Jump to bottom

355 comments
1 Sharmuta  Tue, Apr 28, 2009 10:36:14am

Good riddance.

2 redstateredneck  Tue, Apr 28, 2009 10:36:17am

Buh-bye, Arlen.

3 tedzilla99  Tue, Apr 28, 2009 10:37:26am

It’s kinda like if Richard Simmons announced he was gay.

4 bolivar  Tue, Apr 28, 2009 10:37:42am

F-n jackass always was a RINO and his true colors come out - YELLOW!

5 Leonidas Hoplite  Tue, Apr 28, 2009 10:37:59am

He wasn’t already a Democrat?

6 midwestgak  Tue, Apr 28, 2009 10:38:02am
7 reloadingisnotahobby  Tue, Apr 28, 2009 10:38:08am

…………….Tits on a boar ………………..
Comes to mind!

8 [deleted]  Tue, Apr 28, 2009 10:38:10am
9 Kreuzueber Halbmond  Tue, Apr 28, 2009 10:38:15am

Spectacular.

10 Nevergiveup  Tue, Apr 28, 2009 10:38:17am

I thought the headline said Arlen Specters balls?

11 MandyManners  Tue, Apr 28, 2009 10:38:48am

re: #1 Sharmuta

Good riddance.

To red rubbish.

12 Ward Cleaver  Tue, Apr 28, 2009 10:38:52am

Beat it, asshole.

13 sneezey  Tue, Apr 28, 2009 10:38:55am

He’s trying to pull a Joe Lieberman, but it won’t work. He will lost in the general election.

14 Sharmuta  Tue, Apr 28, 2009 10:39:09am

Tax and spend “republicans” are more than welcome to leave the party, imo.

15 Leonidas Hoplite  Tue, Apr 28, 2009 10:39:27am

re: #10 Nevergiveup

I thought the headline said Arlen Specters balls?

Well, maybe if he had some…

16 Cathypop  Tue, Apr 28, 2009 10:39:29am

re: #10 Nevergiveup

I thought the headline said Arlen Specters balls?

Specter has no balls

17 kansas  Tue, Apr 28, 2009 10:39:32am

How about McCain?

18 Nevergiveup  Tue, Apr 28, 2009 10:39:34am

I thought Specter is famous for the ” one party theory”?

19 Kragar  Tue, Apr 28, 2009 10:40:07am

The Dems probably said they’d back him for reelection after the GOP said they were going to cut him off.

20 Nevergiveup  Tue, Apr 28, 2009 10:40:14am

re: #17 kansas

How about McCain?

I am sure he is very Jealous right about now.

21 [deleted]  Tue, Apr 28, 2009 10:40:22am
22 Cygnus  Tue, Apr 28, 2009 10:40:42am

The Republican party no long has the spectre of Spector hanging over it. Good.

23 bolivar  Tue, Apr 28, 2009 10:41:10am

re: #17 kansas

How about McCain?

He just might be next but it won’t matter …… nobody can stop the messiah now. He can do any damn thing he wants to and harry and nancy will rubber stamp it. Fuck them all I will move to Belize.

24 Ward Cleaver  Tue, Apr 28, 2009 10:41:13am

If Specter had any real balls, he’d do what Phil Gramm (as a House member) did when he switched from the Dems to the GOP - resign, and run under the new party’s banner, to see if his incumbents still wanted him.

25 Russkilitlover  Tue, Apr 28, 2009 10:41:14am

re: #14 Sharmuta

Tax and spend “republicans” are more than welcome to leave the party, imo.

They have sure infested the California R party.

26 calcajun  Tue, Apr 28, 2009 10:41:25am

And we’re shocked how? This is no real surprise. Now, the Dems have total control and cannot blame anyone if they fail. It’s like 1993-1994. Only, who does the GOP have to play a latter-day Newt Gingrich?

27 Ward Cleaver  Tue, Apr 28, 2009 10:41:33am

re: #17 kansas

How about McCain?

Leave already.

28 realwest  Tue, Apr 28, 2009 10:41:34am

WOW! What a surpise.
/

29 Leonidas Hoplite  Tue, Apr 28, 2009 10:42:03am

re: #23 bolivar

He just might be next but it won’t matter …… nobody can stop the messiah now. He can do any damn thing he wants to and harry and nancy will rubber stamp it. Fuck them all I will move to Belize.

No! Stay and fight!

30 bolivar  Tue, Apr 28, 2009 10:42:13am

re: #26 calcajun

And we’re shocked how? This is no real surprise. Now, the Dems have total control and cannot blame anyone if they fail. It’s like 1993-1994. Only, who does the GOP have to play a latter-day Newt Gingrich?

Nobody of this bunch has the brainpower…….

31 arethusa  Tue, Apr 28, 2009 10:42:37am

He said, “I am unwilling to have my twenty-nine year Senate record judged by the Pennsylvania Republican primary electorate.”

Oh, please. The people shouldn’t be judging their elected representatives?

32 jdog29  Tue, Apr 28, 2009 10:42:37am

So the wolf finally takes off the sheep’s clothing.

33 Kreuzueber Halbmond  Tue, Apr 28, 2009 10:42:39am

Now he’s done gone and made a spectacle of himself.

34 reloadingisnotahobby  Tue, Apr 28, 2009 10:42:43am

re: #25 Russkilitlover

Calif… has a Republican Party?

35 bolivar  Tue, Apr 28, 2009 10:43:15am

re: #29 Leonidas Hoplite

No! Stay and fight!

But they actually WANT my money in Belize - and me - the assmunchers that elected this clown sure don’t.

36 Orangutan  Tue, Apr 28, 2009 10:43:22am

Specter is only doing this becasue of primary politics. He was at risk in a Republican Primary.

37 doppelganglander  Tue, Apr 28, 2009 10:43:44am

He started his career as a Democrat. He’s just taking off the sheep’s clothing.

38 Leonidas Hoplite  Tue, Apr 28, 2009 10:44:00am

re: #34 reloadingisnotahobby

Calif… has a Republican Party?

Well, Republican in that it is less socialist than the Democrats, not because it is really Republican.

39 ConservatismNow!  Tue, Apr 28, 2009 10:44:20am

re: #18 Nevergiveup

I thought Specter is famous for the ” one party theory”?

As in “As long as I’m in the party in power, I’m for one party.”

40 doppelganglander  Tue, Apr 28, 2009 10:44:52am

re: #31 arethusa

He said, “I am unwilling to have my twenty-nine year Senate record judged by the Pennsylvania Republican primary electorate.”

Oh, please. The people shouldn’t be judging their elected representatives?

He actually said that?! What an arrogant sack of shit.

41 imploder  Tue, Apr 28, 2009 10:44:59am

I’m not surprised by this douchebaggery. He was always a RINO. I wonder why Pennsylvanians re-elect this spineless POS, anyway…

42 realwest  Tue, Apr 28, 2009 10:45:23am

Can Snowe or Collins be far behind? Collins (Maine) voted for the pork package too as did Snowe, but Snow isn’t up for re-election in 2010 as is Collins.

43 gearhead  Tue, Apr 28, 2009 10:45:38am

Where does that leave the balance of power in the Senate? Are the Ds in supermajority territory yet?

44 imploder  Tue, Apr 28, 2009 10:46:07am

re: #43 gearhead

Where does that leave the balance of power in the Senate? Are the Ds in supermajority territory yet?

If Franken steals Minnesota, then yeah.

45 bosforus  Tue, Apr 28, 2009 10:46:12am

“…I’m trying to stifle a yawn.”
Funny, most political news has that effect on me.

46 Ward Cleaver  Tue, Apr 28, 2009 10:46:15am

re: #31 arethusa

He said, “I am unwilling to have my twenty-nine year Senate record judged by the Pennsylvania Republican primary electorate.”

Oh, please. The people shouldn’t be judging their elected representatives?

Arrogant bastard.

47 midwestgak  Tue, Apr 28, 2009 10:46:33am

re: #43 gearhead

Where does that leave the balance of power in the Senate? Are the Ds in supermajority territory yet?

See #6

48 SFGoth  Tue, Apr 28, 2009 10:46:46am

re: #38 Leonidas Hoplite

Well, Republican in that it is less socialist than the Democrats, not because it is really Republican.

It’s also in lock-step with the CA voters in that it is strongly pro-life.

/sarc off

49 Ward Cleaver  Tue, Apr 28, 2009 10:46:50am

re: #41 imploder

I’m not surprised by this douchebaggery. He was always a RINO. I wonder why Pennsylvanians re-elect this spineless POS, anyway…

Hey, they’ve got Murtha, so…

50 reloadingisnotahobby  Tue, Apr 28, 2009 10:46:56am

re: #43 gearhead

As soon as Franken wins…. scratch that! Steals his seat it
will be a super majority!

51 realwest  Tue, Apr 28, 2009 10:46:58am

re: #43 gearhead
Yep - Dem’s now control WH, House of Representatives and -assuming they seat Franken - a fillibuster proof majority in the Senate.

It’s ALL ON THE DEM’S NOW.

52 alegrias  Tue, Apr 28, 2009 10:47:07am

re: #26 calcajun

And we’re shocked how? This is no real surprise. Now, the Dems have total control and cannot blame anyone if they fail. It’s like 1993-1994. Only, who does the GOP have to play a latter-day Newt Gingrich?

* * * *
RNC Chairman Michael Steele made a “stern” statement about Specter’s switcheroo.

Mr. Steele needs & wants your $$$ to help defeat Specter in Pennsylvania soon.

Any Pennsylvanians here who registered to vote for Hillary and want to toss out Specter this time, will have to register as GOP to toss Specter.

53 tfc3rid  Tue, Apr 28, 2009 10:47:12am

re: #43 gearhead

Where does that leave the balance of power in the Senate? Are the Ds in supermajority territory yet?

With Franken, they have it…

It’s all theirs now…

54 calcajun  Tue, Apr 28, 2009 10:47:15am

re: #30 bolivar

I know. There’s no leader in the wings that the media won’t go after like a bunch of hungry Inuits on a baby fur seal.

55 Cato the Elder  Tue, Apr 28, 2009 10:47:17am

Agree with Charles. Big whup.

Specter will probably vote against the Dem party line as often as he did the Repub. He’s a contrarian, like me, and I respect that.

And do ya think all the bad crazy coming from the pits of perdition now known as “conservative” commentary just maybe might have had an effect on this decision? Huh?

56 Rancher  Tue, Apr 28, 2009 10:47:32am

May the rest of the RHINOs follow.

57 gearhead  Tue, Apr 28, 2009 10:47:40am

re: #47 midwestgak

See #6

(Note so self: speed reading skills still need work)

58 turn  Tue, Apr 28, 2009 10:47:43am

Arlen becomes a dem, no big surprise what did ya specter?
/apologizes to buzz

59 doppelganglander  Tue, Apr 28, 2009 10:47:47am

re: #41 imploder

I’m not surprised by this douchebaggery. He was always a RINO. I wonder why Pennsylvanians re-elect this spineless POS, anyway…

PA has been trending Democrat for a while. I wonder how much of it has to do with the nincompoops who left New Jersey for cheaper pastures, only to vote in the same type of clowns who destroyed NJ in the first place.

/ex-Jersey girl

60 imploder  Tue, Apr 28, 2009 10:47:57am

Get ready for agw cap-and-trade socialized health care assault weapons/handgun ban all in one bill…

61 looking closely  Tue, Apr 28, 2009 10:48:02am

Well, he was effectively a “RINO” anyway, but now this with Al Franken is likely to give the Dems the fillibuster-proof majority they wanted.

Not good.

62 Ward Cleaver  Tue, Apr 28, 2009 10:48:19am

I think all that chemo has permanently shriveled his brain.

63 ConservatismNow!  Tue, Apr 28, 2009 10:48:21am

re: #59 doppelganglander

And the same reason why Florida is having that problem.

64 Sharmuta  Tue, Apr 28, 2009 10:48:22am

re: #55 Cato the Elder

No- I chalk his decision up to political expediency.

65 Russkilitlover  Tue, Apr 28, 2009 10:48:35am

re: #38 Leonidas Hoplite

Well, Republican in that it is less socialist than the Democrats, not because it is really Republican.

Not anymore. Not after this brazillion dollar tax increase and the extensions they are trying to smuggle through.

66 doppelganglander  Tue, Apr 28, 2009 10:48:36am

re: #55 Cato the Elder

And do ya think all the bad crazy coming from the pits of perdition now known as “conservative” commentary just maybe might have had an effect on this decision? Huh?

No. I think this is about nothing more than Snarlin’ Arlen’s naked self-interest.

67 Emerald  Tue, Apr 28, 2009 10:48:43am

And next you’ll be telling me the Pope is Catholic.

I’d say the party is better off without him, but then I look at some of the kooks coming out of the woodwork lately. Hopefully, he’ll get replaced by someone sane next election, and not one of the crazies.

68 gearhead  Tue, Apr 28, 2009 10:49:02am

re: #50 reloadingisnotahobby

As soon as Franken wins…. scratch that! Steals his seat it
will be a super majority!

I’m not scratching anything on or near Al Franken ;-)

69 tfc3rid  Tue, Apr 28, 2009 10:49:06am

re: #55 Cato the Elder

And do ya think all the bad crazy coming from the pits of perdition now known as “conservative” commentary just maybe might have had an effect on this decision? Huh?

No, I don’t think this at all had a role… Specter was a Dem back in the day and has always been one… He wasn’t a RINO for no reason…

70 alegrias  Tue, Apr 28, 2009 10:49:09am

re: #30 bolivar

Nobody of this bunch has the brainpower…….

* * * *
Not true, they need reinforcements because because because they LOST.

We need a surge, not a retreat, in the face of radical lefties with Specter as their newly “Changed” tingly legged senior senator.

71 MandyManners  Tue, Apr 28, 2009 10:49:15am

re: #31 arethusa

He said, “I am unwilling to have my twenty-nine year Senate record judged by the Pennsylvania Republican primary electorate.”

Oh, please. The people shouldn’t be judging their elected representatives?

I hope the Republicans in his district finds someone to stomp his ass to smithereens in 2010.

72 Sharmuta  Tue, Apr 28, 2009 10:49:27am

re: #67 Emerald

I…. don’t know how to break this to you, but…. the Pope is Catholic.

73 realwest  Tue, Apr 28, 2009 10:49:30am

re: #52 alegrias
“Any Pennsylvanians here who registered to vote for Hillary and want to toss out Specter this time, will have to register as GOP to toss Specter.”
Ah, no, they’ll have to register as Dems as Specter is now going for the Dem Senate Nomination.

74 Charles Johnson  Tue, Apr 28, 2009 10:49:38am

Yes, the Dems now have a supermajority in the Senate. And still we have social conservatives screaming for purging the GOP, and reverting to an even more hardcore right wing agenda.

75 zzzzzzzzzz.....  Tue, Apr 28, 2009 10:49:47am

They should recall him the bast@rd that he is….

76 reloadingisnotahobby  Tue, Apr 28, 2009 10:49:48am

A Super Majority is a two edged sword…..All finger pointing will
be in thier face!
Yet some how I know it’s BUSHS FAULT!

77 turn  Tue, Apr 28, 2009 10:50:03am

re: #61 looking closely

Well, he was effectively a “RINO” anyway, but now this with Al Franken is likely to give the Dems the fillibuster-proof majority they wanted.

Not good.

That’s what I’m afraid of too LC. This is not good, carte blanche.

78 MandyManners  Tue, Apr 28, 2009 10:50:08am

re: #71 MandyManners

*sigh*

79 lawhawk  Tue, Apr 28, 2009 10:50:08am

re: #43 gearhead

Democrats will hold 60 seats, which means that they can break any filibuster effort. Specter says that he isn’t a sure vote to end cloture, but given that he was just saying he’d remain a GOPer just a month ago, I wouldn’t take him at his word.

Democrats will own every decision from here forward no matter how much they’ll try to blame GOPers for obstructing the Democrat agenda. It’s theirs. They’re going to own the mess (or success, which I highly doubt).

80 arethusa  Tue, Apr 28, 2009 10:50:16am

re: #40 doppelganglander

He actually said that?! What an arrogant sack of shit.

Yes, he did. About halfway down.

81 loppyd  Tue, Apr 28, 2009 10:50:23am

re: #55 Cato the Elder

Agree with Charles. Big whup.

Specter will probably vote against the Dem party line as often as he did the Repub. He’s a contrarian, like me, and I respect that.

