Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : I Will Continue to Continue, to Pretend.... -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Sully- who wrote (30329)	4/29/2009 12:55:10 PM
From: Sully-	1 Recommendation Respond to of 35834

Hat tip to Peter Dierks: TOOMEY: Arlen Specter's betrayal Will embolden Democratic drive toward the welfare state By Pat Toomey \| Wednesday, April 29, 2009 Sen. Arlen Specter's switch to the Democratic Party has implications on a personal and national scale. For Pennsylvanians, who must decide who will represent us in the U.S. Senate next year, the stakes are personal. A central question will be whether Mr. Specter can be trusted on anything. In recent weeks, Mr. Specter has made numerous statements about how important it is to deny Democrats the 60th seat in the U.S. Senate and how he intended to remain a Republican to prevent one-party dominance in Washington. What Pennsylvanians have to ask themselves now is whether Mr. Specter is, in fact, devoted to any principle other than his own re-election. On that question, there is much evidence. Mr. Specter began his political career as a Democrat, switched to the Republican side out of political convenience and has switched back for the same reason. On issue after issue, he has changed his position over the years to benefit his political calculations. The most recent example is card check, which denies workers a secret ballot in labor-union elections. First Mr. Specter supported it, then he opposed it when faced with Republican primary opposition, and now, who knows? That's something Pennsylvania Democrats will have to contend with. Do they really want to nominate someone who will switch his principles on a dime? If Mr. Specter's political expediency were only a personal matter, it would hardly be worth noting. However, the national implications are more serious. By switching parties, Mr. Specter guarantees the very thing he has vocally warned against: a one-party Democratic monopoly of the federal government. Just a few months ago, Mr. Specter said avoiding one-party dominance was vital for our country. He was right then. Unfortunately, his desire for political self-preservation trumped his previously stated view of the vital interests of our country. But Pennsylvania voters will have the ability to correct this situation in next year's election. I believe the Democratic Congress' reaction to the current recession has brought our country to a crossroads. On one path, we have the most massive growth in federal spending in our nation's history. The biggest debt in history. Taxpayer-funded bailouts of failed Wall Street firms and Detroit automakers, the likes of which we have never before seen. And the promise of massive tax increases next year. Mr. Specter, of course, voted in favor of all of this when he was still a Republican, so in that sense, not much will change. But he will embolden House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid to take our country even further down the road to a European-style welfare state. The other path is more familiar to Americans. It is the path of limited government, free enterprise and personal responsibility, which have been the hallmarks of America's success for generations. That is the path that will lead us to economic recovery. It is the path I will advocate in my campaign for the U.S. Senate in Pennsylvania. I do not believe that the rejection of the Republican Party in the 2006 and 2008 elections was a rejection of those principles. Rather, too many Republicans in Washington became enamored with, and indeed corrupted by, big government. After all, the "Bridge to Nowhere" was a Republican-sponsored earmark. Voters threw the Republicans out of Congress because they didn't like the Republicans' performance. And there was much to dislike. Unfortunately, the pendulum has swung much too far in the other direction, with record-shattering wasteful spending increases. Now, the Specter-empowered Democratic supermajority will go even further. In 2010, voters will say "Enough is enough." In the parlance of economics, there will be a "market correction." Americans who voted for the nice-sounding but content-free notion of "change" in 2008 will vote again to say "not so fast; even more power in the hands of Washington politicians is not the change we had in mind." And when Pennsylvanians look at Arlen Specter's role in this political power grab, they will reject him, too. Pat Toomey is a former Republican member of the House of Representatives and is a candidate for his party's nomination to the U.S. Senate from Pennsylvania. washingtontimes.com

To: Sully- who wrote (30329)	4/29/2009 3:17:34 PM
From: Sully-	Respond to of 35834

