PDA

View Full Version : Arlen Specter switching to Dem party



AlmostThere
04-28-2009, 12:09 PM
Just saw on Fox that Arlen Specter is switching to Democratic party. No links yet.

linda22003
04-28-2009, 12:12 PM
He started out as a Democrat in Philadelphia politics, so he's really just switching back.

djones520
04-28-2009, 12:15 PM
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/04/28/source-specter-intends-switch-political-parties/

Rebel Yell
04-28-2009, 12:20 PM
He's always been a democrat. I can call myself a brain surgeon, but I'm still an insurance agent.

patriot45
04-28-2009, 12:22 PM
Paging Collins and Snowe, you are wanted on the other side of the aisle.

I guess thats next!

Water Closet
04-28-2009, 12:28 PM
He's always been a democrat. I can call myself a brain surgeon, but I'm still an insurance agent.

You're an INSURANCE AGENT!!!! :eek: :eek: :D

http://greenerpastures.responsiblepersonalfinance.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/07/garlic02.jpg

ReaganForRus
04-28-2009, 12:30 PM
For the life of me, I can never understand why a person would sell their character in order to stay in office.
I guess the old joke about a a sailor on shore leave propositions a young lady by asking " Would you go to bed with me for $1million?" She smiles and says "YES!!!!!".......He counters, "Would you go to bed with me for $10?"...she immediately becomes upset and says "What type of woman do you think I am?..He replies,
"We've already established what type of lady you are...we're negotiating now!"

Same with Specter.

I need a shower:(

Water Closet
04-28-2009, 12:34 PM
Bye, bye filibuster.

Gingersnap
04-28-2009, 12:34 PM
Specter To Switch Parties
Pennsylvania Sen. Arlen Specter will switch his party affiliation from Republican to Democrat and announced today that he will run in 2010 as a Democrat, according to a statement he released this morning.

Specter's decision would give Democrats a 60 seat filibuster proof majority in the Senate assuming Democrat Al Franken is eventually sworn in as the next senator from Minnesota. (Former senator Norm Coleman is appealing Franken's victory in the state Supreme Court.)

"I have decided to run for re-election in 2010 in the Democratic primary," said Specter in a statement. "I am ready, willing and anxious to take on all comers and have my candidacy for re-election determined in a general election."

He added: "Since my election in 1980, as part of the Reagan Big Tent, the Republican Party has moved far to the right. Last year, more than 200,000 Republicans in Pennsylvania changed their registration to become Democrats. I now find my political philosophy more in line with Democrats than Republicans."

President Obama was informed of Specter's decision at around 10:25 a.m., according to White House officials, and reached out to the senator minutes later to tell him "you have my full support," and we are "thrilled to have you."

Specter as a Democrat would also fundamentally alter the 2010 calculus in Pennsylvania as he was expected to face a difficult primary challenge next year from former Rep. Pat Toomey. The only announced Democrat in the race is former National Constitution Center head Joe Torsella although several other candidates are looking at the race.

The precariousness of Specter's political position -- a Republican in a Democratic-leaning state -- was on display earlier this year when he was one of three GOP senators to back President Obama's $787 billion economic stimulus plan. That vote was strongly condemned by conservative Republicans and Toomey used that vote as the launching pad for his candidacy.

If only all the RINOs would do this.

WaPo (http://voices.washingtonpost.com/thefix/senate/specter-to-switch-parties.html)

Water Closet
04-28-2009, 12:45 PM
If only all the RINOs would do this.

WaPo (http://voices.washingtonpost.com/thefix/senate/specter-to-switch-parties.html)

A nice thought, but if you only allow those who take the "pure" conservative viewpoint on:

Social Issues
1. Abortion and related issues such as birth control, sex education, stem cell research
2. The role of religion in government
3. Gun control
4. Enforcement of social/religious/moral norms, e.g., gay marriage, prostitution, drugs
5. Environmental issues

Foreign/Defense Issues
1. Role and function of the military
2. Role and function of diplomacy

Economic Issues
1. Taxes
2. Government role in the economy
3. Size/cost of government

the Republicans would be a fringe party.

Hawkgirl
04-28-2009, 12:53 PM
Bye, bye filibuster.


And hello universal healthcare.

Odysseus
04-28-2009, 12:58 PM
Just saw on Fox that Arlen Specter is switching to Democratic party. No links yet.

How will they be able to tell the difference? :confused:

Goldwater
04-28-2009, 01:03 PM
Well, there hasn't really been a small government party thats been in power anywhere in years.

noonwitch
04-28-2009, 01:04 PM
He's right to do it. He's been far to the left of the current GOP. It doesn't look to me like the GOP is returning to it's centrist (pre-Reagan) past anytime soon.


It also will probably keep him in the Senate, the next time he's up for re-election. The GOP will run a conservative for the seat, the non-partisan voters who are loyal to him will still vote for him, and if he wins the Dem primary, so will the dems.

Gingersnap
04-28-2009, 01:11 PM
A nice thought, but if you only allow those who take the "pure" conservative viewpoint on:

Social Issues
1. Abortion and related issues such as birth control, sex education, stem cell research
2. The role of religion in government
3. Gun control
4. Enforcement of social/religious/moral norms, e.g., gay marriage, prostitution, drugs
5. Environmental issues

Foreign/Defense Issues
1. Role and function of the military
2. Role and function of diplomacy

Economic Issues
1. Taxes
2. Government role in the economy
3. Size/cost of government

the Republicans would be a fringe party.

I'd settle for a Republican who just fought for the bolded items. That would be enough of a change from the average Dem.

Water Closet
04-28-2009, 01:13 PM
I'd settle for a Republican who just fought for the bolded items. That would be enough of a change from the average Dem.

You closet libertarian! :D

VWkid06
04-28-2009, 01:16 PM
being a PA resident i'm not surprised. he's been republican by name only anyway. he did this because he knows Pat Toomey was gonna kick his ass in the primaries next year. now he (hopefully) gets to kick his ass in the min election.

marinejcksn
04-28-2009, 01:35 PM
being a PA resident i'm not surprised. he's been republican by name only anyway. he did this because he knows Pat Toomey was gonna kick his ass in the primaries next year. now he (hopefully) gets to kick his ass in the min election.

I was thinking the same thing. We have some piss poor representatives in PA, with Bob Casey, Spector and all the craptacular House members (except for Joe Pitts). Hopefully Arlen gets his ass handed to him. Anyone who defends a murderer (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ira_Einhorn) who chopped up an innocent woman and then helped him flee the country doesn't deserve to serve in public office ever. F*** Arlen Specter. :mad:

Lars1701a
04-28-2009, 01:58 PM
I hate myself for typing this but I hope his tumor comes back :mad:


FRACKING traitor.


I hope toomey (sp)? kicks his ass :mad:

tacitus
04-28-2009, 01:58 PM
I am sure that ACORN will be working overtime to ensure this clown is re-elected.

Lars1701a
04-28-2009, 02:02 PM
I am sure that ACORN will be working overtime to ensure this clown is re-elected.

Well all we can hope for in the next two years is him leaving for health reasons.

djones520
04-28-2009, 02:03 PM
I am sure that ACORN will be working overtime to ensure this clown is re-elected.

I wouldn't be suprised to see him lose the Democrat primary in all honesty. This is gold for Toomey. Now he doesn't have to spend that much cash in trying to get the Repub nomination. He just needs to concentrate on the actual election.

Lars1701a
04-28-2009, 02:09 PM
I wouldn't be suprised to see him lose the Democrat primary in all honesty. This is gold for Toomey. Now he doesn't have to spend that much cash in trying to get the Repub nomination. He just needs to concentrate on the actual election.

Do you think a Dim is going to have any problems winning in a state that went for the magic negro in a big way? plus he is a incumbent. He was going to be shellacked by toomey and decided to jump ship.

Lars1701a
04-28-2009, 02:10 PM
UGH The state the keeps reelecting murtha over and over again will have no problems voting this douche bag back in.

Molon Labe
04-28-2009, 02:23 PM
This is a good thing.

Now that the Dems have the majority all locked up, they can burden the small businessman into bankruptcy with unfettered regulatory laws. That bodes well for the midterms elections.

marinejcksn
04-28-2009, 02:33 PM
UGH The state the keeps reelecting murtha over and over again will have no problems voting this douche bag back in.

To be fair though, Bill Russell (http://russellbrigade.com/) only lost to Murtha by 42,000 votes, being virtually an unknown in his first campaign ever and during a Presidential election where the Dem was hugely popular. Murtha will lose, eventually.

enslaved1
04-28-2009, 02:43 PM
This is a good thing.

Now that the Dems have the majority all locked up, they can burden the small businessman into bankruptcy with unfettered regulatory laws. That bodes well for the midterms elections.

They will still blame the problems on Bush and everything they inherited (ignoring the fact that they were still in Congress and voted for or ignored the coming issues). Good midterm elections will depend on an intelligent and attentive electorate, as well as good candidates running. I don't like the odds of either happening, myself.

VWkid06
04-28-2009, 03:17 PM
i'm actually watching fox news now, and they are saying that benedict specter is saying he changed parties because the right wing repubs have "hijacked the republican party" to go against him and are trying to change the party.

get the fuck out. you're gonna get your ass kicked by Toomey because you're not a real republican. at least have the balls to call it like it is you coward.

Rebel Yell
04-28-2009, 03:27 PM
I hate myself for typing this but I hope his tumor comes back :mad:


FRACKING traitor.


I hope toomey (sp)? kicks his ass :mad:

He's just now a traitor? What has he brought to the table for conservatives? Nothing. If he puts an R beside his name, but votes in line with the dems, what have we lost? Nothing has changed. He's no different now than he was yesterday.

Not directed at you alone, I just don't understand where people's outrage is coming from. Really not even newsworthy to those who follow politics as closely as we do. When I saw the headline, I actually said, "Good. It's about time."

Phillygirl
04-28-2009, 03:52 PM
I hate myself for typing this but I hope his tumor comes back :mad:


FRACKING traitor.




That's rude. I don't wish death on the man. I do hope for Toomey to kick his ass, though.

patriot45
04-28-2009, 04:27 PM
He's just now a traitor? What has he brought to the table for conservatives? Nothing. If he puts an R beside his name, but votes in line with the dems, what have we lost? Nothing has changed. He's no different now than he was yesterday.

Not directed at you alone, I just don't understand where people's outrage is coming from. Really not even newsworthy to those who follow politics as closely as we do. When I saw the headline, I actually said, "Good. It's about time."


There is still a couple more that should just jump ship and get it over with.

Nubs
04-28-2009, 04:29 PM
I think there is an impending Supreme Court vacancy upcoming. His vote there will have a much longer lasting legacy than anything else he will do.

ralph wiggum
04-28-2009, 04:52 PM
To be fair though, Bill Russell (http://russellbrigade.com/) only lost to Murtha by 42,000 votes, being virtually an unknown in his first campaign ever and during a Presidential election where the Dem was hugely popular. Murtha will lose, eventually.

