Olympia Snow – Republican Party’s Most Moderate Senator – What her Departure Means in the Grand Scheme of the GOP/DNC Divide

Olympia Snow with Susan Collins - Republican Moderates Maine - image time.com



Three-Term Senator, Olympia Snow of Maine has decided to call it quits, just months before the Maine Primary in June, basically handing a Senate Seat to the Democrats in November. Snow, whose career has endeared her own political party’s opposition, is one of a handful of “moderate Republican’s” in the Senate who caucus most often with their Democrat peers. Snow would have been easily reelected, according to news sources, although she faced two challengers in the GOP primary, there are four Democrats vying for the vacated Senate Seat.

Although snow is blaming “gridlock” and the “tone in Washington” as the reason for her retirement, the few moderates in the Senate, are more responsible for the gridlock than they can personally acknowledge - There is a difference between one being part of a political party and adopting the party ideology – voting straight party lines, and one who holds their convictions, but votes in the interest of their state, crossing the aisle to do so, if the other “team” has a better idea (See Scott Brown (R-MA) – versus the individual who represents a political party, yet votes with the opposing ideology over 70% of the time. In fact, Olympia Snow, rather than being a moderate Republican was more of a Democrat. Had she run as a Democrat, she may not have won those three terms, Maine having a somewhat quasi-Conservative streak, therefore one has to ask – what difference will it make should a Democrat take Snow’s seat – Not much in theory and practice, but on paper – the Republican Party loses a seat, and the media makes hay.

The Democrats are also deluded into thinking that they now will regain control of the Senate and the Congress, given the media accounts of Snow’s seat obviously going blue (and not, perhaps thinking things through, or just using the obvious implications as Public Relations. How Democrats will show this as a loss to Republican’s remains a mystery, but with a little help from the media, it appears they are winning the PR game.

Follow this logic: If one is not specifically tied ideologically to a political party, and they hold a public office, voting consistently with the “other party”, then one can be seen as somewhat of a hypocrite, or political opportunities. One of the two challengers to Senator Snow, Republican Ian Dodge, when disgusted with the Maine Republican primary contest, (and one must surmise other factors having to do with the GOP), he switched party affiliation, and is now running as an Independent (Bangor Daily News). There have been several Congressional Representatives and Senators, since the political party systems began, (which our founders warned against by the way) who switched sides as their ideology or options for reelection have changed. There is a reason why there should be multiple parties within these United States, (and there are, but weak, both in number and financially), in order to offset the “machines” that are the GOP and the DNC, having nothing to do with “the people” rather the power of those who hold the office. Therefore, what we currently have are those in office, either blue dog Democrat or Moderate Republican who are there solely for personal gain, not to serve their people. If they were there to serve, they'd switch affiliation and vote that parties platform.


The Collins-Snow Male Dopplegangers - image cable.foreignpolicy.com


Snow leaving for reasons of “gridlock”, are somewhat amusing, considering, Gridlock is when nothing takes place, there is no forward movement – had she voted on occasion, (with the other Moderates), the process would have moved forward, or not, depending on which “team” had the ball at the time. Gridlock in Washington results when both parties have only a small margin to get enough votes to do anything – and when four or five break ranks and go Democrat (Snow, Collins, etc.), everything stalls.

Therefore, this is much ado about nothing, there is no change, and both parties, will be the better for her retirement, as will the people of the State of Maine.

A Maine Fact: (which may clarify the politics at play) – was part of Massachusetts until the Missouri Compromise in 1820 – Those in the Senate wishing to balance the number of Free versus Slave States, gave Missouri Slave Status, but needed a Free State – Massachusetts was willing to oblige and gave the nation: Maine. Consider the ideology of Massachusetts, although considered a Blue (if not the bluest) state, there is a strong Independent streak, with the majority of the electorate undeclared (declaring a party only when one wishes to vote in a primary – then un-declaring once on has cast their vote. Although there is a remarkably strong liberal leaning, that is not the entire state, but the section West of the City of Westfield and north of the Holyoke – where if one takes a Sunday drive, one can still find little hippy festivals in the middle of summer – throughout the hill towns, as if traveling back in time to the 1960’s.

Is Maine much different when one leaves the coast – where tourism and factory outlets are prevalent?

