Was it a single-bullet

[Elvado]

that took down that turncoat fraud known as Arlen Specter?

Good riddance to old bad rubbish as that hack can now spend all of his days calling WIP to opine nonsensically on the Eagles and Phillies. Soon fat Rendell can join him as finally off the public tit.

[kchoya]

What are you talking about. It's a shame that Specter lost. He was one of the "better intellects in the Senate."

[strummer8526]

Yes, it was a single bullet. That bullet was his admission that he switched parties because it would increase his chances of winning reelection. What he should have done was make clear that he was switching parties because the current Republican party is full of the kind of people who think that calling someone "fat Rendell" and referring to "the public tit" is somehow intelligent political engagement. He should have been proud of his moderate and independent positions, and made clear that such a politician no longer has any place in the Republican party.

[TBird41]

May 19, 2010 11:42:08 GMT -5 strummer8526 said:

Yes, it was a single bullet. That bullet was his admission that he switched parties because it would increase his chances of winning reelection. What he should have done was make clear that he was switching parties because the current Republican party is full of the kind of people who think that calling someone "fat Rendell" and referring to "the public tit" is somehow intelligent political engagement. He should have been proud of his moderate and independent positions, and made clear that such a politician no longer has any place in the Republican party.

And then hoped no one had a copy of the ad George W Bush filmed for him

[kchoya]

May 19, 2010 11:42:08 GMT -5 strummer8526 said:

Yes, it was a single bullet. That bullet was his admission that he switched parties because it would increase his chances of winning reelection. What he should have done was make clear that he was switching parties because the current Republican party is full of the kind of people who think that calling someone "fat Rendell" and referring to "the public tit" is somehow intelligent political engagement. He should have been proud of his moderate and independent positions, and made clear that such a politician no longer has any place in the Republican party.

You're assuming that he really believed that and the real reason he "switched" was not because his sole concern was getting elected again.

[Elvado]

May 19, 2010 11:42:08 GMT -5 strummer8526 said:

Yes, it was a single bullet. That bullet was his admission that he switched parties because it would increase his chances of winning reelection. What he should have done was make clear that he was switching parties because the current Republican party is full of the kind of people who think that calling someone "fat Rendell" and referring to "the public tit" is somehow intelligent political engagement. He should have been proud of his moderate and independent positions, and made clear that such a politician no longer has any place in the Republican party.

spoken as someone who is not forced to endure the Philadelphia media and those two clowns.

Sorry to offend your delicate sensibilities: Dear Ed Rendell can join him as off the public "dole".

[EasyEd]

May 19, 2010 11:42:08 GMT -5 strummer8526 said:

Yes, it was a single bullet. That bullet was his admission that he switched parties because it would increase his chances of winning reelection. What he should have done was make clear that he was switching parties because the current Republican party is full of the kind of people who think that calling someone "fat Rendell" and referring to "the public tit" is somehow intelligent political engagement. He should have been proud of his moderate and independent positions, and made clear that such a politician no longer has any place in the Republican party.

Seems to me the primary proved someone with such "moderate and independent positions" has no place in the Democratic Party since it's the Democrats that tossed him out.

[strummer8526]

KC: You're right, sort of. I conflate the two—the ability to get reelected and the nature of the Republican party—because I think the two are related. If he switched because he no longer thought he could get reelected as a Republican because the republican electorate has shifted ideologically, then I think he should have emphasized the change in the party, not his personal desire to get reelected. If the Republicans in his state were the same as they had been for the last 20 years, then why would he have to shift parties to get reelected?

Elvado: Whenever I criticize your obnoxious posting style and comments, you always act like it's because you've "offended" my "delicate sensibilities." I'm not offended at all. I just think that you're version of political engagement—blindly partisan name-calling—is silly and comes off as extremely ignorant.

