CNN is reporting PA Sen. Arlen Specter will switch from the Republican to the Democratic Party.
He knows.
Printable View
CNN is reporting PA Sen. Arlen Specter will switch from the Republican to the Democratic Party.
He knows.
He knows? Yeah he knows he faced a primary challenge and will probably do better as a Dem. Its obviously a pretty big story, but in reality its not a HUGE change.
With this news and Stuart Smalley, does this give them the 60 seats needed to break filibuster?
Thank God it's about time, now if we can only get the illegals to deport themselves back to where they belong as well,we may have a chance.
Switch?
Oh...you mean he made the label official?
No kidding. All RINO's need to go back to their home party, and let the republicans rebuild clean.Quote:
Originally Posted by FaithInOne
I always liked Arlen. :tu
And you are a liberal... Right?Quote:
Originally Posted by JoeChalupa
Good move conservatives. Shrink your party even more.. Keep up the good work! You can officially become the party of the South!
How can it be a party of conservatives when it's tainted with liberals?Quote:
Originally Posted by George Gervin's Afro
Better small end lean instead of polluted.
Veteran Sen. Arlen Specter, R-Pennsylvania, switched from the Republican to the Democratic Party on Tuesday, Sen. Harry Reid said.
The Specter party switch would give Democrats a filibuster-proof Senate majority of 60 seats if Al Franken holds his current lead in the disputed Minnesota Senate race.
Specter, a five-term Senate veteran, was expected to face a very tough primary challenge in 2010 from former Rep. Pat Toomey, who nearly defeated Specter in the Pennsylvania GOP Senate primary in 2004.
A Quinnipiac University survey of registered Pennsylvania voters released last month showed Specter trailing the more conservative Toomey in a hypothetical primary matchup, 41 to 27 percent.
A separate Franklin & Marshall survey showed Specter leading Toomey 33 to 18 percent. Another 42 percent, however, were undecided.
More than half of the Republicans polled in the Franklin & Marshall survey said they would prefer to see someone new in the Senate.
Numerous Republicans are angry with Specter over his recent vote in support of President Obama's $787 billion stimulus plan.
Specter, one of only three GOP senators to vote for the measure, has been part of a dwindling group of GOP moderates from the northeastern part of the country.
http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/04/...tch/index.html
Translation:Quote:
Originally Posted by Wild Cobra
"I think marginalizing the Republican party and shunning moderates is a great election strategy".
As a Democrat, I say:
"Please, run for RNC chairman."
:lmao
If that is what you want to call me. I consider myself a progressive with conservative tendencies.Quote:
Originally Posted by Wild Cobra
What a rigidly stupid ideologue you are. Anybody even slightly left of Rush is a kool-aid drinking liberal to you. Fortunately for us, your party's so called leaders are just as dumb when it comes to writing off anybody and everybody who even dares break with the most fervent of batshit insane, right wing positions.Quote:
Originally Posted by Wild Cobra
Specter has been voting with the Dems for a while now, the only thing that changed today was the letter after his name.Quote:
Originally Posted by George Gervin's Afro
This would be like Lieberman joining the Republican party. I don't think this shocks anyone.
This just shows that NONE of these career politicians are the least bit concerned about their constituents or their party - they're only concerned about their own POWER. They will do anything - including selling out the people who elected them, to retain that power.
WE NEED TERM LIMITS! I hope all these schmucks get tossed into the unemployment line! As far as Specter is concerned - GOOD RIDDENCE TO BAD RUBBISH!! And you can take Susan Collins and Olympia Snowe with you!
lol. The Left calls Republicans hypocrites because they didn't get upset at Bush's big spending and idiotic deficit financing.
Then when some Republicans are happy that one of the biggest Rhino's decides to leave the Left calls Republicans stupid for not having a big enough tent to accommodate big spenders.
what about "Big Pork Barton"?Quote:
Originally Posted by Crookshanks
So the whore moves from one bed to the other. Meanwhile the big media conglomerates have a lead story for the next 24 hour news cycle.
