Sound familiar?

Arlen Specter's case against the republican party and his defection to the democratic party:  "As the Republican Party has moved further and further to the right, I have found myself increasingly at odds with the Republican philosophy," he said.

Democratic senator Zell Miller back in 2003-4

He argued that the Democratic Party, as it now stands, is a far left-wing party that is out of touch with the America of today and that the Republican Party now embraces the conservative Democratic ideals that he has held for so long.  He believes his own Democratic Party is badly out of step with most of the country and needs to shape up or ship out.

In 2003 a commentary in the Long Island Business News described the then conventional wisdom on the Democratic party: 

"Nationally, the Democrats are floundering all over the place, with eight or nine presidential candidates desperately in search of a theme that will resonate with the voters.

With 17 months to go before the presidential election, and President Bush enjoying high popularity ratings, Democrats are confused and confusing to all concerned."

2009 and the republican demise:

"Specter's decision provides further evidence that the party is continuing to contract, especially outside the South. Northeastern Republicans have gone from an endangered species to nearly extinct. Obama's victory in Pennsylvania in November was due in part to a sizeable shift in party registration toward the Democrats. Republicans have lost ground in the Rocky Mountains and the Midwest in the past two elections. That is no way to build a national party."

If the democrats have taught the pundits and the voters anything, it is that you just don't go around pronouncing a party dead when things go bad.  The democrats of 2002-2005 were done.  Ha.  How many of the same pundits now telling us the republicans may never be a viable party again told us the same thing about the democrats 6 years ago?  

Maybe complete disarray is what a party needs to sort the wheat from the chaff.  Obviously the experts were wrong about the democrats needing to get more to the center if they ever wanted to win again.  Will they be proven wrong when they tell republicans the same thing?

Comments

[Rand]

Diane, your point is very valid. I have to laugh when I read the Democrats will now be in control for many, many years. I certainly don't feel confident of that. Don't these people remember anything? The move in the last six years in our direction shows how quickly things can change.

Still, it is a valid point that the Republicans need to embrace a larger tent. And I think you are wrong if you are sayng the Dems haven't moved to the center. Part of the reason Dems have been successful is because they have opened up to more moderate members where needed (like Jon Tester of Montana, Ben Nelson of Nebraska, etc). And the Dems HAVE moved to the center. Whereas ten years ago to be a good Dem you would pretty much have to be anti-gun, anti-NRA. The Dems now embrace more than just a few pro-gun candidates; and it's has reaped some surprising Dem endorsements by the NRA. That's a move to the center.

Republicans lost Specter because it became clear the more conservative element of the party was going to fight to defeat Specter in the next Rep primary, with very good odds they would succeed. That in turn would most likely have turned that Senate seat over to Dems in the general election. Essentially, Specter was kicked out of the Republican Party. Can Olympia Snowe be far behind?