Specter is Clueless About His Own Political Peril
For someone who switched parties in order to avoid losing a primary contest, Arlen Specter is surprisingly oblivious to the very real risk he faces in next year's Democratic primary. As Josh Marshall points out, since announcing that he's joining the Democratic Party, Specter seems to "have been going out of his way, not just on the optics, which I can sort of understand (since he doesn't want to appear utterly craven), but also to oppose the consensus Democratic position on almost every issue."
I completely agree, and I'm frankly surprised. Not because I think Specter agrees with the general Democratic consensus, but just because I expected he'd be a little more attuned to the political realities of his new world. If Specter thinks that he can simply obstruct every appointment and piece of legislation that Democratic primary voters care about and then waltz to the Democratic nomination next year, he's in for a rude awakening. Not only will some genuine Democrat run against him next year, but that person will crush him. Does he not remember what happened to Joe Lieberman in the Connecticut Democratic primary a couple years ago? And Lieberman had been a Democrat his whole career, even serving as the party's Vice Presidential nominee. Specter has no history at all with his state's Democratic primary voters. They'll have no reason at all to be loyal to him.
And it's not as if the Joe Sestaks of the world didn't already have a lot of ammunition to work with. There are all sorts of video clips of Specter palling around with President Bush and every other wretchedly unpopular GOP figure. The only way for Specter to distance himself from that stuff is to at least feign a change of heart on some key issues and seek a clean break from his former party. But if anything, he seems to be trying very hard to remind everyone of why he was a Republican in the first place. Not smart.
At some point, if he keeps this up, someone is going to release a poll showing Specter trailing Sestak (or any other actual Democrat) in a hypothetical primary contest. If nothing else, that will get his attention. If someone like Sestak actually announces their candidacy, even better. Pennsylvania is far too blue a state for someone like Specter to be allowed to secure the Democratic nomination without earning it.
Ultimately, I still strongly believe that Specter switching parties is a good thing for the Democrats. Regardless of what happens in the 2010 election, Specter will be a Senator for the next two years, and during that time, a lot of important votes will take place. Specter will undoubtedly disappoint most Democrats with his votes during that time, but on balance, he's virtually certain to cast more good votes as a Democrat than he would have as a Republican. Sooner or later he's going to realize that he has to position himself to win a Democratic primary, that he should stop worrying about the Club for Growth and start worrying about Moveon.org.
I hope that happens sooner rather than later, but it will happen eventually. Or else Arlen's tenure as a Democrat will be very short.
I completely agree, and I'm frankly surprised. Not because I think Specter agrees with the general Democratic consensus, but just because I expected he'd be a little more attuned to the political realities of his new world. If Specter thinks that he can simply obstruct every appointment and piece of legislation that Democratic primary voters care about and then waltz to the Democratic nomination next year, he's in for a rude awakening. Not only will some genuine Democrat run against him next year, but that person will crush him. Does he not remember what happened to Joe Lieberman in the Connecticut Democratic primary a couple years ago? And Lieberman had been a Democrat his whole career, even serving as the party's Vice Presidential nominee. Specter has no history at all with his state's Democratic primary voters. They'll have no reason at all to be loyal to him.
And it's not as if the Joe Sestaks of the world didn't already have a lot of ammunition to work with. There are all sorts of video clips of Specter palling around with President Bush and every other wretchedly unpopular GOP figure. The only way for Specter to distance himself from that stuff is to at least feign a change of heart on some key issues and seek a clean break from his former party. But if anything, he seems to be trying very hard to remind everyone of why he was a Republican in the first place. Not smart.
At some point, if he keeps this up, someone is going to release a poll showing Specter trailing Sestak (or any other actual Democrat) in a hypothetical primary contest. If nothing else, that will get his attention. If someone like Sestak actually announces their candidacy, even better. Pennsylvania is far too blue a state for someone like Specter to be allowed to secure the Democratic nomination without earning it.
