Breaking: Specter becoming a Democrat; Update: Won’t change on Card Check; Update: Obama “thrilled”; Update: Specter disavowed switch last month; Update: Olympia Snowe defends Specter; Update: GOP leaders stunned; Update: Graham hits Toomey

posted at 12:23 pm on April 28, 2009 by Allahpundit

Or rather, he’s finally making it official. Human Events broke the news, now WaPo confirms:

“I have decided to run for re-election in 2010 in the Democratic primary,” said Specter in a statement. “I am ready, willing and anxious to take on all comers and have my candidacy for re-election determined in a general election.”

He added: “Since my election in 1980, as part of the Reagan Big Tent, the Republican Party has moved far to the right. Last year, more than 200,000 Republicans in Pennsylvania changed their registration to become Democrats. I now find my political philosophy more in line with Democrats than Republicans.”

That’s a weaselly lie, and therefore a perfect note for him to depart on. He’d have happily run for re-election as a Republican if not for Toomey getting into the race and quickly jumping out to a 21-point lead. Specter tried to make it an open primary so that the left might rescue him but couldn’t, and Pennsylvania’s election laws prevented him from doing what Lieberman did to Lamont three years ago: In PA, if you compete in a primary and lose, you’re done. No independent candidacy. So his choice, essentially, was either to switch to an independent now and skip the primary or go the whole nine yards by becoming a Democrat, giving the left a presumptive filibuster-proof majority (once Franken is seated), and extracting whatever concessions he could from them in return, e.g. committee chairmanships, DNC fundraising, etc. The Hill actually kinda sorta predicted this last month. It’s pure self-preservation on Specter’s part, expecting that he’ll be able to handle Toomey easily in the general when Democrats and indies can push him through.

Three quick thoughts. One: Does this mean he’s going to reverse himself on Card Check? I’m guessing yes. Two: Does this mean the Democrats will drop their threat to nuke the filibuster on health care? Hard to say since Blue Dogs like Ben Nelson could defect and deprive them of the 60th vote. Third: Will a lefty challenger jump into the Democratic primary now and challenge Specter as, irony of ironies, a DINO?

You know who I bet feels pretty stupid right now? John Cornyn.

Update: Ben Smith says Biden was “deeply involved” in the switch. Here’s Specter’s full statement. Interesting:

I deeply regret that I will be disappointing many friends and supporters. I can understand their disappointment. I am also disappointed that so many in the Party I have worked for for more than four decades do not want me to be their candidate. It is very painful on both sides. I thank specially Senators McConnell and Cornyn for their forbearance…

My change in party affiliation does not mean that I will be a party-line voter any more for the Democrats that I have been for the Republicans. Unlike Senator Jeffords’ switch which changed party control, I will not be an automatic 60th vote for cloture. For example, my position on Employees Free Choice (Card Check) will not change.

Update (Ed): I’m in the good-riddance category here.  Normally I argue for a big tent and the need to woo moderates by focusing on core values.  Specter betrayed those values in his Porkulus vote and cloture cave.  He could have forced Obama, Pelosi, and Reid to start negotiating in good faith with his Republican colleagues, but instead allowed them to shove a bad bill down their throats.

Update: You’ll be pleased to know that Snarlin’ Arlen has The One’s “full support.” Meanwhile, here’s just how much of a weaselly liar he is. From a March 17 interview with The Hill:

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

Update: Michael Steele lays it on the line:

Some in the Republican Party are happy about this. I am not. 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 Sen. Specter in 2010, assuming the Democrats don’t do it first.

Update: Politico says Specter was talking to the Dems about this for months and that the final straw was indeed the polls showing him getting crushed by Toomey. Question: Are any other Republicans thinking of switching? Hmmmm:

Sen. Olympia Snowe (R-Maine) a fellow moderate, didn’t seem suprised. On the national level, she says, “you haven’t certainly heard warm encouraging words of how they [Republicans] view moderates. Either you are with us or against us.”

“Ultimately we’re heading to having the smallest political tent in history they way things are unfolding,” Snowe said. “We should have learned from the 2006 election, which I was a party of. I happened to win with 74% of the vote in a blue collar state but no one asked me how did you do it. Seems to me that would have been the first question that would have come from the Republican party to find out so we could avoid further losses.”

Update: The most discouraging thing about all this may be that the GOP leadership appears to have been caught totally by surprise, even though (a) per Politico, Specter’s been talking to the Dems for months, and (b) per Toomey’s polling, we’ve been speculating about a Specter switch for weeks now. How could they have been caught flat-footed on this?

Update: Grahamnesty wants in on some of Snowe’s “viva moderates!” action.

“I don’t want to be a member of the Club for Growth,” said Graham. “I want to be a member of a vibrant national Republican party that can attract people from all corners of the country — and we can govern the country from a center-right perspective.”

“As Republicans, we got a problem,” he said.

Counters Jim DeMint, whose impending endorsement of Toomey might have pushed Specter over the edge, “I would rather have 30 Republicans in the Senate who really believe in principles of limited government, free markets, free people, than to have 60 that don’t have a set of beliefs.”


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 10 11 12

If the Dems want a guy with Specter’s rock bottom (and falling) approval numbers, I say “Take him!”

Now he gets to bleed out a DEM in a primary (unless the Penn. Dems are beyond stupid) while Toomey gets to cruise into the mid-terms unopposed.

Specter may not win his primary, but he wants power bad enough to drag any challenger he faces through the gutter. Penn. Dems get a blood bath, Penn. GOP gets a choice between principle or irrelevance.

