Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity

White House Cheat Sheet: Sifting Through the Specter Damage



How badly did Sen. Arlen Specter (D) hurt his reelection prospects over the past week? Photo by Gerald Martineau of the Washington Post

A series of odd incidents that have proceeded from Pennsylvania Sen. Arlen Specter's party switch last week have raised questions about whether the newest Democrat has permanently damaged himself in the eyes of the state's voters.

The White House is concerned enough about the developments that deputy chief of staff Jim Messina and Ron Klain, a senior adviser to Vice President Biden, traveled to Capitol Hill on Wednesday and huddled with Specter to try to iron out the problems, according to informed Democratic officials.

Those problems -- in brief:

• Specter pronounced that he would be keeping his seniority when he announced his party switch last week -- maintaining that his ability to deliver for the state would not be diminished in any way shape or form by his move across the aisle. Except, that wasn't exactly right. The Senate's approval of Specter's junior status on a series of committees led to a "he said, he said" between Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (Nev.) and the newest member of his caucus. Asked about the back and forth by CNN's Wolf Blitzer on Wednesday, Reid stood his ground saying simply: "He is a person who's been in the Senate since 1980. I think he should be able to handle himself."

• In a sitdown with the New York Times' Deborah Solomon, Specter said he was hoping that the Minnesota courts would do "justice" and declare former Republican Sen. Norm Coleman the winner in the contested 2008 election. Whoops! Specter tried to walk the comment back told Reid that he briefly "forgot what team I was on."

• Specter has done little to back off his initial assertion that his decision to switch parties was based almost entirely on political calculations and had little to do with ideology. While most party switchers are almost certainly guided by personal political concerns (what politician isn't?), most don't come right out and say it because it is a turnoff for voters who want to believe that their politicians believe in, well, something.

For Pennsylvania voters -- especially Democratic primary voters -- this triptych of recent events is likely to be deeply troubling.

"His actions over this past week have done nothing to curry favors with either party," said Penny Lee, a former senior adviser to Pennsylvania Gov. Ed Rendell (D) and now a Democratic consultant. "He needs to show some willingness to be a Democrat."

Another Democratic strategist who follows Senate races closely was more blunt about the damage Specter has done to himself over the last week. "Do you think that any right-minded local Democratic elected official is going to stick his neck out for Arlen?" the source asked rhetorically. "Or any member of the Democratic Senate caucus?"

Even those Democrats who believe that Specter has done himself no real long-term electoral harm with his actions over the past week don't exactly give him rave reviews. "The pride swallowing can't be easy but he had no choice if he wants to get reelected, and he was honest about that," said one senior Democratic strategist.

Despite all of that criticism, Specter still has a number of things going for him heading into next year -- most importantly the support of an exceedingly popular president who commands massive loyalty particularly among the Democratic base and a campaign war chest bulging with nearly $7 million.

And, average voters are not likely to be following every jot and tittle of the Specter saga -- especially so far from an election. Still, insiders are paying very close attention and, if Specter's stumbles over the past week encourage Rep. Joe Sestak to run in the primary, then the damage will have been done.

What once looked like a huge coup for the White House -- and from a governing standpoint remains one assuming Al Franken eventually wins in Minnesota -- has quickly morphed into a gigantic political headache that almost no one saw coming.

Politics is great, ain't it?

What To Watch For:

Thursday's Fix Picks: Forty-eight hours until the Fix is in the same room with Coach and Mrs. Coach. Palpably nervous.

1. President Obama trims the budget.
2. A banner day for gay marriage supporters.
3. Dave Bing, Detroit's new Mayor, forms his transition team.
4. A Democratic challenger to Sen. Richard Burr (N.C.) emerges. But, no, it's not Roy Cooper (yet).
5. The Kindle DX is unveiled.

Al Franken -- De Facto Senator: The visit between Vice President Biden and Minnesota Democrat Al Franken at the White House on Wednesday is the most visible attempt yet to further persuade public opinion that Franken is a senator in everything but name. "While Senator Amy Klobuchar is one of the hardest working members of the United States Senate, Minnesotans deserve their full representation," said Biden after the meeting. While Coleman has bought time with his own national leadership through, at least, the appeal of his 312-vote defeat at the state Supreme Court level, even allies like former representative Vin Weber (R-Minn.) acknowledge that Coleman's chances of victory are slim. "Although the Coleman camp has serious arguments, they're asking the Supreme Court to overrule a three-judge panel of its own creation," said Weber. "So it's a tough slog." National Republicans have signaled a willingness for Coleman to continue the fight at the federal level but, if he goes that route, expect Democrats to put huge amounts of pressure on Gov. Tim Pawlenty (R) to certify Franken as the winner.

A Judd Gregg Comeback?: New polling out of New Hampshire is sure to further fan the flames of a potential comeback by retiring Sen. Judd Gregg (R). The Granite State poll -- conducted by the University of New Hampshire -- shows that Gregg is the most popular politician in the state (57 percent view him favorably/25 percent unfavorably) and he holds a comfortable 52 percent to 36 percent edge over Rep. Paul Hodes, the likely Democratic nominee. "The filing deadline isn't until June 13th," said one senior New Hampshire Republican who spoke on the condition of anonymity. "The current lack of other candidates for the seat accurately reflects the ongoing hope among New Hampshire Republicans that he might reconsider." Gregg, to date, has dismissed attempts by National Republican Senatorial Committee Chairman John Cornyn (Texas) among others to get him to reconsider his decision to step aside. The problem for Republicans is their bench is incredibly thin in the state. Former senator John Sununu seems to have no interest in moving back to New Hampshire to run, and the other candidates mentioned -- led by former governor Steve Merrill -- lack the star power to run and win in a state that has leaned strongly Democratic over the last two elections.

The MAC is Back!: Maria A. Comella (or "MAC" in Fix terminology), national spokeswoman for Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin's vice presidential bid and deputy communications director in former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani's presidential campaign, has signed on as a consultant to the New Jersey gubernatorial campaign of former U.S. Attorney Chris Christie (R).

Club Speaks Out For Rubio: The Club for Growth -- never one to keep its nose out of a contentious race (bless them!) -- sounded off in support of former state House Speaker Marco Rubio's newly announced Senate primary candidacy against Gov. Charlie Crist, a sign, perhaps, of their interest in getting involved in the race. "His fiscally responsible, pro-growth approach in the State Capitol stands in stark contrast with other elements of the state government, led by Charlie Crist," said Club president Chris Chocola. A spokesman for the Club said no endorsement decision had been made but if the Club does decide to weigh in for Rubio, it would almost certainly provide a significant financial boost for his candidacy. It would also further shape the rapidly emerging dynamic in the race between the conservative Rubio and the moderate Crist.

Engaged: Fox News photographer Joel Fagen popped the question to former White House political director Sara Taylor last night. She said yes!

Click It!: Always wanted to ask Terry McAuliffe a question? Here's your chance. The Post is co-hosting a Virginia gubernatorial debate on May 19 -- the Fix is a co-moderator! -- and is asking folks to send in their own questions in advance of the proceedings. The three best questions will actually get asked of the Macker, former state Del. Brian Moran and state Sen. Creigh Deeds. Ask away!

Portman Trails in Ohio: National Republican strategists have touted former representative Rob Portman as one of their top recruits in 2010. But, new numbers out of Quinnipiac University suggest Portman may be less than advertised. Lt. Gov. Lee Fisher (D) led Portman 42 percent to 31 percent while Secretary of State Jennifer Brunner (D) held a 40 percent to 32 percent edge over the Ohio Republican. Republicans rightly note that Portman is less known statewide than either of the two leading Democrats -- nearly seven in ten voters don't know enough about him to offer an opinion in the Q poll -- but neither Fischer (48 percent "don't know") nor Brunner (55 percent "don't know") are household names either.

Best iPhone Apps: Three more -- Jott, Mint and WordWarp.

Say What?: "Either they come up with an alternative or they stay off the stage." -- Former Florida representative Joe Scarborough (R) provides advice to his former Republican colleagues on "Morning Joe" Wednesday.

By Chris Cillizza  |  May 7, 2009; 5:35 AM ET
Categories:  Morning Fix  
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   Del.icio.us   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: Wag the Blog Redux: Do Primaries Help or Hurt?
Next: McConnell's Stealth Gitmo Campaign

Comments

JakeD:

The single embryo study is interesting, but only talks about implantation and not the generation of "excess" embryos. Even though the success rate is higher, it is not nearly 100%, indicating that multiple embryos may be necessary to provide live birth. Which means multiple embryos.

The other idea, and you don't have to go to Australia for this, is that you only have the doctor fertilize as many ova as you are prepared to see to term. But that also has the problem of what happens if the first implantation works. Do you then force the woman to carry all the other embryos to term as well, even if the parents are happy with the first one or two?

Finally, most people undergoing IVF will not be as concerned about "excess" embryos as you. So how do you regulate the number of fertilized embryos generated and stored (or destroyed)? You can't legislate it on religious grounds (that pesky Establishment Clause). If you say that you can only fertilize one ovum at a time, you'll be essentially saying that IVF is only for the super-rich. IVF is expensive already and if you add in the extra inefficiencies of multiple cycles of fertilization/implantation, etc. plus the various procedures and health care necessary, the costs will increase exponentially. So, that won't fly either -- people generally don't like being discriminated against, especially for the benefit of super-rich people.

Supporting the theory that you can get 100% efficiency in fertilization and implantation is great. But the reality is that happens only very rarely and we end up with lots (~400,000 in the US) of frozen embryos that will never see the light of day. If you are worried about the fate of these "lives", it would be better to ban IVF for all people and make adoption more accessible.

Posted by: mnteng | May 11, 2009 7:06 PM | Report abuse

Here are doctors who will follow the patient's religious requirements:

http://www.sydneyivf.com/AboutUs/WhySydneyIVF/Respectingyourbeliefs/tabid/69/Default.aspx

Posted by: JakeD | May 8, 2009 4:21 PM | Report abuse

Posted by: JakeD | May 8, 2009 4:11 PM | Report abuse

I understand how it works, and there are Christian-based IVF treatments that do NOT produce excess embryos.

Posted by: JakeD | May 8, 2009 12:59 PM | Report abuse

JakeD:

Do you understand how IVF is performed? You don't fertilize one ovum at a time. You do multiples, so that you can pick the best embryos for implantation. IVF always results in excess embryos.

Frozen embryos, according to the CDC, are also less likely to result in live births, meaning that a fraction of the embryos lose viability because of the freezing -- in essence, they "die". That's not "unjustified killing" per se, but an unfortunate problem with cryopresevation. You're OK with that?

I still think your support of IVF is inconsistent with a true pro-life view. You can't support the theory without supporting the practice.

Posted by: mnteng | May 8, 2009 12:22 PM | Report abuse

sourpuss:

If you see this, let me know if you think my position is inconsistent.

Posted by: JakeD | May 8, 2009 11:54 AM | Report abuse

I never said I approved of "excess" or freezing embryos. I said below "The unjustified killing of any human being is murder ... As long as IVF doesn't do that, go for it."

BTW: How can CREATING life not be pro-life?

Posted by: JakeD | May 8, 2009 11:29 AM | Report abuse

JakeD writes:

"Are you still around? As I said before, if there's anything you think is inconsistent with my pro-life position, let me know."

I would say that I think the Catholic Church's view on IVF is more consistently pro-life than yours. Man-made embryos are "unnatural" and the number of fertilized embryos made far exceeds those that will be implanted, tacitly acknowledging that the majority of fertilized embryos will be either frozen or destroyed. A frozen embryo doesn't really have life; it is merely in stasis, a kind of "quasi-life" potential. That a "life" is created only to be put in liquid nitrogen should give you pause.

Of course, banning IVF then runs up against your libertarianism. But, were I you, I'd reconsider my stance on IVF.

Posted by: mnteng | May 8, 2009 10:28 AM | Report abuse

Does anyone want to discuss the thread topics?

Posted by: JakeD | May 8, 2009 8:47 AM | Report abuse

JakeD wrote: "Lastly, someone claimed that half of the posts on this thread were from me -- as if there's some limit to "free speech" -- if have only posted about 94 (now 95) out of 248 posts. That's 38%."

Oh, yeah, not a problem then. Only 38%. I bet you can quit any time. You've got it under control.

Obsessive-Compulsive Disorder is a b*tch, ain't it? How's that carpal tunnel problem coming along? Is it time to "golf" again? Maybe time to "take a trip to Las Vegas?" How did the last intervention work out?

Posted by: nodebris | May 8, 2009 1:30 AM | Report abuse

Now you Dems know why we were going rid ourselves of Specter the Defector in the next election. Hope you enjoy the company of this former RINO, he is all yours now at least until November, 2010 when the GOP wins that Senate seat (again).

==

Toomey is going to take PA?

Can I have a hit of that?

Posted by: chrisfox8 | May 8, 2009 12:56 AM | Report abuse

Maobama is going to cause the biggest Conservative comeback in history.

==

I've been posting online since the days of dialup BBSs. You jackholes have been predicting a big "backlash" the entire time. It must be the opiate you guys get your headrushes from.

Posted by: chrisfox8 | May 8, 2009 12:54 AM | Report abuse

I get it...You're not gay but your boy friend is.

Posted by: Vin123 | May 8, 2009 12:26 AM | Report abuse

Now you Dems know why we were going rid ourselves of Specter the Defector in the next election. Hope you enjoy the company of this former RINO, he is all yours now at least until November, 2010 when the GOP wins that Senate seat (again).

Posted by: bugaboo1 | May 8, 2009 12:04 AM | Report abuse

Specter is washed up in the Rep. party so decided to switch tracks in order to gain Dem fame. Either way, he is a bum...just like Obama! They say what they think people want to hear and then do NOTHING, Total JERKS!

Posted by: anaf | May 7, 2009 10:51 PM | Report abuse

Specter should have taken McCain with him. Clean out the R.I.N.O.s and start over. Maobama is going to cause the biggest Conservative comeback in history.

Posted by: clayp72 | May 7, 2009 10:29 PM | Report abuse

Let me get this straight (no pun intended). If an oponion is given by a Christian, if the source of a study is a Christian, if anything at all comes from a Christian - then it is completely discounted and not credible? That is sheer lunacy. Consider this - most of the scientific disciplines were founded by ... Christians. The founders and shapers of this country and the constitution and the political structure were ... Christians. The founding of most of the Ivy League universities were ... Christians. The segment of all society (world-wide) that gives the most in charity to the needy ... Christians. So to utterly discount any view, influence, or credence because someone is Christian demonstrates a woeful and willful act of complete ignorance. Every liberal, from the shrill gay community to the Obama coolade drinkers, demands tolerance and free expression - - until the person who makes an expression is conservative or a Christian. Then there is no such thing as tolerance or freedom of expression. Is it no wonder that the terms liberal and nazi seem to be made for each other?

