Pennsylvania Sen. Arlen Specter will switch from the Republican to the Democratic Party, multiple sources tell CNN.

CHANGE YOU CAN BELIEVE IN

If you can't beat them...

:emo kid:

He was just a lib in disguise already, anyways. A Republican in name only.

I don't know you, Gl'enn... sob... I don't KNOW you

If you can't beat them...

Other than he's beat them his entire career.

And he has voted Dem, so this is a good thing for all.

The amusing part is that he's now left himself open to lose in a Democratic primary instead of a Republican one. I'm surprised he didn't go independent.

He was about to get smoked by the Conservative, so he runs and hides...I don't care what the polls say today. He was DONE in the Republican party.

The republican party was DONE in Pennsylvania. Specter just didn't want to ride that wave into retirement next year.

It looks like the Democratic machine in Pennsylvania won't primary Specter, if he supports the labor cardcheck stuff Still, I could easily envision someone coming out of the woodwork and primarying his ass as a Dem. If the Senate Dems had principles, they'd reject him. Yeah.

Specter = Done

It looks like the Democratic machine in Pennsylvania won't primary Specter, if he supports the labor cardcheck stuff Still, I could easily envision someone coming out of the woodwork and primarying his ass as a Dem. If the Senate Dems had principles, they'd reject him. Yeah.

I guess there's a thin line between having principles and having blinders on. Insistence on ideological purity is at least part of what's marginalizing the republicans.

This seems like a case of short-term gains but long-term headaches, especially if Specter didn't come out as an independent (which probably means he polled and it's not pretty for him). If the Dems were likely going to take that seat in 18 months anyway, what's the value in propping up a historic opponent who would otherwise lose? I don't think adding him changes the committee ratios, and he's certainly not a guaranteed vote for cloture.

Oh well... should be amusing.

Maybe he'll run for Governor instead? lol

Random blog perspective on why Specter didn't go the Liberman route.


http://campaigndiaries.com/2009/04/28/what-to-make-of-specter/
Similarly, Specter’s choice to run as a Democrat rather than as an independent is the one that makes the most sense for the Senator’s re-election bid. As I have explained before, an independent campaign would be difficult to pull off in a state like Pennsylvania - far more difficult than in Connecticut, where Joe Lieberman did so in 2006. First, Pennsylvania’s voters are more partisan than in Connecticut. In the 2008 election, 31% of Connecticut voters identified themselves (http://edition.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/results/polls/#CTP00p1) as independents versus 18% (http://edition.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/results/polls/#PAP00p1) of Pennsylvania voters.
Second, Connecticut’s 2006 Senate race was essentially a two-man race. There was no credible Republican candidate, which made Joe Lieberman into the de facto GOP candidate: 70% of Republicans voted for (http://edition.cnn.com/ELECTION/2006/pages/results/states/CT/S/01/epolls.0.html) Lieberman! The same situation would have been highly unlikely to take place in Pennsylvania’s Senate race; an independent Specter would have found himself in a 3-way race with no obvious reservoir of votes.

Did anyone see Specters quote when whats-his-name left Repubs to be an Indi? Jeffords in Vermont?

Specter was all up in arms about it. Saying there should be rules against these things.

This is the type of politician that makes me ill. He should just go away. All he is concerned about is himself. Go get a real job you useless fuck.

Not real sure about this. It's nice to have a 60-seat Democratic majority in the Senate, but ever since he treated Anita Hill like a murder suspect at the Clarence Thomas confirmation hearings, I am not sure he's inclined to take positions on principle.

If I were a Senate Dem, I would welcome his declaration to caucus with the D's but still basically treat him like the opposition.

^A Liebermanectomy?

But I do think he'll probably win the election now, btw. The way the GOP is freaking out right now, he'd never have a chance in a GOP primary. Dems have coattails at the moment.

But I do think he'll probably win the election now, btw. The way the GOP is freaking out right now, he'd never have a chance in a GOP primary. Dems have coattails at the moment.

Keep those Dem talking points coming

Look man, I'm not giving out talking points. You know better than that. Maybe "freaking out" is not the best way to describe it, but everyone can see the state of things.

It's just an observable thing that the Republican party is trying to figure out its future right now, and it seems that at the moment they're trying to redefine themselves as a party fundamentally opposed to liberalism in every conceivable form. People who have a mix of liberal and conservative opinions are not going to be embraced for a while.

Kind of sucks when you have a post and its what you honestly feel and peeps post that you are just posting talking points, doesn't it?

No honestly, I want you to seriously consider this question, Tahoe, because I really do want to hear your thoughts on this:

How could the Republican Party be more conservative than it currently is? What could the principles of the party be that would make it a more purely conservative political party?

They could require uniforms.

http://www.smithsonianlegacies.si.edu/photos/101.jpg

I don't think the Republican party is too conservative.

Didn't we just get done running a neo-conservative candidate who was supposed to appeal to moderates and Reagan Dems?

How'd that turn out...?

We need another Reagan. (Mitt Romney)

Reagan would be a liberal by today's standards.

Reagan would be a liberal by today's standards.