Tack on another seat flip in 2010. (Dodd’s cooked in CT., bank on it.)

SuperCool on April 28, 2009 at 8:20 PM

so take that extra cruise to Cancun Gramps and Nan are your neighbors’ look out not you their first born sons’….

1890s America>2000s America on morals and freedom

sven10077 on April 28, 2009 at 8:10 PM

Contraception and a desire for fewer children has had a greater demographic effect than abortion. Either way though fewer young people are supporting more old people. Technological advances that extend life-spans will make the problem more pronounced. Families may have to decide “do I help gramps out with the medical costs or do I send my son to college?”

From a government standpoint social security and medicare are actuarialy certain to face insolvency for essentially the same reason.

Life guards are good, but if their presence encourages people to flock carelessly into rough surf, thereby requiring the state to hire more lifeguards, thereby encouraging even more recklessness then yeah its a systemic problem.

dedalus on April 28, 2009 at 8:20 PM

Aghhhh! I have missed ALL the coverage and ALL the fanfare because my husband took me out to the range to shoot my new gun!
WTF, let’s just get rid of all of them. McCain, his girlfriend, his fat daughter, snowe on the mountains, collins…..get the hell out and don’t come back! Evah!

HornetSting on April 28, 2009 at 8:21 PM

In the meantime the fool Michael Steele goes on tv trying to defend Republicans stripping pandemic funding from the budget basically by saying, ‘ We didn’t know 6 months ago this this was going to happen!’

What did he say, “we don’t know what tomorrow holds” ?? Could have fooled me!

Just like Jindal mocked volcano funding

And then Mt. Redoubt blows.

Magnus on April 28, 2009 at 8:21 PM

Sabsunk:

They don’t have the right to live long lives? I am not talking about keeping people on respirators in a vegetative state. I am talking about giving basic care to the elderly.

what you are talking about is negligent homicide. At least in this state that is what it is called when they arrest people for it.

And you know what? People like Jinfedel can make cracks about what I said about my own family history in the 19th century. Maybe they think America in those days was just like Little House on the Prairie or something and there was no such thing as abandoned orphans or child labor.

But there was and people do not want to go back to that sort of time.

Terrye on April 28, 2009 at 8:22 PM

Medicare picked up the tab, and if it got too big, they went on Medicaid. And that is more money.

Terry, again, not picking on you. Medicaid is for people that are not old enough to be recipients of Medicare.

Medicare is for folks at or beyond the retirement age or for those who have been declared permanently disabled and thus entitled to Medicare, which is a lifetime benefit.

Key West Reader on April 28, 2009 at 8:22 PM

HornetSting on April 28, 2009 at 8:21 PM

Enjoy the 30-seat GOP senate while waiting for the Dems to fumble the ball. Maybe they do. It’s really up to them.

dedalus on April 28, 2009 at 8:23 PM

I

n the meantime the fool Michael Steele goes on tv trying to defend Republicans stripping pandemic funding from the budget basically by saying, ‘ We didn’t know 6 months ago this this was going to happen!’

What did he say, “we don’t know what tomorrow holds” ?? Could have fooled me!

Just like Jindal mocked volcano funding

And then Mt. Redoubt blows.

Magnus on April 28, 2009 at 8:21 PM

Are you a Kneejerk Knegro defender of Ogabe’s policies and party?

No-one has proved that we are facing a true pandemic with this swine flu.
(I remember President Ford’s dance with this demon in 1976–bazillions spent on swine flu vaccine. No one got sick, except from the vaccine itself.)
Nor did “volcano funding” help in the least with the Mt. Redoubt explosions.
See Gov. Palin for further details.

Jenfidel on April 28, 2009 at 8:26 PM

HornetSting on April 28, 2009 at 8:21 PM
Enjoy the 30-seat GOP senate while waiting for the Dems to fumble the ball. Maybe they do. It’s really up to them.

dedalus on April 28, 2009 at 8:23 PM

SNOWE, COLLINS, SPECTER….what’s the ($&$^@ difference???????????????

HornetSting on April 28, 2009 at 8:27 PM

Terrye on April 28, 2009 at 8:22 PM

Which part of “It’s not the federal government’s job, nor should it be.” don’t you understand?

Jenfidel on April 28, 2009 at 8:27 PM

Jenfidel

Affordability shouldn’t matter. If you have you should give and not expect anything back. Period. That is true charity. Not saying, well I’ll only give if I can get something back on my taxes, other than that I’m not doing it. That shouldn’t be anyone’s motivation. I can’t afford to pay tithes, But I do it. Sometimes just write that check and put my faith in the Lord that my needs will be met even though I’m in the red.

And you know what I’m still clothed, fed, and housed.

He hasn’t let me down yet.

Magnus on April 28, 2009 at 8:28 PM

SNOWE, COLLINS, SPECTER….what’s the ($&$^@ difference???????????????

HornetSting on April 28, 2009 at 8:27 PM

You are giving up on having a political party in the North East.

When the Dems have the White House it is valuable to have a majority in one of the Congressional Houses, even if that majority comes via different wings of the party.

dedalus on April 28, 2009 at 8:30 PM

Magnus on April 28, 2009 at 8:28 PM

All of that’s fine and good, but it has nothing to do with the federal government and paying your taxes.

It’s neither right or fair to try and judge what you think is in other’s hearts, minds and souls or what motivates them to give to charities, so I’d stop trying, if I were you.

