Specter

[Cuba]

March 17th interview of Arlen Specter

"[Democrats] are trying very hard for the 60th vote. Got to give them credit for trying. But the answer is no.

I'm not going to discuss private talks I had with other people who may or may not be considered influential. But since those three people are in the public domain, I think it is appropriative to respond to those questions.

I am staying a Republican because I think I have an important role, a more important role, to play there. The United States very desperately needs a two-party system. That's the basis of politics in America. I'm afraid we are becoming a one-party system, with Republicans becoming just a regional party with so little representation of the northeast or in the middle atlantic. I think as a governmental matter, it is very important to have a check and balance. That's a very important principle in the operation of our government. In the constitution on Separation of powers."

He's a lying dirtbag politician alright, and here is a great example of saying what the public wants to hear and then immediately doing the opposite for personal gain. His party switch has absolutely nothing to do with policy, it is because he would have been utterly destroyed in the republican primary, as we Pennsylvanians are well aware. It is disturbing for the very reasons he cited, the principals on which our government was founded- checks and balances. He'll still get steamrolled in the general election.

 

[LERecords]

look.. he is switching sides to get more votes.. there done.. i dont think its bad to switch sides.. hey.. if your on one side and you find out its not for you, why would you stay??? but dont make up some BS about ti.. just tell the truth.. "hey, i dont think this is the right party for me" there done.. he is doing it for teh votes and the marketing.. oh well...

 

[mstewar1]

There is an article on the BBC site about the switch. They had some quotes from various publications at the end of the article, here's my fav:

I read that he was switching parties, but I was disappointed to learn he's still a Democrat.
-- Mark Hemingway, National Review

I don't believe anything that these guys say any longer. He's probably switching for some unseen (by us) reason, such as being in someone's pocket and changing to give them what they want/need (a vote).

 

[Cuba]

I want a reporter to ask this of Obama:

"You have publicly called for bipartisanship, yet you struck a deal to endorse a senator in the 2010 primaries in exchange for his betrayal of the Republican party. How can you justify that?"

or

"Less than a six weeks ago Senator Specter stated that he would not switch parties, the reason being that he believed strongly in the principles of checks and balances on which this country was founded. Why are you, in your own words, "thrilled" at the "move in the right direction" away from those checks and balances?"

or

"Do you believe Senator Spector owes an appology to his constituents for failing to represent them in the Senate and then abandoning those that have supported him for the past 29 years rather than face the consequences of his dicisions?"

or

"Do you believe that Senator Specter's blatant dishonesty, ability to abandon his principles in the pursuit of personal gain, and total disregard for his constituents beliefs will be an asset to your party?"

How could the president be "thrilled" to have a guy like this on his team? I dislike Specter immensely but this move is just absurd. This is a pay for play scheme done out in the open with a slimeball and they are billing it as a great thing. He met with Specter to strike a deal, support in the primaries in exchange for abandoning his party. Now I guess if the politicians actually do something serious enough to anger their constituents enough to actually vote them out of office, they can just sell themselves to the president to stay in office. It's disgusting. We just watched one politician buying another on television to keep his constituency from justifiably voting him out of office, and he called it a "move in the right direction".

 

[Oscar54]

Specter left for one reason only, too save his Senate Seat. The Republicans continued drift to the extreme right was going to result in a primary challenge from a former Rep. Pat Toomey that apparently Specter felt he could not win against in the Republican Primary. He apparently feels that he can keep his seat as a Democrat.

Nothing really sinister, just trying to keep his job.

He is a moderate to conservative politician, but apparently the Republicans want only Senators who will do what they are told not what they think is right. No negotiation or compromise. Just their way or NO!

I think it is great, because as long as the Republicans concentrate on trying to torpedo Obama by obstruction and not concentrating on fashioning a viable political platform, the Democrats will stay in the majority hopefully for the next 50 years.

Buha-ha-ha-ha-ha....:rof:

 

[wrightme43]

The interesting part of that Oscar is if the democrats stay in power there wont be a America for them to "be in charge of"

 

[Oscar54]

The interesting part of that Oscar is if the democrats stay in power there wont be a America for them to "be in charge of"

That's funny!

