PDA

View Full Version : Democrat Harlan Specter


ktinkel
April 28th, 2009, 01:40 PM
How interesting: Harlan Spector intends to switch (http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=103570155) parties. The formal announcement will be made tomorrow.

Judy G. Russell
April 28th, 2009, 03:14 PM
How interesting: Harlan Spector intends to switch (http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=103570155) parties. The formal announcement will be made tomorrow.Arlen Spector is a Republican in the mode of old-time Republicans -- what we in NJ would call a Clifford Case Republican. It's becoming increasingly clear that there is no room for that kind of person in today's Republican Party. As a Democrat, I'm delighted. As an American, I'm profoundly distressed.

ktinkel
April 28th, 2009, 04:21 PM
Arlen Spector is a Republican in the mode of old-time Republicans -- what we in NJ would call a Clifford Case Republican. It's becoming increasingly clear that there is no room for that kind of person in today's Republican Party. As a Democrat, I'm delighted. As an American, I'm profoundly distressed.He is, and he isn’t. Claiborne Pell was that sort of Republican; so was Rockefeller (especially in his early days). Not so sure about Spector, who often dithers, then goes along with the Republicans. If that was because of party obligations, perhaps he will be a welcome addition to Democratic ranks. I guess we shall find out.

Whatever else, it is useful to the Democrats at this time.

As for being distressed, I think we need a new right-of-center party; the Republicans seem to be burning bridges right and left.

earler
April 28th, 2009, 05:58 PM
Pell was a moderate democrat, not a republican.

Judy G. Russell
April 28th, 2009, 06:52 PM
Not so sure about Spector, who often dithers, then goes along with the Republicans. If that was because of party obligations, perhaps he will be a welcome addition to Democratic ranks. I guess we shall find out. He has gone along a great deal with GOP actions, especially with Bush initiatives that I would like to have seen him resist, but he has been closer to the center than most of his colleagues. We shall see indeed what he does over the next months running up to the primary (now Democratic primary) next year.

Whatever else, it is useful to the Democrats at this time.I think so, and will be more so if Franken ever gets seated.

As for being distressed, I think we need a new right-of-center party; the Republicans seem to be burning bridges right and left.Well, left anyway.

ktinkel
April 28th, 2009, 07:50 PM
Pell was a moderate democrat, not a republican.Oops — I got the wrong name. I meant Lincoln Chafee.

ndebord
April 28th, 2009, 09:37 PM
How interesting: Harlan Spector intends to switch (http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=103570155) parties. The formal announcement will be made tomorrow.

Kathleen,

In 1965 he became a Republican. Only took him 44 years to repent. Snow and Collins next? And when will Al Franken be seated?

Judy G. Russell
April 28th, 2009, 10:44 PM
And when will Al Franken be seated?I'm concerned now about Tim Pawlenty. He has to sign off to seat Franken. Even if the Minnesota courts declare Franken the winner, I'm not sure Pawlenty will sign off.

ktinkel
April 29th, 2009, 10:57 AM
In 1965 he became a Republican. Only took him 44 years to repent. Snow and Collins next? And when will Al Franken be seated?When the Republicans give up the fight, I suppose.

I remember that Specter had changed back in the 60s. So now I guess we know the left and right boundaries to his positions!

ktinkel
April 29th, 2009, 11:03 AM
I'm concerned now about Tim Pawlenty. He has to sign off to seat Franken. Even if the Minnesota courts declare Franken the winner, I'm not sure Pawlenty will sign off.Evidently the Republicans want — and are willing to fund — a Supreme Court battle over this, and Pawlenty is an ambitious Republican.

Wonder if the Court is at all interested in this one. At this time.

An outcry in the state might persuade Pawlenty. They are, after all, missing a senator.

Judy G. Russell
April 29th, 2009, 04:50 PM
Evidently the Republicans want — and are willing to fund — a Supreme Court battle over this, and Pawlenty is an ambitious Republican. Wonder if the Court is at all interested in this one. At this time. An outcry in the state might persuade Pawlenty. They are, after all, missing a senator.If I were a Minnesotan, I'd be outraged over this. It's been MONTHS for cryin' out loud. As for the SCOTUS, I doubt they have any interest in this at all.

Mike
May 1st, 2009, 02:27 AM
http://www.theonion.com/content/amvo/specter_switches_sides

Judy G. Russell
May 1st, 2009, 08:30 AM
http://www.theonion.com/content/amvo/specter_switches_sidesI love the Onion.

ndebord
May 1st, 2009, 07:55 PM
When the Republicans give up the fight, I suppose.