Specter initially became a Republican out of political expedience. He was facing a likely defeat in the GOP primary in Pennsylvania so this move is not that surprising. I wouldn't be surprised to see it happen with one or both of the senators from Maine at some point.
You hit the nail on the head! I don't think a person should be able to switch parties like this - because the only reason they do it is to avoid a defeat during re-election. I especially think it's wrong when it changes the balance in the Senate, such as when Jim Jeffords switched - which gave the Democrats the majority. They're all scum-sucking bottom feeders!Quote:
Originally Posted by Marcus Bryant
The President can only serve 2 terms - why in the world should we let members of Congress serve FOREVER?! :nope I think there should be a limit of 12 years for both Senators and Representatives.
So he moved from one wing of the DC party to the other. BFD.
Caught part of his news conference on the radio on the way back from lunch. Got a kick out of his claim that he wasn't going to let the GOP primary voters end his 29 year political career.
His quote: "I won't be judged by that jury."*
*Or something real similar to that
I've slurp!!!! slurp!!!!!eaten at this trough for 29 years slurp!!!!!slurp!!!!!! I aint about to go on no diet now!!!Quote:
Originally Posted by 1369
Excuse me - those GOP voters are the ONLY reason he's had his 29-year political career. And now they're telling him it's time to retire! But god forbid those stupid rednecks who cling to their guns and religion tell him he has to go. What an arrogant SOB!Quote:
Originally Posted by 1369
Or he's tired of being in the trough..Quote:
Originally Posted by hope4dopes
riiiight...but now he's gone from being in the trough to being right in the middle of the slop in the pig pen! :lmaoQuote:
Originally Posted by George Gervin's Afro
So you voted against Barton last election, right?Quote:
Originally Posted by Crookshanks
Whew, that's a relief.
Now the Dems have complete control of the state I live in now.
Hopefully Texas can pay attention to how they do it here, and in NY, Cali and Michigan - get rid of ALL the conservatives, and be JUST as successful!
Actually, I just moved here and haven't voted except for the Presidential election.Quote:
Originally Posted by ChumpDumper
So you're part of the problem of which you complain. Vote against Barton next election -- then you can talk.Quote:
Originally Posted by Crookshanks
The man who invented the Magic Bullet theory is now a democrat?
This is not news. This guy is a loser. He craves attention. I could careless what party he is in. The whole New England Patriots cheating made this guy a LOSER!!!
I doubt he will be re-elected what ever party he is in. Plus screwing over the country voting for the trillion dollar package makes him a fucking loser.
Yea, he's back and to the left.Quote:
Originally Posted by Galileo
Nothing magic about it if you choose not to lie about the positions of the victims in the car.Quote:
Originally Posted by Galileo
Well, one party is in complete, unfettered control of the Executive and Legislative Branches. Yippee.
Eh, it won't last.
One would hope. The illusion of divided government we must have.
:lmaoQuote:
Originally Posted by 1369
:lmao
:lmao
Translation:Quote:
Originally Posted by jack sommerset
:baby
All your congresses are belong to us.Quote:
Originally Posted by Marcus Bryant
Seriously, what happens if everything works out OK during this time, and none of the doom and gloom scenarios cooked up by the right wing kooks comes to pass?Quote:
Originally Posted by Marcus Bryant
If things do start to really suck, then the Dems will rightly get the blame.
If not, then what happens to the "conservative" movement in this country?
Quote:
Originally Posted by RandomGuy
So, you and other libs on this board bitched about Bush running up record deficiits during his time in charge, but now that Obama is running up deficits greater than all the prior presidents combined you don't think qualifies for doom and gloom?
Hypocritical much?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Aggie Hoopsfan
He won't get that. He will respond with a baby sucking his thumb.
