The American Spectator

Thomas F| 4.15.09 @ 5:53PM

Rinos out the door in
2010 Specter
2012 Snowe
2014 Collins

michael tomlinson| 4.15.09 @ 6:43PM

If Specter were fighting BO (Barack Obama) with same zeal he attacks Toomey he'd be a shoe-in for reelection.

stmichrick| 4.15.09 @ 6:50PM

I agree Thomas F.

When Sen. Spector worries that 'WE' would lose the Senate, who does he mean by 'WE'?

As it stands, 'WE' means 'HIM' because his RINO stance puts him, Snowe and Collins in the ultimate power broker positions; totally unreliable as principled Republicans.

Having it both ways translates into a long Senate career for Arlen, it seems. And the best argument I've seen for term limits lately.

stmichrick| 4.15.09 @ 6:51PM

I agree Thomas F.

When Sen. Spector worries that 'WE' would lose the Senate, who does he mean by 'WE'?

As it stands, 'WE' means 'HIM' because his RINO stance puts him, Snowe and Collins in the ultimate power broker positions; totally unreliable as Republicans.

Having it both ways translates into a long Senate career for Arlen, it seems. And the best argument I've seen for term limits lately.

Stan Redmond| 4.15.09 @ 6:52PM

Mr. Specter,

A liberal is a liberal. You vote with liberals and democrats you don't need to be in ther republican party. The country is in a mess in part because of "republicans" voting like liberals so don't go crying when republicans lost power in 2006. Don't blame it on Toomey. What good was republican power when you and many others voted as liberals? I hope you lose.

MT| 4.15.09 @ 7:07PM

Specter sounds just like our liberal troll, Bob. Hmmmm.

lynnr| 4.15.09 @ 7:09PM

Toomey looks like a nice guy--hope he's got the b@lls to fight it out with Specter.

Michael L. Hauschild| 4.15.09 @ 7:15PM

Someone tell the dunces, a.k.a. the RNC, when they look out the window all those people with the pitchforks, rope and teabags are not attending a spontaneous Arlan Specter rally.

stmichrick| 4.15.09 @ 7:29PM

Very insightful, MT.
What about (it), Bob?

I REALLY want to see these guys debate. If 'cannibalism' is the most serious charge Specter's got, should be Toomey's to lose.

stmichrick| 4.15.09 @ 7:31PM

A little prophesy here:

Based on recent RINO behavior I've witnessed in Maryland; should Toomey primary Specter, Arlen will endorse the Democrat candidate in the general. His staff people will all go to work for the Democrat as will.

lynnr| 4.15.09 @ 9:13PM

Wouldn't surprise me, St. M--at least it's finally honest. Crappers.

PCP Smoker| 4.15.09 @ 10:23PM

You sat down with that f#$%^ rino and it NEVER occur to you to ask why a "fiscal conservative" voted for Socialist Hussein's trillion dollar stimulus? It never occurred to you to ask that maybe it is guys like him and Chafee that LED to the defeat of the GOP? Either you owe him something, he has something on your children, or you are just a fool. Real men carry a pair.

Bram| 4.15.09 @ 10:24PM

Only check and Balnce against the Democrats? You voted for the Spendulus package! Just like most Democrats.

It was the single worst political betrayal I've witnessed in my lifetime. You are done Senator.

Anthony| 4.15.09 @ 10:33PM

Well we know one thing for sure; Specter will play hardball with Toomey more than he ever did with Democrats. Hey Arlen; how about all those Bush judicial nominees you vowed to get through the Senate Judicary Committee? You're a RINO fraud and your days in the senate are numbered. Start saying your goodbyes to your leftist buddies, starting w ith Leahey.

Jarad| 4.15.09 @ 11:15PM

Cannibalistic? HAH! If you mean selling your supposed party down the river with your pathetic "Well, I can't really stop it so I might as well get on board" rhetoric is better than cannibalism, well then call me a Purple People Eater.

Jeffrey Lord| 4.15.09 @ 11:26PM

PCP...

Specter is well on record as to why he voted for the stimulus....thought it the right thing etc etc. He's said this everywhere he goes. No news there. Promising "hard, hardball" as Toomey jumps in was not said before...hence...news.

Paul Crowley| 4.16.09 @ 7:06AM

=>“Yet in Specter's eyes there was still plenty of work to do on judicial nominations in the Bush presidency, work he was unable to accomplish after yielding the chairman's gavel to Vermont Democrat Patrick Leahy.” [Jeffrey Lord]

So what was the difference?

Paul Bunker| 4.16.09 @ 7:31AM

Specter is the chap who said we should consider Scottich law, wanted liberal judges. In actual practice he was a Republican in name only, just like Chuck Hagel, et al. If Toomey is truly a conservative it will be good for the Republic if he is elected!

