Centrist Pundits

Tonight, Massachusetts voted a Republican in to the Senate. This would surprise anyone who was looking at the race a few months ago, but comes as no surprise to those who’ve been looking at it for the last couple of weeks.

What does this mean for centrism? Well, you have to look at how the race was run.

On the one hand, it definitely reminds us that almost no state is a red state or a blue state. Like all states, Mass has a mix of people with a vast, muddy middle area. They elected Romney to office, after all, though he was a bit more liberal at the time. So it might be tempting to note this as a victory for centrists – that even in a “solid blue” state, moderates can and do influence the politics. A lot of people have said that Republicans could be in trouble if they go to the right particularly hard, and this might bear that out – for both parties.

On the other, neither side ran a typical campaign. Brown, for one, hardly ever called himself a Republican, knowing that word is anathema in Massachusetts. Coakley, on the other hand, sold herself mostly as a person with a penchant for misspeaking. Democrats didn’t take this race seriously, and it might have had another outcome if they had. But Brown’s strategy worked – Brown sold himself as a moderate, and yet a look at his record, while hardly the most conservative record in the world, if fairly solidly in the Republican camp. Whether or not the votes of Massachusetts will hold him to his promise of “social consciousness” while he has his personal beliefs tend towards the conservative side of the aisle will remain to be seen.

Now, the question is, what does this mean for the legislative centerpiece of the Democratic Congress, health care reform? I’ve seen a surprising number of posts tonight indicating that its dead, most of them in the “ding dong the witch is dead” vein (mostly from my conservative friends). And it could mean that. But keep something in mind: neither side really wants it dead, and neither side has to accept its death.

Democrats may actually come out ahead (at least in terms of how liberal a health care bill is passed), if they are willing (which is always the question with them.) The only option left to them is reconciliation, a concept I admittedly don’t understand well. I thought it could only be used for the budget. But people talk about using it for health care reform. If Democrats move this direction – costly as it may be in terms of making them look like they are playing fair – then they only need 51 votes in the Senate. They can tell Lieberman and Nelson to take their amendments and shove them, and pass the House version generally in tact. This might be a monumentally unwise move by the Democrats, but cornered animals tend to do strange things.

On the other hand, while no Republican in the world would admit it, they need Health Care as an issue. If they kill it now, it – meaning the need to repeal the bill – doesn’t help with the mid-terms and doesn’t help in 2012. I wonder if we’ll see Snowe or another moderate Republican have a change of heart, though that may be the cynical part of my brain.

What does this mean for the future? Not a whole lot. It will keep Steele in his job a little longer, and it will re-energize the morale of a number of downtrodden Republicans, but like NY23, it won’t maintain its party switch. Come 2012, barring a truly popular Republican with incredible coat tails, one Kennedy or another will decide to run, and take it from Brown. In short, what this race does is one thing only – remind us that the political pendulum in America is ever-swinging.

JC Congress, Political Parties, State Politics Congress, Health care, Massachusetts, Scott Brown, senators

Centrism is, at times, a powerful force for good.  If for no other reason than most Americans are not radicalized to the left or the right, finding the center and acting on that moderate agenda is often an effective means to the end of moving forward, but not leaving people behind.  That said, centrism and moderation have their own flaws as well, and we’d be foolish not to acknowledge them.

The bill currently moving through the Senate is an example of one problem with centrism: it can leave no one happy.  Progressives are saying it doesn’t do enough, conservatives are afraid it does to much, and the middle… well, we don’t seem to think its going to accomplish anything at all, except make things more expensive.

And who can blame us?  Weve seen Washington bail out Wall Street without passing any reform, and they are just back to their old tricks.  We’ve seen a job stimulus that may or may not be working – but the website that went to show us it was working had an extra 440 Congressional Districts on it.  And we’ve seen credit card reform pass in such a way that the cards had time to raise their rates more than double before it was enacted, to insulate themselves from the real effects of that reform.  Is there any chance Health Care reform can do any better?

If we take away the option from Health Care companies to drop our coverage if we get a bad condition or to deny us coverage in the first place, that sounds good, but its subverted by the fact they can still raise our rates to price us out of coverage.

If we mandate coverage for all Americans but don’t make coverage affordable, what have we really accomplished?

I want health care reform, and I didn’t necessarily need to see a public option, although I generally support one.  But passing only part of a set of laws, in the name of political expediency, because Senate rules allow one or two people a large amount of power, isn’t a good way to do things.  It looks like centrism – “moderates and Republicans forced the Democratic bill to the center” – but it isn’t in the middle in any logical, thought out way.  It is more like if the bill had been given to a mad barber.

Perhaps this is one reason why no one thinks well of the middle – nothing gets there unscathed.

