I was a bit surprised by Tom Ridge's decision today not to run for the United States Senate today, and I think it's worth pausing for a moment to consider why he didn't.
Ridge has been, in his accomplished political career, a six-term Congressman, a two-term Governor, and a Cabinet member. About the only offices left for him to run for were the Senate and the Presidency. If Ridge was going to run for the Senate, it was going to be hard to find a better opportunity than this one, with Arlen Specter taking heat from all sides and polls showing Ridge and Specter in a toss-up. Pennsylvania's other Senator, Bob Casey, who is up for re-election in 2012, has considerably better approval/disapproval numbers than Specter and would presumably make for a much tougher target.
So Ridge, evidently, wasn't that compelled by the Senate on its own merits. But if you scratch Senate off the list, that leaves one of two possibilities: either Ridge is interested in being on a Presidential ticket, as he nearly was in 2008, or he is fed up with politics and happy enough to stay out of them entirely.
If the latter theory holds -- if Ridge is simply sick and tired of the whole business after a long career -- then we have an explanation which is both necessary and sufficient to explain his decision and we do not have much more analysis to do. But if Ridge is entertaining some possibility of being on a Presidential ticket, the decision becomes more interesting. Conventional wisdom would hold, after all, that one would want to run for lower office as a springboard to higher office. Moreover, no Senate race will receive more media exposure than Pennsylvania's in 2010 -- by declining to run, Ridge is turning down potentially tens of millions of dollars worth of earned media.
The problem, however, is that little matter of the Republican primary against conservative ex-U.S. Rep. Pat Toomey. It's unclear how likely Ridge would have been to defeat Toomey -- a Research 2000 / Daily Kos poll put Ridge 8 points behind, whereas a somewhat dubious-looking poll by Public Opinion Strategies -- commissioned by an RNC member who might have had an interest in persuading Ridge to run -- put him between 31 and 37 points ahead, depending on the presence of a third candidate, Peg Luksik.
But in either event Ridge, especially given that he is pro-choice, was going to have to find some way to placate the religious right and Pennsylvania's otherwise extremely conservative Republican primary electorate to defeat Toomey. And Ridge, as he told Michael Smerconish, evidently did not want to do that -- he did not want to have to pass a conservative "litmus test", to undergo the ideological gyrations that might be required to beat someone like Toomey. Perhaps this was simply a personal decision. But perhaps also, as Chris Cillizza suggests, Ridge thought the smarter bet was with the camp of the "establishment conservatives", who are urging more moderation and less attention to social issues, and less so with the "movement conservatives", who are calling for just the opposite. One also wonders whether Ridge's decision was influenced by the experience of his friend, John McCain, who bypassed him to pick a Vice Presidential candidate who would placate the base and -- after a few weeks in the sun for Sarah Palin -- wound up paying the price on November 4th.
5.07.2009
Why Didn't Ridge Run?
by Nate Silver @ 6:29 PM...see also 2012, conservatives, pennsylvania, specter
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)

86 comments
First things fucking last.
Yeah, good analysis here, Nate. I think it's just a really bad time to be a moderate in the Republican party right now. I think a lot of moderates are wanting to distance themselves from the party of NO.
I wouldn't believe it before, but this is the kind of thing that points to a possible split within the party. Though, I still think it probably won't happen because that would mean the END of the GOP.
Is Ridge still attractive as a VP candidate in 2012/2016? Or does his political future wane with each new election cycle out of the spotlight?
If you go back and read his reasons for leaving Homeland Security, it's not surprising that he didn't run.
I would have been surprised if he did run.
He'd have to go through the same gyrations to win the GOP nomination for president. Generally in states that are as conservative as PA (IA, NH), or more so (SC).
Hey Nate, how about a Supreme Court post on possible nominees, shortlist and sleepers? Surely it's not gonna be Sonia Sotomayor. I want the Pres to be a bit more ballsy and pick Anita Alvarez.
Think about it: Would you rather spend 100 hours a week begging for millions of dollars in cash, eating rubber chicken and being pilloried in the press; OR would you rather stay in the private sector, make millions of dollars a year to protect your family and do whatever the fuck you wanted, whenever you wanted?
Not much of a choice is it? Tom Ridge is a bright man.
Me too...
Let's see some skinny on the Supreme Court possibles.
Nice parsing of the Ridge situation, IMO. My own take is that, given the insane shouting between GOP factions lately, it is, and will be for some time to come, nearly impossible for a moderate Republican to win anything.
What would have happened if the Republicans got Santorum to retire in 2006 and let Tom Ridge run for the US Senate in 2006.
Hey, look what I found on Slate, pretty cool...
Choose Your Own Supreme Court Justice,
http://www.slate.com/id/2217475/pagenum/all/
I ended up picking 42 year old Attorney General Lisa Madigan for Supreme Court. Perfect.
