Where Everybody Knows You're Numb

Psych Lit · Guru

RE: cwap

nesea · Senior Member

and just a little more controversy .........

Questioning Specter's Cancer Fund

By Dan Stamm, Vince LattanzioNBCPhiladelphia.comupdated 57 minutes ago

Pennsylvania Sen. Arlen Specter could be misleading people into giving to his cause to cure disease through legislation -- rather than donating directly for disease research.

The Keystone State's senior Senator has launched SpectorfortheCure.com -- "a giant leap in turning research into cures."

But close inspection shows the Web site isn't what it seems. Someone may be thinking that they are giving money directly to cancer research on Specter's Web site, but in reality they are giving money to Specter's re-election campaign, reported PoliTex's political Web site.

Once Specter is again gainfully employed by the American people, he will serve as a medical advocate on the hill.

The issue of medical research is personal for Specter. He has publicly battled Hodgkin's disease, but has he gone too far? He already switched to the Democratic Party in an attempt to avoid a tough Republican primary and is now raising money for his campaign in the name of cancer research.

Specter isn't asking for money to go directly to research, but to go to his coffers so that he can get re-elected to the Senate where he plans to battle for a cure.

The problem with SpecterfortheCure.com could be semantics. A good-hearted person could see this as a site promoting a cause similar to Lance Armstrong's "Live Strong" campaign rather than a re-election bid.

We reached out to Specter's office for comment, but received none before the close of business.

For what it's worth, here is what the donation page said about where the money goes:

"Senator Arlen Specter intends to build a bridge over the "valley of death". Senator Specter has launched "Specter for the Cure", a bold new initiative to reform our governments medical research efforts, cut red tape and unstrangle the hope for accelerated cures.

The centerpiece of Specter for the Cure is the Cures Acceleration Network ("CAN")- a new institution, answering to the President of the United States, the sole mission of which is to turn medical research into disease cures.

In 2010, Arlen Specter will seek re-election to the United States Senate. Without Arlen Specter back in the Senate to see it through, Specter for the Cure could be lost to the ordinary politics of Washington that kills real change. With his unsurpassed record of support for medical research, helping to return Senator Specter to the Senate is a powerful statement on behalf of those suffering with disease.

Become a member, today, of Specter for the Cure. All lawful contributions, of any amount, will be gratefully welcomed. Those who sign up to donate a minimum of $10 each month for ten months, will receive members only information on the Senator's effort to transform medical research and accelerate cures."
Questioning Specter's Cancer Fund - News- msnbc.com

-- Edited by nesea on Wednesday 6th of May 2009 04:17:13 AM

Psych Lit · Guru

Nightowlhoot3 wrote:

You know? I sense ... perhaps the strongest division in the GOP that's existed in my lifetime right now. On one side of the crevice is Mehgan McCain and the 21st century, and on the other, firmly dug for the long haul, are those who refuse to accept ANY societal evolution, and are determined to keep things "the way they've always been" who rally around the likes of Sarah Palin. The thrashing they received the last election cycle didn't seem to deter, but rather appears to have INSPIRED them to be even more firm in their commitment. Some, like M. McCain are going to stay with the party, and try to win the internal battle, but others, I think, are simply stepping away from it. I don't know, for instance, that Specter's changing parties was ENTIRELY his choosing. I think there was an element -- a STRONG element that WANTED him out. As I read the other day: "You can't be pro-choice (well, they said, of course "support abortion") and be a republican.
It's very reminiscent of the democrat's "Dixiecrats" really, you know? Not a partisan thing so much as a division between those who live in the past, and those who are more "present bound." JMO.

-- Edited by Nightowlhoot3 on Sunday 3rd of May 2009 01:19:59 PM

he was on meet the press yesterday. did you catch it? he basically said that he couldnt get reelected as a republican and thats surprising in pa. i also wonder if there will be a primary for his seat. i cant imagine the dems who have salivated on this chance will be happy.

