Sen. Specter Switches to DNC; NO MORE EXCUSES DEMOCRATS

Do you really think Specter is going to change his voting pattern? This move will have no impact in Washington. It is strictly a move to help him in the state of Pennsylvania. As for Republicans, they no longer have to worry about him but now have a reliable advocate on the other side of the aisles. For the Democrats, it just means that people will say there are 60 Democrats in the Senate but actually, its still 59 with one Republican wearing a “D” around his neck.

This is what the Administration is taking credit for accomplishing so far:

http://my.barackobama.com/page/content/foundationforchange

100 days, 100 lame excuses for failure.

What’s going to happen when the economy never recovers? It’s always been all about the economy, and have you looked at the unemployment adta lately — getting worse by the day.

There was so much piling on Arlan Spector when he voted for the stimulus. Was it really worth giving the Dems a fillibuster-proof majority to cleanse the GOP of all heresy?

Is it true what they said on ABC’s “This Week” — that the percentage of Americans who identify themselves as Republican is now the lowest in decades? This explains, I think, some of the disparity between certain polls — such as ABC/CNN, which give Obama a 69% approval rating and the Pew poll, where he comes in lower. It depends on what percent of Democrats/Republicans/Independents are included in the poll sample.

I really do think that that the GOP has — by driving people who are pro-choice, anti-US-as-world-cop, pro-immigration reform, etc. out of the Reagan Big Tent — marginalized itself as the party of the Evangelicals and the party of the Confederacy.

Is Sarah Palin really the vision of the future? Is Utah’s Jon Huntsman going to be deemed too “liberal” because he supports civil unions for same sex couples? Who is a true Republican and who is a RINO?

If you believe in your principles, how can you hand over complete control of the nation to your arch enemies in the pursuit of ideological purity? Spector would have voted with the GOP most of the time, just as he has for his entire career. The man may now move to the Left, but he’s no Democrat. He voted with the GOP majority 65.3% of the time, compared to average Democrat, who voted with the GOP majority only 9.3% of the time.

http://projects.washingtonpost.com/congress/111/senate/party-voters/65/

And Spector didn’t have the luxury of representing South Carolina; he had to get elected and re-elected in Blue State Pennsylvania, and he needed — as he stated — to represent the voters of Pennsylvania and not simply to represent the Republican Party.

In a state like Pennsylvania, is it not preferable to have someone in the Senate who is 65% Republican, rather than 9% Republican (i.e. the percentage of times that Spector versus the average Democrat voted with the GOP majority)?

I really think that you guys need to do a lot of careful reflection on way forward.

As I keep saying, you are betting the entire ranch on the failure of Obama. In the face of loud and withering GOP opposition, he retains a remarkable level of electoral support. If he is perceived to be successful in fulfilling his most important campaign promises, then it’s hard to see things turning around for the GOP anytime soon, and, if that happens, the country shall already have been transformed.

For example, it would be much easier to prevent an Obama-style universal health coverage plan from being implemented in the first place, than to take it away from the American people, once they have it.

These are the sorts of issues which are dramatically impacted by the change in party affiliation of Senator Spector.

- Larry Weisenthal/Huntington Beach, CA

I think it’s great that Arlen “single bullet” Specter has finally come out of the closet!!! He has come out just in time to insure that he will go to his grave as the left wing, perverted Democrat he always hidden. What a great legacy for Arlen!.. Even though Arlen doesn’t know where he is or who he is talking to, Arlen decides to suck up to Barack Hussein Obama two minutes to midnight before he checks out forever!! …..I guess Arlen is sure Barack will raise him from the dead!!

Larry W, you’re opening sentence is a common misperception among your type of thinking. To reiterate:

Was it really worth giving the Dems a fillibuster-proof majority to cleanse the GOP of all heresy?

Specter with a D behind his name changes nothing from Specter with an R behind his name in Congress. He was always a good bet to side with the liberals in Congress, and when it comes to needed votes, the majoity don’t care about the party designation. Obama/Reid/Pelosi had him 95% of the time already, and they will still have him 95% of the time. There is no “cleansing” except your side will lose the ability to pass Specter off as proof you are being “bipartisan”. ooops….

Specter has said he will not be an “automatic 60th vote for cloture”. Then again, he also said he wouldn’t leave the GOP. I’d say if Pelosi and Reid attempt to strip him of some power as a lesser D in their family, they may find a bitter Specter opposing them more in the future. Right now, he’s just trying to *be* there in the future…. typical political opportunist.

Specter is simply protecting his proverbial rear eand. After polling and traveling the state, he figured out there wasn’t a conservative left who planned on supporting him in the primary for reelection. This is a pol, protecting his pol butt and seat of power. Nothing more…. as he, himself, copped to today.

When I supported the stimulus package, I knew that it would not be popular with the Republican Party. But, I saw the stimulus as necessary to lessen the risk of a far more serious recession than we are now experiencing.

Since then, I have traveled the State, talked to Republican leaders and office-holders and my supporters and I have carefully examined public opinion. It has become clear to me that the stimulus vote caused a schism which makes our differences irreconcilable. On this state of the record, I am unwilling to have my twenty-nine year Senate record judged by the Pennsylvania Republican primary electorate. I have not represented the Republican Party. I have represented the people of Pennsylvania.