Ultimately, I still strongly believe that Specter switching parties is a good thing for the Democrats. Regardless of what happens in the 2010 election, Specter will be a Senator for the next two years, and during that time, a lot of important votes will take place. Specter will undoubtedly disappoint most Democrats with his votes during that time, but on balance, he's virtually certain to cast more good votes as a Democrat than he would have as a Republican. Sooner or later he's going to realize that he has to position himself to win a Democratic primary, that he should stop worrying about the Club for Growth and start worrying about Moveon.org.
I hope that happens sooner rather than later, but it will happen eventually. Or else Arlen's tenure as a Democrat will be very short.
posted by A.L. at 10:54 PM
46 Comments:
71%-16%. That was Specter's favorable-unfavorable rating among Pennsylvania Democrats in late March, according to the Quinnipiac poll. He thinks he's bulletporrof? Who wouldn't, with numbers like that?
We need better Democratic voters.
On 'Meet the Press' yseterday, Specter indignantly denied that he would be a 'loyal Democrat', just in case anyone had any illusions. Couldn't Sestak beat him in the Democratic primary?
Mr. Spector is doing what many politicians on the Hill do when their livlihoods are threatened - hes grasping for straws hoping to stay in business. Many of us on the Democratic side of the aisle don't want him, Mr. Obama's welcome not with standing.
So what's his alternative? Run on the Republican ticket, and show the Pennsylvania voters whey his nrand of Republican dogma is best for them. The let the chips fall. He is more likely to loose a good Democratic Primary, because he hasn't been "one of us" long enough.
Could it be that he's simply playing the expectations game? You know, lowering the bar so that when he does cast a couple progressive votes we're so pleasantly surprised we do cartwheels in the streets?
I'd give it a couple of months still and see where Specter is at. At the moment, he seems intent on establishing his "independent" creds. But as the election approaches and the attention he is getting from his switch fades, I think we'll see him move to the left—especially if it seems like he might get a credible challenge from the left (which, of course, is why it is important that he continue to get pressure from the left). My guess: by the time the election comes around, he'll be voting with the majority about 55-60% of the time—which beats the 30-35% he would have voted with the Dems had he remained in the GOP.
It should be noted, Democratic primary voters aside (as I agree, Specter has no history with primary voters in the primaries in the Democratic Party) there is reason for Specter to be confident. He likely believes (with some legitimacy) that the Democrats will not back his primary challengers as a result of his crossing of the aisle. It should also be noted there are Democrats more conservative than Specter who win their primaries every election cycle. Steve M. quoted Specter's numbers among registered Democratic voters in PA and that should be taken into account as well.
Remember, a guy as independent (call it laudable independence or call it perverse as you like, but he has always been genuinely individualist in his voting)as Specter doesn't win a general election behind monolithic partisan support. Specter wins his seat cycle after cycle because he commands a broad base of moderate voter support in both parties (most of which has switched Democratic ahead of him) and is the favorite of PA independent voters.
There's nothing Democrats like better than an electable candidate, and Specter beats any hard core conservative the Republicans run. A hard core liberal candidate against a hard core conservative makes for more of an open race.
Pat Toomey can't beat Specter in a general election in Pennsylvania. The GOP put their devotion to ideology ahead of their political success in choosing to back Toomey against Specter in the primary. I'm willing to wager the White House will back Specter, as the incumbent, and the party structure will follow suit.
The comparison to Lieberman and LaMont, here, really isn't sound. LaMont beat Lieberman in the Democratic primary because the full force of the Democratic Party had chosen to punish Lieberman. I doubt the Dems have the same urge to punish Specter, particularly as he gives them a lock on #60.
LaMont beat Lieberman in the Democratic primary because the full force of the Democratic Party had chosen to punish Lieberman.Now that's some revisionist history.
EC,
While you make some valid points, I have two quick responses. First, as KM notes, Lieberman was also backed by the Democratic establishment (at least until he lost the primary). Obama himself stumped for him, I believe. It didn't help.
Second, while you're right about the composition of the general electorate, the same rules don't necessarily apply to primaries, which are typically low turn out affairs. In primaries, Democratic partisans tend to predominate, and they are not likely to be big Specter fans. Specter faces a real risk in the primary if a real Democrat runs against him.
I have a hard time buying into the defectino as a good thing. If Specter stays GOP, Toomey wins the primary, and looses to Sestak in the general.
Is this cynical? I think Spector is orchestrating behind the scenes to see which items he can vote conservative, when there are enough progressive votes to carry the Democratic agenda, in order to preserve his conservative cum maverick creds.
Ain't that politics?
WV: reases - as in pieces of Pennsylvania
"I have a hard time buying into the defectino as a good thing. If Specter stays GOP, Toomey wins the primary, and looses to Sestak in the general."
Yeah, but that's still two years away. A lot of important things (indeed, arguably THE most important things) are going to go through the Senate during that time. Over the next two years, it's clearly better for Specter to be a Democrat.
Then-Senator Obama and many leading Democrats stumped for Lieberman. The state party apparatus supported LaMont, and did so with the tacit blessing of the DNC. The big name Democrats who stumped for Lieberman did so in an attempt to stop the anti-Lieberman momentum in the party.
I'm entirely aware of the difference between primaries and general elections. I'll vote for a conservative Democrat (such as President Obama) when he runs in a general election, but not in a primary. I certainly wouldn't vote for Specter in a PA primary under most circumstances, if I lived there. ;)
However, I am one of those crazy lefties whose votes don't really matter in the primary because even the 'liberal party activists' are in love with 'electability' despite the fact it frequently equals Ben Nelson.
I like Specter as a Democrat even if he does establish his creds as an independent. With the Republicans voting in a monolithic "no" bloc, we would have very little chance of Specter voting for any particular piece of legislation. Now he can follow his own lead, at least, and there is some chance of a "yes" every now and then.
Points taken. Now, we shall see . . .
" Steve M. said... 71%-16%. That was Specter's favorable-unfavorable rating"
That's a poll taken in the first blush of the "boo-yah" reaction to the Repugs losing one of their own. Once they figure out they can dump Specter and get a REAL Democrat for the same money, it'll happen.
As Specter shows, there's no loyalty in politics and nobody owes him nutt'in so my guess is he'll be left twisting in the wind.
OT, but I couldn't let it go.
Eclectic Radical:
I'll vote for a conservative Democrat (such as President Obama)...
By what standard would anyone consider Barack Obama a "conservative"? As I am someone who actually is a conservative, Obama is no different than than anyone who describes themselves as "one of those crazy lefties", and continues to be one every day. Saying Obama is any kind of conservative just doesn't make any sense. Explain, please.
On Topic:
During an interview this past Sunday on "Face the Nation", Specter said this:
"If we had pursued what President Nixon declared in 1970 as the war on cancer, we would have cured many strains. I think Jack Kemp would be alive today. And that research has saved or prolonged many lives, including mine.”
That's about the kind of nonsensical noise one expects from a Democrat. He's yours.
A.L. I've learned a lot reading this post and subsequent comment thread, and agree with much of what is said here. I've disagreed before on the whether Specter should be allowed to "become" a Democrat, but I see your point and the advantages it brings if he does. Not sure I quite yet agree...
That's about the kind of nonsensical noise one expects from a Democrat. He's yours.Really? With the high costs and huge risks involved in medical research, government helps fund private research into a horrible disease, the results are used by drug companies who turn a profit on the result (e.g., rich people make more money, which should make you happy), which improves the lives of actual people who would otherwise suffer and die, a win-win all around, and this is a bad thing? This is nonsensical noise from a Democrat?
Tell you what, Steve. Don't use any medication more advanced than pennicillin for yourself or your family, please. As for me, if this is the test, I'm very proud to be a relatively healthy Democrat.
Dave S:
With the high costs and huge risks involved in medical research, government helps fund private research into a horrible disease, the results are used by drug companies who turn a profit on the result (e.g., rich people make more money, which should make you happy), which improves the lives of actual people who would otherwise suffer and die, a win-win all around, and this is a bad thing?