We are discussing the federal government, no?Quote:
Originally Posted by RandomGuy
The difference is, it doesn't make sense to run up huge deficits in economic boom times. It's not like there are any democrats jumping and cheering about the deficit, but when you're in the middle of a depression the public sector needs to be robust in order to recover.Quote:
Originally Posted by Aggie Hoopsfan
But you wont get that, you'll just respond with a pre-cut ideological talking point
NO doubt....the GOP will go after Obama Clinton-whitewater style....its just a matter of time for them to come up with the right ruse...trouble is, like Clinton and Reagan before him, Obama is becoming a Teflon President....Quote:
Originally Posted by Marcus Bryant
MacroEconomics 101 .....schooled. :lmaoQuote:
Originally Posted by RobinsontoDuncan
How about you don't run deficits at any time and we don't spend $10K for every man, woman, and child in this country while pretending that's not enough to address every possible social ill and take care of that which the government is supposed to take care of?Quote:
Originally Posted by RobinsontoDuncan
A $3 trillion budget. $40K of federal government expenditure per family of four and that's not enough?
It's actually OK to run spending deficits in a recession, that's exactly what you should do...wasn't last year's budget 2.5 million with no recession? Where were you?
To heal our massively insolvent banks? For Stimulus 3.0 to allay the serious social pain coming down the pike?Quote:
Originally Posted by Marcus Bryant
I doubt it.
Yes, we're going to pay the piper. But even if the budget was back around the $2.3 tril or so it was before this latest bust, that's $7,667 per person or $30K for a family of four per year.Quote:
Originally Posted by Winehole23
There's nothing wrong with switching political parties in order to get re-elected. Specter is just trying to hold onto the power he has as a senator.
You conveniently ignored it is also OK to run a deficit during war time. So tell me, why did president Clinton run deficits after the cold war was won?Quote:
Originally Posted by Nbadan
So tall me, why are you complaining about deficit spending now?Quote:
Originally Posted by Wild Cobra
Are you truly that uninformed? Clinton's greatest impact was balancing the budget and running a massive surplus toward the end of his term.Quote:
Originally Posted by Wild Cobra
WC doesn't let facts get in the way of his bitching and moaning...Quote:
Originally Posted by RobinsontoDuncan
Obama's budget, even making the rosiest possible economic assumptions, projects huge deficits ten years down the road.Quote:
Originally Posted by Nbadan
One possibility is that he plans huge tax increases if and when the economy turns around in order to make up the difference. It may do well to convince oneself that these will just be on "the rich," but given the breadth of the shortfall, this is just wishful thinking. While the typical Republican application of the Laffer curve is, er, laughable (revenues are maximum at zero tax rates!), the basic concept is sound, and Obama probably doesn't have enough room to raise the necessary revenue before he's chasing vanishing marginal income.
Another possibility is that he's looked at the numbers, realizes there is no hope, the country is doomed, and has decided we just should all just go on a bender and get what we can before our creditors wise up.
I think the latter is probably correct. Really. It's all moot. Whatever hope of fixing our fiscal situation we had was extinguished in the previous administration and all Obama is doing is administering palliative care.
It is all in the democrats court now.
For awhile I've thought this was deliberate. GWB meant to drive New Deal and Great Society over the cliff.Quote:
Originally Posted by Extra Stout
What I wonder is whether he knew he'd be taking the rest of us over the cliff too.
http://www.itsallabouteeyore.awoodma...es/eeyore6.jpg
Should I feel bad about wanting to see Grover Norquist impaled?Quote:
Originally Posted by Winehole23
Wanting it done seems reasonable and proportionate to me; wanting to see it, a bit macabre. But there's no accounting for taste.
Because the bailouts are not the answer and the package they made has new social spending programs that will not stop.Quote:
Originally Posted by ChumpDumper
Did you not know that?
He didn't balance the budget, the economy made things good for his administration. The Y2K scare and technological developments in CMP made some big differences like.Quote:
Originally Posted by RobinsontoDuncan
Funny how things dropped after the the Y2K scare was over.