I have decided to run for re-election in 2010 in the Democratic primary.

I am ready, willing and anxious to take on all comers and have my candidacy for re-election determined in a general election.

Apparently, Mr. Specter believes representing PA does not include representing his GOP constituents who put the man into office year after year. To see their “adoration” of a guy who considers himself a “moderate” GOP, watch the below..

So perhaps I should rephrase that “cleansing” statement above. Specter was “cleansed”… by his own constituents because of the big issues… just as it should be. They let him know in advance of the primary that slim chance in hell by conservatives was to be his campaign slogan.

All I can say is buh bye, and it will be hard to miss a conservative who was rarely there. And most certainly not at the right times of late.

But so amazing to see the amoeba think, like Magic Dog and Larry, that suggests this “tiny minority” of conservatives has the power to drive Specter into the arms of his adoring Dem fans. Were the nation so “moderate” as you think, Specter would have had no trouble in a GOP primary. ’splain that one, O’faithful plants?

@MataHarley:

Specter with a D behind his name changes nothing from Specter with an R behind his name in Congress.

I don’t think this will be completely true. Specter will need to make some slides to the left to get their vigorous support in the primary; EFCA is off the table for now, but things like health-care and torture prosecution (which he has recently talked about) now have more wiggle-room. You’re right, though, in that 60 votes isn’t much different from 59, except when it comes to cloture. He may not be an automatic vote, but Specter will now have to think long and hard before he votes “NO” on cloture, something he didn’t have to do as a Republican. It’ll be interesting to see how many, if any, cloture votes pass because of him.

The silver lining is this: It’s a safe assumption that Specter would have lost to Toomey, and Toomey would have lost in the general to a strong leftist. Now, Specter will likely be the Democratic candidate and winner – giving you guys a right-leaning Democrat in PA instead of a left-wing one. Of course, if these are the kinds of silver linings the GOP is searching for, it’s probably time to re-evaluate their strategy for a permanent majority.

Oh, common, Mata. You are rationalizing to the extreme. As I wrote, he voted with the GOP majority 65% of the time, compared to 9% for the average Democrat. Now that the GOP has forced him to become a Democrat, he’ll be voting with the GOP less than 20% of the time.

I think that “card check” is an atrocious idea. Spector was against it; he’ll remain against it — only because he’d look too craven to change his clearly announced position, under the circumstances.

But on other issues — he’d have been with the GOP to force the Dems to make deals or else to force the Dems to make themselves look bad — e.g. the talk about circumventing a GOP fillibuster on health care by putting it on some sort of cheesy, end-run legislative process. Now, the Dems will be able to do what they darn well please, for a minimum of a year and a half (once Franken gets sworn in), and, as I wrote, once things have been legislated into existence, it is very hard to legislate them out of existence. You don’t think that the Dems will take advantage of this once in a generation opportunity to write things into existence, which will always stay in existence?

My favorite poem, once again:

This is the grave of Mike O’Day
Who died maintaining his right of way.
His mind was clear.
His will was strong.
But he’s just as dead as if he’d been wrong.

The man represented PENNSYLVANIA, for goodness sake. And he was 65% Republican. But that wasn’t good enough for you.

I’m curious. How much heresy is permissible?

Are Snow and Collins also RINOs?

I’m just curious.

- Larry Weisenthal/Huntington Beach, CA

The only voting record as a so-called conservative that counts is what has happened since January, Larry. And his “deal making” on the stimulus and budget has proven to be considerably less than desireable. Therefore his 65% you like to cite means nothing. Why not cite how he has voted with the Dems since the O’admin came to power? That’s what he is being judged on by his Republican constituents.

Magic Dog, interesting times is just what the Republican party needs to get back to their core beliefs. Then perhaps they can regain some support from independent minded types like me.

Well, “just OK,” given the withering criticism heaped on him by the GOP, and given all the challenges he’s faced, is pretty good.

Let’s look at it another way: I’m sure you’d grade him “poor/terrible.” But SIXTY percent of REPUBLICANS would disagree with you, as would 79% of independents.

And I’m sure you are aware of the polling on “right direction/wrong direction.” From 12% right direct at the time of his inauguration to 50% right direction now — highest figure since Clinton, save for the very short lived little blip at the time of the “Mission Accomplished” banner.

You also didn’t answer my question. Are Snow and Collins also RINOs, in your opinion?

- Larry Weisenthal/Huntington Beach, CA

Sorry, Larry… missed your last question. Short answer… yes. Then again, I’m hard pressed to find any conservatives in Congress at the moment. Especially when you hear Lindsey Graham bragging about being the 15th “most conservative” Congressman. Very sad state of affairs, IMHO.

And before you leap to conclusions (as I posted that in response to CRAP on another thread and misplaced it…), I don’t look at polls like you do. i.e.

But SIXTY percent of REPUBLICANS would disagree with you, as would 79% of independents.

No, Larry. That would be any percentile of 1000 or so responders polled that disagree with me. ho hum… especially considering the details of those that admitted they knew nothing, or had no opinion.