Pigs fly, right? There isn't any way for Specter, you, any Democrat, or anyone from the left to know if Kemp would have lived even if the amount of money was there. What that slimy Specter did was indict his former party colleagues of killing Jack Kemp. That is utter nonsense, and quite a putrid thing for Specter to say. Here's a newsflash: all people die. No amount of money keeps that from happening.
I don't think the left should try to argue about policies that keep people alive. It's an argument they can't win.
Don't use any medication more advanced than pennicillin for yourself or your family, please.
I'm allergic to penicillin.
SteveAR,
Attila is dead. The neanderthal population is extinct or in hiding.
You aren't likely to find anybody who is a "conservative" like yourself.
I'm not losing sleep over this.
On health care and federal subsidies for medical research, Specter is relatively liberal. In many other areas, not so much. I would hardly class Arlen as a liberal, but then, part of being a liberal is being willing to accept others as they are, so long as they have a spark of humanity about them.
"By what standard would anyone consider Barack Obama a "conservative"? As I am someone who actually is a conservative, Obama is no different than than anyone who describes themselves as "one of those crazy lefties", and continues to be one every day. Saying Obama is any kind of conservative just doesn't make any sense. Explain, please."
President Obama's economic policy is fundamentally conservative with some progressive frills and dressings. Bailing out Wall Street is a conservative strategy going back to Hoover. While the public investment bill and the current auto industry interventions are more Kaynesian, Chrysler is still being forced into bankruptcy and the kind of temporary emergency nationalizations that New Deal economists advocate are being replaced by a more fundamentally conservative policy of brokered intervention that would have made Eisenhower or Nixon happy.
Despite all the rhetoric from the right, administration health care policy is likewise fundamentally conservative. We appear to be headed for an unfunded mandate on the model of Romneycare rather than meaningful reform.
The White House education plan, as it has been described so far, is straight out of the policy books of conservative parties in Germany and France.
Most disturbing to many on the left is President Obama's courting of socially conservative evangelical leaders. Progressive Christians feel that the White House is accepting the evangelical/fundamentalist claim to speak for all Christians.
I realize that everything is relative, and that to many contemporary Republicans anyone who is pro-choice and even /moderate/ on gay rights is a rampaging liberal, but I'm just not that stupid myself. President Obama, like President Clinton before him, is essentially a European conservative rather than an actual liberal.
Daro, the number quoted is not just a flush reaction to Specter's party switch. The whole reason he has been a Senator forever is because of the large crossover support from moderate and Blue Dog Democrats he receives in general elections. PA has a lot of moderate Democrats and, perhaps more importantly to his personal primary hopes, a lot of moderates who used to be Republicans but are Democrats now.
quite a putrid thing for Specter to say While I won't disagree on Arlen's sliminess, it is reasonable to cut him some slack on this since he's been dealing with Hodgkin's Lymphoma since about 2005.
C2H50H:
...but then, part of being a liberal is being willing to accept others as they are, so long as they have a spark of humanity about them.
There are tens of millions, about 35 million, of others with a spark of humanity about them that "liberals", the left, never accepted. So you can forget trying that one.
Eclectic Radical:
President Obama's economic policy is fundamentally conservative with some progressive frills and dressings. Bailing out Wall Street is a conservative strategy going back to Hoover.
Fascistic would be a better word. I, and just about ever conservative, didn't like what happened with the bailouts when Bush did them; why would we like them with Obama doing them? It also means this isn't a conservative approach (even though Presidents of both parties have been doing this for years). It also means that Obama is doing things the way Bush did them, even though he promised he was going to change how things were done.
Chrysler is still being forced into bankruptcy and the kind of temporary emergency nationalizations that New Deal economists advocate are being replaced by a more fundamentally conservative policy of brokered intervention that would have made Eisenhower or Nixon happy.