Ed: Fair point. But I think that for Specter as a Democratic candidate, one of the most significant aspects of his candidacy was explaining his sudden arrival as a Democrat. Rather than explain it by pointing to ideology and principles, he explained it by discussing his own need to get reelected. Moderate or not, that's not an appealing way to arrive on the scene. I would say the "I'm doing this to save myself" story was a huge minus against Specter. So he "lost his place," if you will, with the Republicans BEFORE having that strike against him. Democrats didn't want him after "how he became a Democrat," itself, became story. I would be interested to know in a Lost-like parallel universe whether he could have won as a Democrat if this were his first time running—i.e., if he didn't have the baggage of having just changed parties, admittedly for the reason of keeping his own job.

[TBird41]

May 20, 2010 8:20:24 GMT -5 strummer8526 said:

Ed: Fair point. But I think that for Specter as a Democratic candidate, one of the most significant aspects of his candidacy was explaining his sudden arrival as a Democrat. Rather than explain it by pointing to ideology and principles, he explained it by discussing his own need to get reelected. Moderate or not, that's not an appealing way to arrive on the scene. I would say the "I'm doing this to save myself" story was a huge minus against Specter. So he "lost his place," if you will, with the Republicans BEFORE having that strike against him. Democrats didn't want him after "how he became a Democrat," itself, became story. I would be interested to know in a Lost-like parallel universe whether he could have won as a Democrat if this were his first time running—i.e., if he didn't have the baggage of having just changed parties, admittedly for the reason of keeping his own job.

Kentucky Dems also choose the more liberal candidate. It's probably going to mean that Rand Paul is going to be in the Senate, something that was by no means assured.

[hoyainspirit]

Rand Paul, from my perspective, is out the box crazy.

QUOTE
He[Paul]is so categorically opposed to public regulation of private enterprise that he cannot even bring himself to say that the Woolworth lunch counter should've been desegregated. Instead, he falls back on the remedies of the market: "I wouldn't attend, wouldn't support, wouldn't go to," a private institution that discriminates, he told Rachel Maddow. But he would let them discriminate. And in the segregated South, that would've been a perfectly viable business model for many, many very important institutions.

tinyurl.com/28qhscb

[SFHoya99]

May 20, 2010 10:35:20 GMT -5 hoyainspirit said:

Rand Paul, from my perspective, is out the box crazy.

QUOTE
He[Paul]is so categorically opposed to public regulation of private enterprise that he cannot even bring himself to say that the Woolworth lunch counter should've been desegregated. Instead, he falls back on the remedies of the market: "I wouldn't attend, wouldn't support, wouldn't go to," a private institution that discriminates, he told Rachel Maddow. But he would let them discriminate. And in the segregated South, that would've been a perfectly viable business model for many, many very important institutions.

tinyurl.com/28qhscb

Yeah. That's the problem with many Libertarians. So often they come out completely crazy to me.

[Nevada Hoya]

May 20, 2010 10:35:20 GMT -5 hoyainspirit said:

Rand Paul, from my perspective, is out the box crazy.

QUOTE
He[Paul]is so categorically opposed to public regulation of private enterprise that he cannot even bring himself to say that the Woolworth lunch counter should've been desegregated. Instead, he falls back on the remedies of the market: "I wouldn't attend, wouldn't support, wouldn't go to," a private institution that discriminates, he told Rachel Maddow. But he would let them discriminate. And in the segregated South, that would've been a perfectly viable business model for many, many very important institutions.

tinyurl.com/28qhscb

To his myopic view of the country, I say to Rand Paul, physician, heal thyself.

[TC]

What the heck was he doing going on Maddow the day after he wins the primary anyway? Say what you will, but there is a political canniness to Sarah Palin's media strategy that Rand Paul is too arrogant to understand.

[Boz]

So, just to be clear, we are NOT allowed to ask Barack Obama about things that happened forty years ago, but we ARE supposed to ask Rand Paul about 40-year old legislation.

Got it. Say, where does Rand Paul stand on the Emancipation Proclamation? That's what I want to know dammit!

For the record, Rand Paul has never once said that he would have voted against either the Civil Rights Act or the Americans with Disabilities Act. And I'm pretty darn sure he has never said that he is against either piece of legislation today. He has noted he has some concerns with the reach and length those acts provide to the government. RUN FOR THE HILLS!!!!

