So, by now, the news that Pennsylvania Senator Arlen Specter has jumped ship from the Republicrat to the Demoblican party is fairly fetid. This never really surprised me, because Specter had a pretty strict Demoblican voting tendency, anyway. All the “filibuster-proof” chatter aside, the Demoblican Party already had a super-majority in the Senate anyway, what with Specter and Snowe and Collins from Maine.
No, the big change here is that the media on both “sides” [sic] of the aisle have something inconsequential to squawk about to their somnambulent legions of faithful voters.
Waitaminit — that’s not really anything new, either; they always obfuscate the really important issues [namely, how they continuously screw all of us over, how they keep stealing our money by taxation or inflation, how they constantly abrogate our freedoms, and on and on...] in favor of something unimportant but “timely.”
What shocked me in the entire episode was this quote from Specter in the increasingly irrelevant NY Times on April 28:
“I am not prepared to have my 29-year record in the United States Senate decided by the Pennsylvania Republican primary electorate—not prepared to have that record decided by that jury.”
Wow. Just, wow.
I am not so much shocked by the content of the quote — it’s obvious to any casual observer that Specter is a coward unwilling to face up to his constituency — but I am amazed that he would be so brazen about his aims: to avoid being held ot account for his actions by those Pennsylvanians who put him in office in the first place!
Of course, you can guess my question here: Where has “that jury” been for the last 23 years?
If you’ve never voted for Specter, take heart: Chances are you have been rubber-stamping all your elected officials’ nefarious actions as well. I mean, Specter has been in the Senate for most of my life — for five (5) Senate terms. That means he’s been re-elected four times. (And really, his voting trends haven’t changed much in that time. He’s always been a moderate—read that “liberal”—Republicrat. A “bridge-builder.” A “maverick,” you might say. Wait… there can’t be two “maverick“ Republicrats, can there?)
How many times have you gone to the polls and punched the ticket for the guy who was in office because “what choice do I have,” or because “he’s a bastard, but he’s our bastard”?
Pardon me for being blunt, but anyone who thinks there’s a credible difference between the “two” [sic] parties is either fooling himself, or is himself a fool.
I’m just sayin’.
[H/T VDare.com]
