Senator Arlen Specter (R-PA)

[Harvey]

Originally posted by: RyanPaulShaffer

Originally posted by: Harvey

It had to happen. :thumbsup:

I know real, thinking, fiscally conservative human beings who are horrified by ass clowns like Limbaugh and Michelle Bachman and the Faux Noise machine speaking for the Republican brand name. Others are equally horrified by the ethically and morally challenged "brand name" Republicans who attempt to defend indefensible, inhuman acts of torture committed by their thankfully EX-Traitor In Chief and his criminal gang.

Their only alternative is to walk away from it as fast and as far as possible if for no other reason than to maintain their own credibility and to be able to live with themselves.

My only question is, what took them so long?

My only question is, who will you blame in a few years when things get worse? Bush is gone and has been for 100 days. The Dems have controlled the House and Senate since 2006.

Things are going to get much worse the next few years, but unfortunately, people need to learn the truth the hard way.

Now, I have other questions

1. What makes you so sure things will get worse? They may, but at least, we have an intelligent, competent administration in power... for a welcome and long overdue change.
   
2. Considering the trillions of dollars the Bushwhackos squandered on their war of lies in Iraq, and how many trillions more they squandered with their failure to oversee and regulate their wealthy Wall Street robber baron contributors for years before 2006, what makes you think we wouldn't have years or decades of current and future financial problems to address, regardless of who won the last election?

You're entiled to disagree with how the Obama administration deals with these problems, but the Bushwhackos left us on the hook for them long before Obama took office.

 

[cubby1223]

Once Franken finally gets in to the Senate, nothing that happens from then on forward can ever be blamed on Republicans. And that's a good thing. Democrats will no longer have any diversionary topics to shift focus away from them.

And Craig, do you think anyone here takes anything you say seriously other than your fellow partisan hacks?

-edit: same goes for you Harvey

 

[CADsortaGUY]

As others have noted, this isn't really a BIG deal as he has been a closet democrat for a while. IMO this was more about the $ and not having a primary challenge next election.

 

[RyanPaulShaffer]

Originally posted by: Harvey

Originally posted by: RyanPaulShaffer

Originally posted by: Harvey

It had to happen. :thumbsup:

I know real, thinking, fiscally conservative human beings who are horrified by ass clowns like Limbaugh and Michelle Bachman and the Faux Noise machine speaking for the Republican brand name. Others are equally horrified by the ethically and morally challenged "brand name" Republicans who attempt to defend indefensible, inhuman acts of torture committed by their thankfully EX-Traitor In Chief and his criminal gang.

Their only alternative is to walk away from it as fast and as far as possible if for no other reason than to maintain their own credibility and to be able to live with themselves.

My only question is, what took them so long?

My only question is, who will you blame in a few years when things get worse? Bush is gone and has been for 100 days. The Dems have controlled the House and Senate since 2006.

Things are going to get much worse the next few years, but unfortunately, people need to learn the truth the hard way.

Now, I have other questions

1. What makes you so sure things will get worse? They may, but at least, we have an intelligent, competent administration in power... for a welcome and long overdue change.
   
2. Considering the trillions of dollars the Bushwhackos squandered on their war of lies in Iraq, and how many trillions more they squandered with their failure to oversee and regulate their wealthy Wall Street robber baron contributors for years before 2006, what makes you think we wouldn't have years or decades of current and future financial problems to address, regardless of who won the last election?

You're entiled to disagree with how the Obama administration deals with these problems, but the Bushwhackos left us on the hook for them long before Obama took office.

Pure emotional response, without actually researching the facts or truth. Typical.

1. You keep telling yourself that over and over again as long as it makes you sleep better at night. Obviously, you don't possess simple mathematical ability, since the stimulus and budget bills passed by this administration and Democractic congress will make Bush's deficits look like chump change.

2. Since you don't like facts and actually doing research, check out how much the big banks contributed to the Democratic party VS the Republican party. AIG, for example. You'd be surprised.

At the end, of course, the typical Bush bashing and pass the buck to Bush. Everything that goes right, Obama is the best! Everything that goes wrong, Bush sucks it is his fault!

Seriously, you're not amusing nor original. You're just another line-tower which are all over the main stream media, like CNN, MSNBC, NY Times, Boston Globe, etc.

Which is why nobody watches/reads them and they need John Kerry to bail them out. :laugh:

 

[RyanPaulShaffer]

Originally posted by: cubby1223
Once Franken finally gets in to the Senate, nothing that happens from then on forward can ever be blamed on Republicans. And that's a good thing. Democrats will no longer have any diversionary topics to shift focus away from them.

