BF2S Forums Democrats guaranteed Super Majority; Arlen Specter Switches Sides

Turquoise wrote:

Kmarion wrote:

There is an election coming up. Until then my official postion is (fart).

The Dems virtually had a super majority. All they needed was one or two defectors. .. something Specter did anyways. This entire thread is much ado about nothing. Do people really think it means something because this guy changed his official label?

Yes.  It matters because of the effect it has on public perceptions of the GOP.

When a highly established Senator leaves one party for another, that makes the party being left behind look bad.

For example, had Lieberman actually switched to the GOP instead of to being independent, it would've made the Democrats look a lot worse.

Specter's move is indicative of what his party was about to do to him in terms of primaries and also indicative of the party shift of many of his constituents.

If nothing else, this shows that the Republicans have a long way to go in turning Pennsylvania back into a true swing state.

Right the public didn't already see the Republicans that way . You must have missed the last three elections. If that didn't tell you that the GOP needed a kick in the ass nothing will. The wake up call was already absurdly obvious. Spector is ADMITTEDLY self serving. He has been trying to make the GOP looks bad for years. This "switch" comes as absolutely no surprise.

Again, this doesn't really mean jack crap when you are already within two seats. If you want to play around in the touchy feely and potential implications of this move have ball. What it actually does in terms of legislative power means more to me. If anything it's going to solidify the right against him. I literally lol at the idea that there are actually people out there that think that his move will force a single person on the right to reconsider their political alignment. It is almost as funny as calling Ron Paul an ally of the GOP. Anti-Republicans will make a big deal out of it though. The reasons are quite obvious. The surprise isn’t that Specter switched sides now, it’s that it took him this long to do it. If not for Toomey getting into the race and quickly jumping out to a 21 point lead Specter would still be a Republican... period.

This isn't about the Republican party, they clearly need restructuring. You don't need Alren f'n Specter to clue you in on that. It's all about the inevitable ass kicking that was about to be unleashed on Specter if he stayed a Republican. To say that he is switching parties because of his core values while simultaneously betraying his constituents is ridiculous. Specter isn't inline with the GOP, nor the DEMS. Specter is inline with himself and which ever way the wind blows. We know this to be true of most politicians. This fella is just especially transparent.

Lotta_Drool wrote:

lowing wrote:

Lotta_Drool wrote:

Lowing-

The Republicans nominated him, then elected him, he is still representing them but now has a " D " behind his name.  He is the same damn person with same liberal views.  Can't help it if the Republican party is so fucking liberal they border Democrats now.  Keep voting Republican, I am sure they will get on that border thing and balanced budget right away /BIG TIME SARCASM

Who gives a shit, it changes nothing.  Just like Bush and Republicans holding everything for 2 years changed nothing.

If it didn't matter like you insist, then there was no need to change parties was there? Fact is, it does matter, and you know it.

Would you feel better if he kept the " R " behind his name and still voted with the Dems and ran in their Primary for nomination.

See, it doesn't matter.  Just take some time and think it through. 

If people had to vote a certain way because of what party they were nominated by then they could all just stay home and never debate bills, read bills, or be present for bills because their vote would be a given.  Yet this doesn't happen and people like McCain and Spector vote with the Dems all the time.

No, I would feel better if he were recalled and the voters could have a change of heart about their vote just like this dipshit had about his party

Lotta_Drool wrote:

lowing wrote:

Lotta_Drool wrote:

Would you feel better if he kept the " R " behind his name and still voted with the Dems and ran in their Primary for nomination.

See, it doesn't matter.  Just take some time and think it through. 

If people had to vote a certain way because of what party they were nominated by then they could all just stay home and never debate bills, read bills, or be present for bills because their vote would be a given.  Yet this doesn't happen and people like McCain and Spector vote with the Dems all the time.

No, I would feel better if he were recalled and the voters could have a change of heart about their vote just like this dipshit had about his party

I don't.  The people had 2 chances to vote in somebody else, the primary and the general election.  Both times they picked a person that cares more about HIMSELF than HIS COUNTRY.  They have done this consistantly for 20+ years and this is what is fucking up my country.

The problem is not him changing parties, it is HIM.  and that is who they elected.

Actually both times, they picked a republican

Kmarion wrote:

Right the public didn't already see the Republicans that way . You must have missed the last three elections. If that didn't tell you that the GOP needed a kick in the ass nothing will. The wake up call was already absurdly obvious. Spector is ADMITTEDLY self serving. He has been trying to make the GOP looks bad for years. This "switch" comes as absolutely no surprise.

Well, I can't disagree with the GOP needing a kick in the ass.

I'm just saying Specter's the kind of guy that does well with moderates.  As a moderate myself, I've always liked him.  But again, show me a politician that isn't self-serving.

Kmarion wrote:

Again, this doesn't really mean jack crap when you are already within two seats. If you want to play around in the touchy feely and potential implications of this move have ball. What it actually does in terms of legislative power means more to me. If anything it's going to solidify the right against him. I literally lol at the idea that there are actually people out there that think that his move will force a single person on the right to reconsider their political alignment. It is almost as funny as calling Ron Paul an ally of the GOP. Anti-Republicans will make a big deal out of it though. The reasons are quite obvious. The surprise isn’t that Specter switched sides now, it’s that it took him this long to do it. If not for Toomey getting into the race and quickly jumping out to a 21 point lead Specter would still be a Republican... period.