In the only poll that matters to me, approx 48% of the nation’s voters agrees that Obama was not the right man for the Oval Office. I suggest you remember that one.

jmaes m, I *am* an independent. The party allows for divergence of opinions since they obviously have candidates that don’t come close to the party’s official platform. Were that platform a litmus test, there wouldn’t be an R in the dome to be seen.

I’m not a voter on abortion or religious issues as a conservative. My focus is, and remains, on domestic economics and fiscal responsibility, minimal government, and foreign affairs/defense spending. And on these, the Republican party – nae, Congress as a whole – has totally lost my vote of confidence.

I’ll admit if I’m wrong in the future, but I repeat… Specter R is no different than Specter D. Time, however, will prove that one way or another.

Magic Dog, in #16, said this was about symbolism. That’s an interesting take since the average political voyeur will take that to mean GOP defection. I however see that symbolism more realistically… From the horses mouth, this was all about his ability to get reelected because his conservative base told him in no uncertain terms, he was a loser.

If political expediency and the quest for power isn’t “symbolism” as to what this is about, nothing is. It will, however, get spun as some moral judgment in the quest to mask the truth.

Well, Bush got 50.7% in 2004 — he said that this gave him a lot of political “capital,” you may recall; Obama got 52.9% in 2008.

When you say Obama was considered “not the right man” for the Oval Office; it gives a false impression. A large number of voters certainly considered both men to be qualified, but preferred one over the other. I personally viewed the election as “win/win,” because I was confident in McCain governing from the right-center, as opposed to the far right. So I voted for Obama, but I wouldn’t have said that McCain was “not the right man” for the job.

- Larry Weisenthal/Huntington Beach, CA

Mata, what did Bush want to accomplish, but couldn’t, on account of “massive opposition?”

I’m thinking immigration reform, for one, where the brunt of the massive opposition came from his own party.

Addendum: thought of another — offshore oil + ANWR drilling; this one was blocked by Dems (good thing, in my opinion).

Larry W/HB

from the inevitable future outcomes of their ruinous economic policies and disastrous defense/foreign policy positions.

Well, that’s a very forthright statement, expressed with breathtaking certitude.

Increasing tax rates to those of the Clinton era — 39% marginal tax rate. Compared to 70% rate in the 70s and 90% rate in the Eisenhower 50s. Yet the economy always grew and times weren’t so bad. Reagan borrowed massively and doubled the debt/GDP ratio with his own “stimulus” package to end an earlier recession.

Economists, including conservative economists, have been advocating higher energy taxes for two decades — the original idea goes back to John Anderson’s (GOP moderate) independent Presidential campaign in 1980.

And we’ll be shifting some health care costs from the insurance companies to the government, but overall costs will go down and consumer satisfaction is likely to go up. Do you know which major health insurance “company” currently has the highest level of consumer satisfaction? Medicare.

“Disastrous foreign policy positions.” Hmmm. Can hardly do worse with Cuba, Venezuela, North Korea, Iran than Bush did. Trading F-22s for more special ops and special op transports seems like a good swap. Iraq will eventually partition itself into thirds, no matter how long we stay, just as Lt. General William Odom (Reagan’s NSA chief) always predicted.

Whether we get nuked on our own soil won’t depend a whit on what happened or ever happens in Iraq. It’ll depend on motivation and resources of terrorists and ability of intelligence to detect and interdict. If you think that the national security of the country comes down to waterboarding and extreme sleep deprivation, then perhaps you have a point, but Abu Ghraib caused us vastly more harm than could ever justify what we got out of waterboarding, and Abu Ghraib happened because of a top down culture which tolerated and tacitly encouraged that sort of thing.

Bottom line: I’m not so sure that your predictions are correct.

- Larry Weisenthal/Huntington Beach CA

Arlen, your excuse was the weakest I’ve heard in ages. “Because of the ‘hard right’ conservatives.”……Arlen, have you been asleep? WHAT HARD CORE CONSERVATIVES???? It’s been RINO city since the November elections.

Toomey was gonna rake you over the coals come next year. You sensed the winds and you bolted.

Buhh-bye.

Be careful of what you wish for Arlen & Dems.

Mata,
If the economy turns around, how long do you think it will take for the GOP to make a comeback?

Also, the dems keep promoting moderates like Brian Schweitzer, as the GOP is running their moderates out of town. Americans seem to like moderates. I know I do. During the campaign, the dems kept the far left somewhat quiet as FoxNews was covering the angry crowds at the Palin rallies. I think this helped the Obama campaign in attracting independents and moderates. With BOTH parties moving in opposite strategical directions, what do you foresee for the future of American politics?

In the past your election predictions for 2006 and 2008 were not very accurate. I see no reason to think that they will be in 2010. The Democrats will pick up at least 2 more seats maybe 5 more in the Senate.

Bub, the Dems won the 2006 midterms by running moderates instead of leftists. Had they run lots of Pelosis and Reids, they would have lost their shirt.

But note that under the O’admin, and the Obama/Pelosi/Reid unchecked progressive power and agenda, they are pushing those “moderates” to play the leftist game with them, or else. They are relative newbies, but even newbies will be able to figure out when something’s wrong in the future. They too have to face reelections. And all is not going to be well in Obama heaven.

As Fit said above, in one of his more reasoned responses here (kudos on that, BTW, Fit… what’s up today?), the economy will turn around because of the American citizen resilience. Not because of Obama. It’s already starting the slowing and wide turns in the leading indicators. The Govt spending at the level done wasn’t necessary.

