Alan Spector, Republican US Senator for Pennsylvania, Switches to the Democrats

I don't mind that the Republicans lost him... He was no good anyways. He'll just be a burden to the Democrats now.

 

More reflections on why Spector may have left the party...and why a significant number of long time GOP members left the party

first...the Muhlenberg study....http://www.muhlenberg.edu/studorgs/p...nalversion.doc

which describes why long term members of the GOP switched party registration from Republican to Democrat over the last few years.

Another example of the exclusive/restrictive nature of the party can be found here:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/politico/20090511/pl_politico/22342

It just appears that when push comes to shove...the GOP doesn't respond well to female leaders.

and from the above article...., this piece is a little dated...but utterly stunning...

The current shrinking GOP is simply an ever more radical, restrictive, narrow party. Its no wonder Spector changed party.

In fact for a very current perspective on who represents the GOP..who was on national talk show TV this sunday? Dick Cheney....quite possibly the most hated politician in America today.

Again...if Cheney represents current GOP thinking...no wonder Spector left the party.

 

The same reason most any politician uses. Spector is looking out for Spector; no one else.

Has absolutely nothing to do with ideology, party direction or support. Not event spite. Spector is looking out for number one, and no one else.

 

Oh get real! Since when have politicians been the self serving opportunists you try and claim Spector is. By definition, politicians are the finest people within our society and above reproach. If your claim that politicians switched to the party holding a popular majority was true, you would have seen a large number of Democrat politicians jumping over to the Republican party in the 80s and 90s. No my friends, the Republican party is done for. Stick a fork in it.

 

Sheesh, yeah, what was I thinking...

 

Lets see. Before the presidential race and before the primaries, which by definition within Pennsylvania are restricted to voting within the party in which one is represented...Dems increased their membership by about 600,000 and doubled their lead in state registered voters over the GOP from 600,000 to about 1.2 million.

Meanwhile, while both parties added voters, the GOP lost possibly up to 200,000 registered voters who switched to become dems.

Per the Muhlenberg study those folks left because of :

Bush
Iraq
The GOP becoming more extreme on issues with witch they didn't agree.

Hence the upcoming GOP senate primary saw a GOP membership which had less people who might have agreed with Spector.

Sure he switched because he didn't see opportunities within the GOP.

Sure he switched because the party had become narrower and more extreme.

I'd still like to know from those that think that the GOP should go back to its roots......

Exactly what roots do you mean?

 

Roots? What roots? I want the GOP to remain CONSERVATIVE!!!! There's no roots to go back to, no reinventing to do, and certainly no re-branding...

We simply need conservatives back in the party. What's a conservative? Someone who wants government to stay the fuck out of our way. Someone who recognizes that the federal governments responsibility is to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States and stay the fuck out of everyone's way.

Conservatives work their ass off, raise families, support friends, family, and people they don't even know, and they do so without want of a thank your or recognition. They do it, because that's who they are.

Conservatives are "Socially Liberal". We like to have fun, drink, smoke, party, whatever. We don't want to be told that we cannot do this or that, but reserve the right to protect whats ours from those that do whatever they please without earning it.

Conservatives are blue collar, white collar, rich, poor, and middle class. We are the heart of American and the ones that make this country go. Without us, the rest of you are fucked, PERIOD!

Conservatives don't give a shit about PC bs, or any of this other sissy bullshit. We like our guns, even those of us that choose not to own any. We like traditional values, but accept and realize that not everyone shares in the same values. That said, we are more willing to come to the aid of, shelter or acceptance of someone who is our complete opposite and accept them as EQUAL. We do not separate people into groups, races, religions or factions.

Conservatives love all, and accept all, even if, and especially when we do not necessarily agree with someone else.

If were dwindling in numbers its because we've had enough of this shit and are taking our hard work ethic, family values, and respect for other humans elsewhere.

A Conservative would give his worst enemy the shirt off his back, the last smoke in his pack, or the last dollar to his name.

Why do you think Liberals Hate us so much?

 

^ Amen to that.

There's a lot of differences between the liberal and conservative mindset, I think one of the main ones is that liberals are usually bored people that want to use government to get into other peoples' personal business that they otherwise couldn't. Maybe they can't make friends in the real world, I don't know, but I find it odd how a growing number of people want to use government for every single little thing that upsets them. Instead of making a difference through love and compassion (voluntarily), liberalism sets out to do all these things through the barrel of a gun. Somewhere someone made a little error in thinking that using fear to enforce positivity made sense.

Which really comes down to the thinking that the end justifies the means. Liberalism sees people as objects who are subject to planning by "higher" individuals for the greater good. It's collectivism. Now I'll admit not everything is black and white, not all liberals are collectivist on every issue, but it's pretty apparent that the more liberal you are, the less you believe in minority rights.. individual rights.

 

Where do you conservatives stand on abortion or women's right to choose?

