Arlen Specter to switch parties

[lostfan]

Give me a break. MSNBC is extremely hateful and will continually attack anyone who disagrees with them and refuse to insult Obama. There's a reason why they are in the s***ter.

 

How many "news" channels will let people like Janeane Garofalo come on and call hundreds of thousands of people racists and stupid rednecks, without being challanged?

 

It's not even close, and if you are trying to make them the same, you're the delusional one.

You have this really predictable pattern of cognitive dissonance when you post. The fact that you're even attempting to argue this and think it's so absolute just shows where your mind is. Bulls***ting me doesn't really work, so at least stop bulls***ting yourself.

[StrangeSox]

 

Give me a break. Fox News is extremely hateful and will continually attack anyone who disagrees with them and refuse to insult Obama. There's a reason why they are in the s***ter.

 

How many "news" channels will let people like Ann Coulter come on and call hundreds of thousands of people racists and stupid, without being challanged [sic]?

 

It's not even close, and if you are trying to make them the same, you're the delusional one.

 

[BearSox]

You have this really predictable pattern of cognitive dissonance when you post. The fact that you're even attempting to argue this and think it's so absolute just shows where your mind is. Bulls***ting me doesn't really work, so at least stop bulls***ting yourself.

 

I'm not bulls***ting you, all you need to do is look at the facts. Yes, FOX is a right wing station... but they aren't even close to the same level of bias and horrible journalism that is MSNBC.

[lostfan]

I'm not bulls***ting you, all you need to do is look at the facts. Yes, FOX is a right wing station... but they aren't even close to the same level of bias and horrible journalism that is MSNBC.

I know you're not bulls***ting me because you're really convinced that you're 100% correct here. I just don't see why. I'm a professional analyst, the only thing I deal with is facts, but what facts are we talking about here? This is something that's completely subjective. What is a "fact" to you?

 

BTW, when it comes to ACTUAL journalism, i.e. reporting the news, both stations do decent and have professional integrity. Whether the material they report/focus on is appropriate or of any value is another discussion. Personality-driven opinion journalists - term used loosely - shouldn't be factored into it. They're there for ratings only. Fox's decision to go after the right is a marketing decision, and so is MSNBC's decision to go after the left. It's working for both of them.

Edited May 1, 2009 by lostfan

[HuskyCaucasian]

Say what you will about Fox, but at least they aren't nearly half as bad as MSNBC.

They are both equally biased. MSNBC less so until about the middle of last year, then they took off the gloves and went full left.

[Chet Lemon]

Give me a break. MSNBC is extremely hateful and will continually attack anyone who disagrees with them and refuse to insult Obama. There's a reason why they are in the s***ter.

 

If that were even .0001 true, they would not have Pat Buchanan, Joe Scarborough, and Tom DeLay on their network every day.

 

[Balta1701]

<!--quoteo(post=1882199:date=May 1, 2009 -> 12:18 AM:name=BearSox)-->

<!--quotec-->Give me a break. MSNBC is extremely hateful and will continually attack anyone who disagrees with them and refuse to insult Obama. There's a reason why they are in the s***ter.

 

How many "news" channels will let people like Janeane Garofalo come on and call hundreds of thousands of people racists and stupid rednecks, without being challanged?

 

It's not even close, and if you are trying to make them the same, you're the delusional one.

 

Garafalo lol! What a sell-out being for on a Fox tv show. And Fox for having her on. Not to mention that her character is endlessly annoying.

[mr_genius]

MSNBC or FOX aren't even remotely unbiased news channels. Is there really any reason to debate something this obvious?

 

[mr_genius]

Fox News is extremely hateful and will continually attack anyone who disagrees with them and refuse to insult Obama. There's a reason why they are in the s***ter.

 

FOX news might be total hackery as far as news goes, but they have excellent ratings. they're not really in the 's***ter'.

[lostfan]

I don't think anybody's debating that either unbiased, but to act like one is different than another or that MSNBC is "worse" than Fox is pretty pointless, even borderline stupid. You could go in circles for hours with those arguments.

