Did Something Happen With Arlen Specter?
I’ve been at work all day.
What’s that, you say? He’s now a Democrat?
“I have decided to run for re-election in 2010 in the Democratic primary,” said Specter in a statement. “I am ready, willing and anxious to take on all comers and have my candidacy for re-election determined in a general election.”
He added: “Since my election in 1980, as part of the Reagan Big Tent, the Republican Party has moved far to the right. Last year, more than 200,000 Republicans in Pennsylvania changed their registration to become Democrats. I now find my political philosophy more in line with Democrats than Republicans.”
Liar. This is all about personal preservation and you know it.
UPDATE: Mitch McConnell gets a lot closer to the truth:
Well, obviously we are not happy that Senator Specter has decided to become a Democrat. He visited with me in my office late yesterday afternoon and told me quite candidly that he’d been informed by his pollster that it would be impossible for him to be re-elected in Pennsylvania as a Republican because he could not win the primary. And he was also informed by his pollster that he could not get elected as an Independent and indicated that he had decided to become a Democrat.
Anyone who ever counts on Arlen Specter for anything is likely to be disappointed.
Lest this sound like praise, Beldar also observes that “ass-clown” is an appropriate term for Specter.
HH pretty much defenestrates Snarlin’ Arlen over at his blog, especially his hypocrisy over claiming how the GOP has “left” him.
Now, there are reports from the Left fringes of the Dems that don’t particularly take Arlen to their bosom.
It seems the only person who thinks this move helps Arlen, is Arlen.
Comment by AD - RtR/OS! (1d70e4) — 4/28/2009 @ 10:27 pm
He’s 79 years old and this is his best chance to stay in the Senate.
It has nothing to do with party or beliefs, because, goodness knows, he’s never held a position that included integrity. He’s a prince and he wants to die a prince.
And, you know what, bless him. He’s a smart guy that defeated a deadly disease and now he wants to go out as someone who counted.
History will be his judge. As mine.
Comment by Ag80 (b19e67) — 4/28/2009 @ 10:50 pm
As John Henke said today…
*snickers*
Comment by Scott Jacobs (90ff96) — 4/28/2009 @ 11:20 pm
Under Scottish Law, isn’t switching political parties punishable by death?
Comment by Perfectsense (0922fa) — 4/28/2009 @ 11:25 pm
Maybe this means he’ll vote Republican more often.
Comment by Kevin Murphy (0b2493) — 4/28/2009 @ 11:49 pm
Looks like Tom Ridge will be the next Senator from PA.
Comment by Kevin Murphy (0b2493) — 4/28/2009 @ 11:58 pm
He’s a smart guy that defeated a deadly disease
Cancer would have beat him in the primary, too.
Comment by Official Internet Data Office (7a989a) — 4/29/2009 @ 12:29 am
Political prostitute.
Comment by arch (73a848) — 4/29/2009 @ 1:17 am
Perfectsense @ 11:25 pm – not that *this* Scot knows of …
It is, however, considered poor form to switch parties and then stay in the elected position without immediately resigning to stand as the candidate for the newly-joined party …
One thing Specter has done is proven the value of Specter’s word about things …
Comment by Alasdair (6b086e) — 4/29/2009 @ 1:24 am
It’s actually quite liberating for the GOP in one way — they no longer have to try and hold Collins/Snowe/Specter inside the tent on close votes.
Now the Dems have 60, so Collins and Snowe lost their value.
Also, the Dems can’t complain about obstruction in the Senate. They can pass whatever they want for the next 18 months, so they’ll own it.
The GOP can vote a principled “NO” in opposition.
Next election will be based on the Dems ability to deliver on all their promises. The agenda is radically left-wing, and the last obstacle was just cleared.
Lets see those 40 house members who won in districts GWB carried twice vote the party line now, knowing they can’t count on the Senate to slow things down.
Comment by WLS Shipwrecked (53653f) — 4/29/2009 @ 1:57 am
So he beat a deadly disease. Good for him.
I didn’t know that was a requirement to be a US Senator.
Comment by Dr. K (e70a2d) — 4/29/2009 @ 2:44 am
To be fair, Specter did support Clarence Thomas and almost lost reelection that year for it. On the other hand, our Alan Dixon did the same thing and he did lose reelection, starting a chain of events which gave us the Magical Mau Mau in the White House.
Comment by nk (343b4e) — 4/29/2009 @ 2:47 am
Not to put too fine a point on it, is what Specter is doing worse for the GOP than what Peter Fitzgerald did?
(Yeah, yeah, I know, nk the contrarian.)
Comment by nk (343b4e) — 4/29/2009 @ 2:52 am
The net effect of what he did to the GOP is immaterial.
The man is a turncoat and did it to save his precious Senate seat. If the TEA parties want to be taken seriously, they need to make the point strongly that Sepcter needs to be retired.
Comment by Dr. K (e70a2d) — 4/29/2009 @ 3:23 am
May the good people of Pennsylvania ensure that Specter lives a long life in obscurity.
When he leaves I hope he takes his “Magic Bullet Theory” with him.
Comment by Paul Albers (db7e67) — 4/29/2009 @ 3:29 am
This may actually be a good thing. If he ran in the primaries against a real Republican, he would lose. And that Republican would probably lose in the general election. Running as a Democrat may get Arlen to the general elections. If he does beat the Republican nominee, at least he is more toward the middle than pretty much any other Dem nominee.