Paul Crowley| 4.16.09 @ 7:34AM

=>“looking fit at 79” [Jeffrey Lord]

McSpecter?

It’s April 2009.
Specter (regardless of how “fit” he’s “looking”) is 79 years old.
Election Day is just under 19 months away.
January 2011 is 21 months away.

Is this Fightin’Arlen stuff supposed to be taken seriously?

Have any democrats announced that they will be running for the party's nomination election to run as the party's candidate for this Senate district yet?

Are they so weak that they need this?

->“Only a fool would count Arlen Specter out.” [Jeffrey Lord]

Yeah.

Iaidoka| 4.16.09 @ 7:39AM

PCP Smoker:
Exactly right.

As bad as the unemployment numbers are, a lot of us wouldn't mind at all increasing those numbers by 535, starting with Specter.

ame| 4.16.09 @ 7:46AM

RINOs like Specter, Chaffee, Snowe, and Collins lost Republicans control of the Senate. Specter is blowing in the wind and at 79 should get out. We should mandate a retirement age for Congress and the Supreme Court - staying on forever increases inaction, false ego, and corruption - Republicans MUST vote RINOs out! Specter and the rest named above are nothing more than Democrats anyway -

Jim Nayseum| 4.16.09 @ 7:59AM

Lincoln Chafee was a Republican???

Bob| 4.16.09 @ 8:35AM

You guys are right -- Specter is my guy! As I've said before, Republicans are now down to 29% of voters. It makes absolutely no logical sense that you can win running to the right when the people you must convince are on the left. PA is a Democrat state and you must convince pro-choice Dems to cross over.

All of you lemmings have absolutely no sense of logic. Perhaps if you finished your education, the party would be better off.

Red Phillips| 4.16.09 @ 8:36AM

Why did Toomey mislead Peg Luksik and tell her he wasn't planning to run? It's not like it was a well kept secret. I'm very glad Specter has primary challengers, but that sort of pre-election coyness irritates me.

Jeffrey Lord| 4.16.09 @ 8:55AM

Bob...

"PA is a Democrat state and you must convince pro-choice Dems to cross over."

FYI..All those "pro-choice" Dems put a "pro-life" Dem in the Senate in 2006...just as they put his "pro-life" father in the governor's mansion, defeating two "pro-choice" Republicans.

pissedinpa| 4.16.09 @ 9:01AM

Specter is done!!!! How much longer do we have to put up with such bold faced lies and betrayals with this guy in general let alone any political party?
Specter needs to wake up one morning in Nov 2010 and find that he has been Tea Bagged!!!

Bob| 4.16.09 @ 9:13AM

Jeffrey...

"FYI..All those "pro-choice" Dems put a "pro-life" Dem in the Senate in 2006...just as they put his "pro-life" father in the governor's mansion, defeating two "pro-choice" Republicans.""

Casey is the "Specter" of the left. Dems are not only dominant in the state, but are a growing percentage as the cities get a higher percentage of minorities. Besides, PA was once described as Philadelphia and Pittsburgh on the east and west and Alabama in the middle. The demographic problem in PA is that the suburbs and exurbs are becoming increasingly Democrat. They are the swing geography.

Besides, have you noticed how the pro-choice aspect of Dems is not such a major issue any more? The Dems smartly reduced their emphasis on a hard pro-choice stance and repositioned their party as the party of the middle class. They are running away from this issue. This was a strategic imperative by Dean and Obama and it worked.

If asked, they would claim to be pro-choice. But it isn't like Republicans where, if you are not a social conservative, you are derided as a RINO.

Hank Rearden| 4.16.09 @ 9:37AM

Specter is part of the problem not the solution. His time has passed and he should have been out of the Senate long ago. I'd vote for a stauch communist over Specter because at least they stand for something other than simply saying/doing whatever to get re-elected. Instead of voting for a candidate in PA in 2010, I'll be imposing my own term limits.

Sara| 4.16.09 @ 9:44AM

I remember when Republicans were a solid and sustaining minority as Liberal lites. RINOs don't mind this status as long as they have power to advance and shape socialism and globalism and the limo liberal approval and invitations for the elitist social circut. The GOP held this minority status for decades and RINOS made sure no constitutional, small government Americans entered in their country club stationed pup tent. They joined liberals in smearing anyone outside the GOP socialist pup-tent as dirty Christians, racists and Nationalists.

We can keep Arlen and his socialist gal pals in power and keep a solid socialist minority for another few decades or we can toss them out now, experience the pain and regain the majority with RINOS gone or neutered.

More than half the voters are solidly against socialism. The GOP is currently spliting the socialist vote with the Democrats. The majority of Americans the GOP needs for majority power who are attached to American freedom and independence have no interest in the RINO party. Arlen will send the GOP the way of the Whigs and that is perfectly fine with Arlen because all that matters to Arlen is Arlen.

