Why It Would Be Really Dumb to Switch Parties

There's some blog way down in Abbalama (pronounced just like that) purporting that some congressional Democrat is considering switching parties, becoming the Republican that so many of his vocal constituents aren't yelling at furiously. In there, someone blindly and ignorantly threw in the name Mike Ross as someone who might switch, being a conservative Democrat from a conservative state and being a headlining name for the time being.

Mike Ross, by the way, had to state for the record that he was remaining a Democrat. No news here; Ross has been loyal to the Democratic party since his days of driving around then-Gov. Bill Clinton. The Arkansas Democrat is a strange bird indeed, but it's been classified -- it's just a more conservative bird than the average.

But that just got me thinking about how dumb it would be for a politician to switch parties. I see no gain in it.

The obvious reason is the threat of inevitable defeat, which, I guess, makes it all okay. If a politician truly believes that a change of party has a better shot of winning than staying put, it is incumbent upon his survival to do so, no matter how embarressing. But even then, your numbers have to be terrible already.

Even then, it doesn't make sense though. Sometimes, like in the case of Pennsylvania Sen. Arlen Specter, you flee the party due to primary opposition. The best case scenario is seeing the opposition you fled in November instead of the spring, albeit, you'd be in a more favorable pool, assuming you make it through the primary of a party you obviously joined for purely political motives, rather than a "change of heart."

Ask Specter what he's thinking about those polling numbers these days, after the switch. Kinda makes Sen. Lincoln thank her lucky stars.

Othertimes, fleeing comes from the toxicity of one's native party. In the South (Sou-Prize, Sou-Prize, Sou-Prize!!!), Democrats are not viewed favorably. When it was a conservative Democrat running the show, it was tolerable for their conservative constituency to vote them in. Now, with Obama's admittedly more-liberal-than-most agenda, these Democrats not in the leadership roles are finding it hard to wear the same Democratic pins as those their constituency outright loathes.

For this Bama Boy, he would likely serve his constituency better by being a coveted swing vote than by being a roster addition to the weakened minority. As a Democratic swing vote, concessions could be made to make sure there's party unity. Take Ross, again, for example. He was able to fashion his health care halting not by being a conservative, but by being a conservative Democrat. And (no matter what Tim Griffin, the bullpen bully, is trying to rouse) Ross is sitting comfortably in Arkansas' Fourth.

To me, it just doesn't make a lot of sense. If you've got bad numbers, YOU've got bad numbers, and they'll likely follow you wherever you go, be that to the right or left. Bad luck, perhaps, forecasts that Democrats are up for a tough re-election in 2010. That's just the way it is. But for those who do jump ship, and trust me you'll see more, the uncharted waters will be just as untamed as their raging home seas.

The best bet would be to weather the storm.

Rethinking That Whole Silly Party Switch Thing?

D'oh!

You have to give Arlen Specter some credit: He understands the political machine well-enough to know that being a Republican in Pennsylvania wasn't going to do him any favors. He has readily admitted that the reason he defected from his nearly 30-year stint as a Republican Senator was because polls were showing that he simply could not win. Being a politician, in order to be elected, he had no other option.

But that doesn't mean that that option is a sure-fire winner either.

I remonstrated as much when the news broke that Specter was going bye-bye. He might not win the general election either. Ardent Republicans rightfully hate him, that Benedict Arnold, they clamor. But Democrats can't be too crazy about a guy who not only openly opposed (and often defeated, mind you) them for so many years.

It boils down to my main point then: What are Democrats gaining or Republicans losing that they haven't already gained or lost? Democrats are griping that Specter isn't yielding on issues that he's already spoken on, like Card Check or endorsing Norm "Not the Comedian" Coleman in Minney-soda, and Republicans are frankly enjoying watching the old man squirm.

If Al Franken is seated, will there be an asterisk next to that number 60 in the Senate?

Hate hate hate

Man, the GOP sure is steamed at this Arlen Specter bozo. Who does he think he is? Defecting his party just to get re-elected? What a bonehead!

Well, they'll show him, won't they? They're going to try their hardest to make sure that he doesn't get re-elected. They're going to attach the most assuredly damning political kryptonite available to ensure that Specter never sees the light of political day after 2010.

