More Thoughts on Specter

posted by Christopher Hayes on 04/28/2009 @ 11:59am

Email
Print
Share
- Buzzflash
- del.icio.us
- Digg
- Facebook
- Mixx it!
- Reddit
What is this?
Take Action
Comments (130)

Subscribe Now

After digesting a bit, here's my sense:

1) This is a huge deal psychologically and in terms of the media narrative. Both coverage and polling show the GOP is increasingly a marginalized party, controlled by its most reactionary, zealous members. This really furthers that (largely accurate) impression.

2) The motivation here is pretty clearly expediency: he was going to lose a GOP primary. No way around it. This is the best way for him to keep his seat.

3) Considering that's the case, I don't think the Democrats really owe him anything, in terms of the primary. He's a member of the Democratic party, but democracy doesn't operate with guarantees and a good Democrat (or more!) should primary Specter. If Pennsylvania Democratic primary voters are persuaded Specter shares their values, then he'll win, if not, not. Seeing as how Penn is one of the most heavily unionized states in the union and Specter still says he'll filibuster EFCA, I think Democratic primary voters should have the opportunity to vote for someone who believes in the human right to organize.

4) The basic power dynamics in the Senate remain somewhat unchanged. The fact is that the fulcrum of the entire agenda is a collection of about six or so self-described "moderate" senators: Collins, Snowe, Specter, Nelson, Conrad, Bayh, and it doesn't matter a whole lot what letter they have in front of their name.

All that said, they've got to be happy over in the White House, and pretty damn pissed in the GOP cloakroom.

Comments (130)

"All that said, they've got to be happy over in the White House"

and at 30 hudson street, too.

Posted by frosty zoom at 04/28/2009 @ 12:05pm
I think Democratic primary voters should have the opportunity to vote for someone who believes in the human right to organize. ************************************************************

People have the right to organize today. They are free to vote, without any pressure, in the privacy of the voting booth.

How are rights being denied in this manner?

Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 04/28/2009 @ 12:15pm
How are rights being denied in this manner?

Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 04/28/2009 @ 12:15pm

corn and soya.

Posted by frosty zoom at 04/28/2009 @ 12:21pm
now that you put it that way, mr. Hayes...makes lots of sense.

after the (typically) vicious backstabbing he has had at the hands of his former fellows, who can blame him?

i've always liked arlen. sensible, pragmatic, decent...

he'll make a fine democrat.

Posted by ibbleblibble at 04/28/2009 @ 12:30pm
he'll make a fine democrat.

Posted by ibbleblibble at 04/28/2009 @ 12:30pm

exactly.

Posted by frosty zoom at 04/28/2009 @ 12:32pm
he'll make a fine democrat.

Posted by ibbleblibble at 04/28/2009 @ 12:30pm

exactly.

Posted by frosty zoom at 04/28/2009 @ 12:32pm

yes, he can join the rest of the baby killers. He'll fit right in.

Posted by antisocialist at 04/28/2009 @ 12:59pm
Oh boy! Another Bluish Mod Demo. Just what we need.

Posted by Sorelish at 04/28/2009 @ 1:07pm
"yes, he can join the rest of the baby killers"

and leave the rest of the innocent arab killers

Posted by darladoon at 04/28/2009 @ 1:12pm
the republicans can only view things in terms of "with us or against us". that's their mantra. it informs their every move.

so it's not surprising that the bulk of the GOP is angry at specter. they don't want any members with viewpoints who challenge their orthodoxy.

Posted by darladoon at 04/28/2009 @ 1:15pm
so it's not surprising that the bulk of the GOP is angry at specter. they don't want any members with viewpoints who challenge their orthodoxy.

Posted by darladoon at 04/28/2009 @ 1:15pm

Right, and you completely support having conservative voices in the Democratic party right?

You'd be all for pro-life views being heard in the Democratic Party? You were all for supporting Joe Lieberman in his support of the Iraq War?

Posted by antisocialist at 04/28/2009 @ 1:36pm
antisocialist, i'm for a plethora of views in each party, as well as a plethora of parties.

Posted by darladoon at 04/28/2009 @ 1:45pm
i guess this link speaks for itself:

http://www.vancouversun.com/Health/swine+victim+

sickest+ever+been/1541450/story.html

ryan, 24 picked up the virus in <i>canc�n</i>....

Posted by frosty zoom at 04/28/2009 @ 2:03pm
Pennsylvania Democrats may not owe him a duty, but there are three or four reasons I can think of why it might make sense not to put up a primary fight. One is that he is elderly and may very well want to retire after another term or so, giving Democrats a crack at the seat relatively soon in Senate terms. Two is that if he is the nominee the outcome of the general is known in advance, which is a big plus allowing Democrats to focus efforts elsewhere. Reasons three and four are Collins and Snowe. I think we want to show the few moderate Republicans that remain that their power is not wholly dependent on the sufferance of the Republican right, rather the other way around. They should see that their departure, total or occasional, from Republican party discipline will be met with a seat at the table, not a sudden end of a political career torn to pieces from both sides in America's lonely center.

If we handle this right, we could pick up another seat or two _before_ the next election. I'd like that.

Posted by aokun at 04/28/2009 @ 2:05pm
lots of people visit canc�n.

lots of people compromise their immune systems in canc�n.

Posted by frosty zoom at 04/28/2009 @ 2:06pm
geithner's lemmings....

Posted by frosty zoom at 04/28/2009 @ 2:07pm
Doesn't really matter. Neither party is about change. They are just fighting over who gets the helm on the ship of fools.

The ebb and flow of political influence is nothing new. Political parties are all about marginalizing their opposition and consolidating their power. Pretty hard for either side to be objective on the subject of Spector.

Gosh, Christopher Hayes writing off the Republican party? Shocker!!

Posted by freiheit1 at 04/28/2009 @ 2:16pm
Hell, no! But I wouldn't tell him to think otherwise.

Posted by snowball666 at 04/28/2009 @ 1:49pm

But my point to Darla is she was making the ridiculous attempt to suggest that only conservatives want purity.

The Nation itself makes a point of supporting Democratic candidates who are more pure in terms of their progressive views over moderate or conservative Democrats. Yet the Darla's never consider that to be a negative against Democrats or liberals.

Posted by antisocialist at 04/28/2009 @ 2:18pm
Whoooooooooooooopie Spektor has gone from a repubikan/democrap to a democrap/repubikan. Things will change, yes I believe in the easter bunny

Posted by easywind at 04/28/2009 @ 2:20pm
yes, he can join the rest of the baby killers. He'll fit right in.

Posted by antisocialist at 04/28/2009 @ 12:59pm | ignore this person | warn this person

oh you mean abortion? i've come to the conclusion that there are not nearly enough...

you value life way too much (until its capable of breathing on its own)...

Posted by ibbleblibble at 04/28/2009 @ 2:20pm
Margaret Sanger would be proud of you ibble. You should frame your horrid comment in the proper racism. You see, your mentor - and probably you - really believe that abortions should control expansion of inferior races, right?

That's what abortion in this country is really all about, veiled as a "womans' rights" issue. No, wait, I suppose you are probably just a useful idiot on the issue. Never mind.

Posted by freiheit1 at 04/28/2009 @ 2:29pm
"That's what abortion in this country is really all about, veiled as a "womans' rights" issue"

"veiled"?

Posted by darladoon at 04/28/2009 @ 2:31pm
Yes, "veiled". You should study up a little on Margaret Sanger, Darla...

Posted by freiheit1 at 04/28/2009 @ 2:33pm
Posted by freiheit1 at 04/28/2009 @ 2:33pm

Darla is probably too stoned to realize that Sanger was a racist who wanted to eliminate Blacks from this country through birth control

Posted by antisocialist at 04/28/2009 @ 2:37pm
I'm sure Rahm Emmanuel played a part in this switch since Specter is exactly the kind of centrist hack that Emmanuel foisted on you Dems when he controlled the Democratic House Campaign Committee.

Specter is probably hoping that he can shave off a few of the especially craven unions to support his bid for re-election even if he leaves his knife in the back of the EFCA. I always thought his betrayal on the EFCA was a stupid move: it won him no votes in the GOP and killed his chances of winning as an independent, where he would have had to rely on union support. Jumping to the Dems might lessen that error if the populist-liberal-left in the party doesn't primary him.

And I think anti was wrong on Nichols' thread. I think any Dem should beat Pat Toomey for this seat next year, including someone who challenges Specter from the left.

Posted by cka2nd at 04/28/2009 @ 3:35pm
antisocialist,

I asked you a question over on Nichols' thread about Specter's stated position on the seperation of powers and I was hoping you would respond.

Posted by cka2nd at 04/28/2009 @ 3:38pm
antisocialist,

I asked you a question over on Nichols' thread about Specter's stated position on the seperation of powers and I was hoping you would respond.

Posted by cka2nd at 04/28/2009 @ 3:38pm

gave a brief answer

Posted by antisocialist at 04/28/2009 @ 3:44pm
Darla is probably too stoned to realize that Sanger was a racist who wanted to eliminate Blacks from this country through birth control

Posted by antisocialist at 04/28/2009 @ 2:37pm

Yes, probably true.

I wonder what Hillary Clinton's excuse is for accepting the Margaret Sanger Award from Planned Parenthood... "I admire Margaret Sanger enormously, her courage, her tenacity, her vision."

Funny how Darla can't even compute that Sanger and Planned Parenthood exist with the mission to keep Darlas from ever being born.

