Town Square

Post a New Topic

Arlen Specter will switch his party affiliation

Original post made by Sharon on Apr 28, 2009

At least he made an honest statement of why he switched-----

"I have traveled the State, talked to Republican leaders and office-holders and my supporters and I have carefully examined public opinion. It has become clear to me that the stimulus vote caused a schism which makes our differences irreconcilable. On this state of the record, I am unwilling to have my twenty-nine year Senate record judged by the Pennsylvania Republican primary electorate."

There you have it: He thought he was going to lose.

Specter's decision will give Democrats a 60 seat filibuster proof majority in the Senate assuming Democrat Al Franken is eventually sworn in as the next senator from Minnesota.

Comments (59)

Posted by Anonymous, a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Apr 28, 2009 at 10:50 am

More insult than injury to the GOP because Spector's votes won't change. The Senate is still controlled by moderate Democrats and Republicans who determine what will pass cloture or not.

Specter was probably going to lose the Republican primary but Toomey is going to lose to whatever Democrat he runs against.

Posted by Paul, a resident of Downtown North
on Apr 28, 2009 at 11:12 am

As a man of integrity, honor, and principle, Specter has naturally been at odds with the Republican Party for a very long time. To that list add perseverance, for his long but futile attempt to reform his (now-former) party. Democrats will welcome him for much more than the added vote he brings.

Posted by Gary, a resident of Downtown North
on Apr 28, 2009 at 11:26 am

Specter switched for the simple reason that he would not win the Republican primary. He may not win the Dem primary, either. Either way, Spector has already announced that he will oppose the Dems on some key issues, like card check. He is really an independent who plays the parties for his own benefit.

The irony is that he may actually pull the Dems back to the center on some key issues. He has much more power now.

Posted by Bye Bye Specter!!, a resident of Midtown
on Apr 28, 2009 at 1:51 pm

My first thought was "Good riddance". He was a Repub in name only, and frankly did nothing but hurt Republicans with his being the "media darling" as one of about 4 token RINOS who were used as propoganda tools.

My second thought was "must be something in it for him"..and sure enough, there you are. The RNC is finally starting to back real Repubs, and so he will lose in any Repub primary. I am certain that if we stop running Dem-lites under the name of "Republican" against Democrats, that the ideas that are clearly better for the American economy and security will be voted in. At this point, there is a "why bother voting" attitude amongst many of us, since so many supposed Repubs, like McCain, were still going to be bad for the country..just a little less so and a little slower than the Dems.

Now if we can get Snowe, Collins and McCain to switch parties and call a spade a spade, we might get somewhere.

Posted by Paul, a resident of Downtown North
on Apr 28, 2009 at 2:28 pm

"Since my election in 1980, as part of the Reagan Big Tent, the Republican Party has moved far to the right. Last year, more than 200,000 Republicans in Pennsylvania changed their registration to become Democrats." - Arlen Specter

"Now if we can get Snowe, Collins and McCain to switch parties and call a spade a spade, we might get somewhere."

Don't forget Schwarzenegger.

Posted by ByeByeSpecter, a resident of Midtown
on Apr 28, 2009 at 3:00 pm

Yes, thanks for the laugh Paul. Cracked me up totally, that this guy thinks we are dumb enough to believe him when he says the Repubs have moved to the right and aren't imply they aren't "big tent" anymore,; party Pres which was the first to okay fed spending on embryonic stem cell research, which grew government spending more than prior govts ( but pales in comparison to now), which spent more on education and health and human services than any prior admin,etc..

What he MEANS is that the Repubs haven't shifted as far left as hard as the Dems and he have done. I really believe that his leaving is good news. This will leave room for Conservatives to speak and be elected, and bring this country back to economic and security good sense.

You have to remember, Bush and the RNC were too far to the left for a lot, if not most, voting a lot of us stayed home or said "if someone is going to destroy the country anyway, let it be a Dem to show the people what happens". We are seeing the effects now.

The future will be interesting to watch. I am betting that we are going to finally start seeing real Repubs who can actually speak about core values concerning the Constitution, economics and security..once the Americans start hearing some opposing, well reasoned and documented outcome ideas, they will vote for what actually works, not what they WISH would work.

Anyway, I agree. I should have known that Schwarzenegger was not a man of could he have been a real Repub and have peace in the home with a Kennedy?

So, you are right, he should just switch and be done.

Doesn't matter what is after your name in any case, unless you are a little robot who is going to do whatever mommy and daddy leader tell you. You SHOULD vote for what is right for the future of this country, regardless of your "party affiliation". This isn't a football game with one team against the other. This is supposed to be about voting for the good of our country.

I am starting to agree with Buckley..I would rather be ruled by the first 100 names in the NYC phone book than by elected elites ( or something like that..maybe he said the elites at Universities??) sorry, don't know. Just know I am fed up with electing people who rapidy care more about being reelected at all costs than about doing what is the thing they KNOW is right for the rest of us.

Posted by Paul, a resident of Downtown North
on Apr 28, 2009 at 4:18 pm

Check, BBS. As your posts demonstrate, the "Big Tent" thing has always been a joke, better to be done with it and likewise everyone who believes or believed it.

Now here's a real whopper. Did ya know there's a group that believes the Repubs are the "big tent" party that stands for fiscal responsibility? Yup. Wait. Hold your ROTF and listen to the punch line: They call themselves Log Cabin Republicans, they're gay, and they're actually serious.

Imagine that: Log Cabin, as in Lincoln. They never heard that Lincoln is the Repubs' biggest embarrassment, with Teddy Roosevelt a close second. The GOP's the Party of Reagan these days.

Fiscal responsibility? Hoo-hoo. Two presidents have balanced a budget in the last 50 years, and neither was a Republican. No Republican even tried.

Then there's the gay part. Makes your day, don't it?

Posted by ByeByeSpecter, a resident of Midtown
on Apr 28, 2009 at 6:31 pm

No, it isn't the party of Reagan these days, and that is why it, and our country, has lost.

Yes, I am a Log Cabin Republican, so I am pretty sure I have heard of them. Kinda blows your mind, doesn't it, that there are people who actually understand what a Republican actually is, what is good for this country and our kids, and put the good of the country above one issue. Even more shocking to you will be the revelation that a lot of us don't actually agree that there should be something called "marriage" for us. All the privileges and responsibilities, yes, through a legal option. But call it something else. We aren't straight, and have no need of a straight word to define us. We also don't want the unintended consequences on others that a definitional change would bring. We believe in a more "live and let live" approach, not letting anyone else force their beliefs on us, NOR us forcing our beliefs on them. Which happened in Massachussetts when "marriage" became a word to mean gay or straight committed union ( adoption agencies and scouts were forced out)

And, there is room in the Log Cabin community for divergent views on this issue. Believe it or not. We are not a "monolith", though there are many who try to portray us that way.