(But then again, we’ll be a bankrupt nation by then so maybe it doesn’t really matter)
Comment by Corwin (ea9428) — 4/29/2009 @ 4:48 am
Where does Arlen Specter get the idea that today’s Republican party is more conservative than under Reagan?
Good riddance. He has not even put up the pretense of acting like a Republican since the Justice Thomas hearings. All he did was change the letter behind his name, he had been voting that way for quite some time. Wouldn’t it be rich if he lost in the Dem primary?
All of the breathless reporting on Arlen’s courage, and the downfall of the Republican party was predicted accurately. Nary a mention of the 5 Dems that changed parties in 1995. To the Left, it is like history only began happening yesterday.
Comment by JD (cb1063) — 4/29/2009 @ 5:11 am
President Bush and Rick Santorum could not be reached for comment.
I hope every last donor to Arlen demands a refund of their contributions.
Comment by JD (cb1063) — 4/29/2009 @ 5:13 am
Didn’t he change parties before?
Comment by JD (cb1063) — 4/29/2009 @ 5:14 am
Dear Arlen:
You’re welsome for my support during your tough primary campaign in 2004.
Comment by George W Bush (3e4784) — 4/29/2009 @ 5:23 am
Dear Arlen:
I’m so glad that I stood up for such a stand-up guy in 2004. Yuor loyalty to the Republican Party makes me proud.
Comment by Rick Santorum (3e4784) — 4/29/2009 @ 5:24 am
When I first saw the headline “Specter switches parties” I wondered if he finally decided to become a Republican.
Imagaine my disappointment to see formalized what was only reality in everybody’s mind.
Comment by daleyrocks (5d22c0) — 4/29/2009 @ 5:25 am
Does that mean that calling someone an ass-clown is no longer a banning offense
Comment by JD (6ef9a2) — 4/29/2009 @ 5:43 am
I’m one of those who enabled the assclown by voting for him in ’80. Jimmy Carter was the motivating force that brought me to the polls that year. Like they said, why not an actor as we already had a clown for four years as Potus.
As a recall Arlen was involved in the Ira Eichorn debacle that allowed that murdering scumwad to skip to Fwance, to have his ass kissed for decades by the cheese eating surrender monkeys.
And Arlen was also involved in the Warren Commission dealings regarding the JFK assassination.
So Arlen was really irate that fellow RINO dipwad Chafee was defeated? Boo friggin’ hoo.
Comment by aoibhneas (0c6cfc) — 4/29/2009 @ 5:47 am
2-
“…He’s a smart guy that defeated a deadly disease and now he wants to go out as someone who counted.”
Wrong. He’s a lying national disgrace without principles. He wants to go out enjoying the personal perks and power of public office. When politicians are literally dieing in office, it should tell us something: time to start replacing them every few years.
Comment by DaveinPhoenix (9b506a) — 4/29/2009 @ 5:58 am
Everyone, except politicians, looks forward to retirement. Most people cannot retire soon enough.
Comment by JD (6ef9a2) — 4/29/2009 @ 6:07 am
26. Story here in South Florida is about officials who actually do retire and then, after getting big payouts and monthly pensions, turn around and get their old jobs back. One dude retired and was rehired the next day. Imagine having a check for a half mil, a fat monthly pension and a regular high salary for the same job? And it is all legal.
How big a retirement package would Specter be getting? I would guess in the millions. Of course the new owners of GM are said to get handsome retirement benefits also. What is it, something like 5 UAW retirees for every current employee of GM? And no doubt, the taxpayers will be liable for any losses ad infinitum. The other bond holders get screwed and yet UAW makes out like bandits? Yes, elections have consequences and Obama looks to have great success funneling money to his backers, the unions.
Specter says he doesn’t support the union check card ripoff, but doesn’t say he will vote against it from coming to a vote in Senate.
Comment by aoibhneas (0c6cfc) — 4/29/2009 @ 6:23 am
our Alan Dixon did the same thing and he did lose reelection
One of the saddest days in IL politics, IMHO. Dixon was one of the last honorable politicos to grace this state, GOP or Dem (Gov. Edgar and Senator Fitzgerald are also the exceptions) – then we had the excreable Carol Mosley Braun along with “our solders at GITMO are Nazis” Durbin and thereafter went right down the sh-thole.
Comment by Dmac (1ddf7e) — 4/29/2009 @ 6:32 am
Regarding Carol Mosley Braun, you know you are a bad Senator when the best you can do afterwards is Ambassador to New Zealand. (no offence to any kiwi readers) That just doesn’t scream “ex-Senator.”
I wish Toomey luck in the primaries, but he’s probably doomed in the general. PA is pretty middle-of-the-road and Specter figured out a way to stay in office. At least Lieberman only went “Independent” – going full-on “Democrat” is a transparent weasel move. The DNC must have promised him the world, just to keep the seat after Senator Judd Gregg said no thanks to Commerce Secretary. Now they get their 60 seats, and they ‘own’ the gov’t for the next 18 months.
Comment by carlitos (23eb68) — 4/29/2009 @ 6:41 am
I agree totally, Dmac. I would add Jesse White to the list, too.
