Slashdot Mirror
Senator Arlen Specter Becomes a Democrat
Akido37 was one of many readers letting us know that US Sen. Arlen Specter has changed parties to become a Democrat. This gives the Democrats 59 seats in the Senate, and 60 if and when Al Franken gets seated from Minnesota. However, Specter said in his announcement that he will not be an automatic 60th vote for breaking Republican filibusters. While the senator's move seems to have surprised many Republicans, it is understandable to moderate Republican Sen. Olympia Snowe of Maine, who said, "You haven't certainly heard warm encouraging words of how they [Republicans] view moderates. Either you are with us or against us." Specter noted that in his home state of Pennsylvania, 200,000 formerly Republican voters switched party allegiance last year.
...nothing of value was lost or gained.
This does pose a dramatic shift in the balance of power. While a lot of votes do go on party lines, often most of what happens is self interest, with politicians doing what is most likely to keep them in office. Specter is just doing a better job of staying with the times rather than any real change in his personal convictions.
The musings of just another geek and his junk.
...Specter was a Republican to begin with?
Gee - big surprise. This news comes just a weekend after news that his primary challenger, Pat Toomey, is showing a commanding lead in the polls.
I can see the fnords!
While I may support Democrats more than the Republicans, I find the general principle of changing parties mid-term a disgusting and cowardly betrayal of trust.
You were elected as a Republican, for better or for worse. You should either finish your term as one, or if you can no longer consider yourself a Republican, resign. At the next election, feel free to run as a Democrat or whoever the hell you want. But for this term, you should act for the people who elected you. That's the principle of representative democracy.
I'd even accept the compromise of, when one leaves or is kicked out of the party, he/she should have the right to stay as an Independent member until the next election. But joining a party different from the one you were elected under, in the middle of your term, should be outright unconstitutional.
Specter left the Democratic Party in '81 because he lacked seniority for cool appointments. The Republicans were (and have been) desperate enough for a Pennsylvania senate seat that he could write his own checks in the GOP. Now, he's looking at being part of a permanent minority, and the majority party is probably going to give him nicer committee chairs than he could get with the GOP.
It's not a principled stand; it's politics.
This just goes to show that the neo-cons have brought the Republican party to its knees. When are they going to learn. They now have the "fiscal conservative" religion, but there is a lot of doubt whether they can follow through with what they can say.
Fiscal policies aside, their doom was being so darn war driven. Not that the Dems aren't, but they took it to a new level.
Specter would have been smarter to have went independent. Does he really need a party? He has the name recognition.
Nerds are citizens, therefore we have an interest in this. We aren't idiots, therefore we don't have an interest in celebrity news.
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
You know, this is a good move for Pennsylvania. Spector has been demonized by his own party for some time now. VERY wierd for a 30 year senator in a party that embraced Ted Stevens so fondly.
One of the important parts of all this is that Democrats agreed not to run a candidate against him in the primaries. The GOP has at least 3 candidates they wanted to run against him in the primaries before he made the switch.
The thing about the GOP that really sucks is that it eats it's own when it loses. Spector is not the only senator who has been castigated by his own party in a state that is becoming more progressive. Don't be surprised to see this happen again in the next 12 months.
M
1. his presence will serve as a brake on more progressive legislation.
2. being a Democrat will prevent the Dems from offering up a more progressive candidate to oppose him had he stayed Republican.
3. He'll likely vote as a "liberal" Republican, ie: with the interests of capital in economics, in the interests of no one in particular (i.e. who ever pays his bills) in social issues.
Good:
1. He'll likely vote with the Dems about 60% of the time.
2. This will force the Republican party (now the property of ignorance and corruption) to be more considerate and thoughtful of their positions.
3. This could lead to someone like Snowe defecting as well, which would really bury the Republican part, possibly for good, as it could split between the Bible Thumping retard faction and the neocon fascist faction, which would work to the benefit of the Democrats.
RS
Shoes for Industry. Shoes for the Dead.
Well, to be fair, he has always described himself as a moderate republican; elected in the 80's when the 'Big Tent' philosophy was strong in the Republican party. If 200,000 people left the Republican party for the Democratic party, you can bet that it was the moderates that were leaving, shifting the party farther to the right and making it impossible for him to win the primary as a self described moderate.
If he is more likely to win the primary in the democratic party than the republican party, he is almost by definition a democrat. If he isn't a democrat, he will lose badly in his first primary and everything will be exactly as it would be if he had stayed as a republican.
It's a joke. Who cares? Specter was pretty much a lock on most votes for the Democrats anyway. He was just a way for them to get a Republican to vote with them and then scream about how great they are at "bipartisanship." LOOK! A REPUBLICAN SUPPORTS US! Ignore all the others that stand by their principles. He's been pretty much a schmuck who basically votes to please Philly and Pittsburgh. The rest of us he thinks can all go hang.
He's 79. Have you ever noticed politicians all want you and me to retire by 72 at the latest? But they're supposed to keep getting into office until they're dead? And in some cases afterward? We need to have an age limit on politicians and judges. Over 70 and they should ALL be forced out of office. That's a law that really needs to be passed.
- No matter how subtle the wizard, a knife between the shoulder blades really cramps his style.
First I am a conservative though not a Republican. I am all for this.
I want the Democrats to have to own what happens the next few years. After all the years of hearing them harp on Bush deficits I want them to have undeniable majority so they are undeniably responsible for the economy busting budgets they are signing off on. I want ownership to be a non question. While there are good people on both sides of the aisle as a whole I think the entire Congress stinks.
Their actions have become the best reason for term limits. Too many of them think themselves as kings and queens, benevolent in their view because they know better and they are better - in their own minds. They game the system ensuring two party rule and the American people are more enamored with American idol personalities and similar : see Obama.
