There’s little more upsetting to a liberal than a member of a supposed victim group that strays off the reservation (by rejecting liberalism), and that’s apparently the sin Michelle Bachmann committed to get Arlen Specter to chastise her and tell her to “act like a lady.”
CommentsAs the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette reports, Specter’s comments came amid a contentious exchange on 1210 AM’s Dom Giordano Show. After Bachmann spoke at length, Specter started to respond and Bachmann interjected. Specter then asked Bachmann to “stop interrupting,” stating, “I didn’t interrupt you.”
“Now, wait a minute, I’ll stop and you can talk,” he said. “I’ll treat you like a lady. Now act like one.”
Print This Post
Politico got the scoop:
The American Conservative Union asked FedEx for a check for $2 million to $3 million in return for the group’s support in a bitter legislative dispute, then the group’s chairman flipped and sided with UPS after FedEx refused to pay.
For the $2 million plus, ACU offered a range of services that included: “Producing op-eds and articles written by ACU’s Chairman David Keene and/or other members of the ACU’s board of directors. (Note that Mr. Keene writes a weekly column that appears in The Hill.)”
The conservative group’s remarkable demand — black-and-white proof of the longtime Washington practice known as “pay for play” — was contained in a private letter to FedEx , which was provided to POLITICO.
The letter exposes the practice by some political interest groups of taking stands not for reasons of pure principle, as their members and supporters might assume, but also in part because a sponsor is paying big money.
…
After the rebuff, American Conservative Union changed sides. ACU Chairman David A. Keene was one of eight conservative leaders who signed a letter to FedEx Chairman Frederick W. Smith, a champion of capitalism who in the past has been a favorite of conservatives.
The letter accuses FedEx of “falsely and disingenuously” labeling the rules change a “bailout” for UPS, since FedEx would become subject to the same arduous union structure.
ACU responded with a statement that labeled the story “false:”
“An article containing a false headline has been published by Capitol Hill newspaper Politico today regarding an issue with expansion of the National Labor Relations Board.
This article concerns two letters; one issued by ACU and another issued by a separate organization.
Mr. David Keene’s name was on a letter prepared by another organization. This was a personal decision on his part and he was not representing ACU at the time. No permission was given by ACU, and no logo was provided by ACU, to the organization who issued the letter in question.
ACU’s policy position on this issue has not changed and it will not change.
ACU’s positions on important policy issues have never been for sale.
Does that mean we are to assume that the ACU’s positions are for sale on unimportant issues? I know, I know. That was a cheap shot. On to the merits.
Politico implies that the ACU is selling itself to the highest bidder. If this is true it’s certainly damning for the conservative organization. UPS denies paying anything, while the ACU insists that its position has not changed. The ACU release claims they still oppose the efforts of UPS to handicap their chief competitor with onerous union rules. The only evidence Politico presents to suggest otherwise is a letter signed by Keene, which includes the ACU logo, criticizing FedEx for likening the UPS position as a “Brown Bailout.” The letter does not endorse the UPS position on the union issue in general. So on its face, it does not support Politico’s implication that the ACU has “changed sides.”
Politico also labels the story as a pay-to-play issue. I don’t think that’s accurate. What the ACU did was offer itself as a PR firm to FedEx. That’s a bit different than a politician supplying political favors for money. There is a fine line that any ideological organization must be aware of here, but I don’t think it precludes their teaming up with those who stand to benefit from their positions, so long as the alliance is natural and not created merely for the sake of financial gain. In other words, the danger to avoid is taking positions just for the benefit of soliciting funding. Given that most conservative and libertarians take the side of FedEx already based on principle, there’s level evidence of that here. So it’s difficult to see this as pay-to-play.
So is that it? Is the ACU in the clear? Most certainly not.
If they had simply left well enough alone after FedEx turned them down there would be no story. The letter is where things get fuzzy. By signing onto a letter that is overly critical of FedEx on what is, at worst, a minor bit of self-serving political framing (of the type all political organizations – including the ACU – employ regularly), Keene was clearly sending a message. That message was: there are repercussions for turning down my offers. This is not pay-to-play; it’s extortion.
Keene argues that he signed the letter as a private individual and not on behalf of the organization. The ACU’s logo, however, appeared at the top of the letter along with the logos of the organizations to which the other signatories belonged. The ACU insists it was not sent to the group putting the letter together. Essentially, it was attached without their permission. This is plausible. But thanks to Keene, it doesn’t really matter. Either he willfully signed his organization onto the letter to enhance the weight of his Godfather-esque broadside aimed at FedEx, or he is simultaneously naive in not understanding how his personal actions reflect on his organization, and grossly negligent in allowing their logo to be used without permission.