And do ya think all the bad crazy coming from the pits of perdition now known as “conservative” commentary just maybe might have had an effect on this decision? Huh?

You can’t be serious. He is down 20 points to a primary challenger. Why? Because he voted for the stimulus - just one more RINO accomplishment in the very long list.

His decision is all about him and not any “bad crazy” comments.

82 KenJen  Tue, Apr 28, 2009 10:50:31am

Good. It gives PA a chance to elect a real Republican.

83 sngnsgt  Tue, Apr 28, 2009 10:50:32am

Welcome to the USSA comrades.

84 Sharmuta  Tue, Apr 28, 2009 10:50:46am

re: #71 MandyManners

I hope the Republicans in his district finds someone to stomp his ass to smithereens in 2010.

A fiscal conservative has already stepped up to challenge him in the primaries. Now he stands a good chance of winning the nomination. I’m guessing specter knew he’d likely lose that primary in this fiscally minded mid-term.

85 Emerald  Tue, Apr 28, 2009 10:51:22am

re: #72 Sharmuta

I…. don’t know how to break this to you, but…. the Pope is Catholic.

//sputter, sputter
Next you’ll tell me that bears really do relieve themselves in sylvan locations.

86 alegrias  Tue, Apr 28, 2009 10:51:44am

re: #58 turn

Arlen becomes a dem, no big surprise what did ya specter?
/apologizes to buzz

* * * *
Specter’s going where the pork is.

87 gearhead  Tue, Apr 28, 2009 10:51:51am

re: #60 imploder

Get ready for agw cap-and-trade socialized health care assault weapons/handgun ban all in one bill…

Stimulus III

88 looking closely  Tue, Apr 28, 2009 10:51:55am

re: #55 Cato the Elder


And do ya think all the bad crazy coming from the pits of perdition now known as “conservative” commentary just maybe might have had an effect on this decision? Huh?

Its the polls.

Specter is badly behind in the Republican primary polls, and would rather take his chances running again as a Dem next election rather than face a humiliating, and (at this point) near certain loss to (actual) Republican Pat Toomey.

89 realwest  Tue, Apr 28, 2009 10:51:55am

re: #74 Charles
Well I don’t understand your comment Charles. Do you think Republicans should become more like the Democrats? Sorta Dem-lite?

90 nikis-knight  Tue, Apr 28, 2009 10:52:02am

re: #64 Sharmuta

No- I chalk his decision up to political expediency.

More fun to be in the majority, too.

91 [deleted]  Tue, Apr 28, 2009 10:52:05am
92 crimeshark  Tue, Apr 28, 2009 10:52:59am
Senator Arlen Specter has announced he’s switching parties and becoming a Democrat.

He might be switching parties, but he’s always been a Democrat.

Have fun caucusing with the semi-literate moon-bats, Arlen. And don’t let the swinging door hit you in your bony ass on the way out.

93 nikis-knight  Tue, Apr 28, 2009 10:53:03am

re: #74 Charles

Yes, the Dems now have a supermajority in the Senate. And still we have social conservatives screaming for purging the GOP, and reverting to an even more hardcore right wing agenda.

Well, there were plenty of fiscal conservatives screaming for their own purge right after the election.

94 Ward Cleaver  Tue, Apr 28, 2009 10:53:06am

re: #69 tfc3rid

No, I don’t think this at all had a role… Specter was a Dem back in the day and has always been one… He wasn’t a RINO for no reason…

Specter was a Dem back when he was a prosecutor. So, he’s really switching back.

95 Cato the Elder  Tue, Apr 28, 2009 10:53:13am

re: #60 imploder

Get ready for agw cap-and-trade socialized health care assault weapons/handgun ban all in one bill…

And remember not to get those cancer-inducing flu shots, and watch out for the mind-control digital set-top boxes, and don’t forget Amazon has a special on tin-foil hats.

Chemtrails!

96 [deleted]  Tue, Apr 28, 2009 10:53:19am
97 Russkilitlover  Tue, Apr 28, 2009 10:53:19am

re: #84 Sharmuta

A fiscal conservative has already stepped up to challenge him in the primaries. Now he stands a good chance of winning the nomination. I’m guessing specter knew he’d likely lose that primary in this fiscally minded mid-term.

Please don’t tell us that he’s a creationist/nirther/paulian.

98 looking closely  Tue, Apr 28, 2009 10:53:39am

re: #74 Charles

Yes, the Dems now have a supermajority in the Senate. And still we have social conservatives screaming for purging the GOP, and reverting to an even more hardcore right wing agenda.


The pendulum will swing the other way…eventually.

99 lawhawk  Tue, Apr 28, 2009 10:53:51am

re: #74 Charles

Yes, the Dems now have a supermajority in the Senate. And still we have social conservatives screaming for purging the GOP, and reverting to an even more hardcore right wing agenda.

The reason that Specter switched was because he moved so far to the left that no one would recognize him as a GOPer - even for moderate GOPers. The polling shows him losing against Toomey.

He wasn’t fiscally responsible (voted for ARRA 2009) either.

So there wasn’t any reason for the GOP to vote for Specter.

As for what the rest of the GOP should do, I still think they have to go back to basics - fiscal responsibility, national security, and personal responsibility, but that’s not flying much these days. So, I’ll be stuck in the middle with jokers to the left, clowns to the right, and hedging my bets on who will do the least amount of damage to the state and nation until the next election.

100 gearhead  Tue, Apr 28, 2009 10:54:01am

re: #76 reloadingisnotahobby

A Super Majority is a two edged sword…..All finger pointing will
be in thier face!
Yet some how I know it’s BUSHS FAULT!

“It’s Bush’s fault that we are in power.”

/Pelosi

101 alegrias  Tue, Apr 28, 2009 10:54:10am

re: #73 realwest

“Any Pennsylvanians here who registered to vote for Hillary and want to toss out Specter this time, will have to register as GOP to toss Specter.”
Ah, no, they’ll have to register as Dems as Specter is now going for the Dem Senate Nomination.

* * * *
Realwest, that is, assuming any Pennsylvanians here want a GOP person on the GOP ticket.

Specter will have an easy time running as a Democrat, with the WHite House campaigning for him and showering bailout porkulus on Specter.

102 Nevergiveup  Tue, Apr 28, 2009 10:54:11am

The outspoken head of the Irish budget airline Ryanair has dismissed apocalyptic warnings of a global swine flu pandemic, saying that the virus was only a risk to Asians and Mexicans “living in slums”.

[Link: www.timesonline.co.uk…]

Isn’t this the guy who wanted to put pay toilets on his planes?

103 Emerald  Tue, Apr 28, 2009 10:54:24am

re: #89 realwest

Well I don’t understand your comment Charles. Do you think Republicans should become more like the Democrats? Sorta Dem-lite?

Personally, I think they need to get back to their roots. Financial responsibility, less government intrusion and strong national defense. That’s going to be a better formula for success than worrying about how other people live their lives.

104 cheesehead  Tue, Apr 28, 2009 10:54:31am

If Franken gets sworn in and the Democrapic super-majority becomes reality, how long before draconian new laws get passed on things like gun ownership and the fairness doctrine? Will the masses ever wake up to what kind of crap they’re (power lusting Democraps) capable of with nothing stopping them? A crack-head locked alone in a room full of crack comes to mind.

105 tfc3rid  Tue, Apr 28, 2009 10:54:38am

re: #74 Charles

I see more people screaming to purge the GOP of people who are not fiscally conservative more than anything…

106 Sharmuta  Tue, Apr 28, 2009 10:54:39am

re: #97 Russkilitlover

Please don’t tell us that he’s a creationist/nirther/paulian.

I have no idea where he stands except on fiscal issues, but feel free to dig.

Pat Tommey

107 nikis-knight  Tue, Apr 28, 2009 10:54:41am

re: #79 lawhawk

Democrats will hold 60 seats, which means that they can break any filibuster effort. Specter says that he isn’t a sure vote to end cloture, but given that he was just saying he’d remain a GOPer just a month ago, I wouldn’t take him at his word.

Democrats will own every decision from here forward no matter how much they’ll try to blame GOPers for obstructing the Democrat agenda. It’s theirs. They’re going to own the mess (or success, which I highly doubt).

I don’t think it matters. The republicans would NOT have stuck together to sustain even a threat of filibuster, not with Spectre, Snow, McCain, etc. each worshiping bipartisan compromise.

108 SFGoth  Tue, Apr 28, 2009 10:54:47am

re: #89 realwest

Well I don’t understand your comment Charles. Do you think Republicans should become more like the Democrats? Sorta Dem-lite?

Well, there are plenty of fiscal conservatives (and esp. here) who agree with the Dems on very little (maybe just with the ones who’d vote to legalize Maryjane) but who are appalled and repelled by social conservatism.

109 turn  Tue, Apr 28, 2009 10:54:55am

re: #86 alegrias

* * * *
Specter’s going where the pork is.

Well I hope he gets porked by someone, maybe Fwank will take care of that.

110 Ward Cleaver  Tue, Apr 28, 2009 10:55:12am

re: #88 looking closely

Its the polls.

Specter is badly behind in the Republican primary polls, and would rather take his chances running again as a Dem next election rather than face a humiliating, and (at this point) near certain loss to (actual) Republican Pat Toomey.

Toomey could have knocked off Specter in ‘04, if the party, including Bush, and Santorum (!) hadn’t abandoned him.

111 calcajun  Tue, Apr 28, 2009 10:55:20am

re: #74 Charles

Yes, the Dems now have a supermajority in the Senate. And still we have social conservatives screaming for purging the GOP, and reverting to an even more hardcore right wing agenda.

Why do I get the feeling that this what it might have been like to be a passenger on a plane flown by a Japanese kamikaze pilot?

112 tfc3rid  Tue, Apr 28, 2009 10:55:28am

re: #94 Ward Cleaver

Specter was a Dem back when he was a prosecutor. So, he’s really switching back.

Magic bullet theory Specter…

113 subsailor68  Tue, Apr 28, 2009 10:55:53am

I guess, for me, the issue isn’t that the Dems hold the White House, House of Representatives, and the Senate (even with a super-majority). The issue, for me, is what they intend to do with it.

My concern is:

1. How much permanent damage can be done between now and 2010, and
2. Will it be enough to convince the voters to at least take back the House and Senate as a safeguard?

I wish I knew.

114 realwest  Tue, Apr 28, 2009 10:55:59am

re: #103 Emerald
I couldn’t agree with you more.

115 SFGoth  Tue, Apr 28, 2009 10:56:01am

re: #104 cheesehead

If Franken gets sworn in and the Democrapic super-majority becomes reality, how long before draconian new laws get passed on things like gun ownership and the fairness doctrine? Will the masses ever wake up to what kind of crap they’re (power lusting Democraps) capable of with nothing stopping them? A crack-head locked alone in a room full of crack comes to mind.

Yep, that’ll get them to vote for holy rollers.

116 ConservatismNow!  Tue, Apr 28, 2009 10:56:04am

re: #109 turn

Well I hope he gets porked by someone, maybe Fwank will take care of that.

I out to downding you for that horrible mental image

117 Sharmuta  Tue, Apr 28, 2009 10:56:09am

re: #99 lawhawk

re: #103 Emerald

I agree with both of you, but I would add individual rights.

118 Russkilitlover  Tue, Apr 28, 2009 10:56:13am

re: #96 buzzsawmonkey

I wish I knew my Shakespeare well enough to make a Forest of Arlen joke.

Anybody?

No. We were counting on you. Thanks for letting us down. ;~)

119 Kragar  Tue, Apr 28, 2009 10:56:19am

re: #64 Sharmuta

No- I chalk his decision up to political expediency.

He went where the money was and who would help keep him in office.

120 Charles Johnson  Tue, Apr 28, 2009 10:56:22am

re: #89 realwest

Well I don’t understand your comment Charles. Do you think Republicans should become more like the Democrats? Sorta Dem-lite?

No, I think Republicans should make a break with the social conservatives and religious fanatics, and get back to core principles — less intrusive government and fiscal responsibility.

Stay out of people’s bedrooms. And stop trying to legislate morality.

121 tfc3rid  Tue, Apr 28, 2009 10:56:24am

re: #99 lawhawk

It may be going with the person who will reverse the damage caused…

122 nikis-knight  Tue, Apr 28, 2009 10:56:35am

re: #99 lawhawk


He wasn’t fiscally responsible (voted for ARRA 2009) either.

And it was the Stimulus vote that killed his chances for re-election. It is a bit disingenuous to tie this to “social conservatives”, in my opinion.

123 Thom  Tue, Apr 28, 2009 10:56:42am

The good news, if there is any, is that dude is like 79 years old …

124 alegrias  Tue, Apr 28, 2009 10:57:16am

re: #71 MandyManners

I hope the Republicans in his district finds someone to stomp his ass to smithereens in 2010.

* * * *
Pat Toomey the fiscal conservative Republican challenger apparently looked strong enough to scare Specter to join the Democrats and be popular and showered with the love.

125 redc1c4  Tue, Apr 28, 2009 10:57:16am

re: #11 MandyManners

To red rubbish.

hey now!

126 Ward Cleaver  Tue, Apr 28, 2009 10:57:20am

re: #102 Nevergiveup

The outspoken head of the Irish budget airline Ryanair has dismissed apocalyptic warnings of a global swine flu pandemic, saying that the virus was only a risk to Asians and Mexicans “living in slums”.

[Link: www.timesonline.co.uk…]

Isn’t this the guy who wanted to put pay toilets on his planes?

(Insert jokes about the Irish here)

127 songbird  Tue, Apr 28, 2009 10:57:48am

Specter bails? He’d done so ideologically and in his votes years ago!

128 redc1c4  Tue, Apr 28, 2009 10:58:13am

re: #120 Charles

No, I think Republicans should make a break with the social conservatives and religious fanatics, and get back to core principles — less intrusive government and fiscal responsibility.

Stay out of people’s bedrooms. And stop trying to legislate morality.

that deserves to be read twice.

129 avanti  Tue, Apr 28, 2009 10:58:31am

re: #19 Kragar (Proud to be Kafir)

The Dems probably said they’d back him for reelection after the GOP said they were going to cut him off.

Yep, I wondered at the conservatives going after the moderate GOP members. Sure, they are too far left for them, but is does the GOP think a conservative can win in those districts ?
There are a few blue dog Dems that piss off the left too, but a leftie Dem would not stand a chance there either. I wonder if they are tossing out the baby with the bath water.

130 nikis-knight  Tue, Apr 28, 2009 10:58:33am

re: #120 Charles

No, I think Republicans should make a break with the social conservatives and religious fanatics, and get back to core principles — less intrusive government and fiscal responsibility.

Stay out of people’s bedrooms. And stop trying to legislate morality.

See? It’s hardly just social conservatives trying to purge the R party.

131 redc1c4  Tue, Apr 28, 2009 10:59:01am

re: #127 songbird

Specter bails? He’d done so ideologically and in his votes years ago!

for a second, i read that as “Specter balls” and thought “WTF? he doesn’t have any…”

132 Truth Stick  Tue, Apr 28, 2009 10:59:26am

Since he can’t and wouldn’t win a Republican primary, he must be foolish(or maybe senile) to think that the Dems don’t have someone else in mind for when his seat is actually up for a vote. He still has to be too far right for all the Dems who are running things. Don’t be surprised Arlen when you are Partly-less, when the Dems throw you away like a used Kleenex

133 Ward Cleaver  Tue, Apr 28, 2009 10:59:32am

re: #112 tfc3rid

Magic bullet theory Specter…

Yes, that’s right, he was on the Warren Commission. My mom has the book, and his name is in there.

134 doppelganglander  Tue, Apr 28, 2009 10:59:32am

Here’s the question no one has asked (at least as far as I know): Is this really going to help him get reelected?

135 Raiderdan  Tue, Apr 28, 2009 10:59:33am

Tell the Dems they can have Arlen Specter if the GOP can have Joe Lieberman and a draft pick to be named later.

The MSM will have a screaming orgasm with his “Republicans moving too far right” comment, but the reality is that he was about to lose in a Republican primary precisely for the reason he was too far LEFT for his Republican voters in the state.

Its certainly a cake-topper for Obama’s 100 days celebration for the MSM, but its clear they’re merely propping up a celebrity. Support for his policies is far less than him personally. Spectre just booked a first class ticket on the maiden voyage of RMS Titanic.

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0409/21756.html

136 realwest  Tue, Apr 28, 2009 10:59:52am

re: #120 Charles
As I said in my response to Emerald at #114, I couldn’t agree with you more.
But the Left has the appeal of something for nothing going for them - a free lunch for everyone.