As for "balancing the budget" .... keep believing that. This is something we have gone over multiple times in this arena, and the bottom line was smoke and mirrors, and hurt our nation. But hey, it makes you feel good to believe it so feel free.

Posted by Sharon, a resident of Midtown
on Apr 28, 2009 at 6:50 pm

Specter is entitled to his opinions, he is 79 and has had many radiation, chemotherapy and surgery events for his brain tumor.

We have competency tests and age limits for commercial pilots etc, we should have the same for politicians, surgeons etc.

We should also give the younger generations an opportunity to fill these critical positions.
HP, for example, has CEO a mandatory retirement of 60 as do accounting firms for partners. They do this for good reasons, competence and opportunity.

Posted by OhlonePar, a resident of Duveneck/St. Francis
on Apr 28, 2009 at 8:02 pm

We do have competency tests for politicians--they're called elections.

It's funny, though, Sharon to hear your support of FDR's attempt to stack the Supreme Court by adding a justice for everyone over age 70.

At this rate, the GOP is on its way to being a marginalized regional party. Party identification is way down as well--I read 21 percent somewhere.

I don't like it myself. I like a two-party system where both parties have it together enough to have a true debate over issues.

Funny, though, the parties have switched places--the party of Lincoln is now the party of the South, while Boll Weevill Democrats are a mostly dead breed.

Posted by Real Conservative - disgusted with Republican Wackos, a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Apr 28, 2009 at 8:25 pm

Reagan talked a great game and was all about image. He brought down taxes for the wealthy. My taxes went up under his tenure. So did the federal debt and deficit. He artificially bolstered the economy by doling out huge defense contracts that made and did nothing except put us further in debt. (Oh, but we brought down the Soviet Union by outspending them...) He otherwise gutted sound investments in our country that pay back big dividends. It's a testament to the strength of our middle class that they survived his tenure, though they have been under strain and shrinking since he started.

How do these neocons (emphasis on CONS) get away with calling themselves CONSERVATIVE? I thought conservative meant fiscally sound. Talk about RINOs.

Posted by ByeBye Specter, a resident of Midtown
on Apr 28, 2009 at 8:49 pm

RC, sorry...doesn't fly. The only way your taxes went up was if you were unemployed and then you got a job, or your takehome pay went I am guessing you took home a lot more money after a few years with Reaganonics ( I know many more people found work, and most of the nation made more money, including me).

As for the rest of your assertion, please cite debt/deficit by end of Reagan in terms of percent of GDP..then compare and contrast with before and since. Every Pres/Congress has increased our deficit, every one. Unfortunately. It is a question of how much has the economy grown to cover it? If you owe $30,000 but earn $100,000/year, it is not as onerous of a debt as owing $20,000 but making only $50,000 per year. That is how deficit/debt is measured in any meaningful way, not absolute numbers.

We completely agree..fiscal conservative is the way we should go. That means spend within our means. Pay for what we spend ourselves, don't steal from the ones coming after us.This is why I do not support the AARP, they are too busy supporting debt for my children and grandchildren. So, go for whoever they DON'T want, and you will get a fiscal conservative.

Next time, support someone who actually is a conservative, and maybe we will start steering back in the right direction.

Posted by Bye Bye Specter, a resident of Midtown
on Apr 28, 2009 at 8:55 pm

Party identification is down..probably for the same reason I and virtually nobody I know who agrees with me no longer call ourselves Republican. The brand has been smeared by the party going too far left. I call myself Conservative, or even Libertarian, as being the closest "official" party that I can now identify with.

When the Repubs come back to their fiscal conservativism, I will come back to being a Repub.

Don't make the mistake of thinking the country has become less conservative. I think you are misreading the data. But, who knows, maybe I am the one projecting outward from my own small database and drawing conclusions. I find that we, as a nation, continually misread "polls"..for example, when the majority of us were saying we were heading in the wrong direction, the assumption that everyone who answered the poll in that way meant we should move further to the left. Few thought to ask the follow up question of where we should head, which would have clarified to the RNC what kind of candidate to support.

So, I think that same error is happening here.

Posted by Paul, a resident of Downtown North
on Apr 28, 2009 at 10:43 pm

"Kinda blows your mind, doesn't it, that there are people who actually understand what a Republican actually is, what is good for this country and our kids, and put the good of the country above one issue."

Yes there are, and Specter has shown he's one of them. What blows the mind is that people who actually understand what a Republican actually is, what is good for this country and our kids, and put the good of the country above one issue, could ever call themselves Republicans.

Posted by OhlonePar, a resident of Duveneck/St. Francis
on Apr 29, 2009 at 2:28 am

Bye Bye,

Your party didn't go left--it's far to the right of where it was under Eisenhower and Nixon.

You guys elected Bush who has a peculiar gift for undoing things (his history as a businessman is the same). He didn't do it by going left, he did it through arrogance. He and his supporters figured that they didn't have to do anything to get along with anybody else--and when things went wrong, it exploded in the GOP's face.

Karl Rove's campaign strategy was divide and conquer--and it works for winning elections, but it doesn't really work for governing.

It became standard GOP strategy to not just disagree, but to demonize any opposition. And when the chips were down that meant A)there were a lot of angry people who felt extremely alienated by the Republican party and B) a general sense that the GOP platform was for very few people. That Rush Limbaugh, an entertainer who specializes in demeaning jokes about anyone to the left of him, has become the spokesman for the GOP indicates just how small the party's become.

Will it come back? Something will. As a country, we're not as liberal as Denmark. However, after moving right for nearly 40 years, we're swinging the other way for a while. The GOP's old divide-and-conquer tactics aren't going to work with the younger, more ethnically diverse younger generation. They really don't like the war in Iraq and they, along with everybody else, don't like big business too much right now.

I don't know what the GOP's going to do--a couple of blogs have called the current situation a Republican death spiral--as the party gets smaller it gets less inclusive and shriller and shriller, which in turn, means it gets smaller and smaller and shriller and shriller.

At the same time, there are groups in this country who will never be comfortable under the Democratic tent. The Dems could split themselves--they've done it before and there's always a lot of dissent within the party. Might be a while though, there's a lot of pent-up demand for major change upon which Dems agree.

Or someone a little more real-world than Rush Limbaugh could rebuild the GOP. I don't think it's going to be Sarah Palin--it's got to be someone who's genuinely comfortable reaching beyond the current base.