Now we just need Snowe to flip. She is nothing more than a RINO as well. Make them honest - if you vote one way consistently then be willing to take up the mantle of the party you align with. That way when it comes time to swap parties in power you can get outed. The tragedy is that most won't. They have so many connections and so much power from their office that unseating them takes serious criminal acts and even that is not a guarantee they don't get back in.
Its a great day. Now the Democrats have their "majority" and the hot seat is all theirs. The question becomes, do they do to Obama what they did to Clinton? See the flip side is that when one group has a real majority they don't answer to anyone - including the President. After all they no longer need them. It also leads to internal factions which happened to them in the early nineties. That majority benefits and hurts them.
But the key is, they cannot escape the responsibility for the spending spree or legislation. It will give Obama a convincing excuse too for what he signs off. So he can claim its not what he really wants "but the reality of the situation..."
So, awesome, and lol. Can't wait to see all the excuses for doing stuff that people would eviscerate Republicans for doing.
* Winners compare their achievements to their goals, losers compare theirs to that of others.
How about we increase tax rates and reup spending for actual programs that aren't wars or bailouts?
We've done nothing BUT cut taxes and essential services.
Screw John Galt, we need Monty Brewster.
Non impediti ratione cogitationus.
And they really didn't care how many Iraqis would die if we pulled out of Iraq.
The problem with wanting a collapse is that they'll somehow pin it on capitalism (ie freedom) and then proceed to reduce freedom.
The worst kind of slavery is the one you choose for yourself.
Except for ending slavery, the Nazis, communism, & securing American independence, war has never solved anything.
Nope. Nobody on 'my side' has ever wanted America to lose a war. Try again. Here's a hint: you may want to stop looking at politics as something with 'sides' and realize we are all in this together.
- None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
Actually, that was a right-wing projection. Democrats never wanted us to lose the war, they wanted the U.S. to stop pursuing the policies that were failing. Republicans, in their typically hyperaggressive way, screamed themselves red in the face that this was wanting America to lose. Put another way, Rush Limbaugh explicitly has said he wants President Obama to fail. Not his policies. Not his programs. His entire presidency. No Democrat of any significance actually made any statement calling for the war to be lost.
Long? What do you mean the signature at the bottom of every comment I post on Slashdot is too lo
tl;dr version:
"Waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaah! I'm rich and i shouldn't have to have any responsibility for the things i do to others, the environment or economy! Waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaah! YOU'RE ALL POOR BECAUSE YOU ALL STINK!"
Non impediti ratione cogitationus.
If the US pulled out of Iraq... who or what would be killing Iraqis? Other Iraqis? Sounds like an Iraqi problem, not a US problem.
Scientists point out problems, engineers fix them
altslashdot.org: The future of slashdot.
You are basing your argument on the classical philosophy that a vote, when cast for a person, essentially places trust in that person to serve as he or she sees fit, for the duration of his term.
I call that position bullshit and reject it in principle. I refuse to place unconditional trust in a politician, or be so naive as to believe that he is indeed there to serve his constituency. Politicians will always do what is in their self interest (wow, just like the rest of us). That's why we have the party system, so we have an extra layer of protection. We don't JUST vote for Specter, just like we don't just vote for any Republican. We vote for both. We vote for Specter AS LONG AS he maintains the principles of the party he was running under, in this case, Republican.
Partisanism has lots of problems, but I firmly believe that the extra layer of safeguarding against do-what-I-fuckin-like politicians makes it worthwhile. We don't place unlimited trust in the guy, we only vote for him as long as he maintains integrity to the party under which he ran.
If someone WANTS to run under the platform of "unlimited trust", he should run as Independent. There's a reason why almost nobody gets elected as one.
For those that are not aware:
I had to laugh when I read, "they're becoming more conservative" because that's what Bush was for the last 8 years. It's a little late to be saying you don't like it. He might as well come on the record and say we shouldn't invade Iraq....oops, late on that one too. Switching primaries is an interesting approach. I guess his voting record can or will sink him.
Bush was a conservative? Compared to Stalin, sure, Bush was a conservative. On social issues, sure, Bush was a conservative. But on the economy? No. Conservatives don't grow the government. Bush did.
There is no "I disagree" mod for a reason. Flamebait, Troll, and Overrated are not substitutes.
Being a libertarian, I don't really have a dog in this fight, I think that most politicians are crooks. But do you have any idea how irrational & childish you sound?
There is a huge difference between wanting your country out of a war & wanting your country to *lose* a war.
There is a war going on for your mind.
Arlen Specter is one of the worst, most soul-less, most belief-free individuals in politics. The moment most vividly illustrating what Specter is: prior to the vote on the Military Commissions Act of 2006, he went to the floor of the Senate and said what the bill "seeks to do is set back basic rights by some 900 years" and is "patently unconstitutional on its face." He then proceeded to vote YES on the bill's passage.
I came here for a good argument
>90% of Americans think that way. It's funny to sit on the outside and see Democrats fear monger about the Patriot act being a horrible piece of legislation that the Republicans put into place, then instead of repealing it when they took power the Democrats use it to put Conservative Idealists on a list of possible terrorists.
Paying taxes to buy civilization is like paying a hooker to buy love.
Yeah, shutting down the government worked so amazingly well when Newt Gingrich tried it! It only gave Clinton a major boost in his public support and reminded people that yes, they do in fact like the services that government provides. And given that record numbers of people today are reporting that they are satisfied that they are paying a fair level of taxation, the 'John Galt' crowd looks sillier and sillier by the day.
Long? What do you mean the signature at the bottom of every comment I post on Slashdot is too lo
"Senator Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania and chairman of the Judiciary Committee, pressed an amendment that would strike a provision from the bill that prohibits terror suspects from challenging their detention in the courts. ''What the bill seeks to do is set back basic rights by some 900 years,'' said Mr. Specter, who traced the ability to challenge one's detention to the Magna Carta"
And the debunked point hits again! Republicans are the only ones who actually want anything to fail. Find any Democrat of any national significance who has actually made a statement about wanting a collapse, please.