First off, neither Eisenhower or Nixon are considered "conservatives", as in small-government conservatives. Second, Obama's policies are that of a member of the Outfit, since he is breaking the rules about who should be getting paid back first and strongarming those who complain about it (he's violating the 5th Amendment at the same time).
The White House education plan, as it has been described so far, is straight out of the policy books of conservative parties in Germany and France.
This is the same White House plan that signed the heartless Democratic bill that stripped out a measly $18 million (out of a $3.6 trillion spending bill) of D.C. charter school funding, meaning a whole lot of poor, black kids will be forced back into the crappy D.C. public school system. Tell me another story.
President Obama, like President Clinton before him, is essentially a European conservative rather than an actual liberal.
Clinton a conservative? Hardly. He's more conservative than Obama, but he was forced to be more conservative after Republicans won in 1994. Obama has never shown himself to be a conservative anything. As I mentioned before, I describe him as you describe yourself, "one of those crazy lefties."
The bottom line is that you can't provide to me a definition of who is a conservative or what is conservatism since you don't have a clue what either are.
On the other hand, I don't refer to those who call themselves liberals as liberals, because they don't fit the definition of what a liberal is, even the definition supplied on this blog. Those on the left are as fervently dogmatic as those of us who are conservatives. The difference is that conservative dogma believes the people are smart enough to figure things out for themselves, while the left's dogma is a nearly strict adherence to their leaders and what they say; in this case, Barack Obama.
This post has been removed by the author.
SteveAR,
Can you not see the fundamental self-contradiction in claiming that no modern president except Reagan was a "real conservative" yet claiming there are 35 million like yourself who are conservative? Surely, if there were such a powerful voting bloc, you could elect someone.
Your style of modern conservatism is defined very clearly, if not precisely coherently, by mindless, paranoiac, knee-jerk opposition to anything "liberal". Which is why you can't get elected.
Do provide some evidence that the left is engaging in "strict adherence to" any leaders, rather than fairly extensive criticism on his state secrets position, his unwillingness to prosecute on torture, ...
But, since you have no evidence, and probably wouldn't recognize it if it bit you in the ass, that's not going to happen.
C2H50H:
Can you not see the fundamental self-contradiction in claiming that no modern president except Reagan was a "real conservative" yet claiming there are 35 million like yourself who are conservative?
You are not getting whom I am referring to when I mentioned that 35 million number. You had said:
...but then, part of being a liberal is being willing to accept others as they are, so long as they have a spark of humanity about them.
I replied:
There are tens of millions, about 35 million, of others with a spark of humanity about them that "liberals", the left, never accepted.
I wasn't referring to conservatives (and there are more than 35 million conservatives). But there are others with a spark of humanity that the left never accepted. Those 35 million are dead now.
Do provide some evidence that the left is engaging in "strict adherence to" any leaders, rather than fairly extensive criticism on his state secrets position, his unwillingness to prosecute on torture, ...
Spare me. You'd still vote for Obama and every other leftist Democrat who adhered to the same positions. You already did. Wasn't it Obama who said he would never support the updates to FISA? Then he did. And yet, you still voted for him, didn't you? He's lied to liberals as well as the rest of America. Yet, you'd still support him and the other Democrats, and still vote for them, wouldn't you?
SteveAR,
And you have no idea what "spark of humanity" means. Hint: it doesn't mean "possessing" DNA that's remotely human.
I think we can see that you have no evidence for your claims, as you just continue to make assertions without any evidence.
As for "lies" -- bullshit. Politicians don't get elected by being rigid truth-tellers, and that is especially true for conservative politicians.
C2H50H:
...it doesn't mean "possessing" DNA that's remotely human.
Is that dogma what your leaders tell you to strictly adhere to? Even scientists don't know all the answers about things at the DNA level. And I'm not even talking about DNA, but the marriage of a human egg and a human sperm that will only become a human being. In fact, that is the only truth here; a human fetus will only become a human being, with that spark of humanity you say you accept but don't.
