Democrats guaranteed Super Majority; Arlen Specter Switches Sides

2009-04-28 17:00:52

#1

Macbeth: Banned; +2,444|5835

Veteran Pennsylvania Sen. Arlen Specter switched from the Republican to the Democratic Party on Tuesday, saying he has found himself increasingly "at odds with the Republican philosophy."

"This is a painful decision. I know I'm disappointing many of my colleagues," he said at a news conference announcing the move. "The disappointment runs in both directions.

"I'm putting principle at the top of the list," he added.

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.

"As the Republican Party has moved farther and farther to the right, I have found myself increasingly at odds with the Republican philosophy and more in line with the philosophy of the Democratic Party," Specter said.

http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/04/28/ … index.html
Democrats 59/100 In the Senate.
If Al Franken finally gets confirmed for the senate seat it'll bring Democrats a 60/100 control of the Senate. They'll be no way to stop them.
I did not foresee this turn of events.

2009-04-28 17:09:57

#2

ATG: Banned; +5,233|6779|Global Command

Well, you have to know which guys are consideed rhinos; he ws one, as is mccain.

I say fuck 'em.

Things in America will devolve to the point that we get a viable third party or a revolution.

I don't care which anymore tbh.

2009-04-28 17:11:39

#3

S.Lythberg: Mastermind; +429|6697|Chicago, IL

I did, the Republican party committed suicide when they decided to let the Ultra right relidgumaniacs dictate the party policies. Until the party splits or restructures, the Democrats will be able to wreak whatever havoc they want to.

I think its proof of how far gone the Republican party is that even long time members are seriously considering jumping ship.

Last edited by S.Lythberg (2009-04-28 17:12:05)

2009-04-28 17:21:47

#4

Macbeth: Banned; +2,444|5835

Wow I'm surprised bf2s isn't shit storming about the Democrats soon going to have total control over the Senate. Impressed and disappointed.

2009-04-28 17:27:24

#5

Mekstizzle: WALKER; +3,611|6871|London, England

Meh, your Senate runs much less along party lines anyway. Probably has to do with the six year terms and non-populace voting unlike your lower house.

Still, it just shows how bad things are for the Republicans after 8 years of........dubious governance...

Last edited by Mekstizzle (2009-04-28 17:27:40)

2009-04-28 17:31:32

#6

S.Lythberg: Mastermind; +429|6697|Chicago, IL

A third of those democrats are up for reelection in a year, hopefully they've learned from watching the Republicans fail to not stray too far from the middle.

2009-04-28 17:38:07

#7

Kmar: Truth is my Bitch; +5,695|6851|132 and Bush

Provided Spector is a party line voter.. which he isn't.

Xbone Stormsurgezz

2009-04-28 18:28:26

#8

13rin: Member; +977|6729

Kmarion wrote:
Provided Spector is a party line voter.. which he isn't.

Right. He's self serving, so unless he's pretty well paid off.

I stood in line for four hours. They better give me a Wal-Mart gift card, or something. - Rodney Booker, Job Fair attendee.

2009-04-28 18:56:16

#9

Turquoise: O Canada; +1,596|6655|North Carolina

DBBrinson1 wrote:
Kmarion wrote:
Provided Spector is a party line voter.. which he isn't.
Right. He's self serving, so unless he's pretty well paid off.

What politician isn't? Specter is actually a highly respected Senator. He's always had a lot of bipartisan appeal, so if anything, this is more indicative of what others have been saying about the GOP leaning too far rightward.

2009-04-28 19:02:41

#10

13rin: Member; +977|6729

Turquoise wrote:
DBBrinson1 wrote:
Kmarion wrote:
Provided Spector is a party line voter.. which he isn't.
Right. He's self serving, so unless he's pretty well paid off.
What politician isn't? Specter is actually a highly respected Senator. He's always had a lot of bipartisan appeal, so if anything, this is more indicative of what others have been saying about the GOP leaning too far rightward.

I know of a few. I'm lucky too, cause they are in my State.

Last edited by DBBrinson1 (2009-04-28 19:03:30)

I stood in line for four hours. They better give me a Wal-Mart gift card, or something. - Rodney Booker, Job Fair attendee.

2009-04-28 19:07:46

#11

AussieReaper: ( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°); +5,761|6403|what

Hooray!!!

I think this quote:

"As the Republican Party has moved farther and farther to the right, I have found myself increasingly at odds with the Republican philosophy and more in line with the philosophy of the Democratic Party," Specter said.

actually sums up a lot of public opinion also.

The Republicans need to move more towards centre and stop alienating the once great majority of people it represented.