Jenfidel on April 28, 2009 at 8:30 PM

It must be hell to be 79 and look in the mirror in the morning either realizing you have no dignity or being to stupid to.

churchill995 on April 28, 2009 at 8:32 PM

Sabsunk:

They don’t have the right to live long lives? I am not talking about keeping people on respirators in a vegetative state. I am talking about giving basic care to the elderly.

what you are talking about is negligent homicide. At least in this state that is what it is called when they arrest people for it.

And you know what? People like Jinfedel can make cracks about what I said about my own family history in the 19th century. Maybe they think America in those days was just like Little House on the Prairie or something and there was no such thing as abandoned orphans or child labor.

But there was and people do not want to go back to that sort of time.

Terrye on April 28, 2009 at 8:22 PM

They don’t believe there is such a thing as abandoned orphans or ever was child labor, or homeless people that had something unfortunate happen to them, or people that don’t have family or friends to take care of them or people that just are down on their luck or people that will work hard everyday and still not able to make ends meet, or that a lot of people in foreclosure had their houses for decades and lost a job or had a illness that wiped them out. Or could afford their home until they lost a job. Or people that just can’t afford health care and go bankrupt because of an illness.

Or if they do believe it they think ,”The hell with them! I got mine!”.

Magnus on April 28, 2009 at 8:34 PM

Wouldn’t it be a hoot if he got his turncoat a$$ handed to him in the democrap primary???

bullseye on April 28, 2009 at 8:35 PM

* too stupid to

churchill995 on April 28, 2009 at 8:39 PM

Jenifdel,

In my opinion if you refuse to give to charity, and you have the means to do so, because you can’t write if off then in my opinion that is selfish and not charity at all.

Magnus on April 28, 2009 at 8:39 PM

I think it is very important for future generations that Obama be stopped. I know people will say Bush was as bad, but that is not even close to true. Obama intends to double the national debt in one term. And that is beyond scary. I hope that I am wrong about that.

Terrye on April 28, 2009 at 7:27 PM

Terry, you are not ‘wrong’ about that, you are being what is called fiscally responsible.

I have read the threads and there are so many who feel a sense of entitlement that it is frightening.

For those who feel ‘entitled’ to be fed, housed, clothed and soothed by the government? What has that gotten you other than a reputation of a slacker?

I was raised on welfare and foodstamps. I know what it feels like to stand in line with coupons (now they use debit cards for personal preservation). I felt the shame that came with the cashier yelling, “food stamps! food stamps!”.

That motivated me to MAKE my own way. Nobody will make your way just the same as unicorns don’t sh*t out candy corn. Get off your butt and make your own way.

The welfare system is for folks that are truly destitute and in need… not designed for people who watch TV land and eat bon bon’s. The welfare system is for the elderly who cannot get out of their homes to purchase let alone prepare food .. read Meals on Wheels – a PRIVATE organization serving seniors and shut ins.

This is going to devolve into the GIMME’s and the WORKERs. And, as a child of welfare I know how to work and I’ll be gat danged if I’m going to support those who are able bodied, able minded, welfare sucking insolents who have time, talent and treasure yet refuse to use it. I refuse to support those same citizens who raise and train their children how to use and abuse the system.

I was raised and trained, and I knew wrong from right. I’ll stick with what’s right. Do what you can, earn your own way. Live within your means. Do not ask for charity unless you need it. Never, never, never, sell your soul to the government. They do not represent you. Not anymore.

Key West Reader on April 28, 2009 at 8:41 PM

In my opinion if you refuse to give to charity, and you have the means to do so, because you can’t write if off then in my opinion that is selfish and not charity at all.

Magnus on April 28, 2009 at 8:39 PM

Nonsense the money is not income for you unless you are like Her Majesty the Duchess of Klinton and are donating used underwear.

The Feds are so greedy they want to tax every dollar they can in the revenue stream….

the charity write-off is being killed to force people to feel “I gave (literally)at the office” and have the hand of charity be Barry’s not Gods’ through the Church

sven10077 on April 28, 2009 at 8:41 PM

Jenifdel,

In my opinion if you refuse to give to charity, and you have the means to do so, because you can’t write if off then in my opinion that is selfish and not charity at all.

Magnus on April 28, 2009 at 8:39 PM

But you have no idea if that’s what people are really doing, now, do you?
Jesus said, “The gift without the giver is bare.”
Let the Lord do the judging, m’kay?
He also said, “Render unto Caesar what is Caesar’s.” and we might add “and not a penny more!”

Jenfidel on April 28, 2009 at 8:43 PM

the charity write-off is being killed to force people to feel “I gave (literally)at the office” and have the hand of charity be Barry’s not Gods’ through the Church

sven10077 on April 28, 2009 at 8:41 PM

That’s absolutely correct.

Y-not on April 28, 2009 at 8:43 PM

Over a 1000 comments on Arlen Specter.

Must be the off-season.

Asher on April 28, 2009 at 8:46 PM

An excellent post regarding Senator Jim DeMint’s comments regarding ‘having 30 limited government Republicans than 60 that aren’t’
VIA The Corner at NRO
Andrew Stuttaford:

If it comes to a choice, I’d rather have 60 Republicans in the Senate, however squishy some of the views of some in their ranks, than 60 Democrats who are all certain of theirs. Anyone who truly believes in limited government ought to understand that voting against can be as valid as voting for. If it takes a few Specters to see off a Democratic majority, so be it.

sDs61678 on April 28, 2009 at 8:48 PM

In my opinion if you refuse to give to charity, and you have the means to do so, because you can’t write if off then in my opinion that is selfish and not charity at all.

Magnus on April 28, 2009 at 8:39 PM

Ask Obama how much he and Michelle gave to Charity in 2004, 2005, 2006 and 2007.