Ridge has always seemed reluctant in everything he says and does. He's hyper-cautious and knows he would've been subjected to the same religious right nuts that Specter smartly, if cynically, avoided.
If he does have presidential ticket aspirations, getting knocked out of a GOP senate primary in a key state would look quite bad. He obviously thinks there's not an insubstantial chance of this against Toomey.
Unfortunately for Ridge (as well as the rest of his moderate Republican compatriots), his stature and record aren't matched by a bearing and forcefulness that will be required to seize the party back from the crazies before it collapses even further.
Ridge was working as the registered agent for some country(Albania?) and was living in a nice DC suburbs: neither would play well in PA.
I am also surprised that Rendell hasn't been mentioned as a possible candidate for the '10 senate run. He is term-limited as well as a "true" Democrat with national exposure. I believe that he would have no problem supassing Specter and Sestak in a primary, and would be a shoe-in to beat Ridge, let alone Toomey.
My guess is that he was part of the Specter compromise to get him to switch parties but it could also be true that he simply wants to return to private life.
As an aside on the issue of potential motivations behind published poll numbers, KOS has a horse in this race, too. Ridge is very competitive against Specter, Toomey is not. Ridge would likely be favoured against a Democrat with enough spectrum separation to primary Specter out.
P.S. I bet he did a gut check just like you suggest and didn't like how it'd play out. It's not like he can't lie low, wait for the GOP to run out of bullets in it circular firing squad, and pop up down the road a few years. Yes, at age 63 the clock is ticking for him. But if he's in good health a 2016 Pres nomination run parlayed into getting on the ticket as the VP candidate is still feasible.
Rendell reportedly wants Specter's seat after he retires or snuffs it.
Just my opinion, but I think John McCain soured the country on another old man running for president again. I understand what is being said, that Ridge would run for president in hopes of making it to the VP slot, but I doubt he would be taken seriously in 2016. He would be 71 by election day.
I'll tell you why Ridge isn't running the same reason why why Specter switched parties. The same reason why Ridge was passed over for consideration for the VP nod from John McCain. That reason is the Club For Growth. The Club For Growth supports Toomey and would oppose Ridge because he's more of a moderate (to them) and he also does not walk in goose-step in regards to abortion. The Club For Growth came out for Rubio as opposed to Crist. Ridge knows he can't win the PA GOP Primmary. Shoot it seems that even Joe The Plumber can't stand the GOP now!
The Senate Guru explained why Ridge isn't running:
"Nothing could be more unrealistic. After a lifetime of public service, Mr. Ridge had virtually no money to his name. Facing the prospects of putting several children through college, he leveraged his political experience and entered the private sector and now enjoys the benefits of a lucrative position. Earning a fraction of his current income likely would not appeal to Mr. Ridge."
http://senateguru.com/
No, I am not him, I just like the site.
As a Pennsylvanian Republican, I have to say this is still a bad call on Ridge's part.
I think having Specter run out of the party was in large part not litmus testing so much as vendetta, in the mafia sense of it. It wasn't an affirmation of Toomey that he did so well, he was just a vehicle for a long boiling ire for Specter specifically. Specter simply spent too long coming across too many "make or break" votes with his base and too gleefully breaking them. Really, the Lieberman analogy is not a bad one.
Seen through the prism, Ridge, then, might actually be able to ride some of that momentum, especially given the reality that's pretty well settling in now that the seat has just turned blue. Ridge can ride into town and say "alright, that rat bastard jumped ship, now let's run him out of the party and keep the seat". Toomey, of course, would have much to say about Ridge, but again, it's not that Toomey is a giant killer per se. People were just fed up with Specter.
Were I Ridge's campaign manager, I'd advise him to spend as little time as possible addressing Toomey and the great bulk of it addressing Specter. Play the adult to Toomey's temper tantrums and Specters...well, even more infantile temper tantrums.
Regardless, Ridge was a pretty second tier potential executive candidate last go-around --- a Tom Vilsack or Christine Todd Whitman level not-even-also-ran. If you have a better-than-even shot, you take it. Become a marquee player in 2010, make a name for yourself in the first term as one of the few Republicans who can win, and you don't even have to worry about your reelection---you jump straight to 2016. Very few long-listers for the Presidency or Vice Presidency do themselves any favors by spending another four years out of the limelight and without a platform. Just ask Tom Vilsak or Christine Todd Whitman.
@Porridge Gun:
Thanks for the link. It has interesting reading.
But you rate Madigan as "perfect?" Only if you're a big fan of capital punishment.
The poll seems to be, in part, a contest of name recognition. Sotomayor leads--why? Because everyone's heard her name the past week.
Hey, when it comes to excitement, what job can beat lobbying for Albania?...
I have to agree with andrew on this one. My guess is that Ridge thinks it's time for him to make some real money while he can. On the other hand, that Senate pension is pretty sweet...