This is not the first time Keene’s actions have been called into question. In 2003 he took heat from conservatives for endorsing liberal Arlen Specter over a principled conservative in Pat Toomey. A possible conflict of interest was suggested as an explanation. Regardless of the reason, his claim that, “[Specter's] word is always good,’” is laughable based on what we know today – and it should have been recognized as such even then. It certainly reflects poorly upon his judgment in how best to advance the conservative movement.
Although Politico’s reporting went overboard and was a bit reckless, the ACU’s defense against the more outlandish charges are weakened by Keene’s very real missteps. The best way for the organization to salvage the situation and begin to regain credibility is to ask for Keene’s resignation. Though if he truly believes in doing what’s best for the conservative movement, he won’t have to be asked.
Comments Print This Post
Marc Ambinder at The Atlantic asks for an explanation:
The GOP has basically been eliminated from the Northeast by the purists so there aren’t many great examples.
Contrast that with how Democrats treat people like Mark Prior, Jon Tester, and Ben Nelson. These Senators aren’t anywhere near ideal for Democrats, as a quick glance at the Netroots sites will affirm.
But they don’t have to fear primaries by party mutilators like Pat Toomey.
Why do Dems treat their Dogs differently
Is it a function of power? Or party traditions?
The difference, such that there is, is explained by the different manner in which Republicans and Democrats secure votes. Democrats do not have a cohesive ideology; rather, they are a party existing purely to win power. They do so by launching money at key interest groups and voting blocs. Essentially, they bribe enough constituencies to vote for them until they have a majority. This tactic requires little ideological conformity from party members, beyond a simple willingness to go along to get along.
Republicans win by representing an ideology. Specifically, one of small government and fiscal restraint. They lose when they do not represent this ideology or try to be like Democrats. When they hurl money at constituency groups, they bleed ideological support while gaining little new adherents. Those receiving this largesse are thankful, no doubt, but they know they could always get even more if Democrats were in power.
Because the Republican party has to sell itself ideologically, it must, on the whole, convincingly represent that ideology. Party members such as Lincoln Chafee, Arlen Specter, Olympia Snowe and Susan Collins consistently undermine that image. This costs the party more seats than they provide. Cutting out enough of these miscreants, such that the party can once again be seen as representative of the small government ideology, is necessary to its regaining majority status.
But so long as the media trots out only liberals, who treat the parties as two sides of the same coin, to explain the significance of events within the Republican party, they will reach conclusions that are 180 degrees off. But that’s fine by me, as it means the liberals will, once again, be taken completely by surprise when they are booted out of office.
Comments Print This Post
I heard this morning that Arlen Specter was changing parties. Upon investigation I was sad and dismayed to learn he’s still a democrat:
Veteran Republican Sen. Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania disclosed plans Tuesday to switch parties, a move intended to boost his chances of winning re-election next year that also will push Democrats within one seat of a 60-vote filibuster-resistant majority.
“I now find my political philosophy more in line with Democrats than Republicans,” Specter said in a statement posted on a Web site devoted to Pennsylvania politics and confirmed by his office. Several Senate officials said a formal announcement was expected later in the day or Wednesday.
…Specter faced an extraordinarily difficult re-election challenge in his home state in 2010, having first to confront a challenge from his right in the Republican primary before pivoting to a general election campaign against a Democrat in a state that has trended increasingly Democratic in recent elections.
What’s amazing here is that he would just come out and admit that this is nothing more than naked opportunism. He was getting crushed in the early polls by Club for Growth President Pat Toomey, who narrowly lost the last primary battle, and that was before Specter sealed his unprincipled betrayal by supporting the porkulus bill.
Practically this makes little difference. The talk will be about how this gives democrats a 60 seat filibuster proof majority (counting the soon-to-be Senator Smalley), but that just obscures the fact there was already a 60+ seat liberal majority, thanks to the likes of Arlen Specter, Olympia Snowe and Susan Collins.
The upside is that now even the morons at the RNC will be able to figure out to stop supporting Arlen Specter at the expense of principled conservatives.
Comments Print This Post
Sorry, no posts matched your criteria.
I am a libertarian-conservative blogger living in the DC area. I have a Master's degree in Political Science, but please don't hold that against me.
