"Light weight "Lefty" Republican switches party."
After years of stabbing Conservatives in the back, the RINO goes home. Don't let the door hit you on the way out. The party of the Democrats sounds like a good home for you. Arlen sees how the wind is blowing and decides to bail.
Let’s see how this works out for you since you don't seem to be too concerned about your new Party in spending our children and grandchildren’s future. You will quite helpful in prosecuting the Bush administration. I can't wait until 2010. Let’s see what happens then, Arlen. Glad to see that this Flushing of the Party will be far better for us in the long term.
~Jeff
Statement by Sen. Arlen Specter:
I have been a Republican since 1966. I have been working extremely hard for the Party, for its candidates and for the ideals of a Republican Party whose tent is big enough to welcome diverse points of view. While I have been comfortable being a Republican, my Party has not defined who I am. I have taken each issue one at a time and have exercised independent judgment to do what I thought was best for Pennsylvania and the nation.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. I now find my political philosophy more in line with Democrats than Republicans.When I supported the stimulus package, I knew that it would not be popular with the Republican Party. But I saw the stimulus as necessary to lessen the risk of a far more serious recession than we are now experiencing.Since then, 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. I have not represented the Republican Party. I have represented the people of Pennsylvania.
I have decided to run for reelection in 2010 in the Democratic primary.I am ready, willing and anxious to take on all comers and have my candidacy for reelection determined in a general election.I deeply regret that I will be disappointing many friends and supporters. I can understand their disappointment. I am also disappointed that so many in the Party I have worked for for more than four decades do not want me to be their candidate. It is very painful on both sides. I thank specially Senators McConnell and Cornyn for their forbearance.I am not making this decision because there are no important and interesting opportunities outside the Senate.
I take on this complicated run for reelection because I am deeply concerned about the future of our country and I believe I have a significant contribution to make on many of the key issues of the day, especially medical research. NIH funding has saved or lengthened thousands of lives, including mine, and much more needs to be done. And my seniority is very important to continue to bring important projects vital to Pennsylvania's economy.I am taking this action now because there are fewer than thirteen months to the 2010 Pennsylvania Primary and there is much to be done in preparation for that election. Upon request, I will return campaign contributions contributed during this cycle.While each member of the Senate caucuses with his Party, what each of us hopes to accomplish is distinct from his party affiliation. The American people do not care which Party solves the problems confronting our nation. And no Senator, no matter how loyal he is to his Party, should or would put party loyalty above his duty to the state and nation.
My change in party affiliation does not mean that I will be a party-line voter any more for the Democrats that I have been for the Republicans. Unlike Senator Jeffords' switch, which changed party control, I will not be an automatic 60th vote for cloture. For example, my position on Employees Free Choice (card check) will not change.Whatever my party affiliation, I will continue to be guided by President Kennedy's statement that sometimes party asks too much. When it does, I will continue my independent voting and follow my conscience on what I think is best for Pennsylvania and America.
Tuesday, April 28, 2009
Wednesday, April 22, 2009
Interrogation methods helped nation in terrorism fight
From MSNBC:
"President Obama’s national intelligence director told colleagues in a private memo last week that the harsh interrogation techniques banned by the White House did produce significant information that helped the nation in its struggle with terrorists.
“High value information came from interrogations in which those methods were used and provided a deeper understanding of the al Qa’ida organization that was attacking this country,” Adm. Dennis C. Blair, the intelligence director, wrote in a memo to his staff last Thursday.
Admiral Blair sent his memo on the same day the administration publicly released secret Bush administration legal memos authorizing the use of interrogation methods that the Obama White House has deemed to be illegal torture. Among other things, the Bush administration memos revealed that two captured Qaeda operatives were subjected to a form of near-drowning known as waterboarding a total of 266 times.
Some parts of memo deleted Admiral Blair’s assessment that the interrogation methods did produce important information was deleted from a condensed version of his memo released to the media last Thursday. Also deleted was a line in which he empathized with his predecessors who originally approved some of the harsh tactics after the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001.
“I like to think I would not have approved those methods in the past,” he wrote, “but I do not fault those who made the decisions at that time, and I will absolutely defend those who carried out the interrogations within the orders they were given.”
A spokeswoman for Admiral Blair said the lines were cut in the normal editing process of shortening an internal memo into a media statement emphasizing his concern that the public understand the context of the decisions made in the past and the fact that they followed legal orders."
Isn't it amazing how this administration could care less about keeping this country safe?
Democrat's are now in a race to prosecute former Bush officials, while releasing cherry picked memos to make the US look bad while ignoring those that show the true of info learned and plots stopped.
Jimmy Carter must be loving this. If this keeps up, he may be freed of the title "Most incompetent President ever."
~Jeff
"President Obama’s national intelligence director told colleagues in a private memo last week that the harsh interrogation techniques banned by the White House did produce significant information that helped the nation in its struggle with terrorists.