So, the Republicans wrecking the world, mainly in the last 8 years, doesn't seem to register?

Obama is a right of center corporate politician and is portrayed like he is Che' Guevara, when he is not being portrayed as a Muslim or some other such nonsense.

This fact just shows how far rightwing the Republicans have gone.

And people are supposed to take seriously the Republican claim of Obama and the Democrats distroying America after what they and their buddies on Wall Street have done.

They are so vindictive that they were going to throw Arlen under the bus because he actually voted his own mind. So he jumped ship. They have no one to blame but themselves.

Have a good night. I'm going to bed.

Lew

 

[wrightme43]

Dude!!! LOL

You are saying Obama is "right of center"??????

LOL


I just sit here at a loss as to how to respond to that.

 

[dako81]

right left, left, right, blah blah blah.

they're both bad, equally, and work together to perpetuate a flawed system, which is inherently designed to perpetuate itself. is that so hard to understand? when are we going to start seeing that?

 

[Cuba]

I think it is great, because as long as the Republicans concentrate on trying to torpedo Obama by obstruction and not concentrating on fashioning a viable political platform, the Democrats will stay in the majority hopefully for the next 50 years.

Buha-ha-ha-ha-ha....:rof:

I think this post points out what is wrong with people in America today. Lying, cheating, hypocracy, and lack of character are actually encouraged as long as you feel like it is being done by "your team". The ideals set forth by the constitution were those of balance, there was understanding that people disagree, and that no one party or idea is best suited for America. There are checks and balances for a reason, it keeps politicians accountable and prevents them from waffling from one extreme to the other. This is an attempt to do away with those chacks and balances to gain short term power to push through legislation that otherwise would not happen. Obama apparantly has agreed, quid pro quo, to campaign for Specter and provide donations in exchange for switching parties and getting a vote for his yet to be invented healthcare plan, or at least for the $700M or so "down payment" on this yet to be invented plan. He just bought a senator, but since they admitted it rather than covered it up, they can pretend as if this is somehow acceptable. It's crazy!

 

[Skeeter190]

right left, left, right, blah blah blah.

they're both bad, equally, and work together to perpetuate a flawed system, which is inherently designed to perpetuate itself. is that so hard to understand? when are we going to start seeing that?

Right on Brad! Americans don't want the extreme left or right, they want the system to work by finding the middle ground & fixing things.

All of this name calling & labeling isn't resolving the real issues.

 

[Cuba]

Right on Brad! Americans don't want the extreme left or right, they want the system to work by finding the middle ground & fixing things.

All of this name calling & labeling isn't resolving the real issues.

Absolutely! That's why the checks and balances are there. The last thing I want is unchecked power in government, any government, which is why it is so disconcerting. It seems like a large number of people on both sides don't understand this, they think that the more power their party gains the better it will be (for themselves), but history has shown us time and time again that this simply isn't true. We saw it with Bush and the republican congress early on, and we're seeing the exact same thing (ratched up several notches) with Obama and the democratic congress today. What would be best for the country, and the vast majority of the public, is for a balance.

If you go to the extreme right or left you enrage and alienate half of the population. We just went through this people! Why are we doing it again? Our president talks about bipartisanship, sacrifice, compromise, working together, but he steamrolls the opposition, ignores all suggestions by them, refuses to compromise, and allows the most extreme liberal congressmembers to draw up their dream legislation with no input or compromise or sacrifice to include anything from the other party. There has been no compromise or sacrifice, instead there has been an orgy of paybacks, powergrabs, and insane spending increases. Doing the right thing is generally very different than doing the easy thing, which in this case was to just kick the can down the road in terms of bipartisanship and deficit spending.

It reminds me a bit of the United States immediately following the revolutionary war, when some people thought that they should make George Washington their king. They just fought a bloody war to escape exactly that, but since this guy was on their "team" they figured it would be fine to grant him the very same invasive powers that they fought to eliminate. Pretty stupid idea, and yet every time one party goes into majority in this country they engage in the exact same behavior that they were so furiously campaigning against while in the minority. It's pathetic, transparent, and very shortsighted. The republicans are powerless right now, but that will change in the future. Instead of sacrificing some of their power now in order to garner support and cooperation later, the democrats are polarizing the opposition to fight against them at every turn much like the republicans had done years earlier. It's almost like watching children on the playground isn't it?

