Uh-oh...Specter the commie....

Specter votes "nay," but Pelosi says it's...well:

"Today, for the first time in many, many years, we have a president's budget ...
that is a statement of our national values," House Speaker Nancy Pelosi,
D-California, said during the final debate on the House floor.

Shame, shame, Arlen - have you no interest in stating "our national values"...

Sheesh,
R
....on the positive, Robert Smigal is all excited about his new cartoon -
"Ambiguously Demo publican Duo"....

wrote


Sheesh,


One of the great mysteries that I can't understand is how/ why Republicans
see diversity of opinion and opposition within the Democratic Party as some
sort of weakness. I don't know how many times I've seen the lack of
uniformity within the Dems pointed out as though it were a problem. It
ain't ! it's a strength.

Actually, the ability to think for oneself and reach 'non-partisan' opinion
is very American ... you know ( well maybe not ) ... free thinking, ...
honest.

Here at the California state level the Republicans have gone so far in their
love of lockstep and FEAR of independant thought that the Rep
representatives all signed an agreement to always vote the same ... or be
banned from the Party !!

Hint ... that is NOT "a statement of our national values" but it IS very
Republican Party at this stage of their decline into mindless rightwing
goosestepping.

Congrats to Specter for an intelligent change of Party ... AND for having
his own mind and using it.

Larry L wrote:
One of the great mysteries that I can't understand is how/ why Republicans
see diversity of opinion and opposition within the Democratic Party as some
sort of weakness. I don't know how many times I've seen the lack of
uniformity within the Dems pointed out as though it were a problem. It
ain't ! it's a strength.

Actually, the ability to think for oneself and reach 'non-partisan' opinion
is very American ... you know ( well maybe not ) ... free thinking, ...
honest.

Here at the California state level the Republicans have gone so far in their
love of lockstep and FEAR of independant thought that the Rep
representatives all signed an agreement to always vote the same ... or be
banned from the Party !!

Hint ... that is NOT "a statement of our national values" but it IS very
Republican Party at this stage of their decline into mindless rightwing
goosestepping.

Congrats to Specter for an intelligent change of Party ... AND for having
his own mind and using it.

The GOP has officially become the party of the whackjobs. There
is no room in today's GOP for moderates, fence straddlers or
compromisers. The GOP will be a long, long time in the political
wilderness.

I need to send some cash to the Sarah Palin campaign. ;-)

--
Ken Fortenberry

On Thu, 30 Apr 2009 14:18:01 GMT, "Larry L" wrote:


wrote


Sheesh,


One of the great mysteries that I can't understand is how/ why Republicans
see diversity of opinion and opposition within the Democratic Party as some
sort of weakness. I don't know how many times I've seen the lack of
uniformity within the Dems pointed out as though it were a problem. It
ain't ! it's a strength.

Actually, the ability to think for oneself and reach 'non-partisan' opinion
is very American ... you know ( well maybe not ) ... free thinking, ...
honest.

Here at the California state level the Republicans have gone so far in their
love of lockstep and FEAR of independant thought that the Rep
representatives all signed an agreement to always vote the same ... or be
banned from the Party !!

Hint ... that is NOT "a statement of our national values" but it IS very
Republican Party at this stage of their decline into mindless rightwing
goosestepping.

Congrats to Specter for an intelligent change of Party ... AND for having
his own mind and using it.

FWIW, my post was a comment on Pelosi, not Specter. IAC, the Dems aren't quite
the free-thinking, all-inclusive lot you _seem_ to suggest. And the Rs aren't
quite the "our way or the highway" lot, either. Nor have either ever been,
although I would agree that disagreement today is met with much more, um,
disfavor than much of the recent (say 50 years) past. IMO, while things have
always been fairly partisan, the "radical partisanship" of the last 10-15 years
is VERY detrimental to the US, and both parties engage in it. I would also
agree that the GOP does currently have its share of problems, and folks like
Rush being allowed a (major) role in it are not going to help it or the US. Even
when he's correct in principle about something (hey, it happens...), his
bombastic approach causes moderates to tune him out as they do with his partisan
shtick. OTOH, the overly-liberal, "I'm always right," urban Dems are no better.
Feinstein wants to ban guns, but carries with a permit. And Pelosi, Reid,
Shumer, Emmanuel, etc. are the Rushes of the Democratic Party. The Bidens,
Specters, McCains, Grahams, etc. of both parties get marginalized _in the public
view_ by it all, and as pols go, these folks, while not perfect, generally seem
to put public interest high on their list.

TC,
R

wrote:

... And Pelosi, Reid,
Shumer, Emmanuel, etc. are the Rushes of the Democratic Party. The Bidens,
Specters, McCains, Grahams, etc. of both parties get marginalized _in the public
view_ by it all, and as pols go, these folks, while not perfect, generally seem
to put public interest high on their list.

File this one under "Why rdean political posts have zero credibility".

There is no Rush equivalent in the Democratic party and Phil Graham
is so blindly partisan he makes Tom Delay look like a moderate. The
only interest high on Phil Graham's list is Phil Graham's.

Quadruple Sheesh.

