Home › Blogs › davidfarrar's blog ›

Personae non gratae: Collins, Specter and Snow.

Submitted by davidfarrar on Sat, 02/07/2009 - 09:42
in

After 15 years as a GOP Executive Committeeman, believe me when I tell you I know the seriousness of the suggestion I am about to make to RNC Chairman Steele.  I think Chairman Steele should start proceedings to ask Senators Collins, Specter, and Snowe, by formal resolution, to leave the party or be declared, personae non gratae, for the harm they have done to the country, to its people and to the party.

It is essential that the Republican Party clearly articulate to the electorate the country is now headed down the wrong path and that the right path is to avoid huge, strangling deficits as the fastest way to full economic recovery, the foundation upon which the safety and security of this nation resides.

ex animo

davidfarrar

4.75
Your rating: None Average: 4.8 (4 votes)

Comments

Why stop there?

Submitted by artigiano on Sat, 02/07/2009 - 11:09.

Just make it a standing rule that anyone who votes in opposition to the majority of the GOP caucus on any vote is automatically ecommunicated, and officially declared a Democrat.

I mean, if you are going to stand for ideological purity, why go for half measures?

If you don't have your principles, what else do you have really? Apparently, less and less Republicans everyday.

Arlen Specter

Submitted by lilrose on Sat, 02/07/2009 - 11:10.

I have been reading articles on The Next Right for about six months; I found this site during the Presidential election.  I have newly registered here in order to ask the following question:  I have never been politically active, although I have voted in every election for the last 35 years.  I live in Pennsylvania and I am ready and eager to work for most likely any candidate who will challenge Arlen Specter in the next Primary election.  How do I go about finding who that person, or persons, might be?

PA Senate

Submitted by Cahnman on Sun, 02/08/2009 - 00:01.

I've got to imagine there are all sorts of conservatives from central PA that we'd love.  I'm still not sold on the idea of a Specter primary, but if we do go with one, I'd prefer someone who has previously won statewide.

As for becoming more active, I'd start with my county party if I were you.  Tell them you want to volunteer and they'll give you something to do.  It's a good way to meet your local movers and shakers; you could also make some pretty good friends in the process.

Once you've gotten to know your local movers and shakers, you'll figure out who's in the anti-Specter camp.  It'll probably be pretty obvious after awhile.

Kick out Specter

Submitted by Huldah on Sat, 02/14/2009 - 08:59.

If Specter is expelled from the Party, as Farrar suggests (I wholeheartedly agree), then no one will have to challenge Specter for the Republican nomination for his Senate seat.  We must purge the GOP of traitors; otherwise, too many in the rank and file  think the traitors have the stamp of approval of the GOP. So, they stay with the status quo instead of voting for someone who is good.

Sounds like a plan!

Submitted by acinphx on Sat, 02/07/2009 - 13:54.

Nothing would say "march to Rush's orders or be damned" quite like a public witchhunt!  It promises to go over big with the voters in Maine and Pennsylvania who elected them -- a big ol' GOP slap upside the head to let them know just what the GOP thinks of their kind!  Yes, do excommunicate them and give the Dems a filibuster proof majority now -- no need to put it off until 2010.

Yes, I understand your point.

Submitted by davidfarrar on Sat, 02/07/2009 - 22:58.

But look at it from another perspective. The Democrats already have a filibuster-proof majority, only now they have it with "bipartisan" support.

ex animo

davidfarrar

I don't see it

Submitted by Paleo-Skeptic on Sun, 02/08/2009 - 05:13.

Architects of the compromise included Susan Collins, R-Maine, and Ben Nelson, D-Neb., who represented a broader group of moderates unhappy that so much money went into programs they thought wouldn't create jobs. Eventually, every Republican except Collins and Arlen Specter, R-Pa., left the talks, which finally produced a deal with the White House late Friday afternoon.

That means that when every other Republican decided that the GOP should go unrepresented in negotiations, Collins and Specter stuck in there to reduce the cost of the bill.

Lawmakers are already looking past Senate action to difficult House-Senate negotiations that will test the mettle of a handful of Senate moderates against House Democrats unhappy over more than $100 billion in spending forced from the bill.

They just cut out $100 billion from the porkulus bill.  Why would you want to kick them out of the party for that?