137 _RememberTonyC  Tue, Apr 28, 2009 10:59:59am

With Tuesday’s announcement that Senator Arlen Specter is switching from the Republican to the Democratic party, my own Senator Joe Lieberman will likely find himself in an incredibly powerful position. If former comedian Al Franken is certified as the winner in the still undecided Minnesota Senate race, as appears to be likely, Specter’s defection (along with “Independent” Socialist Bernie Sanders from Vermont) means the Democrats will have a filibuster-proof 60-40 voting bloc in the Senate after Senator Specter begins voting with his new party. But that filibuster power exists only as long as Senator Lieberman votes with the Democrats. If Senator Lieberman votes with the Republicans on certain issues, he becomes a “one man filibuster buster.” In the past, Senator Lieberman has used wise judgment in opposing his own party on certain crucial issues. It will be harder for him to do that now that there is a popular Democratic President. He has always “walked the walk” when it comes to bipartisanship. Hopefully he will continue to do so.

138 MandyManners  Tue, Apr 28, 2009 10:59:59am

Specter’s bloviating on Fox in a hearing on the flu.

139 Emerald  Tue, Apr 28, 2009 11:00:24am

re: #96 buzzsawmonkey

I wish I knew my Shakespeare well enough to make a Forest of Arlen joke.

Anybody?

The Forest of Arden was the setting for “As You Like It”, wasn’t it? Have to think about this…

140 loppyd  Tue, Apr 28, 2009 11:00:29am

re: #120 Charles

No, I think Republicans should make a break with the social conservatives and religious fanatics, and get back to core principles — less intrusive government and fiscal responsibility.

Stay out of people’s bedrooms. And stop trying to legislate morality.

What is your definition of a social conservative?

141 redmonkey  Tue, Apr 28, 2009 11:00:51am

I have already run once from one party rule country. Why there is not law for special election if member of senate change party?

142 Occasional Reader  Tue, Apr 28, 2009 11:00:53am

I’ve never understood how anyone was ever able to trust Specter, after his repeated attempts to kill James Bond.

143 tfc3rid  Tue, Apr 28, 2009 11:01:00am

re: #133 Ward Cleaver

Yes, that’s right, he was on the Warren Commission. My mom has the book, and his name is in there.

I recall his name being mentioned in the movie JFK…

144 cronus  Tue, Apr 28, 2009 11:01:02am

The most immediate issue is Card Check. Specter declaring his opposition basically killed any momentum it had in the Senate. He will now need labor more than ever and will likely change positions again. That combined with Franken being seated is a big problem for EFCA

145 redc1c4  Tue, Apr 28, 2009 11:01:12am

re: #136 realwest

As I said in my response to Emerald at #114, I couldn’t agree with you more.
But the Left has the appeal of something for nothing going for them - a free lunch for everyone.

tanstaafl.

146 Sharmuta  Tue, Apr 28, 2009 11:01:16am

re: #136 realwest

As I said in my response to Emerald at #114, I couldn’t agree with you more.
But the Left has the appeal of something for nothing going for them - a free lunch for everyone.

And there are 2-4 years worth of learning there is no such thing as a free lunch about to be served up to the American electorate.

147 alegrias  Tue, Apr 28, 2009 11:01:45am

re: #110 Ward Cleaver

Toomey could have knocked off Specter in ‘04, if the party, including Bush, and Santorum (!) hadn’t abandoned him.

* * * *
As I said before, Pres. Bush needed Rep. Specter’s vote & support as chair of the Judicial Committee to get Supreme Court Chief Justice Roberts on the court.

148 KenJen  Tue, Apr 28, 2009 11:01:55am

re: #138 MandyManners

Specter’s bloviating on Fox in a hearing on the flu.

The pork flu? All of congress has it.

149 Gearhead  Tue, Apr 28, 2009 11:02:03am

re: #51 realwest

Yep - Dem’s now control WH, House of Representatives and -assuming they seat Franken - a fillibuster proof majority in the Senate.

It’s ALL ON THE DEM’S NOW.

Look at it this way: the way is now clear(er) for them to do exactly the sort of things that will cost them their supermajority in 2010.

Although an economic recovery will offset that. They’ll get the credit and the GOP will have to look to 2012.

150 realwest  Tue, Apr 28, 2009 11:02:16am

re: #145 redc1c4
tanstaafl. - ?

151 Steve Rogers  Tue, Apr 28, 2009 11:02:24am

When Bush and the Republicans spent more and grew government faster and larger than anyone (prior to Obama), it should have been evidence to anyone that there really is no difference between the Republicans and Democrats anymore.

Perhaps this is a good thing in the long run. With a fillabuster-proof majority the Democrats will overreach and (hopefully) draw the ire of the voters and cause some people in another, more rational party (Republican or Libertarian) to finally get fed up enough to get rational and responsible people back running for office to start the pendulum swinging the other way on freedom and spending.

152 Emerald  Tue, Apr 28, 2009 11:02:39am

re: #134 doppelganglander

Here’s the question no one has asked (at least as far as I know): Is this really going to help him get reelected?

I’m really curious about this as well. From what others have posted, he’s getting trounced in the primary polls. But people are seriously fed up with the government right now with the wasteful spending and useless gestures. Unless the Washington crowd pulls a miracle out soon, I wouldn’t want to be a Dem running for re-election in 2010.

153 tfc3rid  Tue, Apr 28, 2009 11:02:43am

re: #146 Sharmuta

And there are 2-4 years worth of learning there is no such thing as a free lunch about to be served up to the American electorate.

No I think think the Dem electorate will still get that free lunch and then some… Add to that the Amnesty and forget it, it’s over…

154 doppelganglander  Tue, Apr 28, 2009 11:02:45am

re: #150 realwest

tanstaafl. - ?

There ain’t no such thing as a free lunch.

155 songbird  Tue, Apr 28, 2009 11:02:47am

re: #131 redc1c4

for a second, i read that as “Specter balls” and thought “WTF? he doesn’t have any…”

Larger print size might be in order. I know my eyes are not what they used to be!

Agreed with “lack of” comment. I’m thinking “good riddance and don’t let the door hit you on the a** on the way out.”

156 Occasional Reader  Tue, Apr 28, 2009 11:02:55am

re: #120 Charles

No, I think Republicans should make a break with the social conservatives and religious fanatics, and get back to core principles — less intrusive government and fiscal responsibility.

Stay out of people’s bedrooms. And stop trying to legislate morality.

The problem there; “social conservatives” captures a pretty big bloc of voters, and somebody’s going to pick up that vote.

I’d rather the GOP tried to both woo and moderate the SoCons. Although I confess, I don’t have a good idea of how to do that.

157 unrealizedviewpoint  Tue, Apr 28, 2009 11:02:59am

re: #104 cheesehead

If Franken gets sworn in and the Democrapic super-majority becomes reality, how long before draconian new laws get passed on things like gun ownership and the fairness doctrine? Will the masses ever wake up to what kind of crap they’re (power lusting Democraps) capable of with nothing stopping them? A crack-head locked alone in a room full of crack comes to mind.

Who is “MikeAlv77” down dinging this comment?

158 Rancher  Tue, Apr 28, 2009 11:03:26am

I’m not from PA but wasn’t the only serious opposition to this guy Republican? That opposition had trouble because Bush and the GOP supported Specter, but now…release the hounds!

159 realwest  Tue, Apr 28, 2009 11:03:35am

re: #154 doppelganglander
There is for Lefties - they just pass the check for the lunch down to their (and our) grandchildren!

160 lawhawk  Tue, Apr 28, 2009 11:04:19am

re: #147 alegrias

There was no reason to believe that Toomey wouldn’t have voted to confirm Roberts either. It was a political calculation made by Bush and Santorum to back Specter, even though Specter was moving further to the left with each passing day.

161 rightymouse  Tue, Apr 28, 2009 11:04:28am

Arlen Specter was a Republican? Who knew?

162 Ward Cleaver  Tue, Apr 28, 2009 11:04:42am

re: #143 tfc3rid

I recall his name being mentioned in the movie JFK…

IIRC, in the back of the book, his name is listed, along with everyone involved in the investigation. The book contains no index (by design?); a woman who was a JFK conspiracy buff actually compiled the first index, independently.

163 tfc3rid  Tue, Apr 28, 2009 11:04:44am

re: #156 Occasional Reader

The problem there; “social conservatives” captures a pretty big bloc of voters, and somebody’s going to pick up that vote.

I’d rather the GOP tried to both woo and moderate the SoCons. Although I confess, I don’t have a good idea of how to do that.

Agreed… I would consider myself socially conservative and most certainly the Dems do not fit what my moral and ethical leanings are toward…

164 avanti  Tue, Apr 28, 2009 11:05:23am

re: #128 redc1c4

that deserves to be read twice.

Hell, I’d like it written into the GOP platform. It’s not like a constitution amendment to keep gays from getting married is way up on my list of things I lose sleep over.

165 alegrias  Tue, Apr 28, 2009 11:05:26am

re: #141 redmonkey

I have already run once from one party rule country. Why there is not law for special election if member of senate change party?

* * * *
I like your idea.

Congratulations for escaping from one-party rule country.

Your insights are needed right now!

166 Son of the Black Dog  Tue, Apr 28, 2009 11:05:29am

re: #32 jdog29

So the wolf finally takes off the sheep’s clothing.

I think maybe you got that backwards.

167 Ward Cleaver  Tue, Apr 28, 2009 11:05:29am

re: #145 redc1c4

tanstaafl.

Sure there is, at least until the economy collapses.

168 Occasional Reader  Tue, Apr 28, 2009 11:05:30am

By the way, speaking of unsurprising declarations, a couple weeks back Bolivian president and Hugo Chavez protegé Evo Morales openly declared himself a “Marxist-Leninist”.

I think he’s just fishing for an Obama soul handshake photo op.

169 tfc3rid  Tue, Apr 28, 2009 11:05:45am

re: #160 lawhawk

There was no reason to believe that Toomey wouldn’t have voted to confirm Roberts either. It was a political calculation made by Bush and Santorum to back Specter, even though Specter was moving further to the left with each passing day.

I think President Bush thought, incorrectly, that it might buy him some additional votes in PA in 2004, to possibly tip the scales in a very close state…

170 MandyManners  Tue, Apr 28, 2009 11:05:50am

re: #156 Occasional Reader

The problem there; “social conservatives” captures a pretty big bloc of voters, and somebody’s going to pick up that vote.

I’d rather the GOP tried to both woo and moderate the SoCons. Although I confess, I don’t have a good idea of how to do that.

Wallets. Even socons need to pay the mortgage.

171 subsailor68  Tue, Apr 28, 2009 11:05:57am

re: #157 unrealizedviewpoint

Who is “MikeAlv77” down dinging this comment?

Looks like he updinged it. Avanti and Cato the Elder downdinged.

172 looking closely  Tue, Apr 28, 2009 11:06:21am

re: #120 Charles

No, I think Republicans should make a break with the social conservatives and religious fanatics, and get back to core principles — less intrusive government and fiscal responsibility.

Stay out of people’s bedrooms. And stop trying to legislate morality.

I agree with you in principle. I would also like to see the Republicans get back to basics. Of course, I would like to see the Republicans stay out of people’s bedrooms (to the extent that they trying to be in there).

But to be clear, I don’t think that the social conservatism that you find so offensive is what cost them the Congressional majority. Opposition to Gay marriage (as one example) is often linked to the social conservatives…yet both Barack Obama and Joe Biden (for example) have gone on record opposing it, for at least the politically expedient reason that the majority of the country still opposes it. California voted hard for Obama…it still voted against gay marriage.

The “intelligent design” thing is another. Yeah, I’m against teaching of religion in the science classroom as well, but it isn’t clear to me that the Republicans have actually lost Congressional seats over that particular issue.

IMO, apart from the lack of focus you refer to, the biggest thing that has hit the Republicans is the lopsided press. There would be no Obama, without the incessant media fawning, for example. Likewise, the incessant (and in many cases hysterical) attacks on President Bush over the last eight years has rubbed off unto all the Republicans.

173 tfc3rid  Tue, Apr 28, 2009 11:06:34am

re: #168 Occasional Reader

By the way, speaking of unsurprising declarations, a couple weeks back Bolivian president and Hugo Chavez protegé Evo Morales openly declared himself a “Marxist-Leninist”.

I think he’s just fishing for an Obama soul handshake photo op.

Perhaps they can do TV spots together…

174 snowcrash  Tue, Apr 28, 2009 11:06:57am

Alarming news on Fox: 2 deaths in young men, 33 and 45 y.o., in LA area. Tests being run for fatality due to swine flu.

175 looking closely  Tue, Apr 28, 2009 11:07:03am

re: #123 Thom

The good news, if there is any, is that dude is like 79 years old …

So he can only serve 2-3 more terms maximum?

176 Occasional Reader  Tue, Apr 28, 2009 11:07:07am

re: #141 redmonkey

I have already run once from one party rule country. Why there is not law for special election if member of senate change party?

Upding for comment. Do you mind saying which country?

177 oronpam  Tue, Apr 28, 2009 11:07:10am

Mr. Specter, don’t let the door hit you in the……

178 tfc3rid  Tue, Apr 28, 2009 11:07:33am

re: #174 snowcrash

Alarming news on Fox: 2 deaths in young men, 33 and 45 y.o., in LA area. Tests being run for fatality due to swine flu.

Apparently, Gov. Arnold declared a State of Emergency in CA…

179 cronus  Tue, Apr 28, 2009 11:07:39am

Steele’s statement:

Some in the Republican Party are happy about this. I am not.

Let’s be honest-Senator Specter didn’t leave the GOP based on principles of any kind. He left to further his personal political interests because he knew that he was going to lose a Republican primary due to his left-wing voting record.

Republicans look forward to beating Sen. Specter in 2010, assuming the Democrats don’t do it first.

180 Charles Johnson  Tue, Apr 28, 2009 11:07:46am

re: #156 Occasional Reader

I’d rather the GOP tried to both woo and moderate the SoCons. Although I confess, I don’t have a good idea of how to do that.

I don’t think that’s possible, and that’s why I believe it’s time to break with them. They’re dragging the GOP down, and have been for years, and they’re only getting more fanatical.

181 Three Hundred  Tue, Apr 28, 2009 11:07:52am

This country was founded by people with skin in the game, i.e., landowners. We need to revert to something like that, where people actually have something to lose with respect to governing the country. The way it stands now, they just vote themselves money, and everybody eventually loses.

182 Occasional Reader  Tue, Apr 28, 2009 11:08:13am

re: #174 snowcrash

Alarming news on Fox: 2 deaths in young men, 33 and 45 y.o., in LA area. Tests being run for fatality due to swine flu.

Oh, fudge.

We do live in interesting times, don’t we.

183 unrealizedviewpoint  Tue, Apr 28, 2009 11:08:19am

re: #120 Charles

No, I think Republicans should make a break with the social conservatives and religious fanatics, and get back to core principles — less intrusive government and fiscal responsibility.

Stay out of people’s bedrooms. And stop trying to legislate morality.

Actually, the republicans would probably win in ‘12 if they did this. They won’t.

184 Sharmuta  Tue, Apr 28, 2009 11:09:01am

re: #161 rightymouse

Arlen Specter was a Republican? Who knew?

Heh

185 Joel  Tue, Apr 28, 2009 11:09:03am

I guess all that support for him done by George W. Bush and Rick Santorum really paid off. Heckuva job guys!

186 tfc3rid  Tue, Apr 28, 2009 11:09:09am

re: #180 Charles

I don’t think that’s possible, and that’s why I believe it’s time to break with them. They’re dragging the GOP down, and have been for years, and they’re only getting more fanatical.

I understand and value your opinion but I think that would ensure a permanent Democrat-Socialist majority in US government for a long, long time…

187 alegrias  Tue, Apr 28, 2009 11:09:33am

re: #160 lawhawk

There was no reason to believe that Toomey wouldn’t have voted to confirm Roberts either. It was a political calculation made by Bush and Santorum to back Specter, even though Specter was moving further to the left with each passing day.

* * * *
Agreed, but Specter had SENIORITY on the Judiciary Committe, he was the RANKING CHAIRMAN of the Judiciary Committee charged with running the hearings on the Supreme Court nominees.

Specter was the Big Cheese versus Patrick Leahy the Vermont leftist & minority leader on that committee.