I remember that Specter had changed back in the 60s. So now I guess we know the left and right boundaries to his positions!

Kathleen,

Spector was PA's answer to NE Republicanism. And he faced a strong challenge in the upcoming primary from a rockribbed conservative of the new ilk (no-nothings) with major money from PA contributors like Mellon. Once again, the secessionist party shot itself in the foot.

ktinkel
May 1st, 2009, 07:59 PM
Specter was PA's answer to NE Republicanism. And he faced a strong challenge in the upcoming primary from a rockribbed conservative of the new ilk (no-nothings) with major money from PA contributors like Mellon. Once again, the secessionist party shot itself in the foot.Maybe. These are weird times. The writhings of the dying Republicans are hard to control.

And of course there are plenty of conservative Democrats — who needs Republicans?

Mike
May 2nd, 2009, 01:08 AM
I love the Onion.
I try to get my daily dose. I know it's not PC, but I even love to read the dead tree version.

ndebord
May 2nd, 2009, 08:08 AM
Maybe. These are weird times. The writhings of the dying Republicans are hard to control.

And of course there are plenty of conservative Democrats — who needs Republicans?

Kathleen,

We need another Republican to cross the aisle.

Judy G. Russell
May 2nd, 2009, 10:42 AM
I even love to read the dead tree version.I didn't know there was one!!

ktinkel
May 2nd, 2009, 11:34 AM
We need another Republican to cross the aisle.That is the mythology. But it is only a myth unless all the Democrats vote together on an issue (or enough Republicans vote that way to make up the difference). Guess we shall see.

Obama is proving to be a fairly clever politician; maybe he will put it all together.

Mike
May 3rd, 2009, 01:19 AM
That is the mythology. But it is only a myth unless all the Democrats vote together on an issue (or enough Republicans vote that way to make up the difference). Guess we shall see.
I have mixed emotions about that.

On one hand, I think that we need all the Demos (I almost typed "Demons") to band together to support the POTUS.

OTOH, I really hate it when politicians vote along party lines. I often wish they'd think independently, and consider what's good for the country, their constituents, and even just "what's right." In particular, since they've been elected by their constituents, I really wish the Reps/Senators would listen to them!

Mike
May 3rd, 2009, 01:25 AM
I didn't know there was one!!
One can subscribe on the web site. In a few larger metro areas (Denver, Chicago, San Francisco, DC, NYC [I think], and a few others), it can be found for free in cluster boxes on the street, as well as in the racks of various merchants who have a variety of the free weeklies we're used to seeing.

Judy G. Russell
May 3rd, 2009, 10:10 AM
Obama is proving to be a fairly clever politician; maybe he will put it all together.As long as he doesn't make any huge mistakes, we should be just fine. I don't ever expect a politician to be good, just not to be awful (ala Nixon or Bush II).

Judy G. Russell
May 3rd, 2009, 10:12 AM
One can subscribe on the web site.If I have to go to the website, I'll just read it there! It's easier. It's funny, for someone who came out of the print media the way I did, I don't read very much in hard copy any more...

ndebord
May 3rd, 2009, 03:45 PM
I have mixed emotions about that.

On one hand, I think that we need all the Demos (I almost typed "Demons") to band together to support the POTUS.

OTOH, I really hate it when politicians vote along party lines. I often wish they'd think independently, and consider what's good for the country, their constituents, and even just "what's right." In particular, since they've been elected by their constituents, I really wish the Reps/Senators would listen to them!

Mike,

As you know, they vote to their primaries, not the general electorate... Chalk it up to sophisticated gerrymandering... A problem we have not even addressed yet.

ktinkel
May 3rd, 2009, 08:51 PM
I have mixed emotions about that.

On one hand, I think that we need all the Demos (I almost typed "Demons") to band together to support the POTUS.

OTOH, I really hate it when politicians vote along party lines. I often wish they'd think independently, and consider what's good for the country, their constituents, and even just "what's right." In particular, since they've been elected by their constituents, I really wish the Reps/Senators would listen to them!

I think we all agree with that in theory, but that is like believing that citizen voters should also try to do what is right, to vote for the best interests of the country.

No representative or senator is elected by a coherent bloc of people united in their interests. The whole process is predicated on negotiation (i.e., compromise). It is frustrating, but also the way things work.