But as the economy does turn, and the repercussions of the spending hit… sunsetting of Obama’s promised middle class $13 per paycheck, sunsetting of Bush taxes, cap and trade, health care, the budget and repeated bailouts to bail out the bailouts, deflation followed by inflation because of dollar devaluation … that’s when fiscal conservatism will again become in vogue. Joe Blow O’faithful is assuming that, when the turn around happens, they will have the same earning power.

Think again….

Right now few can see in that direction. Not in their mental focus to do so. Then there are intelligent others, like Larry W, who actually think Obama and Congress will be stopping at “Reagan tax levels”. HA! That promise goes down the drain like the “middle class tax cuts”, which turns out to be a 12-pack every week, and only for the next year and a half at best. After that, you lose not only the 12-pack, but a case or two more when the Bush tax cuts sunset.

Yep… Joe Blow liberal America has a rude awakening on the horizon.

All that said, you are basing the future of conservatives… whether or not they call themselves “Republican”… on today’s trends. Nothing is status quo. Clinton lost midterms sweep in the middle of his two terms. People who believe Obama can give them everything and still enjoy the same earning power will get a new epiphany. Not today.. perhaps not until late next year. But the pendulum swings often, and always in both directions. Especially with economic policies, it takes time for the acts to reveal themselves as folly.

Problem with this particular Congressional/WH spending action is it will be tough to reverse the damage unless it can be halted/negated before all the taxpayer cash is confiscated, and spent by this money drunk Congress.

Specter has been a traitor for years, now he will belong to the party of traitors. No way the economy can recover now, O’Dumbo has skipped Socialism/Communism and leaped far ahead of them in enslaving the people. Socialized medicine is doomed to fail because no one wants to spend all those years in school to become a GS rated government employee with their salary controlled by the idiots in congress. The only two successful government organization in history is the military who protects the country, when they are allowed to and Welfare which has been successful in keeping millions on the dole to vote democrat and keep millions of retarded relatives of politicians employed as administrators of welfare while ripping off the taxpayers.

“Economists, including conservative economists, have been advocating higher energy taxes for two decades.”

Regardless of what you assert some economists recommend, raising corporate taxes and green taxes/restrictions will help drive businesses out of the USA, hence job losses. Look at our own state. As for the tax rate reverting to Clinton era rates, that addresses income taxes only. And if you think Obama’s massive, unprecedented, spending is going to be supported without increasing taxes on the middle class, and not just income taxes, please cite some objective, reliable economic analysis for that. Everything I have read and heard says that it can’t be done.

“And we’ll be shifting some health care costs from the insurance companies to the government, but overall costs will go down and consumer satisfaction is likely to go up.”

On what do you base your assertion that customer satisfaction is likely to increase? Or that costs will go down? When has the government handled anything more fiscally efficient than the private sector? Or provided better customer service? I have had to deal with Medi-Cal (California’s Medicaid for those out-of-state) for my mother for 2 years now. You would have to go to the DMV to find more inefficiency and incompetence. I have private health care insurance. I just had surgery for cancer. If you think I, or anyone else, would want to wait weeks or months for some bureaucrat to decide if and what type of treatment they decide I should have, then you are mistaken. A survey done a year or so ago in Canada or Britain found that satisfaction with the health care system was tied to the health care needs of the respondent. Predictably, the people who were most satisfied with their healthcare system were healthy. Wow, hard to believe.

“Can hardly do worse with Cuba, Venezuela, North Korea, Iran than Bush did. ”

Talk about breathtaking certitude, LOL! We’ll have to see what the results of Obama’s ‘You’re right, the US sucks’ foreign policy yields. And for the record, Obama owns this now; enough with the grade school ‘I inherited this’ excuse. He will have to accept the responsibility of what HIS foreign policy reaps.

I think the national security of our nation greatly depends on a president who doesn’t give information that aids our enemy in order to throw a bone to the ‘hate America’ left who helped elect him. I don’t share your theory as to why Abu Ghraib happened; we’ll have to agree to disagree. Whether more harm was done by this than anything that was prevented through harsh interrogation is hard to determine as Obama has chosen to keep that info from the public.

As far as waterboarding or sleep deprivation, or whatever else was used that elicited actionable intel, I fully support it. I value the lives of our military men and women and our fellow citizens far more than some terrorist. What should pain my conscience more – that we waterboarded some terrorist, or that fellow citizens died because we didn’t?

Bottom line: You may not be sure if my predictions are correct, but I guess time will tell! Good discussion!

First point: you may be surprised how many Joe Blow progressives find themselves in unlikely company in their anger at their reduced earning power. Obviously, you will not be one of them.

Oh, I realize this. But we’re talking about the politics of it here, and politics starts and ends with credit and blame. Obama’s not going to be blamed for the Republican depression and its effects. And expectations are low. Most people don’t think he can turn it around any time soon, so if Republicans think the voters will turn on Obama in a year or so, they’re in for some rude surprises. Look back at FDR for guidance on that one.

Congratulations on proving that truth and reality only falls in line second or later to your partisan desires, loser.