Tim| 4.16.09 @ 9:48AM

"It's hardball. Hard hardball."

LOL

Ryan| 4.16.09 @ 9:52AM

We need to remember - and something that Specter forgot - is that his last win was both by the skin of his teeth AND he got the support of the Republican senatorial re-election committee and Bush - without which he wouldn't have won. He's not as strong a candidate as he thinks he is.

Bob| 4.16.09 @ 9:57AM

Sara, you must be living in Fox News/Limbaugh land. When Republicans say the word "socialist", or "fascist", or "Alinskyite", or "Marxist", or even "baby killers", people view you as name calling extremists. That is the perfect way to make the Republican party disappear.

Let me take this quote from a recent Rasmussen Poll:

"In addition to the economic crisis, the right wing's accusation of Obama being a socialist appears to be backfiring. Conservatives were attempting to cash in on a well established strategy of 20th century American political life. These attacks have unintentionally served to get socialism into heavy rotation in the mainstream media, thereby increasing the public's interest and curiosity. Fear mongering and the paranoid style seem to be offering declining political returns.

Perhaps the most significant aspect of this poll is the response from people under thirty. The statistics indicate that 66% of this demographic are actively questioning capitalism as a system. This makes clear that the Cold War fear of socialism, created to shape the American mindset, is withering away. It is being replaced by a political openness to new ideas about how to organize society. This means there is a space for socialists where a serious dialogue can begin, which can connect Americans to grassroots organizing."

You must decide whether you want to win or go into oblivion as an extremist.

J.C.Eaton| 4.16.09 @ 10:10AM

It is difficult being a Conservative; it requires conscience, constancy, and abiding courage. A conservative will be vilified by most media[see Jesse Helms], most of the opposition, and frequently by the squishes in his own party. That about sums up Toomey and his recent electoral career. Your article, which with all due respect seemed a fawning paen to a non-conservative, makes mock [unintentionally, I'd trow] of the virtues a true conservative embodies. As an aside, this "statesman" and poseur ["unproved"] expects loyalty from his party and exhibits little. He takes personal offense that a former congressman would put the "Republican minority" in jeapardy[what an oxymoron]. He must really hate Mr. Toomey, probably because he reminds him of how he wished to beway too long ago.

sara| 4.16.09 @ 10:49AM

Actually, Bob, you are full of it. Americans, in the majority are not questioning economic freedom -capitalism according to polls.

Pointing out Obama's and the Congress' socialist movement is not "backfiring" on anyone. It is a fact and it is a radical betrayal to what they ran the election on.

They can fool college students who don't know economics any better and they can appeal to the welfare hammock crowd who want "free stuff." But they are not fooling the majority who know a radical pig in the poke when they see one. That includes the RINOs who are abetting this radical theft of freedom.

Periwinkel| 4.16.09 @ 11:24AM

Memo to Arlen: Lincoln Chaffee went down with $1 million of Republican money that should have been given to a good Republican...not a RINO. Take note, Arlen, your time is coming...when you vote with Dems consistently (except election years) your end is near. I can't wait!!

Big J| 4.16.09 @ 11:54AM

sara:

Give it up. Bob has spoken. Alpha, Omega, game over. Insert coin for one more credit.

I agree with you, but what the heck do I know. I am still following my dog around, waiting for my homework to come out. ;)

Bob| 4.16.09 @ 12:01PM

Sure, Sara, people absolutely love the heart of capitalism, i.e., Wall Street. If you really understood our system, you'd know we don't have pure capitalism -- not even close. That's not the point. The main trust of the research is that conservatives lose if they call Dems "socialists". That is just fact. You can certainly criticize their spending, but when you call them names, you lose (except for the right wing lemmings, of course).

reads1| 4.16.09 @ 12:04PM

Mr. Lords article reads like a campaign ad for this disgrace to the conservative causes, along with the two frozen brains from Maine. Toomey will be a better choice, just by being there to replace this guy.

Robert Rosencrans| 4.16.09 @ 12:18PM

Spector's slip sliding away policies are the reason the Republicans find themselves on the losing end of the political spectrum.

All Toomey has to do is superimpose Spector's face on the center of a trillion dollar bill.

Sara| 4.16.09 @ 12:36PM

Robert Rosencrans - put Arlen's fat face over the trillion he voted for and mention the fool DID NOT EVEN READ it before voting!!!!
How does one get that old and spend that much time in the sausage machine factory we call Congress and still walk around totally careless and stupid?

The GOP should run fast and far from ole Arlen and his gal pals if they want to distance themselves for their complete stupidity and failure during the Bush administration. But the leadership of the GOP is guarding that pup tent with Arlen; wacking anyone who comes near with their golf clubs.

Hank Rearden| 4.16.09 @ 12:58PM

"True Grit?" more like True Spit in the face the electorate you looter!!!