Posted by ByeBye, a resident of Midtown
on Apr 29, 2009 at 7:18 am

Op, right. Please tell me how Repubs demonize? When you find something that an elected Repub has said that "demonizes" any person, elected or private citizen, could you please post a link?

And then be prepared for the links to elected Dems who have called elected Repubs "Hitlers" and, in the last 6 months, demonized private citizens who AREN'T in public office from their candidacy, and now elected, pulpit. You, in fact, have clearly fallen for the pap coming from the White House about Rush Limbaugh. It doesn't scare you, honestly, that a GOVERNMENT official of any type, especially the POTUS for God's sake, is targeting private radio show hosts and CEOS of companies to DEMONIZE and scapegoat to the public? Where else in time and place have you seen that before and what did it lead to?

I know you can let go your partisanship and see with clear eyes.

The backlash is coming.

Posted by Real Conservative - disgusted with Republican Wackos, a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Apr 29, 2009 at 9:08 am

I was a grunt engineer in the defense industry, because under His Highness, that's pretty much all the work there was for engineers. You clearly tell yourself the glossed over narrative, and don't remember the detailed analyses that showed a lot of middle class and lower middle class got a tax hike under Reagan.

George Bush and the majority neoCON Congress were the perfect realization of the NeoCon ideal. Absolute power corrupts absolutely, get it?

Posted by Paul, a resident of Downtown North
on Apr 29, 2009 at 11:03 am

"Please tell me how Repubs demonize? When you find something that an elected Repub has said that "demonizes" any person, elected or private citizen, could you please post a link?"

It's right under your nose and on your TV, BBS. Pick any Republican commentary on Arlen Specter from the last 24 hours. And do check out the unelected (presumably) Repubs demonizing Specter right in this forum.

(Clever wording about "elected" Repubs. It would have disqualified anything Bush and Cheney said during the first Bush administration. Neat.)

Posted by OhlonePar, a resident of Duveneck/St. Francis
on Apr 29, 2009 at 1:22 pm


Do a search on Karl Rove and the Atlantic. There was a profile of Rove a few years back that went into some of his tactics.

Let's see, the rumor-mongering in racist South Carolina by the Bush people that McCain had an illegitimate black child (i.e. his adopted Pakistani daughter).

Rush Limbaugh's conflation of feminism with nazism. Yeah, I bet you don't even think about it. Think about it--it's pretty ugly when you get right down to it.

Swiftboating John Kerry. More ugliness.

Pretending that someone has to say "demonize" to engage in the practice is sophistry.

And why shouldn't a public figure like Rush Limbaugh be held accountable for what he says? Talk about goofy. Who elected him to set policy? If he wants to engage, fine, but he's a big boy he can stand the attention. Your party's own leadership doesn't seem to be able to say boo to him anymore.

But your response is an example of the death-spiral thinking going on. You don't recognize how your own party comes across at this point--you're still busy blaming somebody else. Well, non-Republicans don't care (and that includes a lot of former Republicans). You won't attract back your lost members until you guys pretenc to grow up a bit.

Posted by Gary, a resident of Downtown North
on Apr 29, 2009 at 2:40 pm


Considering that the Dems have the truly vile hate mongers, like Michael Moore and Oliver Stone, I find it a tad distasteful that you would be slamming Karl Rove.

Specifically, please provide ANY proof that Rove started a whispering campaingn against McCain in SC. It doesn't exist, despite the best efforts of lefties to try to create it.

Al Franken vs Rush Limbaugh? Hmmm...hmmm.... Both of them are entertainers and hucksters. But Limbaugh is not about to enter the U.S. Senate.

Swiftboating: Kerry cooked up his own early return from Vietnam by pressuring for his own purple heart claims. He was NEVER hit by enemy fire. In fact, he ran from it, when it got serious. Facts are strange things...they tend to get in the way of the political claims. It was the majority of those who served along side of him that outed him.

It was only a few years ago that the pundits were declaring the Dems dead. Now they are saying the same thing about the GOP. What goes around comes around.

Posted by OhlonePar, a resident of Duveneck/St. Francis
on Apr 29, 2009 at 3:37 pm


If you can't tell the difference between the role played by Karl Rove and that played by Michael Moore, I pity you. Moore has had nothing to do with how the Democrats run campaigns--Rove and his predecessor Lee Atwater have been central in the strategy used by the GOP since Reagan.

Read the Atlantic article then get back to me. Whispering campaigns are a long staple of Rove's techniques. Dick Cheney's interviews are a nice example of the fear-mongering practiced by the last administration.

I'm not saying the GOP is dead--but it's in the process of marginalizing itself. What I am saying is that its current direction will keep it that way. I assume at some point, the Dems will overreach and the GOP will get around to putting itself back together as vaguely reality-based opposition and make a comeback. But it's got a long way to go.

The GOP could be out of power a very long time--they were out for 20 years in the 30s and 40s. Part of the reason I think that the GOP tacked so far to the right under Bush is that Clinton had co-opted the center pretty effectively. But maintaining power under those circumstances turned out to be self-destructive for the GOP in general. Both parties need moderates to truly lead. I say this as someone who is left of center, so this isn't a case of promoting my views as truly moderate. They'd be moderate in Europe, but not here.

The GOP has gotten itself into kind of an echo chamber. The rest of us don't live there and not everyone listens to Fox News. Wall Street's collapse and the lack of wherewithal in the response was kind of it for a lot of people--well, really, Katrina was the start of it--for people in the middle, I mean. The left was unhappy with the Florida recount, Iraq and Enron.

Posted by Gary, a resident of Downtown North
on Apr 29, 2009 at 3:59 pm

James Carville and his ilk have been the stench in the backroooms for the Dems for decades. Quit whining about GOP operatives...they are cleaner than the their Dem counterparts. Rove was a teddy bear, really...he had a brilliance for the numbers and the districts and where to put the GOP efforts/money, but he was not a Carville/Moore/Stone.

The GOP will be back in power as soon as the Dems blow up. I suspect that will be sooner rather than later. The $1T blank check that Obama has will run out pretty soon...then it will be crunch time.

The essential Dem agenda is anti-growth. It is tax-the-rich pablum. It didn't work in the 30s and it won't work now. All of those printed dollars will eventually be chasing fewer goods...then get your wheelbarrow ready to carry your dollars. We have a seen a version of this before, under Carter...and Carter led to Reagan. Expect a repeat.

Posted by Paul, a resident of Downtown North
on Apr 29, 2009 at 4:52 pm

"It was only a few years ago that the pundits were declaring the Dems dead. Now they are saying the same thing about the GOP."

Denial is the first stage. Next comes anger. Judging by the screams from the dwindling remaining Republicans, I'd say we're at about 1.5.