Yet, you and most of the rest of the left dogmatically adhere to the notion as perpetuated by your leaders of the last 36 years (since Roe), despite scientific advancements during that time, that a fetus within the first trimester is no better than a slave, a being to be used and discarded (one could consider that policy to be an egregious violation of the 13th Amendment).
Tell me I'm wrong.
At the very least, Specter needs a swift kick in the pants. Daily Kos supposed to be currently polling both the Democratic and Republican primaries in Pennsylvania. If Sestak has a moderate to strong performance (keeping in mind the difference in name recognition), I'm thinking it'll speed Specter's awakening just a tad.
SteveAR,
Deliberate obtuseness is so endearing.
In all the history of the world, there has been no evidence of a blastocyte or embryo displaying empathy or self-awareness.
For that matter, it's pretty hard to find a conservative displaying any.
Your report about Specter's comments indicates that he does have a speck of empathy (although damned little self-awareness), so there's hope for him yet.
Apparently, Specter's jump is going to be more of a problem than anyone here seems to realize.
Bill Arnold:
While I won't disagree on Arlen's sliminess, it is reasonable to cut him some slack on this since he's been dealing with Hodgkin's Lymphoma since about 2005.
Despite all of the so-called lack of federal funding, Specter is still alive. I won't cut him any slack for what he said.
SteveAR,
Evidently you haven't been paying attention, so let me say this slowly: it's obvious that Specter's loyalties are invested primarily in incumbency, especially his own.
If, as seems overwhelmingly likely, the MN Supreme Court finds for the accuracy of the Coleman-Franken recount, and in the unlikely subsequent possibility that "Tiny Tim" Pawlenty decides to risk his chances at any political future in Minnesota for the minuscule possibility of a slot on the national ticket in 2012 by refusing to certify, and then, when the GOP tries to filibuster the seating of Franken, it may matter if -- and it's a big if -- Specter won't vote for cloture.
Until then, forgive me if I don't give a rat's ass what Specter (or anybody outside Minnesota) thinks about the ongoing effort by Coleman to disenfranchise the voters of Minnesota.
As for the EFCA, that's an issue. If he votes against it, I'll be donating to a primary opponent for him.
C2H50H:
In all the history of the world, there has been no evidence of a blastocyte or embryo displaying empathy or self-awareness.
And I thought the left, "liberals", were all for the wonders that could come from science. Apparently, that only extends to the science that your leaders require you to dogmatically believe. Thanks for clearing up that misconception.
SteveAR,
If you can show evidence to refute my statement, I'll believe that you are not simply spouting dogma.
I'll just wait.
C2H50H:
If you can show evidence to refute my statement, I'll believe that you are not simply spouting dogma.
Let me get this straight. According to you, further scientific study of the human fetus is no longer necessary, study that may actually refute what your leaders tell you to dogmatically believe. That's what you're saying, right? The science is settled, as Al Gore might say, correct? That's what it sounds like you're telling me.
SteveAR,
You don't understand science, either, do you?
Where did I say study is no longer necessary? Nowhere. Retreating into another straw man argument is hardly very honest.
Science is never settled. But while there may someday be science that demonstrates that blastocytes or embryos might possess empathy, at present all the evidence is that they do not. (Just observe very young children and you'll get the picture.)
Dogma is the fixed belief, without any evidence, of some assertion.
Understand, I've got no problem with beliefs unsupported by facts -- as long as they are held knowingly, aware that evidence could come along at any moment to overturn them.
C2H50H:
Understand, I've got no problem with beliefs unsupported by facts -- as long as they are held knowingly, aware that evidence could come along at any moment to overturn them.
Good. And I have no problem with scientific theories supported by study - - as long as those who believe those theories understand that evidence could come along to overturn them.
SteveAR,
"believe those theories" -- No.
"believe that a theory explains something better than other theories." -- Yes.
So, for example, the theory that Obama is a "left wing crazy" is totally without evidence, yet you present it as fact.
The life history and voting record of Arlen Specter are strong evidence that he's a pretty conservative guy, yet you pronounced him a lefty.