Don't overthink this
Maybe Ridge just thinks that 2010 is not going to be a good year to run as a Republican, at least not statewide in PA, and maybe not anywhere for anything. Only a fool fights in a burning building, and maybe he's counting on the fire being put out by 2012 or later.
I never believed Rudy Giuliani had a serious chance of winning the Republican nomination. Pro-choice is too big a hurdle for Republican primary voters. (I also think Democrats would never nominate a pro-lifer.) Think of how strongly hardcore pro-lifers feel about abortion rights: to them, it is nothing more than state-sanctioned murder. If a pro-choice Republican somehow were to be nominated, it would almost certainly inspire a third-party candidate who would deplete votes from the Republican.
We all know the Republican Party can be stupidly self-destructive, but only when they're paying obeisance to the "traditional values" bloc, not when they're thumbing their noses at them.
Richard said...
I have to agree with andrew on this one. My guess is that Ridge thinks it's time for him to make some real money while he can. On the other hand, that Senate pension is pretty sweet...
You might want to do a bit of research on the pensions that Senators (and Representatives, for that matter) receive before you make an ass of yourself on this subject in the future.
Unless the Senator or Representative took the oath of office prior to January 1, 1984, and remained in Congress without interruption since that date, there is no 'extravagant' pension system for members of Congress.
You might consider going to Snopes.com for starters.
Mike in Maryland
My Blogger ID is http://www.blogger.com/profile/02848893412251095965
Skimmed thru the comments and most seem plausible reasons.
Would just add the obvious, it's no fun being in the minority as the party of Lincoln continues to disappear. The Dems controlled congress from 1954 to 1994 a (40) year run surviving Nixon's landslide of 1972 and Reagan's landslide of 1984 and appear to be on another (40) year domination of congress after (8) years of dubya's/Reps incompetence and corruption.
but, but, but Carter/Clinton has been replaced by but, but, but Bush43 for the next (30) years. Thanx darth/dubya, rummy, condi, gonzo etc.
This is why it will be very hard for the Reps to attract good candidates and very easy for the Dems to attract good candidates as the trends ie minority and young voters are all in the Dems favor.
Oh the irony of the Reps controlling talk radio and falsely claiming that the Dems will try to overturn the FCC Fairness Doctrine when every time Limbaugh, Beck, Hannity, Billo, Coultergeist, Ingraham, Savage, Malkin, Bachmann, Cantor, Boehner, Sanford, Vitter, Perry, Palin etc. etc. open their mouths the Reps lose another party member to either the Dems or Independents, I digress.
How did the Dems get so damn lucky! Obama, a bi-racial President has the party of Lincoln totally discombobulated. Oh the humanity! :)
take care, blessings
Citing a poll by the DailyKos degrades this site. There polls have never been that good.
There were two polls that had Ridge beating Toomey until this particular one came out yesterday.
Ridge would have destroyed Toomey in my eyes.
But that is not to be.
Toomey 2010!
The GOP has manoeuvered itself into a position in which frequently those able to win a GOP primary cannot in turn win the following general election.
That's certainly the dynamic which caused Specter's defection, Ridge's abstention and Toomey's rise, though he in turn can hardly win against Sestak or Specter.
My sense is that GOP moderates (precious few of them are left, of course) can only win primaries if they have the aura of inevitability - such as Crist would have for FL-Sen. This means that new moderates don't have much in the way of career opportunities in GOP politics - though moderates are bound to be alienated by GOP zealotry in the first place and look to the Dems instead.
This all is part of the GOP death spiral. I just don't see how the GOP could ever reverse the rightward trend.
> Citing a poll by the DailyKos degrades this site. There polls have never been that good.
On what do you base that remark? They sure seem methodologically quite sound and iirc beat Zogby and ARG in terms of reliability.
I've never understood this label of "moderate Republican". If a Republican is a moderate, that means he's a Democrat.
Republicans are supposed to stand for things like small government, the right to life, limited taxes for everyone, securing our borders,Second Amendment rights, fighting islamic terrorism.
We believe that individuals are smarter with respect to their own interest than the collective wisdom of government.
That's basically what conservatives stand for. It's pretty simple. When you move to the middle you alienate true Republicans and Democrats still don't like you. (ie, Scwarzenegger, Specter)
The Daiy Kos Polls are done by research 2000 and are independent of KOS. Their record is pretty good in fact they had McCain closer in the elelection than it turned out to be.
Polls showed a Ridge/ Spector race
close and except for that absurd POS poll no one showed Ridge winning the primary without a fight.
Also I think Ridge and Spector were friends and he is probably fed up with politics in general.
Even if he won he wouldn`t have been comfortable in his own party.
The republicans would be nuts to give Toomey any money, he has no hope of winning.
To be honest i`m not so sure Spector will hold up long enough to run, he looks unhealthy to me.
