Breaking: Arlen Specter to become a Democrat

[Tygrys 143]

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.

Left or Right, Dem or Rep... They all the same: shameless, opportunistic skunks.

IMHO, changing of colors in the middle of your term should be prohibited. You've got elected as Dem/Rep/Ind, you should stay Dem/Rep/Ind until your term is over. That is if you have a least just a bit of honor.

If I was Dem in PA, I wouldn't vote for this a$$hole in the next elections, maybe he would be temped to switch back if the times for Reps got better?

Also, introducing the term limits in both Congress and Senate would be very nice, too...

Yes, I know I am from another planet...

[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.

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.

I could never stomach Buckley - way too pompous for my tastes.

But I do greatly admire and respect George Will. I read his columns and very much enjoy him each Sunday on ABC This Week. He's the best part of Stephanopolous's show. Did you read his column a few weeks ago about blue jeans? He can be pretty ridiculous when he's talking about ridiculous matters, but he can't be beat for the facts and political history.

For those despairing of intelligent and articulate discourse, may I highly recommend the Friday night Lehrer NewsHour, with the Shields & Brooks segment. It's unfortunate it's so short (approx 10-15 minutes). And it's a pity that they're often replaced by guests.

My secret admission is that since I'm a Librul I'm supposed to prefer Mark Shields, the truth is I far prefer David Brooks. Both for his eloquence and his intellect. If all conservatives were like Brooks, maybe I'd be a conservative.

[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.

Left or Right, Dem or Rep... They all the same: shameless, opportunistic skunks.

IMHO, changing of colors in the middle of your term should be prohibited. You've got elected as Dem/Rep/Ind, you should stay Dem/Rep/Ind until your term is over. That is if you have a least just a bit of honor.

If I was Dem in PA, I wouldn't vote for this a$$hole in the next elections, maybe he would be temped to switch back if the times for Reps got better?

Also, introducing the term limits in both Congress and Senate would be very nice, too...

Yes, I know I am from another planet...

Funny you should say that:

Here’s the relevant portion of Specter’s May 14, 2001 speech, which was unearthed by POLITICO’s Eamon Javers:

How should these issues be handled by the Senate for the future? I intend to propose a rule change which would preclude a future recurrence of a Senator’s change in parties, in mid-session, organizing with the opposition, to cause the upheaval which is now resulting.

I take second place to no one on independence voting. But, it is my view that the organizational vote belongs to the party which supported the election of a particular Senator. I believe that is the expectation. And certainly it has been a very abrupt party change, although they have occurred in the past with only minor ripples, none have caused the major dislocation which this one has.

When I first ran in 1980, Congressman Bud Shuster sponsored a fundraiser for me in Altoona where Congressman Jack Kemp was the principal speaker. When some questions were raised as to my political philosophy, Congressman Shuster said my most important vote would be the organizational vote. From that day to this, I have believed that the organizational vote belonged to the party which supported my election.

When the Democrats urged me to switch parties some time ago, I gave them a flat “no.” I have been asked in the last several days if I intended to switch parties. I have said absolutely not.

Senator Phil Gramm faced this issue when he decided to switch parties. He resigned his seat, which he had won as a Democrat, and ran for reelection as a Republican. As he told me, his last vote in January 1983 was for the Speaker of the House of Representatives, and he voted for Tip O’Neill with the view that he was elected as a Democrat and should vote that way on organizational control. Even though, he intended to become a Republican and would have preferred another person to be Speaker. To repeat, I intend to propose a Senate rule which would preclude a change in control of the Senate when a Senator decides to vote with the opposing party for organizational purposes.

One other aspect does deserve comment, and that is the issue of personal benefit to a changing Senator. In our society, political arrangements avoid the consequences of similar conduct in other contexts.

For example, if company A induces a competitor’s employee to break his contract with company B and join company A, company B can collect damages for company A’s wrongful conduct. If A gives a benefit to an employee of B to induce the employee to breach a duty, that conduct can have serious consequences in other contexts which are not applied to political arrangements.

On the Lehrer news show on Thursday night, the day before yesterday, Senator Harry Reid and I sparred over this point. I expressed my concern about reliable reports that Democrats had told Senator Jeffords that Senator Reid would step aside so Senator Jeffords could become chairman of the Environment and Public Works Committee. Senator Reid replied that there was no quid pro quo, an expression I had not used.