And while you’re at it, ask Joe Biden and Jill Biden how much THEY gave to Charity in Joe’s entire senate career.

The results, I guarantee you, will be enlightening.

Geh head. I dare ya.

Key West Reader on April 28, 2009 at 8:50 PM

Jenfidel on April 28, 2009 at 8:43 PM

Amen, sistah.

Nite, all.

Key West Reader on April 28, 2009 at 8:52 PM

Dear goopers, I get it, you would rather run Pat Toomey in the primary, beat Specter, then have Toomey get rolled by whatever Democrat ran against him. Specter blew your plan of that.Which shows you don’t care if your “purity” movement subtracts gop senators from Washington. Because I’m a dumb Democrat you might have to explain the logic of that. You want to shrink your party? You want to lose elections? You’ve lost your minds? Besides the Democrats whipping your party like a rented mule,now you have members leaving your party. Maybe you should move further to the right, get more conservative, get angrier than you already are, listen to Rush more often. Are you trying to self destruct or does self destruction just come natural for your party.PA is turning bluer every year, just like the rest of the country. Goopers, why do you think that is? Does anybody on your side have a clue? You are like a ship without a rudder. Maybe you need another tea party. Yeah, thats just what you need, another all white tea party. You know, the big tent look. More fox news too, that’ll win over moderates, oh thats right, you don’t want moderates, my bad.

athensboy on April 28, 2009 at 8:59 PM

athensboy on April 28, 2009 at 8:59 PM

Greco-Roman boy he’s your problem now….

smile

sven10077 on April 28, 2009 at 9:02 PM

Because I’m a dumb Democrat you might have to explain the logic of that. You want to shrink your party? You want to lose elections?
athensboy on April 28, 2009 at 8:59 PM

Here’s the logic, you dumb DemocRat: we don’t want to elect “Republican” Senators that go and vote “Yea” to dumb DemocRat bills like Porkulus.
Is that too tough for you to understand?

Jenfidel on April 28, 2009 at 9:03 PM

athensboy on April 28, 2009 at 8:59 PM

I think you queered your argument.

HornetSting on April 28, 2009 at 9:06 PM

athensboy on April 28, 2009 at 8:59 PM

Thanks, just what we need…another Democrat here giving us ‘advice’ about how to defeat the Democrats…cuz we all know how much you love the GOP and only want what is best for us.

Oh, and about this:

More fox news too, that’ll win over moderates, oh thats right, you don’t want moderates, my bad.

Check it out:

http://hotair.com/headlines/?p=38409

yeah, Fox is just turning ‘em away in droves, right?

AUINSC on April 28, 2009 at 9:14 PM

Late to the party, been traveling today; but

GOOD RIDDANCE! ! !

cjs1943 on April 28, 2009 at 9:21 PM

athensboy on April 28, 2009 at 8:59 PM

I’m curious, did you make similar assertions when the nutroots left primaried Lieberman in Connecticut and forced him to run as an Independent?

Erich66 on April 28, 2009 at 9:27 PM

We are well rid of him.

ANV on April 28, 2009 at 9:28 PM

We need age limits. You hit 70 you go away from the Senate.

angryed on April 28, 2009 at 9:34 PM

Specter may not win his primary, but he wants power bad enough to drag any challenger he faces through the gutter. Penn. Dems get a blood bath, Penn. GOP gets a choice between principle or irrelevance.

Let’s not make a critical mistake here, fellow Pennsylvanians!

Now secure in the bosom of the Left, Arlen will be the unopposed candidate in the Dem primary. Period. There will be no challenge for the nomination.

We need to focus on lots of money for Toomey for the general.

seanrobins on April 28, 2009 at 9:38 PM

Key West Reader on April 28, 2009 at 8:41 PM

Wow, just wow! You are one exceptional human being! Wow! I guess I am at a loss for words as I read your story.

Neocon Peg on April 28, 2009 at 9:40 PM

I’d like to add to my list of those who need to go in the GOP “reformation”:::

Any republican who is now DEFENDING Arlen Specter’s decision, like… oh, Lindsay Grahmnesty….

seanrobins on April 28, 2009 at 9:40 PM

Specter’s decision to switch parties was clearly done to assist his clinging to power. Down 20 points in the Republican primaries, this switch assures him of an easy coast to victory in 2010.

I think that has terrible implications for the US Republic. He’s 79 years old. Are we becoming a banana republic where officeholders stay there until they die of old age?

Sydney Carton on April 28, 2009 at 9:44 PM

Because I’m a dumb Democrat you might have to explain the logic of that.

Because you ARE a dumb Dimmocrat, I’m not sure that I can explain it to you, but here goes….

It’s called PRINCIPLES.

I understand that that is a totally foreign concept to those of your persuasion, but it does conservatives no good to have a party bulging with people best suited to being the opposition.

Case in point: What does the GOP gain by having Arlen Specter in its midst? One more vote in the Senate? Well, he votes Democratic and pushes the Left’s agenda and believes in what the Left stands for.

So, WHY would his remaining in the GOP do us any good?

Call it what you will, but it makes nothing but good sense for him to go.

seanrobins on April 28, 2009 at 9:44 PM

Specter becoming a Democrat

Sic Semper RINOus.

Dr. ZhivBlago on April 28, 2009 at 9:51 PM

Michael Savage just said it on the radio…[paraphrasing] Specter and his ilk are the same ones who would have turned against the Colonist in the Revolution if they thought it would have benefited them.