Ridge would have been competitive for the Republicans, Toomey will lose to anyone the Dems pick. I heartily encourage Republicans to fight for their principles, and anyone not meeting every single criteria should be jettisoned from the party.
And when the Republican Senate caucus consists only of members representing the former Confederate states, they can schedule as many Civil War re-enactments as they want!
Perhaps it isn't so healthy a situation where the Republicans are finding it harder and harder to find candidates that represent that wide middle lane on the American political highway. I think we all benefit when both political parties are representative of that greater slice of American public opinion. What happens when the Democrats eventually blow it as they always can be counted to do? Will America turn to that angry, marginalized remnant that represents the worst that America has to offer? I'd rather not worry about some future Sarah Palin becoming president.
Democrats need to be cautious about purifying their ranks. We shouldn't gloat about the self destructive cycle Republicans find themselves in. Lack of viable opposition makes us lazy and makes us weak and puts the country in a position where the alternative shouldn't be an alternative.
We shouldn't gloat about the self destructive cycle Republicans find themselves in.When one party attempts to paint all members of the other party as 'traitors' who 'hate America' and 'sympathize with terrorists'.. and then at the slightest hint of falling out of power immediately begin calls for secession from the United States and for the assassination of the President.. they deserve all the fucking misery they get. Period.
Far be it from me to stand in the way of God's deliverance of some seriously ugly justice.
@Wayward Son:
Saying that all Republicans want to assassinate the president or secede from the union is like saying that all Democrats are tax cheats or all Democrats are adulters or all Democrats are raging alcoholics or all Democrats are KKK members.
Chew on this, Kylopad, or anyone else!
I never believed [insert generic pro-life Democrat] had a serious chance of winning the Democratic nomination. Pro-life is too big a hurdle for Democratic primary voters. (I also think Republicans would never nominate a pro-choicer.) Think of how strongly hardcore pro-choicers feel about restricting abortion rights: to them, it sends women's rights back to the Stone Ages. If a pro-life Democrat somehow were to be nominated, it would almost certainly inspire a third-party candidate who would deplete votes from the Democrat.
We all know the Democratic Party can be stupidly self-destructive, but only when they're paying obeisance to the "civil liberties" bloc, not when they're thumbing their noses at them.
There. Fits perfect, don't ya think?!
When one party attempts to paint all members of the other party as 'traitors' who 'hate America' and 'sympathize with terrorists'.. and then at the slightest hint of falling out of power immediately begin calls for secession from the United States and for the assassination of the President...
Yes, kinda like members from that other party I'm familiar with in American politics who tries to paint the other party as full of nothing but religious zealots and bigots, compares them to Nazis and Hitler or any other fascist or authoritarian regime...and then, at the slightest hint of falling out of power, immediately calls for an exodus to either Canada or Europe and ALSO calls for an assassination of the President.
Sound familiar? It does to me.
Today, I was also surpirised today that this happened. Today.
Grog Said:
I've never understood this label of "moderate Republican". If a Republican is a moderate, that means he's a Democrat.This is not a wise tack for the Republican party. You do not have enough conservative voters to win statewide elections outside of the former confederacy and the Mormon belt, let alone a national election.
If you cede the moderates to the Democrats, it is game over for the Republicans. They will become as relevant as the Constitution Party or the American Independent Party. As much as part of me wants the Republicans to fail miserably (and this attitude puts them on the express train to failure), I realize one party rule is not healthy for a Democracy. We, as a country, need the Republicans to either grow up and act with some moderation, or get the hell out of the way for a new party that doesn't consider 70% of the voting population persona non grata in their party.
Typical left fantasy land stuff here today. Ridge opting out is a blow to the GOP, but open your eyes. Cornyn is actually doing a good job of interesting moderates GOPers to run for Senate, and many of them are polling quite well. We'll see how it works out, but I'm encouraged. This idea that the GOP has been swinging rightward if pure BS. Name one issue on which Bush was more conservative than Reagan. As for the social issues that exercise so many of you, abortion does not hurt the GOP, and opposition to gay marriage is the position of both parties.
The Gop is in the doledrums for two reasons: war and a recession. These are not ideological questions, per se. And if you think the appeal of a limited government message is permanently dead, I say good. It is that sort of ideological arrogance that will eventually start to hurt the Dems, and I suspect sooner than most of you think.
Looking at a party infected with far-right zombiism and the nice warm teat he's attached to as a lobbyist, the choice is simple.
"Name one issue on which Bush was more conservative than Reagan."
Taxes. Reagan raised 'em on corporations, Bush never did.
Foreign affairs. Regan negotiated with recalcitrant foes. Not Bush.
The judiciary. Bush never put moderates like O'Connor and Kennedy on the bench.
Social Security. Cutting funds is not NEARLY as conservative as trying to privatize it.
Human rights. Reagan signed the treaty against torture, Bush ignored it and called the Geneva Convention "Quaint".