Who can blame them? Look at the scope of this debacle.

Remember that confidently touted imminent Permanent Republican Majority? By now there weren't supposed to be ANY Democrats around for Specter and 200,000 other PA Repubs to join up with.

Posted by OhlonePar, a resident of Duveneck/St. Francis
on Apr 29, 2009 at 8:35 pm


The Democrats being less pure than the driven show doesn't change what was done by Atwater and Rove. If anything, Carville's strategies were a response to that.

The economy has historically done better under Democrats than Republicans. You can argue about why, but history itself undermines your argument that Democrats are "anti-growth"--Clinton certainly wasn't.

The Democrats won't be in power forever, but the Republicans have a long ways to go before they're a viable alternative. Enough so that there's a small question about whether they'll be the alternative.

And while it's easy for you to fuss about spending, those of us who don't drink GOP Kool-Aid remember A) Bush turned the Clinton surplus into a record deficit B) The financial collapse and the need for the @#$% bail-out happened on Bush's watch and C)that war in Iraq has been both bloody and expensive.

People who don't consider Democrats the root of all evil remember that. And that includes a large number of more reasonable Republicans. They may support a more Republican platform but they know their party blew it big-time with Bush.

I'm simply mentioning stuff that turned moderates and independents against the GOP. We true liberal types have a much longer list.

Posted by Gary, a resident of Downtown North
on Apr 29, 2009 at 8:56 pm


The Dem dirty dogs have been at it, in the back rooms, as long as I can remember. Rememeber how they led the campaian against Reagan's effort to win the cold war (which he accomplished, despite their "war monger" propaganda efforts to stop him)? You cannot be serious on this one. Nuff said.

Clinton did not get serious about restraining spending until Newt Gingrich gave him a mandate, in 1994. Clinton, with Dick Morris's advice, triangulated. Slick was not a dummy. Then he got lucky with the dot com boom...then it went bust just as he was leaving office. GWB inherited Clinton's recession.

BTW, the economy did quite well under Reagan, once he took the adult steps to wipe out the stagflation of Carter. Last I recall, Reagan was a Republican.

Despite our differences, OP, I much prefer arguing with you, compared to the other lefties on this actually have some smarts.

Posted by Sharon, a resident of Midtown
on Apr 29, 2009 at 9:20 pm

During Obamas press conference, when asked about water boarding a couple of terrorists he tried to cloak himself in Churchills brand saying that Churchill did not torture the 100s of Axis spies.

What Churchill and we did instead was to firebomb every German and Japanese city plus nuking 2 Japanese cities.
The total deaths of innocent women,children and non combat men in both countries was around 750,000.
If Obama prefers the Churchillian et al approach then he would authorize vaporizing every city in Iraq, Afghanistan, Yemen, Somalia and even Saudi Arabia.
I think the water boarding of a couple of terrorists is a more measured approach--- put in the context of history--- don't you?

Posted by OhlonePar, a resident of Duveneck/St. Francis
on Apr 29, 2009 at 9:32 pm


Now you're wandering far afield--taking refuge in the haze of Reagan memories. Nothing like Rove's character assassination was involved.

Gingrich blew it--one of those GOP implosions where he gave up control of the house by overreaching. Clinton handled Gingrich quite well--thus we got the idiocies of the impeachment.

Reagan, of course, introduced record deficits and the gap between the rich and poor expanded. Some people did well under Reagan, others did badly. Reagan, of course, also took credit for reforms put in place by Volker earlier.

That you have to reach that far back, though, points to the problems with the GOP *now*.


Churchill did *not* drop nuclear warheads on Japan. We did. We did not firebomb every German and Japanese city, though clearly we did some.

Of course the main thing here is that we didn't do any of this until after Japan attacked us and Germany declared war upon us.

We also tried and shot Axis troops for torturing Allied soldiers--among the things defined as torture was waterboarding.

It wouldn't kill you to get basic facts right.

Posted by Sharon, a resident of Midtown
on Apr 29, 2009 at 9:53 pm

I said that we and the UK firebombed every German city, that is correct, we left a few town that were out of range in South Germany intact.
We firebombed every city in Japan ,apart from Kyoto, often multiple times, we also nuked 2 cities that had minimal military significance, the non combatant deaths were huge.
UKs "Bomber" Harris after the war freely admitted that had the allies lost they would have been hung as war criminals.
Also the Germans did sign the Geneva Conventions, a lot of good that did for the Jews, Poles and Russians, but they treated US and UK prisoners of war well in the main as did we, they did not behead them as the Japanese did and AQ does.
In the balance, waterboarding a couple of terrorists is the lesser evil than firebombing hundreds of thousands of innocent women and children.
If Obama wants to cloak himself in Churchill then he should read the history as should others.

Posted by OhlonePar, a resident of Duveneck/St. Francis
on Apr 30, 2009 at 1:06 am


Look at what you wrote--Churchill and we is the joint subject--and you had us doing it all together--including nuking Japan, which was an exclusively American thing. The British didn't develop those atomic weapons, we did. You're careless in this way.

That the Nazis murdered millions of people is neither here nor there on the question of torture. Though the Nazis understood that torture is not, in fact, an effective interrogation tactic. It's an effective intimidation tactic.

You're muddled. That you can't tell the difference between war tactics and interrogations--wow. Remember why those cities were bombed, Sharon? Why they were military targets? Do you even know?

Just because war involves horrific carnage doesn't make waterboarding okay. Are you that muddled ethically?

Posted by Sharon, a resident of Midtown
on Apr 30, 2009 at 4:45 am

On Churchill, am I to to believe that the man who would burn alive 120,000 civilians in Dresden alone wouldn't approve of brutal interrogations of Nazi prisoners suspected of holding war-critical intelligence?
Of course he maintained a public posture against torture to protect Allied prisoners, and for the hordes of ordinary POW's I'm sure that was his policy.
But how naive or uninformed of the horrors of WW2 does one have to be to accept this at face value.
Churchill was smart enough and cared enough about his country to keep its dirty work secret.

In addition it was a total canard on the example of the British and torture.

The current debate concerns use of waterboarding to elicit information on an imminent attack.

The president is describing a time when Britain was ALREADY being bombed every day.
Coercive techniques in that case would be irrelevant.
What were they supposed to ask the detainee: "When will it STOP?!"?

Just another example of slippery language from a supposedly linguistic president.

Posted by Paul, a resident of Downtown North
on Apr 30, 2009 at 1:28 pm

Waterboarding and other "coercive interrogation techniques" are the mainstay of Communist regimes everywhere. They are very effective at eliciting staged confessions for propaganda. I've mentioned John McCain's war criminal confession many times. I personally don't believe it, but it shows the objective uselessness of torture for obtaining actual intel. Plus, it makes the right wingnut torture fans on this blog squirm in interesting ways.

