• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Specter rejected by Pa. Dems in bid for 6th term

President Barack Obama may end up playing a rather hands-off role in this fall's elections, a surprising turn for a political phenomenon who excited millions of voters just two years ago.

Recent elections have tarnished Obama's luster a bit, and Democratic candidates are likely to be selective in seeking his help.

Sen. Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania became the fourth Democrat in seven months to lose a high-profile race despite the president's active involvement. Specter's career-ending loss raises questions of whether Obama can transfer even small portions of the political charm that catapulted him to the White House.

Campaign strategists said Wednesday that many congressional Democrats seeking re-election this year will probably tap Obama to raise money, record ads for black radio stations and perhaps highlight a key issue or two. But some, and perhaps many, will not seek presidential visits, and they will emphasize their own roles on issues such as job-creation.

Obama's poor endorsement record thus far could hurt his legislative agenda if Democratic lawmakers decide they need some distance from him as they seek re-election in an anti-incumbent, anti-establishment climate. Conversely, it might embolden Republican lawmakers and candidates who oppose him.
Click to expand...

Democrats weigh value of an Obama endorsement - Yahoo! News

another pair of pretty stories:

Candidates seeking Murtha seat shun President Obama?s policies - TheHill.com

Critz ad: 'I opposed the health care bill' - Josh Kraushaar - POLITICO.com
 
O_Guru said:
Ill post the same thing here i posted in a similar thread

"Yeah Im not getting the Righties joy in Specter being gone. I mean in reality what that does is now make way for a guy to beat them that is even more left than Specter? Not saying im for this one way or another just saying i dont see what the point is?


I guess maybe its good they lost a foe that has a name but it only opens up the door to still lose to someone even less on your side?

Of course if Sestak loses then I guess all is good but that hasnt happened yet?
Its like they dont get if Sestak wins then they lose even bigger then if specter would have stayed and won?

I guess when news is bad you turn anything into good news you can.
Click to expand...

O_Guru said:
all "pretty" stories but if sestak wins again its meaningless LMAO

theres still no real logic behind celebrating specters loss until sestak loses also, its not rocket science

its like this a guy reps didnt like and was 5 on the lefty scale lost to a guy who is a 9. So why would righties be happy about now maybe having there issues decided by a person who is a 9 even FURTHER from their views over a 5 regardless if obama supported the 5? LMAO

im looking for logic behind the "good news" sounds like fluff to me because quite frankly it is
Click to expand...

I guess it's possible that people could care about something other than the statistical chance that a particular candidate might have of winning or the numerical ranking of how liberal/conservative said candidate might be.
 
The Prof said:
obama sure wanted him, obama LOVED him
Click to expand...

I disagree.

The original courtship which led to the party switch was more a matter of pragmatics for Obama and Spector than "love". Spector thought he had a better chance retaining his seat as a Dem and Obama wanted another vote. Unfortunately for Spector, those pragmatics moved. Spector could not retain his seat and Obama realized Spector would have a much tougher time holding the Dem seat in Penn than Sestak. This is evidenced by the fact the administration distanced themselves from the USS Spector as it was taking in water.

It appears that Obama is not as much about personal loyalty as he is about pragmatics. Dems and the Obama administration are actually happy with the Pennsylvania results.
 
Last edited:
Nothing against Specter personally, but I did not like the way he handled things in the political field. He was a flip flopper and a defector. I'm glad to see his ass booted out.
 
upsideguy said:
Dems and the Obama administration are actually happy with the Pennsylvania results.
Click to expand...

nope

the president's personal imprimatur is poison

ask coakley, ask corzine

ask markey, boyd, ross, kratovil...

and to win in PA vs a REPUBLICAN you have to oppose prominently obamacare, transparently

actually, to win in west virginia vs a TWENTY EIGHT YEAR veteran DEM you have to oppose health care because of its PUBLIC FUNDING OF ABORTION, as well as cap and trade

ask oliverio

why are reg reform, the kerry/graham climate compromise and "comprehensive immigration reform" going nowhere?

why can't the party of pelosi even put together A BUDGET?

presidents must be respected, they must be feared

they must profit where they put their capital

obama's 0 for 4 and his team can't write a budget

there ya go

Next year's budget sinking in deep red ink - The Hill's On The Money
 
Last edited:
Bassman said:
Especially with Liberal suckholes like Pittsburgh and Philadelphia.
Click to expand...