If longtime incumbents like Dan Rostenkowski and Tom Foley can lose an election, so can Murtha and Specter.

Odysseus
04-28-2009, 05:15 PM
That's rude. I don't wish death on the man. I do hope for Toomey to kick his ass, though.

That;s the spirit! Humiliation and defeat first, then death! :D

Seriously, it would be great to see him go down to defeat as a Democrat, and this time, the party establishment in PA will have to back Toomey.

scd1008
04-28-2009, 07:05 PM
Good Bye Arlan ........ You were always a piece of _______ !
If Holly was alive, she would dance on your political grave.
And hopefully on your own grave soon !
I hope you read this, and it sends a chill down what ever is left of your pathetic old spine.

Odysseus
04-28-2009, 07:46 PM
Think of it as a long overdue culling of the RINO herd, with Toomey lining up his final shot.

Water Closet
04-28-2009, 08:05 PM
This is great news.

Now all the "conservatives" in Pennsylvania have a 'good' reason to vote against Arlen Specter.

He's a liberal Republican, you vote for him. He becomes a liberal Democrat, you vote against him now.

I love a good circus. :D

And if that happens, and if Specter, as a Democrat, beats the hell out of Toomey (which he will), will anyone on this board acknowledge that perhaps "pure conservativism" ain't the majority opinion in this country (or at least in PA)? Or will we hear cries of "ignorant American Idol watchers" and the "evil liberal media?" Somehow, I suspect the latter.

BadCat
04-28-2009, 08:20 PM
And if that happens, and if Specter, as a Democrat, beats the hell out of Toomey (which he will), will anyone on this board acknowledge that perhaps "pure conservativism" ain't the majority opinion in this country (or at least in PA)? Or will we hear cries of "ignorant American Idol watchers" and the "evil liberal media?" Somehow, I suspect the latter.

This is supposed to be a conservative board, so why would you think any different?

Water Closet
04-28-2009, 08:34 PM
This is supposed to be a conservative board, so why would you think any different?

Two interpetations of your comment: (1) I would expect conservatives to recognize the reality of the situation and the fact that those who insist upon "pure conservativsm" to recognize that this might marginalize the party or (2) I would expect the ideologically pure to condemn me and my line of reasoning as "what's wrong with the party" and as "if we could just purge those elements, we could win an election." Which option do you subscribe to, Max? ;):D

BadCat
04-28-2009, 08:41 PM
Two interpetations of your comment: (1) I would expect conservatives to recognize the reality of the situation and the fact that those who insist upon "pure conservativsm" to recognize that this might marginalize the party or (2) I would expect the ideologically pure to condemn me and my line of reasoning as "what's wrong with the party" and as "if we could just purge those elements, we could win an election." Which option do you subscribe to, Max? ;):D

The latter, you know that.

Water Closet
04-28-2009, 09:03 PM
The latter, you know that.

Ah, Max. You know the reality is the former. I had a post in reply to Snaps earlier in this thread regarding "pure conservativism." Upon reflection, it could be expanding to include lots lof other issues. Do you really think, being someone who has traveled a lot and seen the world, that those subscribing to the pure principles of conservatism are ever going to be in the majority, or even the significant plurality, anywhere, anymore.

It may be a "sad state of affairs," but those who don't adapt, die. See you Max (or at Max's?). :D

cat714
04-28-2009, 09:06 PM
This doesn't surprise me...Specter was never a Republican. He just called himself one and benefited from it...typical political whore.

RockurWorld
04-28-2009, 09:18 PM
For the life of me, I can never understand why a person would sell their character in order to stay in office.
I guess the old joke about a a sailor on shore leave propositions a young lady by asking " Would you go to bed with me for $1million?" She smiles and says "YES!!!!!".......He counters, "Would you go to bed with me for $10?"...she immediately becomes upset and says "What type of woman do you think I am?..He replies,
"We've already established what type of lady you are...we're negotiating now!"

Same with Specter.

I need a shower:(

This is why we need term limits for all polifuckingticians. He is only switching because it may be the only chance he can stay in office.

BadCat
04-28-2009, 09:29 PM
Ah, Max. You know the reality is the former. I had a post in reply to Snaps earlier in this thread regarding "pure conservativism." Upon reflection, it could be expanding to include lots lof other issues. Do you really think, being someone who has traveled a lot and seen the world, that those subscribing to the pure principles of conservatism are ever going to be in the majority, or even the significant plurality, anywhere, anymore.

It may be a "sad state of affairs," but those who don't adapt, die. See you Max (or at Max's?). :D

ďA democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the majority discovers it can vote itself largess out of the public treasury. After that, the majority always votes for the candidate promising the most benefits with the result the democracy collapses because of the loose fiscal policy ensuing, always to be followed by a dictatorship, then a monarchy."

I think we are at this point, approaching an attempted dictatorship, I don't think there will be a monarchy.

I don't know the "mood" up where you are, but I know what it is out here, people are PISSED OFF. If "adaption" comes down to dying, then a lot of people may well be soon dying.

patriot45
04-28-2009, 09:42 PM
ďA democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the majority discovers it can vote itself largess out of the public treasury. After that, the majority always votes for the candidate promising the most benefits with the result the democracy collapses because of the loose fiscal policy ensuing, always to be followed by a dictatorship, then a monarchy."

What you said! Don't thimk the DUmmies do not know this, they just think they could make it work where it has never worked throughout history. DUmmies are DUmb!

Water Closet
04-28-2009, 09:43 PM
ďA democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the majority discovers it can vote itself largess out of the public treasury. After that, the majority always votes for the candidate promising the most benefits with the result the democracy collapses because of the loose fiscal policy ensuing, always to be followed by a dictatorship, then a monarchy."

I think we are at this point, approaching an attempted dictatorship, I don't think there will be a monarchy.

I don't know the "mood" up where you are, but I know what it is out here, people are PISSED OFF. If "adaption" comes down to dying, then a lot of people may well be soon dying.

And how is this "mood" different than that of the DUmmies in 2000 when they felt that the USSC robbed them of the election? After all, they won the majority of the popular vote (something that has seemed to gain credence in conservative circles recently).

Ho, hum. Extremists on both sides, when they lose, would like it to be a calamity of the Gods, with the universe collapsing, the principles of the nation betrayed, the sound of thunder reminiscent of a song from 1962. But, in reality, it ain't that way at all.

megimoo
04-28-2009, 09:44 PM
Spector's has always been the Liberals whore . This just makes him an little more respectable hooker !

patriot45
04-28-2009, 09:51 PM
And how is this "mood" different than that of the DUmmies in 2000 when they felt that the USSC robbed them of the election? After all, they won the majority of the popular vote (something that has seemed to gain credence in conservative circles recently).

Ho, hum. Extremists on both sides, when they lose, would like it to be a calamity of the Gods, with the universe collapsing, the principles of the nation betrayed, the sound of thunder reminiscent of a song from 1962. But, in reality, it ain't that way at all.

What the hell does that mean!?! They won the majority of the welfare cities. Don't get confused.
They will always get the welfare and minority votes even tho the libs do nothing to help them.
That is also a mark of the DUmmy, they FEEL they lost, but in truth they just lost.

Water Closet
04-28-2009, 09:59 PM
What the hell does that mean!?! They won the majority of the welfare cities. Don't get confused.
They will always get the welfare and minority votes even tho the libs do nothing to help them.
That is also a mark of the DUmmy, they FEEL they lost, but in truth they just lost.

The irony in your rant is palatable. They lost, but they "feel" they lost. You lost (by a greater percentage than they lost in either 2000 or in 2004, btw), and it's because "they will always get the welfare." Good God, man. Don't you see the irony, the flat out hypocrisy, in your statements?

What advice did you and others here give the DUmmies in 2000 and 2004. You lost! Get over it. Be a man. Take your OWN ADVICE.

BadCat
04-28-2009, 10:00 PM
What you said! Don't thimk the DUmmies do not know this, they just think they could make it work where it has never worked throughout history. DUmmies are DUmb!

It is a great quote, probably erroneously attributed to a Scotsman named Tytler.

Whoever said it, it was later amended to this:

A democracy is always temporary in nature; it simply cannot exist as a permanent form of government. A democracy will continue to exist up until the time that voters discover that they can vote themselves generous gifts from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates who promise the most benefits from the public treasury, with the result that every democracy will finally collapse due to loose fiscal policy, which is always followed by a dictatorship. The average age of the world's greatest civilizations from the beginning of history has been about 200 years. During those 200 years, these nations always progressed through the following sequence:

* From bondage to spiritual faith;
* From spiritual faith to great courage;
* From courage to liberty;
* From liberty to abundance;
* From abundance to complacency;
* From complacency to apathy;
* From apathy to dependence;
* From dependence back into bondage.


Guess where we are.

Radix
04-28-2009, 10:08 PM
"He added: "Since my election in 1980, as part of the Reagan Big Tent, the Republican Party has moved far to the right. "



Actually, the disruptors ( like Specter) in office who have abandoned their sworn Duty to preserve the Constitution have managed to move so completely left that they have been compelled to redesign their political maps.

Absolutely disgraceful.

hazlnut
04-28-2009, 11:10 PM
A nice thought, but if you only allow those who take the "pure" conservative viewpoint on:



Foreign/Defense Issues
1. Role and function of the military
2. Role and function of diplomacy

Economic Issues
1. Taxes
2. Government role in the economy
3. Size/cost of government

These issues are not the problem.

It's these issues that are sinking the GOP:


Social Issues
1. Abortion and related issues such as birth control, sex education, stem cell research
2. The role of religion in government

4. Enforcement of social/religious/moral norms, e.g., gay marriage, prostitution, drugs
5. Environmental issues

Stay out of my pocketbook and my bedroom if you please. Reagan talked about the social issues, but he was smart enough to let it go at--lead by example.

Constitutionally Speaking
04-29-2009, 03:07 AM
The irony in your rant is palatable. They lost, but they "feel" they lost. You lost (by a greater percentage than they lost in either 2000 or in 2004, btw), and it's because "they will always get the welfare." Good God, man. Don't you see the irony, the flat out hypocrisy, in your statements?

What advice did you and others here give the DUmmies in 2000 and 2004. You lost! Get over it. Be a man. Take your OWN ADVICE.


CW, no one here is denying that Obama won the election. That is a big difference.

Water Closet
04-29-2009, 06:36 AM
CW, no one here is denying that Obama won the election. That is a big difference.

There are many people on this board who have vehemently denied that Obama was even eligible to run for president. Not that big of a difference. Let's see:

Looney Left: Bush and Diebold stole the election
Whacky Right: Obama's not a natural born citizen and can't be president

Looney Left: I'm moving out of this facist country
Whacky Right: Let's have a second revolution and/or secede from this socialist country

Water Closet
04-29-2009, 07:21 AM
These issues are not the problem.

It's these issues that are sinking the GOP:

Stay out of my pocketbook and my bedroom if you please. Reagan talked about the social issues, but he was smart enough to let it go at--lead by example.

