Specter’s Dilemma
Pat Toomey nearly beat Arlen Specter in a 2004 primary. Earlier this year, he ruled out another primary challenge to Pennsylvania’s senior senator, but more recently he’s been ruling it back in. This sets up an interesting dilemma that Dave Weigel explains:
A weekend poll showed that 66 percent of Republicans, boiling over in anti-stimulus anger, would support replacing Specter. But only 42 percent of Democrats oppose Specter. A slight plurality of Democrats want to keep him, and that’s complicating Democratic efforts to find a first-tier challenger against the senator.
In 2004, Specter benefitted from the support of unions like the AFL-CIO. If Specter votes for the Employee Free Choice Act, he knows he will probably win union support that’s crucial for the general election while firing the starting gun for conservative groups who are only really useful to him in the primary.
In the 2007-2008 congress Specter, no doubt in part as a token of appreciation for that AFL-CIO support, was the lone Republican to back EFCA. If he votes for it again this congress, it’ll be tough for him to win the primary. But if he votes against it, I think he’ll find it tough to win the general election when his support from Democratic-leaning interest groups vanishes. I doubt Specter will avail himself of this option, but the obvious solution would be to stick to his guns on EFCA and follow up his support for the stimulus by switching parties and, like Jim Jeffords, reposition ideologically somewhat. In other words, stop being a vulnerable moderate Republican and become a plain-vanilla Democrat with a safe seat. It would be pretty easy for Specter, as a Democrat, to beat GOP nominee Toomey in a general election. But beating Toomey in a primary without becoming too right-wing to carry the state will be tough.
115 Responses to “Specter’s Dilemma”
Register
RSSLogin
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog RollAbout Matt YglesiasContact Me
Donate
March 3rd, 2009 at 9:40 am
Specter was a Dem in the 70s, no?I’d much prefer a brand spanking new Democrat than him, but the marginal value of a 59th Democratic vote is pretty high.
My guess is that Specter is too stubborn to go this route, however. I hope Reid/Durbin are looking into it, however.
March 3rd, 2009 at 9:41 am
How about, he has actual principles, and has deemed himself a conservative and a Republican?
Not all political loyalties are for sale, you know, Yglesias?
Conservatives actually believe in the things they are doing, unlike liberals.
In any case, hurray for Pat Toomey. Keep the pressure on. I wouldn’t actually want the Republicans to lose another northern seat, but the threat of a torch to his ass does help remind him what party he is in and, and hopefully get him to do the right thing.
March 3rd, 2009 at 9:42 am
Again, three cheers for Toomey. I don’t want you to actually win, but you are doing a first-rate job serving party and country.
March 3rd, 2009 at 9:42 am
And if he doesn’t switch, what’s the best option for us here? A far-right nutjob like Toomey, or, say, Barletta would probably be an easier November prospect than Specter. But what if the GOP actually wins? I’d rather keep Specter in that case.
March 3rd, 2009 at 9:46 am
In fact, four, nay, five cheers for Pat Toomey! Conservatives believe things! They don’t switch parties like Demosocialistcraps! Ask Richard Shelby or Phil Gramm!
March 3rd, 2009 at 9:46 am
From the AP article:
“The only declared Democratic candidate — Philadelphia civic leader Joe Torsella — is a virtual unknown in statewide politics.”
Well, that will be the contender either Specter or Toomey will be looking at in the general election; daresay, for Specter, a “virtual unknown” like Joe Torsella looks mightily easier to beat than Toomey……
Die, card check, die!
March 3rd, 2009 at 9:48 am
Also from the AP article:
“In 2004, Specter beat Democratic U.S. Rep. Joe Hoeffel by 590,000 votes.”
I say the primary challenge looks a lot more challenging than the general election won by more than half a million votes.
March 3rd, 2009 at 9:53 am
Or Ben Nighthorse Campbell. Or John Connally. Or Strom Thurmond. Or Thad Cochran. Or Jesse Helms. Or Michael Steele. Or Norm Coleman. Or Ronald Reagan.
Unprincipled dogs, all of them. Right, Myles?
March 3rd, 2009 at 9:53 am
He might be able to pull a Lieberman. With a third of Republicans supporting him and only 42% of Democrats strongly opposing him he could win a tight, three-way race. It would be harder in PA than CT. It has much more diverse demographics and it is much bigger. It would take a lot of money.
If he gets most of the Republicans who support him (~16% of electorate),and half the Democrats who don’t mind him (~15% of electorate), he’d be close. If the Republicans nominate a total whacko, he could pick up a bit there. If the Democrats don’t put up someone who inspires confidence, he could improve there.
On the other hand, if Rendell decides to run, Spectre should just vote his conscience for the rest of his term, because he’s done.
March 3rd, 2009 at 9:55 am
Are you saying this about Arlen “The Weathervane” Specter?