 

BTW mr. genius - StrangeSox's post was more mocking than anything else, you notice he just directly copy/pasted. MSNBC isn't really in the s***ter either.

Edited May 1, 2009 by lostfan

[mr_genius]

If that were even .0001 true, they would not have Pat Buchanan, Joe Scarborough, and Tom DeLay on their network every day.

 

Both MSNBC and FOX have people of dissenting views which appear on air; this still doesn't balance each networks' partisan political advocacy.

[lostfan]

Both MSNBC and FOX have people of dissenting views which appear on air; this still doesn't balance each networks' partisan political advocacy.

MSNBC in the morning is totally different from prime-time MSNBC.

[mr_genius]

I don't think anybody's debating that either unbiased, but to act like one is different than another or that MSNBC is "worse" than Fox is pretty pointless, even borderline stupid. You could go in circles for hours with those arguments.

 

well then I agree, they're basically the same just from different political spectrums.

[StrangeSox]

FOX news might be total hackery as far as news goes, but they have excellent ratings. they're not really in the 's***ter'.

 

 

I don't think anybody's debating that either unbiased, but to act like one is different than another or that MSNBC is "worse" than Fox is pretty pointless, even borderline stupid. You could go in circles for hours with those arguments.

 

BTW mr. genius - StrangeSox's post was more mocking than anything else, you notice he just directly copy/pasted. MSNBC isn't really in the s***ter either.

 

 

when I read genius' post, I was thinking "WTF? I didn't type that."

 

mr., I just cp'd BearSox' post and replaced MSNBC with Fox and JG with AC.

[Balta1701]

So far since switching, Specter has opposed one of Obama's appointees and supported a filibuster attempt, voted against Obama's budget, indicated he's against the President's health care reform, and basically shown no indications that he means anything substantial in terms of his party switch other than he wants to stay in the Senate.

 

Joe Sestak,Democratic Congressman from PA and retired navy Admiral, is making noises about a primary challenge of Specter from the left if Specter doesn't change. It's plausible that it could be a really rough primary for him here too; Specter could have the President on his side and the national Dems, but the Unions are going to demand Specter's support on things like the health care vote and some form of a pro-union EFCA-type bill...and they may well jump on the Sestak bandwagon if they don't get something out of him. Sestak also has a $3 million war chest currently sitting there, so he's well set early to make a run.

 

Let's keep in mind...Specter has really high polling numbers among Democrats right now (something like an 80% approval rating). But if he goes in to a harshly contested Democratic primary...the people he's asking for votes are the same people who have been voting against him and trying like Hell to beat him for 20+ years.

 

Also worth noting was a Quinnipac poll today showing Specter with a big lead on Toomey in the General, but only hanging around 53%, risky territory for an incumbent. They also polled Specter against former PA Gov. and Bush's first DHS head Tom Ridge, and Specter there is only leading 46-43, which means Ridge has a legit shot at beating him if he gets in.

[Balta1701]

The unofficial, formerly official people in the party, and some of the unions, are openly applying primary pressure threats to Specter.

"I'm pleased that he saw the light and decided he would be a better fit for the Democratic Party and I think you have to allow for his political views to evolve," said former DNC chairman Howard Dean in an interview with the Huffington Post. "But he won't win the Democratic primary by taking the position that you should not have [the Employee Free Choice Act] or a public option for health insurance... If he takes these kinds of views, of course there is going to be a Democratic primary."

 

In a separate interview with the Huffington Post, Democratic strategist James Carville was equally sour on Specter's recent party switch, calling the defection a potential "major event in terms of how the Senate conducts its business," but "a relatively minor event in political history."

 

"[specter] was the least reliable Republican. So he will just switch to become the least reliable Democrat," said the longtime Clinton confidant and author of the upcoming book, "40 More Years: How the Democrats Will Rule the Next Generation." "I wouldn't try to make much more out of it than the political survivor comes up with one more act in a long running play of political survival... The one thing I will give him is I will give him some points for candor for being so upfront about [his switch]."

 

"I'm not sure this is going to have a great ending," added Carville, who has worked extensively in Pennsylvania politics. "He could get primaried, you know... If [Rep. Joe] Sestak runs, [specter] will have to fight."