188 Leonidas Hoplite  Tue, Apr 28, 2009 11:09:42am

re: #181 Three Hundred

This country was founded by people with skin in the game, i.e., landowners. We need to revert to something like that, where people actually have something to lose with respect to governing the country. The way it stands now, they just vote themselves money, and everybody eventually loses.

Flat tax for everyone. No exceptions, no deductions.

189 Emerald  Tue, Apr 28, 2009 11:09:58am

re: #156 Occasional Reader

The problem there; “social conservatives” captures a pretty big bloc of voters, and somebody’s going to pick up that vote.

I’d rather the GOP tried to both woo and moderate the SoCons. Although I confess, I don’t have a good idea of how to do that.

Do you really think they’re going to support the Democrats and their stance on abortion, gay marriage and other social issues? There is no viable third party for them. They’re going to waste their vote, not vote, or vote for the Republicans.

I also question how big of a bloc they are versus how vocal they are. It’s hard to believe that pandering to them is that effective when it drives off a lot of moderates.

190 MJ  Tue, Apr 28, 2009 11:11:04am

Like father, like son:

[Link: jeffreygoldberg.theatlantic.com…]

Hillary said: “So, Mr. Minister, welcome so much here.”

Atten: Diane Arbus fans….

191 avanti  Tue, Apr 28, 2009 11:11:19am

re: #171 subsailor68

Looks like he updinged it. Avanti and Cato the Elder downdinged.

Yep, the “A crack-head locked alone in a room full of crack comes to mind.” quote seemed a bit too moon bat like for my taste even if you don’t like the party in power.

192 looking closely  Tue, Apr 28, 2009 11:13:35am

Charles, again, I do see the problem, but realistically, what do you think will happen to the Republican minority (or Democrat majority) if the Republicans jettison the social conservatives, as you suggest?

I’m all for ideological purity, but where the rubber meets the road, so to speak, its all about numbers, and numbers require a functional coalition. Further fracturing the Republican party isn’t going to help.

If I were a Democrat strategist, the thing I would most fervently hope for is for the Republican party to jettison the social conservatives, so that they all stay home election day, or (better) form their own competing party.

On this particular issue, I think Giuliani has it right. Its OK for the Republican party to espouse religious values, but those should just be de-emphasized compared to other more pragmatic matters of State.

193 Occasional Reader  Tue, Apr 28, 2009 11:13:41am

re: #183 unrealizedviewpoint

Actually, the republicans would probably win in ‘12 if they did this.

I would love to believe that, but I really don’t think it’s true. According to one Gallup poll from 2005, 42% of Americans identify themselves as “evangelical or born-again”. I think it’s reasonable to speculate that a high percentage of those would fit within most definitions of “social conservative”. Hard to see how “breaking” with that big a group improves one’s electoral chances.

194 funky chicken  Tue, Apr 28, 2009 11:13:42am

re: #180 Charles

I don’t think that’s possible, and that’s why I believe it’s time to break with them. They’re dragging the GOP down, and have been for years, and they’re only getting more fanatical.

AMEN

And when they don’t get their way 100% they bail, and then bitch and moan about how they never got what they wanted from Bush (what?) and just knew that McCain was going to be mean to them, or something.

I’ve said this a lot, but McCain has a 100% anti-abortion voting record, which was really easy to contrast with Obama’s. After the last 20 years of hearing non-stop cries about the plight of “the unborn,” um, I’m not impressed with their commitment even to the issues that they say are the most important.

195 anotherindyfilmguy  Tue, Apr 28, 2009 11:13:46am

re: #31 arethusa

He said, “I am unwilling to have my twenty-nine year Senate record judged by the Pennsylvania Republican primary electorate.”

Oh, please. The people shouldn’t be judging their elected representatives?

Allow me to translate:
“I am unwilling to allow the unwashed masses voting in a democratic process to unseat me from power, therefore I am switching to the side that fixes the elections most efficiently in this state.”

196 Dr. Shalit  Tue, Apr 28, 2009 11:13:53am

re: #94 Ward Cleaver

Specter was a Dem back when he was a prosecutor. So, he’s really switching back.

Ward Cleaver -

Thanks for beating me to it. Sen. Specter was a “Reform Democrat” in machine controlled Philadelphia. Before switching to the Republican Party, his career was going nowhere. It has all come full circle.

-S-

197 nikis-knight  Tue, Apr 28, 2009 11:14:00am

re: #189 Emerald

Do you really think they’re going to support the Democrats and their stance on abortion, gay marriage and other social issues? There is no viable third party for them. They’re going to waste their vote, not vote, or vote for the Republicans.

I also question how big of a bloc they are versus how vocal they are. It’s hard to believe that pandering to them is that effective when it drives off a lot of moderates.


There’s always “none of the above”

198 Occasional Reader  Tue, Apr 28, 2009 11:16:02am

re: #181 Three Hundred

This country was founded by people with skin in the game, i.e., landowners. We need to revert to something like that, where people actually have something to lose with respect to governing the country. The way it stands now, they just vote themselves money, and everybody eventually loses.

Um… I’d rather increase people’s incentives to play and win in the economic system, then go to some 18th-century idea of “only landowners can vote”, thank you very much.

199 nikis-knight  Tue, Apr 28, 2009 11:16:17am

re: #194 funky chicken

AMEN

And when they don’t get their way 100% they bail, and then bitch and moan about how they never got what they wanted from Bush (what?) and just knew that McCain was going to be mean to them, or something.

I’ve said this a lot, but McCain has a 100% anti-abortion voting record, which was really easy to contrast with Obama’s. After the last 20 years of hearing non-stop cries about the plight of “the unborn,” um, I’m not impressed with their commitment even to the issues that they say are the most important.


Was ANY republican happy with the McCain nomination? There were a number of reasons he was second choice.

200 looking closely  Tue, Apr 28, 2009 11:16:17am

re: #189 Emerald


I also question how big of a bloc they are versus how vocal they are. It’s hard to believe that pandering to them is that effective when it drives off a lot of moderates.


But does it really?

The Democrats have their own “problem” with the moveon.org uber-liberals that numerically probably only represent a small minority, but are the ones infusing the party with cash and motivation.

201 redc1c4  Tue, Apr 28, 2009 11:16:42am

re: #191 avanti

Yep, the “A crack-head locked alone in a room full of crack comes to mind.” quote seemed a bit too moon bat like for my taste even if you don’t like the party in power.

you commenting on anyone’s “moonbat” tendency is destroying irony meters all over the world as i type this.

202 Sharmuta  Tue, Apr 28, 2009 11:16:45am

re: #192 looking closely

Charles, again, I do see the problem, but realistically, what do you think will happen to the Republican minority (or Democrat majority) if the Republicans jettison the social conservatives, as you suggest?

The republicans lose when fiscal conservatives are marginalized. See the presidential elections of the 90s, and the loss of power when fiscal issues were abandoned as proof.

I’m all for ideological purity, but where the rubber meets the road, so to speak, its all about numbers, and numbers require a functional coalition. Further fracturing the Republican party isn’t going to help.

I think it’s the religious right that’s fracturing the party, making us less appealing to independents and right-leaning democrats.

203 cronus  Tue, Apr 28, 2009 11:16:45am

re: #156 Occasional Reader

The problem there; “social conservatives” captures a pretty big bloc of voters, and somebody’s going to pick up that vote.

I’d rather the GOP tried to both woo and moderate the SoCons. Although I confess, I don’t have a good idea of how to do that.

4 out 10 McCain voters to be exact. Nobody is more concerned than I am about where some SoCons have tried to take the party and I will not pledge unconditional support for any Repub until I know their views on energy policy, fiscal discipline and science. But that said, winning a presidential race without SoCons is a pipe dream.

204 Occasional Reader  Tue, Apr 28, 2009 11:18:03am

re: #188 Leonidas Hoplite

Flat tax for everyone. No exceptions, no deductions.

a) “Flat tax” is a chimera.

b) As for “no deductions”, that’s fun to say, but the real complication is figuring out “what is taxable income”. (See a).)

205 Emerald  Tue, Apr 28, 2009 11:18:05am

re: #197 nikis-knight

There’s always “none of the above”


Which I mentioned two lines later.

206 looking closely  Tue, Apr 28, 2009 11:18:27am

re: #195 anotherindyfilmguy

Allow me to translate:
“I am unwilling to allow the unwashed masses voting in a democratic process to unseat me from power, therefore I am switching to the side that fixes the elections most efficiently in this state.”

My translation:

“Obviously, I’m not a Republican, so why should I let Republicans vote on whether or not I should get to run again for elected office”?

207 unrealizedviewpoint  Tue, Apr 28, 2009 11:18:47am

re: #193 Occasional Reader

I would love to believe that, but I really don’t think it’s true. According to one Gallup poll from 2005, 42% of Americans identify themselves as “evangelical or born-again”. I think it’s reasonable to speculate that a high percentage of those would fit within most definitions of “social conservative”. Hard to see how “breaking” with that big a group improves one’s electoral chances.

Breaking with them simply means not championing their causes to win elections. It doesn’t necessarily mean excommunicating them.

208 Thom  Tue, Apr 28, 2009 11:19:08am

175 looking closely

Way to harsh on my joy …

209 Charles Johnson  Tue, Apr 28, 2009 11:19:41am

re: #192 looking closely

On this particular issue, I think Giuliani has it right. Its OK for the Republican party to espouse religious values, but those should just be de-emphasized compared to other more pragmatic matters of State.

When I say “make a break with social conservatives,” I don’t necessarily mean “expel them from the party.” (That’s not really possible in any case.)

Rudy Giuliani’s approach is the right one — de-emphasize their influence, and stop trying to force religious agendas through legislation.

The problem is that the social conservatives, Ralph Reed et al, will never willingly accept a reduced role in the GOP. They’re addicted to the power.

210 Cato  Tue, Apr 28, 2009 11:20:34am

Specter is important for one reason only: He vowed to vote against card check as a Republican, but he will be pushed to vote for it as a Dem. And, as we know, he has no convictions.

211 Emerald  Tue, Apr 28, 2009 11:20:46am

re: #200 looking closely

But does it really?

The Democrats have their own “problem” with the moveon.org uber-liberals that numerically probably only represent a small minority, but are the ones infusing the party with cash and motivation.

Big difference - the general public only has a vague idea about the far left loons. The media typically ignores their antics. The Republican Party is widely linked with its more extreme supporters.

212 redc1c4  Tue, Apr 28, 2009 11:21:28am

re: #204 Occasional Reader

a) “Flat tax” is a chimera.

b) As for “no deductions”, that’s fun to say, but the real complication is figuring out “what is taxable income”. (See a).)

taxable income = what did you earn?

213 eschew_obfuscation  Tue, Apr 28, 2009 11:21:50am

re: #202 Sharmuta

I think it’s the religious right that’s fracturing the party, making us less appealing to independents and right-leaning democrats.

Maybe it’s the independents and right-leaning democrats making us less appealing to the religious right?

214 Land Shark  Tue, Apr 28, 2009 11:22:07am

re: #74 Charles

I understand what you’re saying, but the Republicans got into trouble with voters when they abandoned fiscal restraint and smaller government. Core Conservative beliefs. The GOP has done well when it’s been seen as sticking to those principles. Yes, I agree that the rise of right-wing kooks is worrisome. It won’t do them any good to associate themselves with such loons. But if the GOP can at least get back to being the voice of fiscal restraint and smaller government I like their chances.

Candidate Obama often sounded like a Reagan Conservative during the campaign, which probably convinced many Moderates, Independents and even some Conservatives to vote for him, since the perception was that the GOP had strayed from those principles. It didn’t help the Republican Presidential candidate was someone like McCain, which isn’t seen as a Conservative by many Conservatives. Now that Obama is safely in office with Democrat control in Congress, he’s letting his true colors show.

215 Occasional Reader  Tue, Apr 28, 2009 11:22:10am

re: #209 Charles

Rudy Giuliani’s approach is the right one one — de-emphasize their influence, and stop trying to force religious agendas through legislation.

I do wonder if a lot of rank and file SoCons (not Ralph Reed et al) wouldn’t be amenable to a sort of “grand bargain”; “you stop trying to impose a religous agenda through legislation, we’ll make sure that you are left alone to the greatest extent possible to live in accordance with your beliefs.”

216 Occasional Reader  Tue, Apr 28, 2009 11:23:23am

re: #212 redc1c4

taxable income = what did you earn?

That is not a simple question, see.

E.g.: Do capital gains = “earnings”? Oceans of ink (and electrons) have been spilled on the topic.

217 Sharmuta  Tue, Apr 28, 2009 11:23:54am

re: #213 eschew_obfuscation

Maybe it’s the independents and right-leaning democrats making us less appealing to the religious right?

Yeah- us hell-bounders are pretty unappealing to them.

218 Lynn B.  Tue, Apr 28, 2009 11:24:23am

re: #110 Ward Cleaver

Toomey could have knocked off Specter in ‘04, if the party, including Bush, and Santorum (!) hadn’t abandoned him.

Toomey didn’t have a prayer in 04. Pennsylvania has been trending decidedly left for quite some time, even excluding Pittsburgh and Philly. Look what happened to Santorum in 06. This Commonwealth isn’t going to elect a far-right senator unless something pretty dramatic happens.

Whether Specter can win as a Democrat is anyone’s guess, but he saw the writing on the walls. He wasn’t going to win the GOP nomination this year. I still agree with Cato’s #55 though. The crazier “conservative” commentary does tend to push folks around here in a leftward direction. My polling place usually has five R booths and one D booth set up for primaries but my district keeps electing Dems to Congress and has been going Dem for Senate and President in the last few elections.

219 looking closely  Tue, Apr 28, 2009 11:24:37am

re: #202 Sharmuta

I think it’s the religious right that’s fracturing the party, making us less appealing to independents and right-leaning democrats.

Independents are mostly a myth.

Numerically, its a very small percentage of the electorate that really swings from side to side during election time. Now, the impact of the respective numbers will vary depending on the exact contest, but in terms of absolute numbers, there are FAR more voters who are “social conservatives” than true independents.

As any strategist will tell you, winning elections in the USA is really mostly about motivating the “base” to come out and vote.

The Republicans can try to jettison the social conservatives, but I don’t see how they’re going to make up the difference in so-called “independents”.

Unfortunately, I think the best thing that’s going to happen to the Republicans is for the electorate to see exactly what several years of Democrat fiscal and foreign policy leads to.

220 MikeAlv77  Tue, Apr 28, 2009 11:24:41am

re: #157 unrealizedviewpoint

Who is “MikeAlv77” down dinging this comment?

I am he and if I feel like down dinging a comment, what of it…

221 Dave the.....  Tue, Apr 28, 2009 11:25:11am

Give the Democrats another couple of years, and it will be almost impossible for Republicans to win big. Why? An incredibly huge welfare state is about to take over. When more then 50% of working adults pay now income tax. When unions got everything they asked for. When the federal gov’t is giving handouts to everyone.

How does a Republican come around and say “we think everyone should pay some tax. We think the fed’l gov’t should cut back some of it’s spending.”

Or this…look at the voting patterns in congressional districts bording Mexico. The newly legalized hispanics could give Democrats a perminant majority.

222 funky chicken  Tue, Apr 28, 2009 11:25:32am

re: #203 cronus

4 out 10 McCain voters to be exact. Nobody is more concerned than I am about where some SoCons have tried to take the party and I will not pledge unconditional support for any Repub until I know their views on energy policy, fiscal discipline and science. But that said, winning a presidential race without SoCons is a pipe dream.

Really, social moderates aren’t the ones, and haven’t been the ones who yell RINO at every person who isn’t in lockstep with them on a few pet issues.

The So/RelCons are the ones whose behavior is exclusionary. They aren’t shy about flat out demanding that their entire domestic platform be enshrined as THE domestic platform of the GOP, and any slight verbal deviation from an extremely hard-line stance on abortion or gay marriage/civil unions elicits screams of fury from them.

One recent example—Michael Steele’s comments about abortion. He was given up for adoption as an infant, and he said that he was glad his mother hadn’t chosen to have an abortion. Steele is pro-life and has been pro-life his entire political career, and the substance of his answer didn’t indicate he’d suddenly changed, but because the phrasing was odd, … “off with his head!”

dumb, divisive, and unpleasant

223 Occasional Reader  Tue, Apr 28, 2009 11:25:53am

re: #219 looking closely

Numerically, its a very small percentage of the electorate that really swings from side to side during election time.