Comment by nk (343b4e) — 4/29/2009 @ 6:44 am
It’s nice to see the conspiracy theorists coming out of the woodwork now with their “magic bullet” nonsense. I suggest that they all read Vincent Buliosi’s 1,612 pages on the subject, and spend several days reviewing the included CD-ROM with 10,000 footnotes in 954 pages.
Comment by carlitos (23eb68) — 4/29/2009 @ 6:47 am
So now that they got to 60 votes do you figure any intrepid journalist will ask O! why they are still skirting the rules around a filabuster? I mean if they do that now they basically are admitting that their own party does not want the shit.
Comment by Mr. Pink (eae12c) — 4/29/2009 @ 6:49 am
The GOP needs to diversify. The party is just a bunch of old white extremist people, in essence.
As Olympia Snowe (R-Maine) said in an Op-Ed today:
http://mobile.nytimes.com/2009/04/29/opinion/29snowe.xml
Comment by Andrew (1c5c15) — 4/29/2009 @ 6:52 am
We need to take lessons from a Leftist on how to be a conservative. No thanks, Andrew.
Comment by JD (cb1063) — 4/29/2009 @ 6:57 am
A couple of thoughts:
1. Dems, the Senator from Comcast is your problem now! Now that you have total control, hope you enjoy the spectacle of seeing the likes of Claire McCaskill, Blanche Lincoln, and Ben Nelson on Fox News every other week “expressing their concerns” about ramming your initiatives down everyone’s throats.
2. Considering the haughty way in which Specter suggested the voters have no standing to judge his “29 year record,” I give Pat Toomey an up to 75% chance of being the next Senator from PA. That sort of thing Specter did gets remembered, and not in a good way.
Speaking of Pat Toomey and 2004, you folks need to put away the bitterness over what happened that year. All Bush and Santorum (and Limbaugh, for that matter) were doing was being defensive and trying to avoid any unnecessary division, in order to win PA for GWB. Regretfully, it didn’t work. Now you have a clean slate with which to get Pat Toomey elected. Get to work.
Comment by Brad S (9f6740) — 4/29/2009 @ 6:59 am
Who suggested to you that this is the case? Did that person provide you with a llink or any other form of evidence?
Comment by Andrew (7e4b75) — 4/29/2009 @ 7:03 am
As much as some Democrats might want to crow about the switch, this is a really awkward situation. Specter was getting creamed by Toomey in the primary polls, and even if he had managed to overcome that challenge, there would have been any number of Democrat candidates to beat after that. He basically admitted that he can’t get elected on his own merits and needed the backing of the Democrat party to retain his seat. It’s a remarkably cynical maneuver and I’m surprised more Democrats aren’t calling him on it. The PA Dems might be welcoming him with open arms right now, but I would imagine there are some in the organization that are pissed now that they won’t be able to take his scalp in the election next year.
Secondly, if he does retain his voting record–which I doubt, as I have the feeling he needed to make a heck of a deal with the DNC for them to accept the switch–then the election next year is basically between a conservative and a Blue Dog Democrat. Is that really the choice that Pennsylvania voters were looking for?
Bottom line is that this is a desperation maneuver by a Senator that is looking to retain his position of power. Theoretically, he stays relevant because now the Dems instead of the Republicans have to suck up to him in order to keep the filibuster-proof majority. However, the writing was on the wall for him to step aside for a younger politician next year, and he can’t bring himself to do so. If he wins the election next year, watch for the PA Dems to pressure him to resign sometime after 2010 so a younger Democrat can take his place.
Comment by Another Chris (2d8013) — 4/29/2009 @ 7:08 am
Oh, and Andrew,
I greatly appreciate your concern for my party and the electoral issues it’s facing. I’m sure this concern will be taken to heart after about the 20th time Claire McCaskill announces she’s voting with the GOP, and against Obama, on (name your favorite Dem initiative here).
Your arrogance is showing.
Comment by Brad S (9f6740) — 4/29/2009 @ 7:08 am
Here you go, Andrew. It’s not exactly what you think.
Comment by carlitos (23eb68) — 4/29/2009 @ 7:10 am
You would think at 80 and a cancer survivor he might have developed a modicum of a conscience but ……
What a disgrace of a person. He will do well in the Democratic Party.
I switch to Democrat and I saved a ton on my taxes!!!!!!!!
Comment by HeavenSent (637168) — 4/29/2009 @ 7:37 am
Your arrogance is showing
It’s only widespread ignorance disguised as arrogance. Andrew has yet to make a coherent statement here, and that’s after (at least) 3 months at this point. Think DCCRP, but without the mirth.
Comment by Dmac (1ddf7e) — 4/29/2009 @ 7:49 am
…or the frankincense, for that matter. They are not wise men.
Comment by carlitos (23eb68) — 4/29/2009 @ 7:54 am
#33, Andrew wrote: “The GOP needs to diversify.”
By putting up candidates nobody wants to vote for? That’s a brilliant strategy, Andrew.
Specter wasn’t driven from the party at the expense of the voters. He was driven from the party by the voters.
Comment by danebramage (700c93) — 4/29/2009 @ 7:56 am
Regarding Carol Moseley Braun, you know you are a bad Senator when the best you can do afterwards is Ambassador to New Zealand.
And that’s not all. Her diplomatic portfolio also included Samoa, the Cook Islands and Antarctica.