JC Congress, Health care

If there’s anything that unites centrists, it’s the feeling that the two major political parties fall short of enchanting us to the degree that we want to give them all our support. After all, terms like “centrist” and “moderate” are considered by partisans to be invectives.

I’ve looked at other parties before; most are to the left of the Democrats or to the right of the GOP. There are some that appeal to a few moderates; I looked at the Libertarians, but they’re a little too liberal on the social scale for my tastes.

One party with promise seems to be the Modern Whigs. They claim to inherit the rich history of the 19th Century Whigs, which gave us four presidents, and was also the original party of Abraham Lincoln. From a purely marketing perspective, I think that’s genius — because the Party of Lincoln hasn’t really been acting like it for a long time.

Right now, the Whigs seem to not be fully defined. They do have some basic tenets listed on their website, including a fiscally conservative policy that is state-driven, emphasis on scientific research and development, and a recognition that the economic and national security future of this country depend on energy independence. Also, there is a tenet about veterans affairs that seems to be common sense, but has a prominent placement that’s likely due to the fact that the party was re-established by veterans of Iraq and Afghanistan.

As for other issues, they do go into some… well, detail isn’t the right word. They touch on some of them, and I think this is an area that the Whigs need to work on. Many issues are kicked to states rights. And that’s fine, but when they do that for Gay Rights, there’s nothing on the party’s view on federal issues, such as federal recognition of same-sex marriages for social security retirement benefits and for joint tax returns, or about federal laws like DOMA.

I am not sure if that reflects a lack of resources to get that information on the website, or if it’s simply because the Whigs haven’t fully defined themselves on some issues. If it’s the former, they really need to get some proper position papers out there on some key issues. Not every issue under the sun, but some areas to fully explain what it means to be a Whig. If it’s the latter, then they need to figure out what they’re about.

There’s also a possibility that they’re shying away from some controversial issues to keep from alienating potential supporters. In fact, their statement on abortion appears to be just that. Not that I blame them for wanting to stay away from it — it’s an issue that sucks time, energy and money away from critical issues like health care, national defense, the economy, and education. But you can’t look like you’re dancing around the issue if you want to be taken seriously.

The Whigs have ballot access in Florida, and have three candidates for Congress next year. I listened into a web conference they had with the candidates, and by far, the most appealing was Paul McKain. He seems like the real deal, and if I lived in his district, I think I’d be voting for him.

I’ll be paying attention to the Whigs. I’d have gone to a meeting to find out more, but they don’t seem to have any state organization here, nor can I find anyone else why has heard of them. Maybe that will change… I’ll see!

Greg Congress, National Politics, Political Parties whigs

I’ll try to take the time to look over Obama’s speech more closely, to examine the good and the bad, and what works for Centrists, when I have a little more time.  For now, let me just say, no matter what party the President is, no matter how much you disagree with him… you don’t heckle him at a joint session of Congress.

To be fair, I think Representative Joe Wilson has realized that.  His apology actually did sound sincere.

I wonder if John Boehner even knew he was on camera when he let out a heavy sigh when Obama referred to the fact that the last administration and the Congress is had didn’t try to pay for programs as they went.

In a perfect world, no one would interrupt non-Presidents outside of joint sessions, either – like the town hall problem.  Unfortunately, the extremes of both parties seem to have decided that being the noisiest is equal to being the winner.

Huh.  I wonder.  Maybe the reason the Center is never taken seriously is because its hard to be “extreme” as a centrist.  What would we yell?  ”MAKE FISCALLY RESPONSIBLE BUT SOCIALLY CONSCIONABLE CHOICES NOW!”

JC Congress, Health care, Personalities centrism, Health care, obama

I don’t like hypocrisy much.  Sometimes, I’m a hypocrite, I admit that, but I try to avoid it and I try to point it out in politicians.  I don’t know why I would expect politicians to be any better about it than others, but it seems to me that if you are in a leadership position, you should be spend more of your time addressing the truth than scoring with cheap shots.  One area I’m not so good at with my own hypocrisy is taking Democrats to task as easily as I take Republicans to task.  It really is a bipartisan affliction.  But, today’s example DOES happen to be a Republican, so we’ll just have to run with that.

Senator John Ensign has admitted to an extra-marital affair.  John Ensign, who has campaigned and advocated for the defense of marriage, has had an affair.  Of course, to a conservative like Senator Ensign, defense of marriage just means that marriage has to be between a man and a woman.  One man and one woman is the common phrasing, and there is indeed one man and one woman in Ensign’s own marriage – just because he also had a woman on the side, does that make him a hypocrite?  Maybe not.  It does to me, but maybe not.