“High value information came from interrogations in which those methods were used and provided a deeper understanding of the al Qa’ida organization that was attacking this country,” Adm. Dennis C. Blair, the intelligence director, wrote in a memo to his staff last Thursday.
Admiral Blair sent his memo on the same day the administration publicly released secret Bush administration legal memos authorizing the use of interrogation methods that the Obama White House has deemed to be illegal torture. Among other things, the Bush administration memos revealed that two captured Qaeda operatives were subjected to a form of near-drowning known as waterboarding a total of 266 times.
Some parts of memo deleted Admiral Blair’s assessment that the interrogation methods did produce important information was deleted from a condensed version of his memo released to the media last Thursday. Also deleted was a line in which he empathized with his predecessors who originally approved some of the harsh tactics after the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001.
“I like to think I would not have approved those methods in the past,” he wrote, “but I do not fault those who made the decisions at that time, and I will absolutely defend those who carried out the interrogations within the orders they were given.”
A spokeswoman for Admiral Blair said the lines were cut in the normal editing process of shortening an internal memo into a media statement emphasizing his concern that the public understand the context of the decisions made in the past and the fact that they followed legal orders."
Isn't it amazing how this administration could care less about keeping this country safe?
Democrat's are now in a race to prosecute former Bush officials, while releasing cherry picked memos to make the US look bad while ignoring those that show the true of info learned and plots stopped.
Jimmy Carter must be loving this. If this keeps up, he may be freed of the title "Most incompetent President ever."
~Jeff
Monday, April 20, 2009
Budget Cuts, Mr. President?
President Obama in campaign mode:
“I mean, Senator McCain has been talking tough about earmarks, and that's good, but earmarks account for about $18 billion of our budget.”
Bottom Line: $18 billion is nice to cut, Sen. McCain, but it’s not terribly important.
President Obama after becoming President:
On Tuesday evening, when President Barack Obama declared before a joint session of Congress that "we passed the recovery plan free of earmarks," House Democrats, led by Speaker Nancy Pelosi, popped out of their seats like jackrabbits for a standing ovation. On Wednesday, those same House Democrats, led by Pelosi, passed a budget with, by some counts, nearly 9,000 earmarks, worth an estimated $7.7 billion.
Bottom Line: Nearly $8 billion in earmarks is fine by me.
President Obama today:
"None of these savings by themselves are going to solve our long-term fiscal problems. But taken together, they can make a difference, and they send a signal that we are serious about how government operates."
Bottom Line: I was kidding earlier. Every little bit DOES count.
I welcome your cut today, Mr. President. However, I ultimately question your budget trimming sincerity, mainly because of your comments during the campaign AND during your first address to the Congress.
However, your own estimates on budget deficits are pretty sad, evident by the chart below.
One of my biggest criticisms of President George W. Bush and the Republicans in charge of Congress from 2002-2006 and the Democrats in Congress from 2006-2008 is the lack of intelligence when it came to fiscal responsibility.
However, if we stay on this road President Obama, we will go WAY beyond lack of intelligence. By 2020, we will achieve utter lunacy. And I’m sure that’s not what you want to be remembered by.
“I mean, Senator McCain has been talking tough about earmarks, and that's good, but earmarks account for about $18 billion of our budget.”
Bottom Line: $18 billion is nice to cut, Sen. McCain, but it’s not terribly important.
President Obama after becoming President:
On Tuesday evening, when President Barack Obama declared before a joint session of Congress that "we passed the recovery plan free of earmarks," House Democrats, led by Speaker Nancy Pelosi, popped out of their seats like jackrabbits for a standing ovation. On Wednesday, those same House Democrats, led by Pelosi, passed a budget with, by some counts, nearly 9,000 earmarks, worth an estimated $7.7 billion.
Bottom Line: Nearly $8 billion in earmarks is fine by me.
President Obama today:
"None of these savings by themselves are going to solve our long-term fiscal problems. But taken together, they can make a difference, and they send a signal that we are serious about how government operates."
Bottom Line: I was kidding earlier. Every little bit DOES count.
I welcome your cut today, Mr. President. However, I ultimately question your budget trimming sincerity, mainly because of your comments during the campaign AND during your first address to the Congress.
However, your own estimates on budget deficits are pretty sad, evident by the chart below.
One of my biggest criticisms of President George W. Bush and the Republicans in charge of Congress from 2002-2006 and the Democrats in Congress from 2006-2008 is the lack of intelligence when it came to fiscal responsibility.
However, if we stay on this road President Obama, we will go WAY beyond lack of intelligence. By 2020, we will achieve utter lunacy. And I’m sure that’s not what you want to be remembered by.