It’ll be hard for a social conservative message to appeal to voters who “swing both ways”…

224 Obsidiandog  Tue, Apr 28, 2009 11:25:53am

Don’t let the door hit you in the ass on the way out.

225 MikeAlv77  Tue, Apr 28, 2009 11:26:04am

and I updinged it anyway cause I aggree with it

226 Sharmuta  Tue, Apr 28, 2009 11:26:24am

re: #219 looking closely

I think the party has no choice but to bring disaffected fiscal conservatives back to the fold. When fisc-cons are shunned, the party loses.

227 Leonidas Hoplite  Tue, Apr 28, 2009 11:26:54am

re: #204 Occasional Reader

a) “Flat tax” is a chimera.

b) As for “no deductions”, that’s fun to say, but the real complication is figuring out “what is taxable income”. (See a).)

a) Why is it a Chimera?

b) (XX%)what you made = taxes owed.

228 Dave the.....  Tue, Apr 28, 2009 11:27:10am
I understand what you’re saying, but the Republicans got into trouble with voters when they abandoned fiscal restraint and smaller government. Core Conservative beliefs.

Yup. When Republicans tried to outspend Democrats, two things happened:

A) They lost the cause mentioned above
B) Democrats just spent more, so there was no net gain in paid off constituency. We didn’t buy any votes.
C) Democrats still said Republicans are starving people.

229 unrealizedviewpoint  Tue, Apr 28, 2009 11:27:42am

re: #225 MikeAlv77

and I updinged it anyway cause I aggree with it

Then why the hell are you trying to pick a fight over it?

230 Ojoe  Tue, Apr 28, 2009 11:29:15am

Specter goes from one corrupt party to another, BFD.

231 DaddyG  Tue, Apr 28, 2009 11:29:23am

re: #23 bolivar

He just might be next but it won’t matter …… nobody can stop the messiah now. He can do any damn thing he wants to and harry and nancy will rubber stamp it.

He just might be next but it won’t matter …… nobody can stop Pelosi now. She can do any damn thing she wants to and harry and Barry will rubber stamp it.

FIFY

232 Occasional Reader  Tue, Apr 28, 2009 11:29:41am

re: #227 Leonidas Hoplite

a) Why is it a Chimera?

b) (XX%)what you made = taxes owed.

On a): Because what’s complicated about the tax code is not that it has differential tax rates.

On b): See my #216.

I remember my tax law prof mentioning the idea lots of laymen have about how a flat tax will make everything “simple”, and put tax lawyers out of business. He had a hearty chuckle over the idea. (Actually, he had a great sense of humor… literally, he could have done standup. Yes, a tax law professor!)

233 cronus  Tue, Apr 28, 2009 11:29:42am

re: #215 Occasional Reader

I do wonder if a lot of rank and file SoCons (not Ralph Reed et al) wouldn’t be amenable to a sort of “grand bargain”; “you stop trying to impose a religous agenda through legislation, we’ll make sure that you are left alone to the greatest extent possible to live in accordance with your beliefs.”

I think being out of power will help bring about exactly what you are describing. I’ve worked with SoCons for a long time and believe that many are just as frustrated with their own movement being taken over by the likes of Huckabee, et al — who are really religious fiscal progressives with a theocratic bent.

234 useless  Tue, Apr 28, 2009 11:29:45am

While I am troubled that the dems will have a complete control of all facets of government now, I would also invite ALL THE REST of them to jump ship now. I want the squishy liberal R’s GONE. I want to know who we can count on and who we can’t. I would love it if the R’s found themselves decimated. I want the party kicked in the knees, I want their head slammed into the dirt and I want them to be sorry that they were so worthless. In short, I want them to have the courage to put their ass on the line for things that they think are worth fighting for, or GTFO. I want people who are not afraid of a fight and not afraid of getting beat up. Cuz, the dems, they will dish it out. If you can’t stand the fight, go to the other side then, because now that they have 60 votes, it’s going to be open season on republicans.

So, I’m taking the “What does not kill you makes you stronger” approach because I am thoroughly pissed with the pathetic Republican party.

235 [deleted]  Tue, Apr 28, 2009 11:29:47am
236 DaddyG  Tue, Apr 28, 2009 11:30:03am

re: #215 Occasional Reader

I do wonder if a lot of rank and file SoCons (not Ralph Reed et al) wouldn’t be amenable to a sort of “grand bargain”; “you stop trying to impose a religous agenda through legislation, we’ll make sure that you are left alone to the greatest extent possible to live in accordance with your beliefs.”


I thought that was what the Constitution was for?

237 looking closely  Tue, Apr 28, 2009 11:30:33am

re: #209 Charles

When I say “make a break with social conservatives,” I don’t necessarily mean “expel them from the party.” (That’s not really possible in any case.)

Rudy Giuliani’s approach is the right one one — de-emphasize their influence, and stop trying to force religious agendas through legislation.

The problem is that the social conservatives, Ralph Reed et al, will never willingly accept a reduced role in the GOP. They’re addicted to the power.


OK. So we’re on the same page here.

Ultimately, its always the case that those with power don’t want to give it up. Specters defection here is the perfect example. If the man had even a shred of honor or decency, he’d simply not run for re-election at age 78 instead of switching party allegiance for momentary political expediency.

Again, the Dems have their own equivalent of the “religious right”, in this case, you might term them the “non-religious left” (though “Communists” would probably be just as apt).

The Moveon-org leftists have really taken over the Democrat party in spades. I’m pretty sure they alienate a lot of so called “moderates” too, but as they are the biggest funders of the Dems, their agenda isn’t even going to be de-emphasized. The recent example of that is the flap over potential Justice Dept persecution (not prosecution) of Bush-era lawyers.

238 Dave the.....  Tue, Apr 28, 2009 11:31:35am

Sharmuta, we disagree on the social conservatives, but you are so right on the fiscal conservatives. I think that may be the only group who will come back to the Republican party.

My question to those who want the Republican party to move to the left on social issues. How many voters did the Republican party gain when it moved to the left, became like Democrats, on spending and Big Gov’t issues? Are you saying that hard core gay-rights activists will change parties? That Hollywood will suddenly stop making Republicans the villians in all of their TV shows and movies?

239 looking closely  Tue, Apr 28, 2009 11:31:55am

re: #223 Occasional Reader

It’ll be hard for a social conservative message to appeal to voters who “swing both ways”…

But Republicans are the party of “missile defense”.

240 Ojoe  Tue, Apr 28, 2009 11:32:11am

Get rid of all incumbents as soon as you can vote them out.

241 Occasional Reader  Tue, Apr 28, 2009 11:32:19am

re: #236 DaddyG

I thought that was what the Constitution was for?

Yeah, well… um, it’s a “living, breathing document”… you know the drill!

242 funky chicken  Tue, Apr 28, 2009 11:32:21am

re: #218 Lynn B.

Toomey didn’t have a prayer in 04. Pennsylvania has been trending decidedly left for quite some time, even excluding Pittsburgh and Philly. Look what happened to Santorum in 06. This Commonwealth isn’t going to elect a far-right senator unless something pretty dramatic happens.

Whether Specter can win as a Democrat is anyone’s guess, but he saw the writing on the walls. He wasn’t going to win the GOP nomination this year. I still agree with Cato’s #55 though. The crazier “conservative” commentary does tend to push folks around here in a leftward direction. My polling place usually has five R booths and one D booth set up for primaries but my district keeps electing Dems to Congress and has been going Dem for Senate and President in the last few elections.

Santorum made himself the poster boy for the religious right with some really stupid comments about gay marriage and his history of moralizing before that.

I don’t know if Toomey is the same kind of guy, but just assuming that a “conservative” can’t win in PA because Santorum lost is not necessarily accurate.

And Santorum was and remains a huge supporter of international “poverty relief,” even through all the Bush 43 deficit years. Yes, charity is nice, but borrowing money from my potential grandchildren to line some African despot’s pockets with “foreign aid” is not conservative.

243 OldLineTexan  Tue, Apr 28, 2009 11:32:29am

re: #236 DaddyG

I thought that was what the Constitution was for?

Yes. Now if we could just get the Feds to use it instead of whatever rules they make up as they go …

244 Dave the.....  Tue, Apr 28, 2009 11:33:39am
re: #209 Charles

When I say “make a break with social conservatives,” I don’t necessarily mean “expel them from the party.” (That’s not really possible in any case.)

Rudy Giuliani’s approach is the right one one — de-emphasize their influence, and stop trying to force religious agendas through legislation.

The problem is that the social conservatives, Ralph Reed et al, will never willingly accept a reduced role in the GOP. They’re addicted to the power.


Okay, maybe we aren’t as far apart on this as I thought. I remember years ago, when the nutcases were running the minority Democrat party, someone said “at least we keep Pat Robertson in the basement”. At that time (maybe late 1990’s), Republicans really minimized this segment. And they (social conservatives) still voted Republican.

245 Ojoe  Tue, Apr 28, 2009 11:34:02am

re: #233 cronus

No theocracy

246 Occasional Reader  Tue, Apr 28, 2009 11:34:09am

re: #235 buzzsawmonkey

but one is a solo operation

Answer: He should be able to deduct a reasonable amount of business expenses related to Wookie care and feeding.

247 SixDegrees  Tue, Apr 28, 2009 11:34:46am

re: #6 midwestgak

Switch gives Dems a 60 seat filibuster proof majority in the senate

They had that majority anyway. Spector - and two other Republicans - have reliably crossed the aisle to vote with the Democrats.

The Republicans should now start doing what they should have last November - reaching across the aisle to like-minded Democrats willing to break ranks with their party in favor of conservative, fiscally responsible government.

Or - sit, sulk and get used to losing and being completely irrelevant.

248 Cato  Tue, Apr 28, 2009 11:34:51am

re: #243 OldLineTexan


I will remind you that making up the rules sometimes works. Jefferson himself thought the Louisiana Purchase was unconstitutional, but did it anyway.

249 [deleted]  Tue, Apr 28, 2009 11:35:39am
250 Dave the.....  Tue, Apr 28, 2009 11:36:26am
The Republicans should now start doing what they should have last November - reaching across the aisle to like-minded Democrats willing to break ranks with their party in favor of conservative, fiscally responsible government.

Best bet? There are Democrats in purple to red districts. Go to them and remind them that they are up for re-election in 2010. Get them to vote with the moderates to conservatives. But still hammer them during the 2010 campaign as out of touch liberals.

251 nikis-knight  Tue, Apr 28, 2009 11:36:47am

re: #242 funky chicken

And Santorum was and remains a huge supporter of international “poverty relief,” even through all the Bush 43 deficit years. Yes, charity is nice, but borrowing money from my potential grandchildren to line some African despot’s pockets with “foreign aid” is not conservative.

I certainly agree with you there.

252 Occasional Reader  Tue, Apr 28, 2009 11:36:50am

re: #247 SixDegrees

They had that majority anyway

Yeah, that thought went through my head this morning when NPR matter-of-factly asserted that the only reason all those top Obama health-related appointments are still vacant (while we face a pandemic) is because they’ve been “blocked by Republicans”. Gee… how are the Republicans managing that?

253 Occasional Reader  Tue, Apr 28, 2009 11:37:48am

re: #249 buzzsawmonkey

Especially the Napoleons served at the breakfast business meetings.

On this incipient pun war, I cry “U.N.C.L.E.”!

254 Dave the.....  Tue, Apr 28, 2009 11:38:15am

The Africa thing pisses me off like you won’t believe. Bush 43 gave billions to Africa so Bono would be happy.

255 SixDegrees  Tue, Apr 28, 2009 11:38:36am

re: #215 Occasional Reader

I do wonder if a lot of rank and file SoCons (not Ralph Reed et al) wouldn’t be amenable to a sort of “grand bargain”; “you stop trying to impose a religous agenda through legislation, we’ll make sure that you are left alone to the greatest extent possible to live in accordance with your beliefs.

That is the very core of Conservatism, right there. Trying to impose religious beliefs on the populace through legislation flies in the face of Conservatism, and has no place there - or in American politics, period. The only thing that needs to be added is a commitment to smaller government, and you’ve got a workable, attractive Conservative platform.

256 cronus  Tue, Apr 28, 2009 11:38:47am

re: #222 funky chicken

Without a doubt, the likes of Tony Perkins and is ilk have a proven track record of divisiveness and dishonestly. But they don’t have an exclusive franchise on the minds of SoCons. It’s not as monolithic a group as they are made out to be.

I believe a real focus around fiscal issues is still the right course of action and most of the party’s base can be brought together under that banner. But we also have to understand that we won’t be revisiting the abortion plank in the platform or anything like that.

Maybe I’m overly optimistic, but I’ve been through many an election and being out of power has a way of smoothing out some of the rough edges.

257 Thom  Tue, Apr 28, 2009 11:38:55am

Specter is giving a press conference and said that Ed Rendell told him that if he switched to the dem party, Rendell would help him “raise” money for his re-election.

Specter said that he replied that if he switched parties, he wouldn’t need help raising money - but that he has since reconsidered that position.

In other words, he will take Rendell’s money as compensation for switching parties.

In other words, Specter took a bribe.

Now, where are those asshats who were after Blogojevich … ?

258 nikis-knight  Tue, Apr 28, 2009 11:38:56am

re: #250 Dave the…..

Best bet? There are Democrats in purple to red districts. Go to them and remind them that they are up for re-election in 2010. Get them to vote with the moderates to conservatives. But still hammer them during the 2010 campaign as out of touch liberals.

Maybe Spectres fears about losing over the simulus vote in the rep primary could be mirrored in dems in red states general elections.

259 Leonidas Hoplite  Tue, Apr 28, 2009 11:39:53am

re: #232 Occasional Reader

So we are doomed to have a hopelessly complicated tax structure that benefits no one except tax professionals, politicians, and those who pay nothing? I’m sure there is a way to actually implement something far less complicated and more efficient, and actually put your tax law prefessor out of work so that he could be doing something more productive - like stand-up comedy.

260 astronmr20  Tue, Apr 28, 2009 11:40:13am

re: #55 Cato the Elder

Agree with Charles. Big whup.

Specter will probably vote against the Dem party line as often as he did the Repub. He’s a contrarian, like me, and I respect that.

And do ya think all the bad crazy coming from the pits of perdition now known as “conservative” commentary just maybe might have had an effect on this decision? Huh?

If he was “contrarian” about the porkulus bill, the Repblican party could have filibustered.

Fuck him.

261 SixDegrees  Tue, Apr 28, 2009 11:41:18am

re: #250 Dave the…..

Best bet? There are Democrats in purple to red districts. Go to them and remind them that they are up for re-election in 2010. Get them to vote with the moderates to conservatives. But still hammer them during the 2010 campaign as out of touch liberals.

Well, I agree with the first part. Backstabbing them once they’ve openly adopted your policies, though, is not a good way to do business. Oppose them with solid Conservative candidates during the campaign, but run on the issues - and acknowledge that they did the right thing when that’s true.

262 Lynn B.  Tue, Apr 28, 2009 11:43:11am

re: #242 funky chicken

Santorum made himself the poster boy for the religious right with some really stupid comments about gay marriage and his history of moralizing before that.

I don’t know if Toomey is the same kind of guy, but just assuming that a “conservative” can’t win in PA because Santorum lost is not necessarily accurate.

And Santorum was and remains a huge supporter of international “poverty relief,” even through all the Bush 43 deficit years. Yes, charity is nice, but borrowing money from my potential grandchildren to line some African despot’s pockets with “foreign aid” is not conservative.

Totally agree. I certainly do NOT assume that a “conservative” can’t win in PA. I’m just pretty sure that a right-wing nut case or someone who comes off as one can’t. Toomey was pretty well lumped into that category in 04. I need to start paying more attention to him again now and don’t have an opinion yet as to his chances in 10.

263 Rexatosis  Tue, Apr 28, 2009 11:43:40am

Sen. Specter’s leaving the GOP will have a great impact on Speaker Pelosi and Sen. Reid’s ability to move legislation through the Congress over the next year and a half. With a 60-40 majority (based on the Dem. caucus in the Senate) the Dems will be able to swiftly move House passed legislation through the Senate at a relatively fast rate since the GOP will be unable to use as many parliamentarian tactics to slow or stop legislative initiatives in the Senate. This is not good. Alot of damage to the country can be done by Pelosi and Co. between now and the next election. This move also will have a huge impact on Treaty ratification before the Senate. Specter has put his own election above the checks and balances inherent within the Federal System (He was elected as a Republican)

264 Occasional Reader  Tue, Apr 28, 2009 11:44:54am

re: #259 Leonidas Hoplite

So we are doomed to have a hopelessly complicated tax structure that benefits no one except tax professionals, politicians, and those who pay nothing?