SouthernGent on April 28, 2009 at 9:54 PM

same ones who would have turned against the Colonist in the Revolution if they thought it would have benefited them.

There were those, you know…

seanrobins on April 28, 2009 at 9:55 PM

Case in point: What does the GOP gain by having Arlen Specter in its midst? One more vote in the Senate? Well, he votes Democratic and pushes the Left’s agenda and believes in what the Left stands for.

So, WHY would his remaining in the GOP do us any good?

Call it what you will, but it makes nothing but good sense for him to go.

seanrobins on April 28, 2009 at 9:44 PM

Exactly! I am celebrating tonight and I would hope all conservatives are! The RINO has finally shown his stripes – or something like that. Spector has always voted with Democrats. Conservatives have always tried to get him out, but have been stymied by “moderate elite conservatives” like George Bush who helped him get reelected, despite strong opposition from the Republican Party. Toomey had a chance then, but the Republican Elites helped Spector keep his seat, because they were afraid that Toomey would lose to the democrat. CRAP! It is time we take control of our elections. This crap gave us McCain as a presidential candidate! WTF?

Neocon Peg on April 28, 2009 at 9:57 PM

That is my point. Do you really think that if people had to carry the burden financially of taking care of the elderly, the chronically ill, the injured people in in their own families that they would be able to drive the cars they drive, live in the houses they live in and send their kids to expensive colleges?

Terrye on April 28, 2009 at 4:05 PM

Yes, if did not have to pay federal taxes, state taxes, property taxes, fica taxes, self employment taxes, license fees out the wazoo, sales taxes, gas taxes, energy taxes, communication taxes, need I go on?

riverrat10k on April 28, 2009 at 9:57 PM

And let the Purge begin….

You either are a Republican or your not!!

BTW,is Olympia Snowe next to jump the GOP Ship?

canopfor on April 28, 2009 at 9:58 PM

I do think that they need to reform it, like I said, privatize part of it. But people are living longer today and while it is a good goal to be self sufficient always, it is naive to think that everyone can save enough money to live on for years.

Terrye on April 28, 2009 at 6:34 PM

Wrong answer. Give back most of the 40-60% I pay overall in taxes and I can afford to take care of Momma.

riverrat10k on April 28, 2009 at 10:03 PM

As I should. As a compassionate human being.

riverrat10k on April 28, 2009 at 10:05 PM

Because I’m a dumb Democrat an Axelturfing troll you might have to explain the logic of that will have to endure taunts like this until someone around here wakes up and realizes that posters like myself are a detriment to the general discourse of this forum and bans me. [insert schoolyard taunting here] Maybe you need another tea party. Yeah, thats just what you need, another all white tea party.I feel the need to project my abject racism upon others in order to feel better about myself and the royal screwing people like me have given black people going back to the defense slavery, Jim Crow Laws, segregation and the (Not So) Great Society that’s turned them into dependents of the state for the sake of our power.

athensboy on April 28, 2009 at 8:59 PM

I call it: “Portrait of an Axelturfer”…

SuperCool on April 28, 2009 at 10:06 PM

Neocon Peg on April 28, 2009 at 9:57 PM

Toast! I’m working on my 4th Yeungling now! Hasta la vista Arlen…See ya, hate to be ya!

AUINSC on April 28, 2009 at 10:10 PM

I could have more respect for this man if he became an independent, but there is no justification for being democrat unless, as many have suggested, this man was scarcely republican from the go. This has selfish and insecure opportunism all over it.

tartan on April 28, 2009 at 10:13 PM

Wouldn’t it be a hoot if he got his turncoat a$$ handed to him in the democrap primary???

bullseye on April 28, 2009 at 8:35 PM

Kind of like McCain VS. Obama. Dem ass kisser vs. real Dem.

Real thang wins. Ha!

Good riddance traitor take a few more with ya!

dhunter on April 28, 2009 at 10:25 PM

river rat:

No they would not. You have no idea the cost. For one thing, not all the taxes paid go to support the elderly, for another the costs are much greater than the tax paid, that is part of the problem.

For instance, if your Grandmother has to go into a nursing facility that costs $40,000 a year and she lives there for 5 years…how much is that? How many years would it take for you to pay that much in income taxes?

As for meds, if you had to sell your home and move into a cheaper place so that you could help your mother buy her meds, would you think that was a fair trade for what came out of your check for social security?

People have no idea what the effect on senior citizens or the general population would be if you just killed these programs. Not to mention the fact that if the GOP pushed this policy it would be the end of the party because the vast majority of the population will not go for it.

Terrye on April 28, 2009 at 10:30 PM

Terrye on April 28, 2009 at 10:30 PM

Nursing homes as norm is a young phenomena Terry so what did we do prior to the ’70s with our 140-somethings?

sven10077 on April 28, 2009 at 10:32 PM

He may regret this when he finds out that nobody likes a turncoat. The general election is not a lock.

Toomey winning in 2010 = 7.9 earthquake in PA. I’m hoping.

platypus on April 28, 2009 at 10:34 PM

This country is gonna look a lot diffenet in 2010 just look what Urkel’s accomplished with the help of a few RINOs’ in 100 days. The voters may be looking for a rope and a tree or lamppost.
I say hang em high and watch em swing. Then elect real citizens and impose term Limits, take away lifetime pensions and get back to Real Americans runnin America.

dhunter on April 28, 2009 at 10:47 PM

Micheal Steels says it all. Let’s hope the Dems knock him off.

unclesmrgol on April 28, 2009 at 10:50 PM

Terrye–

I do have an idea of the cost. And if you will check my post, I mentioned not only income taxes, but dozens of other taxes also.