You’d better watch out who you call “loser.” It ain’t my side that just lost its 60th senator. Ain’t my side that got the crap kicked out of it last November. Ain’t my party with a 21% affiliation, the lowest in nearly 30 years. Nope, it’s my side whose president has a 69% approval rating. And cut the crocodile tears about politics, too. Your side played it to the hilt, and you can be sure that the knife will be shoved in and then twisted.

Obama plays a much sharper game than Rove did. Look at his advisors. You know, the ones you just love to hate, Emanuel and Axelrod. Pretty neat trick with Limbaugh, wouldn’t you agree? And now they’ve got the Republicans pegged as the party of No. And then there are your teabaggings, which were turned into a national obscene joke. Do you hear that sound? It’s the whole country, laughing its ass off at you. Sweet, huh?

Yeah, I guess I can see why you are whining about politics being played. Karma’s a bitch. Why, it’s only been 100 days and you people have already gone into full Obama Derangement Syndrome. What do you think the public thinks of you and your pathetic, whining, nasty little sore losers act? Americans don’t respect a sore loser. You’ll see it after you lose five or 10 Senate seats in 2010, and another 20 in the House. Or maybe you won’t. Maybe you’ll keep telling yourselves lies. That’ll be really fun to watch.

what an a-hole

Don’t talk that way about George W. Bush. Don’t you think he’s got enough trouble with the bottle as it is?

[I think you hit all nail and no thumb on this, Curt.]

Sorry, Scott…I meant to say Scott! Oy vay…

@MataHarley:

I’m enjoying reading this thread immensely. There are many excellent points from both sides. But Mata, with all due respect… I read you portraying yourself as not having a “side” – I’m calling BS. You may not affiliate yourself with the Republican party, but you have definitely picked a side. And please don’t answer that you’ve chosen the “what’s good for America” side – we are all on that side, even if we disagree on what that is. You’ve written way too many incredibly well researched and intelligent posts,, refuting Dem/Left/Liberal positions, to be able to get away with portraying yourself as anything but Right/Conservative – this doesn’t mean you don’t occasionally agree with us left/liberals, but please don’t expect us to believe that you’re fooling yourself by thinking you’ve not chosen a political side. I say this with the highest respect, as someone not on my side whose intelligent rhetoric I fear the most – you’re one tough cookie. But you have a side – just as we all do.

Thank you for the comments, Cary. Yes, I have a “side” as much as I have avowed political beliefs. Perhaps I should have clarified that those beliefs are not defined by political party”sides”… i.e. Dem vs GOP, or progressive vs moderate. However I will disagree that what I believe, is also not good for America. At least the America of the founders/framers, and the one in which I was raised. Euro-America is not “my” America, nor that of the framers.

So while “all” may feel they know what is good for America, those that feel it needs remaking into a Euro-socialist image are not on the “side” of the framers. In that context, it is not a “one size fits all” model simply by residence.

Dog.. you still here? Would think a mutt would find some hole in which to lie. I have not, nor ever been a “Republican” in my beliefs. I have, however, always been a conservative. My disdain is totally bipartisan. As far as I’m concerned, all of Congress needs to go home and a cleaning “House” and “Senate” is in order. The only way I am “aligned” with a party is by your extremely limited political perception. And that, I take that with the import of a hang nail.

@Magic Dog

He/she/it knows how thoroughly hated the Republicans are

So, are you saying that 4 1/2 years ago, when the Dems only got 48% of the popular vote, that it meant that they were “thoroughly hated” too? Because we lost the White House are we supposed to give up our convictions and just bend over? I don’t think so.

M.H. feels compelled to disavow the twisted freaks that M.H. is actually aligned with.

Mata clearly holds the same view of party politics that I do. I chose to be a Republican because they are the national party that whose platforms more closely identifies with my own principles, not the other way around. Does that mean I agree with every one of those platforms? Of course not, but that is why there are elections of party leadership. That is why there are county, state, and national conventions.

@Cary

With little to no employment opportunities in the entertainment industry (not entirely due to government politics or the economy), my “bread and butter” careers have also been suffering. Catering jobs are being scaled down, leaving little work for those of us who support ourselves in that field.

Obama’s policies will only make that worse in the long term. The biggest problem with the whole concept of a “robin hood” economic system is that we still have the right to move away if we don’t like where we live. If the people who own and operate the businesses that hire you to cater their events choose to move their companies and their households out of New York, and eventually out of the United States, who do you think is going to pick up the economic slack? Who will be left to hire you?

Without producers, there is no wealth. If you put onerous demands on the businesses and the people that produce the wealth (ie. excessive taxes, fees, regulations) they WILL go away. They will move their corporate headquarters somewhere else, and they will quit providing production in this country. The world is too ripe with economic growth and opportunity for them to put up with being looted by progressives who want to live off someone else’s success and hard work forever.

Spectrer never understood any of this. Regardless of the R that has been at the end of his name for that last 29 years, he has always been just one of the looters.

Once again, a quote from John Galt in Atlas Shrugged (because Ayn Rand’s vision of the future, over fifty years ago, is so terrifyingly accurate): “I swear by my life and my love of it that I will never live for the sake of another man, nor ask another man to live for mine.”