March 3rd, 2009 at 9:57 am
In 2004, the Dems had roughly half a million more RVs than the GOP. Its now up to a million, and growing.
There’s that 500,000 vote margin.
March 3rd, 2009 at 9:58 am
Just how old is that file photo of ol’ Arlen?
March 3rd, 2009 at 10:00 am
Pulling a Lieberman would require that the Democrats swing to support him because they don’t see any prospect of having a better candidate (from their point of view) win. But in PA, I don’t see this happening. The Dems would still mostly support whomever the primary winner is, and a Specter third party candidacy would simply split the GOP vote, almost guaranteeing a Dem pick-up.
In addition, Specter’s a relative moderate on a lot of issues but he’s not an outright liberal on critical issues to Dems, while Lieberman was a full bore on hawk on the war, which was a critical issue to the GOP during that election.
March 3rd, 2009 at 10:00 am
Specter’s conservative enough that he would likely face Democratic primary challenges too, isn’t he? He’s just an odd duck in our modern political landscape. I think Njorl’s scenario make a lot more sense than Specter suddenly becoming a Democrat.
Maybe he and Lieberman could form a “calculating bastards that nobody likes but who win anyway by splitting the electorate” caucus.
March 3rd, 2009 at 10:01 am
This isn’t Specter’s dilemma so much as the Republicans’ dilemma.
On a national basis, the Republicans are screwed for the next 8-12 years. The question is what kind of party they want to be when they get a chance to emerge from the wilderness afterwards. There may be something to be said for purging the heretics now in the hope of maintaining the true faith when the hypothetical day of redemption arrives. Alternately, they may want to remake themselves into a center-right party, rather than an extreme-right party, in anticipation of having a future shot at power.
The dilemma for Pennsylvania Republicans is that even if there may be some true believers in the PA state party, they still want to maintain their influence and presence with Washington, and that requires keeping Specter around, rather than purging him in a hissy fit.
So this is a dilemma that goes beyond Specter, and for Myles, the set of incentives is more complicated than he realizes (though he gets it right from the perspective of someone who believes that the answer for the Republicans is to be the pure right-wing party 10 years from now).
March 3rd, 2009 at 10:03 am
Given that the GOP is in a sort of Conservative post-1997 situation, does anyone else find it ironic that Specter, if he were 20 or 30 years younger, would be the perfect David Cameron analogue?
March 3rd, 2009 at 10:05 am
Myles seems uninterested in the context here. Specter beat a second-tier candidate (a congressman from northeast Philadelphia) in large part because the unions endorsed him. Specter outspent the Democrat by about 4-1, $20 million to $4.5 million. Despite all of that, Specter only ran 4 points ahead of George W. Bush.
The reason only a no-namer has declared on the D side is that Democrats are waiting to see if a Toomey arises to soften Specter up, or even to beat him.
March 3rd, 2009 at 10:06 am
Unprincipled dogs, all of them. Right, Myles?
I quote Reagan: “I didn’t leave the Democratic Party; It left me.” I think the same could very well be said of Strom Thurmond, who won as a write-in Senate candidate because the old-line Democratic voters in SC so detested the new-line party.
In any case, it has become quite pathetic to fight against self-obviously insane things like card check. This is the sort of level American discourse has descended to. It has become the land of obese welfare bums and out-of-touch elite Democrats like that multi-millionaire Nancy Pelosi.
I wonder if I ought to move to Dubai. At least they run their society with common sense, not according to some ivory-tower Pol Sci class. People are pursuing economic opportunities with intelligence and with a minimum of taxes; Dubai is the future and is the 21st century; Democratic-controlled, heck, even soft-Republican U.S., is not.
March 3rd, 2009 at 10:10 am
I mean, it is insane that we are even having those debates about card check or tax hikes or whatever. What’s new top tax rate, 39.6%? You are giving away a good 40% of your income to the government!
What’s the rate in Dubai? 5%. People who work in Dubai for a few years get to save up for a decent chunk of down payment.
And somehow Obama is trying to convince me that U.S. is the future? Well, not when all the newest buildings are being built in Dubai! Can you even imagine an indoor ski slope being built in New York City? That is the true audacity of hope, daring to defeat every barrier to progress, man-made or natural!
March 3rd, 2009 at 10:10 am
PA Dems have also taken the State House of Reps, took a Senate seat by double-digits, held the Governor’s house by 20 pts, and flipped the House delegation from 12 Republicans to 12 Dems. (If Gerlach runs for governor, it goes 13 Dems).
The political landscape has shifted somewhat, I agree.
March 3rd, 2009 at 10:12 am
Don’t forget that he probably would have lost to Toomey if Bush and Santorum and the national party hadn’t come to his defense, reasoning only Specter could keep that seat. He won’t have that support — such as it is — this time around.
Specter is also 80. He could retire without embarassment. Also his age and longevity in the Senate (and Philly politics before that) may make it so that even people who kind of like him — the 42% of Democrats, for instance — opt for a “change,” just ’cause.