And Craig, do you think anyone here takes anything you say seriously other than your fellow partisan hacks?

-edit: same goes for you Harvey

They will still blame Bush. That's the point. Even in 2050 if we have a string of nothing but Democrat presidents and Democrat Congress, it will still be Bush's fault!

The left is a one-trick pony. All they can do is blame Bush since he is just 100 days removed. They will still cry "BUSH DID IT!" through the years as things continue to get worse, but their cries will be more and more ignored as people realize, "Hey, Bush has been gone for a while and the Democrats have controlled Congress for a long time..."

 

[jonks]

Originally posted by: cubby1223
Once Franken finally gets in to the Senate, nothing that happens from then on forward can ever be blamed on Republicans. And that's a good thing. Democrats will no longer have any diversionary topics to shift focus away from them.

And Craig, do you think anyone here takes anything you say seriously other than your fellow partisan hacks?

-edit: same goes for you Harvey

but isn't that everyone except you and PJ?

 

[Deeko]

A) I haven't read the thread so these things may have been covered already.

B) That said, why does anyone think this gives the Democrats a filibuster proof majority? This doesn't change how Specter votes. He has been speaking out against his party for a LONG time, he doesn't do what his party tells him to do, why would that change?

C) Conservatives would take this as a POSITIVE in all aspects, that is, unless you are a superficial idiot that only cares about the number of senate seats your party technically has. Think about it. If Specter wins the nomination from the D's, and the Republicans put up someone as conservative or more, they are assuring themselves that a true liberal will NOT be elected. Either Specter or a more conservative candidate wins. Isn't that better than Specter vs a hardcore liberal?

 

[cubby1223]

His speech he's giving right now he starts off with specifically saying this is strictly a move because he will not win the GOP primary.

Hey, as long as Specter is not a straight party-line vote, then I really don't care what party he is labeled as. I believe in fiscal conservancy, and I also believe that no one in congress should blindly vote along party lines, Republican or Democrat. And I believe that in 2010 people will come back down off their Obama high, and realize that fiscal conservancy is better for the country than tax and spend.

 

[cubby1223]

Originally posted by: jonks

Originally posted by: cubby1223
Once Franken finally gets in to the Senate, nothing that happens from then on forward can ever be blamed on Republicans. And that's a good thing. Democrats will no longer have any diversionary topics to shift focus away from them.

And Craig, do you think anyone here takes anything you say seriously other than your fellow partisan hacks?

-edit: same goes for you Harvey

but isn't that everyone except you and PJ?

I just give them shit. Most other topics in politics I don't care about, don't comment on, and on an overall scale of all things I'm like right dead in the middle. I get enjoyment out of pushing their buttons.

 

[Possessed Freak]

I have known he was a democrat, and now so does everyone else.

<--- from PA.

 

[Deeko]

Originally posted by: cubby1223
His speech he's giving right now he starts off with specifically saying this is strictly a move because he will not win the GOP primary.

Hey, as long as Specter is not a straight party-line vote, then I really don't care what party he is labeled as. I believe in fiscal conservancy, and I also believe that no one in congress should blindly vote along party lines, Republican or Democrat. And I believe that in 2010 people will come back down off their Obama high, and realize that fiscal conservancy is better for the country than tax and spend.

he certainly never has been a party line voter.

What sort of fiscal conservatives are you talking about? The Republicans aren't fiscal conservatives either. There's probably only 3 left in the entire country.

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: Deeko

B) That said, why does anyone think this gives the Democrats a filibuster proof majority?

No, the democrats are not a lock-step party. There will be 'stragglers', who if not voting no, might change the bill to the right.

This doesn't change how Specter votes. He has been speaking out against his party for a LONG time, he doesn't do what his party tells him to do, why would that change?

It shifts how he votes. He becomes a Democrat on the right. Marginal votes will shift. He'll be freer to vote Democratic when he wants to. It doesn't make him a left-winger.

C) Conservatives would take this as a POSITIVE in all aspects, that is, unless you are a superficial idiot that only cares about the number of senate seats your party technically has. Think about it. If Specter wins the nomination from the D's, and the Republicans put up someone as conservative or more, they are assuring themselves that a true liberal will NOT be elected. Either Specter or a more conservative candidate wins. Isn't that better than Specter vs a hardcore liberal?