He was lucky, and had a republican congress.Quote:
Originally Posted by ElNono
That is fact!
This democrat congress and democrat president may spend us into oblivion.
We've been here before folks.
Jimmy Carter had a 61 seat Senate and look what he did with it. Brought on the Reagan Revolution. Obama is a black Jimmy Carter...
Exciting times.
What is the answer?Quote:
Originally Posted by Wild Cobra
The question is, will he be a better or worse president than president carter?Quote:
Originally Posted by Yonivore
I think worse! He will put us into double digit inflation like president Carter and those democrats did for sure.
another brave admission.Quote:
Originally Posted by Yonivore
So, if it was a democrat President, chalk it up to luck?Quote:
Originally Posted by Wild Cobra
Please.
The 'starve the beast' strategy. I'd believe it, if I didn't see him give Big Pharma what they wanted with the Medicare prescription drugs program. If I had to guess, Rove decided that the electorate didn't care about fiscal responsibility anymore and the true dividing line in American politics was cultural, with social conservatism as the majority view. Yes, the various congressional scandals and angst over the Iraq invasion did in the GOP in 2006. 2008 was interesting because we did see a 25% drop in the Dow about a month before the election, with reports of a severe recession/depression on its way. How many incumbent parties are going to survive that (even before considering the unpopularity of the incumbent administration), especially a GOP one? Once the economy stabilizes and the equity markets are back on the upswing, we can get back to the things that really matter, such as arguing about gays, guns, and abortion. I have a feeling that this is going to be the argument made by social conservatives in the GOP heading into the 2010 midterm federal election.Quote:
Originally Posted by Winehole23
Well the GOP continues to implode. Republicans feud over Specter
Doesn't sound any different from Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maslow'...archy_of_needs At the bottom are the basics to survive, food, shelter, etc etc. As you go up, it leads to social and emotional needs. Our country as a whole is no different I think. Once we've got the big stuff handled relatively well, we move up the ladder to less important issues. When the basic issues come to play, the lesser social issues get pushed aside temporarily.Quote:
Originally Posted by Marcus Bryant
Do you know who Newt is, Mr. Informed?Quote:
Originally Posted by RobinsontoDuncan
Funny how Congress went along with the spending for the last two years and Obama voted for the EVIL GWB shitulus plan.Quote:
Originally Posted by Extra Stout
They are all the fucking same. Fiscal conservatism is a god damned pipe dream. This country is fucked.
Lawyers and Career politicians have a blank check courtesy of the biggest empire in the history of this planet. How can we not be fucked :lmao
What does fucked even mean? If the economy completely turns on us, what's the worst that'll happen? We can't all have plasma screen TV's and new laptops every two years? Our athletes won't be making 20 million a year? Retirement doesn't exist? Instead of steak and lobster we have to eat spaghetti more? I mean, if we are fucked and there's an accompanying drop in quality of life, I for one don't care. That shit doesn't matter. We'll still have it better than 99% of humanity that came before us. Families and friends will still exist. There'll still be marijuana. Until global warming comes to complete fruition we'll still have the outdoors. The things that really make life worth living will still be there and frankly, we're due for a drop in material quality of life anyway, IMO. There's 6 billion people in this world, we might as well start acting like it.Quote:
This country is fucked.
So if unless by "fucked" you meant we're all going to be working in some bank's slave labour camp, chill, life will go on... and if anybody out there thinks we are headed for some truly horrendous fascist existence- stop being paranoid and try counting your blessings while you have em.
My Friend Newt:Quote:
Originally Posted by FaithInOne
http://www.uky.edu/Ag/Forestry/TBarn...newt%20eft.jpg
And since I'm taking it that you mean the man who spent $50 million of tax payer money in order to investigate a blow job while he was carrying on three extra-marital affairs of his own, why yes--yes I do.Quote:
Originally Posted by FaithInOne
I also know that it was Bill Clinton's decision to raise taxes in the early 90s that brought about the surplus, and Clinton's general economic stewardship helped America enjoy one of its most prosperous, and evenly advantageous decades/eras in history.
