Did I beat Tim?
I saw it on CNN online as breaking news, but they took it down, so it may not be true. I guess this would make the Democratic majority filibusterproof, once Al Franken wins his seat.
why switch?
Quote from: saskganesh on April 28, 2009, 11:27:54 AM
why switch?
He was going to get his ass handed to him in the 2010 Senate primary.
Good riddance. I gave up trying to figure him out long ago.
Quote from: saskganesh on April 28, 2009, 11:35:40 AM
Quote from: Weatherman on April 28, 2009, 11:29:27 AM
Quote from: saskganesh on April 28, 2009, 11:27:54 AM
why switch?
He was going to get his ass handed to him in the 2010 Senate primary.
so he's desperate?
Latest polls had him 21 points behind his challenger and Penn law won't let people run as Independents, so yeah he was desperate.
Anyway, Specter's voice always reminded me of Howard Sprague from the Andy Griffith Show. Kinda looks like him in a way, as well.
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fnaturalborngriller.com%2Fmarkhopkins%2FHowardSprague2verysmall.jpg&hash=490a4d84ff0c06f5f602cb703c7e57bd747838cc)
That is even dumber than the Democrat/Lieberman fiasco a few years ago. Not only have the Republicans flipped their seat to the democrats, but they just gave the Democrats a filibuster proof majority at a time the Democrats have a very ambitious agenda they are trying to push through without much republican input.
When will the GOP reach bottom?
Quote from: alfred russel on April 28, 2009, 11:49:35 AM
That is even dumber than the Democrat/Lieberman fiasco a few years ago. Not only have the Republicans flipped their seat to the democrats, but they just gave the Democrats a filibuster proof majority at a time the Democrats have a very ambitious agenda they are trying to push through without much republican input.
Who is this "they"?
Did all the republicans get together and vote have Specter switch?
How significant is the switch? Specter isn't obligated to vote along with the Dems in the Senate, no?
Quote from: Faeelin on April 28, 2009, 11:55:16 AM
How significant is the switch? Specter isn't obligated to vote along with the Dems in the Senate, no?
Not as significant as is hyped, IMO. Not all Democrats will always vote with their party, especially on more liberal issues, and there are several Republicans (including Specter) who have sided with Democrats in the past few months.
Quote from: alfred russel on April 28, 2009, 11:49:35 AM
That is even dumber than the Democrat/Lieberman fiasco a few years ago. Not only have the Republicans flipped their seat to the democrats, but they just gave the Democrats a filibuster proof majority at a time the Democrats have a very ambitious agenda they are trying to push through without much republican input.
I think this all started in 2004, back when Republicans were solidly in power, and could afford to cleanse the party of moderates. Specter was clearly targeted for elimination, and had a fight for his political life.
Steele didn't pull any punches:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/us_specter_switch
QuoteRepublican National Committee Chairman Michael Steele said in a statement: "Some in the Republican Party are happy about this. I am not. Let's be honest: Senator Specter didn't leave the GOP based on principles of any kind. He left to further his personal political interests because he knew that he was going to lose a Republican primary due to his left-wing voting record. Republicans look forward to beating Sen. Specter in 2010, assuming the Democrats don't do it first."
Quote from: DGuller on April 28, 2009, 12:01:20 PM
Quote from: alfred russel on April 28, 2009, 11:49:35 AM
That is even dumber than the Democrat/Lieberman fiasco a few years ago. Not only have the Republicans flipped their seat to the democrats, but they just gave the Democrats a filibuster proof majority at a time the Democrats have a very ambitious agenda they are trying to push through without much republican input.
I think this all started in 2004, back when Republicans were solidly in power, and could afford to cleanse the party of moderates. Specter was clearly targeted for elimination, and had a fight for his political life.
Should have used a magic bullet.
Quote from: derspiess on April 28, 2009, 12:17:17 PM
Steele didn't pull any punches:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/us_specter_switch
QuoteRepublican National Committee Chairman Michael Steele said in a statement: "Some in the Republican Party are happy about this. I am not. Let's be honest: Senator Specter didn't leave the GOP based on principles of any kind. He left to further his personal political interests because he knew that he was going to lose a Republican primary due to his left-wing voting record. Republicans look forward to beating Sen. Specter in 2010, assuming the Democrats don't do it first."
Now that's a guy I'm suprised has kept his job.
Quote from: Razgovory on April 28, 2009, 12:19:14 PM
Now that's a guy I'm suprised has kept his job.
Rush forgave him. :contract:
Actually this makes perfect sense to me. Specter is a RINO (has been for quite some time) and represents a state that has been trending increasingly Democratic for quite some time now. I know he did it in the short-term to avoid losing the primary, but he should be a Democrat anyway based on his personal philosophies.
Filibuster-proof. :yeah:
Another blow to the irrelephants. :P
Quote from: Martinus on April 28, 2009, 01:32:49 PM
irrelephants
Really? Did you really just type that out and hit "Post"?
Quote from: Berkut on April 28, 2009, 11:53:13 AM
Who is this "they"?
Did all the republicans get together and vote have Specter switch?
"They" are the majority of republicans that were apparently about to vote him off their ticket.
Quote from: Martinus on April 28, 2009, 01:32:49 PM
Filibuster-proof. :yeah:
Not really. Trying to get Specter and Nelson to vote for cloture is still going to be a pain in the ass whether Specter is wearing the (R) jersey or the (D) jersey.