Long? What do you mean the signature at the bottom of every comment I post on Slashdot is too lo
The Repubs just want it to fail in a manor that wakes people up so it doesn't happen again.
Like, a country manor outside of Derbyshire? That's a nice play for anything, even failure! It's a bed and breakfast as well.
(-1, Raw and Uncut is the only way to read)
FAIL.
The right-wing extremism report was initiated by George W. Bush's White House, as a counterpoint to the left-wing extremism report issued earlier this year. The right-wing extremism report further did not identify conservatives as extremists; it identified two major groups within right-wing extremists, those being hate extremist groups like the Ku Klux Klan and single-issue extremist groups like abortion-clinic bombers. Agreeing with any of the issues does not mean that they called you an extremist, only that extremists have been known to share that issue.
Some squirrels are male and some squirrels are female. You are in all likelihood either male or female. This does not, however, mean that you are necessarily a squirrel. It's the same argument, except with 'squirrel' in place of 'extremist,' 'male' in place of 'hate groups,' and 'female' in place of 'single-issue groups.'
Long? What do you mean the signature at the bottom of every comment I post on Slashdot is too lo
There are hundreds of regimes around the world doing worse. Some of them we even put in power. We do nothing there, why is Iraq different? THAT is the question. Why are we meddling there, and not in any place with real problems, like Somalia?
- None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
"In other words, if you're not near death, you can't see someone who can actually help you"
Last year I had an earache. I knew I wasn't dying but it was a bit annoying. I phoned the doctor's surgery, they gave me an appointment that evening. I went to see the doc and he checked my ear, gave me a prescription for ear drops which I took to the chemist and it sorted out my minor infection.
Parent's poster is wrong. You don't need to be near death to see somebody who can help you.
Oh these Americans, so over dramatic.
Perhaps that was the problem, I wonder if the American friend went to the local doc and explained "OH MY GOD DOC! I've been sharing a house with a SMOKER, for TWO WHOLE DAYS, I think I've got CANCER, and I AM DYING!". I can imagine a British doc saying "yes yes well calm down, have you had any extreme symptoms? No? well, let me do a check... everything seems in order. How about you ask your friend to stop smoking in the house or perhaps you move to another flat. Get out and take up a little exercise as well."
I think the doctor would be sitting there thinking that if the problem was the guy was living with a smoker, why didn't he move and so solve his problem?
As another poster has noted, we have public health services in the UK but also private doctors, nobody stops you going to a private doctor if you want to pay.
(ok I've been a little jolly in this post and apologies I am sure your friend was in distress and I wish them well... but you did set me up a bit there. You suggest that "health care is something to be earned and not a right" and then complain your friend who'd been living in the UK for only one year couldn't get free specialist treatment. Why didn't he go and pay for a private specialist?).
"Eh. Specter is an old school reagan-ish republican."
There is nothing even remotely "Reagan-ish" about Arlen Specter. The only principle Specter has ever had are the ones that keep Arlen Specter in power. Though it puts the GOP in a painful disadvantage in the Senate, I am well and truly glad to see him gone. Besides the shiny new (D) beside his name, the only difference in Specter is that now he'll have to stab the Republicans in the front.
And Democrats, while you're happy about your new supposedly filibuster proof majority, consider this; if history is any indication, sooner or later you'll need Specter's vote on something. And he'll screw you guys too. When a whore leaves her husband for another man, does she ever really stop being a whore?
Life is hard, and the world is cruel
Considering your own ideology to be more important than the wellbeing of everyone else is the hallmark of libertarianism.
The Government has all business providing the things it provides.
Poverty sucks and until all of the hyper rich decide to transparently run the programs that would replace Medicare, Medicaid, TANF, food stamps, etc, someone has to do it.
Non impediti ratione cogitationus.
We have so many laws and regulations now...it is crippling, and all that having majority does, is bring on MORE laws and regulations. We need a 'reset' not more laws, but, that will never happen.
IMHO, the government governs best when it is in gridlock.
Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
Why should we?
We should only do things that protect and spin things in the interests of our country. That is what our country is for, to protect and promote our interests, nothing more.
Anything we do, charity wise, while good....is just a plus, it is not the responsibility nor job description of our government.
Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
What was that? Darfur? Timor? You want us to what in Darfur?
If the ideology we're talking about is the unconstitutional, moderate socialism that we have now thanks to both parties, then certainly it's broken. Maybe we could try capitalism and the rule of law next?
Revive the Constitution.
There are hundreds of regimes around the world doing worse. Some of them we even put in power.
You'd think we would have learned by now not to keep putting new regimes in power, just to have them become our Mortal Enemies (TM) 10 years later.
This has everything to do with Arlen's political survival (aka pulling a Lieberman) as he was about to be voted out of office in the Republican primary there.
And I'm not sure that it's a clear cut win for Democrats... Arlen will be an uncertain ally at best, and negates the Democrats ability to run someone really far to the left against Toomey in PA which I'm sure they would have loved to do. So, a mixed bag. Arlen's effectively been a democrat (or at least not a republican) for many years now anyways, so while this is a PR blow to be sure it won't change much as far as senate politics are concerned.
As far as Arlen trying to say the GOP has moved right since Reagan's days? Hogwash, they've moved left and become indistinguishable from Democrats which is why they're being punished by the voters. Arlen's own appeal to Reaganism is offset by a quote from the man himself:
"A political party cannot be all things to all people. It cannot compromise
its fundamental beliefs for political expediency, or simply to swell its
numbers. It is not a social club or fraternity engaged in intramural contests
to accumulate trophies on the mantel over the fireplace...No one can quarrel
with the idea that a political party hopes it can attract a wide following,
but does it do this by forsaking its basic beliefs? By blurring its own image
so as to be indistinguishable from the opposition party?"
Personally, I'm glad Arlen made his selling out official. Republicans may be down and out right now, but the path back does not involve selling out our principles.
K go ahead and mod me down now. :-)
LOl...I too wonder what you're smoking, or where you're from, but, your outlook and opinions certainly aren't of the majority of ANY group of people I've known.
If given enough money to live the rest of their lives comfy...like a major lottery win. I've venture to guess (and would put money on it) that the vast majority of them would not work in the sense of a job again.
Personally, I certainly wouldn't. I had a nice taste of it between contracts awhile back. I was off for 7 months...and I LOVED it. Aside from not having money coming in and having to watch some expenses...I found plenty to do with my time other than work or do anything remotely looking like a job.
I got up daily, walked the dog, jumped on my motorcycle, hit the gym for a couple hours...after than, I'd ride around town, figure out where to get a cold beer or two, and meet up with friends somewhere after they got off work. That was my general day...aside from some days with interviews, or tinkering with a fun project at home. That was it.
I can easily tell you, that if I took home something like $20M in a powerball winning, I'd put it back, live on the interest, and never have a job again. Easy life like listed above, mixed in with travel to fun places.
I applaud your for your apparent altruistic attitude and lifestyle, but, I can assure you....that is not what the majority of people feel.
Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
Not if it is unconstitutional for the government to do so, or if it is a thing better provided by a private organization.
Sure it sucks. You know what other things sucks? Rain, snow, and not getting laid. The fact that "something sucks" doesn't mean the government automatically has the responsibility to make it "not suck".
No, no one "has" to do it. Do not confuse objective necessity with your belief that something should be done about a problem. The problem is, when you step over the line from "believing something should be done," to "forcing everybody to do what I think must be done by making it a government program," I have a problem with that.
I'm sure I'll be modded down as troll and flamebait because I'm breaking with prevailing slashdot wisdom, but I don't mind burning karma to make this point. If you think that something more should be done about poverty, then by all means - Campaign your little heart out to raise private (VOLUNTARY) charitable donations to alleviate the problem. Take a vow of near-poverty yourself and donate all your earnings to the poor.
Hell, if you did that rather than try to seize control of the government to use it as a club to force me to donate to the programs you happen to think are "necessary," I'd write you a check to help educate, feed, clothe, shelter, and medicate the poor & homeless with a big smile - I donate my time & money already of my own free will, because I believe it's the right & moral thing to do.
If you want more to be done about all the problems, I'll respond with this simple challenge: You first. Do it on your own, voluntarily, lead by example. I may follow voluntarily, I may decide to go a different direction and donate to another cause that I think is more important. But either way, I will not hate you for presuming to know what is best for me and forcing me to fund programs that I do not support, and you will have proven that you do not hate your fellow human beings enough to think that the only way they will do the right thing is if they are forced to.
"It's popular therefore it's right". Thanks for the insight.
We hope your rules and wisdom choke you / Now we are one in everlasting peace
okay, if we're going to play the "your side" game, you have to look at the other side as well.
The side you refer to 'thinking the Founding Fathers' were on to something also believes in the erosion of civil liberties, consolidation of executive power, silencing those who dissent, torture, revoking habeous corpus, forced religion, racial profiling and exclusion, warmongering, etc...
Read some of President Washington's work and tell me how ANYTHING from the last 8 years even remotely comes close to the Framer's vision!?!?
Face it, both sides are out of touch with the Founding Fathers. Both "sides" are corrupted abominations that offer little in the way of serious social stability with in the original frame work of our Constitution.
The Democrats have long understood and I think important elements of the Conservative movement (not the Republicans as of yet) now realize that we are fast approaching a 'there can be only one' point in history, where one side must finally confront and defeat the other.
Mean while I think the general population of the US is finally coming to the inevitable "there can not be only two" point in history.
There are way more issues than there are sides. Some of those issues the Democrats are more liberal, some of them Republicans are more liberal, hell some of them the Libertarians are more liberal on. Stop thinking of politics as a black and white game, all that type of thinking is doing is shrinking and isolating the once proud Republican movement. Learn to deal with nuance. Work to reform the party based on intellectual debate rather than 5 second sound bites of FUD and maybe we can see a healthy return of the Republican party.
-Rick
"Most people in the U.S. wouldn't know they live in a tyrannical state if it walked up and grabbed their junk." - MyFirs
Hahaha, oh I always love that fantasy world you live in. Fortunately for America, you are wrong, and we will do just fine. We will be out of this recession in a year and a half, and Obama will look like a genius. He will sweep the next presidential election in a landslide, and we will get Universal health care. This will do so much to restore American competitiveness that we will experience huge economic growth before he leaves office, ushering in even more socialism, as people realize it just plain works.
You, on the other hand, will be bitterly eating crow and whining about how it all sucks and will be falling apart any day now.
- None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
"socialism" doesn't mean what the bulk of americans (ie "you") think it means. Most of Europe, Canada and South America are "socialist". We say "socialism" and you hear "communist dictatorship" which is something completely, completely different.
Sort of like how "liberal" is slanderous to you guys... so weird.
Stop thinking in black & white, flush the cold-war era propaganda from your mind, and you'll find there are some excellent lessons to be learned from a system not driven wholy by greed.
Jeremy
Yes they can. Private industry can collude with others to prevent you getting a job. They can buy all the land around yours and refuse you access. They can pollute your land and kill you, then if you've got anyone left alive to sue them, they can beat them with hundreds of lawyers.
In fact, it is the government that can't take your money, your freedom or your life without good reason. Private industry feels no compunction against doing so.
- None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
Two futures lie ahead of us, one of an emasculated politically cleansed America where the State (i.e. national government) reigns supreme over pretty much everything, assigns everyone their place and everyone knows resistence to be futile as we spiral down to Third World status and keep going towards failed state.
I view this as what the Bush regime gave us. Trillion dollar increases in the national debt that our grandkids will be lucky to see gone. Sheer incompetence that shows the Republicans couldn't rebuild New Orleans in the amount of time that it took to rebuild all of Europe after WWII.
Or how about a 'politically cleansed america' where if you do scientific research or have a charity that doesn't follow the narrow government sense or morals you lose your funding. Science books are removed from schools and replaced with religious dogma. Neighbours are allowed weapons sizeable to a small army and shoot trespassers with impunity, yet a small swear word on tv results in government ordered fines and content sensorship.
Right wing republicans want a dictatorship in the US, run by religious law - very much indistinguisable from the likes of the Taliban.
Its the Republicans that need to wake up and change their attitude or get the hell out of the country before they destroy it.
Tesla was a genius. Edison however was a overrated hack who liked to torture puppies.
Not in so many words, no. Many Democrats have, however, called for us to pull out of Iraq under conditions that are equivalent (in my, and many other people's opinion) to admitting that we've lost.
How is coming to the realization that we lost the same thing as wanting to lose? Did Japan's surrender that ended WWII before his entire country was destroyed mean that Emperor Hirohito wanted to lose? Did the fact that that James Madison signed a peace treaty with the British that under conditions that are equivalent to admitting that we've lost mean that he wanted America to lose the War of 1812?
I wish as much as the most hardcore right winger that we were accepted with open arms in Iraq and that Iraqi citizens were willing to work with us to rebuild their country, but that isn't what happened. No one wanted to (or wants to today, for that matter) lose the war. What the Democrats wanted to do was stop sending our boys off to die overseas just to prove that invading Iraq was a good idea in the first place.
Arlan isn't going to suddenly start voting with the Democratic party (yes, he's crossed the lines occasionally). This is all about his own electability in the 2010 campaign. His numbers were looking atrocious in an increasingly hard-right nomination fight. The only chance he had was to become a Democrat and hope that he can take down an incumbent while riding the moderate fence.
This is a similar tactic...in spirit...to what Joe Lieberman did. Screw party identity, use the convention battles to your advantage. Old Arlan doesn't have ME fooled.
I swear to God...I swear to God! That is NOT how you treat your human!
There was no "ability" to filibuster. Even at 41 Republicans, the Democrats could always count on Snowe or Collins or McCain or Specter or one of a few others. You can't filibuster with 38 votes.
This is the beginning of the new realignment. If the GOP continues to alienate Snowe and Collins, they'll lose them too. If the Democrats get larger, they could reach a critical mass which results in more fiscally conservative Republicans, who could do without the religious-right's agenda of social issues, leaving their party for the Democrats. The end result would be the splitting of the Democratic party into the fiscal conservatives and the advocates for social services, with the social issues marginalized.
Social issues might come back into the spotlight, at which point the religious groups could reattach themselves to either side, but until the economy starts booming again, banning gay marriage or overturning Roe vs. Wade will not be high priorities.
The Stimulus vote is the proof that the Republicans didn't have 41 votes to filibuster anything. You can't filibuster with less than 41 votes.
There was exactly 1 test vote on cloture this session. Specter voted with the Democrats. Now he's becoming a Democrat to ... vote with the Democrats. What changed?
New Orleans is squarely in Democrat hands, the Republicans haven't had anything to do with it. The fact that you don't know that just goes to show how good the media is at covering for them.
Really, though, I think jmorris was talking about CONSERVATIVES, which Republicans ain't. Which is why they lost so big in the last election cycle, their own "right wing" base won't support them.
Actually, Conservatives believe in not giving any charities government funding, regardless of belief.
As far as Scientific Funding.... Who was the first US President to dedicate Federal funds to embryonic stem cell research?
Actually that sounds pretty awesome. :)
Can you give an actual example of a Conservative Republican who wants that? I don't think so. Hell, I'd be surprised if you came up with an example of a Conservative Republican, period.
Ahh there's that tolerance everyone on the left said was missing during the Bush years. I feel so accepted for my differing viewpoints. Really.
Here's a news flash: At this rate, things are going to come to a head, one way or another. And only one side of this argument owns guns.
Maxim: People cannot follow directions.
Increases in truth directly with the length of time spent explaining them
You get someone who never forgets he's an ass.
No, I think Bush was a Fascist. Luckily public opinion and the Congress swung against him before the Unitarian Executive theory could get any further. But we still need to take a weed whacker to Presidential power and prune the crap out of that tree.
-Rick
"Most people in the U.S. wouldn't know they live in a tyrannical state if it walked up and grabbed their junk." - MyFirs
HAHAHAHAHAHA! That's a good one. Let me guess - you've never had a long term condition, injury or illness that required extensive use of your medical insurance? Believe me - if this ever happens to you, your perception of the issue will change pretty damn fast.
Xenon, where's my money? -Borno
You do know that's not really an effective form of contraception.
James Carville said he wanted Bush to fail, but that was in general, to be fair, as the comment was made before the war.
In 2006 a national poll said 51% of Democrats wanted President Bush to fail... Again, "fail" in general, not specifically about the war.
Harry Reid announced the war was already lost and that we HAD failed, about a year ago.
I remember a good example of a DU poster, on the day that the capture of Saddam was announced, responding to the news with the comment "I'm in tears over here... How can we win if stuff like this keeps happening?"
Honestly I don't think any prominent Democrat would be STUPID enough to make such a PUBLIC statement, though it was their desire. There's probably plenty of examples of the random lunatic fringe Democrat members of the House buried in some news archives somewhere, but I really don't feel like digging them out just for you to say "Well, they're not a major figure any way!"
Maxim: People cannot follow directions.
Increases in truth directly with the length of time spent explaining them
This is going to get me flamed to hell, but I don't care, my karma is good, so here goes. Hate to break the news to you, but inside every Iraqi is NOT an American waiting to get out,okay? You are NEVER going to "win" there,got that? They WANT to live under their crazy Sharia law, and you are NOT going to get them to behave like little Americans. All you are doing is wasting time and lives. Just ask the Russians, they can tell you all about it from their time in Afghanistan.
So go right ahead and keep believing you can "win" this thing. You can't. You can't win this anymore than we could win Vietnam, hell probably have even less of a chance here. We could win WW2 because Germans and Japanese were basically functional before they got Hitler and the militant generals of Japan. Here you are trying to take dozens of tribes, many of whom HATE each other, and are happy to strap bombs to themselves and their kids because it gets them a free pass to Allah, and make them behave like they were just another country in the EU. It will NEVER EVER work. But keep believing that it will, while Haliburton and the other contractors laugh their way to the bank with your money.
Whether you pull out now or in 10 years you WILL pull out, the only questions are how many lives and how much money will be pissed down that rathole before we do. There is simply NO WAY to win this, your money and your planes and your bombs will NEVER EVER make these people quit slaughtering each other. All you are doing is giving them a common target to shoot at, because the only thing they agree on is they ALL hate us.
ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
Since when are nerds only interested in tech? Politics is always relevant.
We hope your rules and wisdom choke you / Now we are one in everlasting peace
In fact, it is the government that can't take your money, your freedom or your life without good reason. Private industry feels no compunction against doing so.
This comment is laughable in light of what the government is doing RIGHT NOW to illegally take GM's assets.
People who made legitimate investments in GM are being cheated by the Gov't and the UAW (through raw Gov't corruption) in ways that would be clearly illegal if the company were in actual bankruptcy!
"The future's good and the present is nothing to sneeze at." - Roblimo's last
Like this really matters? democrat or republican, yawn, same thing wearing different colors with the same end game. They get the money and we get hosed. Does anyone truly believe there is a difference between the two? Both parties represent Big Government. I don't want to hear all the hot air saying otherwise. WE get taxed to no end to pay for whatever debacle they are funding. With money being siphoned off to cronies and friendly corporations. Specter turning Demcocrat is a non-issue. Fox news was covering it like it was some news worthy event. He is just another politician thats been playing the game for how many years? Pulling down six figures with a nice medical plan, plus a fat pension. Not to mention whatever monies he gets under the table from his corporate sponsers. It makes me laugh that these clowns come off like they are so respectable, so honourable. All I see is a lying sack of shit in a very nice suit. blech, its all bullshit.
Unitary Executive, not Unitarian! If Bush were a Unitarian executive, he would be far more open minded ^_^.
Similar to the upcoming US election results
Yes, I realize that. But the person he was responding to was talking about Conservatives, not "right wing Republicans"...
Yes, I believe I was the one making that very point.
If you'd of said Pat Buchanan, you may have had a point. But Rush Limbaugh? Seriously? You're saying RUSH LIMBAUGH wants a theocracy? He gets CONSTANT heat from the religious right over how areligious his show is! Next you're going to tell me Bill O'Reilly is a Conservative!
Damn, we started up the Inquisition again? Why wasn't I invited!? I loved the Pit and the Pendulum!
Seriously, though... Lately the only "Agree with us or die!" point of view I've been seeing espoused vis a vis scientific belief has all been coming from the Global Warming camp...
Maxim: People cannot follow directions.
Increases in truth directly with the length of time spent explaining them
And here we see the 'reality' the 'Reality Based' crowd lives in.
> ..believes in the erosion of civil liberties, consolidation of executive power,
> silencing those who dissent, torture,revoking habeous corpus, forced religion,
> racial profiling and exclusion, warmongering, etc...
So let me break down your pitiful rant and take it on a charge at a time.
Erosion of civil liberties? You mean the Patriot Act that Obama DIDN'T renounce once he was the one in the hot seat and would be responsible if something went FOOM!, is that what you are on about? The Patriot Act that DIDN'T actually do most of the things the crazies say it does?
Consolidation of executive power always happens during wartime. As someone who leans Libertarian I find it distasteful but can't see a way around the problem. The only solution is to push hard for a return to normal as soon as the Islamic threat is beat back. Of course this is the first war where the party out of power tried to convince itself we weren't actually at war so they could feel justified in continuing the usual politics of national destruction.
"Silencing those who dissent"? Are you insane or do you just believe if you repeat a lie enough it will become the Truth? Name one dissident who has been silenced. We suffered through eight long years of nothing but loud rancourous dissent that crossed the line to treason more than once. How many AMERICAN CITIZENS did BushHitler put in to gulags? You idiots like to preen and think you are brave patriots speaking truth (or at least truthiness) to power but you are wrong. Try it in a real dictatorship and you can earn some actual Karma. You know, places your type loves to proclaim your love of but never get around to relocating to. Say Cuba for one example, they have thousands locked up but I'm sure they could make room for you.
"torture,revoking habeous corpus"
I won't concede that waterboarding is torture, but even if it is we did it to three, yes three, very high value targets. This isn't like we were torturing POWs in WWII who were mostly just conscripts, these were high ranking officers. Furthermore they aren't protected by the Geneva Conventions so we would have been perfectly within the laws of war to have simply executed them. And I really don't think you even know what a phrase like habeous corpus even means if you think we have been violating it.
"forced religion" Oh really. Example please? Or are you just regurgitating dailykos propaganda?
"racial profiling and exclusion" If only. Or are you suggesting it makes sense to consider a little old black lady travelling with her children as equally a risk as three twenty something middle eastern men two of which are named after their morally challenged prophet? No we shouldn't get too carried away with the racial profiling, but as a practical matter. For example the recent revelations about KSM's plan for an attack on LA was planned to use Asian (but Muslim) probably to avert suspiscion.
"warmongering" You guys have pretty much turned that phrase into a null, much like overuse has made 'bigot' and 'fascist' pretty empty. Especially since you idiots don't even know 'fascist' means you. Go read Goldberg's _Liberal Fascism_, it might just get ya to start questioning some of your assumptions about a great many things.
Democrat delenda est
You can't even bring yourself to type the name 'Barack.' Why should anyone take you seriously?
At least he didn't "Coulter" it calling him B. Hussein Obama to try to imply that he was related to Saddam or something. Or how about BO? That's a lovely one. I suppose after calling the last one Dubya or BushCo we should all expect this.
The same reason we always meddle, self interests. Its not really complex or difficult to figure out, nor are you particularly impressive to point it out.
Thats not to say that helping others is a bad idea, it serves your self interest as well. I don't mind helping others, but its done knowing full well may eventually serve to help me. All people, religious or otherwise do things only to serve themselves. You don't feed the starving children because its the right thing to do, you feed the starving children because it gives you warm fuzzies or helps you justify some other bad shit you've done.
All animals do things for self interest or die out. Sometimes the things they do for self interest are wrong and they die out anyway. Most humans like to lie about it to themselves and others and pretend they are being selfless. They aren't, they are just liars or in denial. Religious people who 'help others' typically do so because they think it'll help them in Gods eyes, not because they are actually selfless, regardless of what they may tell others or have convinced themselves.
To pretend that anything any animal does isn't for self interest is just total ignorance or stupidity, take you pick.
Back to the point, we're concerned about places in the Middle East more than places like Somalia because RIGHT NOW and in the near future Oil and instability in the middle east is more important to those in power than the problems in Somalia.
Lie to yourself however you want, denial is a great thing, but it changes nothing. We're all animals and we all do things for the same reason, regardless of what we call it.
Persistent Volume manager for Kubernetes - https://github.com/dwimsey/openshift-pvmanager
I'm a social anarchist. Libertarians pervert anarchy, and hide their selfishness behind a guise of liberty. What you don't say is that you want the liberty to take away the liberty of those you deem inferior, through economic means. Either that, or you are utterly deluded as to the consequences of your proposals.
As Adam Smith said, "Civil government, so far as it is instituted for the security of property, is in reality instituted for the defence of the rich against the poor, or of those who have some property against those who have none at all." Libertarians want to reduce government to nothing more than the security of property. All they care about is the defense of the 'superior' rich against the rightful rage of the 'inferior' poor.
It is just so precious that you quote Havelock Vetinari of all fictional characters. The despot of Ankh-Morpork, the Machiavelli of Discworld, and the man that all libertarians truly strive to be.
- None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
Who said anything about taking what is yours? But since you brought it up, who decided what was yours to begin with? By what right do you exclude others, whom you have no contract with, from using things that you yourself aren't currently using?
- None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
The GOP's advocacy of an extremist form of corporate capitalism has finally caught up with what is now all that's left of the GOP, right wing extremists.
The "socialism" those right wing extremists keep screaming about is defined by the rest of the world as a MIXED economy. A form of capitalism in which the appetite of corporations to prey on and swallow up small businesses is controlled by social controls established in the form anti-trust legislation, and the worst abuses of employees is controlled by government regulation.
As we have found out the hard way, the only people actually freed by freeing the markets of government intervention/regulation are the thieves who prey on idiots like you, Brian, to let them steal away their money. Con artists will always find marks like you, Brian. Suckers always allow their greed to get them in places con men like ENRON, WorldCom, and Bernie Madoff feed on.
There are no reasonable solutions to be found anywhere in dogmatic extremism.
I think Rush and the Republicans do a fine job of that on their own. There may be some amount of artful framing, such as acknowledging that Rush is a de facto leader (in that people who deviate from his narrative are demonized and later apologize to him), but the real liability in people like Rush doesn't need outside provocation.
Personalities like Rush are in fact fueling fracturing of the party by radicalization of the base with rhetoric about RINOs and how conservatism has never really been tried because the conservatives we've been electing weren't real conservatives or something.
There is simply NO WAY to win this, your money and your planes and your bombs will NEVER EVER make these people quit slaughtering each other.
Why not? Saddam was able to do it.
They WANT to live under their crazy Sharia law, and you are NOT going to get them to behave like little Americans
Some do, most don't. That's why they helped kick Al Qaeda out during the Anbar Awakening. They didn't like the strictness and harshness of Al Qaeda. Also, a lot of places in Iraq are secular.
All you are doing is giving them a common target to shoot at, because the only thing they agree on is they ALL hate us.
This is false for so many reasons. They are people, they know the feeling a good shower, a good night sleep after a hard day's work. They understand loss, and they understand pain, and they, like anyone else, are trying to find their own happiness in the world. We in the United States have reason to believe a good functioning democracy can help with that goal, and if they work together as a country, they will go farther and be happier than if they fight violently in tribal struggles. Do we have selfish reasons to try to teach them this? Yes, they were annoying us. But the underlying principle is true, and as soon as they understand it, they better it will be for them.
There was a time Europe was also just a bunch of warring tribal warlords, and yet today they have become the countries of the European Union. There is no reason to believe Iraq will not make a similar transformation, and leave the dark ages.
Qxe4
Hahaha, oh I always love that fantasy world you live in. Fortunately for America, you are wrong, and we will do just fine. We will be out of this recession in a year and a half, and Obama will look like a genius. He will sweep the next presidential election in a landslide, and we will get Universal health care. This will do so much to restore American competitiveness that we will experience huge economic growth before he leaves office, ushering in even more socialism, as people realize it just plain works.
