Specter: The Joy of Schadenfreude
I am delighted that Arlen Specter (R-PA) is now Arlen Specter (D-PA).
But I am not sure how much it matters. With the President's decision to push through his top agenda items by means of reconciliation -- i.e, dodging the need for 60 -- we probably don't need Specter during this Congress anyway. And after the 2010 elections, we'll be above 60.
Nonetheless, I am very excited about this because it is partial payback to the GOP for what they have done to America in recent years and especially since 2000.
The party of Lincoln and Eisenhower is now a party which, unlike any major party in our previous history, openly wishes ill on the country. One does not have to possess ESP to know that Dick Cheney not only predicts that an act of terrorism will occur under President Obama, he wants another 9/11. And he is typical of the Republican right.
That is the key difference between the two parties. On 9/11, it never occurred to Democrats not to rally behind a Republican President simply because we are Americans before we are Democrats. But the Republicans openly reject the legitimacy of both the current and previous Democratic President. And if the terrorists strike they will blame the Democrats.
That is who they are now. I am no Arlen Specter fan but neither he, nor Collins, Snowe nor the few other moderates belong there.
So I am glad to have Specter. But I am mainly glad because this defection has dealt another body blow to the least patriotic Americans I know -- the Republican right. They are suffering right now. They have to endure a liberal President (who is black, fer crying out loud), a Democratic Congress, and now a filibuster proof Senate.
Poor Republicans!!!!!! Tonight we should all get high and just laugh and laugh and laugh.
Come on, M.J., we're liberals...Of course we're gettin' high!
April 28, 2009 3:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm sure Fox Noise and O'Reilley will be lionizing Spector for his courage.......sorry, that only happens when Democrats become Republicans.
April 28, 2009 7:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
You're largely right about today's conservative Republicans; they're nuts. Still trying to prove Obama is secretly a Muslim, or a foreign born, or an alien. Denying man-climate climate change, and evolution. Sure that the current economic problems were caused by the 1977 Community Redevelopment Act.
But you're a liar about everything else (as usual).
The party of "Lincoln and Eisenhower"...as if the Left approved of Eisenhower. Bullshit. It charactized him they way it characterized Bush - as a nitwit puppet who could hardly speak English. Forgotten the God-fearing Dulles, the devil in disguise?
The Left and 911? It took only about 10 minutes before they were blaming America for it. It was our foreign policy which caused the Muslims to behave as they did. Osama was right.
The Left with a full grasp of reality? What a joke. Overpopulation? Impossible, a distraction.
Peak oil with no viable alternatives? Never. An oil company plot. Peaceful resolution of all problems is possible, of course (if it requires rich Americans to part with their treasure)...but attack and kill Israelis. To War! To war! Think I'm exagerating? Just look at DanK's posts on Bernard Avishai's recent Israeli intelligence thread.
I don't know what to say, Rosenberg. I'd appeal to your integrity but I know you don't possess any.
April 28, 2009 3:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
What a load of irrelevancies here. MJ is not talking about obsolete 220 year old French semantics such as "the Left," nor about killing Israelis, even West Bank terrorist Israelis. If you "don't know what to say" why not leave and go take a real good look at a West Bank settlement, preferably one not stocked with your friends and relations? Look closely at what it does to the land and people around it, and then you can talk about lack of integrity.
MJ's point is really very simple. Republicans of intelligence and moderation that have not already left the party are finding convenient opportunities to do so. Embracing extremism and stupidity at the same time, as Republican honchos did in the Cheney-Bush era is not a recipe for long term success, especially in a literate democracy.
April 28, 2009 6:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
That's your best shot? That "the Left" is a 220 yr old outmoded concept? That I should go to a West Bank settlement not stocked with my friends and relations (how do you know I have any in the new settlements?) to see how things REALLY are (as if you know and I don't).
I notice that the Left is increasingly taking on the worst characteristics of the Right; accusations of disloyalty following any serious disagreements, love it or leave it, loser, coward.
Pathetic because you can't do it well. Pathetic because it's so obviously copy cat. Pathetic because it's such an overwhelming indicator of total intellectual bankruptcy. Intellectual bankruptcy is an absolute disaster for you - you have no other achievements or abilities.
"MJ's point is really very simple. Republicans of intelligence and moderation that have not already left the party are finding convenient opportunities to do so"
Aside from the fact that many here (beginning with Bushie) are not so generous in their descriptions of Spector, if Rosenberg had simply said that I never would have commented. Why read Rosenberg for something so obvious? But Rosenberg wanted to make it something much more...and he lied to do it. Besides what I've already said it should be obvious that Rosenberg likes Eisenhower for one reason only; Eisenhower kicked the Israelis out of Sinai. That's why he asks Obama to emulate him.
April 28, 2009 7:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
Ordinary: "Pathetic because it's such an overwhelming indicator of total intellectual bankruptcy."
Projection?
April 28, 2009 7:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
Ordinary said:
April 29, 2009 8:52 AM | Reply | Permalink
You (and DanK) were the ones who accused me of disloyalty (and cowardice) on the Israeli intelligence thread because of my support for Israel. My first response was to say you were slinging mud. My second was to answer your questions. My third was the one you quoted. My fourth was to elaborate on my ideas of morality as they applied to the conflict and ask you to respond. You didn't.
So why are you carrying your bullshit to this thread? It's about something very different. I said then "you suck" and I'll say it again. Your main claim to fame on this site is that you did military service. So what? So did every other able bodied man of draft age (and many who were either older or younger) in the United States of that time.
April 29, 2009 10:37 AM | Reply | Permalink
A short list of people on the Left:
Me, FDR, Truman, JFK, the late Sen.Paul Wellstone, Sen. Russ Feingold, Sen. Chuck Schumer,
Rep. Gary Ackerman, Rep. Jerrold Nadler, Rep. Henry Waxman, Steven Spielberg, George Soros, Glenn Greenwald, and Rachael Maddow to name a few.
April 29, 2009 12:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
First. There are literally tens of millions of Americans who wholeheartedly support Israel and are absolutely loyal to America. Notable among them are the Christian conservatives, many, many of whom served, or are serving, in the volunteer military.
So if you accuse someone - as you did me - of disloyalty based on his support of Israel you are spraying doo-doo and can hardly complain if your opponent slings it right back at you.
Second. All those people I named were declared enemies of the elected government of the United States, and we were at war with most of them at one time or another, in one way or another.
There's a question of continuity - does the left of one time share the views of those of a later time. With caveats, yes.
My accusation is not absolute - there are plenty of exceptions - but it is none the less true...and truer the farther left you go.
Third. FDR, Truman, and JFK never sided with the declared opponents of the elected government of the United States. Double that if we were at war with them. I don't know about the others but I suspect your list becomes considerably shorter when those conditions are applied. Considerably shorter.
Fourth, the Right has, of course, disagreed with policies and actions of the elected government, and, at times, taken up arms against it. But these were, overwhelmingly, domestic disputes.
It is also true that the President has taken actions which the Congress has deemed illegal, or has strongly disagreed with. Jackson, Polk, FDR, Johnson, Reagan, and perhaps Bush, come to mind immediately. I'm sure there were others. But that's a different issue.
If you disagree make your case...but keep in mind that we are hijacking this thread. At your insistance.
April 29, 2009 1:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
Ordinary said:
Quote me where I accused you of disloyalty.
April 29, 2009 1:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
Disloyalty and cowardice. Spare me, John. Either own up to it...or forget it. You're quite capable of going back to the thread and re-reading your comments. If you don't know the difference between explicit and implicit, if you can't understand context, then get help.
April 29, 2009 2:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
So, you can't quote me, ok.
April 29, 2009 7:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
Just what we need, another DINO in Congress. Yeah, it changes committee seating (after the GOP gets around to acknowledging his shift), but Spector only wants to avoid a primary challenge & gives Reid a woody (after he's taken his Viagra tm), but that's all. What good will bragging rights do the public. He's still anti labor and will not vote for Dawn Johnson. Since the DNC will support him in the primary and general election, maybe a strong independent could spit the votes and get elected. A POX on both your houses!
April 28, 2009 3:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
Bushie,
Specter switched to survive. With that said, I've been following him since we were both Philadelphians and Democrats, then he went to the Senate as a Repbublican, I went to the subrubs, staying with the Dems.
Specter was originally a Liberal Republican and the original maverick, and showed it often during the 80s. Once ensconced in the Democratic Party I think Specter will gradually return to his liberal leanings.
or not.
April 28, 2009 6:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
John: He wants to return to the Senate. And he wasn't going to get past the Republican primary. Hardly a profile in courage.
April 28, 2009 7:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
Myth,
I think that's what I said. :)
April 28, 2009 8:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yeah, I'm sure a strong liberal independent would split the vote and win the election.... for the wingnut Toomey. This is the same thinking that has led the Republicans into rump party territory.
April 28, 2009 7:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
It is not nice to gloat, so please stop.