Liberal revisionist history is so great :lmaoQuote:
Originally Posted by RobinsontoDuncan
What is your version of events?Quote:
Originally Posted by Crookshanks
I'm not thinking about the marginal reduction of middle-class luxuries. i would be referring to a future world where the U.S. goes bankrupt and ceases to exist, where the fractured states that exist in its wake suffer a huge drop in economic activity, where shantytowns pop up around all major cities since there are no jobs, where people really go hungry.Quote:
Originally Posted by ballijuana
I would be referring to a world where people, in response to this suffering, look for somebody to blame. Those who don't fit in, who go against the conventional wisdom in their communities, will be targeted. In some parts of the country, that will be liberals, gays, blacks, Hispanics and people who don't have a twang in their voice. In other parts of the country, that will be people who do have a twang in their voice. In some places that will be people who go to church on Sunday. In some places it will be people who don't, or who go to the wrong kind of church. In some places it will be people who wear suits to work. In some places it will be those who don't have jobs.
And when I say targeted, I mean as in the crosshairs of the weapons their enemies use to kill them.
I would be referring to a wartorn land that takes a century or more to climb back to where it is now, if it ever does, and if it does, it will do so speaking Spanish.
Apocalyptic enough?
I'm slightly more optimistic... if we do have an apocalypse, it will just be another civil war, I feel. There's far too many Americans with guns in every state for people NOT to band together.Quote:
Originally Posted by Extra Stout
Exactly as the republicans were for 6 years under Bush and lets see...oh yes, spend, spend, spend, spend, spend and cut taxes for the wealthiest, who would consume so much that the entire working class would get their "trickled down" allotment (and be happy with it!) while the unregulated free markets would make so much money for everybody that the budgets that didn't include the war expenditures or social security or emergency preparedness would magically disappear ....oops...that's not what happened was it. Well. some of it happened. The tax cuts were there for the wealthiest. The spending was unchecked by the REPUBLICAN -CONTROLLED HOUSE AND THE REPUBLICAN CONTROLLED SENATE. The budget surplus from the prior administration disappeared. There was never a balanced budget proposed, much less passed by the party of fiscal conservatism. The national debt was DOUBLED BY THE PARTY THAT PRETENDS TO CARE ABOUT MY GRANDCHILDREN NOW BUT NEVER GAVE A DAMN ABOUT THEM THEN!!Quote:
Originally Posted by Marcus Bryant
So, we had one party rule before this that didn't really work out so well for a party that claims to care about things balanced budgets and federal deficits, except NOT WHEN THEY ARE IN CHARGE OF BOTH THE EXECUTIVE AND LEGISLATIVE BRANCHES.
There is some basic arithmetic that is at issue here...cutting taxes plus increased spending (whether it is on a war or a hurricane or conservative social programs) equals higher debt for our children and grandchildren. Similarly, cutting taxes for the middle and lower classes while increasing spending for infrastructure, liberal social programs, and inherited wars still equals higher debt for our children and grandchildren. (but the wars and social security obligations are now reflected in the budgets rather than hidden, so the full amount of money that will be expended is shown...so the budgets are 3 times bigger though the expenditures are only about 30% more). This "transparency", is, to some enough to overcome all of the additionall debt.
Neither party has any moral superiority over the other on this issue. To suggest otherwise is an insult to empiricism.
Saw Specter on Meet the Press this morning...the guy is a world-class douche. It's abundantly clear that this move was utterly self-serving. And here I was, thinking that members of this government were meant to serve the people before themselves.
I wouldn't want a person like this serving in my party, so good riddance. And please keep in mind, my opinion has absolutely nothing to do with his moderate political views.