What about the fact he called on Bill Clinton to resign after Clinton’s affair with Monica Lewisnsky came out?  That should firm up his hypocrite credentials, unless he resigns (which most people consider unlikely due to the weak Republican bench in Nevada and that Ensign has said he wants to remain in the Senate).  You can’t even make a case that Clinton’s was worse because it was a staffer – Ensign’s lover was a member of his staff.  At least no relation of Lewisnky ever asked the Clintons for hush money (well, as far as we know)

To be fair, he has resigned his leadership post in the Senate.  Perhaps he thinks that is sufficient.  But while the situation isn’t exactly parallel, I wonder what he would have thought of such a concession from Clinton.  I am inclined to think not much.  And while I don’t think he was really on the fast track for the Presidential nomination some people think he was on, this really has messed up his own political future and, indeed, the Republican party of Nevada.  I can’t imagine the sheer number of people who are angry at him right now.

I’m actually a devoted husband, and I don’t “get” cheating, but I also don’t really have a moral problem with people who get sex from more than just their spouse, as long as their spouse doesn’t object.  I have no idea what Ensign’s wife thinks of all this, but that’s their business.  It only really becomes the business of the people when the politicians uses sex issues to push their own agenda before being caught themselves.  This is why Spitzer had to resign – not the extra-marital sex or even the prostitutes per se, but because he had been such a force against such things in the past.  And it is the same with Ensign.  He made a bed and has to lie in it, if you’ll pardon the expression.

But as I mentioned yesterday, sometimes things are more about political calculation than what is right.  And the politics of Neveda say Ensign should stay in.

JC Congress, Personalities, State Politics John Ensign, senators, sex

Okay, everyone, today’s post needs context.  I don’t always offer context for my posts, assuming that my readership is the kind that reads the news sites as well, but sometimes, if it is a minor story, people may not know what I’m talking about.  So go here:

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2009/06/08/gop-senator-to-obama-you-got-nerve/

or, if you prefer, go to:

http://twitter.com/ChuckGrassley

Now, one might think I’m about to attack Chuck Grassley on the issues.  I’m not.  Senator Grassley and I are on opposite sides of the aisle but that’s okay.  I can’t recall Grassley ever doing anything that truly offended me so I will assume he is one of the true believer conservatives who argues his points out of a feeling that his view is correct, and I can respect that.

But I cannot respect anyone who abuses the English language like that.  I know it is twitter and I know it is limited to 140 characters but come on.  I have a twitter account for my private life and I can probably count on one hand my uses of “leet” speak that weren’t ironic or mistakes.  I write complete sentences.  If I can’t make it in 140 characters, I use a shorter synonym or do 2 tweets.

Mr. Grassley, you are a senator.  Please, write like one.  No one thinks you are cool cause you use the 4 instead of for, or u for you, or “skedul” for schedule, which isn’t even really leet speak, but is instead nonsense.

This site is so bad, in fact, that even with CNN mentioning it on their political ticker, I have to suspect it is a fake.  And if it is a fake, then shame on you faker, for making a politician look stupid.  Most politicians are perfectly capable of doing that on their own.

I understand that languages evolve, and I even support it as a general rule.  But there are those who should make an endeavor to do it right according to our current linguistic guidelines, and I think a United States Senator is one of those who should serve as a role model.

JC Congress, Media culture, Grassley, language, twitter

So, the talk around the beltway is still the defection of Arlen Specter from the Republicans to the Democrats.

It’s nothing new with moderates; it’s happened in both directions. Something that he said rang true for me, however:

As the Republican Party has moved farther and farther to the right, I have found myself increasingly at odds with the Republican philosophy and more in line with the philosophy of the Democratic Party.

So, I’ve had conversations with myself along these lines as well. Indeed, since I turned 18, I’ve been registered as a Democrat, Republican, and an Independent. Since I live in a closed-primary state, I don’t like to be registered as a independent, since that takes me out of the primary process.

I, too, have seen the GOP be dragged to the right. And while I often see the Democrats taking positions on the issues that resonate more with me than the Republicans do, there are oh-so-many areas where the Democrats are just plain wrong.

So, what to do? I could leave the GOP completely behind, but for what? There’s little point in doing that unless I can find a viable alternative. And, unfortunately, in the centrist area, there aren’t any viable alternatives,

Eventually, I keep telling myself that the GOP needs all the moderates it can get. I would absolutely love the creation of a far-right party. Many people think that it would forever split the Republican votes — but I think that there are a large number of moderates who just don’t feel there’s room for them in the Big Tent of the Republican Party.

Because while that tent is big, it’s awfully narrow.

