National Review on Benedict Arlen:

Arlen Specter belongs to a type familiar to Congress: the time-serving hack devoid of any principle save arrogance. He has spent three decades in the Senate but is associated with no great cause, no prescient warning, no landmark legislation. Yet he imagines that the Senate needs his wisdom and judgment for a sixth term. He joined the Republican party out of expediency in the 1960s, and leaves it out of expediency this week.

Those who attribute his defection to the rise of social conservatism are deluding themselves. It is not as though he has been a reliable vote for any other type of conservatism. He has stood apart from the mainstream of his party on welfare reform, trade, taxes, affirmative action, judicial appointments, tort reform, and national-security law. The issue that finally caused an irreparable breach with Republicans was the stimulus bill. Some Republicans are blaming Pat Toomey for pushing Specter out of the party by challenging him from the Right. But it is not Toomey’s fault that Specter is out of step with Pennsylvania Republicans. Whatever they think of the prudence of his challenge at the time he announced it, conservatives should be rooting for Toomey now.

It’s worth noting that the notion that the Republican Party has become more socially conservative is a myth. It was actually much more so in the early eighties (one of the reasons that I wasn’t then, and have never been, a Republican). As a commenter at Instapundit points out, it just seems that it’s more socially conservative today because, with its utter abandonment of fiscal conservativism in the Bush years, the social conservatism is the main distinguishing feature from the Democrats.

[Update early afternoon]

Dan Riehl has some more thoughts:

Big picture, Specter leaving is a significant opportunity, but only if the GOP seizes upon it as a pivot point to genuinely become the party of limited government, reduced spending and low taxes. As for social conservatism, which started this discussion here, morphing into a more democratic-based discussion of a civil society based upon values without Federal legislation is a sound approach that, hopefully, social cons can still embrace. It really is more about values, than just God, in the public square, any way. As for Specter (D) – is being the Party of a 3-plus trillion dollar Federal budget really a good thing? I’m unconvinced.

If the Republicans could rebrand themselves as a federalist party, and a true one, not just fair-weather federalists, I might become one.

As Moneyrunner notes, there’s a very good question behind the latest Charlie Foxtrot by the administration.

Why in the world were they willing to create a huge carbon footprint for an ad campaign that consisted (apparently) of having Air Force One flying past the Statue of Liberty? Particularly when it could have been photoshopped for a tiny fraction of the cost? At least there was a hypocritical political excuse for that last carbon indulgence. It reminds one of the notion of saving a “Hundred Million Dollars” from a multi-trillion deficit.

But the bigger question, at least to me, is: why did whoever came up with this idiocy decide that the public shouldn’t be informed about it ahead of time, and why were instructions given to that effect to local officials? Why was it to be kept secret, particularly given that it’s hard to keep secret a 747 dressed as Air Force One flying down the Hudson, particularly being tailed by a military fighter?

If they had informed the public, some who hadn’t been informed would have still panicked, but it would have at least reduced the numbers of people running though the streets terrified and abandoning high rises in lower Manhattan. Why make it a secret? What was the rationale?

Most of the Obama administration screwups have an explanation, usually attributable to a grab for increased government power, but this one is a complete mystery. And it’s possible that it can simply be attributed to abject stupidity, but it’s hard to do so without at least an attempt of an explanation, in this case.

This is not the end of this story. Or at least I hope not.

[Update, late evening]

They knew it would cause panic, but did it anyway?

Is there an explanation for this insanity? I start to wonder…

[Evening update]

Commenter Stephen den Beste (who I would like to thank for his early contributions to the blogosphere, and apologize for any contributions of mine that may have helped drive him from it) has the only plausible explanation so far:

If people had been told, they might have objected and prevented it.

That fits with the overall theme of Obama wanting what he wants, and not accepting anything that gets in the way of his getting what he wants.

I’d sure like to think that there’s another and better explanation, but I’m still awaiting one.

Put her under oath:

Maybe, for instance, the speaker doesn’t remember that in September 2002, as ranking member of the House Intelligence Committee, she was one of four members of Congress who were briefed by the CIA about the interrogation methods the agency was using on leading detainees. “For more than an hour,” the Washington Post reported in 2007, “the bipartisan group . . . was given a virtual tour of the CIA’s overseas detention sites and the harsh techniques interrogators had devised to try to make their prisoners talk.

“Among the techniques described,” the story continued, “was waterboarding, a practice that years later would be condemned as torture by Democrats and some Republicans on Capitol Hill. But on that day, no objections were raised. Instead, at least two lawmakers in the room asked the CIA to push harder.”

Or maybe the speaker never heard what some of her Democratic colleagues were saying about legal niceties getting in the way of an effective counterterrorism strategy.

“Unfortunately, we are not living in times in which lawyers can say no to an operation just to play it safe,” said Democrat Bob Graham, chairman of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence during the 2002 confirmation hearing of Scott Muller to be the CIA’s general counsel. “We need excellent, aggressive lawyers who give sound, accurate legal advice, not lawyers who say no to an otherwise legal opinion just because it is easier to put on the brakes.”

Also, Scooter Pelosi. The thought of this incompetent hack and liar being third in line for the presidency would be more frightening if the imbecilic Joe Biden weren’t number two. How did we end up with such a government?

[Update late morning]

The country’s in the very best of hands.

A compilation of Democrat scandals. But it’s only a “culture of corruption” when it’s Republicans…

Pelosi was supposed to drain the swamp. Instead, she’s diverting a river into it. We’ll see what people think in a year and a half.