Sen Arlen Specter Abandoned by Obama, Imploding In Pa. Senate Race!!!

This is great news from my perspective. Sestak will be a more reliably liberal Senator for Pennsylvania. He (Sestak) is polling better in a hypothetical general election match-up against Toomey compared to Specter. In an anti-incumbent year (remember righties, republicans remain very unpopular compared to 1994) it is a positive for the dems. to run a fresher face.

On the other hand, it's funny, most of the time when the rabid right asserts themselves, it hurts the Republicans--

Christ in Florida is running ahead as an independent, and will likely caucus w/ the democrats.

If McCain loses in AZ., Hayworth is not expected to win the general election.

NY special election when Scozzafava got teabagged, the democrat won.

Amazingly, latest polling actually has Harry Reid ahead of the republican field (seems Nevadans are strangely rejecting the 'pay your doctor w/ chickens' idea.

It does look like the tea-party will get their man in office in Utah and Kentucky, but obviously those are already deep-red states....

Best,
SN



[edit on 5/14/2010 by skunknuts]

reply to post by Aggie Man


How can say it's shifting right when the mid center point continues to go left, left, left?
Conservative principals are like endangered species, so again, how can you say we're shifting right?
I think you, along with many in Congress, are extremely out of touch.

Originally posted by Aggie Man

Originally posted by centurion1211

Originally posted by Aggie Man

Delusional? OK, you are entitled to your opinion. It simply shows your lack of comprehension of the political evolution in this country over the last 4 decades.

If you're correct, please explain why - as I said - there are sizable democrat majorities in both house AND a democrat president.

I have my own theory, which I'm sure you won't agree with, that most dems elected in 2008 won on the basis of "not Bush" votes rather than voters actually believing the dems BS campaign rhetoric.

I believe Bill Maher put it nicely right here:

But then one would also have to believe what a liberal sycophant such as maher says ...

You'd accept a quote from O'Reilly? Nah, didn't think so.

WTF does democratic majority have AT ALL to do with political philosophy? It's fairly obvious that the Democrats take stances on issues that USE TO BE Republican stances; thus they have shifted to the right. At the same time, Republicans have become more extreme to the right...they are collectively right of the right.

P.S. it's not that I believe it because Bill Maher said it. I believe it because it's the damn truth.

Go educate yourself


[edit on 14-5-2010 by Aggie Man]

Yeah dude, no doubt. Nixon would get run out of town as a socialist if he tried to run as a republican nowadays (he was ACTUALLY for socialized medicine, for example). Anyone that argues against the undeniable and completely verifiable fact that both parties have shifted way right clearly lack any understanding of political science and history. No wonder Sarah Palin still has 35% approval, but I digress....

There is a basic lack of understanding of what 'conservative' and 'progressive' mean in this country. When polled, people say they identify as conservative, but when asked about SPECIFIC policies, the same people more often than not, take what would be the progressive position--As my signature says.....Is it any wonder why republicans always try to suppress voter turn-out and obfuscate w/ wedge issues and character attacks. The birthers are nothing more than the swift-boaters gone insane.

Best,
SN

[edit on 5/14/2010 by skunknuts]

reply to post by ISHAMAGI


I have lived in PA my entire life and he has always been the epitome of slimy politician. I must disagree with you on 'speaking for the people'.

Originally posted by skunknuts
Is it any wonder why republicans always try to suppress voter turn-out and obfuscate w/ wedge issues and character attacks. The birthers are nothing more than the swift-boaters gone insane.

Best,
SN

Oh, yes. You are SO right. Only the Republicans are guilty of trying to muddy the issues with side-issues.

As audience members streamed out of Pres. Obama's rally on behalf of AG Martha Coakley (D) here tonight, the consensus was that the fault for Coakley's now-floundering MA SEN bid lies with one person -- George W. Bush.

hotlineoncall.nationaljournal.com...