--
Ken Fortenberry

On Thu, 30 Apr 2009 11:53:29 -0500, Ken Fortenberry
wrote:

wrote:

... And Pelosi, Reid,
Shumer, Emmanuel, etc. are the Rushes of the Democratic Party. The Bidens,
Specters, McCains, Grahams, etc. of both parties get marginalized _in the public
view_ by it all, and as pols go, these folks, while not perfect, generally seem
to put public interest high on their list.

File this one under "Why rdean political posts have zero credibility".

Well, you could if you're a fan of misfiling...OTOH, you might want to file it
under "Ken doesn't know what the hell he's blathering about yet again"...I think
there's some room in one of the file cabinets that holds that file, but they are
filling up fast...

There is no Rush equivalent in the Democratic party and Phil Graham
is so blindly partisan he makes Tom Delay look like a moderate. The
only interest high on Phil Graham's list is Phil Graham's.

"Phil Graham" was the editor of the Washington Post and since he's been dead for
about 40 years, I'm pretty sure he doesn't make many lists these days...OTOH,
Phil _Gramm_ is an ex-pol, but Lindsay _Graham_ is a Senator from SC....

Quadruple Sheesh.

Yeah, I'd say that's about accurate...

HTH,
R
..

wrote:

...OTOH,
Phil _Gramm_ is an ex-pol, but Lindsay _Graham_ is a Senator from SC....

Ah yes, Lindsey Graham, the Republican John Edwards aka HairDo 2.
A total lightweight.

--
Ken Fortenberry

"Ken Fortenberry" wrote in message
...
Phil Graham
is so blindly partisan he makes Tom Delay look like a moderate.

ummm, I think you are referring to Phil Gramm. Unfortunately, I think Rick
was referring to Lindsay, the South Carolina Senator......
I'll read on, and chuckle......
Tom

wrote


the "radical partisanship" of the last 10-15 years
is VERY detrimental to the US, and both parties engage in it.


I agree with all I've quoted above and ...fwiw ... very, very, seldom make a
post 'aimed' at anyone, including anyone I quote. Your previous post
reminded me of something that I then commented on ... and I didn't even
really quote it, since I was NOT replying directly to it. I just said my
piece ( which admittedly was on a topic varied from your original ) on
something I find interesting ... mine is a very 'stream of consciousness'
type of thinking and I'm often misunderstood because of that 'weakness.'


As a further fwiw ( ffwiw? ) I think people like ~beancounter~ are the very
best recruitment tool for the Dems and people like Ken, for the Repubs.
Nobody that actually does think for themselves wants to be associated with
"radical partisanship" and it clearly non-productive and even offensive to
most people.

FFWIW, that is one of the key reasons Obama won, IMHO ... NOT because he was
supported by the loony-left, rather by the "can't we find a middle' ... an,
middle. McCain might well have beat him if he hadn't tied himself so
closely to the Rush/ Palin/ wackjob right. I, personally, would have
still voted for Obama, but McCain has been one of the Republicans on my list
of respected people, .... at least until part way through this last campaign
....

On Thu, 30 Apr 2009 17:31:13 GMT, "Larry L" wrote:


wrote


the "radical partisanship" of the last 10-15 years
is VERY detrimental to the US, and both parties engage in it.


I agree with all I've quoted above and ...fwiw ... very, very, seldom make a
post 'aimed' at anyone, including anyone I quote. Your previous post
reminded me of something that I then commented on ... and I didn't even
really quote it, since I was NOT replying directly to it. I just said my
piece ( which admittedly was on a topic varied from your original ) on
something I find interesting ... mine is a very 'stream of consciousness'
type of thinking and I'm often misunderstood because of that 'weakness.'


As a further fwiw ( ffwiw? ) I think people like ~beancounter~ are the very
best recruitment tool for the Dems and people like Ken, for the Repubs.
Nobody that actually does think for themselves wants to be associated with
"radical partisanship" and it clearly non-productive and even offensive to
most people.

FFWIW, that is one of the key reasons Obama won, IMHO ... NOT because he was
supported by the loony-left, rather by the "can't we find a middle' ... an,
middle. McCain might well have beat him if he hadn't tied himself so
closely to the Rush/ Palin/ wackjob right. I, personally, would have
still voted for Obama, but McCain has been one of the Republicans on my list
of respected people, .... at least until part way through this last campaign

FWIW, Obama _won_ because of urban non-whites in a key districts nailed the EC
down for him. OTOH, his general and broad support across a wide spectrum, I'd
agree, speaks to the "middle" of the US. And frankly, I don't think Palin is as
"right whackjob" as many, influenced directly or indirectly by certain media,
think (she's not exactly "middle," but she's not all _that_ far away). Rush
isn't a "right-wing whackjob," he's just a pandering idiot.

I don't know if you recall, but I steadfastly maintained that the extremely
unlikely "McCain/Obama" ticket in 2008 would have been the best thing to happen
to the US politically (followed by, if he proved himself, an Obama/whoever
ticket in 2016 and 2020), and I believe it now more than ever. I see the
potential for a real backlash when Obama can't live up to the promise his hype
(unfairly) created for the middle - nobody could, it's totally unrealistic - and
when he can't, it could get politically ugly for him (and no, he won't "deserve
it" other than as a contributor to the hype).

TC,
R

TC,
R
...