Posted by freiheit1 at 04/28/2009 @ 4:02pm
Right, and you completely support having conservative voices in the Democratic party right? Posted by antisocialist at 04/28/2009 @ 1:36pm

Kind of like that "big tent" business the GOP was foisting a while back. A little tough to swallow is it?

Posted by kennyboy at 04/28/2009 @ 4:04pm
#

Margaret Sanger would be proud of you ibble. You should frame your horrid comment in the proper racism. You see, your mentor - and probably you - really believe that abortions should control expansion of inferior races, right?

That's what abortion in this country is really all about, veiled as a "womans' rights" issue. No, wait, I suppose you are probably just a useful idiot on the issue. Never mind.

Posted by freiheit1 at 04/28/2009 @ 2:29pm | ignore this person | warn this person

thanks for the sanger mention. i'd heard the name before, but never informed myself til now.

my comments were racist? hmmm...

well...actually sanger was anti-abortion, pro prevention, which has been my position in general...i still think providing cheap, available, birth prevention would be a better option, but your medievalist chauvinist, fundamentalists don't want that either. sex, you know...

"While there are cases where even the law recognizes an abortion as justifiable if recommended by a physician, I assert that the hundreds of thousands of abortions performed in America each year are a disgrace to civilization."[26]

wow - thats almost word for word what i have said in the past...

so i'm a racist? perhaps i am, but you'll never know.

but reardless of race, i have to say her ideas of stupid people reproducing like flies not being such a great idea sounds pretty reasonable to me.

funny how you righties latch onto the race thing when convenient then end up at a "teabag" rally with not a non-white in sight...rubbing elbows with ideologically sketchy rightwing racists...

fact is there's way too many people in this world and WAY too many teenagers squirting out unwanted, poorly raised bastards who end up squirting out unwanted, poorly raised bastards...

Posted by ibbleblibble at 04/28/2009 @ 4:23pm
I appreciate your candor, as always, ibble. Chilling, but worth it to see how other people think. Thanks.

Posted by freiheit1 at 04/28/2009 @ 4:28pm
Another Bluish Mod Demo. Just what we need.

Posted by Sorelish at 04/28/2009 @ 1:07pm

My thoughts exactly......Just what we (the Conservatives) need, to give the Dems full control before the 2010 Election.

Having Blue Dogs in the House and Senate are arguable more effective than to have unreliable GOPers.....look at Specter's vote supporting the Pork Bill.....

Now, please take Snowe & Collins....no, not kidding.

It's time to stand clearly apart from your Looter Party.

Posted by Happy at 04/28/2009 @ 4:29pm
"That's what abortion in this country is really all about, veiled as a "womans' rights" issue"

"veiled"? Posted by darladoon at 04/28/2009 @ 2:31pm | ignore this person | warn this person

outstanding.

Posted by emile duBois at 04/28/2009 @ 4:31pm
Kind of like that "big tent" business the GOP was foisting a while back. A little tough to swallow is it?

Posted by kennyboy at 04/28/2009 @ 4:04pm

No, because I never supported it. That's why I sometimes vote 3rd party and will more likely do even more frequently in the future if the party doesn't return to conservativism.

Posted by antisocialist at 04/28/2009 @ 4:32pm
Posted by ibbleblibble at 04/28/2009 @ 4:23pm | ignore this person | warn this person

you are a great humanitarian, with lots of empathy.

Posted by emile duBois at 04/28/2009 @ 4:34pm
#

I appreciate your candor, as always, ibble. Chilling, but worth it to see how other people think. Thanks.

Posted by freiheit1 at 04/28/2009 @ 4:28pm | ignore this person | warn this person

any time.

---------------------------------------

you are a great humanitarian, with lots of empathy.

Posted by emile duBois at 04/28/2009 @ 4:34pm | ignore this person | warn this person

no i'm not.

Posted by ibbleblibble at 04/28/2009 @ 4:36pm
yes, he can join the rest of the baby killers. He'll fit right in.

Posted by antisocialist at 04/28/2009 @ 12:59pm |

And FREI

So, being able to make the reproductive choices that affect oneself is racist because a popular belief, eugenics, was once held by someone?

Neat for you guys.

Shall we dissect the connections between David Duke and the GOP? How about the connections between Grand Dragons and southern republicans? Are you with the Grand Dragons FREI? Or, as ibble pointed out, do you think Obama is feeding jews to ovens? I mean I saw a placard at a teabagging event that said as much so you must follow that belief, right?

how does this apply to white middle class women that have abortions? Self hating racists that take it out on their own wombs?

Maybe Bill Ayers has something to do with Specters change of party? Or Rashid Khalid? Maybe Mitch Mconnel is correct and

Posted by crabwalk at 04/28/2009 @ 4:37pm
yes, he can join the rest of the baby killers. He'll fit right in.

Posted by antisocialist at 04/28/2009 @ 12:59pm |

And FREI

So, being able to make the reproductive choices that affect oneself is racist because a popular belief, eugenics, was once held by someone?

Neat for you guys.

Shall we dissect the connections between David Duke and the GOP? How about the connections between Grand Dragons and southern republicans? Are you with the Grand Dragons FREI? Or, as ibble pointed out, do you think Obama is feeding jews to ovens? I mean I saw a placard at a teabagging event that said as much so you must follow that belief, right?

how does this apply to white middle class women that have abortions? Self hating racists that take it out on their own wombs?

Maybe Bill Ayers has something to do with Specters change of party? Or Rashid Khalid? Maybe Sen Mconnell is correct and NATIONAL SECURITY IS AT RISK BECAUSE ARLEN SPECTER CHANGED PARTIES!!!!!?

There are tens of thousands of "babies" in foster homes, where is the outrage over that? How many kids have you pulled out and are raising FREI? If it is not in the 20's then you have not even begun to do your part. Your "parties" concern over babies is well known, as soon as they are out of the womb your concern disappears like pallets of cash in Iraq.

Posted by crabwalk at 04/28/2009 @ 4:41pm
How is it that someone can advocate for the use of a nuclear weapon on the Korean peninsula, and for the total destruction of Falluja, but then calmly call someone else a "baby killer"?

That person would have to be the biggest hypocrite around. and so he is.

Posted by crabwalk at 04/28/2009 @ 4:48pm
Wow, you guys are vicious.

Politics is all about the ebb and flow of power. Since Raygun, we have been seeing more and more conservative power, until it reached it's nadir (and downfall) in George W. Bush. The Republicans got exactly what they wanted: a "pro-family" conservative to put on a nice face, backed up by a hard liner neocon (Cheney) and a submissive Congress to put policies into place that would forever create a "Republican majority." That was Rove's plan and can't we all just agree he's a genius?? Ahhh, but they reached too far and along came a girl from the South known as Katrina.

As long as "bubble" economics under Greenspan continued, then everybody was happy and the Republicans could continue beating up the poor liberals for their un-American views on gays, abortion and Iraq. Trickle-down theory has proved to be a big bust, and I find it ironic that George HW Bush (who wasn't enough of a "Republican" back in the day) was the first to call trickle-down like it is: voodoo. Greed, Lust and Power: a Republican jackpot!

Specter, who came into the Senate under Raygun, is a political opportunist, so it's not surprising he would switch when it became politically expedient.

As the Republicans stumble all over themselves for the next few days (today has truly been entertaining so far) trying to figure out how NOT to become a party of old fat white men from the South (and honey, Michael Steele is NOT the answer to that question!), the MSM will find a way to paint this as a win for the Republicans, I have no doubt.

Personally, I think the GOP should change it's name to the GAG: Guns, Abortion and Gays party. I think it best describes them as they exist today.

Posted by Stephen_Carver1 at 04/28/2009 @ 4:51pm
It is like a group of people saying "OK George Bush, you can read my email, listen to my phone conversations, look at the list of books I check out of the library, send infiltrators to my meetings, and torture Canadian and US citizens...but Obama had better not take my freedoms!"

Posted by crabwalk at 04/28/2009 @ 4:52pm
The switch puts Senate Democrats one vote shy of a filibuster-proof majority of 60 seats. They can reach the 60-seat mark if Al Franken holds his current lead in the disputed Minnesota Senate race.

THIS close to the promised land!

Posted by FDR43 at 04/28/2009 @ 4:52pm
No, because I never supported it. That's why I sometimes vote 3rd party and will more likely do even more frequently in the future if the party doesn't return to conservativism.

Posted by antisocialist at 04/28/2009 @ 4:32pm

Conservatism:

2 a: disposition in politics to preserve what is established b: a political philosophy based on tradition and social stability, stressing established institutions, and preferring gradual development to abrupt change ; specifically : such a philosophy calling for lower taxes, limited government regulation of business and investing, a strong national defense, and individual financial responsibility for personal needs (as retirement income or health-care coverage)

I can assure you that the current makeup of the Republican Party has very little to do with real conservative values and political beliefs except for the philosophy of lower taxation. Most Republicans left in the party are clearly in favor of more government interference in ordinary people's lives and could care less about spending levels.

The Republican Party is left with a core of reactionists (if you don't know what that means, think in terms of the political extreme opposite of radicalism). Only Snowe and Collins have any modicum of common sense left, otherwise you have a group of reactionist political nihilists in control of the GOP.

Moderates (that is MOST of the US population, btw) are left to fend for themselves while the two parties fight over the outer margins.

Specter made a calculated political decision...and he will whip Toomey in the General Election in 2010. Good for him. I encourage Repubs to continue to cleanse the body of the party with lye soap. The problem with soap though is it leaves behind scum.