Not necessarily. One alternative is to move to consumption-based tax (national IVA or the like), although of course that is fraught with issues.

And it’s certainly possible to simplify even the current tax code by weeding out some of the sillier attempts at influencing behavior through tax policy (e.g., deductions for Gulf War vets who heat their homes with solar power financed through their gambling winnings at church Bingo events… you get the idea).

265 Dave the.....  Tue, Apr 28, 2009 11:44:58am

Occas Reader and SixDegrees

That would be deal they should accept.

Social Conservatives are about to find out what it’s like to be a persecuted minority. Wait until Catholic and Orthodox Christian schools are successfully sued over the gay rights thing. Wait until their tax exempt status is challenged. Wait until Catholic hospitals are forced to perform abortions, and/or provide elective abortion coverage in their employees benefits.

And school vouchers, and on and on and on.

266 rusty_armor  Tue, Apr 28, 2009 11:45:04am

And the Republicans lost what?

267 SixDegrees  Tue, Apr 28, 2009 11:45:42am

re: #254 Dave the…..

The Africa thing pisses me off like you won’t believe. Bush 43 gave billions to Africa so Bono would be happy.

Actually, Bush’s commitments to African aid predate Bono’s public interests substantially. He tried very early in his first term to send a huge amount of financial aid to the continent, got the legislation through Congress, and then had to reduce the amount disbursed because the nations involved weren’t able to absorb that much aid due to their poor financial infrastructure. So it wound up being disbursed over a much longer period of time.

But the aid itself seems to have been a genuine desire on Bush’s part.

268 jeremy1013  Tue, Apr 28, 2009 11:45:48am

re: #244 Dave the…..

I’m not a fan of Pat Robertson, but I would like to know the nature of your opposition against him. Is it because his political beliefs stem from his religious convictions?

269 funky chicken  Tue, Apr 28, 2009 11:49:07am

re: #267 SixDegrees

It’s the “compassionate conservative” thing.

Of course propping up kleptocrats with other people’s money really doesn’t qualify for either.

270 JustMyView  Tue, Apr 28, 2009 11:49:40am

Specter is on FNC making a lot of sense—listing elections in which moderate Republicans lost primaries and the winning conservative lost the general election. In particular, Lincoln Chafee’s loss gave control of the Senate to the Dems in 2005, resulting in shifting the chairmanship of the Judiciary Committee from Specter to Sen. Leahy. That shift meant that numerous judges nominated by President Bush were not confirmed, a result that must have been disappointing to social conservatives who are always concerned about judicial appointments. In other words, the focus on electing very conservative Republicans is counterproductive.

271 blangwort  Tue, Apr 28, 2009 11:50:36am

re: #120 Charles

No, I think Republicans should make a break with the social conservatives and religious fanatics, and get back to core principles — less intrusive government and fiscal responsibility.

Stay out of people’s bedrooms. And stop trying to legislate morality.

On a purely practical note: personal responsibility and less government are not currently campaign winning positions. I suspect that once President Obama’s term is done, there won’t be much choice but to go for smaller government. We’ll be staring at government loan defaults if we don’t.

Furthermore, I suspect many who talk of less government would also argue that our government ought to take less interest in the rest of the world. And that too may come to pass after Obama’s term is over. Once again, I doubt we’ll have the financial strength left to do otherwise.

What you suggest may end up being the only option left, four years from now. The only question is whether the GOP can sell this idea, or whether someone else will do it for them.

272 eschew_obfuscation  Tue, Apr 28, 2009 11:51:11am

re: #215 Occasional Reader

I do wonder if a lot of rank and file SoCons (not Ralph Reed et al) wouldn’t be amenable to a sort of “grand bargain”; “you stop trying to impose a religous agenda through legislation, we’ll make sure that you are left alone to the greatest extent possible to live in accordance with your beliefs.”

Are you suggesting that SoCons stop trying to get their values included in law while everyone else’s values are?

To me, the only thing clouding this “legislating morality” issue is choosing whose morality gets legislated.

I believe as an attorney (at least by training?) you would know that values such as fairness, degrees of crimes such as murder, lying as a crime in specific cases are all embodied in law and, for the most part, no one complains about these. But if someone who is religious suggests his value be legislated, the howling begins.

Doesn’t this seem a little lopsided? Shouldn’t the values embodied in law be debated and selected by a majority of legislatures not precluding input from certain groups?

I have a feeling this will be an unpopular post, but I’d like to hear the opposing arguments.

273 S'latch  Tue, Apr 28, 2009 11:51:13am

Republicans will not be back in power until the Democrats’ failure is complete and undeniable.

274 SixDegrees  Tue, Apr 28, 2009 11:51:32am

re: #269 funky chicken

It’s the “compassionate conservative” thing.

Of course propping up kleptocrats with other people’s money really doesn’t qualify for either.

I don’t know what Bush’s motivations were. It may have simply been a genuine desire to help.

275 Mikey_Dallas  Tue, Apr 28, 2009 11:51:32am

He was going to have trouble in the next election on the Republican side anyway, so this was a no-brainer decision for him - which is good, since he has no brain.

276 Charles Johnson  Tue, Apr 28, 2009 11:51:49am

Just noticed a link coming in from the comments for a Daily Kos post, where they seem to think “heads are exploding” at LGF.

“Stifling a yawn” means my head is exploding? Do these people ever actually read LGF?

277 Thom  Tue, Apr 28, 2009 11:53:46am

270 JustMyView

That doesn’t make sense.

I’m trying to refomulate the argument in cogent terms, but coming up empty.

?

278 SixDegrees  Tue, Apr 28, 2009 11:53:48am

re: #271 blangwort

On a purely practical note: personal responsibility and less government are not currently campaign winning positions. I suspect that once President Obama’s term is done, there won’t be much choice but to go for smaller government. We’ll be staring at government loan defaults if we don’t.

Furthermore, I suspect many who talk of less government would also argue that our government ought to take less interest in the rest of the world. And that too may come to pass after Obama’s term is over. Once again, I doubt we’ll have the financial strength left to do otherwise.

What you suggest may end up being the only option left, four years from now. The only question is whether the GOP can sell this idea, or whether someone else will do it for them.

Many of the newly-elected Democrats are actively attempting to co-opt this position already. If the GOP doesn’t act, the Dems certainly will, if only to kneecap their opponents.

279 nikis-knight  Tue, Apr 28, 2009 11:55:21am

re: #278 SixDegrees

Many of the newly-elected Democrats are actively attempting to co-opt this position already. If the GOP doesn’t act, the Dems certainly will, if only to kneecap their opponents.

I certainly hope they DO co-opt it, so long as they all do. It would be nice to have two choices to choose from.

280 Leonidas Hoplite  Tue, Apr 28, 2009 11:55:29am

re: #276 Charles

Just noticed a link coming in from the comments for a Daily Kos post, where they seem to think “heads are exploding” at LGF.

“Stifling a yawn” means my head is exploding? Do these people ever actually read LGF?

They do but thier universal translator is stuck in the ‘English-to-Moonbat’ mode. The result is an awful lot of logic, reason, and level-headed thinking is lost in translation.

281 Dave the.....  Tue, Apr 28, 2009 11:55:44am

Jermeny, Pat Robertson, while a little goofy, really doesn’t bother me that much. I recall the aid he gave to the homeless in a city I lived in (has Michael Moore ever done that?), or the 7+ semi-truckloads of supplies he sent to New Orleans a couple of days before anyone else realize how bad the situation is.

But as a long -time LGFer, I have learned that one thing that will get you hammered here is to say something nice about him. Or Mel Gibson.

282 Michael Perz  Tue, Apr 28, 2009 11:59:11am

Hello. This is my first time posting here. Unfortunately I don’t have anything to add except this.

283 SixDegrees  Tue, Apr 28, 2009 11:59:21am

re: #279 nikis-knight

I certainly hope they DO co-opt it, so long as they all do. It would be nice to have two choices to choose from.

If the GOP won’t support a Conservative platform, I’m more than happy to work towards reforming the Democrats and giving my vote to any Conservative candidates they put on the ticket.

Parties don’t mean jack, especially in the US.

284 Lynn B.  Tue, Apr 28, 2009 12:00:07pm

Well maybe this will start a few heads exploding:

Switch sides, Sen. Specter
Don’t end a distinguished career by losing to a lightweight

This imbecile was lobbying (last week) for Specter to switch parties, but not for the Senate election. Oh, no.

… there would be no satisfaction in seeing a great senator, who has served Pennsylvania in a long career, defeated by a lightweight ideologue in the nasty, personal campaign that this one already has become.

So how does it get fixed? Mr. Specter changes party now, then the Republican Party chooses Mr. Toomey. As soon as a vacancy occurs on the U.S. Supreme Court, expected soon, Mr. Obama nominates Mr. Specter. Apart from more than 28 years’ experience as senator, Mr. Specter also has served as a district attorney and an assistant district attorney.

Even though the Republicans in the Senate would gnash their teeth at his defection, the Democrats would have the votes to confirm him and some GOP senators likely would vote for their former colleague, in spite of his apostasy.

Any commentary I might add would be … unprintable.

285 jeremy1013  Tue, Apr 28, 2009 12:01:06pm

re: #215 Occasional Reader

Regarding the grand bargain, I think you paint it with brush that is too wide. It depends on the issue. The gay marriage debate seems like religious nuts keeping the gays out of the fold, but really its about forcing everyone to accept homosexual marriage, not as a political equivalent, but as a moral equivalent. Who is imposing the fundamentalist agenda?

286 Lynn B.  Tue, Apr 28, 2009 12:03:04pm

re: #285 jeremy1013

Regarding the grand bargain, I think you paint it with brush that is too wide. It depends on the issue. The gay marriage debate seems like religious nuts keeping the gays out of the fold, but really its about forcing everyone to accept homosexual marriage, not as a political equivalent, but as a moral equivalent. Who is imposing the fundamentalist agenda?

What part of “no legislating morality” is too complicated for you to understand?

287 nikis-knight  Tue, Apr 28, 2009 12:04:58pm

re: #286 Lynn B.

What part of “no legislating morality” is too complicated for you to understand?


Either direction is legislating a morality.

288 jeremy1013  Tue, Apr 28, 2009 12:05:54pm

re: #286 Lynn B.

Can you name a law that doesn’t imply or assume some kind of moral good?

289 cronus  Tue, Apr 28, 2009 12:06:01pm

re: #285 jeremy1013

Regarding the grand bargain, I think you paint it with brush that is too wide. It depends on the issue. The gay marriage debate seems like religious nuts keeping the gays out of the fold, but really its about forcing everyone to accept homosexual marriage, not as a political equivalent, but as a moral equivalent. Who is imposing the fundamentalist agenda?

I await your running tally on how many heterosexual marriages are destroyed by gay unions.

290 martinsmithy  Tue, Apr 28, 2009 12:06:25pm

re: #1 Sharmuta

Sharmuta, that is the attitude that will spell the death knell for the Republican party. Spector is a slippery, oily middle-of-the-roader, but so are a lot of us Americans, and if someone like him cannot feel comfortable in the Republican party it’s a sign that the party is being taken over by people like the Paulites and Palinites at the tea party rallies and the likes of Mr. McElroy and his creationist ilk, not to mention the Gellerites still foaming at the mouth over “nirth certifikits.”

This does not bode well for the political party that, despite its current troubles, remains the better choice for our nation than the Democrats.

291 Dave the.....  Tue, Apr 28, 2009 12:06:36pm

The Democrats will be legislation morality like you won’t believe. Get ready to be forced to accept their social views in a way the religious right never intended to do from the other side.

292 Dave the.....  Tue, Apr 28, 2009 12:08:46pm

In Arizona, two lesbians went to a conservative Christian photographer, and sued her to force her to photograph their “wedding”.

Can anyone give me an example where two Conservative Christians sought out an atheist photographer and did the same?

293 Dave the.....  Tue, Apr 28, 2009 12:09:47pm

The dating service for Chistians. Gay activists sued to force the service to set up gay dating service.

Can anyone give me an example where a conservative Christians did this to a gay dating service?

294 jeremy1013  Tue, Apr 28, 2009 12:10:22pm

re: #289 cronus

I didn’t make that claim.

295 Occasional Reader  Tue, Apr 28, 2009 12:11:35pm

re: #272 eschew_obfuscation

Going piece by piece…

Are you suggesting that SoCons stop trying to get their values included in law while everyone else’s values are?

No. Read on.


To me, the only thing clouding this “legislating morality” issue is choosing whose morality gets legislated.

Note first that you’ve changed to question from “legislating a religious agenda” (my words) to “legislating morality”.

I agree, of course, that laws reflect a society’s perception of morality.

I think SoCons need to learn to have a little warning flag go up when they are going thorough a syllogism like the following: “I want my child to be praying to Jesus while he’s in public school. Therefore, I want the law to ensure that EVERY child is praying to Jesus in public school”.

Doesn’t this seem a little lopsided? Shouldn’t the values embodied in law be debated and selected by a majority of legislatures not precluding input from certain groups?

Yes, they should. But I think that in a pluralistic society, EVERYBODY, right/left/whatever, needs to avoid the political tendency toward, “everything I like should be mandatory, everything I dislike should be banned”. The reason we are talking about SoCons here, is because we’ve been specifically discussing how to turn around the Republican Party.

296 bombarafat  Tue, Apr 28, 2009 12:12:06pm

I thought he was already a dhimmicrat?

297 S'latch  Tue, Apr 28, 2009 12:13:25pm

re: #288 jeremy1013

I have often wondered what is immoral about running a red light if you clearly can see no one is in sight, near or approaching from any direction.

298 Land Shark  Tue, Apr 28, 2009 12:17:05pm

re: #289 cronus

Good point. However, it’s interesting to note that even with Obama winning the Presidency last November, in two states that went for Obama, California and Florida, passed measures effectively banning gay marriage or defining marriage as a union between a man and a woman. In Florida, it was a constitutional amendment needing 60% of the vote to pass and it got 62%. That one was a huge shocker, as most people were convinced they would never get 60% of the voters in FLA to support it.

Clearly, a lot of people who voted for Obama voted against gay marriage. That seems to be a socially conservative issue with a lot of support throughout the country.

299 Leonidas Hoplite  Tue, Apr 28, 2009 12:17:38pm

re: #297 Lawrence Schmerel

I have often wondered what is immoral about running a red light if you clearly can see no one is in sight, near or approaching from any direction.

You’ll burn in Hell! Oh wait, no you’ll just have to pay an absurd fine ($150) like I did b/c I was busted by an effin’ camera.

300 Occasional Reader  Tue, Apr 28, 2009 12:19:29pm

re: #297 Lawrence Schmerel

I have often wondered what is immoral about running a red light if you clearly can see no one is in sight, near or approaching from any direction.

I’m pretty sure there’s something about that in Leviticus.

/

301 jeremy1013  Tue, Apr 28, 2009 12:19:46pm

re: #297 Lawrence Schmerel

The reason the law was made was because of a value for human life, and traffic laws, while they limit individual freedom, create safe public streets.

302 subsailor68  Tue, Apr 28, 2009 12:20:19pm

re: #297 Lawrence Schmerel

I have often wondered what is immoral about running a red light if you clearly can see no one is in sight, near or approaching from any direction.

Bill Buckley used that as an example of the difference in principle between malum prohibitum and male in se.

In your example, that would be malum prohibitum (that which is proscribed by law) as opposed to male in se (that which is inherently evil). IOW, you broke a “law”, but did nothing inherently evil, as you did check in every direction.

303 UberInfidel67  Tue, Apr 28, 2009 12:23:38pm

re: #257 Thom

Specter is giving a press conference and said that Ed Rendell told him that if he switched to the dem party, Rendell would help him “raise” money for his re-election.

Specter said that he replied that if he switched parties, he wouldn’t need help raising money - but that he has since reconsidered that position.

In other words, he will take Rendell’s money as compensation for switching parties.

In other words, Specter took a bribe.

Now, where are those asshats who were after Blogojevich … ?

Or it could be because the GOP wants back the 5.8 million they have given and raised for Spector. Why should he keep it if he is switching parties? I hope with all my heart, they take the money back and Speedy Rendell DOES have to help him.

304 jeremy1013  Tue, Apr 28, 2009 12:26:47pm

re: #295 Occasional Reader

Public education (industry) is an experiment that has failed. A morally neutral education is a farce.