Without essential help from the party that is so intolerant of people like him, Arlen Specter would already be a former senator today. It is not the party but the voters in Pennsylvania who have stopped tolerating Specter. Specter's Blame Game David Freddoso The Corner The departure of Arlen Specter looks very bad for the GOP. You never want to lose anyone. But could Senate Republicans have stopped it? No, not once it became clear that he was going to be trounced in his primary. Specter's problem is not the party in the sense of its leadership or direction, but rather with the Republican voters in Pennsylvania. Arlen Specter switched from Democrat to Republican in 1965 so that he could win an election. He is now doing the reverse for precisely the same reason. If we take Arlen Specter's word for why he is leaving, we have to accept the idea that the stimulus vote represented some kind of huge turning point for him. In fact, Specter's apostasy on that vote was less remarkable than several others — for example, his vote on the Employee Free Choice Act, or his courageous refusal to vote either "yes" or "no" on Bill Clinton's impeachment. The reason the stimulus vote matters is that it matters to voters and has become an issue in the primary — which again, is the only reason Specter is leaving the Republican Party. If we take Specter's word, then the GOP has become intolerant of moderate politicians like himself. On this score, Specter appears to have a severe case of amnesia. Exactly five years ago, the national Republican Party swooped into Pennsylvania and saved him from certain defeat at the hands of Rep. Pat Toomey (R). Valuable presidential time was sacrificed on his behalf. Also sacrificed for Arlen Specter was the reputation of his conservative colleague, Rick Santorum (R), who never recovered. From that moment forward, he lost his core constituency, and was easily defeated two years later by a pro-life Democrat. Without essential help from the party that is so intolerant of people like him, Arlen Specter would already be a former senator today. It is not the party but the voters in Pennsylvania who have stopped tolerating Specter. If we take Specter's word, then conservatives act in bad faith when they become involved in the political process and try to elect the candidates of their choice. Conservatives should disengage from the political process and stop challenging people like Arlen Specter. They should not organize — whether through groups like the Club for Growth or otherwise — nor should they participate in the political process, nor donate to nor vote for candidates they prefer. Specter noted this afternoon that the Club worked against several moderates, including Sen. Lincoln Chafee (R, R.I.), who won his primary but lost his general election in 2006. Chafee did not even vote for President Bush in 2004, but like Specter he received a great deal of money and help from the Republican Party in his primary. Reps. Joe Schwarz (R, Mich.) and Wayne Gilchrest (R, Md.) are two moderate victims of the Club for Growth whom Specter mentioned today. They were not being sore losers, but rather acted in good faith when they lost their respective primaries to conservatives and then turned around and endorsed the Democratic nominee in the general election. (Note that when he lost to Specter in 2004, Pat Toomey endorsed him immediately.) Conservatives must be team players in the GOP, but if moderates behave differently, we blame the conservatives who challenge them for subsequent disunity and defeat. What is funny is that without any action so far by the Club for Growth, social conservatives, or anyone else, Republican voters in Pennsylvania have been lining up to end Specter's career, as the polls demonstrate. That is why Specter does not want to be judged by them. It is the only reason he has left the party. corner.nationalreview.com

To: Sully- who wrote (30329)	4/29/2009 3:36:47 PM
From: Sully-	Respond to of 35834

What Specter Means in the Senate Michael G. Franc The Corner Senator Arlen Specter’s decision to switch parties prompts one observation as to the new balance of power in the Senate: Like nature, the Senate abhors a vacuum. Now that the Democrats appear to have reached the all-important 60-vote threshold, the weight of the world will rest atop the shoulders of heretofore ignored moderate Democrats. These new darlings of the national media include Ben Nelson of Nebraska, Mark Pryor and Blanche Lincoln of Arkansas, Evan Bayh of Indiana, Mary Landrieu of Louisiana, Claire McCaskill of Missouri, and Byron Dorgan and Kent Conrad of North Dakota. All eyes will also be on at many as three freshmen Democrats — Mark Begich of Alaska, Michael Bennet of Colorado, and Kay Hagan of North Carolina. Why? Specter’s switch means that at least one Democratic vote — and often two or three — will be required to torpedo way-out liberal legislation. Moderate Democrats can no longer sit back and laugh as Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R., Ken.) tries to maintain perfect unity among his ideologically diverse caucus, with the national media focused on nasty intramural GOP blood feuds. No, moderate Democrats will soon realize that they are the only ones standing between President Obama and some monumental (and uber liberal) legislative accomplishment. Thanks to Specter, they have no choice but to suit up and be held accountable to their constituents for the work product of this Congress. This inevitable and heightened scrutiny may prove to be more a curse than a blessing. The above named moderates, after all, hail from decidedly conservative states. According to 2008 state exit polls, self-identified conservatives outnumbered liberals by the following lopsided margins: State % Conservatives % Liberals Alaska 47 12 Arkansas 45 17 Colorado 36 17 Indiana 36 20 Louisiana 42 16 Missouri 36 19 Nebraska 36 17 North Carolina 37 19 North Dakota 36 16 Thus far, moderate Democrats from decidedly conservative states have happily signed on to the Obama/Reid/Pelosi agenda. But, now that even Keith Olbermann must admit that they represent the balance of power in Washington, will the moderates begin to feel that pressure? Will they feel confident enough to sign on to new energy taxes, government-run health care, and weakened defenses against plotting terrorists and rogue nuclear-armed nations if their undeniably conservative constituencies understand that it was their vote that, in the end, made the difference? Don’t count on it. corner.nationalreview.com

To: Sully- who wrote (30329)	4/29/2009 3:42:04 PM
From: Sully-	Respond to of 35834