The highlight of Senator Spector's "defection" is that HealthCare Reform will happen.
The one other good point is that there will a used-to-be Republican who will be able to articulate a reasonable discussion with Dems...and if they are as smart as they think they are...they will listen.
I willing to bet that Pres. Obama will listen!
April 28, 2009 5:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think a lot of Republican incumbents in Congress retired recently because they see what I see, a Republican minority for at least a generation. With Specter's switch I wouldn't be surprised if another Republican followed him and crossed the aisle.
April 28, 2009 5:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
I hope you're right, JW. It would be nice to see Sen. Snowe with a D by her name and Collins, too. Although what we really need are some left of center life-long Dems.
April 28, 2009 6:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
FDR,
I'm living "The Joy of Schadenfreude" as MJ referred to.
I find it now a pleasure in watching those particularly unlikeable Republicans, like Kyl, DeMint, Vitter, Cornyn, etc. They all seem so gloomy....isn't it grand?
April 28, 2009 6:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well, the Anti-Bellum South had to die eventually, didn't it? Some of these cats are still living in Margaret Mitchell's America.
April 28, 2009 7:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
Myth,
watch Kyl's face, I think he's having apoplexy.
April 28, 2009 8:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
awwww, my lil chicken heart bleeds for him.
=D
(not!)
April 28, 2009 8:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
of course its always fun to see the republicans fall even further into irrelevance.
The amazing thing is, they actually believe they are doing so because they have moved to far to the LEFT as a party.
This is no joke and its reflected in their attacks on spector a being to "liberal".
It boarders on insanity.
April 28, 2009 8:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
ordinary baby.
You are the best parodyposter ever seen on this site. Your enjoyment of your role gives you away, though. Too much fun.
BTW, among the old gentry types who used to let you hang in their presence back in the day (mighty white of them!) did you know the Eastmans? I'm assuming you're a Bay Area type as that kind of discreet old money class wasn't exactly a feature of the LA scene. Or, perhaps you were hanging with the bohemian ricos that were a feature of Carmel (and still are) well-represented in Santa Barbara society.
April 28, 2009 8:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
Don't know what you mean by parody poster.
I thought everyone who posts enjoys it (even though you can't win them all it's always intense). Otherwise, why do it?
No, not the Bay area, although I do know a few from Sur and Carmel and Bolinas and Sevastopol.
Yeah, bohemian ricos...and bohemians...and they didn't "let" me hang with them. We all contributed something...or maybe it was just youth?
That's all you'll get from me...so what follows, lally? Some glorious put down?
April 29, 2009 12:03 AM | Reply | Permalink
Like I said here I think it is a beautiful thing.
Just the symbolism of the move outweighs any particular vote he may cast. The D's have people like Ben Nelson, Joe Lieberman, Mary Landrieu and a whole host of centrist Senators...why we would welcome Senator Specter into the mix would be beyond me.
And a message to the GOP...instant Karma is gonna get you.
YEP!!! HAHAHA!!!
April 28, 2009 11:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
s/b
why we wouldn't...
April 28, 2009 11:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
Lib,
I can't figure out why Ben Nelson is a Democrat.
April 29, 2009 10:37 AM | Reply | Permalink
Neither can I John. Heck I thought his Nebraska colleague, Republican Chuck Hagel, was very often more liberal on any given position than he was.
Wasn't Richard Shelby a Democrat at one point too or am I mistaken?
May 1, 2009 12:03 AM | Reply | Permalink
MJ said:
April 29, 2009 2:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
MJ said:
Specter said there needs to be a revolt or revolution in the Republican party, but who is left to start it? Most all that's left are right wing Christians and right wing Capitalists.
There, that's better.
April 29, 2009 2:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
That is the key difference between the two parties. On 9/11, it never occurred to Democrats not to rally behind a Republican President simply because we are Americans before we are Democrats. But the Republicans openly reject the legitimacy of both the current and previous Democratic President.
Yes. Also, they just suck... ;^)
Indeed in the '90's R's were foiled on a policy basis, at virtually every turn by Bill. After the failure of the Bush I presidency, they were intellectually bereft then as they remain now.
So they go to Whitewater, Filegate, Travelgate, Vince Fostergate, Paula Jonesgate, Monica Lewinskygate. Anything to disrupt, even to the point of attempting an overturn of the '96 vote.
Partisan Impeachment being their cynical culmination. Which is categorically different, than Impeachment.
It's a little sad how many millions of Americans, they are able to keep brainwashed.
April 30, 2009 3:34 PM | Reply | Permalink