Friday, April 17, 2009
Des Moines Tea Party 4-15-09
Wednesday April 15th, 2009. On this Tax Day, more than four thousand gathered at State Capital to protest the government’s out of control spending, tax increases, and judicial activism. There were over a dozen American speakers, and not one elected politician speaker. This was a day for everyday Americans to talk amongst ourselves and listen to others speak.
The media was present, trying to make it look as though we were just a bunch of misfits each with our own personal gripe with the government. Not that we all came together against a Government out of control at all levels: State, Federal, and Local. The Government solution is "We just need More Government and all of our problems will be solved." Today, we were saying "NO!" Stop spending our children and grandchildren’s money. Stop taking over our lives. Stop telling us that YOU know what is correct, ignoring the Constitution.
Eighty percent of the people there had never protested or been politically active before. We have lives we want to live and we do not want to take time to protest, but DEMOCRATS have gone too far and many Republicans are not standing and fighting for us. We aren't exactly sure what to do but we’re “mad as hell, and we’re not going to take it anymore," stealing a phrase.
Today, Ronald Reagan’s speeches were played over the loud speakers between live speeches. Making us all wonder: When will we find a true leader for us again? Who will be the Next Reagan to lead us out of the wilderness????
Saturday, April 04, 2009
The Big Ruling
The simple issue at question was this: Is marriage only between a man and woman?
In Iowa, seven people said no.
Yesterday, the Supreme Court of Iowa ruled that the Iowa’s existing Defense of Marriage law was unconstitutional. As such, one of the major social questions that permeates American politics has been answered, forcefully I might add, by the seven members of Iowa’s highest court.
One day later, we have heard the celebrations on the left and the statements of disappointment from the right and center. As such, Republicans will begin work to restore traditional marriage to Iowa. And Democrats, will begin side-stepping the issue as much as they can.
Let’s start with the Iowa House and Senate. After reading the joint statement from the Democratic House Speaker Pat Murphy and Senate Majority Leader Mike Gronstal, I’m rather surprised that they haven’t ever tried to pass a same-sex marriage law in the House and Senate. After all according to them, “Iowa has always been a leader in the area of civil rights.” Then why the wait?
Oh, I know. It’s straight from a Democratic playbook. Sidestep the issue, put it on the backburner, fail to show leadership, and then let the court do the hard work for you. Gronstal and Murphy know that passing such a bill would hurt them at the ballot box. They aren't stupid. But they sure aren’t leaders. Their press statement also asks “why it took so long.” Well, Mike and Pat, clearly you weren’t passionate enough about the issue to use your majority in the legislature to do anything about it, so you should probably blame yourselves. As for your passion, I’m relieved that it’s returned now that the Supreme Court has done your work for you.
What about the other biggest Democrat in Iowa, Senator Harkin? His statement:
"My personal view has been that marriage is between a man and a woman, and I have voted in support of that concept…”
but same-sex marriage is fine with me. I guess I'm having a little trouble with the Senator's logic.
It seems as though Harkin is saying a couple of things here.
Honestly, it is reminiscent of Vice President Biden’s position on abortion.
“My position is that I am personally opposed to abortion…”
but abortion is fine with me. Biden is basically saying two things:
To conclude, when it comes to the Democrats in this state and in this country dealing with controversial social topics, the popular thing is to sidestep the issue so that they won’t get into trouble at the ballot box.
We’ll see what Governor Culver does in the coming days and weeks as he prepares to sidestep the issue as well.
In Iowa, seven people said no.
Yesterday, the Supreme Court of Iowa ruled that the Iowa’s existing Defense of Marriage law was unconstitutional. As such, one of the major social questions that permeates American politics has been answered, forcefully I might add, by the seven members of Iowa’s highest court.
One day later, we have heard the celebrations on the left and the statements of disappointment from the right and center. As such, Republicans will begin work to restore traditional marriage to Iowa. And Democrats, will begin side-stepping the issue as much as they can.
Let’s start with the Iowa House and Senate. After reading the joint statement from the Democratic House Speaker Pat Murphy and Senate Majority Leader Mike Gronstal, I’m rather surprised that they haven’t ever tried to pass a same-sex marriage law in the House and Senate. After all according to them, “Iowa has always been a leader in the area of civil rights.” Then why the wait?
Oh, I know. It’s straight from a Democratic playbook. Sidestep the issue, put it on the backburner, fail to show leadership, and then let the court do the hard work for you. Gronstal and Murphy know that passing such a bill would hurt them at the ballot box. They aren't stupid. But they sure aren’t leaders. Their press statement also asks “why it took so long.” Well, Mike and Pat, clearly you weren’t passionate enough about the issue to use your majority in the legislature to do anything about it, so you should probably blame yourselves. As for your passion, I’m relieved that it’s returned now that the Supreme Court has done your work for you.