What frustrates me is that the populace bought into much of the wackiness of the Bush administration. I do not now (nor did I ever) understand how normal people could buy into that drivel. Ah, well. Being a realist has its limitations.

ktinkel
May 3rd, 2009, 08:52 PM
As long as he doesn't make any huge mistakes, we should be just fine. I don't ever expect a politician to be good, just not to be awful (ala Nixon or Bush II).I can buy that.

My mother used to remind me that nothing is ever as good as you hope it will be — nor as awful as you fear. The Bush administration made me think she was wrong about the “fear” part, but I tend to be optimistic otherwise.

Judy G. Russell
May 4th, 2009, 12:03 AM
What frustrates me is that the populace bought into much of the wackiness of the Bush administration. I do not now (nor did I ever) understand how normal people could buy into that drivel. Ah, well. Being a realist has its limitations.Well, there was also the minor little problem of Kerry running what was about the singularly worst presidential campaign I'd ever seen (at least until McCain 2008). As I said to my boss, who kept telling me Kerry was campaigning brilliantly, on Election Day, I knew what GWB wanted to do with Social Security. I hated the whole idea, but I knew. With Kerry, all I knew was: "Not what HE said." You can't win like that.

Judy G. Russell
May 4th, 2009, 12:03 AM
My mother used to remind me that nothing is ever as good as you hope it will be — nor as awful as you fear. The Bush administration made me think she was wrong about the “fear” partAin't that the truth...

Mike
May 4th, 2009, 04:04 AM
Yeah, Nick, the who problem with politics is that it's so... political!

Mike
May 4th, 2009, 04:08 AM
No representative or senator is elected by a coherent bloc of people united in their interests. The whole process is predicated on negotiation (i.e., compromise). It is frustrating, but also the way things work.
Oh, agreed, and I don't think that's contrary to what I'd stated. Someone in that position will need to weigh the opinions of a cross-section of the constituents, and there will be some constituents that will be disappointed. That's still different than someone with the attitude of, "Forget what my constituents think, the party says [...]."

What frustrates me is that the populace bought into much of the wackiness of the Bush administration.
I suspect that political scientists in the middle of the century still will be scratching their heads.

Mike
May 4th, 2009, 04:13 AM
If I have to go to the website, I'll just read it there! It's easier. It's funny, for someone who came out of the print media the way I did, I don't read very much in hard copy any more...
Well, the point for subscribing is that it means only one more trip to the web site; after that, the dead-tree copies are delivered in the mail every other week. :-)

I do find myself reading more and more on the web, and I'm actually a bit distressed by it. It's not that I want to have more printed media coming into the house. I really want to get away from the computer! However, I find myself doing my reading as I finish one computer task and prepare for another (e.g., after I finish writing a letter, or finish reading messages here, or finish reading my RSS subs, or ...).

Years ago, I'd spend a couple of hours in the evening, simultaneously watching TV and reading the paper, magazines, a book, ...whatever. Now, I'm reading and doing other chores at the computer, even as I'm watching TV.

<sigh> Life used to be simpler.

(And Brent thinks I like spending time at the computer. I can't seem to convince him that my time at the computer is because I'm getting stuff done, and those tasks would take longer if I didn't use the computer. Should I go back to paper ledgers to keep track of the books?)

Judy G. Russell
May 4th, 2009, 09:29 AM
Brent thinks I like spending time at the computer. I can't seem to convince him that my time at the computer is because I'm getting stuff done, and those tasks would take longer if I didn't use the computer.I find myself resenting the computer evry so often... then I try doing without it and I can't get anything accomplished.

ndebord
May 4th, 2009, 09:48 AM
Oh, agreed, and I don't think that's contrary to what I'd stated. Someone in that position will need to weigh the opinions of a cross-section of the constituents, and there will be some constituents that will be disappointed. That's still different than someone with the attitude of, "Forget what my constituents think, the party says [...]."


I suspect that political scientists in the middle of the century still will be scratching their heads.

Mike,

Primitive people (us) circle the wagons when their leader(s) tell them the Indians are coming... the Indians are coming. Later on, if they find out that they were lied to, they start gathering wood for the bonfire.

Considering that the true believers of the Republican Party have to come to terms with betrayal by their leader and the loss of their place in the pecking order at the same time... one could say that their current behavior is akin to an Ostrich sticking its head in the sand and leaving its ass up into the sky where it can get a good licking!

ktinkel
May 4th, 2009, 11:05 AM
I have mixed emotions about that.

On one hand, I think that we need all the Demos (I almost typed "Demons") to band together to support the POTUS.

OTOH, I really hate it when politicians vote along party lines. I often wish they'd think independently, and consider what's good for the country, their constituents, and even just "what's right." In particular, since they've been elected by their constituents, I really wish the Reps/Senators would listen to them!That is often, even usually, what they try to do. But outside of severely gerrymandered districts, politicians rarely have monolithic electorates. I certainly have never lived anywhere where everyone agreed with me! (Or even all of the rest of them with each other.) So politicians try to attract supporters of enough of the competing interests and issues to get elected.

The Republicans following Newt Gingrich’s takeover a few years ago developed formidable party discipline, and it worked for them. The Dems try to do that, sort of, but remain as Woody Guthrie described in the 1930s: “I don’t belong to an organized political party — I’m a Democrat!”

Mike
May 5th, 2009, 03:09 AM
Primitive people (us) circle the wagons when their leader(s) tell them the Indians are coming... the Indians are coming. Later on, if they find out that they were lied to, they start gathering wood for the bonfire.
Unfortunately, they wait too long to gather the wood.

Mike
May 5th, 2009, 03:14 AM
In particular, since they've been elected by their constituents, I really wish the Reps/Senators would listen to them!That is often, even usually, what they try to do.
Unfortunately, that's not what I'm observing. Definitely, the various elected representatives for my state tend to go with party lines, and one has the "I'm the mommy, and I know what's best for you" attitude.

“I don’t belong to an organized political party — I’m a Democrat!”
That's for sure! (But still, too many of them vote along party lines.)

Mike
May 5th, 2009, 03:15 AM
I find myself resenting the computer evry so often... then I try doing without it and I can't get anything accomplished.
Exactly. It's a necessary evil.

Judy G. Russell
May 5th, 2009, 08:11 AM
The Republicans following Newt Gingrich’s takeover a few years ago developed formidable party discipline, and it worked for them. The Dems try to do that, sort of, but remain as Woody Guthrie described in the 1930s: “I don’t belong to an organized political party — I’m a Democrat!”Ain't that the truth. The price to be paid for a party of people who believe in thinking for themselves, I'm afraid.

Judy G. Russell
May 5th, 2009, 08:12 AM
Exactly. It's a necessary evil.Yep, both necessary and occasionally evil!

ktinkel
May 5th, 2009, 10:33 AM
Well, there was also the minor little problem of Kerry running what was about the singularly worst presidential campaign I'd ever seen (at least until McCain 2008). As I said to my boss, who kept telling me Kerry was campaigning brilliantly, on Election Day, I knew what GWB wanted to do with Social Security. I hated the whole idea, but I knew. With Kerry, all I knew was: "Not what HE said." You can't win like that.No. And he didn’t. Smart man, but not at politics.

ktinkel
May 5th, 2009, 10:37 AM
Oh, agreed, and I don't think that's contrary to what I'd stated. Someone in that position will need to weigh the opinions of a cross-section of the constituents, and there will be some constituents that will be disappointed. That's still different than someone with the attitude of, "Forget what my constituents think, the party says [...]."There are all those interlocking commitments, you scratch my back and then I’ll scratch yours. And a good party whip keeps people in line by all sorts of threats and promises. For better or worse.

But always looking around for his/her best interests doesn’t make legislators look particularly noble either — nor as serving the constituency.

ktinkel
May 5th, 2009, 10:42 AM
Unfortunately, that's not what I'm observing. Definitely, the various elected representatives for my state tend to go with party lines, and one has the "I'm the mommy, and I know what's best for you" attitude.


That's for sure! (But still, too many of them vote along party lines.)I don’t see too much of that in Congress. On the state level, maybe more. But I would be glad to see some Democratic initiatives pass for a change, so perhaps do not complain if they actually seem to be working together.

Most of the time I think the Dems look like a herd of willful cats.

Judy G. Russell
May 5th, 2009, 03:59 PM
No. And he didn’t. Smart man, but not at politics.What continues to amaze me is how my boss kept insisting that Kerry was running a brilliant campaign. I think he thought that right up until the polls closed...

Mike
May 5th, 2009, 11:53 PM
I don’t see too much of that in Congress.
Watch DiFi for a while. She's a Dem, but has her own agenda.

But I would be glad to see some Democratic initiatives pass for a change, so perhaps do not complain if they actually seem to be working together.
As long as they're working because they're in agreement, not because they feel threatened to agree.