Dai Alanye| 4.16.09 @ 1:06PM

This is excellent. I've long assumed that the Bobster is a Dem troll, and now he has offered more evidence. In his latest criticism of Republicans on this site he has said, "When Republicans say [blah, blah, blah]… people view you as name calling extremists."

Notice that he said "you" rather than "us."

And he is, as usual, all wet, for he assumes present demographics and political leanings to be static rather than dynamic. To the extent he acknowledges dynamism, he assumes the trend goes only one way—toward the left.

As history proves, however, domination of the political scene goes back and forth. I suspect that after Bob's leader BO gets through fouling the economy, the prospects for Bob's party—the Dems, that is—will be looking considerably less bright than today.

As for Specter—pfft! Let him go in order to rid the party of anti-conservatives.

Joe| 4.16.09 @ 1:12PM

Funny he should mention Santorum sence he did about nothing to help him. And if it were not for Bush and Santorum, you would not be talking to Spector now a non-conservative (RINO). A man who faught Bush on many Conservative Judges and Abortion. This goes on and on.

rdman| 4.16.09 @ 1:36PM

Time is overdue for We, the People to tell the socialist/fascist democrats and the spineless RINOs that we’ve had enough their deceptive deceit and corruption. Its time to stand up, find these career-politician tyrants in gross violation of their Constitutional Oaths and purge them from the halls of our government.

Eliminate the Washington DC snake-pit of entrenched appeasing, expediency, placating and crab-walking despots by voting these delusional, parasitic, megalomaniac realpolitiks out of government… they are not worthy to represent We, The People of this magnificent Country.

1) Start this process by requiring your State’s Elected Representatives to convene a Constitutional Convention for the sole purpose of modifying in pertinent part, Amendment XVII to read, “Representatives and Senators of the U.S. Congress, elected by the people thereof, for two years and six years respectively for a maximum of two terms…”

2) Reject all career-politicians running for re-election… they speak with ulterior motives, hidden agendas, deceit, duplicity and deception… they have become corrupt and no longer qualified for Leadership or Statesmanship. They are, in fact, a scourge upon the land.

3) Recruit and elect true representatives of We, the People… Citizen Professionals who have demonstrated excellence in management, performance, integrity, patriotism, pride and optimism, chivalry and civility for a maximum of two terms to re-establish the public service model of our Founding Fathers… Leadership, Statesmanship, Dignity, Honor and Duty.

NavyBrat| 4.16.09 @ 1:50PM

"The only check and balance on the Democratic sweep with the White House and the House is 41 of us in the Senate. Because if Toomey is the Republican nominee and my seat goes, the Democrats get 60 votes. And they run rough shod on increasing taxes and bringing card check and a lot of other things that are anathema to Republicans."

Really? Was he the "check & balance" we needed when the dimulus bill was passed? Oh, that's right, he got bought off. Then, he had the AUDACITY to come back here (he was in Pittsburgh) & tell, rather rudely) a constituent who was giving him hell that HE, Arlen the Great, understood what needed to be done & that this hapless peas... I mean constituent, couldn't hope to understand something so complicated. This is the way that LIBERALS talk to their constituents who disagree with them. I'm looking VERY forward to voting Benedict Arlen OUT in the next election. Hit the road, Jack. You were great at one time, but you're time has passed along with your judgement.

Bob| 4.16.09 @ 1:55PM

Dai, now it is you that is using "inference". If I say, when Republicans do "this", then it means "that", that does not cover the Republicans who don't partake of that activity. You would like me to be a Democrat and believe that ALL Republicans are extremists like you, but we're not...

Turk| 4.16.09 @ 2:05PM

History bears heavily on how we judge candidates, parties and national movements. How we REALLY got our wars(ie appeasement +). Etc etc. Well ---------how we got Spector the rino-----his claim to fame is being the author of the single bullet theory in JFK 's assassination. A long time ago? Yes-------but pertinent!

Ed| 4.16.09 @ 2:08PM

Red Phillips,

Toomey had been seriously considering a run for governor next year, until a few other conservatives said they were considering governaor as well, and Specter voted for the stim bill. I don't think it was anything intentional. I like Luksik, but she really doesn't have much chance anyway.

L. Ross| 4.16.09 @ 2:21PM

Thomas F.

I loved your post about RINOs out the door.
Rinos out the door in
2010 Specter
2012 Snowe
2014 Collins

You missed a great big one, however. John McCain.

What the heck is the point of trying to cling to a small lead in the Senate if it comes at the cost of loosers like these RINOs. We would be no worse off to try to peel away some blue dog Democrats.

Tim| 4.16.09 @ 2:22PM

Senator Arlen HARD HARDBALL Specter. Can we call you HH for short?