Sadly, I agree with you that I'd rather a real democrat get the seat; but as with Lieberman, it looks like that's not happening.

 

[lupi]

Originally posted by: DealMonkey
:laugh: Bwwaaaahahahaha! Things couldn't possibly get any worse for the GOP.

Yeah, or as Churchill said about the italians; it's only fair, we had them last war.

 

[jonks]

Originally posted by: Genx87
Buch\Rove captured about 45% of the Latino vote in 04. One of the reasons why he won. It can be done but not with a bumbing excuse of a campaign McCain ran last year.

IIRC, that was the highest amount ever captured by a R among hispanics. Still, they only got 30% in 08, and only 5% of the black vote, which makes up twice the hispanic vote numbers wise. Reps have a LONG way to go with the black community.

Another main reason Bush won in 04, besides the historical forces dictating that war presidents always win reelection, was the Rovian tactic wedge issue of gay marriage on state ballots which brought the evangelicals (whites) out in huge numbers. When you run out of wedge issues to inflame the base, you get stomped.

First time and 18-30 yr old voters went almost 70% democratic in 08, and those are your controlling future voters as the older voters drop off.

 

[BoberFett]

This seems like a complete non-issue. Party is or should be meaningless. His votes determine what he is, not the letter next to his name.

I still say party needs to be eliminated off the ballot, and should not be reflected in official documentation. Government should not be in the business of endorsing party affiliation any more than it should be religion. Call it the Separation of Party and State. Come to think of it, political parties are basically religions...

 

[ScottMac]

Good riddance to the RINO-in-Chief, maybe McCain will follow him.

 

[lupi]

Originally posted by: jonks

Originally posted by: Genx87
Buch\Rove captured about 45% of the Latino vote in 04. One of the reasons why he won. It can be done but not with a bumbing excuse of a campaign McCain ran last year.

IIRC, that was the highest amount ever captured by a R among hispanics. Still, they only got 30% in 08, and only 5% of the black vote, which makes up twice the hispanic vote numbers wise. Reps have a LONG way to go with the black community.

Another main reason Bush won in 04, besides the historical forces dictating that war presidents always win reelection, was the Rovian tactic wedge issue of gay marriage on state ballots which brought the evangelicals (whites) out in huge numbers. When you run out of wedge issues to inflame the base, you get stomped.

First time and 18-30 yr old voters went almost 70% democratic in 08, and those are your controlling future voters as the older voters drop off.

And then all those future voters age over 30 and start to have a clue about things.

 

[Harvey]

Originally posted by: RyanPaulShaffer

1. You keep telling yourself that over and over again as long as it makes you sleep better at night. Obviously, you don't possess simple mathematical ability, since the stimulus and budget bills passed by this administration and Democractic congress will make Bush's deficits look like chump change.

You keep telling yourself that over and over again as long as it makes you sleep better at night. Your thankfully EX-Traitor In Chief started a war based entirely on lies. EVERY dollar of the trillions it has cost, and every dollar and will cost in future expenditures, and every dollar lost in replacing military hardward and recruiting replacement troops, and every dollar squandered in lost business opportunities due to damaged American credibility and access to markets in once friendly nations simply would not have been wasted for nothing more than LIES.

2. Since you don't like facts and actually doing research, check out how much the big banks contributed to the Democratic party VS the Republican party. AIG, for example. You'd be surprised.

Your reality check has bounced. Deregulation started with Reagan and continued with Clinton, and it had the predictable initial effect of rising income, and Clinton administration left us with a surplus.

Deregulation assumes the existence of some internal mechanism to keep it in check and to limit the negative of excessive greed. It took the Bushwhackos to deregulate it so far that any real or imagined self regulation stood no chance against the unbridled greed, going back to Enron and continuing through the self-stroking, self-inflating corruption manifested on our financial system aided and abetted by the Tom DeLays and Jack Abramoffs and continuing until the entire house of cards collapsed under its own dead weight.

At the end, of course, the typical Bush bashing and pass the buck to Bush. Everything that goes right, Obama is the best! Everything that goes wrong, Bush sucks it is his fault!

You call it "Bush bashing." I call it TRUTH, and it's the same truth about which I've posted for years. I don't care what you call it because it doesn't change the facts, and it's appropriate because Bush and his henchmen did so much to deserve being bashed... and imprisoned.