They're chaining him to George W. Bush.

Not the worst strategy in the world. Hey, it's worked for Democrats masterfully since 2006. Why not give them a taste of their own medicine, says Senate Republicans.

The Bush Hatefest continues. Personally, as I said in an earlier post, I think the GOP ought to be more progressive and forward-thinking if they hope to be politically viable. This is, while seemingly counter-intuitive in a 'This might be crazy enough to work!' sort of way, it's still harping on the past.

But you certainly can't begrudge Republicans for the move. Again, it has worked masterfully before.

Specter Leaving GOP

Well, I didn't see this coming.

Apparently his primary challenge would be greater than a general election. This puts the ever-looming 60 Senate votes in jeopardy for the Republicans, and closer within reach for Democrats.

More analysis as I have time to scrawl, but it's pretty big news, anyway.

UPDATE: Alright, I've finally got time to get some thoughts down. Unfortunately, it's been a few hours since the announcement, so there's no real meat on the bones that hasn't been gnawed already.

But here's a shot anyway:

There's your 60: But was it there all along? Most say no, but now the attention will be on the moderate Democrats who don't have a career as a Republican to fall back on, like, I don't know, Blanche Lincoln or Mark Pryor. Lincoln already put out a statement welcoming him aboard with open arms.

Punching Bag: If you think about it, Specter isn't going to do much differently as a Democrat than he was as a Republican. He'll still be irksome for the far-wings of his political party, and has the potential to be bullied from the far left like he was from the far right. Lincoln's statement said that she "is a testament to the fact that the Democratic Party embraces a variety of viewpoints..." and called it a "diverse party." Reid had similar statements. Tell that to Pelosi.

Obamania: Obama says he's "thrilled" to have Specter. But if he hasn't or isn't changing that much, was he any less thrilled yesterday? Obama has already declared that he will run unopposed, which was probably already a given and will use his super-mega-ultra-popular appeal to try and help get Specter re-elected. I look forward to seeing this theme for the next eight years I believe Obama will be in office. How far can Obama's magic spread?

Conservative Backlash: Some moderate Republicans are focusing on the defection as a lightening rod for change within the party. Those on the far-right don't have much to say about it. Former US Atty. Tim Griffin was quoted as saying Specter is "going home." He's right. But he didn't offer too much about why his home is better than Specter. I wonder if he'll say so as a Senate candidate. Some are wondering whether or not he'll run at all.

End Game?: For the time being, this will only affect the next year and a half. He still faces a 2010 re-election campaign against an opponent he admitted through his actions that he couldn't beat in a primary. He fled the party by which he did not want to be judged to be judged by it and another party of which he has been a vocal opponent for several decades in a later election. I just imagine the Democrat who has voted against Specter for those many decades struggling to check by his name. And, it could be that maybe Pennsylvania in general, not just the GOP, is tired of ole Arlen. This could all be null and void in November 2010.

Card Check? Dead?

I got an email today from someone asking me if I thought Arlen Specter's decision on Card Check would have any effect on the decisions-in-waiting from our own Senators, Lincoln and Pryor.

Here's that response.

I'm not too surprised by this. Specter, despite his very centrist tendencies, is still a Republican. His biggest campaign will be the primaries that those in the further-Right of in Pennsylvania are beginning to mount. It wouldn't have made sense for him to vote for it, especially if he is going to stay a Republican, which he has avowed to do several times over.

As for Lincoln and Pryor, I think we'll get more of the same, and an eventual 'no.'

Lincoln has made up her mind to vote no for it. She'll likely get a pass from the party for it, because the writing is all over the wall: Her right-to-work state isn't for it. She's up for re-election. Such a vote would make her re-election more difficult. There it is.

The trick for her now — and my sources in Washington tell me is now her plan — is to do this in the most Union-friendly way possible, maybe a promise for union devotion afterward or something. I don't know. I think the national hubbub she received about it has helped to do some of the aforementioned wall writing. Or at least to do it in bolder letters.

Pryor is a bit more peculiar, to me, anyway, simply because he's not up for re-election, so he seemingly is a bit more insulated than Lincoln. He may pick up some party clout by sticking it to his right-to-work state and taking up for his party's agenda, because he knows it won't ultimately pass, and he may have time to rectify such an action with his state in the time it takes to run a campaign.

