RNC: Mocking Specter, Hitting Dodd

The Republican National Committee is mocking erstwhile Republican Sen. Arlen Specter today with “Welcome Memos” from his new comrades.  One of the humorous little items does double duty – not just tweaking Specter, but also knocking Sen. Chris Dodd on his sweetheart deal mortgages.rncspecterdodd

There is no word yet on how many of the RNC Welcome Memos have actually been sent by senior Democratic U.S. Senators who don’t want to watch Specter hop over them on the seniority list.

Advertisements

25 responses to “RNC: Mocking Specter, Hitting Dodd

  1. All “Just Say No” party silliness aside, Specter made a very intelligent choice to join the Democrats in the program to make a better America.
    So – maybe he can get a leadership spot on the Senate Intelligence Committee – then lead the charge to investigate Bush and Cheeeney and bring them to justice. And if the GOP lets Specter keep his password – he can send a Welcome Memo greeting to the boys inviting them to the trial….

  2. “intelligent?” how about “self-preservating?”

    speaking of “just say no,” how’d you like Arlen’s first vote as a Dem — “no” on Obama’s budget.

  3. Former pugilist Sen. Harry Reid reached a private arrangement with defecting former Republican Sen. Arlen Specter that would allow the Specter to retain his seniority, and this has got true-blue Democrats in the senate who have been patiently waiting their turn at the chairmanship trough in a snit, according to a story in The Hill.

    “Reid told reporters Tuesday that Specter, who plans to change his party registration to Democrat in May, would not bump any Democrats from plum committee posts this year or next year. But Reid said Specter could invoke what would be three decades of seniority at the start of the 112th Congress.

    “’Of course in a year and a half, at the start of every Congress, it’s a new game and Sen. Specter has seniority over a number of people on committees he wants to serve on,’ Reid said.”

    An unnamed “senior laymaker” curtly told the Hill, “That’s his deal and not the caucus’s.

  4. Yet we all hate Joe Liebermann for putting his personal interests ahead of his party. Incredible.

  5. Yet we all hate Joe Liebermann for putting his personal interests ahead of his party. Incredible.

    It seems to me that the greatest crime in politics is failure to keep up with the times. Pennsylvania’s Republicans would have punished Specter for failure to adapt to the new, more extreme GOP orthodoxy — and general election voters were quite likely to have punished anyone with an R after their name in the fall. So, presto!

    Lieberman got punished in his primary for failing to change with the times, which is why he lied like crazy about his opposition to the war throughout the general election.

  6. Lieberman got punished in his primary for failing to change with the times, which is why he lied like crazy about his opposition to the war throughout the general election.

    By contrast, Dodd got with the program in a big way on the war by 2004, and is taking lumps across the political spectrum for not doing all in his power for punishing the financial services wizards that set our economy on fire. If he learns and adapts (or if the public stops caring), he’ll be fine. If he doesn’t? Well, there’s probably not much that can be done to help him.

  7. for not doing all in his power for punishing

    to punish

  8. Lieberman got punished in his primary for failing to change with the times, which is why he lied like crazy about his opposition to the war throughout the general election.

    I thought he stuck to his guns and explained that he supported the war, hence he lost the primary but was reelected when the voters in November respected his willingness to stay true to his beliefs… did I miss something?

  9. and general election voters were quite likely to have punished anyone with an R after their name in the fall. So, presto!

    Specter would have lost on the primary. that’s why he switched parties. has nothing to do with the general election.

  10. I thought he stuck to his guns and explained that he supported the war, hence he lost the primary but was reelected when the voters in November respected his willingness to stay true to his beliefs… did I miss something?

    Nope. He dropped his staunch support after the primary. More here.

  11. Hey Matt, it’s over. We won, get used to it. Even Obama is luxuriating in the Bush victory in Iraq. On to Afghanistan. If you didn’t like Iraq, you’re gonna hate this one.

  12. Hey Matt, it’s over. We won, get used to it. Even Obama is luxuriating in the Bush victory in Iraq. On to Afghanistan. If you didn’t like Iraq, you’re gonna hate this one.

    And all it cost us was 4200 lives and a major American political party.

  13. I kid, of course. I am totally glad to admit that Iraq is nearly as stable as it was before we invaded. But since we could have accomplished our stated objective — ridding the world of the “imminent threat” of Iraq’s WMDs — without doing anything, it might have been nice to have avoided killing so many people in the process.

  14. AndersonScooper

    We won in Iraq? Like we won the War on Drugs?

    Look, just because the media stops reporting on something doesn’t mean the damn thing is resolved.

    In the case of Iraq, we’ve probably just switched dictators…
    Al-Maliki Tightens his Grip on Iraq.