Posted by: GregorB52 | May 7, 2009 10:11 PM | Report abuse

Now, I'm up to 39% (thanks alot DDAWD ; )

Posted by: JakeD | May 7, 2009 8:49 PM | Report abuse

Here's the (secular) source for the Brandon Kramer misdiagnosis story:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-517827/In-perfect-health-baby-doctors-said-born-deaf-blind--live-hours.html

Are you in ther medical profession? If so, you KNOW that this happens.

Posted by: JakeD | May 7, 2009 8:47 PM | Report abuse

Posted by: JakeD | May 7, 2009 8:41 PM | Report abuse

DDAWD:

I searched for "Marcela Ferreira" to see if I could find a "credible (secular) source" but alot were in Spanish. The case was supposedly in Brazil. If I find it, I will definitely let you know.

You aren't disputing the AMA quotes just because they are on the Christian blog, are you?

Posted by: JakeD | May 7, 2009 8:38 PM | Report abuse

Dude, is there no other place to find this information other than a Christian blog? Not the most credible news site.

Posted by: DDAWD | May 7, 2009 8:29 PM | Report abuse

Lastly, someone claimed that half of the posts on this thread were from me -- as if there's some limit to "free speech" -- if have only posted about 94 (now 95) out of 248 posts. That's 38%.

Posted by: JakeD | May 7, 2009 8:24 PM | Report abuse

For instance, WaitingForGodot at 2:17 PM:

"JakeD, your views on Prop Hate are repellent, and your same old tired BS argument about polygamy and incest is pure crap. Same old meaningless scare tactic rubbish that only whackjob losers buy into."

Posted by: JakeD | May 7, 2009 8:16 PM | Report abuse

DDAWD:

As long as we, as a society, go into this same-sex marriage phase with are eyes wide open. Plenty of advocates are attempting to shout down: "Polygamy will never happen!"

Posted by: JakeD | May 7, 2009 8:13 PM | Report abuse

(cont.)

It is difficult to know how many false diagnoses of anencephaly and other birth defects occur annually because a high percentage of such children are aborted, resulting in a mutilated corpse that is not examined after the procedure.

Approximately 95% of anencephalic babies are aborted before birth, according to the Kennedy Institute of Ethics at Georgetown University. This rate is similar for other "serious" birth defects. In northern California, for example, 95% of unborn children diagnosed with cystic fibrosis are aborted, according to the insurer Kaiser Permanente.

What may be the most devastating error regarding anencephaly is the notion that sufferers cannot possibly have consciousness because the parts of the brain in which thinking occurs are absent. In reality, medical science has shown that a process known as neuroplasticity can "rewire" brain cells to change their function and compensate for the loss of other cells.

The Italian National Bioethics Committee has admitted that this effect could actually allow a degree of consciousness to develop in anencephalic babies, whose brain stem is intact. Although the brain stem normally acts to maintain the functioning of the body's organs, its cells could theoretically change function to compensate for the missing upper brain.

"The neuroplasticity of the brain stem could be sufficient to guarantee to the anencephalic infant, at least in the least serious cases, a certain primitive possibility of conscience," the Committee wrote in its 1996 report, "The Anencephalic Neonate and Organ Donation".

Posted by: JakeD | May 7, 2009 8:11 PM | Report abuse

What's really sad is that the American Medical Association acknowledges that "misdiagnoses of infants as anencephalic have been documented in the medical literature and detected by surveillance programs". So, the AMA admits that the "possibility of misdiagnoses cannot be entirely eliminated", but goes on to assure the reader that "the diagnosis of anencephaly is highly reliable". Yeah, right!

What the AMA is acknowledging is that a certain percentage of babies discarded in the waste disposal of the abortion clinic as "anencephalic" will not be sufferers of the disease at all. Risks of misdiagnosis may seem "insignificant" to a doctor, but parents tend to have a different perspective.

A case in point is that of Brandon Kramer, who was diagnosed with a brain defect while still developing in the womb. His parents, Becky Weatherall and her boyfriend Kriss Kramer were told that their son's brain was malformed and enlarged, and that fluid had collected in his skull (see recent LifeSite coverage at http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2008/feb/08022603.html).

Doctors told the couple that their son would be deaf and blind, and was unlikely to survive long after birth. Although the pregnancy was at a late stage, they recommended an abortion, an idea that Weatherall and Kramer rejected.

Contrary to the doctors' claims, the couple's child was born completely healthy, and normal.

"I feel incredibly guilty thinking that I could have killed him," said Weatherall, "and then I find myself wondering how many other babies are killed who would have turned out to be completely healthy."

Posted by: JakeD | May 7, 2009 8:10 PM | Report abuse

"DDAWD:

OK, I threw pedophillia in on purpose just to see if you were paying attention, but there's absolutely NO HOLES in the argument that same-sex marriage, if upheld, applies equally to three (or more) adults who are just "in love" and want to marry too."

Well, I'm fine with polygamy. Consenting adults can go nuts with it.

Posted by: DDAWD | May 7, 2009 8:04 PM | Report abuse

Oh, OK.

Posted by: JakeD | May 7, 2009 8:02 PM | Report abuse

"They can live with just a feeding tube. Baby K was also reported in medical journals"

I'm well aware of Baby K. Just not an anencephalic baby that cries when the mother leaves the room.

Posted by: DDAWD | May 7, 2009 7:59 PM | Report abuse

DDAWD:

OK, I threw pedophillia in on purpose just to see if you were paying attention, but there's absolutely NO HOLES in the argument that same-sex marriage, if upheld, applies equally to three (or more) adults who are just "in love" and want to marry too.

Posted by: JakeD | May 7, 2009 7:54 PM | Report abuse

"Polygamy and pedophillia are just "lifestyles" then too."

You know the holes in those arguments quite well. No need to reiterate.

Posted by: DDAWD | May 7, 2009 7:52 PM | Report abuse

If anyone else wants to discuss the differences between the 3-year and 1-year studies cited, please let me know.

Posted by: JakeD | May 7, 2009 7:48 PM | Report abuse

"Participants were considered behaviorally successful if they had abstained from any type of physical homosexual contact in the past year."

==

You should at least read what you post, it contradicts your own beliefs.

Note the qualifying adverb you snot-gurgling moron... they were "behaviorally" successful. They were still attracted, just not having sex.

Are celibate heterosexuals gay?

Are celibate homosexuals straight?

You're dumb as a box of rocks.

Posted by: chrisfox8 | May 7, 2009 7:44 PM | Report abuse

(I am glad to be able to provide cites to any other medical journals, as needed)

Posted by: JakeD | May 7, 2009 7:43 PM | Report abuse

For anyone other than chrisfox8:

1) Professors Stanton Jones and Mark Yarhouse teamed as authors to answer the questions "Can persons who participate in focused religious ministries experience a change in their sexual orientation?" and "Is it harmful for anyone to participate in such programs?" amongst various persons ‘seeking change’ while involved with Exodus ministries over a three-year period of time. They published their results in “Ex-Gays?”: A Longitudinal Study of Religiously Mediated Change In Sexual Orientation” http://www.ivpress.com/media/exgays-whitepaper.pdf

They found:

15% “Success: Conversion”: subjects who reported that they felt their change to be successful, and who reported substantial reductions in homosexual attraction and substantial conversion to heterosexual attraction and functioning;

23%“Success: Chastity”: These were subjects who reported that they felt their change to be successful, and who reported homosexual attraction to be present only incidentally or in a way that does not seem to bring about distress, allowing them to live happily without overt sexual activity;

29% “Continuing”: These persons may have experienced modest decreases in homosexual attraction, but were not satisfied with their degree of change and remained committed to the change process;

15% “Non-Response”: These persons had experienced no significant sexual orientation change. These subjects had not given up on the change process, but may be confused or conflicted about which direction to turn next;

4% “Failure: Confused”: These persons had experienced no significant sexual orientation change and had given up on the change process but without yet embracing gay identity; and

8% “Failure: Gay Identity”: These persons had clearly given up on the change process and embraced gay identity.

They found "no evidence that the type of attempt to change sexual orientation studied here is harmful."

2) Schaeffer et al. surveyed 140 members of Exodus. After a year, 29% said they still had changed their orientation, and another 65% said they were in the process of changing. Participants were considered behaviorally successful if they had abstained from any type of physical homosexual contact in the past year. Success was associated with strong religious motivation and positive mental health. Change was positively associated with religious motivation and emotional well-being. http://doi.apa.org/getuid.cfm?uid=2000-13311-005

Posted by: JakeD | May 7, 2009 7:41 PM | Report abuse

Funny, Jake, as determined as you nuts are to believe that "gays can change," and with all they have riding on believing that, one would think they would be able to produce one (1) instance of someone who has successfully "changed."

Don't know why we're having this conversation, even the GOP stopped promoting the ex-gay ministries because they have never been able to produce a single case .. they trumpeted Paulk for months and then he showed up at a gay bar looking for dick.

You claim "thousands," yet there had not even been one. They all turn out to be fictitious, or people who were sucking cock for money and found other ways to make money, but were never attracted to the men they were servicing.

Maybe you're one of those.

Posted by: chrisfox8 | May 7, 2009 7:37 PM | Report abuse

DDAWD:

Polygamy and pedophillia are just "lifestyles" then too.

Posted by: JakeD | May 7, 2009 7:33 PM | Report abuse

For the record, THOUSANDS of "dedicated" homosexuals" are today "dedicated" heterosexuals, notwithstanding Paulk's shortcumings.

Posted by: JakeD | May 7, 2009 7:31 PM | Report abuse

"You cannot change your race. As much as you want to argue that homosexuals are born that way, there's no doubt they can (and do) change."

It doesn't matter whether its a choice or not. It's a lifestyle and must be given equality despite the fact that people find dudes kissing distasteful.

Oh, and enough with people saying that people against gay marriage aren't homophobes, they just want to preserve an institution. That's nonsense. OF COURSE the whole issue is borne out of a desire to downtrod a group that those people find different.

Posted by: DDAWD | May 7, 2009 7:31 PM | Report abuse

DDAWD:

They can live with just a feeding tube. Baby K was also reported in medical journals. http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/464018_4

Posted by: JakeD | May 7, 2009 7:29 PM | Report abuse

I cracked up laughing when that Paulk guy turned up in a gay bar after the exodus cretins had issues hundreds of press releases about their one successful "cured homosexual."

Some people never learn, a lot of them don't want to.

Posted by: chrisfox8 | May 7, 2009 7:28 PM | Report abuse

Yep, that's it: "An adult MAN who has sex with prepubescent BOYS may or may not be gay."

That one cracks me up every time.

==

Only because of the severe limitation of your intellect.

Most pedophiles, including those who prey on children of the same sex, are heterosexual, most are married and have kids of their own. In fact the population of pedophiles is *enriched* in heterosexuality.

If you think it's normal for adults to be attracted to children, they you are probably a pedophile yourself.

Posted by: chrisfox8 | May 7, 2009 7:25 PM | Report abuse

For anyone else Thinking of Leaving Homosexuality?

Are you struggling with unwanted same-sex attractions? Maybe you have lived as a homosexual for a long time, but now are looking for a way out. You have come to the right place! For thirty years, Exodus International has offered hope and help to people seeking freedom from homosexuality. We believe and we have seen in thousands of lives that this freedom is possible through the power of God working in our hearts and minds.

The bottom line - you don't have to be gay! You can lead a life of fulfillment and holiness as God intended, a life far better than what you have experienced so far.

The journey to wholeness isn't an easy one, but we will be with you through the process. Our international network of Christian ministries, therapists and churches are devoted to providing the love and care you need as you pursue God, holiness, and healing.

First Steps

A journey always starts with a single step. Here are a few first steps we recommend:

1. Contact a local Exodus member. These are ministers, counselors, and churches in your area who really do understand where you're coming from. They are your first point of contact and help in your struggle. Find help...

2. A good professional counselor will be a great help in your journey. We have a network of well-trained counselors who are equipped to understand homosexual struggles. Learn more about our network of professional counselors.

3. Find a good supportive church. You will need help along the way from Christians who know about your struggle and can support you in it. If you aren't in a church like this, our Exodus Church Network is a great place to start!

4. Sign up for the Exodus newsletter, email list, or information packet.

5. Find information and insight at the Exodus Bookstore. Some good books to start with:
Desires in Conflict by Joe Dallas (for men)
Restoring Sexual Identity by Anne Paulk (for women)
You Don't Have to be Gay by Jeff Conrad

Posted by: JakeD | May 7, 2009 7:25 PM | Report abuse

I wonder if that anencephaly baby story is true. Aside from the fact that the event is so improbable, not a single reputable news source seems to have anything on it. Not even a scientific or medical journal. It could be one of those stories that some kid on a computer made up and all the right wing blogs just latched onto.

Posted by: DDAWD | May 7, 2009 7:24 PM | Report abuse

okay, so NOW you are really through with me, moron, right?

Posted by: JakeD | May 7, 2009 7:18 PM | Report abuse

DDAWD:

You see, we DO agree on something!

Posted by: JakeD | May 7, 2009 7:17 PM | Report abuse

At this point Jake I think the only thing left is to invite you to have sex with yourself and then you can figure out at leisure whether this means you're gay.

Don't bother educated people with your nutbar religious web sites. I've been through all these arguments a good quarter century ago with people a lot smarter than you.

You're a dullard of jaw-dropping idiocy.

Posted by: chrisfox8 | May 7, 2009 7:16 PM | Report abuse

"If Specter loses his primary to an authentic Democrat of good liberal credentials then we all win. Specter may be a DINO but his intent to vote against labor and his support for Norm Coleman tell the tale: he is no prize. He's also close to 80 and is not "entitled" to be in the Senate until he's doddering and feeble; he needs to go way left in some of his positions."

I'm no Specter fan, but people are taking this Norm Coleman comment WAY to seriously.

Posted by: DDAWD | May 7, 2009 7:15 PM | Report abuse

Yep, that's it: "An adult MAN who has sex with prepubescent BOYS may or may not be gay."

That one cracks me up every time.

Posted by: JakeD | May 7, 2009 7:14 PM | Report abuse

chrisfox8 (I guess this means that you are not through with me, how lucky am I):

Some "dedicated" homosexuals have, indeed, become "dedicated" heterosexuals:

http://www.exodus-international.org/

Posted by: JakeD | May 7, 2009 7:10 PM | Report abuse

God what a an idiot. You realize, Jake, I'm explaining things to you that any sixth grader understands?

