[Gee-Man]

Big news today: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...042801523.html

Pennsylvania Sen. Arlen Specter will switch parties and run for reelection in November 2010 as a Democrat, he announced today, a decision that could have wide-ranging consequences for the Senate and President Obama's agenda.
Specter told reporters that he received a "bleak" poll Friday from his advisers that showed virtually no chance of him winning in the GOP primary next spring against Pat Toomey, a former Republican House member who recently led the conservative Club for Growth.

Predictably, the right is accusing Specter of treachery, and also being an opportunist who is simply out to save his own skin. Specter claims that the Republican Party left him to move to the far right, and there is no room for a moderate like him in today's Republican Party.

I think they're both right. Specter is clearly doing this to keep his job, and he's a total weasel to claim now that he stands with Democrats more than Republicans. If you look at his voting record, he is not a liberal by any stretch of the imagination. Not even close. So yes, he is mostly trying to save his own skin, the wingnuts are absolutely correct on that one.

While it's true that Specter may be a weasel, he's also right when he says that today's Republican Party has no room for moderates. For years now, anybody who isn't to the right of Dick Cheney has been considered a "RINO", and has been pushed to get out of the way. Now, as the number of people who self-identify as Republicans is shrinking, rapidly, "moderates" like Specter must kow-tow to the far-right extremists in order to keep their jobs. It's almost a certainty that Specter would have been beaten in the Republican primary by Pat Toomey, but Toomey is almost as certain to lose the general election against any Democrat in a blue state like Pennsylvania. The quest for idological purity has cost the GOP enormously the past two election cycles, but the 20% hard core right-wing crowd is too blinded to see it.

I'm sure the wingnuts will never take liberals' advice, but Trust Us - we were in your position once before. Several times, in fact. The hard-core left once had a stranglehold on the Democratic Party, similar to what is happening now with the GOP and the hard-core right, and it nearly killed them as a national party. It wasn't until Bill Clinton came along and helped rescue the Democrats from themselves did Democrats finally manage to convince majorities of the American people to support them. Obama's election was possible only because of what Bill Clinton started.

You cannot govern as a far-right extremist party. Return to the center-right, and you have a chance. Otherwise, this pattern will repeat itself for years to come, as moderates and independent-minded Republicans jump ship for more sane waters.

[hyteckit]

Who wants to be a Republican these days. Even Republicans on this forum claim they are not Republicans, just conservatives.

[ironknee]

right on!

with frankin we got it baby

[ghporter]

To be fair, the "republicans" in office for the last few years would not be recognizable by Ronald Reagan and his crew. Using the "conservative" label is more accurate for people who believe in the same things that Reagan's Republicans did.

But Specter is bothersome for a number of reasons. He's cravenly announced that he's changing labels because he couldn't win as a Republican, and made noises that he feels more strongly about Democratic positions than current Republican positions. But he hasn't said anything to reflect those positions, or how he's managed to change those stripes. Now he WAS a Democrat until something like 1966, when he became a Republican, but that doesn't address how he's been a "good Republican party member" all these years but hasn't agreed with their positions-nor how trustworthy to his new party a party switcher may be in the future. Remember the old saw about "can the person he cheats with trust someone who cheats on his wife?"

[Gee-Man]

Originally Posted by ghporter 

To be fair, the "republicans" in office for the last few years would not be recognizable by Ronald Reagan and his crew. Using the "conservative" label is more accurate for people who believe in the same things that Reagan's Republicans did.

Very true. I would have never imagined in a million years, for example, that people who call themselves "conservatives" but who really are Republicans would be championing, say, increased government surveillance on US citizens as a matter of principle.

But Specter is bothersome for a number of reasons. He's cravenly announced that he's changing labels because he couldn't win as a Republican, and made noises that he feels more strongly about Democratic positions than current Republican positions. But he hasn't said anything to reflect those positions, or how he's managed to change those stripes. Now he WAS a Democrat until something like 1966, when he became a Republican, but that doesn't address how he's been a "good Republican party member" all these years but hasn't agreed with their positions-nor how trustworthy to his new party a party switcher may be in the future. Remember the old saw about "can the person he cheats with trust someone who cheats on his wife?"

Oh, I don't think anybody is foolish enough to really trust Specter after this. Any more than Democrats "trust" Joe Lieberman, another totally craven politician who switched teams just to save his own skin. The politicians in the Democratic Party are happy about this solely based on what they think Specter can do for them, not because they think he has any principles.

The truth is, Specter can't be totally independent - by making this switch, he will actually owe the Democrats something. If he wins the general election, it will likely be due to the support of the Democratic Party and Barack Obama - which he would lose in a heartbeat if he decided to consistently vote like a Republican. So he really is stuck between a rock and a hard place - stay with the Republicans, lose his job, or switch to the Democrats, and be forced to vote in ways he may not personally like, but will guarantee him the support he needs.

Couldn't happen to a nicer politician.

[smacintush]

It's not just about how far right they are, it's about party loyalty. People like Specter have thrown their own party under the bus an issues that the party deems very important.

Personally, I don't see a point in having a party if you are just going to go three different ways every vote. Parties are SUPPOSED to be like-minded and unified.

[smacintush]

And I don't know what Democrat party you are talking about but the current party in power is FAR from moderate.

[Big Mac]

Good riddance. Just a month ago he was adamantly denying that he would ever defect, saying that he thought it was very important to not deliver a filibuster-proof majority to the Democrats. What a crock, what a crook.

[Dakar V]

Specter is the worst kind of moderate – he panders to the bases on key issues.

He's also credited with the magic bullet theory, which is why I've voted against him in the past. Not enough people know this fact, either.

[SpaceMonkey]

He just wants to out-maverick McCain. What a show-off.

[turtle777]

Oh come on, let the old man die a Democrat.

He will not be missed.

-t

[Chongo]

Originally Posted by Gee-Man 

Oh, I don't think anybody is foolish enough to really trust Specter after this. Any more than Democrats "trust" Joe Lieberman, another totally craven politician who switched teams just to save his own skin. The politicians in the Democratic Party are happy about this solely based on what they think Specter can do for them, not because they think he has any principles.