Posted by jwcisneros at 04/28/2009 @ 5:00pm
actually i'm for single payer health care that supports birth prevention heavily..

nothing racist about it. simple facts...

the earth can comfortably support a limited number of people, even taking into account the miracles of modern science. its hard to argue that less unwanted children make life better for all.

my great empathy and compassion is reserved for those aware of their suffering. its for a once beautiful world blighted by TOO MANY FILTHY SHAVED APES.

my empathy extends to those victimized by unwanted, poorly raised grown up children who are FAR more likely to commit violent and property crimes they would not have even had the chance to commit had their parents either used easily obtainable, cheap contraception (probably enabled by government) or had an abortion.

my empathy extends to already living children whose opportunity to succeed is limited by one more crying hungry, unwanted mouth with which to share meager resources.

lots of empathy here...

Posted by ibbleblibble at 04/28/2009 @ 5:01pm
Posted by Stephen_Carver1 at 04/28/2009 @ 4:51pm | ignore this person | warn this person

pretty much yup.

Posted by ibbleblibble at 04/28/2009 @ 5:05pm
Specter Stabs Unions in the Back posted by Christopher Hayes on 03/24/2009 @ 1:54pm � in part:

"A Democratic politician once said of Arlen Specter that he's "always there when you don't need him."

Specter's switch has nothing to do with principals or values and everything to do with survival and power. I for one see nothing to be admired in this man.

Posted by Incoming at 04/28/2009 @ 5:13pm
Posted by crabwalk at 04/28/2009 @ 4:37pm

Hi Crab, no, I am talking about the abortion industry. You ask, "how does this apply to white middle class women that have abortions?" My answer is it doesn't apply at all. The "reproductive rights" of middle and upper class white women in the US is exploited to cover up the real 'money shot' of the abortion industry. It is to institutionalize and fund the genocide of minorities, globally - per Hillary's hero, Margaret Sanger's "vision".

Much in the way Iraq is being fought not for oil, but for "democracy", the abortion deception is not about genocide, but rather about "reproductive rights".

I find it fascinating how liberals who can so clearly see the truth of the US invasion of Iraq are so resistant to see the real agenda of the abortion movement. Well, so it goes...

Posted by freiheit1 at 04/28/2009 @ 5:15pm
I can assure you that the current makeup of the Republican Party has very little to do with real conservative values and political beliefs except for the philosophy of lower taxation. Most Republicans left in the party are clearly in favor of more government interference in ordinary people's lives and could care less about spending levels.

The Republican Party is left with a core of reactionists (if you don't know what that means, think in terms of the political extreme opposite of radicalism). Only Snowe and Collins have any modicum of common sense left, otherwise you have a group of reactionist political nihilists in control of the GOP.

Posted by jwcisneros at 04/28/2009 @ 5:00pm

I have held the same political philosophy in the Republican party since 1960. My core values politically have never changed. I am still one of millions of Americans who believe that the principles espoused by the Founders and continued by Lincoln are indeed what makes America great.

The left meanwhile, left traditional Democratic values for their 20th Century marxist dogma; this became especially true since the mid 70's. Jefferson would find almost nothing in todays Democratic party that resembles the one he championed.

Posted by antisocialist at 04/28/2009 @ 5:31pm
But my point to Darla is she was making the ridiculous attempt to suggest that only conservatives want purity.

The Nation itself makes a point of supporting Democratic candidates who are more pure in terms of their progressive views over moderate or conservative Democrats. Yet the Darla's never consider that to be a negative against Democrats or liberals.

Posted by antisocialist at 04/28/2009 @ 2:18pm

Of course individuals, or magazine editors, support candidates most closely aligned with their positions. But Darla's point remains valid, since the Democratic party as a whole has not yet adopted the ideologically pure positions of the Nation editors, in contrast to the GOP, which has adopted the ideologically pure positions of movement conservatism.

Posted by richcarl at 04/28/2009 @ 5:32pm
It is to institutionalize and fund the genocide of minorities, globally....

I find it fascinating how liberals who can so clearly see the truth of the US invasion of Iraq are so resistant to see the real agenda of the abortion movement. Well, so it goes...

Posted by freiheit1 at 04/28/2009 @ 5:15pm | ignore this person | warn this person

well now! that's whats happening? really????

very interesting set of assumptions and conclusions...

i wonder. would, say, subsaharan african's lives be better if...

a) they had around zero negative growth or...

b) under current exploding polulation growth rates...

hmm...

let me burrow into the intellectual rabbit hole you seem so cozy in, but take a different tack...

ok - in that larger populations in poor countries with poorly developed economies and social welfare systems who can't afford the people they have results in widespread misery (epidemics, starvation, genocidal wars), perhaps your conservative solution of doing nothing to try to curb insane and unsustainable population growth...

IS A DIABOLICAL RACIST PLOT TO GET RID OF THE DARKIES THROUGH EPIDEMICS, STARVATION, AND LOCALIZED GENOCIDAL WARS!!!!

hey! that makes just as much sense as YOUR paranoid delusional ideas!

life for the vast majority of subsaharan africans and billions in other economically depressed poor countries is NASTY, BRUTISH AND SHORT. their suffering dwarfs that of the poor in america and every additional hungry mouth serves only to INCREASE THE MISERY OF ALL INVOLVED.

oh boy. i'm such an unempathetic MONSTER, arent i?

Posted by ibbleblibble at 04/28/2009 @ 5:35pm
Will Specter's switch and Franken's eventual seating show that the lack of a "filibuster proof" Senate prevented the Democratic Party from delivering a democratic program, e.g., single-payer health care, EFCA, bottom-up economics, and restoration of Constitutional rights? Or will the addition of Specter and Franken be an occasion another round of excuse-making?

Posted by fragen at 04/28/2009 @ 5:43pm
Posted by ibbleblibble at 04/28/2009 @ 5:35pm

No, I wouldn't call you a monster. I just don't think you value life, like anyone who has no belief in God.

You think like you are God. That's the problem. You aren't.

Thank God! ;-)

Posted by freiheit1 at 04/28/2009 @ 5:44pm
Posted by fragen at 04/28/2009 @ 5:43pm

Remember, these are politicians we are discussing. We must be aware of their incentives. With rare and limited exception, their incentive is reelection and maintaining power. I think we are headed to another round of excuse making. And eventually, they will probably eliminate this whole "election" concept anyway.

When they all joined hands and voted for TARP, it was clear, there is little to no distinction between our two political parties.

Spector's changing uniforms doesn't change that fact.

Posted by freiheit1 at 04/28/2009 @ 5:50pm
You think like you are God. That's the problem. You aren't.

Thank God! ;-)

Posted by freiheit1 at 04/28/2009 @ 5:44pm | ignore this person | warn this person

i appreciate your honesty as well, frei.

but i'm not so sure ol' god values life terribly considering the state and nature of "his" creation.

so...maybe i AM god!!!

Posted by ibbleblibble at 04/28/2009 @ 5:50pm
but look...

sometimes kindness is cruelty and cruelty is kindness.

it is my belief that too much empathy is as dangerous as too little.

you know...if we "value life" so much that we never try to curb our population, never kill REAL monsters...

we will cumbaya our way to death, destruction, tyranny, and widespread suffering the likes of which we have never seen.

value life? i value life so much that i wish to save it by limiting it!

i find the "ooooh lets keep squirting out babies until we have to eat each other because its god's will" far more cruel, even sadistic (not to mention irresponsible) than allowing abortion and passing out assloads of birth prevention.

Posted by ibbleblibble at 04/28/2009 @ 5:58pm
No, I wouldn't call you a monster. I just don't think you value life, like anyone who has no belief in God.

Posted by freiheit1 at 04/28/2009 @ 5:44pm | ignore this person | warn this person

1. no belief in god?

2. gee...i've known some pretty saintly atheists. also read about some pretty bloodthirsty true believers...

i always find it funny how some really religious types can't seem to comprehend how someone else can value life and behave without supernatural carrots and sticks...

i guess the thought process leading to THAT conclusion goes something like this...

"if I didn't believe in a god who rewards me for (believing or doing good) and punishes me for (non belief or doing bad)...i'd be evil as shit!!! everyone else is like me, so atheists are scary dangerous people who behave as wickedly as would i sans my belief in god."

which ironically suggests to me an inability to understand how others think/feel, which seems to point to the possibility that...

such highly religilous types may actually be incapable of empathy and incapable of behaving themselves without fear of punishment/hope for reward...

which s

Posted by ibbleblibble at 04/28/2009 @ 6:14pm
�noun 1. a visible incorporeal spirit, esp. one of a terrifying nature; ghost; phantom; apparition. 2. some object or source of terror or dread: the specter of disease or famine.

YEP, that is him alright! Enjoy finally coming out of the Demoncrat closet Arlen!

Posted by comancheamerican at 04/28/2009 @ 6:44pm
Man is not innately good, ibble. Your statement, "value life? i value life so much that i wish to save it by limiting it!" is a perfect example of that default setting we all have.

All good on earth has God as its source, not man's "nature" as its source. (I believe the framers of our constitution understood that well.)

The real turmoil you describe,... "life for the vast majority of subsaharan africans and billions in other economically depressed poor countries is NASTY, BRUTISH AND SHORT. their suffering dwarfs that of the poor in america and every additional hungry mouth serves only to INCREASE THE MISERY OF ALL INVOLVED."... is simply the result of man denying God at all levels. We see it throughout history. Stalin, Hitler, Pol Pot, etc, etc, all avowed atheists. We see it today in our consumption-based matrix of a society.

True believers can't be and never will be bloodthirsty, ibble, so you haven't seen any. And I don't deny it is easily possible to find a kind (not saintly) atheist.

But without a belief in God, one is blind to the truth. And it has nothing to do with supernatural sticks and carrots.