What about the other biggest Democrat in Iowa, Senator Harkin? His statement:
"My personal view has been that marriage is between a man and a woman, and I have voted in support of that concept…”
but same-sex marriage is fine with me. I guess I'm having a little trouble with the Senator's logic.
It seems as though Harkin is saying a couple of things here.
- I don't care for same-sex marriage
- I know that nearly a super-majority of Iowans do not believe in same-sex marriage
- Therefore, I have no problem with this ruling.
Honestly, it is reminiscent of Vice President Biden’s position on abortion.
“My position is that I am personally opposed to abortion…”
but abortion is fine with me. Biden is basically saying two things:
- I’m pro-life, but that’s just me personally. I’m pro-choice for the other 6.5 billion people on the planet.
- Abortion is bad, but it should not be illegal. It's not as though you stole $147 from the local gas station.
To conclude, when it comes to the Democrats in this state and in this country dealing with controversial social topics, the popular thing is to sidestep the issue so that they won’t get into trouble at the ballot box.
We’ll see what Governor Culver does in the coming days and weeks as he prepares to sidestep the issue as well.
Wednesday, April 01, 2009
A Light-Hearted April Fool’s Day...
With the United States’ strongest ally in this world today.
Now, we all know that President Obama is still in his honeymoon phase, but when he disrespects both the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom and Queen Elizabeth II, shouldn’t we take some notice?
When PM Gordon Brown came to the U.S. last month, he presented President Obama with several excellent gifts. The most impressive gift may have been this:
The British PM presented our president with a carved ornamental penholder from the timbers of the anti-slavery ship HMS Gannet. A perfect gift to place on his desk in the Oval Office which just happened to have been made from the sister ship of the Gannet — the HMS Resolute.
Think of it this way: 129 years after Queen Victoria presented President Rutherford B. Hayes with the desk made from the Resolute, Prime Minister Brown reunited the ships with this exquisite offering.
Excellent. Kudos PM Brown, for a well-thought out gift from the UK.
I do ponder if President Obama felt a little sheepish after he presented Brown with America’s gift. Apparently:
the British press took high exception to the modest presents the Obamas gave Gordon Brown and wife on their visit to the White House last month: a box set of DVDs, allegedly in the wrong format.
Although movies such as Star Wars and Psycho are American classics, it seems as though a more appropriate gift would be one that could not be purchased on Amazon.
So, President Obama arrived in Europe today to meet with the Queen of the United Kingdom, Her Majesty Elizabeth II. It’s a wonderful chance to make up for the so-so gift that he gave Gordon Brown! What does he bequeath her? An iPod.
The president gave the Queen an iPod with footage of her 2007 state visit to the U.S. already downloaded.
An iPod. Amazon must be the homepage for the Oval Office. However, with the footage of the Queen’s visit to the United States, it does become “more” thoughtful than before. And now the Queen has joined the iPod digital music revolution. Except that she joined it four years ago. Tough break, Mr. President.
Now, some might believe this story to be superficial, and to a certain extent it is. But it’s April 1st. I only wish that our President’s foolish gifts were a joke. Alas.
Now, we all know that President Obama is still in his honeymoon phase, but when he disrespects both the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom and Queen Elizabeth II, shouldn’t we take some notice?
When PM Gordon Brown came to the U.S. last month, he presented President Obama with several excellent gifts. The most impressive gift may have been this:
The British PM presented our president with a carved ornamental penholder from the timbers of the anti-slavery ship HMS Gannet. A perfect gift to place on his desk in the Oval Office which just happened to have been made from the sister ship of the Gannet — the HMS Resolute.
Think of it this way: 129 years after Queen Victoria presented President Rutherford B. Hayes with the desk made from the Resolute, Prime Minister Brown reunited the ships with this exquisite offering.
Excellent. Kudos PM Brown, for a well-thought out gift from the UK.
I do ponder if President Obama felt a little sheepish after he presented Brown with America’s gift. Apparently:
the British press took high exception to the modest presents the Obamas gave Gordon Brown and wife on their visit to the White House last month: a box set of DVDs, allegedly in the wrong format.
Although movies such as Star Wars and Psycho are American classics, it seems as though a more appropriate gift would be one that could not be purchased on Amazon.
So, President Obama arrived in Europe today to meet with the Queen of the United Kingdom, Her Majesty Elizabeth II. It’s a wonderful chance to make up for the so-so gift that he gave Gordon Brown! What does he bequeath her? An iPod.
The president gave the Queen an iPod with footage of her 2007 state visit to the U.S. already downloaded.
An iPod. Amazon must be the homepage for the Oval Office. However, with the footage of the Queen’s visit to the United States, it does become “more” thoughtful than before. And now the Queen has joined the iPod digital music revolution. Except that she joined it four years ago. Tough break, Mr. President.
Now, some might believe this story to be superficial, and to a certain extent it is. But it’s April 1st. I only wish that our President’s foolish gifts were a joke. Alas.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
