Breaking: Arlen Specter to become a Democrat

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

You're bragging about wanting more moderates on your side? Cool. you can have 'em. A moderate Republican is a liberal Democrat. I prefer solid values to wishy washy indecision, which is what defines a political moderate.

LOL...Reagan, the godfather of modern Republicans was a pragmatist first and foremost. You extremists within the GOP have forgotten what pragmatism means or you're such ideologues that you cannot fathom any deviation from your narrow ideology.

What a wacky world when the evil Republicans start acting like good Democrats, eh?

[scandal 951]

You're bragging about wanting more moderates on your side? Cool. you can have 'em. A moderate Republican is a liberal Democrat. I prefer solid values to wishy washy indecision, which is what defines a political moderate.

LOL...Reagan, the godfather of modern Republicans was a pragmatist first and foremost. You extremists within the GOP have forgotten what pragmatism means or you're such ideologues that you cannot fathom any deviation from your narrow ideology.

You're an extremist liberal Democrat, which means you have no idea what you're talking about and have no inhibitions about making that known.

Leaving the epithets aside (and only 'extremist' in the above phrase is an epithet, neither liberal or Democrat are ....) are you denying that Reagan was a pragmatist who stuck to his ideology only insofar as it didn't interfere with his ability to attract a wider base for the GOP? Just where exactly did the Log Cabin Republicans and "Reagan Democrats" come from in the 80s anyway, if not from a Big Tent approach fostered by Reagan? And where have they gone to now during the Rove/Bush years? I suppose you'd say "good riddance", but wouldn't you want the Republicans to actually have a shot at governing again - how are they gonna do that if you alienate sizable portions of the demographic?

I mean, you don't have to answer the question if you don't want to, but I'd be curious to know what a staunch conservative (as apparently you are) thinks of the more inclusive attitudes of the Reagan years.

[Sofiyya 1,687]

You're bragging about wanting more moderates on your side? Cool. you can have 'em. A moderate Republican is a liberal Democrat. I prefer solid values to wishy washy indecision, which is what defines a political moderate.

LOL...Reagan, the godfather of modern Republicans was a pragmatist first and foremost. You extremists within the GOP have forgotten what pragmatism means or you're such ideologues that you cannot fathom any deviation from your narrow ideology.

What a wacky world when the evil Republicans start acting like good Democrats, eh?

Reagan was a recovering ex-Democrat. Smart man!

No mention of "Tip" O'Neill's pragmatism

[Sofiyya 1,687]

You're bragging about wanting more moderates on your side? Cool. you can have 'em. A moderate Republican is a liberal Democrat. I prefer solid values to wishy washy indecision, which is what defines a political moderate.

LOL...Reagan, the godfather of modern Republicans was a pragmatist first and foremost. You extremists within the GOP have forgotten what pragmatism means or you're such ideologues that you cannot fathom any deviation from your narrow ideology.

You're an extremist liberal Democrat, which means you have no idea what you're talking about and have no inhibitions about making that known.

Leaving the epithets aside (and only 'extremist' in the above phrase is an epithet, neither liberal or Democrat are ....) are you denying that Reagan was a pragmatist who stuck to his ideology only insofar as it didn't interfere with his ability to attract a wider base for the GOP? Just where exactly did the Log Cabin Republicans and "Reagan Democrats" come from in the 80s anyway, if not from a Big Tent approach fostered by Reagan? And where have they gone to now during the Rove/Bush years? I suppose you'd say "good riddance", but wouldn't you want the Republicans to actually have a shot at governing again - how are they gonna do that if you alienate sizable portions of the demographic?

I mean, you don't have to answer the question if you don't want to, but I'd be curious to know what a staunch conservative (as apparently you are) thinks of the more inclusive attitudes of the Reagan years.

I'm hardly worried about the positions of the Republican Party. It has actually stayed more true to its base since Reagan than the Democrats have since Kennedy, who would have been run out of the ** Party if he was running today. Big Tent Democrat Party? Tell that joke to Joe Lieberman. You can't be a "good" ** and be pro-military, pro-life, anti-gay marriage, anti-global warming, pro-small government, among other defaults. It's all lock-step mentality.

Reagan could be inclusive because the Dimocrats were not radical and irrational, as they are today.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

You're bragging about wanting more moderates on your side? Cool. you can have 'em. A moderate Republican is a liberal Democrat. I prefer solid values to wishy washy indecision, which is what defines a political moderate.