EDIT: Agree with TC though. That was not smart. There was practically drool on her desk she wanted to trap him so badly.

[hoyainspirit]

May 20, 2010 11:11:16 GMT -5 Boz said:

So, just to be clear, we are NOT allowed to ask Barack Obama about things that happened forty years ago, but we ARE supposed to ask Rand Paul about 40-year old legislation.

Got it. Say, where does Rand Paul stand on the Emancipation Proclamation? That's what I want to know dammit!

For the record, Rand Paul has never once said that he would have voted against either the Civil Rights Act or the Americans with Disabilities Act. And I'm pretty darn sure he has never said that he is against either piece of legislation today. He has noted he has some concerns with the reach and length those acts provide to the government. RUN FOR THE HILLS!!!!

EDIT: Agree with TC though. That was not smart. There was practically drool on her desk she wanted to trap him so badly.

When asked directly whether he would vote for it, never did he say that he would. Litmus test. He failed. Rand Paul's positions are so far from the norm as to be indefensible, not to mention repugnant. Sorry, no attempt to obfuscate the issue with a gratuitous Obama reference can change that.

[TC]

May 20, 2010 11:11:16 GMT -5 Boz said:

For the record, Rand Paul has never once said that he would have voted against either the Civil Rights Act or the Americans with Disabilities Act. And I'm pretty darn sure he has never said that he is against either piece of legislation today. He has noted he has some concerns with the reach and length those acts provide to the government. RUN FOR THE HILLS!!!!

Um, you've effectively staked out his response : "I will not try to repeal the Civil Rights Act" - absolutely remarkable in its tone deafy-ness.

[Boz]

May 20, 2010 11:27:48 GMT -5 hoyainspirit said:

May 20, 2010 11:11:16 GMT -5 Boz said:

So, just to be clear, we are NOT allowed to ask Barack Obama about things that happened forty years ago, but we ARE supposed to ask Rand Paul about 40-year old legislation.

Got it. Say, where does Rand Paul stand on the Emancipation Proclamation? That's what I want to know dammit!

For the record, Rand Paul has never once said that he would have voted against either the Civil Rights Act or the Americans with Disabilities Act. And I'm pretty darn sure he has never said that he is against either piece of legislation today. He has noted he has some concerns with the reach and length those acts provide to the government. RUN FOR THE HILLS!!!!

EDIT: Agree with TC though. That was not smart. There was practically drool on her desk she wanted to trap him so badly.

When asked directly whether he would vote for it, never did he say that he would. Litmus test. He failed. Rand Paul's positions are so far from the norm as to be indefensible, not to mention repugnant. Sorry, no attempt to obfuscate the issue with a gratuitous Obama reference can change that.

60 percent of Kentuckians disagree.

But, I imagine they're all hicks whose opinions are so completely unenlightened as to not matter anyway.

[SirSaxa]

May 20, 2010 11:11:16 GMT -5 Boz said:

So, just to be clear, we are NOT allowed to ask Barack Obama about things that happened forty years ago, but we ARE supposed to ask Rand Paul about 40-year old legislation.

Got it. Say, where does Rand Paul stand on the Emancipation Proclamation? That's what I want to know dammit!

For the record, Rand Paul has never once said that he would have voted against either the Civil Rights Act or the Americans with Disabilities Act. And I'm pretty darn sure he has never said that he is against either piece of legislation today. He has noted he has some concerns with the reach and length those acts provide to the government. RUN FOR THE HILLS!!!!

EDIT: Agree with TC though. That was not smart. There was practically drool on her desk she wanted to trap him so badly.

Boz, are you really supporting Rand Paul's position? He stated pretty clearly that he believes the Civil Rights Act was the right thing to do for Governmental organizations, but not for private businesses.

Let's say JT3, Pops, Jeff Green and Jon Wallace were on a trip someplace, recruiting, running clinics, whatever. After their event they decide to go out for dinner. But the better restaurants in Lost Valley, S. Carolina don't like "their kind" and don't allow them in for dinner. You'd be OK with that? You would support Rand Paul who says it should be up to each individual business establishment to decide who they serve?

