Specter on ‘Meet the Press’: GOP Moved ‘Far to the Right’

Politics • Views: 3,111

On “Meet the Press” this morning, Senator Arlen Specter said a big factor in his decision to become a Democrat was that the Republican Party had moved “far to the right.”

Specter told David Gregory on NBC’s “Meet the Press” that he had determined “with polls and a lot of personal contact” that his reelection prospects as a Republican were “bleak.”

But he added: “There’s more than being reelected here. There’s the factor of principle. The Republican Party has gone far to the right since I joined it under Reagan’s big tent. … In recent times, I have diverged materially from the Republican line … As the picture has evolved, I felt a lot more comfortable – as a matter of principle – with Democrats than Republicans.” …

Asked his core principles, the first two Specter listed were “freedom, a woman’s right to choose.”

Specter, a survivor of the cancer Hodgkin’s lymphoma, has opened a website to push for more medical research.

“If we had pursued the war on cancer, which President Nixon declared in 1970, Jack Kemp might be alive today,” Specter said. “This medical research has prolonged or saved many lives, including mine.”

Jump to bottom

406 comments
1 debutaunt  Sun, May 3, 2009 10:28:59am

...but the left is juuusssst right.

2 Sharmuta  Sun, May 3, 2009 10:30:09am

My biggest problem with the gop is the abandoning of its fiscal principles.

3 Noam Sayin'  Sun, May 3, 2009 10:30:37am

The Christopher Reeves Gambit on cancer research. Already talking like a Dem.

4 jemima  Sun, May 3, 2009 10:30:56am

And if my ex-MIL had only written to Elvis he would be alive today, too.

5 capitalist piglet  Sun, May 3, 2009 10:31:09am
Asked his core principles, the first two Specter listed were “freedom, a woman’s right to choose.”

Odd. I don't personally associate Democrats with freedom, but I suppose YMMV.

6 Sharmuta  Sun, May 3, 2009 10:32:02am
The Republican Party has gone far to the right since I joined it under Reagan’s big tent. ... In recent times, I have diverged materially from the Republican line ... As the picture has evolved, I felt a lot more comfortable – as a matter of principle – with Democrats than Republicans.” ...

Asked his core principles, the first two Specter listed were “freedom, a woman’s right to choose.

What is he talking about? The platform under Reagan already called for a ban on abortions. That's a little disingenuous on his part.

7 debutaunt  Sun, May 3, 2009 10:32:18am

re: #2 Sharmuta

My biggest problem with the gop is the abandoning of its fiscal principles.

It was a stunning moment for me, when Bush stated that he had set aside his free market principles.

8 VegasRick  Sun, May 3, 2009 10:32:36am

But he added: “There’s more than being reelected here.

Scumbag politician, but I guess that is redundant.

9 jaunte  Sun, May 3, 2009 10:32:55am

re: #3 Noam Sayin'

It's hard not to dislike Specter simply for statements like this:

“If we had pursued the war on cancer, which President Nixon declared in 1970, Jack Kemp might be alive today,” Specter said.

10 Only The Lurker Knows  Sun, May 3, 2009 10:33:15am

Actually, that is just a weak and vapid excuse. While it may appear that the Republican party is shifting to the radical right, I think it is more the case that the fiscal conservatives are starting to wake up from their long sleep and starting to clean house and the FMSM is making sure everyone see the dirt that is being stirred up.

/ I can dream can't I?

11 pink freud  Sun, May 3, 2009 10:33:16am

Specter is swine for even mentioning Kemp's name in this interview.

12 [deleted]  Sun, May 3, 2009 10:34:02am
13 VegasRick  Sun, May 3, 2009 10:34:49am

re: #12 Iron Fist

...

You make some good points.

14 neocon hippie  Sun, May 3, 2009 10:35:08am

Good riddance.

15 sasquatchonsteroids  Sun, May 3, 2009 10:35:23am

BS. He can't win as an R, this is his best shot at staying. Simple as that.

16 yma o hyd  Sun, May 3, 2009 10:35:46am

From the text above:
'“If we had pursued the war on cancer, which President Nixon declared in 1970, Jack Kemp might be alive today,” Specter said. “This medical research has prolonged or saved many lives, including mine.”'

Thats a bit specious - iirc, so much funds have gone into that war on cancer that a lot of research into other diseases have been severely underfunded.
It also bears recalling that much of the latest research results have not been possible without the advances of science in other, unrelated fields - genetics and the whole underlying biotechnologies being just one of them.

Oh - and I hope he didn't mind that the Western democracies should not fight wars other than those against cancer and poverty ...

17 Killgore Trout  Sun, May 3, 2009 10:35:53am

I think the venom directed at Specter proves his point.

18 doppelganglander  Sun, May 3, 2009 10:35:56am

Arlen Specter's only core principle is the advancement of Arlen Specter.

19 realwest  Sun, May 3, 2009 10:36:04am

He said “There’s more than being reelected here" uh, no Arlen, there really isn't.
And while I sympathize enormously with your fight against cancer, the fact is that spending on cancer research has increased under both Democrats and Republicans.

20 VegasRick  Sun, May 3, 2009 10:36:39am

"I know as Republicans that we have some great candidates that we're recruiting out there, and we want to make sure that Arlen Specter is no longer in the United States Senate after the next election," Sen. John Ensign, R-Nev., told "FOX News Sunday." "We're going to work very hard to make sure that happens."

I really like this guy!

21 pink freud  Sun, May 3, 2009 10:37:10am

re: #17 Killgore Trout

I think the venom directed at Specter proves his point.

Which one?

22 Killgore Trout  Sun, May 3, 2009 10:37:34am

re: #15 sasquatchonsteroids

BS. He can't win as an R, this is his best shot at staying. Simple as that.


That also helps to prove his point. His constituents are abandoning the GOP. A lot of people are. He's not just making stuff up.

23 Killgore Trout  Sun, May 3, 2009 10:38:03am

re: #21 pink freud

That Republicans have moved to the far right.

24 The Other Les  Sun, May 3, 2009 10:38:30am

re: #5 capitalist piglet

Odd. I don't personally associate Democrats with freedom, but I suppose YMMV.

Depends on what one means by Freedom.

To a barbarian freedom means the absence of barriers to doing things to other people without regard to the consequences. To the civilized person freedom means the absence of barbarians.

25 opnion  Sun, May 3, 2009 10:38:56am

I heard this interview. It was pretty clear that Spcter had the Democrat talking points cold. I just bet that he is in line to Chair the Judiciary Committe if he survives reelection.
I don not see the guy as high on principal.

26 VegasRick  Sun, May 3, 2009 10:38:59am

re: #17 Killgore Trout

I think the venom directed at spewed by Specter proves his our point.

27 Walter L. Newton  Sun, May 3, 2009 10:39:00am

re: #17 Killgore Trout

I think the venom directed at Specter proves his point.

And this statement is fine with you "If we had pursued the war on cancer, which President Nixon declared in 1970, Jack Kemp might be alive today,” Specter said. “This medical research has prolonged or saved many lives, including mine.”

If that is not an underhanded, pandering, dancing on the grave remark, then I don't know what is.

28 brookly red  Sun, May 3, 2009 10:39:30am

I could be wrong (again) but doesn't most of the money for research come from the private sector like drug companies?

29 jaunte  Sun, May 3, 2009 10:40:16am

re: #25 opnion

Is there any news about the infighting among senior Dems for committee chairs, now that Specter is jumping the line?

30 doppelganglander  Sun, May 3, 2009 10:40:18am
“If we had pursued the war on cancer, which President Nixon declared in 1970, Jack Kemp might be alive today,” Specter said. “This medical research has prolonged or saved many lives, including mine.”


Self-deleted.

31 pink freud  Sun, May 3, 2009 10:40:21am

re: #23 Killgore Trout

That Republicans have moved to the far right.

I can only speak for myself, KT, but I have serious amounts of venom for this swine and I haven't moved too far right. He is an unprincipled political whore.

32 realwest  Sun, May 3, 2009 10:40:32am

re: #17 Killgore Trout

I think the venom directed at Specter proves his point.


Of course you do.

33 VegasRick  Sun, May 3, 2009 10:40:34am

re: #27 Walter L. Newton

And this statement is fine with you "If we had pursued the war on cancer, which President Nixon declared in 1970, Jack Kemp might be alive today,” Specter said. “This medical research has prolonged or saved many lives, including mine.”

If that is not an underhanded, pandering, dancing on the grave remark, then I don't know what is.

Walter, he's a dem now, he can say the nastiest lies possible and get away with it.

34 [deleted]  Sun, May 3, 2009 10:40:36am
35 unrealizedviewpoint  Sun, May 3, 2009 10:40:37am

I have greater respect for the other Spector - the one sitting in LA County jail.
/not really

36 gregb  Sun, May 3, 2009 10:41:09am

I think the war on Nixon won out over the war on cancer.

37 UncleRancher  Sun, May 3, 2009 10:41:53am

My largest problem with the GOP is wasting good money on this jerk.

38 pink freud  Sun, May 3, 2009 10:42:00am

re: #25 opnion

I heard this interview. It was pretty clear that Spcter had the Democrat talking points cold. I just bet that he is in line to Chair the Judiciary Committe if he survives reelection.
I don not see the guy as high on principal.

His skin is all that matters to him at this point. You've hit it dead on: what's in it for HIM.

39 [deleted]  Sun, May 3, 2009 10:42:22am
40 unrealizedviewpoint  Sun, May 3, 2009 10:42:22am

re: #20 VegasRick

"I know as Republicans that we have some great candidates that we're recruiting out there, and we want to make sure that Arlen Specter is no longer in the United States Senate after the next election," Sen. John Ensign, R-Nev., told "FOX News Sunday." "We're going to work very hard to make sure that happens."

I really like this guy!

I'd prefer to see Ensign work somewhat closer to home by helping to unseat Harry Reed.

41 earth56  Sun, May 3, 2009 10:42:24am

Arlen...simply an opportunist

42 Annar  Sun, May 3, 2009 10:42:25am

Now we'll find out if one can really fool some of the people all of the time. I hope some D puts up a challenge and sends old Arlen out to pasture, since this seat is lost to the Rs in any case.

43 realwest  Sun, May 3, 2009 10:42:28am

Well it's been grand as usual but I gotta go now. Hope you all have a great day and that I get the chance to see you all down the road.

44 doppelganglander  Sun, May 3, 2009 10:42:42am

re: #35 unrealizedviewpoint

I have greater respect for the other Spector - the one sitting in LA County jail.
/not really

At least he was responsible for some great music.

45 Randall Gross  Sun, May 3, 2009 10:42:45am

I've got to go mow, but my money's on a Paulie-Melt before comment 250.

46 opnion  Sun, May 3, 2009 10:43:03am

re: #23 Killgore Trout

That Republicans have moved to the far right.

And the Democrats are moderates? How did McCain running as a moderate work out?

47 Sharmuta  Sun, May 3, 2009 10:43:24am

I understand part of the criticism here- specter is saying the gop isn't the pro-science, liberty supporting party that it was under Reagan. Goldwater would not recognize his party today.

But it's also not the fiscal party it once was- and for that, senator spector is part of the problem.

48 The Other Les  Sun, May 3, 2009 10:43:49am

re: #35 unrealizedviewpoint

I have greater respect for the other Spector - the one sitting in LA County jail.
/not really

I have more respect for SPECTRE.

Seriously. The lower level mooks will fight to the death while the bosses slip away. Man! That's loyalty!

49 unrealizedviewpoint  Sun, May 3, 2009 10:43:58am

re: #36 gregb

I think the war on Nixon won out over the war on cancer.

IMO - Nixon's War on Drugs costs us more lives than cancer.

50 earth56  Sun, May 3, 2009 10:44:05am

re: #46 opnion

And the Democrats are moderates? How did McCain running as a moderate work out?


He didn't have a catchy phrase like "Hope and Change "

51 VegasRick  Sun, May 3, 2009 10:44:32am

re: #37 UncleRancher

My largest problem with the GOP is wasting good money on this jerk.

Killgore doesn't cost all that much.

52 SasquatchOnSteroids  Sun, May 3, 2009 10:44:53am

re: #22 Killgore Trout

That also helps to prove his point. His constituents are abandoning the GOP. A lot of people are. He's not just making stuff up.

We'll just have to wait and see how many constituents he can pull, won't we.

53 rightymouse  Sun, May 3, 2009 10:44:58am

Specter was never a Republican. He was, and always has been, an opportunist.

54 SpaceJesus  Sun, May 3, 2009 10:45:22am

if his core issue really is pro-choice, then I suppose he has the right to change

55 [deleted]  Sun, May 3, 2009 10:46:04am
56 Killgore Trout  Sun, May 3, 2009 10:46:26am

re: #27 Walter L. Newton

You can make the case that his statement was distasteful but he's right that Republicans are pretty weak on science in general and especially on medical research. Hangups about stem cells and biotech are problematic.

57 WayDownSouthInBama  Sun, May 3, 2009 10:46:29am

If there was an "Opportunist Party", Specter would be it's chairman. That's all he has ever been and all he will ever be. Specter is going to look out for Specter and that's ALL he is going to look out for. Specter has always felt more comfortable with Democrats. That's not a new thing and it's not due to any movement of the Republican party. Specter has just always been a Democrat,switching party affiliations to the Republicans only when he thought it would save his political ass...just like he is doing now. So long Arlen. RINO's like you are why the Republicans are where they are today.

58 The Other Les  Sun, May 3, 2009 10:46:36am

re: #53 rightymouse

Specter was never a Republican. He was, and always has been, an opportunist.

(Insert flag of convenience (usually Liberian) ship joke here.)

59 Shug  Sun, May 3, 2009 10:46:41am

Specter on 'Meet the Press': GOP Moved 'Far to the Right'

Shug on 'LGF" : Specter Moved "Far to the Wrong"

60 VegasRick  Sun, May 3, 2009 10:47:00am

re: #54 SpaceJesus

if his core issue really is pro-choice, then I suppose he has the right to change

After thirty some years he just now figured it out? You are an idiot.

61 Soona'  Sun, May 3, 2009 10:47:10am

What a cheesy piece of shit.

62 opnion  Sun, May 3, 2009 10:47:20am

re: #29 jaunte

Is there any news about the infighting among senior Dems for committee chairs, now that Specter is jumping the line?

Probably, but I have not heard anything.

63 paint-right  Sun, May 3, 2009 10:47:40am

I will use an expression often used here: I call Bullshit on Specter's excuses. He's just doing whatever he thinks will ensure another trip to Washington.

What is it with these old geezers who think they have a named seat for themselves in governemnt. Sick, dying, impaired they hobble in as though appointed from on high.

Two terms , max and then move ON!

64 rightymouse  Sun, May 3, 2009 10:47:49am

re: #55 buzzsawmonkey

The Opportunist Party is the biggest one we have, crossing formal party lines.

No kidding.

65 capitalist piglet  Sun, May 3, 2009 10:48:31am

re: #17 Killgore Trout

I think the venom directed at Specter proves his point.

You're right. We should have given him a hero's send-off, and carried him out on our shoulders like Vince Lombardi. Maybe we can name a trophy after him, too.

If we don't, we're right-wing fringe kooks who must like Ron Paul or something.

/do I have to?

66 earth56  Sun, May 3, 2009 10:48:34am

So, how about those Mets !

67 jaunte  Sun, May 3, 2009 10:48:38am

It will be interesting to see which way he goes on card-check legislation now.

68 Sharmuta  Sun, May 3, 2009 10:48:45am

I believe we need to get back to being the party of Goldwater, which gave rise to Reagan. This means supporting liberty, fiscal responsibility and science.

69 Gus  Sun, May 3, 2009 10:48:53am

re: #3 Noam Sayin'

The Christopher Reeves Gambit on cancer research. Already talking like a Dem.

Chris Reeves of course was behind stem cell research having been focused on this due to his spinal chord injury. His wife died soon after his death from lung cancer.

Nancy Reagan is also a strong proponent of stem cell research.

I don't think talking about either stem cell or cancer research constitutes talking like a Democrat.

70 Annar  Sun, May 3, 2009 10:49:08am

This Spectre is fine with me.

71 SixDegrees  Sun, May 3, 2009 10:50:01am

Not sure I agree with Spector on the implication that the war on cancer has been neglected, or that more ardent pursuit would have led to any sort of cure. Cancer research has been extremely well funded for decades now, with no letup. And you simply cannot predict the unknown - fundamental research is, at heart, the pursuit of new knowledge. Finally, what we have learned about cancer as a result of all that money thrown at it is that treating it is a lot trickier than had originally been hoped; you're trying to kill cells that are genetically identical to those of their host, which severely limits your options. All manner of palliative treatments - chemo, radiation, microwave and on and on - have been developed that greatly increase chances for survival, at least for many types of cancer. But there are nowhere near being cures; they all treat the symptoms, and none address the underlying causes.

To be more blunt, it sounds like Spector has his head up his ass on this topic, ignoring both history and science in a single breath.

72 gnargtharst  Sun, May 3, 2009 10:50:03am

I left the REpublican party (i.e., refrained from voting for them) because they moved too far to the *left*. Bush was the biggest government spender during my lifetime. They abandoned capitalism on economic issues, and aspired toward theoacracy on social issues. Hell with them. They deserve the Obama presidency.

73 bungie  Sun, May 3, 2009 10:50:16am

re: #6 Sharmuta

What is he talking about? The platform under Reagan already called for a ban on abortions. That's a little disingenuous on his part.

Specter has always been all about Spector IMHO. He's thinking only of his reelection and the voters of Pennsylvania.

Am I mistaken or wasn't he the origin of the "magic bullet" theory about the Kennedy assassination?

74 amir  Sun, May 3, 2009 10:50:44am

Has there ever been a politician who was LEADING in the polls but switched parties because of the "principle factor". Without even knowing that much about this guy I am certain his decision to switch parties has everything to do with opportunism and nothing to do with principle. So once he decides his chances of holding on to his seat are better with the Democrats, what's he gonna say? "Oh the Republicans are swell it's just that they can't stand me." No. He's gonna say its the Republicans that have become extreme.

75 redc1c4  Sun, May 3, 2009 10:50:49am

re: #17 Killgore Trout

I think the venom directed at Specter proves his point.

so he's not responsible for his actions?

76 unrealizedviewpoint  Sun, May 3, 2009 10:51:31am

re: #66 earth56

Earth56
Karma: 100
No. of comments posted: 800

800 to 100
Monk would like you. You're so evened up.

77 rightymouse  Sun, May 3, 2009 10:51:41am

re: #73 bungie

Specter has always been all about Spector IMHO. He's thinking only of his reelection and the voters of Pennsylvania.

Am I mistaken or wasn't he the origin of the "magic bullet" theory about the Kennedy assassination?


Yes, he was the 'genius' behind the 'magic bullet' theory. Great science there.

78 Walter L. Newton  Sun, May 3, 2009 10:52:15am

re: #56 Killgore Trout

You can make the case that his statement was distasteful but he's right that Republicans are pretty weak on science in general and especially on medical research. Hangups about stem cells and biotech are problematic.

I agree that the GOP have moved too far right. But, I give no note to hearing that, or agreeing with that from a jerk like Spector.

Anyone who can use someone's death like that, to promote his agenda, especially SO soon after Kemp died, is someone who I have no reason to listen to ANY of this positions.

Yep, I'm that black in white on some issues. Spector is just the type of pandering son-of-a-bitch politician that YOU are always rallying against.

You certainly flip-flop when it serves your purpose.

79 paint-right  Sun, May 3, 2009 10:52:18am

re: #56 Killgore Trout

You can make the case that his statement was distasteful but he's right that Republicans are pretty weak on science in general and especially on medical research. Hangups about stem cells and biotech are problematic.

i think Repubs err quite rightly on the side of caution and staying away from slippery slope edges. Cost/benefit and possible unforeseen negative consequences guide policies and policy decisions. Hence the name conservative , by definition.

80 opnion  Sun, May 3, 2009 10:52:43am

re: #50 earth56

He didn't have a catchy phrase like "Hope and Change "

Yeah the clenched teeth smile & two thumbs up, didn't work my friends.
McCain now wants to teach the Republicans how to win. WTF?

81 bungie  Sun, May 3, 2009 10:53:13am

re: #68 Sharmuta

I believe we need to get back to being the party of Goldwater, which gave rise to Reagan. This means supporting liberty, fiscal responsibility and science.

I agree as long as science doesn't include the politically motivated, grant-seeking "global warming consensus."

82 Bloodnok  Sun, May 3, 2009 10:53:22am

re: #46 opnion

And the Democrats are moderates? How did McCain running as a moderate work out?

