Crossposted from Flopping Aces

…and declares himself a ‘Democrat‘!

About time, my boy! A Rino that marred the brand of the GOP has now left the room. 2010 is looking good for real change in the political landscape of Pennsylvania as the voters respond to this crass political move.

The brighter side of Philly’s blogosphere weighs in on this announcement:

Blonde Sagacity: Coward

The Bitter American: Quisling

First In! : Good Riddance

Chairman Steele weighs in:

“Let’s be honest — Sen. Specter didn’t leave the GOP based on principles of any kind,” said Republican National Committee Chairman Michael Steele. “He left to further his personal political interests because he knew that he was going to lose a Republican primary due to his left-wing voting record.

Lowman Henry sizes up the switch:

No, the Specter switch was not a move of ideological conscience; it was a crass political calculation. Specter conceded as much during a news conference announcing his party switch when he condescendingly proclaimed that he would now allow Republican primary voters to decide the fate of his 28-year senate career. Rather than accept the fact he could not win re-election as a Republican, Specter has tossed the dice and gambled that his political future will be longer as a Democrat.

It is a risky move. First, the Democratic Party is notorious fractious and Arlen Specter will not be welcomed with open arms by all. He will likely enjoy the support of his one-time employee in the Philadelphia District Attorney’s Office, Governor Ed Rendell. And national Democrats, much like their Republican counterparts had done for years, will likely support the incumbent over other challengers. But one group in particular could be problematic, and that is organized labor. As he struggled to regain his political footing within the GOP after the stimulus vote Specter flip-flopped on the Employee Free Choice Act or Card Check, infuriating the labor movement. Specter says he won’t switch positions again, but it is hard to see how he can be successful within the ranks of the Democratic Party unless he does.
-Lowman S. Henry is Chairman & CEO of the Lincoln Institute and host of the weekly Lincoln Radio Journal.

Also:

Lies And Liars

Last week saw an unusual number of outright lies from our media and political class. Lies that went virtually unchallenged. Yawn.

Lie #1: ABC, celebrating Obama’s 100 day mark, announced he is enjoying the best presidential job approval rating of any president at this point in 20 years. Not so. A simple google search shows that George W. Bush, at the 100 day mark in his presidency, enjoyed a 62% approval rating. Obama, alas, enjoys only a 52% approval rating. ABC lied.

Lie #2: Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi announced to the world that she was never told during a congressional briefing in 2002 that waterboarding or other “enhanced” interrogation techniques were being used on terrorism suspects. This directly contradicts a 2007 Washington Post article saying that the California Democrat and three other lawmakers had received an hour-long secret briefing on the interrogation tactics, including waterboarding, and that they raised no objections at the time. In plain English – Nancy Pelosi lied.

Not mentioned in this brou ha ha is the fact that waterboarding of American military personnel, as part of their training, far exceeded the three times this heinous method was used on terrorists. But torture applied to members of the U.S. military is justified, because the left has already pronounced them guilty, unlike the poor terrorists who have yet to enjoy their day in American courts.

Lie #3: Next up, California Congressman Henry Waxman. After accusing Newt Gingrich of trying to scare people into opposing ‘climate legislation’, Waxman flatly stated that the cap and trade legislation currently being hatched in Congress was designed to “contain energy cost increases.”

If Waxman wasn’t so smart, I would classify his statement as merely a misstatement. But Waxman does his home work. Policy wonk that he is, he had to be aware of the numerous analysis that predict this same cap and trade legislation will increase yearly energy costs for the average family by $1,800 to $3,900. Conclusion: Waxman lied.

Lie #4: Our list of liars would be woefully incomplete without inclusion of Father Earth, Algore. Gore told a House hearing that the Democratic climate bill would limit carbon dioxide and other pollution linked to a warming of the earth and would simultaneously solve the problems of the climate, economy and national security. No supporting facts were given as to how taxing air will help the economy, much less improve our security. None were necessary because Algore has a Nobel Prize. (Lie #5: Nobel Prize recipients don’t lie.)

Completely overlooked also, was Gore’s underlying premise that man made pollution is linked to climate change. Despite widespread acceptance of this ‘fake but accurate’ premise, no science has been able to definitively link climate change to man, despite billions of our tax dollars and years of trying. Steve Milloy of JunkScience.com offered $100,000 to anyone who could supply this missing link. To date, he has recieved no takers. Hmmm….

I’m not 100% sure I can call Gore a liar. After all, a lie is a false statement made with deliberate intent to deceive. And there remains the slight possibility that Algore might actually believe the nonsense he spouts.

Another widely accepted premise that has gone unchallenged is that Bush lied. Any liberal, oops, progressive, worth his salt knows for a fact that Bush lied. But strangely enough, not one person has ever taken me up on my oft repeated offer of $100 to anyone who could point out a specific instance where Bush actually lied.

From this I can conclude one of two things: Either Bush didn’t lie, or liberals are so busy feeding at the public trough that they don’t need my measly $100 bucks.

Google search is invaluable in supplying facts and credible rebuttals to the avalanche of misstatements, out of context statements, and outright lies that are mistakenly accepted as truth these days. Unfortunately, there are two things this search engine can’t find: a list of the new politically correct rules we are all now obliged to live by, and a list of the new definitions of old words.

Since I still have that $100 bucks proving Bush didn’t lie, I’m going to go out on a limb and offer it to any liberal, oops, progressive, who can supply me with two things. An up to date list of politically correct rules and a current list of the new definitions of old words. I’ll increase this amount to a cool $1,000 bucks to anyone who can tell me when Americans voted on these new rules and definitions.