In a key reduction from the bill that reached the Senate floor earlier in the week, $40 billion would be cut from a "fiscal stabilization fund" for state governments, though $14 billion to boost the maximum for college Pell Grants by $400 to $5,250 would be preserved, as would aid to local school districts for the No Child Left Behind law and special education.A plan to help the unemployed purchase health insurance would be reduced to a 50 percent subsidy instead of two-thirds.

It looks to me like they knew that they couldn't stop it completely, so they set out to minimize the damage.

I think they did great.

I would have prefered to see the bill reduced to about half its cost, but they were working without much help. 

 

That attitude...

Submitted by Cahnman on Sun, 02/08/2009 - 11:30.

...is a recipie for me too Republicanism.

Two Republicans...

Submitted by Paleo-Skeptic on Sun, 02/08/2009 - 13:36.

... won $108 billion in cuts.

I can't help but think that I would like the results even better had six Republicans remained in the room. 

Me-too Republicanism is the Next Right

Submitted by davidfarrar on Sun, 02/08/2009 - 22:56.

 Tony Blankly states in his first paragraph what a "me-too Republican" is:

"With the rise to enduring power of President Franklin Roosevelt's New Deal in 1933, a new type of Republican emerged in reaction to FDR's attractive and overawing power: the me-too Republican. Until the election of President Reagan five decades later, these me-too Republicans supported, rather than opposed, Democratic Party policies but claimed they would administer them better. Of course, this led to a half-century of Democratic dominance of American government and politics."

If we, as Republicans fail to draw a clear political line of demarcation by publically asking these three so-called Republicans to leave the party, we will revert back to a "Me-too Republican Party. .

But who am I kidding? The Republican Party is run by corporatism. Their political objective is not to make waves,  to go quietly into the night, licking their wounds and realizing just how beneficial it could be to become "me-too Republicans". 

Without a demonstration by the Republican Party that Pres. Obama's Porcus Maximus Stimulus plan is wrong and the nation will pay for it, let me suggest to everyone here at The Next Right, that the next right will be "me-too Republicanism. Get use to it.

ex animo

davidfarrar

Historically inaccurate

Submitted by Paleo-Skeptic on Sun, 02/08/2009 - 23:14.

Most of the economic stimulus package that FDR passed in his first two years were programs that Hoover had been trying to get passed for the last two years.

The Republican Party is run by corporatism.

Exactly why I hate to see Reagan deified.

Look at the numbers of MNCs before Reagan, and then after Reagan.

The Gipper made off-shoring the profits fashionable at the same time he was preaching trickle-down. 

 

You don't have a clue...

Submitted by davidfarrar on Mon, 02/09/2009 - 09:56.

 

 ...do you?

 

 

  

ex animo

Photobucket

 

 

  

davidfarrar 

 

can you cite me a few of the programs

Submitted by RisingTide on Mon, 02/09/2009 - 10:04.

and how hoover had proposed them?

It was my impression that both hoover and FDR were budgethawks (balanced). and that FDR needed to be forced into the New Deal.

What do you think about Mises? (and can you tell me what Mishpuka is about?)

For God sake...

Submitted by davidfarrar on Mon, 02/09/2009 - 10:21.

...listen to this guy...

Photobucket (click on the gif)

 ...and stop bothering me with your useless prattle.

 

 ex animo

Photobucket

davidfarrar

 

Hoover should have been expelled!

Submitted by Huldah on Sat, 02/14/2009 - 09:32.

Look, mr/ms. "Progressive Traditionalist":

You prove our points!  You threw Herbert Hoover's big government interventionism in our faces to justify the unconstitutional programs FDR pushed through.

THAT'S WHY the big government big spending interventionists should be kicked out of the Party!

GO GET A LOGIC BOOK! 

of course you don't see it!

Submitted by Huldah on Sat, 02/14/2009 - 09:25.

You don't see it because you don't think!  Let's think this through:

1.  Yes, those 3 could have stopped the so-called "stimulus" bill completely.  Without their votes, the Dems would have only gotten 58 votes the first time.  That's two less than 60.    That would have been enough.  Those 3 had the power to stop the monstrosity completely.

2. They don't teach Logic in the schools, and as a result, our people can not think!  "Progressives" have abandoned Logic and Reason altogether.

 

The Dems already have it!

Submitted by Huldah on Sat, 02/14/2009 - 09:15.

