Specter’s lie

There are lies, damn lies, and transparent lies. Arlen Specter’s statement yesterday that he has left the Republican party because, since 1980, the “party has moved far to the right,” a view eagerly picked up and spread by the liberal media and believed by masses of the credulous, is a transparent lie.

It is a transparent lie because the notion that the Republicans during eight years of Compassionate Conservative George W. Bush were more right wing than they had been under Reagan, more right-wing then they had been when they stopped the Clinton health care bill and won the Congress in 1994, is ludicrous.

And it is a transparent lie because Specter also indicated in his statement yesterday that he had lost viability in the Republican party over his vote for the stimulus bill. “When I supported the stimulus package, I knew that it would not be popular with the Republican Party…. It has become clear to me that the stimulus vote caused a schism which makes our differences irreconcilable.”

The stimulus, a.k.a. the porkulus, was one of the most outrageous, grossly irresponsible laws in the country’s history. He’s saying that because Republicans opposed it, and oppose him for voting for it, that shows that Republicans have gone to the right. No. It shows that the Democrats have gone to the left, and that he in supporting the Democrats has moved to the left.

One thing liberals reliably do is deny their own leftism and cast themselves as the center, so that anyone who opposes them will automatically be seen as the “far right” and thus marginalized. The sleazy Specter is a practitioner of this leftist ploy.

Here is the relevant section from Specter’s statement:

Since my election in 1980, as part of the Reagan Big Tent, the Republican Party has moved far to the right. Last year, more than 200,000 Republicans in Pennsylvania changed their registration to become Democrats. I now find my political philosophy more in line with Democrats than Republicans.

When I supported the stimulus package, I knew that it would not be popular with the Republican Party. But, I saw the stimulus as necessary to lessen the risk of a far more serious recession than we are now experiencing.

Since then, I have traveled the State, talked to Republican leaders and office-holders and my supporters and I have carefully examined public opinion. It has become clear to me that the stimulus vote caused a schism which makes our differences irreconcilable. On this state of the record, I am unwilling to have my twenty-nine year Senate record judged by the Pennsylvania Republican primary electorate. I have not represented the Republican Party. I have represented the people of Pennsylvania.

Another point: it is outrageous that a legislator elected as a member of one party, changes to another party and keeps his seat. The people of Specter’s state voted for a Republican to represent them for six years. They did not vote for a Democrat. If an office holder switches parties, he should resign his position and run for re-election in his new party. I have said this when Republicans have switched to the Democratic side, and vice versa. The one figure I know of who did the honorable thing in this regard was Phil Gramm, who when he left the Democratic party as a congressman from Texas in the 1980s immediately resigned his seat and won re-election to the same seat as a Republican.

- end of initial entry -

Tim W. writes:

It’s funny hearing Specter and his media apologists long for the days of “Big Tent” Reagan. The media and liberal Republicans opposed Reagan’s nomination in both 1976 and 1980 on the grounds that he was “too far to the right” and would marginalize the party compared to prior Republicans.

During the heyday of Communism, every new Communist who came along was hailed as a good guy by Western liberals. They’d admit the previous golden boy didn’t quite work out, but this new guy was going to be different. Yeah, Stalin was a bit of a thug, but this Mao fellow is someone we can work with. Then it was, okay, Mao didn’t quite cut it, but Castro is a new kind of Communist whom we can reason with. That’s the way it was with every new Communist who came along. He was going to be a moderate and reasonable Communist, not a thug as the prior ones had been.

Republicans get the opposite treatment. The present ones are always trashed, but the past ones are acceptable, even though at the time they were in power they were treated like dirt. Reagan was compared unfavorably to Nixon, who was compared unfavorably to Eisenhower. Bush was compared unfavorably to Reagan

Meanwhile, as the press is ranting about how far to the right the leftward-drifting GOP has allegedly become, the Democrats have indeed moved far to the left, though no one says so. Circa 1980, the year Reagan was elected, the Democratic roster in the Senate included several conservatives, numerous moderates, and some Scoop Jackson type Dems who were liberal on domestic issues but conservative on foreign policy and defense. Today’s Democrat Senate line-up includes one lone moderate, Ben Nelson of Nebraska. There are three mostly liberal Democrat Senators who might cast an occasional conservative vote here and there (Byrd, Webb, and Landrieu). The other fifty-six Democrats are hardcore leftists. Joe Lieberman, who voted liberal about 90% of the time, was considered too conservative for the party and had to go independent after a left-wing loon beat him in the primary.

LA replies:

“Meanwhile, as the press is ranting about how far to the right the leftward-drifting GOP has allegedly become, the Democrats have indeed moved far to the left, though no one says so.”

Thank you for capturing this totally ideologized interpretation of reality which even many conservatives fail to see. Instead, they themselves fall for the liberal line.

Jacob M. writes:

The worst, most bald-faced lie of all is Specter’s statement that “200,000 Republicans in Pennsylvania changed their registration to become Democrats.” He spins this as though they switched because they were “moderates” who felt that the Republican party had moved too far to the right, when in reality they were the people Rush Limbaugh encouraged to switch so as to interfere in the Democratic primary. Even the Daily Kos picked up on this. But now everyone is taking at face value Specter’s assertion of these 200,000 as evidence that the Republican party is alienating long-term loyal members by moving to the right.

Paul K. writes:

Might Specter someday return to the GOP should he decide the Democrats have moved too far to the left? Or is that a contradiction in terms?

By the way, it’s odd that there have been two really spooky-looking “specters” in the news lately, Arlen and Phil (Spector).

Mark P. writes:

Arlen Specter’s move to the Democratic Party is a blessing in disguise. On the one hand, Obama now has a filibuster proof majority. Anything that goes wrong will now be laid at the feet of the Democratic Party. With the economy certain to tank and the U.S. on the brink of collapse, Obama will not only be a one-term president, he will be the last Democrat president. No party can survive a defensive position when so many of its fronts are under attack.

On the other hand, Specter just killed his career. If, as seems to be the case, the 200,000 Republicans who changed their registration were simply Lim-bots, then Specter badly miscalculated. Now the Republicans can run someone against him with a clear conscience. If the 200,000 Republicans are actual Democrats, then it will be easy for Democrats to run a much more loyal apparatchik than Specter. No one trusts a turncoat, even among those who benefit. Spectre is toast.

Removing this odious character from the Republican Party and eventually from office is a good thing.

LA replies:

“Obama will not only be a one-term president, he will be the last Democrat president.”

Such certain-sounding predictions about highly undetermined future events may express the writer’s feelings and desires, but don’t tell us anything useful about politics.

Posted by Lawrence Auster at April 29, 2009 08:08 AM | Send