1
   

The Republicans just can't catch a break, can they?

 
 
Reply Wed 29 Apr, 2009 04:46 am
Well, conservatives managed to screw over the Republican party yet again. This is the second time in recent memory that a moderate Northeastern Republican switched sides. Part of the reason the Democrats have a majority in Congress right now is that they ran conservative Democrats in Republican areas. Meanwhile, the Republicans are managing to chase away the few moderate Republicans they actually have left. LOL

The Republican party has really become the ideological party in American politics. They're desperately trying to pretend it's still the 1980s, and meanwhile, the Democrats have become the party of everyone else; the moderates, the liberals, anyone 25 or younger, and anyone who's not white.

Specter switches to Democrat, 'at odds' with GOP

"WASHINGTON ? Veteran Republican Sen. Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania abruptly switched parties Tuesday, a move intended to boost his re-election chances that also pushed Democrats within one seat of a 60-vote filibuster-resistant majority.

At a news conference, Specter said his switch to the Democratic Party was a "painful decision," but he found himself increasingly at odds with a Republican Party that has moved to the right.

The Pennsylvania lawmaker said his philosophy was more in line with the Democratic Party. He said in the last few months he surveyed the sentiments of the GOP and found prospects for winning next year's primary looked bleak.

Specter faced a tough challenge from former GOP foe Pat Toomey.

Specter stunned Capitol Hill with word that he would switch parties. At the news conference, he told Democrats that he won't be an automatic 60th vote. He said he will follow his own approach to legislating.

President Barack Obama called Specter almost immediately after he was informed of the switch to say the Democratic Party was "thrilled to have you," according to a White House official.

Spurned Republicans said his defection was motivated by ambition, not principle.

Republican National Committee Chairman Michael Steele said, "Let's be honest: Senator Specter didn't leave the GOP based on principles of any kind. He left to further his personal political interests because he knew that he was going to lose a Republican primary due to his left-wing voting record. Republicans look forward to beating Senator Specter in 2010, assuming the Democrats don't do it first."

Specter, 79 and in his fifth term, is one of a handful of Republican moderates remaining in Congress in a party now dominated by conservatives. Several officials said secret talks that preceded his decision reached into the White House, involving both Obama and Vice President Joseph Biden, a longtime colleague in the Senate. Pennsylvania Gov. Ed Rendell as well as Democratic leaders in Congress also were involved.

With Specter, Democrats would have 59 Senate seats. Democrat Al Franken is ahead in a marathon recount in Minnesota, and if he ultimately wins his race against Republican Norm Coleman, he would become the party's 60th vote. That is the number needed to overcome a filibuster.

Specter faced an extraordinarily difficult re-election challenge in his home state in 2010, having first to confront a challenge from his right in the Republican primary before pivoting to a general election campaign against a Democrat in a state that has trended increasingly Democratic in recent elections. Former Rep. Pat Toomey, whom Specter defeated in a close primary race in 2004, is expected to run again.

Specter has acknowledged in recent months that in order to win a sixth term, he would need the support of thousands of Pennsylvania Republicans who sided with Obama in last fall's presidential election.

"I am unwilling to have my twenty-nine year Senate record judged by the Pennsylvania Republican primary electorate," he said in the statement.

Asked by a reporter what he had to say to his constituents, Specter replied with a smile, "I don't have to say anything to them. They said it to me."

Specter has long been an independent Republican, and he proved it most recently when he became one of only three members of the GOP in Congress to vote for Obama's economic stimulus legislation. Then, he proved it once more, pivoting not long afterward to say he did not support legislation making it easier to form unions, a bill that is organized labor's top priority in the current Congress.

In Pennsylvania, the chairman of the state Republican Party, Rob Gleason, said that Specter should offer a refund to Republicans who have helped fatten his war chest, which totaled $5.8 million at the end of 2008. "He should give them the option," Gleason said.

Even before Gleason made his comments, Specter announced he would return donations he has received this election cycle "upon request."

Specter has long been one of the most durable politicians of either party in Pennsylvania. In recent years, he has battled Hodgkin's disease, a cancer of the lymphatic system, but maintains a busy schedule that includes daily games of squash.

As one of the most senior Republicans in the Senate, Specter held powerful positions on the Judiciary and Appropriations committees. It was not clear how Democrats would calculate his seniority in assigning committee perches.

As recently as late winter, he was asked by a reporter why he had not taken Democrats up on past offers to switch parties.

"Because I am a Republican," he said at the time.