Comment by Official Internet Data Office (7a989a) — 4/29/2009 @ 7:56 am
I think you guys exaggerate by painting McCaskill’s as a Democratic maverick. Yes, she bucks the line in some issues, but according to stats, she “voted with Democratic Party 84.6% of 325 votes. (Sep 2007)”
In comparison with say, Specter who did so 70% of the time.
http://projects.washingtonpost.com/congress/110/senate/party-voters/
Comment by Andrew (30287d) — 4/29/2009 @ 8:01 am
Andrew,
The fact that you have to quote an out-of-date voting record shows me you’re not prepared to handle “issue defections” going forward.
Face it: The Senator from Comcast just gave my Republican Party its freedom, and placed all the pressure on you Dems.
Comment by Brad S (9f6740) — 4/29/2009 @ 8:08 am
You’re wrong, Brad – the esteemed Senator from Penn has demonstrated great courage and guts by standing up to the neocon fascists who’ve taken over the GOP.
Comment by Dmac (1ddf7e) — 4/29/2009 @ 8:21 am
My source for that statement is of course Jeaneane Garafalo – who was actually funny at one time (circa 1995).
Comment by Dmac (1ddf7e) — 4/29/2009 @ 8:22 am
Brad, at least I have statistics, unlike you, who wants prople to believe you based on your word alone.
Comment by Andrew (0e3d38) — 4/29/2009 @ 8:35 am
#32 Andrew….diversitification….means to accept things that are wrong…
Conservatism is a belief, a knowledge, that things start with life, extend to freedom, and that if all will work that way, everyone can succeed….
Republicans stopped doing that, and look where it got them….
Democrats have never done that, and look where it got the country….the New Deal, the Great Society, and now, Obama and the quadrupling of the deficit, and the unions owning GM in spite of having only put up one-tenth of the money….
No, Andrew, conservatives need to be even stronger now, so that they can work to return America to a belief that everyone can succeed if government gets out of the way….
Comment by reff (b996d9) — 4/29/2009 @ 8:39 am
Andrew is right. When it comes down to it, spokespeople like McCaskill fall right in line.
I puked a little in the back of my mouth when I noted that Andrew was right. Despite his 97% record of inanity, misrepresenting links, etc .. He was more right than wrong, on this one little point.
Comment by JD (ca6b04) — 4/29/2009 @ 8:40 am
Here are stats from 2008, to cite a more recent period, in which McCaskill scores 81 in “Party unity” while Specter scores 62.
In that respect McCaskill is as close to Socialist Bernie Sanders (even a bit closer) as she is to Specter, just to put things in perspective.
http://www.cqpolitics.com/cq-assets/cqmultimedia/flash/votestudy/index2008ytd.html
Comment by Andrew (cae514) — 4/29/2009 @ 8:48 am
That a Dem Sen’s voting record is comparable to the one Dem that admits to being a Socialist is no surprise, Andrew.
Comment by JD (ca6b04) — 4/29/2009 @ 8:59 am
“No, Andrew, conservatives need to be even stronger now, so that they can work to return America to a belief that everyone can succeed if government gets out of the way….”
No thanks. Already got plenty of ShamWow morons.
Comment by Mark (596b40) — 4/29/2009 @ 9:49 am
People like Andrew view Republicans the same way they view bipartisanship, they are alright as long as everyone is acting like a Democrat.
Comment by JD (ca6b04) — 4/29/2009 @ 9:58 am
“Andrew is right. When it comes down to it, spokespeople like McCaskill fall right in line.”
(begin alleged MOBY routine)
What’s the problem, JD? You don’t have enough faith in your own principles and your own capabilities to force political pressure on Sen. McCaskill (and at least 10 other Dems)? Phyllis Schlafly would nag you for being wobbly if you said that to her. Howard Jarvis would wonder whether or not you’re capable of “growing a pair.”
Or are you just another one of those conservatives who expects someone like the Senator from Comcast (Specter) to do his/her political dirty work for him while driving him out of the GOP for not doing it in the exact way you want it done? Again, Schlafly and Jarvis would tell you to do it yourself if you’re going to have that attitude.
(end alleged MOBY routine)
Comment by Brad S (9f6740) — 4/29/2009 @ 10:11 am
Brad S – We already know that you value party over principle. I could not care less what Schafly or Jarvis have to say. They do not speak for me. Outisde of defending Clarence Thomas and having an R after his name, Specter was not a conservative, and obviously, not a Republican either. What, exactly, did the Republican party lose when a practicing Dem finally admitted he was a Dem?
Comment by JD (ca6b04) — 4/29/2009 @ 10:21 am
JD!
I’m not here to argue about the benefit to the GOP of saying goodbye and good riddance to the Senator from Comcast. What I’m trying to tell you is that Phyllis Schlafly and Howard Jarvis offer a very success-proven roadmap on how to beat back Obama’s agenda when the GOP is not in any position of strength to do so. Neither Schafly (when she led the fight in defeating the Equal Rights Amendment) nor Jarvis (in passing Proposition 13) received any help from the GOP, despite both their personal histories of being stalwart party activists.
It all comes down to how badly you want to stop things like, say, Card Check. Or Cap-and-Trade.
Comment by Brad S (9f6740) — 4/29/2009 @ 10:47 am
#36 Under Scottish Law, isn’t switching political parties punishable by death?
This is an inside joke based on Specter’s Bill Clinton’s impeachment vote. Specter tried to explain his vote not to impeach Clinton by referring to ancient Scottish law. Nobody knew what the heck he was talking about.