The only liberal thing Reagan really did was increase the deficit, which he said was his biggest regret while in office.

Not to mention, Reagan was handed a far bigger mess of an economy than Obama is today.

Obama doesn't really have much room to complain about the deficit he inherited. He already quadrupled it in 100 days and has spent more money in 100 days than Bush did in 8 years.

But back to your point, Reagan would'nt have been a lib by todays standards. However, JFK & Truman would both be Republicans "by today's standards" and Nixon may have been a lib. Moot point, really.

No honestly, I want you to seriously consider this question, Tahoe, because I really do want to hear your thoughts on this:

How could the Republican Party be more conservative than it currently is? What could the principles of the party be that would make it a more purely conservative political party?

STOPPING SPENDING! STOPPING SPENDING and STOPPING SPENDING.

Granted BO makes Bush look like Bush was at a 5 and dime store, but until the Dems back control of congress under Bush, Bush didn't veto 1 single spending bill.

And McCain got the nod from the Repubs and that fuckin douche thinks water boarding is torture....LMAO.

And McCain got the nod from the Repubs and that fuckin douche thinks water boarding is torture....LMAO.
So did Reagan.

I do see spending as out of control too, but mostly on the military side of things. Military spending is pretty much completely unaccountable because no one wants to be the one accused of "gutting" the military. If we cut 10% of the military's budget, and increased domestic spending by 5%, we would all be much better off.

A libertarian (which I'm not) would argue that the only thing Government should be spending on is military.

Obama just needs to stop loaning money to coprorations, and let capitalism run it's course. If a business is allowed to succeed, then you have to let it fail too. Gov't intervention helps nobody.

So did Reagan.

Reagan is dead.

I do see spending as out of control too, but mostly on the military side of things. Military spending is pretty much completely unaccountable because no one wants to be the one accused of "gutting" the military. If we cut 10% of the military's budget, and increased domestic spending by 5%, we would all be much better off.

And thats why you vote the way you do and I vote the way I do.

Domestic programs are wasteful and lots of them are useless.

BTW...the military is one of the few gov't controled situations that works.

A libertarian (which I'm not) would argue that the only thing Government should be spending on is military.



No, we would argue we should stop spending money. Military spending is the biggest waste of all, virtually 0 ROI. It's a bigger disaster than GM and the DMV put together. All that spending, and we have nothing. Nothing.

I do see spending as out of control too, but mostly on the military side of things. Military spending is pretty much completely unaccountable because no one wants to be the one accused of "gutting" the military. If we cut 10% of the military's budget, and increased domestic spending by 5%, we would all be much better off.

I just reread this and after watching the unprecedented spending by Obama's Magical Mystery Tour over the last 4 months and you are worried about military spending?

Wow!

BTW...the military is one of the few gov't controled situations that works.


Holy hell, what? Talk about waste and greed and pork. It's a wreck. Ask anyone in the military. They are either in a warzone or spending 8 hour shifts doing an hours work.

I just reread this and after watching the unprecedented spending by Obama's Magical Mystery Tour over the last 4 months and you are worried about military spending?

Wow!


wow.

No shit ha? Swami is out of control j/k swam

I couldn't agree more with the 10% cut on military spending. Are we really going to lose anything in terms of defense with such a cut (and Hermy hit the nail on the head when he talked about pork and overspending)? Could we really just invest a part of that back into other services? Granted I'm one of those whack-jobs who actually thinks infrastructure can work and be a good thing.

More services? Gov't is the problem peeps, not the solution.

Stronger military
Less Gov't
Less Spending

Hermy's got it dude. The military is awesome not because of the money, but because of the people. There are tons of military expenditures are going toward the most retarded possible shit. Development of planes that will never fly - building of helicopters that will never be certified to carry personnel - troop management psychology that will never be used in the field. The wars are fought and won by individuals in the field and how they are trained, not by secret projects to fund bombs to turn the enemy gay. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gay_bomb)

Literally hundreds of billions of dollars are poured into the pockets of military equipment developers and manufacturers, and it's almost considered strange if they actually manage to produce something useful. No one holds tea parties about this. No one calls this porkulus. But in fact, it's the worst kind of pork, especially considering the huge percentage of ex-Pentagon personnel who go to work for these companies immediately after retirement.

When you actually bother to look at so-called "entitlement" programs like Medicare, you notice two things right away: 1. the federal government isn't paying for very much of it, and 2. what they are paying for is a pittance, compared to the $44 billion that the government pays Lockheed Martin to do...what, exactly? No one knows, because it's military, and once military spending is allocated, Congress looks the other way. They cannot win elections if they suggest that 1/1000th of that money go toward keeping poor (brown) people from starving - even when, irony of ironies, the money could very well be going to help feed the families of the poor brown people serving in the military.

How's this for domestic programs - as soon as not a single serviceman or woman has to worry about the wellbeing of their families at home while they are deployed, and as soon as every single serviceman or woman has the right to a government-funded state college education, then we can talk about maybe developing some new kind of radioactive artillery shell.

