Ayotte, Brown and Murkowski are either crazy or they fear being primaried by crazies. All of them voted for the Blunt amendment, which permits any employer to deny medical coverage of anything based on religious or moral objections. It was aimed at preventing women from gaining access to the pill regardless of the patient’s moral framework or in some cases gynecological condition (i.e. endometriosis), but heck they could apply it to anything. Smokers could be denied lung cancer coverage AFAIK. Get injured while practicing karate? Hey, your employer is a penny pinching pacifist - you’re out of luck. I shudder to think what would happen if the boss converted to certain Christian Science sects.
Olympia Snowe, alone among Republicans, voted against it. Did any offer amendments? Not to my knowledge.
I could tell a similar story about Ryan’s medicare phase-out act.
Qin: It’s not the personality of these characters. It’s their perception of their electoral situation and relationship with the leadership, who will permit no meaningful dissent. Things could change in six years: for now there are no moderate Republicans in Washington. None. Taking Note - The New York Times
Let’s not forget: most American married couples believe in contraception. Heck, most Catholic married couples believe in contraception. So this is a bizarre figleaf to paste upon an incredibly anti-consumer medical insurance bill.
How specifically is Ayotte a moderate? Glancing at her wiki page, her positions seem pretty inline with the rest of the GOP. Global Warming denier, extension of all Bush tax cuts, against Dodd-Frank, end estate taxes, further cut in Capital gains taxes, anti-gay marriage, wants to repeal the ACA, supports Arizona’s anti-immigration law, pro-life, etc, etc.
FWIW, here’s an opinion piece from a blog that makes a similar argument to what I was saying earlier in the thread. She was in a position with a lot of leverage to influence legislation, if she thought the Bush tax cuts, or the Stimulus Bill or Dodd-Frank were bad ideas she could’ve blocked or fundamentally changed them. If she thought they were good ideas her support could’ve made them stronger and better. Instead, she just kind of putzed around in the margins, splitting the difference and revelling in her “moderateness” for its own sake.
“Moderate” doesn’t mean you half-ass everything, but that seems to have been Snowe’s stance.
As the link says, her Op-Ed reflecting on her time in the Senate doesn’t spend any time listing her own accomplishments, despite the fact that she was in a position to be one of the most influential legislators of the last ten years. She blames lack of fellow moderates in the Senate, but her own timidity seems equally to blame.
Hey, it’s fine to dis her as a shitty legislator – maybe she is, I don’t know enough about her to have an opinion, but a willingness to compromise doesn’t make her a shitty legislator.
Former Reagan officials have been increasingly critical of the current state of the Republican Party. Its not even supply side economics anymore, its Grover Norquistonomics.
The Republicans have taken “tacking to the center” during the general election to an artform. Obama ran his general election campaign on almost exactly the same rhetoric as he ran his primary cmapign. If Santorum wins the primary, he will sound like an entirely different candidate. If Romney is the winner, he will sound like an entirely different set of candidates.
I think you’ve lost track of what was being discussed. Measure for Measure mentioned Murkowski as a candidate who was either crazy or afraid of being primaried by competitors who are crazy. I pointed out that she already lost a primary to such a candidate in 2010 - a Tea Party candidate who ran a campaign that was hilariously inept. That allowed Murkowski to become the first person in 50-plus years to be elected to the Senate as a write-in candidate. Do you think a win like that encourages Murkowski to tack right or left in her second term? Do you think she would prefer to shore up her credentials with the Republican base, or try her luck as a write-in candidate against a novice and a weak Democratic candidate again?
We are expecting an announcement later tonight on whether or not former governor Angus King (I) will run for Snowe’s seat in the senate. If he runs, I can guarantee you he’ll be elected by a landslide that will make Reagan-Mondale look like a stalemate.
The man is practically revered as a god in this state.
Pretty liberal, from what I can tell. Big on renewable energy. Supported GWB in 2000 but then Kerry and Obama. Seems very likely to caucus with the Democrats.
ETA: I should add that it’s more likely that King running helps the GOP regardless of where he would caucus. An independent is how the Tea Party guy got elected Governor in 2010.
Not as an immortal god, I hope, and he’s 68 years old, rather late to be starting a Senate career – his first term probably will, and certainly should, be his last.
Yeah, he was about an arm’s length away from being a Green candidate when he was governor. You may be right about helping the GOP. I can see a lot of votes being split betwixt King and Pingree.
Update: Angus King did, in fact, announce his plans to run for the Senate. Meanwhile, Pingree is wavering - she put out a statement after King announced going on about the importance of winning back the house, but that she’s still thinking about it.
I’m a bit torn. I’d vote for either one of them. And, as Jas09 pointed out, and I originally discounted, therein lies the rub, huh? They could easily split votes and send some Tea Party freakshow to the Senate instead.
Hmm, I would think it would help the GOP more if he runs as a Republican. If he doesn’t, I would think it would help the Democrats because they will come out in droves to vote against the inevitable teahadist who would win the GOP nomination, possibly making the difference in the vote for Maine’s general election delegates for Obama.