March 3rd, 2009 at 10:12 am
Craigo, to be fair, Ben Nighthorse Campbell was an unprincipled dog.
And Myles, you might want a bit of a reality check when it comes to Dubai. Also, keep in mind that Dubai went through a speculative bubble driven by increased searches for “the greater fool.” After an initial flood of capital from “the smart money,” the reality is that by the time people like you, Myles, have heard about the great opportunities there, it’s a safe bet that the ship has sailed and you’ve missed out on the opportunity, much like people who got into real estate investing in 2005.
March 3rd, 2009 at 10:13 am
“In 2004, Specter beat Democratic U.S. Rep. Joe Hoeffel by 590,000 votes.”
Some people appear not to have noticed, but things changed after the 2004 election. Exhibits A and B are the 2006 and 2008 elections. In the former, for example, in the Senate race in Pennsylvania, Bob Casey beat the odious Republican incumbent, Rick Santorum, by more than 700,000 votes, and more than 17 percentage points.
March 3rd, 2009 at 10:13 am
Most 78 year old brain cancer survivors would look to retire about now. IF Specter wins another 6-year term he would be what, 86, by the time his term is up. He should be put out to pasture right now and stick with what his heart tells him to do for the next 2 years.
March 3rd, 2009 at 10:13 am
Actually, the real shift in the political winds here in Philly is that local billionaire Walter Annenberg died.
While Walter was alive, he and his posse were Republicans– Nixon made him Ambassador to the UK.
Walter’s old man Moses old man crossed Franklin Roosevelt in a Democratic primary, Franklin put Moses Annenberg in prison on some tax charge , and Moses died there.
March 3rd, 2009 at 10:16 am
See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moses_Annenberg and
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Walter_Annenberg
Tip O’Neal got it wrong — all politics is not local.
All politics is personal.
March 3rd, 2009 at 10:17 am
It is a temporary aberration. Dubai is still the future; the U.S., run by a bunch of incomprehensible Dems, is not. We should not be having those insane debates. At least Sheikh Mo knows what he is doing. Obama should be taking lessons from him on how to really run and develop a country.
March 3rd, 2009 at 10:18 am
It’s also worth noting that Dubai, like many of the petro-states, is built on slave labor.
So was America, but it’s odd that such a fervent defender of economic freedom would endorse the UA in this respect.
March 3rd, 2009 at 10:18 am
Whether democrats seriously contest the seat is an interesting question. One would think they would at least have a shot at knocking Specter off anyway. But I was in Illinois when Moseley-Braun became a senator. In that case the incumbent was a democrat who was more popular among republicans than democrats. The republicans ran a non-entity expecting him to lose to Dixon. When Moseley-Braun won a primary in which her two opponents savaged each other she was able to win the general election only because she was essentially running unopposed.
That is not a mistake democrats should make.
March 3rd, 2009 at 10:19 am
Right, and there’s no possibility that Specter could think that he didn’t leave the Republican Party but it left him. That would be crazy, eh?
March 3rd, 2009 at 10:21 am
… this is with PA having a chunk of Appalachia where Obama did not do as well versus Kerry as he did nationally.
Yep, it’s because the Philadelphia suburbs, which powered all of Specter’s election bids, surged towards the Democrats as Republicans sped up their march into social conservative wingnuttery. In 2004, Specter carried every county in eastern Pennsylvania except for Philadelphia. In 2008, Obama carried Philly and 10 more counties in eastern Pennsylvania.
The warning signs for this came with all of those registration switches that were mentioned upthread, but Republicans convinced themselves that these voters were dopey PUMAs who hated Obama.
March 3rd, 2009 at 10:22 am
Gee, yet another conservative idiot who doesn’t understand how marginal tax rates work. Get your accountant to explain it to you.
By the way the top tax rate was 95% under that noted Communist, Dwight Eisenhower. As we all know, the 50s were one of the economically worst decades in American history. Not.
March 3rd, 2009 at 10:25 am
For your country’s sake and all our sakes, the answer is yes.
March 3rd, 2009 at 10:25 am
I am talking about the top effective tax rate, not marginal.
March 3rd, 2009 at 10:27 am
“I wonder if I ought to move to Dubai.”
Please do. But it’s a sinking ship now, and normally the rats don’t swim towards a sinking ship. Also, you might consider the fact that foreigners don’t have any rights in Dubai. And they are rarely allowed to own businesses. You will be at the mercy of your boss, who can withdrawal your visa at any time. And you might consider that some of the profits you make for your employer will be used to finance Islamic terrorism. If that sounds appealing to you, then move there.
March 3rd, 2009 at 10:29 am
fostert, Tyro: Ixnay with the ubaiDay ealismray.
March 3rd, 2009 at 10:32 am
Dubai is still the future
LOL! I’m gonna file this next to Fred’s “the reason we have any problems at all in America are because of all the black people” for future reference.
