Reply Wed 19 May, 2010 11:15 am
Do you have a good word for anyone? What a bitter man! I would almost suspect you were John McCain. You have no reason to hate Obama who is not a liberal.
0 Replies
Reply Wed 19 May, 2010 11:16 am
Some people just like shooting themselves in both feet.
0 Replies
Reply Wed 19 May, 2010 11:17 am
Would you please, please, please try to learn what communism is and what Communism was?
0 Replies
Reply Wed 19 May, 2010 12:57 pm

I see your confusion... Obama is a MARXIST that exhibits thinking that any card carrying Communist would approve of.

Know you know Mr. Green
0 Replies
Reply Wed 19 May, 2010 02:19 pm
H2O MAN wrote:

The results of Tuesday's races sent a clear message to Washington that the anti-incumbent
wave that has gripped the nation over the past year isn't losing steam... it's actually gaining speed.

And in a related story:

We're talking about the same Americans lining up to eat fried **** sandwiches, here. The "message" of which you speak is, in fact, "I love being fat and angry."

Also, could you add some more cliches to your posts, please? I only count four in this one.
Reply Wed 19 May, 2010 03:12 pm

Americans will be lining up to eat fried **** sandwiches once again when Obama starts his re-election campaign.
Reply Wed 19 May, 2010 03:30 pm
That doesn't even make sense. Not everything works as a metaphor.

I was speaking literally, by the way.
Below viewing threshold (view)
Reply Wed 19 May, 2010 06:59 pm
I'm happy that Specter lost but pity the guy as well...

Gotta be tough to abandon 40-odd years of one political party when they reject him, only to join the other and then be tossed out on his ear by that party as well. His legacy until he dies will be that he self-servingly betrayed one party and a year later was rejected by the other as fake or opportunist. With few friends on either side of the aisle, he'll be a very lonely man in the future...

I speculate that in hind sight, he now wishes he would have stayed with the Republican party. His career would still be over this election cycle, but at least he'd be able to go out with some semblance of honor and respect.
Reply Wed 19 May, 2010 07:40 pm
Oh, I think Specter can go out with more than just a semblance of honor and respect. He served his state well for a long, long time and he remains highly regarded.

This time around, everything was working against Specter--his Washington insider status, his sudden switch in party affiliation, and, possibly, his age. The electorate, right now, wants change and fresh blood. Democratic voters were not thrilled with being presented with a candidate who supported Bush's policies. And Sestak ran a good campaign, presented a fresh face and new voice, and was able to claim independence from the party machinery. This just wasn't Specter's year and the various, volatile, political cross-currents swamped him.

I think that Specter's forced retirement from the Senate is a real loss for the Republican party rather than for the Democrats.

0 Replies
Reply Wed 19 May, 2010 09:49 pm
@ebrown p,
ebrown p wrote:
That's a fair point. I just hope Olympia Snowe and Susan Collins of Maine won't be next.

Why not? They are pretty high on my list of targets.

Because, as I said before, America can use an opposition of grown-up Republicans. Currently, only a small-and-shrinking minority of high-profile Republicans fit the bill---and Snowe & Collins are among them.
Reply Wed 19 May, 2010 10:02 pm
I'm okay with Olympia Snowe. Can't say I know anything about Susan Collins.
Reply Wed 19 May, 2010 10:06 pm
That is OK, unless you are a citizen in good standing of Maine your opinion on the matter counts for zero.
0 Replies
Reply Thu 20 May, 2010 06:06 am
0 Replies
Reply Thu 20 May, 2010 08:17 am
Thomas wrote:
Because, as I said before, America can use an opposition of grown-up Republicans. Currently, only a small-and-shrinking minority of high-profile Republicans fit the bill---and Snowe & Collins are among them.

