Better Headline: Senator Awful Spectre
Follows the Money.
In his public appearances yesterday Senator Awful Spectre repeatedly said that in switching from the Republican to the Democrat Party he was
"just following his conscience."
It would have been more accurate for him to have admitted that he is just following the money.
The Democrats have TRILLIONS of tax dollars
to throw away (it will soon be QUADRILLIONS).
He broke ranks with the Republicans and voted for the 700+ billion dollar stimulus bill which neither he nor any other senator had had an opportunity to read before voting for it.
He began his political career 30 years ago as a Democrat but when he saw power of the Reagan tide, he switched and joined the Republicans.
Now, seeing the power of the Obama tide,
he has switched and joined the Democrats.
It is obvious that he lacks personal integrity.
His switching Parties lends validity to Harry Truman's wise observation that there is no difference between
Congress and a brothel.
Please God, Pat Toomey will be elected Senator from Pennsylvania to succeed the Awful Spectre.
Here is Pat Toomey's statement:
who must decide who will represent us in the U.S. Senate next year, the stakes are personal.
A central question will be whether Mr. Specter can be trusted on anything.
In recent weeks, Mr. Specter has made numerous statements about how important it is to deny Democrats the 60th seat in the U.S. Senate and how he intended to remain a Republican to prevent one-party dominance in Washington. What Pennsylvanians have to ask themselves now is whether Mr. Specter is, in fact, devoted to any principle other than his own re-election.
On that question, there is much evidence. Mr. Specter began his political career as a Democrat, switched to the Republican side out of political convenience and has switched back for the same reason. On issue after issue, he has changed his position over the years to benefit his political calculations.
The most recent example is card check, which denies workers a secret ballot in labor-union elections. First Mr. Specter supported it, then he opposed it when faced with Republican primary opposition, and now, who knows? That's something Pennsylvania Democrats will have to contend with. Do they really want to nominate someone who will switch his principles on a dime?
If Mr. Specter's political expediency were only a personal matter, it would hardly be worth noting. However, the national implications are more serious. By switching parties, Mr. Specter guarantees the very thing he has vocally warned against: a one-party Democratic monopoly of the federal government.
Just a few months ago, Mr. Specter said avoiding one-party dominance was vital for our country. He was right then. Unfortunately, his desire for political self-preservation trumped his previously stated view of the vital interests of our country.
But Pennsylvania voters will have the ability to correct this situation in next year's election. I believe the Democratic Congress' reaction to the current recession has brought our country to a crossroads. On one path, we have the most massive growth in federal spending in our nation's history. The biggest debt in history. Taxpayer-funded bailouts of failed Wall Street firms and Detroit automakers, the likes of which we have never before seen. And the promise of massive tax increases next year.
Mr. Specter, of course, voted in favor of all of this when he was still a Republican, so in that sense, not much will change. But he will embolden House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid to take our country even further down the road to a European-style welfare state.
The other path is more familiar to Americans. It is the path of limited government, free enterprise and personal responsibility, which have been the hallmarks of America's success for generations. That is the path that will lead us to economic recovery. It is the path I will advocate in my campaign for the U.S. Senate in Pennsylvania.
I do not believe that the rejection of the Republican Party in the 2006 and 2008 elections was a rejection of those principles. Rather, too many Republicans in Washington became enamored with, and indeed corrupted by, big government. After all, the "Bridge to Nowhere" was a Republican-sponsored earmark.
Voters threw the Republicans out of Congress because they didn't like the Republicans' performance. And there was much to dislike.
Unfortunately, the pendulum has swung much too far in the other direction, with record-shattering wasteful spending increases. Now, the Specter-empowered Democratic supermajority will go even further.
In 2010, voters will say "Enough is enough." In the parlance of economics, there will be a "market correction." Americans who voted for the nice-sounding but content-free notion of "change" in 2008 will vote again to say "not so fast; even more power in the hands of Washington politicians is not the change we had in mind." And when Pennsylvanians look at Arlen Specter's role in this political power grab, they will reject him, too.
by Pat Toomey
THE WASHINGTON TIMES
29 April 09
Pat Toomey is a former Republican member of the House of Representatives and is a candidate for his party's nomination to the U.S. Senate from Pennsylvania.
"In finally abandoning the Republican Party, Pennsylvania Sen. Arlen Specter showed his true colors not just ideologically, but personally. It's all about the liberal Specter maximizing his own power. The climax Tuesday of Arlen Specter's long, drawn-out betrayal of his party may seem like it came out of nowhere -- especially since it was only last month that he said he'd seek re-election as a Republican. But why be shocked when a hardened Machiavellian does what comes naturally after doing the math? As a Democrat, Sen. Specter will now be Washington's king power broker, since he is poised to be the 60th vote for Democrats in the U.S. Senate, constituting a filibuster-proof majority at a time when the federal government is undergoing an unprecedented expansion in size and power. No one is falling for Specter's hand-wringing rationale that "since my election in 1980, as part of the Reagan Big Tent, the Republican Party has moved far to the right." He was just as uncomfortable with Reaganism back then as he is now, all along relishing his role as RINO -- Republican In Name Only -- whose vote was up for sale. ... As vote No. 60 in the World's Greatest Deliberative Body (assuming vote No. 59 belongs to comedian Al Franken of Minnesota), Specter will be owed an incalculable debt by congressional Democrats and President Obama. There will be no threats of party discipline against him on the occasions when he votes with Republicans, no warnings that campaign funds will be kept from him. ... Each and every big vote in the Senate will be a bargaining opportunity for Specter. Riches and favors will be showered upon him for the power he prostitutes. ... Reserve a space for a new addition to history's Rogues' Gallery."