Posted by freiheit1 at 04/28/2009 @ 6:56pm
"I am still one of millions of Americans who believe that the principles espoused by the Founders and continued by Lincoln are indeed what makes America great"

yeah, like torture, wiretapping, secret rendition, and unprovoked invasions of sovereign countries.

of course, if jefferson were around today, he would have blamed.....the democrats.

Posted by darladoon at 04/28/2009 @ 7:11pm
Does anyone know if the Democrats will let me spend my Food Stamps on pot after they legalize it?

Posted by sntauri at 04/28/2009 @ 7:24pm
True believers can't be and never will be bloodthirsty, ibble, so you haven't seen any. And I don't deny it is easily possible to find a kind (not saintly) atheist.

But without a belief in God, one is blind to the truth. And it has nothing to do with supernatural sticks and carrots.

Posted by freiheit1 at 04/28/2009 @ 6:56pm | ignore this person | warn this person

two non sequiter statements in a row based on the assumptions of your belief system, indicative of an inability to understand other belief systems, including those that fail to mention "god".

as i think you know, i'm a bad buddhist, bad in so many ways. the buddha never said there was no god, he simply refused to comment beyond a statement to the effect that belief in such a concept often leads to a reliance on such that can impede spiritual growth and encourage helplessness, among other things.

if i watch two children at play, one of whom knows i'm watching, the other who does not, and both behave, one because he knows i watch, the other because just because, or because its just intrinsically understood to be the correct thing, which one is morally superior, the one who behaves because he fears punishment/craves reward, or the one who does so because its the correct thing to do?

the highest morality is that which involves doing the right thing and avoiding the wrong not out of fear or hope, but because just because...

but those guys just burn in hell forever, eh???

oh - and folks like that DO indeed exist, my friend, believe/understand it or not.

Posted by ibbleblibble at 04/28/2009 @ 8:23pm
"life for the vast majority of subsaharan africans and billions in other economically depressed poor countries is NASTY, BRUTISH AND SHORT. their suffering dwarfs that of the poor in america and every additional hungry mouth serves only to INCREASE THE MISERY OF ALL INVOLVED."... is simply the result of man denying God at all levels. We see it throughout history. Stalin, Hitler, Pol Pot, etc, etc, all avowed atheists. We see it today in our consumption-based matrix of a society.

Posted by freiheit1 at 04/28/2009 @ 6:56pm | ignore this person | warn this person

how is this an example of man denying god? thats not even wrong - its inarguable.

if a problem is identified by our god created brains, the solution of which is within our capacities to solve or al least mitigate, is it not a sin to sit around praying for god to help when god already has helped by creating US (in his image, eh?) with the capacity to help?

is god stupid? does he pine and throw childish fits if we don't constantly acknowledge his presence and thank him a dozen times a day?

might god have created a world full of problems and us in his image to grow and approach him by taking the matter into our his-created hands and fixing what we can? he IS supposed to help those who help themselves, is he not?

if our god given faculties have led us to the conclusion that the command "be fruitful and multiply" was all fine and dandy in a time when increasing the population of one's community/culture made such more secure, but is now, under different circumstances is resulting in death, suffering and eventual horrific doom...does god still wish us to robotically obey such out of date advise?

if religion is nothing more than an ossified set of never changing mumbo jumbo and time specific commands which

Posted by ibbleblibble at 04/28/2009 @ 8:39pm
must be followed without regard to circumstances...

is this the will of god?

is god so petty, stupid and cruel?

if so i'll go with the other guy, because if this is the case then god is evil, satan good, or perhaps this entire religion thing is old scratch's biggest trick ever...

more babies! more and more and more! keep 'em coming til we're swimmin' in 'em!!!!

Posted by ibbleblibble at 04/28/2009 @ 8:43pm
Now, please take Snowe & Collins....no, not kidding.

It's time to stand clearly apart from your Looter Party.

Posted by Happy at 04/28/2009 @ 4:29pm | ignore this person | warn this person

okydoky. ever hear the expression "cut off your nose to spite your face?

i heard it came from the dark ages when a group of nuns in england chopped off their noses to make them appear ugly so the invading danes would not rape them.

didn't work...

so you guys just keep doing what you're doing. lop off your ears, gouge out your eyes, mutilate your genitals, and shove a splintery old broomstick soaked in tabasco sauce up your rectums until you shit fire and blood...

you'll have your intellectual purity before you know it. you can wear it like a warm blanket...

Posted by ibbleblibble at 04/28/2009 @ 9:15pm
I just don't think you value life, like anyone who has no belief in God.

Posted by freiheit1 at 04/28/2009 @ 5:44pm

wtf?

Posted by frosty zoom at 04/28/2009 @ 10:10pm
you'll have your intellectual purity before you know it. you can wear it like a warm blanket...

Posted by ibbleblibble at 04/28/2009 @ 9:15pm

I've never aspired to be in the majority (ie mainstream) at any time in my life......it's who and what I am. Similarly, the Repubs have never been in the `mainstream' in so far as party identification or registration.

It's a much more difficult road to be a Repub....one has to say a shit load of "NOs" to a lot of WANTS and some NEEDS.

It's quite possible that us Baby Boomers are the sole reason that made the Reagan Revolution possible........we were raised the Old America `Traditional Way' by parents who actually came of age through the lean days of WWII and have grandparents who've forgotten most everything except the Great Depression.

Of course, some Boomers became the Bill The-Bomber Ayers, Bill Didn't-Inhale Clinton, John Dumbf*&k Kerrys.......that in no way, resemble the Democrats of Old America.

Given the makeup of the New America, I'm of the belief that unless some kinda of disaster befalls us (economically), the self-reliant soul of the Old America will NOT return.....and the GOP may not again, sit in the WH. But, but, but.......Magic is the post-Boomer version of Jimmy Carter and from what I foresee, economic stagnation/disaster is just around the corner....so, there is still HOPE for conservatism.

We are definitively on the road to Socialism.......let Specter help it along faster!

My days (and my investments') of `Going Galt' is not that far away.....I am hardly alone...As one gets older...fond memories of the Old America......when one had the actual, honest-to-goodness freedom NOT to be told how and what to do by every level of the Gubber goons....that'll be my "warm blanket"...:~)

Posted by Happy at 04/28/2009 @ 10:22pm
freitheit1, your recent posts indicate that you are rapidly approaching antisocialists level of discourse. I didn't think it was possible for anyone to plumb those depths.

And just as your public declaration of belief in god distinguishes you from the godless, so your public denunciation of the undeclared (the godless) places you within that time honored inquisitorial framework that has given humanity so much.

Thanks so much for sharing that which is beyond understanding. Hallelujah!

Posted by Sorelish at 04/28/2009 @ 11:12pm
... The left meanwhile, left traditional Democratic values for their 20th Century marxist dogma; this became especially true since the mid 70's. Jefferson would find almost nothing in todays Democratic party that resembles the one he championed.

posted by antisocialist.

I am not speaking of your core values, anti. As far as I can see, your party left you a long time ago. Right around the time of Nixon the seeds were sown.

I will refer to you a great conservative, William F. Buckley, who successfully limited the kooks, nutjobs and reactionists on the far right of the discussion. The problem is that the kooks came back stronger than ever in the form of Limbaugh,Hannity and Laura Schlessinger (and to my personal chagrin, Dennis Miller) whose views on conservative philosophy would have given Lincoln serious pause.

Jefferson was a member of a party that no longer exists and is erroneously referred to as the "founder" of the modern Democratic Party. Jefferson and Madison created the Democratic-Republican party in order to oppose the economic and foreign policies of the Federalists (founded by Hamilton). Foreign policy issues were central; the party opposed the Jay Treaty of 1794 with Britain (then at war with France) and supported good relations with France before 1801. The party insisted on a strict construction of the Constitution, and denounced many of Hamilton's proposals as unconstitutional. The party promoted states'rights and the primacy of the yeoman farmer over bankers, industrialists, merchants, and other monied interests. The party opposed such Federalist policies as high tariffs, a navy, military spending, a national debt, and a national bank.

Not a very liberal party it seems, in fact with little exception it was a conservative party.

Posted by jwcisneros at 04/28/2009 @ 11:23pm
The sad fact is that both parties have shifted to the right. Bush was, and his congressional water carriers are, far-right ideologues.

Obama campaigned promising change, but in the White House (perhaps better termed the Waffle House) he has governed from right of center but left of Bush on selected social issues.

Our Neocon 2.0 president is escalating the Afghan war and equivocating on Iraq; whatever happens, long-term military occupation is certain. He's rapidly pushing nuclear-armed Pakistan over the precipice and into the hands of dangerous extremists. He's promised to eventually close Guantanamo, but there is evidence of continued abuse, and he's denied Geneva Conventions rights to Bagram and other detainees. He issued a pro-forma renunciation of torture, but has lauded torturers and murderers as dedicated public servants acting in good faith, retained them in their posts, and promised them immunity.

The "change" promised during the campaign now appears to have referred to Obama's putative principles and future policies, not business as usual in Washington.

Even conservative hawks can feel right at home in today's Democratic Party.

Posted by DrBrian at 04/29/2009 @ 12:44am
"The "change" promised during the campaign now appears to have referred to Obama's putative principles and future policies, not business as usual in Washington. Even conservative hawks can feel right at home in today's Democratic Party."

so true. but conservative hawks will never feel right at home with obama. they still think he's a marxist.

Posted by darladoon at 04/29/2009 @ 12:54am
I always suspected that some Republicans believe in evolution.

Posted by running-dog at 04/29/2009 @ 02:06am
Specter fled the GOP because in PA they are losing voters in droves.

A shrewd move but he still has to get reelected. Now he has to court the Democratic voters.

If he proves to be a disingenuous fraud, vote him out.

Posted by koroviev at 04/29/2009 @ 02:11am
Dear Arlen: Welcome to the Sane Side of the Isle. You'll be off your medication soon.

Posted by aresokeeffe at 04/29/2009 @ 06:12am
I agree with Larry/antisoc and the other Righties...

(for a while), the Republicans should become ideologically pure, with no RINOs.

Made up entirely of folks like Larry who think Dick Cheney was a great Vice-President. Which would be about....

18% of the populace.

Posted by Mask at 04/29/2009 @ 06:23am
It is like a group of people saying "OK George Bush, you can read my email, listen to my phone conversations, look at the list of books I check out of the library, send infiltrators to my meetings, and torture Canadian and US citizens...but Obama had better not take my freedoms!"

Posted by crabwalk at 04/28/2009 @ 4:52pm

Hey Crabman,

Of the thousands of people-- wait, let me look up the exact number...

Okay of the three people who were waterboarded, how many were Canadian or US citizens? How many were not directly responsible for the murder of Canadian and US citizens? (Answers 0% and 0%)

I may be mistaken, but I believe you have used the term "shreading the Constitution".

Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 04/29/2009 @ 06:40am
I find it fascinating how liberals who can so clearly see the truth of the US invasion of Iraq are so resistant to see the real agenda of the abortion movement. Well, so it goes...

Posted by freiheit1 at 04/28/2009 @ 5:15pm

Hey Frei,

Your history is 100% spot on.

And if this were a court of law and you were a Harvard-trained lawyer (meaning a liberal piece of shit) you could get the court to rule abortion unconstitutional because of its "disparate racial impact".

Fully 50% of all black children are murdered before their birth day (not the first anniversary comonaly referred to as first "birthday")

Read that again and let it sink in: � of all pregnancies for black mothers end in abortion.

I think the word you are searching for is "genocide". ************************************************************

So, you are right regarding abortion's racial impact, but I think you are being unfair to charge racisim in the supporters of abortion.

I've always felt that the "disparate racial impact" argument was bullshit. We (and judges) should judge on intentions. The supports of abortion do not intend racism, they intend selfishness and instant gratification. They intend for government to serve its purpose as they veiw goverment� that is to remove the negative consequences of irresponsible behavior.

It's good for people to learn of abortions genocidal impact on blacks, but I think it is unfair to accuse them of racism.

Yes, yes, people like Sharpton throw charges of racism around like other people throw rice at a wedding: That's no excuse for you to sink to his level.

Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 04/29/2009 @ 06:59am
The difference is that our views have been reflected in Republicans occupying the White House for 27 of the past 39 years (counting to the end of next year). And 8 of those Democrat years were for a president who never even got 50% of the popular vote.

Posted by LVLIBERTY1 12/27/2007 @ 12:29pm

This only took about a minute to find. I guess you're only an "independent" when the Republicans lose, eh?

Posted by kennyboy at 04/29/2009 @ 07:33am
Posted by Happy at 04/28/2009 @ 10:22pm | ignore this person | warn this person

oh hap...

i've always liked you. great attitude.

and if you are comfortable with going down with the ship i understand and respect.

i just think times have changed and that many of the ideas the anarcho-libertarian crowd screeches out "SOCIALISM!" over are simply necessary adjustments to changing paradigms.

hey, i could be wrong. life is a great experiment.

i'm simply sick and tired of ideological poisoning of disciplines which should be scientific and impartial, like economics and sociology, etc, regardless of the directional origen/orientation of such poisoning.

i've often said that ideology, too strictly adhered to and too eagerly gulped down, is one of the greatest stupidifiers there is - regardless of the ideology.

there were many perfectly intelligent folks who were hard core deterministic marxists not so long ago. still are. likewise there are many perfectly intelligent anarcho-libertarians.

but nothing new here. when all reality must fit into preconcieved notions, accepted like immutable religious canon...

otherwise bright folk begin to appear stupid as they gleefully or desperately go about their business of hammering circles into squares...

as i've stated before, i don't even know if the term "conservative" really applies to the ideology of the modern republican party. "american anarcho-libertarianism" infused with a healthy dose of creationist, science denying, rightwing christianity seems more accurate.

Posted by ibbleblibble at 04/29/2009 @ 07:37am
Republicrat to Demican? What a giant leap of faith that must be! After thirty years at age 79 retirement is way past due.If all the oldtimers who could afford it would retire that would stimulate the economy too.

Posted by tonyabate at 04/29/2009 @ 07:42am
I've always felt that the "disparate racial impact" argument was bullshit. We (and judges) should judge on intentions. The supports of abortion do not intend racism, they intend selfishness and instant gratification. They intend for government to serve its purpose as they veiw goverment� that is to remove the negative consequences of irresponsible behavior.

Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 04/29/2009 @ 06:59am | ignore this person | warn this person

you're points about instant gratification and selfishness are DEAD ON and i could not agree more.

i wonder...with all those abortions (are you sure its 50%? source? but i'll accept the figure for argument sake...) is the black population in this country increasing or decreasing? is it in danger of being "abortioned" to death?

i guess part of my surrender on this front is the nature of the work i do. i work in a low ses school and see on a daily basis the destruction wrought on individuals and communities by reproductive irresponsibility and simply do not see whats so wonderful about millions and millions of unwanted bastards regardless of ethnicity.

i also have a problem with calling the procedure murder, though i DO find the notion that it is naught more than a lifestyle crimping, tumerous mass of biowaste as well...

so for me its an ugly choice all around, but based upon my recent experiences and what i see as a brewing malthusian disaster...

gotta go with the abortion.

in a perfect world we would make contraceptives cheap and easily obtainable and groups opposing abortion would concentrate more on trying to change people's minds rather than changing laws and coercing, but this is not perfect world.

Posted by ibbleblibble at 04/29/2009 @ 07:49am
correction...

i also have a problem with calling the procedure murder, though i DO find the notion that it is naught more than a lifestyle crimping, tumerous mass of biowaste (morally repugnant) as well...

Posted by ibbleblibble at 04/29/2009 @ 08:35am
That's it Darin, suck up the oversimplification deliberately promulgated by religious conservatives and spew it out like it was accepted scientific fact.

I personally do not like abortion, but I also do not like some person (or group of them) inserting their angry screed into a subject that they know absolutely nothing about.

Abortions have not been increasing by per capita measurement (this little scale takes into account the change in population and adjusts it for the time period that was statistically accounted for in the past) they have in fact gone down.

I know the abortion issue is a real dividing line in this country, but you need to have a Vendi sized cup of STFU.

As always the "truth" is always a lot more complex than both sides of the argument. Here's the rub, sonny. Ibblelibble is at least intellectually honest while you are an intellectual fraud. Live with that.

Posted by jwcisneros at 04/29/2009 @ 09:34am
yeah, republicans aren't the party of "purity," but they make it extremely difficult, if not impossible, for the 3-4 remaining republican moderates to remain with them

no, republicans are the "big tent" party, the all-inclusive party, the party of ideas. whatever. they are the party of old, fat, rich, white, bald idiots (and one black guy).

Posted by darladoon at 04/29/2009 @ 09:59am
I agree with Larry/antisoc and the other Righties...

(for a while), the Republicans should become ideologically pure, with no RINOs.

Made up entirely of folks like Larry who think Dick Cheney was a great Vice-President. Which would be about.... 18% of the populace.

Posted by Mask at 04/29/2009 @ 06:23am

Mask, I would rather maintain principles with 5% of the population than to compromise basic principles. I repeat again that you and others on the left actually desire only one political view in this country. Yes, you say you want us heard so we can be defeated. But that speaks to your real desire. You want totalitarian govt that imposes all the marxist dreams you leftists have.

Posted by antisocialist at 04/29/2009 @ 10:19am
"Yes, you say you want us heard so we can be defeated. But that speaks to your real desire"

psychoanalysis 101: a classic case of "projection"

Posted by darladoon at 04/29/2009 @ 10:22am
The difference is that our views have been reflected in Republicans occupying the White House for 27 of the past 39 years (counting to the end of next year). And 8 of those Democrat years were for a president who never even got 50% of the popular vote.

Posted by LVLIBERTY1 12/27/2007 @ 12:29pm

This only took about a minute to find. I guess you're only an "independent" when the Republicans lose, eh?

Posted by kennyboy at 04/29/2009 @ 07:33am

One can remain a member of the party and still vote 3rd party. And I voted 3rd party in '88 when Bush Sr won, which hardly validates your charge. I voted 3rd party also in '76, '92, '96 when they lost.

the quote you posted reflected a different context. That conservative views held the majority view for most of 40 years. That was and is significant.

Posted by antisocialist at 04/29/2009 @ 10:23am
Who gives a sh** about the Republican party right now. And I totally disagree with Chris that specter won't make a difference.

We need to be very concerned about how effective our Senate is at getting things done over - we hope - the next 8 years!

Specter's role is more destructive than Lieberman's on two fronts- first we don't need his reinforcing the Moderate positions so weakly pushed by Reid and we don't need another Ben NO! Nelson.

Thanks to the early days of Emanuel and McAulife's forcing the more right leaning pro-business candidates down our throat, even with majority rule we looked like assholes - for our weakness. Enough of that!

We can't allow any more insiders wishing to cover their own asses to rule the day. Go to OpenLeft.com and support mounting a pure Democratic challenge to this inside game-playing hack.

