IDBillzFan Posted April 28, 2009 Share Posted April 28, 2009 Switch to the Democrats could lead to fillibuster proof Senate. Genius stuff right there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stuckincincy Posted April 28, 2009 Share Posted April 28, 2009 The Manifesto replaces the Constitution. It was inexorable. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
erynthered Posted April 28, 2009 Share Posted April 28, 2009 Switch to the Democrats could lead to fillibuster proof Senate. Genius stuff right there. I dont care if its a Rep or a Dem, they should be forced to resign if they want to switch parties half way through their term. The constituents that put in back in office voted for him because of the ideology of that party. NOW he'll legislate from a different ideology then that of the constituency that put him back in office, and I dont give a shiit what, who or how he says he'll vote. If I lived in PA I'd be really !@#$ing pissed right about now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Adams Posted April 28, 2009 Share Posted April 28, 2009 I dont care if its a Rep or a Dem, they should be forced to resign if they want to switch parties half way through their term. The constituents that put in back in office voted for him because of the ideology of that party. NOW he'll legislate from a different ideology then that of the constituency that put him back in office, and I dont give a shiit what, who or how he says he'll vote. If I lived in PA I'd be really !@#$ing pissed right about now. And here I'm thinking the opposite. I wish more of these asshats would rebuff their parties once they got elected. They (unfortunately) need the party machinery to get elected--and they shouldn't lie about their positions (Specter certainly never did)--but I wish all these guys would give the finger to the party. Specter only did this because he's set up to lose the Republican primary. He always has a hard time winning the primary and an easy time in the general because he's a powerful moderate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IDBillzFan Posted April 28, 2009 Author Share Posted April 28, 2009 I dont care if its a Rep or a Dem, they should be forced to resign if they want to switch parties half way through their term. The constituents that put in back in office voted for him because of the ideology of that party. NOW he'll legislate from a different ideology then that of the constituency that put him back in office, and I dont give a shiit what, who or how he says he'll vote. If I lived in PA I'd be really !@#$ing pissed right about now. I understand the point, but saying you belong to a particular party doesn't mean you need to adhere to the ideas of that party. There really is no Republican or Democrat any more. They're just words. The dude has been a Senator for over almost 30 years, and probably realizes he needs to switch parties to keep his career going. And in fairness to the people of Pennsylvania, if they aren't pissed about the way he's been voting lately, then they probably won't be pissed that he's switching teams despite lying and telling everyone he would never do it. Look at Murtha. He insults his entire constituency, and still gets re-elected. I honestly doubt the people of PA care about this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kelly the Dog Posted April 28, 2009 Share Posted April 28, 2009 Another nail in the coffin. He's going to be the same pain in the ass as always, and it's entirely about re-election, but it sure makes it easier for the Democrats and a lot harder for the Party of No. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Big Cat Posted April 28, 2009 Share Posted April 28, 2009 YEAAAAAH! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
erynthered Posted April 28, 2009 Share Posted April 28, 2009 And here I'm thinking the opposite. I wish more of these asshats would rebuff their parties once they got elected. They (unfortunately) need the party machinery to get elected--and they shouldn't lie about their positions (Specter certainly never did)--but I wish all these guys would give the finger to the party. Specter only did this because he's set up to lose the Republican primary. He always has a hard time winning the primary and an easy time in the general because he's a powerful moderate. I can maybe agree to that to some extent. Though riding the coattails of one of the major parties to get elected, than to change parties, is not what got you there in the first place. As a voter I'd be freakin pissed!! As far as the "lie's" thingy goes, Didn't he just say in March that he'd run on the Rep ticket? Isint that a lie? We'll see how he votes in the next two years. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BillsFan-4-Ever Posted April 28, 2009 Share Posted April 28, 2009 Going to Other Party Like this has never happened before!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
