"I am staying a Republican because I think I have an important role -- a more important role -- to play there. I think the United States desperately needs a two-party system. It is the basis of politics in America. I think each of the 41 Republican senators, in a sense, and I don't want to overstate this, is a national asset, because if one was gone you would only have 40. The Democrats would have 60 and they would control all of the mechanisms of government." --Sen. Arlen Specter in March 2009
I'm surprised there weren't any comments on this one.
Well - Specter is just another one of those socialists who is representing the Fed's, not the people. Also, he's very
interested in keeping his position as Senator - its pay and benefits are great.
Democrats and Republicans are everywhere. They've both caused the socialist party to become obsolete. It's probably been
70 or 80 years since the Socialist Party has had an organization in Elk County - you reckon?
I don't think that Specter's switch from one party to the other had anything to do with a change in what he believes. He said and I wish I could quote, that the Republican Party has pulled away from what he believes and that the Democrat Party is more in line with his beliefs. In other words, his constitutents have switched from Republican to Democrat and to hold on his seat he has to go along with them. Isn't it his privilege to do this?
IMHO, I think that since he was elected as a Republican he should stay that until the end of his term. Then if he wishes to switch and run as a Democrat, who cares?
There were comments, because I made one. Did you skip it because I made it or did you just miss it? ;D
I don't find it, Diane, and I wish I could. Care to make it again or was it unplublishable?
Wilma, I agree with the part that says he should stay with his party until the term is up. Changing party affiliations is not about how his constituients feel. He can remain a Republican and vote with the Democrats if thats how the people want it. Most likely, and I think this is more to the truth, when he comes up for re-election he might not have a chance of winning if he remains a Republican. And this would change the "mechanisms of government" giving one party the use of the filibuster. That was a big deal during the election last year. If he believes that the Republican party has pulled away from how he believes then step down from the position and let the people elect someone they want. Or, possibly, it is not the people of his state that he has a problem with, but the party bosses.
Larryj
I hadn't thought of that and I don't think I know much about how it works. Care to elaborate? Add to my education, Larry.
Sorry, Wilma, I am dumber than most of the rocks in my back yard. I just remember that there was a big deal made by the media covering the election about there being a certain number of Democrats elected and being able to filibuster. There are those on this Forum that can give you the education you need and I lack. Somebody jump in and help us out!!!!
Larryj
I'll paraphrase what I said earlier. Arlen Specter is an old line politician. He was Philly's DA back when. He'd pick your political pocket if he could. Sometimes he's OK, but I don't trust him. He has changed affiliations before and would do it again in a heart beat.
If the Democrats can pull together a 60 seat majority in the senate, they can call an end to any attempt for the Repub. to filibuster a bill to keep it from a vote.
Thanks Diane. Going back to Warph's originating post, the democrats would now have 60 members.
I would love to stay and chat, but the 4 year old grandaughter is singing in church this morning and I can't miss that.
Larryj
Diane, I remember reading somewhere that there is a "rule" the Dems can use to get around the Repubs. Even if they had enough to fillbuster. I can't remember what it is called, I'll have to look it up.
??? I'm not sure either.
It is called cloture, if I understand it correctly, thats where the majority can call a 60 seat vote without any input from the minority party.
Got it .Thanks. So it's sort of a Senate version of "call the question." It looks like there are some rules as to using it.
Isn't that repressing free speech? Do you really think the Democrats or the Republicans if the situation were reversed would do that? I wonder how that happened. Who did that? Something that directly contradicts the constitution and it had to have come from the lawmakers.
I do so love this forum. It is like learning a new word everyday. Well, actually, that is exactly what it is today.
Cloture is when the majority party decides it doesn't want the other party to drag on the debate on a particular matter. If the majority party of the senate has 60 members (3/5) of the 100 elected, it can present a petition to the President of the Senate, in this case, our Vice President to invoke cloture. Actually, it only takes sixteen Senators to sign the petition and present it to the clerk in the Senate. This limits the debate to 30 additional hours and than a vote is taken with no more debate. This concept originated in France and was introduced to the U.S. in the early 1900's. According to what I read, once the petition to invoke cloture is presented to the President of the Senate, all debate currently going on is stopped and the Senate votes as a group on the petition. If the petition is approved or allowed, then there is just 30 more hours of debate before a vote must be taken.