Accepting Senator Jeffords’ decision was based on principle for the reasons he gave at his news conference on Thursday morning, a question still remains as to whether any such inducement was offered and whether it played any part in Senator Jeffords’ decision. Questions on such offers and counteroffers should be considered by Senators and by the Senate in an ethical context, but at this moment I do not see any way to effect such conduct by rulemaking or legislation.

This week’s events raise very profound questions for the governance of our country as well as the operation of the Senate. I intend to press a rule change which would preclude a recurrence of this situation and will be discussing with my colleagues the whole idea of inducements as an incentive for a party switch.

The Washington Post reported at the time that the proposal didn’t seem to impress either party much:

In one of the more surreal moments of the day, Sen. Arlen Specter (R-Pa.) proposed a Senate rules change, which, if it had it been in effect when Jeffords defected, would have kept the chamber from falling into Democratic clutches.

Democrats, who soon will have the power to block all such creative political responses from the opposition party, responded with disbelief and scorn.

Specter gave a detailed description of the efforts Republicans made to keep Jeffords in their fold, including a seat at party leadership meetings, more money for education and an exception from the party’s term-limits rule that would have enabled Jeffords to remain as chairman of the Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee beyond 2002.

But then he questioned the fact that Democrats were prepared to make Jeffords chairman of the Environment and Public Works Committee and are now planning to do so. “A question still remains as to whether any such inducement was offered and whether it played any part in Senator Jeffords’s decision,” he said, suggesting the question had an “ethical context.”

Democratic Whip Harry M. Reid (D-Nev.), who was instrumental in his party’s courtship of Jeffords, was clearly peeved at Specter for singling him out while he was off the Senate floor, and Sen. Richard J. Durbin (D-Ill.) rose to Jeffords’s defense. “To suggest that there was any quid pro quo or any other reason, I think demeans the integrity of one of our colleagues whom we both respect very, very much,” Durbin said.

Jeffords was not present during Specter’s speech but said later that he did not discuss the chairmanship issue with the Democrats until after he made his decision to leave the GOP.

Specter is now a member of the Senate Republican leadership, holding the moderates’ seat that Jeffords was offered before he quit the party, but GOP leadership aides said they had not heard of his proposed rules change before Specter aired it.

Democrats dismissed Specter’s proposal out of hand. “It’s a silly proposal and it has no chance,” Reid said. “It’s his [specter's] way of of showing everyone he was a lawyer.”

“I was saddened by it,” Jeffords said. “I don’t think decisions of conscience should be precluded by a rule.”

http://johnltdo5455.wordpress.com/2009/04/...e-his-own-hide/

[Sofiyya 1,687]

I could never stomach Buckley - way too pompous for my tastes.

But I do greatly admire and respect George Will. I read his columns and very much enjoy him each Sunday on ABC This Week. He's the best part of Stephanopolous's show. Did you read his column a few weeks ago about blue jeans? He can be pretty ridiculous when he's talking about ridiculous matters, but he can't be beat for the facts and political history.

For those despairing of intelligent and articulate discourse, may I highly recommend the Friday night Lehrer NewsHour, with the Shields & Brooks segment. It's unfortunate it's so short (approx 10-15 minutes). And it's a pity that they're often replaced by guests.

My secret admission is that since I'm a Librul I'm supposed to prefer Mark Shields, the truth is I far prefer David Brooks. Both for his eloquence and his intellect. If all conservatives were like Brooks, maybe I'd be a conservative.

Buckley was undeniably pompous, but his show was stimulating. I was quite the nerdy kid! I wanted to be George Will when I grew up David Brooks isn't much of a conservative, but maybe a milestone along your road to conservatism . . . Not everyone can make the leap all at once.

[Pinocchio Liberal 268]

Arlens vote for Obamas budget was the final bullet! He has to jump ship and pray for HOPE!

[Pinocchio Liberal 268]

I think its funny, he goes round pennsylvania gets an hear fuul and decides he needs to go dem. I SEE BACKLASH!

Its soooooo gonna happen!

Edited April 29, 2009 by ={Rogue}=

[Sofiyya 1,687]

Toomey would have handed him his azz in a basket, and he knew it. So, off to the Dims go the damaged goods. No tears here.