I have seen very little actual evidence to support this notion that Snowe and Collins are significantly more moderate or independent than their Republican colleagues in the senate. They seem to vote with Democrats only in cases where their votes don't matter -- witness Snowe's vote with the Democrats on the health care bill in committee (where it was certain to pass), but her refusal to vote for the bill in its final form on the senate floor. In general, they are unwilling to break with the Republican caucus on cloture votes, which are really about the only votes that matter any more. In short, Snowe and Collins talk moderate, but they vote conservative.
Reply Thu 20 May, 2010 09:38 am
This article fairly well sums up most of the reasons that Sestak beat Specter.


The New York Times
May 19, 2010
White House Embraces Upstart Who Beat Specter

Shortly after Representative Joe Sestak won an improbable victory Tuesday over Senator Arlen Specter in Pennsylvania’s Democratic Senate primary, President Obama called Mr. Sestak to congratulate him. The president pledged his full support, aides said later, and offered to campaign for him in the fall " if Mr. Sestak believes it will help.

Nothing makes friends like winning. It was not long ago, Mr. Sestak said Wednesday in an interview, that White House officials were so eager to muscle him from the race that they offered him a job if he would drop out.

Mr. Sestak remains mum on the details, except to say that it was a high-ranking post " secretary of the Navy has been mentioned as a possibility " and that it happened last summer. The White House, which had backed Mr. Specter, has denied the assertion.

What is clear is that Mr. Sestak, 58, a former Navy admiral with a reputation as a hard-charging and demanding taskmaster, has no hesitation about defying the White House or other powerful interests.

His seemingly quixotic yearlong quest to win the Democratic Senate nomination pitted Mr. Sestak against an array of Democratic power brokers, from the White House to the governor to organized labor to the party apparatus to Democratic donors.

“You have the whole world telling him he’s crazy to do this,” said Neil Oxman, a founder of the Campaign Group, the media firm in Philadelphia that made Mr. Sestak’s much-heralded television commercials. “It’s pretty remarkable when you can stand up against those odds and take on the longest-serving senator in Pennsylvania history.”

Now Mr. Sestak " despite an initially rambling and occasionally bewildering speaking style " appears to be one of the Democrats’ best hopes for keeping control of the Senate. How a relatively obscure member of Congress, with a consistently liberal voting record, made it this far says a great deal about who he is.

Mr. Sestak was born in Delaware County, the suburban Philadelphia area he represents now in Congress, and grew up as one of eight children in a closely knit Catholic family.

His mother, Kathleen, who has retired as a high school math teacher, worked on his campaign. His father, Joseph Sestak Sr., who died last year, had emigrated from Czechoslovakia in the 1920s and was a particular inspiration. The son, who was valedictorian of his high school class, followed in his father’s footsteps to the Naval Academy. He graduated in 1974, second in his class.

He went on to earn his Ph.D. in political economy from Harvard in 1984 and rose in the Navy to become a three-star admiral and the highest-ranking military officer ever elected to Congress.

Mr. Sestak demonstrated his perseverance when he met his future wife on a trip to the Soviet Union in 1990.

“We knew each other for two days, and he asked me to marry him and I said no,” Susan Clark-Sestak, 50, an environmental analyst at a national security research group, said Wednesday. “He said, ‘I’ve never felt like this before, but I know it’s right.’ ” They married eight years later.

During his Navy career, he commanded the George Washington aircraft carrier battle group during combat operations in Afghanistan. He also served in administrative roles, as a defense adviser for the National Security Council during President Bill Clinton’s administration and as a senior official in Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld’s Pentagon during George W. Bush’s administration.

Mr. Sestak’s superior, Adm. Vernon E. Clark, had assigned him to find ways to make the Navy meaner and leaner for the 21st century, a project that fell squarely into line with Mr. Rumsfeld’s early attempts to “transform” the armed forces for what he called “the threats and challenges of this new century.”

The task took on added importance after the Sept. 11 attacks, when Mr. Sestak was assigned as director of Deep Blue, the Navy program tasked with devising new strategies to combat terrorism in the post-9/11 era.

In an interview, Admiral Clark said he regularly encouraged Mr. Sestak to produce proposals that went against the grain of formal plans submitted by other officers " and, as often as not, he said, “he did.”

Mr. Sestak developed a reputation, which still stands, for work night and day.

“He’s a hard worker and expects the same of his staff,” said Adm. Edmund P. Giambastiani Jr., a superior who oversaw some of his work analyzing fleet strategies, and who went on to be a vice chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff from 2005 to 2007. “He was very capable. He put together an incredibly capable staff.”

But in interviews, current and former Pentagon officials and associates also said his staff frequently complained of a punishing work load that at times bordered on unreasonable " a complaint that followed him to Congress. Mr. Sestak dismissed such complaints as often anonymous carping.

When Admiral Clark was succeeded as chief of naval operations by Adm. Mike Mullen " now chairman of the Joints Chief of Staff " Mr. Sestak’s naval career hit a wall.

Mr. Mullen reassigned him almost immediately upon taking Mr. Clark’s post, and a report in The Navy Times at the time paraphrased an anonymous source as saying that the change was being made because of a “poor command climate” in his division.

Admiral Clark, in an interview on Wednesday, took responsibility. “I put him in that environment where he was in a position to create enemies,” he said, adding, “I should have given him better top cover.”

Mr. Sestak said Wednesday that it was only natural that Mr. Mullen would want a new team for his new command. Sestak aides said that he was ready to resign to help care for his daughter, Alex, who had brain cancer.

Regardless, the “poor command climate” line made its way into an advertisement of Mr. Specter’s. But it did not appear to gain much traction; Mr. Sestak countered with a rally at which fellow veterans accused Mr. Specter of Swift Boat tactics and being disrespectful to those who served.

Mr. Sestak’s Republican opponent in November, former Representative Pat Toomey, said he did not foresee making a similar issue of his service. “I’m much more interested in focusing on our policy differences,” Mr. Toomey said. “Joe and I have very, very different views on what the federal government ought to be doing and how.”

Mr. Sestak entered politics in 2006, when he challenged Representative Curt Weldon, a Republican who was first elected in 1986. Mr. Sestak beat him and then handily dispatched a Republican challenger in 2008.

He was mulling a run for the Senate when Mr. Specter dropped a political bombshell. On April 28, 2009, he announced he was switching to the Democratic Party because he could not win re-election in a Republican primary. The move would give the Democrats a 60th vote in Congress, and President Obama agreed to endorse Mr. Specter and welcomed him in a ceremony at the White House.

“We are thrilled to have you,” Mr. Obama told Mr. Specter during a private telephone conversation, aides to both men said at the time. And the president promised to campaign for him.

Initially, few party strategists paid attention to Mr. Sestak’s shoestring campaign. His brother and sister helped him with logistics, and even as he declared victory on Tuesday, he still had no campaign manager and was calling most of the shots himself.

One powerful ally for Mr. Sestak was Mr. Clinton, his former boss. Last spring, Mr. Sestak was visiting his house in Washington to ask his advice about running for the Senate; it turned out to be the day Mr. Specter announced he was switching parties.

Mr. Specter, 80, took the classic approach in his campaign. He tried to define Mr. Sestak early, chastising him for missing votes in Congress and raising questions about his Navy record.

Mr. Sestak was making little headway, but he was an energetic and indefatigable campaigner. He routinely drove the six-hour trip from one end of the state and back again in a 24-hour turnaround just to keep himself in the state’s two major media markets.

“We were trying to squeeze every minute we could out of a workday,” Mr. Sestak said. “We would leave Philadelphia at 10 p.m., get to Pittsburgh at 3 or 4 in the morning, grab sleep for two hours, have our first meeting at 7:30 in the morning, then go all the way back to Philadelphia.”

He had told Mr. Oxman that he had just $4 million to spend on television commercials, and they decided to spend $1 million a week for the last four weeks of the campaign. Mr. Oxman said that the first commercial, a 60-second biographical spot introducing Mr. Sestak, started to close the gap in the polls.