He ran a lousy campaign and pissed off too many people with campaign finance and amnesty. Obama also ran a better campaign. He didn't lose because he was a moderate. It doesn't mean we have to go after all moderates. I'm not defending Specter, I have never cared for the guy. But there will always be people like him. You have to get used to it.

I'll say it again. When the Senate was 51-49 a few years back I don't recall people wanting Specter out then. I'd prefer all Rs to be as pure as the driven snow but it's not gonna happen. The problem with the party isn't the RINOs -they keep the numbers up in the House/Senate and are occasionally (like a few years ago) critical. It's the fact that the party is so down that their votes are critical that is the problem.

83 countrygurl  Sun, May 3, 2009 10:53:56am

re: #19

spending on cancer research has increased under both Democrats and Republicans.


True, but started under Nixon:
[Link: www.cancer.gov...]

In the National Cancer Act of 1971, NCI was given the authority to prepare and submit an annual budget proposal directly to the President for review and transmittal to Congress. This authority is unique to NCI and allows it to “bypass” the traditional approvals that all other NIH Institutes and Centers must get for their budget requests. For this reason, NCI’s budget proposal is often referred to as the “Bypass Budget.” Bypass Budget proposals are usually submitted about a year in advance. These budget proposals are considered by OMB as President’s Budget proposals are being prepared.

NCI’s budget for FY 2008 was $4.83 billion. For FY 2007, it was $4.79 billion, and, for FY 2006, it was $4.75 billion.

84 redc1c4  Sun, May 3, 2009 10:54:05am

this RINO makes a hard left turn and then blames the GOP for moving to the right?

it just goes to show that perception is everything and that, apparently, no one is responsible for their actions and the follow on consequences any more.... everyone is simply a victim of the great, amorphous, "them".

hey Specter: AMF!

85 Soona'  Sun, May 3, 2009 10:54:33am

re: #75 redc1c4

so he's not responsible for his actions?

C'mon. I've been spitting venom at Spector for close to 8 to 10 years now. And I know I'm not the only one.

86 VegasRick  Sun, May 3, 2009 10:54:41am

re: #80 opnion

Yeah the clenched teeth smile & two thumbs up, didn't work my friends.
McCain now wants to teach the Republicans how to win. WTF?

"My friends, fight with me" was a stupid slogan.

87 pink freud  Sun, May 3, 2009 10:55:10am

re: #62 opnion

Probably, but I have not heard anything.

If you're still here, there's lots:

Top Dems rebel on Specter

"Senior Senate Democrats are objecting to the deal Majority Leader Harry Reid made with Sen. Arlen Specter, saying they will vote against letting the former Republican shoot to the top of powerful committees after he switches parties.

Several Democrats are furious with Sen. Reid (D-Nev.) for agreeing to let Specter (Pa.) keep his seniority, accrued over more than 28 years as a GOP senator. That agreement would allow Specter to leap past senior Democrats on powerful panels — including the Appropriations and Judiciary committees.

“I won’t be happy if I don’t get to chair something because of Arlen Specter,” said Sen. Barbara Mikulski (D-Md.), who sits on the Appropriations Committee with Specter and is fifth in seniority among Democrats, behind Chairman Daniel Inouye (Hawaii) and Sens. Robert Byrd (W.Va.), Patrick Leahy (Vt.) and Tom Harkin (Iowa). “I’m happy with the Democratic order, but I don’t want to be displaced because of Arlen Specter,” she said. "

88 VegasRick  Sun, May 3, 2009 10:55:25am

re: #80 opnion

Yeah the clenched teeth smile & two thumbs up, didn't work my friends.
McCain now wants to teach the Republicans how to win. WTF?

Just realized, welcome back, been there myself.

89 Soona'  Sun, May 3, 2009 10:56:04am

re: #82 Bloodnok

He ran a lousy campaign and pissed off too many people with campaign finance and amnesty. Obama also ran a better campaign. He didn't lose because he was a moderate. It doesn't mean we have to go after all moderates. I'm not defending Specter, I have never cared for the guy. But there will always be people like him. You have to get used to it.

I'll say it again. When the Senate was 51-49 a few years back I don't recall people wanting Specter out then. I'd prefer all Rs to be as pure as the driven snow but it's not gonna happen. The problem with the party isn't the RINOs -they keep the numbers up in the House/Senate and are occasionally (like a few years ago) critical. It's the fact that the party is so down that their votes are critical that is the problem.

I wanted Spector out then. McCain could've gone too for all I cared.

90 rightymouse  Sun, May 3, 2009 10:56:09am

re: #84 redc1c4

this RINO makes a hard left turn and then blames the GOP for moving to the right?

it just goes to show that perception is everything and that, apparently, no one is responsible for their actions and the follow on consequences any more.... everyone is simply a victim of the great, amorphous, "them".

hey Specter: AMF!


Specter made it clear that he was concerned about losing the primary to Toomey and his incumbency in the process. That's why he left. It has absolutely nothing to do with the GOP being one way or another.

91 SixDegrees  Sun, May 3, 2009 10:56:19am

re: #46 opnion

And the Democrats are moderates? How did McCain running as a moderate work out?

Pretty well, as a matter of fact; McCain pulled just under 46% of the popular vote. His downfall seems to have been lack of organization and a lackluster campaigning style. In short, he was simply outmatched.

Given the enormous financial and media advantages that accrued to Obama, I'd call McCain's margin very significant.

Running as an extremist will win you a margin experienced by all extremists - in the single digits.

92 Gus  Sun, May 3, 2009 10:56:34am

re: #81 bungie

I agree as long as science doesn't include the politically motivated, grant-seeking "global warming consensus."

How would that be possible? Would one limit climate research conducted by NASA and NOAA? I assume then it would require a political ideology oversight committee of some sort.

What would happen if we reach a point in the future where some would say: I agree as long as science doesn't include the politically motivated, grant-seeking "Darwinian evolution consensus?"

93 Liberal Classic  Sun, May 3, 2009 10:56:56am

re: #68 Sharmuta

I believe we need to get back to being the party of Goldwater, which gave rise to Reagan. This means supporting liberty, fiscal responsibility and science.

I've always liked this quote:

I cherish a day when our children once again will restore as heroes the sort of men and women who - unafraid and undaunted - pursue the truth, strive to cure disease, subdue and make fruitful our natural environment and produce the inventive engines of production, science, and technology.

[Link: www.washingtonpost.com...]

94 rightymouse  Sun, May 3, 2009 10:57:05am

re: #85 Soona'

C'mon. I've been spitting venom at Spector for close to 8 to 10 years now. And I know I'm not the only one.

You're definitely not the only one. He's a sleaze ball.

95 opnion  Sun, May 3, 2009 10:57:39am

re: #82 Bloodnok

He ran a lousy campaign and pissed off too many people with campaign finance and amnesty. Obama also ran a better campaign. He didn't lose because he was a moderate. It doesn't mean we have to go after all moderates. I'm not defending Specter, I have never cared for the guy. But there will always be people like him. You have to get used to it.

I'll say it again. When the Senate was 51-49 a few years back I don't recall people wanting Specter out then. I'd prefer all Rs to be as pure as the driven snow but it's not gonna happen. The problem with the party isn't the RINOs -they keep the numbers up in the House/Senate and are occasionally (like a few years ago) critical. It's the fact that the party is so down that their votes are critical that is the problem.

It is a matter of opinion what defeated McCain. All that I am saying is that he ran as a hands across the aisle moderate & it didn't help.

96 Bloodnok  Sun, May 3, 2009 10:57:43am

re: #89 Soona'

I wanted Spector out then. McCain could've gone too for all I cared.

So you would have swung the majority to the Dems for the sake of purity (for just two seats). Wonderful.

97 GhostShip  Sun, May 3, 2009 10:58:50am

The GOP has moved far to the right? Bwahahahaha! The same party that gave us Mccain to go up against Obama? The same party that keeps trying to out-socialize the Democrats? That must be some really good stuff he's smoking there.

98 SixDegrees  Sun, May 3, 2009 10:59:02am

re: #68 Sharmuta

I believe we need to get back to being the party of Goldwater, which gave rise to Reagan. This means supporting liberty, fiscal responsibility and science.

Exactly.

99 opnion  Sun, May 3, 2009 11:00:12am

re: #86 VegasRick

"My friends, fight with me" was a stupid slogan.

It was an abysmal campaign.

100 MrPaulRevere  Sun, May 3, 2009 11:00:19am

Arlen Spector is an old man addicted to power, prestige and notoriety. Simple as that.

101 Soona'  Sun, May 3, 2009 11:01:47am

re: #93 Liberal Classic

[Link: www.washingtonpost.com...]

But alas. Those days spoken of and the men who spoke them are strangers to the dipshits that are in governance now.

102 opnion  Sun, May 3, 2009 11:02:00am

re: #87 pink freud

If you're still here, there's lots:

Top Dems rebel on Specter

"Senior Senate Democrats are objecting to the deal Majority Leader Harry Reid made with Sen. Arlen Specter, saying they will vote against letting the former Republican shoot to the top of powerful committees after he switches parties.

Several Democrats are furious with Sen. Reid (D-Nev.) for agreeing to let Specter (Pa.) keep his seniority, accrued over more than 28 years as a GOP senator. That agreement would allow Specter to leap past senior Democrats on powerful panels — including the Appropriations and Judiciary committees.

“I won’t be happy if I don’t get to chair something because of Arlen Specter,” said Sen. Barbara Mikulski (D-Md.), who sits on the Appropriations Committee with Specter and is fifth in seniority among Democrats, behind Chairman Daniel Inouye (Hawaii) and Sens. Robert Byrd (W.Va.), Patrick Leahy (Vt.) and Tom Harkin (Iowa). “I’m happy with the Democratic order, but I don’t want to be displaced because of Arlen Specter,” she said. "

Hmmm, the Dem leadership might have made a error. Thank's for the post.

103 Gus  Sun, May 3, 2009 11:02:32am

re: #97 GhostShip

The GOP has moved far to the right? Bwahahahaha! The same party that gave us Mccain to go up against Obama? The same party that keeps trying to out-socialize the Democrats? That must be some really good stuff he's smoking there.

How so? McCain was against universal health care. McCain along with Sarah Palin are both pro-life. Both expressed an "interest" in creationism. McCain had no plans of a return to a welfare state; talking to our enemies; or liberalizing the DOD. If McCain was an attempt to "out-socialize" the Democrats I must have been reading other facts.

104 Earth56  Sun, May 3, 2009 11:02:46am

re: #76 unrealizedviewpoint

800 to 100
Monk would like you. You're so evened up.


Is that like "Instant Karma " ?

105 Soona'  Sun, May 3, 2009 11:04:49am

re: #96 Bloodnok

So you would have swung the majority to the Dems for the sake of purity (for just two seats). Wonderful.

But it didn't happen did it? Another example of Soona' not having things exactly as he would have it. There's a lesson there.

106 Thom  Sun, May 3, 2009 11:06:57am

The defection of this brave man is a testimony to the sad fact that the Republican party has morphed into a bunch of young-earth, right-wing-extremist, gay-bashing, fetus-protecting, anti-science, fascist paleogoons.

For the sake of the nation, which needs a healthy two-party system, I can only hope that the Republicans, duly chastened by the principled stand taken by this man of character (a rare breed in this day and age!), will come to their senses.

107 Liberal Classic  Sun, May 3, 2009 11:08:11am

Not addressed in the article is whether this movement is towards the fiscal side or the social side of conservatism. The mainstream media doesn't often distinguish between the two.

Going out on a limb here, it is probably not too wrong to suggest the Republican Party has drifted away from a limited-government, low-tax, reduce-spending position. Whether this really constitutes a move to the "right" is unanswered by Specter. Reagan's platform contained strong social conservative positions. Has this really changed since the 80s?

What I really think is going on isn't so much that the Republican Party is moving rightward. To the contrary, the left wing is moving leftward and there is a net increase in the distance between the two parties. People on the political left would like to portray the Democratic Party as being a solidly centrist party, and the Republicans as extreme right. I don't believe this is the case. The Democratic Party is also moving away from the center.

108 cowbellallen  Sun, May 3, 2009 11:10:23am

Now if only we could somehow get Lindsey Grahamnesty and John McCain out of the GOP...

109 Gus  Sun, May 3, 2009 11:11:48am

re: #108 cowbellallen

Now if only we could somehow get Lindsey Grahamnesty and John McCain out of the GOP...

Who do you replace McCain with? Wife beating-psychopath Chris Simcox who's also been a guest on "Political Cesspool?"

110 countrygurl  Sun, May 3, 2009 11:13:13am

I don't know how Spinchtor can say we have not been busy in the "war against cancer." BILLIONS HAVE BEEN INVESTED. My son is a research scientist. The work is tedious, slow, and rewarding. Is the fact that Spinchtor is above ground not proof enough for him? Talk about a denier, he takes the cake.
In just the last three years the American Taxpayers expenditure is:
2008 was $4.83 billion
2007 was $4.79 billion
2006, was $4.75
link: [Link: www.cancer.gov...]
Not to mention the money raised and invested by the American Cancer Socieity
[Link: www.cancer.org...]
Atlanta 2008/10/13 –

The American Cancer Society, the largest non-government, not-for-profit funding source of cancer research in the United States, has awarded 116 national research and training grants totaling more than $54 million in the first of two grant cycles for 2009. The grants are the first under a new realignment that created six major program areas in research and training. All of the grants go into effect January 1, 2009.
“These grants reflect the best and brightest ideas in cancer research,” said Elmer E. Huerta, M.D., M.P.H., national volunteer president of the American Cancer Society. “The American Cancer Society’s Research and Training Program has invested over $3.3 billion in cancer research, much of it focusing on the work of promising new investigators, since its inception in 1946. During this time, we have funded 42 researchers, primarily early in their careers, who have gone on to receive the Nobel Prize. We fully expect that the ideas and innovations arising from these new grants will continue that legacy.” Click on link to read some highlights of the newly awarded grants:

111 Bloodnok  Sun, May 3, 2009 11:14:49am

re: #103 Gus 802

How so? McCain was against universal health care. McCain along with Sarah Palin are both pro-life. Both expressed an "interest" in creationism. McCain had no plans of a return to a welfare state; talking to our enemies; or liberalizing the DOD. If McCain was an attempt to "out-socialize" the Democrats I must have been reading other facts.

Excellent point. Sharmuta brought up a good point several months ago asking "What is a RINO, really?" You could be fiscal, pro-life, but bad on amnesty. Or you could be good on amnesty, pro-life but not fiscally conservative. There are too many variations on the theme. We could try to pound square pegs into round holes all day, but at some point we have to face the fact that there we can't have all perfect conservatives in the Senate.

If the only way to win a seat in Maine is to be moderate, then run a moderate. It's simple. Specter, Collins and Snowe did not create the voters in their constituencies -the voters created them. If not they would not have won.

112 looking closely  Sun, May 3, 2009 11:14:52am

Specter is F.O.S.

He's already had a history of defection to the other party, and he's all but admitted that the reason he switched was because he thought he couldn't win the primary.

If Specter *really* thought the party had gone to far to the right, then why isn't he trying to fix THAT?

He's just a political opportunist looking out for his own skin.

113 Ariel  Sun, May 3, 2009 11:15:18am

The problem with the GOP is that it abandoned its fiscal responsibility principles. The era of "compassionate conservatism" meant that the Republicans tried to outbid the Democrats in creating a welfare state. This was part of the Bush platform, so it's not like it was a huge surprise.

Bill Clinton had a huge insight in the 1992 elections - it's the economy, stupid - people vote their pocketbooks. If people see the endlessly growing Leviathan, they'll vote for the other party. The Bush tax cut didn't help this either, as it drove a smaller percentage of people to pay any taxes at all.

If I were running the GOP, I would ask for pure as white snow folks on:
- Fiscal restraint
- National security
- Regressive or flat taxation

On the other dimensions - social issues and others - I would say to each their own. We haven't had a GOP like that since at least Reagan (arguably not even then).

In any case, Specter didn't leave because the Republicans left him. He left b/c he couldn't win. The reason I would say good riddance is that he voted for the endless stimulus and nationalizations, which almost every Republican voted against. Not b/c he's pro-choice, or anything else.

114 Charles Johnson  Sun, May 3, 2009 11:15:40am

re: #107 Liberal Classic

Reagan's platform contained strong social conservative positions. Has this really changed since the 80s?

I would say yes -- it has changed a lot, and not for the better. The influence of people like Ralph Reed, Tony Perkins, and other fundamentalist fanatics, as well as extremist pundits like Ann Coulter, has increased greatly since the 1980s.

Arlen Specter is a typical opportunistic politician, but he's not so wrong when he criticizes the GOP for moving far to the right.

115 Joel  Sun, May 3, 2009 11:16:11am

Of course the Democrats are not the party of the extreme left - the party of Daily Kos, Puffington Host, Nancy Pelosi, Michael Moore, et al. /sarcasm
Specter is a puke.

116 looking closely  Sun, May 3, 2009 11:17:23am

re: #107 Liberal Classic

Obama's ascendancy, as the single most liberal member of the US Senate, proves that its the Democrats who have been moving leftward.

We have the most liberal President in the history of the Republic.
We have the most liberal Speaker of the house, in the history of the Republic.
We have a Democrat majority in both houses, and Specter is worried about the Republicans moving to the right?

Huh?

117 UncleRancher  Sun, May 3, 2009 11:19:07am

I knew McCain was wrong from the job. He was somewhere below the bottom of my list. When he said he would not ever torture a "prisoner of war", even if innocent lives were at stake, I knew he did not have the intestinal fortitude necessary to get the job done and protect us from a fanatical enemy. All this namby pamby talk about waterboarding as torture is absolute nonsense. I would start with a pair of vice grips applied to a toenail and tell Mr. Prisoner he had 20 chances to give it up, and after that his life would end if he did not talk. Ok, maybe that's not the most effective method by maybe you get the point. This prisoner's life is not worth spit compared with the life of one innocent citizen of this county. We need someone in charge who understands that concept.

118 Gus  Sun, May 3, 2009 11:19:28am

re: #111 Bloodnok

Excellent point. Sharmuta brought up a good point several months ago asking "What is a RINO, really?" You could be fiscal, pro-life, but bad on amnesty. Or you could be good on amnesty, pro-life but not fiscally conservative. There are too many variations on the theme. We could try to pound square pegs into round holes all day, but at some point we have to face the fact that there we can't have all perfect conservatives in the Senate.

If the only way to win a seat in Maine is to be moderate, then run a moderate. It's simple. Specter, Collins and Snowe did not create the voters in their constituencies -the voters created them. If not they would not have won.

Specter aside I think you are correct. Collins and Snowe do not create their constituency. If for example the GOP decided to defund both in any future elections and instead support what they would see as a "non-rino" that would result in a Democratic party victory. This may very well happen in Pennsylvania in which Specter may be re-elected as a Democrat. Republicanism is not universal in the United States even though fiscal conservatism is a universal.

119 Joel  Sun, May 3, 2009 11:19:35am

re: #78 Walter L. Newton

I agree that the GOP have moved too far right. But, I give no note to hearing that, or agreeing with that from a jerk like Spector.
If the GOP moved that far to the Right how come they gave us political weasels such as McCain and Dole (yes they were war heros) as their presidential candidates along with Bush father and son?

Nixon - no conservative
Ford - no conservtive
Reagan - conservative
GHW Bush - no conservative
Dole - no conservative (and the ultimate D.C. insider)
GW Bush - no conservative
McCain - no conservative.

120 SasquatchOnSteroids  Sun, May 3, 2009 11:19:44am

re: #106 Thom

You need a broader brush. Seriously, I think you missed a couple of us.
But thanks for the generalizations. Say hi to Kos for me.

121 Mr Spiffy  Sun, May 3, 2009 11:19:46am

re: #48 The Other Les

I have more respect for SPECTRE.

Seriously. The lower level mooks will fight to the death while the bosses slip away. Man! That's loyalty!

Don't forget the Spectre

122 Thom  Sun, May 3, 2009 11:20:44am

112 looking closely

If Specter *really* thought the party had gone to far to the right, then why isn't he trying to fix THAT?

Because the party is utterly beyond repair, beyond redemption, beyond hope. Democratic majorities in Congress and a Democrat in the White House - not to mention Arlen Specter's say-so - are proof positive of that.

All that is left now is to kill it, spit on the carcass, and move on.

123 BLBfootballs  Sun, May 3, 2009 11:20:48am

I'd love Sen. Specter to cite, oh, just three examples of how the GOP has moved "far to the right" since Reagan's day. I don't buy this newly popular "GOPisextremistfarrightfanatic!1!" meme at all, and I really think anyone tempted by it needs to really examine its basis, origins and propagators closely before accepting it.