For thousands of years, families and societies have taken care of their elderly and sick and/or let them die.

I am of the generation that expects no social security. I will never see the amount of money I have paid in. Pop always said that SS was albatross around the taxpayers neck and the s— would hit the fan when people like me decided to let Grandma die. I agree that once a program is in place, it is usually political suicide to rescind it. That’s why I despise all new social programs. They never go away, even if ineffective. How many generations of welfare recipients have we bred with our compassion?

We are very close to cuttin off Grandma,if not there, now.

I have a retarded brother in law that I feel obligagted to care for in the future. My wife has not done shit, but I have put what money I can aside for his future care. Will it be enough? Probably not. But I don’t expect you, or anyone else, to care for him. It is not your’s nor societies problem that he can not live on his own and be a fully productive member of society. His fate is in his family’s hands, as it should be, not the governments. Unless he outlives me and no other family member will take responsibility. Then, he is on his own and doesn’t last long. As it has been for thousands of years.

Too tired to talk about costs. Suffice it to say that government intervention and our sick, incumbent, corruptocrat culture has pushed medical and drug costs through the roof.

riverrat10k on April 28, 2009 at 10:53 PM

Arlen Spinkter poster boy for term limits!

Self above party, duty, honor, or country! Postergeezer!

dhunter on April 28, 2009 at 10:54 PM

If I recall correctly, Bush wanted to start the weaning from SS, but was shot down. By creating a dependency on government, we are controlled like serfs.

riverrat10k on April 28, 2009 at 10:56 PM

If I recall correctly, Bush wanted to start the weaning from SS, but was shot down. By creating a dependency on government, we are controlled like serfs Auto makers and Banks.

riverrat10k on April 28, 2009 at 10:56 PM

In the world ruled by The One, Presidente Pinnochio.(A real Boy or just a puppet?)

dhunter on April 28, 2009 at 11:01 PM

Hey, “conservatives”, is this enough to convince you to not vote for the “lesser of two evils” again?

Send_Me on April 28, 2009 at 11:07 PM

Here is a thought… Does anyone know offhand how many signatures you need to get on the ballot for to run for the US senate in PA?? I’d be willing to temporarily switch parties just to shove it up Arlen’s Sphinter.

Suppose it was 10,000 signatures. You get 10k republicans to switch over to dem and sign the nominating petition for some conservative democrap. It would be even better if you could nominate toomey but I don’t think you can do that.

Darlin Benedict Arlen would have to use up some of his war chest in the primaries.

bullseye on April 28, 2009 at 11:10 PM

Little Linsey Graham tonight on fox is already saying we must have a Mod to win in Pa. He wants Tom Ridge to call him and run.These Rep. will never learn and that why all of the Rinos must go.Just like Sen.DeMint said he would like 30 Consev.over 60 rinos.

thmcbb on April 28, 2009 at 11:18 PM

It’s a shame the 17th Amendment was ratified in 1913.

Send_Me on April 28, 2009 at 11:34 PM

Hey, “conservatives”, is this enough to convince you to not vote for the “lesser of two evils” again?

Send_Me on April 28, 2009 at 11:07 PM

I learned my lesson by 2004. Too bad I couldn’t have voted then, if only to say I opposed Mr.Jugears McStupid.

Dark-Star on April 28, 2009 at 11:58 PM

The country is culturally split as bad as ANY time in its history.

It is time to hold a Constitutional Convention of the Red States and decide if secession is the answer.

I need to know if my boy is gonna be a self-reliant, strong, promoter of freedom and charity, or if he will make his mark kickin down doors in the middle of the night and hauling off enemies of the state for Obama’s brownshirts.

Sapwolf on April 29, 2009 at 12:16 AM

The next question is to whom or for what has Specter auctioned his loyalty? Whether it is quid pro quo for Harry Reid or in trade for a cabinet position from Obama the next week will likely tell. If Specter sees his senate seat in jeopardy it doesn’t surprise he’s bargaining for whatever perqs he can until next election cycle.

Specter can be summarized thus: A blackmailer. His claim of being moderate is a cover for his weather vane lack of substance and integrity. He’s not moderate. He straddles the fence and has leant whichever direction most convenienced Scottish Law Arlen. Good riddance to him as a known liability to whomever’s doorstep he darkens.

viking01 on April 29, 2009 at 12:59 AM

Fed:

A tax is a tax. If they were taxing my income at a state level to pay for education, I would still be paying taxes for other’s people children’s education.

I do think that it is in all our best interest to have an educated youth. But then again, I also think it is in our best interest not to just let helpless old people suffer and die. That does not make me a socialist.

Terrye on April 28, 2009 at 5:37 PM

You are missing the point. Yes, a tax is a tax, but the key question is: who has the authority to collect what tax for what purpose. No where in the Constitution is the Federal Govt granted the power to collect a tax from me and give it to you. They are empowered to collect taxes to promote the general welfare. Which means the whole nation benefits. Now, I’m sure the compassionate side of you says: “well, doesn’t the nation benefit from socialized healthcare”. Altruistically, yes. Practically, no. The Constitution is clear: if the Fed govt does not have the authority to so something, then it is left to the States to decide. That is the reason for the 10th Amendment. To give clear guidance on who is responsible for filling any voids left by the authority granted to the Fed govt.