So there's five issues. But then, the question is a little fakakta, isn't it? Bush isn't around anymore. If we really want to know if Republicans are more conservative, we should compare CURRENT Republicans to Bush or Reagan, and see if there's any issues THEY are more conservative on.
And of course there is one issue, off the top of my head- immigration. Reagan and Bush both supported easier paths to citizenship (Reagan even granted amnesty). Current Republicans do not, or quickly abandon their position when the polls look rough.
You might want to do a bit of research on the pensions that Senators (and Representatives, for that matter) receive before you make an ass of yourself on this subject in the future.I did not say that Senate pensions were "extravagant," nor do I think that anything I said makes me "an ass." I do think that your response was rude and uncalled for, however.
I think most people would consider a pension which pays in excess of 50K per year (I believe the average is somewhere around 55K?) to be a very good deal indeed. I would be very glad to know I could count on that kind of money for my retirement. It certainly beats the pensions of most people I know, and I don't think any former Senator will be living below the poverty line, as so many seniors who rely on Social Security do.
I saw Sestak last night on Rachel Maddow for my first time and I was kind of impressed. He seemed like he had an emgaging personality and more importantly it seemed like his answers weren't rehearsed. If Specter continues his stumbles I would think Sestak could mop up the floor with him. From Sestak's answer to the subject of whether he would run against Specter he made it sound that it is really up to how Specter comports himself as a Democrat that will be his deciding factor but that his patience was limited. He did this in a very statesman like manner. Like I said previously I was impressed, but then I don't matter since I live in DC and not PA.
As for Ridge, I think the answer is simple- who wants to spend the next year being called a "baby killer", then the six months after that being called "Bush's War criminal" just for the honor of being tied for last in seniority in the minority party (that, at the moment, looks like it will be even weaker in 2011)?
I sure don't like the guy much, but I can understand him not wanting to go through that.
Jen,
For 20 out the past 28 years, we've had presidents in office who ran as conservative Republicans. (Bush 2 didn't finish as a conservative and his approval numbers suffered.)
A moderate Repub will never win the White House. The public approves of Obama but they do not necesarily approve of his policies. If the Repubs can find the right candidate (and that's a big "if") he/she can win as a conversative.
Glen Tomkins said...
"Maybe Ridge just thinks that 2010 is not going to be a good year to run as a Republican, at least not statewide in PA, and maybe not anywhere for anything. Only a fool fights in a burning building, and maybe he's counting on the fire being put out by 2012 or later."
This is very reasonable - the moderate Republicans are going to sit out 2010 in the hopes that the fire will burn itself out and they can get down to rebuilding. It is a telling comment that the moderates are apparently finding the party beyond saving and are either leaving it or just trying to keep it from destroying everything else in the vicinity.
If the situation remains this violently toxic into next year, I think you'll see Powell-Hagel-type group start a new party for the 2012 elections.
Grog-
A moderate Repub will never win the White House.
Change that to the Republican presidential primary and I will agree. Bush II won (sort of) by running as a "compassionate conservative" aka a moderate. They remembered his father as being moderate and transfered (mistakenly) that quality to his son. He only won in 2004 by playing the 9/11 card over and over, and having an opponent run a very poor campaign.
A moderate Republican could very much win a Presidential election. In fact, it is the only way the Republicans will win. This was the lesson Dems had to learn after Mondale and Dukakis got wiped in the general. We could not run a party purist, we had to run moderates like Clinton (win), Gore (most votes), and Obama (win). We spent our time in the political wilderness learning; it would behoove the Republican party to do the same.
Jeff said...
Typical left fantasy land stuff here today. Was that a different Jeff that was talking Ridge running? How's it going with talking Gregg into reversing on retirement?
:^)
And despite many days having passed since the request in an earlier thread, we are still waiting for a link to a (post-1964) Democratic governor calling for secession, or a liberal radio talk show host calling for an assassination of Bush. Instead, we get another repetition from the rightwing that it has supposedly happened, sans proof.
Wayward Son,
You're way off base here. And you're argument is shallow. The double-standard and hypocrisy you display are astounding.
What now? Are you going to point out that because the Republicans have never nominated a black man for President as sole proof they are oppressive towards African-Americans and are secretly in bed with the KKK?
Your logic is a complete non-sequitur. So what if Perry is an elected official, and I don't know what talk show host you're referring to. Besides, show me the link where Perry "called for a secession." From what I could tell, he at the most hinted that it would only possibility and that's only if the country really got bent out of shape.
I'd like to think my "blue" state would do the same if the US were going down in flames. His words were hardly a call for secession, and you know it.
Jen said:
"A moderate Republican could very much win a Presidential election. In fact, it is the only way the Republicans will win."I have to respectfully disagree. There is absolutely no evidence to support that.
