Er, Tom...

....has yer boy Arlen slipped a gear...? No, no shtick because of the party
switcheroo, but because of comments like Kemp being alive if the GOP had allowed
more funding of cancer research, and this lack of funding is one of the reasons
he switched. I saw a report that said that gov't funding of cancer research
went from 2 to 3 bil under Clinton and from 3 to almost 5 under Bush (close
enough to about the same rate of increase, with Bush's tenture getting a slight
nod), but IAC, certainly no lack of funding under Bush. Apparently, he's making
this a (big?) part of his 2010 campaign, but ??? It's a worthy cause, but is it
really all that big an issue _for his re-election?

TC,
R

wrote in message
...
...has yer boy Arlen slipped a gear...? No, no shtick because of the
party
switcheroo, but because of comments like Kemp being alive if the GOP had
allowed
more funding of cancer research, and this lack of funding is one of the
reasons
he switched. I saw a report that said that gov't funding of cancer
research
went from 2 to 3 bil under Clinton and from 3 to almost 5 under Bush
(close
enough to about the same rate of increase, with Bush's tenture getting a
slight
nod), but IAC, certainly no lack of funding under Bush. Apparently, he's
making
this a (big?) part of his 2010 campaign, but ??? It's a worthy cause, but
is it
really all that big an issue _for his re-election?


Healthcare research has always been a big thing for him.
Both personal and practical politics.....Between the big University
Hospitals in Philly, Pittsburgh, State College and Hershey, a lot of pharma
R and D scattered statewide, it sells well. Sure, there WAS funding under
Bush, but with little thanks to the GOP, especially Senators, who ****ed old
Arlen off by obstruction tactics
(not all, BTW, there are a handful of GOP allies, but most such funding gets
sponsored and passed by Dems.
hth....................Tom

On Mon, 04 May 2009 21:34:43 GMT, "Tom Littleton" wrote:


wrote in message
.. .
...has yer boy Arlen slipped a gear...? No, no shtick because of the
party
switcheroo, but because of comments like Kemp being alive if the GOP had
allowed
more funding of cancer research, and this lack of funding is one of the
reasons
he switched. I saw a report that said that gov't funding of cancer
research
went from 2 to 3 bil under Clinton and from 3 to almost 5 under Bush
(close
enough to about the same rate of increase, with Bush's tenture getting a
slight
nod), but IAC, certainly no lack of funding under Bush. Apparently, he's
making
this a (big?) part of his 2010 campaign, but ??? It's a worthy cause, but
is it
really all that big an issue _for his re-election?


Healthcare research has always been a big thing for him.
Both personal and practical politics.....Between the big University
Hospitals in Philly, Pittsburgh, State College and Hershey, a lot of pharma
R and D scattered statewide, it sells well. Sure, there WAS funding under
Bush, but with little thanks to the GOP, especially Senators, who ****ed old
Arlen off by obstruction tactics
(not all, BTW, there are a handful of GOP allies, but most such funding gets
sponsored and passed by Dems.
hth....................Tom

Are you sure about that, Dems vs. GOP on cancer funding? I've heard, and
did a _very_ quick check to verify and it seems to check out, that in 1999 there
was about 3 bil to NCI alone (up from about 2 bil in 1991) in funding and by
2007, it was up to around 4.8 - proposed by Bush. I didn't see specifics as to
who did what, but Bush did do a fair bit for such stuff. Yes, I realize that
many wanted more (when it comes to "government money," someone always thinks
their needs are the greatest and most deserving...the ACS was bitching because
he "only" proposed the paltry sum of 4.8 bil to NCI - they said about the same
of Clinton's 2-increasing-to-3 bil over the 8 years - with 29 bil to NIH and
almost 6 to CDC) and there was bitching that it wasn't more, but it's not like
Bush or the GOP didn't fund it about like Clinton and at the same or greater
rate of increase. Bottom line for me is that I don't see how he can say that
the GOP did substantially less than the Dems when it appears they did about the
same (or even marginally better).

I'm not defending Bush or bashing Clinton on this, simply pointing out that
there seems very little _Federal_ difference in either party on "cancer money."