Comment by Perfect Sense (0922fa) — 4/29/2009 @ 10:51 am
Brad, in regards to Phyllis Schlafly: She has more integrity and a higher moral standard than any Democrat in any Congress or executive administration and 90 percent of Republicans in the same positions. Republican or Democrat or Socialist or Marxist or Fascist or Communist or Libertarian hold no sway over her standards. And quite frankly, I’m only Republican because there is no viable political party that maintains the true values and standards that should be maintained.
Phyllis Schlafly is not a party activist. Phyllis Schlafly is an outspoken Christian. And if it is a choice between God and a political party, I’ll choose God every time.
Comment by John Hitchcock (fb941d) — 4/29/2009 @ 11:07 am
Being the poster-child for the “dummerer than a sack of Andrews” concept ranks right along-side “even a blind pig finds an acorn occassionally”, and the reliable “stopped clock”.
I personally prefer “stopped clocks” since they don’t publish inane gibberish, and “blind pigs” tend to grunt a lot.
Comment by AD - RtR/OS! (2736a1) — 4/29/2009 @ 11:22 am
Comment by John Hitchcock — 4/29/2009 @ 11:07 am
“Praise The Lord, and pass the ammunition!”
Comment by AD - RtR/OS! (2736a1) — 4/29/2009 @ 11:24 am
Praise the Lord, and pass the ammunition sounds like a verse to a country song
Comment by JD (6165a5) — 4/29/2009 @ 11:30 am
“Being the poster-child for the “dummerer than a sack of Andrews” concept ranks right along-side “even a blind pig finds an acorn occassionally”, and the reliable “stopped clock”.”
So I’m to take it from this comment that you’re giving up on fighting against things like Card Check, because supposedly all 60 Dems are going to march in lockstep to support it? So Harry Reid has that much power to hold his Senate caucus together to do Obama’s bidding, eh?
You do realize that Rahm Emanuel has you pegged to a T, right? He knows you’re not going to do anything other than talk smack @ Patterico’s Pontifications. So, any thoughts about proving Rahm wrong?
Comment by Brad S (9f6740) — 4/29/2009 @ 11:32 am
How do arrive at such a ridiculous position such as that, Brad? If you ever wondered why you sometimes get a less than warm reception, the assumptions that you made in the above comment should go a long way to explaining why.
Comment by JD (6165a5) — 4/29/2009 @ 11:43 am
JD,
The comment I quoted indicated agreement with Andrew on the subject of Dem Senators sticking with the party. Which indicates an unwillingness to try to force political pressure on these folks.
It’s really simple, JD. Since the GOP is in no strategic position to stop Obama’s agenda from going through (lack of numbers, you know), it now falls on folks like you to derail his agenda. Right now, the willingness is somewhat lacking.
Comment by Brad S (9f6740) — 4/29/2009 @ 11:48 am
Comment by Brad S — 4/29/2009 @ 11:32 am
Oh, I’ll send off an angst-filled letter or email to my elected representatives (Feinstein, Boxer, Royball-Allard) which will present reasoned argument as to why this proposal should be denied; and they will respond with a curt, proper letter acknowledging my position in respect to this “matter of national concern”, and politely suggest that I go “F-O” – but, thank you Brad, for your insight into what motivates me, and how I need to channel my concern into political action, or not!
Comment by AD - RtR/OS! (2736a1) — 4/29/2009 @ 11:50 am
Brad – You are an idiot. My willingness to oppose Barcky is lacking? Really?
Comment by JD (db7dee) — 4/29/2009 @ 12:00 pm
Neil Oxman, a Democratic strategist, said it best.
“He transforms himself for every election.”
No doubt a challenger in the Democratic primary will use Senator Specter’s voting record to drive a wedge between him and Pennsylvania’s Democratic electorate.
See above.
He switched parties because he could not win in the Republican primary. He pissed off his own electorate. Of course, the Democrats are not likely to be much friendlier with him, for reasons stated above.
Comment by Michael Ejercito (7c44bf) — 4/29/2009 @ 12:39 pm
I think it’s cute that a few people are bothering to take Arlen at his word. What have the republicans done lately? They’ve been out of power in congress for years (ever since the economy was doing well last, btw). Bush was a lame duck and most of his ‘bad bad bad’ policies were from several years ago.
Why would Arlen not have switched over a couple of years ago, if he’s doing so for policy reasons?
Comment by Juan (4cdfb7) — 4/29/2009 @ 12:49 pm
To be accurate, his worst policy came at the end of his term. It rhymes with “carp”
Comment by Michael Ejercito (7c44bf) — 4/29/2009 @ 12:53 pm
In case you missed the nuance, Michael – I was being sarcastic.
it now falls on folks like you to derail his agenda. Right now, the willingness is somewhat lacking
Since you’re so full of testicular fortitude Brad, why not practice what you screech? Let’s see a vid of you storming the next Planned Parenthood rally – or bettter yet, take on the Code Pink nutbags. Who knows, you both may actually find some common ground.
Comment by Dmac (1ddf7e) — 4/29/2009 @ 1:20 pm
It all comes down to how badly you want to stop things like, say, Card Check. Or Cap-and-Trade.
OK – but then we have this:
He knows you’re not going to do anything other than talk smack @ Patterico’s Pontifications
Now remind me again – who’s talking smack at this site again? Jeebus, what a blowhard.
