Now we have his take on Sen. Specter's going over to the Democrats: He says it may be good news for the GOP.
Kristol's thinking goes like this (in the WashingtonPost):
With the likely seating of Al Franken from Minnesota, Democrats will have 60 seats in the Senate, giving Obama unambiguous governing majorities in both bodies. He’ll be responsible for everything. GOP obstructionism will go away as an issue, and Democratic defections will become the constant worry and story line. This will make it easier for GOP candidates in 2010 to ask to be elected to help restore some checks and balance in Washington -- and, meanwhile, Specter’s party change won’t likely have made much difference in getting key legislation passed or not. So, losing Specter may help produce greater GOP gains in November 2010, and a brighter Republican future.Well, that's assuming that the voters won't like the results of the key legislation that gets passed. If they do -- and so far they seem to like what Obama is trying to do, despite Republican obstructionism -- then why would they want to give Republicans more power to obstruct it?
Kristol's saying it's good news for Republicans = it must really be good news for Democrats.
Or:
You can put lipstick on a pig, but . . . . it's still bad news for the GOP.
Ralph
Other naysayers claim that Specter is just being political, that his polls show he would lose a Republican primary but might win a Democratic primary. They use that to dismiss any thought that this says something about the GOP; to them, it's just Specter's opportunism.
ReplyDeleteSpecter readily admits that his political prospects tipped the balance in his decision. But you could also say that means the GOP is out of touch with the voters in PA. And they should pay attention to that important fact.