D., Himself By the Editors National Review Online Arlen Specter belongs to a type familiar to Congress: the time-serving hack devoid of any principle save arrogance. He has spent three decades in the Senate but is associated with no great cause, no prescient warning, no landmark legislation. Yet he imagines that the Senate needs his wisdom and judgment for a sixth term. He joined the Republican party out of expediency in the 1960s, and leaves it out of expediency this week. Those who attribute his defection to the rise of social conservatism are deluding themselves. It is not as though he has been a reliable vote for any other type of conservatism. He has stood apart from the mainstream of his party on welfare reform, trade, taxes, affirmative action, judicial appointments, tort reform, and national-security law. The issue that finally caused an irreparable breach with Republicans was the stimulus bill. Some Republicans are blaming Pat Toomey for pushing Specter out of the party by challenging him from the Right. But it is not Toomey’s fault that Specter is out of step with Pennsylvania Republicans. Whatever they think of the prudence of his challenge at the time he announced it, conservatives should be rooting for Toomey now. Reporters are lazily saying that the Democrats will now have a filibuster-proof majority in the Senate, but in truth whether that majority holds will depend on the issue. Specter’s defection by itself will not make it possible for Democrats to pass their bill to effectively abolish the secret ballot in unionizing elections, or to enact a cap on carbon emissions. We can safely assume that the Republicans’ task, already difficult, just got harder. They will have less room to play an inside game of parliamentary maneuvers, and will therefore need even more to appeal to the public at large. They will, that is, have to work to make bad ideas unpopular ideas as well. Which is what their principal task was already. We are not sure why self-respecting liberals would vote to have Specter as their representative. Most Democrats believe the country is with them and Pennsylvania even more so; why not have a true believer in the seat? We rarely give Democratic primary voters advice and still less frequently see it taken. But here’s hoping that Pennsylvania Democrats become the second party to turn down Specter’s dubious services. article.nationalreview.com

To: Sully- who wrote (30329)	4/29/2009 4:07:11 PM
From: Sully-	Respond to of 35834

Flashback to 2004 David Freddoso The Corner Who wants to bet that this ad, featuring George W. Bush, makes a comeback in next year's Pennsylvania Democratic primary? <<< youtube.com "I'm here to say it as plainly as I can — Arlen Specter is the right man for the United States Senate. I can count on this man. See, that's important. He's a firm ally when it matters most." >>> corner.nationalreview.com

To: Sully- who wrote (30329)	4/29/2009 4:10:56 PM
From: Sully-	Respond to of 35834

Senator Snowe Laments Senator Specter's Party Switch Veronique de Rugy The Corner Sen. Olympia Snowe has an op-ed in the New York Times today where she laments losing her friend Sen. Arlen Specter to the Democrats. She writes: <<< It is disheartening and disconcerting, at the very least, that here we are today — almost exactly eight years after Senator Jim Jeffords left the Republican Party — witnessing the departure of my good friend and fellow moderate Republican, Senator Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania, for the Democratic Party. And the announcement of his switch was all the more painful because I believe it didn’t have to be this way. >>> She blames it on the Republican party, which has become, she thinks, a mean-spirited, small-minded conservative party that doesn’t like different ideas. <<< It is true that being a Republican moderate sometimes feels like being a cast member of “Survivor” — you are presented with multiple challenges, and you often get the distinct feeling that you’re no longer welcome in the tribe. >>> Later she writes: <<< It is for this reason that we should heed the words of President Ronald Reagan, who urged, “We should emphasize the things that unite us and make these the only ‘litmus test’ of what constitutes a Republican: our belief in restraining government spending, pro-growth policies, tax reduction, sound national defense, and maximum individual liberty.” He continued, “As to the other issues that draw on the deep springs of morality and emotion, let us decide that we can disagree among ourselves as Republicans and tolerate the disagreement. >>> But while she wants the Republican party to be accepting of her positions on the other issues, she seems to forget that often she doesn’t even pass the “litmus test” of core economic issues. She, like Specter, voted for the stimulus bill package. I don't understand well all the consequences of Specter's defection to the other side, but it seems to me that no matter how painful it might be, that's probably what the Republican party needs. corner.nationalreview.com

To: Sully- who wrote (30329)	5/5/2009 3:57:25 AM
From: Sully-	Respond to of 35834

If you didn't despise Arlen Specter enough already.... Betsy's Page This attempt to make political hay over the passing of Jack Kemp by Arlen Specter should be enough to curdle your stomach. <<< Sen. Arlen Specter, Pennsylvania Democrat, said part of the reason he left the Republican Party last week was disillusionment with its healthcare priorities, and suggested that had the Republicans taken a more moderate track, Jack Kemp may have won his battle with cancer..... "Well, I was sorry to disappoint many people. Frankly, I was disappointed that the Republican Party didn't want me as their candidate," Mr. Specter said on CBS's "Face the Nation." "But as a matter of principle, I'm becoming much more comfortable with the Democrats' approach. And one of the items that I'm working on, Bob, is funding for medical research." Mr. Specter continued: "If we had pursued what President Nixon declared in 1970 as the war on cancer, we would have cured many strains. I think Jack Kemp would be alive today. And that research has saved or prolonged many lives, including mine." >>> I'd rank that right up there with John Edwards claiming that electing John Kerry would help Christopher Reeve to walk again, a claim that Charles Krauthammer rightfully disdained five years ago. <<< This is John Edwards on Monday at a rally in Newton, Iowa: "If we do the work that we can do in this country, the work that we will do when John Kerry is president, people like Christopher Reeve are going to walk, get up out of that wheelchair and walk again." In my 25 years in Washington, I have never seen a more loathsome display of demagoguery. Hope is good. False hope is bad. Deliberately, for personal gain, raising false hope in the catastrophically afflicted is despicable. >>> Well, you can now add in Arlen "I'll say and do anything to hold onto political office" Specter. betsyspage.blogspot.com