Or Vermont – complete with the only Communist Senator in the nation?

Hardly.

Therefore, in this opinion, it is not a loss or gain for either party, but perhaps a gain for the pubic, that Senator Snow has decided to retire. Perhaps there are a few more that would join her, or declare themselves Independent, Communist, Green Party, what have you and stop being such a pack of hypocrites (this goes for both sides of the aisle.) As she was heading for victory by virtue of the (r) next to her name on the ballot (if one thinks that the general public pays any attention at all to who their elected officials are, think again), the seat will most likely go to the individual whom the electorate knows more about (by virtue of advertising) or will vote for whoever has the R in front of their name (Similar to MA voter who do the same, name recognition first, party second).

The general election will be another matter. Maine is a state that has some serious economic woes, little to no manufacturing, and a reliance on natural resources and the weather (tourism). November the nation will vote with its pocketbook, and the one individual standing that offers them the “hope” that they will alleviate the poor to what’s’ left of the middle class, financial burden, will get the job.

Snow will most likely be staying in Washington near K Street (where the lobbyist play) (Politico) – in an “attempt to influence the Government from the Outside”(Reuters)(a keyword for lobbyist).

2012 Update - Romney Campaign Goes Divisive – Attacks Santorum for Attempting to Attract Democrats? – Media molds Santorum as “Social Candidate"

Romney, Santorum and Paul, two court Non-Republicans: Santorum to win the General, Pual to win the Delegates - Of note: Ron Paul has yet to criticize Mitt Romney - are they so similar in plans? image blogserockford.com

It began with a Press Release from the Romney Campaign on the morning after Romney’s narrow win in Michigan – the title: “Republicans Call On Rick Santorum To Stop Teaming Up With Democrats”
The Body:

Boston, MA – Today, former New Hampshire Gov. John Sununu, Georgia Attorney General Sam Olens, U.S. Rep. Mike Turner of Ohio, Delegate Barbara Comstock of Virginia, Alaska Lieutenant Governor Mead Treadwell, Idaho Superintendent of Public Schools Tom Luna, and Former United States Treasurer Bay Buchanan will hold a press conference call to call on Rick Santorum to stop teaming up with Democrats in future Republican contests. Details are as follows:

Wednesday, February 29, 2012:

Event: Republicans Call On Rick Santorum To Stop Teaming Up With Democrats

When: 3:30 PM EST

Call-In Number: (866) 578-1005

Call Name: No More Dirty Tricks

This was followed by a second release introducing a new Romney Campaign Video available on his website which shows clips from Fox News interviews with approximately eight Democrats, one of which is a liberal talk show host that parodied Rush Limbaugh’s Operation Chaos, in getting the vote out for Santorum, and a Democrat political activist attempting to do the same – one of the interviewees suggests a “liberal blog” will be responsible for getting the vote out for Santorum to upset the GOP – the end message from the liberal talk show host suggests Santorum is the weaker candidate, as reasoning for voting for Santorum.

However, of the thousands of votes cast for Santorum, and the exit polls taken, the percentage of Democrats who voted in the Michigan primary was split, some did go to Romney while others went to Santorum, in numbers which suggest more of a temporary switch in party affiliation rather than an attempt to “support the weaker candidate”.

The back to back releases suggest that Romney is fighting hard at this point, going into Super Tuesday where the following states will hold open primaries: Georgia, Idaho, Massachusetts, Tennessee, Vermont and Virginia. However, the list of states, courtesy of The Daily Paul, 2012 Open Primary States The Key To Ron Paul’s Republican Nomination. suggests that the tactic might be employed by other candidates than Santorum, candidates who are interested in a)winning and b)attracting members of opposing parties, who will be necessarily for any GOP candidate, including Romney to court in order to win in the General Election.

In Romney’s attempt to suggest that only liberal Democrats who feel a need to protect Obama by voting for the weaker candidate is, to say the least ludicrous – it also sets the tone for an US versus them scenario, rather than a scenario where those of other party affiliations are invited to cross party lines. It is the theme that Washington Is Broken because of this type of divisive narrative, that has the Congress at the lowest possible approval ratings. In a matter of fact, it depends on the State and the makeup of the electorate, and if that state has any Manufacturing concerns.

