Gingrich: Specter’s party switch was driven by personal survival

Washington Post

The Washington Post asked several Republican politicians and strategists to respond to the decision by U. S. Sen. Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania to switch from Republican to Democrat. Here are some of the responses.

NEWT GINGRICH

Former Republican speaker of the House

Arlen Specter’s decision to leave the Republican Party in name as he left it in spirit over the stimulus vote is further proof that high taxes, big spending and big government are unacceptable to Republican voters.

This switch is a function of personal survival and will make clearer the profound difference between the Democratic Party of big government, big bureaucracy, high taxes and big unions and the Republican Party of lower taxes, less bureaucracy and small business, with its emphasis on the work ethic, civil society and local control back home.

When congressional Republicans forgot that their party was the party of taxpayers and government reformers, they lost control in 2006. When they accepted the Bush big-spending plans of 2008, they further lost ground.

When Sen. Specter voted for a $787 billion big-spending bill no elected official had even read, he widened the gap between himself and the tax-paying small-government conservatives who are the base of the Republican Party.

It is clear that Specter concluded he would lose the coming Republican primary, and he admits in his statement on switching parties that the vote for the $787 billion spending bill was the final straw.

This defection will make the 2010 and 2012 elections an even clearer choice of two directions for America.

OLYMPIA J. SNOWE

Republican senator from Maine

The departure of my good friend Sen. Arlen Specter from the Republican Party is a tremendous loss. It illustrates not just the state of Pennsylvania politics but a larger problem within our party. With Sen. Jim Jeffords’ decision to become an independent in 2001, followed by defeats in 2006 (when I last ran) and additional losses in 2008 — elections that claimed 51 Republicans in the House and 13 in the Senate — we are headed toward having one of the smallest political tents in generations. We simply cannot expand a majority by shrinking the ideological confines of our party.

Last Tuesday’s announcement must compel serious soul-searching within the GOP. I have served in Congress for three decades, and I’ve always said there must be Republicans from across the political spectrum. I understand that there are places where being conservative reflects a particular constituency or geographic region. But just as Republicans cannot build a majority without conservatives, we cannot prevail in the future without moderates.

The bottom line is that we win when we solve problems and demonstrate that we are the ones who can govern most effectively — and when we adhere to fundamental Republican tenets of providing opportunity and thoughtful solutions. We are successful when we are attuned to the concerns and desires of hardworking Americans, and apply common-sense approaches relevant in their daily lives.

Ultimately, we should, as President Reagan urged, “emphasize the things that unite us and make these the only ‘litmus tests’ of what constitutes a Republican: our belief in restraining government spending, pro-growth policies, tax reduction, sound national defense, and maximum individual liberty.” We must heed these words to rebuild our party.

WILLIAM KRISTOL

Editor of the Weekly Standard and monthly Post columnist

On May 24, 2001, I wrote an op-ed for The Post in the wake of Vermont Sen. James Jeffords’ party switch. I argued that the switch, which cost Republicans control of the Senate, could well turn out to be good for President Bush.

Not entirely for the reasons I speculated on in the op-ed, I turned out to be right. Bush was still able to get enough cooperation to govern over the next year and a half, and he was also able to run successfully against the Democratic Senate in the fall of 2002. The GOP regained control that November.

Similarly and contrarianly, I wonder if Arlen Specter’s switch, this time to the president’s party, won’t end up being bad for President Obama and the Democrats. 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 balances in Washington — and, meanwhile, Specter’s party change probably won’t 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.

Plus, now the Democrats have to put up with him.

ED ROGERS

White House staffer to Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush; chairman of BGR Group

Notice to Republicans: Arlen Specter changing parties is good for the Democrats and President Obama and bad for us. If you think otherwise, put down the Ann Coulter book and go get some fresh air. There’s always a delusional element within the GOP that thinks if we lose badly enough the Democrats will gain so much power they will implement all their crazy plans, the people will revolt and purest Republicans will then be swept back into power. Even if this were true, it doesn’t take into account the damage done while our opponents are in control.

Specter didn’t want to be a Democrat. The party deteriorated to the point where there was no place for him. Who knows if he will be elected as a Democrat in November 2010? The damage will be done right away, when he votes with the majority. This is the latest in a series of wake-up calls the GOP should have gotten starting with the 2006 elections.

Despite this, I believe we have not lost the battle for ideas, because the Democrats don’t have any.

The Associated Press. All Rights Reserved.