2009-04-28 19:21:18

#12

Lotta_Drool: Spit; +350|6433|Ireland

OMG, OMG, now the Democrats and Republicans will still be running the show in Washington. OMG, OMG, another century of tearing down my country.

Who fucking cares if it is people with an " R " or " D " behind their name that is destroying my country with open borders for illegals, high taxes, and deficit spending. Like it is going to make me feel better if it is the republicans in charge fucking me up the ass every day.

I am rooting for the terrorists to get it right next time and hit the white house. I once would have died to protect the government, now it couldn't keep me from missing a rerun of M.A.S.H. on T.V. The US government is now the biggest threat to American citizens, their Country, and their freedom.

2009-04-28 19:23:28

#13

BN: smells like wee wee; +159|7018

Lotta_Drool wrote:
The US government is now the biggest threat to American citizens, their Country, and their freedom.

HELLO!

Someone speaking some sense.

2009-04-28 19:46:32

#14

FEOS: Bellicose Yankee Air Pirate; +1,182|6661|'Murka

I think if an elected official changes party affiliation, it should generate a special election to ensure the people still want that individual to be their elected representative. If they are kept in office at that point, fine.

“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular

2009-04-28 19:48:31

#15

S.Lythberg: Mastermind; +429|6697|Chicago, IL

FEOS wrote:
I think if an elected official changes party affiliation, it should generate a special election to ensure the people still want that individual to be their elected representative. If they are kept in office at that point, fine.

Assuming you voted based on the mans personal views rather than his party affiliation, It shouldn't matter. If you vote solely by the letter after their name, you don't really deserve a say.

2009-04-28 19:53:46

#16

chittydog: less busy; +586|7085|Kubra, Damn it!

S.Lythberg wrote:
FEOS wrote:
I think if an elected official changes party affiliation, it should generate a special election to ensure the people still want that individual to be their elected representative. If they are kept in office at that point, fine.
Assuming you voted based on the mans personal views rather than his party affiliation, It shouldn't matter. If you vote solely by the letter after their name, you don't really deserve a say.

Yeah, this. His whole point is not that he's changing views, but that he believes the Republicans are moving so far to the right as to no longer match his viewpoints.

I'm generally happy with the Dems having a majority, but I don't like any one party having too much of a majority. Our government was built on checks & balances and we need to keep those in place. Look what happened to the Republicans after having a President and majority in Congress for so long.

2009-04-28 19:55:50

#17

FEOS: Bellicose Yankee Air Pirate; +1,182|6661|'Murka

S.Lythberg wrote:
FEOS wrote:
I think if an elected official changes party affiliation, it should generate a special election to ensure the people still want that individual to be their elected representative. If they are kept in office at that point, fine.
Assuming you voted based on the mans personal views rather than his party affiliation, It shouldn't matter. If you vote solely by the letter after their name, you don't really deserve a say.

The assumption is that if their views have changed enough to warrant changing their party affiliation, then they might not hold the same views they purported to hold when elected.

I am one who votes for the person, not the party. But I would look mighty close at the person if they made such a radical change in affiliation.

As for the impact to American governance, it's just taking us further down the wrong road. We went down this road for most of W's presidency. We went down this road with Billy until 1994. There needs to be another 1994 to even things out...the Executive and Legislative Branches should be controlled by different parties to maintain effective checks and balances.

Last edited by FEOS (2009-04-28 19:57:50)

“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular

2009-04-28 20:00:16

#18

S.Lythberg: Mastermind; +429|6697|Chicago, IL

FEOS wrote:
S.Lythberg wrote:
FEOS wrote:
I think if an elected official changes party affiliation, it should generate a special election to ensure the people still want that individual to be their elected representative. If they are kept in office at that point, fine.
Assuming you voted based on the mans personal views rather than his party affiliation, It shouldn't matter. If you vote solely by the letter after their name, you don't really deserve a say.
The assumption is that if their views have changed enough to warrant changing their party affiliation, then they might not hold the same views they purported to hold when elected.

I am one who votes for the person, not the party. But I would look mighty close at the person if they made such a radical change in affiliation.

As for the impact to American governance, it's just taking us further down the wrong road. We went down this road for most of W's presidency. We went down this road with Billy until 1994. There needs to be another 1994 to even things out...the Executive and Legislative Branches should be controlled by different parties to maintain effective checks and balances.