Posted by hazmaq at 04/29/2009 @ 10:32am
A new Jewish flip-flopper (after Lieberman) --- more to come! Those 2 mainstream parties are just a smoke-screen for many of them. The only thing they really care for is maintaining control over us (through wars, terror acts, financial crisis, etc.).

Posted by podrobnosti at 04/29/2009 @ 10:46am
Posted by ibbleblibble at 04/29/2009 @ 07:49am

Well, I guess I'll let you agree with me this time, but don't make a habit of it.

Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 04/29/2009 @ 11:10am
Mask, I would rather maintain principles with 5% of the population than to compromise basic principles. I repeat again that you and others on the left actually desire only one political view in this country.----Posted by antisocialist at 04/29/2009 @ 10:19am

Wait a minute.

On one hand you say you'd rather "maintain principles with 5%"....which would mean ENDLESS defeats in elections.

On the other you accuse US of wanting "only one political view in this country"....

which is what would occur if YOU only had 5% and kept losing endlessly in elections??????

Seems it's YOU who only want one political view...OURS....given you're happy to see more moderate Republicans leave the party and cause it eternal exile!

Posted by Mask at 04/29/2009 @ 11:47am
You think like you are God. That's the problem. You aren't.

Thank God! ;-)

Posted by freiheit1 at 04/28/2009 @ 5:44pm

BWAHAHahahah... But frei thinks himself god to know what ibble is thinking about being god because frei knows god and what god thinks... BWAHAHahahah.

About as much a conundrum as figuring out what Specter's aborted GOPee leak really means apart from zipping up his zipper and owning a little bit more of himself again.

As for what abortion means, I abort feat'uses every time I stop myself from impregnating a wanting co-ed for a better grade, just about every week. To listen to the new con's-- I'm doing a bad thing: to abort what could have been a new life to another highly educated new con.

But taking most historical facts into account-- it is easier to prove with the new con repubs track record that their MIC/GOPee prefer the benefit of more under-educated slave labor than the dems. Thus to the new con repubs-- aborting their need for undereducated slave labor is a sin to their wallet; their real god and one in which they do have some understanding of... BWAHAHahahah

Posted by hsuBfools at 04/29/2009 @ 1:12pm
Posted by antisocialist at 04/29/2009 @ 10:23am

I am not at - ahem - liberty to examine your voting records nor do I care do so.

Your posts here, in large part, are purist cut and paste collections of Republican Party talking points in support of policies that led us over a cliff in 1929 and now again, 80 years later.

If it acts like one, walks like one and quacks like one, well, hello Donald.

I am not ashamed to identify myself as a Democrat even though I frequently disagree with various candidates, elected officials and initiatives - such as our continuing military presence in Central Asia and the lack of a real initiative to end the health care mess.

Own up to it. It'll make you feel better.

Posted by kennyboy at 04/29/2009 @ 1:23pm
you value life way too much (until its capable of breathing on its own)...

Posted by ibbleblibble at 04/28/2009 @ 2:20pm | ignore this person | warn this person

And therein lies the problem for the modern right.

This is where they start bumping into the Ayn Rand crowd on their immediate economic flank. The Randies mostly come down, I believe, on the side of the individual qua mother, insomuch as they do not regard the unborn as an individual by their definition. Unfortunately for our right-wing friends, this is where many of their presumptive economic bedfellows, unfortunately for them, part company.

Posted by schnellerheinz at 04/29/2009 @ 3:14pm
Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 04/29/2009 @ 11:10am | ignore this person | warn this person

deal...lol

--------------------------------------

Posted by schnellerheinz at 04/29/2009 @ 3:14pm | ignore this person | warn this person

and the aynraders are effin satanic!

the republican party...jesus freaks and satanists!! what a strange bedfellowing that is...

LOL

Posted by ibbleblibble at 04/29/2009 @ 3:23pm
Hopefully now that Specter has turned tail on the GOP, he'll turn back to his prior support for the Employee Free Choice Act, especially once Norm Coleman realizes Minnesotans like myself and so many others wanted Al Franken. Even if we held our noses when we pulled the lever for Franken.

Posted by DP in TC at 04/29/2009 @ 3:24pm
Hopefully now that Specter has turned tail on the GOP,

Posted by DP in TC at 04/29/2009 @ 3:24pm

I hope that doesn't include Sen. Larry Craig.

Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 04/29/2009 @ 4:10pm
he'll turn back to his prior support for the Employee Free Choice Act,

Posted by DP in TC at 04/29/2009 @ 3:24pm

You probably noticed that during his� what "switch speech" he specifically said thay he was not going to change his mind on EFCA.

Which means that when he changes his mind on EFCA it will cost dems at least a huge bridge named after him if not a whole NAVY ship yard named after him in PN. (Yes, I know PA is not on the ocean. He'll include a bill to build him a canal to the Ocean for supporters.)

Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 04/29/2009 @ 4:14pm
Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 04/29/2009 @ 4:10pm | ignore this person | warn this person

good one, troll boy.

actually PA has river access to the ocean, does it not?

Posted by ibbleblibble at 04/29/2009 @ 4:21pm
Capitalist USA -- Big enriching itself upon misery of small A capitalist government is one that allows a big farm to get discounts buying big, to drive small farms out of business by selling at below cost, and then to so inflate the cost of food that the laboring class must cut back on health care, education and other essentials, and the poor suffer hunger.

In Selma for three generation K-Mart and Wal-Mart were about equal in size and each had 150 employees. Then these two marketing giants decided to not compete against each other, and to build super stores a town apart from one another. The result for Selma was a loss of 100 jobs, Mal-Mart the only department store in town, and a dozen small stores forced into bankruptcy.

Our capitalist President for example has given big bailouts to big banks so they can buy medium size banks, and at a time when a record number of small banks are going bankrupt. Big GM for example is given funds sufficient to make it, while Chrysler is ordered to merge or be broken up. And instead of given auto parts factories the 13 billion they asked for, only 5 billion is given forcing the weaker-smaller ones to merge or close down. Why for all we know those in power want high unemployment so multinationals can have cheap labor.

A better way, breakup the biggest banks, the very ones who created and now hold most of the toxic assets, and give their share of the market to the smallest banks.

For allowing foreign car giants like Toyota and Honda to come in here and drive our beloved Pontiac out of business, surely this is allowing multinationals to enrich themselves upon the misery of our economy.

Germany had a social democracy most excellent, then Hitler destroyed the unions, sold to the rich all state owned things like elect

Posted by Alabama.John at 04/29/2009 @ 5:25pm
Yes, you say you want us heard so we can be defeated. But that speaks to your real desire. You want totalitarian govt that imposes all the marxist dreams you leftists have.

Posted by antisocialist at 04/29/2009 @ 10:19am

Can we enjoy the irony? This from the guy who get's angry any time someone says he wants fascism. Hilarious. It's all so absurd that I can't stop laughing.

Posted by Cccomfo1 at 04/29/2009 @ 5:29pm
the quote you posted reflected a different context. That conservative views held the majority view for most of 40 years. That was and is significant.

Posted by antisocialist at 04/29/2009 @ 10:23am

Hmm, yet you say that liberals have destroyed America for the last 40 or more. So let me ask you, if it's always been conservative views in charge for the last 40 years, then HOW are liberals response for the state of the country that you seem to detest so much.

Posted by Cccomfo1 at 04/29/2009 @ 5:32pm
Yes, you say you want us heard so we can be defeated. But that speaks to your real desire. You want totalitarian govt that imposes all the marxist dreams you leftists have.

Posted by antisocialist at 04/29/2009 @ 10:19am

This shows

A. your victimhood complex to a T

B. How out of touch with general society you are.

Posted by Cccomfo1 at 04/29/2009 @ 5:40pm
Yes, you say you want us heard so we can be defeated. But that speaks to your real desire. You want totalitarian govt that imposes all the marxist dreams you leftists have.

Posted by antisocialist at 04/29/2009 @ 10:19am

Does this mean you don't want liberals views heard? Because liberals claim the EXACT same thing about your party. Does that mean they are in fact right? Because I can tell you the right rejoiced when Bush won the White House and the majority in Congress. Your party is responsible for it's own state and the rest of us are laughing because instead of taking the steps needed to repair the damage you are making YOURSELVES more irrelevant. This is no one's fault but your own. Now instead of complaining that everyone else has it out for you, you should step back and look at things factually to see what you did wrong. I guarantee you that if the nation as a whole is turned off by the right wing party right now, going farther right is not going to help you.

Posted by Cccomfo1 at 04/29/2009 @ 5:45pm
Mask, I would rather maintain principles with 5% of the population than to compromise basic principles.

Posted by antisocialist at 04/29/2009 @ 10:19am | ignore this person | warn this person

In relation to "Dick" Cheney, you find any principles whatsoever located in that man, you let us know.

(but, please, keep him up front and center, by all means, as your poster boy.)

Posted by schnellerheinz at 04/29/2009 @ 6:20pm
Posted by schnellerheinz at 04/29/2009 @ 6:20pm

Actually, I think even Larry is smart enough to know that the Cheney Fan Club is only slightly larger than the "Enjoys eating fresh cow dung" Fan Club....and he's still politically motivated enough to want to see Republicans return to power and knows that Cheney STFU helps that.

Posted by Mask at 04/30/2009 @ 08:27am
Chris, Consider this. Maybe the GOPs are throwing Specter under the bus, with his complicity. Perhaps Arlen is going to run as a disloyal-union busting demo so that the Republicans will win in PA. Hmm? It's possible.

