Do you really want Arlen Specter to be your "Democratic" senator from Pennsylvania?
Specter is about as Republican as you can get, although apparently not enough for the far-right wing of the party. He's not changing because he suddenly believes in Democratic principles. He's changing because he was going to get beaten in the republican primary by the far-right Committee for Growth candidate.
Reports today...and Specter's speech...indicate that Dem party leaders have promised to support him and not to run a true Democrat in next year's primary.
That means in November, BOTH candidates for U.S. Senator in Pa. will be Republicans. Hard to see how that's a win for Democrats.
False bravado if I ever read it. "Devastating" is how another Republican describes it: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/04/28/snowe-gop-has-abandoned-p_n_192368.html
Sure it has some potential advantages at least in the short term for Obama. But you didn't address my point, which is that both candidates for U.S. Senate next year will be Republicans.
Are you that excited about Specter's positions and politics? Perhaps you should research his votes a little bit.
Just one thing: Part of his anger against the far right of his party is that their tactics were making it difficult for Republicans to win. As such, they weren't able to confirm a lot of Bush judicial appointments, leaving the door open for Obama to appoint judges. So you are excited about a guy who believes Bush judicial candidates are better for the country that Obama appointments.
He's a Republican...He'll just have a D after the hyphen. His political philosophy hasn't changed, just his chance of winning the state primary. Go back and check out his record...from supporting the war, the Patriot Act, etc. Are those now the Democratic platform?
I think Specter is a heck of a lot better than the guy who will run as a Republican. But if Specter is your idea of a Democrat, I'm surpised.
Well if you look at the situation from an objective standpoint:
Would the Senate Democrats rather have 41 Senate Republicans, labeled as such and thereby able to filibuster. Or would the Senate Dems be more pleased with 41 Republicans, one labeled as a democrat and thereby (possibly) taking away the filibuster.
If the choice is between a Republican, or a Republican labeled as a Democrat, I don't think there is any way to spin it that the latter will help the GOP.
Good try though.
To respond to your point of the future campaign for the seat: who knows how the next round of Senate races will impact the balance? If it works out to be the same amount of 40 Senate Republicans, and it comes down to the Pennsylvania seat to determine the super-majority, I'd still rather have Specter running as the Democrat if it means he has a better chance of winning than a true Democrat.
You act as if his stance on the issues is going to make some big impact, and that is grasping at straws. Without question, the super-majority impact will drastically overshadow his "nay" vote for Obama judges.
We don't need his vote after the cloture, and if he wants to be at all effective, he should follow suit when ending debate. After cloture, his vote is irrelevant.
So his position on issues is unimportant to you? Odd, but at least you are honest.
Unfortunately, I suspect you are right. Facts, positions, policy, etc. are unimportant in Washington. It's power, baby, and who gets to pass out the favors and the bucks.
Whoever is in power, the taxpayer gets screwed. I worry greatly about the debt we are leaving my children and their children. My parents left me a far better country than I am leaving them.
6 comments:
I think your glee is premature.
Do you really want Arlen Specter to be your "Democratic" senator from Pennsylvania?
Specter is about as Republican as you can get, although apparently not enough for the far-right wing of the party. He's not changing because he suddenly believes in Democratic principles. He's changing because he was going to get beaten in the republican primary by the far-right Committee for Growth candidate.
Reports today...and Specter's speech...indicate that Dem party leaders have promised to support him and not to run a true Democrat in next year's primary.
That means in November, BOTH candidates for U.S. Senator in Pa. will be Republicans. Hard to see how that's a win for Democrats.
False bravado if I ever read it. "Devastating" is how another Republican describes it:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/04/28/snowe-gop-has-abandoned-p_n_192368.html
False bravado? I think not.
Sure it has some potential advantages at least in the short term for Obama. But you didn't address my point, which is that both candidates for U.S. Senate next year will be Republicans.
Are you that excited about Specter's positions and politics? Perhaps you should research his votes a little bit.
Just one thing: Part of his anger against the far right of his party is that their tactics were making it difficult for Republicans to win. As such, they weren't able to confirm a lot of Bush judicial appointments, leaving the door open for Obama to appoint judges. So you are excited about a guy who believes Bush judicial candidates are better for the country that Obama appointments.
He's a Republican...He'll just have a D after the hyphen. His political philosophy hasn't changed, just his chance of winning the state primary. Go back and check out his record...from supporting the war, the Patriot Act, etc. Are those now the Democratic platform?
I think Specter is a heck of a lot better than the guy who will run as a Republican. But if Specter is your idea of a Democrat, I'm surpised.
Well if you look at the situation from an objective standpoint:
Would the Senate Democrats rather have 41 Senate Republicans, labeled as such and thereby able to filibuster. Or would the Senate Dems be more pleased with 41 Republicans, one labeled as a democrat and thereby (possibly) taking away the filibuster.
If the choice is between a Republican, or a Republican labeled as a Democrat, I don't think there is any way to spin it that the latter will help the GOP.
Good try though.
To respond to your point of the future campaign for the seat: who knows how the next round of Senate races will impact the balance? If it works out to be the same amount of 40 Senate Republicans, and it comes down to the Pennsylvania seat to determine the super-majority, I'd still rather have Specter running as the Democrat if it means he has a better chance of winning than a true Democrat.
You act as if his stance on the issues is going to make some big impact, and that is grasping at straws. Without question, the super-majority impact will drastically overshadow his "nay" vote for Obama judges.
We don't need his vote after the cloture, and if he wants to be at all effective, he should follow suit when ending debate. After cloture, his vote is irrelevant.
So his position on issues is unimportant to you? Odd, but at least you are honest.
Unfortunately, I suspect you are right. Facts, positions, policy, etc. are unimportant in Washington. It's power, baby, and who gets to pass out the favors and the bucks.
Whoever is in power, the taxpayer gets screwed. I worry greatly about the debt we are leaving my children and their children. My parents left me a far better country than I am leaving them.
Post a Comment