"I welcome Sen. Specter and his moderate voice to our diverse caucus," Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., said in a statement."
  • Topic Stats
  • Top Replies
  • Link to this Topic
Type: Discussion • Score: 1 • Views: 2,463 • Replies: 28
No top replies

 
Grouch
 
  1  
Reply Wed 29 Apr, 2009 09:19 am
@NotHereForLong,
While i agree with some of the comments he has said regarding the current nature of the republican party. I can only view this as a sad attempt to maintain his position of power. He's getting his ass handed to him in his current in current primary reelection. He's looking to make a big stink to gain support.
Sabz5150
 
  1  
Reply Wed 29 Apr, 2009 07:58 pm
@Grouch,
Grouch;65165 wrote:
While i agree with some of the comments he has said regarding the current nature of the republican party. I can only view this as a sad attempt to maintain his position of power. He's getting his ass handed to him in his current in current primary reelection. He's looking to make a big stink to gain support.


And as a Democrat, they (the dems) won't run a candidate against him in the next midterm. This, given the current popularity of the GOP, is a huge bargaining chip.

However, so are Specter's committee seats and of course the chair in the Senate.

Too bad I didn't have an AM radio when this broke. I really wanted to hear Rush have a catastrophic heart attack on live airwaves.
0 Replies
 
g-man
 
  1  
Reply Mon 25 May, 2009 03:14 am
@NotHereForLong,
Limbaugh had the appropriate response. Let them have him. Regardless of what his title has been, he's a liberal. He just didn't have the cahonas to fess up to it.
rugonnacry
 
  1  
Reply Wed 3 Jun, 2009 12:01 pm
@NotHereForLong,
The GOP is done... A new age of republican will arise. My philosophical babble for the quarter... see you in a few months.
Sabz5150
 
  1  
Reply Wed 3 Jun, 2009 08:01 pm
@rugonnacry,
rugonnacry;65389 wrote:
The GOP is done... A new age of republican will arise. My philosophical babble for the quarter... see you in a few months.


Call it the New Republic. Please call it the New Republic.
0 Replies
 
Fatal Freedoms
 
  1  
Reply Thu 4 Jun, 2009 06:02 am
@g-man,
g-man;65274 wrote:
Limbaugh had the appropriate response. Let them have him. Regardless of what his title has been, he's a liberal. He just didn't have the cahonas to fess up to it.


Do we care what Limbaugh says? He is the reason (if any) intellectuals are afraid of venturing into the republican camp. His polemical rants are ill-thought out and based on raw emotion rather than reason which is why he is basically yelling during his whole show.
Sabz5150
 
  1  
Reply Thu 4 Jun, 2009 07:58 pm
@Fatal Freedoms,
Fatal_Freedoms;65402 wrote:
Do we care what Limbaugh says? He is the reason (if any) intellectuals are afraid of venturing into the republican camp. His polemical rants are ill-thought out and based on raw emotion rather than reason which is why he is basically yelling during his whole show.


That's how the Right works. No reason, just raw emotion. This is apparent in ANYTHING with a right-leaning slant.

And remember: These are the same people who will kill when the laws don't favor them.
g-man
 
  1  
Reply Sat 6 Jun, 2009 03:57 pm
@Sabz5150,
Sabz5150;65408 wrote:

These are the same people who will kill when the laws don't favor them.


Example.
0 Replies
 
g-man
 
  1  
Reply Sat 6 Jun, 2009 04:13 pm
@Fatal Freedoms,
Fatal_Freedoms;65402 wrote:
Do we care what Limbaugh says? He is the reason (if any) intellectuals are afraid of venturing into the republican camp. His polemical rants are ill-thought out and based on raw emotion rather than reason which is why he is basically yelling during his whole show.


Limbaugh rarely raises his voice.
Limbaugh is guilty of one thing. Being true to his beliefs. Not allowing popularity drive his agenda. Unlike the spineless republicans who will not stand tall against the left who consider the convenience of women over the life of the real victims of their irresponsible actions. And then actually consider the right to life for a man who disregards the right to life the victim of their murder or the right of a rape victim. Leftist convince themselves they are the compassionate ones are so full of crap it's almost comical.
Leftist, who think government has the answer to anything but provide nothing but theory as their proof are truly the joke.
Fatal Freedoms
 
  1  
Reply Sun 7 Jun, 2009 04:40 am
@g-man,
g-man;65448 wrote:
Limbaugh rarely raises his voice.


Are you mad? have you ever heard his show?



Quote:
Limbaugh is guilty of one thing. Being true to his beliefs.


...Even if his beliefs are idiotic and simple-minded.



Quote:
Not allowing popularity drive his agenda.


his agenda of what? To Slander all those who disagree with him? the man is a raving lunatic. Why anyone would take political advice from a drug abuser is beyond me. :dunno:
Sabz5150
 
  1  
Reply Sun 14 Jun, 2009 10:17 pm
@Fatal Freedoms,
Fatal_Freedoms;65456 wrote:
Are you mad? have you ever heard his show?


