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.