Go Gators

Former pub Senator, Alan Spector of Pennsylvania announced today that he was leaving the Republican Party and becoming a Democrat. Apparently he was motivated by the fact that the rightwing fringe of the party had put up an extreme rightwing opponent against him in the pub primary next year.

So the pubs have driven another member away because of his lack of ideological purity. Apparently, they would rather not govern at all if they have to have a "heretic" like Spector, who was a pretty middle of the road pub, in their party.

So the dems will have a fillibuster proof majority as soon as Al Franken is seated. And the pubs are increasingly becoming know as the party of the pup tent.

And all you guys on this board can congratulate each other that another heretic has been expelled while your party becomes as inbred as those families in West Virginia and Tennessee, where, as Jeff Foxworthy said, the rednecks go to family reunions to get girls. Let the inbreeding continue, but don't expect to be governing again any time soon.

evidently you don't understand that it's cyclical, he knew he ws going to get his ass kicked, so he did what most all politicians do, do what they need to do to hang on for survival. I wouldn't be shocked to see the pubs gain some seats back in 2010, the honeymoon is about over...

But before you jump on me about being a rush listening to W loving right wing nut, let me just say i'm very disappointed, and have been for quite some time, nor did i think Bush did a very good job, especially w/ his spending and expanding the Gov't, woulda thought y'all would have loved him for that... Don't know who i'll vote for in 4, but another deadbeat Pub, nope...

Now TL, back to your regular "nanny nanny look at me" posting

Glad to see you are back, T'ville; I missed you.

I do understand that it is cyclical, but I don't think that is what is predominant here. Cyclical is when a party has been in power so long that they start to think they are bullet proof; i.e. the dems in Congress between 1950 and 1994. The cycle turns when the public gets disgusted with the excesses of those who have forgotten they are not guaranteed re-election.

I think the Bush thing was too short to termed a "cycle." I would say it was one of those perfect storms in a political sense where arrogance, greed and incompetence combined to just about destroy the Republican party. I think the last election was a sea change that may signal an extended period of dem rule .

As to Spector, I don't think he will be the last pub moderate to see the grass as greener in the dem pasture. With the disasterous election, for the pubs, the people whose philosophy was primarily responsible for that loss have seized the levers of power in the Republican party and aren't going to give them up any time soon. These are the true believers. These are the "compromise is treason" wing of the party. If you don't have the requisite ideological purity, you are going to be figuratively thrown into the outer darkness. Senator Snow's op-ed in the NYT touched on this phenomenon.

I just don't see how a party that walks in rigid lock step can expect to ever get enough of regular Americans to vote them into office on a National scale.

Here's something for your reading pleasure.


http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la- ... 7819.story

Specter admitted it was to save his political career Thunder Turd. His vote on the bailout killed him....as it should. I see he didnt vote yes on the budget.

Well again, like the true Kool Ade imbiber, you missed the point. What you say is true, but the reason he left the party was because the Project for Progress or whatever its called had targeted him in the next election by running an ultra right pub against him. Instead of running in the primary against a true neocon purist that the 20% of Americans who still identify themselves as republicans would hand the nomination to, Spector chose to switch parties, win the Democratic primary and hand the neocon his a$$ in the general election. Net result - the pub "dispciplined" for his votes switched partys and has the pub rump party facing a veto proof majority of dems in the Senate.

I understand 4 or 5 other pub senators who have been targeted by this same right wing group are not running as pubs in their next election cycle. Wonder how many of them will resurface as dems? Really brilliant strategy, doggie, your party is driving off the only people who would give them a chance in hell of becoming politically relevant again, and all the clones like you are cheering and nodding their heads wisely at the breathtaking stupidity of the present day Republican party.

Oh, I changed my registration to Democrat, like a lot of other folks in my home county who have, doubtless despaired of ever having a Republican party that stands for things Americans want in their lifetimes.

No...YOU MISSED THE POINT. He did it so he could remain in the Senate.....period. Evidently he no longer has the support of the people he was elected to serve or he wouldnt be in this shape. I dont know what you define as ultra right wing but if that is what he is losing too then it is well within the constitutional construct for those people to elect whomever they feel best represents them. Wouldn't you agree that's how Franken won in Minn.?