If an adult man has sex with adolescents, he's a gay man with some pretty serious issues, especially if he's a lot older than they are.

An adult man who has sex with prepubescent boys may or may not be gay, but he is engaging in pedophilia. Attraction to prepubescents means something is medically wrong, and many pedophiles lead heterosexual lives. The two are not connected, however much you cretins would like to confuse the issue.

You are *incredibly* uneducated

Posted by: chrisfox8 | May 7, 2009 7:10 PM | Report abuse

So, you must be one of those who maintain that Catholic priests are NOT homosexuals just because they have sex with boys, right?

Posted by: JakeD | May 7, 2009 7:01 PM | Report abuse

If I wanted to, I could go have homosexual relations right now.

==

Would taking part in homosexual relations mean you are homosexual? You moron!!

If you aren't attracted to other men it doesn't matter how many cocks you suck, you're not gay.

If you never touch another man in your life but are only aroused by other men and not aroused at all by women, then you're gay.

Please tell me you're not as STUPID as you portray yourself. I need to believe this is an elaborate troll by someone who for whatever reason needs attention more than he needs respect.

You really should consider having your brain reformatted and starting over.

Posted by: chrisfox8 | May 7, 2009 6:55 PM | Report abuse

I believe you people call it "bi-sexuality".

Posted by: JakeD | May 7, 2009 6:54 PM | Report abuse

chrisfox8:

If I wanted to, I could go have homosexual relations right now. As I said, I cannot CHANGE my race.

Posted by: JakeD | May 7, 2009 6:52 PM | Report abuse

If you are now NOT through with me, moron, here are some excerpts from the aipca.org platform:

"All rights are unalienable in that none have a right to take them unjustly. Liberty includes the pursuit of happiness, which is the possession and exercise of virtue. Liberty includes the right to use and claim as an individual possession any unclaimed thing received from the hand of God, in or upon or above the Earth. This right to any possession includes its entire use, that is, its exchange, control, protection, and entire disposition. And the first and greatest of these possessions is our life."

...

"We believe in protecting all human life however weak, defenseless, or disheartened; we endorse the family as the essential bulwark of liberty, compassion, responsibility, and industry; and declare the family's right and responsibility to nurture, discipline, and educate its children. We maintain that all humans are persons from the beginning of their biological development and especially deserve our love and nurture when they are weakest and most dependent."

...

"The Republic established by our Constitution is the greatest of all pro-life institutions. In the first place, it protects our lives from the impositions of foreign nations and internal disorder. Our Constitution in its Fifth Amendment also forbids the government to take life—or liberty or property—unjustly. The Fourteenth amendment requires all States to apply all the protections they provide for life equally to all visitors or citizens, and to all born or unborn persons within the territories governed by their laws."

Posted by: JakeD | May 7, 2009 6:50 PM | Report abuse

TheBabeNemo:
As much as you want to argue that homosexuals are born that way, there's no doubt they can (and do) change.

==

Really? Fascinating, there is no doubt then that the psychologists are wrong but some stupid troll in this blog knows more than they do.

This has been discredited as religious buffoonery for ... decades!!

You have got to be one of the stupidest people drawing breath. Maybe you're anencephalic, you certainly can't be far from it.

Do you remember choosing to be heterosexual?

You filthy liar!!

Posted by: chrisfox8 | May 7, 2009 6:48 PM | Report abuse

chrisfox8:

I thought you said that you were "through with [me], moron"?

Posted by: JakeD | May 7, 2009 6:42 PM | Report abuse

TheBabeNemo:

Oh, OK. Well, if that happens, we will have to overturn same-sex marriage too.

DDAWD:

Thanks for the explanation. I've never heard that Alan Keyes wants to destroy African-Americans though. As for "being anti-gay marriage is racist in itself" you admit in your very next sentence that it is not, really, literally the same thing as race. It's not even "pretty much all the same thing". You cannot change your race. As much as you want to argue that homosexuals are born that way, there's no doubt they can (and do) change.

As for the religious arguments (as I said below), those cannot be the basis for law. Hitler misused the Bible too.

Posted by: JakeD | May 7, 2009 6:41 PM | Report abuse

Nostradamus gazes into the mists and sees that any minute now we will have a bitter post from our resident one-noter belittling the "convenience" of "murdering the unborn."

Posted by: chrisfox8 | May 7, 2009 6:38 PM | Report abuse

If the GOP won't overturn Roe v. Wade, the American Independent party will.

==

Your predictions are as valueless as your arguments

Posted by: chrisfox8 | May 7, 2009 6:34 PM | Report abuse

jakey:
the abortion issue becomes a criss crossed issue with the same sex issue, based on constitutionally.

same sex marriage is setting the precedent on "choice". If a state says you have "choice" in/for your partner in life-- to marry; then.....
the precedent is set.

Roe vs Wade's main premise is a woman's right to choose.
If the same sex marriage precedent is set for right to choose partners,
Roe vs Wade is the right to choose to end a pregnancy. The woman's right to choose. Albeit, not a partner, but the concept and idea and implementation;
of "choice"
cannot be denied.

Posted by: TheBabeNemo | May 7, 2009 6:33 PM | Report abuse

"Maybe you can explain exactly how a "racist" can vote for an African-American for President though."

Racism isn't an on/off switch. There are degrees to it. It has been said that in 2008, racism is a luxury that many people couldn't afford in light of the economy. I'm sure many racist people voted for Obama because he is such a superior candidate. You think we'd ever elect a black Bush? Of course not. I can see racist people voting for Keyes. Sure, its voting for a black man, but one who seems more than willing to destroy other black people. Seems like a good tradeoff if that's what's important to you. And of course, being anti-gay marriage is racist in itself. Sure, sexual orientation isn't literally the same thing as race, but its pretty much all the same thing. The same arguments were made. First the religious. God meant for black people to be slaves or he meant for them to be subservient or he meant for them not to mix with whites. Or you can have social justifications. I'd love to have integration, but black people just aren't as smart or as hard working or athletic or whatever. Kind of like how fags are too promiscuous or can't raise kids or something.

It's all the same. Don't pretend its not.

Posted by: DDAWD | May 7, 2009 6:32 PM | Report abuse

Of course, just saying that you want to overturn Roe v. Wade is the "advocacy of hate and violence" nowadays ; )

Posted by: JakeD | May 7, 2009 6:28 PM | Report abuse

If the GOP won't overturn Roe v. Wade, the American Independent party will.

Posted by: JakeD | May 7, 2009 6:26 PM | Report abuse

Obviously Michael Savage is a disgusting person, but is England justified to ban him for having controversial views? I don't think so.

==

It's not the fact of controversial views, it is his advocacy of hate and violence. England is perfectly within its rights to ban someone who issues calls just short of assassination and murder.

He's more than a disgusting person, he's criminally irresponsible and extreme, and it's good to know that SOME nations have the moral fiber to draw some confident lines.

Posted by: chrisfox8 | May 7, 2009 6:25 PM | Report abuse

it's been a slice
i have to go procreate because the GOP told me so.

Posted by: TheBabeNemo | May 7, 2009 6:22 PM | Report abuse

"NEW YORK (CNN) -- American radio talk-show host Michael Savage said he wants an apology from Britain's home secretary and his name removed from a list of people banned from entering the United Kingdom."

Obviously Michael Savage is a disgusting person, but is England justified to ban him for having controversial views? I don't think so.

Posted by: DDAWD | May 7, 2009 6:22 PM | Report abuse

TheBabeNemo:

What does same-sex marriage have to do with it?

Posted by: JakeD | May 7, 2009 6:22 PM | Report abuse

but jakey..
roe vs wade will never be overturned now.

why?
same sex marriage.

Posted by: TheBabeNemo | May 7, 2009 6:18 PM | Report abuse

Not content with going in circles, some attention w4`0res need to repeat their own posts.

Posted by: chrisfox8 | May 7, 2009 6:16 PM | Report abuse


I was in high school when abortion was illegal. It wasn't until the year I graduated that Roe vs Wade happened.

Those years were not pretty people.
You did NOT show up pregnant to our high school.
You were CHASTISED big time. To the point of suicide and we had that!
Your family was the joke of the town.
You were the wh*re of the city.
We did have the wire hangers in the back room killing women.
We did have the wannabe doctor experimenting -killing women.
We did have the back alley mishaps.
We did have kids thrown out of their house, never to talk to their parents again, with no place to go.
We did have murder, but it wasn't the embryo.


Posted by: TheBabeNemo | May 7, 2009 6:16 PM | Report abuse

As I posted to alexjp46 (below):

Allowing 99 abortions is still BETTER than allowing 100 abortions. While it sure is taking a long time, so did the abolitionist movement.

Although anti-slavery sentiments were widespread by the late 18th century, they had little immediate effect on the centers of slavery as well. The importation of African slaves was finally banned in the British colonies in 1807, and in the United States in 1808, but slavery continued, of course. In the British West Indies, slavery itself was abolished in 1833 and in the French possessions 15 years later. It took a Civil War to end slavery here.

Those like "drindl" and "chrisfox8" making fun of the GOP for attacking abortion rights -- pointing out that the Republican party may cease to exist if they ever do away with Roe v. Wade completely -- are missing the point. Such an acheivement would be PERFECT historical bookends for the Republican party.

Posted by: JakeD | May 7, 2009 6:13 PM | Report abuse

Even the GOP has to retreat from its uncompromising position on abortion; it's been decades and anytime it looks like they might have a shot at taking us back to women dying of back-alley abortions the opposition is so energized that the GOP loses. Between tearing at their breasts about "the unborn" and the howling about taxes they really have nothing left to offer anyone.

Aside from lactating women, the only people who really get passionate about the issue are the super-partisan types and the deliberately divisive like Sarah Palin and this fool monopolizing this comment section about Arlen Specter, rocking back and forth on the mechanical horsey as other posters feed in one quarter after another.

Let the GOP stick to its abortion plank, it will help keep them out of power.

Posted by: chrisfox8 | May 7, 2009 6:09 PM | Report abuse

mnteng:

Are you still around? As I said before, if there's anything you think is inconsistent with my pro-life position, let me know.

Posted by: JakeD | May 7, 2009 6:02 PM | Report abuse

((babe rolls on floor laughing)

maybe that was jakey instead.

Posted by: TheBabeNemo | May 7, 2009 6:01 PM | Report abuse

chrisfox8:

Don't let the door hit you in the ass.

Posted by: JakeD | May 7, 2009 6:01 PM | Report abuse

well, baby bush didn't have a mind and he was born.

Posted by: TheBabeNemo | May 7, 2009 5:59 PM | Report abuse

Marcela Ferreira = "bags of genetically human flesh" and I'm the one guilty of prejudicial language?! LOL!

==

I named my torn-off hangnail "Fred"

I demand that Fred be protected!!!

I'm through with you, moron.

Posted by: chrisfox8 | May 7, 2009 5:58 PM | Report abuse

chrisfox8:

As if I'd ever want to be YOUR pupil. If you'd rather not answer my questions, no skin off my "bags of genetically human flesh"

Posted by: JakeD | May 7, 2009 5:58 PM | Report abuse

Marcela Ferreira = "bags of genetically human flesh" and I'm the one guilty of prejudicial language?! LOL!

Posted by: JakeD | May 7, 2009 5:56 PM | Report abuse

My question to you was not about laws, but about your "logic".

==

Go take a course at your local community college. I only take on promising pupils

Posted by: chrisfox8 | May 7, 2009 5:55 PM | Report abuse

YOU were the one who claimed that a BORN anencephalic baby has no potential for surviva and will die the moment she is taken off life-support.

Posted by: JakeD | May 7, 2009 5:54 PM | Report abuse

Technically, the morning-after pill does not do anything to the fertilized embryo except prevent implantation. So it is not strictly killing the embryo.

==

70% of fertilized embryos fail to implant anyway, for reasons unknown (developmental flaws?). By JakeD's barely-literate thinking, these should vbe rescued from menstruation and "saved."

The more you follow this sort of absolutist and fundamentalist thinking, the uglier a world you get. A nation with hospitals on every block, keeping alive bags of genetically human flesh with no brains and in some cases not even skin.

But hey it's "human."

Yet we send entire species into extinction to make room for more losers like JakeD. Now THAT is wrong.

Posted by: chrisfox8 | May 7, 2009 5:53 PM | Report abuse

chrisfox8:

My question to you was not about laws, but about your "logic".

Posted by: JakeD | May 7, 2009 5:52 PM | Report abuse

mnteng:

Technically, withholding food from a BORN baby does not do anything directly either, so is starvation not strictly "killing" either? And, we don't encourage the FREEZING of born babies either. I do not not think that INFORMED "do not resuscitate" orders are murder. Any ADULT has the right to knowingly and willingly refuse medical care.

Posted by: JakeD | May 7, 2009 5:50 PM | Report abuse

ince you like "logic" so much, if you don't like "real" murder, simply don't do it. The rest of us can murder though (according to your "logic" just now).

==

Murder is illegal, abortion is not.

Next canard?

Posted by: chrisfox8 | May 7, 2009 5:46 PM | Report abuse

We're sons of the wealthy few
We'll fight for a four holed Buick.
We'll fight for the dame with the social name,
Who's out to get her kicks. Rah! Rah! Rah!
We're sons of the wealthy few
Oil wells will see us through.
Checkbooks and bankbooks, and diamonds too.
We're sons of the wealthy few.

Posted by: Nosy_Parker | May 7, 2009 5:45 PM | Report abuse

JakeD:

Technically, the morning-after pill does not do anything to the fertilized embryo except prevent implantation. So it is not strictly killing the embryo.

So, any IVF embryos that are not implanted should be kept frozen ad infinitum? And is discarding frozen embryos murder in your opinion?

Also, do you think "do not resuscitate" orders are murder (or suicide) and should thus be illegal?

Posted by: mnteng | May 7, 2009 5:44 PM | Report abuse

P.S. my pro-life argument is that there's no difference between the fetus one minute before she's born and one minute after (except location).

Posted by: JakeD | May 7, 2009 5:43 PM | Report abuse

chrisfox8:

Since you like "logic" so much, if you don't like "real" murder, simply don't do it. The rest of us can murder though (according to your "logic" just now).

Posted by: JakeD | May 7, 2009 5:40 PM | Report abuse

You are wrong (again). The longest-living anencephalic baby, "Baby K", lived two and a half years before dying in 1995. Marcela Ferreira has lived for a year and a half with little extraordinary care. She receives oxygen supplementation and eats through a feeding tube inserted through her nose, but otherwise lives normally.