I still don't think he'll do it, though. It's still a pretty close vote, even with a certain Specter vote against. And, it'd be hard to raise money around the state for his eventual re-election campaign.

Of the two, I think Pryor would be more likely, but I don't think either will.

Obama Up, Congress and "Direction" Down

Real Clear Politics has an interesting (at least to me, anyway) poll that I think is reflective of the business as usual in Washington.

President Obama's approval numbers are doing alright, hovering around 60 percent. For the fanfare he received upon his inauguration, one would think that his numbers would still be somewhere in the 924 kajillion percent range, but this economy has understandably darkened most people's moods.

He has had to replace and defend more of his appointed associates than anyone in recent history. His Recovery and Reinvestment Stimulus has received a bevy of question marks, most notably the line that allowed for AIG bonuses that riled the public up to the point of lethal threats. And his main man Timothy Geithner has yet to put his feet on solid ground, while his toxic asset purchasing plan has yet to be determined as successful or hare-brained, with many experts leaning toward the latter.

Brummett gave him an arrow down this weekend. I give him an arrow that has yet to be pointed. He really does deserve a fair shake at this substantial, but not wholly insurmountable crisis.

Congress has its mandate, so says Speaker Pelosi, and now much charge forward to the tune of an abysmal George W. Bushian approval rating of 36.8 percent. Speaking of W., his ratings in the last two years were often better than the Democratic Congress with which he quarreled in his last two years in office. Ouchtown.

This isn't unexpected; Everyone hates Congress.

Sure, people enjoy their own delegates, but loathe the remaining. That means while the average Arkansan applauds their six homebodies (four Congressmen, one Senator, and one Senatorita), they just can't stand the other 529 guys. Like the imitable George Carlin said, paraphrasing, "To us, all of their stuff is s**t, but to them, all of their s**t is stuff."

But the odd blending of these two may yielding the most suprising entry. The overall direction of the country has an even lower and even more stomach-turning approval rating of 35.8 percent. Granted, "overall direction of the country" is a vague description that, in fact, doesn't describe anything much at all.

But what do polls mean in the first place? This one seems to show what everyone else already understands: It's tough out there.

What's In a Name?

According to the Hill, Democrats are lobbying for their Republican chum Arlen Specter, R-Pa., to go ahead an come on over the fence, abandoning his GOP for the DNC.

According to the article, the governor of Pennsylvania, as well as the Arkansas traveler and VP Joe Biden, have been pushing him to go ahead and defect already, but apparently Specter will not relent, fearing the extinction of moderate Republicans.

I think the entire operation, from both sides of the agenda, can be described by one word: Futile.

Just weigh the pros and cons. Securing that 60th and filibuster proof vote is obviously high on the party agenda for Democrats. They've got the legislature by the throat, now they want to hit em where it hurts. Pelosi is just rigid with anticipation of a rampant Democratic "mandate" that sounds something akin to Manifest Destiny.

But what would Democrats be getting that they do not already possess? Specter has made national headlines since last week regarding the Employee Free Choice Act, or card check, because of the bind in which he finds himself; Being in a pro-union state with a pro-business party, one that may find someone a little more to their liking in the 2010 primaries.

Specter has been widely regarded as a R.I.N.O., Republican in Name Only, due to his centrist tendencies. So what are Democrats getting other than a little more solidarity and another name on the roster?

For the very reasons I listed for the explanation regarding his EFCA plight, it would not behoove Specter to join those Democratic ranks. He's been elected several times over, despite his centrist record and his admittedly Democratic past. There are no Democratic challengers. He's already as far left as it's going to get in this Senate race. So why lower his shoulder and plow through the wall and into the Democratic party? It wouldn't benefit him much; His re-election campaign is squared solely on the shoulders of another Republican, whether he's in the GOP or not.

Plus, I thought our elected representatives were supposed to represent their constituents, not their party, so says Joe Biden while in Little Rock. He let Sen. Blanche Lincoln off the hook by saying he knew that if the party's interest and Arkansas' interest ever conflicted, he was both confident and content with the fact that Blanche would side with her state.

The Democratic party seems to be taking one Senatorita off the hook, and is trying to put a Senator on.