Better trolls, please.
March 3rd, 2009 at 10:32 am
If you’re paying personal income tax at an EFFECTIVE rate of 36.5 %, you don’t just need to talk to your accountant, you badly need a NEW accountant.
If you’re actually trying to talk about CORPORATE taxes, you’re just obfuscating (whether deliberately or not I won’t presume to guess)by quoting a nominal rather than an effective rate (our loophole-ridden corporate tax structure has an effective rate WAY below the nominal rates.) This information is readily available.
March 3rd, 2009 at 10:38 am
Myles:
Reality:
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/a15c89ac-01d1-11de-8199-000077b07658.html
Dubai is built up on the same thing that the US housing market was built up on: speculation. They have no oil $$, everyone assumed that they did, but the real player in the UAE is Abu Dhabi – and they are not too happy with the “western way” that Dubai has gone in the last 10 years. Look for some serious changes in Dubai in the next 10. In 10 years it will look more like Tehran, and less like Las Vegas.
March 3rd, 2009 at 10:39 am
Generally, when someone even CONSIDERS leaving the US for some place like Dubai, I hope they do.
As for Specter, I don’t think he can count on the same conditions he had in 2004- the voter registration in PA has swung wildly toward the Dems, there’s barely any moderates LEFT to vote in Republican primaries, and even Torsella (who’s got the backing of the Rendell machine, which can’t be overstated) will put up a better campaign than Hoefell (he’d just about HAVE to).
That being said, I can’t see Specter jumping ship- at this point, it’s his personal mission to secure the moderate wing of the Republican Party, even if he IS that wing.
March 3rd, 2009 at 10:39 am
Reading Myles’s and other conservatives’ invective directed at America as it actually is really makes me wonder how we became the “blame America first” crowd, and how we ever let them get away with accusing us of “hating America”.
March 3rd, 2009 at 10:41 am
They’ve always been the masters of projection. Any time you want to know what shenanigans they’re up to, just look at what they’re accusing liberals of doing.
March 3rd, 2009 at 10:44 am
“How about, he has actual principles, and has deemed himself a conservative and a Republican?”
I mean, hooray for cheering for your party and all. But Specter may well be the most inclined person to change his views to stay in office in the entire Senate. You know as well as I do whether he votes for the EFCA and health care reform will be virtually entirely determined by what he deems a bigger threat: the primary or the general. He voted for the stimulus because Toomey had ruled out a run at the time, and may well not have if Toomey were making a lot of noise.
If *those* are your conservative principles that you’re proud of him for standing for, then…wow.
March 3rd, 2009 at 10:45 am
“but the real player in the UAE is Abu Dhabi”
It seems having a cautious investment strategy and lots of oil have paid off for Abu Dhabi.
March 3rd, 2009 at 10:52 am
Arlen Specter will be 80 years old in 2010 and is a cancer survivor. I’d say it’s pretty likely he’ll just retire.
March 3rd, 2009 at 11:09 am
Myles, if you want to actually fool people when you’re spoofing, you can’t go quite as far as calling for the US to become Dubai.
March 3rd, 2009 at 11:12 am
Dubai is an idiot country. It is a child spending it’s inheritance. The people there do not work, they do not innovate. The pump the oil from the ground sell it and hire foreigners to work. Not only is the nation morally repugnant it is simply impossible that the United States (except Alaska) could follow it’s example.
March 3rd, 2009 at 11:19 am
The thing is, the EFCA vote is likely to come up well before any filing deadline for candidates for 2010. (And Democrats should certainly insure that it does). Basically, if Specter votes for it, he’s pretty much guaranteed an easy ride in the general election – the AFL-CIO will back him and no first tier Democrat is likely to enter the race.
But if Specter votes against it, the AFL-CIO will make damn sure that there’s a decent candidate in the mix, and that he gets a lot of money – an apostate is always worse than someone who just disagrees with you.
March 3rd, 2009 at 12:11 pm
How about Chris Matthews vs Toomey? Is Matthews still interested?
March 3rd, 2009 at 12:27 pm
It’s time for Arlen to wake up and smell the coffee. He’s pushing 80, has had a number of serious health issues. It’s time to retire and enjoy what life he’s got left.
It’s only ego and vanity that keeps him in the senate.
I have to wonder if he’ll live to the 2010 election.
March 3rd, 2009 at 12:54 pm
Conservatives know nothing about taxes. Or the economy in general. Or the military. Or the American middle-class. They openly root for America to fail. They wish terrorist attacks, torture, and death on Americans who disagree with their dogma.
And they claim to be true American patriots. Who want to move to Dubai. America: love it or leave it, Myles.
March 3rd, 2009 at 1:06 pm
Ok, I’m now pretty sure that Myles has been a spoof all this time. He was always fucking stupid, but I had a sliver a doubt. This ‘move to Dubai’ stuff went a little too far. John Emerson, if’s that you out there, step out and take a bow.