 

The remarks come a day after Specter, appearing on Meet the Press, insisted that he had not pledged to be a "loyal Democrat" as a pre-requisite for switching party affiliations. He also restated his opposition to the Employee Free Choice Act, which he came out against while still a Republican, and said he would not support a public option for health care insurance as part of a reform package.

 

Specter's position on the former issue is shaping up to be the linchpin to whether the labor community would support him in a Democratic primary. And on Monday, a major official with the AFL-CIO warned that if the Senator didn't change his view on the legislation (perhaps, in the form of a compromise bill) he wouldn't get the union's support.

 

"Those decisions will be made by people in the state, and our members in the state know who will stand with them," Richard Trumka, the secretary-treasurer of the AFL-CIO, told ABC's Top Line. "And if Arlen Specter -- he stood with them in the past -- if he continues to stand with them, they'll support him. If he doesn't, they won't support him."

I think the message there is starting to become pretty clear, he's in trouble on this side if he doesn't do something to make the Unions happy.

[southsider2k5]

The unofficial, formerly official people in the party, and some of the unions, are openly applying primary pressure threats to Specter.

I think the message there is starting to become pretty clear, he's in trouble on this side if he doesn't do something to make the Unions happy.

 

Which is exactly how the party of inclusion has done business for decades, and continues to do it to this day. Its not a coincidence that they are already targeting their own members who are too moderate and conservative to be run against in their primary elections.

[Balta1701]

Which is exactly how the party of inclusion has done business for decades, and continues to do it to this day. Its not a coincidence that they are already targeting their own members who are too moderate and conservative to be run against in their primary elections.

Thankfully of course, the Republican party is a significant upgrade

[kapkomet]

Thankfully of course, the Republican party is a significant upgrade

No, but you all want to talk about how much better the Democrat party is all the time, and in reality, it's no different. That was his point. You smear and smear and smear the Republicans but when the Democrats do it, it's somehow different in a good way to you all.

 

[NorthSideSox72]

No, but you all want to talk about how much better the Democrat party is all the time, and in reality, it's no different. That was his point. You smear and smear and smear the Republicans but when the Democrats do it, it's somehow different in a good way to you all.

It is clearly different. Is it the opposite? No. But you paint a black and white picture, when it is shades of grey. And right now, there is clearly a difference between the Congressional GOP, and the democratic Presidential administration, when it comes to comprimise.

 

[BigSqwert]

No, but you all want to talk about how much better the Democrat party is all the time, and in reality, it's no different. That was his point. You smear and smear and smear the Republicans but when the Democrats do it, it's somehow different in a good way to you all.

 

[kapkomet]

It is clearly different. Is it the opposite? No. But you paint a black and white picture, when it is shades of grey. And right now, there is clearly a difference between the Congressional GOP, and the democratic Presidential administration, when it comes to comprimise.

I didn't say a word about Congressional GOP. Everyone knows where they stand, but the self-proclaimed so-called party of inclusion for the last 60 years is no different then the other side, but yet, it's not seen that way.

 

[mr_genius]

It is clearly different. Is it the opposite? No. But you paint a black and white picture, when it is shades of grey. And right now, there is clearly a difference between the Congressional GOP, and the democratic Presidential administration, when it comes to comprimise.

 

not really. neither seem to willing to work together. Obama doesn't need to compromise as the Dems hold so much power. the GOP has no control to force a compromise so they don't even seem to be trying to do so.

Edited May 5, 2009 by mr_genius

[Balta1701]

Senator Specter, responding to a question on the now lack of Republican Jews in the Senate.

"There's still time for the Minnesota courts to do justice and declare Norm Coleman the winner."

Toss aside for a moment the fact that the best Norm Coleman could possibly hope for is a complete throw-out of the election, or at least a significant recount order which probably wouldn't benefit him anyway, and thus no judge could possibly find grounds to declare him the winner...typically, if you're a Democrat, you're supposed to at least say things about how you'd support the Democrat in most races.

[StrangeSox]

Specter's just a DINO anyway