Of course it is. Unfortunately, the religious right now control the Republican Party and this is their agenda. I became a Rebpublican during the Reagan era, having grown up in the South and, naturally, been a registered Democrat. However, last year I changed my affiliation to Independent not long after McCain picked Palin as his VP. I think my experience is typical of a very large class of people who are fiscally conservative, favor a strong defense, but really want less government interference in their lives, not more. As I've noted numerous times, the extreme right and extreme left are both for more government; the only difference between the two is their agenda.

Constitutionally Speaking
04-29-2009, 07:34 AM
Of course it is. Unfortunately, the religious right now control the Republican Party and this is their agenda. I became a Rebpublican during the Reagan era, having grown up in the South and, naturally, been a registered Democrat. However, last year I changed my affiliation to Independent not long after McCain picked Palin as his VP. I think my experience is typical of a very large class of people who are fiscally conservative, favor a strong defense, but really want less government interference in their lives, not more. As I've noted numerous times, the extreme right and extreme left are both for more government; the only difference between the two is their agenda.


In what tangible way has the religious right put government into your bedroom???

Seems like you fear something that just doesn't exist.

Lars1701a
04-29-2009, 07:40 AM
In what tangible way has the religious right put government into your bedroom???

Seems like you fear something that just doesn't exist.


DING DING DING we has a winner.


If anything the Republicans have been moving to the center more and more each year.


Taking a line for Miss Coulter: When Specter joined the Democrats the avg IQ of both parties Jumped. :D

Water Closet
04-29-2009, 07:46 AM
In what tangible way has the religious right put government into your bedroom???

Seems like you fear something that just doesn't exist.

Well, I didn't make that statement (at least in this thread), hazlnut did. However, relating to the general term of "bedroom," the RR:

1. Opposes gay marriage and, down deep, opposes domestic partnerships (they are marginally on board with the latter as an antidote to pure gay marriage)
2. Favors laws regulating sexual practices between consenting adults (witness the sodomy laws)
3. Favors stringent enforcement of laws regarding prostitution
4. Would like to see laws regulating PDA (an acronym I learned here :eek: meaning "public displays of affection") between gays
5. Opposes sex education in schools

Lars1701a
04-29-2009, 07:47 AM
Well, I didn't make that statement (at least in this thread), hazlnut did. However, relating to the general term of "bedroom," the RR:

1. Opposes gay marriage and, down deep, opposes domestic partnerships (they are marginally on board with the latter as an antidote to pure gay marriage)
2. Favors laws regulating sexual practices between consenting adults (witness the sodomy laws)
3. Favors stringent enforcement of laws regarding prostitution
4. Would like to see laws regulating PDA (an acronym I learned here :eek: meaning "public displays of affection") between gays
5. Opposes sex education in schools



What the fuck does Marriage have anything to do with the bedroom?

Phillygirl
04-29-2009, 08:45 AM
Well, I didn't make that statement (at least in this thread), hazlnut did. However, relating to the general term of "bedroom," the RR:

1. Opposes gay marriage and, down deep, opposes domestic partnerships (they are marginally on board with the latter as an antidote to pure gay marriage)
2. Favors laws regulating sexual practices between consenting adults (witness the sodomy laws)
3. Favors stringent enforcement of laws regarding prostitution
4. Would like to see laws regulating PDA (an acronym I learned here :eek: meaning "public displays of affection") between gays
5. Opposes sex education in schools

I don't see the RR having that much influence over the 5 issues you stated, with the exception of the first one.

Space Gravy
04-29-2009, 09:13 AM
He's right to do it. He's been far to the left of the current GOP. It doesn't look to me like the GOP is returning to it's centrist (pre-Reagan) past anytime soon.


It also will probably keep him in the Senate, the next time he's up for re-election. The GOP will run a conservative for the seat, the non-partisan voters who are loyal to him will still vote for him, and if he wins the Dem primary, so will the dems.

One analyst I saw is calling this nothing more than self preservation. This is his best chance to keep his seat. He wasn't expected to make it out of the GOP Primary in the next cycle. He has a much better chance as a Democrat.

Phillygirl
04-29-2009, 09:31 AM
One analyst I saw is calling this nothing more than self preservation. This is his best chance to keep his seat. He wasn't expected to make it out of the GOP Primary in the next cycle. He has a much better chance as a Democrat.

And that is exactly true. The last polls had Toomey up by 20 points over Specter. I haven't voted for Specter in the last two elections, and I generally vote straight Republican (although I pull each individual lever, just because).

Lager
04-29-2009, 09:33 AM
And if that happens, and if Specter, as a Democrat, beats the hell out of Toomey (which he will), will anyone on this board acknowledge that perhaps "pure conservativism" ain't the majority opinion in this country (or at least in PA)? Or will we hear cries of "ignorant American Idol watchers" and the "evil liberal media?" Somehow, I suspect the latter.

What the hell is "pure conservatism" anyway? Conservatives have been putting up with candidates that were "close" to what they believed in for so long, that they just started coopting anything that republicans said they stood for. Meanwhile, they let the original ideals of the philosophy slip out of memory. If I was in Specter's state and I still agreed with most of his opinions, then I'd still vote for him -- even as a D -- until someone closer to my way of thinking came around. If he grew much further away from my views, I'd ditch him, even if he remained a republican.

After 40 plus years on this planet, I'm not too worried if my views aren't in the majority. I actually expect them to become less favored and common, and it's easy to understand why. There have been many principled points of view that were in the minority, and prevailed.

Rockntractor
04-29-2009, 09:46 AM
Of course it is. Unfortunately, the religious right now control the Republican Party and this is their agenda. I became a Rebpublican during the Reagan era, having grown up in the South and, naturally, been a registered Democrat. However, last year I changed my affiliation to Independent not long after McCain picked Palin as his VP. I think my experience is typical of a very large class of people who are fiscally conservative, favor a strong defense, but really want less government interference in their lives, not more. As I've noted numerous times, the extreme right and extreme left are both for more government; the only difference between the two is their agenda.
Thank you for leaving the republican party. It is a better party now that your gone. If you have any friends that believe like you and are still republicans please convince them to leave too. You never were a conservative you just had no idea what the parties stood for. Why do liberals call people who are religeous and uphold the constitution far right? That is the center it always will be. That was the type of people who formed or country. Go row a boat to cuba . You would love it there.

Water Closet
04-29-2009, 09:52 AM
Thank you for leaving the republican party. It is a better party now that your gone. If you have any friends that believe like you and are still republicans please convince them to leave too. You never were a conservative you just had no idea what the parties stood for. Why do liberals call people who are religeous and uphold the constitution far right? That is the center it always will be. That was the type of people who formed or country. Go row a boat to cuba . You would love it there.

Thank you for demonstrating my point. From the far right, everyone to the left of you looks like a commie, don't they? :D

Jfor
04-29-2009, 09:56 AM
The reason Republicans are not in power now has nothing to do with Conservatism being in the minority. Case in point, the 2006 mid year elections. Republicans lost because they lost their way. Democrat lite is not the answer to being a major political party. The 2008 election was lost because Republican rules allow for independent voters to vote in the elections. A moderate Republican candidate won the primary and it was not until Governor Palin was put on the ticket that the Republican party was energized enough to swallow voting for McCain.



Well, I didn't make that statement (at least in this thread), hazlnut did. However, relating to the general term of "bedroom," the RR:

1. Opposes gay marriage and, down deep, opposes domestic partnerships (they are marginally on board with the latter as an antidote to pure gay marriage)
2. Favors laws regulating sexual practices between consenting adults (witness the sodomy laws)
3. Favors stringent enforcement of laws regarding prostitution
4. Would like to see laws regulating PDA (an acronym I learned here :eek: meaning "public displays of affection") between gays
5. Opposes sex education in schools


1. Why should we allow something because somebody wants to be a sexual deviant?
2. Bullshit
3. Nothing wrong there but last I checked its a states rights issue. See Nevada, they allow it.
4. Again, sexual deviancy. Why should my kids be subject to two guys or two women making out in public?
5. It is not the schools responsibility to teach kids about the birds and the bees. That falls on the parents.

Space Gravy
04-29-2009, 10:00 AM
And that is exactly true. The last polls had Toomey up by 20 points over Specter. I haven't voted for Specter in the last two elections, and I generally vote straight Republican (although I pull each individual lever, just because).

Obviously I don't follow PA as close as some of the others but Jeez! 20 points???????? Sounds like he's definitely a career politician fighting tooth and nail to keep his place at the trough.

Water Closet
04-29-2009, 10:00 AM
I don't see the RR having that much influence over the 5 issues you stated, with the exception of the first one.

They don't because they don't have the power, not because they don't want to nor because they would not attempt toif they had the power. Some of the replies to me in this thread amply illustrate that point.

Molon Labe
04-29-2009, 10:08 AM
Thank you for leaving the republican party. It is a better party now that your gone. If you have any friends that believe like you and are still republicans please convince them to leave too. You never were a conservative you just had no idea what the parties stood for. Why do liberals call people who are religeous and uphold the constitution far right? That is the center it always will be. That was the type of people who formed or country. Go row a boat to cuba . You would love it there.

I'd say the same thing for anyone that voted McCain. What should we call 'conservatives' that voted for the Democrats favorite Republican then? You know....The one who hasn't been to church for 20 odd years yet is praised by many mainstream Christian's as a "Godly" man. :rolleyes:. (Not this Christian mind you).
It'll be a better party when it finds out how important Constitutional federalism is to our conservative roots. With token idiots like Michael Steele leading the way....I won't hold my breath.

Odysseus
04-29-2009, 10:12 AM
These issues are not the problem.
Stay out of my pocketbook and my bedroom if you please. Reagan talked about the social issues, but he was smart enough to let it go at--lead by example.
On behalf of Republicans everywhere, I can assure you that we want nothing to do with what goes on in your bedroom or your pocketbook, but especially your bedroom. Frankly, even the thought of it is disturbing enough.

Well, I didn't make that statement (at least in this thread), hazlnut did. However, relating to the general term of "bedroom," the RR:
1. Opposes gay marriage and, down deep, opposes domestic partnerships (they are marginally on board with the latter as an antidote to pure gay marriage)
Yes, some people, myself included, oppose the radical redefinition of marriage to the point where it is meaningless. Of course, Prop 8 passed in California despite the Obama landslide (or perhaps because of it, as blacks voted overwelmingly for it), so I suppose that California is now a bastion of Religious Righties.

2. Favors laws regulating sexual practices between consenting adults (witness the sodomy laws)
Some religious right members do, but when was the last time that you saw a sodomy law plank in the Republican platform?

3. Favors stringent enforcement of laws regarding prostitution
Well, I favor stringent enforcement of all laws. If they can't be enforced, they shouldn't be on the books. Bad laws make for an overall disrespect for the law. Now, as to prostitution, the assumption that it's a victimless crime fails to take the coercive nature of the business into account. Most street prostitutes were introduced to "the life" through violence by pimps, and that doesn't take into account the increases in trafficking which have brought in hundreds of thousands of unwilling women. Those Asian outcall services that you see advertised are chattel slavery operations, and I'd cheerfully enforce any law that shuts them down and makes the slavers pay. Wouldn't you?