Specter's citation of Jack Kemp's death to somehow boost the credibility of his party defection is cheap and frankly just contemptible. Add to that the factual question of just how well government tends to solve any serious medical problem. I am thrilled that Specter is recovered from his readily-curable form of cancer....but I am quite dubious that the cure was produced by a government lab.

All that's really happened here is that Specter has moved far to the Specter.

124 countrygurl  Sun, May 3, 2009 11:20:50am

Did the GOP move to the right, or did the moderates in the party move to the left, exposing the more conservative right flank?

125 looking closely  Sun, May 3, 2009 11:21:52am

re: #114 Charles

I would say yes -- it has changed a lot, and not for the better. The influence of people like Ralph Reed, Tony Perkins, and other fundamentalist fanatics, as well as extremist pundits like Ann Coulter, has increased greatly since the 1980s.

Arlen Specter is a typical opportunistic politician, but he's not so wrong when he criticizes the GOP for moving far to the right.

I'd disregard Coulter. She doesn't speak for the Republican party, doesn't hold elected office, nor is ever likely to. Again, she's a "shock jock", and its probably fair to believe that even she doesn't believe everything she says. If you like, she's the inverse of that @#$ Olbermann (only smarter).

As to ascendancy of the religious right within the Republican party, I'm not so sure. Supposedly, they sunk McCain's presidential ambitions 9 years ago. Didn't happen this time. Is McCain (ie the party pick for the top slot) a member of the "extreme" right? I don't think so. Remember, this is the guy who explicitly said that he believed that the religious right had no role in politics. (OK he said it last time, but the point remains).

126 Thom  Sun, May 3, 2009 11:22:24am

120 SasquatchOnSteroids

You need a broader brush. Seriously, I think you missed a couple of us.
But thanks for the generalizations. Say hi to Kos for me.

I'm sorry if anyone was offended. But the truth is often painful.

127 Bloodnok  Sun, May 3, 2009 11:22:31am

re: #118 Gus 802

Specter aside I think you are correct. Collins and Snowe do not create their constituency. If for example the GOP decided to defund both in any future elections and instead support what they would see as a "non-rino" that would result in a Democratic party victory. This may very well happen in Pennsylvania in which Specter may be re-elected as a Democrat. Republicanism is not universal in the United States even though fiscal conservatism is a universal.

Correct. I will reserve judgment on the PA voters until after the next election. It will be interesting to see where they go (Specter as D, another D challenger, moderate R or strong conservative R)? I have a sinking feeling it will be "D challenger".

128 Macker  Sun, May 3, 2009 11:23:40am

re: #11 pink freud

Specter is swine for even mentioning Kemp's name in this interview.

He's not just a swine. He's a Sphincter.

129 GhostShip  Sun, May 3, 2009 11:24:13am

re: #103 Gus 802

How so? McCain was against universal health care. McCain along with Sarah Palin are both pro-life. Both expressed an "interest" in creationism. McCain had no plans of a return to a welfare state; talking to our enemies; or liberalizing the DOD. If McCain was an attempt to "out-socialize" the Democrats I must have been reading other facts.

Abortion and creationism are not right wing issues. However, they are Republican issues because of its alliance with the the Christian right. Ideologically, the right wing is about limited government, fiscal responsibility, and individual freedoms. In this regard, McCain is a big government and big spending politician just like the rest of the GOP.

130 Izzy Dunne  Sun, May 3, 2009 11:24:37am

The Republican Party has gone far to the right since I joined it under Reagan’s big tent.

From Wikipedia:
A Democrat in his youth, Specter joined the Republicans in 1966;

Did Reagan have that big a tent in 1966?

131 BLBfootballs  Sun, May 3, 2009 11:24:44am

re: #114 Charles

I would say yes -- it has changed a lot, and not for the better. The influence of people like Ralph Reed, Tony Perkins, and other fundamentalist fanatics, as well as extremist pundits like Ann Coulter, has increased greatly since the 1980s.

Arlen Specter is a typical opportunistic politician, but he's not so wrong when he criticizes the GOP for moving far to the right.

Reed, Perkins and Coulter are not politicians. And they are conservatives long before they are Republicans. Can you find examples of where people like that have affected the Republican platform or GOP policy positions?

132 looking closely  Sun, May 3, 2009 11:25:28am

re: #122 Thom

112 looking closely

Because the party is utterly beyond repair, beyond redemption, beyond hope. Democratic majorities in Congress and a Democrat in the White House - not to mention Arlen Specter's say-so - are proof positive of that.

All that is left now is to kill it, spit on the carcass, and move on.

Cry me a river. The Republican party has bounced back before, it can do it again.

Specter didn't defect for ideological reasons, period. (Just as he didn't join the Republican party for ideological reasons).

He defected (after only a few weeks ago promising not to) because he's afraid to retire his seat at age 78.

133 jaunte  Sun, May 3, 2009 11:26:10am

re: #128 Macker

How can you not trust a warm open smile like this:
[Link: jonathanturley.org...]

134 Gus  Sun, May 3, 2009 11:27:04am

re: #127 Bloodnok

Correct. I will reserve judgment on the PA voters until after the next election. It will be interesting to see where they go (Specter as D, another D challenger, moderate R or strong conservative R)? I have a sinking feeling it will be "D challenger".

PA is a strong D state. It's home to Murtha who has been re-elected time and time again and even survived ABSCAM. I would bank on Tom Ridge but the voters will have to decide. I'm not very familiar with Toomey.

135 SasquatchOnSteroids  Sun, May 3, 2009 11:27:20am

re: #126 Thom

120 SasquatchOnSteroids

I'm sorry if anyone was offended. But the truth is often painful.

I don't think you're sorry one bit. You know absolutely nothing about me, but you've labeled me. You have no idea what I stand for. You'd be surprised. He has an "r" in front of his party affiliation, so he must be....

136 looking closely  Sun, May 3, 2009 11:27:31am

re: #114 Charles
I'm not denying their power or their influence (of which they retain a good measure of both), but if the religious right is so powerful within the party, why wasn't that doofus Huckabee the Presidential nominee?

137 Thom  Sun, May 3, 2009 11:27:55am

132 looking closely

I'm sorry, but you're just parroting the right-wing extreme talking points.

I, for one, value independent and critical thinking, as exemplifed by Specter's trenchant analysis of today's Republican party.

138 looking closely  Sun, May 3, 2009 11:28:59am

One more thing, and its relevant to the topic here.

It was NOT the religious right that tossed out Specter.

If he's lost support amongst the Republican base in PA, it was the FISCAL conservatives who were finally fed up with him.

139 Joel  Sun, May 3, 2009 11:29:06am

Charles
As for Ann Couter, she is a columnist and n more representative of the Rpeublicans then Keith Olbermanno rMarkos Moulitsas is representative of the Democrats.

140 Thom  Sun, May 3, 2009 11:29:24am

135 SasquatchOnSteroids

I'm sorry, but I was not labelling you - I was talking about the Republican party. So, unless you *are* the Republican party, please jump off my ass. Thank you.

141 Obsidiandog  Sun, May 3, 2009 11:29:40am

re: #22 Killgore Trout

Perhaps his constituents are abandoning the GOP because they voted Republican and all they got was this crummy Specter.

They vote for firm principles and get a loose cannon instead.

142 UncleRancher  Sun, May 3, 2009 11:30:06am

? Here all along I thought Rush Limbaugh was the leader of the Republican party?

/s

143 wiffersnapper  Sun, May 3, 2009 11:30:08am

Why do we let moderates/democrats speak for our party all the time?

144 looking closely  Sun, May 3, 2009 11:30:19am

re: #137 Thom

132 looking closely

I'm sorry, but you're just parroting the right-wing extreme talking points.

I, for one, value independent and critical thinking, as exemplifed by Specter's trenchant analysis of today's Republican party.

Which "extreme right wing " talking point have I parroted?

If Specter is such a critical thinker then why did he vote "not proven" for Clinton's impeachment?

Why did he vote for Obama's spendulus monstrosity?

145 jaunte  Sun, May 3, 2009 11:30:19am

re: #137 Thom

Specter wanted a committee chair, and this is what it took to get one.

146 Sharmuta  Sun, May 3, 2009 11:30:22am

re: #136 looking closely

I'm not denying their power or their influence (of which they retain a good measure of both), but if the religious right is so powerful within the party, why wasn't that doofus Huckabee the Presidential nominee?

My opinion on that is the RR is "powerful" in the sense it's loud and has money. They are not the majority of the base, and that's why Huckabee didn't get the nomination. The majority of the base is fiscal conservatives and security hawks. McCain shot himself in the foot with the fisc-cons when he voted on the porkulus.

147 SasquatchOnSteroids  Sun, May 3, 2009 11:30:51am

re: #137 Thom

132 looking closely

I'm sorry, but you're just parroting the right-wing extreme talking points.

I, for one, value independent and critical thinking, as exemplifed by Specter's trenchant analysis of today's Republican party.

Huh?

The defection of this brave man is a testimony to the sad fact that the Republican party has morphed into a bunch of young-earth, right-wing-extremist, gay-bashing, fetus-protecting, anti-science, fascist paleogoons.

Done with you.

148 Thom  Sun, May 3, 2009 11:30:54am

143 wiffersnapper

Why do we let moderates/democrats speak for our party all the time?

Somebody has to ..

149 Charles Johnson  Sun, May 3, 2009 11:31:40am

re: #137 Thom

132 looking closely

I'm sorry, but you're just parroting the right-wing extreme talking points.

I, for one, value independent and critical thinking, as exemplifed by Specter's trenchant analysis of today's Republican party.

Are you enjoying yourself?

150 Earth56  Sun, May 3, 2009 11:31:55am

re: #139 Joel

Charles
As for Ann Couter, she is a columnist and n more representative of the Rpeublicans then Keith Olbermanno rMarkos Moulitsas is representative of the Democrats.

Really ?

I don't like Ann Coulter but to claim the Keith and Markos do not represent the Dems than who do they represent ?

151 BLBfootballs  Sun, May 3, 2009 11:32:30am

re: #137 Thom

132 looking closely

I, for one, value independent and critical thinking, as exemplifed by Specter's trenchant analysis of today's Republican party.

"Trenchant"?! Oh please!

152 UncleRancher  Sun, May 3, 2009 11:32:30am

Looks stormy out there.

153 WindHorse  Sun, May 3, 2009 11:32:45am

despite any politics here.... Arlen specter is a grandstanding opportunist.

/who needs a perm...

154 rightymouse  Sun, May 3, 2009 11:32:49am

re: #138 looking closely

One more thing, and its relevant to the topic here.

It was NOT the religious right that tossed out Specter.

If he's lost support amongst the Republican base in PA, it was the FISCAL conservatives who were finally fed up with him.

Even my commie sister who lives in PA is beginning to figure out what's what and is starting to tilt to the right.

My jaw dropped on the desk recently listening to one of her rants.

155 Bloodnok  Sun, May 3, 2009 11:32:49am

re: #141 Obsidiandog

Perhaps his constituents are abandoning the GOP because they voted Republican and all they got was this crummy Specter.

They vote for firm principles and get a loose cannon instead.

You think they figured this out after the fourth or fifth time they re-elected him? Sorry. Not buying it.

156 Gus  Sun, May 3, 2009 11:33:00am

re: #129 GhostShip

Abortion and creationism are not right wing issues. However, they are Republican issues because of its alliance with the the Christian right. Ideologically, the right wing is about limited government, fiscal responsibility, and individual freedoms. In this regard, McCain is a big government and big spending politician just like the rest of the GOP.

In that regard I can see your point. However, I don't see the GOP as being anything other than being about "big government and big spending." Except for perhaps someone like DeMint and others. McCain lost his rank in spending over the years.

However, if this is still a question of the POTUS if we compare Obama to McCain there is no question that Obama still remain the bigger spender and is now engaging in creating the largest government ever known to man. Obama will now have the opportunity to place two supreme court justices in the SCOTUS -- the results of which will be nothing we have seen ever.

157 countrygurl  Sun, May 3, 2009 11:33:03am

re: #129 GhostShip
Abortion and creationism are...... Republican issues because of its alliance with the the Christian right.
So you have to be a Christian to oppose the killing of unborn human beings? I don't think so. I think abortion is an issue for all humanity, of all faiths.

158 Charles Johnson  Sun, May 3, 2009 11:33:42am

re: #138 looking closely

One more thing, and its relevant to the topic here.

It was NOT the religious right that tossed out Specter.

If he's lost support amongst the Republican base in PA, it was the FISCAL conservatives who were finally fed up with him.

What fiscal conservatives?

159 debutaunt  Sun, May 3, 2009 11:33:59am

re: #154 rightymouse

Even my commie sister who lives in PA is beginning to figure out what's what and is starting to tilt to the right.

My jaw dropped on the desk recently listening to one of her rants.

Why are people on the far, far left so angry?

160 Thom  Sun, May 3, 2009 11:35:27am

144 looking closely

Which "extreme right wing " talking point have I parroted?

That Specter only switched parties to win re-election, or get a committee seat.

If Specter is such a critical thinker then why did he vote "not proven" for Clinton's impeachment?

As an experienced prosecutor, he knows if a case has been proven or not. Do you have his experience in jurisprudence?

Why did he vote for Obama's spendulus monstrosity?

To stimulate the American economy - thus helping to save it from the worst crisis since the Great Depression.

I, for one, am not standing in line at a soup kitchen, or standing on a street corner plaintively intoning "Hey buddy, can you spare a dime?" Thanks in part to him. How about you?

161 Bloodnok  Sun, May 3, 2009 11:35:49am

re: #155 Bloodnok

My bad. They only reelected him four times, not five. I'm wrong, I guess they really didn't have a chance to get to know Specter.

//

162 Thom  Sun, May 3, 2009 11:37:19am

149 Charles

No, I am not. But having realized how wrong I was about Specter, I have to atone.

163 Charles Johnson  Sun, May 3, 2009 11:38:38am

re: #160 Thom

I guess you think I don't see what you're doing here, or maybe you do, and you're doing it just to get in some digs. Well, you can find some other site to do it at. Bye now.

For anyone who isn't clear what Thom was up to: [Link: littlegreenfootballs.com...]

164 Sharmuta  Sun, May 3, 2009 11:38:54am

re: #162 Thom

Are you being contrary for the sake of it, or what? Using sarcasm in excess can leave others with the idea they can't take anything you say at face value.

165 Gus  Sun, May 3, 2009 11:39:00am

re: #161 Bloodnok

My bad. They only reelected him four times, not five. I'm wrong, I guess they really didn't have a chance to get to know Specter.

//

You would think they would have taken a hint by now.

166 rightymouse  Sun, May 3, 2009 11:39:25am

re: #157 countrygurl

Abortion and creationism are...... Republican issues because of its alliance with the the Christian right.
So you have to be a Christian to oppose the killing of unborn human beings? I don't think so. I think abortion is an issue for all humanity, of all faiths.


Abortion is a losing up front policy for the GOP. So is gay marriage. We're playing defense to the Donks when we make these issues part of the major party platform.

167 debutaunt  Sun, May 3, 2009 11:40:07am

re: #164 Sharmuta

Are you being contrary for the sake of it, or what? Using sarcasm in excess can leave others with the idea they can't take anything you say at face value.

He went away.

168 Sharmuta  Sun, May 3, 2009 11:40:46am

re: #167 debutaunt

I had a feeling he was being difficult on purpose, so his answer doesn't matter.

169 countrygurl  Sun, May 3, 2009 11:42:03am

re: #166 rightymouse

Abortion is a losing up front policy for the GOP. So is gay marriage. We're playing defense to the Donks when we make these issues part of the major party platform.


Suppose your are 100% correct. What can be done about that?

170 GhostShip  Sun, May 3, 2009 11:42:51am

re: #157 countrygurl

Abortion and creationism are...... Republican issues because of its alliance with the the Christian right.
So you have to be a Christian to oppose the killing of unborn human beings? I don't think so. I think abortion is an issue for all humanity, of all faiths.

No you don't have to be a Christian to be against abortion. I'm an atheist and I'm against abortion so that is obviously not true.

171 Liberal Classic  Sun, May 3, 2009 11:44:02am

re: #114 Charles

I would say yes -- it has changed a lot, and not for the better. The influence of people like Ralph Reed, Tony Perkins, and other fundamentalist fanatics, as well as extremist pundits like Ann Coulter, has increased greatly since the 1980s.

FWIW, I can't stand Ann Coulter, either. My perception is that the fiscal conservative element in the GOP is less vigorous now than it was during the 80s and 90s. Creation/evolution debates are a topic of interest of mine, and I visit the NCSE's website a lot. There were a number of important cases regarding the establishment clause and the teaching of religious beliefs in public schools in the 80s and 90s. I think it's safe to say that the creationists were pretty active back then, and I expect other social conservative issue advocacy groups were, too. The Christian Coalition and Family Research Council didn't spring out of nothing. If the fiscal wing of the GOP has withered, then this leaves the social conservative wing dominant. Does this represent a rightward shift? I guess it does, because having to coexist with the fiscal conservatives naturally meant some moderation. Without the fiscal wing, the social wing doesn't have to compromise.

Arlen Specter is a typical opportunistic politician, but he's not so wrong when he criticizes the GOP for moving far to the right.

My sense is that both parties are moving away from the center. I think there has been some movement rightward by the Republicans, but the Democrats have been moving leftward, as well.

172 looking closely  Sun, May 3, 2009 11:44:31am
That Specter only switched parties to win re-election, or get a committee seat


Specter has effectively said as much himself explicitly, namely that he wasn't going to subject himself to the whims of the PA Republican primary voters.

Funny how the "lurch to the right" of the Republican party didn't bother him until he was behind 20 points in tracking polls against a likely Republican primary challenger.

If he switched for ideological reasons, why did he say he was NOT going to switch parties only two weeks before he did so? Because of the "rightwing lurch" of the Republicans in the last two weeks?

If Specter is such a critical thinker then why did he vote "not proven" for Clinton's impeachment?

As an experienced prosecutor, he knows if a case has been proven or not. Do you have his experience in jurisprudence?


Straw man. . .
I've got enough to know that "not proven" (IE Scottish jurisprudence) doesn't apply in the USA, and isn't a recognized vote in the US Congress.

LC: Why did he vote for Obama's spendulus monstrosity?

To stimulate the American economy - thus helping to save it from the worst crisis since the Great Depression

.
That's a good one. . .
I'm done with you.

I, for one, am not standing in line at a soup kitchen, or standing on a street corner plaintively intoning "Hey buddy, can you spare a dime?" Thanks in part to him. How about you?


Good riddance.

173 Gus  Sun, May 3, 2009 11:45:39am

re: #166 rightymouse

Abortion is a losing up front policy for the GOP. So is gay marriage. We're playing defense to the Donks when we make these issues part of the major party platform.

On the national level. Of course on the local level that's a different story especially for The House. Depending on the state it may be less of an issue for the Senate because of the expanded electoral base.

174 MrPaulRevere  Sun, May 3, 2009 11:46:13am

Charles, I know people like Thom are a royal pain in the ass to you, but dammit, that implosion was funny to watch.

175 Sharmuta  Sun, May 3, 2009 11:46:16am

re: #169 countrygurl

Suppose your are 100% correct. What can be done about that?

IMO- it's a little like Iraq. If you look at the polling data for the last 30 years- opinion on abortion has barely shifted. What should be done is winning the hearts and minds of the people to choose life without legislating the choice for them. I don't know exactly how that would be done, but public opinion is against outlawing abortion, and until that changes naturally in our society, calling for a ban in our platform hurts us more than it helps us.

176 rightymouse  Sun, May 3, 2009 11:46:17am

re: #159 debutaunt

Why are people on the far, far left so angry?

They tend to be emotional by nature. She is emotional for sure and every other lib I know is basically the same way. They get mad when their sacred cows are shown to be intellectually meaningless, hypocritical, etc. At first she blamed Reps for everything and now she's being more introspective.

177 Liberal Classic  Sun, May 3, 2009 11:46:31am

re: #158 Charles

What fiscal conservatives?

The polls are showing Specter would lose to a candidate being backed by the Club for Growth.

178 jaunte  Sun, May 3, 2009 11:47:04am

re: #172 looking closely


I, for one, am not standing in line at a soup kitchen, or standing on a street corner plaintively intoning "Hey buddy, can you spare a dime?"


Give Thom another 200 days.

179 pink freud  Sun, May 3, 2009 11:48:10am

re: #177 Liberal Classic

The polls are showing Specter would lose to a candidate being backed by the Club for Growth.

Bottom line is I think Specter cooked his own goose. He's not worth the effort we spend speculating about him. He personifies "has been".

180 anchors_aweigh  Sun, May 3, 2009 11:48:56am

Using the "there are no atheists in foxholes" metric. The current crop of national Republicans has been fiscally conservative. I have not seen any national votes on social issues yet.