And Obama a moderate? In his first 100 days, he's been the most liberal president in history. The only moderate position he has is his anti gay rights when it comes to marriage.
FDR and LBJ and even Nixon are rolling in their graves Grog. Seriously. All three are to the left of Obama, and that is just off the top of my head.
The Republicans can be my guest and continue to make the same mistake over and over again. Lucky for me, my party wised up and realized ideological purists cannot win at a national level.
@GROG:
I can think of another "moderate position" of Obama's: his seeming unwillingness to investigate or prosecute those who green-lit policies to torture detainees.
Dwight,
Nope, same Jeff. Word was Ridge was running and I'm disappointed he's not. It was hardly a fantasy. As for Gregg, I'm not predicting it, but I'd like it, and I'll take Sununu instead. He'll do fine.
Colby,
Your list is unconvincing. Corporate tax rates under Bush are high (as they've been for some time). No one is calling for their increase. Reagan did not intend to put moderates on the court - let's not forget that he nominated Bork and Scalia. He believed both Kennedy and O-Conner were votes against Roe. Reagan as negotiator is true (although the left never gave him this credit at the time of course). Bush, however, has negotiated with North Korea, Syria, Iran, and a host of others. The counterpoint is just left nonsense.
It was Gonzales, not Bush, who stupidly said "parts" of the Geneva Convention were "quaint". Reagan didn't have significant terrorism to deal with, which complicated this question a great deal (just ask Nancy Pelosi, who is lying through her teeth in an effort to cover her ass on this. What a perfect coward). Besides, you apparently don't know much about the proxy wars in Central America in the 1980s.
I might give you Social Security, although the Dem's scaremongering on that point under Reagan and Bush Snr knew no bounds or shame.
Pt is, Reagan was just as conservative as Bush, it is just that he was successful and Bush was not. Peace and prosperity = election win. War and recession = election losses. This will determine the fate of Obama and the Dems., not any grand "ideological shift". The Republican party has not moved significantly right in a long time (the Democrats have).
@Polls apart:
Obama also thinks it's OK to kill pirates who have kidnapped Americans. I suppose that would be a moderate position.
To Obama, enchanced interogation is wrong but killing is right.
GROG said...
To Obama, enchanced interogation is wrong but killing is right.Umm, do you really not see the difference in the situations? Or are you playing thickie?
Jeff said...
Word was Ridge was running...Wishful thinking was Ridge was running. Although I'll give you that it wasn't nearly as fanciful as the GOP taking a run at Dogan.
Dwight,
Explain to me the difference.
The left says it's not OK to waterboard in order to get info that may save thousands of lives, but it is OK to kill people in order to save a few lives.
*boggle*
You really, really don't get the difference? *boggle*
Once capture surrender happens the captor has a position of power over the opponent, which which comes a responsibility.
Sorry GROG, you are sucking moral slough water on this one.
I've never understood why 'feigned stupidity' was such a common Conservative tactic.. it doesn't advance your argument to pretend you don't understand something a 3rd grader could figure out.
And if you're as unlucky as Bobby Jindal, a pretense of not understanding "volcano monitoring" might end up with a volcano exploding within the same week. Not good. Not good at all.
Well, it's obvious WS would rather engage in ad hominem attacks and render himself as a vestigial being in the field of intellectual discourse...
...bottom line, it's a hell of a lot easier to act like a brat and claim the other side doesn't get things a 3rd grader supposedly could decipher as opposed to actually providing a fact-based substantive point to maker your argument.
@GROG:
I thought of another moderate position taken by Obama: he is NOT for reinstating the "Fairness Doctrine", and said so early in his Administration. You wouldn't know that from the rants of the right-wing radio talkers.
Regarding killing pirates who have taken hostages: since when did you become a pacifist? If Obama had tried to talk the pirates to death, he would have been seen as a limp-wristed lefty.
@GROG:
Regarding the morality of torture vs. the morality of killing hostage holders: When did kidnapping become an internationally protected activity? When one can kill A to free B, there is no speculation involved (other than the chance that the rescue could go wrong). When one assumes that A knows of an assassination plot or terrorist act and also assumes that torturing A will produce valid information about same, that is two levels of speculation removed from certainty of success.
Dwight? Huh? It was widely speculated that Ridge was running, hence his need to put out a statement to the contrary. As for Dorgan, I know he's popular, but I work on the principle that states like ND are not naturally represented by 2 Dems - and that this will actually be an easier case to make when a Dem is running the whole show, and Dorgan is forced to vote for lots of liberal nonsense. Your logic would have had the Republicans letting Daschel skate in SD, just because he was popular. But they beat him.
@polls_apart:
Don't get me wrong. I approve of waterboarding and the killing of pirates if it will save American lives.
I'm all for an investigation into torture practices under Bush. I don't think the left really wants it, because it may show how many lives it truly did save.