4. Would like to see laws regulating PDA (an acronym I learned here :eek: meaning "public displays of affection") between gays
Not really. Most straights find gay PDA distasteful, but I don't know of too many religious activists who care what goes on in the village or West Hollywood, as long as they don't have to have their noses rubbed in it.

5. Opposes sex education in schools
Ah, now there, you have 'em. Why a religious fundamentalist wouldn't want his or her kindergartner to learn the finer points of putting a condom on a banana and to learn the details of oral sex as a means to prevent pregnancies is obviously a serious question. After all, the public schools do so well at teaching the most important basic skills, such as reading, writing, math and history, that we'd be fools not to entrust our children's moral and sexual development to them. Of course, the three Rs have changed a bit over the years, but Recycling, Relativism and Reproductive rights are every bit as important as those outmoded concepts. Why, I remember when Jocelyn Elders proposed teaching masturbation in public schools. What an uproar! Of course, if she knew anything about public schooling, she'd have known that the phys-ed teacher is usually the one responsible for the sex ed classes, but I'd happily entrust my daughters' knowledge of the art of self love to someone with no neck, a stopwatch and a whistle (and I'm sure that the male gym teachers will do equally well with the boys in the class). Nope, no argument there. Who could possibly be against that?

Rebel Yell
04-29-2009, 10:18 AM
They don't because they don't have the power, not because they don't want to nor because they would not attempt toif they had the power. Some of the replies to me in this thread amply illustrate that point.

I can't speak for all, but here's my take. The religious right does fight gay marriage and prostitution. Nobody really cares about sodomy laws. People don't like seeing two queers making out, but I haven't heard anybody actrually want it outlawed. So, you have two points out of five.

If a person follows a certain moral code because the law requires it, they don't get any closer to heaven. Faith is not a forced thing. You have to accept salvation, it can't be shoved down your throat.


On edit: You're right about sex education in school, to a degree. Most people don't have a problem with sex education, as long as it's age appropriate. I don't have kids, but when I do, I don't want them looking at Big Bird with a hard on in kindergarten.

Rockntractor
04-29-2009, 10:18 AM
I'd say the same thing for anyone that voted McCain. What should we call 'conservatives' that voted for the Democrats favorite Republican then? You know....The one who hasn't been to church for 20 odd years yet is praised by many mainstream Christian's as a "Godly" man. :rolleyes:. (Not this Christian mind you).
It'll be a better party when it finds out how important Constitutional federalism is to our conservative roots. With token idiots like Michael Steele leading the way....I won't hold my breath.
A lot of people voted for reach across the isle McCain hoping that Palin would influence him and also hoping to block Obama.That was wrong. Looking back we should have backed Bob Barr. Michael steels attack on rush Limbough was the last straw for me. I left the party.

Jfor
04-29-2009, 10:22 AM
My problem with Bob Barr is my same problem with Ron Paul. Calling American troops occupiers and bringing them home before the job is finished.

Odysseus
04-29-2009, 10:26 AM
A lot of people voted for reach across the isle McCain hoping that Palin would influence him and also hoping to block Obama.That was wrong. Looking back we should have backed Bob Barr. Michael steels attack on rush Limbough was the last straw for me. I left the party.
The last time that the Presidential election wasn't a choice for the lesser of two evils for me was when Reagan ran for reelection against Mondale. Otherwise, it's always about holding your nose and picking the least offensive candidate (or picking your nose and holding the least offensive candidate). McCain, for all of his flaws, was a decent, honorable man who has spent his life in service to his country. He wasn't the best choice for president, but he was a lot better than Obama.

My problem with Bob Barr is my same problem with Ron Paul. Calling American troops occupiers and bringing them home before the job is finished.
Agreed. If I want a president to call me a war criminal, I'll vote for the Democrat.

Rockntractor
04-29-2009, 10:34 AM
My problem with Bob Barr is my same problem with Ron Paul. Calling American troops occupiers and bringing them home before the job is finished.
The war was pretty much over at the time of the election with that being said it was still poor judgement not to support the war. All of our choices had thorns.

Odysseus
04-29-2009, 10:39 AM
Interesting analysis from NRO


What Specter Means in the Senate Michael G. Franc

Senator Arlen Specterís decision to switch parties prompts one observation as to the new balance of power in the Senate:

Like nature, the Senate abhors a vacuum. Now that the Democrats appear to have reached the all-important 60-vote threshold, the weight of the world will rest atop the shoulders of heretofore ignored moderate Democrats. These new darlings of the national media include Ben Nelson of Nebraska, Mark Pryor and Blanche Lincoln of Arkansas, Evan Bayh of Indiana, Mary Landrieu of Louisiana, Claire McCaskill of Missouri, and Bryon Dorgan and Kent Conrad of North Dakota. All eyes will also be on at many as three freshmen Democrats ó Mark Begich of Alaska, Michael Bennet of Colorado, and Kay Hagan of North Carolina.


Why? Specterís switch means that at least one Democratic vote ó and often two or three ó will be required to torpedo way-out liberal legislation. Moderate Democrats can no longer sit back and laugh as Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R., Ken.) tries to maintain perfect unity among his ideologically diverse caucus, with the national media focused on nasty intramural GOP blood feuds. No, moderate Democrats will soon realize that they are the only ones standing between President Obama and some monumental (and uber liberal) legislative accomplishment.

Thanks to Specter, they have no choice but to suit up and be held accountable to their constituents for the work product of this Congress.


This inevitable and heightened scrutiny may prove to be more a curse than a blessing. The above named moderates, after all, hail from decidedly conservative states. According to 2008 state exit polls, self-identified conservatives outnumbered liberals by the following lopsided margins:

State % Conservatives % Liberals
Alaska 47 12
Arkansas 45 17
Colorado 36 17
Indiana 36 20
Louisiana 42 16
Missouri 36 19
Nebraska 36 17
North Carolina 37 19
North Dakota 36 16
Thus far, moderate Democrats from decidedly conservative states have happily signed on to the Obama/Reid/Pelosi agenda. But, now that even Keith Olbermann must admit that they represent the balance of power in Washington, will the moderates begin to feel that pressure? Will they feel confident enough to sign on to new energy taxes, government-run health care, and weakened defenses against plotting terrorists and rogue nuclear-armed nations if their undeniably conservative constituencies understand that it was their vote that, in the end, made the difference?

Donít count on it.

Water Closet
04-29-2009, 10:39 AM
I can't speak for all, but here's my take. The religious right does fight gay marriage and prostitution. Nobody really cares about sodomy laws. People don't like seeing two queers making out, but I haven't heard anybody actrually want it outlawed. So, you have two points out of five.

If a person follows a certain moral code because the law requires it, they don't get any closer to heaven. Faith is not a forced thing. You have to accept salvation, it can't be shoved down your throat.

More likely, 5 out of 5. Somebody must care enough about sodomy laws as somebody fought it all the way to the USSC quite recently (2003 - Lawrence v Texas). Now, maybe that somebody is a bunch of liberals supported by the ACLU, but somehow I doubt it. :D

As to PDA amongst gays (I really like that acronym; it invokes visions of a bunch of homosexuals sitting around texting one another), note I said "would like to see." Why don't we take a poll on this board and find out how many "would like to see" laws making such conduct illegal? While I don't think the majority would, I think a surprisingly sized minority would.

And, you didn't address point #5 (sex education) which I also think is pretty valid. See Odysseus' post regarding that.

Jfor
04-29-2009, 10:40 AM
The war was pretty much over at the time of the election with that being said it was still poor judgement not to support the war. All of our choices had thorns.

It was and it wasn't. The insurgency was still going, albeit not as storngly as it had been prior to the surge. Support for the military(former Navy here and grew up and Army brat) and it's families is number one for me. If a candidate cannot do that, they DO NOT get my support. Also, I do not think a 3rd party candidate would be good for the conservative movement right now. At the local levels I say hell yes. Get as many libertarians or other conservative 3rd parties into the local and state offices but, for the time being, we need to reshape the Republican party to our ideals. The Republican party's plank is still a conservative one. Alot of the Republicans in national office, not so much.

Rebel Yell
04-29-2009, 10:55 AM
More likely, 5 out of 5. Somebody must care enough about sodomy laws as somebody fought it all the way to the USSC quite recently (2003 - Lawrence v Texas). Now, maybe that somebody is a bunch of liberals supported by the ACLU, but somehow I doubt it. :D

There is always a fringe group that will support anything you throw out there. There will always be people who think anything they don't like should be illegal. That doesn't mean that you can paint the religious right as a monolithic make sin illegal force.


As to PDA amongst gays (I really like that acronym; it invokes visions of a bunch of homosexuals sitting around texting one another), note I said "would like to see." Why don't we take a poll on this board and find out how many "would like to see" laws making such conduct illegal? While I don't think the majority would, I think a surprisingly sized minority would.

Again, you can do that with anything, it doesn't make it a consensus.

[/QUOTE]And, you didn't address point #5 (sex education) which I also think is pretty valid. See Odysseus' post regarding that. [/QUOTE]

I went back and edited the post right after submitting it. I completely forgot to address it.:o

Water Closet
04-29-2009, 11:10 AM
There is always a fringe group that will support anything you throw out there. There will always be people who think anything they don't like should be illegal. That doesn't mean that you can paint the religious right as a monolithic make sin illegal force.

Again, you can do that with anything, it doesn't make it a consensus.

I went back and edited the post right after submitting it. I completely forgot to address it.:o

I think we're taking this thread a bit off of its original topic, my friend. Look for me to start a new thread in GD regarding the RR -- its existence, its stances, and its impact on current American politics (with maybe a bit of truth, justice, and the American Way thrown in :D).

Odysseus
04-29-2009, 11:55 AM
And, you didn't address point #5 (sex education) which I also think is pretty valid. See Odysseus' post regarding that.

True, but I'm not part of the religious right and I find the public school stance on sex education objectionable, not because I'm anti-sex or anti-education, much less pro-bible, but because I don't think that our public school system will teach it without indoctrination into trendy leftism (I notice that you didn't argue the merits of my post, simply citing it as proof that religious conservatives oppose it, without noting that I am not religious). Simply put, having lived in NYC and Los Angeles, and now Texas (although my daughter's school in Texas is the least objectionable public school that I've seen since I was in grade school), I don't trust a coalition of DNC/ACLU-friendly teachers unions and bureaucratic time servers to provide a solid education in the basics, much less peripheral issues that touch on controversial public policies. Do you agree that the public schools are not the most effective means of teaching sex ed as currently constituted or do you disagree?

Water Closet
04-29-2009, 12:02 PM
True, but I'm not part of the religious right and I find the public school stance on sex education objectionable, not because I'm anti-sex or anti-education, much less pro-bible, but because I don't think that our public school system will teach it without indoctrination into trendy leftism (I notice that you didn't argue the merits of my post, simply citing it as proof that religious conservatives oppose it, without noting that I am not religious). Simply put, having lived in NYC and Los Angeles, and now Texas (although my daughter's school in Texas is the least objectionable public school that I've seen since I was in grade school), I don't trust a coalition of DNC/ACLU-friendly teachers unions and bureaucratic time servers to provide a solid education in the basics, much less peripheral issues that touch on controversial public policies. Do you agree that the public schools are not the most effective means of teaching sex ed as currently constituted or do you disagree?

Quickly. As I noted to RY, I'll be starting a thread regarding this soon (after my next conference call). Additionally, I was not arguing the merits of any of the five positions I outlined (although I'm pretty sure you know what I think of them), but rather simply saying they were hallmarks of the RR as it comes to matters relating to the bedroom. Therefore, I had no need to "argue the merits of [your] post." Finally, simply because you support one aspect of the RR's positions and do not consider yourself a member of the group, does not invalidate the proposition that the group (the RR) supports that position.

Water Closet
04-29-2009, 12:51 PM
I was reading through this thread again in preparation of another thread and stumbled upon this...


A lot of people voted for reach across the isle McCain hoping that Palin would influence him and also hoping to block Obama.That was wrong. Looking back we should have backed Bob Barr. Michael steels attack on rush Limbough was the last straw for me. I left the party.
(emphasis mine)

Which I find quite odd in light of this reply to me in the same thread...


Thank you for leaving the republican party. It is a better party now that your gone. If you have any friends that believe like you and are still republicans please convince them to leave too. You never were a conservative you just had no idea what the parties stood for. Why do liberals call people who are religeous and uphold the constitution far right? That is the center it always will be. That was the type of people who formed or country. Go row a boat to cuba . You would love it there.
(emphasis mine)

Odysseus
04-29-2009, 01:35 PM
Quickly. As I noted to RY, I'll be starting a thread regarding this soon (after my next conference call). Additionally, I was not arguing the merits of any of the five positions I outlined (although I'm pretty sure you know what I think of them), but rather simply saying they were hallmarks of the RR as it comes to matters relating to the bedroom. Therefore, I had no need to "argue the merits of [your] post." Finally, simply because you support one aspect of the RR's positions and do not consider yourself a member of the group, does not invalidate the proposition that the group (the RR) supports that position.

Most male RR members wear pants. Does that mean that pants on men is a position supported by the RR? Some of the issues that you cited are exclusive to the RR, but some are not. By claiming that the RR opposes sex education, you're implying that those who oppose it are the heirs to William Jennings Bryant and the Scopes trial, but even most RR members have no objection to teaching the basic biology. Sex education in public schools only becomes controversial when the specifics get out, and people realize how radical the SL (Secular Left) agenda is (condoms on bananas at the elementary school level, mandatory indoctrination in alternative lifestyles throughout K-12, that whole Jocelyn Elders masturbation course, etc.) at which point the opposition to sex ed rises dramatically among all but the most radical leftists. It's the indoctrination that is the issue, not the basic idea of educating kids in the biomechanics of sex. Most RR's know this from the get go and their opposition runs deeper, but it's not exclusively an RR issue. But, in the time that you've taken to tell me that you're starting another thread, you could have just as easily answered my question as to your position on that issue, especially since my guess . Any reason that you don't want to answer it, besides the new thread issue?

Water Closet
04-29-2009, 01:45 PM
Most male RR members wear pants. Does that mean that pants on men is a position supported by the RR? Some of the issues that you cited are exclusive to the RR, but some are not. By claiming that the RR opposes sex education, you're implying that those who oppose it are the heirs to William Jennings Bryant and the Scopes trial, but even most RR members have no objection to teaching the basic biology.

Wow, Odysseus! That's quite a leap in logic. Again, I reiterate what I said before. The fact that a position is held by others outside of the group in no way invalidates the proposition that it is held by the group at large.


Sex education in public schools only becomes controversial when the specifics get out, and people realize how radical the SL (Secular Left) agenda is (condoms on bananas at the elementary school level, mandatory indoctrination in alternative lifestyles throughout K-12, that whole Jocelyn Elders masturbation course, etc.) at which point the opposition to sex ed rises dramatically among all but the most radical leftists. It's the indoctrination that is the issue, not the basic idea of educating kids in the biomechanics of sex. Most RR's know this from the get go and their opposition runs deeper, but it's not exclusively an RR issue. But, in the time that you've taken to tell me that you're starting another thread, you could have just as easily answered my question as to your position on that issue, especially since my guess . Any reason that you don't want to answer it, besides the new thread issue?

Ok, although as I noted before, I was not making an argument for or against any of the issues I listed (here at least) as this thread is supposedly about the commie traitor Arlen Specter, not about those issues. As to sex education in schools, I think that at the appropriate age (in agreement with RY) it's useful and beneficial to society as a whole. However, as I have no nor have ever had any skin in that particular game, it's not been high on my list of priorities.

hazlnut
04-29-2009, 01:51 PM
Of course it is. Unfortunately, the religious right now control the Republican Party and this is their agenda. I became a Rebpublican during the Reagan era, having grown up in the South and, naturally, been a registered Democrat. However, last year I changed my affiliation to Independent not long after McCain picked Palin as his VP. I think my experience is typical of a very large class of people who are fiscally conservative, favor a strong defense, but really want less government interference in their lives, not more. As I've noted numerous times, the extreme right and extreme left are both for more government; the only difference between the two is their agenda.

Water Closet:

Did you ever see the Swarzenegger movie The 6th Day. I'm pretty sure that's what's happening here. One of us is a clone of the other.

If PolicCon starts calling you a Leftist, Socialist, Troll--my suspicions will be confirmed.

It's good to know, I'm not the only Independent thinker on this board.

I was too young to Vote for Reagan, but Bush Sr. was my first national election. I had two really great poli sci teachers who taught me how to be critical of my own views--introspection, reflection and considering contrary opinions as a way of better defining your own.

I've made several comments about Palin on this board and gotten my head bit off for it. She's an embarrassment to the Republican Party and the state of Alaska. That fact that she's the Governor of a state does not speak to her qualifications--it raises huge concerns about the voters in that state. You can't show up on the national scene and not know the things she didn't know.

I'm concerned about Specter switching parties--but for completely different reasons--Republicans need leaders to stand up and redefine the party the way Reagan did. Defection by moderates only means surrender to the far-right. Which will eventually mean the end of the party.

Lager
04-29-2009, 01:58 PM
Just because your views run counter to those that prevail on this message board, doesn't warrant them as "independent". Many a poster here might go over to the du and make the same statement.

Water Closet
04-29-2009, 02:01 PM
Water Closet:

Did you ever see the Swarzenegger movie The 6th Day. I'm pretty sure that's what's happening here. One of us is a clone of the other.
....

Maybe, but probably not. I'm already a clone. :D

Water Closet
04-29-2009, 02:11 PM
Just because your views run counter to those that prevail on this message board, doesn't warrant them as "independent". Many a poster here might go over to the du and make the same statement.

Speaking for myself, I would say that you misinterpret hazlnut's statement regarding "independent thinkers." All of my views do not run counter to those that prevail here. In general, I share this board's views on the economy, on welfare and individualism, on many aspects of foreign policy, and even on gun control. I don't share many of the prevailing views on social issues, on issues such as abortion, religion and government, privacy and individual freedoms, and consensual "crimes." I think the key to independent thinking is toi decide the issues on their own merit, not on the "merits" of ideological (including religious) baggage.

hazlnut
04-29-2009, 02:16 PM
Just because your views run counter to those that prevail on this message board, doesn't warrant them as "independent". Many a poster here might go over to the du and make the same statement.


Good point. Here's a question I've been asking myself lately:

How do we define "Center" on the political ideology spectrum? If your views are far from the 'center', can you actually see the center?

For example:
Does a pro-life advocate who believes all abortions are wrong but doesn't engage in violence against clinics see themselves as 'moderate'.

How about an atheist who home schools their kids, but doesn't sue the state to remove God from everything. Do they see themselves as moderates?



BTW--I gave someone on this board the opportunity to discuss my views in detail. I did this as a way to test my beliefs about my beliefs. Were they really right of center? She called me a leftist, a socialist, a troll... but never really articulated why my views fell under those definitions. If fact, she had a difficult time defining what any of those terms actually meant.

So it goes...

Phillygirl
04-29-2009, 02:17 PM
They don't because they don't have the power, not because they don't want to nor because they would not attempt toif they had the power. Some of the replies to me in this thread amply illustrate that point.

And yet I constantly hear (from those to the left of me, which include most people in the real world, and you) that the RR has "hijacked" the Republican Party. I don't see that as the case. I've been a registered Republican since I was 18. An actual Republican since about 24, and I've never been part of the "Religious Right". Of course, I'm Catholic, so the Christian evangelical movement has never had much influence over me. Also, living where I do, I've probably only met a handful of actual evangelicals.

Lager
04-29-2009, 02:28 PM
Good point. Here's a question I've been asking myself lately:

How do we define "Center" on the political ideology spectrum? If your views are far from the 'center', can you actually see the center?

For example:
Does a pro-life advocate who believes all abortions are wrong but doesn't engage in violence against clinics see themselves as 'moderate'.

How about an atheist who home schools their kids, but doesn't sue the state to remove God from everything. Do they see themselves as moderates?



BTW--I gave someone on this board the opportunity to discuss my views in detail. I did this as a way to test my beliefs about my beliefs. Were they really right of center? She called me a leftist, a socialist, a troll... but never really articulated why my views fell under those definitions. If fact, she had a difficult time defining what any of those terms actually meant.

So it goes...

You raise a good point about the center. Perhaps the reason people get different readings about its location is because they triangulate from different coordinates.

hazlnut
04-29-2009, 06:01 PM
You raise a good point about the center. Perhaps the reason people get different readings about its location is because they triangulate from different coordinates.

I like that.

No matter where you are, you can always see the horizon--but to actually see the equator...?

Although, I've never seen it. I can point to it on a map. Is that the same thing?:confused::confused:

patriot45
04-29-2009, 07:01 PM
I like that.

No matter where you are, you can always see the horizon--but to actually see the equator...?

Although, I've never seen it. I can point to it on a map. Is that the same thing?:confused::confused:


I'm far,far right. I can say I'm conservative not republican. The only lefts I like are Nascar!
Most liberals are jerks- in my view. I've never heard a liberal opinion I agreed on, mainly because they are all wrong.
This is Conservative Underground not moderate Underground!

Arlen Specter is a power hungry politician, he has no scruples or morals. If I remember he started as a lib, changed to Rep and now that he can suck up to the 0 and have the 0 go to bat for him, he went back to the libs. Screw them all.

Odysseus
04-29-2009, 07:02 PM
Good point. Here's a question I've been asking myself lately:

How do we define "Center" on the political ideology spectrum? If your views are far from the 'center', can you actually see the center?