305 Joel  Tue, Apr 28, 2009 12:28:58pm
Whatever you think of Specter, it’s painful to give the Democrats this opportunity to crow. I caught a few minutes of CNN over the lunch hour; their anchor appeared to be impersonating the woman in the restaurant scene in When Harry Met Sally.


From Powerline blog

306 joncelli  Tue, Apr 28, 2009 12:30:04pm

re: #101 alegrias

Yes, PA is deep purple now, verging on blue. Unless there is an earthquake in Philly or Pittsburgh right before election day (God forbid), the Democrat — and I assume that will be Specter — will win.

307 wiffersnapper  Tue, Apr 28, 2009 12:31:11pm

Get out of my party, Arlen.

308 SixDegrees  Tue, Apr 28, 2009 12:33:35pm

re: #287 nikis-knight

Either direction is legislating a morality.

Not so much. Marriage, as recognized by the state, is a legal construct; marriage, as recognized by a church, is a religous and/or moral construct. The two have little, if anything, in common. And this two-tiered system is what currently exists right now in nearly every case - except for the case of homosexual marriage. As a Roman Catholic, you are perfectly free to obtain a divorce from the state and to remarry with the state’s consent; the church, on the other hand, will not recognize either arrangement.

Proposals to allow homosexual marriage at the state level say nothing at all about how churches must behave regarding such a union. Such an extension simply shuts down one of the last fuzzy areas where church and state still overlap. The degree of overlap isn’t a problem in most cases, but in this particular case it is.

Despite the granting of a marriage license, churches will still be free to ignore the union and to condemn the couple to eternal damnation, hellfire and brimstone.

309 eschew_obfuscation  Tue, Apr 28, 2009 12:34:41pm

re: #295 Occasional Reader

Thanks for that clarification. I think I’m largely in agreement with you here (at least as far as these examples go). The one caveat I would add concerns your last point. To the extent that ‘live and let live’ (my term) doesn’t allow harm to society, however we might measure that, I would agree with you, especially at the federal level. Where reasonable people would foresee/wish to prevent a harm to society, I see bans/requirements more positively.

An example you might agree with based on your earlier comment…. the proposed requirement of hospitals to provide abortion services is something I would oppose as it excludes doctors who object to abortion on moral grounds from practicing pediatrics …. a loss to society and individual liberty.

Again, thanks….

310 nikis-knight  Tue, Apr 28, 2009 12:37:24pm

re: #308 SixDegrees


Not so much. Marriage, as recognized by the state, is a legal construct

What is the point of this legal construct? To incentivise and support the institution that best creates and sustains and enculturates new people.
Whether you think this deserves support above making sure no one gets their feelings hurt is a matter of your morality.

311 mike(in)savage  Tue, Apr 28, 2009 12:49:51pm

re: #120 Charles

No, I think Republicans should make a break with the social conservatives and religious fanatics, and get back to core principles — less intrusive government and fiscal responsibility.

Stay out of people’s bedrooms. And stop trying to legislate morality.

For clarity’s sake: If a Republican advocates against spending on, say, taxpayer funded abortions, is that an example of a belief in limited government and fiscal responsiblity or of religious fanatacism?

312 gregb  Tue, Apr 28, 2009 12:55:53pm

re: #5 Leonidas Hoplite

Republican in name only, so yes.

313 funky chicken  Tue, Apr 28, 2009 12:56:27pm

re: #309 eschew_obfuscation

I’m pro-choice, but I see no reason why the government should be able to force Catholic or Baptist hospitals to provide abortion services.

314 wahabicorridor  Tue, Apr 28, 2009 12:58:13pm

re: #306 joncelli

Yes, PA is deep purple now, verging on blue. Unless there is an earthquake in Philly or Pittsburgh right before election day (God forbid), the Democrat — and I assume that will be Specter — will win.

Hubby and I got an early heads up on this from Specter’s staff. Obviously we had to keep our mouths shut. But now that it’s out I can say this - his staffers are not at all convinced that he can win the primary even under these circumstances. Resumes are being polished.

315 Right Brain  Tue, Apr 28, 2009 1:00:50pm

Less anyone think Senator Specter is standing on principle, from CNN:

“In the course of the last several months … I have traveled the state and surveyed the sentiments of the Republican Party in Pennsylvania and public opinion polls, observed other public opinion polls and have found that the prospects for winning a Republican primary are bleak.”


No he’s standing on a poll, the integrity standard of the Democratic party.

[Link: www.cnn.com…]

316 gregb  Tue, Apr 28, 2009 1:04:16pm

p.s. Good riddance to him. “We don’t like zombies on our lawn”

317 funky chicken  Tue, Apr 28, 2009 1:10:58pm

re: #298 Land Shark

Good point. However, it’s interesting to note that even with Obama winning the Presidency last November, in two states that went for Obama, California and Florida, passed measures effectively banning gay marriage or defining marriage as a union between a man and a woman. In Florida, it was a constitutional amendment needing 60% of the vote to pass and it got 62%. That one was a huge shocker, as most people were convinced they would never get 60% of the voters in FLA to support it.

Clearly, a lot of people who voted for Obama voted against gay marriage. That seems to be a socially conservative issue with a lot of support throughout the country.

And letting states individually vote for issues like that is appropriate and completely in line with conservatism. Trying to get federal laws/amendments for gay marriage bans is not good conservatism or good politics.

318 pittrader1988  Tue, Apr 28, 2009 1:11:25pm

re: #314 wahabicorridor

He may not be liberal enough for the dems. He wasn’t conservative enough for Reps.

[Link: www.ontheissues.org…] but as we know abortion is really the only thing that matters.

319 Perplexed  Tue, Apr 28, 2009 1:13:31pm

Hmmm, remember him from a long time ago. Always thought that he leaned very heavily to the left.

320 funky chicken  Tue, Apr 28, 2009 1:13:34pm

re: #270 JustMyView

Specter is on FNC making a lot of sense—listing elections in which moderate Republicans lost primaries and the winning conservative lost the general election. In particular, Lincoln Chafee’s loss gave control of the Senate to the Dems in 2005, resulting in shifting the chairmanship of the Judiciary Committee from Specter to Sen. Leahy. That shift meant that numerous judges nominated by President Bush were not confirmed, a result that must have been disappointing to social conservatives who are always concerned about judicial appointments. In other words, the focus on electing very conservative Republicans is counterproductive.

Linc Chaffee? oy vey

321 danshelb  Tue, Apr 28, 2009 1:28:00pm

To those who were jaded, bemused, or simply didn’t give a damn about this news, please take a moment and give thanks for those of your Pennsylvania friends (like me) who had to live with this guy as 50% of our Senatorial representation for the last 2 and a half decades. He is “moderate” in the sense that he only does that which is politically expedient for Arlen (ironically enough, including switching to the Dem side of the aisle). He had no principles per se, everything vote was negotiable. He is one of the “career politicians” that make the stench in Washington so distasteful. At least the looneys in Congress (on either side of the aisle) typically believe, very strongly, in one side of a debate or another; Arlen only cared how his vote could further his career and line his pockets. Good riddance and good luck Pat Toomey in 2010!

322 mike(in)savage  Tue, Apr 28, 2009 1:36:13pm

re: #321 danshelb

Which would you prefer:

(Democrat) Senator Specter

or

Senator Franken?

/grass is always greener.

323 Velvet Elvis  Tue, Apr 28, 2009 1:39:00pm

I’m a socially liberal and moderately fiscally conservative. I generally end up supporting democrats but would vote for a Goldwater style conservative in a heartbeat if there were any left. There’s little denying the party has moved farther to the right of where many moderates are comfortable going. Palin really turned me against McCain. I’d have voted for McCain otherwise, particularly if Hillary had been the Democratic nom.

324 TedStriker  Tue, Apr 28, 2009 1:39:56pm

re: #62 Ward Cleaver

No need to go there, Ward…that was below the belt.

325 EaterOfFood  Tue, Apr 28, 2009 1:40:34pm

re: #199 nikis-knight

Was ANY republican happy with the McCain nomination? There were a number of reasons he was second choice.

Mainly that no one passed the ideological purity test.

re: #289 cronus

I await your running tally on how many heterosexual marriages are destroyed by gay unions.

I’m guessing somewhere between zero and none.

326 mike(in)savage  Tue, Apr 28, 2009 1:41:07pm

re: #323 Conservative Moonbat

So you sat it out, or did you go Obama?

How’d that work out for ya?

327 EaterOfFood  Tue, Apr 28, 2009 1:41:42pm

re: #322 mike(in)savage

Which would you prefer:

(Democrat) Senator Specter

or

Senator Franken?

/grass is always greener.

I’d prefer we reconsider that whole Divine Right of Kings thing to either of those turkeys.

328 mike(in)savage  Tue, Apr 28, 2009 1:55:17pm

If anyone’s still kicking around this thread, here’s a question.

Sen. Specter recently appeared on Howard Stern’s uncensored satellite show. How do you think the average Penn voter feels about that? Would the reaction be more or less favorable if he appeared at a Ralph Reed function?

329 Velvet Elvis  Tue, Apr 28, 2009 1:59:47pm

re: #326 mike(in)savage

So you sat it out, or did you go Obama?

How’d that work out for ya?

Yeah, I figured it was worth giving Obama a chance.

So far my verdict is still out. I really don’t think he’s being as radical as a lot of people claim, not nearly as radical as Hillary or god forbid Edwards would have been. I think he’s governing like a moderate democrat with democrats in control of both houses of congress. Since Clinton had Republicans in congress pulling him to the right we never got to see how far to the left he could go. People forgot what democrats look like when they govern and are now being reminded.

He’s still pretty far to the left of me on some issues but given the democratic field this last election it could have been a lot worse.

330 Spartacus50  Tue, Apr 28, 2009 2:06:21pm

We have officially become Mexico with the P.R.I. as the ruling party.

331 Eye Doc  Tue, Apr 28, 2009 2:13:58pm
Any Pennsylvanians here who registered to vote for Hillary and want to toss out Specter this time, will have to register as GOP to toss Specter.

No they won’t. Specter will be the Democratic candidate, with Toomey probably being the GOP candidate. Anyone who wants to vote against Specter in the general election can do so.

332 flyovercountry  Tue, Apr 28, 2009 2:59:31pm

Good Riddance Arlen, Don’t forget to take Snow and Chaffe with you.

333 EdgeMan  Tue, Apr 28, 2009 3:05:59pm

na na na na…
na na na na…
hey hey hey…

GOODBYE!

334 Edouard  Tue, Apr 28, 2009 3:09:19pm

I saw this one coming a mile away…

My main concern is whether this turncoat, after desperately trying to save his own political skin by staging this move, ends up being the one who kills a Republican filibuster on an important issue — health care reform leaps to mind here.

335 wahabicorridor  Tue, Apr 28, 2009 4:07:15pm

re: #334 Edouard

health care reform leaps to mind here.

Oh yeah. He sold his vote on the stimulus for NIH funding for cancer research.

336 David IV of Georgia  Tue, Apr 28, 2009 4:24:45pm

I always thought of Specter as a Democrat anyway. He probably would have voted with the Dems in a filibuster without this drama-queen melodrama.

I like and agree with about half of what the “far-right” Republicans stand for.
I like and agree with about half of what libertarians stand for.
I like and agree with about half of what moderate Republicans stand for.
I dislike most of what Democrats, moderate or far-left stand for.
I dislike most everything socialist or communist.
Whomever I back, I end up supporting ideas and plans I think are loony—
I’m so confused.

Monarchy was easier:
1) Agree
2) Disagree to one’s own peril
3) Disagree and stage a coup d’etat

337 Timbre  Tue, Apr 28, 2009 4:41:13pm

If every Republican in America — politician, private citizen, and radio talk show host — were to join the Democrat Party, it would tear the Party to pieces. The political “bloodbath” would be in every American history text for centuries. But alas, it shall never be.

338 pittrader1988  Tue, Apr 28, 2009 4:43:27pm

re: #311 mike(in)savage

I am not a social conservative-but I am pragmatic.

Mike, that is something that we should agree on in the Republican Party. It fits closely with principles of limited government. I think it’s an appropriate dodge of the abortion question. A candidate could say, “I am not for federally funding lots of things, and abortion is one of them, but what you pay for privately is your own business.”

Where the break seems to happen is at the Judicial level. I agree with Anton Scalia that there is no right to privacy in the Constitution. They blew it on abortion. It should be voted on by the representatives of each state. If states have different abortion laws, you can go and have the abortion you want in the state of your choice. Sure there might be some hardship, but let’s be honest, maybe if they would have taken precautions, they wouldn’t be in that spot in the first place. (BTW, I am talking about abortion on demand, not rape, incest, or life of mother stuff)

What about another hot issue of the 80’s-school prayer? I think most everyone can agree that we should not have a formal prayer in a public institution. However, a short moment of silence? but where does this stop-should muslims get foot baths for their moment of silence?

It is extremely hard in a blog to think about and debate these kinds of points constructively. I am supportive of Charles and hope the wackos don’t limit what he is trying to do. However, I disagree with Charles on eliminating all social conservatives from the Reps. The really right wing wackos may start their own party. We see how that has really helped the Dems with the Green Party on the left. Somehow, we have to accommodate them on certain issues. Especially abortion. Nominating judges like Scalia should appease them-even if we support them for far different reasons.

339 Timbre  Tue, Apr 28, 2009 4:56:24pm

Legislating morality. Whose morality? Are we talking about murder or abortion? Bank robbery or personal methamphetamine use? Consent or rape? When is a child an adult? When is an adult demented? Who sets the scoring standards on dementia tests? Science? Whose science? The scientists who say abortion and euthanasia are personal choices, or the scientists who demonstrate neurological function? Is pacifism immoral if it leads to someone else’s death? I don’t have the answers.

340 mike(in)savage  Tue, Apr 28, 2009 5:59:06pm

re: #338 pittrader1988

I agree with the majority of your response, especially the reasoning behind it.

In my opinion the prayer in school movement is a perfect example of wasting political capital on a non-issue, which can only serve to alienate and divide.

No person of faith should be able to claim that they are incapable of engaging in prayer outside of a group led effort. There is ample opportunity in any given school day (in or out of school) to pray if that is your choice. Efforts to formalize group prayers (and I include “moments of silence”) in school are purely political theater.

341 Salamantis  Tue, Apr 28, 2009 5:59:24pm

re: #268 jeremy1013

I’m not a fan of Pat Robertson, but I would like to know the nature of your opposition against him. Is it because his political beliefs stem from his religious convictions?

Here are a few good reasons, straight from the moron’s mouth:

[Link: politicalhumor.about.com…]

10) “Over 100 years, I think the gradual erosion of the consensus that’s held our country together is probably more serious than a few bearded terrorists who fly into buildings.” –Pat Robertson, on the dangers of judicial activism

9) “Lord, give us righteous judges who will not try to legislate and dominate this society. Take control, Lord! We ask for additional vacancies on the court.” –Pat Robertson

8) “Just like what Nazi Germany did to the Jews, so liberal America is now doing to the evangelical Christians. It’s no different. It is the same thing. It is happening all over again. It is the Democratic Congress, the liberal-based media and the homosexuals who want to destroy the Christians. Wholesale abuse and discrimination and the worst bigotry directed toward any group in America today. More terrible than anything suffered by any minority in history.” –Pat Robertson

7) “I would warn Orlando that you’re right in the way of some serious hurricanes, and I don’t think I’d be waving those flags in God’s face if I were you, This is not a message of hate — this is a message of redemption. But a condition like this will bring about the destruction of your nation. It’ll bring about terrorist bombs; it’ll bring earthquakes, tornadoes, and possibly a meteor.” –Pat Robertson, on “gay days” at Disneyworld

6) “(T)he feminist agenda is not about equal rights for women. It is about a socialist, anti-family political movement that encourages women to leave their husbands, kill their children, practice witchcraft, destroy capitalism and become lesbians.” –Pat Robertson

5) “I know this is painful for the ladies to hear, but if you get married, you have accepted the headship of a man, your husband. Christ is the head of the household and the husband is the head of the wife, and that’s the way it is, period.” –Pat Robertson

4) “I’d like to say to the good citizens of Dover: If there is a disaster in your area, don’t turn to God, you just rejected him from your city. And don’t wonder why he hasn’t helped you when problems begin, if they begin. I’m not saying they will, but if they do, just remember, you just voted God out of your city. And if that’s the case, don’t ask for his help because he might not be there.” —Pat Robertson, after the city of Dover, Pennsylvania voted to boot the current school board, which instituted an intelligent design policy that led to a federal trial

3) “God considers this land to be his. You read the Bible and he says ‘This is my land,’ and for any prime minister of Israel who decides he is going to carve it up and give it away, God says, ‘No, this is mine.’ … He was dividing God’s land. And I would say, ‘Woe unto any prime minister of Israel who takes a similar course to appease the E.U., the United Nations, or the United States of America.’ God says, ‘This land belongs to me. You better leave it alone.’” —Pat Robertson, on why Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon suffered a massive stroke

2) “Maybe we need a very small nuke thrown off on Foggy Bottom to shake things up” –Pat Robertson, on nuking the State Department

to be continued…

342 Salamantis  Tue, Apr 28, 2009 6:01:12pm

re: #268 jeremy1013

continued…

1) “You know, I don’t know about this doctrine of assassination, but if he thinks we’re trying to assassinate him, I think that we really ought to go ahead and do it. It’s a whole lot cheaper than starting a war … We have the ability to take him out, and I think the time has come that we exercise that ability. We don’t need another $200 billion war to get rid of one, you know, strong-arm dictator. It’s a whole lot easier to have some of the covert operatives do the job and then get it over with.” –Pat Robertson, calling for the assassination of Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez

Bonus Stupid Quote:

“Wait a minute, I didn’t say ‘assassination.’ I said our special forces should ‘take him out,’ and ‘take him out’ can be a number of things, including kidnapping.” –Pat Robertson, clarifying his call to assassinate Hugo Chavez

Extra Bonus Stupid Quote:

“Is it right to call for assassination? No, and I apologize for that statement. I spoke in frustration that we should accommodate the man who thinks the U.S. is out to kill him.”

