'Makeover' viewing party
Bedrooms in 'Makeover' house
Exterior of 'Makeover' house
Ellen Belcher is the Dayton Daily News opinion pages editor. She writes about state government, education, the environment, higher education and all things Dayton.
Martin Gottlieb is an editorial writer and columnist for the Dayton Daily News opinion pages. He focuses on the political process itself and does such national issues as war, the economy, taxes and Social Security, as well as a hodge-podge of local and state issues.Home > Blogs > A Matter of Opinion > Archives > 2009 > April > 30 > Entry
Martin Gottlieb: Specter’s problems show limits for Ohio Republicans, too
When Arlen Specter announced Tuesday that he was leaving the Republican Party, an e-mail labeled “Good Riddance” was sent out by the National Republican Congressional Committee (whose job is to elect Republicans to the House of Representatives).
Meanwhile, the chairman of the Republican Party, Michael Steele, referred to the dearly departed’s voting record as “left-wing.”
These reactions must win the attention of other Republicans who don’t always toe the party line.
If Specter is a left-winger, where does that leave Sens. Olympia Snowe and Susan Collins, the Republicans from Maine who bolt from the party more often?
How many other good-riddances do the party officials have in them?
The next senatorial name that comes up is George Voinovich. This is true for a couple of reasons.
One is that, as you travel from Maine down into the heart of the country, the first Republican senator you come to is now Voinovich, except for Judd Gregg, the fellow from New Hampshire who accepted a nomination to the Obama Cabinet before he rejected it. (Like Voinovich, he is retiring.)
The North is where senatorial independence from the line of the Southern-based party is most likely to raise its head, precisely because life is so difficult for Republicans up here.
Another reason Voinovich’s name must come up is that he was the last Republican senator to leave the room in negotiations over the stimulus. His was the vote the Democrats came closest to getting, but lost.
That was the crucial issue in the Specter story. He voted for the stimulus, then concluded that the vote probably precluded his renomination.
On the day after Specter flipped parties, The New York Times ran a chart showing which senators have most often voted differently than their party’s majority this year. Snowe and Collins were the highest-ranking Republicans. Specter was next.
Voinovich was next. He voted with the party only 68 percent of the time, compared to Specter’s 65 percent.
He was, for example, one of only nine Republicans voting to confirm Kathleen Sebelius as secretary of Health and Human Services. That was fundamentally a vote against playing partisan games and against bowing to the warrior conservatives in the party.
He was also one of six Republicans (the four mentioned above, plus Utah’s Orrin Hatch and Indiana’s Richard Lugar) to vote for congressional representation for the District of Columbia.
Most typically, Voinovich is there for the Republicans on the big ones. But being there only “typically” is about one step away from being a “left-winger” in some eyes.
Over the years, Voinovich’s posture on taxes, on Iraq and a few other issues has resulted in the frequent charge from the Wall Street Journal editorial page and assorted Rush Limbaugh Republicans that he is a RINO (Republican in name only).
Most congressional Republicans won’t risk being unpopular with the Limbaugh people these days.
When Voinovich announced that he will not seek re-election, Sen. John Cornyn, of Texas, who is heading the effort to elect Republican senators, said that, while he was disappointed, he sees an opportunity to put forth “new, energetic, fresh-faced candidates who are articulators of the Republican message, and I like our chances.”
Maybe that wasn’t exactly a slap at Voinovich, but the truth is that articulating the Republican message isn’t the activity one associates with Voinovich. He’s more into the nuts and bolts of real-life governance than ideology.
So it’s interesting to contemplate what would have happened if Voinovich had supported the stimulus and had decided to seek re-election.
Ohio has a lot in common with Pennsylvania, politically speaking. Both are urban states where the Democrats are ascendant now, but not always.
Ohio might be considered more conservative than Pennsylvania, not having gone consistently for Democrats in presidential elections lately.
But, on the other hand, Ohio Republicans at the state level haven’t typically been warrior conservatives like Sen. Rick Santorum, who lost his Pennsylvania seat in 2006, or the man who was beating Specter in the Republican polls this year.
Former Ohio Republican Sen. Mike DeWine was much in the Voinovich vein.
But, still, there is that Ken Blackwell strain of the party for the Voinovich types to worry about.
Clearly, the Republicans representing Ohio don’t have much freedom to maneuver. Voinovich has taken the independence thing about as far as it can be taken.
The next degree of independence is Specter, the “left-winger” who is being bidden “good riddance.”
Permalink | Comments (5) | Post your comment | Categories: Columns, Martin Gottlieb, Ohio politics
Comments
By George
May 1, 2009 9:24 AM | Link to this
Despite yor condescending commentary, the Republican party is FINALLY starting to see the light. After drifting leftward, the Specters, Voinovitches and Dewines of the party are stepping aside to allow the party to regain its original principals of limited government, lower taxes and respect for our constitution. Republican voters were underwhelmed with McCain and now the nation is paying a heavy price. The Republicans must wake up, since 2010 may be our last chance to save the country from western European Socialism….or worse.By Raoul
May 1, 2009 9:57 AM | Link to this
Martin, you have put your finger on one of the great problems we currently face as a nation. There are simpleBy RAW
May 1, 2009 10:57 AM | Link to this
I think the Specter migration is just additional evidence to the real problems this country faces. Politics and political power seem to outweigh what is right for America. We need to reevaluate our party sytems. I used to believe that political parties were a necessary piece of our government. I have come to the conclusion that the parties merely exist to create strife and discord between themselves and hence the American people. Whenever I think of congressional debate, I envision the two sides of the chanting back and forth at each other “Great Taste…Less Filling”. Meanwhile, nothing gets done and taxpayer money continues to be wasted and the economy furthers its march toward total meltdown. Feeble attempts at bipartisanship are made in word alone and no real effort is put forth to genuinely listen to the other side. Both parties are guilty of this and none can claim that they are the party of understanding. If you disagree, you are ridiculed and ostracised forcing allegiances that are in the long-term detrimental to the country. In the meantime, life goes on and the majority of the country simply wants the economy to improve, national secutrity to stabilize, and their lives to be a little les troublesome. Washington only has the ability to address one of these topics, national security. The rest must be addressed in the private sector and on the personal level. Washingto needs to stop making promises it cannot ever hope to fulfill, and concentrate on stabilizing our position in the world, securing our nation and ensuring that personal liberties we were granted under the contitution. We are capable of running our lives and do not need the likes of these politicians to do so for us. They would do well to remember that fact. In 2010, this country will remind them of that if they choose to continue to forget it,.By joe_mamma
May 1, 2009 11:01 AM | Link to this
I had decided a couple of years ago that I would never vote for George Voinovich again. I think it was his crying on the Senate floor over John Bolton going to the UN that did it. If he was not retiring and supported the stimulus I would definitely think that he would face a primary opponent who is a conservative. Conservatives are tired of voting for Republicans who are not much different than Democrats.By Tom
May 1, 2009 1:41 PM | Link to this
Interesting commentary. Republicans tend to drive out those who don’t meet what the Party stands for. Is that so bad? Democrats stay “United” behind misguided leadership. No matter what the offense is Democrats seem to come to the aid of thier own. If I have a problem with Republicans, they tend to bow to the media and get rid of our best at the hint of a problem.