So to say that "the GOP (national) has moved too far to the right", today, would have to mean vis a vis fiscal issues. Recently, the movement on fiscal issues has been to the left, and radically. So that dog don't hunt.

Spector is just spouting another "red herring" strategic message straight from the radicals in power, and reveals himself in the process. Any attempt to portray the minority party as moving anywhere (except to self-preservation mode) is just the left meme of the week.

181 Joel  Sun, May 3, 2009 11:49:46am

re: #150 Earth56

I am being facetious.

182 countrygurl  Sun, May 3, 2009 11:50:30am

re: #176 rightymouse
I think she was joking..........rhetorical question.

183 Sharmuta  Sun, May 3, 2009 11:50:36am

Additionally- I think we can maintain strong pro-life policies while dropping the call for a ban, such as improving adoption laws, and working to make contraception more affordable and reliable.

184 right_wing2  Sun, May 3, 2009 11:51:01am

re: #137 Thom

132 looking closely

I'm sorry, but you're just parroting the right-wing extreme talking points.

I, for one, value independent and critical thinking, as exemplifed by Specter's trenchant analysis of today's Republican party.

Why would the Republicans want someone who's been to the left for years? Isn't that just like being a Democrat? America doesn't need 'left' and 'further left'.

185 anchors_aweigh  Sun, May 3, 2009 11:51:23am

re: #158 Charles

The ones who have voted no on the budget and stimulus package?

186 rightymouse  Sun, May 3, 2009 11:52:06am

re: #169 countrygurl

Suppose your are 100% correct. What can be done about that?

The ones who have been allowed to set policy on these issues are no longer allowed to set policy. Why should abortion issues or gay marriage issues be allowed to be dominant in the party platform? Reps don't all believe the same way - these are personal beliefs and I don't think the Federal government has any business meddling one way or another.

187 Earth56  Sun, May 3, 2009 11:52:43am

re: #181 Joel

I am being facetious.


Got you..thanks

188 stuiec  Sun, May 3, 2009 11:52:57am

re: #114 Charles

I would say yes -- it has changed a lot, and not for the better. The influence of people like Ralph Reed, Tony Perkins, and other fundamentalist fanatics, as well as extremist pundits like Ann Coulter, has increased greatly since the 1980s.

Arlen Specter is a typical opportunistic politician, but he's not so wrong when he criticizes the GOP for moving far to the right.

The GOP, as others have pointed out, has not moved as a party to the Right. It still contains a Christian activist wing, but if they were in the ascendancy, Huckabee would have been the nominee last november.

The influence of Ralph Reed, for one, is far less than it was even twelve years ago, when he headed the Christian Coalition. The Christian Coalition itself is atrophying.

You see the GOP as "moving Right" because you've been lumped in with "right-wing bloggers," you've seen the Democrats as kowtowing to their extreme Left wing, and you've had to take a good hard look at the GOP as a potential home. But it has all these "kooks" and "fanatics" in it, and it's on the same side of the political midline as neo-Nazis and Paulians (like the Democrat Party is on the same side of the political midline as International ANSWER and Earth First!).

Now, of course, the GOP could return to its "roots" from the 1950s and 1960s, when it was a perpetual minority party. That would make a lot of people happy because they wouldn't get uncomfortable questions at cocktail parties about how they can possibly associate with all those kooks and fundamentalist fanatics. And those people would get the additional satisfaction of knowing that they had nothing to do with what the unconstrained Democrats in government were doing to drag the nation into a weaker, poorer future -- they'd be above the fray.

I don't believe that would be good for the country, let alone the Republican Party. I think the Republican Party can only do its job of advancing conservative values -- the ones Ronald Reagan enumerated in the passage Olympia Snowe quoted -- if it has a broad enough coalition to win elections. That may mean sacrificing the votes of some people who find it unacceptable to associate with people whose views they disagree with, but as some wise man must have said, you can't please all of the people all of the time - you can only do what is right.

189 countrygurl  Sun, May 3, 2009 11:53:38am

re: #167 debutaunt

He went away.


Passed away. Or maybe, just passed on.
He will be missed by all his friends.
/not

190 Liberal Classic  Sun, May 3, 2009 11:53:48am

re: #179 pink freud

Bottom line is I think Specter cooked his own goose. He's not worth the effort we spend speculating about him. He personifies "has been".

I don't disagree, but the point here is Specter is pointing to a Club for Growth candidate as the reason he is leaving the party. The Club for Growth is more closely associated with the fiscal wing than the social wing. I don't see the fiscal wing as pushing the GOP rightward, at least not to the extent that the social wing is.

191 Sharmuta  Sun, May 3, 2009 11:54:06am

And I don't want to hear any nonsense about contraception being affordable. It's not always the case. The more reliable forms of contraception are expensive, and for many women, they can only afford it thanks to that right-wing boogaboo Planned Parenthood.

192 Bloodnok  Sun, May 3, 2009 11:54:47am

re: #185 anchors_aweigh

The ones who have voted no on the budget and stimulus package?

Most of those same folks played a part in growing the government for the past 9 or 10 years. Calling them suddenly sane for voting against this bill is a bit of a stretch.

193 quickjustice  Sun, May 3, 2009 11:55:26am

Specter is a sick man, and probably won't live out another term. Toomey baited him in the last GOP primary. This party switch is payback.

Specter doesn't care about policy. The GOP could have copied his positions into the GOP platform verbatim, and he still would have switched. This is about a GOP primary electorate sick and tired of Specter, and prepared to unseat him in favor of the much younger Toomey. Specter read the polls, which showed he'd lose the primary decisively. He then switched parties.

These complaints about the GOP having moved to the right in Pennsylvania are nonsense. Pennsylvania has the oldest population in the country, except for Florida. 90% of people born in Pennsylvania stay there for their entire lives. The state is heavily Roman Catholic and pro-life. (Democrat U.S. Senator Bob Casey, Jr. may be the only Catholic, pro-life member of the U.S. Senate.). Pennsylvania Republicans are old, are moderate, and haven't changed much in the last fifty years.

Like the bitter, dying old man that he is, Specter is clinging to his power to spite Toomey.

194 looking closely  Sun, May 3, 2009 11:56:03am

re: #158 Charles

What fiscal conservatives?

Fair enough. . .but really, it wasn't the "social conservatives" that turned on Specter. (IE they never liked him anyway, and he's always made it pretty clear the feeling was mutual).

The Republicans in the State of PA were OK re-electing squishy Specter though his votes against Bork, the Clinton "not proven" mess, and a number of other issues that irked hardcore Republicans. If ever there were a "RINO" Republican, this is the guy.

Not that there is anything necessarily wrong with that, PA is sort of a "purple" state, and you'd expect some sort of moderate from either party to get elected.

The question is, what he has done *lately* that caused him to lose his support among PA Republicans?

He's "blaming" opposition to medical research from the Republican side, but come on. . .we know that's not the real reason he left.

195 countrygurl  Sun, May 3, 2009 11:56:11am

re: #186 rightymouse

Why should abortion issues or gay marriage issues be allowed to be dominant in the party platform?


I see. So this is why Republicans shouldn't be choosing preachers (Romney, Huckabee) as our candidates for high office.

196 rightymouse  Sun, May 3, 2009 11:56:21am

re: #182 countrygurl

I think she was joking..........rhetorical question.

Yeah - but it's still a valid question. Especially if you know my sister. :)

197 erevu  Sun, May 3, 2009 11:57:21am

Whenever I hear them say that the GOP has moved to the right, I never hear examples. The country has moved to the left far more than the GOP has gone anywhere. Can someone explain to me how the opinion that marriage should be limited to man/woman is now a right wing extremist view?

198 Sharmuta  Sun, May 3, 2009 11:57:50am

re: #186 rightymouse

The ones who have been allowed to set policy on these issues are no longer allowed to set policy. Why should abortion issues or gay marriage issues be allowed to be dominant in the party platform? Reps don't all believe the same way - these are personal beliefs and I don't think the Federal government has any business meddling one way or another.

The federal government doesn't have any business meddling in this stuff. It is not the job of the government to make us the electorate they wish they had.

199 countrygurl  Sun, May 3, 2009 11:59:30am

re: #191 Sharmuta

The more reliable forms of contraception are expensive

That's why we should demand that contraceptives be covered in our health insurance plans. Never understood that --- isn't it cheaper to provide contraceptives than hospital/doctor care for pregnancy and birth?

200 looking closely  Sun, May 3, 2009 11:59:44am

re: #195 countrygurl

I see. So this is why Republicans shouldn't be choosing preachers (Romney, Huckabee) as our candidates for high office.


Let's not slander Romney.
Mitt Romney is NOT a preacher or an evangelical, nor was his personal platform particularly religious.

201 yma o hyd  Sun, May 3, 2009 11:59:55am

re: #198 Sharmuta

The federal government doesn't have any business meddling in this stuff. It is not the job of the government to make us the electorate they wish they had.


LLL governments everywhere would strongly disagree ...

202 anchors_aweigh  Sun, May 3, 2009 12:00:01pm

re: #192 Bloodnok

Most of those same folks played a part in growing the government for the past 9 or 10 years. Calling them suddenly sane for voting against this bill is a bit of a stretch.

Did you not get my "there are no atheists in foxholes" point in an earlier post? It may have been a bit nuanced.

I am not giving them a pass on how they got into this mess (minority status), I am just saying that currently, they have seen the light.

203 quickjustice  Sun, May 3, 2009 12:01:09pm

Pennsylvania really is unique in a number of ways. Its Democrats are conservative, labor union members who hunt, go to mass, and are pro-life Catholics, as are many of the Republicans. Pennsylvanians are not radical ideologues. They're highly pragmatic, working class people.

204 unrealizedviewpoint  Sun, May 3, 2009 12:01:46pm

re: #174 MrPaulRevere

Charles, I know people like Thom are a royal pain in the ass to you, but dammit, that implosion was funny to watch.

I'm not sure I understand what happened.

205 Sharmuta  Sun, May 3, 2009 12:02:34pm

re: #199 countrygurl

That's why we should demand that contraceptives be covered in our health insurance plans. Never understood that --- isn't it cheaper to provide contraceptives than hospital/doctor care for pregnancy and birth?

I don't disagree- but usually the women who need help obtaining contraception don't have insurance.

206 rightymouse  Sun, May 3, 2009 12:02:52pm

re: #173 Gus 802

On the national level. Of course on the local level that's a different story especially for The House. Depending on the state it may be less of an issue for the Senate because of the expanded electoral base.

The House has a trickier job with their constituents. But still, if we had friggin' leaders instead of 'fingers in the air checking to see which way the wind was blowing', we may have half a chance.

207 looking closely  Sun, May 3, 2009 12:03:45pm

re: #178 jaunte

Give Thom another 200 days.

I just want to point out that these responses that seem to be quoting me, are actually quoting that disingenous Democrat shill Thom.

I didn't make that remark about soup kitchens or Specter being a "critical thinker".

208 jaunte  Sun, May 3, 2009 12:04:51pm

re: #207 looking closely

Sure, that was clear to me. I just addressed your comment cause he's no longer with us.

209 countrygurl  Sun, May 3, 2009 12:05:13pm

re: #200 looking closely

Mitt Romney is NOT a preacher or an evangelical, nor was his personal platform particularly religious.


YIKES! Wasn't trying to slander him! So okay, Romney's not a preacher. But you can't deny his Christian faith (although not main-stream) was a factor. Isn't he
anti-abortion and anti- gay marriage, and is it wrong to assume those ideas were tied to his religious beliefs?

210 looking closely  Sun, May 3, 2009 12:05:26pm

re: #191 Sharmuta

And I don't want to hear any nonsense about contraception being affordable. It's not always the case. The more reliable forms of contraception are expensive, and for many women, they can only afford it thanks to that right-wing boogaboo Planned Parenthood.

Well, to be perfectly fair, the absolutely MOST reliable form of contraception also happens to be the cheapest!

But you're right, birth control pills ARE expensive, and IMO, they SHOULD be covered by health insurance plans.

You have to figure that the insurance companies have looked at the numbers, and decided that its cheaper to pay for childbirth than for contraception.

211 Charles Johnson  Sun, May 3, 2009 12:05:48pm

re: #188 stuiec

I think the Republican Party can only do its job of advancing conservative values -- the ones Ronald Reagan enumerated in the passage Olympia Snowe quoted -- if it has a broad enough coalition to win elections. That may mean sacrificing the votes of some people who find it unacceptable to associate with people whose views they disagree with, but as some wise man must have said, you can't please all of the people all of the time - you can only do what is right.

Let me know if you see any sign of that happening -- because I certainly don't. I hear the calls for purging social moderates and "RINOs" and anyone who doesn't toe the far right social con line getting louder and louder, and I see the GOP getting less tolerant, not more.

Ralph Reed is having trouble right now, it's true, but people like Perkins are more influential than ever in the GOP political scene -- for one thing, they're some of the primary backers of Bobby Jindal and other politicians being groomed for runs at the Presidency.

And most of the GOP state platforms across America take an extremely hard line in favor of social conservatism, promoting amendments to the Constitution to ban abortions and gay marriage, teach creationism in public schools, etc.

I'm really not the only person saying this, by the way. Some of the remaining sane Republicans are trying to talk the party down from the ledge too. I don't consider myself a Republican -- I'm an independent, and always will be, and I have a serious distaste for partisan politics -- but it disturbs me greatly to see one of the parties necessary to maintain our great American high wire act losing its balance.

212 quickjustice  Sun, May 3, 2009 12:05:51pm

This has nothing to do with policy positions, and everything to do with Specter reading the polling among registered Pennsylvania Republicans showing he'd lose the primary.

213 rightymouse  Sun, May 3, 2009 12:06:01pm

re: #195 countrygurl

I see. So this is why Republicans shouldn't be choosing preachers (Romney, Huckabee) as our candidates for high office.

Romney isn't a preacher.

Huckabee was a lousy candidate for many reasons and being a preacher isn't necessarily a bad thing unless the person believes that he/she can use the federal government to impose theocratic law.

214 Charles Johnson  Sun, May 3, 2009 12:07:03pm

re: #207 looking closely

I just want to point out that these responses that seem to be quoting me, are actually quoting that disingenous Democrat shill Thom.

I didn't make that remark about soup kitchens or Specter being a "critical thinker".

He's not a Democrat shill. He was being a sarcastic ass.

215 rightymouse  Sun, May 3, 2009 12:07:09pm

re: #198 Sharmuta

The federal government doesn't have any business meddling in this stuff. It is not the job of the government to make us the electorate they wish they had.


Amen, sistah!

216 Sharmuta  Sun, May 3, 2009 12:08:41pm

re: #215 rightymouse

That goes for both parties. The left does it in their way, and the right thinks the answer is to be the same way just with an opposite answer. Both are wrong.

217 countrygurl  Sun, May 3, 2009 12:10:32pm

This has been a great way to spend a rainy Sunday afternoon, but now I have to go help hubby assemble a new shelving system. Check ya'll later. Keep on truckin'.

218 looking closely  Sun, May 3, 2009 12:11:40pm

re: #209 countrygurl

YIKES! Wasn't trying to slander him! So okay, Romney's not a preacher. But you can't deny his Christian faith (although not main-stream) was a factor. Isn't he
anti-abortion and anti- gay marriage, and is it wrong to assume those ideas were tied to his religious beliefs?


Now we're splitting several issues.

McCain has been a reliable 100% vote against abortion in his Senate history, but nobody has accused him of being a fundamentalist or religious Christian.

Giuliani is Catholic, but supports pro-choice.

Right or wrong, the majority of the country is against gay marriage, and that includes the current political positions of both Joe Biden AND Barack Obama.

Romney is a Mormon. I don't know to what extent he is a practicing Mormon or to what extent his Mormon beliefs affect his ability to govern. I was a resident in MA when he was Governor, by the way, and in that pretty secular state he was fairly well regarded as a governor for most of his term.

What I think *is* fair to say, is that Romney's political opposition (*especially* Huckabee, but there were others) MADE an issue of his religion to try and get him knocked out of the Republican primary. You can argue about how much being a Mormon might have affected Romney had he received the nomination, but IMO he was a strong candidate, and he would have been able to articulate (and sell) a Conservative platform FAR more effectively than McCain did.

Doesn't mean he would have won the election.

219 S'latch  Sun, May 3, 2009 12:12:40pm

Charles' exchange with Thom was more interesting than Specter's interview on Meet the Press . . . which is another reason I love Littlegreenfootballs weblog.

220 funky chicken  Sun, May 3, 2009 12:13:01pm

re: #2 Sharmuta

My biggest problem with the gop is the abandoning of its fiscal principles.

and Specter definitely did that. I never read anything about his helping Jack Murtha's opponent at all, either in 2006 or in 2008.

I'm not mourning Specter's defection. Somebody here had a link to an article saying that Tom Ridge might run for the GOP nomination. The hotair crowd all call Ridge a dirty RINO because he's pro-choice, but he's got a shot at carrying the state-wide election. I know Toomey is an excellent fiscal conservative, but don't know about his stand on social issues. If he's a fire-breathing social con, he'd have a tough time carrying the state, IMHO.

221 [deleted]  Sun, May 3, 2009 12:13:56pm
222 eaglewingz08  Sun, May 3, 2009 12:15:03pm

Spectre keeps digging himself deeper. Reagan's platform was much more conservative than the current Republican platform or even the current republican ideology. To state that his governing principle is abortion is clearly why he was never a republican in the first instance. You couldn't get Bill Clinton to state abortion was his bedrock principle, or judging from Obama's 100 day presser, Mr. Obama. So Spectre is out on abortion, and he has no fiscal conservatism in him, so without those two towers of republican principle, what was Spectre doing in the party the past twenty five years?
And why does Spectre want to posit himself as pro abortion when his democrap junior senator is pro life? Does he think that makes him more electable to democraps in PA?
And what's with this false claim of gov't underfunding of the war on cancer, as a reason for Kemp's death. This is as malignant as Michael Fox saying that unless we destroy babies in the wombs for stem cells, then gov't and the American people are responsible for all disease deaths in the country (since all of them would presumbably be treatable by such stem cell therapies). Jack Kemp didn't die because cancer research was underfunded, but because it was his time to go. Does anyone doubt that if someone had cures for cancer, they wouldn't be filthy rich? Isn't that enough of a motivator without gov't also shelling into the pot? But given that both public and private research has not come up with a cureall is no reason to state that as a reason to go over to the democraps. Again, Mr. Spectre is being hideously dishonest with his true reasons. Since the republicans put themselves on the line for him six years ago, and Rick Santorum lost his seat because of his support for Spectre, this is ingratitude by Spectre of an extraordiary measure.

And speaking of times to go, we hope that Spectre learns that news in the PA primaries next year.

The only charitable excuse I have for Spectre is that the medications he took for his illness have so warped his brain that he is incapable of rational thought and thus becoming a democrap is the only political path for someone without any ratiocination.

223 rightymouse  Sun, May 3, 2009 12:16:07pm

re: #216 Sharmuta

That goes for both parties. The left does it in their way, and the right thinks the answer is to be the same way just with an opposite answer. Both are wrong.

Yep. Our Founding Fathers would be appalled. And I think that those of us (like you) who understand them and their intent, are equally appalled today. What the hell has happened to our Republic?

224 rightymouse  Sun, May 3, 2009 12:17:34pm

re: #214 Charles

He's not a Democrat shill. He was being a sarcastic ass.


That was so weird. Wasn't he a regular poster years ago?

225 [deleted]  Sun, May 3, 2009 12:19:02pm
226 Sharmuta  Sun, May 3, 2009 12:19:11pm

re: #221 taxfreekiller

now I get it,

"The Federal Govt. must stay out of the bed rooms and not talk church stuff all the time."

That way these commie Democrats have lots of time to raid your lunch box, your lunch money, your freedom, your right to self defense to tyranny of the loon left, and still have time to tell the sun not to shine so the climate change fraud can be blamed on "We the People"..

man was I slow!

tfk- how is government involving themselves in our bedrooms protecting our right to have a gun? To keep the fruits of our labor? How is it maintaining our personal liberties? It doesn't. In fact- sticking their noses in our bedrooms is the opposite of respecting the liberties of the people. Nor is it the government's job to make sure people have a relationship with God. They need to leave us alone in these aspects.

Instead of worrying about what folks are doing in their bedrooms and their relationships with God, perhaps the gop can, I don't know, work on maintaining our rights to guns and the fruits of our labors. Just a thought.

227 rightymouse  Sun, May 3, 2009 12:19:17pm

re: #220 funky chicken


Toomey's been called a moderate in the MSM. That spells trouble. On the other hand, I don't know much about the guy. Will check with some of my PA pol sources.