==

I have no trouble understanding why someone like you would consider a condition of literal brainlessness as "normal."

Posted by: chrisfox8 | May 7, 2009 5:31 PM | Report abuse

Even if you were "correctly identifying a liar and a fool" you are still attacking my character instead of the pro-life argument

==

The dishonesty of your character is on full display, and to identify it is no fallacy.

You have advanced no "pro-life" argument; you have trotted out a series of eclectic non-sequitors and word games and atop that you don't listen to what others say, and you go in circles.

I don't think you have any college education, matter of fact I doubt you finished high school. You show no grasp of logic, you advance arguments that Dori's daughter could see through, and atop that you believe in supernatural beings.

Don't like abortion? Don't have one. If you do anything to interfere with anyone else's right to make their own decisions you will go to jail. That would at least give your mom a rest.

Posted by: chrisfox8 | May 7, 2009 5:29 PM | Report abuse

chrisfox8:

You are wrong (again). The longest-living anencephalic baby, "Baby K", lived two and a half years before dying in 1995. Marcela Ferreira has lived for a year and a half with little extraordinary care. She receives oxygen supplementation and eats through a feeding tube inserted through her nose, but otherwise lives normally.

http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2008/jun/08060502.html

Next canard?

Posted by: JakeD | May 7, 2009 5:26 PM | Report abuse

Even if you were "correctly identifying a liar and a fool" you are still attacking my character instead of the pro-life argument -- that's classic ad hominem logical fallacy -- what's this new "prejudicial language" fallacy you just made up?

Posted by: JakeD | May 7, 2009 5:23 PM | Report abuse

What would be the point of "preserving" Dori's 22-year retarded daughter?

==

Since she is already born she is protected by law. She is severely retarded but has the mind of a child and we do not kill children, your ridiculous attempts at diversion and distraction notwithstanding.

And anencephalic has no potential for survival, it will die the moment it is taken off support, and should never be allowed to come to term. If it does come to term it should go straight to medical disposal.

Posted by: chrisfox8 | May 7, 2009 5:22 PM | Report abuse

"Prejudicial language" is not a basic logical fallacy -- ad hominem personal attacks ARE though

==

Wrong twice.

Prejudicial language is a logical fallacy.

Questioning the opponent's argument by attacking his character is ad hominem, but I am not doing that; I can correctly identifying a liar and a fool, and I don't need to go ad hominem to disassemble your tawdry arguments. They fall apart under the weight of their own absurdity.

You have been putting words in my mouth while I have been away at the gym. You're completely outside the arena of debate, you're nothing but a despicable troll without a job and too much free time.

Posted by: chrisfox8 | May 7, 2009 5:17 PM | Report abuse

chrisfox8:

What would be the point of "preserving" Dori's 22-year retarded daughter?

Posted by: JakeD | May 7, 2009 5:14 PM | Report abuse

If Specter loses his primary to an authentic Democrat of good liberal credentials then we all win. Specter may be a DINO but his intent to vote against labor and his support for Norm Coleman tell the tale: he is no prize. He's also close to 80 and is not "entitled" to be in the Senate until he's doddering and feeble; he needs to go way left in some of his positions.

Posted by: chrisfox8 | May 7, 2009 5:13 PM | Report abuse

chrisfox8:

"Prejudicial language" is not a basic logical fallacy -- ad hominem personal attacks ARE though -- and, of course, abortion is not murder under the law since Roe v. Wade (I said "in my humble opinion") and in case you missed it, some of us are trying to CHANGE the law. As for brainless babies, look up "anencephalic" someday (or, just look in the mirror).

Posted by: JakeD | May 7, 2009 5:11 PM | Report abuse

The unjustified killing of any human being is murder (IMHO). The morning-after pill can do that, so I'm against that (as well as shooting blindly into crowds). As long as IVF doesn't do that, go for it. Discarding embryos should never be done when there are organizations that will "adopt" and implant them.

==

OK, that's it, you're a complete lunatic

Posted by: chrisfox8 | May 7, 2009 5:09 PM | Report abuse

An anencephalic baby has no mind, and no experience of the world, so by your own LOGIC, she can be killed after she's born too. That's all I said. Didn't put any other words in your mouth.

Posted by: JakeD

==

WHAT WOULD BE THE POINT OF PRESERVING AN ANENCEPHALIC BABY?? ARE YOU NUTS??

Posted by: chrisfox8 | May 7, 2009 5:06 PM | Report abuse

chrisfox8:

I could keep going ...

Posted by: JakeD | May 7, 2009 5:06 PM | Report abuse

I reiterate: a fetus is mindless and in most abortions entirely brainless, so there is nothing "human" to "murder." To call abortion murder is to employ prejudicial language which is a basic logical fallacy. It is not murder under the law, and it is not murder in any rational analysis. To say that it is human because it has potential to develop into a born human is too ridiculous to debate; any cell but a red blood cell has a complete set of chromosomes with potential to develop into a person, so that's idiotic.

We draw the line at birth, which I am entirely comfortable with, and if you're not, Jake, that's just too god damn bad.

Two things

(1) leave your imaginary playmate and your book of fables out of the discusion. They are not relevant. If you want to believe in the supernatural that only means you're a kook.

(2) Nobody cares what a knucklewalking troglodyte thinks of gay relationships, and if you're squeamish about what other people do in bed, that too is too god damn bad. History is not on your side. You might try punching a wall but your mom might not like you damaging her wheeled home.

Posted by: chrisfox8 | May 7, 2009 5:05 PM | Report abuse

chrisfox8:

The fetus one minute before she's born has no mind, and no experience of the world -- yet one minute after, some (including Stephen Hawking as I noted below) are fine killing her too. Again, that's your LOGIC.

Posted by: JakeD | May 7, 2009 5:05 PM | Report abuse

mnteng:

The unjustified killing of any human being is murder (IMHO). The morning-after pill can do that, so I'm against that (as well as shooting blindly into crowds). As long as IVF doesn't do that, go for it. Discarding embryos should never be done when there are organizations that will "adopt" and implant them.

TheBabeNemo:

Nope (I've included SECULAR reasons too ; )

chrisfox8:

An anencephalic baby has no mind, and no experience of the world, so by your own LOGIC, she can be killed after she's born too. That's all I said. Didn't put any other words in your mouth.

Posted by: JakeD | May 7, 2009 5:02 PM | Report abuse

About half the posts here are by this JakeD cretin who claims to have an education. He's clearly too stupid to understand how genuinely educated people can spot a liar like him. There's this thing called "logic," JakeD, and educated people know how to use it. You clearly don't, and if you went to college it clearly was not in the capacity of a student.

You're also a whack job and a compulsive liar.

Posted by: chrisfox8 | May 7, 2009 4:54 PM | Report abuse

JakeD:

I know I'm opening a can of worms for myself here, but I have to ask. What is your view on IVF? Unnatural generation of human life? Discarding unused embryos = homicide? Do you think both should be prosecutable offenses?

How about the "morning-after" pill?

Posted by: mnteng | May 7, 2009 4:52 PM | Report abuse

Much ado about nada.

Posted by: newbeeboy | May 7, 2009 4:50 PM | Report abuse

did i miss something here today folks...??

is jakey conducting church?

Posted by: TheBabeNemo | May 7, 2009 4:50 PM | Report abuse

I also don't post from my mom's trailer. Can you answer the question now?

Posted by: JakeD | May 7, 2009 4:49 PM | Report abuse

specter is like your grandpa...
ah, let him do what he wants.....
//////
white house press correspondent's dinner is what I presume chris is talking about with "the coach and mrs coach". It's always fun. Gotta get the impersonator there however.
Who's it going to be??????

Posted by: TheBabeNemo | May 7, 2009 4:48 PM | Report abuse

chrisfox8:

I am not a Republican -- let's back up though -- did you or did you not post at 12:35 PM: "A fetus has no mind, no experience of the world, and if your criterion for humanity is human DNA then you better start campaigning to save fingernail parings and dead skin too."

Posted by: JakeD | May 7, 2009 4:48 PM | Report abuse

drindl and chrisfox8 sure are quiet. Dori, are you still there?

Posted by: JakeD

==

Unlike you, sitting in your mom's trailer and posting all day, I have a job and a life. I come back and you've spent literally hours putting words in my mouth. May your mom tire of working to support a loser and put you on the street.

Posted by: chrisfox8 | May 7, 2009 4:48 PM | Report abuse

WaitingForGodot:

I wasn't aware that the high homosexual suicide rate was your "primary point" (you shouldn't have hidden it in all of that post then). To answer your question, then, I am not "OK" with homosexuals committing suicide, anymore than I am with them transmitting HIV via unprotected sex in bath houses (you aren't going to blame that on me too, are you?). If there's some other question you have for me, ask away.

Posted by: JakeD | May 7, 2009 4:46 PM | Report abuse

dcgrasso1:

I understand that you would have aborted her without a second thought -- that's the problem -- along with those like drindl and chrisfox8 think it's OK to murder BORN babies too

==

That is a slanderous and contemptible lie and you are a slanderous and contemptible liar.

If the truth isn't on your side and you need to indulge in wild hyperbole to get attention, you have already lost the debate but are too stupid to realize it. You say you're an independent but in my experience the stupid and the dishonest are always Republican.

Posted by: chrisfox8 | May 7, 2009 4:43 PM | Report abuse

JakeD , still evading my primary point (or are you OK with gays committing suicide because people like you make their lives hell?) That's one of the bigger problems with arguing with an idiot -- trying to teach a pig to whistle would be more productive.

And as to whether Keyes and his supporters are racists -- HELL YES, and raging reactionary homophobes to boot! The guy disowned his own daughter for the horrible crime of being a gay woman. So mush for family values.

There's a reason that man can never win an election in this country -- there just aren't enough vicious, stupid whackjobs to carry the day (lucky for the rest of us.)

If you think a black man can't be a racist against other blacks, or that racist whites can use their support of that black man's hatred and his paranoia as their free pass from their own prejudice, then you are even more clueless than I suspected (which is saying something.)

This is getting tiresomely predictable. You spout your nonsense, and then evade logical responses to said nonsense by spouting more nonsense. That I would expect anything more from a winger was my mistake. And unlike a winger, I can admit error.

Kiss off, indeed. Keep raging away, Jake, you and all your Freak Republic buddies. That stroke will get you sooner or later.

Meanwhile, as always, we adults will keep cleaning up your messes.

Posted by: WaitingForGodot | May 7, 2009 4:40 PM | Report abuse

test = text

Posted by: JakeD | May 7, 2009 4:38 PM | Report abuse

When you come back, I would be happy to discuss the differences between OT moral, ceremonial, and civil law. Also, Jesus Christ is the WORD (same in the NT as the OT). In fact, I think that God the Father is recorded only ONCE in both. So, the OT prohibition in Lev. SHOULD BE red-letter test ; )

Posted by: JakeD | May 7, 2009 4:38 PM | Report abuse

From JakeD

Childbearing and REARING are society's primary secular reasons for encouraging marriage.

Christian teachings do not allow homosexuals to marry regardless.


----------

Whether or not they are the primary reasons, child-bearing and rearing can not be the only reasons. If they were, those who can not have children would be unable to marry, and perhaps even those who have had children that have been successfully reared would not be allowed to stay married after that. If we allow that other reasons may be allowed, why can they not also apply to homosexual couples.

As for the christian teachings: I am not an expert on biblical matters, so I may be wrong, but I believe that Jesus made no statements on homosexuality, at all, and that it is not even mentioned in teh New Testament. I do know that in the Old Testament, male-on-male sexual acts are only mentioned once, and female liaissons are not mentioned at all. (Indeed, with the number of multiple wives and concubines mentioned, I would not be surprised to find that it was not only tolerated, but expected).

Even with the one mention, I wonder - There are 613 commandments in the first five books of the Bible. Negative ones from "thou shalt not kill" to "thou shalt not trim the corners of your beard". Positive ones from "when you glean your field leave a corner ungleaned so the poor may eat" to "you should sew on teh edges of your garments a thread of blue". How do you pick and choose which ones to be fervent about?

-----------

I have to leave now. Hopefully we can pick up the discussion, tomorrow.


Posted by: sourpuss | May 7, 2009 4:24 PM | Report abuse

sourpuss:

Childbearing and REARING are society's primary secular reasons for encouraging marriage. Christian teachings do not allow homosexuals to marry regardless.

Posted by: JakeD | May 7, 2009 4:14 PM | Report abuse

To JakeD:

I may be misreading you on the secular reasoning. Are you basing the argument, at least partially, on the basis that marriage should be for the procreation of children? You didn't state that, exactly, but it seemed to be implied?

Your primary argument on the religious front seemed to be against sex outside of marriage. That could be taken as an argument for allowing homosexual marriage, so they can have sex within marriage.

Posted by: sourpuss | May 7, 2009 4:07 PM | Report abuse

sourpuss:

My religious basis is the Christian teachings against ALL sexual immorality, including any sex outside of marriage.

My secular basis is that "marriage" is much more than just a contract and society has an interest in promoting it. Based on ample proof, collected over centuries, society has deemed "one man and one women" as the most efficient foundation for raising families, with children being the most important outcome, as they are our future productive citizens. Same reason as we allow the State to take children away from abusive parents (as in your neglient homicide example). Childless marriages are also an effective structure for partnerships, rather than one-night stands. You will note that I am against heterosexual immorality as well, not just homosexual. The collective costs of deviant sexual behavior is evident all around us. Please don't tell me that most STDs and lots of other problems would virtually go away if everyone waited for sex until marriage. That's an allowable societial goal, even if we know some will fail, notwithstanding the fact that's what God says too. Finally, while you may think it's a slippery slope argument, society needs to decide whether it will also allow "marriage" for ADULT polygamy and ADULT incest because there will be no going back once we go through the gay-marriage door (I never brought up pedophillia or bestiality, but that will probably happen too).

I'm sure you will let me know if there's anything in that you need clarification on.

WaitingForGodot:

I couldn't care less if you accept the statistics on homosexual lifespans, any more than my other explanations. Maybe you can explain exactly how a "racist" can vote for an African-American for President though. Are you calling Alan Keyes a "racist" then too? If so, have a nice (shorter) life. Was that a good enough "kiss-off" for you?

Posted by: JakeD | May 7, 2009 3:54 PM | Report abuse

From JakeD, on the Gay Marriage debate:

I always have a religious basis, but if I can't justify it on completely secular grounds, it doesn't belong as law.