It's funny that some people completely trust the federal government to run the banking and auto industries, but they don't trust the government to practice enhanced interogation methods because there is a possibility that it may not lead to valid information.
polls_apart:
Just because Obama is not for the Fairness Doctrine does not mean he's a moderate. The Fairness Doctrine is a communist and fascist idea.
@GROG:
For the government to run insolvent banks or bankrupt auto companies (and NOT the whole industry in your straw-man argument) is not, a priori, a matter of violating international law and civilized norms of behavior. It may not be good economic policy, and that is a fair point for debate.
Approving torture as governmental policy, on the other hand, does violate international laws and civilized norms of behavior. I have read articles (they were in that commie rag, the Washington Post) about how successful we were in extracting information from German prisoners during WW II without recourse to torture. The civilized treatment of the German prisoners contradicted what they had been told about "the enemy" and led to far greater benefits than torturing them would have yielded. Given the humane treatment of German prisoners during WW II, I wonder if there is some anti-Muslim bias which makes it easier to pursue torture under our current circumstances. The implications for treatment of our own soldiers in adopting torture as an instrument of national policy should give one pause.
Ringing phrases used to describe our country such as "the last best hope of mankind" and "a shining city on a hill" (that last a favorite of President Reagan) do not describe a country which accepts torture as an instrument of national policy.
The difference in our treatment of German-Americans and Japanese-Americans during WW II reinforces my point regarding treatment of Muslim detainees in our current situation.
@GROG:
By the way, I personally favor a Truth Commission to investigate the use of torture at Guantanamo, Abu Ghraib, and Bagram. My preference would not be to prosecute anyone, and I would accept that there may have been occasions where torture yielded some information. When the entire story is told, we can ask ourselves if what we gained was worth the cost.
Grog - in what way is a requirement that those who use our public airwaves (a resource held in common by us all) do so in a way that promotes honest, accurate, and unbiased public discourse "communist and fascist"? We allow broadcasters to make tremendous profits of a public resource; shouldn't they have some responsibility to us?
"The Gop is in the doledrums for two reasons: war and a recession. These are not ideological questions, per se. And if you think the appeal of a limited government message is permanently dead, I say good. It is that sort of ideological arrogance that will eventually start to hurt the Dems, and I suspect sooner than most of you think."Yup! Sounds exactly like a Democrat in 1981, trying desperately to explain how the Reagan Revolution was just a short-term aberration -- that it didn't mark a long-term shift in power to conservatives.
DEMS CIRCA 1981: "The Democratic party is in the doledrums for two reasons: inflation and the Iranian hostage issue. These are not ideological questions, per se. There's NO WAY once America gets a look at what these Reagan conservatives really want to do to America that they will re-elect him!
The Democratic party will be back in control, and a lot sooner than most of you right wingers expect!".
Of course all the same right-wing ass-hats were on this site back in September predicting that Obama was going to implode and how America was still a "center-right" country and how on election day millions would reject Barack Obama!
They apparently haven't learned anything from 2 straight election thumpings, and there's no reason to suspect they won't invent more rationalizations to prevent having to deal with the fact that CONSERVATISM is being rejected!
Nobody cares what the right-wing thinks anymore. They can rant to their heart's content and talk among their ever dwindling numbers or true-believers.
A defeat by a junior, very conservative Republican in a primary would have destroyed Ridge's political credibility for ever. Wisely, Ridge decided not to risk his credibility and await for
better political opportunities in the future?
It is still a mystery why Ridge was not mcCain's running mate when Pa. was the key Republican target?
Cudgel,
Even if I accept the Reagan analogy (which will require Obama to replicate Reagan's successes on the economy and foreign policy), the Dems in 1981 were in some sense right. Witness their very big victory in 1982. They proceeded to hold congress until 1994. I'm not predicting a similarly quick turn around, just push back.
As for the repudiation of conservatism, this is not sustained by the polls. The GOP is down and Obama up. Even the Center for American Progress, a very liberal group, found that "conservative" beat "liberal" in polling of US by 35 to 15. The Gop is loosing because it is down to its base, and needs to win back independents. But its political base is bigger than the left's. Hence the need for the Dems to build their new majority with all sorts of blue dogs and pro life Dems.
Richard:
The responsibility is in the consumer to not listen if you don't want to. Not for the government to dictate what thoughts and opinions can or cannot be broadcast.
I thought the left was against censorship?
polls_apart:
I understand your argument. I don't think that the US government should necessarily have a policy for torture, but there is no denying that there may be circumstances when it is necessary.
If there's an imminent threat to national security that may cause the loss of a 100 thousand lives, and waterboarding a known low life terrorist will lead to information to stop it, I don't know how you don't do that.
Shiloh,
The Republican Party today has zero resemblance to the Republicans in the 1860's.
Calling them the party of Lincoln today does a disservice to the memory of Lincoln.