Ed| 4.16.09 @ 3:17PM

Specter sounds scared to me. He's already polling way behind Toomey, and started running ads before Toomey even announced.

BigAl| 4.16.09 @ 6:30PM

Pat Toomey's philosophical disagreement with Specter isn't the reason the Republicans lost the last two elections: Republicans acting like, and compromising their principles to accommodate, Democrats is what lost those elections.

I analogize Specter's statements to the last screams of dinosaurs as they expired after having inhaled too much dust from Alvarez's meteor.

stmichrick| 4.16.09 @ 7:28PM

'Educated' Bob;

You can snort about conservatives and Republicans being 29% of the vote; enjoy it while it lasts.

If a charismatic communicator emerges with our message, all bets are off. Leftists and Democrats are enjoying having an articulate, cute leader (not a Harry Reid) spewing the big-government line . However, and you know this, it is all about his charisma.

The path he proposes makes no sense and is not right for America.

jhrap| 4.16.09 @ 8:08PM

Ed| 4.16.09 @ 3:17PM

"Specter sounds scared to me."

Finally a wingnut I agree with. He is scared.

He is the only chance the republicans have and he most likely cares about the party.

Me? I'd love to see Toomey win the nod and get slaughtered by a democrat.

Specter winning is my second choice but either option isn't bad.

The wingnuts have got themselves into a little quandery. Huh? It's a win/win for me. And a lose/lose for you.

george| 4.16.09 @ 8:34PM

I am so glad that I am not from PA. State rights are more important than federal rights and Specter is a big gov't politician. Dems or Reps have lost all rights to govern. It is time for real tea parties.

Mikki| 4.16.09 @ 8:48PM

At 79, Specter needs to go along with Kennedy and a few others. All the old long term politicians need to retire. That is one thing wrong with our country. There needs to be term limits so the elected will again work for the people instead of lining their own pockets.

Bob| 4.17.09 @ 7:32AM

stmichrick| 4.16.09 @ 7:28PM

"If a charismatic communicator emerges with our message, all bets are off. Leftists and Democrats are enjoying having an articulate, cute leader (not a Harry Reid) spewing the big-government line . However, and you know this, it is all about his charisma."

Actually, I would partially agree with your comment. I do believe there is a limit to how much you can gain, however. Overcoming a 10 point disadvantage is extremely difficult. You know that I am into data analysis, and have looked at this but cannot determine anything definitive as to what can be gained.

So who would this great communicator be? Certainly, none of the leaders now are that good -- not Palin, Jindal, Romney, Cantor, Pence, Ryan, etc. In addition, Obama was a writer, a teacher, and a well honed Chicago politician. Beyond that, he is a good political strategist. He has weaknesses, like extemporaneous speaking, but he has found a crutch for those weaknesses like using teleprompters. Reagan was trained as an actor and it helped him with communication but most people around him said that he listened, but never asked probing questions. Clinton was an excellent extemporaneous speaker, but we all know he had lots of moral weakness.

All of that said, I believe a more important factor is pocketbook issues. If the economy improves, the Dems will be very difficult to beat. Most economists believe we will start to see the turn at the end of this year/beginning of the next.

Paul Crowley| 4.18.09 @ 2:07PM

“All of that said, I believe a more important factor is pocketbook issues. If the economy improves, the Dems will be very difficult to beat. Most economists believe we will start to see the turn at the end of this year/beginning of the next." [Bob| 4.17.09 @ 7:32AM]

This is true.

Although, complex also.

The time period, “end of this year/beginning of the next," seems about right. The extent of recovery, will be interesting.

One element of the physical situation that’s been very much like 1980-83 is all of the large industrial modernization projects. There are a lot of very big projects that have been underway for the past two to eight years, and startups will begin coming on line about this time, and continuing at least four years after.

One can argue all he likes about economic theory, Marx versus Smith, and such, but I’ve wondered since early last year if there isn’t going to be a new ‘morning in America’ theme coming, and for very much the same reasons as the first one: The physical modernization of American industries, especially American steel, and the new plants that came online
during that time.

After 30 years, and given the major technology changes since then, it’s not surprising that we’re modernizing again. In fact, it's about right.

The plant startups will be to the advantage of the Obama administration, which will have to aid them, where public perception is concerned.

Of course, in like manner, the first “morning in America” was already underway in the couple years preceding the Reagan administration, but facilitated by the tariffs enacted during the Reagan administration (does anyone doubt that the same tariffs wouldn’t been enacted if Carter had won in 1980?).

During the Reagan administration, annual American
steel production returned to 1970 levels, but with much higher productivity, since manpower needs of the modernized, and relocated, industry was 1/4 of what it had been in 1970.

Here’s where the similarities diverge.

Back during the first 'morning in America,' the lost industrial employment was taken up by the new service industries, Digital Electronics Revolution technology development, and military expansion.