Obama hasn't been in office long enough to be responsible for the collosal damage done by the Bushwhackos. I don't agree with all of his announced polices or everything he's done, but when it comes to honesty, integrity and ethical and moral judgment, I believe he's the polar opposite of the Bushwhacko criminals. Their criminality and ineptitude and the resulting problems we now face are not speculative. They're on the record for all to see.

Seriously, you're not amusing nor original. You're just another line-tower which are all over the main stream media, like CNN, MSNBC, NY Times, Boston Globe, etc.

Which is why nobody watches/reads them and they need John Kerry to bail them out. :laugh:

Seriously, you don't pay me to amuse you so I don't give a rat's ass if you find me amusing. You can go back to using your hand and your favorite porn site for that. :laugh:

Originally posted by: ScottMac

Good riddance to the RINO-in-Chief, maybe McCain will follow him.

You can keep McCain. He's a failed, has been ex-hero who sacrificed his integrity for political gain long ago.

• In 2000, when he lost the Republican nomination to George W. Bush and the Rove smear machine, he stood behind Bush even after they smeared him with lies that he had fathered an illegitimate black daughter.
  
• In the last election, he accepted Sarah Palin as his running mate and spoke highly of her, despite the fact that he knew little about her. Compare that with his words about her, now.
  
• Now, he still claims he believes torture is wrong, but he favors whitewashing the the Bushwhackos crimes in committing that torture, and he waffles about nickel dime words trying to make false distinctions between one form of torture or another.

If McCain ever had a microgram of personal integrity, it's long gone. He would have no more credibility by changing parties, now. :thumbsdown:

 

[QuantumPion]

Originally posted by: Carmen813

Originally posted by: Craig234

Originally posted by: loki8481
this means the D's have a filibuster proof majority.

They will in 2011 when Coleman loses.

Didn't Coleman lose in 2008?

Well Coleman initially won by ~1000 votes, but he forgot to account for the surprisingly-100%-liberal-homeless-voters-with-no-address-that-vote-a-week-before-the-election-but-their-votes-are-stored-in-a-warehouse-until-after-the-election factor.

 

[Atreus21]

Originally posted by: Craig234

Originally posted by: Atreus21

Originally posted by: loki8481
this means the D's have a filibuster proof majority.

Eh, they already had it with Arlen.

This doesn't change much.

BS. He voted plenty with the right - including for the terrible Supreme Court appointees Alito and Roberts.

Which quite a few democrats voted for in general.

 

[QuantumPion]

Originally posted by: Pens1566
If I were a republican, I'd be less concerned with what democrats think of this and more worried about the 200k voters in PA that have jumped ship in the last year or so. Something tells me thats a bigger problem than you want to admit.

I'm pretty sure most of those were conservatives voting for Hillary against Obama in the primary ala the democrats doing the same for McCain in Florida.

 

[bamacre]

Big deal. Another leaves the party of evil for the party of stupid.

 

[Pens1566]

Originally posted by: QuantumPion

Originally posted by: Pens1566
If I were a republican, I'd be less concerned with what democrats think of this and more worried about the 200k voters in PA that have jumped ship in the last year or so. Something tells me thats a bigger problem than you want to admit.

I'm pretty sure most of those were conservatives voting for Hillary against Obama in the primary ala the democrats doing the same for McCain in Florida.

That would depend on how PA's primary system works ... but I don't recall people switching party registration just to vote in the other's primary. It's usually a "pick one" and doesn't matter how you're registered. If thats the case, you'd be mistaken.

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: Atreus21

Originally posted by: Craig234

Originally posted by: Atreus21

Originally posted by: loki8481
this means the D's have a filibuster proof majority.

Eh, they already had it with Arlen.

This doesn't change much.

BS. He voted plenty with the right - including for the terrible Supreme Court appointees Alito and Roberts.

Which quite a few democrats voted for in general.

Quite a few Democrats voted for Roberts, only 4 voted for Alito.

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: Atreus21

Originally posted by: Craig234

Originally posted by: Atreus21

Originally posted by: loki8481
this means the D's have a filibuster proof majority.

Eh, they already had it with Arlen.

This doesn't change much.

BS. He voted plenty with the right - including for the terrible Supreme Court appointees Alito and Roberts.

Which quite a few democrats voted for in general.

While half the Democrats, sadly, voted for Roberts - I opposed both of them - only four Democrats voted for Alito.

More relevantly, though, EskimoSpy posted info on his record that he voted with Republicans 70% of the time. That's not a Democrat.

Edit: Eskimo posted first.