The left says it's not OK to waterboard in order to get info that may save thousands of lives, but it is OK to kill people in order to save a few lives.
I approve of waterboarding and the killing of pirates if it will save American lives.
Not only are you stupid and cowardly, you are also immoral.
So, that must mean that you approve of Americans being taken and held without trial, and being tortured as well.
You can't stand against the VC or Japanese torturing servicemen and support Americans doing the same thing.
And you wonder why your precious movement has no credibility anymore and you are just a sad punch line.
I'm all for an investigation into torture practices under Bush. I don't think the left really wants it, because it may show how many lives it truly did save.
Name one legitimate threat that Bush and his madmen thwarted.
Are you such a fucking coward that you would sell out millions who fought and died for the principles that our country was founded on, just because you are scared?
Obama is complicit in this torture if he doesn't stand up and hold those who destroyed the moral authority of our nation accountable. He foolishly believes it is a distraction to getting the country back on track.
Problem is, we didn't recover from Watergate, the S&L debacle, or the Iran-Contra scandal because no one was really held responsible. At best a few minor players were nailed to the wall. The same is with the torture scandal today, and as the S&L scandal was allowed to fester to this day to our detriment, so will this cause problems in the future.
The pressure on Obama to bring these war criminals to justice, it is just depressing to me that Obama doesn't have the courage and morals to do it on his own.
Imagine the irony that if Bush was arrested in Canada(which Canadian law provides for the arrest of war criminals, regardless of nationality- Bush IS a war criminal, there is no debate about that), and Obama protesed it, since Bush had many taken off the streets in foreign countries without cause or legal authority.
I understand your argument. I don't think that the US government should necessarily have a policy for torture, but there is no denying that there may be circumstances when it is necessary.
It is never necessary, even the Pentagon in the early Bush years argued that torture produces little of value and the results of Bush's torturing bear that out.
How many people gave good information before torture and gave up nonsense after?
What about the terrorist captured at the US/Canadian border in 2000 or so? He was tried in US courts and produced the evidence that Bush ignored about 9/11.
Torture doesn't work. It is immoral. It is illegal. It robs us of our humanity.
Of course all of that ignores the fact that it was instituted by Bush for one reason: to find a justification for the Iraq war, which has no justification.
In other words it was an evil used to attempt to justify another evil.
Your insane attempt that justify the indefensible would be amusing if the consequences were not so terrible.
Fucking right-wing cowards.
Beavis,
"Right wing" cowards? Lamar Alexander asked a good question in yesterday's hearing. If the Bush admin is going to be investigated criminally for waterboarding 3terrorists, should the Clinton admin be investigated for authorizing "rendition", whereby our torturing of suspects is out sourced (and I mean real torture, third world style)?
I supposed you'll come up with some significant difference. Just as the left has now fallen generally silent about wire tapping, military commissions, etc. All of the apparatus of Bush's "fascism" that Obama is apparently allowed to maintain. The idea that the moral compromises of the national security state and its tactics are worse under republicans like Reagan, Bush, and Nixon than they were under Democrats like LBJ, Kennedy, and Clinton is perfectly mendacious.
GROG: these techniques were devised, and have been used over the centuries, for the purpose of coercing false confessions. In this particular case, the aim was to compel the prisoners to say there were connections with Iraq, although the administration had no reason to believe this was true. Valid information is not derived by such methods.
Interesting article. I think it would be interesting to correlate the data with number of people in each age group. Then try to figure out how many Republicans there will be in 8 years. The last number I saw in a poll was 18% of the people now self identify as Republican. If we did the following: take the number of people in each group, get the demographic data for ages 10-17, assume President Obama remains popular, and push the graph over 8 years, we could see what things will look like in 2016.
I think the Republican Party is going to disappear due to demographics and am curious as to how long it will take. In 2050 whites will no longer be a majority in this country and the Republicans consistently alienate minorities. Additionally, older people tend to be much more socially concervative the younger generations and they are dying off. The anti-gay anti-choice mantra is losing its appeal and will continue to do so.
I see this thread is about done, but I wanted to enter a post that questions claims that Ridge is a moderate. During the 2004 elections, using his position as the head of Homeland Security, he raised the terrorist color alert every time the democrats did something to claim the news cycle. That demonstrates plenty of loyalty to right wing ideologues in charge of the republican party, and it doesn't get much more cynical than that. How cynical? After the election, I don't remember the color level being raised to the next level again, despite attacks on London and Madrid and claims by NY security personnel that a new attack on America was in the works. If this had happened during the election, you can bet the alert would have gone to red. He can claim he didn't like doing it, but that doesn't cut it. You can bet the right wingers would be all over a similar excuse by any democrat.
McCain wound up paying the price on November 4th? Hmm...one would think that an expert on electoral math would have noticed the parity between pre-Palin opinion polls and the final result.
This site is an abomination.
Post a Comment