So, I have learned something new today, thanks to the good folk on the Elk County Forum.
Larryj
And so have I, thanks to you, Larry.
Well, you are welcome, but it was Billy who mentioned the word that I not heard before. So, thanks, Billy.
Me? Thank Billy? Well, if you say so. Thanks, Billy.
I'll thank you Billy..............
You and everyone else who gave up part of their life to go over there and fight for my freedom to say and be anything I want to be in this country.
You have my THANKS... and you are in my prayers every night for what you have done over there......and what you are still fighting for over here!
I feel the same way. I truly hope you weren't treated like our Viet Nam vets were. This country can't be proud of that!
Diane, I am extremely proud of our Vietnam veterans. What I am not proud of are the hippie types that lead the anti-war movement and treat ALL of our vets like crap.
When I came home in the late sixties from SE Asia, I went to work at a music store in Hollywood. There were demonstrations and rallies and flag burnings every weekend in the streets all around the Hollywood area. There was even a older gentlemen walking around in a psuedo military uniform with little airplanes on his epaulets. He called himself-----General Wastemoreland! There was another one just like him but I don't remember his name. After a while, I began to wonder who the real enemy was. For those coming home to be called baby killers, etc. was totally unamerican and shameful. I got over my anger and decided it was only a small but highly vocal bunch of idiots who were lucky enough not to be drafted. I saw on the news one time a plane load of soldiers coming home and while they were deplaning, there was a mob hurling insults at them and when they were close enough to even spit at them. In the midst of all this, flag draped coffins were being off-loaded from the plane. These people in my mind were not americans, not real americans.
Larryj
That was my point exactly. I love my country, but it has had it's disgraceful moments.
... and they called that Freedom of Speech. I call it "anti-american" and think they should have re-loaded that plane with the protesters and taken them right to the spot where those soldiers had just came from. And all those that fled to Canada should not have been allowed to keep their american citizenship nor been allowed to come back across the border.
Flo for President!
(http://www.rightnation.us/forums/style_emoticons/default/usabiker.gif)
;D
She does make some good points.
Like ex-President Bill Clinton???????
Maybe we could send Hill and Barack Hussain with him.
Huh?
(http://www.rightnation.us/forums/style_emoticons/default/wacko.gif)
Now that statement confused me mama.........
I am torn on this one. On one hand I agree with Flo, Jo, and Teresa. Yet on the other hand the U.S. does have an all voluntary force, which is (in my humble opinion) the main reason we have the strongest military on earth. The people who serve Want to serve. By forcing people to serve we undermine the very principle of Freedom.
It seems to me that in the 40's, a lot of young men who would rather have stayed home were drafted into the service to defend our country. Drafted means that when their turn came they HAD to go and not by choice. But being proud Americans, they went, left their families including their small children KNOWING that they were going into actual combat. How much more patriotic can you be than that? Yet, our forces were not weak because they were forced to serve. I would say that our forces are strong because they are Americans not because they are serving by choice.
The same for Viet Nam. Not every one was a draft dodger. Those soldiers went because their country called them, it didn't matter who the President was at the time.
Wilma, I agree, those men were patriots, no doubt about it. Our country was attacked and they answered the call. They fought for our freedom. But theres the catch. That hard won freedom and the sacriface that paid for it means nothing if we don't apply it equally to our citizens.
Diane, I know that not everyone in the late 50's and early 60's was a draft dodger. My father, 2 uncles, and step grandpa, all volunteered. That being said, not all soldiers that went did so at their own will, it was either go to nam, or canada, or jail. That was a choice they shouldn't have had to make. And while I have a deep loathing of anyone who wouldn't serve their country, I have to allow them that choice.