The case of Massachusetts is a good case in point. Romney, who as Governor, must have worked with Democrats at some point, however, there are Democrats and Republicans and Unenrolleds, who have long lost the manufacturing jobs that have left the state, during the Romney administration and forward – those who long to have the plants up and running are more invested in Santorum, not as some sort of nefarious plot to undo Romney, rather as a choice, and a difficult choice, in voting, many for the first time, as a Republican in the hopes that Santorum’s 0% tax on Manufactures, Economic plan will work to their advantage. Although Romney may lead among Republican’s in Massachusetts polling (one poll taken by Suffolk University) they only represent 11% of the States electorate, hardly enough to propel a candidate to a win, even in the Republican primary. It is a tactical move on the part of the Romney Campaign to attack Santorum as they head into primaries on Super Tuesday, many of which show Santorum leading Romney by a handy margin, however, the question remains is it a wise tactic to use the policy of divisive politics in order to hopefully attract those hard-core Republican’s to swing to Romney, while alienating potential Democrats and Independent voters? That‘s a tough call and a real risk. The consistent negative advertising, and infighting, although of some entertainment value, leaves little time for the candidate that is not producing positive advertising, to get out his message. Perhaps that’s another Romney Strategy, who has the best attack ads win, but it may be a losing strategy.

Should Santorum do compare and contrast ads, while Romney is outspending him (and begging for donations to keep doing so), with attack ads three to one, sooner than later, appealing to the Republican base is going to come back at Romney and bite him in the proverbial (fill in the blank).

Of particular interest is the Virginia Primary where only Romney and Dr. Ron Paul are on the ballot, in 2008, Paul trounced Romney in Virginal, which, is one of those darned open primary states – it could happen again – giving Paul a much needed win.
Romney’s campaign has attacked any rival that appears to be besting him, until that candidate is so far back in the polls, or out of the race and it has worked just as it did in 2008 – but that was up to Super Tuesday. After that date, and those primaries, Romney fell flat and was out of the race by February.

In concert with Romney for some unknown reason, is the Media, who is attacking Santorum left and right – painting him as the candidate that is “social issues” driven, while completely ignoring his economic policy (which appeals to Democrats, Independents and yes, Republicans), and his foreign and domestic policies. This brings up an interesting point – since the media is known to be, in general, supportive of the Obama reelection campaign – why would they attempt to get “rid” of Santorum so soon? In polls, especially one taken recently by USA Today suggests Santorum would Best Obama in a matchup, while Romney ties the President. These polls, one must note, do change on a daily basis, however, the notion that Santorum, complete with three weeks wroth of “social issues” coverage by the media, can continue to lead Obama, speaks volumes.

Not only is Romney’s position that Senator Santorum is somehow out of line for attempting to attract Democrats to the Republican fold, but his claims as being the only one of the GOP candidates to best Obama in an election are also a stretch (given the nature of the polls and the fact that Santorum does quite well, so does Ron Paul for that matter).
In a recent interview on Fox News, Senator Santorum shot back against the media for not covering the his vital economic plan and focusing on the some of the statements he had made on the campaign trail. He also, and rightly so, stood up for his position, while noting he might have said it differently – is Santorum the only candidate to make what amounts to “gaffes”? Hardly, Romney “I’ll bet you $10,000”, and his recent comment in Michigan regarding his wife riding two Cadillac’s are perhaps not gaffes, but should be as they underscore the lack of connect to those voters earning under 100,000 per year (or more for that matter). In 2008, the campaign between Hillary Clinton and then Senator Barack Obama was filled with gems that were bandied about on Conservative News outlets. (The question should be: “Why is the media attacking the weaker candidate?”

That question will be answered within the next week, as Santorum and Romney will face off in states both north and south - should the media ratchet up the rhetoric on Santorum, one would hazard to make an educated guess that Romney is Obama’s preferred candidate – as his campaign has suggested in the past. Santorum represents a threat precisely due to his ability to connect with Union members and independents, voters who Obama desperately needs in the upcoming election and voters who, Mitt Romney cannot win without. Santorum shows his political acumen while delivering a message he truly believes in – restoring the manufacturing might of America, while Romney fights to prove he is the most conservative of the four remaining candidates. It is a question of which message will resonate with voters, especially in the Massachusetts Open Primary – states that may be more of an embarrassment that Michigan should Romney not win handily.