LOL...Reagan, the godfather of modern Republicans was a pragmatist first and foremost. You extremists within the GOP have forgotten what pragmatism means or you're such ideologues that you cannot fathom any deviation from your narrow ideology.

You're an extremist liberal Democrat, which means you have no idea what you're talking about and have no inhibitions about making that known.

I don't think you'd know extremism if it ran you over like a bus.

[Sofiyya 1,687]

You're bragging about wanting more moderates on your side? Cool. you can have 'em. A moderate Republican is a liberal Democrat. I prefer solid values to wishy washy indecision, which is what defines a political moderate.

LOL...Reagan, the godfather of modern Republicans was a pragmatist first and foremost. You extremists within the GOP have forgotten what pragmatism means or you're such ideologues that you cannot fathom any deviation from your narrow ideology.

You're an extremist liberal Democrat, which means you have no idea what you're talking about and have no inhibitions about making that known.

I don't think you'd know extremism if it ran you over like a bus.

Neither would you, you're so brain addled from Kool Aid guzzling.

[yogib37 3]

The GOP just can't stop the bleeding.

The foundation of the GOP is cracking and unstable

[Sofiyya 1,687]

Is there anyone here who was an adult during the Carter administration?

[one...two...tree 2,762]

You're bragging about wanting more moderates on your side? Cool. you can have 'em. A moderate Republican is a liberal Democrat. I prefer solid values to wishy washy indecision, which is what defines a political moderate.

LOL...Reagan, the godfather of modern Republicans was a pragmatist first and foremost. You extremists within the GOP have forgotten what pragmatism means or you're such ideologues that you cannot fathom any deviation from your narrow ideology.

You're an extremist liberal Democrat, which means you have no idea what you're talking about and have no inhibitions about making that known.

I don't think you'd know extremism if it ran you over like a bus.

Neither would you, you're so brain addled from Kool Aid guzzling.

Guzzling, slobbering....oh Bernie...oh Bernie, save me from my librul ways.

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

You're bragging about wanting more moderates on your side? Cool. you can have 'em. A moderate Republican is a liberal Democrat. I prefer solid values to wishy washy indecision, which is what defines a political moderate.

LOL...Reagan, the godfather of modern Republicans was a pragmatist first and foremost. You extremists within the GOP have forgotten what pragmatism means or you're such ideologues that you cannot fathom any deviation from your narrow ideology.

You're an extremist liberal Democrat, which means you have no idea what you're talking about and have no inhibitions about making that known.

Leaving the epithets aside (and only 'extremist' in the above phrase is an epithet, neither liberal or Democrat are ....) are you denying that Reagan was a pragmatist who stuck to his ideology only insofar as it didn't interfere with his ability to attract a wider base for the GOP? Just where exactly did the Log Cabin Republicans and "Reagan Democrats" come from in the 80s anyway, if not from a Big Tent approach fostered by Reagan? And where have they gone to now during the Rove/Bush years? I suppose you'd say "good riddance", but wouldn't you want the Republicans to actually have a shot at governing again - how are they gonna do that if you alienate sizable portions of the demographic?

I mean, you don't have to answer the question if you don't want to, but I'd be curious to know what a staunch conservative (as apparently you are) thinks of the more inclusive attitudes of the Reagan years.

I'm hardly worried about the positions of the Republican Party. It has actually stayed more true to its base since Reagan than the Democrats have since Kennedy, who would have been run out of the ** Party if he was running today. Big Tent Democrat Party? Tell that joke to Joe Lieberman. You can't be a "good" ** and be pro-military, pro-life, anti-gay marriage, anti-global warming, pro-small government, among other defaults. It's all lock-step mentality.

Reagan could be inclusive because the Dimocrats were not radical and irrational, as they are today.

Both parties have gone loons, working their ways down to the lowest common denominators. Gone are the intellectual liberals and conservatives of both parties, mainly because the electorate has become nothing more than fuctional illiterates. When was the last time you heard the ideas of Adam Smith and John Locke discussed? How long since someone discussed On Liberty, by John Stuart Mill? The hippies I grew up with were familiar with Henry David Thoreau's work Walden, at least as much as it was parodied in Doonesbury.

No more of the ilk of Patrick Moynihan and William F. Buckley, I am afraid.