OK. This splits it into two parts.

On the religious basis: What is your religious basis for this?

On the Secular Grounds: The argument can be made that, from a secular point of view, marriage is a contract which, in return for certain mutual support, provides rights of survivorship, etc. As long as the two parties are capable of legally signing a contract (removing the strawmen of pedophilia, beastiality, etc.) why should the sex of the parties be germane?

Posted by: sourpuss | May 7, 2009 3:35 PM | Report abuse

JakeD, EVERYBODY is welcome to make their case in court, unless they have been barred as vexatious litigants. Taking that as some sort of affirmation of your flawed outlook is disingenuous at best, and deceitful at worst. Judging from your history of posts, I'm going with deceitful. Or maybe just arrogant and wrong. Either works for me.

Branding gay men as a public health risk is just simple, flat-out bigotry. And if, in fact, their lives are shorter (a supposition I do not accept at face value), maybe it's because so many young gay people commit suicide after failing to survive in a society where vicious ignorant hatemongers brand them as, among other things, "public health risks."

And as for your kiss-off of the watermelon remark -- nice try. You're not fooling anybody, except maybe yourself. And citing your support of a demented, self-loathing, rage-filled lunatic like Keyes as proof that you're not a racist -- HAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!! That's funny!

Although I can see the affinity.......

Posted by: WaitingForGodot | May 7, 2009 3:34 PM | Report abuse

JakeD. You posted the answer on negligent homicide as I was responding. Thank you. That is, as expected, a consistent response. I have noticed many people on your side of the debate that backtrack on that, but you remained consistent.

Thank you.

Posted by: sourpuss | May 7, 2009 3:28 PM | Report abuse

LOL- now if they would just throw him out of the US too...

NEW YORK (CNN) -- American radio talk-show host Michael Savage said he wants an apology from Britain's home secretary and his name removed from a list of people banned from entering the United Kingdom.


American radio talk-show host Michael Savage calls the British government's description of him "demented."

"I've heard from British attorneys who are salivating to set the record straight and win quite a large settlement should she not remove my name from the list," Savage said in an interview broadcast Thursday on CNN's "American Morning."

Savage was referring to Home Secretary Jacqui Smith, whose office recently excluded 22 people from entering the country because the government feels they have been "stirring up hatred."

The British government has cited Savage -- who is on the list under his real name, Michael Alan Weiner -- for "seeking to provoke others to serious criminal acts and fostering hatred which might lead to inter-community violence."

Savage has made controversial statements against homosexuality, illegal immigrants from Mexico and Islam. He said that "borders, language and culture is the real message of 'The Savage Nation,' " his radio talk show."

Posted by: drindl | May 7, 2009 3:26 PM | Report abuse

sourpuss:

I always have a religious basis, but if I can't justify it on completely secular grounds, it doesn't belong as law.

Posted by: JakeD | May 7, 2009 3:25 PM | Report abuse

See you later, alexjp46.

If anyone else knows how a "debate on when life begins ... has long been established" (meaning "on-going"?) thus making any arguments thereof moot, please let me know, because even this LAWYER can't understand that.

Posted by: JakeD | May 7, 2009 3:24 PM | Report abuse

From JakeD:

sourpuss:

If there's anything IN-consistent about my posts, please ask and I will certainly attempt to clarify.


----

There hasn't been, yet. Of course you haven't answered about negligent homicide, yet, either, so there is still time.

As for the gay marriage debate, I'll probe on that one, too, if you don't mind. Is your objection to it based soley on your reading of Social Science and actuarial statistics, or is there a Religious basis, as well? Or is there something else, entirely?

Again, I am making no arguments one way or the other. I'm just trying to understand your positions.

Posted by: sourpuss | May 7, 2009 3:22 PM | Report abuse

"My religious view has no weight whatsoever. From a completely SECULAR view, the State has determined that innocent life is BETTER than death (murder). So, no, that is not "impossible to define." I am certainly willing to debate why you think it is impossible to define though or whether a fetus can be determined to be "alive" or "dead". That would be an easy debate, to be sure."

-------------------------------

The State has determined murder is illegal. This is not to say that life is 'better' than death. The state has also determined that abortion is not murder, a position you clearly disagree with, so we can't always cite the current state of things as necessarily correct. In addition, these are judgements made by people, which again are subjective.

The debate on when life begins (at conception, at some point during pregnancy, at birth) has long been established, and arguing about it is not going to change anyone's position.

I'm going to take my leave of this debate, as you continually fail to grasp what objective judgements are, and use the term better indiscriminately to imply your position is the correct position.

If you really were a lawyer, I feel like you should better be able to understand this.

Posted by: alexjp46 | May 7, 2009 3:19 PM | Report abuse

If a born or unborn baby dies in your care, because you botched the care, it should be investigated and (if warranted) negligent homicide charges should be filed.

Posted by: JakeD | May 7, 2009 3:18 PM | Report abuse

drindl wrote: "Jake is the model of the classic paid troll."

He might be real. Which would take it from lame to very, very sad.

Posted by: nodebris | May 7, 2009 3:17 PM | Report abuse

sourpuss:

If there's anything IN-consistent about my posts, please ask and I will certainly attempt to clarify.

Posted by: JakeD | May 7, 2009 3:16 PM | Report abuse

drindl:

I am not paid to post here. Sorry if you can't wrap your mind around the concept that some people really do think that abortion and homosexual deviance is BAD for society.

Posted by: JakeD | May 7, 2009 3:15 PM | Report abuse

drindl wrote: "Jake himself is a canard."

If it walks like a canard, and it quacks like a canard . . .

Posted by: nodebris | May 7, 2009 3:14 PM | Report abuse

From drindl:

Jake himself is a canard.


Be that as it may, I'm just attempting to figure out if he is consistent, and therefore probably sincere in the stated beliefs, or if he is just trolling for flames. (Like the 4-year-old that acts up, because even though he gets punished, that's when Daddy pays attention to him). Someone earlier opined that JakeD and King_of_Zouk were the same person. KoZ definately fits the latter pattern, but I suspect JakeD is sincere.

Posted by: sourpuss | May 7, 2009 3:13 PM | Report abuse

WaitingForGodot:

Not at all (the topic was about running out of eggs for Easter at the White House, and I suggested other round fruit as well).

As to polygamy and incest, thanks for your thoughts, but I'm glad you admit that they will be "welcome" to make their case next. BTW: homosexual behavior is a public health matter, too, and homosexual men have shorter life spans than heterosexual men. Sorry if you didn't already know that.

Posted by: JakeD | May 7, 2009 3:13 PM | Report abuse

Jake is the model of the classic paid troll.

Posted by: drindl | May 7, 2009 3:11 PM | Report abuse

ah, it really was a banner day for gay marriage. Two legislatures pass it, one is signed into law.

It's a slow, but sure progression of history.

Posted by: DDAWD | May 7, 2009 3:10 PM | Report abuse

Jake himself is a canard.

Posted by: drindl | May 7, 2009 3:08 PM | Report abuse

JakeD, incest is a public health matter, as children from those unions have an unacceptably high rate of severe birth defects. Comparing gay marriage to incest would only apply if you believe a same-sex couple will together conceive a child born with numerous birth defects secondary to too close a genetic association. I wouldn't bet a lot of money on that prospect.

Opening the way to gay marriage opens the way to gay marriage, period. If the polygamists want to get their relationships recognized by the state, they are welcome to take their best shot, through the legislature or the courts, just as the gay couples, and before them the inter-racial couples did. They have centuries-old global precedent and biblical citations on their side. But then, so did the anti-miscegenation (and for that matter, pro-slavery) people.

You could just as easily argue that the First Amendment right to freedom of religion would provide a more powerful precedent for recognition of polygamy (hello, FLDS?) than would any mere state recognition of gay marriage, but that one hasn't flown so far. It would make for an interesting court battle. Again, if I were a betting man, I'm not wagering the mortgage on that one.

But even if polygamists are successful in gaining recognition through the system, well then, that's how it will play out. That's how our system works, and people really need to accept that. I wouldn't be wild about the idea (speaking for myself, one wife was more than enough!), but so it goes. If you don't like polygamous marriage, don't enter one.

And I'm having a wee bit of trouble reconciling the "support integration" part with the "watermelons on the White House lawn" part. Bit of a dichotomy there, wouldn't you say?

Posted by: WaitingForGodot | May 7, 2009 3:04 PM | Report abuse

From JakeD:

Not at all -- for instance, BORN babies die from natural causes and there's no criminal charges filed for that -- next canard?


OK, we can leave out the manslaughter, since that is only rarely prosecuted, but if that baby dies in your care, because you botched the care, negligent homicide charges will usually be filed. So, do you think it should be the same for the fertilized ova, zygotes, and fetuses?

Posted by: sourpuss | May 7, 2009 3:03 PM | Report abuse

KPSMITH1:

Is "LOOSE ALL SUPPORT" similar to loose slot machines?

Posted by: JakeD | May 7, 2009 3:03 PM | Report abuse

sourpuss:

Not at all -- for instance, BORN babies die from natural causes and there's no criminal charges filed for that -- next canard?

Posted by: JakeD | May 7, 2009 2:59 PM | Report abuse


ACTUALLY, THIS NOW BECOMES A BIG ADVANTAGE TO THE DEMS AND OBAMA. SPECTER WILL NOT DARE VOTE AGAINST ANY OF OBAMA'S CONTROVERSIAL BILLS FURTHER PUSHING OUR COUNTRY TOWARD SOCIALISM OR HE WILL LOOSE ALL SUPPORT.

Posted by: KPSMITH1 | May 7, 2009 2:59 PM | Report abuse

To JakeD:

No, I wasn't making an argument for not changing things. I was just trying to understand your statement, that some things are settled, and others aren't. Thank you for the clarification.

Now, I'll try another one: You appear to believe that Fertilized ova, zygotes, and fetuses are all fully human, and deserve full protection under the law. (I am not stating my position here, so please don't presume to know what I believe) If that is your belief, and we follow that to its logical conclusion, don't we end up with the following?

If a woman has an abortion, it is murder. If a woman doesn't take full care of herself, and has a miscarriage, it is negligent homicide. If a woman does everything right, but still has a miscarriage, it is manslaughter.


Posted by: sourpuss | May 7, 2009 2:56 PM | Report abuse

WaitingForGodot:

I'm still "waiting" for your answers (not holding my breath though ; )

Posted by: JakeD | May 7, 2009 2:50 PM | Report abuse

sourpuss:

Just like the State, through the agency of the Supreme Court, determined that slavery was obviously also OK. If that's your only argument for not changing things, you lost a long time ago. Take a look at the Dred Scott decision. As I already stated, I am not a big fan of slaveholder rights (and, no, I don't consider pregnancy to be "involuntary servitude either).

Posted by: JakeD | May 7, 2009 2:49 PM | Report abuse

From JakeD:

My religious view has no weight whatsoever. From a completely SECULAR view, the State has determined that innocent life is BETTER than death (murder). So, no, that is not "impossible to define." I am certainly willing to debate why you think it is impossible to define though or whether a fetus can be determined to be "alive" or "dead". That would be an easy debate, to be sure.

So, since "the State has determined. . ." it is settled. OK. In Roe v. Wade, the State, through the agency of the Supreme Court, determined that there is a right to abortion. So it is obviously also OK.

Posted by: sourpuss | May 7, 2009 2:44 PM | Report abuse

And here's another thing according to the MIAC report and the DHS department of homeland insecurity, I am a terrorist. As long as your happy about giving up your freedom in the guise of terrorism, have at it. We will be just like the UK, cameras everywhere, world ID card, not able to speak because you might offend someone. What's the definition of offend who will be defining that the global elite, that brought us this depression. The ones that want to reduce global population by 80%, read UN documents, CFR, etc. The ones that brought us global slavery, you know finance and corporation olicarchs. Oh and look up some of these bills that are in the house HR 645. The private banksters federal express i mean federal reserve, answers to no one. Where's the money off-shore ?

Posted by: c_mcgurrin | May 7, 2009 2:44 PM | Report abuse

While I have no qualms with the label "anti-abortion", being pro-death penalty is the pro-INNOCENT-life position, at least.

Posted by: JakeD | May 7, 2009 2:44 PM | Report abuse

katem1:

Welcome aboard. Please read my answers below as to why the GOP is "better" than the Democrats on pro-life issues. Also, Barbara Bush is not a politician, and I wouldn't vote for her or her daughter-in-law. As for Gov. Palin, she made the right CHOICE, but no one should be allowed to make the wrong choice without facing punishment, i.e. Susan Smith.

Posted by: JakeD | May 7, 2009 2:40 PM | Report abuse

dcgrasso1:

If there's anything you asked that you don't think I answered, please let me know.

Posted by: JakeD | May 7, 2009 2:22 PM | Report abuse

dindl... Have to disagree with you there. Most people especially younger are waking up to the fact that both parties are corrupt and are committing treason. Both parties play the game tennis with americans. You have to be blind or so committed to that party that you would cut your nose off to spite your face. The media is controlled by the government that is why so many newspapers are going bankrupt. Americans are sick of it period. Ron Paul may have run as a republican but he is not he is mostly a Constitutionalist.
He had received the most money from regular americans and military personnel.
When ever there is a bill on the floor you hear the same pandering from either party, same old same old nothing ever happens, for decades now. Over 90% of americans called their reps about the first bailout under bush to voice their opinion NO. Gee what happened there. This is a rouge government that is not for the people only for their own personal wealth. Shall I go on with these elected officials and how corrupt they are. the list does go on and on Murtha, jefferson , pelosi, frank, dodd, come on they are pissing on us and telling us it's raining.

Posted by: c_mcgurrin | May 7, 2009 2:21 PM | Report abuse

WaitingForGodot:

No, I was for integration. Assuming "Prop Hate" gets overturned, please explain to me how three adults who are "in love" will be stopped from marrying? Or, an adult brother and adult sister? I will be "waiting" for your answers.

Posted by: JakeD | May 7, 2009 2:20 PM | Report abuse

alexjp46 wrote to jaked: "I'm trying to correct your semantics, so you can carry on an honest intellectual debate."

That, my friend, is a lost cause. It assumes jaked wants an honest intellectual debate.

This is the man who capitalized Obama's middle name for a year and jauntily suggest watermelon rolls on the white house lawn, then acts offended when the response he intentionally provoked is duly registered. He intentionally propagates half truths and plausible nonsense, then quibbles about the peripheral. He's a crooked little man, walking a crooked little mile.

The only open question is how deluded he himself is about his own motives.