Look!  Specter, Snowe & Collins are the ones who GAVE the Dems a fillibuster proof majority! 

We need to expell them from the Party so that the rank and file are no longer deceived into believing that  those 3 are really "Republicans".   Then, the rank & file [and the RNC] can send their money to bona fide Republicans.

The big government, big spending, open-borders Republicans such as Herbert Hoover, George W. Bush, John McCain, etc. bring discredit upon the Party!  How many times have you seen those on the looney left throw Bush's  spending deficit  in our faces?

 

  

Revenge is best served cold

Submitted by Ironman on Sat, 02/07/2009 - 14:17.

Let this blow over. Let these folks think it was no big deal.

Quietly line up primary opponents for Specter and Snowe in '10.

No sense giving these folks the heads up so that they fire up their MSM allies.

Sage advice under normal circumstances.

Submitted by davidfarrar on Sat, 02/07/2009 - 23:33.

But this vote will set this nation's economic destiny for at least the next twenty to thirty years.

This resolution is not about Collins, Specter or Snowe, but all about the Republican Party and who we are and what we stand for. If we go quietly into the night on this one, why should we bother standing our ground on other smaller issues? There comes a time to draw the line in the sand and to say this is where we stand as a party. We owe it to our country, to the Republic, to ourselves, but most of all, we owe it to all those who through our own negligence know no better.

And as far as giving Specter and Snowe a heads up, I want to give them a heads up. I want them to know who is coming after them and why.

ex animo

davidfarrar

To David Farrar

Submitted by Huldah on Sat, 02/14/2009 - 09:36.

I think I love you.

You shouldn't use Latin if you can't compose it correctly.

Submitted by Dirty D on Sat, 02/07/2009 - 21:27.

It makes you look pretentious in addition to stupid.

personae non gratae.

Nouns and adjectives have to agree in gender, number and case.

DD

 

Thanks for the correction...

Submitted by davidfarrar on Sun, 02/08/2009 - 09:57.

...from one pretentious fool.

 

ex animo

davidfarrar

To Dirty D

Submitted by Huldah on Sat, 02/14/2009 - 09:40.

Not always.  In Greek, for example, neuter plural nouns frequently take verbs in the singular.  Didn't you know that? 

No, I didn't.

Submitted by davidfarrar on Mon, 02/16/2009 - 08:37.

Does that me you don't love me anymore?

 

ex animo

davidfarrar

Koine Greek and The Love of Huldah

Submitted by Huldah on Tue, 02/17/2009 - 00:09.

Oh David!  My comment about neuter plural nouns in Greek sometimes taking verbs in the singular was addressed to Dirty D, because he was rude to you.

And my Love for you?  I love nothing better than a smart and articulate man.  So you know I am yours (well, for as long as your mind holds out)!

 

Uhm...

Submitted by LnGrrrR on Mon, 02/16/2009 - 23:24.

Are there different versions of Latin running around out there? Like, is there a "Greek" Latin as opposed to the "normal" Latin they teach in schools?

Latin & Greek

Submitted by Huldah on Tue, 02/17/2009 - 00:15.

To Uhm.........

No, the normal Latin we learned in high school is the Latin of Julius Caesar, etc; 

The New Testament, e.g., was written in Koine (a/k/a/ Hellinistic) Greek.  Two very different languages.  Regards, huldah. 

Right

Submitted by LnGrrrR on Tue, 02/17/2009 - 11:40.

That's kinda what I meant. In the original post, he specifically mentioned that Latin noun endings are conjugated, and then you mentioned the Greek language which isn't. I wanted to make sure there weren't two different 'flavors' of Latin.

(I'm not a polyglot, but I love learning different languages. I know bits and piece of Russian, French and Spanish.)

inflected languages

Submitted by Huldah on Wed, 02/18/2009 - 17:03.

Hello dear Right:

I probably was not clear.  Yes, in Latin and in Greek, nouns and adjectives are inflected in their endings and generally agree as to number, case, and gender.  However, in Greek, sometimes a neuter plural noun will take a verb in the singular.

Russian, French, Spanish, Latin, Greek, German, etc. are all within the Indo-European family of languages - and thus are related.  Regards, Huldah

Thanks a bunch

Submitted by LnGrrrR on Wed, 02/18/2009 - 17:21.