 

[dako81]

Absolutely! That's why the checks and balances are there. The last thing I want is unchecked power in government, any government, which is why it is so disconcerting. It seems like a large number of people on both sides don't understand this, they think that the more power their party gains the better it will be (for themselves), but history has shown us time and time again that this simply isn't true. We saw it with Bush and the republican congress early on, and we're seeing the exact same thing (ratched up several notches) with Obama and the democratic congress today. What would be best for the country, and the vast majority of the public, is for a balance.

If you go to the extreme right or left you enrage and alienate half of the population. We just went through this people! Why are we doing it again? Our president talks about bipartisanship, sacrifice, compromise, working together, but he steamrolls the opposition, ignores all suggestions by them, refuses to compromise, and allows the most extreme liberal congressmembers to draw up their dream legislation with no input or compromise or sacrifice to include anything from the other party. There has been no compromise or sacrifice, instead there has been an orgy of paybacks, powergrabs, and insane spending increases. Doing the right thing is generally very different than doing the easy thing, which in this case was to just kick the can down the road in terms of bipartisanship and deficit spending.

It reminds me a bit of the United States immediately following the revolutionary war, when some people thought that they should make George Washington their king. They just fought a bloody war to escape exactly that, but since this guy was on their "team" they figured it would be fine to grant him the very same invasive powers that they fought to eliminate. Pretty stupid idea, and yet every time one party goes into majority in this country they engage in the exact same behavior that they were so furiously campaigning against while in the minority. It's pathetic, transparent, and very shortsighted. The republicans are powerless right now, but that will change in the future. Instead of sacrificing some of their power now in order to garner support and cooperation later, the democrats are polarizing the opposition to fight against them at every turn much like the republicans had done years earlier. It's almost like watching children on the playground isn't it?

Actually you're kinda wrong. The one thing the founding fathers did not forsee when they built in the "checks and balances" into the government is collusion, where two or more factions of the government work together to enhance their powers collectively and individually. This is what the government is doing, and has been doing for a long time to gain more power. This is why it's not D vs. R. They are all on the same team and the media makes it out to be D vs. R. So, this also makes your statement that right now the republicans have no power incorrect as well. They do, the D's and R's have equal power because they collude together to enhance their powers.

I mean, you're on the right track, but you really seem like you're still stuck on the idea that there is a legitimate amount of internal conflict within the government. I'm sorry, but it is made out to be much much more than what it is. The system has figured it out long ago that if it functions as though the founders thought it would, it could not grow as quickly or perpetuate its power and legitimacy, so it has found the loophole of collusion between the different factions to achieve this.

And any government power is unchecked, because they have the biggest guns, and they're all on the same team. You try to check the power of the government, you're going to end up in a jail cell or worse. Freedom of the press was a check on government, but if you try to video in public places you can get arrested and held for an indefinite amount of time if you decide to exercise your right to remain silent. There is a man in jail in New Hampshire, coming up on 3 weeks of being in there, because he tried to video in a public lobby, and then he tried to excercise his right to remain silent, and they won't let him have access to an attorney because he is exercising his right to not answer their questions. His name is Sam and you can get more information at jailed activist dot info.

 

[Cuba]

I'm going to have to disagree with you there. As a good example, the current administration is attempting to criminally prosecute to old one- that doesn't sound much like collusion. Certainly there is a lot of backpeddalling, feigned outrage when infact both parties were involved, they may cover for each other for political capital, quid pro quo you vote on this and I'll get you back later (Specter throughout his career for instance), but make no mistake- their goals are not the same. That's okay, infact that's the point. Balance. I think that in the past when congress was more balanced you would see a lot more evidense of collusion, or as some might say "teamwork" or "bipartisanship", after all they had to see each other all the time. They didn't want to seriously anger the people that they would need to woo into compromising on legislation further down the road. But in the current environment, stemming at least back to the lack of balance in the early Bush years when republicans did their fair share of ignoring democrats, the parties became more divisive because they believed that they don't have to work together to pass their legislation, they went for short term bullying at the cost of being able to work together in the future as they inevitably will. The whole point of this government system was that they should have to work together, but they were shortsighted. They kicked the other guy when he was down because they got too greedy, and because they could.

