Comments on: Arlen Specter Switches To Democratic Party

By: soullite

soullite — Wed, 29 Apr 2009 16:01:24 +0000

That the Democrats got nothing from this proves something I’ve thought for a long time: They are actively, deliberately standing in the way of progress. they aren’t trying and failing to delivery. They are actively trying not to deliver. They want EFCA to fail. They want the right wing power grabs of this decade to stay in effect. They want people tortured. They want a small group of elites to have near total control over this country.

Why else do this? A more progressive democrat would have won this election, and we’d have gotten those things. Arlen Specter got PERKS for joining, he didn’t even have to make concessions. He needed us a lot more than we needed him. The democrats are actively cock-blocking everyone to their left right now. Why should we both supporting them?

By: Sean D. Martin

Sean D. Martin — Wed, 29 Apr 2009 07:17:11 +0000

CSS: I think it’s a choice between pageantry and trying to get something done. The former would only work if the Republicans could be shamed into doing the right thing. I don’t think they can.

They’re pretty shameless, true. But giving in whenever a filibuster is just threatened isn’t much of a way to accomplish anything either. AT least by making them follow thru their obstructionism would be on greater display (driving more from the Repub party?) and it would weaken their claim that it’s the Dems that do nothing.

By: Jaim

Jaim — Wed, 29 Apr 2009 06:59:54 +0000

This link’s goin’ out my my main wing-nut Jay:

Speculation That Biden Engineered the Specter Defection:

http://theplumline.whorunsgov.com/republican-national-committee/happy-hour-thread-biden-had-fourteen-conversations-with-specter-this-year/

By: C.S.Strowbridge

C.S.Strowbridge — Wed, 29 Apr 2009 06:58:15 +0000

QiaB: “A filibuster doesn’t actually require anyone to stand up and talk nonstop. All it takes is for one guy to hang around and demand a quorum call every time the majority tries to get anything done.”

Sean: “Yeah, but I do agree with SFC B on this part. The Dems should stop giving in to threats, grow a back bone, act like they’re actually in charge and make the Repubs actually do it”

I think it’s a choice between pageantry and trying to get something done. The former would only work if the Republicans could be shamed into doing the right thing. I don’t think they can.

By: C.S.Strowbridge

C.S.Strowbridge — Wed, 29 Apr 2009 06:57:02 +0000

Jaim: “What’d really be nice? Finding a strong progressive who could beat him Specter in the primary and then trounce loony-tune wing-nut Toomey.”

Hell yeah.

By: Jaim

Jaim — Wed, 29 Apr 2009 06:41:09 +0000

IMO, it’s more of a “horrible news for the GOP” thing than it is good news for Dems.

What’ll matter is how he goes on cloture. With Franken seated, I’m thinking it’ll still be good in a short-term, tactical way for Obama’s agenda.

What’d really be nice? Finding a strong progressive who could beat him Specter in the primary and then trounce loony-tune wing-nut Toomey.

So overall it’s good for Dems and America. And what the hell, when is it ever not fun to see the further disintegration of the wing-nut party? The GOP is comedy gold, as usual.

By: Bruce

Bruce — Wed, 29 Apr 2009 02:57:15 +0000

Not good news for liberal Democrats, at all. Specter will extract higher prices for his votes to placate a purple base.

Somebody remember to ask Harry Reid whether Arlen’s ass tastes like Lieberman’s.

By: Jaim

Jaim — Wed, 29 Apr 2009 01:42:22 +0000

yo mama writes “Obama’s agenda is *not* good for me. I would know. It’s my money I’ll be losing. And have lost some of already.”

Was Bush’s agenda of ruining the economy and cutting the Dow’s value in half good for you? Or anyone else for that matter? Didn’t think so.

By: Sean D. Martin

Sean D. Martin — Wed, 29 Apr 2009 01:19:10 +0000

SFC B: There are a half dozen cable news networks who would probably devote the time to cover a Senator sitting on the Senate floor calling for a quorum call. … The Republicans would actually risk that shitstorm over confirming some putz for some cabinet position? I doubt it.

Exactly.

By: SFC B

SFC B — Wed, 29 Apr 2009 00:56:36 +0000

A filibuster doesn’t actually require anyone to stand up and talk nonstop. All it takes is for one guy to hang around and demand a quorum call every time the majority tries to get anything done.