Alrighty, I didn't realize you took this that personally.

Kmarion wrote:

This isn't about the Republican party, they clearly need restructuring. You don't need Alren f'n Specter to clue you in on that. It's all about the inevitable ass kicking that was about to be unleashed on Specter if he stayed a Republican. To say that he is switching parties because of his core values while simultaneously betraying his constituents is ridiculous. Specter isn't inline with the GOP, nor the DEMS. Specter is inline with himself and which ever way the wind blows. We know this to be true of most politicians. This fella is just especially transparent.

Well, when looking at it that way, you might as well not even vote.  I mean...  To be honest, I'm tempted to not bother with 2010 myself.

God help us all

Great analogy. Maybe that's why Obama has a mancrush on Reagan.

AussieReaper wrote:

You don't turn your back on the party you've been involved with for two decades lightly.

I think part of why he did this is so the Republicans can see the damage they are doing not only to their voter moderate base but to the politicians who represent them.

You do if you want to keep your job.

Kmarion wrote:

AussieReaper wrote:

You don't turn your back on the party you've been involved with for two decades lightly.

I think part of why he did this is so the Republicans can see the damage they are doing not only to their voter moderate base but to the politicians who represent them.

You do if you want to keep your job.

The more I think about it, the more it just goes back to how the Founding Fathers warned against parties.  Instead of parties, we should just have individuals that run on their own merit rather than attaching themselves to some collective.

Turquoise wrote:

Kmarion wrote:

AussieReaper wrote:

You don't turn your back on the party you've been involved with for two decades lightly.

I think part of why he did this is so the Republicans can see the damage they are doing not only to their voter moderate base but to the politicians who represent them.

You do if you want to keep your job.

The more I think about it, the more it just goes back to how the Founding Fathers warned against parties.  Instead of parties, we should just have individuals that run on their own merit rather than attaching themselves to some collective.

Exactly! Most of them did at least. I'm currently reading a great series on American history by Oxford. The cult of political parties is a disease. What Hath God Wrought is pretty freaking dark tbh. It deals mostly with the Jackson era. I know it's not exactly late breaking news... but what an expansionist empirical prick.

AussieReaper wrote:

Kmarion wrote:

AussieReaper wrote:

You don't turn your back on the party you've been involved with for two decades lightly.

I think part of why he did this is so the Republicans can see the damage they are doing not only to their voter moderate base but to the politicians who represent them.

You do if you want to keep your job.

How far ahead do you think he was looking when he made this decision, just until the next election, after it?

He has only guaranteed his job for the time it was already guaranteed. Come the next vote he may have pissed off Republicans like lowing who vote simply along party lines... Or the Democrats place a new contender for his position (less likely however).

This was a scramble, plain and simple. He was behind significantly in the polls. His state has a closed primary. Party switching (getting the Dem vote) is the only chance he has.

Turquoise wrote:

Kmarion wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

The more I think about it, the more it just goes back to how the Founding Fathers warned against parties.  Instead of parties, we should just have individuals that run on their own merit rather than attaching themselves to some collective.

Exactly! Most of them did at least. I'm currently reading a great series on American history by Oxford. The cult of political parties is a disease. What Hath God Wrought is pretty freaking dark tbh. It deals mostly with the Jackson era. I know it's not exactly late breaking news... but what an expansionist empirical prick.

I think you meant to say imperialist, not empirical, but I agree.    Isaac Newton was more the empirical type. 

EDIT:  Ah...  looks interesting...

Going back to Jackson though...  It does seem like the Treaty of Guadalupe was a mistake in hindsight.  We should've conquered Mexico.

Last edited by Turquoise (2009-04-30 21:26:49)

Turquoise wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

Kmarion wrote:

Exactly! Most of them did at least. I'm currently reading a great series on American history by Oxford. The cult of political parties is a disease. What Hath God Wrought is pretty freaking dark tbh. It deals mostly with the Jackson era. I know it's not exactly late breaking news... but what an expansionist empirical prick.

I think you meant to say imperialist, not empirical, but I agree.    Isaac Newton was more the empirical type. 

EDIT:  Ah...  looks interesting...

Going back to Jackson though...  It does seem like the Treaty of Guadalupe was a mistake in hindsight.  We should've conquered Mexico.

We would have just been getting illegal aliens from further down South. Should have just conquered all of North and South American. That would have totally solved illegal immigration.

Macbeth wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

I think you meant to say imperialist, not empirical, but I agree.    Isaac Newton was more the empirical type. 

EDIT:  Ah...  looks interesting...

Going back to Jackson though...  It does seem like the Treaty of Guadalupe was a mistake in hindsight.  We should've conquered Mexico.

We would have just been getting illegal aliens from further down South. Should have just conquered all of North and South American. That would have totally solved illegal immigration.

It's much easier to close the Mexican border connected to Guatemala than our own border with Mexico.  Mexico still has problems with illegals, but that's because their government is shit.