Tuesday, April 28, 2009
Specter's Party Switch
After his long career as a senator, Arlen Specter finally faced what looked like sure defeat in the next Republican primary. In a desperate attempt to cling to power, he has now switched parties. Naturally he released some statements pretending otherwise, but it should be obvious to all that this is nothing more than a cynical attempt to extend his already too-long stay in the Senate. Hopefully it won't work and he'll be defeated in the Democratic primary instead.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
> "it should be obvious to all that this is nothing more than a cynical attempt to extend his already too-long stay in the Senate."
ReplyDeleteHave you no shred of awareness?
"Hopefully it won't work and he'll be defeated in the Democratic primary instead."
Dream on.
"Have you no shred of awareness?"
ReplyDeleteIs that supposed to mean something? Let me guess, you actually think Specter switched parties because of some sort of principle. That's pretty funny. A little over a month ago Specter was insisting that he would remain a Republican.But the challenge from Pat Toomey looked insurmountable. Specter isn't ready to retire yet, and he couldn't go independent in PA. Switching to Democratic is the only way for him to stay in power.
"Dream on."
It wouldn't be a surprise at all. Specter is not exactly wildly popular with Democrats -- unless he plans to alter positions such as his opposition to card check. But since he's clearly willing to do almost anything to stay in power, maybe he will toe the line with his new party.
Some sort of principle? For some definition of principle--Specter represents moderates. His people changed their registration to Democrat to vote in the more contested Obama-Clinton primary, so he's following them because Pennsylvania has closed primaries.
ReplyDeleteYour lack of awareness is in calling it a too-long stay in the Senate; he's still one of the best Senators this country has had, one who often actually votes against his party when they're wrong.
He's actually closer to your views than most Republicans on some issues, like choice and gay rights. But since you're so invested in defending Cheneyism, I guess this won't matter to you.
So keep dreaming of some lefty Dem defeating him. The only reason to do so is out of your misplaced spite, for whoever the Democrats nominate was sure to beat any Republican besides Specter in 2010.
"Some sort of principle? For some definition of principle--Specter represents moderates. "
ReplyDeleteSo what? That has nothing to do with this situation, which was a purely cynical move to stay in power.
"Your lack of awareness is in calling it a too-long stay in the Senate"
29 years is too long for anyone to be in the Senate. I'm against that type of incumbency for anyone.
"he's still one of the best Senators this country has had, one who often actually votes against his party when they're wrong."
He votes against his party when he disagrees with them. Let's see if he's willing to do that with the Democratic party too.
"He's actually closer to your views than most Republicans on some issues, like choice and gay rights."
I know. He's basically a moderate Republican. But he's also a Washington establishment fixture.
"But since you're so invested in defending Cheneyism"
That's news to me. I'm no fan of Dick Cheney and haven't ever defended "Cheneyism," whatever that's supposed to be.
"So keep dreaming of some lefty Dem defeating him."
I don't care about it all that much in terms of issues. He's probably better than most Democrats that might take his place. But I think he's overstayed his welcome. And I certainly don't like politicians who knife the party I support in the back.
"only reason to do so is out of your misplaced spite"
What's misplaced about it? Who likes politicians who abandon their side and join the opposition in order to stay in power?
Let's start with those who actually like politicians who've long done what they think is best for people, rather than their 'side'.
ReplyDeleteCheneyism refers to the rightist and nationalist policies best exemplified by Dick Cheney, which you support.
"Let's start with those who actually like politicians who've long done what they think is best for people, rather than their 'side'."
ReplyDeleteSpecter has done whatever he thinks regardless of the people he is representing. There's nothing particularly admirable about that. And even if it were, that has no bearing on his current move.
"Cheneyism refers to the rightist and nationalist policies best exemplified by Dick Cheney, which you support"
Is Cheneyism a new made-up term that means, "anyone I disagree with"? I thought neo-con was the term of choice for that.
I disagree with Cheney at least as much as I agree with him. He certainly doesn't represent any coherent philosophy that I support. Saying that my positions are "Cheneyism" is kind of like saying that I'm a "Dawkinist," because I'm an atheist and agree with Dawkins on evolution.
On the issues you disagree with Specter, you agree more with Cheneyism. That is my point, and it's not difficult to understand.
ReplyDeleteI didn't call you a "Cheneyist", because which pol you'd like to identify the most with is your own business. I couldn't begin to guess other than it's probably someone who knows how to play the anti-Semite card.
"On the issues you disagree with Specter, you agree more with Cheneyism. That is my point, and it's not difficult to understand."
ReplyDeleteIt is because it doesn't make much sense. You could just as easily say that on issues I disagree with Cheney, I agree more with Specter. Would that indentify me with "Specterism"? And as far as Cheney goes, most of what I've written here has been harshly critical -- certainly by Republican standards. So identifying me with "Cheneyism," is kind of strange, to say the least.
"which pol you'd like to identify the most with is your own business."
I don't. Since I have a weird mix of views, I can't think of any major politician who represents them. And I'm inherently skeptical and suspicious of politicians in general.
"other than it's probably someone who knows how to play the anti-Semite card"
Yeah, I'm always accusing people of anti-Semitism -- practically every other post.
> You could just as easily say that on issues I disagree with Cheney, I agree more with Specter. Would that indentify me with "Specterism"? And as far as Cheney goes, most of what I've written here has been harshly critical -- certainly by Republican standards. So identifying me with "Cheneyism," is kind of strange, to say the least.
ReplyDeleteYou're critical of him personally and as an ineffective (and embarrassing) politician, but not so much of his policies. The later is what I refer to as Cheneyism.
I've criticized the Bush administration repeatedly, and Cheney specifically -- for things like his extreme view of executive power. Just because I'm not consumed with BDS doesn't mean I somehow identify with Cheney on a policy level. I agree with him on some issues, but even where I agree, it's often for much different reasons.
ReplyDelete