Comment by Dmac (1ddf7e) — 4/29/2009 @ 1:22 pm
Dmac,
Is the situation as urgent as everyone’s blog comments claim it to be? Does something have to be done, RIGHT HERE AND NOW, BEFORE THE COUNTRY GOES TO PIECES? If it is, you have a moral obligation to take all necessary legal actions to stop it.
If not, then could you please show me how you plan on hiding your income and assets from the supposed “gathering storm?”
Comment by Brad S (9f6740) — 4/29/2009 @ 1:31 pm
“show me”…Why, are you from the IRS?
I would think that that information is on a “highly compartmented, need-to-know” basis, and you haven’t demonstrated that need.
Comment by AD - RtR/OS! (2736a1) — 4/29/2009 @ 1:39 pm
What legal actions should we be taking, in the world according to Brad?
Comment by JD (870a39) — 4/29/2009 @ 1:45 pm
If it is, you have a moral obligation to take all necessary legal actions to stop it
By all means, I agree with you completely – and in that spirit, I think you should serve as a sterling example of what kind of actions we should be taking. So hop to it, be a real leader, and let’s see those vids of you protesting the plans of this administration – go paint your sign, take a plane to DC and GET OFF YOUR ASS AND GET BUSY!
Comment by Dmac (1ddf7e) — 4/29/2009 @ 1:53 pm
Geez…you guys are just so judgemental!
Comment by AD - RtR/OS! (2736a1) — 4/29/2009 @ 1:57 pm
Dmac,
You aren’t with the “We have jobs. We have lives.” contingent of the conservative movement, are you? You folks always got something to say about the country going to hell in a handcart when Dems run the government, but when it’s nutcracking time, you prefer to waste valuable office time making a “principled” comment.
BTW, I have no reason to go out and protest Obama’s actions, because those actions haven’t directly affected ME yet. But hey, I’ll most certainly get my Tea Party sign out on the Fourth.
Comment by Brad S (5709e3) — 4/29/2009 @ 3:37 pm
BTW, can I give you folks a little hint? The economy is already showing signs of an upward tick, and will likely be showing growth rates of 7% or greater starting 3Q of THIS YEAR. I’m well aware I’m one of the few on EITHER side who’s predicting this, but I’m also comfortable enough with that happening that I’m quite certain Dems will get about as much mileage out of an improving economy as Reps did with No Attacks On the US Mainland Since 9/11.
After all, have you ever heard of a campaign that stated to the voting public “Vote for Dems in ’10. We improved the economy, and those dirty rat Rethugs tried to stop the economy from improving?”
Comment by Brad S (5709e3) — 4/29/2009 @ 3:41 pm
Oh, Good Allah.
Comment by JD (870a39) — 4/29/2009 @ 3:49 pm
Andrew said:
The GOP needs to diversify. The party is just a bunch of old white extremist people, in essence.
I’m always amused when lefties wander over to give conservatives advice on how to be more popular. Why? It makes no sense. Do they want conservatives to be successful? Mk up girls.
I also like how they stereotype so completely with no sense of irony.
Nonetheless, I suspect by “diversify,” he means conservatives should start acting more like Democrats. Again, why? If a Republican wants to be a Democrat, then follow Sen. Specter’s lead.
Also, if the Dems would “diversify” from their hard-left agenda, maybe more conservatives would jump to their side.
Andrew’s whole statement is a non-sequitur. What would be the point of two parties that had the same agendas?
Comment by Ag80 (b19e67) — 4/29/2009 @ 3:50 pm
Spot on Ag80, spot on.
Comment by JD (870a39) — 4/29/2009 @ 3:59 pm
“…The economy is already showing signs of an upward tick…”
If revising the economic performance for the 1st-quarter from the expected -4.6%, to the actual -6.1% is what Brad calls an uptick (Yes, Brad, I know that consumer spending increased by 2.2% over the previous quarter, but job losses also continued at a 600K/month pace), I would hate to see what he calls a slowdown.
Consumer spending could be explained by families restocking the larder after drawing down supplies in the 4th-quarter of ’08, when they virtually stopped spending. If 2nd-quarter consumer spending declines, or even stays even, we are in for a hard Summer, and could look forward to well into 2010 without any evidence of a recovery.
Comment by AD - RtR/OS! (2736a1) — 4/29/2009 @ 4:14 pm
AD – But the MSM told me that the Fed declined to lower interest rates due to positive signs that the economy is headed in the right direction. So it must be true. When was the last quarter of 7% growth?
Comment by JD (870a39) — 4/29/2009 @ 4:18 pm
JD…Just reviewed charts going back four years,
and the three strongest quarters of growth were all 4.8%,
in 1Q-06, 2Q-07, & 3Q-07.
If Brad thinks we’re going to have a quarterly growth of 7%,
he’s drinking the same Kool-Aid that Duh-1′s Economic Advisor is swilling,
and we know how much respect her forecasts have generated –
especially her confident prediction that we’ll only have $550B deficits 6 years out.
Morons, all!
Comment by AD - RtR/OS! (2736a1) — 4/29/2009 @ 4:34 pm
I’m a lifelong concerned Christian Democrat who has been forced to vote Republican over the past 30 plus years because the party has deserted me. I yearn for the days when Democrats can stand for the things they did when Kennedy was President instead of this godless, I hate America, big government bunch of spineless dirty socialists that has invaded Washington since that time. Bring me back in from the wilderness Democrats!
Comment by daleyrocks (5d22c0) — 4/29/2009 @ 4:38 pm
…more on 7% growth:
I wouldn’t be surprised if the last time we had quarterly growth that large would have been during the dot.com bubble, which we all know, ended the day the Clinton Justice Dept. filed that anti-trust suit against MS (March, 2000), marking the high-point for the NASDAQ.
Comment by AD - RtR/OS! (2736a1) — 4/29/2009 @ 4:38 pm
(snark)… Well, as a Christian Democrat, you can always vote for Angela Merckle.
Comment by AD - RtR/OS! (2736a1) — 4/29/2009 @ 4:40 pm
Will she have to show her birth certificate?
Comment by daleyrocks (5d22c0) — 4/29/2009 @ 4:44 pm
No! That was when we were a Nation of Laws.
Comment by AD - RtR/OS! (2736a1) — 4/29/2009 @ 4:46 pm
“I’m a lifelong concerned Christian Democrat who has been forced to vote Republican over the past 30 plus years because the party has deserted me. I yearn for the days when Democrats can stand for the things they did when Kennedy was President…Bring me back in from the wilderness Democrats!”
If this isn’t a comment (regardless of snark factor) that screams “Republicans…EWWW!!!”, we’d be hard-pressed to make it more obvious.
Comment by Brad S (5709e3) — 4/29/2009 @ 4:48 pm
Still curious about what legal actions I should be taking to oppose Barcky, Brad.
Comment by JD (870a39) — 4/29/2009 @ 4:52 pm
“If 2nd-quarter consumer spending declines, or even stays even, we are in for a hard Summer, and could look forward to well into 2010 without any evidence of a recovery.”
You sound as though you’re hoping for this to happen. Which means you’re putting yourself, and a whole lot of other conservatives, in a position where you’re willing to send a message that a continued bad economy is GOOD for Republicans. That sounds awful similar to a message the Dems sent about the GWOT: Continued problems for America are good for Dems.
There are people on TPM and DailyKos who will point this out to you, knowing full well that life is full of ironies for the stupid.
Comment by Brad S (5709e3) — 4/29/2009 @ 4:53 pm
Racist!
Comment by daleyrocks (5d22c0) — 4/29/2009 @ 4:54 pm
“Still curious about what legal actions I should be taking to oppose Barcky, Brad.”
For starters, you can make a list of the most “moderate” Democrats in the Senate. I’ll give you a few to start with: Ben Nelson (D-NE), Blanche Lincoln (D-AR), Mark Begich (D-AK), Jim Webb (D-VA!). Then, you can start email, FAX, and letter writing campaigns that put pressure on them to vote NO on such things as Card Check.
Furthermore, continue on with the Tea Party protests, even make them a brand name if you have to. In addition, if there are any local Dems in your nape of the woods who are hankering for a bond issue or a tax increase for schools, MOBILIZE to defeat that tax increase.
I’m sure there are more things that can be done in that vein, and we all need to see YOU, PERSONALLY, take some risk in getting these liberal agenda items shut down.
Comment by Brad S (5709e3) — 4/29/2009 @ 5:00 pm
Brad – That was an incredibly mendoucheous response. You read into his words something that was clearly not there. It is, frankly, dishonest. He stated his opinion, his analysis. There is nothing to suggest that he hopes for that, other than your imagination.
Comment by JD (870a39) — 4/29/2009 @ 5:00 pm
But the MSM told me that the Fed declined to lower interest rates due to positive signs that the economy is headed in the right direction.
Interest rates went below zero might raise some eyebrows.
Comment by Brother Bradley J. Fikes, C.O.R., (828888) — 4/29/2009 @ 5:00 pm
But the MSM told me that the Fed declined to lower interest rates due to positive signs that the economy is headed in the right direction.
Interest rates that go below zero might raise some eyebrows.
Comment by Brother Bradley J. Fikes, C.O.R., (828888) — 4/29/2009 @ 5:01 pm
The party is just a bunch of old white extremist people, in essence.
What a ninny. I’m neither, white, nor old, nor extreme. But you have shown yourself to freely and incorrectly stereotype and an ageist as well. Have you notified Janet Napolitano of your insightful list?
“The GOP needs to diversify.”
To diversify to become popular or just to say, Look! We’re a diversified party, vote for us! is pointless. It’s about principles, not compromise, and it’s about being consistent. If anything Arlen Specter has evidenced nothing but the fear of a potentially shameful loss and just how far he’ll go to avoid that. If this diversity, then you on the left can keep it because it’s a rather unattractive quality.
Comment by Dana (d08a3a) — 4/29/2009 @ 5:04 pm
Brad, you’re a fool. I’m just hoping to be able to pay my bills in the short-term, and try to get ahead, in the long.
But, I don’t close my eyes to what is happening around me.
The American Consumer is shutting down, and not buying anything that is not essential to their immediate survival.
World Trade is shutting down due to that same parsimoniousness of the American Consumer. The earnings reports of profit centers in Europe such as M-B, BMW, and VW are hemoraging red-ink.
The old addage that when the United States sneezes, the World catches cold, is no less true today than it was previously.
Economic activity in both China and India is stagnant, and neither can afford to be in a position where they can’t find jobs for the millions coming into the job market each and every week.