Worth Reading - Article by Dr. Jay Fleitman - on The Shift in Health Care Delivery -

Usually one finds this blog commenting on an particular article, however this one article by Dr. Jay Fleitman is not only of great import, but aslo informative. To that end, it is shared here in the interest of the public.

From the Hampshire Gazette: "Jay Fleitman: Liberty bows in health care shift
By JAY FLEITMAN"

Tuesday, February 7, 2012

NORTHAMPTON - As chairman of the board of a local health care corporation, I recently prepared for our annual meeting, which was attended by over 100 physicians and representatives of the hospital administration and board of trustees. I discussed new and coming health care vehicles we have with the major insurance companies of Massachusetts.

These will fundamentally change the way health care is delivered. They carry acronyms like AQC (alternative quality contract) and ACO (accountable care organizations). These are known as risk sharing arrangements, which means that the providers of your medical care, hospitals and physicians, are at risk for the cost of the health care services they deliver to their patients. The less they spend on delivering those services, the more they are awarded in bonuses.

Yes, there are incentives built in for delivering quality care, but the real driver in these plans, both through private insurers and government, is to reduce the money spent on medical care. Legislation coming on Beacon Hill will accelerate this process already in place through Medicare and large Massachusetts insurers.

The holy grail and ultimate endpoint of this process is population-based care. This model has associations of physicians and hospitals being paid a lump sum to manage care for an entire defined population of consumers.

This is the future envisioned for American health care. The health care dollar, it is argued, will be more efficiently managed by consortiums of experts whose job it is to define what choices are acceptable.

One thing is conspicuously missing from these discussions. This is America, land of the free, a nation predicated on the liberty of the individual. The discretion of the individual citizen and family to control their own destiny is never part of these deliberations. The American citizen will be progressively stripped by experts and payers of their freedom of choice in personal health care decisions.

Americans would never tolerate this interference in our choices of food. We chafe at the government forcing our choice of light bulbs. Yet, for health care we are giving away our freedom to entities with no knowledge of the intimate details of our lives.

The money being managed by these systems is the private citizen's money. Whether it is your taxpayer dollar being spent in a government program or the insurance premium being paid by your employer as part of your reimbursement package, it is the individual's money being given over by proxy.

The "individual mandate" requires the citizen to buy insurance or pay a tax surcharge. By having everyone in the pool, the premiums on average are cheaper for everyone. What's next? Tax anyone over the age 50 who doesn't have a colonoscopy because they may ultimately cost the system more money if they develop colon cancer? This is not so farfetched. We tax cigarettes with the rationale that smokers cost society more in health care costs. The Massachusetts governor recently applied the same notion to raising taxes on candy and soda.

The Republican presidential candidates speak of fundamentally restructuring the health care system, and they are right. The health care dollar must be in the hands of the American citizen, not distributed in larger and more remote schemes by insurers and bureaucrats who are distant from individual choice.

This is not hard to craft. Indiana offers state employees the option of having catastrophic insurance that protects them after $8,000 in medical costs, and a health care savings account that covers the first $5,000 of the up-front cost. The employees keep the unspent money at the end of the year. Eighty percent of employees chose that plan, and their freedom in administering their own health care costs them 35 percent less than usual insurance plans. If someone understands the benefits of a medical service and decides not to spend their money on it, that is their choice to make. They may have better use of that money - a child in college or a sick parent.

We can open up markets across state lines, giving consumers far more choice in products.

I manage my medical practice by these politics. I believe that it is my duty to the fellow citizens who seek my care to respect their autonomy. I inform them of their choices and options, so they are able to exert control over their lives.

I am tempted to say that if Americans continue to cede their freedoms, the nation deserves to lose them.

Unfortunately, we are the protector of these freedoms for generations to follow, and so we squander their heritage as well.

As a physician living in Massachusetts under mandated Universal Health Care, as well as the Federal version, one can get a better grasp on the problems faced by physicians in their health care delivery and the solutions they offer, based on expertise not owned by a bureaucrat. Many thanks to Dr. Fleitman for sharing this most important article.