For example:
Does a pro-life advocate who believes all abortions are wrong but doesn't engage in violence against clinics see themselves as 'moderate'.

How about an atheist who home schools their kids, but doesn't sue the state to remove God from everything. Do they see themselves as moderates?

So it goes...

Everyone sees themselves as a centrist. It's everyone else who's an extremist.

Seriously, the political center in America is pretty malleable, so it's hard to define it except when there's an obvious indicator on a particular issue. For example, the gay marriage opposition tends to be more centrist than gay marriage proponents, as indicated by the number of states where it's lost on ballots. The centrist position is probably civil unions. Similarly, more people favor some (but not total) restrictions on abortion, to include parental notification for minors seeking abortions, limits based on fetal development and late term abortions in general. It's the extremists who demand either abortion on demand at all times for any reason or no abortions ever, even in cases of incest or rape.

It's also tough to figure out where you are on the spectrum unless you've lived in a lot of different places. What's considered extremely conservative in NYC or LA is mainstream in Dallas and a bit on the liberal side at FT Hood. If you work in an insular industry in which you hardly ever interact with anyone outside of your social circles, then your politics tend to take on the characteristics of an echo chamber, even if you don't realize it. That's why Dan Rather thinks that the NY Times is a middle of the road paper and the Wall Street Journal is right wing.

scd1008
04-29-2009, 07:03 PM
Right there with you Patriot !!
Well spoken !!!!!!

hazlnut
04-29-2009, 07:46 PM
Everyone sees themselves as a centrist. It's everyone else who's an extremist.

Seriously, the political center in America is pretty malleable, so it's hard to define it except when there's an obvious indicator on a particular issue. For example, the gay marriage opposition tends to be more centrist than gay marriage proponents, as indicated by the number of states where it's lost on ballots. The centrist position is probably civil unions. Similarly, more people favor some (but not total) restrictions on abortion, to include parental notification for minors seeking abortions, limits based on fetal development and late term abortions in general. It's the extremists who demand either abortion on demand at all times for any reason or no abortions ever, even in cases of incest or rape.

It's also tough to figure out where you are on the spectrum unless you've lived in a lot of different places. What's considered extremely conservative in NYC or LA is mainstream in Dallas and a bit on the liberal side at FT Hood. If you work in an insular industry in which you hardly ever interact with anyone outside of your social circles, then your politics tend to take on the characteristics of an echo chamber, even if you don't realize it. That's why Dan Rather thinks that the NY Times is a middle of the road paper and the Wall Street Journal is right wing.

Odysseus, you make some great points, there. I do believe that perspective is somewhat influenced by region. I think generation also plays a part in this. My folks were moderate fiscal conservative republicans. I don't know if it was California or just there family backgrounds, but they never really talked much about the social issue. But when it came to taxes--even Reagan was too liberal.

Over the last 5 years, I've been running a small business and had to travel a lot to Indiana for seminars where I met with other franchise owners from all over the country. That experience really gave me a better sense of where people were coming from politically speaking.

BTW--my son's name is Ulysse. (its a long story)

patriot45
04-29-2009, 07:49 PM
BTW--my son's name is Ulysse. (its a long story)

Why would anyone do that to a kid?

BadCat
04-29-2009, 08:05 PM
I'm far,far right. I can say I'm conservative not republican. The only lefts I like are Nascar!
Most liberals are jerks- in my view. I've never heard a liberal opinion I agreed on, mainly because they are all wrong.
This is Conservative Underground not moderate Underground!

Arlen Specter is a power hungry politician, he has no scruples or morals. If I remember he started as a lib, changed to Rep and now that he can suck up to the 0 and have the 0 go to bat for him, he went back to the libs. Screw them all.

I'm probably slightly to the right of you, and I'm an atheist.

I have no idea where CW cooks up these "RR" demons of his, I never run into any of them.

Lars1701a
04-29-2009, 08:07 PM
I'm probably slightly to the right of you, and I'm an atheist.

I have no idea where CW cooks up these "RR" demons of his, I never run into any of them.

This guy is CW right? he should be banned again.

patriot45
04-29-2009, 08:08 PM
I'm probably slightly to the right of you, and I'm an atheist.

I have no idea where CW cooks up these "RR" demons of his, I never run into any of them.

You don"t like Nascar? ;)

Odysseus
04-30-2009, 05:13 PM
Odysseus, you make some great points, there. I do believe that perspective is somewhat influenced by region. I think generation also plays a part in this. My folks were moderate fiscal conservative republicans. I don't know if it was California or just there family backgrounds, but they never really talked much about the social issue. But when it came to taxes--even Reagan was too liberal.

Over the last 5 years, I've been running a small business and had to travel a lot to Indiana for seminars where I met with other franchise owners from all over the country. That experience really gave me a better sense of where people were coming from politically speaking.

BTW--my son's name is Ulysse. (its a long story)
I picked Odysseus when I deployed to Iraq for the first time. Contemplating Odysseus' 20 years away from home made my tour less onerous.

Why would anyone do that to a kid?
Can you think of a better way to toughen him up?

You don"t like Nascar? ;)
I can sympathize. Even at 120 mph, it's still just traffic. :D

Water Closet
04-30-2009, 06:11 PM
Everyone sees themselves as a centrist. It's everyone else who's an extremist.

Well, eveyone here (http://www.conservativeunderground.com/forum505/showthread.php?t=13424&highlight=progressive) is bragging about how extremely conservative they can be (how low can ya' go)


Seriously, the political center in America is pretty malleable, so it's hard to define it except when there's an obvious indicator on a particular issue. For example, the gay marriage opposition tends to be more centrist than gay marriage proponents, as indicated by the number of states where it's lost on ballots. The centrist position is probably civil unions. Similarly, more people favor some (but not total) restrictions on abortion, to include parental notification for minors seeking abortions, limits based on fetal development and late term abortions in general. It's the extremists who demand either abortion on demand at all times for any reason or no abortions ever, even in cases of incest or rape.

While I agree with you on gay marriage, i.e., centrists would prefer civil unions with all of the rights and responsibilities of marriage, I'm not sure on the abortion issue. I think you'll find the answer depends heavily upon the way the question is asked. Additionally, pro-choice people tend to be as suspicious as gun owners with attempts to modify the laws.


It's also tough to figure out where you are on the spectrum unless you've lived in a lot of different places. What's considered extremely conservative in NYC or LA is mainstream in Dallas and a bit on the liberal side at FT Hood. If you work in an insular industry in which you hardly ever interact with anyone outside of your social circles, then your politics tend to take on the characteristics of an echo chamber, even if you don't realize it. That's why Dan Rather thinks that the NY Times is a middle of the road paper and the Wall Street Journal is right wing.

On this point, we are in complete agreement. I would extend your comment to say that it's tough to really understand varying cultures unless you've lived amongst them. I've lived with Muslims in Riyadh and in Sarajevo and it's given me a pretty good understanding of the diversity within Islam.

Odysseus
04-30-2009, 06:37 PM
Well, eveyone here (http://www.conservativeunderground.com/forum505/showthread.php?t=13424&highlight=progressive) is bragging about how extremely conservative they can be (how low can ya' go).
Since I got 68/400, I'm not sure if I'm bragging. However, keep in mind that the site is a progressive site, so they're take on what is "extremely conservative" may not be completely neutral, either.


While I agree with you on gay marriage, i.e., centrists would prefer civil unions with all of the rights and responsibilities of marriage, I'm not sure on the abortion issue. I think you'll find the answer depends heavily upon the way the question is asked. Additionally, pro-choice people tend to be as suspicious as gun owners with attempts to modify the laws.
The wording of poll questions is always subject to controversy, as it can seriously impact the nature of the response, just as the wording of some ballot initiatives has the same effect. That's one of the reasons that the proponents of various propositions to eliminate preferential hiring practices based on race have to fight to keep the state bureaucracies from rewriting the proposals to obscure their meaning, as has happened a couple of times. As for gun owners and pro-choicers, the difference is that we've seen registration lead to outright confiscation many times, both abroad and in the US (the Dinkins administration in NYC banned all sorts of weapons and used the registrations as probable cause to conduct searches). Except for devout Catholics and evangelicals, I don't know of anyone who wants to end all abortions. Rape, incest and medical emergency exceptions, as well as parental notification, are extremely unlikely lead to a ban on all abortions, even they reduce the overall number performed. Similarly, parental notification may or may not change the number of abortions done. I know of one case where a girl chose to have her baby over her custodial parent's objection. He wanted her to go to college. And I have as yet to hear a compelling argument against parental notification laws in the case of a minor seeking an abortion.


On this point, we are in complete agreement. I would extend your comment to say that it's tough to really understand varying cultures unless you've lived amongst them. I've lived with Muslims in Riyadh and in Sarajevo and it's given me a pretty good understanding of the diversity within Islam.

Unfortunately, the Wahhabis have made serious inroads in Sarajevo and other formerly moderate Muslim enclaves, to the detriment of the latter. They're trying to stamp out the diversity of Islam in favor of a universal jihadi mindset, and if they succeed, we'll all be poorer for it.

Water Closet
04-30-2009, 07:16 PM
Since I got 68/400, I'm not sure if I'm bragging. However, keep in mind that the site is a progressive site, so they're take on what is "extremely conservative" may not be completely neutral, either.

Possibly, but the quiz shows me as slightly to the right of center (my score was about 3x yours), as do numerous other online assessments, including the political compass exercise. I'm not sure they're all biased.


The wording of poll questions is always subject to controversy, as it can seriously impact the nature of the response, just as the wording of some ballot initiatives has the same effect. That's one of the reasons that the proponents of various propositions to eliminate preferential hiring practices based on race have to fight to keep the state bureaucracies from rewriting the proposals to obscure their meaning, as has happened a couple of times. As for gun owners and pro-choicers, the difference is that we've seen registration lead to outright confiscation many times, both abroad and in the US (the Dinkins administration in NYC banned all sorts of weapons and used the registrations as probable cause to conduct searches). Except for devout Catholics and evangelicals, I don't know of anyone who wants to end all abortions. Rape, incest and medical emergency exceptions, as well as parental notification, are extremely unlikely lead to a ban on all abortions, even they reduce the overall number performed. Similarly, parental notification may or may not change the number of abortions done. I know of one case where a girl chose to have her baby over her custodial parent's objection. He wanted her to go to college. And I have as yet to hear a compelling argument against parental notification laws in the case of a minor seeking an abortion.

Don't forget, abortion was completely illegal or severely restricted in most places prior to Roe v. Wade. Pro-choicers remember that.


Unfortunately, the Wahhabis have made serious inroads in Sarajevo and other formerly moderate Muslim enclaves, to the detriment of the latter. They're trying to stamp out the diversity of Islam in favor of a universal jihadi mindset, and if they succeed, we'll all be poorer for it.