Posted by: nodebris | May 7, 2009 2:18 PM | Report abuse

Nor sure how a "racist" can vote for Alan Keyes, but I guess that must be something to do with SUBJECTIVE vs. OBJECTIVE too. If anyone else wants to discuss why the American Independent party is the fastest growing party in California, please let me know. Here's the platform:

http://www.aipca.org/

Posted by: JakeD | May 7, 2009 2:18 PM | Report abuse

I try to resist the temptation to respond to trolls, but some stuff cannot go unanswered.

JakeD, your views on Prop Hate are repellent, and your same old tired BS argument about polygamy and incest is pure crap. Same old meaningless scare tactic rubbish that only whackjob losers buy into.

I'm a Californian just like you, and I'm from San Diego, too. Thank God your kind are passing from the scene down there, and America's Finest City is beginning to emerge into the 21st Century.

I'll bet 60 years ago, you would have been one of the chumps predicting that the integration of the armed forces would spell the end of the American military. Forty years ago, you were probably whining about how repealing the miscegenation laws would bring about the end of American civilization.

Times change, our society advances, and now the American Dream of equality for all applies (or SHOULD, and WILL) for ALL, not just for pissy old straight white guys who miss the antebellum days when they ran the world. Get the hell over it, or get the hell out of the way.

And as for your gutless evasion of dcgrasso1 calling you out for your ignorance -- typical winger garbage. When you can't answer the question, change the subject.

Just once, be a man, and admit that maybe, just MAYBE, you don't have all the answers, and that maybe, just MAYBE, there are other valid ways to view a complex subject. But then, if you did that (admit error? Horrors!), you wouldn't be a real winger anymore, now would you?

People like you give conservatism a bad name.

Posted by: WaitingForGodot | May 7, 2009 2:17 PM | Report abuse

drindl:

Both the Democratic and Republican parties have "racist" histories (you are aware that our first Presidents actually OWNED slaves, right?). As I said, before, I am not a big fan of slaveholder rights.

Posted by: JakeD | May 7, 2009 2:12 PM | Report abuse

koolkat_1960, yup, JakeD says he's a graduate (I think he says he was either top, or third in his class, can't recall which) of Stanford Law. He also says he's 80 years old, I think-- times have changed. I don't think he has!

Gotta go and take my non-driving 22-year old to her job now...

Posted by: dcgrasso1 | May 7, 2009 2:12 PM | Report abuse

The American Independent party is for people too nuts even for the lunatic republicans.

Posted by: drindl | May 7, 2009 2:11 PM | Report abuse

koolkat_1960:

Class of 1961, summa cum laude 1961. How about you?

alexjp46:

My religious view has no weight whatsoever. From a completely SECULAR view, the State has determined that innocent life is BETTER than death (murder). So, no, that is not "impossible to define." I am certainly willing to debate why you think it is impossible to define though or whether a fetus can be determined to be "alive" or "dead". That would be an easy debate, to be sure.

Posted by: JakeD | May 7, 2009 2:10 PM | Report abuse

As I mentioned, jake belongs to a racist party -- what a surprise.


"The American Independent Party is a political party that was a vehicle for the 1968 presidential campaign of Governor of Alabama George C. Wallace, considered a leading advocate of racial segregation. After that election, the party continued as a California statewide party.

The party was established in 1967 by Bill Shearer and his wife Eileen. In 1968, the American Independent Party nominated Wallace as its presidential candidate and retired Air Force General Curtis E. LeMay as the vice presidential candidate. Wallace ran on every state ballot in the 1968 presidential election, though he did not represent the American Independent Party in all fifty states; in Connecticut, for instance, he was listed on the ballot as representing the "George Wallace Party."

Posted by: drindl | May 7, 2009 2:10 PM | Report abuse

It looks like Specter's in trouble. Maybe he can come up with another MAGIC BULLET like CE399.
Vin123

Posted by: Vin123 | May 7, 2009 2:08 PM | Report abuse

drindl:

You never heard of Operation CHAOS? At least here in California, the fastest growing party (drawing from both Republican and Democratic Parties) is the American Independent Party, right after "Decline to State":

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/washington/2008/01/in-california-t.html

Posted by: JakeD | May 7, 2009 2:03 PM | Report abuse

Did I see that jake claims to be a graduate of Stanford Law? Now, being employed by the Stanford Law building services department (i.e., a janitor) I could believe, but a graduate? LOL

Posted by: koolkat_1960 | May 7, 2009 2:02 PM | Report abuse

JakeD, it's impossible to debate something with someone who lacks fundamental semantical knowledge - or at least to have a debate which isn't either a flame war, or a Crossfire-style shout down.

You are of the OPINION that abortion is murder. You claim that objectively life is BETTER than death (murder). Again, this is impossible to define. If I remember correctly, from previous posts, you believe in God and the afterlife? In that case, is death truly better than life? Eternity in heaven is supposed to be the ultimate happiness, is it not?

Devil's advocate aside, I do prefer life to death. Again, this is my OPINION. It is not objective.

This raises the more interesting point of whether something that is not yet alive can die, and from there, the point of where life begins, which is really the whole nexus of this debate, which I said I wasn't going to argue.

I'm hoping you understand my point here. I'd be willing to engage you in an actual debate about the issue, if you can use logical arguments.

Posted by: alexjp46 | May 7, 2009 2:02 PM | Report abuse

Specter was useless as a Republican and he will be useless as a Democrat. It's time for the folks in Pennsylvania to get a clue.

Posted by: bug45 | May 7, 2009 2:01 PM | Report abuse

The most urgent question is the meaning of economic conservatism. Representative Patrick McHenry of North Carolina, a conservative who keeps a bust of Reagan on his desk, surprised me by declaring that the Reagan era is over. "Marginal tax rates are the lowest they've been in generations, and all we can talk about is tax cuts," he said. "The people's desires have changed, but we're still stuck in our old issue set." Snowe recalls that when she proposed fiscally conservative "triggers" to limit Bush's tax cuts in case of deficits, she was attacked by fellow Republicans. "I don't know when willy-nilly tax cuts became the essence of who we are," she says. "To the average American who's struggling, we're in some other stratosphere. We're the party of Big Business and Big Oil and the rich." In the Bush era, the party routinely sided with corporate lobbyists — promoting tax breaks, subsidies and earmarks for well-wired industries — against ordinary taxpayers as well as basic principles of fiscal restraint. South Carolina Senator Jim DeMint's Republican alternative to the stimulus included tax cuts skewed toward the wealthy; at this point, the GOP's reflexes are almost involuntary.

Now that they've lost their monopoly on power, many Republicans are warning that spending-fueled deficits will cause inflation, reduce demand for U.S. Treasuries and shaft future generations. They don't seem so worried about an imminent depression, which would explode deficits in addition to the shorter-term pain, and their newfound fear of borrowing has not cooled their ardor for budget-busting tax cuts. "They talk about fiscal restraint, but they've got an atrocious record, and they've still got atrocious plans," says Robert Bixby, executive director of the nonpartisan Concord Coalition.

Posted by: drindl | May 7, 2009 1:59 PM | Report abuse

For those of you still interested in the Specter race, Tom Ridge has announced he will NOT run: http://voices.washingtonpost.com/thefix/senate/ridge-out-democratic-prospects.html

Posted by: JakeD | May 7, 2009 1:58 PM | Report abuse

"Both parties are losing people."

another lie. Democrats gained significant number of new voters in November, many of them former Republicans. i know a few myself, who left when the party just got too loony for them.

Posted by: drindl | May 7, 2009 1:57 PM | Report abuse

Anyone else?

Posted by: JakeD | May 7, 2009 1:55 PM | Report abuse

"Jews were gassed "for perfectly sound reasons" like too many mouths to feed."

Not only are you a disgusting piece of garbage, but you're utterly ignorant too. What a nice combination.

Posted by: koolkat_1960 | May 7, 2009 1:52 PM | Report abuse

Does anyone ELSE want to debate abortion and/or disabled rights?

Posted by: JakeD | May 7, 2009 1:52 PM | Report abuse

Jake, did you see ANYONE suggesting that "BORN babies" should be killed? I didn't.

My daughter, by the way, HAS a "mind." It's filled with fantasies about how some day she'll marry a handsome prince and live in a castle. She is, as I said, rather high-functioning in many ways.

If all children were loved as much as she is, you might have something of an argument. As it is, you do not. I worked in the Baltimore City Jail School, and in several other schools for children with emotional disorders. I used to come home from work and kiss my kids from head to toe and back. I've met kids who were abused, ordered by parents to conduct drug deals, kids who had murdered others. Few of these children were retarded. Many of these kids had been told often and loudly by "parents" that they were worthless and had never been wanted.

Nor have I ever seen someone suggesting that Stephen Hawking (of whom I'm a big fan) be killed. He has ALS, which is developed as an adult.

I don't care if you DID graduate Stanford Law. Your arguments contain a variety of nonsequiters and are illogical.

Posted by: dcgrasso1 | May 7, 2009 1:51 PM | Report abuse

No, alexjp46, because letting you live is OBJECTIVELY better than murdering you. Do YOU "get it" now?

Posted by: JakeD | May 7, 2009 1:51 PM | Report abuse

JakeD:

You're still misunderstanding my point. I'm not trying to debate you on abortion, I'm trying to correct your semantics, so you can carry on an honest intellectual debate.

99 abortions is LESS than 100 abortions, but not necessarily BETTER. This is an OPINION, which is not OBJECTIVE. Something cannot be OBJECTIVELY BETTER than something else.

Get it yet?

Posted by: alexjp46 | May 7, 2009 1:49 PM | Report abuse

drindl and chrisfox8 sure are quiet. Dori, are you still there?

Posted by: JakeD | May 7, 2009 1:49 PM | Report abuse

Alhough anti-slavery sentiments were widespread by the late 18th century, they had little immediate effect on the centers of slavery as well. The importation of African slaves was finally banned in the British colonies in 1807, and in the United States in 1808, but slavery continued, of course. In the British West Indies, slavery itself was abolished in 1833 and in the French possessions 15 years later. It took a Civil War to end slavery here.

Posted by: JakeD | May 7, 2009 1:47 PM | Report abuse

alexjp46:

I've always understood what the word means. Allowing 99 abortions is still BETTER than allowing 100 abortions. While it sure is taking a long time, so did the abolitionist movement. Those like "drindl" and "chrisfox8" making fun of the GOP for attacking abortion rights -- pointing out that the Republican party may cease to exist if they ever do away with Roe v. Wade completely -- are missing the point. Such an acheivement would be PERFECT historical bookends.

Posted by: JakeD | May 7, 2009 1:42 PM | Report abuse

c_mcgurrin:

We need viable THIRD PARTIES. Out here in California, Props. 1A-E are going down in defeat because taxpayers are fed up with both the GOP and Democrats.

Posted by: JakeD | May 7, 2009 1:37 PM | Report abuse

JakeD:

I'm glad you now understand what objective means. You are correct, the Republicans have been better at banning certains types of abortions. However, again, this does not make them 'better' on the issue, for reasons discussed in my previous post.

Posted by: alexjp46 | May 7, 2009 1:36 PM | Report abuse

drindl... Both parties are losing people.
Most of us are more Constitutionist Libertarian than anything. We don't believe that the U.S. should be subject to some Globalist political agenda or to Obama's Socialist agenda for that matter.
Globalist economic policy is what has put us where we are today. The H1B Visa issue transcends any Democrat / Republican mythos; as usual in U.S. politics it is all about the money. Both U.S. Political Party apparatus are bought and paid for; in the end, they do as they are told by the International Banking Cartels and the International Business's those banks own.
The difference today in the meaning of conservative and liberal; Democrat & Republican is insignificant and is used as a distraction by both sides. Here lately, a lot of folks have figured that out.
What might happen, once enough folks figure out that a confederation of Constitutionist,Libertarian & Goldwater Conservatives, might put a stop to the present insanity. In another six months of Obamanation - that may well be a very real, very pertinent question. Maybe there will be an opportunity to sack the Federal Reserve and kick the Globalist hacks out of influence in the affairs of the U.S. Who knows what an ouraged American Citizenry might finally see fit to do? Should be interesting to watch.

Posted by: c_mcgurrin | May 7, 2009 1:34 PM | Report abuse

dcgrasso1:

Look up Stephen Hawking, too, if you really think people don't advocate "real" infanticide of BORN babies.

Posted by: JakeD | May 7, 2009 1:33 PM | Report abuse

alexjp46:

It does make sense because, OBJECTIVELY, the Republicans have been much more sucessful at banning partial-birth abortion (as such one example) than Democrats. That's an objective FACT too.

Posted by: JakeD | May 7, 2009 1:32 PM | Report abuse

dcgrasso1:

BORN babies (see, I am defending them too) are sometimes born -- like your daughter -- without any significant "mind" and "no experience of the world". They are ALL still blessings from God.

Posted by: JakeD | May 7, 2009 1:28 PM | Report abuse

Spoken like a true Nazi (I am registered Independent, so I can objectively view the GOP as better on pro-life issues than the Democrats).

------------------------------

I normally try not to feed the trolls, but I'm making an exception for this statement. Do you truly believe that this makes any sense?

First off, even if being registered as an independent means you are truly middle-of-the-road moderate (hint: it doesn't!), you can't make an objective judgement on something you clearly have an opinion on.

The definition of objectivity is (from Wiki): statements whose "...truth conditions are 'mind-independent'—that is, not the result of any judgments made by a conscious entity." Since you're posting here, I assume you're conscious, and thus you cannot make an objective judgement.

Furthermore, you can't explicity define 'better' on an issue that has two clearly defined positions - if one side was definitely 'better' than the other, in an objective judgement, there wouldn't be an issue [well, assuming the other side has a basic grasp of logic, which you among others have demonstrated is not necessarily true].

'Better' is inherently a subjective term. 'More', 'less', 'higher', 'lower', these have clear definitions. But overall judgement of 'better' is often difficult, even for comparable things, like for instance two baseball players - one modern, one historical. Comparisons are difficult because the game was different in their different eras.

The have been more American deaths in Iraq than on 9/11. This is an example of an objective statement. Understand now?

Posted by: alexjp46 | May 7, 2009 1:27 PM | Report abuse

Jake, where did you get the idea that "drindl and chrisfox8 think it's OK to murder BORN babies too"????? I've yet to see a single person post anything that even implies that.

The only thing I see you defending is a life of misery and poverty for some children, and the families they're born into.

Posted by: dcgrasso1 | May 7, 2009 1:26 PM | Report abuse

LoonyLeft:

Hopefully, you are right about that.