TC,
R

well, your original point seemed to be 'was Arlen slipping' by thinking this
would be a good talking point during a campaign. My response was 'no, he was
sharp as a tack, given his constituency'. Frankly, I couldn't be bothered to
look up which Senators and Representatives have been supportive of, or a
hindrance to, dollars allotted to healthcare and health sciences research. I
do suspect, that if one added it up, one might find far more Dem names on
the supportive side than Repubs, but that is only a guess.
Still, his interviews today seem to me as valid, saying that the GOP ought
to view his party switch as a wake-up call. Only a guess again, but I
suspect they won't get that message.........yet.
Tom

On Mon, 04 May 2009 23:35:47 GMT, "Tom Littleton" wrote:

well, your original point seemed to be 'was Arlen slipping' by thinking this
would be a good talking point during a campaign. My response was 'no, he was
sharp as a tack, given his constituency'. Frankly, I couldn't be bothered to
look up which Senators and Representatives have been supportive of, or a
hindrance to, dollars allotted to healthcare and health sciences research. I
do suspect, that if one added it up, one might find far more Dem names on
the supportive side than Repubs, but that is only a guess.
Still, his interviews today seem to me as valid, saying that the GOP ought
to view his party switch as a wake-up call. Only a guess again, but I
suspect they won't get that message.........yet.
Tom


I wasn't trying to make a point, I was asking to see what you knew about it all.
His response could be taken, and indeed has been taken, as "the GOP could have
saved Jack Kemp (or as some have taken it, the GOP killed him), but it didn't so
I switched parties..." Even bringing up such a thing in such a forum
(basically, a Jack Kemp informal memorial session) was strange, but it came
across pretty strange as well since he was in the senior ranks of the GOP for
the last 8 years. I have no idea what it has led to in PA, but outside of PA,
he sounds like a nut with all the "and THAT is THE reason I switched" on a wide
variety of un-related topics, when just about everyone knows the biggest reason
he switched because it was his only real chance of get re-elected.

I guess it just shows even decent pols, once they've tasted it, will do just
about anything to keep themselves in it - Biden and the Veep-ship, McCain and
Bush, Specter and all this shtick.

Would he be in any real danger - moreso than he is - if he had just said, "look,
sure, mainly I'm switching to get re-elected, but it's a lot easier given the
way the GOP appears to be headed..." and then stuck to it and shut up? I guess
what I'm asking is that if he has fairly broad support in the voters overall,
why all the bull****?

TC,
R

wrote in message
...
I have no idea what it has led to in PA, but outside of PA,
he sounds like a nut with all the "and THAT is THE reason I switched" on a
wide
variety of un-related topics, when just about everyone knows the biggest
reason
he switched because it was his only real chance of get re-elected.

First, I don't know how it's playing in the Deep South, but it's playing
just fine here in PA. A weekend poll vs. possible challengers shows Specter
beating any Republican, including Ridge. He would, is the election were held
now, hammer Toomey by 22 percent. The fact is, I suspect Specter, nor much
of anyone in Pennsylvania cares what is thought of him in MS. Nor should
they. We don't get too exercised over YOUR Senators, after all.


Would he be in any real danger - moreso than he is - if he had just said,
"look,
sure, mainly I'm switching to get re-elected, but it's a lot easier given
the
way the GOP appears to be headed..." and then stuck to it and shut up? I
guess
what I'm asking is that if he has fairly broad support in the voters
overall,
why all the bull****?

because, despite the fact YOU think so, it ISN'T bull****.
He sincerely feels that way, and wishes to speak his mind. If you think this
is so simple as to be only about getting elected, you: 1) don't know Arlen
Specter, 2) don't understand half of what he's been subjected to from his
own 'fellow Republicans' and 3) don't realize that he probably COULD have
won as a Republican. I know it, and thus, he darn well knows it. Hell, Rick,
I even spelled out to you how it might have happened, and probably would
have. Apparently, he wanted to do this, for a complex mix of reasons. Good
for him!
Tom

to enlighten anyone else reading this,many in the Democratic Party in PA
were giving serious thought to encouraging cross registration into the GOP
primary next Spring, specifically to propel Specter to the nomination.
This happened once before, and Specter won both the primary and general
election(the latter, easily). Thus, Specter didn't HAVE to change parties,
he chose to.
Tom

On Tue, 05 May 2009 00:12:40 GMT, "Tom Littleton" wrote:


wrote in message
.. .
I have no idea what it has led to in PA, but outside of PA,
he sounds like a nut with all the "and THAT is THE reason I switched" on a
wide
variety of un-related topics, when just about everyone knows the biggest
reason
he switched because it was his only real chance of get re-elected.

First, I don't know how it's playing in the Deep South, but it's playing
just fine here in PA. A weekend poll vs. possible challengers shows Specter
beating any Republican, including Ridge. He would, is the election were held
now, hammer Toomey by 22 percent. The fact is, I suspect Specter, nor much
of anyone in Pennsylvania cares what is thought of him in MS. Nor should
they. We don't get too exercised over YOUR Senators, after all.

I'm not talking about "the Deep South" - few folks down here know or care who
Specter is or what he does (but there are a few who do know). I'm talking about
what I'm seeing in the "national media," hearing out of DC, etc. And from what
I've seen, he and Ridge are about a dead heat, with Specter polling about 2-3%
better, WME. Hell, Politico has Specter as the headline (as of 11PM Monday)
with the tagline "After Specter switch: buyer's remorse?"


Would he be in any real danger - moreso than he is - if he had just said,
"look,
sure, mainly I'm switching to get re-elected, but it's a lot easier given
the
way the GOP appears to be headed..." and then stuck to it and shut up? I
guess
what I'm asking is that if he has fairly broad support in the voters
overall,
why all the bull****?

because, despite the fact YOU think so, it ISN'T bull****.

Oh, please. I'm not knocking the guy (exactly), but he's a pol, so to say he's
not spreading at least some bull**** is disingenuous. Even DC Dem insiders are
wondering about him and it.

He sincerely feels that way, and wishes to speak his mind.

Therein lies my question - he's given about 5-6 reasons, in different venues/to
different audiences about _the_ reason he switched, all unrelated. They can't
all be _the_ reason, obviously. Even if he had objective, reasonable reasons,
when he says stuff like that it was because of Jack Kemp and the GOP holding up
cancer funding, and oh, by the way, go to my website where I claim if I'm not
re-elected cancer will not be cured, and to do it in the setting of an informal
Kemp memorial session, he sounds like a nut.

If you think this
is so simple as to be only about getting elected, you: 1) don't know Arlen
Specter, 2) don't understand half of what he's been subjected to from his
own 'fellow Republicans' and 3) don't realize that he probably COULD have
won as a Republican.

I'll respectfully disagree with "probably" - I'd agree with "possibly." IAC,
from what I've heard, he figured his odds both ways (including figuring in who
would campaign for him as a Dem and what he'd get out of it), and decided to
switch.

I know it, and thus, he darn well knows it.

Um, no offense, but you don't _know_ who'll win or how in such a case and
neither does he, me, or anyone else. If he is polling about even, WME, with
Ridge, IMO, it isn't a done deal.

Hell, Rick,

I even spelled out to you how it might have happened, and probably would
have.

Apparently, he wanted to do this, for a complex mix of reasons.

"Might," "probably," and "apparently" ain't "knows for sure."

I'm beginning to wonder if the GOP didn't help run him off, with the idea that
Ridge will seem like a relief after Toomey and waltz right in amid the Dems
fighting with each other.

Good for him!

Is it? He's a, what, 80 year old guy with a past of which to be proud, so I
can't say it will be "good for him." I hope it is, but I sure don't "know"
it...

TC,
R
Tom

On May 4, 9:14*pm, wrote:

Richard Richard Richard.
Three words; CLUB FOR GROWTH
Whackjob Incorporated, the wingnut, ideological extremist,
institutional manifestation of the personality disorder that has
poisoned the Republican Party, has used its affiliate, the CLUB FOR
GROWTH, to destroy MODERATE REPUBLICANS in race after race across the
country for the last 8 plus years. Their tactic is to run incredibly
financed, radical extremists against moderate Republican incumbents,
in Republican primaries. If they kill the moderate Repub in the
primary, these radicals go on into the general and LOSE. If the
moderate fends off the Club for Growth sponsored radicals, the
moderate had typically used up much of their money, making winning the
seat harder in the general election. In this way the CLUB for Growth
has purged moderates from the Republican Party. Its a classic
political tactic of extremist, fanatical ideologues. The Fascists, the
National Socialists, and the Bolsheviks did the same thing.

Specter was tired of being harassed by the nutcases that have captured
his Republican Party and made it unsafe and unwelcome for anyone
interested in saying anything but "NO" or anyone interested in
responsive government, and anyone not a Rushparrot or drooling FOX
licker.

Dave
They did it to themselves

On May 4, 3:07*pm, wrote:
...has yer boy Arlen slipped a gear...? *No, no shtick because of the party
switcheroo, but because of comments like Kemp being alive if the GOP had allowed
more funding of cancer research, and this lack of funding is one of the reasons
he switched. *I saw a report that said that gov't funding of cancer research
went from 2 to 3 bil under Clinton and from 3 to almost 5 under Bush (close
enough to about the same rate of increase, with Bush's tenture getting a slight
nod), but IAC, certainly no lack of funding under Bush. *Apparently, he's making
this a (big?) part of his 2010 campaign, but ??? *It's a worthy cause, but is it
really all that big an issue _for his re-election?

TC,
R

The NIH budget was roughly doubled from apx.$13.5B to apx. $27B from
1999 to 2003, mainly as a result of a coordinated push by a small
group of Republican and Democratic senators, including Spector.
Clinton and Bush went along with the effort. For most medical
researchers the budget pretty much went downhill after that: the
annual budget increase dropped to the 2% range, failing to keep up
with inflation, a lot of money was redirected to bioterrorism research
while other moneys were drawn off for the Global AIDS Initiative.