I know the wahhabis were pouring lots of money into rebuilding (primary building very plush mosques) and I understand that they have gained in influence. However, I doubt (hope?) that the Muslims of Sarajevo will ever resemble those in Riyadh as they are too used to Western freedoms and mores. I haven't been back since 2001, although we may get a chance this Fall as we're planning a trip to Korcula.

lacarnut
05-01-2009, 03:57 PM
Well, there hasn't really been a small government party thats been in power anywhere in years.

After Newt left, the Repub. party went into the crapper. Frist & Hassert were the 2 most God awful majority leaders that the Repubs ever had. If Obama and the Democrats screw things up as bad as I think they will, Specter might be looking for a new job. Repubs need to run social and fiscal conservatives in 010.

Odysseus
05-01-2009, 07:22 PM
Possibly, but the quiz shows me as slightly to the right of center (my score was about 3x yours), as do numerous other online assessments, including the political compass exercise. I'm not sure they're all biased.
Yeah, but I usually skew halfway between libertarian and conservative. This had me to the right of Atilla.


Don't forget, abortion was completely illegal or severely restricted in most places prior to Roe v. Wade. Pro-choicers remember that.
Yes, but there's no way that parental notification for a minor would lead to restrictions for adults. The partial-birth abortion debate sought to ban one particularly gruesome process which the AMA refused to endorse and explicitly stated was never medically necessary. Its continued practice actually increases opposition to abortion. And gun owners don't oppose common sense policies like instant background checks or hunting licences. Face it, of the two, abortion advocates are more likely to oppose any change in the status quo unless it's in their favor, and are less likely to have to face an outright ban than gun owners.

And, let's not forget that the right to keep and bear arms is explicitly stated in the Constitution, while the right to an abortion is a judicial invention, based on "penumbras of emanations" of rights. Logically, any constraint on gun ownership should have to pass a more stringent test than a constraint on abortion. Yet, when faced with waiting periods, the abortion advocates claim that they are an impermissible intrusion on a woman's rights, but the left has no problem with a waiting period to buy a gun, even though background checks are instantaneous and mandatory. Similarly, additional taxes as a means of restricting or discouraging gun ownership are routinely proposed, as is licensing, but when it comes to abortion, not only must there be no restriction on access, but the state must pay for the procedure when the individual can't, and the equivalent of licensing (which implies an education requirement), informed consent, is opposed just as vehemently. As for the left's demand for laws requiring trigger locks and secure storage, well... I suppose that the closest equivalent to that would be chastity belts, but you get my point.


I know the wahhabis were pouring lots of money into rebuilding (primary building very plush mosques) and I understand that they have gained in influence. However, I doubt (hope?) that the Muslims of Sarajevo will ever resemble those in Riyadh as they are too used to Western freedoms and mores. I haven't been back since 2001, although we may get a chance this Fall as we're planning a trip to Korcula.
Those plush mosques come with Wahhabi imams who do their best to radicalize the faithful. They've been very effective in the US and Britain, so I don't hold out a lot of hope for the Balkans, where ethnic hatred is far closer to the surface and people need much less excuse to radicalize. But, while I hope that you're right, remember that hope is not a viable course of action.

Elspeth
05-02-2009, 08:39 PM
You're an INSURANCE AGENT!!!! :eek: :eek: :D

http://greenerpastures.responsiblepersonalfinance.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/07/garlic02.jpg

LOL!!!!!!!!!!!!!

OMG! I just laughed so hard!!!!!!!

Odysseus
05-02-2009, 10:50 PM
LOL!!!!!!!!!!!!!

OMG! I just laughed so hard!!!!!!!

In that case...:D

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3039/2556921539_0241b96385.jpg?v=0

hazlnut
05-02-2009, 11:57 PM
After Newt left, the Repub. party went into the crapper. Frist & Hassert were the 2 most God awful majority leaders that the Repubs ever had. If Obama and the Democrats screw things up as bad as I think they will, Specter might be looking for a new job. Repubs need to run social and fiscal conservatives in 010.

There's the problem--if you run a social conservative in a southern district, he may win, but he'll spend like a Dem to bring money to a poorer district. On the other hand, you can run a fiscal conservative in the north east, or Pacific states, but they're open to spending too, when it comes to big businesses in their district.

Fiscal conservative and social conservatives--do they really exists except in name anymore? What major changes in either of those areas did we see from 1995-2007?

Are those concepts becoming somewhat mutually exclusive? Can you be against Government intervention with taxes, regulation, and fiscal policy--but accept Big Government when it comes to private matters: abortion, marriage, and other values issues?

I don't know the answers--just putting the questions out there. Following this notion of fiscal vs. social conservative to it's logical conclusion--trying to better define what they really mean, I guess...

Water Closet
05-03-2009, 12:00 AM
...Are those concepts becoming somewhat mutually exclusive? Can you be against Government intervention with taxes, regulation, and fiscal policy--but accept Big Government when it comes to private matters: abortion, marriage, and other values issues?
...

Both favor big government, they only differ in their agendas.

hazlnut
05-03-2009, 12:09 AM
Both favor big government, they only differ in their agendas.


That's my point--in trying to re-invent themselves, should republicans try to reconcile this. Or does one side need the other in order to survive?

lacarnut
05-03-2009, 12:54 AM
There's the problem--if you run a social conservative in a southern district, he may win, but he'll spend like a Dem to bring money to a poorer district. On the other hand, you can run a fiscal conservative in the north east, or Pacific states, but they're open to spending too, when it comes to big businesses in their district.

Fiscal conservative and social conservatives--do they really exists except in name anymore? What major changes in either of those areas did we see from 1995-2007?

Are those concepts becoming somewhat mutually exclusive? Can you be against Government intervention with taxes, regulation, and fiscal policy--but accept Big Government when it comes to private matters: abortion, marriage, and other values issues?

I don't know the answers--just putting the questions out there. Following this notion of fiscal vs. social conservative to it's logical conclusion--trying to better define what they really mean, I guess...

Fiscal conservatisim in the Repub party has been dead as a door knob for the last 10 years. Politicans from both parties main concern is getting re-elected. Arlen Spector is a good example. Term limits would be the answer but most of these sleaze-balls would never vote themselves out of a job.

Earmarks are only a tiny fraction of the budget. Pork is way overstated in my opinion. Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid are taking a huge bite out of the budget. Allowing illegals to collect SS, health care, education, etc far exceeds earmarks.

lacarnut
05-03-2009, 01:02 AM
That's my point--in trying to re-invent themselves, should republicans try to reconcile this. Or does one side need the other in order to survive?

If Obama screws the economy up, Repubs will have their last shot at changing their big government spending ways with new blood in Congress. They had better get their act together; otherwise, Democrats will take us down the road to full blown socialism.

Odysseus
05-04-2009, 10:12 AM
Both favor big government, they only differ in their agendas.
That's my point--in trying to re-invent themselves, should republicans try to reconcile this. Or does one side need the other in order to survive?
You're both missing the point. The default position for Washington is big spending. The baseline accounting system ensures increasing budgets every year, and those who try to cut their departments' budgets have to fight their own people, the media and those in the congress who want to empower government. Pretend that you're the Secretary of Useless Bureaucracy and you've got a mandate from your president to eliminate waste. You look at your current budget and figure out that you can cut 10% of your personnel through attrition, simply by not hiring replacements for retirees and those who move out. You make the cuts and submit your budget. Suddenly, the media is picking up leaks of every possible negative thing about your department, including ongoing issues that should have been resolved years ago, and which should be arguments for shutting it down, but instead, they're being blamed on you. Members of congress who have a vested interest in keeping useless bureaucrats on the federal payroll (and taking campaign contributions from their union, Local 101 of the Useless Bureaucrats and Redundant Hacks of America, or UBRHA) allocate far more than you asked for in your budget and pressure members of the opposition party to go along with it through trading of earmarks and choice committee assignments, including the coveted Useless Bureaucracy Oversight Committee, and the Union Graft Collection subcommittee. Of course, both committees run "oversight" and "investigative" hearings that are thinly veiled show trials that make you look like the second coming of Boss Tweed, while the media trumpets each allegation as a fact, no matter how dubious the source or unlikely the charge. By the midterm elections, you've got more money than you wanted in the first place, your reputation is in tatters and the permanent bureaucracy has scored another win. Your successor (you've decided to "spend more time with your family" after having your good name dragged through the mud) has seen what happened to you and has made nice with UBRHA, promising a nice pay raise and a kinder, gentler work week (those 35 hour weeks are brutal when you've got nothing productive to do).

Any party in Washington is going to be under tremendous pressure to increase spending, but of the two parties, the Democrats don't just favor big government, they believe in it as a solution to all problems. Most Republicans are ideologically opposed to big government (although most have areas, such as defense, where they see spending as a necessity), but eventually succumb to the system in place, and if you have a few RINOs, then even those Republicans who genuinely oppose big spending end up getting swamped. Tom Coburn of Oklahoma is the perfect example of this. He's fought against pork-barrel earmarks and increased spending, but he's never been able to build a majority coalition in favor of spending cuts, while big spenders will always be able to find a project to tempt opponents into supporting big bills.


If Obama screws the economy up, Repubs will have their last shot at changing their big government spending ways with new blood in Congress. They had better get their act together; otherwise, Democrats will take us down the road to full blown socialism.

I hate to say it, but I think that we've reached a tipping point, and even if we do elect fiscal conservatives, the best that we can hope for is a slowing of the rate of government growth, rather than a rollback. We're at the point that Rome was at when bread and circuses (or fast food and internet porn) made up for the majority's lack of direction and focus. I'd say that the best course of action for the next few years is to pick the state that's least likely to go to hell in a handbasket and await the next Renaissance.

Lager
05-04-2009, 02:00 PM
Specter made a really ridiculous statement about the GOP and Jack Kemp possibly still being alive today. If his thinking's got that muddled, it's better he switched.

AlmostThere
05-05-2009, 09:44 PM
Karma hasn't bitten Specter in the ass. RollCall reports that Specter is losing all his seniority in committees on which he sits. :D

http://www.rollcall.com/news/34648-1.html

Rockntractor
05-05-2009, 10:01 PM
The Dems liked specter beter when he was a republican traitor. I think thats why McCain doesn't switch sides.

AlmostThere
05-05-2009, 10:45 PM
I believe Reid had told him he could keep his seniority. This must mean that Reid is either:
1) A liar
2) A joke
3) A lying joke

I hate a question where every answer is correct.

On edit:
The Dems need Specter for the filibuster-proof majority. You'd think they'd treat their golden egg with a little more care.

Odysseus
05-06-2009, 10:10 AM
Karma hasn't bitten Specter in the ass. RollCall reports that Specter is losing all his seniority in committees on which he sits. :D

http://www.rollcall.com/news/34648-1.html
Ain't payback a b!+ch?

Specter made a really ridiculous statement about the GOP and Jack Kemp possibly still being alive today. If his thinking's got that muddled, it's better he switched.
That's standard DNC drivel. Remember when John Edwards promised that if Kerry were elected, Christopher Reeve would walk? Or how Obama promised to lower the waters and heal the planet? These guys really believe their messianic nonsense.