[Sofiyya 1,687]

You're bragging about wanting more moderates on your side? Cool. you can have 'em. A moderate Republican is a liberal Democrat. I prefer solid values to wishy washy indecision, which is what defines a political moderate.

LOL...Reagan, the godfather of modern Republicans was a pragmatist first and foremost. You extremists within the GOP have forgotten what pragmatism means or you're such ideologues that you cannot fathom any deviation from your narrow ideology.

You're an extremist liberal Democrat, which means you have no idea what you're talking about and have no inhibitions about making that known.

I don't think you'd know extremism if it ran you over like a bus.

Neither would you, you're so brain addled from Kool Aid guzzling.

Guzzling, slobbering....oh Bernie...oh Bernie, save me from my librul ways.

Mr. Sh!t, I am so enjoying how my avatar makes you crazy(er) It's an added benefit here.

[scandal 951]

You're bragging about wanting more moderates on your side? Cool. you can have 'em. A moderate Republican is a liberal Democrat. I prefer solid values to wishy washy indecision, which is what defines a political moderate.

LOL...Reagan, the godfather of modern Republicans was a pragmatist first and foremost. You extremists within the GOP have forgotten what pragmatism means or you're such ideologues that you cannot fathom any deviation from your narrow ideology.

You're an extremist liberal Democrat, which means you have no idea what you're talking about and have no inhibitions about making that known.

Leaving the epithets aside (and only 'extremist' in the above phrase is an epithet, neither liberal or Democrat are ....) are you denying that Reagan was a pragmatist who stuck to his ideology only insofar as it didn't interfere with his ability to attract a wider base for the GOP? Just where exactly did the Log Cabin Republicans and "Reagan Democrats" come from in the 80s anyway, if not from a Big Tent approach fostered by Reagan? And where have they gone to now during the Rove/Bush years? I suppose you'd say "good riddance", but wouldn't you want the Republicans to actually have a shot at governing again - how are they gonna do that if you alienate sizable portions of the demographic?

I mean, you don't have to answer the question if you don't want to, but I'd be curious to know what a staunch conservative (as apparently you are) thinks of the more inclusive attitudes of the Reagan years.

I'm hardly worried about the positions of the Republican Party. It has actually stayed more true to its base since Reagan than the Democrats have since Kennedy, who would have been run out of the ** Party if he was running today. Big Tent Democrat Party? Tell that joke to Joe Lieberman. You can't be a "good" ** and be pro-military, pro-life, anti-gay marriage, anti-global warming, pro-small government, among other defaults. It's all lock-step mentality.

Reagan could be inclusive because the Dimocrats were not radical and irrational, as they are today.

Hmm.... this looks like fun... I'll stay and play some more....

Let's tackle these one by one.

Kennedy? (you mean JFK of course, not Teddy....) Why would he have been "run out"? In what way were Kennedy's stances out of touch with today's party? Don't follow that at all.

Lieberman - I like the guy. I felt sad when he lost the Connecticut Primary to Ned Lamont. Much of the party brass was hoping Lieberman would win the primary. But it is a democracy, Lamont did win the primary. He wasn't thrown out of the party, he lost a hard fought primary election.

Pro-military - Well, I'd like to think I'm "pro-military". In the sense that I support the troops, believe they're doing a heck of a job under tremendously difficult circumstances. They should get all the equipment and funding they need to those jobs. Veterans should get the proper care - medical, psychological, etc. which they're entitled to and were NOT funded to get under Bush's administration. I believe America needs a powerful military, and needs to project that power wisely in keeping with actual national security concerns. We should go like gangbusters after the perpetrators of 9/11, and all who would do America harm wherever they may be found: Afghanistan, Pakistan, Yemen, Somalia, the Maghreb... I'm a Democrat and I believe those things. Many, many Democrats - I think I could say most - believe those things. Are we not "pro military"?

Pro-life. I personally favor a woman's right to choose. So do the vast majority of Democrats. This is as close as it comes to a true litmus test for the party. It's pretty hard to be a registered Democrat and not be pro-choice. But there are such: e.g. http://www.democratsforlife.org/ . Quacks? Maybe. But Democrats. And pro-life. And not ejected from the party.

Anti gay marriage. I'm personally in favor of gay marriage. Many Democrats are not. The President himself is on record as being personally opposed to it. Rumor has it he's a Democrat.

