<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Thank God for Arlen Specter</title>
	<atom:link href="http://sites.middlebury.edu/presidentialpower/2009/04/29/thank-god-for-arlen-specter/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://sites.middlebury.edu/presidentialpower/2009/04/29/thank-god-for-arlen-specter/</link>
	<description>A NonPartisan Analysis of Presidential Politics</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Wed, 21 Nov 2012 15:45:52 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.5.1</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: Vijay</title>
		<link>http://sites.middlebury.edu/presidentialpower/2009/04/29/thank-god-for-arlen-specter/comment-page-1/#comment-3036</link>
		<dc:creator>Vijay</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 30 Apr 2009 21:08:36 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://sites.middlebury.edu/presidentialpower/?p=173#comment-3036</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Sorry for a consecutive post, but I neglected to note that the current frontrunner in PA Republican primary polling is Pat Toomey, by a long shot (even when Specter was in). Toomey also happened to be the president of the Club for Growth for more than 3 years, after getting $2 million from them in his 2004 primary challenge to Specter. Taking as given the PACs are weaker than they used to be, Toomey is still a very formidable individual.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Sorry for a consecutive post, but I neglected to note that the current frontrunner in PA Republican primary polling is Pat Toomey, by a long shot (even when Specter was in). Toomey also happened to be the president of the Club for Growth for more than 3 years, after getting $2 million from them in his 2004 primary challenge to Specter. Taking as given the PACs are weaker than they used to be, Toomey is still a very formidable individual.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Vijay</title>
		<link>http://sites.middlebury.edu/presidentialpower/2009/04/29/thank-god-for-arlen-specter/comment-page-1/#comment-3030</link>
		<dc:creator>Vijay</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 30 Apr 2009 18:04:25 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://sites.middlebury.edu/presidentialpower/?p=173#comment-3030</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[@ Martin

I should have been more clear - CfG isn&#039;t the ONLY player in this &quot;cleansing&quot; of the Republican Party, but it had been influential. Lincoln Chafee attributes his general election loss in 2006 to the pounding he took from the CfG during the primary, and then the guilt-by-association of the increasingly ideologically-pure Republican Party (as symbolized by CfG types).

So, CfG has been a major player in promoting the removal of RINOs and replacing them with hardliners. Certainly, there have been other groups, but CfG is a big one.

Primaries allow hardliners to promote/force an agenda onto a candidate that may make him/her less viable in a general election. Likewise, outside funding of candidacy is something of a &lt;i&gt;quid pro quo&lt;/i&gt; relationship, meaning candidates are pressured to support ideas they may not have. The Specter and Chafee situations demonstrate both problems.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>@ Martin</p>
<p>I should have been more clear &#8211; CfG isn&#8217;t the ONLY player in this &#8220;cleansing&#8221; of the Republican Party, but it had been influential. Lincoln Chafee attributes his general election loss in 2006 to the pounding he took from the CfG during the primary, and then the guilt-by-association of the increasingly ideologically-pure Republican Party (as symbolized by CfG types).</p>
<p>So, CfG has been a major player in promoting the removal of RINOs and replacing them with hardliners. Certainly, there have been other groups, but CfG is a big one.</p>
<p>Primaries allow hardliners to promote/force an agenda onto a candidate that may make him/her less viable in a general election. Likewise, outside funding of candidacy is something of a <i>quid pro quo</i> relationship, meaning candidates are pressured to support ideas they may not have. The Specter and Chafee situations demonstrate both problems.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Martin</title>
		<link>http://sites.middlebury.edu/presidentialpower/2009/04/29/thank-god-for-arlen-specter/comment-page-1/#comment-3025</link>
		<dc:creator>Martin</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 30 Apr 2009 02:54:34 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://sites.middlebury.edu/presidentialpower/?p=173#comment-3025</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[In reference to the earlier comment:

By now, like the rest of you, I&#039;ve seen the umpteenth finger pointed at the &#039;Club for Growth&#039; PAC.  Surely, Matt, you&#039;ll have a demographic reason for Specter&#039;s dilemma that explains why $2m spent by one reactionary PAC remains causally irrelevant. 

But if you feel CfG has been a major player in carrying out purges and giving us today&#039;s ideologically zealous Republican Party, then there are other parts of this story I&#039;d be fascinated to hear. 

How about the ways past party purges were conducted?

How about PAC influence during a Presidential term?  For one thing, can you give us a more definitive account of how deeply Grover Norquist shaped the legislative agenda under Bush II?

Cheers,

Martin]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>In reference to the earlier comment:</p>
<p>By now, like the rest of you, I&#8217;ve seen the umpteenth finger pointed at the &#8216;Club for Growth&#8217; PAC.  Surely, Matt, you&#8217;ll have a demographic reason for Specter&#8217;s dilemma that explains why $2m spent by one reactionary PAC remains causally irrelevant. </p>
<p>But if you feel CfG has been a major player in carrying out purges and giving us today&#8217;s ideologically zealous Republican Party, then there are other parts of this story I&#8217;d be fascinated to hear. </p>
<p>How about the ways past party purges were conducted?</p>
<p>How about PAC influence during a Presidential term?  For one thing, can you give us a more definitive account of how deeply Grover Norquist shaped the legislative agenda under Bush II?</p>
<p>Cheers,</p>
<p>Martin</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Vijay</title>
		<link>http://sites.middlebury.edu/presidentialpower/2009/04/29/thank-god-for-arlen-specter/comment-page-1/#comment-3023</link>
		<dc:creator>Vijay</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 30 Apr 2009 01:21:56 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://sites.middlebury.edu/presidentialpower/?p=173#comment-3023</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Jack, the Club for Growth (one of the most ironically-named groups ever named) is likely a major opponent of Ridge. Ridge is too pro-choice, and too moderate on defense to be viable among the extreme remainder of the Pennsylvania Republican Party, who listen to/agree with the Club For Growth.

I think the Specter thing solidifies the movement of the Democrats to occupy the center, where the Republicans used to be. The real question is whether the Republicans see this regionalization/marginalization (see Snowe&#039;s NYT op-ed) as a good thing or not. If they do, then the modern two-party system may be in danger, as the Democrats could fracture from being &quot;too wide&quot;. This is a longer view, but it is fascinating to see the evolution of the parties over the past 30 years.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Jack, the Club for Growth (one of the most ironically-named groups ever named) is likely a major opponent of Ridge. Ridge is too pro-choice, and too moderate on defense to be viable among the extreme remainder of the Pennsylvania Republican Party, who listen to/agree with the Club For Growth.</p>
<p>I think the Specter thing solidifies the movement of the Democrats to occupy the center, where the Republicans used to be. The real question is whether the Republicans see this regionalization/marginalization (see Snowe&#8217;s NYT op-ed) as a good thing or not. If they do, then the modern two-party system may be in danger, as the Democrats could fracture from being &#8220;too wide&#8221;. This is a longer view, but it is fascinating to see the evolution of the parties over the past 30 years.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Jack Goodman</title>
		<link>http://sites.middlebury.edu/presidentialpower/2009/04/29/thank-god-for-arlen-specter/comment-page-1/#comment-3021</link>
		<dc:creator>Jack Goodman</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 29 Apr 2009 21:02:13 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://sites.middlebury.edu/presidentialpower/?p=173#comment-3021</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Matt, Do you have any figures on how Specter might do if his Republican opponent is Tom Ridge?]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Matt, Do you have any figures on how Specter might do if his Republican opponent is Tom Ridge?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