The modernized industries of today (now multi-national, not American, owned) should also see substantial decline in the total workforce to achieve the same productions levels of the past.

A new ‘domestic’ Oil & Gas industry and mining will help, but, again, manpower needs are nothing what they used to be (mostly operators of various kinds, and much fewer menial laborers).

So, with the digital electronics revolution, winding down into standardization, and service industry now in decline, rather than growth, what’s everybody going to do to replace the losses in these?

Just how 'bright,' or not, is a new 'morning in America' going to be?

Bob| 4.18.09 @ 2:43PM

Paul -- you are right on target. There is no way in which the recovery will be a sharp "V". There is also one more big difference, a high percentage of capital in the 1980's was invested in U.S. companies. In today's global financial environment, capital flows more easily to emerging countries. That's one of the reasons tax cuts will actually hurt the country more than help it as most of those cuts will go to the wealthy who will invest in multinational and international companies through funds and hedge fund groups.

The only way we will see strong growth is to fundamentally change our corporate tax policy to make it advantageous to locate manufacturing here. I would propose abolishing the corporate income tax in favor of a national consumption tax. This would also capture tax receipts from foreign companies that we don't capture now.

Paul Crowley| 4.18.09 @ 3:03PM

Sorry.

The de-centralization and re-development of some agricultural production, especially meat and dairy, around the new metropolitan areas, already begun, and becoming both a come theme (across the political 'spectrum') and a trend, probably a redevelopment of local transport companies, maybe a re-regulation on the theme of inter verus intra state distinctions, suitably modified, and the repair, and further development of infrastructure, nation wide, with the oversight of these activities by state and municipal governments. . . All of this lend themselves to the
‘small government’ theme (George Wallace never met a federal highway dollar that he didn’t like, as far I can see,and he sure never stood in front of any bulldozers on federal highway construction or repair projects, spouting ‘states rights’ rhetoric. But he did take credit for new roads and jobs associated with, and regulated by the federal government, while doing so in other instances).

Domestic policy has always followed foreign policy and foreign policy.

For the moment parts of it remain what it’s been for the past eight years: The gains in the Persian Gulf are being solidified and the advance into Pakistan is being continued, along with, the east-west advance across north Africa and, now, into sub-Saharan Africa. So an increase in DoD manning size, and organizations of use to the state department.

These don’t lend themselves to a small government theme, but they do to a ‘strong defense’ theme, with proper PR manipulation (which doesn’t seem lacking).

All in all, it looks like the need of right wing and left wing parties hasn’t come to an end, but is going to continue.

I’m not a cheerleader for either major party, not a member of any political party, and we don’t have to register party affiliation to vote in primaries here.

Even though the republican party seems horribly disorganized at the moment, and some responses downright absurd thus far, I still don’t rule the republicans out (its way too early). For goodness sake, Obama hasn't been in office a full 90 days yet.

Who knows, maybe Obama will be the beginning of the end of the 'charismatic.'

If we end up going to war, which I don’t automatically assume, but don’t rule out either, then all this political 'tactics' absurdity will become moot quickly. There’ll be other issues that will become more important, very quickly, to us in the peonage.

Frankly, THAT would be the only good thing to come from a war.

PCP Smoker| 4.18.09 @ 6:47PM

"Specter is well on record as to why he voted for the stimulus....thought it the right thing etc etc. He's said this everywhere he goes. No news there. "

Mr. Lord,
I understand the material must be fresh, and I understand a certain level of politeness must be maintained during these interviews.

But you could have asked (1) how does a trillion dollar in wasteful pork, along with the seeds for socialist healthcare in the name Healthcare Efficiency office, is the "right thing" for the country. I understand that is where he stands, but how about an explanation of the logic being used. How is socialist healthcare the "right thing" for the country.
How is having RINOs like Lincoln Chafee, or Hagel a plus to the GOP effort? Yes, they are republicans, but if there are no differences between the GOP and the Dems, then of what purpose are they?
The attempt to answer those questions would have been real news.

PCP Smoker| 4.18.09 @ 6:47PM

"Specter is well on record as to why he voted for the stimulus....thought it the right thing etc etc. He's said this everywhere he goes. No news there. "

Mr. Lord,
I understand the material must be fresh, and I understand a certain level of politeness must be maintained during these interviews.

But you could have asked (1) how does a trillion dollar in wasteful pork, along with the seeds for socialist healthcare in the name Healthcare Efficiency office, is the "right thing" for the country. I understand that is where he stands, but how about an explanation of the logic being used. How is socialist healthcare the "right thing" for the country.
How is having RINOs like Lincoln Chafee, or Hagel a plus to the GOP effort? Yes, they are republicans, but if there are no differences between the GOP and the Dems, then of what purpose are they?
The attempt to answer those questions would have been real news.