I don't care who you are, or what else you think is important - dudes who actually took up arms in Iraq or Afghanistan should never have to worry about poverty or health care for the rest of their lives. That doesn't take much money to get that done. Let's deal with that first and then we'll talk about new jet fighters. And if some shit needs to be cut...sorry Lockheed, but first things first.

If we cut defense in half we'd still spend 5X more than china or Russia or any other nation. But whatever you need to feel safe I guess. I presume if we spent nothing for a couple years we could call on some favors.

Hermy's got it dude. The military is awesome not because of the money, but because of the people. There are tons of military expenditures are going toward the most retarded possible shit. Development of planes that will never fly - building of helicopters that will never be certified to carry personnel - troop management psychology that will never be used in the field. The wars are fought and won by individuals in the field and how they are trained, not by secret projects to fund bombs to turn the enemy gay. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gay_bomb)

Literally hundreds of billions of dollars are poured into the pockets of military equipment developers and manufacturers, and it's almost considered strange if they actually manage to produce something useful. No one holds tea parties about this. No one calls this porkulus. But in fact, it's the worst kind of pork, especially considering the huge percentage of ex-Pentagon personnel who go to work for these companies immediately after retirement.

When you actually bother to look at so-called "entitlement" programs like Medicare, you notice two things right away: 1. the federal government isn't paying for very much of it, and 2. what they are paying for is a pittance, compared to the $44 billion that the government pays Lockheed Martin to do...what, exactly? No one knows, because it's military, and once military spending is allocated, Congress looks the other way. They cannot win elections if they suggest that 1/1000th of that money go toward keeping poor (brown) people from starving - even when, irony of ironies, the money could very well be going to help feed the families of the poor brown people serving in the military.

How's this for domestic programs - as soon as not a single serviceman or woman has to worry about the wellbeing of their families at home while they are deployed, and as soon as every single serviceman or woman has the right to a government-funded state college education, then we can talk about maybe developing some new kind of radioactive artillery shell.

I don't care who you are, or what else you think is important - dudes who actually took up arms in Iraq or Afghanistan should never have to worry about poverty or health care for the rest of their lives. That doesn't take much money to get that done. Let's deal with that first and then we'll talk about new jet fighters. And if some shit needs to be cut...sorry Lockheed, but first things first.

Your boy wanted to charge them for all sorts of things coming home.

No, we would argue we should stop spending money. Military spending is the biggest waste of all, virtually 0 ROI. It's a bigger disaster than GM and the DMV put together. All that spending, and we have nothing. Nothing.

Probably THE most ignorant thing I've read in a long time.

Probably THE most ignorant thing I've read in a long time.

He has a point, Tahoe. What Gates is trying to do with this new administration is reset the KIND of military spending taking place. Gone are the days of multi-billion dollar superjets and battleships. The U.S can successfully scale down military spending and actually IMPROVE our 21st century fighting capabilities. There's just too much antiquated shit out there that needs to go.

Probably THE most ignorant thing I've read in a long time.


And that's all Republicans have folks. Can't bring anything up, just make general statements. And the party dies a little bit more.

And that's all Republicans have folks. Can't bring anything up, just make general statements. And the party dies a little bit more.

The 2nd most ignorant statement I've read in a long time.

I just said stop spending.

Your boy wanted to charge them for all sorts of things coming home.
Frank Rotondo wanted to charge servicemen for something? That sucks. He stood up in my wedding. I'll never trust that bastard again.

Wait, who's my boy again?

He has a point, Tahoe. What Gates is trying to do with this new administration is reset the KIND of military spending taking place. Gone are the days of multi-billion dollar superjets and battleships. The U.S can successfully scale down military spending and actually IMPROVE our 21st century fighting capabilities. There's just too much antiquated shit out there that needs to go.

Denny, Denny, Denny...don't follow their posts. They are arguing against some fictitious person who they say said there was no waste in the military. It makes them feel all warm and fuzzy to agree on something against some made up argument. I never said there wasn't waste in the military.

BTW...the military is one of the few gov't controled situations that works.


I'm arguing with this post. You may rescind and apologize if you desire, I'll move along.

Denny, Denny, Denny...don't follow their posts. They are arguing against some fictitious person who they say said there was no waste in the military. It makes them feel all warm and fuzzy to agree on something against some made up argument. I never said there wasn't waste in the military.

NANCY PELOSI IS A GODDESS OF POLITICS. SHE IS THE GREATEST THING EVER TO HAPPEN IN D.C. GO DEMS!!!!


TAHOE RESPONDS WITH FURIOUS RAGE IN 4...3...2...1...

I'm arguing with this post. You may rescind and apologize if you desire, I'll move along.

I'm good with that too. See, we agree.

I'm good with that too. See, we agree.

Damn. He didn't take the bait.

NANCY PELOSI IS A GODDESS OF POLITICS. SHE IS THE GREATEST THING EVER TO HAPPEN IN D.C. GO DEMS!!!!


TAHOE RESPONDS WITH FURIOUS RAGE IN 4...3...2...1...

http://img23.imageshack.us/img23/3637/stooges1.jpg