Conservatives Go RINO Hunting :The...Specter flap...GOP's right wing flexing its muscles

Time Inc ^ | Friday, Nov. 19, 2004 | Mitch Frank

[Ed Current]

It’s predictable that after a major election, one political party begins a round of bitter infighting and finger pointing. What’s surprising is when it’s the winning party. But ever since Arlen Specter, a day after winning a fifth term, said it was unlikely that the senate would confirm judges who will overturn Roe v. Wade, the Republicans have been fighting a nasty battle. Social conservatives have been flooding the offices of Republican Senators with demands that Specter not become the new chairman of the Judiciary Committee. Current chairman Orrin Hatch is supposed to turn the gavel over to Specter under G.O.P. caucus rules.

Specter has been lobbying his colleagues and defending his record. On the other side, the Christian Defense Coalition held a pray-in on the Capitol steps. The judiciary committee and the G.O.P. caucus won’t vote on Specter’s fate until January, but Hatch and other members came out in support of Specter Thursday and it seems unlikely he’ll be voted down. No senator has come out against him, probably because no senator wants to mess with the seniority system that determines chairmanships.

Still, it’s amazing how quickly the religious right has redirected all the energy they used to help re-elect President Bush toward scuttling Specter’s chairmanship. They seem to be the only people in politics who didn’t need a post-election vacation. It shows they believe Bush’s victory has given them a mandate to control the Republican party. But it also shows that they are insecure about the party’s loyalty to them, and that the Republicans could be facing four years of growing tension and squabbling.

Specter is well-known in Washington for being abrasive, hard-driving and not a team player. But it’s amazing he didn’t see this coming. He was one of just two incumbent GOP senators who faced a serious primary challenge this year. Congressman Pat Toomey took on Specter in the spring with a lot of help (and funds) from far-right allies. Conservatives have hated Specter for years; the National Review called him "the worst Republican senator" last year. But Bush and Pennsylvania’s other senator, Rick Santorum — both of whom have a lot more in common with Toomey — came to the moderate’s rescue, campaigning for him and calling his renomination crucial for Bush’s chances to win the state in November. Bush lost the Keystone state, Specter won and immediately made his Roe comments, leading conservatives feeling that, as they suspected, Specter can’t be trusted with their agenda.

Conservatives point to exit polls to argue that evangelical Christians are responsible for Bush’s victory. (There’s some evidence to support that, but a lot more suggests they were just one of several key factors.) Many conservatives feel that now is the best time to take their mandate for a test drive. Even if they don’t scuttle Specter’s ascension, they will have fired a warning shot toward any Republicans taking their support for granted. Bob Jones III, president of the conservative Christian university wrote a congratulatory letter to Bush the day after the election and told the president, "In your re-election, God has graciously granted America — though she doesn’t deserve it — a reprieve from the agenda of paganism. You have been given a mandate ... Don’t equivocate. Put your agenda on the front burner and let it boil. You owe the liberals nothing. They despise you because they despise your Christ."

But the social conservatives are also attacking because they’re afraid. They have been here before. In late 1980 they were thrilled after they helped elect Ronald Reagan but that excitement evaporated when the Administration told them the social agenda would have to wait until Reagan’s economic plans passed. Many members of the far right still believe that while Reagan put their issues on the table, he never seriously fought for any of them. After four decades in politics the religious right has few tangible victories to point to. Abortion is legal, prayer is not back in schools and now they are fighting same-sex marriage. George W. Bush may be a born-again Christian who speaks their language, but he has spent the past week talking about Social Security, tax reform and world affairs. During the campaign, he signalled he might support civil unions, which social conservatives believe is an endorsement of homosexuality.

And the Christian right isn’t the only uneasy constituency in the Republican party. Fiscal conservatives unhappy about the deficit, isolationists and foreign policy realists unhappy about the war and libertarians hostile to the Patriot Act all held their tongues during the fight against John Kerry, but may be ready to start talking. Still, Republicans can take comfort in one thing: It’s better to be the divided party in power than a unified party on the outside.

[iconoclast]

This affair has turned out terrifically, better than I had hoped.

The Republican Senate is safe, united, disciplined and ready to rumble.

Did somebody lay a glove on Specter when I wasn't looking?

[Hildy]

Who said they didn't seek them out? Not me. But honestly, who else would you have voted for, Kerry? Just stayed home? Please.

[counterpunch]

No, Rove isn't intervening now, I don't think. But if he and Bush hadn't strongly supported Specter in the primary, we wouldn't be having these problems now. We might have had a real Republican senator from Pennsylvania, and Bush might have won the state's electoral votes.

