Specter joins the Dems

[Max2147]

Originally Posted by August

But apparently he IS willing to be judged by the Penn Democrat party electorate?

I see this as a last ditch effort to save his career. He's not Dem enough for the Democrats.

But it looks like this move will please the Dems enough to discourage anybody serious from running against him in the primary.

[August]

Originally Posted by Max2147

But it looks like this move will please the Dems enough to discourage anybody serious from running against him in the primary.

We'll see, but state party organizations tend to not go in lockstep with the nationals on a fairly regular basis.

After all look at it from a Pennsylvania Democrats standpoint. All those years working for the party just to see the nationals hand the nomination to a turncoat former Republican?

5 election campaigns talking about how important it was to defeat Spectre the Republican and now he's their preferred candidate? I have a difficult time believing the state party would just roll over like that.

[Aramike]

Originally Posted by Platapus

Read what he said. He is actually saying that he is unwilling to be judged by the Penn Republican primary electorate

Republican does not equal everyone

Senators are supposed to represent their entire state, not just their political party.

That is the purpose of the Senate.

I did read what he said. Now, you should read what I said.

In case you forgot, the Republicans are the ones who elected him. Now, he's avoiding their judgement on his record.

Senators are supposed to represent the people who elect them, because in order to be elected, that's the majority.

[Aramike]

Originally Posted by Max2147

Sheesh, I looked for a thread on this and couldn't find one. What does this place have against clear thread titles?

I was wondering that too. If you start a thread with a cryptic title, you shouldn't be surprised when another springs up.

[AVGWarhawk]

nough said.....

[Platapus]

Originally Posted by Aramike

Senators are supposed to represent the people who elect them, because in order to be elected, that's the majority.

Do you have a citation to back up you viewpoint?

Are you sure Senators are not supposed to represent their entire state?

In all my government studies, I have never come across any citation that states that Senators only represent the people who voted for him or her.

[Platapus]

Originally Posted by Max2147

Sheesh, I looked for a thread on this and couldn't find one. What does this place have against clear thread titles?

That would make sense and we can't have that.

Cryptic titles bug me almost as much as when people make a new thread and only include a hyperlink... no comment.. no discussion, just a hyperlink

[Stealth Hunter]

Originally Posted by Platapus

That would make sense and we can't have that.

Cryptic titles bug me almost as much as when people make a new thread and only include a hyperlink... no comment.. no discussion, just a hyperlink

This.

He's the guy who came up with the "magic bullet theory". Wonder what's going on...

[Aramike]

Originally Posted by Platapus

Do you have a citation to back up you viewpoint?

Are you sure Senators are not supposed to represent their entire state?

In all my government studies, I have never come across any citation that states that Senators only represent the people who voted for him or her.

Umm, that's the nature of a democratic republic. That's why the majority selects the representative, and representing that majority would constitute representing the state.

I thought this would be a pretty obvious point. Especially considering that it is completely impossible to represent all of the diverse viewpoints held in a state.

[Skybird]

It takes the veto of 60 (of 100) senators to prevent the degeneration of democratic basic principles and freedom of speech by filibustering, and every step and every measurement making such a majority to prevent filibusters more likely should be welcomed and seen as a step to give the house back some of its intended dignity, no matter all other things that can be said about politics, politicians and the senate. That filibusters still are considered a legal tool of parliamentary debate, is a scandal. One could as well consider it legal to serve members of opposing opinion drinks with knockout drops. The basic attitude is the same like behind filibustering.

[Platapus]

Originally Posted by Aramike

Umm, that's the nature of a democratic republic. That's why the majority selects the representative, and representing that majority would constitute representing the state.

I thought this would be a pretty obvious point. Especially considering that it is completely impossible to represent all of the diverse viewpoints held in a state.

That is an interesting opinion on civics. Thanks for sharing.

[Aramike]

Originally Posted by Platapus

That is an interesting opinion on civics. Thanks for sharing.

Here, to better summarize: A senator represents his entire state - but, does so via the viewpoint of the majority, who is determined by who elects said senator. Understand?

[Zachstar]

Hold the phone people!

At best he will be a blue dog democrat. He opposes the Employee Free Choice Act. And the only reason he switched is because he could not take the heat of an upcoming GOP primary.

Why some Dems think this + Franken finally being seated will be the end of all problems is beyond me!

[Zachstar]

Originally Posted by SteamWake

Merge please

http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/showthread.php?t=151173

SteamW if you make a title that is so confusing you ought to expect multiple threads.

Please be clear with the thread titles in the future.. Thanks.