Nightowlhoot3 · Guru

Anonymous wrote:

Psych Lit wrote:

Nightowlhoot3 wrote:

There goes my one male republican pro-choice senator I liked to bring up in conversations where the assertion is that democrats are the only pro-choice men.

Sure, I know there are others, but he was a GOOD one, dangit! LOL.
Arlen Specter Statement on Switching Parties
woo hoo arlen! i had three thoughts after hearing this. which dem would switch over to rebalance and did he do it to get reelected and will he really vote as a dem? really tho as much as i welcome the ease with which things might actually get done now i do believe that there should be some balance out there.

The way he votes is important. However, once a good while ago, a Democrat that switched over to win and, now again, appears to be for the same reason. To keep his Senate seat. Didn't he try to introduce a rule that during the middle of a term, one could not change party affiliation? I wish to God we could know the ones that practice what they preach. If any exist. I'm looking for principles and, am starting to believe none have any to look up to. That is the example that should be taken from this. Numbers and, winning aside, I was taught it is how yu play the game. Gator

You know? I sense ... perhaps the strongest division in the GOP that's existed in my lifetime right now. On one side of the crevice is Mehgan McCain and the 21st century, and on the other, firmly dug for the long haul, are those who refuse to accept ANY societal evolution, and are determined to keep things "the way they've always been" who rally around the likes of Sarah Palin. The thrashing they received the last election cycle didn't seem to deter, but rather appears to have INSPIRED them to be even more firm in their commitment. Some, like M. McCain are going to stay with the party, and try to win the internal battle, but others, I think, are simply stepping away from it. I don't know, for instance, that Specter's changing parties was ENTIRELY his choosing. I think there was an element -- a STRONG element that WANTED him out. As I read the other day: "You can't be pro-choice (well, they said, of course "support abortion") and be a republican.

It's very reminiscent of the democrat's "Dixiecrats" really, you know? Not a partisan thing so much as a division between those who live in the past, and those who are more "present bound." JMO.

-- Edited by Nightowlhoot3 on Sunday 3rd of May 2009 01:19:59 PM

Date: Sun May 3 7:30 AM, 2009

Psych Lit wrote:

Nightowlhoot3 wrote:

There goes my one male republican pro-choice senator I liked to bring up in conversations where the assertion is that democrats are the only pro-choice men.

Sure, I know there are others, but he was a GOOD one, dangit! LOL.
Arlen Specter Statement on Switching Parties
woo hoo arlen! i had three thoughts after hearing this. which dem would switch over to rebalance and did he do it to get reelected and will he really vote as a dem? really tho as much as i welcome the ease with which things might actually get done now i do believe that there should be some balance out there.

The way he votes is important. However, once a good while ago, a Democrat that switched over to win and, now again, appears to be for the same reason. To keep his Senate seat. Didn't he try to introduce a rule that during the middle of a term, one could not change party affiliation? I wish to God we could know the ones that practice what they preach. If any exist. I'm looking for principles and, am starting to believe none have any to look up to. That is the example that should be taken from this. Numbers and, winning aside, I was taught it is how yu play the game. Gator

Psych Lit · Guru

Nightowlhoot3 wrote:

There goes my one male republican pro-choice senator I liked to bring up in conversations where the assertion is that democrats are the only pro-choice men.

Sure, I know there are others, but he was a GOOD one, dangit! LOL.
Arlen Specter Statement on Switching Parties

woo hoo arlen! i had three thoughts after hearing this. which dem would switch over to rebalance and did he do it to get reelected and will he really vote as a dem? really tho as much as i welcome the ease with which things might actually get done now i do believe that there should be some balance out there.

Nightowlhoot3 · Guru

There goes my one male republican pro-choice senator I liked to bring up in conversations where the assertion is that democrats are the only pro-choice men.

Sure, I know there are others, but he was a GOOD one, dangit! LOL.