Afraid you are still wrong. Why don't you demonstrate to me how it helps the Republican party to target one of its own Senators because they don't like a couple of his votes, thereby almost guaranteeing that the party will have one senator less on its side of the aisle after the 2010 elections? You still overlook that just winning a Republican primary doesn't guarantee winning the general election in an increasing number of states. Just because you can beat somebody who is not as ideologically pure as you are doesn't mean squat in an electorate that has put somebody like Spector in office over and over again for almost 30 years.

OF COURSE people elect whomever they feel best represents them. Thats the big problem for republicans at this pass. Fewrer and fewer Americans feel the Republican party DOES BEST REPRESENT THEM. Taking aim at a Senator with lots of tenure because he doesn't vote the party line on a couple of votes is like eating your young - it may be satisfying; but in the end you're eventually going to starve. Instead of folding in upon itself mouthng the same old shibboleths, the pubs should be trying to expand their base to the middle - that's where elections are won or lost.

Meh, Democrat party will implode soon enough, the moderates are being pushed to the side, and then it starts over again. Like watching a soap opera, plenty of pre planned drama, and the same thing happens again and again... But hey, if it toots your horn to get all giddy and beat on your chest, so be it...

Not sure I agree. Although Obama was portrayed by the pubs in the election as a wild-eyed liberal, I didn't get that idea reading his book. His performance in the first 100 days of his term shows him to be a pragmatist rather than an ideologue. I think he is sincerely trying to do the right thing for the country, and has had some set tos behind the scene with the more liberal wing of the dems. You can disagree with his approach to issues like health care and the bail outs, but I think most people in the country think he is truly trying to represent all Amricans and do the right thing by them, as he very eloquently showed in his press conference last night.

TL



Joe Lieberman. Remember him? He got the same treatment did he not? And you were onboard wholeheartedly. You can sugarcoat all you want but he cant get re-elected as a pub so he jumped ship like the true traitor he is. Why dont you demonstrate to me how having one party entirely in control of the govt without anyone to slow them down, essentially making it one party rule, helps the country? It sure as hell doesnt represent ALL americans I can tell you that.

I keep asking these tough questions and you keep changing the subject. What has Joe Lieberman to do with whether the pubs made a tactical mistake in assailing Spector with one of the "issue organizations and put a rightwingnut against him that porbably won't win the general elections?

I understood that Joe Lieberman was in the same position Spector was in and made a decision to save his political life. And as to Spector being a "traitor," were you aware he was a dem before he was a pub?

I almost broke my arm when I fell on the floor laughing about your sudden concern about one party government. You had six years to be concerned about that a little while ago and I heard nary a peep about "one party government. That one, misinformed comment says everything that need be said about your partisanship, doggie.

I am sure your fall was padded by your overgrown vagina..saving your arm. It wouldnt surprise me what Spector was..he has been all over the map for 30+ years but that doesnt change the fact that Lieberman was thrown under the bus the same way and had an ultra liberal put against him as well. I am trying to remember the filibuster power the republicans had during the time that held both houses......hmmmm..I dont seem to recall that. Do you? Apples and Oranges but your being willfully ignorant about he subject in the first place or just dumb.

Pray tell, doggie, what activist left wing organization was pushing to get Lieberman defeated? And on what do you base the assertion that his opponent was an "ultra liberal?"

And just a little civics lesson. The "filibuster power" is held only by the Senate. filibusters are allowed in the House.

And you call me dumb.

And they now have 60 in the senate which means there is nothing to check the dems in the senate and the last time I checked BOTH houses have to pass a bill so what fking difference does it really make? Look up George Soros for the answer to you question on Lieberman.

I said willfully ignorant or dumb. A monkey can google.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/05 ... seniority/

Looks like Arlene got taken for a ride. What a whore he is.

Specter switched mainly because it was politically expedient to do so. But whatever his reason, it does not bode well for the party. The R's are cheering good riddance to Specter, Powell, and to some degree even the likes of McCain. They want ideological purity. They may get that, but if that's the way they go, they will be the minority party for quite some time. Looking at who is left and who their spokespeople are, that is fine with me.

The ongoing debate will be between left wing Democrats and moderate democrats. The republicans will largely be irrelevant.

You are mistaken. The conservative wing of the party will do just fine. When the 2010 election roll around it wont be mod. dems against lib. dems, it will be mostly conservative rep. against dems that ran as mods. but then came in line as they got their marching orders from Pelosi and Reid. I watched Jim Webb on Stephanopoulus yesterday and he looked like a fool, dancing around his past comments about military tribunals and statements about gitmo and now trying to hedge those statements to come in line with the admin. They have overplayed their hand....as usual.