The difference with Lieberman is that he ran as an independent, not a Republican, and still caucuses with the Democrats.

[kobi]

Another nail in the coffin of the GOP.

[Big Mac]

And another nail in the coffin of our republic.

[Kerrigan]

Another nail in the coffin containing the coffin of Oscar Wilde.

[Shaddim]

Who cares? I saw this coming 3 years ago.

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by Gee-Man 

Very true. I would have never imagined in a million years, for example, that people who call themselves "conservatives" but who really are Republicans would be championing, say, increased government surveillance on US citizens as a matter of principle.

Me either. But seeing how the "US citizens" in question are people suspected of aiding and abetting folks overseas who want to murder us, I'm not sure how your example has much relevance. It's like saying they want to decrease American freedom when they champion prison terms for people who break the law. Context is everything.

Originally Posted by smacintush 

And I don't know what Democrat party you are talking about but the current party in power is FAR from moderate.

If there's no room for moderates in the Republican party, a party whose base is abandoning them because their elected officials are TOO moderate, then the situation with the Democrats would appear to be even worse. They won't even let moderate or conservative views be voiced and I'm not aware of any "moderate" or "conservative" Democrat who has a real position of power in the party. A real "pot calling the kettle black".

Specter is/was a dolt. Like the other poster mentioned, he's the guy who invented the "magic bullet" to try and save us all from the pain and horror of the conspiracy against JFK. He's useless to any party and I'm not sure what the people in PA see in him.

Giving the Democrats who are already trying to radically change the country in ways that the American people do not support (look at the polls) additional power to continue is only going to hurt the Democrats in the long run. They are making the same mistakes they made in the early nineties and that left them out of power for years.

Don't say I didn't tell you so next year.

[BadKosh]

Repubs are lucky to get rid of flip-flopping Spector. He's pissed off his constituents, and the repubs have had enough of his BS, and he saw the writing on the wall. He can go be a democrat turn-coat like he was before. It doesn't make him a better senator, or representative.

[Gee-Man]

The replies prove my point. All the more wingnutty members of the PWL telling us that we need MORE far-right people in the Republican Party, not less. What, having only 3 "moderate" senators is too many for you? Should every Senator be like, say, James Inhofe? "Good riddance", they say.

We shall see, but from where the American people stand, trust me, it's not the Democrats who are looking like radicals right now. Maybe that will change, as it always does from time to time. These things go in cycles. But the Republican's electorate is shrinking right now, and the evidence is clear that moderates and independents are leaving in droves.

[Gee-Man]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

Me either. But seeing how the "US citizens" in question are people suspected of aiding and abetting folks overseas who want to murder us, I'm not sure how your example has much relevance. It's like saying they want to decrease American freedom when they champion prison terms for people who break the law. Context is everything.

Ah, if only what you believe was true. It isn't. The surveillance operations I'm talking about are dragnets, designed to capture ALL overseas conversations to specific countries and mine them for information, looking for suspicious activity. Which means they don't distinguish between wiretapping suspected illegal activities, and an ordinary phone call to someone overseas. That's why they needed to illegally go around the FISA court in the first place, since FISA already had procedures in place to handle wiretapping calls to foreign nationals when there's suspicion of aiding foreign terrorists.

Which makes my example supremely relevant. Conservatives of a different era would have been screaming bloody murder at the very idea that the government could be trusted to indiscriminately wiretap Americans without a warrant, whereas "conservatives" (lower-case c) such as yourself delude yourself into thinking this is all perfectly ok, simply because your favorite president of all time initiated it. If you believe this, you are a Republican, not a conservative. Sorry.

If there's no room for moderates in the Republican party, a party whose base is abandoning them because their elected officials are TOO moderate, then the situation with the Democrats would appear to be even worse. They won't even let moderate or conservative views be voiced and I'm not aware of any "moderate" or "conservative" Democrat who has a real position of power in the party. A real "pot calling the kettle black".

Ummm... feigned ignorance doesn't actually make untrue things true. Ever hear of the "Blue Dogs"? They've been all over the news the past 2 years, or maybe you've never heard of them because you only read extreme right-wing websites to get your information. Fine, so let's find a source you might actually read - what about the moderate Democrats in the Senate who succeeded in watering down all of Obama's proposals, including the stimulus package?

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/firs...ts-flex-clout/

Moderate Democrats in Congress who built their ranks in November's elections are nudging their party's liberal agenda to the center, working to add a pro-business dose of pragmatism to President Obama's plans to rescue homeowners, overhaul health care and revamp energy policy.

In the Senate, a more loosely affiliated group of Democratic centrists led by Sens. Evan Bayh of Indiana, Tom Carper of Delaware and Blanche Lincoln of Arkansas plans to launch its own coalition in the coming weeks. The group of about 15 could be a critical voting bloc as Senate Democratic leaders, with a 58-41 working majority that includes two independents, search for the elusive 60 votes necessary to advance most legislation beyond the minefield of procedural hurdles.

This is Fox News, so you should be familiar with my source. Read the opening paragraph - moderate Democrats expanded their ranks in the November election. Tell me another fantasy about how you believe there's "no room for moderates" in the Democratic Party. Do you see any of the "Blue Dogs" switching parties complaining that the Democrats are too liberal for them?

Of course the Democratic Party is primarily liberal, just as the Republican party is primarily conservative. Duh. The point is that with the Democrats, they have a sizable number of moderate and conservative members, and they are still considered Democrats, whereas with the Republicans, moderates are considered anathema to the party message and are strongly pushed, from the top, to either become far more extreme, or leave the party.

Giving the Democrats who are already trying to radically change the country in ways that the American people do not support (look at the polls)...

I don't know where the hell you are getting your polls, but every single national poll right now shows strong support for Obama and his policies. He is doing exactly what he promised he would do when elected.

Now, you obviously don't agree with what he wanted to do. That's pretty F-ing obvious. But don't try to pretend that "the American people are on my side!" when the facts clearly don't support that right now.

They are making the same mistakes they made in the early nineties and that left them out of power for years.

Don't say I didn't tell you so next year.

Whatever. We'll see.

[Gee-Man]

Originally Posted by smacintush 

And I don't know what Democrat party you are talking about but the current party in power is FAR from moderate.