@ Larry

And we’ll be shifting some health care costs from the insurance companies to the government, but overall costs will go down and consumer satisfaction is likely to go up. Do you know which major health insurance “company” currently has the highest level of consumer satisfaction? Medicare.

Larry, you are obviously a very intelligent person and I’ve read enough here to know that you’re a doctor. Didn’t President Obama say he was not going to “nationalize” healthcare?

Even Media Matters said Sean Hannity misrepresented his healthcare plan. Obama Healthcare Plan

I don’t want the government running my healthcare. I’ll drop my conservative shield for a second here and admit that Obama said a few things in his campaign that I actually liked. (shield back up for a second to say all those promises had expiration dates). He said all Americans would have a choice to have the same healthcare plan congress enjoys. I think the whole problem with our Federal Government right now is that we have two sets of laws and policies. One for us, the commoners and one for our elected officials. We have social security, they have a kick ass retirement plan, FOR LIFE. We’ll get government healthcare, they’ll have their choice of healthcare.

That my friend is not a democrat or republican problem, that is a We The People problem. That is a Government OF, BY, and FOR The People problem.

Since this post is about Spector, I’ll just say that most of the people in the House and Senate could change the initial behind their name and it wouldn’t do anything for any of us. Most of them are in it for themselves. They have no intention of living by any of the laws or policies they spew forth. As long as We The People allow them to polarize us with their rhetoric, they have us where they want us.

@Aqua: Yes, I think CalCon is misrepresenting the kind of health-care that Obama proposes, which is essentially an option of very cheap basic coverage if you have none and then the right to pay for private care if you want. Higher taxes overall, which will hopefully be dampened by the focus shifting from emergency to preventive care. As a Massachusetts resident, I haven’t seen any detriment to my health-care from MassHealth, but I have a few low-income friends who would be in very dire straights and out of work if they didn’t have that safety net. By the way, CalCon, if you’re not satisfied with the government health-care
in California you can always pay for private coverage like us producers.

As far as waterboarding or sleep deprivation, or whatever else was used that elicited actionable intel, I fully support it.

Getting off topic here, but you need to realize that the left doesn’t abhor torture because they “worry about terrorist rights” or “don’t have the guts to handle it” (I think it’s actually quite easy for a person to justify atrocity that is done in their name); we abhor it because it puts our troops in more danger when they’re captured and because it detracts from our overall mission as peace-keepers. Obviously a jihadi isn’t going to stop throat-slitting directly because of this, but countries will start loosening their policies on intense-interrogation if they see us doing it, and the people we’re supposed to be liberating will turn on us – and that is a long term failure much more significant than any short-term information that torture can provide us. I think you’ll agree that rape or mutilation too can result in information gain, but have detrimental long-term effects. The argument is where to draw the line, and by dumbing it down to a “my family versus some scumbag terrorist” question you’re doing a disservice to the complexity of your own position.

MataHarley … great analysis, I think this will be an interesting post to come back to in the coming months and years. I personally feel like the US will remain a global power no matter what, so I’m interested in seeing if the liberal policies I’ve been championing for actually work.

@Aqua: @Aqua: I would say that our adherence to humane treatment is intrinsic to what makes America exceptional and has always paid dividends: in the way the world looks up to us as a nation firm in its first principles, the millions of people who seek to work here and enrich us with their talents because America is nothing like their despotic government, the role we’ve been able to play as an arbiter in global conflict because we had moral clarity on our side. Compare our standing in the world to that of China – a country that has comparable military and economic capacity but does not hold firm on human treatment – clearly what’s important is not just winning a war but how you win it. Maybe you’ve been clouded by Jihadi propaganda, but the majority of the world used to look to the United States as inspiration for a viable government founded on liberty; in fact, our perseverance as a nation through hard times was the very proof that the pursuit of freedom and the rule of law are inherent to a successful society.

I don’t mean to moralize, but to me this is like asking “when is this whole Democracy thing going to bear fruit – we’ve fought against dictatorships in WWII, Korea, and Vietnam?”.

As for health-care, I’d like to see the full proposal when it comes up, but I will say that I was glad that HillaryCare bombed and I hope the Democrats do not repeat those mistakes.

@MataHarley: This is a cute game.

What I see in the media is a profits-motivated approach to reporting which focuses on meaningless minutia to build sweeping narratives (the gift-giving, the teleprompter, the “Mission Accomplished” banner, the plastic turkey, to name a few) and looks to gin up controversy where there is none while avoiding tough questions that would de-stabilize their relationship with the ruling class. It can be frustrating at times, but I’d rather have a media which is adversarial with the president rather than his puppet. I’ve seen as much anti-Americanism from The National Review under Obama as I had from The Nation under Bush, and it’s equally easy to ignore.

As I mentioned above, I do feel that executive over-reach has decreased America’s standing in the world, and that Obama’s so-called “Apology Tour” was a way of acknowledging some of those mistakes. Moreover, Obama repeatedly challenged the fringe anti-Americanism in Europe as “insidious” and unfounded – so the bitter followed the sweet. Obviously I feel that America is the greatest country in the world and has the capacity to be even greater, and if it weren’t I wouldn’t be living here.

Don’t see that our int’l “standing” is any more desireable that that of China

Frankly, I’m pretty surprised by this statement. Maybe I’m misreading, but are you saying that the US does not have a clear and recognized moral superiority over China because we value human rights? Do you honestly think that the average educated African or European sees our government in the same light as that of China?

