Personally, I never liked him.
Posted on 05/01/2009 4:04:09 PM PDT by Ed Hudgins
May 1, 2009 -- Pennsylvania Senator Arlen Specter’s sudden change from the Republican to the Democratic Party has left Republicans with mixed feelings: rage that he is probably handing the Democrats a filibuster-proof Senate at one of the most critical political junctures in modern times and relief that they’re rid of a RINO (Republican In Name Only) who has often been at odds with the majority of Republicans on crucial issues.
George W. Bush’s eight years in the White House, during six of which the Republicans controlled both the House and Senate, were actually not good times for the GOP. Bush defined himself as a “compassionate” conservative, by which he meant that he would support the sort of big-government programs that Reagan Republicans found anathema. These included the No Child Left Behind federal education program (a far cry from Reagan’s call to abolish the federal Department of Education), a prescription drug program that was a major expansion of Medicare, and other hikes in domestic spending surpassed only by Lyndon Johnson. Many Republicans supported these programs only grudgingly.
The GOP’s loss of control of Congress in 2006 caused many Republicans to break with the White House and demand a return to the limited government philosophy. The Bush administration did try to hold back on spending in its final two years and did resist the temptation to pile more new regulations onto the economy and backs of Americans than it might have. Still, Bush had the practices of a big-government politicians combined with the reputation of being a conservative who was playing to the political Right and who was just plain incompetent—witness Iraq and Katrina.
After the defeat of moderate John McCain by Barack Obama, most Republicans in Congress were determined to highlight both their distinctive brand and their unity …
(Excerpt) Read more at atlassociety.org ...
Personally, I never liked him.
Wrong Spector, I think.
So will the turncoat Specter be deemed a blue dog Democrat?
Both are equally crazy!
Great to wake up for the first day as a PA resident without
Benedict Arlen as a Republican!
We must celebrate now and do the dance!
“Still, Bush had the practices of a big-government politicians combined with the reputation of being a conservative who was playing to the political Right and who was just plain incompetent—witness Iraq and Katrina.”
Invading Iraq and overthrowing Saddam was a glorious moment in US history. As for the hurricane, that was the MSM exploiting a natural disaster for their “homies”, nothing more.
Good article.
Rush had a good take on the possibilities in the SCOTUS nominations:
“Did Arlen Specter Do Us a Favor?”
http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/daily/site_050109/content/01125107.guest.html
Exec. Summary: The Republicans on the Senate Judiciary committee can hold up an nomination but only if there’s no defector - one vote would allow it to continue - Specter was always the possible defector. He’s gone. Now, Rush speculates, that it’s on Lindsay Gramnesty’s shoulders.
Nope just a very little man and a p.o.s.
Not hardly, he's not conservative enough to be a Blue Dog.
After listening to his “ I’m outta here “ speech the other day, this is what I heard:
blah blah blah..... ME, ME, ME .... blah blah.... after 5 terms, my liberal voting record has caught up with me... blah, blah, blah... I would have lost the Republican primary... blah, blah... I surely couldn’t make it in the real world, even with my guaranteed government pension... blah blah, blah, ME... I helped light a fire on the GOP ship, ooops, sorry, so I’m outta here... blah, blah, ME, ME, ME. I’m ready to gobble down anything the dems put in front of my face... blah blah, blah, (slurp)...
It’s a complicated day for me... that’s not a laugh line... but you can laugh. I’m such a self important windbag, I’ll allow YOU to laugh at my non-joke.... blah blah... ME... ME !!!!!!!!
STFU, You cancer-ridden old POS, go grovel to you new masters.... and don’t forget... be careful with those teeth.
Well, that makes us even! No matter how many times I see the Phil shot, I have to laugh. It's like that 'penguin slapping' that someone posted recently. :-)
Found it:
If I understood Laura Ingraham correctly today, the Senate judiciary committee cannot vote out a nominee to the full Senate unless at least one of the minority (Republican) members votes yes. Specter provided that vote. His departure to the other side of the aisle could strengthen the Republicans’ hands unless Lindsey Graham steps into the old Specter role on the committee..
Exactly. Further on in the show Rush played the clip from '91 where Obama, then State Senator, was 'critiquing' the Warren Court to a reporter in Chicago. Eg.:
OBAMA: As radical as I think people tried to characterize the Warren Court, it wasn't that radical. It didn't break free from the essential constraints that were placed by the Founding Fathers in the Constitution, at least as it's been interpreted, and Warren Court interpreted it in the same way that generally the Constitution is a charter of negative liberties, says what the states can't do to you, says what the federal government can't do to you, but it doesn't say what the federal government or the state government must do on your behalf, and that hasn't shifted, and one of the tragedies of the civil rights movement was because the civil rights movement became so court focused, I think that there was a tendency to lose track of the political and community organizing and activities on the ground that are able to put together the actual coalitions of power through which you bring about redistributive change. And in some ways we still suffer from that."
So then you had a supposed "Constitutional lawyer and scholar" who now has taken the oath to uphold the Constitution, who thinks in terms of:
"It (The Warren Court) didn't break free from the essential constraints that were placed by the Founding Fathers in the Constitution.!?!
It is exactly those constraints for which Supreme Court was created in the first place!! And this guy wants a 'workaround'. And it's his apparent understanding (of the difference at least, but obviously not the concept) of negative and positive rights. This is what he doesn't get conceptually:
"Any alleged “right” of one man, which necessitates the violation of the rights of another, is not and cannot be a right." Ayn Rand
His "positive rights" are the "alleged rights" above, which violate the negative type, individual rights.... but you know that ;-) So, again a summary of the whole passage above:
If you want to redistribute wealth, don't do it through the courts because they are too constrained by the Constitution (as if all other means shouldn't be as well), but do it through community organizing to get enough people to vote for elected officials who will violate the Constitution 'on their behalf' and redistribute the wealth of the productive to the unproductive.
Which is basically what he let out of the bag when he talked to Joe the Plumber.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