228 [deleted]  Sun, May 3, 2009 12:19:23pm
229 Macker  Sun, May 3, 2009 12:21:08pm

re: #212 quickjustice

This has nothing to do with policy positions, and everything to do with Specter reading the polling among registered Pennsylvania Republicans showing he'd lose the primary.

In doing so, wasn't Sphincter Torching himself?

230 [deleted]  Sun, May 3, 2009 12:21:15pm
231 looking closely  Sun, May 3, 2009 12:23:08pm

re: #211 Charles

OK, I see your point.

I think its important here to draw a distinction between the excuses Specter is making to explain his switching political parties, and actual changes that may be happening in the Republican party.

I don't think its going too far to say that looking at the totality of his political switch (ie an earlier switch out of political expedience, his history of being on the leftmost edge of the Republican party for decades, and his remarks only a few weeks ago that he didn't want to leave the party) that Specter's excuses don't hold water.

He's switching NOW because the Republicans have a religious right? He's switching NOW because the Republicans aren't pro-research enough? Bull@#$.

232 Sharmuta  Sun, May 3, 2009 12:23:13pm

re: #223 rightymouse

Yep. Our Founding Fathers would be appalled. And I think that those of us (like you) who understand them and their intent, are equally appalled today. What the hell has happened to our Republic?

People starting thinking it was the government's job to equalize results rather than make sure the system treated everyone equally.

233 rightymouse  Sun, May 3, 2009 12:23:29pm

re: #221 taxfreekiller

now I get it,

"The Federal Govt. must stay out of the bed rooms and not talk church stuff all the time."

That way these commie Democrats have lots of time to raid your lunch box, your lunch money, your freedom, your right to self defense to tyranny of the loon left, and still have time to tell the sun not to shine so the climate change fraud can be blamed on "We the People"..

man was I slow!

Hon, it's not the role of the Government to meddle like this. Left or Right.

234 Sharmuta  Sun, May 3, 2009 12:24:36pm

re: #230 taxfreekiller

Pushing creationism isn't protecting your right to bear arms or to keep the fruits of your labor, so why should we support it?

235 [deleted]  Sun, May 3, 2009 12:24:39pm
236 American Sabra  Sun, May 3, 2009 12:25:38pm

It's refreshing to see some conservatives here who support minority and women's rights, however, that is NOT the basis of the GOP. If minority and women's rights are your thing, you're a Democrat at least that's way it always was.

I would be happy to see the GOP shifting away from the religious right, but I simply can't see it happening. If you actually watched MTP this morning, Joe Scarborough seemed to be more at the heart of the party by stating the Republicans aren't rightwing ENOUGH. That they have to push harder to the right. Maybe why we are seeing Glenn Beck et al screaming all over the place, I don't know.

The far left has little to no influence on the Democratic party as a party. The far right absolutely does influence the Republican party, both monetarily and "spritually". Personally, I think hard right stands against abortion, against immigration, right to die issues, yes even creationism has made the right seem terribly out of touch with what the founding fathers envisioned for us.

The Democrats had the perfect candidate (two actually) last November instead of the last horrific pick of 2004. The Republicans... well... not so much. The Republicans didn't lose the election, btw. The Democrats won.

237 ladycatnip  Sun, May 3, 2009 12:27:33pm
“If we had pursued the war on cancer, which President Nixon declared in 1970, Jack Kemp might be alive today,” Specter said. “This medical research has prolonged or saved many lives, including mine.”

I just love it when the left tries to manipulate us with political guilt - this time it's cancer.

Q: Mr. Specter, which of the succeeding presidents after Nixon is responsible for Jack Kemp's death?

A: Don't tell me, I already know - it's Bush.

238 [deleted]  Sun, May 3, 2009 12:27:35pm
239 rightymouse  Sun, May 3, 2009 12:29:22pm

re: #232 Sharmuta

People starting thinking it was the government's job to equalize results rather than make sure the system treated everyone equally.

And of course we can never equalize results. Nor should the government attempt to do so in the name of 'fairness'. Fairness is with equal opportunity based on ability, not a bunch of laws trying to level the playing field, which we all know doesn't work.

With social issues, the Fed should just stay the hell out of the way of the states.

240 American Sabra  Sun, May 3, 2009 12:29:33pm

In all sincerety, what is a social conservative? I thought I was one, but now I'm not so sure....

241 [deleted]  Sun, May 3, 2009 12:31:44pm
242 ladycatnip  Sun, May 3, 2009 12:32:14pm

#236 American Sabra

The far left has little to no influence on the Democratic party as a party. The far right absolutely does influence the Republican party, both monetarily and "spritually". Personally, I think hard right stands against abortion, against immigration, right to die issues, yes even creationism has made the right seem terribly out of touch with what the founding fathers envisioned for us.

What are you talking about? Ever heard of George Soros?

243 looking closely  Sun, May 3, 2009 12:33:08pm

re: #214 Charles

He's not a Democrat shill. He was being a sarcastic ass.

I believe you. . .I haven't read enough of his posts to draw that distinction (if there is one).

In either case, he was clearly being disingenuous. The only thing keeping us out of breadlines is the Obama spending monstrosity?

Curiously, I typed my "goodbye" post before reading your expulsion notice. . .seemed pretty clear this guy crossed the "line".

244 American Sabra  Sun, May 3, 2009 12:34:43pm

re: #242 ladycatnip

Well there are some on the far left but most Democrats are moderates or centrists. Soros and Pelosi are not that popular among Democrats either, although I'm not sure I would characterize Pelosi as far left.

245 Sharmuta  Sun, May 3, 2009 12:36:00pm

It is not the proper role of government to deal with issues of morality. This was shown by Prohibition. Moral people wanted to make us better, and stop public intoxication, so they banned alcohol for our own good. That obviously backfired. The proper place for morality issues in society is with the people. As an example- let's look at european speech laws vs. the American speech code.

In europe, governments banned certain types of speech to deal with anti-Semitism and neo-nazis. The problem is this doesn't address the root issue. But in America, we as a society decide what is and isn't acceptable in public speech. This is why neo-nazis are shunned and powerless. This is why racist, bigoted comments from people get them shunned- like entertainers going off the rails usually start losing the ability to work.

Now- I know the counter-argument would be "PC speech!", but that's not the point. It's not government enforced- it's societal evolution that we don't tolerate racist, bigoted speech. Because it is our realm, not government's, to deal with morality in society. Frankly- it's when government decided to involve itself with our morality that morality in this country took a turn for the worst.

246 Catttt  Sun, May 3, 2009 12:36:29pm

re: #237 ladycatnip

I just love it when the left tries to manipulate us with political guilt - this time it's cancer.

Q: Mr. Specter, which of the succeeding presidents after Nixon is responsible for Jack Kemp's death?

A: Don't tell me, I already know - it's Bush.

Condolences to Mr. Kemp's family and friends. As a cancer survivor, I agree with you. I'd come back and haunt anyone who tried to use me (should I pass away from cancer) as political fodder.

The two big things to remember:

Get tested for cancer - many can be spotted right away and stopped.
If a radiologist tells you it's PROBABLY just a blip or something, get a second opinion or biopsy. My doctor saved my life by telling me (he called me at home) to come in and talk to his partner, who was a surgeon. He recommended a biopsy, and I did have cancer.

247 [deleted]  Sun, May 3, 2009 12:36:58pm
248 rightymouse  Sun, May 3, 2009 12:37:15pm

re: #236 American Sabra

It's refreshing to see some conservatives here who support minority and women's rights, however, that is NOT the basis of the GOP. If minority and women's rights are your thing, you're a Democrat at least that's way it always was.

You need to brush up on your history. The Democratic party stood in the way of civil rights. Does the name George Wallace come to mind? Also, Dems tend to be vocally racist when someone darker than lily white is a Republican.

And as for women's rights, I don't see the Dem feminists very supportive of ALL women. In fact, they are either silent on issues like genital mutilation or vocally violent against women who aren't writing depressing/crappy poetry but have lives, husbands, families, etc. and aren't Democrat.

249 Liberal Classic  Sun, May 3, 2009 12:37:19pm

re: #236 American Sabra

The far left has little to no influence on the Democratic party as a party. The far right absolutely does influence the Republican party, both monetarily and "spritually".

I'm not sure I agree with this. I think the far left has as much influence on the Democratic Party as the far right has on the Republican party.

250 Eclectic Infidel  Sun, May 3, 2009 12:37:28pm

Good for him. I hope more moderate Republicans splinter away from the GOP. One of these days, the GOP will wake up and pull it's collective head out of its collective ass. It's 'leaders' may realize that paying lip service to less government & fiscal responsibility while hopping in bed with religous conservatives and other wing nuts will only further its demise. As for the "venom being spewed" (hat tip, Killgore) on this blog, well, this is exactly the problem with the GOP. Either tow the right-wing conservative line or be cast out, with a colourful variety of adjectives attached. This isn't good for business, folks.

251 ladycatnip  Sun, May 3, 2009 12:37:43pm

#244 American Sabra

Well there are some on the far left but most Democrats are moderates or centrists. Soros and Pelosi are not that popular among Democrats either, although I'm not sure I would characterize Pelosi as far left.

I totally disagree with you.

252 stuiec  Sun, May 3, 2009 12:37:47pm

re: #211 Charles

Let me know if you see any sign of that happening -- because I certainly don't. I hear the calls for purging social moderates and "RINOs" and anyone who doesn't toe the far right social con line getting louder and louder, and I see the GOP getting less tolerant, not more.

Ralph Reed is having trouble right now, it's true, but people like Perkins are more influential than ever in the GOP political scene -- for one thing, they're some of the primary backers of Bobby Jindal and other politicians being groomed for runs at the Presidency.

And most of the GOP state platforms across America take an extremely hard line in favor of social conservatism, promoting amendments to the Constitution to ban abortions and gay marriage, teach creationism in public schools, etc.

I'm really not the only person saying this, by the way. Some of the remaining sane Republicans are trying to talk the party down from the ledge too. I don't consider myself a Republican -- I'm an independent, and always will be, and I have a serious distaste for partisan politics -- but it disturbs me greatly to see one of the parties necessary to maintain our great American high wire act losing its balance.

At the same time, I hear calls for purging the party of "social cons" and anyone who thinks that rights of the unborn are a real concern -- or at least calls for them to sit down, shut up and vote for the party candidate regardless of his or her views. Social moderates who won't vote for a ticket with Sarah Palin on it are "principled," while social conservatives and even fiscal conservatives who won't vote for a ticket with John McCain on it are "fanatics."

As you've noted, the BNP is on the rise in the UK. One reason is that the UKIP was unfairly lumped in with the BNP and the National Front, so anyone who's a committed Euroskeptic and not a racist has no place but the BNP to represent the Euroskeptic part of his views. As we've seen, Arlen Specter has decided that it's better to associate with Democrats who include views he abhors in order to accommodate others of his principles (presumably including his re-election). So if the GOP expels the social conservatives, they won't just go away, they'll find alternative homes that at least accommodate their social conservative views even if they have to associate with other views they abhor.

As Olympia Snows says, ideological purity is not a good way to build a winning coalition. But the issue cuts both ways.

253 American Sabra  Sun, May 3, 2009 12:38:33pm

re: #247 taxfreekiller

Pelosi and Kerry are not "far left". Out of your list, only Kucinich is far left. But after looking at your comments over the last few months, there is no good Democrat but a dead Democrat so.....

254 [deleted]  Sun, May 3, 2009 12:39:50pm
255 American Sabra  Sun, May 3, 2009 12:40:56pm

re: #248 rightymouse

I was a Democrat until I changed to Independent and this is a total mischaracterization of Democrats. George Wallace is representive of Democrats? Are you nuts? So you have to go back 50+ years to find a representation of the Left that suits your misguided view? whatever.

256 Catttt  Sun, May 3, 2009 12:41:28pm

re: #253 American Sabra

Part one - I totally disagree.

Part two - that is totally untrue.

257 looking closely  Sun, May 3, 2009 12:41:29pm

re: #240 American Sabra

In all sincerety, what is a social conservative? I thought I was one, but now I'm not so sure....


I'm pretty sure I am NOT one. . .but with loosening of definitions, maybe I am.

My understanding is that social conservatives are individuals who believe the role of the State is to support traditional (ie religious) type values.

Specifically, they want to see legal support for traditional marriage and nuclear family, opposition to gay marriage, opposition to abortion and exploitation of fetuses (ie no fetal stem cell research), restriction of pornography, etc.

Extreme social conservatives might want to see legal restriction on certain sexual behaviors, public enforcement of Sabbath-like Blue laws, etc.

Usually in the USA the term "social conservatives" is a coded way of referring to the political believes of the so-called religious right (ie Conservative Christians), but in fairness many of the same issues could be supported by Orthodox Jews, devout Muslims, etc.

258 pink freud  Sun, May 3, 2009 12:41:31pm

re: #248 rightymouse

You need to brush up on your history. The Democratic party stood in the way of civil rights. Does the name George Wallace come to mind? Also, Dems tend to be vocally racist when someone darker than lily white is a Republican.

And as for women's rights, I don't see the Dem feminists very supportive of ALL women. In fact, they are either silent on issues like genital mutilation or vocally violent against women who aren't writing depressing/crappy poetry but have lives, husbands, families, etc. and aren't Democrat.

I find it astounding that so many on the left are completely unaware of these things!

259 American Sabra  Sun, May 3, 2009 12:43:10pm

The problem I can see here is that anyone who is a Democrat is far left, so I should have kept my mouth shut.

260 [deleted]  Sun, May 3, 2009 12:44:02pm
261 American Sabra  Sun, May 3, 2009 12:44:29pm

re: #257 looking closely

Ahh gotcha. Thank you!

(I'm not a social conservative lol)

262 bungie  Sun, May 3, 2009 12:45:30pm

re: #119 Joel

I agree that the GOP have moved too far right. But, I give no note to hearing that, or agreeing with that from a jerk like Spector.
If the GOP moved that far to the Right how come they gave us political weasels such as McCain and Dole (yes they were war heros) as their presidential candidates along with Bush father and son?

Nixon - no conservative
Ford - no conservtive
Reagan - conservative
GHW Bush - no conservative
Dole - no conservative (and the ultimate D.C. insider)
GW Bush - no conservative
McCain - no conservative.

It seems to me that people here are comparing apples (fiscal conservatism) to oranges (social conservatism.) The Republican Party certainly has not moved right in its fiscal policies and its spending (see list above.)

I think what needs to happen is the Republicans need to move right in their fiscal conservatism (smaller government, less spending, less pork, less taxes) and leave the rest alone. "Render unto Caesar what is Caesar's."

I am personally a social conservative, a member of the religious right, but I do not think you win elections this way, nor do I think religiosity belongs in the political discourse. To other religious conservatives I would ask, do ya think Jesus meant for that to happen? If so, why didn't he direct that we take on Caesar?

263 Catttt  Sun, May 3, 2009 12:46:28pm

re: #258 pink freud

I find it astounding that so many on the left are completely unaware of these things!

Going all the way back to the first Republican President - Abe Lincoln.

The answer, apparently, when you give facts about history, is "that is not relevant - it happened in the past!" What a lame argument.

264 Sharmuta  Sun, May 3, 2009 12:46:58pm

re: #262 bungie

It seems to me that people here are comparing apples (fiscal conservatism) to oranges (social conservatism.) The Republican Party certainly has not moved right in its fiscal policies and its spending (see list above.)

I think what needs to happen is the Republicans need to move right in their fiscal conservatism (smaller government, less spending, less pork, less taxes) and leave the rest alone. "Render unto Caesar what is Caesar's."

I am personally a social conservative, a member of the religious right, but I do not think you win elections this way, nor do I think religiosity belongs in the political discourse. To other religious conservatives I would ask, do ya think Jesus meant for that to happen? If so, why didn't he direct that we take on Caesar?

The party moved right on social issues and left on fiscal ones. That should be reversed in both cases.

265 Catttt  Sun, May 3, 2009 12:47:02pm

re: #259 American Sabra

The problem I can see here is that anyone who is a Democrat is far left, so I should have kept my mouth shut.

That's not true, and people here know it. I'm a Democrat.

266 American Sabra  Sun, May 3, 2009 12:47:02pm

re: #248 rightymouse

So like you read feminist.org on a daily basis eh? Go ahead and look. They are champions of women in depressed, third world countries fighting for their rights, including abuse and genital mutiliation. You have no clue what you are saying.

267 rightymouse  Sun, May 3, 2009 12:47:03pm

re: #255 American Sabra

I was a Democrat until I changed to Independent and this is a total mischaracterization of Democrats. George Wallace is representive of Democrats? Are you nuts? So you have to go back 50+ years to find a representation of the Left that suits your misguided view? whatever.

I left the Democrat party after 9/11 and no I don't have to back 50 years to find someone who 'fits' my view of how things are now. But you mentioned civil rights and George Wallace was in the center of all that at the time. And he was a Democrat.

People think that Democrats for 'for' people. They aren't. They are for keeping people as victims. All their rhetoric is about victimology. And that will not change because they would lose power once people actually left the victim plantations and got on with their lives instead of whining.

268 quickjustice  Sun, May 3, 2009 12:47:10pm

re: #255 American Sabra

George Wallace started his political career as a liberal, pro-civil rights Democrat activist. He switched when he realized that position wouldn't get him re-elected in Alabama. In that respect, he's a lot like Specter.

269 pink freud  Sun, May 3, 2009 12:47:55pm

re: #263 Catttt

Going all the way back to the first Republican President - Abe Lincoln.

The answer, apparently, when you give facts about history, is "that is not relevant - it happened in the past!" What a lame argument.

When I read your post up there I knew that would be his response. Yes, very predictable.

270 American Sabra  Sun, May 3, 2009 12:48:38pm

re: #265 Catttt

Why?

271 Sharmuta  Sun, May 3, 2009 12:48:45pm

The feminist movement was hijacked by marxists, and they don't give a rat's ass about the personal liberty of women anymore.

272 rightymouse  Sun, May 3, 2009 12:48:56pm

re: #258 pink freud

I find it astounding that so many on the left are completely unaware of these things!

If they ARE aware, they ignore the facts. Facts are just such annoying things.

273 Eclectic Infidel  Sun, May 3, 2009 12:48:58pm

re: #259 American Sabra

The problem I can see here is that anyone who is a Democrat is far left,

Ding ding ding ding! We have a winner.

so I should have kept my mouth shut.

Don't remain silent. Continue to post your views, regardless of how many conservatives throw tantrums and attack you online.

LGF is not an echo chamber.

274 Catttt  Sun, May 3, 2009 12:49:33pm

re: #270 American Sabra

Why?

Why what?

275 Sharmuta  Sun, May 3, 2009 12:50:13pm

re: #259 American Sabra

The problem I can see here is that anyone who is a Democrat is far left, so I should have kept my mouth shut.

No- there are people on the left that support the rule of law and believe in protecting the systemic process.

276 [deleted]  Sun, May 3, 2009 12:51:39pm
277 Salamantis  Sun, May 3, 2009 12:52:00pm

re: #2 Sharmuta

My biggest problem with the gop is the abandoning of its fiscal principles.

It is one of two big problems for me, the other one being the GOP's forced embrace of a regressive reactionary socon social agenda.

278 Liberal Classic  Sun, May 3, 2009 12:52:32pm

re: #250 eclectic infidel

Good for him. I hope more moderate Republicans splinter away from the GOP. One of these days, the GOP will wake up and pull it's collective head out of its collective ass. It's 'leaders' may realize that paying lip service to less government & fiscal responsibility while hopping in bed with religous conservatives and other wing nuts will only further its demise.

I don't get the sense Specter left the Republicans and joined the Democrats because the GOP is too weak on "less government and fiscal responsibility."

279 nyc redneck  Sun, May 3, 2009 12:52:56pm

i have no respect for arlen specter.
he wasn't even a rino.
he was a flat out lib. manipulative and devious.
like the rest of them.

280 pittrader1988  Sun, May 3, 2009 12:53:06pm

I cannot believe how classless, and compassionless Senator Spector is. Comparing government spending to Jack Kemp.

Who do I donate to in the Democratic Party of Pennsylvania to beat this guy.

281 American Sabra  Sun, May 3, 2009 12:53:06pm

re: #274 Catttt

Why are you a Democrat. What do you have in common with Democrats?

282 rightymouse  Sun, May 3, 2009 12:56:12pm

re: #266 American Sabra

So like you read feminist.org on a daily basis eh? Go ahead and look. They are champions of women in depressed, third world countries fighting for their rights, including abuse and genital mutiliation. You have no clue what you are saying.