The Dems need Specter for the filibuster-proof majority. You'd think they'd treat their golden egg with a little more care.
Why? What's he going to do, go back to the Republicans? He needs the Dems to get reelected. If the DNC doesn't back him with everything that they've got, his seat will go to Pat Toomey. The polling showed that Toomey would have won the Republican primary, so he's banking on being able to win the general election, and to do that, he needs the Democrats to ensure that he won't face a primary challenge and that he'll have all of the money and organization that he needs to win the general election. and he has to win reelection to keep from having to go back to Pennsylvania and get a real job. Being a senator with lousy committee assignments still beats not being a senator at all.

hazlnut
05-06-2009, 12:46 PM
Specter made a really ridiculous statement about the GOP and Jack Kemp possibly still being alive today. If his thinking's got that muddled, it's better he switched.

That statement was ridiculous, but I do understand Specter's personal passion re: cancer research.

AlmostThere
05-06-2009, 01:50 PM
Why? What's he going to do, go back to the Republicans? He needs the Dems to get reelected. If the DNC doesn't back him with everything that they've got, his seat will go to Pat Toomey. The polling showed that Toomey would have won the Republican primary, so he's banking on being able to win the general election, and to do that, he needs the Democrats to ensure that he won't face a primary challenge and that he'll have all of the money and organization that he needs to win the general election. and he has to win reelection to keep from having to go back to Pennsylvania and get a real job. Being a senator with lousy committee assignments still beats not being a senator at all.

He isn't a young man, actually 79 I believe. He had Hodgkin's which could always reappear. I'm not sure about retirement health benefits for Senators but I'd imagine it isn't shabby. Not being his financial adviser I can only speculate on his financial condition. But a Senator with his length of service and age could walk away with 80% of his salary and possibly Social Security benefits since he was elected prior to 1984.

I don't imagine that Arlen would be terribly hurt financially with retirement. And at his age and health, maybe not having "his face rubbed in it", it might be worth it to call it quits.

Odysseus
05-06-2009, 05:55 PM
He isn't a young man, actually 79 I believe. He had Hodgkin's which could always reappear. I'm not sure about retirement health benefits for Senators but I'd imagine it isn't shabby. Not being his financial adviser I can only speculate on his financial condition. But a Senator with his length of service and age could walk away with 80% of his salary and possibly Social Security benefits since he was elected prior to 1984.

I don't imagine that Arlen would be terribly hurt financially with retirement. And at his age and health, maybe not having "his face rubbed in it", it might be worth it to call it quits.

It's not that Specter is afraid to retire because he is in ill health or because he will be reduced to penury(senators get a much more generous retirement and health package than any other federal employees, or for that matter, most private sector employees), it's because he wants the power and prestige of being in the senate. Being a retired senator in Pennsylvania is about as much fun as being... well, pretty much anything in Pennsylvania. It's not a particularly exciting state, while Washington DC is the place to be if you're part of the elite, and who's more elite than a sitting senator? In fact, it's a great deal, because unlike cabinet posts, senators don't actually have to do anything except look like they know what they're voting on. Anyone who watched the last couple of rounds of confirmation hearings for the US Supreme Court can see that most of these guys can barely string together a coherent sentence, much less an intelligent argument. Their staffs feed them talking points that they regurgitate, while standing in front of TV cameras and getting constantly stroked by people who need their assistance in order to get their mouths onto the public teat. Further proof of this is the extraordinarily poor intellects that hold the job. Barack Obama, who's never held a job, was able to do it and even got himself moved further up the food chain. Teddy Kennedy does the job despite a brain that's been pickled in Chivas Regal and a liver that's in worse shape than New Orleans after Katrina. Joe Biden's been in the senate for years, despite having his foot so firmly entrenched in his mouth that he may have the only documented case of athlete's tongue on record. Barbara Boxer is dumber than a box of rocks and Hillary Clinton's sole qualification for the job is that she was willing to share Bill Clinton's bed (which, BTW, is a qualification that is more widespread than I care to think about). As for Schumer, Levin, Durbin and the rest, if there's anyone who demonstrates the brightness of a small appliance bulb in a brown out, it's them.

The point is, where else can a man of dubious intellect, a complete lack of private sector experience and a lifetime of useless activity be bumped to the head of the line at five-star restaurants, get his traffic tickets fixed, be waited on by a staff of much younger (and hotter) people and otherwise enjoy the kinds of perks that previous generations associated with feudal lords? Leaving the senate at this point in his life would kill Specter and he knows it. Seniority is nice, as are committee assignments that lend themselves to serious graft (Chris Dodd's position on the banking committee being an obvious example), but ultimately, even the least influential senator is still a senator.

scd1008
05-06-2009, 06:48 PM
I think Arlan, horses ass, Specter get what he deserves.
I hope worse things happen to him !!
Some day you will say hello to Holly, Arlan ................... and what will you say to her ?

AlmostThere
05-06-2009, 07:55 PM
It's not that Specter is afraid to retire because he is in ill health or because he will be reduced to penury(senators get a much more generous retirement and health package than any other federal employees, or for that matter, most private sector employees), it's because he wants the power and prestige of being in the senate.......

I am not arguing he would consider retiring because of age or health concerns. As you point out, the power and prestige is the aphrodisiac. His power has been stripped and how much prestige is there in being the most junior Senator on multiple committees while having 30 years in the Senate? The Dems are holding the sword of Damocles over his head . "Get re-elected and we'll talk about restoring your seniority." Of course, one wrong vote would negate any re-election he might get. He'll be constantly looking at Reid to see which way to vote. Not to much prestige and power there. The Dems would have to be really desperate to give him his seniority back. Alito, Roberts, The Patriot Act; truth be told, the Dems probably hate him more than the Republicans do. I think his days of power and prestige are over. He should leave now with at least the appearance of dignity.

MichaelMooreFan
05-06-2009, 08:10 PM
Arlen Spector is my hero! He showed true principles. Because of him, we will have universal healthcare! Go GO Go Arlen!

SarasotaRepub
05-06-2009, 08:41 PM
Arlen Spector is my hero! He showed true principles. Because of him, we will have universal healthcare! Go GO Go Arlen!

Well the Dems sure put him in his place. No seniority for you!!!! :D

megimoo
05-06-2009, 09:00 PM
That statement was ridiculous, but I do understand Specter's personal passion re: cancer research.Anyone who has cancer would be for more cancer research money .Spector is an old has been who has been in the Senate far too long .He has been useless like McCain long enough .When he originally ran for a seat he didn't want to run as a Republician but he had no choice.

Now Dirty Harry Reid has Benedict Arnold Spector back on his side and Spector gets to sit in the Senate Playground with the little kids !

Best news for the Republicians this year .Now for Snow and the other one .What a bunch of Dirty Whores these political people really are !

AlmostThere
05-06-2009, 09:08 PM
Arlen Spector is my hero! He showed true principles. Because of him, we will have universal healthcare! Go GO Go Arlen!

At his age I'm sure he does. He can't be too much of a hero, his name is Specter with an E. FYI, if you want to start a food fight you have to bring more than potato chips and marshmallows.

Odysseus
05-07-2009, 03:14 PM
I am not arguing he would consider retiring because of age or health concerns. As you point out, the power and prestige is the aphrodisiac. His power has been stripped and how much prestige is there in being the most junior Senator on multiple committees while having 30 years in the Senate? The Dems are holding the sword of Damocles over his head . "Get re-elected and we'll talk about restoring your seniority." Of course, one wrong vote would negate any re-election he might get. He'll be constantly looking at Reid to see which way to vote. Not to much prestige and power there. The Dems would have to be really desperate to give him his seniority back. Alito, Roberts, The Patriot Act; truth be told, the Dems probably hate him more than the Republicans do. I think his days of power and prestige are over. He should leave now with at least the appearance of dignity.
The prestige is outside of the senate, where he's still treated as one of the one-hundred most powerful legislators in the nation. He doesn't care a whit about what he does for the next six years as long as he's on Washington's A-list. The good news is that his example may give Snowe and any other RINOs pause before jumping ship.

Arlen Spector is my hero! He showed true principles. Because of him, we will have universal healthcare! Go GO Go Arlen!
From your screen name, I'd have thought that Michael Moore was your hero, but it's okay, he and Specter are both hypocrtical windbags who put themselves ahead of their country and distort facts for their own convenience.

Rebel Yell
05-07-2009, 03:33 PM
From your screen name, I'd have thought that Michael Moore was your hero, but it's okay, he and Specter are both hypocrtical windbags who put themselves ahead of their country and distort facts for their own convenience.

He's a fake troll. Look at his posts. "Michael Moore is good." "I love Obama." Michelle is Beautiful."

It's okay, I have the same problem at DU. It's really hard for me to say these things and sound credible.

AlmostThere
05-07-2009, 04:10 PM
The prestige is outside of the senate, where he's still treated as one of the one-hundred most powerful legislators in the nation. He doesn't care a whit about what he does for the next six years as long as he's on Washington's A-list. The good news is that his example may give Snowe and any other RINOs pause before jumping ship.

Sir, I agree that this may make Snowe and other fellow travelers think twice and maybe even a Blue Dog wonder if he is on the right side of history. But as far as Specter, I must disagree. That man has been castrated in the public square. Every day he serves from this day forward will be as Reid's personal eunuch. And his colleagues and constituents know as much.

Odysseus
05-07-2009, 04:34 PM
Sir, I agree that this may make Snowe and other fellow travelers think twice and maybe even a Blue Dog wonder if he is on the right side of history. But as far as Specter, I must disagree. That man has been castrated in the public square. Every day he serves from this day forward will be as Reid's personal eunuch. And his colleagues and constituents know as much.

Washington is full of eunuchs, but being able to rest the site of his former manhood (if he ever had any before) in a senate seat is a powerful inducement. Specter doesn't care about committee assignments and the mechanics of legislation, he just wants good media coverage, a seat in the senate and the perks that go with it. Voting with the Dems is nothing new to Specter, and if his speeches sound a bit higher in pitch when he denounces his former party, the media will simply report that castratis have lovely voices and that we should all listen to the pearls of wisdom from someone who is willing to show the kind of courage it obviously takes to remove one's own testicles and present them to the opposition on a silver platter. :D

AlmostThere
05-07-2009, 06:49 PM
Almost Shakespearean.

AmPat
05-09-2009, 11:03 AM
castratis have lovely voices
:D Ha!

Spectoris Castratis, I love it.

Specter has needed the boot from the GOP for years. Another mistake I knew Bush was making while he was making it. He bailed Specter's sorry butt out when he was vulnerable and Specter was one of Bushes biggest traitors since.

lacarnut
05-09-2009, 11:07 AM
:D Ha!

Spectoris Castratis, I love it.

Specter has needed the boot from the GOP for years. Another mistake I knew Bush was making while he was making it. He bailed Specter's sorry butt out when he was vulnerable and Specter was one of Bushes biggest traitors since.

McCain fits that bill quite well also.