So, like I said, your State is perfectly free to come up with whatever tax scheme it wants to fund a socialized healthcare system for the citizens of that state. But, it’s pretty much unconstitutional for the Fed Govt to take money from a citizen of the State of Florida, for example, and give it to a citizen of the State of Ohio so that person can afford healthcare. Same principle applies to Barry’s “economic stimulus plan”. MY federal tax dollars should in no way be paying for some local pork project in another state. The only thing you could make a valid argument for is the fixing interstate highways, or other projects that benefit the nation as a whole.

Fed45 on April 29, 2009 at 1:02 AM

We have a 2 legislative branches and checks and balances so government can do as little as possible and there are many more ways to say no than to say yes.

Saying no is what the constitution is all about. No wonder the liberals dont get that, they have never read it…

Opportunity Costs on April 29, 2009 at 1:22 AM

Fed:

A tax is a tax. If they were taxing my income at a state level to pay for education, I would still be paying taxes for other’s people children’s education.

I do think that it is in all our best interest to have an educated youth. But then again, I also think it is in our best interest not to just let helpless old people suffer and die. That does not make me a socialist.

Terrye on April 28, 2009 at 5:37 PM

Now you are just making strawman arguments. Of course it’s in “our best interest” to have an “educated youth” (although I would expand it to an “educated populace”). This is why States have set up a property tax scheme to fund education. individual states have the primary responsibility authority over public education. Funding education is not the repsonsibility of the Federal Government. Nothing prevents you from donating to the private school of your choice.

Read the Constitution once. The interstate highway system clearly falls under “interstate commerce”, which clearly falls under the responsibilty of the Fed Govt to collect taxes to fund.

Your goals and desires are well meaning. I don’t know one person who would disagree with the overall concept. What you have yet failed to do is explain where the Fed Govt has the Constitutional authority to go about taking MY MONEY to solve such problems.

Fed45 on April 29, 2009 at 1:27 AM

I feel your pain. There has always been this “I got mine, so screw everyone else” mentality I find extremely un-kind and un-Christian like in conservatives. There seems to be some sort of rampant unbelief that many hard-working people fall by the wayside or people born of circumstances that created extreme hurdles to minimal success. Or that it might be impossible for most people not to have enormous amounts of money to sit on. There is this strange hang up on money that I don’t understand coming from people that revere Christ.

Spoken like a true, closed-minded, intolerant liberal. Christians and conservatives are the first to come to the aid of people in need. Look up the comparisons in charitible giving between liberals and conservatives. You’ll be disappointed (or maybe happy; who knows?) to learn liberals fail miserably when it comes to charitible giving compared to conservatives and “christians” (not quite sure what a specific belief system has to do with this argument, other than to denegrate that belief system) What conservatitves oppose is the federal govt pointing a gun citizen’s heads and FORCING them to make charitible contributions by confiscating their money and giving it to someone else without the citizens having any say in the matter. You do realize that one of the main functions of Churches is to do charitble work, right?

So, here’s a research project for you: go out and compare the political affiliation of those that “sit on their money” vs. those that happily give a considerable portion of their income to charity. And here’s a clue for you all…paying taxes is not charity. I’ll give you a head start on your homework assignment: Conservative households give 30% more to charity than libtards. Annual contributions to charity by conservatives are almost DOUBLE that of libtards. And Red states give more to charity than blue states. And those enlightened Euroweenies give less to charity than Americans. Huh!!! Go figure! Sadly, the most stingy are secular conservatives. But that pretty much nullifies your argument that it’s hypocritical “christians” that are heartless But, as a percentage of income, secular conservatives are more generous than secular libtards. So, remind me again who sits on their money? And this despite the fact that the US is the most onerously taxed nation in the world.

And conservative volunteer their time more than libtards. And they give blood more often than libtards. So much so that if libtards gave blood as often as conservatives, the blood supply in this country would increase upwards of 40%. Shall I go on?

So, care to rethink your knee-jerk, judgmental, bigoted opinion? Or do you wish to continue to look clueless?

Fed45 on April 29, 2009 at 1:56 AM

Jimmy DeMint, the perfect face for conservatism. White,southern, as far right as you can go, intolerant. The gop of today lives in some Ozzie and Harriet time warp. The country has totally changed, while they have stopped thinking. Don’t you cave men ever evolve? Your still fighting the cultural war from the 60′s. No one cares what you clowns think anymore. Thats why you have had 2 electoral ass-whippings in a row. Does that even resonate with your brains? All you do is talk tough, like that will win elections.60 votes suckers! How do you like them cookies? This is what you deserve, I couldn’t be happier. Have a great day.

athensboy on April 29, 2009 at 7:23 AM

Specter is like a 79 year old convict being released from jail. Jail is all he knows and he’s desperate to stay. He couldn’t get a real job on the outside and he knows it. He voted yes on the stimulus bill and he knows that would sink him in the election, so time to switch sides. Expediency, pure and simple. It’s about having a job, not what he believes in. His past comments prove that beyond a shadow of a doubt. He was a Democrat, then a Republican, and now a Democrat again. I personally have no use for the “man”. Just another Benedict Arlen.

gordo on April 29, 2009 at 7:29 AM

athensboy on April 29, 2009 at 7:23 AM

You know what happened in Plato’s day to boys in Athens, right?

Send_Me on April 29, 2009 at 7:57 AM

He voted yes on the stimulus bill and he knows that would sink him in the election, so time to switch sides.

gordo on April 29, 2009 at 7:29 AM

With the new revelation that he’s been considering this switch for “months”, it may be the other way around: he may have voted to shut off Stimulus debate in order to keep on the table whatever deal he already had. (Apologies if this point was made already – haven’t read all 11 pages of comments :)

Just another Benedict Arlen.