I didn't say they were moderate. I said there's room for moderates, and even some social conservatives in the Democratic Party.

The Democratic Party is mostly liberal, that's obvious. We obviously aren't going to have a Michele Bachmann as a Democrat. But they are open-minded enough to allow members with other viewpoints to a certain degree, far more than today's Republican Party allows.

[Gee-Man]

Originally Posted by Chongo 

The difference with Lieberman is that he ran as an independent, not a Republican, and still caucuses with the Democrats.

There are differences, true, but the position both politicians are in is eerily similar. My point was that Lieberman switched to being an "Independent Democrat" mostly to save his own skin after he lost the Democratic primary to Ned Lamont. Just like what was about to happen to Specter. He also endorsed John McCain in the election, if you recall.

Lieberman only caucuses with the Democrats because he wanted to keep his seniority and chairmanships (like Specter, wanted to keep his job), and because Obama stepped in to save his ass from being booted from the caucus by Democrats out for revenge after the election.

"The base", meaning the hard core left-wing folks in the Democratic Party, wanted Lieberman gone gone gone, but unlike with the Republicans, the base doesn't really control the Democratic Party to the same degree as the Republicans' base does. So they were ignored.

[smacintush]

Amnesty for criminal immigrants, cap and trade, higher overall taxes, the coming inflation, kowtowing to people like Chavez and Abdullah, unprecedented deficit and debt, nationalization/socialization…

When was the last time there were right-wing protests again? How about before that?

The right will be back, bet on it. Sooner rather than later.

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by Gee-Man 

The replies prove my point. All the more wingnutty members of the PWL telling us that we need MORE far-right people in the Republican Party, not less. What, having only 3 "moderate" senators is too many for you? Should every Senator be like, say, James Inhofe? "Good riddance", they say.

I'm pretty sure that more Congressmen than three could be labeled as "moderate", unless the label only applies to Republicans who regularly side with Democrats and the left on issues. The flaw in the argument is the assumption that the Democrats are anywhere NEAR moderate. The party is totally controlled by the left whose agenda has nothing to do with moderation.

The Republicans have been TOO moderate in it's actions. It doesn't need to be as crazy partisan and out of sync with most Americans as the Democrats are right now, but having leadership which actually fights for conservative values would probably go toward wooing their base.

We shall see, but from where the American people stand, trust me, it's not the Democrats who are looking like radicals right now. Maybe that will change, as it always does from time to time.

Polling shows a lack of support for most of Obama's agenda and that of Congress which has it's lowest ratings ever. While Obama himself may be seen as "popular" due to his charisma and likability, the actual agenda issues aren't too popular with most Americans. If you think that will make them look less "radical" in comparison to years and years of a good economy, defense safety, and low taxes - GOOD LUCK TO YOU! The Republicans probably aren't going to campaign against Obama in 2010 - they'll campaign against his policies. When people's energy bills start going up, and their healthcare starts getting screwed up, Obama's ability to speak from a teleprompter isn't going to help Democrats much.

These things go in cycles. But the Republican's electorate is shrinking right now, and the evidence is clear that moderates and independents are leaving in droves.

There is no such evidence. Democrats took advantage of two things:

1. Bush unpopularity.
2. Recent scandals involving Republicans and corruption which caused their base to drop in support.

In most cases, the reason why the two things are important is that both Congress and Bush stopped practicing Conservative politics, and their base are not supporting them.

The democrats are now taking their advantage and flushing it down the toilet because they know they have maybe a year and a half to push through their radical agenda before they lose seats in Congress (as is the norm) and Obama's polling numbers go down. It's not rocket science.

[Gee-Man]

Originally Posted by smacintush 

Amnesty for criminal immigrants, cap and trade, higher overall taxes, the coming inflation, kowtowing to people like Chavez and Abdullah, unprecedented deficit and debt, nationalization/socialization…

Some of what you cite is pure fiction, some of it unwarranted paranoia ("the coming inflation"? ), while the rest are merely policy disagreements. But either way, so what? All of the things you mention are what's firing up the far-right extremists, leaving everybody else who isn't a wingnut wondering whether the Republican Party gives a shyte about them. You are actually making my case for me that the far-right wants to purge all moderate members of the GOP. Tell me, how do you feel about Olympia Snowe and Susan Collins? Are they Republicans in good standing to you?

When was the last time there were right-wing protests again? How about before that?

I recall a few during the 2000 elections. But in this case, the right-wing protests are merely a reflexive outpouring of leftover shock and disbelief after losing a major election. There really wasn't anything substantive there that mainstream America could relate to, just ominous "warnings" from hard-core right-wingers of what might happen if we don't immediately go back to Bush-era policies in all aspects of government. We already had that referendum, by the way. People for the most part decided that the right-wing agenda wasn't the way forward.

Obama hasn't done anything that he didn't promise he would do, over and over, during the election. I understand why you're upset about it, but surprise is the least logical reaction.

The right will be back, bet on it. Sooner rather than later.

I don't doubt that the right will be back. I doubt "sooner" is the timeframe you're looking for, though.

[smacintush]

Originally Posted by Gee-Man 

Some of what you cite is pure fiction, some of it unwarranted paranoia ("the coming inflation"? ), while the rest are merely policy disagreements. But either way, so what? All of the things you mention are what's firing up the far-right extremists, leaving everybody else who isn't a wingnut wondering whether the Republican Party gives a shyte about them. You are actually making my case for me that the far-right wants to purge all moderate members of the GOP. Tell me, how do you feel about Olympia Snowe and Susan Collins? Are they Republicans in good standing to you?



I recall a few during the 2000 elections. But in this case, the right-wing protests are merely a reflexive outpouring of leftover shock and disbelief after losing a major election. There really wasn't anything substantive there that mainstream America could relate to, just ominous "warnings" from hard-core right-wingers of what might happen if we don't immediately go back to Bush-era policies in all aspects of government. We already had that referendum, by the way. People for the most part decided that the right-wing agenda wasn't the way forward.

Obama hasn't done anything that he didn't promise he would do, over and over, during the election. I understand why you're upset about it, but surprise is the least logical reaction.



I don't doubt that the right will be back. I doubt "sooner" is the timeframe you're looking for, though.

I was simply speaking from the point of view of the republicans, I'm not one of them. I like freedom too much to be a republican or a democrat.

Of course in your eyes and the eyes of many here that just makes me MORE nutty than the nuts I'm sure so whatever.

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by Gee-Man 

Ah, if only what you believe was true. It isn't. The surveillance operations I'm talking about are dragnets, designed to capture ALL overseas conversations to specific countries and mine them for information, looking for suspicious activity.

So you are saying that they are looking to expand surveillance on people from nations supporting terror who happen to be talking to Americans? I think that considering the fact that most Americans aren't talking to people from countries supporting terror, and having conversations involving things which would be of interest to international terror investigations which would trigger the "dragnet" - people aren't going to get up in arms. You're talking about a very small percentage of the population in a situation that's "life or death" doing things which triggers an action.

Also, I'm pretty sure your definition of "conservative" has little basis in reality. Remember, there was a time when our government interned many of it's fellow Americans in camps during war time when there was ZERO evidence they'd done nothing wrong. What do you think that those "conservatives" back then would think about it? All is fair in love and war, which is why most people I talk to laugh about Obama and the left's craze over things like waterboarding.

Which makes my example supremely relevant. Conservatives of a different era would have been screaming bloody murder at the very idea that the government could be trusted to indiscriminately wiretap Americans without a warrant, whereas "conservatives" (lower-case c) such as yourself delude yourself into thinking this is all perfectly ok, simply because your favorite president of all time initiated it. If you believe this, you are a Republican, not a conservative. Sorry.

It doesn't matter who is President. If Obama wants to put up a digital dragnet on my calls where I mention something like "bomb" or "cash payments" to people residing in the middle east to make sure I'm not planning on killing millions of Americans, he can be my guest. If that's the only inconvenience I have to suffer in order to keep from being killed by those who wish to murder me, I'm willing to make that small sacrifice. Get back to me when they are tapping my phones and listening to me talk to my next door neighbor, or taking over industry in an attempt to implement european socialism...OH..WAIT!!!

Ummm... feigned ignorance doesn't actually make untrue things true. Ever hear of the "Blue Dogs"? They've been all over the news the past 2 years, or maybe you've never heard of them because you only read extreme right-wing websites to get your information. Fine, so let's find a source you might actually read - what about the moderate Democrats in the Senate who succeeded in watering down all of Obama's proposals, including the stimulus package?

What committees are those guys in charge of? When Republicans where in power, many of the "moderates" in question actually had positions of power both in the party, and in national leadership roles. Arlen Specter was in charge of the judiciary committee I believe.

Of course the Democratic Party is primarily liberal, just as the Republican party is primarily conservative. Duh. The point is that with the Democrats, they have a sizable number of moderate and conservative members, and they are still considered Democrats, whereas with the Republicans, moderates are considered anathema to the party message and are strongly pushed, from the top, to either become far more extreme, or leave the party.

Democrats have gained power by co-opting Republican ideals and pretending to be moderate. Obama is the perfect example. He pretended to be the "MEE TOO" McCain candidate and when he got into office took a HARD left.

The last couple of elections, the Democrats gained because "safe" Republican areas where involved in scandal and controversy and they put into place candidates who promised to represent their constituencies. What happens when these guys either vote with Obama and then end up having to go up against a real republican, not stung by scandal or controversy the next election? The republican districts are going to vote Republican again. These "blue dogs" are in a tough position because they either have to bow to pressure and vote with Obama and be liked by their fellow Democrats in Washington, or stick to the values of their electorate and essentially make the Democrat majority meaningless if they want to get re-elected.

I don't know where the hell you are getting your polls, but every single national poll right now shows strong support for Obama and his policies. He is doing exactly what he promised he would do when elected.

I said check the polls that actually ask people about his agenda items - not just the personal popularity contests. As we saw during the election, polls regarding support for Obama are being rigged using weighting and other factors. There's really no other way for a good chunk of the pollsters to have had the election numbers off by more than the margin of error. But if you want popularity polls, here's one. It shows Obama less popular that that G.W. Bush guy at the same point in office, and we know what happened to him:

"According to Gallup's April survey, Americans have a lower approval of Mr. Obama at this point than all but one president since Gallup began tracking this in 1969. The only new president less popular was Bill Clinton, who got off to a notoriously bad start after trying to force homosexuals on the military and a federal raid in Waco, Texas, that killed 86. Mr. Obama's current approval rating of 56 percent is only one tick higher than the 55-percent approval Mr. Clinton had during those crises.

As the attached chart shows, five presidents rated higher than Mr. Obama after 100 days in office. Ronald Reagan topped the charts in April 1981 with 67 percent approval. Following the Gipper, in order of popularity, were: Jimmy Carter with 63 percent in 1977; George W. Bush with 62 percent in 2001; Richard Nixon with 61 percent in 1969; and George H.W. Bush with 58 percent in 1989.

See what they think about paying a lot higher energy taxes to get "cap and trade". Find out how they poll when asked about increased spending and higher taxes. See what they think about the Democrats plan for the economy. Most polling I've seen on the specifics are pretty ominous for Democrats.

In all three presidential debates, Obama promised to cut government spending and reduce the size of the deficit. He blamed the economic crisis on excessive deficits. What does he do when he gets into office? Increase deficit spending and increase the size of government in unprecedented ways. THIS is likely why he's at the bottom end of the "First 100 days" popularity scale and the precedent Bill Clinton set in 1994 looks like a pretty good clear indication of where things are likely to go next year.

Dick Morris, a guy who politicians on both side of the aisle have listened to (and swear by), explains it better than I ever could. He's the guy who got Clinton out of his 1994 jam. Clinton wasn't as ideological as Obama, nor do I think he has Obama's ego, so I doubt Obama will listen to Morris about anything....

TheHill.com - Obama sows seeds of demise

[Gee-Man]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

I'm pretty sure that more Congressmen than three could be labeled as "moderate", unless the label only applies to Republicans who regularly side with Democrats and the left on issues.

No, the "moderate" label applies to Republicans who buck their party from time to time to vote their principles. It's entirely possible for a Republican to agree with a Democrat, although you apparently don't think so. Senators Specter, Snowe, and Collins voted for the stimulus, but against other Obama proposals (not to mention they wouldn't vote for the stimulus until changes were made, hardly the behavior of a secret leftist).

During the stimulus debate, 11 Democrats in the House voted against the stimulus, which would correctly identify them as either "moderate" or "conservative". By contrast, not a single Republican in the House voted for the stimulus package. Pretty clear evidence that while there are plenty of moderate Democrats, there seem to be few to no moderate Republicans left in the House.

The flaw in the argument is the assumption that the Democrats are anywhere NEAR moderate. The party is totally controlled by the left whose agenda has nothing to do with moderation.

The point is flying around up there, somewhere above your head. You just gotta look up.

Look, your opinion that "the left" is too extreme is noted. You're an extreme right-winger, of course you would think that. Anybody to the left of Ronald Reagan is probably a dirty f*cking hippie in your mind. You have a right to your opinion. But the fact is, a major "moderate" has left the GOP, and there are many others complaining that the party has swung too far to the right. They've lost two elections in a row - badly. They have a point. Screaming about "we're not too extreme - YOU are!" doesn't change what's actually happening in the real world. Again, do you see any moderate Blue Dog Democrats switching parties?

The Republicans have been TOO moderate in it's actions. It doesn't need to be as crazy partisan and out of sync with most Americans as the Democrats are right now, but having leadership which actually fights for conservative values would probably go toward wooing their base.

"The base" isn't going to win elections these days. Sorry. They've already been woo-ed. The base is shrinking as America's population changes. Young people are overwhelmingly Democrat, and that number is growing, not shrinking. Without some kind of effort to woo independents, your precious so-called conservative values (which are not really all that "conservative", more reactionary, actually) will lead you nowhere.

Polling shows a lack of support for most of Obama's agenda and that of Congress which has it's lowest ratings ever. While Obama himself may be seen as "popular" due to his charisma and likability, the actual agenda issues aren't too popular with most Americans.

It's frustrating for you to cite polls as "proof" of some random assertion, without a link or any evidence in sight. Again, I don't know where the hell you are getting your polls, but the polls in the reality-based community I live in show nothing like what you've asserted:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv...oll_042609.html

Originally Posted by Washington Post-ABC News Poll

Code:
2. Do you approve or disapprove of the way Obama is handling [ITEM]? (IF ITEM A) Do you approve/disapprove strongly or somewhat?
4/24/09 - Summary Table*

                                         Approve   Disapprove   No opinion
a. The economy                             58         38             4
b. The federal budget deficit              51         43             7
c. International affairs                   67         27             6
d. The situation in Iraq                   71         21             8
e. Global warming                          61         23            16
f. Health care                             57         29            13
g. U.S. relations with Cuba                61         28            11  
h. The situation in Afghanistan            63         26            11
i. Immigration issues                      48         35            18
j. The situation with Iran                 54         35            11
k. Taxes                                   56         38             6
l. The U.S. campaign against terrorism     62         29             9
m. The situation involving the 
   big U.S. automakers                     41         53             6

So put up or shut up, as they say. Prove it - show me aggregate polls that show overwhelming lack of support for Obama's agenda. I link I posted earlier showed Obama's job approval and support for his specific policies, not his personal rating. His job approval is currently at 68%, higher than any president at this same time in their term in recent years (not since JFK, in fact).

As for Congress, their approval ratings are low, as they always are, but they are actually UP compared to recent years. Democrats have a higher approval rating than Republicans by far. Link.

There is no such evidence.

http://www.nytimes.com/imagepages/20...ELLY_GRFK.html
http://documents.nytimes.com/new-yor...in-office#p=30

The New York Times poll I linked to above indicates the number of people who self-identify as Republican is 20%, the lowest number since that poll started in 1992. This poll is not an anomaly, the latest Washington Post/ABC News poll shows self-identified Republicans at 21%.

There IS such evidence.

The democrats are now taking their advantage and flushing it down the toilet because they know they have maybe a year and a half to push through their radical agenda before they lose seats in Congress (as is the norm) and Obama's polling numbers go down. It's not rocket science.

You've made predictions before in the PWL that were laughably mistaken. I'm generally not a betting man, but I'd bet against you if I could.

I will say this - if Obama's poll numbers go down, it'll be because his policies fail to pull us out of the recession we're in, not because of any inherent opposition to his so-called "radical agenda". People support where he's going, they just expect results, not ideology. That's what he promised, and what he hopes to deliver. You guys on the sidelines cheering on his hoped-for failure are just background noise, really.

[Gee-Man]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

So you are saying that they are looking to expand surveillance on people from nations supporting terror who happen to be talking to Americans? I think that considering the fact that most Americans aren't talking to people from countries supporting terror, and having conversations involving things which would be of interest to international terror investigations which would trigger the "dragnet" - people aren't going to get up in arms. You're talking about a very small percentage of the population in a situation that's "life or death" doing things which triggers an action.

There's no "triggering" the dragnet - the purpose of a dragnet is to collect everything, then sift through it later, looking for something suspicious. Which means a lot of sifting for little tangible information. Needle in a haystack, and all that. Your assumption that only people talking about bad things get wiretapped is completely unfounded.

Here's a news flash for you: Americans come from all over the world. Some of them even come from countries whose governments are engaged in bad things. Automatically assuming that everybody talking to their relative in Afghanistan or Iran is a "terrorist" is a stupid, stupid thing, and a gigantic waste of time, leading to plenty of false leads and dead-ends.

Dragnets are worse than useless in keeping us safe from the bad guys, not to mention the erosion of civil liberties.

It doesn't matter who is President. If Obama wants to put up a digital dragnet on my calls where I mention something like "bomb" or "cash payments" to people residing in the middle east to make sure I'm not planning on killing millions of Americans, he can be my guest.

Aside from the dumb idea that they only start wiretapping you when you say the magic code words (hint: dragnets tap everything, that's why they're called "drag-nets"), this is exactly what Bush did, and what Obama is doing now. So I guess we found one thing you agree with Obama on. Congratulations.

I'm not happy with it. Warrantless wiretapping was not "conservative" when Bush did it, and it isn't when Obama does it, either. It doesn't work the way you think it does, and it doesn't make us safer from terrorists.

What committees are those guys in charge of? When Republicans where in power, many of the "moderates" in question actually had positions of power both in the party, and in national leadership roles. Arlen Specter was in charge of the judiciary committee I believe.

Nice moving of the goalposts. You went from "moderates and conservatives aren't tolerated in the Democrat Party!" to, "Well, maybe they are, but they're not in charge!" as soon as you were proven wrong.

Democrats have gained power by co-opting Republican ideals and pretending to be moderate. Obama is the perfect example. He pretended to be the "MEE TOO" McCain candidate and when he got into office took a HARD left.

Another put up or shut up moment. Find me examples of Obama doing something radically different than what he promised as a candidate. Find 5 examples, in fact. I'll look for statements he made during the campaign to match what you come up with. We'll see if your theory holds water.

I said check the polls that actually ask people about his agenda items - not just the personal popularity contests.

Do you even know what a "job approval" poll is? It measures - wait for it - "job approval". Not personal approval. The aggregate poll I linked to has nothing to do with Obama's personal popularity.

Sheesh.

The polls of Obama's agenda items are in the post just above. If you've got something that proves otherwise, by all means show it. Otherwise you're just talking nonsense.

As we saw during the election, polls regarding support for Obama are being rigged using weighting and other factors. There's really no other way for a good chunk of the pollsters to have had the election numbers off by more than the margin of error. But if you want popularity polls, here's one. It shows Obama less popular that that G.W. Bush guy at the same point in office, and we know what happened to him:

Oh. My. God. I can't believe you are arguing this with a straight face. So let me understand the stupendousman rules here:

1) Any polls showing support for Obama are rigged, and shouldn't be trusted.
2) Any polls showing lack of support for Obama are absolutely accurate and trustworthy.

Wow. Just wow.

See what they think about paying a lot higher energy taxes to get "cap and trade". Find out how they poll when asked about increased spending and higher taxes. See what they think about the Democrats plan for the economy. Most polling I've seen on the specifics are pretty ominous for Democrats.

You haven't even provided a single link yet! Even the poll you just quoted before didn't include a link to it!

Please provide some evidence.

Dick Morris, a guy who politicians on both side of the aisle have listened to (and swear by),

If you wandered out of the right-wing bubble from time to time, you'd know that NOBODY on the Democratic side listens to Dick Morris any more (and not much even when he was advising Bill Clinton). He has been known as a right-wing hack for YEARS now, so propping up as some kind of independent voice of reason is laughable.

[smacintush]

Originally Posted by Gee-Man 

Another put up or shut up moment. Find me examples of Obama doing something radically different than what he promised as a candidate. Find 5 examples, in fact. I'll look for statements he made during the campaign to match what you come up with. We'll see if your theory holds water.

Here's one list.

[OAW]

Once all the hand-wringing about Specter being a "traitor" subsides, the real fallout is that the Democrats will have 60 votes in the Senate ... once Franken is finally declared the winner which is, at this point, the likely outcome. And this gives the Democrats the potential to pass legislation in the Senate w/o being filibustered by the Republicans. Now of course, this is dependent upon moderate and conservative Democrats going along with the majority. But it seriously undermines the Republicans ability to obstruct legislation for the sake of being obstructionist.

OAW

[stumblinmike]

Originally Posted by smacintush 

Here's one list.

I had to check to see if it was a wingnut rag...Surprise! It is!!! Was conservapedia busy?

[smacintush]

Originally Posted by stumblinmike 

I had to check to see if it was a wingnut rag...Surprise! It is!!! Was conservapedia busy?

Nice rebuttal. You really took it apart there.

Where else in this atmosphere of the press fellating Obama on a daily basis are you going to find negative criticism of him? We might see a little intellectual honesty from them in a six months or a year, but now?

[stumblinmike]

Thanks. Your track record on predictions is sorry, as was stated earlier. How can one be so wrong? The whole country is moving forward, but your digging in your heels! Excellent entertainment, though..

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by OAW 

But it seriously undermines the Republicans ability to obstruct legislation for the sake of being obstructionist.

...or for the sake of saving the country.

The funny thing about absolute power is that you also have absolute responsibility when things go to sh$t and you almost always have to pay for that.

Most experts don't think things are going to be that great in another year or so. Maybe better than now, but still not great and the future looks worse with Obama's massive debt plans. It's going to be hard to blame Republicans when the Democrats have been in control of Congress for 4 years and the Presidency for 2.

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by Gee-Man 

No, the "moderate" label applies to Republicans who buck their party from time to time to vote their principles. It's entirely possible for a Republican to agree with a Democrat, although you apparently don't think so.

There are two parties. There is a reason for this. Parties stand for principles. If you vacillate, you aren't standing for your principles. If you're a guy like Specter whose principles are whatever will get you the most power and keep you in office, you aren't doing anything moral.

The fact is, the most "moderate" candidate for President that the Republicans have had for years got beat. The last several winning Republican presidents were NOT moderates and the last time Republicans swept Congress it wasn't with a moderate agenda. The only reason why Democrats have gained is because they PRETENDED to be moderate and while that isn't really the best place to be, it sure does beat admitting you are a far left liberal.

Obama promised to cut the deficit, pay for every item of spending, clean up Washington and act in a bi-partisan way. He essentially promised to be what John McCain actually IS, and so far has failed at doing any of it.

Why not give the attractive minority who is more charismatic the chance when he promises to do the same things the guy we know is a middle of the roader has a record of doing?

Oh. My. God. I can't believe you are arguing this with a straight face. So let me understand the stupendousman rules here:

1) Any polls showing support for Obama are rigged, and shouldn't be trusted.
2) Any polls showing lack of support for Obama are absolutely accurate and trustworthy.

Wow. Just wow.

I didn't mention any polls that show a lack of support for Obama. Any poll linked directly to Obama will be "weighted" "properly" the same way they did the pre-election polls which ended up being WAY out of wack, just as I predicted.

The difference between the election polls and the personal popularity polls is there is no "control" to check against as there was when the pollsters screwed up the election predictions well over the true margin of error.

If you wandered out of the right-wing bubble from time to time, you'd know that NOBODY on the Democratic side listens to Dick Morris any more (and not much even when he was advising Bill Clinton). He has been known as a right-wing hack for YEARS now, so propping up as some kind of independent voice of reason is laughable.

Bill Clinton followed his advise post 1994. Bill Clinton's poll numbers came out of the basement. If no one wants to listen to Morris any more, despite looking at past precedent, does so at their own risk. As Morris shows, people support Obama right now (and apparently not as greatly as other new Presidents) because they have a vested interest in his success. However, they have no such vested interest in his specific policies when you break them from the popularity polls. That spells bad news for the guys running head first in the opposite direction of desires of the electorate.

Bill Clinton learned that the hard way his first year or two in office. I'm not sure if Obama has the willingness to bite hard and swallow the medicine like BIll did back post 1994.

[dcmacdaddy]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

It doesn't matter who is President. If Obama wants to put up a digital dragnet on my calls where I mention something like "bomb" or "cash payments" to people residing in the middle east to make sure I'm not planning on killing millions of Americans, he can be my guest. If that's the only inconvenience I have to suffer in order to keep from being killed by those who wish to murder me, I'm willing to make that small sacrifice.

And I will fight you and everyone else who thinks this way every step of the way. Our insistence on right to privacy and personal freedoms is what makes this country special. Without our unwavering insistence on the supremacy of the rule of law and individual rights our country would be nothing, nothing at all. If citizens like you just decide to let the government do away with the right to privacy and personal freedom we won't have to worry about terrorists destroying our country, you and people who think like you will have done it for them.

Don't get me wrong. I want the government to have the ability to spy on US citizens when it deems it necessary. But I want there to be very tough standards for when it is acceptable to spy and I want there to be strict oversight of the spying process. I want it to happen as little as possible and only when absolutely necessary.

[ort888]

Good ol' PWL.

[subego]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

It doesn't matter who is President. If Obama wants to put up a digital dragnet on my calls where I mention something like "bomb" or "cash payments" to people residing in the middle east to make sure I'm not planning on killing millions of Americans, he can be my guest.

For the record, I believe it's more along the lines of looking for flurries of activity, so most of the time it's listening to people wish their grandma in Pakistan a happy 80th.

[besson3c]

Why is it that many Republicans are so distrusting of government to spend their money since they are apparently so bad at it and incompetent as a whole, but they seem content to let them spy on them?

[subego]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

Why is it that many Republicans are so distrusting of government to spend their money since they are apparently so bad at it and incompetent as a whole, but they seem content to let them spy on them?

I see your question, and raise you the same question in reverse.

Let's see, my hole cards are "firmly", "distrusts" and "both"

[Chongo]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

Why is it that many Republicans are so distrusting of government to spend their money since they are apparently so bad at it and incompetent as a whole, but they seem content to let them spy on them?

I saw this awhile back on www.protestwarrior.com

Let's hope they're wrong.

[Gee-Man]

Originally Posted by subego 

I see your question, and raise you the same question in reverse.

Let's see, my hole cards are "firmly", "distrusts" and "both"

It's the government's basic duty to spend our taxpayer money wisely for the public good. The disagreements between Republicans and Democrats are over what the "public good" is. Republicans have no problem spending as many taxpayer dollars as possible on defense, while Democrats have no problem spending taxpayer dollars on social programs.

So trusting the government with spending is a matter of degree, not principle.

However, it is NOT the government's job to spy on us. So it's pretty easy to oppose such efforts on principle, since there really isn't a degree of spying that's acceptable and expected.

[subego]

Originally Posted by Gee-Man 

So trusting the government with spending is a matter of degree, not principle.

Not that people don't violate their theoretical guiding principles all the time, but I'd say the degree should be primarily based in principle.

If your principle is "the government ruins everything it touches" you will prioritize your degree differently than if it's "[insert principle here]".

Originally Posted by Gee-Man 

However, it is NOT the government's job to spy on us. So it's pretty easy to oppose such efforts on principle, since there really isn't a degree of spying that's acceptable and expected.

Spying is a tool. The government's job is to enforce the law. As per my principles, I trust the government to ruin that too.

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by subego 

For the record, I believe it's more along the lines of looking for flurries of activity, so most of the time it's listening to people wish their grandma in Pakistan a happy 80th.

Most of the time, it's not listening to ANYONE. From what I understand it's a program of listening for keywords from foreign calls to non US citizens in areas where our enemies are known to originate. When one of those keywords pop up, someone screens the information.

No one is sitting there listening to you and your grandma talk about old age. People who try and tell you that they are simply want the bad guys to have the right to kill you if they choose. That's the problem with some Americans... they want to restrict the rights of well meaning terrorists and murders. Damn conservatives!

Originally Posted by besson3c 

Why is it that many Republicans are so distrusting of government to spend their money since they are apparently so bad at it and incompetent as a whole, but they seem content to let them spy on them?

I can spend my own money. I can't however stop people overseas who want to murder me from doing so on my own. If I could, I could probably do better than the government, but since I can't I'll enjoy drawing breath by whatever means necessary.

[subego]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

People who try and tell you that they are simply want the bad guys to have the right to kill you if they choose. That's the problem with some Americans... they want to restrict the rights of well meaning terrorists and murders. Damn conservatives!

Is your phrasing designed to make me to ignore I was the one who just told you that?

What the NSA does is make a wholesale copy of whatever they want. We know this because government officials have testified to that fact in court. Once they have the copy, the executive branch can do whatever it wants with it. We know this because there's no judicial oversight and no legislative structure to penalize misuse.

Just so we understand the gold standard here, someone who isn't willing to submit to unrestrained access by the executive to (supposedly) private domestic communication is protecting the bad guys' rights?

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by subego 

What the NSA does is make a wholesale copy of whatever they want.

...from phone calls from places harboring foreigners who want to kill us, to find keywords and phrases used to plan our murder that they can investigate further when time permits.