Yes, I read feminist material. But not the types who think that someone like Alice Walker, for instance, is woman personified but not her daughter. Or those who think that Hillary Clinton is right up there to be championed, but not Sarah Palin.

283 Catttt  Sun, May 3, 2009 12:57:00pm

re: #281 American Sabra

Why are you a Democrat. What do you have in common with Democrats?

I've always been a Democrat, but I'm not a true Republican either. We are probably similar in that respect. I was going to go indie, but the guy at the MVA talked me into staying Dem, because indies can't vote in primaries here.

I'm actually a unique mix that fits neither party. Even on social issues, I'm not typical of either.

At any rate, I have found that stating my opinion and making it clear that iti s opinion lets me discuss things with people who don't agree. Attacking them right out of the gate doesn't get one far, and things devolve.

284 rightymouse  Sun, May 3, 2009 12:58:45pm

re: #271 Sharmuta

The feminist movement was hijacked by marxists, and they don't give a rat's ass about the personal liberty of women anymore.

You nailed that one! :)

285 American Sabra  Sun, May 3, 2009 12:59:52pm

re: #283 Catttt

I attacked? I stated an opinion and *I* was attacked! And that's not the first that's happened here.

286 rightymouse  Sun, May 3, 2009 1:00:32pm

Oh, brother....

287 American Sabra  Sun, May 3, 2009 1:01:54pm

re: #271 Sharmuta

The feminist movement was hijacked by marxists, and they don't give a rat's ass about the personal liberty of women anymore.

I don't really agree. I think they do. In a time, it was a bad thing to be a stay at home mother and inasmuch as hard core feminists frown upon that as a viable choice for some women (and it absolutely is and I respect it as much as anything else) I would agree with you, but I don't think those few really represent the women's movement. And I do think it's a few.

288 stuiec  Sun, May 3, 2009 1:05:22pm

re: #245 Sharmuta

It is not the proper role of government to deal with issues of morality. This was shown by Prohibition. Moral people wanted to make us better, and stop public intoxication, so they banned alcohol for our own good. That obviously backfired. The proper place for morality issues in society is with the people. As an example- let's look at european speech laws vs. the American speech code.

Your characterization is overbroad. Government's role is intimately tied to morality -- unless you think that there is a magic line between the criminal and moral aspects of murder, rape, theft, battery, incest and the like.

Moreover, positions of the Left advocating governmental action often seek to impose their version of morality. Leftists LOVE sin taxes, and they are aggressively increasing them (on tobacco and alcohol) and expanding their scope (to sugary soft drinks, for example).

Do you really believe that government and morality can be separated? And that it's improper for people to debate competing views of morality in the political sphere?

289 Catttt  Sun, May 3, 2009 1:05:35pm

re: #285 American Sabra

I attacked? I stated an opinion and *I* was attacked! And that's not the first that's happened here.

OK, here is an example. You just said this: You have no clue what you are saying.

That is an emotional, personal attack. Even if people are emotional or attack, you do not have to attack back - it brings you down to their level. Just restate your opinion or ignore them.

Also, you have a tendency to state opinions as fact, and people WILL call you on it here. Example: If minority and women's rights are your thing, you're a Democrat at least that's way it always was. That is easily refuted, because it is hyperbolic. Also, you give no examples or links to back up what you see as fact.

Just trying to be helpful. :D

290 looking closely  Sun, May 3, 2009 1:05:35pm

re: #271 Sharmuta

The feminist movement was hijacked by marxists, and they don't give a rat's ass about the personal liberty of women anymore.

It takes a certain kind of rabid dogmatism to believe that there are absolutely no differences whatever between men and women.

I think what might be termed the "mission creep" of modern feminism is probably at least in part because most of the movements original goals have been met.

American women have the vote (and have for decades), have held high political office (ie Secretaries of State, US Supreme Court), high positions in industry (eg the CEO of Kraft foods is currently a woman), and there has been a general shift in attitude amongst the American public, that the role of women is no longer just to sit home, produce, and take care of babies.

291 Salamantis  Sun, May 3, 2009 1:08:14pm

re: #164 Sharmuta

Are you being contrary for the sake of it, or what? Using sarcasm in excess can leave others with the idea they can't take anything you say at face value.

thom was being a moby.

292 [deleted]  Sun, May 3, 2009 1:11:24pm
293 funky chicken  Sun, May 3, 2009 1:11:37pm

re: #221 taxfreekiller

No tfk. that way the GOP can win elections to try to keep the dems from raiding your wallet.

Of course if you keep GOP people like Stevens, Lott, DeLay, and GW Bush around just because they are GOP, your wallet's getting raided by your own party.

Frankly, it bothers me less to get mistreated by the democrats than by the republicans. It's a psychological thing, I think. I expect to be treated poorly by the "enemy" but treated well by my "friends."

From my standpoint, there isn't a damn bit of difference between the two lately, except that the GOP will tell me that they "support the troops" and "defend marriage." As a military spouse I can tell you that GW Bush supported the troops rhetorically but not financially, and my marriage doesn't need defense from politiicans.

294 [deleted]  Sun, May 3, 2009 1:13:46pm
295 stuiec  Sun, May 3, 2009 1:15:10pm

re: #287 American Sabra

I don't really agree. I think they do. In a time, it was a bad thing to be a stay at home mother and inasmuch as hard core feminists frown upon that as a viable choice for some women (and it absolutely is and I respect it as much as anything else) I would agree with you, but I don't think those few really represent the women's movement. And I do think it's a few.

You might be interested in the book The Dark Side of the Left: Illiberal Egalitarianism in America. It points out how political movements that support the liberal values of equality and tolerance ironically are prone to evolve into rigidly intolerant cults in which dissent from the party line is impermissible, and the worst enemies are movement members who question or express disagreement with the strict precepts of the movement's ideology and program.

And yes, it discusses feminism.

296 funky chicken  Sun, May 3, 2009 1:15:22pm

re: #271 Sharmuta

The feminist movement was hijacked by marxists, and they don't give a rat's ass about the personal liberty of women anymore.

The feminist movement lost me when they started pronouncing that I, as a feminist, couldn't denounce FGM in Africa (didn't even know about the Muslim connection) because we western women have no right to disrespect the cultural practices of other cultures.

F*ck that. Evil is evil. Period. And if FGM isn't evil, well, nothing is.

297 rightymouse  Sun, May 3, 2009 1:17:46pm

re: #291 Salamantis

thom was being a moby.

Any idea WHY?

298 Sharmuta  Sun, May 3, 2009 1:20:59pm

re: #288 stuiec

Your characterization is overbroad. Government's role is intimately tied to morality -- unless you think that there is a magic line between the criminal and moral aspects of murder, rape, theft, battery, incest and the like.

No- it's not overboard. In those crimes, the rights of others are being infringed upon or denied. That is clearly a case where the government is right in passing laws to punish those who commit such crimes, and as a means of curbing said crimes.

299 Sharmuta  Sun, May 3, 2009 1:21:35pm

re: #297 rightymouse

Any idea WHY?

He didn't like having to reflect on what is wrong with the gop.

300 Simply Me  Sun, May 3, 2009 1:21:58pm

re: #163 Charles

I guess you think I don't see what you're doing here, or maybe you do, and you're doing it just to get in some digs. Well, you can find some other site to do it at. Bye now.

For anyone who isn't clear what Thom was up to: [Link: littlegreenfootballs.com...]

I still don't understand what Thom was doing. In the thread you linked, he was claiming to be a fervent Republican and anti-jihadist. Now on this current link, he is taking a strong left-wing position. So, what's up with that? I have no clue what the motivation would be. Is he just an argumentative person who like to role play?

301 Joel  Sun, May 3, 2009 1:22:37pm

re: #279 nyc redneck

Hi NYC Redneck

Yes Arlene Specter is a phony politic an who is a walking advertisement for term limits.

302 rightymouse  Sun, May 3, 2009 1:22:47pm

re: #296 funky chicken

The feminist movement lost me when they started pronouncing that I, as a feminist, couldn't denounce FGM in Africa (didn't even know about the Muslim connection) because we western women have no right to disrespect the cultural practices of other cultures.

F*ck that. Evil is evil. Period. And if FGM isn't evil, well, nothing is.


My sister and I had that discussion today. We also talked about multiculturalism and the ridiculous liberal notion that all cultures are equal. She laughed out loud on that one. We were both born and raised overseas, so it was something she has come to grips with in her path away from communist/socialist thought.

303 Sharmuta  Sun, May 3, 2009 1:24:45pm

re: #288 stuiec

Moreover, positions of the Left advocating governmental action often seek to impose their version of morality. Leftists LOVE sin taxes, and they are aggressively increasing them (on tobacco and alcohol) and expanding their scope (to sugary soft drinks, for example).

Read up-thread where I condemned both parties for doing this.

304 fighton  Sun, May 3, 2009 1:25:30pm

good riddance to old rubbish

305 FurryOldGuyJeans  Sun, May 3, 2009 1:28:07pm

re: #23 Killgore Trout

That Republicans have moved to the far right.

When the Dems and their light-speed flight to the ultra-far left are used as a comparison for the direction the GOP has gone, as is the case with Specter and his very calculated and venal political move, it is not a wonder the perception is to the right. Falling off a cliff does seem to make the rock wall move up just as fast.

306 rightymouse  Sun, May 3, 2009 1:28:39pm

re: #299 Sharmuta

He didn't like having to reflect on what is wrong with the gop.

Good grief. How come he couldn't put in his .02 cents on how to help make the party stronger?

I don't particularly care for GOP bashing when it's a generic/broad brush bashing or paranoid/disingenuous stuff, but I certainly can appreciate specific and relevant criticism that helps the party.

He seemed better than this. Oh, well.

307 funky chicken  Sun, May 3, 2009 1:29:45pm

re: #266 American Sabra

So like you read feminist.org on a daily basis eh? Go ahead and look. They are champions of women in depressed, third world countries fighting for their rights, including abuse and genital mutiliation. You have no clue what you are saying.

Nope. For every article you read, and every advocate against FGM, you will find multiple articles arguing the cultural relativism BS that we western "despoilers of the planet" have no standing to criticize the hideous treatment of women in "The South," by which they mean southern hemisphere 3rd world crapholes.

Ellie Smeals criticized the treatment of women in Afghanistan for years, until Bush sent the military in to topple the Taliban. Suddenly the plight of Afghani women took a back seat to being "anti-war."

It's all a BS leftist shell game.

And if Leo DiCaprio and the rest of his ilk gave a damn about "the planet" they wouldn't live in 30,000 square feet mansions with extensively, lushly landscaped grounds and huge swimming pools.

You can't see it because you prefer to wear the ear plugs, blindfold, and gag that keep you in the warm grasp of ideological ignorance. So be it....hopefully you will experience the epiphany that many others have had. I hope you will let the truth make you free, but I have to warn you that it is a jarring awakening.

It's worth it though.

308 Sharmuta  Sun, May 3, 2009 1:35:23pm

re: #306 rightymouse

Good grief. How come he couldn't put in his .02 cents on how to help make the party stronger?

I don't particularly care for GOP bashing when it's a generic/broad brush bashing or paranoid/disingenuous stuff, but I certainly can appreciate specific and relevant criticism that helps the party.

He seemed better than this. Oh, well.

Some people can't handle constructive criticism.

309 funky chicken  Sun, May 3, 2009 1:37:15pm

re: #295 stuiec

You might be interested in the book The Dark Side of the Left: Illiberal Egalitarianism in America. It points out how political movements that support the liberal values of equality and tolerance ironically are prone to evolve into rigidly intolerant cults in which dissent from the party line is impermissible, and the worst enemies are movement members who question or express disagreement with the strict precepts of the movement's ideology and program.

And yes, it discusses feminism.

You could write the same book about the hard right social/religious conservatives as well. Notice that they save their most venomous attacks for people like Christie Todd Whitman and Meghan McCain (who I believe is a dim bulb and would prefer she get out of the public sphere until she studies more important stuff than fashion and pop-culture). They take a special thrill in their RINO hunts and efforts to denounce and expel folks like pro-choicers and Log Cabin Republicans.

310 Earth56  Sun, May 3, 2009 1:38:37pm

re: #271 Sharmuta

The feminist movement was hijacked by marxists, and they don't give a rat's ass about the personal liberty of women anymore.

Exactly.....read Tammy Bruce

311 Simply Me  Sun, May 3, 2009 1:38:51pm

re: #197 erevu

Whenever I hear them say that the GOP has moved to the right, I never hear examples. The country has moved to the left far more than the GOP has gone anywhere. Can someone explain to me how the opinion that marriage should be limited to man/woman is now a right wing extremist view?

For example, in California last November, the majority of voters in an election with an historic turnout invigorated by a left wing candidate (Obama) still voted for Prop 9, affirming that marriage id defined to be between a man and a woman. I don't get how this can be spun as a right wing extremist view.

312 FurryOldGuyJeans  Sun, May 3, 2009 1:42:07pm

re: #183 Sharmuta

Additionally- I think we can maintain strong pro-life policies while dropping the call for a ban, such as improving adoption laws, and working to make contraception more affordable and reliable.

Banning and stigmatizing abortions, as was done before Roe v. Wade, had as much success in stopping them as Prohibition had in stopping drinking alcohol.

313 FurryOldGuyJeans  Sun, May 3, 2009 1:44:06pm

re: #299 Sharmuta

He didn't like having to reflect on what is wrong with the gop.

Especially since he was a contributing factor as to why.

314 Max Darkside  Sun, May 3, 2009 1:46:30pm

Specter is over simplifying and making excuses in a framework he thinks is "truth". The (R) party is in serious trouble and what many don't realize is that the (D) party is too. The "Left" does not realize that they are losing (D)'s quite fast as well and if unchecked, what both have lost will make both irrelevant.

You see, the "Left", "Centrist", "Right" model is rupturing. Tea parties were not made up of Republicans or Paulians. They were made up of what are now party-less voters from numerous parties; Democrat and Republican and Independent and Libertarian and... Yes, there were former Democrats there too.

The sand is running out from under the feet of both parties. Specter is jumping from one sinking ship to another.

315 rightymouse  Sun, May 3, 2009 1:46:59pm

re: #308 Sharmuta

Some people can't handle constructive criticism.

**sigh**

Not helpful when we really need to be looking for a winnable strategy at the RNC level. Moderate Rep = not good. Extreme Rep = not good.
Somewhere in between without all the socon distractions.

316 funky chicken  Sun, May 3, 2009 1:49:16pm

re: #209 countrygurl

YIKES! Wasn't trying to slander him! So okay, Romney's not a preacher. But you can't deny his Christian faith (although not main-stream) was a factor. Isn't he
anti-abortion and anti- gay marriage, and is it wrong to assume those ideas were tied to his religious beliefs?

One of my huge gripes against Romney was that he changed his stance on abortion and civil unions in 2005/2006 when he sought the GOP nominations. He had always been pro-choice (not personally but governmentally) and pro civil-unions (again, not personally but governmentally), so his switch was obviously opportunistic. He was the top choice of Karl Rove and the Bush family and many folks like KJ Lopez over that National Review, and I think they strongly advised him to become something he was not on those divisive social issues to appeal to their definition of "the base."

He took that advice, which lost him the nomination as soon as Huckabee entered the race. Huckabee locked up the abortion and homosexuality obsessed GOP voters, and since Romneys switch to social conservative was so obviously opportunistic he just couldn't compete with Huckabee for those voters.

And moderates couldn't trust Romney any more, because if he would abandon his social moderation like that, what else would he abandon?

Thank Karl Rove for Romney's loss.

317 Simply Me  Sun, May 3, 2009 1:50:06pm

re: #211 Charles

Let me know if you see any sign of that happening -- because I certainly don't. I hear the calls for purging social moderates and "RINOs" and anyone who doesn't toe the far right social con line getting louder and louder, and I see the GOP getting less tolerant, not more.

Ralph Reed is having trouble right now, it's true, but people like Perkins are more influential than ever in the GOP political scene -- for one thing, they're some of the primary backers of Bobby Jindal and other politicians being groomed for runs at the Presidency.

And most of the GOP state platforms across America take an extremely hard line in favor of social conservatism, promoting amendments to the Constitution to ban abortions and gay marriage, teach creationism in public schools, etc.


Gay marriage issue should be lumped in with abortion and creationism. The amendments supporting the traditional understanding of marriage did help the GOP candidates in the elections in 2004. The amendments passed and the GOP candidates won because the amendments brought out the voters.

The GLBT lobbyists want us to believe that supporting traditional marriage out of the mainstream, a far right position. But the numbers tell a different story.

318 Sharmuta  Sun, May 3, 2009 1:50:13pm

re: #315 rightymouse

**sigh**

Not helpful when we really need to be looking for a winnable strategy at the RNC level. Moderate Rep = not good. Extreme Rep = not good.
Somewhere in between without all the socon distractions.

I believe the fast majority of the electorate will be looking for fiscal responsibility in 2010 and 2012. The party that used to stand for that better figure it out, and it should likewise figure out that most of us want to be left alone.

319 Noam Chumpski  Sun, May 3, 2009 1:51:33pm

Specter never backs up this claim with specific examples.

John McCain was moving too far to the Right? ... seriously?

Specter has taken this track since his original statment where he announced that what was really important to him was winning his seat... again. Turns out, that position didn't poll well.

He'll make a terrific Democrat, but to use him as a some allegory to "reshape" the Party is pathetic and transparent.

320 dhg4  Sun, May 3, 2009 1:51:37pm

re: #10 Bubblehead II

Actually, that is just a weak and vapid excuse. While it may appear that the Republican party is shifting to the radical right, I think it is more the case that the fiscal conservatives are starting to wake up from their long sleep and starting to clean house and the FMSM is making sure everyone see the dirt that is being stirred up.

/ I can dream can't I?

Specter made the statement to deflect from his own selfishness. What's been pointed out is that despite his apostasies, the GOP was remarkably indulgent of Specter. Instapundit highlighted a couple of analysts who argue that the rightward shift of the GOP is largely a fiction.

321 rockdad  Sun, May 3, 2009 1:52:49pm

re: #245 Sharmuta
I disagree, I think George Washington and this passage of the Northwest Ordinance says it best.

Art. 3. Religion, morality, and knowledge, being necessary to good government and the happiness of mankind, schools and the means of education shall forever be encouraged.

So who has evolved here?

322 Salamantis  Sun, May 3, 2009 1:53:44pm

re: #34 Iron Fist

It is also the case that the Republicans haven't really lead on many issues. They let the Democrats define the issue and the media to frame the public debate on the issues. One example of this is the gay marriage debate. There is broad consensus against it, and both parties have essentially the same platform on it, but the Republicans let the Dems and media portray them as the ones who are radical and out of touch.

The Republicans won't fight back on any issue. That was one big reason the Democrats were able to win in 2006.

This is an interesting poll all the way around, and tells us about current opinions on many different issues:

Changing Views on Gay Marriage, Gun Control, Immigration and Legalizing Marijuana
ABC News-Washington Post Poll: 49 Percent Support Gay Marriage, New High

[Link: abcnews.go.com...]

[Link: abcnews.go.com...]

323 Noam Chumpski  Sun, May 3, 2009 1:56:05pm

re: #322 Salamantis

This is an interesting poll...

Only "poll" that matters is the one where people vote. Didn't even work in California.

324 Salamantis  Sun, May 3, 2009 1:57:04pm

re: #317 Simply Me

Gay marriage issue should be lumped in with abortion and creationism. The amendments supporting the traditional understanding of marriage did help the GOP candidates in the elections in 2004. The amendments passed and the GOP candidates won because the amendments brought out the voters.

The GLBT lobbyists want us to believe that supporting traditional marriage out of the mainstream, a far right position. But the numbers tell a different story.

Not any more, they don't:

[Link: abcnews.go.com...]

325 funky chicken  Sun, May 3, 2009 1:57:07pm

re: #317 Simply Me

Gay marriage issue should be lumped in with abortion and creationism. The amendments supporting the traditional understanding of marriage did help the GOP candidates in the elections in 2004. The amendments passed and the GOP candidates won because the amendments brought out the voters.

The GLBT lobbyists want us to believe that supporting traditional marriage out of the mainstream, a far right position. But the numbers tell a different story.

Sorry, but not on a national level it doesn't. States can vote on marriage all they like, but as soon as the national GOP asks for a federal amendment or federal ban, it hurts the party.

326 Noam Chumpski  Sun, May 3, 2009 2:01:03pm

re: #324 Salamantis

Not any more, they don't:

[Link: abcnews.go.com...]

Did you actually look at this poll?

They called 99 people. Wow.

Is that really what you think a good summary of the opinions of +320 million Americans is?

Jesus... don't give me polls.