Anti global warming. Yes, I'm anti global warming. I want global warming to be stopped, so I oppose it. Ok, that's not what you meant. You meant - is the Democratic party willing to seriously entertain those who argue the science of human-caused global warming. I think you'll find the majority of Democrats support the overwhelming science on the issue. Arguing against emission caused CO2 linkages to climate change is increasingly like arguing against evolution or in favor of a flat-earth. You're getting outnumbered by those who actually crank out the numbers. Anyway- sure, you'll find Democrats who refuse to believe the research. They may be ignorant, but they don't get kicked out of the party for that.

Pro small government. I'm pro small government. I think government spending is out of control. I think entitlement benefits - particularly medicare and social security - are actuarially on a course to insolvency. Alan Greenspan and his commission said as much in the 80s. The problem is a Congress (both parties) simply unable to make the hard choices on entitlement spending. Presidents of both parties have been unable to get congress to budge for decades. But the track record under Clinton was at least decreasing deficits and then growing surpluses. The track record under all Republicans since Reagan (Reagan, Bush 41, Bush 43) has been deficits as far as the eye can see. Lip service to cutting spending, but no action.

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

Is there anyone here who was an adult during the Carter administration?

Me! Me! I remember sitting in long lines, for hours, to get gasoline on odd and even days!

[Sofiyya 1,687]

You're bragging about wanting more moderates on your side? Cool. you can have 'em. A moderate Republican is a liberal Democrat. I prefer solid values to wishy washy indecision, which is what defines a political moderate.

LOL...Reagan, the godfather of modern Republicans was a pragmatist first and foremost. You extremists within the GOP have forgotten what pragmatism means or you're such ideologues that you cannot fathom any deviation from your narrow ideology.

You're an extremist liberal Democrat, which means you have no idea what you're talking about and have no inhibitions about making that known.

Leaving the epithets aside (and only 'extremist' in the above phrase is an epithet, neither liberal or Democrat are ....) are you denying that Reagan was a pragmatist who stuck to his ideology only insofar as it didn't interfere with his ability to attract a wider base for the GOP? Just where exactly did the Log Cabin Republicans and "Reagan Democrats" come from in the 80s anyway, if not from a Big Tent approach fostered by Reagan? And where have they gone to now during the Rove/Bush years? I suppose you'd say "good riddance", but wouldn't you want the Republicans to actually have a shot at governing again - how are they gonna do that if you alienate sizable portions of the demographic?

I mean, you don't have to answer the question if you don't want to, but I'd be curious to know what a staunch conservative (as apparently you are) thinks of the more inclusive attitudes of the Reagan years.

I'm hardly worried about the positions of the Republican Party. It has actually stayed more true to its base since Reagan than the Democrats have since Kennedy, who would have been run out of the ** Party if he was running today. Big Tent Democrat Party? Tell that joke to Joe Lieberman. You can't be a "good" ** and be pro-military, pro-life, anti-gay marriage, anti-global warming, pro-small government, among other defaults. It's all lock-step mentality.

Reagan could be inclusive because the Dimocrats were not radical and irrational, as they are today.

Both parties have gone loons, working their ways down to the lowest common denominators. Gone are the intellectual liberals and conservatives of both parties, mainly because the electorate has become nothing more than fuctional illiterates. When was the last time you heard the ideas of Adam Smith and John Locke discussed? How long since someone discussed On Liberty, by John Stuart Mill? The hippies I grew up with were familiar with Henry David Thoreau's work Walden, at least as much as it was parodied in Doonesbury.

No more of the ilk of Patrick Moynihan and William F. Buckley, I am afraid.

Can't argue with that. It's why I asked where the adults are. I'm tired of discussing politics with people who just wannna agitate, but who don't have a clue about what came before and how we got to where we are now. I'm too old for that ####### .

Is there anyone here who was an adult during the Carter administration?

Me! Me! I remember sitting in long lines, for hours, to get gasoline on odd and even days!

I cut my teeth on Bill Buckley's "Firing Line" and the (once) intellectual elegance of George F. Will.

[Sofiyya 1,687]

You're bragging about wanting more moderates on your side? Cool. you can have 'em. A moderate Republican is a liberal Democrat. I prefer solid values to wishy washy indecision, which is what defines a political moderate.

LOL...Reagan, the godfather of modern Republicans was a pragmatist first and foremost. You extremists within the GOP have forgotten what pragmatism means or you're such ideologues that you cannot fathom any deviation from your narrow ideology.