@trizzlor #57 – That’s not what you said. You said:

we abhor it because it puts our troops in more danger when they’re captured and because it detracts from our overall mission as peace-keepers.

That argument didn’t work, so you switched to:

I would say that our adherence to humane treatment is intrinsic to what makes America exceptional and has always paid dividends: in the way the world looks up to us as a nation firm in its first principles, the millions of people who seek to work here and enrich us with their talents because America is nothing like their despotic government, the role we’ve been able to play as an arbiter in global conflict because we had moral clarity on our side.

There is no need to compare our standing in the world to that of China. While the left complains of the horrendous treatment of the Gitmo detainees, said detainees are enjoying food cooked by special chefs, with a religious overseer to make sure everything meets their strict religious diet. Those detainees that don’t act an ass have high def TV night, classes on anything from English to Oceanography.
So some of them were waterboarded. Tough. It’s not torture. You can say it is all you want, it will not change the fact that it isn’t. And the Japanese used hoses to force water up the nose of their prisoners while keeping their mouths covered. Big difference. Is our version of waterboarding unpleasant…hell yeah. Believe me, there are much more unpleasant things than waterboarding.
A bit off topic…when I first entered the Air Force, I went into ParaRescue. We spent a lot of time in the pool. I actually lost skin, we were in there so much. We would tread water forever or so it seemed. When the instructors got pissed at us or just for fun, they would make us fill our masks with water, jump up on the deck and start doing flutter kicks. Lots of flutter kicks. Try it some time and let me know how it works out for ya.

@trizzlor That was actually a very good argument trizzlor. However, the Iranians were after a confession. They didn’t care if the confession was the truth. As I’ve said, there are much worse things out there than waterboarding. Being hung up by your arms for extended periods of times and beaten will almost certainly produce a confession. I’m sure waterboarding would produce a confession too.
Tell me though, what good would a confession do for US interrogators? Can you give the CIA a little credit? They aren’t trying to get a confession. They aren’t trying to openly humiliate the detainees. They are trying to get information. What good would it do to force phony information from KSM?
The fact that you compare this to what the Iranians did to the British Marines is incredible. The US isn’t doing this for propaganda purposes. We were attacked and we want to know if there will be other attacks. Also, the British Marines were uniformed soldiers. I think we can reach some middle ground here though. Since the terrorists are not uniformed soldiers, we line them up and put a bullet in the back of their skulls. Perfectly legal under the GC. If they decide to spill their guts prior to said bullet entering their gray matter, all the better for us. No more chefs, no more high quality healthcare, no more arguments from the left.

Sorry to turn this into a damn lecture, but a few more points from the GC regarding spies:

ARTICLE 5: Where in occupied territory an individual protected person is detained as a spy or saboteur, or as a person under definite suspicion of activity hostile to the security of the Occupying Power, such person shall, in those cases where absolute military security so requires, be regarded as having forfeited rights of communication under the present Convention.
In each case, such persons shall nevertheless be treated with humanity, and in case of trial, shall not be deprived of the rights of fair and regular trial prescribed by the present Convention. They shall also be granted the full rights and privileges of a protected person under the present Convention at the earliest date consistent with the security of the State or Occupying Power, as the case may be.

These rights include, under ARTICLE 3: “(a) violence to life and person, in particular murder of all kinds, mutilation, cruel treatment and torture”. Lot’s of interesting stuff from International Humanitarian Law.

@Hard Right: Let’s repeat for the slow kids in the class:

Terrorists/enemy combatants don’t qualify.

And once you prove the detainee is a terrorist, as directed by the GC, then you can strip him of POW status. As for “an individual protected person”, ARTICLE 2 quoted above makes it pretty clear that an insurgent is a protected persons unless explicitly proven that he engaged in taking of hostages or is a mercenary. Have you even bothered to read through the conventions?

@Aye Chihuahua: Well, on the one hand it’s nice to see you actually read the damn thing, that’s some progress. But I would suggest not omitting context when you link to the actual articles. Let’s see:

1. Your “Not true. Sorry” quote essentially summarizes what I said – civilians involved in armed conflict are considered belligerents, and, as you mentioned yourself “Both are entitled to humane treatment in the hands of the enemy.”

2. To your statements claiming “Participants/captives must meet multiple conditions in order to qualify for protections under the GCs … If the captives do not fit all four of those categories then they are classified as unlawful combatants”. Here’s is the beginning of the exact paragraph you link:

Prisoners of war, in the sense of the present Convention, are persons belonging to one of the following categories, who have fallen into the power of the enemy:

(6) Inhabitants of a non-occupied territory, who on the approach of the enemy spontaneously take up arms to resist the invading forces, without having had time to form themselves into regular armed units, provided they carry arms openly and respect the laws and customs of war.

.

Your claim about belonging to all four categories is just an outright lie: a POW can belong to one of eight different categories; the latter of which clearly deals with the insurgents we’ve captured. Maybe you should stick to the threads about inappropriate bowing and DVDs?