Democrats rethinking “blame Bush” strategy after Massachusetts flop
hotair.com...

and

Sometimes it’s useful to consider information predating Democrats’ taking over Congress 3 years ago. Our president and his administration leap to the “Bush did it,” defense on the economy. But Democrat programs and policies played a direct role in the mortgage meltdown—the government became a partner in lending and the result was catastrophe.

Dems love to criticize the Medicare drug entitlement that is part of Bush’s legacy—an estimated $800 billion cost in its first decade. Yet our president is now proposing a new healthcare bureaucracy that will likely surpass Bush’s.

www.theusreport.com...

And only the Republicans make character attacks???

Hilary Clinton attacking Obama's character
www.washingtonpost.com...

Obama attacking McCain's character
www.reuters.com...

And of course you threw the birthers in the mix with the rest of Republicans because you just HAD to take a dig at them. You're not doing that great of a job on being one-sided. If you're going to make idiotic and just plain old stupid statements, at least comment on something that can't be directly refuted by a quick Google search.


[edit on 14-5-2010 by sos37]

reply to post by sos37


Blaming Bush for running this country into the ditch isn't obfuscating, it's truth telling. That's why all the 'newly-awakened' conservatives have no clout w/ me. I, and most liberals, predicted exactly what has happened to this country way back in Bush's first term. It was clear to anyone w/ a brain what was going to happen to the economy, with the wars, and all the other calamities (9/11, Katrina, budget surpluses to record deficits, etc. ,etc., etc.).

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/aad145c774f0.jpg[/atsimg]

Conservatives should be apologizing to liberals and saying, 'Yeah, you all were right, I'm so sorry for thinking that Bush was qualified to be President' over a couple of beers. Instead, you are just trying to take what we said, correctly, about Bush, and re-brand it as original thought towards Obama, regardless of reality, packaged w/ healthy doses of racism, xenophobia and fear for the basest of bases.

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/98213a38928a.jpg[/atsimg]

Can you believe that some people are so delusional that they even entertain the question of whether Bush was a better president than Obama??? Can you believe that there are people that would choose to be lead by Sarah Palin, thinking that the self-serving quitter is a capable liberty-loving patriot??

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/350184ce5e06.jpg[/atsimg]



Best,
SN

Why does it matter? Obama is a kiss of death campaigning for dems. As for the it's Bush's fault crowd. Who put forward the idea that anyone should be able to own a home regardless of ability to pay? Yea Clinton had a surplus from all the military bases that he closed. Lots of money was tied up in those bases.

Originally posted by hangedman13
Why does it matter? Obama is a kiss of death campaigning for dems. As for the it's Bush's fault crowd. Who put forward the idea that anyone should be able to own a home regardless of ability to pay? Yea Clinton had a surplus from all the military bases that he closed. Lots of money was tied up in those bases.

That's a new one. Do you have any statistics on that? And...if it's that simple to return to surpluses, shouldn't we by all means replicate that one act that you are claiming erased all of Reagan and Bush #1's huge deficits?

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/3c89878318a9.png[/atsimg]

Anyway, I recall Rumsfeld was the one all about the new lean, mean military that could take Iraq w/ only 100k troops, as we'd be greeted w/ candy and flowers. Republicans are just so great w/ the military.

Besides, don't you think it might be wise to pare down some of the 800b-1 trillion/ year we spend towards the military (not even counting black ops)?? In fact, if we want any semblance of a balanced budget, I'd say it's a necessity. Remember this guy's sentiments prior to being elected:



Best,
SN

[edit on 5/14/2010 by skunknuts]

This is my favorite clip of this so smart of a man who went to Harvard and was supposedly a teacher of Constitutional Law.

[edit on 14-5-2010 by prionace glauca]

Here is post from another member, hits the nail on the head....

The certain Liberal poster who likes to keep posting propagandists graphs thinks that if one posts the graphs enough time, it'll be considered reality.