327 rightymouse  Sun, May 3, 2009 2:03:39pm

re: #318 Sharmuta

I believe the fast majority of the electorate will be looking for fiscal responsibility in 2010 and 2012. The party that used to stand for that better figure it out, and it should likewise figure out that most of us want to be left alone.

Annnnnnnnnd...we need someone who can articulate the platform without sounding like a doofus with or without a teleprompter.

328 funky chicken  Sun, May 3, 2009 2:03:55pm

re: #314 Max Darkside


If the GOP insists upon embracing people like Carrie Prejean as their fresh, new face of "conservatism" the moderate democrats will stay home, no matter how uncomfortable they are with their weirdos. The media protects the democrat party by not giving the far left crazies much camera time or print coverage, so many moderate dems don't really know the extent of that kind of craziness or that they really do have a fair amount of power in the dem party.

329 Noam Chumpski  Sun, May 3, 2009 2:04:48pm

re: #326 Noam Chumpski

Did you actually look at this poll?

They called 99 people. Wow.

Is that really what you think a good summary of the opinions of +320 million Americans is?

Jesus... don't give me polls.

CORRECTION: 1,072 out of 320 million

And I apologize.

However, they admit that they "over-sampled" the African-American population as well. Why would ABC do that? Could it be that they needed to bump up some Democrat responders because the first poll didn't give them the results they wanted?

330 slterry40  Sun, May 3, 2009 2:04:56pm

Cancer is a horrible disease, and I have lost friends to it, but when did it become the Government's job to cure diseases? I read the constitution fairly regularly and I'm quite certain I have never read anything about the role of government including curing diseases.

331 Salamantis  Sun, May 3, 2009 2:05:38pm

re: #326 Noam Chumpski

Did you actually look at this poll?

They called 99 people. Wow.

Is that really what you think a good summary of the opinions of +320 million Americans is?

Jesus... don't give me polls.

METHODOLOGY This ABC News/Washington Post poll was conducted by telephone April 21-24, 2009, among a random national sample of 1,072 adults, including landline and cell-phone-only respondents and an oversample of African-Americans (weighted to their correct share of the national population). Results for the full sample have a 3-point error margin; click here for a detailed description of sampling error. Sampling, data collection and tabulation by TNS of Horsham, Pa.

332 Noam Chumpski  Sun, May 3, 2009 2:07:50pm

re: #331 Salamantis

METHODOLOGY This ABC News/Washington Post poll was conducted by telephone April 21-24, 2009, among a random national sample of 1,072 adults, including landline and cell-phone-only respondents and an oversample of African-Americans (weighted to their correct share of the national population). Results for the full sample have a 3-point error margin; click here for a detailed description of sampling error. Sampling, data collection and tabulation by TNS of Horsham, Pa.

See my post above. I will apologize again for writing 99, but...

3 pt margin or error? In an admitted over-sampled study? Try, 10 pt margin of error. Any time someone admits that they went ahead and pushed the poll to meet a certain over shoot to a particular group the poll is meaningless.

333 Salamantis  Sun, May 3, 2009 2:08:53pm

re: #329 Noam Chumpski

CORRECTION: 1,072 out of 320 million

And I apologize.

However, they admit that they "over-sampled" the African-American population as well. Why would ABC do that? Could it be that they needed to bump up some Democrat responders because the first poll didn't give them the results they wanted?

No, it means that they called around until they got enough black resp-ondents to equal their national population percentage.

This certainly didn't help increase the poll support for gay marriage, since blacks are more likely to be opposed to it than whites. In the Prop 8 vote in Cali, if only whites and asians were considered, gay marriage would have won; it was the black and hispanic vote that doomed it.

334 Sharmuta  Sun, May 3, 2009 2:10:19pm

re: #321 rockdad

Except that encourages education- not churches or morality, which the government can't establish churches anyways. There is no doubt the Founders saw religion and morality as important, but it doesn't change whose scope it belongs to. It belongs to the people.

Laws should reflect the culture, and in most cases they do. Law should not try to change the culture against the culture's will- it always backfires.

335 Sharmuta  Sun, May 3, 2009 2:10:53pm

re: #327 rightymouse

Annnnnnnnnd...we need someone who can articulate the platform without sounding like a doofus with or without a teleprompter.

Don't look at me, Sweetie. I'm not electable.

336 slterry40  Sun, May 3, 2009 2:11:24pm

re: #312 FurryOldGuyJeans

Banning and stigmatizing abortions, as was done before Roe v. Wade, had as much success in stopping them as Prohibition had in stopping drinking alcohol.

Well we have laws against Murder, yet they still occur, so I guess if a law doesn't end the behavior we should just drop it. And so begins the legalize murder movement! Obviously all laws are going to be violated, otherwise there would be no need for them! Just because it doesn't stop the behavior doesn't mean the behavior may not warrant punishment. The law is designed to be a deterrent, and it is completely impractical to argue that because a law is frequently broken, it shouldn't be a law. The question is what do we want to deter. I am in favor of legalizing marijuana, not because the law doesn't work, but because I think the government could spend its resources more effectively in other areas. If you want to argue that something should be legal, please have a better argument than the fact that the law is commonly violated.

337 Sharmuta  Sun, May 3, 2009 2:11:38pm

Everyone ought to go back and read The Federalist Papers.

338 jvic  Sun, May 3, 2009 2:12:53pm

This British op-ed begins with the Spector defection and moves on to the the Republicans' reaction to the last two elections. There are a number of zingers that made me wince even though I thought I'd discarded my illusions about the GOP. The last paragraph:

The opportunity for well-grounded and politically effective opposition is obvious. The Republican party is blind to it, and strives to worsen its own predicament. If Republicans want to be out of power for years, they are going the right way about it.
339 Salamantis  Sun, May 3, 2009 2:14:27pm

re: #336 slterry40

Well we have laws against Murder, yet they still occur, so I guess if a law doesn't end the behavior we should just drop it. And so begins the legalize murder movement! Obviously all laws are going to be violated, otherwise there would be no need for them! Just because it doesn't stop the behavior doesn't mean the behavior may not warrant punishment. The law is designed to be a deterrent, and it is completely impractical to argue that because a law is frequently broken, it shouldn't be a law. The question is what do we want to deter. I am in favor of legalizing marijuana, not because the law doesn't work, but because I think the government could spend its resources more effectively in other areas. If you want to argue that something should be legal, please have a better argument than the fact that the law is commonly violated.

Are you ready to execute abortion doctors and women obtaining abortions for murder? And are you willing to shackle 'at risk' women to beds until they give birth to prevent them from self-aborting?

340 rightymouse  Sun, May 3, 2009 2:15:53pm

re: #335 Sharmuta

Don't look at me, Sweetie. I'm not electable.

My hubby would be great but he ain't electable either. But we can certainly work at the local level which we're are taking baby-steps into.

341 stuiec  Sun, May 3, 2009 2:16:16pm

re: #298 Sharmuta

No- it's not overboard. In those crimes, the rights of others are being infringed upon or denied. That is clearly a case where the government is right in passing laws to punish those who commit such crimes, and as a means of curbing said crimes.

Hmm. The Government says that if I hunt down the man who raped and killed my daughter (hypothetically - my kids are all fine), then I am guilty of murder. Why? Am I not morally entitled to obtain justice for my child? How is it right that my right to avenge my child is illegal, the business of government?

Unless the government accepts that it will take on the moral burden of meting out justice so that it can maintain order and prevent rampant vendetta on the part of private citizens.

Do you really believe that the business of government is completely divorced from questions of morality?

342 jvic  Sun, May 3, 2009 2:17:24pm

re: #337 Sharmuta

Everyone ought to go back and read The Federalist Papers.

You're right of course, but time time time...

The first step is to find them.

343 Sharmuta  Sun, May 3, 2009 2:20:45pm

re: #341 stuiec

You have the right to allow the laws that already exist to get justice for your child. Vigilantes undermine the system by taking the law into their own hands. While we may be sympathetic, it still undermines the law.

And please, by all means- continue to miss my point.

344 Noam Chumpski  Sun, May 3, 2009 2:20:46pm

re: #335 Sharmuta

TNS (the polling company) also did a poll for ABC News on April 24th, 2009 using a similar number of respondents at 1,072.

In this poll they found that Barack Obama has a 69% approval rating.

That's a bit high. Averaging all of the 10 national polls together over the last 11-14 days totals 62.2%.

Does TNS seem conduct push poles that achieve liberal-slanted results? I have no idea. But they seem to be a little off the "mainstream" and this ABC poll doesn't seem credible when you compare the numbers to the other polling data that's been conducted.

Humble opinion.

345 Ward Cleaver  Sun, May 3, 2009 2:23:31pm

Specter is full of shit. His sole concern is getting reelected. He's forgotten that he's there to serve the people, rather than making a career of being in the Congress.

346 slterry40  Sun, May 3, 2009 2:23:33pm

re: #339 Salamantis

I actually wasn't making the "abortion is murder" argument, I was just making the argument that simply because a law is violated, doesn't mean it shouldn't be a law. (and drawing an anology to something that is universally illegal, murder)

To answer your question, no, I wouldn't support the death penalty for a doctor who performs an abortion, however I would not be opposed to some punishment, particularly losing your medical license, since I don't belive that it is the doctors role to prematurely end any life. I recognize that these are incredibly complicated questions though, and as a result are best left to state legislatures who can answer to their constituents. (and if the people belive it should be legal, so be it, although I don't necessarily agree that it should be in all situations)

347 Salamantis  Sun, May 3, 2009 2:29:51pm

re: #341 stuiec

Hmm. The Government says that if I hunt down the man who raped and killed my daughter (hypothetically - my kids are all fine), then I am guilty of murder. Why? Am I not morally entitled to obtain justice for my child? How is it right that my right to avenge my child is illegal, the business of government?

Unless the government accepts that it will take on the moral burden of meting out justice so that it can maintain order and prevent rampant vendetta on the part of private citizens.

Do you really believe that the business of government is completely divorced from questions of morality?

There was a movie about this called A Time To Kill that strongly suggested that the result of such a prosecution should you hunt down and kill your daughter's rapist/murderer would be jury nullification. But actually, we cannot have vigilante groups roving the countryside seeking vengeance for real or imagined offenses; that way lies a Hatfield/McCoy America.

Some actions - murder, rape, theft, kidnapping, enslavement - are most definitely crimes, in that they abrogate others' basic freedoms (life, liberty, property). Other actions (abortion, gay marriage, gambling, assisted suicide, pornography, prostitution, marijuana legalization) do not do such things when they obnly involve consenting adults. These are moral rather than criminal choices, and where moralities differ, the government should not dictate. Only in theocracies and totalitarianisms are all actions either mandated or forbidden; in a free and open society such as a constitutional democratic republic, where citizens are interested in maximizing personal freedoms, an array of choices must be available, including alternatives that we would not ourselves choose, and that we are not required to choose, but should not forbid others from choosing.

348 Noam Chumpski  Sun, May 3, 2009 2:30:54pm

re: #333 Salamantis

No, it means that they called around until they got enough black resp-ondents to equal their national population percentage.

This certainly didn't help increase the poll support for gay marriage, since blacks are more likely to be opposed to it than whites. In the Prop 8 vote in Cali, if only whites and asians were considered, gay marriage would have won; it was the black and hispanic vote that doomed it.

I have read nothing that supports what you have written.

Maybe you have a "poll" that will back this assertion up? :) (good natured ribbing here)

Calling around to find "more black people" does nothing to encourage my belief in TNS's ability to conduct an accurate poll. How many Indians did they call then? Mexicans? Italian-Americans? It's so irrelevant. :)

349 Salamantis  Sun, May 3, 2009 2:34:35pm

re: #346 slterry40

I actually wasn't making the "abortion is murder" argument, I was just making the argument that simply because a law is violated, doesn't mean it shouldn't be a law. (and drawing an anology to something that is universally illegal, murder)

To answer your question, no, I wouldn't support the death penalty for a doctor who performs an abortion, however I would not be opposed to some punishment, particularly losing your medical license, since I don't belive that it is the doctors role to prematurely end any life. I recognize that these are incredibly complicated questions though, and as a result are best left to state legislatures who can answer to their constituents. (and if the people belive it should be legal, so be it, although I don't necessarily agree that it should be in all situations)

I have already given my opinion on abortion before, but let me reiterate it.

Abortion during the first trimester should remain legal.

Abortion in cases of rape or incest should be allowed up until fetal viability (halfway through the second trimester).

Abortion should not be permitted after fetal viability, unless there is genuine and severe danger to the woman's life, or a drastic and serious health hazard (brain damage, paralysis, etc.).

350 Salamantis  Sun, May 3, 2009 2:38:03pm

re: #348 Noam Chumpski

I have read nothing that supports what you have written.

Maybe you have a "poll" that will back this assertion up? :) (good natured ribbing here)

Calling around to find "more black people" does nothing to encourage my belief in TNS's ability to conduct an accurate poll. How many Indians did they call then? Mexicans? Italian-Americans? It's so irrelevant. :)

It has been widely reported that the minorities that turned out in Cali to vote for Obama turned the tide on Prop 8; I'm quite sure you can Google it on your own...;~)

I find it ironic that the same people who embrace polls that agree with their stances are also the people who reject polls that disagree with their stances. I guess that's just human nature...heh

351 Noam Chumpski  Sun, May 3, 2009 2:40:47pm

Wait, that ABC poll is saying that 51% would like stricter gun laws, BUT

57% say stricter gun laws WILL NOT reduce crime, and
27% say we need new gun laws (61% oppose new laws)

That messed up.

And ABC is basically only reporting what they want the public to believe to be true, that 51% want stricter gun laws - even the vast majority want no new laws?

Of course, that assumes that this is accurate polling, which I do not think it is. :) (rib, rib)

352 LC LaWedgie  Sun, May 3, 2009 2:41:21pm

Tax problems, Arlo?

353 Noam Chumpski  Sun, May 3, 2009 2:41:26pm

re: #350 Salamantis

It has been widely reported that the minorities that turned out in Cali to vote for Obama turned the tide on Prop 8; I'm quite sure you can Google it on your own...;~)

I find it ironic that the same people who embrace polls that agree with their stances are also the people who reject polls that disagree with their stances. I guess that's just human nature...heh

Totally human nature.

Wait, I think I have a poll here that agrees with us...

:)

354 Noam Chumpski  Sun, May 3, 2009 2:45:00pm

re: #351 Noam Chumpski

27% say we need new gun laws (61% oppose new laws)

Let me clarify that one a little: 61% say that we should just enforce the laws we already have and not create new ones. This ABC poll is kind of messed up. It's sort of contradictory.

I don't like that they went with the gun control headline and ignored their other data though.

355 Salamantis  Sun, May 3, 2009 2:45:28pm

re: #351 Noam Chumpski

Wait, that ABC poll is saying that 51% would like stricter gun laws, BUT

57% say stricter gun laws WILL NOT reduce crime, and
27% say we need new gun laws (61% oppose new laws)

That messed up.

And ABC is basically only reporting what they want the public to believe to be true, that 51% want stricter gun laws - even the vast majority want no new laws?

Of course, that assumes that this is accurate polling, which I do not think it is. :) (rib, rib)

Was the gun show loophole ever closed? The one that allowed people to circumvent background check requirements?

That's the only not-already-passed restriction of which I would have approved. I don't want there to be any way for the convicted violent felon or the certified incompetent or insane to just walk in off the street and buy a Glock, no questions asked. Their having guns does NOT render me safer.

356 Simply Me  Sun, May 3, 2009 2:46:37pm

re: #333 Salamantis

In the Prop 8 vote in Cali, if only whites and asians were considered, gay marriage would have won; it was the black and hispanic vote that doomed it.


Hi Salamantis,

Actually, I don't think we can know this. It is generally agreed that the exit polls were not accurate. I think that the more educated knew that it was career suicide to express their true opinions on the issue if their true opinions were for Prop 8 and traditional marriage. So we may have a situation where only the less educated (i.e. not exposed to PC at college) gave their true opinions.

Maybe because you are not in California you are not aware of the GLBT rampage against those who donated money to support Prop 8. But just look at the public trashing of Carrie Prejean. I certainly wouldn't risk answering a phone poll with my true opinion.

The GLBT activists call Prop 8 PropHate. But the Hate is coming from the GLBT activists. It is scary.

357 funky chicken  Sun, May 3, 2009 2:47:36pm

re: #252 stuiec

At the same time, I hear calls for purging the party of "social cons" and anyone who thinks that rights of the unborn are a real concern -- or at least calls for them to sit down, shut up and vote for the party candidate regardless of his or her views. Social moderates who won't vote for a ticket with Sarah Palin on it are "principled," while social conservatives and even fiscal conservatives who won't vote for a ticket with John McCain on it are "fanatics."

1. Show me where anybody here at LGF cheered for Noonan, Brooks, or Parker when they were writing that ignorant, bigoted crap.

2. Fiscal conservatives who wouldn't vote for McCain were IDIOTS since he's one of the most fiscally conservative members of the US Senate, and fiscal responsibility has been his hallmark issue his entire career.

3. Socal conservatives who refused to vote for McCain were likewise IDIOTS because he has a 100% anti-abortion voting record over his 27 year legislative career. Anybody (like Michelle Malkin) who has made a career out of screaming about abortion who couldn't recognize that McCain was superior to Obama on one of her top issues is not someone who will ever be a reliable member of a ruling coalition.

358 Obsidiandog  Sun, May 3, 2009 2:50:42pm

re: #161 Bloodnok

So they're a little slow. It isn't easy to unseat an entrenched incumbent. Bush put a lot of pressure on the state party on Specter's behalf last time, probably thinking he needed his help for SCOTUS nominees. Or maybe they thought "he's an sob but he's our sob". It's not like he didn't have challenges, even in the GOP.Maybe his vote for the Porkulus Bill was just too much....the proverbial straw.

359 Salamantis  Sun, May 3, 2009 2:53:32pm

re: #356 Simply Me

Hi Salamantis,

Actually, I don't think we can know this. It is generally agreed that the exit polls were not accurate. I think that the more educated knew that it was career suicide to express their true opinions on the issue if their true opinions were for Prop 8 and traditional marriage. So we may have a situation where only the less educated (i.e. not exposed to PC at college) gave their true opinions.

Maybe because you are not in California you are not aware of the GLBT rampage against those who donated money to support Prop 8. But just look at the public trashing of Carrie Prejean. I certainly wouldn't risk answering a phone poll with my true opinion.

The GLBT activists call Prop 8 PropHate. But the Hate is coming from the GLBT activists. It is scary.

If exit polls are anonymous, where's the danger in expressing one's true opinion on the matter?

360 Noam Chumpski  Sun, May 3, 2009 2:56:09pm

re: #355 Salamantis

Was the gun show loophole ever closed? The one that allowed people to circumvent background check requirements?

That's the only not-already-passed restriction of which I would have approved. I don't want there to be any way for the convicted violent felon or the certified incompetent or insane to just walk in off the street and buy a Glock, no questions asked. Their having guns does NOT render me safer.

The problem is that passage of that will, in the end, make it difficult for me to sell a gun to my brother.

I would have to have a background check done on him first ($$) and then only sell it through a Federally-approved dealer (more $$).

The gun show "loop hole" isn't really a loop hole but "closing" it will open the door for some really intrusive new gun laws against the average citizen.

Passage would remove liberties from Americans and it will implement unreasonable restrictions on the sale of firearms among Americans who should have a right to sell their shotgun to their law-abiding neighbor without the Government being involved.

I can only recommend that you go to a gun show (if you haven't lately) and see what's going on. It's not really what you may believe. Most of the vendors already have brick-and-mortar stores and are doing background checks anyway.

It's the guys selling the Ruger from 1938 (that no longer shoots) that would get the butt of this law. And me, at home. :)

Besides, a criminal will get his pistol off the street much cheaper and with less hassle.

361 Noam Chumpski  Sun, May 3, 2009 2:57:16pm

re: #359 Salamantis

If exit polls are anonymous, where's the danger in expressing one's true opinion on the matter?

You're standing next to your "oh-so-enlightened" co-workers, neighbors, or friends and you don't want the hassle. :)

362 Sharmuta  Sun, May 3, 2009 2:57:25pm

Sal.... you're missing an ID thread.......

363 JarHeadLifer  Sun, May 3, 2009 2:58:59pm

re: #17 Killgore Trout

I think the venom directed at Specter proves his point.

Ridiculous. Specter faced a choice, to vote with the Dems or vote with the VAST majority of Republicans, including those that are profoundly centrist. He chose the Dems. He can hardly be surprised when voting against his party in the seminal issue of this legislative period, that he'd be subject to well deserved "venom".

Specter is a political opportunist perhaps without equal in the modern day.