March 3rd, 2009 at 1:09 pm
Not only is the nation morally repugnant
American puritanism at its most hideous.
And they claim to be true American patriots. Who want to move to Dubai.
My position on this is the same as the Britons who elected to leave Britain in the 50’s, 60’s, and 70’s. The country was basically going to hell under trade union socialism, and to remain is to submit to the collectivist, atavistic evil. To vote with your feet in emigrating, so to speak, is to stand up to the evil; for otherwise it will continue unabated. Much like John Galt in Atlas Shrugged, so should top talent shun confiscatory jurisdictions; it is a moral imperative. Every man has a duty to resist fiscally tyrannical government, democratic sanction or no. There is no hope for the U.S., if it can’t even match Dubai-level salaries and tax rates. A competent, vigorous fellow in his early 20’s with a good education can fetch, on average, an 65-75k salary. In Dubai, the number is nearly double that, with much lower government taxes. The talent, then, according to free-market principles, must gravitate toward Dubai (as has been the case with lots of British talent).
March 3rd, 2009 at 1:14 pm
Or look at it this way: if the talent market is monopolised on a national basis, there is no incentive for the government to reach an equilibrium-level tax rate. For if not for the threat of brain drain and emigration, the government has little incentive to adjust the tax burden to the economically-optimal level; the competition for tax and investment between different tax jurisdictions will necessarily force the tax burden to reach competitive levels; if not for this competition, there would be no external restraint on fiscal sanity.
March 3rd, 2009 at 1:21 pm
‘I quote Reagan: “I didn’t leave the Democratic Party; It left me.”’
Right, and there’s no possibility that Specter could think that he didn’t leave the Republican Party but it left him. That would be crazy, eh?
Arlen Specter, who voted for the stimulus bill that was opposed by Congressional Republicans by a 99.7 – 0.3% margin?
Arlen Specter, who voted for the Employee Free Choice Act?
I find it incredibly easy to believe that Specter would change parties, and be able to do so without “selling out” his principles at all. His principles are, and always have been, well to the left of where the Republican Party is today.
March 3rd, 2009 at 1:24 pm
How about, he has actual principles, and has deemed himself a conservative and a Republican?
Not all political loyalties are for sale, you know, Yglesias?
Conservatives actually believe in the things they are doing, unlike liberals….
There is no hope for the U.S., if it can’t even match Dubai-level salaries and tax rates. A competent, vigorous fellow in his early 20’s with a good education can fetch, on average, an 65-75k salary. In Dubai, the number is nearly double that, with much lower government taxes. The talent, then, according to free-market principles, must gravitate toward Dubai
Intere$ting to $ee what principle$ tho$e true-believing con$ervative$ actually believe in, becau$e it $ure a$ hell i$n’t patrioti$m.
March 3rd, 2009 at 1:38 pm
Myles, in your comment #60, what you fail to realize is that Dubai only functions as a “parasite economy” on the back of the countries that actually work for a living. In a sense, yes, they can attract outside talent by offering ultra-low tax rates, but that talent wouldn’t exist in the first place without the countries that have higher tax rates to begin with. Workers can take advantage of this level of arbitrage (using the skills and capital they gained in a country with a real country to cash in on the incentives offered by a parasite country), but that’s all it ever will be: an available arbitrage opportunity which, as we can see, is imploding with great drama at the moment.
A functional economy needs people who actually create stuff and do innovative things, rather than feed off tourism and tax shelters. Pick a scientific conference and see how many of the presenters are from a Dubai university. Look at how many venture-capital-backed technology companies are started in Dubai. What manufacturing goes on in Dubai? For the past couple of years, Dubai has tried to prop up its ongoing bubble by trying to attract the rubes of the upper-middle-class into investing in its phony economy. And you, Myles, are one of the “marks” they’ve targetted.
Myles, you’re not coming down on the side of advocacy for freedom. You’re coming down on the side of pledging fealty to tyranny in exchange for money.
March 3rd, 2009 at 1:42 pm
Now we’re getting John Galt references.
This is some good trolling work, Myles. Bravo!
hahaha… John Galt… hilarious.
March 3rd, 2009 at 1:54 pm
I have nothing against people fleeing oppression for a safer environment — say, the 10 million or so American blacks who fled the segregated South for less (not zero) repression elsewhere, such as mid-Western and Western cities. Or the Salvadorans and Guatemalans who fled U.S.-hired death squads and genocidalists to the U.S.
Surely it’s exactly equivalent when trust-funded private college attending youngsters want to flee to Arab monarchies to find better tax rates.
WOLVERINES!!!
March 3rd, 2009 at 1:54 pm
Miley is of South Asian extraction, correct? If he fucks off to Dubai, he’ll be mistaken all the time for the coolie help. He’ll have to dress up in the dishdash, though I suspect that will suit him fine.