Quote from: DGuller on April 28, 2009, 11:58:09 AM
Not as significant as is hyped, IMO. Not all Democrats will always vote with their party, especially on more liberal issues, and there are several Republicans (including Specter) who have sided with Democrats in the past few months.
I would say: significant. Spector is now going to have to establish a liberal enough voting record to survive a democratic primary if he wants to make it to a general election. There is no way he will win a primary if he votes against cap and trade, universal health care, and card check.
Quote from: alfred russel on April 28, 2009, 01:40:06 PM
Quote from: Berkut on April 28, 2009, 11:53:13 AM
Who is this "they"?
Did all the republicans get together and vote have Specter switch?
"They" are the majority of republicans that were apparently about to vote him off their ticket.
In favor of some other Republican though. It isn't like Specter The Republican was going to win the general election anyway, right?
Quote from: Berkut on April 28, 2009, 01:47:26 PM
Quote from: alfred russel on April 28, 2009, 01:40:06 PM
Quote from: Berkut on April 28, 2009, 11:53:13 AM
Who is this "they"?
Did all the republicans get together and vote have Specter switch?
"They" are the majority of republicans that were apparently about to vote him off their ticket.
In favor of some other Republican though. It isn't like Specter The Republican was going to win the general election anyway, right?
Specter the Republican could have won the general election. Specter had really good numbers among Independents and Democrats, so just consolidating the Republicans a bit would have put him over the top.
Toomey the Republican was not going to win the general election.
"Voters approve 52 - 33 percent of the job Specter is doing, with a 71 - 16 percent positive score from Democrats and a 41 - 37 percent boost from independent voters, off-setting a 52 - 36 percent disapproval from Republicans."
http://www.quinnipiac.edu/x1327.xml?ReleaseID=1280
From what I read, Spector was a favorite to win the general election if he won the primary.
Quote from: alfred russel on April 28, 2009, 01:45:13 PM
I would say: significant. Spector is now going to have to establish a liberal enough voting record to survive a democratic primary if he wants to make it to a general election. There is no way he will win a primary if he votes against cap and trade, universal health care, and card check.
Didn't the Democrats promise no primary challenge in exchange for the switch?
Quote from: DGuller on April 28, 2009, 02:02:52 PM
Quote from: alfred russel on April 28, 2009, 01:45:13 PM
I would say: significant. Spector is now going to have to establish a liberal enough voting record to survive a democratic primary if he wants to make it to a general election. There is no way he will win a primary if he votes against cap and trade, universal health care, and card check.
Didn't the Democrats promise no primary challenge in exchange for the switch?
I don't know, I just saw the headline.
RINO? what's that stand for?
heh. "irrelephant" is a good word.
animal time!
Quote from: ulmont on April 28, 2009, 01:50:46 PM
Quote from: Berkut on April 28, 2009, 01:47:26 PM
Quote from: alfred russel on April 28, 2009, 01:40:06 PM
Quote from: Berkut on April 28, 2009, 11:53:13 AM
Who is this "they"?
Did all the republicans get together and vote have Specter switch?
"They" are the majority of republicans that were apparently about to vote him off their ticket.
In favor of some other Republican though. It isn't like Specter The Republican was going to win the general election anyway, right?
Specter the Republican could have won the general election. Specter had really good numbers among Independents and Democrats, so just consolidating the Republicans a bit would have put him over the top.
Toomey the Republican was not going to win the general election.
"Voters approve 52 - 33 percent of the job Specter is doing, with a 71 - 16 percent positive score from Democrats and a 41 - 37 percent boost from independent voters, off-setting a 52 - 36 percent disapproval from Republicans."
http://www.quinnipiac.edu/x1327.xml?ReleaseID=1280
So Specter would have won the general, but could not have won the primary?
If that is the case, I withdraw my objection - mea culpa.
The republicans (at least some of them) are in fact dumbasses. And I applaud Specter for making them pay for their dumbassedness.
Well, he voted with the democrats most of the time anyway, so it's no great loss. How does having somebody represent your party who rejects every single principled position of that party help? Specter is no Lieberman who only had a disagreement with his party on a single issue, Specter disagreed with the GOP on virtually every issue.
I doubt Specter will win in 2010, his vote for the porkulus will kill him. We will have substantially higher unemployment next year than this year, with massive budget deficits and a poor economy, which will result in a blood bath at the polls. A narcissistic 30-year Senator like Snarlin' Arlen is exactly what people will revolt against.
Quote from: fahdiz on April 28, 2009, 02:26:44 PM
Quote from: saskganesh on April 28, 2009, 02:25:47 PM
RINO? what's that stand for?
Republican In Name Only.
It drives me nuts when I hear that term because it's usually referring to moderate northeast GOP members. A lot of the conservative base in the Republican party can't seem to wrap they're heads around the fact that they can't win up here with their policy views. The more conservative they get the more they're going to alienate non-base Republicans.
Vince you must be one of the "unamericans" I often read about.
Quote from: Vince on April 28, 2009, 02:49:54 PM
It drives me nuts when I hear that term because it's usually referring to moderate northeast GOP members. A lot of the conservative base in the Republican party can't seem to wrap they're heads around the fact that they can't win up here with their policy views. The more conservative they get the more they're going to alienate non-base Republicans.
Is this term used by the Republican base? I've only heard it here used by Democratic party cadres.
Quote from: saskganesh on April 28, 2009, 02:42:07 PM
ok. there must be DINOS out there for balance.
We call them Blue Dogs these days.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on April 28, 2009, 02:56:23 PM
Is this term used by the Republican base? I've only heard it here used by Democratic party cadres.
A quick google search indicates that yes, at least the Republican blogosphere is rather fond of calling folks RINOs.
Quote from: saskganesh on April 28, 2009, 02:55:29 PM
Vince you must be one of the "unamericans" I often read about.
:shifty:
Quote from: Admiral Yi on April 28, 2009, 02:56:23 PM
Is this term used by the Republican base? I've only heard it here used by Democratic party cadres.
I think it's used much more often by Hans types than it is used by Democrats. Democrats prefer to call them "moderate Republicans", for obvious reasons.
Quote from: DGuller on April 28, 2009, 02:57:44 PM
We call them Blue Dogs these days.
Or Liebermans. :D
heh. innerresting.
Quote from: saskganesh on April 28, 2009, 03:00:44 PM
heh. innerresting.
Guess the behavior that Vince was talking about does cross party lines, since the Blue Dogs' and Lieberman's disagreements with the Democrats were relatively minor. ;)
@Hans: Interesting, and not something that I would have expected, but now that it's occurring, I'm not surprised. Specter was
not unconditionally for the stimulus; he took the time to publicize his grievances with the legislation, but he voted for it as the lesser of two evils, and at that point, the Republicans really set this into motion, since they started issuing ultimatums that it was the responsibility of every Republican to block Obama's fiscal agenda.
Quote from: ulmont on April 28, 2009, 03:12:10 PM
Quote from: fahdiz on April 28, 2009, 02:59:41 PM
Quote from: DGuller on April 28, 2009, 02:57:44 PM
We call them Blue Dogs these days.
Or Liebermans. :D
Or Lieberdems, which Specter will likely be.
DINO?
shit, it really exists?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democrat_In_Name_Only
Quote from: DontSayBanana on April 28, 2009, 03:10:25 PM
Guess the behavior that Vince was talking about does cross party lines, since the Blue Dogs' and Lieberman's disagreements with the Democrats were relatively minor. ;)
Liberman has been talked to death already, so I won't touch it. However, I disagree that Blue Dogs' disagreements with Democrats are relatively minor. On many issues, especially social ones, the disagreements are rather fundamental.
There is also another major difference between RINOs and Blue Dogs: RINOs are looked upon as traitors by Republicans, while Blue Dogs are supported by Democrats as the most favorable compromise in hostile states or districts. Democrats are smart enough to realize that having to compromise with Blue Dogs is much better than having to compromise with Republicans (although there are some game-theoretic advantages to the Republican hardcore approach as well).
DG is not nearly as much fun with a Dem in the White House. :(
QuoteSnowe: GOP Has Abandoned Principles; Specter Switch "Devastating"
Snowe: GOP Has Abandoned Principles; Specter Switch "Devastating"
Posted on April 28, 2009 by The Huffington Post News Team.
Sen. Olympia Snowe of Maine, one of the few remaining moderate Republicans in the Senate, said Tuesday that Arlen Specter's abandonment of the GOP is "devastating," both "personally and I think for the party."
"I've always been deeply concerned about the views of the Republican Party nationally in terms of their exclusionary policies and views towards moderate Republicans," said Snowe, who has been approached, she said, by Democrats in the past about switching parties.
Specter's switch to the Democratic Party "underscores the blunt reality" that the GOP is not a welcome place for moderates, she said.
So far, she said, she's staying put. "I believe in the traditional tenets of the Republican Party: strong national defense, fiscal responsibility, individual opportunity. I haven't abandoned those principles that have been the essence of the Republican Party. I think the Republican Party has abandoned those principles.
She added that being a Republican is simply part of who she is. "It's my ethnic heritage, Spartan side, that continues to fight," she said.
http://www.alternet.org/wire/12/snowegophasabandonedprinciplesspecterswitchdevastating
This is interesting, if true. Snow's basically bitching out the GOP for the issue, and seems to be implying that she might consider switching parties.
Snowe's a badass. Would that she'd have run instead of the emasculated McCain.
Quote from: Berkut on April 28, 2009, 02:27:19 PM
So Specter would have won the general, but could not have won the primary?
If that is the case, I withdraw my objection - mea culpa.
Yeah, and Specter has also fucked the Democrats, all things considered. Specter was going to lose the primary and let Toomey lose the general election, meaning a first-class Democrat would have had the seat.
Now it's going to be the DINO-Specter version, unless he shifts far left (which does happen; Jeffords became a very liberal Democrat after switching out of the Republican party).
Quote from: Berkut on April 28, 2009, 01:47:26 PM
In favor of some other Republican though. It isn't like Specter The Republican was going to win the general election anyway, right?
He had a better chance than Pat Toomie. The problem is if the Republicans want to have Senators in places like Pennsylvania then they're going to be moderate and often annoying to the party. I think it's dangerous for a party to be too pure.
So I actually like Senators who are, I think, centrists from conviction. The Nelsons and Snowes and Specters are, I think, very good if you're not to have the Senate turn into a parliamentary chamber.
Specter is a slow-talking old geezer at age 79! I surely hope that I will not think that I am that cool that I still need to be working crazy hours and pulling crazy stunts like this at that age. :o
Reading his wiki I actually, generally, quite like his positions. I think on most domestic issues he's roughly where I would be if I were an American. I think they're not very congruent with the Republican party, though I think they were moreso in 1980 when he was first elected.
Snowe switching would certainly invalidate her principles of strong national defense, fiscal responsibility and individual opportunity.
Quote from: Faeelin on April 28, 2009, 03:57:41 PM
QuoteSnowe: GOP Has Abandoned Principles; Specter Switch "Devastating"
Snowe: GOP Has Abandoned Principles; Specter Switch "Devastating"
Posted on April 28, 2009 by The Huffington Post News Team.
Sen. Olympia Snowe of Maine, one of the few remaining moderate Republicans in the Senate, said Tuesday that Arlen Specter's abandonment of the GOP is "devastating," both "personally and I think for the party."
"I've always been deeply concerned about the views of the Republican Party nationally in terms of their exclusionary policies and views towards moderate Republicans," said Snowe, who has been approached, she said, by Democrats in the past about switching parties.
Specter's switch to the Democratic Party "underscores the blunt reality" that the GOP is not a welcome place for moderates, she said.
So far, she said, she's staying put. "I believe in the traditional tenets of the Republican Party: strong national defense, fiscal responsibility, individual opportunity. I haven't abandoned those principles that have been the essence of the Republican Party. I think the Republican Party has abandoned those principles.
She added that being a Republican is simply part of who she is. "It's my ethnic heritage, Spartan side, that continues to fight," she said.
http://www.alternet.org/wire/12/snowegophasabandonedprinciplesspecterswitchdevastating
This is interesting, if true. Snow's basically bitching out the GOP for the issue, and seems to be implying that she might consider switching parties.
I think Snowe should never mention "fiscal responsibility" again. She voted for the most fiscally irresponsible bill in US history.
Quote from: Hansmeister on April 28, 2009, 05:15:27 PM
I think Snowe should never mention "fiscal responsibility" again. She voted for the most fiscally irresponsible bill in US history.
Hyperbolemeister! To the Hyperbole Cave!
Quote from: Hansmeister on April 28, 2009, 05:15:27 PM
I think Snowe should never mention "fiscal responsibility" again. She voted for the most fiscally irresponsible bill in US history.
Is there any US Congressman who could actually be considered fiscally responsible?
c'mon, ethnically Spartan?
they gotta ban "300" from the Senate DVD rental shop.
Quote from: Neil on April 28, 2009, 05:18:01 PM
Quote from: Hansmeister on April 28, 2009, 05:15:27 PM
I think Snowe should never mention "fiscal responsibility" again. She voted for the most fiscally irresponsible bill in US history.
Is there any US Congressman who could actually be considered fiscally responsible?
Out of 535, you'd think at least one or two maybe. Probably not though. <_<
Quote from: Sheilbh on April 28, 2009, 04:27:48 PM
Quote from: Berkut on April 28, 2009, 01:47:26 PM
In favor of some other Republican though. It isn't like Specter The Republican was going to win the general election anyway, right?
He had a better chance than Pat Toomie. The problem is if the Republicans want to have Senators in places like Pennsylvania then they're going to be moderate and often annoying to the party. I think it's dangerous for a party to be too pure.
So I actually like Senators who are, I think, centrists from conviction. The Nelsons and Snowes and Specters are, I think, very good if you're not to have the Senate turn into a parliamentary chamber.
Pennsylvania isn't that liberal of a place: they did get Rick Santorum elected to a couple of terms there.
Quote from: Hansmeister on April 28, 2009, 05:15:27 PM
I think Snowe should never mention "fiscal responsibility" again. She voted for the most fiscally irresponsible bill in US history.
She opposed spending increase for most of the time the GOP ran the Senate, as well as the Bush tax cuts because, like McCain, she didn't think they were adequately funded. As far as I can tell she's only really been keen on spending when there's a global economic crisis. I think she's in a better position to discuss fiscal responsibility than most Republican Senators who supported very large amounts spending so long as they were in power.
Quote from: alfred russel on April 28, 2009, 05:33:38 PM
Pennsylvania isn't that liberal of a place: they did get Rick Santorum elected to a couple of terms there.
I realise that but I thought it was generally a Democrat state and that's it's been voting more and more liberal in recent years.
Quote from: Sheilbh on April 28, 2009, 05:35:57 PM
Quote from: Hansmeister on April 28, 2009, 05:15:27 PM
I think Snowe should never mention "fiscal responsibility" again. She voted for the most fiscally irresponsible bill in US history.
She opposed spending increase for most of the time the GOP ran the Senate, as well as the Bush tax cuts because, like McCain, she didn't think they were adequately funded. As far as I can tell she's only really been keen on spending when there's a global economic crisis. I think she's in a better position to discuss fiscal responsibility than most Republican Senators who supported very large amounts spending so long as they were in power.
Sorry. Since Hans is starting from the idea that countercyclical economic spending is a fool's errand, and BTW Bush's Deficits were actually great because they were smaller than that unsustainable economic growth, your argument means squat.
Quote from: Faeelin on April 28, 2009, 05:40:10 PM
Sorry. Since Hans is starting from the idea that countercyclical economic spending is a fool's errand, and BTW Bush's Deficits were actually great because they were smaller than that unsustainable economic growth, your argument means squat.