Now, why would you call Pittsburgh and and Philadelphia "liberal suckholes"?

Pittsburgh's steel built this country and Philadelphia is where freedom started.
 
Another Clinton impeacher bites the dust. Good riddance. :2wave:
 
Blah blah blah <insert partisan rhetoric bull**** here> blah blah blah.


This thread has fulfilled its purpose.

I unofficially declare this thread closed
 
RightinNYC said:
I guess it's possible that people could care about something other than the statistical chance that a particular candidate might have of winning or the numerical ranking of how liberal/conservative said candidate might be.
Click to expand...

please stay on topic, never said people might not have other cares LMAO
Im actually "ASKING" WHAT THEY ARE, wheres the good news, wheres the LOGIC behind celebrating . . . . mabe you werent paying attention

if you have no answer just say so LOL but my whole point is I dont get it so im asking people their opinion ;)
 
So to recap still nothing solid, just hopes and dreams, and empty "pretend" victories LMAO

oh well i was hoping for some logic

and by the way I wasnt a specter supporter but no one bother to ask they just ASSumed, I just wanted to know why the fexcitement over NOTHING, "yet"
 
what "adult" could possibly be more interested in the opinion of a forums member than the reasoned analysis of the associated press above

you want opinion?

Change is Barack Obama’s political calling card and the fuel that propelled his never-waste-a-crisis agenda — but change is boomeranging big time on the president in a turbulent and unpredictable 2010.

For the first time since he emerged as a national political figure six years ago, Obama finds himself on the wrong side of the change equation — the status quo side — with challengers in both parties running against him, his policies or his handpicked candidates.

Tea party conservative Rand Paul romped in the GOP Kentucky Senate primary by pledging to overturn virtually every major Obama initiative. And both Pennsylvania’s Joe Sestak, who knocked off a Democratic incumbent, and Bill Halter of Arkansas, who forced another one into a runoff, were spurned by Obama despite running on throw-the-bums-out platforms that could have been lifted from the president’s 2008 playbook.

“What I tell to the national Democrats is: ‘Bring it on, and please, please, please bring President Obama to Kentucky.’ We would want him to come and campaign for my opponent [Kentucky Attorney General Jack Conway],” Paul told CNN on Wednesday, in a taunt reminiscent of statements by Democrats about President George W. Bush in 2006 and 2008. “In fact, we’ll pay for his plane ticket if President Obama will come to Kentucky.”
Click to expand...

Change boomerangs on President Obama - Glenn Thrush - POLITICO.com

on the floor it looks like this:

Dem dissidents block financial reform - Carrie Budoff Brown and Meredith Shiner - POLITICO.com
 
The Prof said:
what "adult" could possibly be more interested in the opinion of a forums member than the reasoned analysis of the associated press above
Click to expand...

I did not come here to debate the AP, I came here to debate the other posters. I really don't much give a **** what the APs opinion is.
 
O_Guru said:
please stay on topic, never said people might not have other cares LMAO
Im actually "ASKING" WHAT THEY ARE, wheres the good news, wheres the LOGIC behind celebrating . . . . mabe you werent paying attention

if you have no answer just say so LOL but my whole point is I dont get it so im asking people their opinion ;)
Click to expand...

O_Guru said:
So to recap still nothing solid, just hopes and dreams, and empty "pretend" victories LMAO

oh well i was hoping for some logic

and by the way I wasnt a specter supporter but no one bother to ask they just ASSumed, I just wanted to know why the fexcitement over NOTHING, "yet"
Click to expand...

You expressed disbelief at the fact that any Republican could be happy about such a turn of events. I provided you with two reasons that could explain that sentiment. Since you've been so polite and evenhanded, I'll offer a third: Specter's primary loss has made it less likely that a Republican politician in a similar situation in the future will decide to switch parties.
 