“That ad said there’s a real alternative to Arlen Specter and he’s not a kook,” Mr. Oxman said.

Then, 12 days before the election, they started running a commercial linking Mr. Specter to former President Bush, and replaying Mr. Specter’s admission that he changed parties so he could get re-elected. Gov. Edward G. Rendell, who backed Mr. Specter, said the commercial was “brilliant and devastating.”

In addition, Mr. Sestak hammered a consistent message throughout the campaign: that Mr. Specter’s party switch showed him to be an opportunist.

By the last week of the campaign, the landscape had shifted drastically from a year before, when the White House had first embraced Mr. Specter. The race was dead even, and Mr. Sestak had the momentum.

Mr. Specter requested a last-minute presidential visit " a trip that would have filled local television with images of Air Force One flying into Pennsylvania with Mr. Obama standing at Mr. Specter’s side " but strategists said that every analysis of the race suggested it was futile.

At the same time, the White House came to see Mr. Sestak as a more disciplined candidate " resolving one of the early questions about him " and decided he would be stronger in November against Mr. Toomey in a year of deep incumbent resentment.

“There were a lot of Democrats who had a hard time getting their arms around Specter as the Democratic nominee, since they had voted against him for three decades,” David Axelrod, a senior adviser to President Obama, said in an interview Wednesday.

Mr. Obama still taped a radio advertisement and appeared in a much-seen commercial with Mr. Specter. But at the end of the campaign, he stayed away.

“It’s a tough time to be a long-term incumbent of either party, and switching parties exacerbated that,” Mr. Axelrod said.

“It was a hard case to make.”
0 Replies
Reply Thu 20 May, 2010 06:03 pm
Well, perhaps I've just been too naive and trusting for this world once more. It happens.
0 Replies
Reply Fri 21 May, 2010 12:10 am
OmSigDAVID wrote:
Are "moderate conservatives" like accountants who are moderately accurate
or like trial judges who are moderate in how many bribes they extort ?
Thomas wrote:

More like moderate drinkers. Some people get drunk as in "I had a good time yesterday evening so I'll need an aspirin this morning." Other people get drunk as in "I just woke up in my own vomit. Where am I, and how did I get here?" Drinking of the latter kind is scary and disgusting, just like the politics of, say, Sarah Palin. Drinking of the former kind is an example to be emulated, just like the politics of Arlen Specter.
No, Thomas; that logic does not work.
A citizen EITHER IS non-deviant from the US Constitution
or he is NOT non-deviant therefrom.
Whether he is or not determins whether he shoud be known as orthodox, conservative, OR as one who deviates.

Its like it was when u were in the first years of elementary school,
learning arithmetic and u were tested as to 1 + 1 equalling 2.
The teacher marked your test paper either that u were right or u were rong;
she did not mark your answer "MODERATELY RIGHT".

A citizen EITHER is or is NOT a conservative
depending on whether or not he DEVIATES.

The answer is either O or it is 1; not "moderately O."

I am pretty sure that as a physicist, u r familiar with this concept.

Reply Fri 21 May, 2010 12:42 am
David, that is total bullshit. Liberals do not deviate from the Consitution. Conservatives have no monopoly on it. The more accurate definition of a conservative, particularly in your case, is someone who has never learned anything new.
Reply Fri 21 May, 2010 12:54 am
And I commend to your attention, David, Merriam Webster's definition of "liberalism", which fits Americans who are liberals, and is right straight down the line founding father beliefs, far more than modern conservatism is:
LIBERALISM; a politcal philosophy based on progress, the essential goodness of the human race, and the AUTONOMY OF THE INDIVIDUAL and STANDING FOR THE PROTECTION OF POLITICAL AND CIVIL LIBERTIES. (emphasis added).

That's liberals. That's the Founding Fathers, too. And the Constitution.

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
Copyright © 2023 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 09/28/2023 at 12:59:14