(I actually know lots of people who went off to work in Saudi and Dubai and Abu Dhabi in the 1980s. It was because Thatcher took a steaming shit on the industrial skilled-trades in Britain.)
March 3rd, 2009 at 2:16 pm
Miley is of South Asian extraction, correct?
East Asian. Or what could physiologically be described as Mongoloid.
March 3rd, 2009 at 2:16 pm
Surely it’s exactly equivalent when trust-funded private college attending youngsters
Regrettably, I do not have the benefit of the trust fund. I know some people who do; it is admittedly a charmed life.
March 3rd, 2009 at 2:21 pm
Dubai has tried to prop up its ongoing bubble by trying to attract the rubes of the upper-middle-class into investing in its phony economy.
The upper-middle-class, by definition, are not originators of significant investment. As far as I understand it in the American definition, the upper middle-class is a professional class subsisting on earned, rather than investment, income. This is in fact also the class for whom Dubai is most attractive; it offers them precisely much higher incomes for comparable talents, with much lower tax rates. Or, in lay parlance, you earn and pay out less.
You have got it precisely upside-down. Upper-middle-class people do not invest their wealth in Dubai; they derive income from it. Those who do invest in Dubai are the wealthy, investor classes.
March 3rd, 2009 at 2:23 pm
My point still stands:
March 3rd, 2009 at 2:26 pm
He might be able to pull a Lieberman.
I vaguely recall that this is illegal in Pennsylvania — a candidate who runs in a party primary and loses cannot then run in the general as an independent. I can’t verify this, though, and my information would be about ten or twenty years old anyway, so I could be wrong.
[Oh, and Myles is an idiot.]
March 3rd, 2009 at 2:28 pm
…because surely, tax levels are the only plausible area of competition for resources.
That’s why all of those college-educated technocrats flee to Mississippi from the Greater Boston area.
You’ve gotta hand it to Dubai, though – they sure have made great strides with their program of massive public-sector investment.
March 3rd, 2009 at 2:28 pm
Pick a scientific conference and see how many of the presenters are from a Dubai university.
The Rochester Institute of Technology is opening a Dubai campus, and will be offering the whole range of programs there.
Just as New York University has opened a campus in Abu Dhabi, or Cornell in Bahrain.
March 3rd, 2009 at 2:29 pm
That’s why all of those college-educated technocrats flee to Mississippi from the Greater Boston area.
Response: Dubai salary levels.
March 3rd, 2009 at 2:44 pm
You have got it precisely upside-down. Upper-middle-class people do not invest their wealth in Dubai; they derive income from it.
Because of Dubai’s position in having exhausted the available pool of “smart money,” that could invest in Dubai and use it as a playground for the rich, the country was forced to go on in search of others with money to invest that could be used to purchase condos/vacation homes, invest in audacious construction ventures, and spent on pseudo-exotic vacations…. and, as well, be convinced that Dubai was a place with many available working opportunities. A bubble needs to go in search of new investors to keep the bubble up, and the upper-middle-classes were just those marks.
Also, Myles, in the same way that you claim that people can “go John Galt,” bringing their countries to a halt by refusing to participate, you forget that Dubai only exists because of the goodwill of countries that provide the infrastructure to provide anyone worth visiting and investing in Dubai. The existence of Delaware and South Dakota, for example, does not convince other states to change their regulatory regimes to compete with them. Instead, they are allowed to exist within the small-market niche in which they have carved out for themselves with full knowledge that such a niche would not even exist were it not for the existence of the rest of the economy.
Also, Specter owes his job to the support of the unions. If he doesn’t want their support, then he’ll be out of a job. If Republicans don’t want to hold on to a seat in PA, they can let it go, but PA Republicans probably aren’t keen on that idea.
The Rochester Institute of Technology is opening a Dubai campus
Something which would not be possible if places like RIT didn’t exist in the first place.
March 3rd, 2009 at 3:18 pm
So if it were true competition had the effect of moving all countries to their optimal taxation rate, it could work in either direction for a given country.
Of course it could. Taxes can be too low as well as too high. What is important is that there be external constraints and incentives for countries to set their tax rates on market-efficient levels.
March 3rd, 2009 at 3:19 pm
It should also be noted that the residents of Dubai are subjects, not free citizens. Of course some people don’t mind being lap dogs for oligarchs.
In my case, I would be neither subject nor citizen; I would be a resident alien holding another country’s citizenship and working in Dubai. I would have no obligation to the Dubai government nor it toward me.
March 3rd, 2009 at 3:37 pm
I would have no obligation to the Dubai government nor it toward me.
i.e. the whore’s maxim.