A Couple More Stupid Quotes:

“That was never in the Constitution, however much the liberals laugh at me for saying it, they know good and well it was never in the Constitution! Such language only appeared in the constitution of the Communist Soviet Union.” –Pat Robertson, on the constitutional separation of church and state

“Well, I totally concur.” –Pat Robertson to Jerry Falwell following the Sept. 11 attacks, after Falwell said, “I really believe that the pagans, and the abortionists, and the feminists, and the gays and the lesbians who are actively trying to make that an alternative lifestyle, the ACLU, People For the American Way — all of them who have tried to secularize America — I point the finger in their face and say: “You helped this happen.”

343 LemonJoose  Tue, Apr 28, 2009 6:11:04pm

I’m not sure what I think about Arlen Specter’s decision. I understand why he did it, and obviously he felt like he had no choice. Arlen Specter wasn’t as fiscally conservative as I would like, but the last thing I want is for social moderates and liberals to start leaving the Republican party and leaving it to the ultra-right neo-Birchers and Bible-thumpers. In my opinion it is not going to be long before the Democrats screw up their 15 minutes of fame in spectacular fashion. Obama’s naivete and Nancy Pelosi’s strong-handed far-left power-grabbing will see to that. And when that happens, I don’t want the only alternative to be a narrowly-defined and narrow-minded Republican party run by small club of ultra-right Puritan kooks beholden to idiots and demagogues like Glenn Beck, Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity and Ann Coulter. I might add that Michael Steele’s comments today revealed that he is a figurehead toady who is obviously taking his marching orders from Rush Limbaugh. He is worse than I could ever have imagined and should resign immediately for the benefit of the party.

I am fiscally conservative, socially liberal, and believe in a strong national defense and foreign policy. I think probably 50%-75% of Americans are political centrists like me who ultimately decide the outcome of general elections. Where the hell is the party to represent us? Where? I am beyond pissed off at both the extreme left and the extreme right.

Megan McCain is exactly right. The backwards-looking, head-in-the-sand, fossilized, social conservative, far right element of the party is scared shitless of the future and is willing to burn down the Republican party just to prove that they still can. If the Republican party needs to purge itself of anything, it’s these far-right, puritanical ignoramuses who have embarked on their own little intra-party version of the Spanish Inquisition.

I have never had more respect for Lindsey Graham than I did today when he essentially backed up what Arlen Specter said in his press conference. Graham is a pragmatist and is at least willing to stand up and say how wrong-headed this whole puritanical far-right effort to purge the party of moderates is.

344 thatemailname  Tue, Apr 28, 2009 6:36:56pm

It’s obvious but I’ll say it anyway. Specter is a lying s-o-s. He “left” the Republican party years ago. He only left officially now because his pollsters told him the primary was a lost cause.

One thing he’s going to find out on the other side is that they don’t brook any “mavericks” over there. If he thinks he’s going to get away with voting against the party line as often as he did when he called himself a Republican, he’s in for a rude surprise.

345 John_in_VA  Tue, Apr 28, 2009 7:17:19pm

Say, perhaps Arlen will now have some free time to resume his work as the attorney for Ira Einhorn (who claims to have been one of the co-creators of Earth Day), who’s still doing time in the Pennsylvania state prison for murdering his girlfriend Holly Maddux and stuffing her body in a trunk in his closet before fleeing prosecution to France in 1981 after Arlen arranged his bail.

346 Fabio P.Barbieri  Tue, Apr 28, 2009 7:37:54pm

Putrid, repulsive, backstabbing, treacherous opportunist. I am one of those people who has been pushed to the conservative camp mainly by abortion (and if that makes me a single-issue nut, Charles, sorry!) - and I shall never forgive Specter what he did to Rick Santorum. When Specter was being elected, Santorum loyally supported him, earning some criticism from his own supporters. When the abortionist left decided to make Santorum into a monster - a procedure with which we are all familiar, but which, alas, is still effective - Specter was first in line in the lynch mob. This filth has been floating for a long time on the votes of conservative country voters whom he constantly betrayed; now that they are preparing to replace him with conservatives, he has done his real party one last favour by taking them, without need of anything so vulgar as an election, one vote closer to the crushing majority they ache for. Judas must have looked a bit like Arlen Specter.

347 meeshlr  Tue, Apr 28, 2009 9:09:17pm

re: #5 Leonidas Hoplite

He wasn’t already a Democrat?

That’s what I thought, too.

348 green_earth  Tue, Apr 28, 2009 9:24:20pm

While I agree with some that I hope the door hits Specter on the ass on the way out, this is troubling for the next year and a half - as anyone concerned about a 60 seat majority with Obama as president should know.

In all this I see the fame of Obama at work. Specter is obviously a conviction-less opportunist, and how can you blame him with 100 days of the anointed one? When I speak with people who like Obama, I ask them what it is they see in him. And folks, the scary thing is he is ANYTHING people imagine him to be at the moment! I can’t fathom it. To hard core environmentalists he’s totally on their side. To socialists he’s the man. To traditional liberals he’s a perfect fit. To “blue-dog” hard working union democrats (who are otherwise conservative in most of their lives) he’s looking out for them. Even to moderates and some wavering republicans think he’s in-line with most of their beliefs. The GLBT crowd are orgasmic over him. Feminists are… quiet for some reason. Global warming alarmists believe he’s one of them. How is this possible? He is fostering a huge hoax via the most efficient spin machine imaginable in our modern age with about 80% support of all forms of media (in my opinion). It is not possible to be all these things to all these groups. He is something, and he’s not all that.

Will this deck of cards come crashing down at some point?

349 jeremy1013  Tue, Apr 28, 2009 10:21:08pm

re: #342 Salamantis

The context of the conversation (I recall you are big on context) is that Pat Robertson is often cited as the social conservative boogeyman that is responsible for good people like Arlen Specter leaving our party. Where I was going with the question is that I think, though I don’t know for sure, that most people who believe that social conservatives are the reason for the Republican party’s troubles are bigots.

Bigotry is the anger of men with no convictions.

350 jeremy1013  Tue, Apr 28, 2009 10:25:27pm

To quote Obama: Let me be clear:

Salamatis, I am not saying you are bigoted against religious people. I don’t know you well enough to make that claim. But, I there are a lot of these people out there. For people like you and me who are concerned about the party, I think we should look with suspicion on such people. Their motivations for their opinions and beliefs are suspect. These folks cannot lead the party anywhere, and we cannot trust them to cast a vision for all the party.

351 Salamantis  Tue, Apr 28, 2009 11:54:11pm

re: #350 jeremy1013

To quote Obama: Let me be clear:

Salamatis, I am not saying you are bigoted against religious people. I don’t know you well enough to make that claim. But, I there are a lot of these people out there. For people like you and me who are concerned about the party, I think we should look with suspicion on such people. Their motivations for their opinions and beliefs are suspect. These folks cannot lead the party anywhere, and we cannot trust them to cast a vision for all the party.

To claim that those who disapprove of intolerant and theocratic fundamentalists are guilty of anti-Christian bigotry is to enter the same Bizzaro World where people claim that those who disapprove of Jeremiah Wright and Louis Farrakhan are bigoted against blacks.

352 jeremy1013  Wed, Apr 29, 2009 12:55:04am

It is, and to say that I am making that claim is not a charitable interpretation of what I’m saying…Salamantis.

353 Salamantis  Wed, Apr 29, 2009 1:50:31am

re: #351 Salamantis

To claim that those who disapprove of intolerant and theocratic fundamentalists are guilty of anti-Christian bigotry is to enter the same Bizzaro World where people claim that those who disapprove of Jeremiah Wright and Louis Farrakhan are bigoted against blacks.

re: #352 jeremy1013

It is, and to say that I am making that claim is not a charitable interpretation of what I’m saying…Salamantis.

But this is why I proffered such an interpretation:

re: #349 jeremy1013

The context of the conversation (I recall you are big on context) is that Pat Robertson is often cited as the social conservative boogeyman that is responsible for good people like Arlen Specter leaving our party. Where I was going with the question is that I think, though I don’t know for sure, that most people who believe that social conservatives are the reason for the Republican party’s troubles are bigots.

Bigotry is the anger of men with no convictions.

I think that most people who believe that social conservatives are a major reason for the Republican party’s troubles is because so many of their purported spokespeople imperialistically advocate legislating their particular social perspectives, be they creationism in public schools, prohibition of abortion, prohibition of gay civil unions, prohibition of assisted suicide, prohibition of pornography made and consumed by consenting adults, prohibition of marijuana, prohibition of gambling, or prohibition of prostitution, into law, or maintaining their presently constricting legislation in law, and thus abusing the machinery of the State in order to impose their stances upon others who should retain the right to disagree and to live their lives according to their own views. Only in totalitarianisms, theocratic or otherwise, are all of one’s individual actions either mandated or prohibited; in a free constitutionally democratic society with guaranted liberties, ranges of choices must remain open for the adult citizen, including options that we would not choose for ourselves. Those who do not wish to make such choices are not forced to do so, but others who wish to choose differently should not be prohibited from themselves doing so because their choices pruriently offend. However, it seems that these spokespeople are indeed striving to impose such a puritanical theocracy, and even worse, that masses of fundamentalists who have ceded moral authority to such spokespeople are willing to vote to reify their religiously imperialist agenda.

My personal maxim is that all people should enjoy all freedoms that do not infringe upon the freedoms of others, and where conflicts between competing freedoms inevitably arise, they should be resolved via equal and proportional compromise.

Bigotry historically has been the anger of those who are religously, racially, sexually, or gender orientation intolerant. They are for some strange reason not satisfied with running their own lives, but demand to run the lives of others, and most often according to precepts that they unthinkingly absorb and parrot from some usually fundamentalist religious authority figure or other of dubious understanding and virtue.

So my point is that it is much farther from the case that most people who believe that social conservatives are the reason for the Republican party’s troubles are bigots, than it is that most people who believe that social conservatives are the reason for the Republican party’s troubles quite reasonably perceive the socons’ social issue political actions as puritanically intolerant, theocratically imperialist, and bigoted, and also perceive that many others also perceive the socons’ agenda to be thus, and thus electorally shun it, and the party that apparently embraces and is controlled by it.

354 fliegs  Wed, Apr 29, 2009 8:24:36am

heres what happened in Pennsylvania

there is a law that allows people to switch parties in order to vote in the general election. And since Prez HopeNchange was the “in” thing to do, a lot of Pen residents switched parties to vote for the big O. after that, all those right-wingers were going to vote for Toomey and not Specter. If Specter would have lost if he stayed a Republican he sold out and switched parties to get all those voters who switched in the beginning. thats why he did it, for his own self and not for the ideals that he should stand for or his party. lousy Democrat

355 jeremy1013  Wed, Apr 29, 2009 8:58:24am

re: #353 Salamantis

Methinks he doth love the sound of his voice too much.


This article has been archived.
Comments are closed.

Jump to top

Create a PageThis is the LGF Pages posting bookmarklet. To use it, drag this button to your browser's bookmark bar, and title it 'LGF Pages' (or whatever you like). Then browse to a site you want to post, select some text on the page to use for a quote, click the bookmarklet, and the Pages posting window will appear with the title, text, and any embedded video or audio files already filled in, ready to go.
Or... you can just click this button to open the Pages posting window right away.
Last updated: 2021-06-05 2:51 pm PDT
LGF User's Guide RSS Feeds Tweet

Help support Little Green Footballs!

Subscribe now for ad-free access!Register and sign in to a free LGF account before subscribing, and your ad-free access will be automatically enabled.

Donate with
PayPal
Square Cash Shop at amazon
as an LGF Associate!
Recent PagesClick to refresh
#Thegreatpoolpondconversion - 210919Saturday afternoon was spent leveling and starting this mosaic It's almost all recycled pieces from other projects.We got about half way through and had enough. Sunday we hauled some more dirt over and finished it up. The eyesore trash cans ...
Dangerman
1 day, 20 hours ago
Views: 153 • Comments: 0 • Rating: 3
Tweets: 0 •
The Stranglers - This Song (Official Video) This Song' is out on 10th Sept 2021 on Coursegood: slinky.toTaken from the new album 'Dark Matters' by The Stranglers: slinky.to Special thanks to Stuart Pearce. thestranglers.co.ukfacebook.cominstagram.com@StranglersSiteLyrics:I’m collecting all these feelings for youPut them in a box in a ...
Thanos
2 days, 21 hours ago
Views: 297 • Comments: 0 • Rating: 0
Tweets: 1 •
Jukebox the Ghost - Cheers! (Lyric Video) “Cheers!” out now: jukeboxtheghost.lnk.to“Cheers!” Lyrics Here's to more of the everyday, raise a glass and sing along, the outcasts and the underdogs On the benches, on the sidelines, wallflowers: this is our time ordinary people every dayIn the nosebleeds, ...
Thanos
5 days, 21 hours ago
Views: 398 • Comments: 0 • Rating: 1
Tweets: 2 •
An Epic Takedown Appears to Be in the WorksAn epic takedown of Facebook is afoot: But going back to the WSJ series on Facebook, the quote in today's paper is priceless: "A now-former executive questioned the idea of overhauling Instagram to avoid social comparison. 'People use Instagram because ...
Eric The Fruit Bat
6 days, 16 hours ago
Views: 2,315 • Comments: 0 • Rating: 1
Tweets: 3 •
#Thegreatpoolpondconversion - 210912We got our replacement solar panel.Figured we'd install, then take readings to sort of know if something was wrong in the future.One panel at a time, then pairs of 2, then all 3. Because they all connect to one feed ...
Dangerman
1 week ago
Views: 434 • Comments: 0 • Rating: 5
Tweets: 0 •
#Thegreatpoolpondconversion - 210905Not having that third solar panel for 3 weeks, it’s clear now that we definitely needed the upgrade when we decided in November. 3 puts us over the top of more electricity than consumption. Still no ETA so we turned ...
Dangerman
2 weeks ago
Views: 686 • Comments: 0 • Rating: 4
Tweets: 0 •
Evangelicals and the Limits of Evangelical EmpathyLink to the article at: alternet.org She writes of her own experience where she turned against evangelicals. Here are the critical paragraphs to think about. And this will bring me to the ongoing evangelical moral panic over exvangelicals, those who ...
JOE 🥓
2 weeks, 2 days ago
Views: 729 • Comments: 0 • Rating: 0
Tweets: 3 •
How Did the United States Treat the Creator of…The SaintJust a reminder of how one Leslie Charteris was treated by the Chinese Exclusion Act…and California’s anti-Chinese laws. Just in case you didn’t know, Leslie Charteris was the creator of this literary figure… Charteris himself wasn’t far removed from his ...
JOE 🥓
2 weeks, 3 days ago
Views: 1,000 • Comments: 1 • Rating: 5
Tweets: 3 •