The Repbulican "Brand"

Arlen Specter left the Republican party this week. No big loss as I see it. He never was a conservative voice or even a vote to be counted on for the republicans. Some, perhaps many, would say it is because he voted his conscience, but I don't see it that way at all.

Understand, I have no problem with, and in fact applaud, those who would disagree with their party on matters of principle. I disagreed vehemently with President Bush on refusing to veto spending bills. I would have stood up and cheered for any republican or democrat representative or senator who did the same. Unfortunately that didn't happen enough. The republicans seemed to think it was their turn at the trough.

Specter was greeted like the prodigal son and hailed by democrats as a man of principle and conscience. Someone willing to go against the current at great risk - implying that he finally got a clue (and a soul). Funny - they never said that about Joe Lieberman with his stance on the war. In fact the two situations are polar opposites.

Lieberman knew that he risked political suicide by taking the stance he did on Iraq and national defense. It was almost the case. He so infuriated the party bigwigs they refused to back him when he ran for re-election. He managed to run as an independent and win. Due to, I believe, the fact he did show he was a man of principle who had the courage of his convictions.

Specter, on the other had, is the antithesis. As little as two weeks ago he stated that he had no intention of switching parties. In fact in 2001 when senator Jeffers from Vermont abandoned the republican party to become an independent; senator Specter stated he wanted to change the rules to prohibit congresspersons from changing parties in the middle of the term. But Specter, seeing the looming specter of defeat, decided to jump ship to save his political hide. Even though he tried to parse it, he also admitted he knew it would be impossible for him to win the republican primary in Pennsylvania and nearly impossible to win the general election as an independent. So it wasn't a case of principle or being his own man. It was a case of surviving politically at any cost.

The whole thing got me thinking about the Republican brand. What does it need to be in order for the party to resuscitate itself?

Well, they need to quit talking about Reagan and, instead, act like Reagan. Reagan didn't worry about trying to
please and appease in order to bring people to the conservative movement. Instead he talked about reigning in government spending and building a strong national defense. On other issues he said that we could have our differences and just agree to disagree.

Too many republicans these days talk about widening the tent to encompass more people, but, in doing that, they end up with no identity and nothing to rally around. They need to get it down to basics. I began saying long ago - and continue to this day -

"There is a very great difference between conservatives and liberals. Conservatives believe the role of government is to protect us from all enemies - foreign and domestic. Liberals believe the role of government is to protect us from ourselves."

Take it from there. Be it gun control, nationalized health care, welfare, global warming, or any other issue, the differences between conservatives and liberal positions on issues can all be followed back to that statement.

I gladly grant the right of use for that statement to any conservative politician who has the smarts to pick it up.

Like Reagan - they shouldn't worry about expanding the republican party. They should be more concerned about expanding conservative ideas and ideals.