March 3rd, 2009 at 4:00 pm
Myles:
Reality:
So $2,000/month = $24,000 per year is somehow 65-75K Salary to Myles. I love his optimism, but I don’t buy his math. Oh, and enjoy those “freedoms” and debtor’s prisons!
http://www.lankanewspapers.com/news/2009/2/39568.html
March 3rd, 2009 at 4:20 pm
Why do you all waste your tiem debating Myles he is either:
A) an elaborate bit of performance art
B) what he claims. Which means he is a east asian kid who read too much Evelyn Waugh who is soon to be in for some harsh realities when he discovers being an arrogant twit with a finance degree who can quote conservative British writers is a great qualification for asking “Do you want frys with that?” in the current job market.
March 3rd, 2009 at 4:21 pm
“Why do you all waste your time debating Myles”
Because it’s entertaining, why else? The same reason he trolls, if in fact he is a troll.
March 3rd, 2009 at 4:21 pm
“So $2,000/month = $24,000 per year is somehow 65-75K Salary to Myles. I love his optimism, but I don’t buy his math. Oh, and enjoy those “freedoms” and debtor’s prisons!”
No, no. 65-75K is apparently what someone in their early 20s makes *here* (which I suppose would apply to an entry-level position in a desired engineering field from a top 10 school…not sure what else). Dubai is *double* that apparently, notwithstanding the article’s claim that a civil engineer with four years experience starts at roughly $45k over there.
Oh, and enjoy the $272k fine for “damaging the country`s reputation or economy”. Because, you know, Dubai can do that, since it’s effectively a dictatorship.
Something tells me Myles would be one of the ones abandoning his car at the airport, frantically trying to flee the country before being thrown in debtors’ prison. Or is there some other reason why he’s not there already, living in his paradise?
March 3rd, 2009 at 4:45 pm
Dubai is *double* that apparently, notwithstanding the article’s claim that a civil engineer with four years experience starts at roughly $45k over there.
If you haven’t noticed, the articled referred to an Iraqi engineer with (presumably) Iraqi qualifications. I am talking about Westerners with Western qualifications. And yes, the pay scale in Dubai is varies considerably between the two.
In any case, I wasn’t talking about engineering; I was talking about things like management consulting.
Oh, and enjoy the $272k fine for “damaging the country`s reputation or economy”.
Why you think I would get myself into something like that is beyond me.
Or is there some other reason why he’s not there already, living in his paradise?
I am in the process of obtaining my qualifications.
March 3rd, 2009 at 4:50 pm
Dubai – Swimmin in shit
March 3rd, 2009 at 4:56 pm
From the long and interesting comments thread to this post:
Miley’s just a silly kid, amusing in a laughing-at rather than laughing-with way. A hint: when you’re a grown-up, re-read The Great Gatsby and Brideshead. Or go to Dubai, and have people treat you like a coolie because of the way you look.
March 3rd, 2009 at 6:57 pm
I dare say Sheikh Mo would be a much superior chief executive than Barack Obama. At least he has a modernising vision of the 21st century, of innovation, of achievement, and unaffected by petty political-correctness shibboleths.
March 3rd, 2009 at 11:11 pm
Did anyone ever ask Reagan to ask, specifically, how the Democratic party left him? I’d love to know a specific reason or two he’d have had for saying that.
March 3rd, 2009 at 11:12 pm
Whoops. Nice grammar on my part there. Let’s try that again:
Did anyone ever ask Reagan, specifically, how the Democratic party left him?
March 3rd, 2009 at 11:13 pm
That’s exactly the point, Myles. The real challenge to him is Toomey, and he has a better shot against Toomey in the general, rather than among the Republican primary electorate.
March 4th, 2009 at 12:31 am
Why does everyone continue to indulge Myles? Anyone who goes on like him about what a right cracking good time it must have been to have lived under a colonial regime is either an obvious troll or is trying his damndest to lap the field in the Upper-Class Twit of the Year competition.
March 4th, 2009 at 12:40 am
The real challenge to him is Toomey, and he has a better shot against Toomey in the general
I wouldn’t bet on the bastard switching parties; he’s pretty weak-kneed.
March 4th, 2009 at 12:42 am
I do enjoy how resisting tyranny has morphed into picking yourself a tyrant you like.
Ever considered the ideological-consensus tyranny of political correctness?
Just the other day I was called out for making a mild Mexican joke; really quite unsportsmanlike.
March 4th, 2009 at 12:47 am
Lord Miley Foppington, June 2008:
Oops.
Lord Miley Foppington, January 2009:
Oh, the hilarity. Let’s call him “Upper-Class Twat of the Year”, though.
March 4th, 2009 at 1:01 am
Despite it being curious that you would like others who would want to actually create, rather than take away, wealth, I digress.
I think it’s a pretty safe bet Barack Obama will not push card check hard enough for it to actually come down to the single Specter vote. If indeed it passes as precariously as that, we are looking at political chaos.
I think Mr Obama, with his brains, would recognise this; if he doesn’t, well, good luck. I have already heard from a bunch of moderate, affluent people who voted for the O-Team in 2008 that they would most certainly vote against the Democrats if card check passes, even more so than income tax hikes.