Very nicely said Aye. Unfortunately, the truth isn’t going to work on trizzlor or the other lefties. After reading through trizzlor’s posts, it’s all about how the rest of the world perceives our actions. If we treat the detainees with kid gloves and we’re attacked again, the rest of the world will sympathize with us. The French will run frontline news stories that “We’re All Americans.” If we thwart those attacks…no sympathy. No matter what we do to get the information from terrorists, it is torture. You see, withouth the sympathy and accolades from the rest of the world, the left is lost. This was easily visible during Obama’s Apology Tour. In the end, what’s the loss of a few thousand American lives when the rest of the world sympathizes with us and our stellar treatment of the terrorists?

Triz, if I am slow then you are glacial. I’ve read the GC and they aren’t protected under it. Despite your efforts to twist it to fit your insane sense of morality, it has been explained to you in detail how wrong you are. As ususual you aren’t able to understand that which does not fit into your leftist fantasy.

I wouldn’t call your “sense of morality” insane, triz. I’d call it naive, effeminate and a politically correct sense of morality.

And why is it, BTW, that the only one the world demands follow the precious GC is the US? Hear anyone whining about any other country’s treatment?

Nope… one standard for the US, and nary a word for those who genuinely trample human rights.

The only way these human cockroaches gain any protections in the GC with their status is under Article 75. This is supported not only by legal scholars, but the ICRC. However when speaking of Art 75 rights, when you get right to it, what defines “humiliating and degrading acts”, and “mental suffering”?

How about we send ‘em all to your house, triz, so you and family can take care of these poor, abused “victims”. I’d suggest you warn those around you not to turn their backs tho. And fer heavens sake, hide the butter knives. They love the dull blades and slow sawing thru human necks.

Otherwise, if we’re going to have this quasi candy ass battle about whether pouring water, or exposure to bugs is mental “torture” – since neither are physical pain – you’ll find yourself with these scum in a US courtroom, claiming their Mickey D’s happy meal was served cold… and thereby torture.

ad nauseum…

If I have to keep listening to the self-righteous types go on about this, I still say shoot ‘em on the battlefield and be done with it.

It’s a typical feminine trait to embellish on pain, IMHO, triz. Such as a mom generally being more panicked than the dad with a kid who takes a fall off a bike, or a son who comes home from school with his first black eye after a fight. And most mom’s don’t like to think of their sons or daughters as boxers, ultimate fighters, etal.

That’s what I see in too many men today… an effeminate attitude towards things like waterboarding… which you equate with torture, and thereby some smug “morality”. Hang, most kids get that and more in the process of learning to swim. Dedicated athletes take more physical abuse than detainees who have been waterboarded. To watch so many wringing their hands in moral dismay over this stuff is absolutely pathetic, and quite frankly, embarrassing. Something I’d expect from my earth mommy sister, but not from men who I figure would have grown up doing what I remember boys do enroute to adulthood.

But then, I guess not all our young men or women can be the caliber of our special ops or SERE trained warriors. Maybe they [our military] just can take things in stride better than the average US citizen, used to nothing but a cushy life. You’ve not heard one of our many commenters here, who have gone thru waterboarding, whining about the pain and abuse, have you? Those who have experienced it have spoken up with what they can (without divulging more info than they should). They’ve been there, and I’d say they’ve got it all over you.

It would be interesting to get a sorority group together who indulge in hazing, and find out how they think about this stuff. How about the college students in the beer guzzling contests – in a way a self inflicted beer-boarding… LOL Think they could see their absurd double standard? Probably not for most… would get in the way of their PC programming. But I’m sure a few would.

@MataHarley: I’ve mentioned this before, but there’s a weird assumption here that the left is against torture because they’re not tough enough to stomach it. It’s odd that your definition of masculinity hinges on allowing someone else to commit violent acts for your security. It would be like arguing that someone is against capitol punishment because they think lethal injection is icky. To put it bluntly, I don’t have an ounce of pity or compassion for KSM or Zubaida and the things they were put through. Living in NYC, and still holding my breath a bit when I hear low flying planes, I actually get quite a bit of satisfaction thinking about their suffering. The difference, I think, is that I don’t go and base the actions of my government on my personal revenge fantasies. Rather, I abhor torture because it’s ineffective and because it’s an inhuman response grounded not in thought but in rage and sadism. Check the dates and places on those GC documents – a lot of these human rights regulations where established after the world looked into the abyss of the SS. Maybe you can see why I’m not impressed when we start calling people cockroaches and cheering for execution on sight.

Your problem here. triz, is that you have a blanket visualization of torture, encompassing waterboarding, sleep deprivation, drugs, etc. Frankly, you are a pansy wuss if you consider waterboarding, or any of the others above, as torture. Meaning, your effeminate nature isn’t because you abhor violence. It’s because of what you consider violent. By gosh, my granddaughter’s tougher than you.

I have a pretty clear division in my mind on what crosses the line. In your version… it’s all meshed together under the nanny GC rules that anything that offends the detainee enough for them to complain of “mental” suffering.

Do I condone cutting off limbs, maiming, beatings etc? No. I consider *that* torture.

Perhaps if you leave behind the Disney version of “torture”, and be more concerned if we do that which our enemy does, you might find more like kind thoughts out of the rest of us. Otherwise, you should consider yourself lucky there’s some tougher nuts around than yours to watch your NYC arse.