And the screenname is actually LnGrrrR... "right" was just the title of my response. Thanks again!

Can I guess you deal with languages in your job? Hehe.

who am I?

Submitted by Huldah on Sat, 02/21/2009 - 20:00.

A lawyer, philosopher and student of the Bible and koine Greek.  Visit TCOT Constitution classroom - I am there!  We can be friends!  There I am known as Publius/Huldah.   But yes, I love languages.  I'd love to do a chart showing the similarities in all the Indo-European languages.  But, I won't live long enough!

Machiavelli at work?

Submitted by chemjeff on Sun, 02/08/2009 - 01:38.

I don't know.  Maybe it's too soon to tell.  The Machiavellian side of me wants to believe that there are some political games going on here by these three.  Is it an attempt to claim the bipartisan mantle, putting the Democrats in the position of partisan ideologues?  Note that the spending that was stripped out are items that are most popular among the House Democrats - aid to states, aid for teachers, etc., and of course more tax cuts were added in, which are sure not to please Pelosi.  The bill has to go to conference and I think it is very possible that some of that spending gets added back in to the final bill and the tax cuts won't be as generous.  So when the final bill goes back to the Senate, perhaps one or more of these three stand up and say "I could support it without the wasteful stuff, and with more needed tax relief, but since the Democrats in the House absolutely insist on having their way, I can't support it.  I tried to be bipartisan but the Democrats won't play ball."  Here's hoping any way.

machiavelli was the power behind the throne

Submitted by RisingTide on Tue, 02/17/2009 - 10:14.

if you want to look for such games, dig deeper.

comic interlude:

A: "stupid fuck finally did something useful!"

B:"You mean specter"

A:"No! stupid fuck! hey, wait...yeah, that's specter"

I don't see it

Submitted by Paleo-Skeptic on Tue, 02/17/2009 - 11:42.

And I think you're looking to hard at something that is pretty simple.

Two Republicans got $108 Billion cut from that monstrosity.

What do you think they're going to claim about their actions? 

Don't forget the bankers...

Submitted by davidfarrar on Sun, 02/08/2009 - 10:05.

We are not through pumping billions more into the banking industry. Deficit spending is wrong. The more we engage in it the more our nation, our Republic, is at risk.

If our government can cut spending to pay for the stimulus, by all means, spend the surplus on stimulating the economy. But if you have to take money out of the economy in the form of raising the deficit in order to put it back in the form of tax cuts and government spending, it isn't going to work.  This is the lesson we all should have learned from the Bush years, but because we had a complacent Republican Party, the electorate, and many Republicans, now think we can simply raise the deficit a few trillion dollars and the economy will somehow magically grow. This is not true. Taking trillions out of our struggling economy now will only prolong the recovery while putting our nation's economic future at risk.

Secondly, the economy is even now turning around. We may need a few billion in extra unemployment benefits, but I am beginning to think the recession will be all but over by the time these infrastructure billions get spent. I think Pres. Obama knows this as well, and is the reason why he is insisting on passing this legislation quickly.

As far as Collins, Snowe and Specter are concerned, these stimulus reductions they are so proud of are simply placebos of meaningful cuts. They will be easily made up in the budgetary process soon to be undertaken by Congress.

The real harm, as I see it, is putting the nation's economic future at risk for partisan, political gain.  Democrats know no better, Republican Senators do.

ex animo

davidfarrar 

Speaking of the bankers...

Submitted by acinphx on Sun, 02/08/2009 - 14:10.

You propose to target Snowe, Collins and Specter but there were many more Republicans who voted for the bank bailouts and with far fewer efforts to limit the damage than those three displayed in working to reduce the stim package. 

As artigiano asked above, why should the others be let off the hook if you want to put the heads of Snowe, Collins and Specter on spikes and parade them around the public square as a warning to others in the GOP who may wander from the Rush directive?  Is paying billion-dollar bonuses to incompetent bankers somehow more ideologically pure to the GOP than funding infrastructure?  You have to know that's how your proposed action would be spun.

Good question.

Submitted by davidfarrar on Mon, 02/09/2009 - 09:43.

There is an accountability mechanism inherent in a democracy, it's called "Elections." I can assure Sen. Chambliss of Gerogia understands this point rather better now than he did before this last election.

ex animo

davidfarrar