Skip to comments.Heads Up! Arlen Specter Switching Parties Today?
Posted on 04/28/2009 8:52:11 AM PDT by kellynla
HUMAN EVENTS has learned from staff sources that Sen. Arlen Specter (R-Pa) is about to announce his switch to the Democratic Party. Developing
(Excerpt) Read more at humanevents.com ...
You are going to get blasted, but your point is well taken...we applauded Zell...perspective is everything.
That means that Obama & Rahm 'dead fish' Emanuel (who is actually running the county - God help us!) now OWN whatever happens. They have no one else to blame!
From the sound of MORE bank bailout money, MORE money for GM and who knows what else they are going to have to explain where the hell they are going to get the money! I think taxpayers have just about had enough!!!
Senator Zellig switching party? Oh the humanity.
LOL! I like them both!
“How about, a party switch immediately initiates a special election?”
When Phil Gramm switched in ‘83, he resigned his House seat, forcing a mid-term special election.
If Specter had any honor, he would do the same.
Yeah, and your "Scottish Law" as well.
Don’t worry. The GOP will still find ways to fund him as an official Democrat.
I hate the GOP. We’ve squandered so much money on this @ss.
Others to watch
Human Events’ top 10 RINOs in the Senate
01. Sen. Olympia Snowe (Maine)
02. Sen. Susan Collins (Maine)
03. Sen. Arlen Specter (Pennsylvania)
04. Sen. George Voinovich (Ohio)
05. Sen. Lisa Murkowski (Alaska)
06. Sen. Mel Martinez (Florida)
07. Sen. John McCain (Arizona)
08. Sen. Richard Lugar (Indiana)
09. Sen. Robert Bennett (Utah)
10. Sen. Thad Cochran (Mississippi)
No we don’t. We have not tailored our candidates to the states they live in...we have to do so. We lose New York and California and start down every presidential election...We have to start competing in other areas-including the North East and other places.
Voinivich is retiring.
Sure, he backed Bush for President and spoke at the RNC convention, but he didn't change the balance of power on Congress.
I forgot that...I should have remembered...Zell was a great governor. I lived in Georgia during the last part of his administration.
Then those people are stupid! Just look at what they help elect. Do they now think Barack-jobs are coming back-Obama is going to fix their problems?! We'll all be lucky to live through the next four freaking years! All because the MSM made Palin out to be the 'bad guy'. Never mind what she stood for. What pure *sses! I hope the MSM and the 'suburbs' are happy with their choice.
He didn't switch parties in the middle of a fight for his country's survival.
... by acquiescing to marxists. It's been a spectacular strategy to this point. Too bad Reagan never adopted it... he really could have been special.
I just saw it - sorry sob -
“But that’s okay. Now the Dems have NO political cover whatsoever. When their agenda fails, they have NO ONE to blaim but themselves. No one.
This is a golden opportunity to stick it to the Dems at every chance. Conservatives only needsd to show some backbone, some discipline, and consistently vote as a bloc against the liberal agenda, and they’ll retake the House in 2010.”
I totally disagree and do not think it is fine. No one is more disgusted by the jelly-spined RINO that is Specter than me. However, ignore everything about his voting record and positions for a moment and remember the “R” next to his name that made him caucus with the Republicans.
So long as we kept the Dem numbers at 58 or even 59 in the Senate, we had the threat of a filibuster which is immensely powerful....even the threat alone is powerful.
Reconciliation required to bypass the filibuster is not a politically popular thing to do and introduces expiration dates (10 years) on bills passed under them....at least it’s something.
Now with a filibuster proof majority, the damage that can be done between now and Jan 2011 is immense...even if we retake control of both the House and Senate, they have the executive to veto any reversals of that damage at least until 2013 by which time new laws may have become ingrained in the electorate psyche and political kryptonite to touch.
I am glad to have him out of the party but right now the timing could not be worse for us. This is personally laudable for our party but politically, absolute devastation.
I'm sorry... what office was Zell holding when he left the democrats? What "gold ring" did he get?
Compromise is not the same thing as acquiescing...Reagan did say that he would rather have an elected official who voted with him 75% of the time then one who vote against him 100% of the time...we have never won outside of the big tent...those who ignore history are doomed to repeat it.