Posted by aresokeeffe at 04/30/2009 @ 10:27am
Hmm, yet you say that liberals have destroyed America for the last 40 or more. So let me ask you, if it's always been conservative views in charge for the last 40 years, then HOW are liberals response for the state of the country that you seem to detest so much.

Posted by Cccomfo1 at 04/29/2009 @ 5:32pm

I'm 43, so my memory of the entire last 40 years isn't perfect, but here's my recollection:

In 1969 Nixon had just beat McGovern. (Consider the mid-point of Nixon/McGovern to the mid-point of McCain/Obama.and.or.Clinton surely the midpoint of presidential choice has moved rightward)

The top federal tax rate was 70%? (today it's half that.) The Soviet Union and China (and maybe Cuba) were "evidence" (to some) of an inevitable embrace of full-blown Communism. Today, China, Russia (USSR is gone), all of Europe, and even Cuba have greatly reduced the amount of collectivism in their governments.

Back then feminism was surging. Today, young women are more likely to self-identify as racists than feminists.

Now for the trend in unions:

http://economics.about.com/od/laborinamerica/a/union_decline.htm

"While more than one-third of employed people belonged to unions in 1945, union membership fell to 24.1 percent of the U.S. work force in 1979 and to 13.9 percent in 1998."

In 2007, that number was 12.1% with a very big split between public and private employees: 37% for public, 7�% for private.

I'm almost out of characters to suffice it to say that it is obvious that income inequality has also widened considerably in the last 4 decades.

There is no way around it: economically speaking, political outcomes in America (and the world) have drifted significantly rightward over the last 30 - 40 years.

Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 04/30/2009 @ 11:24am
So given the abject failure of Liberals/Progressives/Collectivists on the economic front over they last four decades, how have they done socially?

Rampant institutional racism has virtually vanished in the last 4 decades.

Rampant sexual harrasment has virtually vanished in the last 4 decades.

Courts have imposed abortion...

Okay, that's not fair. Courts created access to abortion, and courts have protected access to abortion. There have been attempts at imposing some restrictions during the last trimester (like in Europe) but those efforts have all failed and America retains the dubious distinction of having them most liberal abortion laws in the world.

Courts have imposed gay marriage on three states. A fourth enacted gay marriage through the legislature. Domestic partnership laws create all the same rights (without the name) in dozens of other states. (While many states have enacted constituional amendments banning Gay marriage. This is more mixed result, but the trend toward full blown acceptance of gays is undeniable.)

We no longer ration secondary education by price. Any person with considerable intelligence will recieve a college education. Yes the "retail" price is exorbitant, but only the rich pay retail. Virtually 100% of needy students (with ample aptitude) receive significant public and private assistance with college costs.

Although Liberals are no longer able to completely silence Conservative voices in the mainstream media (because of Fox News, the WSJ editorial page, and Drudge) they retain their ability to completely exclude Conservative opinion from virtually all institutions of higher education.

Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 04/30/2009 @ 11:24am
they retain their ability to completely exclude Conservative opinion from virtually all institutions of higher education.

Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll

Well at least you've got Wally World & virtually all of the nation's "smorgies". Oh & Bob Jones & Oral Roberts.

Posted by Sorelish at 04/30/2009 @ 11:50am
Posted by Sorelish at 04/30/2009 @ 11:50am

There's also a prodominently Conservative college in MI, but we don't mention it much because a few years ago it was revealed that the college president was having an affair with his daugher-in-law and it caused someone to commit suicide.

Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 04/30/2009 @ 11:54am
Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 04/30/2009 @ 11:24am

"The first resort of a sore loser is to gripe about how the game itself was unfair, how the other team doesn't play nice, how the very act of winning is all the proof necessary that the other side will "do anything" to win. The second resort is to simply make junk up about the other guy that makes you feel better about yourself."----Posted by Darin_the_Troll at 10/14/2008 @ 1:00pm

A Well-Deserved Prize for An Outspoken Liberal posted by Christopher Hayes on 10/14/2008 @ 10:46am

Posted by Mask at 04/30/2009 @ 1:43pm
Posted by Mask at 04/30/2009 @ 1:43pm

I'm a little slow today. You obviously believe you've caught me in a "gotcha" moment, but you're going to have to spell it out a little clearer for me.

Am I whining or making stuff up?

Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 04/30/2009 @ 2:49pm
While I'm waiting for your reply, I think I'll add the missing context for anybody else who might see this. I've been banned since I posted that so you can't see it if you look it up.

The article is about Krugman's Nobel and at 12:47 I posted something Jonah Goldberg wrote about Krugman:

"There are other complaints as well. Take the two leading liberal columnists at the New York Times, Maureen Dowd and Paul Krugman. As we all know, one's a whining self-parody of a hysterical liberal who lets feminine emotion and fear defeat reason and fact in almost every column. The other used to date Michael Douglas." � Jonah Goldberg

Then at 1:00 I posted this:

"More good quotes: [from Jonah Goldberg]

The first resort of a sore loser is to gripe about how the game itself was unfair, how the other team doesn't play nice, how the very act of winning is all the proof necessary that the other side will "do anything" to win. The second resort is to simply make junk up about the other guy that makes you feel better about yourself.

Smiley's now-famous hissyfit places a great deal of emphasis on the fact that the Republican base is "ignorant" while the Democratic one is enlightened..." � Jonah Goldberg.

***********************************************************

So how does posting Goldberg's quote make me a hypocrite?

Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 04/30/2009 @ 3:37pm
I also found this: ***********************************************************

The first resort of a sore loser is to gripe about how the game itself was unfair, how the other team doesn't play nice, how the very act of winning is all the proof necessary that the other side will "do anything" to win. The second resort is to simply make junk up about the other guy that makes you feel better about yourself.----Posted by Darin_the_Troll at 10/14/2008 @ 1:00pm

Uhhhhhhh, Darin? "voter fraud"?..."ACORN"? "He's an Arab!"????

(BTW, yes, going to save your post for a predictable post from you later...maybe in 3 weeks!)

Posted by Maskdelta at 10/14/2008 @ 1:29pm

Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 04/30/2009 @ 3:41pm
Uhhhhhhh, Darin? "voter fraud"?..."ACORN"? "He's an Arab!"????

(BTW, yes, going to save your post for a predictable post from you later...maybe in 3 weeks!)

Posted by Maskdelta at 10/14/2008 @ 1:29pm

He's [Obama] not an "Arab"; he's a Muslim. There's a difference, you know.

(Yes, I know he's not a Muslim.)

Can you save me the trouble of having to write my own post three weeks from now and just write it for me now?

Posted by Darin_the_Troll at 10/14/2008 @ 1:48pm

Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 04/30/2009 @ 3:44pm
There is no way around it: economically speaking, political outcomes in America (and the world) have drifted significantly rightward over the last 30 - 40 years.

Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 04/30/2009 @ 11:24am

Could it be because things like unions and feminism have outlived their need? Couldn't be that COULD it? Could the fact that Russia is longer a huge communist state because Communism doesn't work for long in the first place? Communism is only a short term political system that will always eventually fall apart unless you loosen it and make it more like socialism which is sustainable. No it can't have possibly been time that did it, it had to be the amazingness of the rightwing.

Posted by Cccomfo1 at 04/30/2009 @ 6:06pm
they retain their ability to completely exclude Conservative opinion from virtually all institutions of higher education.

Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 04/30/2009 @ 11:24am

What a crock. Business schools and most economics departments teach free trade/low regulation economics as if it were holy writ. Ditto the economics classes of Public Administration schools, if my own experience wasn't unique.

And given all of the political scientists and anthropologists and language specialists on contract with the federal government, conservatives, or at least solidly centrist establishmentarians, are hardly missing from those departments.

Yes, English has become a hotbed for pseudo-radicals and there are a good number of leftist history profs out there, but I've yet to see any evidence of the systematic exclusion of conservative academics from the academy, or even of widespread blacklisting as the left suffered 50-60 years ago and as is happening to non-Zionists in the Middle Eastern studies departments today. I think much of the right-wing whining about higher education is the fact that they are no longer in CONTROL as they used to be. Now, they have to share some of the power; although, as some liberal arts professor wrote somewhere, the Business School types sure do make out on the material side of things, with modern classrooms and technology while the liberal arts folks get by with the leftovers.

Posted by cka2nd at 04/30/2009 @ 11:09pm
Could it be because things like unions and feminism have outlived their need?

Posted by Cccomfo1 at 04/30/2009 @ 6:06pm

You have got to be kidding, right?

It was the ACTIVE, ON-PURPOSE busting of the unions by this country's corporate elite, led by Ronald Reagan and the Republican Party but with the collusion of those supposed friends of labor, the Democratic Party, that allowed this country to drive down its workers' wages, leave family incomes stagnant (even as more family members went to work), transform defined-benefit pensions into defined contribution ones or 401k plans, and outsource millions of jobs.

Do the unions bear some responsibility for their current weakened status? Sure, by subordinating themselves to the Democratic Party rather than exercising class independence; by allowing the South to go unorganized; and by focusing more on the interests of only its members instead of on those of the working class as a whole. This is primarily the fault of the union leadership, some of whom got their posts because they, or there forebears, cooperated with the state in driving the left out of the unions after World War II.

It always boggles my mind when people who can see how truly f'd up this country is turn around and say that movements to better the lives of its citizens like unionism and feminism (which I have some problems with, too) are passe. Especially when the folks who have been driving the car off the cliff have spent the better part of the last 30 years, at least, attacking those very same movements. Do you maybe see any link there?

Posted by cka2nd at 04/30/2009 @ 11:26pm
Posted by cka2nd at 04/30/2009 @ 11:26pm

I mean the unions that have outlived their usefulness. Not ALL unions are good. UAW is still partly responsible for the current state of the auto-industry. Not as much as the current owners but they have played their part. Unions aren't always a good thing. I am pro-union, when the union actually serves a purpose.

Posted by Cccomfo1 at 05/01/2009 @ 12:09am
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 04/30/2009 @ 6:06pm

If I'm mistaken, forgive me, but I detect some anger in your response.

You asked Larry, "If Cons were in control how could the Libs wreck America?"

I was trying to answer your question by drawing a distinction between economic and social policy. (If you look at the time stamps from my posts they are both 11:24)

Like the Democrats (but less so) the Republicans are a collection of factions. The biggest is the social Conservatives, but there are also Libertarians who care mostly about economic freedom. (Evangelical Christians are a small subset of the Social Conservatives.) And "factions" isn't the proper word because because there is a lot of overlap. I used to be a pro-choice, pro-drug legalization Libertarian. Then I had Kids. Now I'm a social Conservative with strong Libertarian sympathies.

I think "factions" is more correct for Democrats. You've got blacks and other minorities, gays, abortion advocates, gun control advocates, economic Liberals (social Democrats, Socialists, and a few dozen true Communists), and unions. There is overlap in views, butI think there is less overlap than with the Republicans. Blacks that put Prop 8 over the top in California with something like 75% support.

Anyway, I am certain Larry agrees that the Liberals are to be thanked and applauded for leading the charge against institutional racism. The same goes for sexual harrasment in the work place. And while their methods were sometimes draconian, I appreciate the fact that cigarette smoke has been virtually eliminated from public spaces.

So what Larry is talking about is abortion and promoting acceptance of gay sex.

Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 05/01/2009 @ 07:11am
What a crock. Business schools and most economics departments teach free trade/low regulation economics as if it were holy writ. Ditto the economics classes of Public Administration schools, if my own experience wasn't unique.

Posted by cka2nd at 04/30/2009 @ 11:09pm

You have a fair point here, but I think you would benefit from understanding it a little clearer.

What they teach is that free-trade and low regulation are more economically efficient regarding the creation of wealth. That is an undeniable fact and is recognized by both the Left and the Right.

At issue here is political values. Is wealth creation an intrinsic good? Not if it is shared unequally, according to the Left. That's a valid opinion.

There is also the issue of balance. I noticed you said, "low regulation" instead of "no regluation". Preparing and publishing financial statements does not create wealth. In this sense financial statements are economically inefficient. But they are vital because no one would invest in a company that didn't produce financial statements.

Since the vast majority of business people are people of good faith (like myself), they give other business people the benefit of the doubt that they are like them and they naturally assume a low regulatory environment is sufficient to catch the one or two bad apples.

That's why there tends to be unanimity in the beliefs/values of business schools.

Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 05/01/2009 @ 08:29am
Yes, guilty as charged. Sorry

I overstated/exaggerated the extent of Liberals' iron fisted grip on the academy and now need to walk it back. Liberals don't completely exclude conservative voices. There are economic conservatives in the business schools along with social Conservatives Harvey Mansfield at Harvard and that Conservative guy at Princeton.

So let me be more accurate: Liberals outnumber Conservatives at least 10:1 in the academy and thus control every aspect of the academy (save business school curiculum), even if they still allow Conservatives to speak once in a while.

But if you are under the impression it's not as bad as I make it out to be, google FIRE or remember the Larry Summers was practically lynched at Harvard for suggesting that proffessors should keep an open mind regarding the ever so remote possiblitiy that, maybe just maybe-- and I'm not saying it is, I'm just trying to stimulate debate, maybe bilogical differences might possibly account for some of the discrpancy in male professors in the hard sciences.

Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 05/01/2009 @ 09:09am
Seriously, I'm embarassed to admit that Ted Haggard is on my team. Aren'y you embarassed when the acusation that the people who died in the twin towers were "little Eichmans" is met with knowing nods of agreement?

Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 05/01/2009 @ 09:11am
This is brilliant by Kim Strassel of WSJ

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124113372096875105.html

***************************************************************

Purely from a tactical standpoint, Mr. Specter's move matters deeply. The Democrats are a gnat's breath away from a filibuster-proof majority...

Purely from a philosophical standpoint, Mr. Specter's move means nothing, because he didn't leave his party on philosophical grounds. As even the good senator acknowledged in his press conference, his top priority is, and always has been, staying in office...

When Joe Lieberman broke with his party on Iraq, or John McCain with his on global warming, or when Daniel Patrick Moynihan stood for Social Security reform, they were able to clearly articulate what it was about their political beliefs that led them to those positions. They also took their positions at some political risk. When Ms. Collins positions herself as a deficit hawk, even as she votes for every spending bill in sight -- often with a pure eye for re-election -- and then scolds her colleagues for not being more accepting of her "centrism," well, the party tends to get a bit cranky.

Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 05/01/2009 @ 12:04pm
Go Red Wings!

(sorry, over-exuberant)

Posted by schnellerheinz at 05/01/2009 @ 7:30pm
Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 05/01/2009 @ 07:11am

No anger meant. But I doubt gay marriage and abortion are going to take down the country.

Posted by Cccomfo1 at 05/01/2009 @ 10:49pm
There is no filibuster-proof majority in the Senate.

Democrats, unlike Republicans, cannot all follow the party line.

As someone like Will Rogers once said, sort of, "I don't belong to any organized party. I'm a Democrat."

Let's abandon the MMM (major media myth--a masquerade for the Repub party line) and proclaim that Dems vote on the issues as each Dem sees them, not some Stalinist party line that the Repubs continue to proclaim.

Posted by jkrogman at 05/02/2009 @ 09:35am
......Stalinist party line that the Repubs continue to proclaim.

Posted by jkrogman at 05/02/2009 @ 09:35am

Bet you didn't know your Messiah scored nearly 100% along the liberal, American version of the "Stalinist party line"....highest among the Dems! Kettle, meet the Tea Pot!

Posted by Happy at 05/02/2009 @ 11:01am
'...your Messiah..." ???

Huh? Your wish to demonize President Obama and Democrats is without any merit.

Chants of "liberal, liberal, liberal" only illustrate how empty-headed the Republican line has become.

Posted by jkrogman at 05/02/2009 @ 11:10am
To reinforce my point, remember that :

1) Repubs in the Senate and House have ALL VOTED NOOOOOOOOOOOOO on key pieces of recent legislation. This shows partisan loyalty of the rank of Stalinism.

2) When is the last time that ALL Dems in the House and Senate voted for or against significant legislation the majority voter against or for? DUHHHH?

3) Hardly anyone other than the braindead Repub party and their supporters argues that Obama is a "liberal". He has taken several signifiant steps that follow in the path of the previous Bush administration. Are the Bushies liberal too? But problems of logic aren't going to disallow loyal conservatives from following the Repub line, just like good Stalinists.

4) Anybody that does not understand that the Democratic party allows for more ideological freedom -- sometimes resulting in confusion, see Biden, Joseph -- and greater diversity in many other ways, well, sometimes it is not possible for a person to not know when his or her head is surrounded by their nether throat.

5) Obama is hardly a liberal, deviating from progressive positions, in several important areas of defense, human rights, transparency of government, and fundamental economic processes.

6) Specter has never been able to explain his relationship with former police chief and Mayor Frank Rizzo. Rizzo was police chief when Specter was elected Phila's DA. Several years later Rizzo was elected Mayor. Rizzo was a scumbag. Some of the Repub scumbags got convicted of felonies recently. Some did not.

7) Red-baiting is back.

Posted by jkrogman at 05/02/2009 @ 11:31am
Having made his name as an unusually successful and vigorous police commissioner, Rizzo campaigned as a law-and-order Democrat in Philadelphia's 1971 mayoral elections. On the merits of his authoritarian approach, which appealed to white ethnic voters, he was elected mayor in November 1971. As mayor, Rizzo continued to support the strong-arm tactics of the police department, and he himself made liberal use of them. He even formed a secret police force that investigated his political opponents. Rizzo claimed that severe law enforcement methods were necessary in a time of rising crime rates, but by 1979, the courts had to decide whether the city of Philadelphia, in its zeal for law and order, had violated the rights of its citizens. On August 3, 1979, the United States District Court, charging that Philadelphia Mayor Frank Rizzo and 18 high-ranking city and police officials either committed or condoned "widespread and severe" acts of police brutality.

@@@@@@@@@ Above from Comptom's

And so on... Now. Let's try some math. When was Reagan elected? And the prosecution petered out. And when was Specter elected Senator?. These guys knew each other, Specter and Rizzo.

Specter is no saint

Posted by jkrogman at 05/02/2009 @ 11:43am

About the Authors

Te-Ping Chen (Posts | Bio)
Christopher Hayes (Posts | Bio)
Greg Kaufmann (Posts | Bio)

More Thoughts on Specter

posted by Christopher Hayes on 04/28/2009 @ 11:59am

About the Authors

Te-Ping Chen (Posts | Bio)

Christopher Hayes (Posts | Bio)

Greg Kaufmann (Posts | Bio)

Archives

» The Beat

» Editor's Cut

» The Notion

» The Dreyfuss Report

» Act Now!

» And Another Thing

» Altercation

More Thoughts on Specter

posted by Christopher Hayes on 04/28/2009 @ 11:59am

Share this article

About the Authors

Te-Ping Chen (Posts | Bio)

Christopher Hayes (Posts | Bio)

Greg Kaufmann (Posts | Bio)

Archives

» The Beat

» Editor's Cut

» The Notion

» The Dreyfuss Report

» Act Now!

» And Another Thing

» Altercation