It used to amaze me to see our self-styled conservatives pushing for Commie propaganda tools. I've gotten used to it, but what would Tailgunner Joe think?

Posted by Gary, a resident of Downtown North
on Apr 30, 2009 at 1:53 pm


It was clear to me what Sharon said. My father was in combat in the Pacific during WWII, and he fought alongside Brits and Ausies. It was very much a joint was our firebombing of German cities. The Atom bomb was a strike to end the war for all of us, including our allies, especially the Brits...and that means Churchill. I think you need to take a chill pill on this one, OP.

Churchill made public statements against torture, in order that German and British soldiers be treated reasonably well. However, if reports back to Churchill were that the Germans tortured his POWs, I have little doubt that he would have returned the favor. As Sharon has said, Churchill unleashed Bomber Harris on Germany, in retaliation of Hitler's bombing of British cities (and to acellerate the end of the war). FDR joined him in this endeavor...the A-bomb was designed to be dropped on Germany...Japan just happened to be left standing after Germnay threw in the towel.

His Emptiness, or at least his speechwriters, don't know what they are talking about. No surprise...they are in over their heads.

Posted by Perspective, a resident of Midtown
on Apr 30, 2009 at 2:36 pm

Welll, the Jones... I mean the Obama..cultists will never be dissuaded by any fact at all, and seem to have the same troubles in connecting different facts together into a coherent whole. This is not new. They are still screaming "no found WMD" as a reason to bash Bush, still ignoring all the facts about WMD, 17 ignored UN resolutions, and the real torture/massacres by Saddam and family ..I suspect that pretty much everything will continue the same on all other areas as well.

But, let's try...

Of course Britain tortured, by the definition of torture which includes "fear of death".."Work with us or we hang you" was just one example of the "torture" by Britain, aka Churchill, in talking to captured German spies. I am certain THEIR prisoners did not eat better or have better room temperatures than the prison guards, and I am certain that the vast majority of their captured enemies were captured IN UNIFORM and not hiding in women and children. Not to mention the stories out today, of course, ( are they true? No clue, but his own family is saying this) about the British torturing his own grandfather back in the struggle for Kenya to throw off Britain.

It is all pretty smoke and mirrors, to distract us from the real problems we face, and the reality that virtually everything Obama has touched has broken more. This is truly an extremely good PR machine we have going now..

What is better, really, since his election, let alone his inauguration?

did you notice the following questions that the Press asked him last night?

1) Who are the "health officials" you are talking to for guidance in dealing with this Swine scare since the top 20 posts, including Surgeon General, aren't filled?

2) Why are you taking guidance about OUR safety from an organization which is run by the UN, which is majority dicatators and want to destroy every liberty in the world, including ours?

3) Why is it too late to shut the borders now, but you have asked for 150 Billion to beef up the borders "in case things change in the future"? why is now too late, but later might not be? What is the trigger?

4) Where is the 150 billion going to come from? Are you just going to print up more, or are you going to cut something else? And what are you going to cut?

5) Where is the data, papertrail, or people who worked with you when you were "part of" fixing our Vaccine/pandemic response under Bush? We would like to do a follow up story on how you helped us prepare for this, back when the last scare happened, when you were the most junior Senator? Or is that more smoke and mirrors?

6)How is it another of your successes about Chrysler, when you told us that we HAD to pump billions of tax money into Chrysler to save it, then we HAD to take it over with a Car Czar to save it, and now it has to go bankrupt? Isn't this actually more proof that government just wastes our money while destroying private businesses? We would have saved all our tax dollars if we had let it go belly up like it should have already. So, please explain how this is a success, and how this figures into your claim that "I saved or created 150,000 jobs".

7) Where can we go for the economic analysis that traces back a "saved job" to a policy you have enacted?

8) How is it a successs to run on "cutting the government deficit" when you just quadrupled it? On "cutting the national debt" when you just doubled it or more?

9) Please explain how it is thay you claim to not have had any part of creating the deficit you inherited, when CONGRESS, not the POTUS, is in charge of a budget, and you were in Congress for the last 2 years of Bush? Therefore unless you voted down the budget, you were one of 100 Senators who created the "mess" you inherited. The only power a POTUS has is the veto, and this I lay at the feet of Bush. But, on the other hand, like with Clinton who saw the political writing on the wall and followed whatever the Repub Congress wanted to get the credit, I believe Bush was doing the same thing.

There is so much more to have asked, but of course when you have a press corps which gives standing ovations and whistles and claps to their adored annointed, what do you expect? Such an incredibly scary sight!! Isn't anyone else nervous about an adoring propoganda machine being the ones to give us our "news"?

I still have hope, though, when I look at what people say they actually want and what they think about specific policies. The vast majority of Americans are opposed to the vast majority of the Dem machine's policy proposals, and I think that as time goes on and the people see that they have been duped by a propoganda corps and pretty words/pretty face, that we will have yet another repeat of 1994.

Maybe that is what is necessary for our country to run. A Democrat president who gets to take the credit and appease the left/not get slammed by a leftist press, while a real Repub congress does the actual work of setting good policy. In other words, maybe this will still work out ok.

Posted by Sharon, a resident of Midtown
on Apr 30, 2009 at 3:06 pm

In fact the British did torture German prisoners, particularly those believed to be communists or nazis, see the report here Web Link

"For almost 60 years, the evidence of Britain's clandestine torture programme in postwar Germany has lain hidden in the government's files.
Harrowing photographs of young men who had survived being systematically starved, as well as beaten, deprived of sleep and exposed to extreme cold, were considered too shocking to be seen.

As one minister of the day wrote, as few people as possible should be aware that British authorities had treated prisoners "in a manner reminiscent of the German concentration camps".

Posted by A Boomer, a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Apr 30, 2009 at 4:02 pm

This thread has gotten so off topic about Specter.

The plain and simple fact of the matter is that right now, in the current times, the GOP is not really clear on just what it stands for and how to attract voters that will get Republicans elected to a majority status. If one looks at the 2006 and 2008 elections, these folks have been repudiated by the electorate.

I will assert the reason for the repudidiation is that people in this country don't like what has happened of late and are tossing the rascals out. It started with Tom DeLay getting booted and went from there.

Strategically, what the GOP has lost are the people in the XYZ and younger generations. The Shrub administration did not ingratiate itself in any what whatsoever to the people who will be choosing leaders at all levels going forward. The passion for Obama at a national level was palpable--I have talked with college kids and people early in their adult lives, I heard only disdain for the Shrub policies and a few zingers about Shrub himself.

So my contention is that the Republican Party is in serious troube and potential obsolesence as much due to it's not having a messge that appeals to the pipeline that will be the voters going forward.

I am in my mid-50's, don't consider myself to be an old fart, but it is pretty clear to me that the bluster about torture on this thread is from people in my generation. The people that count as voters going forward are younger, and view this torture stuff as reprehensible.

Posted by OhlonePar, a resident of Duveneck/St. Francis
on Apr 30, 2009 at 4:09 pm


It was also clear to me what Sharon said. That it wasn't what she meant to say is a different story. It's not the first time she's had this issue and it goes with her muddling of various issues. Sloppy writing, sloppy thinking.


I actually argued this with Gary a while ago, but the facts are that torture, including waterboarding, is a poor interrogation method. The Nazis knew this and, as I said, understood that torture works as an intimidation method. They tortured resistance members and had a poor record of getting information through that means. The most effective? Paying somebody off. Money talks.


But of course threats, such as you mention, are not torture. Deciding to talk because you don't like the consequences of not talking is quite different than being under such physical duress that you'll just say anything.

Part of the problem with torture as an interrogation method is that you don't get good information.

Now, Perspective, I have to confess I didn't read the rest of your screed. I kind of do a quick check to see if it's the same-old, same-old and then move on to other more interesting things.

Posted by Gary, a resident of Downtown North
on Apr 30, 2009 at 4:28 pm

"Part of the problem with torture as an interrogation method is that you don't get good information."

This is the nut of the argument, as you and I have discussed Ad nauseam.

Since these legal memos are being released by Obama, and the horse is out of the barn door, why not just have a 9-11 style commission to determine the effectiveness of waterboarding in getting important intel? Surely, you must support this...unless you have something to fear. I don't, and I will be quite happy to have an independent review of this issue, excluding any concerns about Old Europe's opinions on the subject.

Posted by Sharon, a resident of Midtown
on Apr 30, 2009 at 8:49 pm

Psychological manipulation works as a way to get information, at its basis is using fear and greed, ask any DA or police officer.
In war you need fast actionable intelligence to save lives and win, war is not pretty.
Obama claimed that the Brits were some how more moral in this and superior to us in WW2 than we have been in the Bush era, I have proved this allegation false.
The Israelis, our friends, breaks bones, body shake to brain damage and use drugs and worse.
We faked drowning with the promise of survival according to the Red Cross testimony.
If Obamas or your kids were in mortal danger would you go with Miranda or something stronger? there is the rub.
If we do away with enhanced interrogation then the alternative is termination of life, ultimately the nuclear option against terrorist supporting states.
War is about survival not due process, talk to some troops who have served on the sharp edge.
We can have a take no prisoners policy and destroy their safe harbors or we can have a measured approach of enhanced interrogation using big fear and little greed.
Under the Obama doctrine we are now limited to the nuclear option, that will work, but it will mean total war with unconditional surrender as in Japan and Germany.
Do you prefer a few people water boarded or millions of innocents incinerated? That is the choice.

Posted by Outside Observer, a resident of another community
on Apr 30, 2009 at 9:18 pm


I'd like to think your scenario is valid, but I know Obama and the Dems will never use nukes, particularly if:

1) Iran nukes Tel Aviv.

2) North Korea Nukes Seoul.

3) Islamics "dirty bomb" a major USA City.

A rational foreign policy solicits respect. Failing that, fear of overwhelming 1000 fold retaliation works.

Obama and the Dems do neither.

Posted by Paul, a resident of Downtown North
on Apr 30, 2009 at 9:51 pm

"A rational foreign policy solicits respect. Failing that, fear of overwhelming 1000 fold retaliation works"

Obama is your best hope, OO. George W Bush spurned the first and totally failed when he tried the latter. And remember that the great wars of the last century were won by Democratic presidents. Our most humiliating defeat occurred under Nixon/Ford, Republicans as I recall.

Posted by Outside Observer, a resident of another community
on Apr 30, 2009 at 11:42 pm


Yes, Viet Nam was a fiasco. Something Kennedy started, Johnson continued, and it cost him his presidency. Nixon bailed, because he played to the public opinion, not what was right, or was our commitment to the South Vietnamese people.

After the TET offensive in 1968, we had all but won the war. Many North Vietnamese and Viet Cong commanders acknowledged this, but it was Liberal news caster Walter Cronkite who single-handily convinced the USA public we had lost, and as such the North and Viet Cong kept fighting.

We lost 58,000 people in that war. The Vietnamese lost 3,000,000 and all for what?

Now, 35 years later, Viet Nam is our friend. They have an economic system which is more capitalistic than ours is, and we have a political system which is rapidly approaching theirs in terms of corruption and repression.

Despite our failure to support South Viet Nam, ironically, we have been the beneficiaries of that war. Beneficiaries in terms of the Vietnamese Diaspora and all the industrious and successful people that has brought to the South Bay Area.

Posted by OhlonePar, a resident of Duveneck/St. Francis
on May 1, 2009 at 12:06 am

Yes, Gary, we discussed it and I provided the expert to make my point.
It's not like there's not a very long documented history on the use of torture and its efficacy.

Since I find torture ethically wrong, efficacy is not the key issue with me. It's simply an added tragic irony--you morally compromise yourself to defend a technique that isn't a good one for getting information--as was pointed out by that FBI interrogator in the New York Times.


It's not even worth trying work through your rationalizations. Fact is, we've got all sorts of ways of getting information without torture. And this situation has been no exception. You show a naivete about what motivates people.

Posted by Paul, a resident of Downtown North
on May 1, 2009 at 1:20 pm

What is the Republican party's future? In a word, short.

Yes, it bounced back after the 1964 Goldwater debacle and Watergate. But it had the able assistance of the Vietnam War, whose draft its current principals successfully dodged, and those hundreds of hippies trashing the Democratic party's convention and image. Plus, the Republican party was then far more mainstream than it is today, underpinned by patrician bluebloods and their wannabes rather than the dwindling disaffected Dixiecrats that form its base today.

Yes, it bounced back after the 1992 Clinton election. However, at that time it had capable leadership, and it could still with some truth claim to be the "big tent" party that Specter thought he belonged to.

Now the once grand old Party of Lincoln exists as a fringe movement, having shed its principles to hold onto its last gasp of power. It has been in steady decline since at least 1994, first because of its leaders clownishness (Gingrich, Hyde), then because of their outright corruption (Abramoff, DeLay), incredible incompetence (Bush, "Brownie"), and flagrant contempt for common decency (Foley).

Arlen Specter made the right choice. The GOP won't come back this time. It has nothing solid to come back from, or with. Greens, Libertarians, or A Party Yet Unformed, now's your chance.

Posted by Gary, a resident of Downtown North
on May 1, 2009 at 1:33 pm

"efficacy is not the key issue with me"


It is with me. Imagaine that thousands of innocent people were saved becasue al qaeda thugs were waterboarded? That's a moral/ethical no brainer for me...apparently not for you.

The question, indeed, is efficacy. Let's lay all the cards on the table, with a 9-11 type commission, and let the American people decide. I trust the people, usually, if they are informed.

Posted by OhlonePar, a resident of Duveneck/St. Francis
on May 1, 2009 at 1:58 pm


But you've never come close to making that the situation is either/or.

As I've said, torture's use of an intterogation tool is well documented--for centuries. It doesn't cut it--too unreliable.

You just don't want to acknowledge it. We've been here before.

Just what, by the way, do you think was meant by "cruel and unusual punishment" in our Bill of Rights? I'm sure you consider yourself patriotic, but you don't get the principles on which our country is based.

We don't have to be savages to survive, Gary. You want information, get someone to want to tell you. It's really as simple as that. And there are a lot of ways to get people to do that without near drowning. Particularly if you want, oh, accurate information.


Never say never--but the GOP is a long way from the mainstream right now, so I think it's going to be a while. They came into power through a southern strategy which had more than a racist taint in the southern states. Demographically, that's just going to work as well as it did. I think they know this, thus the moving into place of Michael Steele and, to a lesser extent, Sarah Palin. However, I don't think that kind of window dressing is going to change the general perception of the party any time soon.

Hispanic voters, in some ways, have an affinity for some GOP values--but the GOP hooked onto an anti-immigration populist thing to retain southern white voters and did a good job alienating Hispanic voters. I remember in California when Pete Wilson backed that anti-immigration proposition. The proposition passed, but Wilson's popularity took a nosedive. Note that Arnie's an immigrant and is careful not to be anti-immigrant.

But Arnie's precisely the kind of Republican that the current GOP doesn't want. Which is why it's in deep trouble. I think at some point, though, you'll see some Republican pragmatists.
There's a reason that opposition to torture was widely opposed within the military and the CIA.

Posted by Gary, a resident of Downtown North
on May 1, 2009 at 2:43 pm


KSM was not about to give it away without some serious stressors. Do you flatter yourself thinking that you/yours, at your best, could sweet talk him into coughing it up? Get serious.

All of the public CIA releases claim that waterboarding worked (very well). I am completely fine with a commission that looks, objectively, at the efficacy of such mehtods, starting with Clinton's decision to rendition in 1995. Surely, you can support this, right?

"Cruel and unusal punishment" is a term of art. When it was written into the Bill of Rights, it was pefectly fine to execute perps by various methods. Today, even hanging is called cruel and unusual. If they had said, "waterboarding, but no more..." there would have been no executions. It's a mental masturbation debate. Yawn.

Posted by Paul, a resident of Downtown North
on May 1, 2009 at 3:25 pm


I doubt either of the remaining Republican pragmatists has the clout to rescue the party from irrelevancy, and why should they try? They'd have a horrific uphill fight against the Palin-Limbaugh base, and what would they have if they won that they couldn't get by forming a new party, except the name recognition? And that's got a ton of toxic itself.

Historically this is the incentive to form a new party that reflects the mainstream values of the old while dumping its extremist baggage. The Log Cabin Republicans seem like a likely core to me.

Despite using them as a foil to illustrate the current Republican extremism earlier in this forum, I concur with their values, which the current Republican party treat so cavalierly when in office and loudly pay empty lip service to otherwise. Fiscal responsibility comes to mind...

Posted by Sharon, a resident of Midtown
on May 1, 2009 at 3:47 pm

Actually the democratic party is now the dog that caught the fire truck,

It will split apart, it is a shaky tower of babel, a snake pit of identity politics.
The only thing that held it together was Bush Derangement Syndrome.
Now all that is left is senseless bickering and then a split party, the National Socialist Democratic party and the Blue Dog Democratic Party.
I can live with the Blue Dogs until Mitt Romney recreates the Goldwater Republican Party in 3 years and sweeps the polls.

The new SCOTUS will inflame the culture wars again through judicial activism, exactly what brought Reagan into power.Originally a member of the Democratic Party, he switched to the Republican Party at the age of 51, in 1962. After delivering a rousing speech in support of Barry Goldwater's presidential candidacy in 1964, he was persuaded to seek the California governorship, winning two years later and again in 1970. He was defeated in his run for the Republican presidential nomination in 1968 as well as 1976, but won both the nomination and election in 1980.Web Link

Bring it on!

Posted by Paul, a resident of Downtown North
on May 1, 2009 at 4:49 pm

Please show some proper respect for your forebears, Sharon. If Strom Thurmond and his hard core Dixiecrat segregationists hadn't split from the Democrats, there wouldn't even be a Republican Base or Republican party today. They were the target of the Nixon-Agnew Southern Strategy that rescued the GOP from oblivion in the seventies.

Posted by OhlonePar, a resident of Duveneck/St. Francis
on May 1, 2009 at 5:53 pm


Hmmm, so what about the report the guy's kids were also physically abused? Is that okay with you? Or is that necessary?

Any arguments you've made rationalizing torture could be applied to abusing the kids.

Do you even know where to draw the line?


Sharon's first-generation--I doubt she has much of a sense of what the GOP did to survive after Watergate. Or that LBJ knew that the Democrats had lost the South for a generation when he passed the Civil Rights Act.

Times have changed. Even the South isn't the South to the extent it was. Jim Webb is a relatively conservative Democrat, but he's not a Boll Weevill. North Carolina and Virginia are no longer reliable red states. The Rocky Mountain states are no longer a solid red belt. Of course, I remember when New England was the traditional backbone of the Republican party.

Interesting thing is that GOP party identification is at a level below that of post Richard Nixon's resignation. It was around 28 percent then, now some polls have it between 20 and 22 percent. The Dems peaked at election time and have tapered since then but have held steady overall.

Right now, I think there are fewer people calling themselves Republican than there are calling themselves evangelical Christians.

But, anyway, Paul, the GOP has the machinery that a third party doesn't, so I'm assuming some sort of the version of the party at some point. I do think it's going to be quite a spell spent in the wilderness. Even here where our conservatives deal (sort of) with opposing viewpoints, there's an inability to see just how marginalized they are. It hasn't sunk in.

Posted by Gary, a resident of Downtown North
on May 1, 2009 at 6:07 pm

"so what about the report the guy's kids were also physically abused?"