Balance will be restored, but we need a few years of total democrat dominance to force the republicans to change their stance

2009-04-28 20:21:28

#19

Diesel_dyk: Object in mirror will feel larger than it appears; +178|6244|Truthistan

ROFL The best statement made by Specter at his news conference

The social conservatives in America, "they don't make any bones about their willingness to lose the general election if they can purify the party." And the republicans should not sit by and let these people control the party, "there ought to be a rebellion." minute 18:50

Here is a link to the whole news conference, MSNBC cuts off the internet video before he says the really good stuff

CSPAN Good stuff starts at about Minute 17:50

Specter lists of the failures of the party. Bush nominated 13 circuit judges and 21 district judges, all were left ont he table for Obama largely because a group called the "Club for Growth" defeated Lyn Chaffee in a primary and cost the Republican Chaffee the election and the result was that the republicans lost control of the senate in 2007 and 2008.

If the Republicans don't take notice of this defection, they are doomed as a national party.

2009-04-28 20:55:03

#20

lowing: Banned; +1,662|6901|USA

He should be recalled. He was voted in as a republican and the people have a right to be represented by one. His change reflex a false pretence of his election.

2009-04-28 21:43:51

#21

Lotta_Drool: Spit; +350|6433|Ireland

lowing wrote:
He should be recalled. He was voted in as a republican and the people have a right to be represented by one. His change reflex a false pretence of his election.

They elected a politician only concerned with what is in it for him, and that is still who is representing them.

They got exactly what they elected, an entrenched member of the 2 party system that is destroying the country.

2009-04-28 23:57:49

#22

Catbox: forgiveness; +505|6966

Shocker... Specterd was going to lose in 2010 as a Republican... so he switched to the Democrats...
There is no difference between Rep or Dem...
all self serving... do what they want.... and what they think is best for us(with extremely poor results)...
and then tax the shit out of us to help us prosper... makes sense to me....
http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/pittsbu … 13850.html

Vote out all incumbents in 2010 and 2012...

and Nancy Peloser... f@ck her... she is out her mind...

"Very exciting, very exciting for the American people, because now we can get things done without explaining process," Pelosi told CNN's Candy Crowley
http://briefingroom.thehill.com/2009/04 … n-process/

Why should they have to explain anything to the people that elected them..???? time to retire Grandma...

Love is the answer

2009-04-29 02:04:54

#23

AussieReaper: ( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°); +5,761|6403|what

lowing wrote:
He should be recalled. He was voted in as a republican and the people have a right to be represented by one. His change reflex a false pretence of his election.

You vote for someone on the policy they present, not the little letter affixed to their name on the ballot. If you do, you deserve to get fucked with your vote then.

Last edited by AussieReaper (2009-04-29 04:07:52)

2009-04-29 03:00:54

#24

Poseidon: Fudgepack DeQueef; +3,253|6787|Long Island, New York

[TUF]Catbox wrote:
Shocker... Specterd was going to lose in 2010 as a Republican... so he switched to the Democrats...
There is no difference between Rep or Dem...

You know, you say that, yet all I see is you consistentely bashing Democrats. For someone who supposedly thinks there's no difference between the two, you sure love to bash one side.

AussieReaper wrote:
lowing wrote:
He should be recalled. He was voted in as a republican and the people have a right to be represented by one. His change reflex a false pretence of his election.
You vote for someone on the policy the present, not the little letter affixed to their name on the ballot. If you do, you deserve to get fucked with your vote then.

Precisely.

2009-04-29 05:08:23

#25

lowing: Banned; +1,662|6901|USA

AussieReaper wrote:
lowing wrote:
He should be recalled. He was voted in as a republican and the people have a right to be represented by one. His change reflex a false pretence of his election.
You vote for someone on the policy they present, not the little letter affixed to their name on the ballot. If you do, you deserve to get fucked with your vote then.

That "little letter affixed to their name on a ballot" is meant to denote what ideology the individual stands for. People do vote along party lines. He was elected as a republican and therefore is expected and should be obligated to vote on issues accordingly. His election was done under false pretence. No different than Obama elected as a democrat than after his election becoming a republican. His head would be called for on a platter, and rightfully so.

Last edited by lowing (2009-04-29 07:32:47)

BF2S Forums Democrats guaranteed Super Majority; Arlen Specter Switches Sides

Kmarion wrote:

DBBrinson1 wrote:

Kmarion wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

DBBrinson1 wrote:

Kmarion wrote:

Lotta_Drool wrote:

FEOS wrote:

S.Lythberg wrote:

FEOS wrote:

S.Lythberg wrote:

FEOS wrote:

FEOS wrote:

S.Lythberg wrote:

FEOS wrote:

lowing wrote:

lowing wrote:

[TUF]Catbox wrote:

AussieReaper wrote:

lowing wrote:

AussieReaper wrote:

lowing wrote:

Board footer