority party. The Republican Party has fallen into a rut, pointing to their past successes and resting on their laurels, quoting Ronald Reagan and pining for a return to 1985. I don't care how fast your DeLorean goes, that just isn't happening.

Republicans need a positive, forward-looking message that goes beyond the past and certainly goes beyond waiting for President Obama and Congressional Democrats to screw up. (This Washington Times article should be required reading for all GOP and conservative activists.) Michael Steele appears poised to bring a voice that can deliver that message.

Bipartisan Opposition

Some corners of the mainstream media continue to chide Republicans for opposing President Obama's stimulus/bailout/recovery/handout/train wreck bill. But on the day where the new face of the GOP will be chosen, consider this:

Opposition to the bill was bi-partisan, with 11 Democrats joining the Republicans in voting "Nay." The same can't be said for the support.

Rebuilding the GOP

The RNC has started its rebuilding process by launching the website Republican for a Reason. It's a good idea with a slightly flawed website.

The GOP has three central tasks to re-asserting itself:

1. Reconnect with the broad coalition of Americans who delivered repeated election victories over the past three decades.
2. Develop a forward-thinking, positive platform.
3. Retool the party infrastructure to restore the voter identification and mobilization efforts to their 2002 and 2004 levels of dominance.

Republicanforareason.com starts the ball rolling with forums that allow grassroots Republicans to weigh in on the issues that are important to them. This will give the RNC a good roadmap for where their party members are, and could end up serving almost as an activist-generated wiki-platform.

There are some things about the site, however, which suggest the RNC may not be forward-thinking enough to capitalize on its potential. For instance, the opening video shows glowing highlight reels of the past three Republican presidents, mostly focusing on Ronald Reagan. The video's title is "Rebuilding our Future," but it sure looks like they are leaning on the past.

McCain learns what snoring elephants sound like

There will be no third party, anti-Obama campaign this election cycle in the image of the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth who exposed some of John Kerry’s dirty laundry in 2004. McCain shouldn’t be surprised – the campaign finance legislation that he’s so proud of made independent speech more difficult, and his campaign has worked to subdue potential independent, non-party election speech.

Ultimately, though, it’s tough for a Republican to be excited to be a Republican anymore. What does the GOP stand for?

In 1980, 1994, and 2000 it was simple: Less government. Keep more of your money. Elections in 2002 and 2004 were a question of which party was in touch with the American public.

In 2008, Democrats have been campaigning on their plans for America: healthcare for everybody; a steeply graduated income tax that forces higher earners to pay more; and government programs to generate environmentally friendly technology.

Try to sum up John McCain’s campaign in three sentences that don’t include “war hero.” Go ahead.

And the election outlook isn’t pretty for McCain or any other Republican. And it will go downhill from there. Republican pundits and politicos will be cannibalizing each other like they’re stranded in the Andes.

The theme I hope the GOP rallies around – and a major theme I’ll be using in my efforts to promote conservatism and freedom over the next few years – is one that the President-turned-pariah George W. Bush coined 2003: the “Ownership Society.” He talked about letting us manage our own retirement, rather than flushing money down the toilet with Social Security. It meant us taking control of our own health care and driving costs down. It meant more options for savings and home ownership. And in internal discussions, Bush intended these proposals to help Americans assume more personal responsibility. It was the best summation of conservative thought since Ronald Reagan.

This never came to fruition. Democrats successfully scared the American public away from any meaningful Social Security reform. Bush passed the biggest entitlement package since the Great Depression, gave out free money when the economy started to slide, and gave handouts to people who were foolish with their (and other people's) money.

It's only a start, but resurrecting the idea of an ownership society would excite the GOP base: those rank-and-file voters, volunteers, and activists who fueled their rise to power. And when excited, it will be “the base” who makes the case for Republican candidates – something they are not doing in 2008, as McCain is becoming painfully aware.