Where do you stand on overseas wars, Iraq, Afghanistan, foreign aid?

Where do you stand on protecting the environment thru government action or any way these days?

Where do you stand on gay rights...and on the increasing number of states that are accepting gay marriages?

 

Can't speak for conservatives but 3 of those issues can and should be left for the sovereign states to decide.

 

That's kind of a cop out- while you may think that it is up to the states, for example, what do you think your state should do?

 

For one, I don't call myself a conservative, but I know that's the most likely conservative position.

Another is some of these issues have good arguments on both sides (which is one reason it should be for the states), so I don't have a strong opinion. I think abortion is murder personally, but there may be evidence against me. I think the option should be there in some cases, but there's a lot of thinking that goes into this stuff that I, myself, find unnecessary at the moment to do. If my state went one way or the other I wouldn't care much.

Gay marriage is another complex issue, why does the government have to be involved with it in the first place? My understanding is that it's all about the tax benefits, so what we really need to be asking is should we be giving gay couples tax benefits. We also need to reevaluate why we give couples tax benefits in the first place. Don't stop there, let's reexamine income taxes, the structure, their purpose, and how it's all getting spent. I have yet to see someone for gay marriage show or tell me what they believe the definition of marriage is. Between any gender? How about between any species? Can I be given tax breaks if I form a bond with a bumblebee or butterfly? Where are the lines drawn and who draws them. And if you find these questions ridiculous I'd like to know why.

Environment is another big one to leave to the states, I don't want some tree-mourning hippies from California (or wherever the hell these people come from) deciding regulations that affect my state. Some of our founders foresaw the problems we're having now and the solution is simple: Central power doesn't work. How I want my state to act? I am confident the people are becoming "environmentally aware" themselves. As the internet becomes a more effective means of getting specific information, I'm sure people will make more and more "eco-friendly" choices. A demand will follow up with a supply and before you know it, we'll all be mourning the loss of the "old grown trees" (if this is the general consensus through a free exchange of information). There are problems that can be taken care of when the actual people that grant powers to the government are trusted, this is one of them.

Changing now won't save us anyway if you believe in the manmade global warming theory.

 

Some states now recognize gay marriage, while others do not even recognize civil unions. Its looking like the federal Supreme Court will have to weigh in one way or another on this issue since an opposite sex marriage from one state is recognized in all others and same sex marriages are not. If I had to guess where this is going to wind up, the Supreme Court will rule that while the constitution does not grant same sex marriage as a right, denial of civil unions which are marriage in all but name to couples of the same sex will be ruled a denial of their civil rights. Then you will see the 20 states which, by their state constitution, ban same sex marriages and civil unions at odds with the federal court, and likely having to revise their state constitutions. Should be interesting to watch. Then again, I'm no attorney.

 

Nate basically passes on the social issues and says leave them to the states.

Nate: Where are you on the wars overseas?

Where do other conservatives that want to take the GOP back to their roots stand on these issues?

Abomination basically takes a pass on gay marriage also--although sees it going into the Federal province via the Supreme Court.

Just so you know, I personally have a hard time w/ gay marriage...but I know too many people who favor it...or are gay and great people who favor it.

I think they should have the same rights as the rest of the population. I don't see a big taboo or problem with this population. Don't make them second class citizens.

 

I didnt take a pass. I see civil unions that are the same as marriage in all but name being a good compromise with those who would deny these people the right to marry, not that we liberals need to compromise on anything. Given the foundations of the country and the word marriage within the country, letting them keep the definition as between a man and a woman, while not denying another human being the ability to inherit their mate's belongings on death, or attend them in the emergency room on their death bed seems like a just compromise. I know I know. You are wondering where my usual hard core leftist viewpoint is on the subject. Since I discovered I have deep seated homosexual feelings for Mr. Obama, and I discovered he is against gay marriage, this position was the only way I could reconcile my own feelings.

 

We stand on both sides of the isle. We're free thinkers and do not follow a group. Some are for, some are against?

Iraq = US Interest.
Afghanistan = No US Interest
Foreign Aid = Where it suits a valid US Interest, OK. None? NO

We don't need the government to take any other action than what the Constitution calls for, which is again, TO PROTECT AND DEFEND THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA.

We care for our environment ourselves. We do a better job at it. Government creates more waste, and does more harm than good. Why? No oversight. No impact studies, and no thinking.

Case in point. ZDDP was pulled from motor oil last year. Thinking was, pull out that zinc and other bad stuff, save the environment. Result?

Classic cars and older cars, particularly those with soft cams and flat tappets are RUINED. My Vette for instance. Cam lobes wore down with just 1800 miles of this new oil last year.

Impact on environment? Well, now I am putting a larger cam, new lifters, intake, heads, carb, etc... Gonna burn more fuel and pollute the environment even more as a result of trying to save it.

EPA? Morons... No thanks.