I had not heard that the kids were waterboarded, but I did hear that some innocent kids were hiedously terrifed and murded on 9-11. Did you hear that one, OP?

Thousands of innocents dead vs a couple of waterboarded al qaeda thugs. Where is your moral center, OP?

Posted by OhlonePar, a resident of Duveneck/St. Francis
on May 2, 2009 at 1:31 am


So you think 9/11 should be the standard by which we measure our behavior?

If terrorists do it then it's okay?

Yeesh. CLUE GARY--NOT OKAY to fly jets into skyscrapers. Not by anyone.

Got that? Okay.

So .. . that's not the standards by which we measure the ethicality of our own actions.

I mean, you really don't seem to get what it means to have principles. For someone who spends so much time liberal-bashing it's kind of funny that your own sense of ethics is so situational and inchoate.

Posted by Gary, a resident of Downtown North
on May 2, 2009 at 1:51 am

No, OP, not at all. You just don't seem to get it.

I am quite willing to waterboard some al qaeda thugs in order to PREVENT the hideous suffering of innocents (and women and men). You would rather have those innocent die, instead of using waterboarding to get the information that would have saved them.

It really is some kind of ethical moral confusion on your part.

Posted by OhlonePar, a resident of Duveneck/St. Francis
on May 2, 2009 at 2:08 am


I get it just fine. Your position doesn't stand up to scrutiny. Is it okay to physically abuse minor children of Al Qaeda to get information--because that's the allegation.

You couldn't answer me.

You don't know where to draw the line. Your rationalizations are the same as used by extremists--they're so bad that we can do anything to them.

You can't actually make the expediency case, but you cling to it anyway.

You've been here before and you still can't admit that you're wrong.

Because you know something? I don't think you really think it's okay to beat an eight-year-old, imprison him and deprive him of food to get information from his father.

You're being evasive and it's pretty obvious why.

Posted by Gary, a resident of Downtown North
on May 2, 2009 at 7:06 am

"You can't actually make the expediency case, but you cling to it anyway"


That is what the CIA memos are claiming...that waterboarding expedited the gain of actionable intel, when time was of the essence. The claims in the memos is that this resulted in preventing another al qaeda plot. Try reading the memos.

Your basic case is, "So what? doesn't matter how many innocent people get killed, becasue I will never, ever waterboard anybody". I call that moral confusion.

Posted by Perspective, a resident of Midtown
on May 3, 2009 at 10:21 am

I am flummoxed that there are people who actually think it is more moral to let innocents be truly tortured ( pain, loss of body parts or integrity) and killed, than to waterboard the guilty to get information to stop the real torture and killing of innocents.

Those who really think that this is the more "moral" way, please be sure to explain to your loved ones why you are morally above protecting them.

Explain why you would not, for example, waterboard ( no physical damage to any part of the body, no pain, no death, just an overwhelming FEELING of drowning to death...of which by your definition is now torture) a known accomplice to the kidnapper of your child in order to find your child being held by his accomplice in a room somewhere....

I think you guys have to really re-assess you moral compass when you define waterboarding as torture, then say you would never "torture" under any circumstances for any reason.

Posted by Sharon, a resident of Midtown
on May 3, 2009 at 5:11 pm

Specter: GOP priorities contributed to Kemp death

"Sen. Arlen Specter, Pennsylvania Democrat, said part of the reason he left the Republican Party last week was disillusionment with its health care priorities, and suggested that had the Republicans taken a more moderate track, Jack Kemp may have won his battle with cancer".

This is unbelievable.
The man has no tact whatsoever.
He will say anything to justify his changing parties.
I am appalled.

Posted by Perspective, a resident of Midtown
on May 3, 2009 at 7:27 pm

Specter lost my respect a very long time ago. He is strictly in it for himself and any political power he can get. Why are you appalled? He is no different than he has been for 8 years, working steadily against everything Bush was elected to do.

I am honestly ever more agreeing with the tongue-in-cheek assertion by Buckley that he would rather be governed by the first 100 names in the phone book than by ( I think he said academic elites, but allow me to substitute) elected officials up for reelection.

I am scanning the horizon for ANYONE with integrity who might actually rise up from the ashes of both major parties, and having a hard time finding any. Jindal?? Too inexperienced ( though 100s of times more experienced than our current POTUS, so maybe I am wrong). Palin? too smeared by the media. Zell Miller? Too old. Rick Perry? Too much media/leftist bigotry against Texans. Mitt Romney? Too much media/leftist bigotry against Mormons. ( Besides, too wishy washy for me. I dont' trust him). Mike Huckabee? Gives me the slimy willies..

I can't find anyone with principles and integrity.

Any ideas?

Posted by food for fhought, a resident of another community
on May 6, 2009 at 11:53 pm

I have seen this scam pulled before by a man named Leiberman. He was going to lose his Democratic seat in Connecticut and he got the Republicans to help save his seat. Can you believe that BS? Now, we have the son of Russian immigrants, Specter, pulling the same scam on the Democrats. I can only hope that the Democrats aren't as stupid as the Connecticut Republicans were. Do this country a favor and send Specter into retirement. He should have never been elected in the first place.

P.S. With evidence of vote fraud going on around this country shown in books like "Vote Scam", don't be surprised if Specter suspiciously wins (re)election himself. Seems like Leiberman and Spector have someone in high places looking after them, doesn't it? And I am not talking about Jesus!

If you were a member and logged in you could track comments from this story.

Post a comment

Posting an item on Town Square is simple and requires no registration. Just complete this form and hit "submit" and your topic will appear online. Please be respectful and truthful in your postings so Town Square will continue to be a thoughtful gathering place for sharing community information and opinion. All postings are subject to our TERMS OF USE, and may be deleted if deemed inappropriate by our staff.

We prefer that you use your real name, but you may use any "member" name you wish.

Name: *

Select your neighborhood or school community: * Not sure?

Comment: *

Verification code: *
Enter the verification code exactly as shown, using capital and lowercase letters, in the multi-colored box.

*Required Fields

Touring the Southern California “Ivies:” Pomona and Cal Tech
By John Raftrey and Lori McCormick | 5 comments | 2,437 views

Chai Brisket
By Laura Stec | 3 comments | 1,743 views

Sometimes "I'm Sorry" Doesn't Cut It
By Cheryl Bac | 4 comments | 929 views

Couples: Parallel Play or Interactive Play?
By Chandrama Anderson | 0 comments | 818 views

SJSU Center for Steinbeck Studies to Honor Author Khaled Hosseini on Weds Sept 10
By Nick Taylor | 0 comments | 568 views