Holy Sh*t -- 60, Muthaf--kersFollow

The pendulum swings both ways. Remember the revolution in the mid-90's? It'll come back around.

Mark my words that senate seat will go back to the GOP in 2010.

The pendulum swings both ways. Remember the revolution in the mid-90's? It'll come back around.

In it, Mr. Specter makes the case that “since September 11, the United States has witnessed one of the greatest expansions of executive authority in its history, at the expense of the constitutionally mandated separation of powers.”

He then lays out an ambitious effort to roll back those powers, in words that indeed seem more natural coming from a senator of the majority party, rather than one in the minority:

I intend to take several concrete steps, which I hope the new president will support.

First, I intend to introduce legislation that will mandate Supreme Court review of lower court decisions in suits brought by the A.C.L.U. and others that challenge the constitutionality of the warrantless wiretapping program authorized by President Bush after September 11. While the Supreme Court generally exercises discretion on whether it will review a case, there are precedents for Congress to direct Supreme Court review on constitutional issues — including the statutes forbidding flag burning and requiring Congress to abide by federal employment laws — and I will follow those.

Second, I will reintroduce legislation to keep the courts open to suits filed against several major telephone companies that allegedly facilitated the Bush administration’s warrantless wiretapping program. Although Congress granted immunity to the telephone companies in July 2008, this issue may yet be successfully revisited since the courts have not yet ruled on the legality of the immunity provision. My legislation would substitute the government as defendant in place of the telephone companies. This would allow the cases to go forward, with the government footing the bill for any damages awarded.

Further, I will reintroduce my legislation from 2006 and 2007 (the “Presidential Signing Statements Act”) to prohibit courts from relying on, or deferring to, presidential signing statements when determining the meaning of any Act of Congress. These statements, sometimes issued when the president signs a bill into law, have too often been used to undermine congressional intent. Earlier versions of my legislation went nowhere because of the obvious impossibility of obtaining two-thirds majorities in each house to override an expected veto by President Bush. Nevertheless, in the new Congress, my legislation has a better chance of mustering a majority vote and being signed into law by President Obama.

Joph,

You may be right. I just find it difficult to believe an entire state won't care that their elected senator just bailed on them because he was facing a tough re-election.

Joph,

You may be right. I just find it difficult to believe an entire state won't care that their elected senator just bailed on them because he was facing a tough re-election.

Elinda,

He bailed on his constituents for the convience of political expediency. Spector was never a "republican" he simply chose the party that he believed gave him the best chance to stay in office. He represents the worst in american politics.

He bailed on his constituents for the convience of political expediency.

Spector was never a "republican" he simply chose the party that he believed gave him the best chance to stay in office.

I chose not to have children, God knows I've had plenty of oppurtunities, and because I made this choice and have achieved a level of financial security you think I should be responsible for people who pop one child after another and expect the govn to pay for them.

Oh and I believe abortion is murder because life begins at conception despite what the murderous pro-death movement would have you believe.

It is true that being a Republican moderate sometimes feels like being a cast member of “Survivor” — you are presented with multiple challenges, and you often get the distinct feeling that you’re no longer welcome in the tribe. But it is truly a dangerous signal that a Republican senator of nearly three decades no longer felt able to remain in the party.

Senator Specter indicated that his decision was based on the political situation in Pennsylvania, where he faced a tough primary battle. In my view, the political environment that has made it inhospitable for a moderate Republican in Pennsylvania is a microcosm of a deeper, more pervasive problem that places our party in jeopardy nationwide.

I have said that, without question, we cannot prevail as a party without conservatives. But it is equally certain we cannot prevail in the future without moderates.
[...]
There is no plausible scenario under which Republicans can grow into a majority while shrinking our ideological confines and continuing to retract into a regional party. Ideological purity is not the ticket back to the promised land of governing majorities — indeed, it was when we began to emphasize social issues to the detriment of some of our basic tenets as a party that we encountered an electoral backlash.

Based on these statements, his known disapproval of pornography, his hatred of homosexuals, and his general attitude toward women's rights, I've concluded that Varrus is scared of his own sexuality. He doesn't like the idea of other people having sex for any reason at all, be it hetero or ****, or enjoying themselves, or "rewarding" women for having children for any reason because it means they've had sex.

He wraps it up in his torturous, unsupported stances such as the above, while spouting right wing propoganda lines and holding them up as his shelter against the very idea of sexual enjoyment.

I'm really, really glad I don't have that problem. Even my super strict Catholic upbringing taught me that sex within wedlock was "a gift from God" and ought to be enjoyed for its own sake.