And the US Constitution says all men are created equal. But somehow, the hypothetical example above is OK with you? Or are you just issuing your typical knee-jerk defense of all things "conservative"? Because I don't believe you are OK with the above example. In fact, I would hope and pray that NO ONE on this board would EVER be OK with that example -- no matter how much we may disagree on other things.

HoyainSpirit is 100% right on this one.

[Boz]

May 21, 2010 18:17:24 GMT -5 SirSaxa said:

May 20, 2010 11:11:16 GMT -5 Boz said:

So, just to be clear, we are NOT allowed to ask Barack Obama about things that happened forty years ago, but we ARE supposed to ask Rand Paul about 40-year old legislation.

Got it. Say, where does Rand Paul stand on the Emancipation Proclamation? That's what I want to know dammit!

For the record, Rand Paul has never once said that he would have voted against either the Civil Rights Act or the Americans with Disabilities Act. And I'm pretty darn sure he has never said that he is against either piece of legislation today. He has noted he has some concerns with the reach and length those acts provide to the government. RUN FOR THE HILLS!!!!

EDIT: Agree with TC though. That was not smart. There was practically drool on her desk she wanted to trap him so badly.

Boz, are you really supporting Rand Paul's position? He stated pretty clearly that he believes the Civil Rights Act was the right thing to do for Governmental organizations, but not for private businesses.

Let's say JT3, Pops, Jeff Green and Jon Wallace were on a trip someplace, recruiting, running clinics, whatever. After their event they decide to go out for dinner. But the better restaurants in Lost Valley, S. Carolina don't like "their kind" and don't allow them in for dinner. You'd be OK with that? You would support Rand Paul who says it should be up to each individual business establishment to decide who they serve?

And the US Constitution says all men are created equal. But somehow, the hypothetical example above is OK with you? Or are you just issuing your typical knee-jerk defense of all things "conservative"? Because I don't believe you are OK with the above example. In fact, I would hope and pray that NO ONE on this board would EVER be OK with that example -- no matter how much we may disagree on other things.

HoyainSpirit is 100% right on this one.

Of course I am not OK with the above example. If you read everything he has said, neither is Rand Paul.

I am not a full-on libertarian for many of these reasons. There is principle and there is practice. I am mostly with Rand Paul in principle, but when it comes to practice, libertarian principles don't always work. And Rand Paul has said as much.

I am defending Rand Paul because this is gotcha politics. Rand Paul has made much more complete statements about issues of this nature, but people want to paint him as off the reservation, so they focus on a small portion of his comments and not the whole.

I can't think of a single politician with whom I agree 100%. Folks like Newt Gingrich and Paul Ryan are close, but I even have some smaller differences with them.

[TC]

May 21, 2010 19:10:01 GMT -5 Boz said:

Of course I am not OK with the above example. If you read everything he has said, neither is Rand Paul.
....
I am defending Rand Paul because this is gotcha politics. Rand Paul has made much more complete statements about issues of this nature, but people want to paint him as off the reservation, so they focus on a small portion of his comments and not the whole.

No, Rand Paul-in-an-election-year seems to disagree with that, but Rand Paul pre-May 2009 does not.

And no, this is not Gotcha Politics. This is a candidate being an arrogant idiot. As we agreed before, what the hell was he doing on Maddow's show? If Al Franken went on O'Reilly the night after he won a primary and O'Reilly catches him on something - is it O'Reilly's fault, or is it Franken's fault because he should never have been on that show in the first place?

I'm gonna mix some metaphors here intentionally : in Maddow's case the medium is the message and Rand Paul got himself WAY off message. Did Paul really think he was going to sway Kentucky viewers of Rachel Maddow?

The only thing I can think is that Rand Paul thought he'd get the same type of treatment as Ron Paul, and he hasn't earned that on MSNBC because he hasn't really taken any stances that are outside the sphere of conventional Republicanism.