Even I listen to Limbaugh and I hear him fly off the handle at times. And no, his rants are not grounded in fact, merely emotional rhetoric meant to keep the money flowing.
0 Replies
 
scooby-doo cv
 
  1  
Reply Thu 18 Jun, 2009 08:12 am
@g-man,
g-man;65448 wrote:
Limbaugh rarely raises his voice.
Limbaugh is guilty of one thing. Being true to his beliefs. Not allowing popularity drive his agenda. Unlike the spineless republicans who will not stand tall against the left who consider the convenience of women over the life of the real victims of their irresponsible actions. And then actually consider the right to life for a man who disregards the right to life the victim of their murder or the right of a rape victim. Leftist convince themselves they are the compassionate ones are so full of crap it's almost comical.
Leftist, who think government has the answer to anything but provide nothing but theory as their proof are truly the joke.


"Limbaugh rarely raises his voice" even over here in the UK he is known for being a fat right-wing blowhard.

You better check the batteries in your hearing aid :thumbup:
g-man
 
  1  
Reply Sun 21 Jun, 2009 11:29 pm
@scooby-doo cv,
scooby-doo;65596 wrote:
"Limbaugh rarely raises his voice" even over here in the UK he is known for being a fat right-wing blowhard.

You better check the batteries in your hearing aid :thumbup:


I doubt you've listened to Limbaugh and have developed your opinion on hearsay.
By the way, are you expressing a prejudiced opinion on fat people?
Not acceptable among liberals is it? You're supposed to be the good guys. Heh?
scooby-doo cv
 
  1  
Reply Mon 22 Jun, 2009 03:13 am
@g-man,
g-man;65628 wrote:
I doubt you've listened to Limbaugh and have developed your opinion on hearsay.
By the way, are you expressing a prejudiced opinion on fat people?
Not acceptable among liberals is it? You're supposed to be the good guys. Heh?


A fat right-wing racist junkie ! not hearsay, FACT :lightbulb:
0 Replies
 
Sabz5150
 
  1  
Reply Tue 23 Jun, 2009 08:22 pm
@g-man,
g-man;65628 wrote:
I doubt you've listened to Limbaugh and have developed your opinion on hearsay.


Know your enemy as you know yourself and you need not fear a hundred battles with them.

I listen to King Rush almost daily.
g-man
 
  1  
Reply Sat 27 Jun, 2009 10:53 pm
@Sabz5150,
Sabz5150;65647 wrote:
Know your enemy as you know yourself and you need not fear a hundred battles with them.

I listen to King Rush almost daily.


Well then, you know you have lied. Limbaugh does not yell.

Mark Levine on the other hand does. Often.
With good reason. He sees what the left wants and that they are achieving. It is upsetting to those who appreciate what capitalism has done for America.

But, the left now has it's chance to learn the lessons that world history should have already taught them about socialism. Unless of course you want to provide some shining examples of what it has to offer.
scooby-doo cv
 
  1  
Reply Sun 28 Jun, 2009 03:43 am
@g-man,
g-man;65681 wrote:
Well then, you know you have lied. Limbaugh does not yell.

Mark Levine on the other hand does. Often.
With good reason. He sees what the left wants and that they are achieving. It is upsetting to those who appreciate what capitalism has done for America.

But, the left now has it's chance to learn the lessons that world history should have already taught them about socialism. Unless of course you want to provide some shining examples of what it has to offer.


Unregulated "Captitalism" has got America and most of the world into the worst economic state since the great depression :lightbulb:
g-man
 
  1  
Reply Sun 28 Jun, 2009 03:17 pm
@scooby-doo cv,
scooby-doo;65684 wrote:
Unregulated "Captitalism" has got America and most of the world into the worst economic state since the great depression :lightbulb:


You apparently do not have a clue what hard times means as you sit at your computer and express disdain for a system that has every kid toting a cell phone and an I-pod when they actually get up from their X-boxes and PS-III's
to go outside.
But, let's assume you're right. What is socialism going to do for the common man? Going to make life better?
Do you mind presenting some examples of social success?
scooby-doo cv
 
  1  
Reply Mon 29 Jun, 2009 01:27 am
@g-man,
g-man;65690 wrote:
You apparently do not have a clue what hard times means as you sit at your computer and express disdain for a system that has every kid toting a cell phone and an I-pod when they actually get up from their X-boxes and PS-III's
to go outside.
But, let's assume you're right. What is socialism going to do for the common man? Going to make life better?
Do you mind presenting some examples of social success?


Who and what got us into this mess,was it socialism ?

You seem to think the US under Obama is going to trurn into some kind of socialist state,it is not ! it will still be a capitalist country.

Obama inherited this mess. FACT
 

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
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
  1. Forums
  2. » The Republicans just can't catch a break, can they?
Copyright © 2026 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 03/06/2026 at 11:11:12