How big the shift with this election?
Thursday, May 20, 2010 at 12:10AM 
Trio of WSJ pieces
Joe Sestak ends Spector's long career that goes all the way back to the Warren Commission (and please people, stop calling it the "magic bullet" theory, because the latest computer modeling shows that it wasn't magical in the least!), exploiting the current anti-incumbent mood.
I knew Sestak as an admiral and I've testifed in from of him. He is as slick as they come, and I mean that in a good way. Outsider? Definitely fresher than Spector, let's say.
He's definitely a liberal, holding a 100% rating from NARAL on being pro-choice. We also share a bond: both our first-born girls survived cancer in childhood.
Sestak is also incredibly smart, in my opinion, so he'd be one to watch in the Senate, just like he was in the House.
So with all this talk of voter shifts, what does this latest batch of primaries say? We should see a lot of new faces in Congress next January, and this is good. Place is too easy for incumbents as a rule, and we should take pride in moving new brains into the mix.
But you have to remember, midterm primaries are the stuff of the party loyalists.
It's the changing mix of loyalists that bodes well for the GOP.
MSNBC/WSJ poll on party affiliation changes since start of Obama administration:
- Dems stay at 43%
- GOP goes from 30 to 37%
- That comes out of Independents (20-->16%) and others (7-->3%).
So you have to believe that the Tea Party movement is strengthening the GOP and hardly represents the rise of a viable third party.
Reader Comments (4)
The question in my mind is whether the Republican party can enlarge its tent to include not just the conservative Tea Party folks but also those who used to be called "liberal Republicans." If not, it'll be marginalized as a party, even though individuals can get elected. I'm now citing my political affiliation as RINO :-)
The tea party has been neutral/almost silent on internationalism as far as I have seen. However, there are many non interventionists and isolationists that will be absorbed into the Republican party. I do not know if this will be good in the long run. I agree with people like Ron Paul a lot on economic issues, but I think he is "right" for all the wrong reasons on globalization, and he too often simply gives excuses as to why we get attacked by terrorists (But he will BLAST you if you try to do it at our border!). I want globalization to be an eventual freedom enabler, and if you take this route, and you are not a Democrat, you are instantly labeled a "neo-con" even if you support soft power.
I also wanted Europe to contribute more to this grand project, and they frankly do not pull their weight. At the same time the same people who support this big project do not want Russia, or India, or other emerging countries to contribute...not to mention China.
They way I see it, if a RINO is for big government, big spending and big debt, I don't see any room for that kind of RINO in the Tea Party refreshed Republican party. If a RINO is one on social issues, then I think there can be room as long as the social issues don't include "spreading the wealth" via government forcing.
The Tea Party is not about a third party. That is wishful thinking on the Democrats side. The Tea Party will shape the Republican party in ways that will make it stronger. The big ticket items are, spending, debt, socialism and yes illegal immigration. (Whenever you hear that AZ is against immigration, just take a deep breath, laugh and remember the media has omitted the word illegal to confuse the ignorant.)
We finance wars with fiat currency.