Growth during the Bush years was poor. I hope the growth rates we've seen the past decade or so are sustainable, or our economic future is not going to be very good.
Quote from: alfred russel on April 28, 2009, 11:21:59 AM
Did I beat Tim?
I saw it on CNN online as breaking news, but they took it down, so it may not be true. I guess this would make the Democratic majority filibusterproof, once Al Franken wins his seat.
I can't post from school. :(
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on April 28, 2009, 05:32:36 PM
Quote from: Neil on April 28, 2009, 05:18:01 PM
Quote from: Hansmeister on April 28, 2009, 05:15:27 PM
I think Snowe should never mention "fiscal responsibility" again. She voted for the most fiscally irresponsible bill in US history.
Is there any US Congressman who could actually be considered fiscally responsible?
Out of 535, you'd think at least one or two maybe. Probably not though. <_<
Hell even Ron Paul loaded up one of those spending bills with more pork than any other GOP congressman.
Quote from: Faeelin on April 28, 2009, 05:40:10 PM
Sorry. Since Hans is starting from the idea that countercyclical economic spending is a fool's errand, and BTW Bush's Deficits were actually great because they were smaller than that unsustainable economic growth, your argument means squat.
Is he starting from that position? I thought his ire from the bill was that it was full of ideological spending that he disagrees with.
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on April 28, 2009, 05:32:36 PM
Quote from: Neil on April 28, 2009, 05:18:01 PM
Quote from: Hansmeister on April 28, 2009, 05:15:27 PM
I think Snowe should never mention "fiscal responsibility" again. She voted for the most fiscally irresponsible bill in US history.
Is there any US Congressman who could actually be considered fiscally responsible?
Out of 535, you'd think at least one or two maybe. Probably not though. <_<
I dunno. Was there someone who voted against both the stimulus and the Bush tax cuts?
Incidentally, I read somewhere that the GOP was withholding campaignn funds from Snowe and Specter because of their stimulus votes.
Really? And they expect them to stay with the party?
Who would have thought someone named Arlen would become a Democrat at age 79?
Quote from: Faeelin on April 28, 2009, 06:08:02 PM
Incidentally, I read somewhere that the GOP was withholding campaignn funds from Snowe and Specter because of their stimulus votes.
Really? And they expect them to stay with the party?
I don't think they're doing that. Michael Steele said that he'd consider it as an option.
Quote from: Sheilbh on April 28, 2009, 06:10:29 PM
Quote from: Faeelin on April 28, 2009, 06:08:02 PM
Incidentally, I read somewhere that the GOP was withholding campaignn funds from Snowe and Specter because of their stimulus votes.
Really? And they expect them to stay with the party?
I don't think they're doing that. Michael Steele said that he'd consider it as an option.
:unsure:
Why would you make that threat? "Because of their vote, we
may cut off his reelection funding. What are you going to do, switch parties?"
Traitor Spector! Too bad that Darth Cheney isn't still VP - else Spector would rightfully find himself cooling his heels in Gitmo for his treachery! :mad:
;)
Quote from: Faeelin on April 28, 2009, 06:32:34 PM
Why would you make that threat? "Because of their vote, we may cut off his reelection funding. What are you going to do, switch parties?"
Because it's one of the few tools you have to enforce party solidarity and loyalty.
Now it all depends on how you use that threat but as party leader you can't take it off the table as an option...
Quote from: KRonn on April 28, 2009, 07:03:55 PM
Traitor Spector! Too bad that Darth Cheney isn't still VP - else Spector would rightfully find himself cooling his heels in Gitmo for his treachery! :mad:
;)
The 100 days are up, if the G.O.P. was going to assassinate him they would have done it by now.. so by that logic I think Spectre thought it was finally safe to join the "Good Guys".
Quote from: Sheilbh on April 28, 2009, 05:37:06 PM
Quote from: alfred russel on April 28, 2009, 05:33:38 PM
Pennsylvania isn't that liberal of a place: they did get Rick Santorum elected to a couple of terms there.
I realise that but I thought it was generally a Democrat state and that's it's been voting more and more liberal in recent years.
200,000 Pennsylvania Republicans have defected in the past twelve months.
I laugh at the GOP. You sad, sad bastards.
How could you not control Specter? Sad, sad bastards. The lot of you.
Quote from: Viking on April 28, 2009, 08:05:22 PM
Quote from: KRonn on April 28, 2009, 07:03:55 PM
Traitor Spector! Too bad that Darth Cheney isn't still VP - else Spector would rightfully find himself cooling his heels in Gitmo for his treachery! :mad:
;)
The 100 days are up, if the G.O.P. was going to assassinate him they would have done it by now.. so by that logic I think Spectre thought it was finally safe to join the "Good Guys".
Lol... who the heck are the "good guys" in the US Congress, or among these two diabolic, inbred, dynastic parties? :cool:
Quote from: citizen k on April 28, 2009, 08:10:39 PM
Quote from: Sheilbh on April 28, 2009, 05:37:06 PM
Quote from: alfred russel on April 28, 2009, 05:33:38 PM
Pennsylvania isn't that liberal of a place: they did get Rick Santorum elected to a couple of terms there.
I realise that but I thought it was generally a Democrat state and that's it's been voting more and more liberal in recent years.
200,000 Pennsylvania Republicans have defected in the past twelve months.