And it’s Reid’s decision to allow the Republicans to get away without doing that. This isn’t 1988. There are a half dozen cable news networks who would probably devote the time to cover a Senator sitting on the Senate floor calling for a quorum call. Keith Olberman would jack-off off camera at the thought of being able to comment on such obvious Republican obstructionism. Running totals of the money being squandered by the Senate’s inaction due to Senator R’s obstructing of President Obama and the Senate Democrat’s Noble Mission. The Republicans would actually risk that shitstorm over confirming some putz for some cabinet position? I doubt it.

By: Jaim

Jaim — Wed, 29 Apr 2009 00:15:41 +0000

To Jay, Jay Tea, Dennis, and all the other wing-nut loons on O-dub.com:

/Nelson Muntz voice

HA-HA!!!

By: Quaker in a Basement

Quaker in a Basement — Wed, 29 Apr 2009 00:00:37 +0000

The Dems should stop giving in to threats, grow a back bone, act like they’re actually in charge and make the Repubs actually do it

I suppose they could. But it would have to be at a time when they were willing to allow the GOP to bring all Senate business to a complete halt. Until there are quite a few more confirmations for key positions, that time isn’t here yet.

By: Sean D. Martin

Sean D. Martin — Tue, 28 Apr 2009 23:54:47 +0000

QiaB: A filibuster doesn’t actually require anyone to stand up and talk nonstop. All it takes is for one guy to hang around and demand a quorum call every time the majority tries to get anything done.

Yeah, but I do agree with SFC B on this part. The Dems should stop giving in to threats, grow a back bone, act like they’re actually in charge and make the Repubs actually do it

By: C.S.Strowbridge

C.S.Strowbridge — Tue, 28 Apr 2009 23:51:16 +0000

Dave in SoCal: “According to some recent reports, a long-serving and widely known Republican in Name Only senator…”

He was more conservative than Ben Nelson was liberal. Voted with the Republicans more than the Democrats. Do you think that will stay the same?

By: Southern Quaker

Southern Quaker — Tue, 28 Apr 2009 23:25:46 +0000

especially in areas where most energy comes from coal-fired plants.

speaking as someone who lives in an area that (a) gets its energy from coal-fired plants, and (b) is being devastated by the removal of said coal, I’d just as soon the rest of y’all start paying the true cost of the damned stuff!

By: Sean D. Martin

Sean D. Martin — Tue, 28 Apr 2009 23:25:45 +0000

Jay Tea: When I wrote my comment, the reports were all still speculative about Specter.

Oh, I call bullshit. It’s right there at the top of the page. “Veteran Republican Sen. Arlen Specter announced Tuesday that he is switching parties“. You going to bend reality again and tell us your comment in response actually came before OW’s posting which started this whole thread?

By: Southern Quaker

Southern Quaker — Tue, 28 Apr 2009 23:25:43 +0000

especially in areas where most energy comes from coal-fired plants.

By: Dave in SoCal

Dave in SoCal — Tue, 28 Apr 2009 22:36:21 +0000

According to some recent reports, a long-serving and widely known Republican in Name Only senator was just welcomed into the Democratic party because ~~his old party has moved too far right~~ they recognized the obvious tactical and political advantages to doing so. Specter is just making it official.

By: yo mama

yo mama — Tue, 28 Apr 2009 22:09:02 +0000

Their agenda is not better for me. I own thousands of ounces of silver, and quite a bit of gold too. A capital gains increase costs me money. I’ve seen the stock I own nosedive since cap and trade has been brought up too. And any piddly tax cut we all get will be urinated away in utility expenses, especially in areas where most energy comes from coal-fired plants. And I already have a good, affordable health care plan, so I don’t need his handouts. It’s even gotten to the point that I will not claim any income on my LLC just so I don’t have to pay taxes on it. It’s all cash now baby. Cash for me, but not for Uncle Sam. Add on the fact that he’s tripled our debt, and eventually, we’re pretty much all screwed.

Obama’s agenda is *not* good for me. I would know. It’s my money I’ll be losing. And have lost some of already.

By: Quaker in a Basement

Quaker in a Basement — Tue, 28 Apr 2009 21:59:20 +0000

How long do you think it would take of continous talking before the handful of Republicans necessary to end the filibuster would switch in that circumstance?

Right there’s the problem, SFC. A filibuster doesn’t actually require anyone to stand up and talk nonstop. All it takes is for one guy to hang around and demand a quorum call every time the majority tries to get anything done.