There is NO SUCH THING AS GAY RIGHTS. Human rights? Yes. That's it. Were' all human. Again, Conservatives don't pool people into groups. You're gay? Who gives a shit. You have the same rights I do as a human being. You do not deserve any special or altered rights as a result.

Want to get Married? Go for it. Who's stopping you? What's next? Pedo Rights, Necro Rights, Beasto Rights?

Again, Conservatives want Government to stay the fuck out of our way. If they did, there would be no one trying to tout "Gay Rights'. It would be a complete non-issue.

Anyone ever find it interesting how many Republicans out there have Gay Children, only to find that they are the first to embrace them, accept them, and love them, whilst the most liberal in the crowd want them strung up and drawn and quartered?

I'd state examples, but it should be fairly obvious.

Again, this is why Liberals hate us. We are everything they want people to believe they are, and more!

 

I agree with most of what Mia has to say. It's not the government's job to babysit me. But, it is their job to defend and uphold the Constitution. I don't think Zibblu or Obamazomie, errrr Obamanation, understand that. It's not that I wish ill will on Obama, he is a nice guy, but he is NOT good at his job when it comes to defending and upholding the Constitution.

Doesn't anyone else see what's going on with the Democrats in power? They want this expensive healthcare plan for everyone, and to pay for it, they are going to tax the shit out of the middle class. Exactly what he said he would NOT do. It's not a direct tax of course, but an indirect one. Taxing cigarettes, now talks about soda, alcohol, energy, and a few others. Who consumes most of that or who does the cost get passed on to? The middle class. They also tried to cover their ass by saying they are trying to tax unhealthy 'sin' items so they can cut consumption and and make the public healthier. Yea, they could give a shit less about our health. They are already trying to control the public to keep their crappy health plan costs down. It's not the governments job to tell me what to consume, or how much. And besides, there's already several government-run plan in place and they SUCK. Anyone ever been to a VA hospital? Yea, they are GROSS.

Bottom line: stop trying to control everyone and stick to your real job. Defending and upholding my rights! We are granted the freedom to pursue our own paths in life, it was not setup to provide everyone with free everything! Our freedoms are slowly being stripped away.....

And as far as gay marriage: we always talk about how marriage is 'defined'. Where is it defined? I've never seen a federal document defining what marriage is, have you?

 

I can appreciate a fiscal conservative, though I do not believe history bears out an utterly free market doesn't have a downside, and a serious one, at that; I can also appreciate a principled, philosophical conservative along the lines of Edmund Burke. Unfortunately, there are many who claim to be "roots conservatives" in this vein, who really aren't, as they say these things while espousing a decidedly neo-conservative platform to domestic and foreign policy. One can't say they want government off their backs, and then support that government's activism in ways that have nothing to do with fiscal conservatism.

As to federal attempts to define marriage, yes - the history of the Federal Marriage Amendment is precisely that. Pushed by the former president and stewarded by Republican leadership in the House, it failed, but not by much, and this social-conservative coalition has kept up the fight to ensure the federal government defines marriage for all of us:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Marriage_Amendment

Our friend Obamanation is not an Obama supporter, as I would have thought was obvious to most, by now? Earl caught it, Browntwn did as well, I also enjoyed (sorry, obamanation, "enjoyed" was a minor giggle for a couple of seconds only) the play on words, "abomination," and his attempted mockery of liberalism and Obama, his supporters, etc., is obvious, or I would think would be. But Obamanation, if you're hopeful of fooling folks that you actually represent - what was it you said you are, now, a socialist, liberal, or communist? - more power to you, I guess.

 

Can you find a quote where I have misrepresented the facts, or the liberal position on said issue? Don't hate me because I'm openly liberal, or because my liberal viewpoints offend your "Common sensibilities". Now is not a time for common sense, it is a time to spend our way out of debt, and I think any idiot understands that!

 

LOL - Oh, I don't hate you, Obamanation; in fact, I do find your pithy (intentional) malapropisms ("now is not the time for common sense, it is a time to spend our way out of debt!) skilled, and kind of funny, and do find it mildly amusing that some are apparently fooled, still, and like I said, if it floats your boat to play the mockery, knock yourself out, truly. If people really take your comments like....oh, I don't know,

at face value, well, you've succeeded at what you wanted, I would guess(?).

I would think you'd rather spend time supporting your position of fiscal conservatism, over trying to limn the liberal line (and I would guess you'd have to include the Republicans, here, to include Ronald Reagan, who have no issue talking tax cuts while radically increasing spending, wantonly increasing the federal bleed) as a bunch of amoral spendthrifts. Whatever works for you, as I earlier said.

Edited to add: Hahahah - just saw your profile..."location: san francisco, interests: frivolous lawsuits, occupation: unemployed...." that outta convince 'em you're the fire-breathing liberal and forum fodder they'd hope you be.