Posted by: JakeD | May 7, 2009 1:25 PM | Report abuse

I'm not making anything up. Are you saying now you DIS-agree with chrisfox8's post about killing any human who "has no mind, no experience of the world"?!

Posted by: JakeD | May 7, 2009 1:24 PM | Report abuse

It's hard to believe that any responsible Pennsylvania voter will want this self-serving opportunist as their Senator.

Posted by: LoonyLeft | May 7, 2009 1:22 PM | Report abuse

You're a moron, Jake. There's jsut no other word for it.

Posted by: drindl | May 7, 2009 1:21 PM | Report abuse

"long with those like drindl and chrisfox8 think it's OK to murder BORN babies too, "

just like all wingers, you just make sh*t up.

Posted by: drindl | May 7, 2009 1:19 PM | Report abuse

drindl:

What part of "someone murdering your 22-year old daughter is still a crime" don't you understand?

Posted by: JakeD | May 7, 2009 1:18 PM | Report abuse

dcgrasso1:

I understand that you would have aborted her without a second thought -- that's the problem -- along with those like drindl and chrisfox8 think it's OK to murder BORN babies too, especially if there's "no mind, no experience of the world." I'm the one DEFENDING their right to live. Please don't say I am the one showing no empathy toward them.

Posted by: JakeD | May 7, 2009 1:15 PM | Report abuse

Dori -- that's the hallmark of the right wing. No empathy, no human feeling for the born. Only a fetish with fetuses. Once a child is born, they lose interest. Kids that are strarving, that have no healthcare? They don't give a damn. But control of women's bodies, now that's something they can get into.

Posted by: drindl | May 7, 2009 1:13 PM | Report abuse

I'm surprised we haven't gotten more DrudgeReport readers.

Posted by: JakeD | May 7, 2009 1:11 PM | Report abuse

Do you suppose that JakeD is zouk's father taking over for him? the resemblance is striking and zouk appears gone. it is strange, isn't it? there's always one resident rightwing nut here -- they seem to take shifts.

Posted by: drindl | May 7, 2009 1:11 PM | Report abuse

I had an amniocentesis before she was born, Jake, since I was over 35 when pregnant with her. We believe her retardation was a birth accident. However, if the amnio had shown any disability, I would have aborted without a second thought.

Nobody is talking about "murdering" her. She is a much-loved, frankly somewhat spoiled young lady. She does horseback riding, crafts classes, cooking classes, ballet, and has been overseas on a group trip. It took me several days to wrap her birthday gifts.

Your views show no empathy toward other humans at all. There's no room in your world for other people's feelings-- INCLUDING those of the disabled themselves.

Posted by: dcgrasso1 | May 7, 2009 1:11 PM | Report abuse

I also never said that "retarded people are happy and cherish life" or won't be made fun of. That's no excuse for killing them in utero.

Posted by: JakeD | May 7, 2009 1:05 PM | Report abuse

dcgrasso1:

No, I don't, but someone murdering your 22-year old daughter is still a crime (notwithstanding what those like drindl and chrisfox8 think).

Posted by: JakeD | May 7, 2009 1:03 PM | Report abuse

P.S. to drindl:

Ruch Limbaugh was not on the air this afternoon. Get some new and original talking points rather simply "cut and paste" from beltwayblips.dailyradar.com or theplumline.whorunsgov.com

Posted by: JakeD | May 7, 2009 1:01 PM | Report abuse

JakeD, do you have any family members with retardation?

I do. My daughter just turned 22. It's more like having a permanent 6-year old. She's also considered highly-functioning in many ways and can hold down an independent part-time job. However, when she had a cold for the past 2 days and stayed home, it was back to taking care of a 6-year old again for me. I have friends with children who are far more severely affected, and I can't even begin to understand what their lives are like.

You should know that my strongly Catholic husband, an usher at his church, became pro-CHOICE when our daughter was born.

My daughter has no understanding of why she can't drive or have her own apartment, like her older sister does. Please DON'T try to tell people that "retarded people are happy and cherish life." I've worked with too many special needs people to swallow that garbage. People of ANY intelligence level know when they're being made fun of. And please DON'T tell me that we're an enlightened-enough society that this doesn't happen.

Unless you've walked in someone else's shoes, you have no understanding of the situation. Under no circumstances do you EVER have the right to make that choice for others.

Posted by: dcgrasso1 | May 7, 2009 12:56 PM | Report abuse

drindl:

I don't think that Chris gets to control what Drudge links to.

c_mcgurrin:

You forgot Argentina.

chrisfox8:

I don't commit "real" murder either, but it's still my business (my son is an assistant D.A. here in San Diego, and murder charges are brought in the name of the PEOPLE of the State of California). That doesn't require ANY belief in Jesus Christ. But, I guess you think that BORN humans in coma should be killed too, huh? What a sicko.

Posted by: JakeD | May 7, 2009 12:55 PM | Report abuse

The Dems are welcome to this rotten fish. His egotism and love of giant government make this Stalinist flunky a true match-up with the Stalinists who are in control of the government now. That they've lured him into the fold by lies and tricks is just standard operating procedure for the ruthless Dems. After all they won by running against the Bush deficits and promising 'moderation' so in a sense everyone who voted for them is a species of chump, every bit as politically retarded as Specter. This drooling 'moderate' idiot can take his seat next to clueless basket cases like Lousyburg (D-NJ) and Stabenow (D-UAW) and blend right in.

Posted by: skep41 | May 7, 2009 12:52 PM | Report abuse

As the party has shrunk to its base, it has catered even more to its base's biases, insisting that the New Deal made the Depression worse, carbon emissions are fine for the environment and tax cuts actually boost revenues — even though the vast majority of historians, scientists and economists disagree. The RNC is about to vote on a kindergartenish resolution to change the name of its opponent to the Democrat Socialist Party. This plays well with hard-core culture warriors and tea-party activists convinced that a dictator-President is plotting to seize their guns, choose their doctors and put ACORN in charge of the Census, but it ultimately produces even more shrinkage, which gives the base even more influence — and the death spiral continues. "We're excluding the young, minorities, environmentalists, pro-choice — the list goes on," says Olympia Snowe of Maine, one of two moderate Republicans left in the Senate after Specter's switch. "Ideological purity is not the ticket to the promised land."

Posted by: drindl | May 7, 2009 12:52 PM | Report abuse

Republicans actually have plenty of ideas.

That's the problem. The party's ideas — about economic issues, social issues and just about everything else — are not popular ideas. They are extremely rightwing ideas tarred by association with the extremely unpopular George W. Bush, who helped downsize the party to its extremely conservative base. A hard-right agenda of slashing taxes for the investor class, protecting marriage from gays, blocking universal health insurance and extolling the glories of waterboarding produces terrific ratings for Rush Limbaugh, but it's not a majority agenda. The party's new, Hooverish focus on austerity on the brink of another depression does not seem to fit the national mood, and it's shamelessly hypocritical, given the party's recent history of massive deficit spending on pork, war and prescription drugs in good times, not to mention its continuing support for deficit-exploding tax cuts in bad times.

Posted by: drindl | May 7, 2009 12:51 PM | Report abuse

And the GOP thinks that screaming tax cuts tax cuts tax cuts and "stop the slaughter of the unborn" is going to get them back into power.

This is what happens when you only talk to people who already agree with you.

Posted by: chrisfox8 | May 7, 2009 12:50 PM | Report abuse

couldn't agree more, chrisfox, the R party is shrinking, is obsolete, has turned into a death cult.

Posted by: drindl | May 7, 2009 12:47 PM | Report abuse

Hopefully Powell will take up Limbaugh on his suggestion. The GOP was nutty fifteen years ago, now they are just crazy. And in their preference for ideological purity over doing the nation's business they have reached the end stage of a suicide cult, everyone raising a paper cup of cyanide-laced Kool-Aid and leaving the world behind.

Bottoms up, guys.

Posted by: chrisfox8 | May 7, 2009 12:44 PM | Report abuse

LOL:

These days, Republicans have the desperate aura of an endangered species. They lost Congress, then the White House; more recently, they lost a slam-dunk House election in a conservative New York district, then Senator Arlen Specter. Polls suggest that only one-fourth of the electorate considers itself Republican, that independents are trending Democratic and that as few as five states have solid Republican pluralities. And the electorate is getting less white, less rural, less Christian — in short, less demographically Republican. GOP officials who completely controlled Washington three years ago are vowing to "regain our status as a national party" and creating woe-is-us groups to resuscitate their brand, while Democrats are publishing books like The Strange Death of Republican America and 40 More Years: How the Democrats Will Rule the Next Generation. John McCain's campaign manager recently described his party as basically extinct on the West Coast, nearly extinct in the Northeast and endangered in the Mountain West and Southwest.

Posted by: drindl | May 7, 2009 12:43 PM | Report abuse

DemoCoast wrote: "He's lower than Nixon or Carter in the same period."

I guess you didn't see that the Washington Times retracted that story yesterday, admitting that they were reading the statistics wrong and that Obama is more popular than either when you read them correctly.

http://washingtontimes.com/news/2009/may/06/we-were-wrong/

Posted by: nodebris | May 7, 2009 12:43 PM | Report abuse

CHRIS CILLIZA -- WHY IS THERE A LINK TO THE DRUDGE REPORT? WHY DO YOU WANT THAT KIND OF HUMAN SEWAGE ON THE WAPO?

WHY DEGRADE YOURSELF THAT WAY? DRUDGE IS TRAILER TRASH.

Posted by: drindl | May 7, 2009 12:41 PM | Report abuse

Don't forget where all the nazi eugenists went. They came to the USA and the UK.

Posted by: c_mcgurrin | May 7, 2009 12:41 PM | Report abuse

Hopefully Sestak will run against specter and kick his as*.

Posted by: drindl | May 7, 2009 12:39 PM | Report abuse

Hey JakeD if you don't like abortion then don't have one. Problem solved. Butt out of others' lives, your busybody scolding is nothing but control freakishness.

And leave your imaginary celestial playmate out of the discussion.

Posted by: chrisfox8 | May 7, 2009 12:39 PM | Report abuse

Now Rush Limbaugh is trying to force Colin Powell out of the party. Good one Rush! Soon there won't be anyone left but the TOTAL lunatics -- and not just the liars and hypocrites.

"Dems have sought to turn Rush Limbaugh into the personification of GOP intolerance, mean-spiritedness, and uncompromising conservatism, and Rush’s attack on Colin Powell — delivered moments ago on the air — probably won’t hinder this effort.

Rush hammered Powell as “just another liberal,” reiterated his claim that Powell’s endorsement of Obama was about “race,” and suggested Powell should leave the GOP and just “become another Democrat.”

Rush was responding to some sharp criticism Powell lodged against him Monday. In a speech to corporate executives, Powell claimed that “the Republican Party is in deep trouble” and directly blamed Rush, saying that the talk show host “diminishes the party” and corrupts our public life with “a kind of nastiness that we would be better to do without.”

“I don’t care what Colin Powell says,” Limbaugh responded on the air this afternoon. “This kind of stuff is said about me three times a day … and Colin Powell is just another liberal.”

Limbaugh brought up his earlier claim that Powell’s endorsement of Obama was about race. “He’s just mad at me because I’m the one person in the country who had the guts to explain [the endorsement],” Limbaugh said. “There can be no other explanation for it.”

Perhaps most tellingly, Limbaugh appeared to call on Powell to leave the Republican Party: “What Colin Powell needs to do is close the loop and become a Democrat.”

The optics of this one are not good: The de facto leader of the GOP (according to Dems and some in the media) is reiterating his claim that a high profile black Republican and decorated military man’s endorsement of the country’s first black president was only about race. And that he should leave the party."

Posted by: drindl | May 7, 2009 12:37 PM | Report abuse

Spoken like a true Nazi (I am registered Independent, so I can objectively view the GOP as better on pro-life issues than the Democrats).

Posted by: JakeD

==

Go look up a dictionary of political terms and see what you can do to reconcile pro-choice with Nazism.

You're like some fourth grader carving ballpoint swastikas into his desktop, tossing around "Nazi" with abandon. Shame on you.

Another 40 million mouths to feed would be a bloody disaster.

You guys have been beating this horse as long as I've been alive. The lines are clearly drawn and the GOP is so far out that they will probably not recover for 40 years. So by all means keep gnashing over this decisively settled issue. It's a loser for the GOP, which is fine with me.

A fetus has no mind, no experience of the world, and if your criterion for humanity is human DNA then you better start campaigning to save fingernail parings and dead skin too. Ridiculous.

Posted by: chrisfox8 | May 7, 2009 12:35 PM | Report abuse

• In a sitdown with the New York Times' Deborah Solomon, Specter said he was hoping that the Minnesota courts would do "justice" and declare former Republican Sen. Norm Coleman the winner in the contested 2008 election. Whoops! Specter tried to walk the comment back told Reid that he briefly "forgot what team I was on."
---------------------------------------


OMG! LMAO!!! Specter is the gift that keeps on giving for the Republicans. Poor old fool should just give it up and retire because he's going to be booted OUT next year anyway. Enjoy your new recruit, Dems, he's all yours now. LOL!!!

Posted by: priley8104 | May 7, 2009 12:33 PM | Report abuse

Big photo of Sen. Specter (D-PA) on DrudgeReport right now with The Fix linked: 'Odd incidents' surround Specter switch... LOL!

Posted by: JakeD | May 7, 2009 12:33 PM | Report abuse

For the record, I am neither homeless nor a big fan of slaveholder rights. "drindl" OTOH agrees with Dawn Johnsen (not the one from Miami Vice) that pregnancy is the equivalent of "involuntary servitude". I think children -- even those with severe retardation -- are gifts from God. Hopefully, some DrudgeReport readers can back me up on that.

Posted by: JakeD | May 7, 2009 12:28 PM | Report abuse

Jews were gassed "for perfectly sound reasons" like too many mouths to feed.

Posted by: JakeD | May 7, 2009 12:25 PM | Report abuse

When Jake says he's an independent, he means American Independent-- the party of George Wallace. Jake is a big fan of slaveholder rights.

Posted by: drindl | May 7, 2009 12:24 PM | Report abuse

Specter has always been a phony. No one should be surprised.

I see JakeD, our paid troll, is back.

Wonder how much they pay these homeless people to post rightwing gibberish on political boards?

Posted by: drindl | May 7, 2009 12:23 PM | Report abuse

chrisfox8:

Spoken like a true Nazi (I am registered Independent, so I can objectively view the GOP as better on pro-life issues than the Democrats).