Redress said:
I did not come here to debate the AP, I came here to debate the other posters. I really don't much give a **** what the APs opinion is.
Click to expand...

good for you, you're fascinating

have fun
 
It's a shame Specter lost the primary.

Just think how easy he would have been beaten in November.

Which is exactly why the Democrats are cutting out some of their weakest candidates right now.
 
Kandahar said:
Meh, Specter has been a fairly reliable Democratic vote since he switched parties, so I wouldn't have been upset if he had won. I'm not going to shed any tears for his loss though. Sestak appears to be polling stronger against Toomey anyway.
Click to expand...

Specter was a reliable Democrat vote before he switch parties.
 
RightinNYC said:
You expressed disbelief at the fact that any Republican could be happy about such a turn of events. I provided you with two reasons that could explain that sentiment. Since you've been so polite and evenhanded, I'll offer a third: Specter's primary loss has made it less likely that a Republican politician in a similar situation in the future will decide to switch parties.
Click to expand...

wrong again
not disbelife, I believe "some" are very happy, look at how some are literally celebrating.

My question is WHY, in the overall picture theres nothing to really celebrate "yet"

and actually you didnt provide me with anything but GUESSES and no logic to back those guesses up

now on to your third guess, so in the future a republican that voted democrat mostly according to people in the republican party is now less likely to switch parties. Which translates into next time the false republican will stay republican and probably continue to get votes and stay in office even longer.

Yep that sounds like good news to me????
 
O_Guru said:
wrong again
not disbelife, I believe "some" are very happy, look at how some are literally celebrating.

My question is WHY, in the overall picture theres nothing to really celebrate "yet"

and actually you didnt provide me with anything but GUESSES and no logic to back those guesses up
Click to expand...

Perhaps I was a bit too subtle. I've offered you three logical reasons why a Republican might be pleased at this turn of events. I posed them as "guesses" to gently poke fun at your unwillingness to consider viewpoints other than your own. Each of these reasons are perfectly "logical," and I'm not sure what else you would expect in order to support them.

now on to your third guess, so in the future a republican that voted democrat mostly according to people in the republican party is now less likely to switch parties. Which translates into next time the false republican will stay republican and probably continue to get votes and stay in office even longer.

Yep that sounds like good news to me????
Click to expand...

I'm sure it sounds like good news to the 39 Republican Senators who wanted Specter to stay. Unless you actually believe that politicians are happy when their party loses members, I'm not sure why this is so confusing.
 
RightinNYC said:
Perhaps I was a bit too subtle. I've offered you three logical reasons why a Republican might be pleased at this turn of events. I posed them as "guesses" to gently poke fun at your unwillingness to consider viewpoints other than your own. Each of these reasons are perfectly "logical," and I'm not sure what else you would expect in order to support them.



I'm sure it sounds like good news to the 39 Republican Senators who wanted Specter to stay. Unless you actually believe that politicians are happy when their party loses members, I'm not sure why this is so confusing.
Click to expand...

logical? really? based on what LMAO
the FACT the Specter losing could mean a WORSE person winning lol at the very least the reps are going to have to run against someone MORE left and further from their views and it could be worse for them

point is untill the dem LOSES theres nothing to celebrate, sorry no logic in it that I see

then you say 39 republican senators WANTED him to stay right? well why did they want him there because they thought he could either be beat or that he would be more likely to work with both sides, right? do you disagree? now you have a guy who will run that is less likely to be beat and less likely to work with both sides

oh yes, what happy days
sorry i, not confused at all
I have a clear understanding of theres nothing to celebrate yet
 
O_Guru said:
logical? really? based on what LMAO
Click to expand...

Logical reasoning?

the FACT the Specter losing could mean a WORSE person winning lol at the very least the reps are going to have to run against someone MORE left and further from their views and it could be worse for them

point is untill the dem LOSES theres nothing to celebrate, sorry no logic in it that I see
Click to expand...