Originally posted by primus2012
Found this from politicalmathblog.com

How to Use Charts to Say Anything

How To Use Charts To Say Anything
Do you want to convince people that your side is right with only the flimsiest proof? Does the idea of tricking people with numbers make you all happy inside? Then come join us as we walk through “How To Use Charts To Say Anything”.

Step 1: Massaging the Data
The first step is to grab the data that makes your point the best. Let’s use it to prove that a Democratic president is good for jobs.

“How can we do such a thing” you ask?

Let’s grab some raw jobs data. We’re going to take this data


[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/a8ec2fe5c09c.png[/atsimg]

and make it look like this:

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/9ac71973eac6.gif[/atsimg]

How did we do that? Was it magic?

Nope, it’s called the first derivative. It works like this. Instead of worrying about how high the line is, we’re only going to worry about how steep the line is. That way, the number will look good even if we keep losing jobs. Instead of charting how many jobs there are, we’re charting how many jobs we’re still losing.

That turns the first chart (which looks bad) into the second chart (which looks good).

Step 2: Pick colors that make you look good
Next, we pick some colors. We could pick the default colors that Excel gives us when we chart two different kinds of numbers. But that’s too neutral. By way of comparison:

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/7601f74a6dcb.jpg[/atsimg]

As you can see, we’ve taken the default red (for George Bush) and made it darker and richer. This is like drawing a Snidely Whiplash mustache on him so that we know he’s the bad guy. Then, we’ll make the President Obama blue lighter and softer so we know he’s the good guy.

Step 3: Do NOT give any context!
Finally, and this is the most important part, only give information that is helpful. And by helpful, I mean favorable to your side.

It’s OK to mention that President Obama signed the stimulus bill into law in the first quarter of 2009.

It’s not OK to mention that the initial stimulus reports from the first and second quarter were totally blank, which means that they didn’t really start spending the money until July.

Also, you should forget to mention that as of December, we’ve only spent 10% of the stimulus money.

If you give all of this unhelpful information, people might draw the conclusion that the stimulus didn’t really help very much.

And that would be bad.

Remember, we’re not interested in helping people understand the complexities of the economy. We just want them to look at the chart and say, “Bush bad. Obama good.”

I got my numbers for the last part of this from the stimulus reports on recovery.gov. Since I started looking at the data back in late 2009, they’ve changed the way they organize the data. Until a little over a month ago, the reports for 2009, Q1 and 2009, Q2 were blank. Zero data. Nothing. In the 2009 Q3 data they reported giving out about 4% of the stimulus money. By the end of 2009 Q4, they had reported giving out 10% of the simulus money.

Since then, they took the empty Q1, Q2 and the actual Q3 data and relabeled the file so that the Q3 data now says “February 17 – September 30, 2009″. There is no way to tell for certain when the money was sent out, but the amount of money marked as “recieved” ran on a curve that was about 4 months off. (Example: Most of the money that was marked as “recieved” was applied for in March, April and May. Very few places that applied for money after May marked it as recieved by the end of September. So…we see job losses slowing even before the money was making it out the door.

OK. Now to talk about my rebuttal chart and a well deserved explanation. I have the greatest readers of all time and many of you have pointed out that my rebuttal chart (seen here) commits many of the same fallacies that the Obama chart has.

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/4f311ebf486d.jpg[/atsimg]

My response to that would be “Yes it does. It was meant to.” I created that chart as the visual equivalent of saying “If your logic is correct, than you would be forced to accept this other conclusion as well since it uses the same logic.”

Both charts use jobs data taken from the same place, displayed the same way, stripped of context and used to push an ideological point using an implicit “correlation mean causation” line of argumentation.

Let me be clear: I do not think that a Republican Congress is the driving factor behind 8 million jobs created and I would NEVER say that. But I would say “Your chart implies that Obama is responsible for the slowing of job loss. If that is your argument, I would like to use the same chart logic to say that we need a Republican Congress to regain those jobs. By your own argument, you should be voting Republican this November.” I meant my chart to be a sort of visual rhetorical trick to be played in the context of the Obama stimulus chart to show that the numbers can be spun in either direction.

