The Original Gay Porn Community - Free Gay Movies and Photos, Gay Porn Site Reviews and Adult Gay Forums

  • Welcome To Just Us Boys - The World's Largest Gay Message Board Community

    In order to comply with recent US Supreme Court rulings regarding adult content, we will be making changes in the future to require that you log into your account to view adult content on the site.
    If you do not have an account, please register.
    REGISTER HERE - 100% FREE / We Will Never Sell Your Info

    PLEASE READ: To register, turn off your VPN (iPhone users- disable iCloud); you can re-enable the VPN after registration. You must maintain an active email address on your account: disposable email addresses cannot be used to register.

Traitor Arlen Specter Gone

justapixel

justapixel

JUB Addict
Banned
Joined
Sep 7, 2008
Posts
1,800
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Republican turned Democrat Specter has been defeated.

Democratic Senator bites the dust.
 
loki81 said:
it never ceases to amaze me how much people complain about a lack of bipartisanship in Washington and then vote out every single senator who's willing to compromise to get the job done.

sorry, ignore me... I'm still really upset over Lincoln Chaffee. lol.
Click to expand...

More like they vote out people that claim bipartisanship but care more about their jobs than they do about actually serving the people's needs. (as was the case with Specter)
 
Specter was not a Democrat, a Republican, or bi-partisan. He was all for himself.

I'm very happy to see the arrogant man gone.
 
Traitor!?! Hardly. A political party is not a foreign combatant. The man is a political junkie and whore. BTW, he was a Democrat, turned Republican, turned Democrat. He served his country and his ego. It's time to retire.
 
Droid800 said:
Until he showed his true colors and chose himself and his career over them...
Click to expand...

That's a very small minded and mean spirited comment.

I'm not a fan of Specter's, but it seems hardly fair to say that his decades of service were somehow not his "true colors".

And it's self serving to ignore the fact that Specter lost in a wave of anti-incumbency that probably had as much to do with anything else, and probably more.

When all you do is bark like a partisan dog it makes it a lot harder to take you seriously.
 
JonesHere said:
That's a very small minded and mean spirited comment.

I'm not a fan of Specter's, but it seems hardly fair to say that his decades of service were somehow not his "true colors".

And it's self serving to ignore the fact that Specter lost in a wave of anti-incumbency that probably had as much to do with anything else, and probably more.

When all you do is bark like a partisan dog it makes it a lot harder to take you seriously.
Click to expand...

I didn't say it applied to his previous service. Read my comment again.

Specter didn't lose in a wave of anti-incumbency. He lost because he switched parties thinking he could win as a democrat, not realizing that he would have to own up to his votes as a republican in a democratic primary. It didn't matter that he was an incumbent; what mattered was that, in the style of generations of self-serving politicians that have come before him, he made a bad choice and he has now paid for it at the polls.

Democrats will spin this as him losing because he was an incumbent, but that isn't the case here. He lost because he was a political opportunist, and chose to put himself above his constituents. If he had stuck with the republican party and still lost, the argument could be made that he lost because he was an incumbent. But he didn't, so any argument in that vein doesn't hold water.
 
Droid800 said:
I didn't say it applied to his previous service. Read my comment again.
Click to expand...

I got what you wrote. You said he finally showed his true colors. As if everything he did before that (and what you mean by that is not relevant), for decades, was fake.
 
I'd like to remind the OP that Specter lost in the Democratic primary. The Democrats haven't lost the seat as yet. And I agree with soreknees that calling him traitor is too harsh.
 
Good. Now let's get rid of Blanche Lincoln so we can have some actual Democrats running.

Sorry about you guys losing your public health care after denying US our public health care guys... guess you'll have to see what it's like to have to pay for your own care now.
 
I tripped over an article about this race last week. One analyst said the anti-incumbency factor would be about 2% to 4%. So, from the results I've seen, he would have lost anyway.

Interestingly, one article I skimmed argued he would have won if he'd gone Independent instead of Democrat.
 
NotThatCreative said:
I'd like to remind the OP that Specter lost in the Democratic primary. The Democrats haven't lost the seat as yet.
Click to expand...

Also worth noting, the special election in Pennsylvania was the only actual election, and the Democrat won that by a significant margin. But that's not enough data to make a more general observation.
 
Kulindahr said:
I tripped over an article about this race last week. One analyst said the anti-incumbency factor would be about 2% to 4%. So, from the results I've seen, he would have lost anyway.

Interestingly, one article I skimmed argued he would have won if he'd gone Independent instead of Democrat.
Click to expand...

That's probably a very good point. As an Independent, GOP voters could have still voted for him, albeit with their noses held. There are still plenty of party faithful, on both sides, who will vote for an independent but won't vote for "the other side" for any reason.

Takes Charlie Crist's defection from the GOP. He is now Independent. Moderate GOPs can still vote for him, plus he can pick-up a lot of moderate Dems. Had he gone Dem, the GOPs would turn to Marco Rubio, with NO inclination to vote for the newly minted Dem.
 
^^

It's one of the endlessly fascinating things about politics that no matter how long it's gone on, no matter how much study, and no matter how much money is put it into it, there are always these funny little twists tat are clear in hindsight but so much less clear going in.

An example I think of is the Seattle mayoral race in which one candidate had an arguable weak spot in opposing a long-planned tunnel. At one point in the race he flip flopped and said he's support the tunnel after all, since the people wanted it. In the Fog of Politics, what seems like an error can later be exposed as key to success.

That was perceived by many as a fumble on his part because he'd be seen as a flip-flopper or desperate opportunist. The more recent thinking is that because we have mailed in ballots, he's already garnered the votes of his strongest supporters, but by flip flopping he could pick up the votes of those who liked him except for this one issue.
 
Actually Specter wasn't that bad as a Senator.
How many Republicans can be elected by a majority of Democrats and survive for 30 years?
As Justapixel pointed out Republicans considered him a Traitor.
In my opinion he was an arrogant evil bastard,But, Who would you want fighting for you?
Specter lost because he's 80 years old,cancer survivor and after 30 years it's just time to move on.
P.S. He was truly Bipartisan and proved it many times by siding with Democrats over those 30 years
 
JonesHere said:
Also worth noting, the special election in Pennsylvania was the only actual election, and the Democrat won that by a significant margin. But that's not enough data to make a more general observation.
Click to expand...

It needs to be pointed out too that the Democrat that won is AGAINST Obamacare, tarp, is anti-abortion, and doesn't really support much else in Obama's agenda . . . . the main thing is was for was continuing the targeted tax money to his district . . . it's hard to get off government crack.

The Republican tried to make the election national - the Dem stayed local. It's going to be interesting when they have the fight again this November.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top