OK, now I can't tell which of you is trolling harder.
COME ON PEOPLE. There is not going to be some kind of dramatic, miraculous movement in any direction. God will not reach out of the heavens and give a sign indicating which way the United States of America should go -- largely because Americans ain't the Chosen People ;-). Stuff will be worked out to stop the recession/depression, and people will adopt it. Whoever invented it will see a fruitful political career, and their enemies will fall from power steadily. Life will go right back to normal. That is how reality works. Maybe we'll get universal health care, maybe we won't. It depends on who does what when in which context.
Learn some subtlety and nuance, ya partisan hacks!
Bush ran on "no nation-building," then proceeded to do exactly the opposite.
Old Saddam kept order by gassing everyone that disagreed with him. I can't really see Americans dropping mustard gas, which is pretty much the ONLY way you are going to "win" there.
Saddam gassed people to keep them from revolting, because if they wanted to change something, they had to revolt. The democratic way is to give people a way to change things without violence. Of course, if they don't accept the non-violent way, America has shown it is not afraid to kill them: see Fallujah
It is about OIL, it has ALWAYS been about OIL
Come back when you understand what the Iraq war is actually about.
The petro dollar is pretty much the only damned thing we have left in the country.
Demonstrating once again your naivete. The United States produces more than any other country, and has a strong industrial base. The only reason you could say that "the petro dollar is the only thing we have left" is if you don't actually understand how the US economy works.
Let us look at the facts, okay? ..... FACT- Iraq is made up of THREE completely separate groups that frankly can't agree on shit. These are of course the Sunni, The Shia, and the Kurds.
Let's look at the real facts. The power structures in Iraq are divided along tribal lines, not along religious lines. In fact, most of Iraq is secular. The fact that you think the Sunni/Shia division is most important shows that you've gotten your information only in passing, not from a deep investigation of the matter. In essence you know nothing about Iraqi politics.
"Inside every gook.......while we make deals with China(true evil) is not only BS, it is kinda insulting,okay?
Oh nice, fortify your position of ignorance with racism. Smooth. Not only have you demonstrated your ignorance on politics and foreign affairs, you've also shown you lack the ability to understand other people at all. Racist. I can't believe it. What kind of idiot are you? Wake up and enter reality already.
And the hawks will blame the dems for not letting them "win" when the simple fact is you can NEVER win.
They won't. Obama is continuing the war. You seem to have not noticed.
In conclusion get some sense in your brain before opening your mouth and you will be a lot more intelligent. May sound harsh, but seriously, if you don't get over that racism, there's a special circle in hell for you. In this life too (more importantly).
Qxe4
Specter left the Democratic Party in '81 because he lacked seniority for cool appointments. The Republicans were (and have been) desperate enough for a Pennsylvania senate seat that he could write his own checks in the GOP.
That's interesting, according Wikipedia he's been a registered Republican since 1966. He wasn't even elected to the Senate until 1980. So I call gross fabrication (i.e. bullshit). FYI: If you're going to make shit up, don't make it so goddamn trivial to check.
He's not getting any.
Oh you're right to say that it's because he was going to lose in the GOP primary, but that's not very insightful, since Specter said that very thing in his press conference today. The real issue is whether he's right when he said that the GOP left him, rather than he left the GOP. I suspect he's right. Barry Goldwater famously went from crazy rightwinger to moderate without changing a position.
For twelve years, you have been asking: Who is John Galt?
Where's the equivalent of the RIAA for books? I want to report a violation. Can't have any parasites or thieves steal an honest womans hard work like that.
Yes, unfortunately we had to listen to eight years of such infantilisms from one side, like "Bushitler" and comparing him to a chimp and making him out to be the dumbest man that ever walked the earth, so now we'll prolly get to hear eight years of lame teleprompter references et al. from the juvenile and inane on the other side. Great.
Attention zealots and haters: 00100 00100
Well, if you ask me, there was no valid reason to invade Iraq.
It wasn't about weapons of mass destruction, if you remember we never started talking about those until we tried to justify it to the United Nations. When the administration was trying to justify it to the US public it was about terrorism. Before that, Bush talked about the axis of evil, part of which was Iraq. I think he actually believed Iraq was evil and was trying to clean up. There are reports that he had a revulsion towards Saddam and considered him truly evil.
Beyond that, the PNAC has been urging the US to do something in Iraq for a while. Here is a letter they sent Clinton. If you notice, some of the singers eventually ended up in the Bush administration, but not without reason, they have a lot of experience in foreign affairs. They were the advisers who essentially shaped foreign policy of the Bush administration.
The PNAC has the worldview that it is up to the US to keep the world safe (echoing the ideology of "making the world safe for democracy"), and what is good for America is good for the world. By invading Iraq, they intended to stabilize the region by removing one of the hostile actors, sending a message to the other hostile states that they better start behaving, and finally clean things up by showing what can happen in a democracy, and because a democratic, healthy nation is less likely to support terrorists. They chose Iraq because there was probable cause and because it was significantly easier than invading Iran.
Some of these goals have been reached. Syria has become a lot less hostile, and they've pulled out of Lebanon allowing the Lebanese to start building their nation on their own, however they can. Syria has also had peace talks with Israel, although the final result is far off. It may have actually protected America, since Al Qaeda did put a lot of effort into Iraq. Eventually Iraq can become a prosperous democratic nation, although it will not be as easy as PNAC seemed to think. If you are interested in PNAC thought, you should go to their website, they are rather public about their ideas.
Personally, while I think the ideals of stabilizing the region, making the world safe for democracy, and helping to bring Iraq out of the middle ages are all good goals, there were better ways to do it. An invasion is a blunt, bloody tool that is more of a regression into the middle ages than a push into the future.
Qxe4