I have said a few times I am neither a Democrat or a Republican. I know some of you don't believe this but who gives a fuck. How does one go from one party to the other just like that. That really is fucked up. Politics is a business. That can be Specters only reason. It makes me laugh how some of you just pick a side like a democrat when the real players in the game don't feel that way at all. Its a business to them.
only a bottom-tier member of a bottom-tier forum could be this slow.Quote:
Originally Posted by jack sommerset
I thought the reasons for the switch were clear enough. Thousands and thousands of Pennsylvanians switched from Republican to Democrat in order to vote in the Democratic primary.
It basically shrunk the pool of Republican voters who are allowed to vote in the upcoming primary. He'd be putting himself at the altar before a very small pool of the most conservative people in the state. It makes no sense on his part.
He's there to serve the people of PA... not the Republican or Democratic party. If he gets re-elected? So be it... if he doesn't? Oh well... that's democracy for you.
Nice spin but FAIL. The guy is a money hungry fucking LOSER just like Clambake except Clambake has no money. He is just a loser.Quote:
Originally Posted by jman3000
Interesing article on CNN related to the overall exodus of Rockefeller Republicans over the last 40 years.
Northeastern GOP exodus
poor jack.Quote:
Originally Posted by jack sommerset
calling you a bottom feeder must have stung a bit.
i apologize.
I accept ur apology.Quote:
Originally Posted by clambake
Umm... that's no spin on my part. It's what happened. Not what I think what happened... what actually happened.Quote:
Originally Posted by jack sommerset
Now whether he did it because he's a "money hungry fucking LOSER" as you so eloquently put, or because he really does think he can serve his people more effectively than Toomey is something we won't really know for sure. If he was running for senate in Texas I wouldn't vote for the old fart... but I'm not a Pennsylvanian (:elephant) so I don't really give a shit.
It's a spin alright. Maybe not from you,perhaps you really believe his explanation but thats ur deal. This guy switched over because he fucked the Republicans over and the American citizens over when he voted for the stimulus. He is a heal. All those people who voted for him because he was a Republican, he just said "fuck you"Quote:
Originally Posted by jman3000
I mean what the fuck was he thinking. Does he actually think he has a chance in hell at winning? Before this he was worried if The NFL Patriots cheated more than they admitted. Keeping Spygate alive. What a way to spend the tax payers dime and time. Anyone going against this prick will win. He should have some humility and stay a Republican until his term is up. If he really felt he was a Democrat then switch after he serves the people who voted for him. Fucking guy is a douche. I'm glad you said you would not vote for him if you had the chance.
Yep, and probably most of them conservative. They will switch back most likely I think.Quote:
Originally Posted by jman3000
Remember Operation Chaos? One unexpected side effect was there were also republicans that hated Hillary so much, there was a switch there too.
That depends on if they switch back or not. Again, isn't it more likely the conservative ones participated in Operation Chaos?Quote:
Originally Posted by jman3000
I don't know if my boots are tall enough for this.Quote:
Originally Posted by jman3000
He did it for himself. Not for the voters.
LOL...Quote:
Originally Posted by jack sommerset
I may have to take that clammy thing off IGNORE for a few days to see how he reacts...
Who needs them? The likes of them are why republicans are not conservative to balance the liberal democrats.Quote:
Originally Posted by exstatic
No. Party affiliation for the 2008 election was pretty solidly Democratic. Polls that have nothing to do with talk radio showed a 16 point edge in party ID for Democrats in Pennsylvania.Quote:
Originally Posted by Wild Cobra
The likes of them possibly gave the Dems a cloture proof majority in the Senate.Quote:
Originally Posted by Wild Cobra
If you tell all the moderates to get bent they might leave and not come back for awhile. Careful with that ideological jihad. It could make things a lot worse in the short run for conservatives.
Don't Republicans care about electoral politics anymore? They lost moderates and independents. They lost ages 18-34 by what, 35 points? (In the Presidential election)
Consider for a moment WC, the consequences of having so many ripe conservatives, in such a small tent.