364 funky chicken  Sun, May 3, 2009 3:02:45pm

re: #363 JarHeadLifer

honestly? I think Specter's just an asshole. always has been and always will be. the dems are welcome to him.

365 rockdad  Sun, May 3, 2009 3:05:54pm

re: #334 Sharmuta

--Except now the government controls the schools, as opposed to then. So that has been taken away.

--I don't get it, laws reflect the culture? So we have a living Constitution?
And in a multicultural society such as ours, this is even more difficult.
For me this is more reason to stay close the original intent of the founding fathers.

"If the "laws of nature and of nature's God" are the source of our rights, then public recognition of God, religion and morality is in the service of the rights of all men, including atheists. If the purpose of government is to "secure these rights," then promotion of such recognition is the duty of government."
I find no fault with this interpretation of the First Amendment. I also know some here may disagree. For some it's all or nothing, clearly to me they saw a middle ground.

366 Simply Me  Sun, May 3, 2009 3:08:34pm

re: #359 Salamantis

If exit polls are anonymous, where's the danger in expressing one's true opinion on the matter?

I think what happens is that there is a bias in who agrees to answer the exit poll. The people who are eager to share their opinions answer the poll. The people who know their opinions are not socially acceptable, not PC, are not eager to share their opinions. They just walk on.

What is the danger? For example, the horrible images of angry gays and lesbians shouting outside the Coyote restaurant might be triggered. Or the ugly image of that guy Perez Hilton calling Carrie Prejean a dumb bitch. That is now lurking in so many peoples's minds.

Watch this video and listen to the crowd harassing the people eating at the Coyote restaurant.


367 Sharmuta  Sun, May 3, 2009 3:10:33pm

re: #365 rockdad

Yes- laws reflect the culture. If a culture values freedom of conscience, like ours does, then you would find the laws reflect that- and thus they do as the First Amendment demonstrates.

368 Liberal Classic  Sun, May 3, 2009 3:11:57pm

re: #360 Noam Chumpski

The gun show "loop hole" isn't really a loop hole but "closing" it will open the door for some really intrusive new gun laws against the average citizen.

I've always been suspicious of talk about "closing the gun show loophole". This has always implied to me an end to private sales.

369 blastforth  Sun, May 3, 2009 3:18:08pm

Specter is nothing but a floor-crossing bugbear.

370 stuiec  Sun, May 3, 2009 3:28:09pm

re: #343 Sharmuta

You have the right to allow the laws that already exist to get justice for your child. Vigilantes undermine the system by taking the law into their own hands. While we may be sympathetic, it still undermines the law.

And please, by all means- continue to miss my point.

The law says it will take on the mantle of morality in matters of justice.

If a man rapes but doesn't kill my daughter, the state in fact says that it is morally wrong to kill that man. The Supreme Court said so, when it outlawed the death penalty except in cases of murder or treason.

If a teenage boy rapes and murders my daughter, the state says that it is morally wrong to kill him. The Supreme Court said so, when it outlawed the death penalty for those who commit murder as minors.

There is no morally-neutral societal purpose to exempting minors and "mere" rapists from the death penalty. For most of American history, those classes of criminals were subject to the death penalty in many places. But the state injected a particular sense of morality to create those exemptions.

Feel free to continue avoiding my question.

371 Sharmuta  Sun, May 3, 2009 3:29:29pm

re: #370 stuiec

I'll do one better and ignore you.

372 Afton  Sun, May 3, 2009 3:38:47pm

late to this one -

thinking that Specter saying the GOP has moved to far to the right is kind of like Barbara Walters saying Rosie was let go because she had become too mainstream.

373 Wendya  Sun, May 3, 2009 3:43:15pm

re: #23 Killgore Trout

That Republicans have moved to the far right.

Good grief! How long have you been following politics?

The Republicans have been steadily moving to the left over the last decade.

374 MacDuff  Sun, May 3, 2009 4:11:07pm

Sorry if I reiterate or repeat any thing that's already been expressed, but, admittedly, I haven't read the entirety of the thread.

Specter is a pompous ass who has changed parties whenever it satisfied his means. He's neither a Republican or a Democrat; he's a chameleon who changes his skin to suit the situation. He's not a man of principle, nor is he an intellectual or a man of the people; he's a man unto himself and that's all that matters to him.

Good riddance, Arlen.

375 gnargtharst  Sun, May 3, 2009 4:36:48pm

I'll consider voting for the Republicans again when they: 1. Read and commit to upholding the first amendment. i.e., get their whacky religious ideas out of politics; 2. drastically cut non-military spending (and taxes); 3. Consistently and aggresively fight threats to our freedom (starting preferably with Iran).

I don't know in what sense Specter, or Charles for that matter, uses the term "right" and "left" here -- as far as I can tell they are being used as vague floating abstractions -- but if, by "right", Specter means "pro-capitalism", then he couldn't be more wrong. The Republicans have adopted the worst of both worlds, courting freaky fundamentalists on social policy, and me-too-ing leftists on adopting socialism and jettisoning individual rights. Compassionate GWB outspent Jimmy Carter, for Pete's sake. And offered up John McCain vs. Obama. Pathetic. Karma's kicked the right wing's ass.

376 Bill Dalasio  Sun, May 3, 2009 4:42:18pm
There’s the factor of principle. The Republican Party has gone far to the right since I joined it under Reagan’s big tent. ...

Of course, the problem is that Sen. Specter was not exactly a Reaganite in good standing when Ronald Reagan was in office, as this article shows in no small part.

377 kynna  Sun, May 3, 2009 4:46:43pm

The GOP has moved too far LEFT in every area except social. So the only thing that delineates them from Democrats is a bunch of hot-button, emotional issues.

Go back to the core principles of small government and free enterprise and they might actually recreate some cohesion in the party.

378 thatemailname  Sun, May 3, 2009 4:52:06pm

Specter is sounding like John Kerry during the '04 campaign. "If Bush hadn't banned stem cell research, Superman would be alive today!"

379 Noam Chumpski  Sun, May 3, 2009 4:57:32pm

re: #322 Salamantis

This is an interesting poll all the way around, and tells us about current opinions on many different issues:

Changing Views on Gay Marriage, Gun Control, Immigration and Legalizing Marijuana
ABC News-Washington Post Poll: 49 Percent Support Gay Marriage, New High

[Link: abcnews.go.com...]

[Link: abcnews.go.com...]

Man, I tell you - polls are like a$$holes...

This one from this past Thursday (done by the Pew Research Survey which is more reputable than TNS/ABC polls) reports that support for curbing abortion and encouraging individual gun rights is at an all-time high.

Totally contradicting aspects of the ABC News poll from late April that is referenced above.

Of course, the ABC poll contradicts itself when you dig down into the buried data on gun control when they say that support for gun control is at an all-time high, but as you read on you find that respondents do not believe that gun laws curb violence and that a vast majority said that they only want current laws enforced and no new gun laws.

ABC News, regardless, only took the first question and declared it to be "proof" of a "major shift" in America's views on gun control, &c.

The only good this poll does is to prove ABC News's bias by what they reported and what they left out.

It's disingenuous.

So I can only imagine that their data on gay marriage support and everything else in the poll is suspect.

As a kind of back-up, I also referenced a separate poll by ABC News done by TNS in late April on Obama's approval rating that is above normal when compared to the other 10 major polls conducted over the past 14 days (69% for TNS vs 62% as the avg of the other ten).

Polls suck.

380 Noam Chumpski  Sun, May 3, 2009 5:01:52pm

Oops. Pew poll linky: [Link: pewresearch.org...]

381 LeonidasOfSparta  Sun, May 3, 2009 6:34:13pm

#57 you said everything I was thinking.
On a funnier note, some of you probably listen to Mark Levin and realize how he LOVES giving funny names to various people. On Friday he had a caller who suggested to Mark that he call Benedict Arlen-- "Arlen Sphincter."

LOLOL

382 wiffersnapper  Sun, May 3, 2009 6:47:00pm

Wish I had stuck around for this whole Thom convo. What a hilarious read!

383 FrogMarch  Sun, May 3, 2009 7:34:49pm

The only reason Secter quit the R's in favor of the D's is for Specter.
Specter was dying in the polls so he switched to save his neck.
He changed for one simple reason: to maintain his senate seat (for life).
any other reason he gives is bullshit.

384 funky chicken  Sun, May 3, 2009 7:38:25pm

re: #375 gnargtharst

I'll consider voting for the Republicans again when they: 1. Read and commit to upholding the first amendment. i.e., get their whacky religious ideas out of politics; 2. drastically cut non-military spending (and taxes); 3. Consistently and aggresively fight threats to our freedom (starting preferably with Iran).

All of which McCain was for, by the way. But the GOP message bearers like Limbaugh hate the guy and love GW Bush, so they wouldn't help get that message out. And if McCain breathed a word of criticism for Bush, the usual suspects like Laura Ingraham and Limbaugh howled in rage, as did lots of other "conservatives."

385 FrogMarch  Sun, May 3, 2009 7:38:52pm

re: #18 doppelganglander

Arlen Specter's only core principle is the advancement of Arlen Specter.

ding. we have a winner.

386 FrogMarch  Sun, May 3, 2009 7:42:48pm

the whole stem cell research is such a straw man argument. Anyone can research all they want - with private funds. The Dems just want tax payer funded stem cell research.

387 Sosigado  Sun, May 3, 2009 8:42:43pm
Asked his core principles, the first two Specter listed were “freedom, a woman’s right to choose.”

Those are his core principles? Good riddance.

388 Dirty Patriot  Sun, May 3, 2009 9:12:40pm

Both of your nuts will be "far to the right" when you jerk your tool to left too much.

What an asshat.

389 cosmo  Sun, May 3, 2009 9:20:23pm

Arlen Specter (Latin: Arlen Speculum) is nothing more than a political lifer. He knows Toomey would beat him up, take his lunch money, buy lunch with that money, eat the lunch and then beat him up again in a primary election, so he switches horses (figuratively, since his votes belie a switch years ago).

I can't wait to see Toomey kick his arse in 2010. I'm this close to moving to PA in time to register so I can vote against him. (What the heck, it worked for the Obama whores in Ohio, right?)

390 Former Belgian  Sun, May 3, 2009 9:27:22pm

re: #130 Izzy Dunne

The Republican Party has gone far to the right since I joined it under Reagan’s big tent.

From Wikipedia:
A Democrat in his youth, Specter joined the Republicans in 1966;

Did Reagan have that big a tent in 1966?

Howler of the day! Specter (sadly, a member of my tribe) is yet another card-carrying member of "Amnesia International" ;-)

391 Former Belgian  Sun, May 3, 2009 9:29:31pm

re: #386 FrogMarch

the whole stem cell research is such a straw man argument. Anyone can research all they want - with private funds. The Dems just want tax payer funded stem cell research.

They want tax-payer funded embryonic stem-cell research. Adult stem cell research (where essentially all of the advances have come from so far) is not even controversial.

392 gnargtharst  Mon, May 4, 2009 4:14:58am

re: #384 funky chicken

I'd give McCain half credit for one of those -- strong military (half credit, because I've heard Conservatives from Reagan forward give lip service to defense, and yet there's Iran, still workin' on the bomb...). As far as First Amendment? -- McCain is the author of the Campaign Finance law which is the largest affront to free speech I've seen in my life. And cutting spending? Please.

393 trillion  Mon, May 4, 2009 5:28:56am

I think it odd that as the left keeps moving farther to the left, everyone thinks the right is moving to the right and not holding its ground instead.

394 Sceptic Tank  Mon, May 4, 2009 6:09:20am

McCain is the Alf Landon of today and has just as much credibility. And so too, the nouveau Republicrats.

395 Pupdawg  Mon, May 4, 2009 8:35:12am

Arlen Specter has been, is and forever will be an idiot. He was never on the GOP boat that landed at Plymouth Rock anyway and the new crying, moaning and groaning with gnashed teeth 'Plymouth Rock landed on me' crap is exaclty that...crap! Specter is an idiot and I hope he is duly blasted in defeat by Dems next election.

396 Picayune  Mon, May 4, 2009 9:11:50am

re: #18 doppelganglander

Arlen Specter's only core principle is the advancement of Arlen Specter.


Absolutely! As he said on national TV : "I am entitled!" He's Delusional!

This POS is the poster boy for Term Limits - at the ballot box. Hope he enjoys the view from underneath Obama's bus, he'll be there soon enough - good riddance to this author of the "magic bullet" theory. Throw out the RINOS and raise the fiscal responsibility flag to the top of the Repub pole.

397 Longacre  Mon, May 4, 2009 8:21:01pm

Um, right. Because we all know that GW Bush governed far to the right of "Reagan’s big tent." And, I'm curious to know more details about how the lack of cancer research that failed Mr. Kemp still succeeded in "prolonging" Specter's own life?

And then this: “freedom, a woman’s right to choose.”?!? ROFL! OK, well only if "freedom" is defined *solely* as "a woman’s right to choose.” Because Specter cares not one whit for any other freedom. Not for school choice, not for the freedom implicit in lower taxes, etc. Nope, in Specter's world, there is no freedom save that "granted" and funded by the government.

Sorry, if this is supposed to support the idea that the Republican party is swerving to the right, I'm not buying it.

398 Salamantis  Tue, May 5, 2009 2:02:50am

re: #368 Liberal Classic

I've always been suspicious of talk about "closing the gun show loophole". This has always implied to me an end to private sales.

Only if all private sales take place in auditoriums along with a whole bunch of other sellers, with unvetted prospective buyers flocking through the doors.

399 Salamantis  Tue, May 5, 2009 2:08:56am

re: #370 stuiec

The law says it will take on the mantle of morality in matters of justice.

If a man rapes but doesn't kill my daughter, the state in fact says that it is morally wrong to kill that man. The Supreme Court said so, when it outlawed the death penalty except in cases of murder or treason.

If a teenage boy rapes and murders my daughter, the state says that it is morally wrong to kill him. The Supreme Court said so, when it outlawed the death penalty for those who commit murder as minors.

There is no morally-neutral societal purpose to exempting minors and "mere" rapists from the death penalty. For most of American history, those classes of criminals were subject to the death penalty in many places. But the state injected a particular sense of morality to create those exemptions.

Feel free to continue avoiding my question.

Follow this line of thought to a more uncomfortable conclusion, then.

Those who would outlaw abortion even in cases of rape would empower obsessive stalkers with the ability to ensure a genetic connection with their victims, providing they haunt the trash in order to ascertain their fertile period. Their own lives might matter less to them than this enduring connection.

And if their own lives are not forfeit, what's to prevent them from subsequently suing for parental rights?

400 Salamantis  Tue, May 5, 2009 2:11:05am

re: #373 Wendya

Good grief! How long have you been following politics?

The Republicans have been steadily moving to the left over the last decade.

But the rate at which they have moved has been much slower than that of the society at large. And they are paying the price for this expanding gap at the polls.

401 Salamantis  Tue, May 5, 2009 2:15:05am

re: #386 FrogMarch

the whole stem cell research is such a straw man argument. Anyone can research all they want - with private funds. The Dems just want tax payer funded stem cell research.

They want tax payer funded stem cell research expanded beyond the constraints of Dubya's few annointed lines.

402 Salamantis  Tue, May 5, 2009 2:16:21am

re: #387 Sosigado

Those are his core principles? Good riddance.

Yeah; let's be against freedom and a women's right to choose, and see how far that gets us...

403 Salamantis  Tue, May 5, 2009 2:18:12am

re: #393 trillion

I think it odd that as the left keeps moving farther to the left, everyone thinks the right is moving to the right and not holding its ground instead.

Failing to change along with society IS the right's electoral problem.

404 stuiec  Tue, May 5, 2009 10:32:43am

re: #399 Salamantis

Follow this line of thought to a more uncomfortable conclusion, then.

Those who would outlaw abortion even in cases of rape would empower obsessive stalkers with the ability to ensure a genetic connection with their victims, providing they haunt the trash in order to ascertain their fertile period. Their own lives might matter less to them than this enduring connection.

And if their own lives are not forfeit, what's to prevent them from subsequently suing for parental rights?

First, why not simply pass a law saying that a rapist has no parental rights over any child conceived by rape? The principle is simple: the father has already proven that he is abusive to the mother beyond any bounds of acceptable behavior, so he's forfeited his right to be involved in the familial relationships he's created.

Second, do you think that a person who thinks that way isn't going to roll the dice and hope that his victim won't have an abortion? That an obsessive stalker needs the birth of a child to prove that he has an indelible connection to his rape victim -- as if being stuck in her thoughts and fears for the rest of her life isn't enough? Or are you advocating mandatory abortion for rape victims, to prevent the possibility of the rapist suing for parental rights?

Third, you yourself advocate that past the midpoint of the second trimester, the rape victim be prohibited from aborting the monstrous product of the crime. Why is it that at 19 weeks, the fetus is abhorrent, but at 21 weeks, it has human rights?

Fourth, how is it therapeutic to tell a rape victim that killing her unborn child is a step to recovering from her ordeal? It seems that it might be rather upsetting to tell a woman who's been violated that the best way to move on is to kill her own baby. Maybe it's a superior idea to help her see that giving another person life is a form of revenge against the evil of the rapist's crime.

Cases make bad law.

405 Salamantis  Tue, May 5, 2009 2:34:25pm

re: #404 stuiec

First, why not simply pass a law saying that a rapist has no parental rights over any child conceived by rape? The principle is simple: the father has already proven that he is abusive to the mother beyond any bounds of acceptable behavior, so he's forfeited his right to be involved in the familial relationships he's created.

This is a law the passage of which I would heartily approve.

Second, do you think that a person who thinks that way isn't going to roll the dice and hope that his victim won't have an abortion? That an obsessive stalker needs the birth of a child to prove that he has an indelible connection to his rape victim -- as if being stuck in her thoughts and fears for the rest of her life isn't enough? Or are you advocating mandatory abortion for rape victims, to prevent the possibility of the rapist suing for parental rights?

I'm advocating preserving the option to choose abortion for raped women, up until fetal viability. And yes, I think indelible blood connections matter more to many obsessed stalker types than merely engendering fear. It makes the object of fascination and fixation into family against her will.

Third, you yourself advocate that past the midpoint of the second trimester, the rape victim be prohibited from aborting the monstrous product of the crime. Why is it that at 19 weeks, the fetus is abhorrent, but at 21 weeks, it has human rights?

Once the fetus is viable, we are arguably speaking of another human being, that can survive independent of a particular caregiver.

Fourth, how is it therapeutic to tell a rape victim that killing her unborn child is a step to recovering from her ordeal? It seems that it might be rather upsetting to tell a woman who's been violated that the best way to move on is to kill her own baby. Maybe it's a superior idea to help her see that giving another person life is a form of revenge against the evil of the rapist's crime.

Cases make bad law.

Have you considered that maybe she would be horrified at the prospect of the rapist's brutally sown seed growing inside her like a malignant tumor, and would view the entire pregnany as nine months of unremitting rape? You have no more right to tell her what she should think about a rape-induced pregnancy than do I.

406 stuiec  Tue, May 5, 2009 5:27:15pm

re: #405 Salamantis

Have you considered that maybe she would be horrified at the prospect of the rapist's brutally sown seed growing inside her like a malignant tumor, and would view the entire pregnany as nine months of unremitting rape? You have no more right to tell her what she should think about a rape-induced pregnancy than do I.


I think that someone who creates the idea of equivalency between her own child and a malignant tumor could benefit from compassionate therapy to come to see that the act of rape was a discrete act of violence and horror, and that the fetus inside her was not morally tainted by that act. I think that someone who had that kind of ideation and who didn't get that kind of therapy, but who missed the magic 20-week cutoff point, might even decide to murder her own baby AFTER it was born -- because no one helped her to see that the crime of the father are not visited onto the child.

But maybe you're right, maybe the children conceived in rape are horrible monstrosities who should be -- I don't know -- exiled to an island somewhere? (I mean, the ones who aren't prophylactically annihilated.) That way, their status as abominations won't affect the rest of us.


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: 2023-04-04 11:11 am PDT
LGF User's Guide RSS Feeds

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
Cash.app
Recent PagesClick to refresh
Why Did More Than 1,000 People Die After Police Subdued Them With Force That Isn’t Meant to Kill? An investigation led by The Associated Press has found that, over a decade, more than 1,000 people died after police subdued them through physical holds, stun guns, body blows and other force not intended to be lethal. More: Why ...
Cheechako
Yesterday
Views: 46 • Comments: 0 • Rating: 0
A Closer Look at the Eastman State Bar DecisionTaking a few minutes away from work things to read through the Eastman decision. As I'm sure many of you know, Eastman was my law school con law professor. I knew him pretty well because I was also running in ...
KGxvi
Yesterday
Views: 99 • Comments: 1 • Rating: 1