You're an extremist liberal Democrat, which means you have no idea what you're talking about and have no inhibitions about making that known.

Leaving the epithets aside (and only 'extremist' in the above phrase is an epithet, neither liberal or Democrat are ....) are you denying that Reagan was a pragmatist who stuck to his ideology only insofar as it didn't interfere with his ability to attract a wider base for the GOP? Just where exactly did the Log Cabin Republicans and "Reagan Democrats" come from in the 80s anyway, if not from a Big Tent approach fostered by Reagan? And where have they gone to now during the Rove/Bush years? I suppose you'd say "good riddance", but wouldn't you want the Republicans to actually have a shot at governing again - how are they gonna do that if you alienate sizable portions of the demographic?

I mean, you don't have to answer the question if you don't want to, but I'd be curious to know what a staunch conservative (as apparently you are) thinks of the more inclusive attitudes of the Reagan years.

I'm hardly worried about the positions of the Republican Party. It has actually stayed more true to its base since Reagan than the Democrats have since Kennedy, who would have been run out of the ** Party if he was running today. Big Tent Democrat Party? Tell that joke to Joe Lieberman. You can't be a "good" ** and be pro-military, pro-life, anti-gay marriage, anti-global warming, pro-small government, among other defaults. It's all lock-step mentality.

Reagan could be inclusive because the Dimocrats were not radical and irrational, as they are today.

Hmm.... this looks like fun... I'll stay and play some more....

Let's tackle these one by one.

Kennedy? (you mean JFK of course, not Teddy....) Why would he have been "run out"? In what way were Kennedy's stances out of touch with today's party? Don't follow that at all.

Lieberman - I like the guy. I felt sad when he lost the Connecticut Primary to Ned Lamont. Much of the party brass was hoping Lieberman would win the primary. But it is a democracy, Lamont did win the primary. He wasn't thrown out of the party, he lost a hard fought primary election.

Pro-military - Well, I'd like to think I'm "pro-military". In the sense that I support the troops, believe they're doing a heck of a job under tremendously difficult circumstances. They should get all the equipment and funding they need to those jobs. Veterans should get the proper care - medical, psychological, etc. which they're entitled to and were NOT funded to get under Bush's administration. I believe America needs a powerful military, and needs to project that power wisely in keeping with actual national security concerns. We should go like gangbusters after the perpetrators of 9/11, and all who would do America harm wherever they may be found: Afghanistan, Pakistan, Yemen, Somalia, the Maghreb... I'm a Democrat and I believe those things. Many, many Democrats - I think I could say most - believe those things. Are we not "pro military"?

Pro-life. I personally favor a woman's right to choose. So do the vast majority of Democrats. This is as close as it comes to a true litmus test for the party. It's pretty hard to be a registered Democrat and not be pro-choice. But there are such: e.g. http://www.democratsforlife.org/ . Quacks? Maybe. But Democrats. And pro-life. And not ejected from the party.

Anti gay marriage. I'm personally in favor of gay marriage. Many Democrats are not. The President himself is on record as being personally opposed to it. Rumor has it he's a Democrat.

Anti global warming. Yes, I'm anti global warming. I want global warming to be stopped, so I oppose it. Ok, that's not what you meant. You meant - is the Democratic party willing to seriously entertain those who argue the science of human-caused global warming. I think you'll find the majority of Democrats support the overwhelming science on the issue. Arguing against emission caused CO2 linkages to climate change is increasingly like arguing against evolution or in favor of a flat-earth. You're getting outnumbered by those who actually crank out the numbers. Anyway- sure, you'll find Democrats who refuse to believe the research. They may be ignorant, but they don't get kicked out of the party for that.

Pro small government. I'm pro small government. I think government spending is out of control. I think entitlement benefits - particularly medicare and social security - are actuarially on a course to insolvency. Alan Greenspan and his commission said as much in the 80s. The problem is a Congress (both parties) simply unable to make the hard choices on entitlement spending. Presidents of both parties have been unable to get congress to budge for decades. But the track record under Clinton was at least decreasing deficits and then growing surpluses. The track record under all Republicans since Reagan (Reagan, Bush 41, Bush 43) has been deficits as far as the eye can see. Lip service to cutting spending, but no action.

Sounds like you should keep your day job. You'd have a problem running for office as a Dim these days. For decades, I voted for liberal Dims, but one day I realized that I really wasn't in favor of what they stood for.