The END of Arlen Spector

[amrchaos]

i do
and i wont be voting for them again
and yes, i know, that might mean a dem wins

So--the Republicans have retreated into the Deep South!!!

You know, that is not a good place to start a revolution from. That was tried before, and failed miserably!!

i'm still hoping to get someone like Margaret Chase Smith back

I do not know how true this is--since it is off of Wiki.

Was she a Rockefeller Republican? That is closer to a Paleo-Conservative than the kind of conservative you want. Come to think about it--some of todays cons call them libs as well.

 

[DiveCon]

So--the Republicans have retreated into the Deep South!!!

You know, that is not a good place to start a revolution from. That was tried before, and failed miserably!!

i'm still hoping to get someone like Margaret Chase Smith back

I do not know how true this is--since it is off of Wiki.

Was she a Rockefeller Republican? That is closer to a Paleo-Conservative than the kind of conservative you want. Come to think about it--some of todays cons call them libs as well.

no, that IS the kind of conservative i want
one that puts the constitution first

 

[amrchaos]

i'm still hoping to get someone like Margaret Chase Smith back

I do not know how true this is--since it is off of Wiki.

Was she a Rockefeller Republican? That is closer to a Paleo-Conservative than the kind of conservative you want. Come to think about it--some of todays cons call them libs as well.

no, that IS the kind of conservative i want
one that puts the constitution first

A moderate Republican is, essentially, a Rockefeller Republican.

No--that is not the "kind" of Conservative you want!!

 

[DiveCon]

I do not know how true this is--since it is off of Wiki.

Was she a Rockefeller Republican? That is closer to a Paleo-Conservative than the kind of conservative you want. Come to think about it--some of todays cons call them libs as well.

no, that IS the kind of conservative i want
one that puts the constitution first

A moderate Republican is, essentially, a Rockefeller Republican.

No--that is not the "kind" of Conservative you want!!

no, they are not
Margaret Chase Smith was a solid conservative

 

[amrchaos]

no, that IS the kind of conservative i want
one that puts the constitution first

A moderate Republican is, essentially, a Rockefeller Republican.

No--that is not the "kind" of Conservative you want!!

no, they are not
Margaret Chase Smith was a solid conservative

RR's are not -at least what one would consider today-- Conservatives.

They were along time ago, but then the Conservative movement has went so far into right wing extremism that it may be better to say that you are not a conservative. More like something much further to the right, and a bit more in favor of Authoritarianism.

 

[DiveCon]

A moderate Republican is, essentially, a Rockefeller Republican.

No--that is not the "kind" of Conservative you want!!

no, they are not
Margaret Chase Smith was a solid conservative

RR's are not -at least what one would consider today-- Conservatives.

They were along time ago, but then the Conservative movement has went so far into right wing extremism that it may be better to say that you are not a conservative. More like something much further to the right, and a bit more in favor of Authoritarianism.

WRONG
you must think a NEOCON is a far right wing extreme
they ARENT
they are more liberal
you dont have a fgucking clue what a conservative is and you have proven that already

 

[amrchaos]

no, they are not
Margaret Chase Smith was a solid conservative

RR's are not -at least what one would consider today-- Conservatives.

They were along time ago, but then the Conservative movement has went so far into right wing extremism that it may be better to say that you are not a conservative. More like something much further to the right, and a bit more in favor of Authoritarianism.

WRONG
you must think a NEOCON is a far right wing extreme
they ARENT
they are more liberal
you dont have a fgucking clue what a conservative is and you have proven that already

A neo con is a person that believes Torture is justifiable--do not believe in justice for all (only people they call Americans and anybody that help them justify their postition for the moment), rampant Corporatism and some forms of Global domination through one single perspective--their owns.(In other words--further to the right and favors Authoritarianism!!)

Libertarians believe in economic Dawrinism and Individual choice and self Responsibility

Paleos Conservatives sought to balance government and individual--they are centrist

?Cons--you tell me-what the hell are they?

 

[Xenophon]

If the GOP wants to become a rump party that are unable to elect 40 members to the Senate and thus allow the Democrats to run roughshod over them, nominating an unelectable Pat Toomey and defeating an electable Arlen Specter is a fabulous way to do it.

Spector like Snowe will not support filibusters on spending as it is, in effect the democrats have the magic 60, so what difference does it make it Spector goes?

He is not supporting his party's postion, keeping him around for the sake of claiming he has an 'r' is pointless.

BTW, don't be so sure anyone is 'unelctable' as the economy continues to sputter and fail.

 

[amrchaos]

If the GOP wants to become a rump party that are unable to elect 40 members to the Senate and thus allow the Democrats to run roughshod over them, nominating an unelectable Pat Toomey and defeating an electable Arlen Specter is a fabulous way to do it.

Spector like Snowe will not support filibusters on spending as it is, in effect the democrats have the magic 60, so what difference does it make it Spector goes?

He is not supporting his party's postion, keeping him around for the sake of claiming he has an 'r' is pointless.

BTW, don't be so sure anyone is 'unelctable' as the economy continues to sputter and fail.

Actually, these are the times for new leaders with new ideas. The age of Radicals.

 

[Toro]

If the GOP wants to become a rump party that are unable to elect 40 members to the Senate and thus allow the Democrats to run roughshod over them, nominating an unelectable Pat Toomey and defeating an electable Arlen Specter is a fabulous way to do it.

Spector like Snowe will not support filibusters on spending as it is, in effect the democrats have the magic 60, so what difference does it make it Spector goes?

He is not supporting his party's postion, keeping him around for the sake of claiming he has an 'r' is pointless.

BTW, don't be so sure anyone is 'unelctable' as the economy continues to sputter and fail.

This isn't quite true. The budget was watered down somewhat for the moderate Senate Republicans, who said they wanted to see less on spending and more on taxes and got it.

And someone isn't elected to support his or her party. Someone is elected to support the people in his or her state.

If you think its a good idea to elect even more leftists to Congress, that's a funny way of advancing your agenda. There simply aren't enough Small Tent Republicans to make a difference.

 

[DiveCon]

If the GOP wants to become a rump party that are unable to elect 40 members to the Senate and thus allow the Democrats to run roughshod over them, nominating an unelectable Pat Toomey and defeating an electable Arlen Specter is a fabulous way to do it.

Spector like Snowe will not support filibusters on spending as it is, in effect the democrats have the magic 60, so what difference does it make it Spector goes?

He is not supporting his party's postion, keeping him around for the sake of claiming he has an 'r' is pointless.

BTW, don't be so sure anyone is 'unelctable' as the economy continues to sputter and fail.

This isn't quite true. The budget was watered down somewhat for the moderate Senate Republicans, who said they wanted to see less on spending and more on taxes and got it.

And someone isn't elected to support his or her party. Someone is elected to support the people in his or her state.

If you think its a good idea to elect even more leftists to Congress, that's a funny way of advancing your agenda. There simply aren't enough Small Tent Republicans to make a difference.

when you have 2 or 3 (R) in name only that consistantly thwart the only attempts you have, they become useless to the cause
why should we keep them when they are not helping

 

[Toro]

when you have 2 or 3 (R) in name only that consistantly thwart the only attempts you have, they become useless to the cause
why should we keep them when they are not helping

Because if you lose those 3, then you have 38 Senators, not 41, and you truly become a party eunuchs. Or, if you have 52 Senators instead of 49, you control the Senate and all the committee chairs, and thus control the agenda. At least with 3 in your party, you have a measure of influence over them. If you have 3 leftist Democrats, you have nothing. This is a classic example of cutting off your nose to spite your face.

A political party is a brokerage of similar interests, not an ideological litmus test. If the Democrats win the moderates, you have virtually no chance.

Conservatives have to realize that there simply aren't enough of them. It is better to have an influence on power than to have none at all.

 

[DiveCon]

when you have 2 or 3 (R) in name only that consistantly thwart the only attempts you have, they become useless to the cause
why should we keep them when they are not helping

Because if you lose those 3, then you have 38 Senators, not 41, and you truly become a party eunuchs. Or, if you have 52 Senators instead of 49, you control the Senate and all the committee chairs, and thus control the agenda. At least with 3 in your party, you have a measure of influence over them. If you have 3 leftist Democrats, you have nothing. This is a classic example of cutting off your nose to spite your face.

A political party is a brokerage of similar interests, not an ideological litmus test. If the Democrats win the moderates, you have virtually no chance.

Conservatives have to realize that there simply aren't enough of them. It is better to have an influence on power than to have none at all.

exactly, and if those 3 are not reliable for your goals, they are a liability, not an asset

and since they have made it so they are defacto democrats, why should we as republicans, re-elect them?

 

[Old Rocks]

You should not. Just let the Democrats have it all. See if power goes to their heads and makes them as incompetant as the Republicans have been for the last eight years.

 

[DiveCon]

You should not. Just let the Democrats have it all. See if power goes to their heads and makes them as incompetant as the Republicans have been for the last eight years.

well, the GOP hasnt had "control" for the last 8 years, and you know that
but, they did act irresponsibly when they did have it
thats why THEY are not in "control" anymore
when are you democrats going to take care of those in there NOW

 

[Xenophon]

Actually, these are the times for new leaders with new ideas. The age of Radicals.

Radicals have an amazingly short shelf life.

 

[Xenophon]

This isn't quite true. The budget was watered down somewhat for the moderate Senate Republicans, who said they wanted to see less on spending and more on taxes and got it.

And someone isn't elected to support his or her party. Someone is elected to support the people in his or her state.

If you think its a good idea to elect even more leftists to Congress, that's a funny way of advancing your agenda. There simply aren't enough Small Tent Republicans to make a difference.

You assume Penn is going to keep electing the left indefinetly, a huge and most likely wrong assumption.

You also assume that fiscal responsibility is a concept that is unelectable, it isn't, and I don't care what teh GoP does, they and the Dems are the same.

Both of the dominent parties are losing support from classic over reach and constant dirty politics, more disillusioned people are appearing.

 

[Xenophon]

You should not. Just let the Democrats have it all. See if power goes to their heads and makes them as incompetant as the Republicans have been for the last eight years.

It already has, titanic irrisponsible spending and rediculous radical attmepts to control energy production are just two examples of government out of control.

 

[Toro]

You assume Penn is going to keep electing the left indefinetly, a huge and most likely wrong assumption.

No, that's not the assumption I am making. What I am saying is that Toomey will lose PA, as he did when he last ran and as Santorum did. PA is not a highly conservative state. If you keep nominating conservatives, you will keep losing elections over the next several elections.

I am also saying that the GOP is moving away from the center whereas the Democrats are moving into the center. The Democrats have welcomed more centrists into the party and they have won with them, guys like Jim Webb, whereas the hardline ideologues in the GOP seem not to understand this shift and are intent upon moving away from the center. This will lead them to further irrelevance, which is a bad thing because it is important that one party does not dominate all levels of power.

Eventually, however, the Republican party will move back to the center to win. They will have to.

 

[DiveCon]

You assume Penn is going to keep electing the left indefinetly, a huge and most likely wrong assumption.

No, that's not the assumption I am making. What I am saying is that Toomey will lose PA, as he did when he last ran and as Santorum did. PA is not a highly conservative state. If you keep nominating conservatives, you will keep losing elections over the next several elections.

I am also saying that the GOP is moving away from the center whereas the Democrats are moving into the center. The Democrats have welcomed more centrists into the party and they have won with them, guys like Jim Webb, whereas the hardline ideologues in the GOP seem not to understand this shift and are intent upon moving away from the center. This will lead them to further irrelevance, which is a bad thing because it is important that one party does not dominate all levels of power.

Eventually, however, the Republican party will move back to the center to win. They will have to.

if being in the center would have won, why didnt McCain win????
he was way more center than Obama is