Paul Crowley| 4.18.09 @ 9:26PM

=>“The only way we will see strong growth is to fundamentally change our corporate tax policy to make it advantageous to locate manufacturing here.” [Bob| 4.17.09 @ 7:32AM]

Hi Bob:

I agree that reform of regulation is needed if the market system is to be used.

That’s how I would phrase it so as to first define the problem before jumping to advocacy of a specific solution to the problem without mentioning what it is.

The only way to use the market system, as a means for industrial development, is to regulate the market so that resources are employed to drive the development in the direction in which one wishes it to proceed, for whatever specific reason one wishes to
do so.

This is precisely how the market system, and the various Free Trade policies were used during the Cold War(1946-89) as tactics to meet the strategic goals of containing and then defeating Marxist Russia.

To be blunt: There is NO SUCH THING as a “Free Market” (in the sense of an “un-regulated market” in the sense that the libertarian movements have propagandized widely for about the past 10-18 years; popularized in only about the past 10 years: Adam
Smith’s “invisible hand”). This mess especially came into formulaton of policy during the Bush-Clinton-Bush administrations in the post-Cold War era.

That's precisely when Walmart shifted from its Buy American campaign to become a company outlet for the PRC, and now India.

The Libertarian’s fantasy market doesn’t exist. It never has and it never will, any more than it did when the British government propagated this same rubbish from about 1850 through to the beginning of World War One.

To be honest, the Libertarians remind me of ministers of a secular cult. They attempt to make a religion out of a man-made system.

They're not the first to employ the technique. Among the many gimmicks employed by the Brits in the 19th century was babble about “Divine Providence” and later just “providence,” as they bounced back and forth between rationalizations based on utilitarianism or Anglo-redefined natural law.

In fairness to the Brits, the concept of Lassaiz Faire was picked up by them from the 18th century French (as one might surprise by the term itself). But it was the Brits who massaged it into a pseudo-religion in the 19th and early 20th centuries.

For the past five years I’ve been reminding friends and neighbors that no one in America grew up under a system such as we have at present, except for the poor little guys born in the past ten years.

If there’s anything that could convert me to an advocate of “Separation of Church and State” versus the American principle of Freedom of Religion, due to rejection of an Established Church, as the British had, then this pseudo-religious hand-of-gawd economics rubbish would be it.

Obviously I won’t be joining any of the libertarians Counter-Boston Tea Party’s.

How to regulate the market is the problem now faced.

What we’re re-regulating it for, precisely, I don’t claim to know.

We haven’t been told.

There are other differences between 1981-83 and today that are critical and make it all far more complex too.

Paul Crowey| 4.18.09 @ 9:45PM

=>“one more big difference, a high percentage of capital in the 1980's was invested in U.S. companies. In today's global financial environment, capital flows more easily to emerging countries.” [Bob| 4.17.09 @ 7:32AM]

Hi Bob:

This is true.

One reason that I noted that the big plant projects that are in the works and getting ready to come online are: “Now multi-national, not American, owned.”

Actually, it’s a partial difference to the decade of the 1980s, during the Reagan administration.

But it’s also a similarity to the “1980’s,” where the ‘morning in America’ theme is concerned.

**
The Darkness Before The Dawn

Investment was flowing overseas, and internally, American wise, outside the continental U.S.A., 1969-86 (often dubbed with the vague “The ‘70s.”). It did so, industry by industry, region to region, and actually continued through the 1980s, in like maner, as well.

The actual decade of the 1970s, about 1971-79 was probably the last of the booms for domestic industries, with American-owned companies: Oil & Gas, Agriculture, transport,
. . . This is a major discontinuity now. Those companies are all gone.

Some industries (steel, automobile, Harley Davidson motorcycles, to name three ) were aided by tariffs and federal funding during the Reagan administration, some others were not.

[As an aside, does that make Reagan a socialist by these libertarian standards? It was the John Birch Society in their “None Dare Call IT Conspiracy” conspiracy theory book, published in the early to mid 1970s, who called Nixon a socialist by the same criteria. Not too many others of us did. I read it because I had a couple friends who were Birchers, but wasn't convinced by it].

For the example of the steel industry: From 1969-80, American ore & coaking coal deposits were shut in, mining shut down, and steel processing shut down (the birth of the “rust belt”). Precisely during this time, as American share in the world steel market took
a plunge, steal industries were developed throughout the so-called Third World (the “emerging countries” of that time).

In petroleum, then majors began shutting in their American petroleum production and moving overseas, or to Alaska. The domestic Oil & Gas industry boomed, 1973-79, then went bust, 1979-93.
Changes in the American natural gas industry in the 1980s were also largely due to de-regulation during the Carter Administration, but facilitated by reforms in the 1980s.

For a ‘morning in America,’ to even make sense, then much of America had to pass through a ‘dark of night,’ so to speak, first. That’s actually similar to today.

Similar to 1976-81 are the projects, in development since at least 2002, and increasingly announced since 2005 which technically make no sense for the reason you state: “Capital flows more easily to emerging countries,” just as many made no sense that were already being planned during the Carter administration.
Just as was true, 1976-81, projects are already in the works, the direction has been set, and now the modifications need to be made to the market system so as to allow these projects to proceed.

Then it was steel and auto manufacturing. Today its multi-billion dollar projects, mining, processing and manufacturing that have been in development and planning, and work begun, across the country.

There’s a 7 billion dollar project close by to me, one of multiple multi-billion dollar projects in this area, that’s been in development since at least 2002 (mention of it began, internally).

Roads were straightened and widened, 2000-04. New hotels and motels began cropping up, 2004-05, new housing and apartments construction boomed, 2005-07. Maritime facilities have been under construction, 2001-present. LPG tank farms began springing up
in 2006. The plant expansion project was announced in late 2006. The training programs in the vocational branch of the local university have in place, advertised and in progress since 2007.

The “booms” these days are well planned affairs.

NOTHING like the “old days” (Pre-1977).

This has been true for at least the past 25 years.

One could see it in the development of one metropolitan area after another.

An, "If You Build It, They Will Come" model if you will.

There is no un-regulated market.

Paul Crowley| 4.18.09 @ 10:18PM

=>" ‘It's hardball. Hard hardball.’
LOL” [Tim | 4.16.09 @ 9:48AM[

Hi Tim:

Exactly!

Paul Crowley| 4.19.09 @ 1:23AM

Bob:

For clarification.

My mention of the big multi-nationals projects may confuse.

First: Be sure, that I’m not suggesting that the multi-nationals OWN the government.
None of that (figure I should make the disclaimer clearly).

The new alliance between federal government, environmental NGOs and the multi-nationals is definitely different from anytime, 1970-98.

Anyway, it’s new ‘domestic industries’ that have to be developed: The equivalent today of much of the capital in the 1980's was invested in U.S. companies” that you mention.

Another difference between now and the 1980s.

The remnants of the “domestic industries” of American-owned independents that were still around, but dying then, have now been erased.

As I mentioned before, the digital electronics revolution is winding down into standardization, and the service industry is now in decline, rather than growth (developed from scratch to maturity to decline in a single generation, less than 30 years).

I’ll point out that this is also why economic Growth is now possible, and being made fashionable, again (and that the “mature economy” rhetoric of the past 20 years has been dropped and the “small is beautiful” stuff of the 1970s is being modified).

[I found the rhetoric of about seven years ago speculating that we would become an “ideas society” to replace our “service industry society” not only absurd, but insulting. And I can think of a lot of absurd and insulting rationalizations over the past 40 years!].

It seems like it at times, but we’re not entirely building from scratch.

Divisions spun off by the large corporations (of all industries), especially during the reforms of the major corporations, 1986-98 (‘Downsizing,’ ‘Rationalization,’ ‘Core Business’. . . ), after the Integrated Company model was dropped by them, 1983 onward, have become, as far as I can tell, the cadre of new ‘domestic’ American companies, along
with some big corporations that have risen up amazingly fast (formed of various pieces spun off by the majors-become multi-nationals). The various divisions ‘spun off’ also merged into larger companies, and are now some of the large contractors or suppliers who have formed alliances with the multi-nationals. Some technical services company, contractors of the past, such as Halliburton, became huge by 1998 (demonstrated by the fact that the one time wire-line and well-fracturing service company is now confused as
an “Oil Company”).

My speculation is that much of the ‘domestic industries’ that will have to be built will do so around the infrastructure of the multi-nationals and their big multi-billion dollar projects, and this cadre of new ‘domestic companies.’

It looks like the Integrated Company model (management of every aspect of the industry,
from production to processing to manufacture, and all phases of distribution), is being re-established, but with major modifications: Effectively a contractor system of alliances, not large corporations with divisions, and integration of management and coordination between one-time different industries.

It also looks like we’re going to redevelop local agriculture, especially meat and dairy, around the new metropolitan areas (that were still in development and under construction in the 1980s).

A great deal of what I see reminds me of Japan 30-35 years ago, and elements clearly seem to have been adopted from the lessons learned in developing Japan, 1950-90.

Some of what they’ve lost, Americans have gained (which are losses for us by pre-1998 American standards), but I don’t believe that the pre-1989 Japanese system is what we’re becoming.

Those are my speculations.

For all of the similarities, there are a great many more differences, especially structurally, finance, national alliances. . .

I’d be interested in your thoughts, especially regarding my phrasing of the market system and regulation in my previous post.

Lingerie| 9.6.09 @ 9:05PM

http://www.charmingirl-china.com

Lingerie| 9.6.09 @ 9:05PM

sexy lingerie lingerie