Eggs Benedict for breakfast, sir?

RD on April 29, 2009 at 8:03 AM

At least we can rest assured that Specter is a patriotic fellow!

The details [of the stimulus compromise] were negotiated at an afternoon meeting in the office of the Senate majority leader, Harry Reid of Nevada, involving Mr. Reid, other top Democrats and two Republicans, Susan Collins of Maine and Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania. After they came to terms, the senators brought in the White House chief of staff, Rahm Emanuel, for assurance that the deal was acceptable to the administration. Mr. Emanuel signaled it was…

Mr. Obama called Ms. Collins and Mr. Specter, as well as Senator Olympia J. Snowe of Maine, another Republican expected to support the deal, to acknowledge they were acting against pressure from their party and, one official said, to thank them for their patriotism in helping advance the bill at a critical time.

Paul_in_NJ on April 29, 2009 at 10:36 AM

athensboy on April 29, 2009 at 7:23 AM

The funny part of that change you are talking about is history does not agree with you. When societies change to become hedonistic and decadent they decline and fall. Ask the ancient Greeks and Romans all about it.

We have had similar situations in America. Do you recall the “Roaring 20′s” perchance? But our society has a braking factor that is called free enterprise. When our people become too decadent and selfish they screw up the economy. They did that last time in the “Roaring 20′s” and cause the Great Depression.

Now we find ourselves doing it again. We have once again reached the level of decadence and selfishness required to make our economics crumble. Last time we were saved by a religious revival that brought morality back to our society and business dealings. This time is different.

This time around we are seeking to socialize everything in sight in order to fix the problem. But the problem is that free-enterprise requires a moral society to operate. Until we fix the hedonism and selfishness, there is no fix for our economy. We will become increasingly dependent on the government to regulate us =because we are unwilling to “do the right thing” to regulate ourselves.

Hawthorne on April 29, 2009 at 11:04 AM

“I want to be a member of a vibrant national Republican party that can attract people from all corners of the country — and we can govern the country from a center-right perspective.”

– Lindsay Graham

There you go folks! You heard the man, we have to move to the “center,” or we will continue to lose elections. Allahpundint agrees with that, and so do all of our libertarian friends in the party, and on this website. Get rid of abortion, homosexual rights/marriage, euthenasia, stem cell research, etc. and we will be a majority party again!

He’s agreeing with you Allah, and you other libertarians, why do you despise him so? He’s against wasteful government spending, like you guys, so what’s the problem?

That is why the Republican Party has a big, big problem. The Ross Perot/Ron Paul libertarians will never agree to core conservative principles of capitalism, republicanism, and traditional American values based upon the foundation of the Judeo-Christian moral standard. Until the party makes up it’s mind on which direction it will go, we will be spinning our wheels and arguing constantly. The Democrats have already made their choice, hard-core leftism. They have no “big tent,” unless you are a confirmed leftist, then go elsewhere. George Soros, who runs the Democratic Party, will not allow dissension in his party. I have no problem with good, spirited debate in our party on issues that do not effect the core of conservatism. But, wanting to throw out what conservatism stands for is unacceptable, period!

For me, I’m not willing to compromise conservative principles for the sake of wooing libertarians into the party. They have their own party, let them build that if they think their ideas are winning ideas. Let me say this, if being a conservative means I am doomed to be the minority, then so be it.

Joe Pyne on April 29, 2009 at 12:07 PM

Counters Jim DeMint, whose impending endorsement of Toomey might have pushed Specter over the edge, “I would rather have 30 Republicans in the Senate who really believe in principles of limited government, free markets, free people, than to have 60 that don’t have a set of beliefs.”

BRAVO! BRAVO! BRAVO!
My sentiments exactly.

thegreatbeast on April 29, 2009 at 12:54 PM

All thi reminds me of what Rick Santorum said after he lost his reelectoon bid:

However, despite his initial problems with McCain, a recent incident played a large part in instigating Santorum’s recent endorsement. “Something happened a couple of nights ago to me right after the Florida primary. I ran into someone who was with the McCain campaign and I know had spent some time down in Florida, that walked up to me at an event and before I could even say hello said, ‘We beat you.’ And I thought that to be a rather odd statement because I wasn’t on the ballot. So who is ‘you’? Who did they beat? They surely didn’t beat me, Rick Santorum.”

During the Ingraham interview, Santorum said that when the person who reveled in Romney’s defeat said “we beat you,” the word “you” meant “conservatives.” Asked if the person taunting him simply said “we beat you” as a McCain supporter speaking to a McCain critic, rather than a general indictment, Santorum said he still believes the comment was intended as an attack on the conservative base.

“This is how I took it: They [the McCain campaign] really are fighting against the base of the Republican party, the conservatives in the Republican Party, that’s what they see this as. Because certainly that’s what I represented in many respects,” Santorum said. “So I sort of said, ‘Wow, this really is a battle for who we are going to be as a party.’”

The Rhinos and Conservatives have been at each others throats for years.

http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=NTU2YTJhZDNlMWMwYjFjYjA4ZTJhZDZkNmMyZTE1Njk=

Burgher on April 29, 2009 at 3:39 PM

I am of the generation that expects no social security. I will never see the amount of money I have paid in.

riverrat10k on April 28, 2009 at 10:53 PM

I’m right there with you, RR. As a matter of fact, I’d like to opt out for that simple bit of reasoning.

I can make and save more on my own in anticipation of that coming day than I’ll ever get from the program myself.

Otis B on April 29, 2009 at 4:05 PM

Comment pages: 1 10 11 12