Yah... we've already went over this. Are you under the impression that the NSA has the time or interest in listening to you and your grandma discuss cookie recipes? Has there been accusations that cookie recipes have been stolen by NSA agents? This isn't the local police department hearing that you ran a red light or cheated on your personal property taxes. The problem is that people want to take everything out of context so that our enemies can have the right to kill us if they'd like because we are bad and apparently deserve it. It's the same argument against the effective use of tactics like waterboarding terrorists planning our demise, which actually does no permanent harm to them, unlike the plans they have for us.

Again, if the worse intrusion I have to face to avoid my murder is that when I tell my grandmother in Pakistan that her cookies are "the bomb", that someone from the NSA may later check my call later to make sure I'm not planning to kill people, that's an intrusion I can live with knowing that if my Grandmother chose to live in a free country not harboring people planning her grandson's death that we'd be able to talk without such an intrusion.

It's not "martial law" at a time of war or internment in a prison camp, so I think that such a minimal intrusion is a positive step forward as far as how a country protects itself in a time of war. When they check in-country calls without warrant for people who have no direct ties to terrorists or those who support them, I'll show concern. I just can't for people talking to non-Americans in countries harboring those who want us dead while talking about things that sound like plans to wipe out lots of my fellow Americans.

Just so we understand the gold standard here, someone who isn't willing to submit to unrestrained access by the executive to (supposedly) private domestic communication is protecting the bad guys' rights?

"Domestic". I don't consider talking to a guy in Iran about bomb making "domestic communication". All the reports I've read show they aren't just randomly listening anyways, but instead are using sophisticated computer programming to search for people plotting crimes in other countries using keyword/phrase searches. They may have access to all international calls, but they aren't willy nilly listening in. If there's evidence they are sitting back and listening to private international phone sex or something like that, you're free to present your evidence.

Again, if you're under the impression that the NSA has the time or interest in stuff not involving international terror, and aren't just looking for foreign bad guys you are seeking to protect, I suggest you present the evidence.

[Doofy]

GOP, far right? No. The only GOPper who's "far right" is Dr. Paul. All the rest are lefties.

And remember, we're using Doof's Patented Reality-Modelled Scale Of Left/Right:

Left <----------------------------------------------> Right.
Communalism <--------------------------------------> Individualism.
Statist <---------------------------------------------> Libertarian.

As for a porkie crossing the floor, well, have a recall. I'm pretty sure the folks who voted him in voted for the party, not the man. Same goes for anyone from any party crossing the floor to any other party whilst they're in office.

[ghporter]

Originally Posted by Doofy 

GOP, far right? No. The only GOPper who's "far right" is Dr. Paul. All the rest are lefties.

And remember, we're using Doof's Patented Reality-Modelled Scale Of Left/Right:

Left <----------------------------------------------> Right.
Communalism <--------------------------------------> Individualism.
Statist <---------------------------------------------> Libertarian.

As for a porkie crossing the floor, well, have a recall. I'm pretty sure the folks who voted him in voted for the party, not the man. Same goes for anyone from any party crossing the floor to any other party whilst they're in office.

We on this side of the pond often forget that the continuum of left/right is a lot broader than the part we tend to use. We typically use only the very center of it, with "leftist" Democrats being only slightly to the left of center (comparatively speaking) while the most "conservative/rightist" Republicans are only a bit right of center.

Ron Paul looks like a whack job to most Americans because he dares to be REALLY to the right-and the individual-responsibility/libertarian ideals he focuses on sort of bother a lot of people (because they don't want to grow up and actually be independent adults).

I'd add one more scale on your chart though:
Parentalism<----------------------------------------------->Self Reliance
Being "taken care of" by the state didn't work out so well for millions of folks under Stalin or his successors, but that's one of the things that more left-leaning governments have focused on. FDR tried to take care of the millions of people displaced and dispossessed by The Great Depression, and while people don't seem to want to talk about it, he was by far the most left-leaning president we've had, at least based on his actions. On the other hand, the Republican party in the 1980s tended to lose adherents when people started talking about Libertarianism; the "rugged individualism" aspect of the Libs' positions sounded really attractive to a whole lot of people.

[dcmacdaddy]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

The problem is that people want to take everything out of context so that our enemies can have the right to kill us if they'd like because we are bad and apparently deserve it. It's the same argument against the effective use of tactics like waterboarding terrorists planning our demise, which actually does no permanent harm to them, unlike the plans they have for us.

You don't get it. You, as a citizen, willingly allowing the government to do wholesale spying on US citizens or conducting torture on POW has already ruined this country. Our insistence on adherence to the rule of law and maximum support for pursuit of personal liberties is the the one thing that makes this country special. Without that ideological focus we are just another overly indebted nation. Why do you think so many people want to emigrate to this country. It's not because our streets are paved with gold, it's because of our ideas, our ideas that citizens should be allowed the utmost in personal privacy and be allowed to pursue their life as they see fit. NONE of those ideas are worth anything the minute you, and others like you, agree to discard them.

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

Again, if the worse intrusion I have to face to avoid my murder is that when I tell my grandmother in Pakistan that her cookies are "the bomb", that someone from the NSA may later check my call later to make sure I'm not planning to kill people, that's an intrusion I can live with knowing that if my Grandmother chose to live in a free country not harboring people planning her grandson's death that we'd be able to talk without such an intrusion.

Again, you and your grandmother are NOT FREE the minute you decide to abandon the idea that right to privacy is of paramount importance.

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

It's not "martial law" at a time of war or internment in a prison camp, so I think that such a minimal intrusion is a positive step forward as far as how a country protects itself in a time of war.

It's a big step backward. Martial law or internment camps imprison the body, your willing to give up your right to privacy is imprisoning your mind and you don't even know it.

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

When they check in-country calls without warrant for people who have no direct ties to terrorists or those who support them, I'll show concern.

Umm, they already do that, Search the news for articles on the AT&T switching center spying operation in San Francisco. That operation was catching ALL data traffic moving through the switching center, both data traffic being routed overseas and data traffic being routed domestically.

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

I just can't for people talking to non-Americans in countries harboring those who want us dead while talking about things that sound like plans to wipe out lots of my fellow Americans.

You and me and all the rest of our fellow Americans are already "dead" the minute we give up our right to privacy and pursuit of personal freedoms.