That was when the first and biggest mistake was made.

My initial reaction was the same as yours. But upon closer inspection, I changed my mind. You need to think this through strategically, which is what Rove is a political master of.

The support for Specter had very little to do with Bush winning the state. Knowing Rove's strategy for targeting the conservative base, I must assume he knew that Specter was a liability for Bush in Pennsylvania. But they made the decision to support Specter anyway. So you must ask yourself "why?"

The answer is because Bush knew Pennsylvania was a long shot, and clearly it was not central to his re-election. In fact, they knew that if Bush was to win Pennsylvania, then he surely would also win Ohio. Thus winning the state would have been icing on the cake for certain. And such icing was unnecessary for victory.

Remember, Rove's central goal all along has not been merely re-electing Bush, but also expanding the GOP majority. A Specter loss in the GOP primary would mean an additional open Republican seat that must be defended. A seat that would otherwise be quite safe. Specter required no GOP funds, since he had his own powerful fund raising organization already in place. Toomey, on the other hand would require party funds to be diverted from other critical races. Most of the GOP money went to select races for those open seats we all were watching, and to Thune in South Dakota. Had Specter lost his primary, it could have meant the potential loss of not only a Republican seat in Pennsylvania, but possibly another close race or two elsewhere. It could have meant that funds for Thune, who needed every penny he got, would have had to go to Toomey instead, since defending Republican held seats must be a priority. As it was, few campaigns got any funds released to them. In California, Bill Jones was the invisible candidate, not ever even running a single ad. The strategy was to focus only on the most vulnerable seats, and focus on them like a laser. This is why we had the 4 seat gain that we did.

Do you now see why Bush had no choice but to support Specter against Toomey?

[Jaysun]

What's so terrible about the "religious right" anyway? Is the idea that maybe American women won't be encouraged to kill their own young such an atrocity? Is the idea that homosexuals shouldn't be allowed to marry a distressing idea? I don't know. To me, the "far right" is preferable to the "far left".

[TaxRelief]

What's so terrible about the "religious right" anyway?

What? Don't you know?
The religious right is intolerant of sin!

They judge people for their morals, and they try to control their kids.

They try to stop people from getting rid of inconveniences in their lives, like infants and annoying spouses.

But worst of all: they drive big gas-guzzling cars full of kids, with no concern for the planet or the problems of overpopulation.

Now you know.

[Txsleuth]

Alert! Alert!!

Just turned on Chrissy Mathews---he said later in tonights show he will investigate RELIGION among the right and its effect on Bush--or something like that. I wish he'd have on Lawrence O'Donnell--I would love to see a Friday night mental meltdown.

[Cicero]

You make a good argument.

[F16Fighter]

"Do you now see why Bush had no choice but to support Specter against Toomey?"

No.

Why?

Specter won Pennsylvania by a scant 1.5%.

Are you telling us Bush and Santorum's combined support weren't worth 8/10 of one percent on the voting ledger?

That's ALL Toomey needed to beat a beatable Specter.

Fact of the matter simply is, Dubya and Santorum bet on the wrong horse.

[k2blader]

No, the election wasn't about abortion.

But President Bush's base is pro-Life, and "socially conservative" in general. If we're all still here by 2008, Lord willing, wouldn't it be interesting to see what would happen if the GOP ran a pro-abortion candidate next time?

[counterpunch]

So you'd trade Specter for Daschle?
Whose side are you on again?

[F16Fighter]

"So you'd trade Specter for Daschle?"

Red herring.

The fact is, had Santorum and Dubya Bush simply campaigned on behalf of Toomey instead of Specter, we wouldn't be having this debate...

AND Thune would STILL have won.

[counterpunch]

You didn't read a damn thing I wrote, did you?

Specter's victory in the general election was assure. Toomey's was not. It would have cost the GOP senate fund money. That money would have come out of other races, probably from Thune's first. The entire election strategy would have to be recalculated. These things are are very carefully planned many months in advance. They knew what seats were open and what seats were vulnerable. They knew how much money they had to raise, and they knew how much money to allocate to each race. The entire calculus would have been off had Toomey beat Specter. It would have meant at least one less GOP seat, no question about it. Thune couldn't have won without all of his funds. Even with appropriate funds, Toomey may not have won. I imagine he would have lost. If Bush couldn't beat Kerry in Pennsylvania then Toomey wouldn't have been able to beat Hoeffel.

This is why Karl Rove was running the election campaign and some loose cannon like you wasn't.

[F16Fighter]

"You didn't read a damn thing I wrote, did you?

Specter's victory in the general election was assure. Toomey's was not. It would have cost the GOP senate fund money..."

The hell Specter's "victory" was assured. The campaign was a dead heat -- up until Santorum and Bush stepped into the fray late and sold their soul on behalf of Specter.

Of course if you had read a damn word I've written you, you'd recalled Spector won by 1.5% -- a miniscule margin of victory clearly attributed to appearances by Santorum and Dubya Bush.

Had nothing, NOTHING to do with sacrificing any "Senate funding."

[counterpunch]

Of course if you had read a damn word I've written you, you'd recalled Spector won by 1.5% -- a miniscule margin of victory clearly attributed to appearances by Santorum and Dubya Bush.

My patience is running thin with you. You are a *%!&#*% moron.
You keep talking about Specter vs. Toomey in the GOP primary. Democrats and indpendents don't get to vote in the GOP primary.

The election does not end there, despite what you seem to think. The nominee must still face a challenger from the other party. It's called the general election. When Democrats and independents also get to vote.

Specter barely beat Toomey in the GOP primary.
This is not the same thing as the general election where Democrats and independents also get to vote.

Specter's re-election as an incumbent in the general election was assured. Against the Democrat Challenger. No money spent by the GOP to defend a safe seat.
Specter walked away with it in the general election.
When democrats and independents also get to vote.

Toomey would have lost the general election. When Democrats and independents also get to vote. The GOP would have had to divert Thune's money to defend what would be an open seat in a swing state. Thune would have lost. Toomey would have lost. Rove applied risk management and won big. That is why he is the brains and you are not.

Get it yet?
Toomey vs. Specter in GOP primary = close race.
Specter vs. Hoeffel in general election = GOP wins.
Toomey vs. Hoeffel in general election = GOP loses.

[F16Fighter]

Now you've gotten goofy...

"Toomey would have lost the general election."

Your entire premise, projection, and cute equation -- and that of the President and Rove -- is wrong, as in "Duh, we blew this."

Not only has the base been p*ssed off far beyond your realization, but Hoeffel was NOT going to win. Period....But go on convincing yourself otherwise.

And btw, Thune's campaign funding was UN-TOUCHABLE.

So for the time being conservatives believe they're getting dissed, and dealing with a supposedly de-fanged Specter -- who will no doubt demonstrate his animosity by screwing the GOP somehow as payback. He's that kinda guy.

[counterpunch]

Oh, sure.. "the base" is pissed off. So what?
What is "the base" going to do?
Vote Democrat?
Stay home and let the the liberals win?

Yeah, that'll teach 'em!
When the Democrats raise your taxes and amend the constitution to protect gay marriage that'll learn them Republicans not to piss you off!
You'll have made your point then!

You and "the base" have two years to mull it over.
Well see if you even remember what you were pissed off about.
I'm pretty sure the Democrats will do plenty to make you forget why...

Now there is an outside chance that Toomey could have beaten Hoeffel. If he had the money. But that money would have had to come from some other close race. If you had it your way, Hoeffel would be the senator-elect from PA, and Daschle would still be the obstructionist leader in the senate. Maybe Irksome Bowels would be preparing for his first term in the senate, too.

[F16Fighter]

"You and 'the base' have two years to mull it over."

That's four, Sparky -- if you're referring to the 2008 election.

"The base" -- as the GOP's greatest constituency -- is indeed banking on tremendous dividends. Should these next years be shall-we-say "disappointing," the GOP will feel the freeze.

The budget ceiling was just raised another $800b. And you think our taxes won't be raised?? Yeah -- gotta pay for all that "small gub'mint."

But go ahead. Insist on the "Big Tent." Lean left. Go RINO. Underestimate "the base." And lose....

You DO remember '92 and '96?

[counterpunch]

No, I was talking about the 2006 election.
And yes, I do remember Ross Perot.

So I see you propose either the GOP losing, or losing big.
You tell me who the real loser is then.

Go ahead, help Hillary get elected.
Your suffering will teach those Republican politicians.

[Cedar]

"wouldn't it be interesting to see what would happen if the GOP ran a pro-abortion candidate next time?"

My one vote will never go for a pro-abortion candidate.

If both the Dems and Repubs have pro-abortion candidates in 2008, I'll vote whatever 3rd party candidate is pro-life & conservative.

If there is no 3rd party candidate who is pro-life, then I just will not vote.

Even if the Dems have Hillary and the Repubs have Rudy, I'm not voting for Rudy (or any other pro-abortion person).

[sport]

Please describe a radical fundamentalist Chtistian.