Arlen Specter Statement on Switching Parties

Posted:

04/28/09

Filed Under:The Capitolist

336 Comments

Sen. Arlen Specter has just announced in his Washington Senate office that he will switch from the Republican Party to the Democratic Party. His move gives Democrats 59 votes in the Senate....

Specter put out the following statement today:

I have been a Republican since 1966. I have been working extremely hard for the Party, for its candidates and for the ideals of a Republican Party whose tent is big enough to welcome diverse points of view. While I have been comfortable being a Republican, my Party has not defined who I am. I have taken each issue one at a time and have exercised independent judgment to do what I thought was best for Pennsylvania and the nation.

Since my election in 1980, as part of the Reagan Big Tent, the Republican Party has moved far to the right. Last year, more than 200,000 Republicans in Pennsylvania changed their registration to become Democrats. I now find my political philosophy more in line with Democrats than Republicans

When I supported the stimulus package, I knew that it would not be popular with the Republican Party. But, I saw the stimulus as necessary to lessen the risk of a far more serious recession than we are now experiencing.

Since then, I have traveled the State, talked to Republican leaders and office-holders and my supporters and I have carefully examined public opinion. It has become clear to me that the stimulus vote caused a schism which makes our differences irreconcilable. On this state of the record, I am unwilling to have my twenty-nine year Senate record judged by the Pennsylvania Republican primary electorate. I have not represented the Republican Party. I have represented the people of Pennsylvania.

I have decided to run for re-election in 2010 in the Democratic primary.

I am ready, willing and anxious to take on all comers and have my candidacy for re-election determined in a general election.

I deeply regret that I will be disappointing many friends and supporters. I can understand their disappointment. I am also disappointed that so many in the Party I have worked for for more than four decades do not want me to be their candidate. It is very painful on both sides. I thank specially Senators McConnell and Cornyn for their forbearance.

I am not making this decision because there are no important and interesting opportunities outside the Senate. I take on this complicated run for re-election because I am deeply concerned about the future of our country and I believe I have a significant contribution to make on many of the key issues of the day, especially medical research. NIH funding has saved or lengthened thousands of lives, including mine, and much more needs to be done. And my seniority is very important to continue to bring important projects vital to Pennsylvania's economy.

I am taking this action now because there are fewer than thirteen months to the 2010 Pennsylvania Primary and there is much to be done in preparation for that election. Upon request, I will return campaign contributions contributed during this cycle.

While each member of the Senate caucuses with his Party, what each of us hopes to accomplish is distinct from his party affiliation. The American people do not care which Party solves the problems confronting our nation. And no Senator, no matter how loyal he is to his Party, should or would put party loyalty above his duty to the state and nation.

My change in party affiliation does not mean that I will be a party-line voter any more for the Democrats that I have been for the Republicans. Unlike Senator Jeffords' switch which changed party control, I will not be an automatic 60th vote for cloture. For example, my position on Employees Free Choice (Card Check) will not change.
Whatever my party affiliation, I will continue to be guided by President Kennedy's statement that sometimes Party asks too much. When it does, I will continue my independent voting and follow my conscience on what I think is best for Pennsylvania and America.

-----------------------------------------------

Where Everybody Knows You're Numb

Questioning Specter's Cancer FundBy Dan Stamm, Vince LattanzioNBCPhiladelphia.comupdated 57 minutes ago

Questioning Specter's Cancer FundBy Dan Stamm, Vince LattanzioNBCPhiladelphia.comupdated 57 minutes ago

Arlen Specter Statement on Switching Parties

Arlen Specter Statement on Switching Parties

Arlen Specter Statement on Switching Parties

Arlen Specter Statement on Switching Parties

Questioning Specter's Cancer Fund

By Dan Stamm, Vince LattanzioNBCPhiladelphia.comupdated 57 minutes ago

Questioning Specter's Cancer Fund

By Dan Stamm, Vince LattanzioNBCPhiladelphia.comupdated 57 minutes ago