[edit on 13-5-2010 by primus2012]

[edit on 13-5-2010 by primus2012]

[edit on 13-5-2010 by primus2012]

[edit on 14-5-2010 by prionace glauca]

Originally posted by skunknuts

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/3c89878318a9.png[/atsimg]

Daggumit, I sure would have like to see what a newer chart would look like, but it ever so conveniently got cut off. Probably not enough blue pigment available to display the last two years.

Sure the Iraq war was expensive but at least we got something out of it.
What have we gotten from Obama's stimu-packs that have proven to be much more expensive?
Heck, even Obama has just recently decided to take credit for its success after years of criticizing Bush



Now notice how Clinton's downward slope started before he took office.
How would you explain this?
The biggest reason for this was due to the internet boom.
No one exactly knew what the hell Bush senior meant when he first uttered his "information superhighway" statement but now it's extremely obvious.

reply to post by Alxandro


How dare you ask for new numbers?

Don't you get it, its Bush's fault

The HCR defecit will be Bush's Fault

The wall street slush fund will Bush's Fault

The Failiure to close Gitmo is Bush's Fault

The failed bomb attack in NYC is Bush's Fault, if it succeeded it was Bush's Fault

and the list will continue............

reply to post by prionace glauca


What about the oil spill?

Originally posted by Alxandro
reply to post by prionace glauca

 

What about the oil spill?

That was Cheney's fault,

Originally posted by prionace glauca
Here is post from another member, hits the nail on the head....

The certain Liberal poster who likes to keep posting propagandists graphs thinks that if one posts the graphs enough time, it'll be considered reality.

[edit on 14-5-2010 by prionace glauca]

You said you are a doctor, one would think you would learn how to read a chart and not be so dismissive of actual hard data.

What is propagandistic about showing a chart showing job creation? I love how you left off the last few months on your chart, while accusing me of lying via charts, as the economy has added nearly 1/2 million jobs in the time frame you chose not to illustrate . Not sure what you are saying, the data is real, and the economy is improving. I will post it again, and I would ask that you explain specifically what is false or misleading about the graph showing jobs by month added or lost:

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/18b562c6a1e2.jpg[/atsimg]

reply to post by skunknuts


You said you were a psych tech. So I urge to re read my post where I was quoting someone else. Once you have read that post the a Light Bulb might go off in your head, if it doesn't just keep trying to read maybe it would one day.

Originally posted by prionace glauca

Originally posted by Alxandro
reply to post by prionace glauca

 

What about the oil spill?

That was Cheney's fault,

Cheney?
That's a BLAST from the past.

I was beginning to think Obama didn't have an emergency plan in place when he finally decided that off shore drilling wasn't so bad afterall.

To me Arlen Specter represents a lot of what is wrong with politics and those who practice it in the US. A "professional, career politician" who will vote in whatever way he believes will give him a chance to hang on to his job. Even so far as to switch political parties (not that I think much of either the reps or dems) in an attempt to get elected for one more term.

When do the issues at hand trump your need to stay in office Mr. Specter?

When do the needs of the people of Pennsylvania come before the needs of Arlen?

You're an embarrassment to the state I live in.. enough is enough.. you and those like you need to go... it's been a long time coming. Good riddance.

Inflated Jobs Growth Map

Real Jobs in Fake Districts

ABC News reported the discrepancies Nov. 16, pointing out that 39 jobs were supposedly created in imaginary districts in Iowa, and in the fictitious 42nd district in Connecticut, 25 jobs were created, somewhat magically, with zero dollars. McClatchy Newspapers found that South Carolina’s supposed districts included one numbered 00 and another 25 — but the state only has six real districts.

That is just the tip of the iceberg when it comes to this administration touting Job Growth.

[edit on 14-5-2010 by prionace glauca]

barry probably wants him to win or he would go and support him
seems like lately most everyone obama supportes has lost.
third line ...