...to vote against Obama in the primary ;)
Quote from: Hansmeister on April 28, 2009, 05:15:27 PM
I think Snowe should never mention "fiscal responsibility" again. She voted for the most fiscally irresponsible bill in US history.
You were the guy telling me how ignorant I was for opposing budget deficits during the Bush years because they were temporary. Yeah real fucking temporary now eh Hans?
Even better we are in a major economic melt down so now there is actually a logical reason for deficit spending...
and now you are fucking suddenly opposed to them. It has nothing to do with the other guys being in power right? Do not even try to pull that fiscal responsible shit on me. As soon as your guys are back in power you will be on here telling me how deficits are fine since economic growth is a certainty with your magical tax cut bullet.
Quote from: Valmy on April 28, 2009, 11:16:52 PM
and now you are fucking suddenly opposed to them. It has nothing to do with the other guys being in power right? Do not even try to pull that fiscal responsible shit on me. As soon as your guys are back in power you will be on here telling me how deficits are fine since economic growth is a certainty with your magical tax cut bullet.
:huh:
I don't think I've ever seen you make this angry a post.
Quote from: Faeelin on April 28, 2009, 11:19:18 PM
I don't think I've ever seen you make this angry a post.
This bullshit about how fiscally responsible the Conservatives are all of the sudden pisses me off.
AKA he just got married, bought a house, and probably knocked up the missus!
:P
Quote from: Valmy on April 28, 2009, 11:20:54 PM
This bullshit about how fiscally responsible the Conservatives are all of the sudden pisses me off.
Don't assume we were all happy with Bush's spending.
Quote from: derspiess on April 28, 2009, 11:33:07 AM
Good riddance. I gave up trying to figure him out long ago.
Well so long as you guys are giving away Senate seats you mind if the we take those two from Maine off your hands?
Here's to accountability.
Quote from: saskganesh on April 28, 2009, 05:19:17 PM
c'mon, ethnically Spartan?
they gotta ban "300" from the Senate DVD rental shop.
Apparently her father
really was originally from Sparta.
As a side note, I sometimes wonder at the fluidity of party lines and crossings that it produces in the two big US parties, over here that kind of changes are sparse, given the way more rigid party structures, and create one hell of a ruckus.
Quote from: The Larch on April 29, 2009, 06:43:36 AM
Quote from: saskganesh on April 28, 2009, 05:19:17 PM
c'mon, ethnically Spartan?
they gotta ban "300" from the Senate DVD rental shop.
Apparently her father really was originally from Sparta.
As a side note, I sometimes wonder at the fluidity of party lines and crossings that it produces in the two big US parties, over here that kind of changes are sparse, given the way more rigid party structures, and create one hell of a ruckus.
In the US, the politicians are indistinguishable. It's just a tactical move. If a guy thinks he has a better chance of continuing his comp life with the other party, he'll switch in a heartbeat. Neither party has any real core principles.
Quote from: Neil on April 29, 2009, 07:35:45 AM
Quote from: The Larch on April 29, 2009, 06:43:36 AM
Quote from: saskganesh on April 28, 2009, 05:19:17 PM
c'mon, ethnically Spartan?
they gotta ban "300" from the Senate DVD rental shop.
Apparently her father really was originally from Sparta.
As a side note, I sometimes wonder at the fluidity of party lines and crossings that it produces in the two big US parties, over here that kind of changes are sparse, given the way more rigid party structures, and create one hell of a ruckus.
In the US, the politicians are indistinguishable. It's just a tactical move. If a guy thinks he has a better chance of continuing his comp life with the other party, he'll switch in a heartbeat. Neither party has any real core principles.
He's 80 years old, another dinosaur, as so many are in both parties, or wind up being after decades in politics. Need to have some way of moving these guys/gals on, bringing in new people. Now he's doing this change so he has a better chance of winning re-election as a Democrat. Having 60 Senators is filibuster proof for the Dems, but otherwise Spector isn't doing the Dems any favors; though getting closer to 60 Dems is probably quite enough.
When Franken is confirmed, they will have the 60 votes. :contract:
Quote from: Caliga on April 29, 2009, 07:48:41 AM
When Franken is confirmed, they will have the 60 votes. :contract:
Hilariously, Olbermann and the she beast Maddow were ranting that because Specter, Bayh and Bill Nelson won't automatically vote for closure, they are VERY BAD PEOPLE.
This is how it sounded last night on TV:
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimg99.imageshack.us%2Fimg99%2F561%2Fdogwaterhose.jpg&hash=9f77047751519707e852ff56f92717cc79da9ce4)
Quote from: Ed Anger on April 29, 2009, 07:52:10 AM
Quote from: Caliga on April 29, 2009, 07:48:41 AM
When Franken is confirmed, they will have the 60 votes. :contract:
Hilariously, Olbermann and the she beast Maddow were ranting that because Specter, Bayh and Bill Nelson won't automatically vote for closure, they are VERY BAD PEOPLE.
This is how it sounded last night on TV:
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimg99.imageshack.us%2Fimg99%2F561%2Fdogwaterhose.jpg&hash=9f77047751519707e852ff56f92717cc79da9ce4)
Must have been a scary evening of tv viewing for you.... :(
Quote from: Caliga on April 29, 2009, 07:48:41 AM
When Franken is confirmed, they will have the 60 votes. :contract:
Al Franken as a US Senator.
How fucking screwed up is that? Maybe we could elect Barney to Congress while we are at it.
Quote from: Berkut on April 29, 2009, 08:09:56 AMAl Franken as a US Senator.
How fucking screwed up is that? Maybe we could elect Barney to Congress while we are at it.
I've been rooting for Al simply because he'll be another political figure I've met. :smoke:
Is he real liberal, or a moderate, or what? :)
Quote from: Caliga on April 29, 2009, 08:11:03 AM
Quote from: Berkut on April 29, 2009, 08:09:56 AMAl Franken as a US Senator.
How fucking screwed up is that? Maybe we could elect Barney to Congress while we are at it.
I've been rooting for Al simply because he'll be another political figure I've met. :smoke:
Is he real liberal, or a moderate, or what? :)
He is a loony left/moveon liberal, I think.
I don't care about that as much as I care about the fact that he is yet another celebrity pol, and in this case, one who is a celebrity for being a rather goofy ass comedian. Which he is actually pretty decent at.
Quote from: Sheilbh on April 28, 2009, 04:27:48 PM
So I actually like Senators who are, I think, centrists from conviction. The Nelsons and Snowes and Specters are, I think, very good if you're not to have the Senate turn into a parliamentary chamber.
:yes: The moderates are the ones who realize that there are pros
and cons to their ideologies, and that sometimes, compromise is necessary.
The day that Congress becomes fully polarized along party lines is the day it breaks, IMO.
Quote from: Berkut on April 29, 2009, 08:12:40 AM
I don't care about that as much as I care about the fact that he is yet another celebrity pol, and in this case, one who is a celebrity for being a rather goofy ass comedian. Which he is actually pretty decent at.
:yes: :mad:
I mean, did the Romans ever anoint their gladiators as Emper.... er... O SNAP. :(
Quote from: KRonn on April 29, 2009, 08:00:55 AM
Must have been a scary evening of tv viewing for you.... :(
I'd watch a few seconds, then flip to the Rangers-Caps game. So my exposure was limited.
Quote from: Caliga on April 29, 2009, 08:26:16 AM
I mean, did the Romans ever anoint their gladiators as Emper.... er... O SNAP. :(
It's not like the Romans were a true civilized people.
Quote from: Neil on April 29, 2009, 08:47:22 AM
Quote from: Caliga on April 29, 2009, 08:26:16 AM
I mean, did the Romans ever anoint their gladiators as Emper.... er... O SNAP. :(
It's not like the Romans were a true civilized people.
This is true. European civilization could only start when Rome collapsed.
Quote from: Berkut on April 29, 2009, 08:12:40 AM
Quote from: Caliga on April 29, 2009, 08:11:03 AM
Quote from: Berkut on April 29, 2009, 08:09:56 AMAl Franken as a US Senator.
How fucking screwed up is that? Maybe we could elect Barney to Congress while we are at it.
I've been rooting for Al simply because he'll be another political figure I've met. :smoke:
Is he real liberal, or a moderate, or what? :)
He is a loony left/moveon liberal, I think.
I don't care about that as much as I care about the fact that he is yet another celebrity pol, and in this case, one who is a celebrity for being a rather goofy ass comedian. Which he is actually pretty decent at.
Isn't Franken a pretty polarizing figure? He was host of Air America, and from what I've heard he was at best the lefty equivalent of Rush Limbaugh, without all the charm. ;) But he is pretty much the left wing, moveon.org type, right? I have to wonder if Minnesotans are happy now, given what's been going on already with Congress being so one sided. Most people tend to want some balance, and aren't so ideological as to want the left or right side running rough shod.
Quote from: Caliga on April 29, 2009, 08:26:16 AM
Quote from: Berkut on April 29, 2009, 08:12:40 AM
I don't care about that as much as I care about the fact that he is yet another celebrity pol, and in this case, one who is a celebrity for being a rather goofy ass comedian. Which he is actually pretty decent at.
:yes: :mad:
I mean, did the Romans ever anoint their gladiators as Emper.... er... O SNAP. :(
They still maintain that proud tradition, Berlusconi wants to include female celebrities and models on his party's list for the European Parliament elections. :P
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/europe/article6150318.ece (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/europe/article6150318.ece)
Quote from: Neil on April 29, 2009, 08:47:22 AM
Quote from: Caliga on April 29, 2009, 08:26:16 AM
I mean, did the Romans ever anoint their gladiators as Emper.... er... O SNAP. :(
It's not like the Romans were a true civilized people.
I know a Corvus Quinquireme isn't quite a dreadnaught... but.. come on
When is Franken likely to be seated?
Quote from: Caliga on April 29, 2009, 08:26:16 AM
Quote from: Berkut on April 29, 2009, 08:12:40 AM
I don't care about that as much as I care about the fact that he is yet another celebrity pol, and in this case, one who is a celebrity for being a rather goofy ass comedian. Which he is actually pretty decent at.
:yes: :mad:
I mean, did the Romans ever anoint their gladiators as Emper.... er... O SNAP. :(
The Romans had emperors that also entertained as gladiators, we will have a senator that also entertained as Stuart Smalley. But then the Romans crumbled as their territory was militarily overrun, while our global standing has been undermined by our militarism.
Quote from: Phillip V on April 29, 2009, 12:29:58 PM
When is Franken likely to be seated?
Whenever the judge gets around to throwing out Coleman's frivolous suit.
Quote from: Viking on April 29, 2009, 12:03:46 PM
I know a Corvus Quinquireme isn't quite a dreadnaught... but.. come on
Just because they were organized doesn't mean they're civilized. Slavs are organized, but they're still barbarians.
Quote from: Neil on April 29, 2009, 10:01:51 PM
Just because they were organized doesn't mean they're civilized. Slavs are organized, but they're still barbarians.
:contract: Not pointing any fingers, but look at several Scots clans composed of settled Norwegians. :P
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on April 29, 2009, 10:16:14 PM
Quote from: katmai on April 29, 2009, 09:49:12 PM
Of course it does, she's a woman,
Link?
Being a lesbian i'm pretty sure means she has to be a woman. :unsure:
Quote from: fahdiz on April 28, 2009, 05:17:23 PM
Quote from: Hansmeister on April 28, 2009, 05:15:27 PM
I think Snowe should never mention "fiscal responsibility" again. She voted for the most fiscally irresponsible bill in US history.
Hyperbolemeister! To the Hyperbole Cave!
Really? Does that mean you can show me a more fiscally irresponsible bill? I dare you to try.
Quote from: Sheilbh on April 28, 2009, 05:35:57 PM
Quote from: Hansmeister on April 28, 2009, 05:15:27 PM
I think Snowe should never mention "fiscal responsibility" again. She voted for the most fiscally irresponsible bill in US history.
She opposed spending increase for most of the time the GOP ran the Senate, as well as the Bush tax cuts because, like McCain, she didn't think they were adequately funded. As far as I can tell she's only really been keen on spending when there's a global economic crisis. I think she's in a better position to discuss fiscal responsibility than most Republican Senators who supported very large amounts spending so long as they were in power.
Nope, she's never been known to oppose spending, only to oppose tax cuts. Hence, she's a typical tax and spend liberal.
Now I don't dislike Snowe or Collins, because at least they are usually quite honest about where they come from. Specter has long had a reputation as a backstabber, which is why there is even a lot of grumbling on the left about his entirely self-serving switch. I predict he'll be defeated in the primary by a left-wing democrat.
Quote from: Valmy on April 28, 2009, 11:16:52 PM
Quote from: Hansmeister on April 28, 2009, 05:15:27 PM
I think Snowe should never mention "fiscal responsibility" again. She voted for the most fiscally irresponsible bill in US history.
You were the guy telling me how ignorant I was for opposing budget deficits during the Bush years because they were temporary. Yeah real fucking temporary now eh Hans?
Even better we are in a major economic melt down so now there is actually a logical reason for deficit spending...
and now you are fucking suddenly opposed to them. It has nothing to do with the other guys being in power right? Do not even try to pull that fiscal responsible shit on me. As soon as your guys are back in power you will be on here telling me how deficits are fine since economic growth is a certainty with your magical tax cut bullet.
Oh please, you're full of shit. I was always against deficit spending, my only point was that as long as deficits do not exceed economic growth it is manageable since it doesn't increase the debt ratio. Indeed, the debt ration decreased during Bush's presidency from 43 to 41 percent.
Funny, how me saying that a $300 billion deficit isn't too worrysome, but now being outraged at a $2 trillion deficit somehow makes me a hypocrit, while you being outraged about a $300 billion deficit, but now blase about a $2 trillion deficit is somehow ok. Spare me your fake bullshit outrage, fucktard.
:ph34r:
Quote from: Hansmeister on April 29, 2009, 10:36:50 PM
Now I don't dislike Snowe or Collins, because at least they are usually quite honest about where they come from. Specter has long had a reputation as a backstabber, which is why there is even a lot of grumbling on the left about his entirely self-serving switch. I predict he'll be defeated in the primary by a left-wing democrat.
That is certainly possible, though the national party has promised to back Specter.
One thing I've heard from several conservative commentators is that he should have done like Liebermann. That would never have worked. Liebermann won because he was in a safe blue state and the Republicans put up token opposition, thus most of the Republicans and independents voted for Liebermann. Specter is in a purple state and would face strong opposition from both sides and get squeezed. (Someone posted earlier that he could not run as an independent anyway, but I think he could get around that).
As long as Phil Spector doesn't follow suit, I can't say I'm too concerned.
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on April 30, 2009, 12:02:41 PM
Quote from: Hansmeister on April 29, 2009, 10:36:50 PM
Now I don't dislike Snowe or Collins, because at least they are usually quite honest about where they come from. Specter has long had a reputation as a backstabber, which is why there is even a lot of grumbling on the left about his entirely self-serving switch. I predict he'll be defeated in the primary by a left-wing democrat.
That is certainly possible, though the national party has promised to back Specter.
One thing I've heard from several conservative commentators is that he should have done like Liebermann. That would never have worked. Liebermann won because he was in a safe blue state and the Republicans put up token opposition, thus most of the Republicans and independents voted for Liebermann. Specter is in a purple state and would face strong opposition from both sides and get squeezed. (Someone posted earlier that he could not run as an independent anyway, but I think he could get around that).
Indeed. the best solution would've been to retire after serving 30 years, but that would've required some amount of character, which is obviously absent.
Quote from: Hansmeister on April 30, 2009, 12:26:43 PM
Indeed. the best solution would've been to retire after serving 30 years, but that would've required some amount of character, which is obviously absent.
It takes a lot less than 30 years for the Senate to turn a person's soul completely to wood.