In the end, that’s what I will try to do — make it a bit wider. Sen. Specter doesn’t have that luxury — he admitted in his speech that his defection was as much about his inability to get re-elected as a Republican as it is about political ideology.

Fortunately, my career doesn’t depend on my political affiliation.

Greg Congress, Political Parties elections, gop, senators

One of the biggest pieces of political news of the year so far occurred yesterday.  Arlen Specter, long time Republican, has announced he is switching parties to the Democratic party.  This is, in some small ways, mind-boggling.  It psychologically puts the Democrats at their 60 votes, once Franken is inevitably confirmed.  (The truth is, that “60” to break a filibuster is still rather fuzzy, as a bunch of the votes are moderate to conservative Democrats who can’t be relied upon to vote with the party – including Specter – and there are a couple of Republicans left who might vote with the Democrats on the occasional issue).  And it is, in some ways, a continued indication of the ongoing shakiness of the Republican party.  And it’s going to make Coleman continue to take legal action in Minnesota until the last possible moment – though that was already likely.

Senator Specter is making no bones about why he left.  He made some soft effort at justifying it as a philosophical difference – that the party has moved right while he’s stayed at center – and he’s not wrong, but he’s pretty much flat out admitted that he felt he was facing a tough primary challenge.

I’m not sure things were as bad as he thought.  First of all, it is very early to make a call on how the race will go based on polling.  Right now, everyone is all ticked off about the stimulus and going to tea parties and so on.  If the stimulus works, though, then people will be in a more forgiving mood.  And the Republican party had said it would endorse / back Specter against his primary opponent.  And the voters may be kind of mad now, but they may be more forgiving when they remember that a powerful, long-term senator is a good thing.

On the other hand, assuming he doesn’t face a particularly hard challenge from the left – something I imagine the party bosses will do their best to ensure – he’ll more than likely remain Senator, Michael Steele’s bravado statements not withstanding.  Because Pennsylvania’s trends give every indication that it is, in fact, trending towards the Democratic party again, and he has the advantage of incumbency.  The Republican’s will try to make him out as a shifty, disloyal bastard… and they may be right… but I’m not sure that will resonate with anyone outside the Republican base.  “You can vote for the shifty, disloyal Democrat, or the conservative Republican” won’t fly as high as the Republicans might hope.  It has a chance of working – firing up Republican voters and keeping more neutral Democrats at home – but that part of the equation will also depend on how “moderate” and how “liberal” Specter acts.

The Democrats have mostly been cautiously welcoming, and most dissent has been fairly squelched.  A few squeaks of “Do we really want someone willing to betray his party” and “He’s not really a Democrat” have gotten out, but the vast majority of the response out there has been from Republicans.  And given the current state of the Republican party, it should be no surprise the response has been mixed.  Some of his Senatorial colleagues have expressed simple surprise and dismay, but not made further comment.  Moderate Republicans have expressed that it is yet another sign that a continued move to the right will continue to damage the party, while at the same time assuring people they are not leaving.  Michael Steele simply stated he thinks Specter’s time is up – that he’ll either be defeated in the primary or the general election in 2010.  Perhaps most amusing and disgusting… yes, at the same time… is Rush Limbaugh, who made a list of other people who should follow Specter, including the party’s last Presidential candidate, John McCain.

Those who are discussing the loss of the middle, and the move to the right, are probably the most correct.  As the party shrinks and moves right, the message plays better and better to those who remain, but sounds more and more out of touch to the middle (we’ll ignore the left here, who were never going to vote Republican anyway).  The Republican party is still struggling to define itself in the wake of a resounding loss and the collapse of the Neocons.  If the moderates mostly leave, they’ll have less influence over that definition, and if the party defines itself by who remains, they may have trouble being a big enough tent to bring in the needed votes to win.

JC Congress, Political Parties, State Politics elections, senators, Specter

I’d be mad as hell about this if I lived in Minnesota. Five months after the election, and they still only have one Senator in Washington.

It’s not just being mad at Coleman for fighting this (or Franken, when he was behind, for that matter). It’s also a state election law that doesn’t list a point at which some decision has to be made. The day before the oath of office is administered, perhaps they should do a coin toss or something.

Also, read what the good people over at The Moderate Voice say about it.

Greg Congress, National Politics, Political Parties Coleman, elections, Franken

The Obama budget has passed both the House and Senate this evening.  I have no doubt that Greg and I both have more to say on it than this, but I want to point out two things immediately:

I have no idea what will happen.  I hope it will help.  I fear it will make things worse.  I’m leaning toward help, but it could go any direction.

But here’s the second thing, and it is kind of obvious, and I think it is something we can call agree on: dang, that is a lot of money.

JC Congress, Economy budget, Congress, finance