Most of the time I think the Dems look like a herd of willful cats.
<nodding>

ktinkel
May 6th, 2009, 10:40 AM
Watch DiFi for a while. She's a Dem, but has her own agenda.I do watch her, sometimes like a hawk. But what agenda does she have that is not compatible with the Democratic agenda? She can be unpredictable at times, but I would never call her non-D.

Today I am close to calling Harlan Specter senile. He said yesterday that Norm Coleman should continue to press for a court decision in his race with Al Franken, saying something like “It would be bad for Franken to win and make the Senate closer to fillibuster-proof.”

When someone asked him to explain, he said, essentially, “Oops — forgot which side I was on.” Maybe that would also explain the two votes he cast yesterday!

Judy G. Russell
May 6th, 2009, 09:53 PM
Today I am close to calling Harlan Specter senile.And what do you call Arlen Specter?

sidney
May 6th, 2009, 10:44 PM
And what do you call Arlen Specter?
That's a different thread!

Mike
May 6th, 2009, 11:10 PM
I do watch her, sometimes like a hawk. But what agenda does she have that is not compatible with the Democratic agenda? She can be unpredictable at times, but I would never call her non-D.
My point isn't to suggest that she's non-D. I do feel, however, that she goes beyond the party to push her own agenda.

For example, a few years ago, she was on a crusade to enact tight control over content on the Internet; otherwise, people might publish information that would allow kids to find instructions to make bombs. Note she didn't feel that libraries should be censored similarly.

Mike
May 6th, 2009, 11:12 PM
In a few larger metro areas (Denver, Chicago, San Francisco, DC, NYC [I think], and a few others), it can be found for free in cluster boxes on the street, as well as in the racks of various merchants who have a variety of the free weeklies we're used to seeing.
Brent saw a report on Wednesday morning's news that The Onion is pulling the print edition from San Francisco and LA. Apparently, ad revenues have declined too much, and those cities no longer are profitable.

Judy G. Russell
May 7th, 2009, 08:51 AM
That's a different thread!Kathleen calls him Harlan, I call him Arlen, let's call the whole thing off!

Judy G. Russell
May 7th, 2009, 08:54 AM
Brent saw a report on Wednesday morning's news that The Onion is pulling the print edition from San Francisco and LA. Apparently, ad revenues have declined too much, and those cities no longer are profitable.Not surprising -- the NY Times just raised its prices to what I frankly consider obscene levels ($2 a day and $5 on Sunday -- $6 if you're not in the metro area) for the same reason.

ktinkel
May 7th, 2009, 09:18 AM
And what do you call Arlen Specter?About what I just called Harlan. And probably should be calling myself!

:o

ktinkel
May 7th, 2009, 09:24 AM
For example, a few years ago, she was on a crusade to enact tight control over content on the Internet; otherwise, people might publish information that would allow kids to find instructions to make bombs. Note she didn't feel that libraries should be censored similarly.Now that makes me very uneasy.

Controlling access by minors (if they can work out a way that really works) would be a good idea. Controlling content? On what is quickly becoming one of the major sources of general information ever conceived? Not good. (And as the Chinese and Iranians are discovering, likely not possible.)

Which is why I watch her like a hawk.

Reminds me of Tipper Gore’s anti-rock’n’roll campaign a decade or so back.

Judy G. Russell
May 7th, 2009, 05:12 PM
About what I just called Harlan. And probably should be calling myself! :oWhat the heck... it's not like it's a common name! (And Harland is used more often than Arlen, that's for sure.)

earler
May 7th, 2009, 05:15 PM
Specter isn't all that nice:

http://www.thedailybeast.com/blogs-and-stories/2009-05-07/beware-of-snarlin-arlen/

ktinkel
May 7th, 2009, 08:01 PM
What the heck... it's not like it's a common name! (And Harland is used more often than Arlen, that's for sure.)Or maybe I am losing it! Sometimes I have to wonder. :(

Mike
May 8th, 2009, 03:01 AM
Reminds me of Tipper Gore’s anti-rock’n’roll campaign a decade or so back.
Yup.

Mike
May 8th, 2009, 03:02 AM
Not surprising -- the NY Times just raised its prices...
The funny thing is that circulation of The Onion in SF and LA was rising steadily! But if no one will advertise...

Judy G. Russell
May 8th, 2009, 08:40 AM
Or maybe I am losing it! Sometimes I have to wonder. :(We're all getting older, darn it all...