Here, we have an administration that is more concerned about husbanding power than in economic recovery – how else to explain the Socialistic desire to control major players in the economy, such as the major banks, and the manufacturing sector as illustrated by Detroit.
We are undergoing a replay of the destructive actions of the New Deal that destroyed major segments of the economy in the ’30′s, keeping millions in unemployment, poverty, and despair.
I worry that we will not be a resilient this time.
Comment by AD - RtR/OS! (2736a1) — 4/29/2009 @ 5:05 pm
Whenever perusing and/or using any government provided statistic:
Rule #1- Be aware that chances are these will have been spun, wrung, and dung beyond any scintilla of reality.
Rule #2- When in doubt, refer to Rule #1.
Making sense of these stats is integral to how I trade and invest. Therefore, I typically lop off or add to any stat depending on past experience with the specific reporting agency. Secondly, one can garner a somewhat more realistic number from John Williams’ site…
Shadow Stats
Comment by Surgical Masked Pundit (16b926) — 4/29/2009 @ 5:17 pm
I worry that we will not be as resilient this time.
Comment by AD - RtR/OS! (2736a1) — 4/29/2009 @ 5:19 pm
Guess I can safely remove this mask now. They don’t allow any pig sty in our condo patios, anyway.
Comment by allan (16b926) — 4/29/2009 @ 5:20 pm
Dana – The GOP lets women in? Who knew?
Comment by daleyrocks (5d22c0) — 4/29/2009 @ 5:30 pm
Well, somebody has to do the cleanin’ and cookin’!
Comment by AD - RtR/OS! (2736a1) — 4/29/2009 @ 5:31 pm
Daleyrocks’ and AD’s Tushes: Meet my friend Jimmy Choo!
Comment by Dana (d08a3a) — 4/29/2009 @ 5:35 pm
Well, at least you’re not bare-foot!
Comment by AD - RtR/OS! (2736a1) — 4/29/2009 @ 5:38 pm
It’s about principles, not compromise, and it’s about being consistent.
Yeah, who needs pussy independents.
The way to revive the party is to recruit those who merely “tend to vote” a party but not strongly identify with it. I gather they are not the ones spending hours on end colonizing comments’ sections on blogs.
Comment by steve (e684d0) — 4/29/2009 @ 5:45 pm
steve – Is it fun slaughtering strawmen?
Comment by JD (870a39) — 4/29/2009 @ 5:54 pm
Well, after you chop them up, you can always throw them in the fire for heat.
Comment by AD - RtR/OS! (2736a1) — 4/29/2009 @ 6:10 pm
Elections are not decided by people for whom Keith Olbermann quickens the pulse, Hannity gets more than a couple minutes in the car or who bookmark political blogs.
They wouldn’t know Byron York from a box of Honey Nut Cheerios.
Comment by steve (399ba4) — 4/29/2009 @ 6:38 pm
Therfore Republicans should abandon their core principles?
Comment by JD (870a39) — 4/29/2009 @ 6:40 pm
I know Honey Nut Cheerios. Byron York is no Honey Nut Cheerios, sir.
Comment by carlitos (23eb68) — 4/29/2009 @ 6:43 pm
Mitch McConnell = Captain Peachfuzz.
Comment by DCSCA (9d1bb3) — 4/29/2009 @ 8:09 pm
#82- Don’t whig out. You’ll go extinct in time.
Comment by DCSCA (9d1bb3) — 4/29/2009 @ 8:11 pm
#113- Therfore Republicans should abandon their core principles?
‘Oh, you’re the bright young men, who wanna go back to 1910, you’re Barry’s Boys…’
Comment by DCSCA (9d1bb3) — 4/29/2009 @ 8:12 pm
#109- Yeah, who needs pussy independents.
The Republican Party, that’s who.
Comment by DCSCA (9d1bb3) — 4/29/2009 @ 8:13 pm
ASPCA wants some playmates.
Try the yellow stripe in the middle of the road. They’ll find you.
Oh, and blow me.
Comment by daleyrocks (5d22c0) — 4/29/2009 @ 8:17 pm
The repetitious juvenile behavior of DCSCA the blogroach got old a long time ago.
Comment by SPQR (26be8b) — 4/29/2009 @ 8:19 pm
It either escaped from the root cellar, or did it run out of Lithium?
Comment by JD (870a39) — 4/29/2009 @ 8:22 pm
He’s our own SWINE and he gives everyone a headache with the idiocy of his comments, just like the flu.
Comment by daleyrocks (5d22c0) — 4/29/2009 @ 8:27 pm
The best take on this is by S. Weasel at the Weasel Times and Stoat Intelligencer.
Comment by Rich Rostrom (874cbd) — 4/29/2009 @ 10:12 pm
I have to admit, that the first time I saw the title “Did Something Happen With Arlen Specter?” I silenty wished, but only for a moment, that he had been swallowed whole by one of his 8 chins.
Comment by JD (6ef9a2) — 4/29/2009 @ 10:15 pm
I’ve never noticed his chin, but he definitely has 8 cheeks.
Seriously, I don’t like to stoop to the Left’s practice of critiquing peoples’ looks, but I saw a picture of Specter the other day that was kind of frightening. He really did look like a spectre–like Ghost Rider or something. Weird.
Comment by danebramage (700c93) — 5/1/2009 @ 7:11 am