    Plenty more Iraq coverage here:
    http://browse.guardian.co.uk/search?search=iraq&sitesearch-radio=guardian&go-guardian=Search

  15. Scoop,

    Sorry to be the bearer of bad news, but the good guys won this one, which is why it is possible for President Obama to declare victory and get out — sort of.

  16. Matt,

    Two words: blue finger.

  17. I kid, of course. I am totally glad to admit that Iraq is nearly as stable as it was before we invaded. But since we could have accomplished our stated objective — ridding the world of the “imminent threat” of Iraq’s WMDs — without doing anything, it might have been nice to have avoided killing so many people in the process.

    You know, Matt and TrueBlue, I hate to break up the Bush-bashing, but I seem to remember Bill Clinton and Hillary Clinton and Al Gore and Nancy Pelosi and John Kerry and a LOT of other Democrats saying that Saddam was a legitimate terrorist threat. They were sure that he had to be stopped because he possessed WMDs, he had terrorist ties, and he flouted the will of the United Nations.

    Forgive me for focusing on facts, however. I know you guys aren’t all that bright, and you couldn’t care less whether you were accurate in hindsight, so I apologize for interrupting your demagoguery with logic.

  18. You know, Matt and TrueBlue, I hate to break up the Bush-bashing, but I seem to remember Bill Clinton and Hillary Clinton and Al Gore and Nancy Pelosi and John Kerry and a LOT of other Democrats saying that Saddam was a legitimate terrorist threat. They were sure that he had to be stopped because he possessed WMDs, he had terrorist ties, and he flouted the will of the United Nations.

    So what? They were wrong.

  19. So what? They were wrong.

    Even CBS – hardly any sort of right wing tool reported this almost a year ago:

    http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/07/05/world/main4235028.shtml

  20. AndersonScooper

    Hey, if you wingers think Iraq was worth it, God bless.

    Just another sign of how out-of-touch you all are, as the American public strongly disagrees.

    And Saddam was never a threat to the U.S. Truth is we could always have squashed him like a bug. Whoich we proved in 2003.

    In terms of having “won” in Iraq, maybe we should give it a few more years. (And if Iraq is suddenly so safe, why don’t I buy you all a plane ticket?)

  21. why don’t I buy you all a plane ticket?

    Heck yeah!

    Thanks, I’d love to go!

    When shall we come down to New Haven to pick them up?

    I’ve already called a few close personal friends and told them of your generous offer, they want to come too.

    We’ll be needing 232 (maybe 233, depends if one can get the time off) tickets; thanks soooo much!

    Looking forward to it.

  22. Hey, if you wingers think Iraq was worth it, God bless.

    Looks like President Obama also thinks it was worth it since he appointed Defense Sec. Robert Gates who was the same guy that was in charge of the two “Bush wars”. Did you notice how Obama now seems to say some very nice things about General David Petraeus and Obama supported a 21,000 troop surge in Afghanistan?

    Ya think Mr. Hopey Changey maybe a “winger” too?

  23. Looks like President Obama also thinks it was worth it since he appointed Defense Sec. Robert Gates who was the same guy that was in charge of the two “Bush wars”. Did you notice how Obama now seems to say some very nice things about General David Petraeus and Obama supported a 21,000 troop surge in Afghanistan?

    I think keeping Gates was a good idea for the same reason that ramping up in Afghanistan is a bad one: a lot has to be done to repair our broken-down economic system, and useless fights (political and military) have the potential to distract and derail what needs doing on the home front. And if Gates will follow Obama’s orders (no reason to think he wouldn’t), why go crazy fighting to get a new person if the previous one is reasonably competent and well-respected with military leadership?

  24. I think keeping Gates was a good idea for the same reason that ramping up in Afghanistan is a bad one: a lot has to be done to repair our broken-down economic system, and useless fights (political and military) have the potential to distract and derail what needs doing on the home front. And if Gates will follow Obama’s orders (no reason to think he wouldn’t), why go crazy fighting to get a new person if the previous one is reasonably competent and well-respected with military leadership?

    Gates comes with a track record. Obama either liked his experience or he didn’t. Keeping Gates signals that Obama liked the way he ran the two Bush wars.

  25. I kid, of course. I am totally glad to admit that Iraq is nearly as stable as it was before we invaded. But since we could have accomplished our stated objective — ridding the world of the “imminent threat” of Iraq’s WMDs — without doing anything, it might have been nice to have avoided killing so many people in the process.

    So what? They were wrong.

    Hey, if you wingers think Iraq was worth it, God bless.

    If the two of you don’t think Iraq is more stable now, you’re wrong.

    If the two of you don’t think the region is more stable now, you’re crazy.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s