The weird thing is that the democrats JUST went through this, and apparently learned nothing from it. The president certainly said he did, he actually said all the right things, I totally agreed with him, but when it came time to actually deliver on those promisses he did the opposite. Don't forget, they didn't have this huge majority when he was running for office. As soon as he saw the immediate opportunity to shove a ton of legislation through he abandoned all of the rhetoric and principles he was spouting to get elected. He did the exact same thing on campaign finance not long before. He talks a great game, he really does, but so far he has acted exactly like those that he himself spoke out against. Do as I say, not as I do. He got too greedy and sacrificed his own principles for short term gains. My thinking is that after getting everything he wants he will turn back to those principles somewhat, but only because it will be to his benefit to do so. He isn't stupid, but that doesn't mean he won't do things that are.

 

[Skeeter190]

The weird thing is that the democrats JUST went through this, and apparently learned nothing from it. The president certainly said he did, he actually said all the right things, I totally agreed with him, but when it came time to actually deliver on those promisses he did the opposite.

Sounds like someone has been watching too much Glen Beck & Sean Hannity. That's exactly the approach that both of them use to demonize the current president. BTW: Their shtick is wearing thin with most of us who are ready to move past the last election results.

 

[Cuba]

Sounds like someone has been watching too much Glen Beck & Sean Hannity. That's exactly the approach that both of them use to demonize the current president. BTW: Their shtick is wearing thin with most of us who are ready to move past the last election results.

Actually no I haven't been watching either, it's just seems like a blatantly obvious fact that anyone watching and listening to the president could easily conclude. If you disagree, please explain specifically why.

Let me just clearly state my feelings on this: if I were to say to you (publicly and repeatedly) that we are going to put aside our differences and work together as a team on something very important to both of us, but then immediately told you to step outside while I do everything without you, then ignored your complaints coming from outside while I'm signing off on the finished project with precisely 0% of your input, and then attacked you (publicly and repeatedly) for not working with me on it, would you conclude that I did what I promised you I would? I'm honestly confused by your statement.

I also don't quite follow how election results are involved in this discussion, we are talking about current events, the actions of our new administration, that are happening right now.

 

[mstewar1]

It is like watching children on the playground. And I have to agree with you, cuba, neither side learns. There's absolutely no sense of intelligent moderation. And the pendulum just keeps swinging back and forth. And we the people are the ones being used as pawns.

What gets me worried is considering the notion of how far back to the right the whole thing is going to swing when the depublicans get their act together again and manage to take back the presidency.

 

[Skeeter190]

Cuba, let's go back to your original post & I'll try to keep it simple.
"His party switch has absolutely nothing to do with policy.."

Really? Were you aware that he voted for the latest stimulus bill as one of only (3) Republicans to do so. You started out the thread with assertions that are very easy to debunk. Specter's policy differences with an increasingly right wing shifting Republican party are a matter of record.

Sure, both parties are acting like children on a playground. That's an observation that few would disagree with at this point. However, your bias to just point to what one side is doing wrong contradicts your best & most insightful observation.

You can disagree with yourself here as much as you want, just understand that someone may come along to ask where you're getting such conflicting ideas from.

 

[Oscar54]

Dude!!! LOL

You are saying Obama is "right of center"??????

LOL


I just sit here at a loss as to how to respond to that.

Yes he is! He has Giethner and Summers running his economic team! They are not "SOCIALISTS", they are Wall Street insiders who along with Bernanke are going to do everything they can to preserve that culture.

He is certainly no Radical Leftist that the Republicans are trying to portray him as. The Republicans have gone so far to the right that a Goldwater Republican or Nixon look like FDR Democrats. Seriously!

 

[Oscar54]

right left, left, right, blah blah blah.

they're both bad, equally, and work together to perpetuate a flawed system, which is inherently designed to perpetuate itself. is that so hard to understand? when are we going to start seeing that?

What system is that? Our Democratic Republic form of Government? What would you propose to replace it with?

The main problem with our government is that it favors the wealthy few over the rest of us. Get the Corporations out of our politics and stop this nonsense that money is free speech and we can get our government back.