Olympia Snowe: "We didn't have to lose Specter."

[muntrv]

Op-Ed Contributor
We Didn’t Have to Lose Arlen Specter

By OLYMPIA SNOWE
Published: April 28, 2009
Washington

IT is disheartening and disconcerting, at the very least, that here we are today — almost exactly eight years after Senator Jim Jeffords left the Republican Party — witnessing the departure of my good friend and fellow moderate Republican, Senator Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania, for the Democratic Party. And the announcement of his switch was all the more painful because I believe it didn’t have to be this way.

When Senator Jeffords became an independent in 2001, I said it was a sad day for the Republicans, but it would be even sadder if we failed to confront and learn from the devaluation of diversity within the party that contributed to his defection. I also noted that we were far from the heady days of 1998, when Republicans were envisioning the possibility of a filibuster-proof 60-vote margin. (Recall that in the 2000 election, most pundits were shocked when Republicans lost five seats, resulting in a 50-50 Senate.)

I could have hardly imagined then that, in 2009, we would fondly reminisce about the time when we were disappointed to fall short of 60 votes in the Senate. Regrettably, we failed to learn the lessons of Jim Jeffords’s defection in 2001. To the contrary, we overreached in interpreting the results of the presidential election of 2004 as a mandate for the party. This resulted in the disastrous elections of 2006 and 2008, which combined for a total loss of 51 Republicans in the House and 13 in the Senate — with a corresponding shift of the Congressional majority and the White House to the Democrats.

It was as though beginning with Senator Jeffords’s decision, Republicans turned a blind eye to the iceberg under the surface, failing to undertake the re-evaluation of our inclusiveness as a party that could have forestalled many of the losses we have suffered.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/29/opinion/29snowe.html?th&emc=th

[MrModerate]

1. Hang on, Oly, you'll find the tent's too small for you . . .

Sooner or later.

[thunder rising]

2. I hate to say it ... but we need another party.

Keeping government small is not a bad ideal; in fact, it has many great planks. However, coupling it to religious wackoism IS a bad idea. (And I might add, the Catholics are now included too...thanks ND wackos)

[NYMountaineer]

3. Aye

A one-party state would be no good. As much as we might disagree with a lot of the Reps, they help keep a balance. And honestly, I wouldn't want the government becoming too big either.

It would be nice to have a viable place for the rational economical conservatives to go, just to keep the debate going and the other wing represented, while leaving the crazies to roast in their own craziness.

Unfortunately, that's a long shot in the meanwhile. Odds are, they're gonna try to shove Snowe out.

[RC]

6. The balance needs to be with honest men, not a confabulation of criminals where the

ends justify the means.

[LeftyMom]

5. I would argue that we have a serious for a need a viable party on the left.

:shrug:

[MrModerate]

7. Agreed. And I think we'll see it sooner rather that later.

The Whig party collapsed when the issue of slavery grew too hot to handle and a lot of 19th-century wingnuts who'd flocked to the Whig banner caused implosion. The not-crazy Whigs formed the Republican Party and (after one misstep with John Fremont) went on to elect America's greatest president. The rump Whigs hung around for awhile and then faded out of national view.

I see the same thing happening to the 'Licans. Some day soon, the adults and the sane are going to walk away from the children and the crazies and form a genuine center-right party. Maybe *they'll* toss the wackos out and keep the 'Lican brand, or maybe they'll reinvenbt themselves as something else, thereby carving off a chunk of the genuinely centrist independent vote.

And this would be a good thing, because the two-party system really only works when the two parties keep each other on an even keel and are, in fact, quite similar to each other in outlook.

[Canuckistanian]

4. They didn't have to lose a LOT of things

Integrity, civility, modesty, tolerance, intelligence, moderation and pragmatism.

But they got the support of the fundies. Woohoo!