And as for the bizarre biology theories, well, I'm not going there. Let's just say that they come across as ignorant ranting.
C2H50H:
So, for example, the theory that Obama is a "left wing crazy" is totally without evidence, yet you present it as fact.
There's plenty of evidence. His "reign" is full of it. He's always believed in government redistributing people's assets, theft, to others. He's using strongarm thug tactics (the Chicago way; the way of the Chicago Outfit) to violate bankruptcy laws and the 5th Amendment. That's two pieces of evidence. But you'll dismiss those pieces of evidence. Because you support it.
The life history and voting record of Arlen Specter are strong evidence that he's a pretty conservative guy, yet you pronounced him a lefty.
I called Specter a Democrat, not a lefty (look at my comments above). He's no conservative. Compared to Obama, however, Specter would be part of those "right-wing" groups that DHS wants to monitor. But he still isn't any kind of a conservative, regardless of how the left wants to paint him.
SteveAR,
So, as evidence of your assertions, you offer ... more assertions.
You need to understand this: your belief of something is not evidence of that something. In fact, I've come to the suspicion it may be the opposite.
C2H50H:
So, as evidence of your assertions, you offer ... more assertions.
You need to understand this: your belief of something is not evidence of that something.
You want evidence of Obama being a lefty, here's evidence: Obama in 2001. Included in the video as the blurb Obama had with "Joe the Plumber" Wurzelbacher, before anyone knew who Wurzelbacher was (and before the left tried to destroy him).
As I said above:
But you'll dismiss those pieces of evidence.
Because you support Obama's theft. I await your dismissal of this evidence in 3...2...1...
SteveAR,
Ah, but your assertion wasn't that Obama was simply a lefty. He was a "crazy leftie". His response to the idiot demonstrates his saneness.
You've just accused Obama of theft. Prove it.
The only evidence you've provided indicates that you cannot provide evidence of what you've claimed. You weasel, you try to change the subject, but you don't convince anybody.
C2H50H:
Ah, but your assertion wasn't that Obama was simply a lefty. He was a "crazy leftie". He was a "crazy leftie".
Actually, Eclectic Radical considered himself a "crazy lefty" as compared himself to the "conservative" Obama. I don't consider Obama crazy. That gives him an out with an insanity defense.
You've just accused Obama of theft. Prove it.
The only evidence you've provided indicates that you cannot provide evidence of what you've claimed.
Once again, you're wrong. "Chrysler won't repay bailout money." Bush may have started the ball rolling, but Obama is going to let Chrysler keep our money. The amount that may be returned to the taxpayers will be pennies on the dollar. Add that those secured creditors won't be getting what they bankrolled either, in violation of bankruptcy laws. Plus, as an added bonus, the UAW, not the workers but the pukes who run that travesty of a union, will get their unsecured investment money back and 55% ownership of whatever Chrysler looks like. This was engineered by Obama, not with his money, but taxpayers' money. That isn't just theft, but grand larceny, topped by extortion. This was after Obama said all this money was needed to keep Chrysler out of bankruptcy, which it is going to do anyway.
I await your dismissal of this evidence in 3...2...1...
SteveAR,
By your apparent "logic", any time the government spends money on something you don't approve of, this is "theft".
OK. Forgive me for pointing this out, but that's insane.
This kind of "evidence" may be accepted at hotair, where the coherence is a rare commodity and logic nonexistent, but don't expect it to pass here.
Right on cue.
Thank you for proving my real point. Time after time, you have strictly adhered to the dogma your leaders on the left tell you to believe. Don't embarrass yourself by thinking you're a "liberal", especially as it is defined in this blog, because it isn't true.
"Eclectic Radical said... Daro, the number quoted is not just a flush reaction to Specter's party switch."
Hate to be argumentative ER, but the Democrats have now stripped Specter down to most Junior Senator level fixed until 2010. Now he can't use his status on the appropriations committee to run on. I think his days are numbered!
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home