Posted by: JakeD | May 7, 2009 12:23 PM | Report abuse

I will see your 4000 and raise you 40,000,000 unborn babies aborted since 1972.
Posted by: JakeD

==

Thank God for Roe v. Wade. Imagine what awful shape we would be in with another 40 million mouths to feed, a large proportion of whom would demand constant medical care at great expense, having been aborted for perfectly sound reasons e.g. severe retardation.

You really should drop this "murder of the unborn" BS unless you want to assure your miserable GOP stays on the margins

Posted by: chrisfox8 | May 7, 2009 12:10 PM | Report abuse

PoliticalCommentator:

I will see your 4000 and raise you 40,000,000 unborn babies aborted since 1972.

Posted by: JakeD | May 7, 2009 12:03 PM | Report abuse

REPUBLICAN LIES COST TRILLIONS OF DOLLARS AND OVER 4000 AMERICAN LIVES, SO FAR.

The Democrats are orders of magnitude better than the Republicans.

Posted by: PoliticalCommentator | May 7, 2009 11:49 AM | Report abuse

"The Democrats are orders of magnitutde better than the Republicans"

Really? Bawney Fwank was in bed (literally) with Freddie Mac. Democrats received HUGE amounts of $$ from Freddie and Fannie. Rangel and Murtha are as corrupt as thy come. Jefferson still isn't in jail for hiding $90,000 dollars of bribe $$ in his freezer, etc. etc.

Posted by: bellis73 | May 7, 2009 11:45 AM | Report abuse

Good column Chris. You got everyone thinking that for the Dens, is he more trouble than he's worth? And they should think about that.

Posted by: katem1 | May 7, 2009 11:32 AM | Report abuse

Specter: The gift that keeps on giving!!!
You're welcome dems!

Posted by: houston123 | May 7, 2009 11:23 AM | Report abuse

sadrocks --

The Democrats are orders of magnitutde better than the Republicans.

The lumping together of them by our most left-wing voters is what made it possible for the Repubicans to get close enough to steal the 2000 election.

Posted by: PoliticalCommentator | May 7, 2009 11:23 AM | Report abuse

I have to wonder about your closer in the Specter story, "... has quickly morphed into a gigantic political headache that almost no one saw coming." No one saw it coming? The guy is an arrogant opportunistic jerk. Looks like PA is going to be a fun state to watch in 2010.

Posted by: tobetv | May 7, 2009 11:23 AM | Report abuse

Political Commentator said, "We'll lose and find ourselves where the Republicans are if we start acting like them."

But you are them...The means are slightly different, but the end is all the same. Both parties put us where we are today, both parties illegally circumvent the Constitution and both parties are responsible for the biggest rip off of the taxpayers ever...

Posted by: Sadrrocks | May 7, 2009 11:18 AM | Report abuse

Stick a fork in him, he's done.

Posted by: c_mcgurrin | May 7, 2009 11:11 AM | Report abuse

doctorfixit, are you aware that Arlen Specter was elected as a Republican? In fact, he's been elected as a Republican repeatedly. Are you accusing the Pennsylvania Republican Party of voter fraud?

Posted by: Blarg | May 7, 2009 11:11 AM | Report abuse

Democrats are the party that the majority of Americans identity with and support.

We got that way because Bush/Cheney were so incompetent, greedy, and just pain downright evil.

We'll lose and find ourselves where the Republicans are if we start acting like them.

We should have welcomed Specter and sent the message that seniority would be honored, and no grudges held.

Instead, we acted like jerks.

We need to do a 180.

Any Republican that wants to change to being a Democrat should be welcomed, unless he's done something horible, beyond just being a Republican, which is pretty darn horrible to begin with.

Posted by: PoliticalCommentator | May 7, 2009 11:10 AM | Report abuse

bellis73:

LOL!

Posted by: JakeD | May 7, 2009 11:03 AM | Report abuse

"He needs to show some willingness to be a Democrat."

Exactly, so he shouldn't pay his taxes, and he should rely on people with jobs to support those uninterested in working.

Posted by: bellis73 | May 7, 2009 10:58 AM | Report abuse

Specter thinks PA Voters are Idiots. Then again John Murtha constituents proved PA Voters were idiots on election day.

Posted by: dencal26 | May 7, 2009 10:57 AM | Report abuse

I think you are all missing the point. President Obama ate a CHEESEBURGER! A freakin Cheeseburger, and he took his new puppy, Biden, along for the ride...

Posted by: bellis73 | May 7, 2009 10:54 AM | Report abuse

stonewallbook:

Specter never said he "hoped" that would happen.

Posted by: JakeD | May 7, 2009 10:54 AM | Report abuse

Franken is not "de facto" Senator. At most, Obama is "de facto" President.

Posted by: JakeD | May 7, 2009 10:52 AM | Report abuse

SPECTER - AC/DC
Specter is a liberal, so for him to act on principle would be impossible, because liberals have no principles, except to do whatever is necessary to advance totalitarian marxism. The voters of Pennsylvania would seem to be exceptionally stupid, becuse they have voted this snake into office multiple times, until you realize that the "voters" who elected Specter are non-existent, ACORN-registered, dead, and curiously, all from that cesspool of liberal corruption, Philadelphia.

Posted by: doctorfixit | May 7, 2009 10:47 AM | Report abuse

"Specter said he was hoping that the Minnesota courts would do "justice" and declare former Republican Sen. Norm Coleman the winner in the contested 2008 election. Whoops! Specter tried to walk the comment back told Reid that he briefly "forgot what team I was on."

In other words, "I really don't care what's right here, just so whatever Party I happen to be with today wins."

This jack-ass is so jaded by his self-absorption that he doesn't even realize when he makes a statement that reveals his hypocrisy and lack of principle. Specter is the epitome of the slimy, self-serving, self-absorbed dumba** politician. He's despicable.

Posted by: stonewallbook | May 7, 2009 10:47 AM | Report abuse

I guess that polygamy and incest is next.

Posted by: JakeD | May 7, 2009 10:33 AM | Report abuse

RickJ:

What part of "only marriage between one man and one woman is valid" are you having trouble understanding? Hopefully, those illegal "marriages" are overturned just like last time. BTW: None of those five States even add up to the population here in California. Big deal!

Posted by: JakeD | May 7, 2009 10:31 AM | Report abuse

Hey, Arlie, you have become the laughing stock. Sad.

Posted by: njnclady2 | May 7, 2009 10:20 AM | Report abuse

MEMO TO SPECTER: SHED THE 'POLITICAL OPPORTUNIST' LABEL.

TAKE DOWN THE BUSH-ERA 'EXTRAJUDICIAL PUNISHMENT' NETWORK THAT CONTINUES UNDER OBAMA.


Senator Specter must attach himself to a cause greater than himself. Federal and local authorities in his home state of Pennsylvania (and throughout the nation) have funded an enabled an extra-legal mechanism that has unjustly and unconstitutionally targeted hundreds of thousands, perhaps millions, of innocent Americans...

...citizens tagged as dissidents, undesirables or social deviates by ideologically-driven authorities who have used federally-funded community policing and other volunteer programs to create a vigilante citizen army.

These so-called "organized community gang stalkers" use a GPS satellite tracking system to hunt down "targeted" neighbors -- whose vehicles have been covertly equipped with an electronic GPS beacon unit.

This system is known law enforcement agencies nationwide. But "gang stalking" victims say that their complaints fall on deaf ears -- because, they say, authorities are providing direction and "cover" for extra-legal "vigilante justice."

Senator Specter is aware that Pennsylvanians are among those who seek an end to the infringement of their constitutional and civil rights by organized community vigilantes. To date, his office has done nothing on the issue.

Perhaps this is the time for Specter to re-assert his dedication to civil and human rights by helping to dismantle vigilantism disguised as community volunteerism.


http://nowpublic.com/world/gestapo-usa-govt-funded-vigilante-network-terrorizes-america

http://nowpublic.com/world/bush-torture-memos-oked-radiation-weapon-use-americans-too

OR (if links are corrupted / disabled):

http://NowPublic.com/scrivener

Posted by: scrivener50 | May 7, 2009 10:19 AM | Report abuse

"Chris and RickJ:

It won't be a "banner day" when the California Supreme Court upholds Prop. 8."

___________________________________________

Even if the California Supreme Court upholds Prop 8, there would still be 5 states that allow gay marriage (as well as the gay couples that were married in CA before Prop 8). I don't think the US Supreme Court is going to review this soon. It is a banner day, particularly with RI, NY and NJ preparing gay marriage laws.

Posted by: RickJ | May 7, 2009 10:19 AM | Report abuse

The correct link to the New York Times interview with Sen. Spector is
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/10/magazine/10wwln-q4-t.html

Posted by: Fresmo | May 7, 2009 10:18 AM | Report abuse

DemoCoast:

Don't forget about his refusal to prosecute Bush-Cheney for "war crimes".

Posted by: JakeD | May 7, 2009 10:13 AM | Report abuse

douglaslbarber:

I believe the reference to "nightly" refers to television news. Chris seems to be taking care of a new baby nightly (although he must get up really early to read and most so much every morning ; )

Posted by: JakeD | May 7, 2009 10:10 AM | Report abuse

I am already peeling off my Obama bumper sticker. 'Exceedingly popular??'. He's lower than Nixon or Carter in the same period. Specter is a joke. Obama is getting laughed at by the French for his foreign policy naivete. And even though I don't like corporate greed, where is it in the Constitution - the President's power - for him to fire employees of private companies and manipulate the companies despite their legal bond obligations. Gotta go. My neighbor wants me to help peel off their Obama sticker.

Posted by: DemoCoast | May 7, 2009 10:10 AM | Report abuse

Chris and RickJ:

It won't be a "banner day" when the California Supreme Court upholds Prop. 8.

Posted by: JakeD | May 7, 2009 10:04 AM | Report abuse

So when did Joe Biden become the Vice President of the Democratic party?

He's supposed to lead and represent the nation now. Not engage in the sordid, seamy business of getting Arlen Specter a free pass into the Democratic caucus in the U.S. Senate.

Sometimes you have to wonder if Biden is up to leading.. anything.

Thanks much. HLB

Posted by: HLBeckPE | May 7, 2009 9:57 AM | Report abuse

most importantly the support of an exceedingly popular president????

You sure bout that Cillizza? I'm middle of the road Independent leaning left and I'm pissed to say the least.

I just threw up in my mouth a little.

Posted by: spiderbyte88 | May 7, 2009 9:56 AM | Report abuse

Specter will now commence taking a very hard left, much more so than he did as a Republican (if that is possible), to attract primary voters.

Posted by: go_figure | May 7, 2009 9:53 AM | Report abuse

Posting in the comment boxes of a Washington Post article which spells out Arlen Specter's latest peccadilloes in excruciating detail, penitentiary_steel complains that liberal media bias prevents coverage of Arlen Specter's latest peccadilloes.

Hmm.

Posted by: douglaslbarber | May 7, 2009 9:48 AM | Report abuse

The democratic circus continues. I love how those on the left think there is no liberal media bias. Biden and his new playmate Specter are two of the biggest idiots to come down the pike, but do we see nightly coverage of their missteps? HeIl no!

Posted by: penitentiary_steel | May 7, 2009 9:33 AM | Report abuse

Indeed, I hope the people of PA recognize the Specter sham and send him packing back to Scranton. And isn't interesting how the WH is contriving to preserve their majority, they of bi-partisan rhetoric and partisan action.

Posted by: schratboy | May 7, 2009 9:25 AM | Report abuse

Well, when you've practiced "situational integrity" for your entire career, you shouldn't be surprised when someone else does the same. It looks like Reid got ahead of his party when he promised something he couldn't deliver. Tom Ridge's campaign theme will be something like "I was honored to be your Governor, we may not agree on everything, but at least you'll know who I am from one week to the next and where my loyalty lies". Specter's toast.

Posted by: ADNova | May 7, 2009 9:13 AM | Report abuse

" He would have been better off declaring himself an independent...."

From what I gather, part of the problem is that Pennsylvania law has made it unrealistic, if not impossible, for any third parties or independents to run. He switched parties because Ultra-Conservative Pat Toomey was going to sun against him in the primary and likely win (although would likely be dead meat in the general) and PA essentially has a "Sore Looser Law" which would have prevented Sen. Specter from doing what Lieberman did in Conn.

Posted by: VTDuffman | May 7, 2009 9:02 AM | Report abuse

EarlC, I think the real issue is that Franken should be seated, provisionally, pending the outcome of Coleman's appeal. The election itself was too close to be definitive and the lawsuit process is necessarily deliberative.

This is not like Gore v. Bush in that a Prez election has a constitutionally imposed deadline and a senate race does not.
------------------------

Posted by: mark_in_austin | May 7, 2009 8:54 AM | Report abuse

Specter should know enough about Senate rules and traditions to know that switching parties is not without its headaches. Things will be worked out, but Specter should realize that nothing is guaranteed in an election.

Franken should be confirmed as the winner of the MN senate race. What is happening in MN is making a mockery of our election process. I cannot imagine that in the 21st century we cannot figure out a way to count votes competently. After two blown elections in 2000 and 2004, one would have thought that this process would have been cleaned up. Is it possibly that MONEY is the major concern?

Posted by: EarlC | May 7, 2009 8:44 AM | Report abuse

Arlen is done. He alienated both sides and people of Pa. have had enough of him. Plus you are assuming Obama will be popular in the fall of 2010. That's a big If. Plenty of landmines that could cause his popularity to go into the tank. This is still his honeymoon, even with the adoring,boot licking MSM, his polls will start to go down.

Posted by: vbhoomes | May 7, 2009 8:34 AM | Report abuse

Not sure what to make about the Specter switch. Obviously, something got lost in the translation. I do agree that switching for purely political survival won't sit well with Pennsylvania voters. He would have been better off declaring himself an independent....

Re Crist: interesting that Rubio is getting the 'nut job' support. Maybe they sense the rumours that Crist is gay may do him in as a candidate...

Re gay marriage: Maybe my partner and I can come back to the States and live legally....

Posted by: RickJ | May 7, 2009 7:22 AM | Report abuse

Specter was left as "junior" for good reason. The Democrats are glad to have him -- anything that smoted the GOP is a good thing. But Arlen also has to show he is a good member of his new party, say by voting with his new party most of the time. He has about 9 months to prove his utility and bona fides to his new party -- I hope he starts *soon* because he would be hard for the party to back.

Here come my children! I gotta get cracking.

Posted by: margaretmeyers | May 7, 2009 6:32 AM | Report abuse

The comments to this entry are closed.

 
 
RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2010 The Washington Post Company