Ah, good point. Because, if I recall correctly, if he'd switched, he would have returned the Republicans to majority status when Jumpin' Jim Jeffords took it away.
Excellent news indeed. One less liberal jerk in the Republican party.
I don’t think this should be allowed. PERIOD! On either side. It’s not right that people donate and vote, then they change parties. To me, that leaves our government wide open for a coup.
.TERM LIMITS would be THE BEGINNING of the END of SOME of the CRAZINESS we see in DC!!!
AMEN to that. I am so tired, so over this, there is a beautiful country that is looking better and better every day. It’s calling my name.
Yeah, I'm as "sorry" as you are. Ol' Zell was a Democrat to the end, even when he was the one giving the liberals their majority. Party loyalty is a wonderful thing.
There is anger directed towards Obama because of the autos-no doubt. However, the general comment is the GOP would be worse. I know, I know. I can’t believe it either. Many are benefiting from the insurance thing (government pays 70 % of cobra), retraining money and unemployment extensions. You have to understand what has happened here...good jobs lost for good. People are fearful and many believe that capitalism does not work...no kidding (thanks Wall Street Bankers who are not real capitalists), they may vote for a nanny government IE Dems. That being said, there is a chance if the GOP gets its act together and starts putting out some good solutions. We know the conservatives are right. Now we must get our message out.
better now then 10/2010...
“No we dont. We have not tailored our candidates to the states they live in...we have to do so. We lose New York and California and start down every presidential election...We have to start competing in other areas-including the North East and other places.”
I couldn’t agree with you more but it seems political pragmatism translates to treason around here. A tree I have barked up for many a moon and keeps getting cut down in front of me.
Very well said...
You and me both... principles are great, but being in a permanent minority (God forbid) doomed to watch our country heading in the wrong direction but powerless to stop it is my version of hell. People we have to do what it takes to win, then we can get some of ideas turned into policy...maybe not all, but some.
Are you old enough to remember Reagan? I mean really remember him because he did build a big tent and won...Reagan did not see compromise as abandoning principle either. We can not win with just the base...it’s a fact. If we don’t win, we are irrelevant...footnotes in time.
Our Constitution specifically states that the POTUS and Vice POTUS have TERM LIMITS.
For the Supremes to interpret the Constitution in favor of NO term limits for Congresscritters seems strange to me.
I agree, it makes no sense. This has to be changed or our government is doomed. It will collapse or we will eventually have an armed revolt and it won’t be pretty.
When it's the most destructive ideology mankind has ever known, yes, they are the same. Compromise is mutual. Marxism doesn't compromise. When only one side compromises, that's acquiescence. It's precisely what got us where we are today.
Reagan did say that he would rather have an elected official who voted with him 75% of the time then one who vote against him 100% of the time
Rather than a paraphrase of Reagan, I'll give you his exact words on the subject:
A political party cannot be all things to all people. It must represent certain fundamental beliefs which must not be compromised to political expediency, or simply to swell its numbers.
- Ronald Reagan (CPAC, 1975)
Well, the asshole is finally lining up with the other assholes. Good riddance.
I heard Rush open his program with this today.
Quoting Gov Goodhair: “Adios MOFO.”
If he does he can kiss his career goodbye.
ROTFLMAO. Just choked on a pretzel!
I can’t comment until I’ve consulted the Scottish law.
Reagan is an ideal that is unrealistic to many conservatives, they don’t take the time to dig up the verifiable history of Reagan policy and diplomacy.
For some reason Reagan is often painted by conservatives as a “no new taxes”, staunch social conservative and a no government libertarian when in reality, he was a brilliantly pragmatic politican. He championed many of our causes, knew he couldn’t champion them all, but took what he could get and in the end got a lot becuase he was willing to maneuver.
The fact that Reagan raised taxes 7 times (every year but one) during his 8 years points to the fact that he was a realist and his realism and his reasoning skills made him a superb politician as properly defined. The definition being willing to compromise and acting pragmatically in the face of reality.
Clean out the party ... purge it of all the RINO’s!
Make it a CONSERVATIVE party once again ...
Good news for a change!
The RINO’s gone!
The RINO’s gone!
Ding! Ding! Dong!
That shows that those folks care more about being reelected than they do about principles. How any decent, even moderate Republican could switch to a liberal democrat shows they have no scruples at all.