Let's talk this through. You looked at the situation in front of you and concluded that this is bad for the Republicans. What makes you think that your view is the only possible one? Isn't it reasonable to assume that someone could look at the same facts and conclude that it's good for the Republicans? The fact that you don't see how that could be possible is not a mark in favor of you being right.

then you say 39 republican senators WANTED him to stay right? well why did they want him there because they thought he could either be beat or that he would be more likely to work with both sides, right? do you disagree? now you have a guy who will run that is less likely to be beat and less likely to work with both sides
Click to expand...

?

They wanted him to stay in the Republican party because it gave them an additional vote on many issues and increased the party's leverage.

oh yes, what happy days
sorry i, not confused at all
I have a clear understanding of theres nothing to celebrate yet
Click to expand...

that's just like, your opinion, man.
 
RightinNYC said:
Logical reasoning?
Click to expand...

based on ZERO logic because theres no positive end point

RightinNYC said:
Let's talk this through. You looked at the situation in front of you and concluded that this is bad for the Republicans. What makes you think that your view is the only possible one? Isn't it reasonable to assume that someone could look at the same facts and conclude that it's good for the Republicans? The fact that you don't see how that could be possible is not a mark in favor of you being right.
Click to expand...

100% WRONG again sir I dont conclude this is BAD or GOOD for anybody LMAO thats another false assumption by you. My question is why is it good currently when a person could win the election that is further left than Spector. Didnt say its bad want to know why it is good.

Thats my question, why celebrate NOW when in nov. a person even further left COULD win. Seems like a waste of time untill that election happens does it not?




RightinNYC said:
They wanted him to stay in the Republican party because it gave them an additional vote on many issues and increased the party's leverage.
Click to expand...
ahhh he already switched so there was no STAYING anywhere not to mention again that doest explain the happiness. What leverage if he switched and they were running someone else against him lol




RightinNYC said:
that's just like, your opinion, man.
Click to expand...

no actually its fact because the FACT remains that the right can lose in NOV to the left and the lefty will be further left that specter

theres no changing this fact
Im not saying this is bad
Im not knocking the left or right
Im also not a specter fan (not saying you said this just saying)

what i am saying is theres nothing to be happy about really because the election in nov could make it WORSE for the right its really that simple.
 
Last edited:
O_Guru said:
based on ZERO logic because theres no positive end point
Click to expand...

...according to you.

100% WRONG again sir I dont conclude this is BAD or GOOD for anybody LMAO thats another false assumption by you. My question is why is it good currently when a person could win the election that is further left than Spector. Didnt say its bad want to know why it is good.
Click to expand...

And I've offered three reasons why.

Thats my question, why celebrate NOW when in nov. a person even further left COULD win. Seems like a waste of time untill that election happens does it not?
Click to expand...

So your theory is that until the general election is over, neither side can ever think that any primary outcome is good or bad?

ahhh he already switched so there was no STAYING anywhere not to mention again that doest explain the happiness. What leverage if he switched and they were running someone else against him lol
Click to expand...

I think you missed my point, as I was referring to the Reps desire to keep him from switching.
 
RightinNYC said:
...according to you.
Click to expand...

actually according to you having zero support for your claims



RightinNYC said:
And I've offered three reasons why.
Click to expand...
none which have sound logic or actually even answer my question



RightinNYC said:
So your theory is that until the general election is over, neither side can ever think that any primary outcome is good or bad?
Click to expand...
nope not what i said at all im speaking very specifically about THIS election , this case, but thats ok nice try, its typical when a person doesnt have answers to try and spin or play semantics


RightinNYC said:
I think you missed my point, as I was referring to the Reps desire to keep him from switching.
Click to expand...

well since he switched a while ago now at this point thats pretty meaningless to the point at hand


so answer this question?
the righties that are literally celebrating that specter is gone because they felt he was to left and a party changer what happens in Nov if Sestak wins?

their happiness is based on specter not getting the democratic nod, whell big whoop if the gut that got the nod is further left
 
My apologies sir, I wasn't aware that you were the sole arbiter of whether or not something constituted sound logic. Since you've measured my reasoning and found it wanting, I don't see much of a point in debating this further with you.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom