The Note, 4/29/2009: The Mandate — A happy 100th day for Obama — with no more excuses
EmailBy RICK KLEIN And for the 100th day, a mandate was delivered. On this day that 60 is greater than 100, Team Obama does not mind that message getting overshadowed — particularly now that “reconciliation” may not have to get spelled out. Sen. Arlen Specter’s party switch alters the Capitol’s power balance, consigns Republicans to governing irrelevance, and remakes what’s feasible on the policy front. It also solidifies a notion that wasn’t quite there even with President Obama’s historic election, and the expanded majorities that came to Washington with him: This is Democrats’ turn to govern — no excuses. Yes, this is only one vote. (Loyalty pledges aside, does anyone think Arlen Specter, D-Pa., is going to be that much easier to corral or pin down than Arlen Specter, R-Pa.?) But this is a critical signal, coming on Day 99, that the next 100 can be quite productive on Capitol Hill. If they’re not, the Democrats will only have their own to blame. (And from the annals of what doesn’t kill you, makes you stronger: Would this have happened without the registration switches that came about because Hillary Clinton made the Pennsylvania primary matter?) Specter’s defection gives President Obama a fresh, dare-we-say hopeful narrative — one sure to be fully explored by a newly triumphant president at his 8 pm ET press conference Wednesday. (A better subject for the White House than, say, swine flu, on the day of the first confirmed US death from the disease, in Texas.) (First comes an photo-op with the newest Democratic senator at the White House — and then a campaign-style swing through St. Louis.) From the GOP perspective — by the time the knives are pulled out of Specter’s back (not to say he didn’t deserve them) — there’s not much further to fall (or is there?). This is a psychic blow that adds to numeric injury. It also is bound to restart the tent-size debate that isn’t getting the GOP anywhere. It’s “a stunning switch in loyalties that highlights the rightward drift of the GOP and promises to boost President Obama’s agenda,” Thomas Fitzgerald writes in the Philadelphia Inquirer. “His move also threw into sharp relief the Republican Party’s political problem as its moderate ranks dwindle and it battles a popular Democratic president.” Specter is “bolstering President Obama at a pivotal moment for his policy agenda and further marginalizing Republicans on Capitol Hill,” Carl Hulse and Adam Nagourney writes in The New York Times. As for GOP hopes that the Democrats will take out one who’s now one of their own: “The president will do whatever he can do to help,” David Axelrod said. Since this was about self-preservation . . . “He’s taken an all-but-sure loss in the Republican primary into an almost sure hold on his seat in 2010,” ABC’s George Stephanopoulos reports. Six-oh, so soon: “That advantage could give the White House enough votes to move ahead on a national health-care program, a proposal to cap carbon emissions and an array of other issues,” Jonathan Weisman and Greg Hitt write in The Wall Street Journal. “Even as Specter pledged his continued independence, Senate Majority Leader Harry M. Reid (D-Nev.) later told reporters that there is an effort underway to refashion the [Employee Free Choice Act] union legislation in an effort to gain Specter’s support,” The Washington Post’s Paul Kane, Chris Cillizza and Shailagh Murray write. Time’s Massimo Calabresi and Jay Newton-Small call it the “100-day gift.” How Specter is this? Asked if he expected to ‘butt heads’ with fellow Democrats on anything: “It all depends if my fellow Democrats are wrong and stupid,” he said, per ABC’s Z. Byron Wolf and Jonathan Karl. “Specter said he’d been forced out by the right wing of the Republican Party,” Jonathan Karl reported on “Good Morning America” Wednesday. “Shell-shocked Republicans accused Specter of putting politics ahead of principle.” If the Democrats can’t move things along now — who’s left to blame? “Today the mandate was cemented. The Democrats now have full control over Washington, D.C. They can now break the filibuster. And any failure to do so is not the result of GOP ‘obstruction’ but of self-beclowning Democratic overreach of the sort they couldn’t possibly hope to get away with if any semblance of a balance of power existed,” Patrick Ruffini blogs. Obama will “be responsible for everything,” Bill Kristol writes. “GOP obstructionism will go away as an issue, and Democratic defections will become the constant worry and story line. This will make it easier for GOP candidates in 2010 to ask to be elected to help restore some checks and balance in Washington — and, meanwhile, Specter’s party change won’t likely have made much difference in getting key legislation passed or not.” Which party is more threatened by this concept? “The five-term senator’s stunning defection puts the Democratic Party one vote from being able to crush any stalling tactics in the Senate, giving the White House a virtual E-ZPass through Capitol Hill,” the New York Daily News’ Michael McAuliff writes. On the other side — it’s soul-searching time, and it’s not clear what’s left to find. “How much more can the Republicans take?” Dan Balz writes in The Washington Post. “At this moment when the journalistic world is awash with assessments of President Obama’s opening months in office, it’s useful to reflect on one reason for his strong start: he has been blessed with weak opposition.” Meltdown: “Arlen Specter’s break from Republicans is the latest in a trip-hammer series of reversals that leaves the GOP more beaten and less popular than either major party has been in decades,” John F. Harris and Jim VandeHei write for Politico. “Specter’s abandonment didn’t happen in isolation. No matter whether his move was motivated by principle, fear, or opportunism — or some combination of the three — it comes in the same month as a traditionally GOP-leaning district in upstate New York tipped for the Democrats. In the nine states of the Northeast, including Pennsylvania, there are only 15 GOP House members out of 83 seats, and now just three Republicans out of 18 senators.” This regional thing is real: “As the party has become more conservative ideologically, its strength has been increasingly corralled in more conservative regions of the country, with significant recent losses at the congressional and state levels throughout the Northeast, Midwest and in the West Coast and Mountain states,” James O’Toole writes for the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette. “With Sen. Arlen Specter’s switch to the Democrats, the Republican Party is increasingly at risk of being viewed as a mostly Southern and solidly conservative party, an identity that might take years to overcome,” per the AP’s Chuck Babington. “Specter’s defection has symbolic and immediate ramifications for the GOP nationwide. It makes it easier for Democrats, fairly or not, to paint the party as ideologically rigid and alien to large swaths of the country.” It may not be just regional, either: “The greater concern for the Republican Party is one of diminishing numbers. An average of 36 percent of Americans identified themselves as Democrats and 28 percent as Republicans in 2008, the largest advantage for Democrats since 1988, according to a Gallup poll in January,” Bloomberg’s Heidi Przybyla writes. The purity camp: “Don’t let the door hit you on the way out,” writes conservative blogger Michelle Malkin. Doors swing in multiple directions: “Regrettably, we failed to learn the lessons of Jim Jeffords’s defection in 2001. To the contrary, we overreached in interpreting the results of the presidential election of 2004 as a mandate for the party,” Sen. Olympia Snowe, R-Maine, writes in a New York Times op-ed. “I have said that, without question, we cannot prevail as a party without conservatives. But it is equally certain we cannot prevail in the future without moderates.” “Anyone who tells you the Republican Party is on its way back is smoking grass,” GOP pollster Frank Luntz tells McClatchy’s Steven Thomma. Republicans don’t have to commit resources to defense in Pennsylvania — but they’ve got to find more offense: “Losing one or two or three Senate seats on the heels of Mr. Specter’s departure would be devastating for Republicans,” Fred Barnes writes in a Wall Street Journal op-ed. “For now, Republicans will need to recruit one or more Democratic dissenters to block the Obama agenda.” A bad day for this to hit: “A battle over control of the party’s purse strings has erupted at the troubled Republican National Committee, with defenders of Chairman Michael S. Steele accusing dissident RNC members of trying to ‘embarrass and neuter’ the party’s new leader,” Ralph Z. Hallow reports in the Washington Times. Biden-watchers — take note of the details of the veep’s role in the Specter switch. ABC’s Jake Tapper reports that Vice President Joe Biden has been working on Specter for five years — and used long Amtrak rides to make his case: “Specter’s support for the stimulus bill in February aroused much conservative wrath, and the party switch came up frequently in the course of 14 conversations — six in person, eight on the phone — Biden and Specter have had since.” “Democrats had been lobbying Mr. Specter for some time to change his affiliation, with Vice President Joe Biden making the case as recently as Thursday, a senior administration official said,” per the Journal’s Weisman and Hitt. Biden also stars in this drama, on how the stimulus vote was won: “With the vote only hours away, the job of finding the senator fell to Vice President Biden, who reached him by phone on the morning of the Feb. 13 vote,” The Washington Post’s Scott Wilson writes. “Soon after, Biden called Emanuel, who had been operating on virtually no sleep for several days, with the news: Specter would vote yes. In return for his support, Specter, who has Hodgkin’s disease, won a large increase in cancer research funding for the National Institutes of Health.” It is, of course, the 100th day. Hallmark doesn’t make cards for such occasions, but White Houses do tend to hold press conferences. Watch live coverage on ABC News, and on ABC News NOW and ABCNews.com, where “Nightline” is again teaming up for “Nightline NOW” coverage that makes the Twitter community part of the conversation. George Stephanopoulos offers up 100 “hits and misses” of the first 100 days, from his Tweeps. (More on this subject on ABCNews.com’s “Top Line,” at noon ET.) Mark Halperin is up with his grades for key players (and Michelle Obama and Robert Gates score better than the president himself). The last of the polls on the subject? (And have we heard this theme before?) “There is early, tentative support for some of Mr. Obama’s most complex policy goals, including health-care and energy overhauls, and support for most of the major moves he’s already made,” Laura Meckler writes in The Wall Street Journal. “But the poll also finds that the president himself is more popular than his policies, a divide that may catch up with him as Congress begins debate over the big issues in earnest.” (Trouble signs: 39 percent of respondents in the WSJ/NBC poll say the stimulus was a bad idea — while 38 percent call it a good idea.) The progress report, from AP’s Calvin Woodward: “President Barack Obama has not yet achieved the big campaign promises he’ll be judged on years from now, on health care, war, the economy and so much more. . . . He has delivered, though, on the work ethic he outlined back when his Republican presidential rival challenged him to suspend campaign events and confront the financial crisis. ‘You know,’ he said then, ‘presidents are going to have to deal with more than one thing at a time.’ “ Your narrative for the next 100 days: “Now, to make good on the promise of days 1-100, Obama will have to deal with — and in some cases infuriate — his and our own best friends,” Newsweek’s Howard Fineman writes. “Democratic and liberal allies won’t necessarily like everything the president will have to do; neither will some of our country’s traditional international allies.” “For President Barack Obama, it’s the second 100 days that may define his presidency,” Bloomberg’s Ed Chen and Julianna Goldman write. “After a breakneck first three months where he faced limited opposition to a record economic-spending plan and a recasting of U.S. aims overseas, Obama will pursue the most ambitious presidential agenda since Lyndon Johnson in 1965.” PolitiFact.com identifies a biggest promise kept, and a biggest promise broken. The one that didn’t get kept: “Obama’s approach to lobbyists represented an idyllic view of Washington. But once he got in office, Obama seems to have decided that lobbyists aren’t all bogeymen. Indeed, he wanted several of them working in his administration,” Bill Adair writes. “Welcome to Washington, Mr. President.” New from the NRSC: a Web ad making the accountability argument — featuring everyone from Tom Daschle to Hugo Chavez. “100 days of no accountability,” the ad says, “and that’s just the first 100 days.” Coming Wednesday, per a Treasury official: “Secretary [Tim] Geithner will meet with Congresswoman [Carolyn] Maloney, consumer groups, business groups and civil right leaders to discuss the national need for credit card reform. Credit cards have been made unnecessarily complicated for consumers, often leading them to pay more than they reasonably expect. As a nation, we’re averaging $15 billion a year in credit card penalty fees alone. Key components of the Administration’s credit card reform agenda that Secretary Geithner will discuss Wednesday include banning unfair rate increases and unfair fee traps and promoting plain sight and plan language disclosures, consumer right to know and accountability.” Plane fallout (among the storylines Team Obama is glad to see marginalized): “The president directed deputy chief of staff Jim Messina to investigate how and why White House military director Louis Caldera made the decision to conduct this flight without telling anyone above him,” ABC’s Jake Tapper reports. “Will Caldera lose his job?” “The president will look at that review and take any appropriate steps after that,” White House press secretary Robert Gibbs said Tuesday. The Kicker: “I’m working on a game plan.” — Sen. Arlen Specter, R-Pa., to NPR on Monday. “I’m a loyal Democrat.” — Sen. Arlen Specter, D-Pa., to President Obama on Tuesday. Don’t miss “Top Line,” ABCNews.com’s daily political Webcast, hosted by Rick Klein and David Chalian, at noon ET. Wednesday’s guests: Sen. Judd Gregg, R-N.H.; Ana Marie Cox of Air America and The Daily Beast; and ABC’s George Stephanopoulos. Plus, “Nightline” is teaming up with ABC News NOW and ABCNews.com for Wednesday night’s presidential news conference. Coverage starts at 8 pm ET, with Rick Klein, Yunji de Nies, and Terry Moran, with the discussion continuing through “Nightline,” and on Twitter, @thenote. Follow The Note on Twitter: http://twitter.com/thenote For up-to-the-minute political updates check out The Note’s blog . . . all day every day:
http://blogs.abcnews.com/thenote/
Sen. DeMint: GOP Race Could Go Until Convention 
Obama Avoids Questions on Contraception Rule
What I’m wondering is what behind the scenes deal was worked out with his intended democratic opponent for the senate seat in 2010. It he wasn’t in on it, he’s not a very happy camper right now.
Posted by: LongT | April 29, 2009, 8:34 am 8:34 am
What I find wonderfully poetic is Hillary forced to play second fiddle as Secretary of State to an out of the blue political newcomer as president. You can see the steam through the fake half smile when they’re seen together.
Posted by: LongT | April 29, 2009, 8:38 am 8:38 am
It’s a beautiful thing, how the hardfought primary between Hillary and Obama paved the way for Spector’s shift to the Democratic Party. Did “Operation Chaos,” Limbaugh’s plan to get Republicans voting in the Dem primary responsible in some part, as well?Beautiful how it played out – democracy in action. And every time some nut calls Snowe and Collins a RINO, I shake my head – the most popular politicians in Maine, not Republican? You don’t want them in your party? OK.
Posted by: Amy in Maine | April 29, 2009, 9:21 am 9:21 am
Mr. Obama has been making an honest attempt to resolve a lot of issues from the Bush Administration. I give him a lot of credit for offering an olive branch to the Republican Party; yet, they have been the ones not accepting it. The only issue I have with Mr. Obama’s Administration is the continuation of the “No Child Left Behind” Law. Even in it’s modified form, children are still being left behind. Otherwise, I give him an “A” for afford.
Posted by: r. schaefer, Ft. Lauderdale, Florida, USA | April 29, 2009, 9:33 am 9:33 am
“I’m a loyal Democrat.” — Sen. Arlen Specter, D-Pa., to President Obama on Tuesday.
__________
next?
?Snowe
Posted by: gus amaral | April 29, 2009, 9:42 am 9:42 am
Specter’s switch is the ultimate signal that Obama’s agenda has become mainstream and the GOP has overreached in their constant lurches to the right.
But the pressure is now squarely on Congressional Dems. Reid and Pelosi can no longer blame “obstructionist” Republicans for their failures.
Posted by: matt | April 29, 2009, 9:47 am 9:47 am
gus amaral
I doubt Snowe or Collins will switch to the Democratic Party, although the national Republican Party may want to kick them out. These ladies are actually old fashioned Republicans, they both supported Bush in 2004, and they are substantive leaders, wonks really, not ideolgues.
There is no reason for them to switch, as they are broadly popular, and I doubt Maine Republicans are dumb enough not to support them (no one is dumb in Maine, by the way.)
Posted by: Amy in Maine | April 29, 2009, 9:56 am 9:56 am
“Mr. Obama has been making an honest attempt to resolve a lot of issues from the Bush Administration. I give him a lot of credit for offering an olive branch to the Republican Party; yet, they have been the ones not accepting it. ”
***************************************
The olive branch he offered had thorns and rotten fruit. He has an agenda and it may not be good for the country. As for Arlen Specter -he was always a g=closet Democrat anyway. And if the Democrats get the filibuster proof majority in the Senate then the success or failure of this country is all on them.
Posted by: MJ | April 29, 2009, 10:22 am 10:22 am
Rush Limbaughs Operation Chasos Worked out Quite well for Republicans! Thanks to Rush and His Pathetic fat self 250000 Moderate Republicans in PA Left the Republican Party and Joined the Democrats THANKS RUSH KEEP IT UP! The Gop Is now at 21 percent and Falling Rush keep Talking The GOP Into Extinction!
Posted by: Angie in Pa | April 29, 2009, 10:31 am 10:31 am
Amy,
indeed.
If the Republican party had more moderates like Snowe, We’d have a healthier political arena.
le Maine longtemps de phase !
(long live Maine!)
Posted by: gus amaral | April 29, 2009, 10:41 am 10:41 am
Repub or Dem…there needs to be some checks and balances in government. There needs to be discussion on issues important to America. It appears the Dems will be able to push everything through now…there are going to be higher taxes to pay for the programs and debt and things the American people just cannot afford. It is not good for one party to have complete control. Just look at what happened under Bush. BO is not strong enough to stand up to Pelosi and Reid.
Posted by: quarter | April 29, 2009, 10:45 am 10:45 am
everyone…everything for sale…1st foosball lieberman…now trojan specter.
Posted by: loserspecter | April 29, 2009, 10:50 am 10:50 am
Specter did this(and he even said this) solely because he thought he “wouldn’t subject his 29 year career to the Pennsylvania Republican primary voters”.
The Republican Party now moves closer to core values that make sense(fiscal responsibility, limited government, greater individual liberties for all regardless of race, economic status, or religion, or other protected classes) and is purging itself of hypocrites like Specter who have caused Americans to doubt the Republican Party.
In the meantime, the Democratic Party becomes clearly defined as the Party of reckless spending, big government, big unions, weak national security, and protecting incumbent politicians at the expense of the American people.
Posted by: ConstantXI | April 29, 2009, 11:21 am 11:21 am
Politics! Don’t you love it! Only a politician could spin what is clearly an act of political survival into an act of personal conviction.
Posted by: LongT | April 29, 2009, 11:22 am 11:22 am
Jumping ship…..Spector did not stand a chance against Toomey. That is the only reason he “changed” his party. Was not going to vote for him before will not vote for now….Your time is coming to end Spector.
Posted by: buzzgirl | April 29, 2009, 12:35 pm 12:35 pm
The 2008 election was a backlash against the Bush presidency and the collapse of the economy. Pres. Obama and democrats have our hopes, as well as our fears. They have the power to do as they please without our conviction that they know what they are doing. The measure of their success will be in the economy and subsequent elections, not legislation. The have the underlying real strength of our economic system in their favor, but the historic example of the results of bigger government against them. Democrats have been given nearly unlimited power by an angry public – not particularly enamored with their agenda. The 2006 and 2008 elections should be viewed as a warning to politicians that the electorate is increasingly angry and expects measureable personal results.
Posted by: dhlii | April 29, 2009, 12:48 pm 12:48 pm
Now Senator Spector can do what he was elected to do – represent the people according to his conscience and what he thinks is right. Before the switch, he was being forced by the repubs to vote the way of the party. And they skewered him for it. How do he have a conscience that differs in any way from the party propaganda. He has left all of that trouble behind and this country is all the better for it.
Posted by: libertyrulz | April 29, 2009, 12:49 pm 12:49 pm
A Southern region Party….sounds familiar? I often wondered why so many Southern states have their citizens living in poverty? Is it because there are more Republicans running their government. For me, Georgia is full of old white men running things, not good either. After they retire, they just bring in their sons and daughters and it remains the same.
Posted by: sngeorgia | April 29, 2009, 12:50 pm 12:50 pm
ConstantXI | Apr 29, 2009 11:21:01 AM
Contrary to your stated Opinion, This can clearly define the last eight (8) years; “the Party of reckless spending, secrecy-in-government, No-Bid Contracts, Corp. Conflicts-Of-Interest, Corporate Greed, suspicious national security strategies, and protecting incumbent politicians and ALL THIS at the expense of the American people.”
Posted by:
Posted by: bobj72 | April 29, 2009, 12:58 pm 12:58 pm
Republicans are not to be trusted. Spector only switched parties to save his political career. Trojan horse, indeed!
Posted by: see the forest... | April 29, 2009, 1:02 pm 1:02 pm
This is going to prove to be an interesting time. With the power seemingly falling President Obama’s way his positions on Immigration and Gun Control will now stand out in stark relief and if he misreads the country on these two issues (which he may well be heading toward)he will still end up a one term President who had a great shot at doing great things yet blew the opportunity because he did not correctly read “We, the People”.
Posted by: Chuck | April 29, 2009, 1:13 pm 1:13 pm
This is very scary. I am an independent and the thought of either the Dems or Repubs running wild without any opposition is scary. Absolute power corrupts absolutely. Yes, the Bush years were bad. But the Dems stopped a lot of his far right ideas. Now there is nobody to stop Pelosi and her far left agenda. Hmmm…isn’t this what happened in the 70′s with Jimmy Carter and his super majority? When he left office inflation was at 13.9%, unemployment at 11%, GDP down more than 5%! This country is in serious, serious trouble. My grandma used to say, “Be careful what you wish for, you just may get it!” Dems, you are not going to like what you’ve got.
Posted by: Independent63 | April 29, 2009, 1:33 pm 1:33 pm
“A Southern region Party….sounds familiar? I often wondered why so many Southern states have their citizens living in poverty? Is it because there are more Republicans running their government.”
Posted by: sngeorgia | Apr 29, 2009 12:50:24 PM
________________
by keeping people poorly educated, poor and appealing to racism/nativist anger, the GOP maintains their control & these poor people vote against their own self-interest.
Not surprizing that rational, moderate GOP leaders are defecting. The GOP has become very ugly.
Posted by: gus amaral | April 29, 2009, 1:40 pm 1:40 pm
There are some borderline racist comments and extreme generalizations from some here. i.e. “Southern states” forcing some to live in poverty (because they are Republican of course), “old white men” running things, and implications of nepotism. Give it a rest!
Posted by: LongT | April 29, 2009, 1:46 pm 1:46 pm
How sad that Arlen Spector had to leave his party of forty years simply because he spoke his mind. Cannibalization of the Republican party by the Republicans is a clear sign of the increasing irrelevance of a party that cannot and will not change. Perhaps the old guard should do what’s best for the party and step aside to allow some new blood and new ideas take hold. If they don’t, well, you know what happened to the powerful dinosaurs when they were unable to adapt to the changing climate and environment…
Posted by: DaveM | April 29, 2009, 2:00 pm 2:00 pm
The liberal socialists will hopefully only be able to wreck havoc on this economy for a short while longer until the election are held in 2010.
Then perhaps, the ignorant masses who have been listenig to the liberal politicians that have brainwashed them into believing that they are too stupid to make it in life without their help, will wise up.
Liberal policians’ entire platform is “hey, you are a bunch of idiots, you NEED our help to function”. The democrats perpetuate a “nanny state” that has compeltely crippled the black community, and they are trying to shove the nanny mentality on the rest of us.
As I have said before -vote democrat, it’s easier then working!
Posted by: Dave | April 29, 2009, 2:07 pm 2:07 pm
One of the strengths and hurdles of the Democractic party is it’s diversity. It’s a party of active government. Maybe, they tend to be too active with all the big government programs. But we are a huge nation, so it’s hard to scale back on social projects. I think Senator Spector will fit in better with the current Dems than the Repubs. But I want TERM LIMITS for all elected officials. Two terms – MAX! Then get back to your real job!
Posted by: Nichole | April 29, 2009, 2:08 pm 2:08 pm
Democrats can’t exist without capitalizing on people who blame their entire economic situations on everything else other then themselves.
The democrats scream racism, poverty, rich people are to blame for people’s problems, just as France’s politicians have done for years. Now that country is filled with spoiled brats who work 30hrs a week with 2 hour lunches, and riot whenever the gov’t suggests they work a little harder.
The world already has a france, my God, we DO NOT need another!
Posted by: Dave | April 29, 2009, 2:13 pm 2:13 pm
DaveM said; “you know what happened to the powerful dinosaurs when they were unable to adapt to the changing climate and environment…” Yep, those old dinos wouldn’t let the young dinos lead the way, so they got hit with a meteor? ;>)
Posted by: LongT | April 29, 2009, 2:20 pm 2:20 pm
“by keeping people poorly educated, poor and appealing to racism/nativist anger, the GOP maintains their control & these poor people vote against their own self-interest.” What a line of hogwash!!!
Posted by: LongT | April 29, 2009, 2:24 pm 2:24 pm
Quit blaming the big bad GOP or others for your own shortcomings. The GOP didn’t manage to keep Obama from getting his Harvard degree. Heck, Michelle either for that matter. Quit shot gunning crap!!!
Posted by: LongT | April 29, 2009, 2:26 pm 2:26 pm
Nope, LongT, they became extinct. Their way of doing things no longer worked. And because they were so large and couldn’t change, they all died off.
Posted by: DaveM | April 29, 2009, 2:30 pm 2:30 pm
Specter is just changing parties to have a chance at getting reelected. That’s fine, but his excuses for the switch are absurd.
The conservative movement is about fiscal responsibility, limited government, strong military, family values, individual responsibility, etc. This was the republican party under Reagan, but that party has been moving left ever since.
It’s so ironic that liberals hate Bush for his liberal tendencies (big government, out-of-control spending, etc), yet they love Obama for the same.
Posted by: Open-Mind | April 29, 2009, 2:31 pm 2:31 pm
By the way, I truly dislike one-party rule. Nothing good can come of it. Just look at the damage the Republicans caused when they held the reins…
Posted by: DaveM | April 29, 2009, 2:32 pm 2:32 pm
…” Yep, those old dinos wouldn’t let the young dinos lead the way, so they got hit with a meteor? ;>)
Posted by: LongT | Apr 29, 2009 2:20:53 PM
__________________
yes, meteor shower is the scientific theory.
Watch out who you’re defending LongT, some ‘o those ‘rising’ in the far-right believe dinosaurs & people walked together. you know how they hate that science stuff.
Posted by: gus amaral | April 29, 2009, 2:35 pm 2:35 pm
DaveM; Please! You’re cracking me up! “Their way of doing things…” A better metaphore might be the French revolution. At least we know more about it’s cause and effect, unlike “the way dinosaurs “did things”. ;>))))
Posted by: LongT | April 29, 2009, 2:41 pm 2:41 pm
One thing that I’d like to see more of in this administration is the use of soft power. I think that foreign aid can play a strategic role in pacifying tensions and subduing international crises before they become too large to handle. The Borgen Project has good info on the estimated cost of ending global poverty:
$30 billion: Annual shortfall to end world hunger.
$550 billion: U.S. Defense budget.
Posted by: David | April 29, 2009, 2:42 pm 2:42 pm
“The conservative movement is about fiscal responsibility, limited government, strong military, family values, individual responsibility, etc. This was the republican party under Reagan, but that party has been moving left ever since.”
Posted by: Open-Mind | Apr 29, 2009 2:31:18 PM
_________________
‘Republican fiscal responsibility’ as long as it’s assigned to the poor and middle class.
want ‘limited government’ but want huge government agencies, such as DoD.
‘Family values’ as long as you are the type “they” approve of
‘Individual responsibility’, just like the majority of US citizens believe, Republican, Democrat or other.
“This was the republican party under Reagan, but that party has been moving left ever since.”
sorry, it’s been moving to the far right.
Posted by: gus amaral | April 29, 2009, 2:45 pm 2:45 pm
Dave (not DaveM), you’re hitting the nail on the head with every post.
It’s unfortunately that President Bush was such a lousy communicator who didn’t give a crap about defending conservative values or the republican party. This gave liberals (who control most of the popular media) several years to misrepresent both in an effort to destroy their popularity.
Hence the nonsense (only repeated by those on the left) about conservatives being racist, fiscally irresponsible, repressive, dangerous, etc. Actually, the opposite is true.
Posted by: Open-Mind | April 29, 2009, 2:51 pm 2:51 pm
“MLK was a republican.” So was Lincoln, but it’s not brought up much by Democrats when they make their hollow arguments these days. Southern Democrats have historically been the slave owners and the oppressors of the poor. They just take a different tack now and many fall for it. It’s all about getting the vote. Appear to be empathetic to one’s situation, and you’ll get the dumb vote. Just because the traditional Republicans tout free markets (bad words now), they are the big bad money class and, by definition, the oppressors. What a bunch of hoowey! Heck, even Rockerfeller is a Democrat! Some people are thick as a brick!!!!
Posted by: LongT | April 29, 2009, 2:51 pm 2:51 pm
gus
Are you one of those lazy french people I was describing earlier who riot now at the very mention of an expanded work week beyond 35 hours? They protest when the gov’t wants to cut back on their 2 hour lunch breaks because they want more and more for less and less work. They have all become addicted to the handouts by the gov’t, and as a result, france is even more pathetic now then it was when it welcomed hitler into paris 60 years ago.
Gus, I think you might be leading this whole movement against capitalism, aren’t you?
Posted by: Dave | April 29, 2009, 2:51 pm 2:51 pm
Open-Mind; It is indeed unfortunate that George Bush’s lack of oratory skills has enabled the left’s agenda. They should love the guy!
Posted by: LongT | April 29, 2009, 2:54 pm 2:54 pm
Open mind
Bush was a very honest and decent man who tried his best to keep America safe. The liberal media WANTED him to fail from the beginning, and they did their absolute best to ensure he did.
Had slick willie been as concerned about keeping America safe as he was about where he was going to stick his cigar next, things could have been much different. He was given bin-laden on a platter and he turned him down. He gave speech after speech telling everyone that saddam had WMD’s and that he was extremely dangerous to the rest of the world, but instead of doing anything about it, clinton decided to bomb an aspirin factory in the sudan to distract us all from monica, paula jones and juanita brodderick (who accused him of rape).
Posted by: Dave | April 29, 2009, 3:02 pm 3:02 pm
Gus said, “‘Republican fiscal responsibility’ as long as it’s assigned to the poor and middle class.”
No, for everyone.
That means work for living, not perpetually live off the government.
That means don’t take out loans you cannot realistically pay back.
That means pay off the loans as you agreed, or lose the property you bought with those loans.
That means taking responsibility for your your own success or failure, and not blaming it on your parents or society.
That means getting rich if you’re smart/motivated enough to create a product/service that people love to buy.
Posted by: Open-Mind | April 29, 2009, 3:09 pm 3:09 pm
“MLK was a republican.” So was Lincoln, but it’s not brought up much by Democrats when they make their hollow arguments.”
Posted by: LongT | Apr 29, 2009 2:51:28 PM
______________
It’s where these men moved from philosophically, spiritually, and eventually politically – to become great that’s the key.
Lincoln began as a ‘Republican’ – a party then newly developing, with very different values than the
current right wing & became a better politician & reflective human being after thoughtful consideration and adjusting his mistakes. His promotion of the ending of slavery came after much deliberation.
So, the point is he evolved and grew – something the current right wing conservatives refuse to do.
and MLK was NOT a republican, his father was registered as one. not to hard to do a fact check with this one.
Posted by: gus amaral | April 29, 2009, 3:10 pm 3:10 pm
Openmind
You are completely correct though in calling out Bush for his spending, and also the ironic actions by the nutty liberals with their treatment of Bush vs. Obama.
They castrated Bush for spending and now Barry has come along and is proposing to spend 10 times what Bush did, and they love him for it.
Posted by: Dave | April 29, 2009, 3:14 pm 3:14 pm
Gus
MLK identified in the end with JFK who said “ask not what your country can do for you….”.
Barry now says “I just wanna spread it around a bit”.
People confuse their dad’s democrat with todays’ socialist. They are NOT the same people.
Posted by: Dave | April 29, 2009, 3:17 pm 3:17 pm
“Gus said, “‘Republican fiscal responsibility’ as long as it’s assigned to the poor and middle class.”
- – -
LongT responds:
“No, for everyone.”
_____________________
we agree LongT. So does President Obama. That’s why the very wealthy will be required to pay their share under the new tax proposals.
your other moral/character comments could be assigned regardless of political affiliation, so it’s a moot point.
Posted by: gus amaral | April 29, 2009, 3:17 pm 3:17 pm
Dave; It might be too late! The opiate of socialism has been tasted and it tastes good. Why work when you can vote for your share? Why stress about self-determination, entrepreneurism, or good old fashion job creation? Mediocrity might be good enough? Besides, it should shrink the spread between the haves and the have nots, and who can argue that that would not be a good thing? After all, as a retiree, they can’t get blood out this turnip. I’m all for it!!! I’m just somewhat disappointed that the next generation might not even experience the satisfaction of knowing that all your hard work has paid off, and the pride of accomplishment and satisfaction that comes with it. Heck, I might even vote for them myself next time around. Nothing to lose. But, I have to go. I’ve read enough crap for one day.
Posted by: LongT | April 29, 2009, 3:18 pm 3:18 pm
Dave, I agree with your assessment that Bush was an honest and decent man. Even the movie “W” portrayed him that way, though it disparaged him in many other ways.
My point was that Bush was so focused on the war on terror (which I support), that he completely ignored the simultaneous war on conservatism and the republican party. This resulted in PR huge damage to both, and the resulting election of both President Obama and the democratic congress.
Posted by: Open-Mind | April 29, 2009, 3:21 pm 3:21 pm
“Gus said, “‘Republican fiscal responsibility’ as long as it’s assigned to the poor and middle class.”
- – -
LongT responds:
“No, for everyone.”
_____________________
we agree LongT. So does President Obama. That’s why the very wealthy will be required to pay their share under the new tax proposals.
your other moral/character comments could be assigned regardless of political affiliation, so it’s a moot point.
Posted by: gus amaral | Apr 29, 2009 3:17:52 PM
____________________
whoops, should be addressed to ‘Open-Mind’, not ‘LongT’
Posted by: gus amaral | April 29, 2009, 3:22 pm 3:22 pm
“My point was that Bush was so focused on the war on terror (which I support), that he completely ignored the simultaneous war on conservatism and the republican party. This resulted in PR huge damage to both, and the resulting election of both President Obama and the democratic congress.”
Posted by: Open-Mind | Apr 29, 2009 3:21:40 PM
__________________
we agree, at least on the point that President Bush was indeed distracted with his ‘war’ initiative, to be unaware of politics, the economic state of the country and our world standing. Throw in a little ‘lack of intellectual curiosity’, and a few questionable Constitution violations, I too believe he truly paved the way for public opinion to sway away from the GOP.
Posted by: gus amaral | April 29, 2009, 3:30 pm 3:30 pm
Gus, you said “we agree LongT. So does President Obama. That’s why the very wealthy will be required to pay their share under the new tax proposals.”
Under Bush, the highest 10% of wage earners pay 70% of all income taxes. President Obama wants them to pay more than that.
Under Bush, the lowest 40% of wage earners (after deductions) pay zero income tax. President Obama wants them to pay even less (eg get free money).
These are statistical facts from the IRS that you are free to look up.
Seems to me, the wealthy are already paying their share, and everyone should be required to pay some share.
Posted by: Open-Mind | April 29, 2009, 3:31 pm 3:31 pm
During the 1990′s Bill Clinton raised the top tax rate on families making more than $140,000 a year from 31 to 36 percent and created a new 39.6 percent tax bracket for families earning more than $250,000 a year. Obama administration officials note that the economy boomed under Clinton, suggesting that his tax increases did little to dampen enthusiasm for hard work and professional achievement. Obama’s decision to return to Clinton-era tax rates — from the current top rates of 33 and 35 percent — has the benefit of hindsight, they said.
“These are rates that we know from historical experience are consistent with growth, productivity and dramatic small-business expansion,” said Gene B. Sperling, a top aide at the Treasury Department who helped draft the current tax package, in an interview. He added that top earners would actually pay lower taxes under Obama’s plan than they did in the 1990s: The administration plans to keep some of the tax changes enacted by former president George W. Bush, including a new 10 percent tax bracket and a lower tax rate on investment income than ordinary income.
Obama is, “in a sense, not continuing to let the most well-off have multiple tax breaks compared with the typical family.”
Posted by: gus amaral | April 29, 2009, 3:41 pm 3:41 pm
Once again, America is hurt by the lack of a viable third party that represents moderates and independents. We’re given the choice of a full blown socialist agenda on the left, and the out of touch conservative agenda on the right. A viable third party is the only way to cut through partisan politics as the leading party would be force to form coalitions in order to get things accomplished. When are we going to see people like Spector, McCain and Leiberman get behind the idea of a moderate third political party? Probably not in my lifetime.
Posted by: Brian Levine | April 29, 2009, 4:11 pm 4:11 pm
Dave you say “Liberal politicians’ entire platform is “hey, you are a bunch of idiots, you NEED our help to function”. Like Bush writing an executive order putting into place his “faith-based” initiative and making $65 billion of your tax dollars available to hand out. Bush apparently thinks he is much more capable to decide who you should donate to than yourself. Let’s see taking taxpayers money and donating it to “faith-based” non-profit organizations isn’t that more government? Where is that written in conservative values?
Posted by: rickyt1234 | April 29, 2009, 4:15 pm 4:15 pm
Gus,
Historically most large urban centers in the North and South have been under democratic leadership. The largest like Chicago, Detroit, etc. are the worst. The democrats constantly say to the poor, vote for us and we will raise your standard of living, create jobs, pay your bills, buy your home, pay for your groceries, send you to college, etc. The same poor people that have been voting democrat for decades are still poor! The years of handouts have doe very little except to finance the drug trade in most urban centers. It is like handing buckets of water to people on the Titanic.
Posted by: Robert Weathers | April 29, 2009, 4:23 pm 4:23 pm
This self centered slimeball has veto over all Democratic issues? What an absolutely sickening thought. Democrats are crazy to vote for this self-preservationist.
Posted by: tropicgirl | April 29, 2009, 4:32 pm 4:32 pm
Robert
You said the poor continually voting democrat “is like handing buckets of water to people on the Titanic. ”
Very sad, but very true.
All of the places in America that have been consumed by democratic “spead the wealth around” policies are the worst…. California, detroit, chicago, new york.
If these ridiculous ideas have completley bankrupted CA, why does barry think we should implement them throuhout the entire USA?
Answer: Barry has ZERO background in economics or business management, all he knows is what his marxist professors told him in college and what he heard sitting in rev racist’s church for 20 years.
Posted by: Dave | April 29, 2009, 4:43 pm 4:43 pm
rickyt1234 |
Bush was a spender and I was very upset about it all of these last 8 years. His bailout of the banks was a disaster, as all “bailouts” are.
However, barry is proposing to spend 10 times what Bush did, and the liberals couldn’t be happier, but they castrated Bush for the deficit non stop. Doesn’t make sense, does it?
Posted by: Dave | April 29, 2009, 4:53 pm 4:53 pm
As a Republican I’m thrilled Barry, Harry and Nancy now have complete power. Record inflation is on the way. Obammy’s global warming agenda will cost taxpayers billions by increasing the cost to power and heat your house. His attempt to tax the American people at up to 40% – 50% of wages to pay for federal (can you say idiots who waste time and money) government run healthcare will backfire. By 2012 Barry, Harry and Nancy will be GONE. Can you say Barry = Carter?
Posted by: jwbents | April 29, 2009, 5:30 pm 5:30 pm
In the meantime, the Democratic Party becomes clearly defined as the Party of reckless spending, big government, big unions, weak national security, and protecting incumbent politicians at the expense of the American people.
=====================================
Exactly right. And the whole democratic house of cards will come tumbling down in 2012. We can only hope the catastrophic damage done by these buffoons can be reversed by someone with true leadership and bipartisanship skills.
Posted by: Darlene | April 29, 2009, 10:36 pm 10:36 pm
Give me a break!! First of all, 3yrs ago the Republicans had full control of government. The Republicans are in trouble because they sold out their principles. Democrats will not like this comment, but Bush acted more like a Democrat those last 2yrs in office than a Republican.
Posted by: James | April 29, 2009, 10:45 pm 10:45 pm
To LongT,
So our posts are all crap, that’s possible, but imagine what we all think of your posts, hmm?
Posted by: Richard in Texas | April 29, 2009, 11:15 pm 11:15 pm
Dave | Apr 29, 2009 3:02:03 PM
“The liberal media WANTED him to fail from the beginning, and they did their absolute best to ensure he did.” …….
_____________
This is the most OVER-USED, Non Specific, Unidentified People referenced by the Radical Hard-Right Edge. Who is this liberal media? Can they be identified? Or are they anything that’s NOT FOX NEWS?
I live in Dallas, TX and the closest thing to a liberal newscast I’ve been able to find is PBS. Virtually EVERY “Talk Radio” station in the local area is Ultra Conservative, Radical Right; e.g., Limbaugh, Hannity, Coulter, Beck, O’Reilly, Lavine, Slaughter, et al…
The ONLY newspaper in the Dallas area is owned by Belo Corp. and it is Decidedly Conservative Republican. If it were not for the fact that I relocated here (from So. CA) nearly 30 years ago, I would have thought it A REAL JOKE, when someone made reference to a “Liberal Media!”
Liberal Media seems to me a term inclusive of the ‘Hollywood Entertainment Industry” (which is referred to as “The MEDIA Industry.” And THAT is confused with the NEWS MEDIA. Now, Even though a liberal NEWS MEDIA MAY EXIST somewhere in the U.S., I think it’s pretty clear, the majority of the NEWS MEDIA outlets in the country are controlled by the Conservative Right (politically.)
Posted by: bobj72 | April 29, 2009, 11:18 pm 11:18 pm
Darlend,
By who, Sarah Palin??? LOL
Posted by: Richard in Texas | April 29, 2009, 11:18 pm 11:18 pm
Darlene, not Darlend. Ahhhhh what’s the difference
Posted by: Richard in Texas | April 29, 2009, 11:20 pm 11:20 pm