Good Riddance, Bob Bennett

Another edition of bullet pointed links to articles I haven't had time to write up but which are good.

• Peter Suderman of Reason.com looks at Paul Ryan, one of my favorite congressmen, and wonders if he's a serious reformer or just another compromised small government hypocrite. You decide.

• Harvard economist and former Reagan advisor, Martin Feldstein, argues in favor of an extension of the Bush tax cuts. I'm with him, natch.

• Former AG, Michael Mukasey, worries, rightly, that we are returned to a pre-9/11 (read: naive) mindset in treatment of terrorists. This is a problem. Unless you've forgotten history and think that these lucky breaks (panty bomber, failed Times Square bomb) are the new norm.

• To the point of terror and the Obama administration, Charles Krauthammer, one of the smartest opinionators out there, tackles the question of Miranda rights and the interrogation of terror suspects. Like immigration, this question isn't as easy at it seems.

• Another favorite of this blog, John Bolton (aka, The Mustachioed Badass), holds forth on the Greece-precipitated Euro-crisis.

• Meanwhile, Daniel Krauthammer reviews the Senate investigations into Goldman Sachs. I think this is a politically opportunistic show trial with little to no merit. Hopefully it also means Goldmanites will donate less to Obama in 2012. Maybe. Unless you think they'll also take advantage of any new regulatory regime to gain some advantage over competitors. That's probably what will happen. (h/t Scott L.)

• Bob Bennett is gone and I think it's a good thing. The MFM takes the liberal line that this is an example of hysterical conservative extremists over a good, reasonable, and conservative senator. Meanwhile, when Sestak defeats Specter in PA, that--that--will be a triumph over incumbency and a renewal of core American democratic principles. Huzzah for the little guy, or something.

• No weekly links post would be complete without at least one to my fav columnist, Bret Stephens. His column on Turkey carries extra weight for me as we recently traveled to Istanbul. I hope it doesn't turn into Iran; I'd like to go back someday.

• Finally, modern-day hero, General David Petraeus, was recently spoke at an AEI dinner wherein he received the Irving Kristol Award. His speech is (transcript here) is great review of the power of ideas helping to propel the success of The Surge. If you read nothing else from this week's list-o-links, read this.

If you have tips, questions, comments or suggestions, email me at lybberty@gmail.com.

The Marginalization Of The Republican Party & Other Poppycock

The MSM continues to spin the Specter defection & too many supposedly smart people continue to believe them.

Once again, the problem with the Republican party is not that it has become or is becoming too right-wing, too conservative, too rigid, too doctrinaire, and therefore unpalatable to most Americans. The solution to what ails Republicans is not to become more liberal.

Some interesting info from former Pennsylvania Senator Rick Santorum's latest column highlights all of this:

According to Specter and a herd of commentators - many in The Inquirer's pages - the senator's switcheroo is proof of far more than Specter's brute survival instinct; it's proof that the Republican Party is narrow and rigid.

Keep spinning. The fact is that, prior to the stimulus vote, conservative former Rep. Pat Toomey was telling supporters that the chances he would challenge Specter in the 2010 Republican primary were 50-50 at best. The Senate's most liberal Republican would have been the heavy favorite to win the nomination again.

So now we're to understand that Specter has left the small-tent GOP for the broad-minded, tolerant Democratic Party? Alas, voting records tell a different story.

According to the American Conservative Union, in 2008, only two of the 51 Senate Democrats had conservative ratings above 25 percent. But 21 of the 49 Republican senators had conservative ratings of 75 percent or less. Furthermore, 12 Democrats had a conservative rating of zero, while an additional 25 scored under 10 percent. By contrast, only one Republican scored a perfect 100, and a scant seven others scored above 90 percent. (Note that Pennsylvania's other "moderate" senator has a conservative rating of 8 percent.)

Which party has greater ideological diversity? Sorry, but the facts just don't fit the media's fantasy.

I spent 12 years in the Senate. It has one doctrinaire, narrow, intolerant caucus, and Specter just joined it.

The Democratic caucus is a reflection of the leftist special interests that control the Democrat Party. From 1994 to 2004, those interests supported liberal candidates who were too far out of the mainstream to win in competitive states and districts. They regained power in Pennsylvania and elsewhere because Democratic candidates ran as moderates or conservatives, and Republicans abandoned the principled positions that had helped them win.

The public can tell when it's being conned, so it chose to throw out the party that had lost its way. The result: the most hard-left Congress in U.S. history (see previously mentioned ratings).

(emphasis added)

Sorry, Republican-nay-sayers, the facts do not fit your narrative. Republicans did not get tossed out on their ears because they were too conservative or too rigidly right-wing. The fact that Republicans aren't the majority party is not because they supposedly became hostile to moderates & centrists.

The Republican party is far more centrist & moderate in its makeup than the Democrat party. This isn't even debatable. The Republican party is home to more diversity of opinion on all of the controversial questions that divide Americans.

For every pro-life Democrat, I'll find you two pro-choice Republicans. For every traditional marriage Democrat, I'll find you two gay marriage Republicans. For every hawkish Democrat, I'll find you two dovish Republicans. I could do this all day.

I don't point this out as a badge of honor. Sure, I like the healthy debate in the Republican party, but I wish the conservative viewpoint on any given issue would win out more consistently. I think Republicans would still be a majority party if they were more consistently conservative.

I only do this to point out that all the things of which pundits accuse Republicans & blame for their downfall--of all these things, the Democrats are guilty.

If you have tips, questions, comments or suggestions, email me at lybberty@gmail.com.

Arlen Specter, Democrat (UPDATED)

In case anyone out there still believed that these guys (& gals) made decisions based on principle, Specter's decision to switch parties should open your eyes. As Karl Rove just got done saying on FNC, this is pure political self interest.

Or, as my brother put it, "I suppose we should always assume self-interest of all politicians, that way these moves never surprise us." He--Specter--saw the writing on the wall with regards to Pat Toomey and made the logical, self-interested decision--he went Democrat.

He did what he had to do to remain in office.

Lots of people are saying that this is evidence that there is no room in the Republican party for people with politics like Specter's. If by "politics like Specter's" you really mean Republican In Name Only, then, the Democrat party is a friendlier place for guys like him--"friendlier" in the sense that they are the party in power, not that they like your positions anymore than the Republican party.

It is not as though Specter was super sympathetic with Republicans on one of the big 3 tent poles in the Republican party--fiscal conservatism, social conservatism, hawkish on foreign affairs/national security. On all of these issues, he is almost a doctrinaire Democrat.

There's room in the Republican party for those who like 2 of 3 or even 1 of 3 (of the 3 tent poles), but if you're moderate-to-liberal on all three of those issues, yeah, the Republican party is not the place for you and good riddance.

UPDATE 5:57pm MST: My friend Dan Kim, for whom I have a lot of respect, addresses Arlen Specter's switch, what it means for the Republican party, & responds a bit to my post.

It's one thing to say that the Republican party holds no appeal to centrists--something which which I heartily disagree--and a whole other thing to say that Specter's defection is emblematic of Republican's lack of appeal to moderates.

Specter moved because Pat Toomey was going to destroy him in the Republican primary. Specter isn't a principled anything--apart from being a principled political survivalist. His quote about not letting the voters of Pennsylvania tarnish his 29 year career by voting him out clearly demonstrates the esteem (or rather, the lack thereof) he holds for the will of the voters. The arrogance manifested by this statement is right in line with what it means to be a career politician.

I didn't like him as a Republican. I like him even less as a Democrat. Arlen Specter is the definition of political opportunism--at least his defection means there is one less opportunist in the Republican party and one more in the Democrat party.


If you have tips, questions, comments or suggestions, email me at lybberty@gmail.com.