BCT Editorial – 5/6/09

This page was last updated on May 31, 2009.

Middle ground; Editorial; Beaver County Times; May 6, 2009.

The editorial subtitle is “Ridge’s poll results show the importance of non-ideological voters.”

Below is a detailed critique of the subject editorial.

“A poll taken last week shows the toll the Republican Party’s march to ideological purity is having on its chances of winning elections.”

[RWC] Yet another editorial covering a myth. If you expect the editorial to describe the principles covered by “ideological purity,” you will be disappointed. It doesn’t happen.

“The Associated Press reports a survey by Connecticut-based Quinnipiac University showed U.S. Sen. Arlen Specter, as a Democrat, with a large lead — 53 percent to 33 percent — over former U.S. Rep. Pat Toomey, a Republican.

“It was Toomey’s strong showing within the Republican ranks that led the 79-year-old Specter, who will be seeking a sixth term next year, to switch parties. Specter openly acknowledged that as it stands now, Toomey would have beaten him in the GOP’s primary election.”

[RWC] The editorial fails to note this is the second time Mr. Specter switched parties. Mr. Specter started out as a Democrat.

“But there was another match-up the poll asked about that should be a wakeup call for Republicans, and not just in Pennsylvania.

“The poll asked those surveyed to decide between Democrat Specter and former GOP Gov. Tom Ridge, who also served as President George W. Bush’s first national homeland security secretary.

“The results were revealing. The two men were virtually tied — 46 percent for Specter and 43 percent for Ridge, who, at last check, was a pro-choice moderate. (The survey had a sampling error margin of plus or minus 2.9 percentage points.)

“Specter still isn’t popular within the GOP. Republicans backed Toomey 74-18 versus Specter and Ridge 82-10 against Specter.

“But in a general election match-up, Ridge does far better than Toomey against Specter. Obviously, the former governor attracts more Democratic and independent voters, and the latter are the voters who make or break a candidate’s election chances.”

[RWC] Could familiarity and name recognition benefit Mr. Ridge vs. Mr. Toomey? Mr. Ridge was a two-term governor and as the editorial noted was “President George W. Bush’s first national homeland security secretary.”

Mr. Toomey, on the other hand, was a three-term U.S. rep who didn’t run for a fourth term in 2004 because before his initial election he promised to serve only three terms. Mr. Toomey’s only statewide foray into politics was in the 2004 Republican primary against Mr. Specter. President Bush and Sen. Rick Santorum, following the strategy of blindly supporting the incumbent, supported Mr. Specter over Mr. Toomey. Even so, Mr. Specter won by only 50.8% to 49.2% (17,143 votes out of just over one million votes).

“Whether the Republican purists like it or not, general elections in the United States are decided by independent and/or centrist voters who are non-ideological — and they’re a political force to be reckoned with.”

[RWC] As noted above, the editorial never describes what constitutes a “Republican purist.”

“[N]on-ideological.” Translation: People who are like smoke in the wind because they have no core principles to drive their positions.

“Nationally, 38 percent of Americans identify themselves as independents and 35 percent call themselves Democrats, according to The Philadelphia Inquirer. Meanwhile, only 21 percent identify themselves as Republicans.”

[RWC] Here’s a poll you can bet a Times editorial won’t cite. As I wrote in my critique of “The politics of hope,” “According to a late-October [2008] Battleground Poll (self-described as a ‘bi-partisan survey’), 59% of those surveyed claimed to be either ‘very’ or ‘somewhat’ conservative. 36% claimed to be ‘very’ or ‘somewhat’ liberal (poll terminology).”

“By insisting on ideological purity, the Republican Party is even turning off voters who lean its way. That’s why 200,000 registered Republicans in Pennsylvania switched to the Democratic Party last year.”

[RWC] So the Times actually queried the alleged “200,000 registered Republicans in Pennsylvania switched to the Democratic Party last year” and they replied “ideological purity” was the problem? I wonder how many of those alleged 200,000 Republicans switched parties so they could participate in Rush Limbaugh’s “Operation Chaos” to keep then-Sen. Hillary Clinton’s primary campaign alive?

As a reminder, some of those “Republicans” weren’t real Republicans.

“Of course, anything can happen in American politics, and fairly quickly. But as things stand right now, the Republican Party is making a hard job even harder by abandoning the middle ground of American politics.”

[RWC] Just as the editorial didn’t define ideological purity for Republicans, it doesn’t describe the principles behind “the middle ground.”

“The Ridge-Toomey-Specter results aren’t the exception, they’re the rule.”

[RWC] Finally, exactly why should Republicans take seriously advice from a proven political enemy?