Their votes are actually likely miniscule; what’s significant, of course, is that the Divine O will lose his fund raising advantage vis-a-vis the Republicans.
In any case, I suggest impeachment if it passes. Or the Republicans can simply refuse to sit for the rest of the Congressional term, denying Mr Obama any cover of legitimacy. (The Texas Democrats tried to pull this a while back, I believe)
March 4th, 2009 at 1:05 am
And to be honest, I have never been much of a Republican. The name, frankly, offends in and of itself. What sort of a conservative calls himself a republican? Has he never read Greek? And the social conservatives are pretty creepy, if not outright camp. And the likes of Hector, who are essentially Neanderthals. And the neoconservative fools.
No. Much more a High Tory, in the Curzon, Milner, and Halifax tradition.
March 4th, 2009 at 1:57 am
Has there ever been a US Senator (or House member or Governor) who has defected from one party to another and then back again? Specter flipped in ‘65, long before he arrived in the Senate but that angle would still be played up, no?
March 4th, 2009 at 2:24 am
Just the other day I was called out for making a mild Mexican joke; really quite unsportsmanlike.
Heavens to Murgatroyd! You were upbraided on an Internet forum for making an off-color joke? Say it ain’t so! That’s much worse than being thrown in debtor’s prison!
Or the Republicans can simply refuse to sit for the rest of the Congressional term, denying Mr Obama any cover of legitimacy. (The Texas Democrats tried to pull this a while back, I believe)
A capital idea! You do realize that both houses of Congress require a simple majority for a quorum, right? So all this would do is guarantee that every single item on Obama’s agenda passes by voice vote.
March 4th, 2009 at 3:14 am
You were upbraided on an Internet forum
No, in the college library.
So all this would do is guarantee that every single item on Obama’s agenda passes by voice vote.
I doubt he would actually dare do such a thing. There is the optics of it, you see.
March 4th, 2009 at 3:21 am
Much more a High Tory, in the Curzon, Milner, and Halifax tradition.
No, really, Miley: I have spent many years among High Tories. High Tories are friends of mine. You are no High Tory.
Stop playing dress-up, you silly arse. It’s bad enough that we have Hector the mediaeval knight, without having a wannabe Bertie fucking Wooster.
March 4th, 2009 at 9:21 am
High Tories are friends of mine.
I think you meant “wets”, not high Tories. Different things. John Major is not a high Tory. Nor is Heath. Nor is Macmillan. And most certainly not Cameroon. You might even be talking about that new trend, Red Tories.
A high Tory is more like Alan Clark, Enoch Powell, Lord Thorneycroft, and the like. Very staunch right-wingers generally.
March 4th, 2009 at 9:49 am
I quite like Hector. There’s something admirable about a guy willing to follow his moral philosophy down the road it leads, even if it means less power and wealth for himself. Myles, however, is all about fantasizing about living in an authoritarian society where he thinks he will be on top. The reason we poke at him is because it’s so entertaining… eventually, if you prod him enough, he will end up saying something completely ridiculous, providing us with much hilarity. He’s the sort of character that you would think only exists in satires about the socially desperate.
March 4th, 2009 at 10:07 am
No, in the college library.
Oh, dear. That’s much worse than I had originally imagined. You’re like a modern-day Mandela. Please accept my apologies.
I doubt he would actually dare do such a thing. There is the optics of it, you see.
Let me see if I understand you correctly. The Republicans should respond to Obama enacting the policy agenda he ran on by taking their ball and going home. And this will somehow reflect poorly on Obama. Yeah, brilliant optics.
March 4th, 2009 at 10:34 am
I rather like Nelson Mandela; however, not in the way you would (he is what Gandhi would have called a “knowing lion”). So please don’t ruin it for me.
And no, it wouldn’t be bad optics for the Republicans to throw down the gauntlet on card check. Have you seen the poll numbers for this piece of intended legislation? Wouldn’t stand on its own hind legs even if Mr. Obama bent over and grabbed its ankles (alright, bad joke).
It is not like it would be a total surprise or anything; conservatives have been dead-set against this piece of junk forever. Need I remind you that just because voters endorsed Obama by a healthy margin it does not mean that they endorsed every single one of his policies. And that’s what Congress is for.
March 4th, 2009 at 1:19 pm
How easy would it be to run as an independent? If I remember hearing that PA is a rough climb if you run as an independent or as a third party.
Lincoln Chaffee would have cruised to reelection if he quit the GOP.
Labor likes Specter a lot and if he supports EFCA you will see it go to the wall for him, which means a lot in PA politics, which would help him in a Democratic primary or if he runs as an independent.
March 7th, 2009 at 8:41 pm
Gahahaahahahahahahaha – Dubai as the future!
Funniest thing I’ve read all day.
March 8th, 2009 at 11:57 am
“Conservatives actually believe in the things they are doing, unlike liberals.”
And therein lies the problem: the only way for conservatism to make sense is to believe in it.