--Investor's Business Daily
To his friends, Arlen Specter is adaptable. "He doesn't suffer from a desperate desire to be popular," the late Thacher Longstreth, who ran for mayor of Philadelphia in the 1970s with Mr. Specter as his campaign manager, said once. "He suffers from a desperate desire to be elected."
To his critics, Mr. Specter is a rank opportunist. His party switch yesterday was a shock to few. After all, he was a Democrat until age 35. He only became a Republican in 1965 when the Democratic machine in Philadelphia turned down his request that he be nominated for district attorney. The GOP nomination was his for the asking, but he also covered his bases: He changed his party registration only after he had won.
Mr. Specter finds such tactical nimbleness useful because his personality is so notoriously off-putting, leading him to be dubbed by various Senate colleagues as "Snarlin' Arlen" or "The Arlenator." Mr. Specter himself has recognized his deficit in human relations. After he once narrowly lost a race for mayor of Philadelphia, a friend advised him that he needed more warmth. "Okay, I'll get some," he replied.
-- John Fund
In 2001, Arlen Specter took a dim view of senators who switched parties. In fact, he proposed banning senators from engaging in the practice if their move disrupted the Senate.
At the time, the Pennsylvania Senator was chairman of the Veteran's Affairs Committee and enjoyed the perks and power of that job. He was therefore furious when his moderate GOP colleague, Jim Jeffords of Vermont, became an independent and began to caucus with the Democrats. The Jeffords move swung control of the closely divided Senate to the Democrats, depriving Mr. Specter of his chairmanship. Yet Mr. Specter's own party switch yesterday brings Democrats to the threshold of the 60 votes they would need to shut off debate on key issues -- potentially having an equally dramatic impact on the country's governance.
After Mr. Jeffords defected from the GOP in 2001, an angry Mr. Specter told colleagues in a floor speech: "I plan to propose a rule change which would preclude a future recurrence of a Senator's change in parties, in midsession, organizing with the opposition, to cause the upheaval which is now resulting." The Pennsylvania senator's efforts were quickly spurned by his colleagues, but his arguments at the time are an ironic commentary on his current party switch.
Mr. Specter told colleagues that when he learned that Mr. Jeffords might switch parties, his reaction was shock: "It shouldn't happen -- it won't happen -- it can't happen. Well, I was wrong." He described in detail the efforts he made to dissuade the Vermont Senator: "We first pleaded with him, saying his change would disrupt the Senate, it would change the balance of power in the Federal Government generally, it would severely weaken the Republican Party -- of which he was a lifelong member -- it would hurt his Senate friends, and likely cause many staffers to lose their jobs."
In his 2001 floor speech, Mr. Specter specifically raised the issue of whether Mr. Jeffords, his close friend, had made any arrangements for special consideration from Democrats in exchange for his switch. He argued that this question had "an ethical context." As for his own view of party switching, Mr. Specter was emphatic. He noted that from his first election to the Senate in 1980, he believed he owed loyalty to the Republican Party that had supported him: "I have believed the organizational vote [to control the Senate] belonged to the party which supported my election."
Mr. Specter was asked about his 2001 statements yesterday and responded that the circumstances regarding the Jeffords party switch and his own were completely different. "My change in party affiliation does not mean that I will be a party-line voter any more for the Democrats than I have been for the Republicans," he said. "Unlike Sen. Jeffords' switch, which changed party control, I will not be an automatic 60th vote."
So he says now. We will just have to wait and see if that is indeed the case.
-- John Fund
THE WALL STREET JOURNAL
POLITICAL DIARY ONLINE
29 APRIL 09
Barry Soetoro aka Barack Hussein Obama
because he is not eligible to be President of the United States
because he is not a Natural Born Citizen
as required by Article Two, Section One, Clause Five
of the United States Constitution.
This is a fact regardless of
where he was born (Mombassa, Hawaii, Chicago, or Mars).
He is not a Natural Born Citizen
because he was not born of
BOTH OF WHOM WERE UNITED STATES CITIZENS
at the time of his birth.
His father was a subject/ciitizen
of Kenya/Great Britain at the time of his birth and afterwards.
His mother was too young to pass on her US citizenship
according to the law in effect when he was born.
Check it out:
His usurpation cannot be corrected by Congress,
it can only be corrected by his resignation, his removal
by an amendment to the Constitution
which will never happen.