erynthered Posted April 28, 2009 Share Posted April 28, 2009 I understand the point, but saying you belong to a particular party doesn't mean you need to adhere to the ideas of that party. There really is no Republican or Democrat any more. They're just words. The dude has been a Senator for over almost 30 years, and probably realizes he needs to switch parties to keep his career going. And in fairness to the people of Pennsylvania, if they aren't pissed about the way he's been voting lately, then they probably won't be pissed that he's switching teams despite lying and telling everyone he would never do it. Look at Murtha. He insults his entire constituency, and still gets re-elected. I honestly doubt the people of PA care about this. I can agree to some of what you say. Most of the lemming public gets into the voting booth, and for the most part, looks for the "R" or the "D" without even knowing WTF that candidate stands for or cares about WRT ANY issues, that I'll agree with. If I'm John Q Public in PA and I made a campaign contribution to the Spector re-election campaign for the Republican Senatorial seat for the great state of PA. and today finding out he's going to do this after last month saying he wouldnt? I'd be pissed!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bills_fan Posted April 28, 2009 Share Posted April 28, 2009 You've got to be kidding me...I'm no R (or D for that matter), but permitting one party to have the WH, House and filibuster-proof 60 in the Senate is a really bad idea. We turn our lonely eyes to the only entity left that can control Obama spending...the bond market. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Adams Posted April 28, 2009 Share Posted April 28, 2009 I can agree to some of what you say. Most of the lemming public gets into the voting booth, and for the most part, looks for the "R" or the "D" without even knowing WTF that candidate stands for or cares about WRT ANY issues, that I'll agree with. If I'm John Q Public in PA and I made a campaign contribution to the Spector re-election campaign for the Republican Senatorial seat for the great state of PA. and today finding out he's going to do this after last month saying he wouldnt? I'd be pissed!! I don't support any candidate based on their party. I support candidates. I was considering giving money to him already and still may. The switch means nothing to me. I do NOT agree with everything that Lieberman and Specter stand for but I like that in the past, they've been willing to stand up to their party machines and I wish there were more people capable of doing so. (McCain and Guiliani also come to mind as people who are willing to occasionally swim upstream, although McCain's choice of Palin was a massive sellout.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
erynthered Posted April 28, 2009 Share Posted April 28, 2009 You've got to be kidding me...I'm no R (or D for that matter), but permitting one party to have the WH, House and filibuster-proof 60 in the Senate is a really bad idea.We turn our lonely eyes to the only entity left that can control Obama spending...the bond market. The bolded part being the scariest part. Supreme Court is next. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blzrul Posted April 28, 2009 Share Posted April 28, 2009 I dont care if its a Rep or a Dem, they should be forced to resign if they want to switch parties half way through their term. The constituents that put in back in office voted for him because of the ideology of that party. NOW he'll legislate from a different ideology then that of the constituency that put him back in office, and I dont give a shiit what, who or how he says he'll vote. If I lived in PA I'd be really !@#$ing pissed right about now. Oh, people vote for the idealogy of the party do they? Not their state/local issues and individual candidates? Well if THAT is the case then no surprise the GOP is in its death throes. And one would wonder why personal attacks are even bothered to be used, if people care more about party than candidate. We'd be happy to give you Lieberman. Except even HE doesn't want you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Adams Posted April 28, 2009 Share Posted April 28, 2009 You've got to be kidding me...I'm no R (or D for that matter), but permitting one party to have the WH, House and filibuster-proof 60 in the Senate is a really bad idea. Expect a swing in the opposite direction again soon. The filibuster-proof Senate will probably fall in 2010. The WH will probably get turned over in 2016. The Supreme Court won't change for a while. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted April 28, 2009 Share Posted April 28, 2009 And here I'm thinking the opposite. I wish more of these asshats would rebuff their parties once they got elected. They (unfortunately) need the party machinery to get elected--and they shouldn't lie about their positions (Specter certainly never did)--but I wish all these guys would give the finger to the party. Specter only did this because he's set up to lose the Republican primary. He always has a hard time winning the primary and an easy time in the general because he's a powerful moderate. Rebuff, yes. Switch...? I friggin' hate party politics... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
erynthered Posted April 28, 2009 Share Posted April 28, 2009 I don't support any candidate based on their party. I support candidates. I was considering giving money to him already and still may. The switch means nothing to me. Good, and you shouldnt. Nor do I for that matter. I think before you give him any of your hard earned money, see how the rest of the term unfolds. Like how he votes. We'll see if he stands up to the obama machine. Standing up to Bush is nothing compared to the power that left has now. Again. Lets see how he votes. My guess is he'll fall in line so he can get all that money for re-elction, plus maybe a chairmanship. Ya think? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PastaJoe Posted April 28, 2009 Share Posted April 28, 2009 It's not a surprise as the Republican party increasingly continues to become the Dixiepub party and makes it hard for social moderates to have a voice. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IDBillzFan Posted April 28, 2009 Author Share Posted April 28, 2009 Rebuff, yes. Switch...? Can I start calling him T-Bone Specter now? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
erynthered Posted April 28, 2009 Share Posted April 28, 2009 Oh, people What? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts