Nolan Chart columnist Raven West published an article discussing party switching, specifically the cases of Arlen Specter switching his party affiliation to Democrat, and Ron Paul switching to the Republican Party, from the Libertarian Party.
Here’s an excerpt:
After receiving thousands of emails from protesting swine, the World Health Organization announced they were changing the name of Swine Flu to Influenza A-H1N1. The politically correct organization swiftly changed the name of the flu to a less offensive, more scientifically correct moniker. However, whether or not one is afflicted with Swine Flue, or Influenza A-H1N1, the symptoms are exactly the same. A flu, by any other name, would feel the same.
So it is with political parties. The news of Arlen Specter’s defection from the Republican Party spread through the media faster than the above mentioned flu. Most of the reports are speculating that the only reason for his sudden switch is to insure he’ll win his sixth term next year, as a Democrat. Does that mean Specter’s political views have changed, or is he an elephant in a donkey suit?
You can read the full article here. Source: Nolan Chart website.
14 responses so far ↓
1 Morgan Brykein // May 2, 2009 at 1:08 am
This isn’t really news but it’s an article some might be interested in, plus, I’ve been gone for a while. Been dealing with some things as of late.
2 Kimberly Wilder // May 2, 2009 at 8:03 am
What…Influenza A-H1N1?
Are we supposed to say A-H1N1 every time? I think no one will have time to tell their children to wash their hands…”Johnny, wash your hands at school today so you do not get Influenza A dash H one N one…”
That reminds me of how silly it seems to me that, in French, when you need help, you say “Au secours!” I always thought that all those words (and the way you pronounce them in French) would make a person suck in water and drowned at the wrong time.
Anyway…experts usually name things in hope that they will be called by a nickname of their initials. Like the NASA’s new treadmill in space: the Combined Operational Load Bearing External Resistance Treadmill (or Colbert.)
So, I think I know what we are supposed to call the swing flu…that is Influenza A-H1N1 something else. The only gimmicky name I come up with is:
“A Hiney Flu.”
I hope you see how it works, “1″‘s sometimes become “i’s” in the world of license plates and e-mail nicknames. And, “i” can be pronounced “ee” in Spanish and other languages.
So, “Johnny, wash your hands at school today so you do not get A Hiney Flu.
3 PTK // May 2, 2009 at 8:59 am
Specter’s change doesn’t mean anything, he’s not going to change his political ideology because the Democratic Party and the Republican Party are the same freaking thing. In other words, they don’t even have a definition or center ideology they always keep to, so Specter has an excuse to keep his ideology.
4 NewFederalist // May 2, 2009 at 9:35 am
A Spectre to be sure.
5 d.eris // May 2, 2009 at 11:28 am
The argument put forward in the article is that the US should dump political parties altogether, and elect representatives solely on the basis of individual merit/charisma etc. Ironically, it was in reaction to personality dominated elections that the modern national duopoly party system developed. It’s come full circle, in just over 50 years.
6 Donald Raymond Lake // May 2, 2009 at 11:49 am
d.eris: Huh? Just cause you say so, does not make it so. [I have never, ever heard of that thesis before and believe that you are a 'majority of one'!]
7 Richard Winger // May 2, 2009 at 12:21 pm
If we can all learn to say R2D2 or C3P0, we ought to be able to remember H1N1.
8 d.eris // May 2, 2009 at 12:23 pm
Donald, I was thinking of the APSA’s influential report from 1950 entitled “Toward a More Responsible Two Party System.” Among the main reasons they put forward for the necessity of ‘responsible party government’ were: 1) weak differentiation between the parties does not give voters a great enough choice on election day, 2) it erodes the possibility of holding individual politicians accountable, and 3) it leads to personality-dominated politics and political cultism, for lack of a better term.
9 Alan Pyeatt // May 2, 2009 at 5:04 pm
Seems to me that political parties evolved because of the fact that they are relatively permanent organizations. Very few candidates could be expected to win a general election if they had to create their own organizations, while competing against candidates who have pre-existing, national organizations ready to promote whatever candidate wins their nomination. Isn’t that why “personality dominated elections” went the way of the dodo bird?
10 Jim Davidson // May 2, 2009 at 5:19 pm
No, Kimberly. In French, when you need help, you shout “merde!”
11 Gene Berkman // May 2, 2009 at 5:26 pm
David Boaz has an excellent commentary on Sen. Spector’s party switch @ http://www.cato-at-liberty.org/2009/04/30/will-specter-turn-left/
12 Susan Herbert // May 2, 2009 at 9:45 pm
PARTY is one of the points of law as I too filed suit only I did so before any primary was held – April of 2007.and switching is not a solution nor is creating a new party. I’m now in Federal Appeals. By “political” John Marshall did not mean a party or affiliation. From my lawsuit: “This is a living government and living law; it is a philosophy, which itself is alive by its very nature. The Executive is a politician who is living out the philosophy of politics: The pursuit of wisdom by intellectual means and self-discipline realized as the art of government. It is a body politic and the body politic. As a philosophy of government and law? The masterwork of politics. It’s all political. In America? “Mashed potatoes or French fries?” is a political question, as is “Cash or charge?” “Overcast skies with heavy bouts of rain for the next few weeks but then sunshine the first week of December and so warmer than usual temperatures this Christmas” is a political answer. This petition? POLITICAL. I know a political question when I hear one and Bush V Gore is political and is equal protection. Equal protection? The vote? The political question, the very political issue, that gave birth to us. The only way it cannot possibly be political? If a woman asks it. It helps if she never belonged to an actual political party. ” The vote is the equal protection and due process issue or point of law that birthed us as a new nation. Political parties buy and sell our vote aka justice thus buy and sell human beings. Organized parties are now guilty of engaging in the human trafficking of women and children as the domestic violence named in Art. 4 Sec. 4 is endemic. Separation of power is gross or completed; our law is overthrown save for my person acting. You need to wholly divest yourself of any organized political party! (Hopefully I’ll never be made to eat these words, lol).
Thus I may be the only actual Independent in this nation as you are not actually and legally independent if you belong to a party or have legal representation. I posted this here as Ron Paul is named in my suit as is Keyes:
I am an expert in constitutional law as I became the very first person since William Marbury to enter SCOTUS directly on 11/20/08 but you do not know as you failed to do your duty as a citizen and as this was suppressed as the people were circumvented by SCOTUS as the Solicitor general failed to respond to my petition, a pro se case of constitutional authority and original jurisdiction. Then SCOTUS acted upon an emergency application addressing the breach of contract but did so w/o getting any response for the SG and w/o ever filing the paperwork! Marbury V Madison says ACTING not delivery or filing of the paper counts and is proof.
This controversy is about much more than Obama’s birth plus what the Obama camp has produced is not a birth certificate but a certificate of live birth which proves beyond a reasonable doubt only that you were born and were able to prove you are entitled to some benefits not that you were actually born within the US. YOU are proof beyond any and all doubt you were actually born; that paper called a certificate of live birth? It entitles you to some benefits of American citizenship like casting a vote or collecting social security but not to the benefit known as the protected right to become the elected President and Commander.
Alan Keyes is not crazy or wrong but he is not arguing the correct point of law.
I too am suing and have been since before any primary was held, April of 2007. I sued all 300 million Americans and cited TREASON as all votes are not constitutional any more than any and all actions are constitutional and in some cases those actions constitute what is treason. I said Who cares if Obama was or was not born here? If he is an expert in constitutional law as he claims it is treason as this election was bought with private funds; the power known as Executive Order or our vote was openly purchased and Obama did this with deliberation and forethought; with intent as he had a copy of my suit thus owned the knowledge as early as June of 2007.
This is actually about the discrimination of women, a two party monopoly that controls and exploits the process, a legislative branch that has skewed all power in its favor, a past President suffering zero consequences for what is a crime – perjury, chain of command being completely severed and endemic corruption within every branch of government as unless you agree to act unethically opportunity is made nonexistent for you. I have breaking new for you:
No matter how you add it up, according to the exact words of our law, math and Marbury BUSH V GORE SITS AS A TIED DECISION THAT I RESOLVED IN MY FAVOR THUS IN FAVOR OF ALL LAW ABIDING, ETHICAL CITIZENS. The spirit of our law not the exact words is Chief Justice Rehnquist could act in our best interest and so fudge the math and erroneously invoke the power of one in such a fashion the Justices were then voting twice, not once. Per Curium is never used in SCOTUS as the math does not always add up! Besides one vote? The only forms of the power of one SCOTUS may ever invoke is unanimous or one alone, a Chief Justice acting alone to stand down a sitting President.
You can read my SCOTUS petition, federal suit and a copy of my brief now within Federal Appeals at
http://www.scribd.com/doc/14231589/Herbert-V-Obama-Federal-Appeal
&
http://nullandvoidobama.wordpress.com/
I say to all Johnny come too latelys:
RIGHT THING, CONSTITUTIONAL CRISIS, BUT WRONG REASONING and to all citizens:
You might personally believe you can take a popular vote and so vote to violate my fully vested, constitutionally protected rights but you would be wrong as US law is not a popularity contest but a matter of overcoming peer pressure and so willing yourself to power, actual power and not perceived power. It is not possible to win a Revolution if you do it via lying, cheating and stealing as you never truly own the ‘victory’. All you own is GUILT and all you achieve or cause is MORE INJUSTICE.
As for those of you who call this a race issue?
Barack Obama claiming he knows what it is liek to feel black aka feel like a victim in KENYA, INDONESIA or HAWAII where white is the minority is like me claiming I felt white in Norway or at a Klan meeting. The color black, the outside appearance, is deceptive as it is relative and so not the whole truth. WOMAN is not an outside appearance but a quality of being human as all men are biologically the same while men and women are biologically different. If black actually made a difference and caused justice? Was an actual reason to violate the terms of our law w/o equal protection or due process?
A black man named Thurgood Marshall would have secured justice for women as the promise of Brown will NEVER be realized unless we stop injuring the mothers of those children. BARACK OBAMA proves Brown V Topeka secured legal power for black men only but not for black women. WOMAN is yet the only injured class and the injury to them is yet ‘made legal’ by men who refuse to apply the law to them equally or at all.
WHO is my co-counsel of record? Thurgood Marshal as he said in Rotsker V Goldberg: Are we ruling against women only as a mostly male Congress will refuse to obey the law? Or our ruling? Are we afraid? Are we giving constitutional authority or custody, care and control of women to men in violation of US law?
YES!!!!! In America life, not paper, is proof. Paper proves nothing at all and so in my unique case I never need ot see the paper and my federal question is: Why are you hiding behind it? If I am brave enough to face the Supreme court of the US all alone, the only woman ever to argue her own case and the only nonlawyer ever to appear, then WHY are you wealthy, privileged men with all the power and resources as well as each other then afraid to do the same? FEAR is unconstitutional as any man who is afraid of liberty and justice cannot possibly keep me or any person safe. You then are unfit to Command or to act President. Proof you are afraid of me, a woman, and unsafe for all Americans is you are acting to suppress the case for equal rights for women, all women and their children of all races and religions. Last time I checked women gave birth ot both girls and boys, or, all humanity, all baby constitutions. Acting to deny women and their children an exactly named right, safety, and equal or even any protection and process of the law then is TREASON as w/o women? No living government of people.
NOBODY IS ABOVE US LAW. NOBODY. BLACK OR MAN DOES NOT MAKE YOU ABLE OR CAPABLE. The oath of office is I will preserve the Constitution NOT my lawyer will!!! Those who can fulfill the Presidential oath of office do appear in Federal Court pro se while those who can’t run and hide behind paper and third parties – lawyers and speechwriters.
I’m beginning to truly believe those who can’t also switch parties.
13 a different paul // May 3, 2009 at 10:57 am
Why did the Specter defection spread through the news so rapidly? Two reasons.
One, he’s a well known and long-standing senator. Changing teams is a big deal; just as big as a long-time Green Bay quarterback becoming a Jet.
Two, because it potentially gives the Democrats a fibibuster proof majority in the Senate.
Does anyone really expect the media not to cover this switch?
Now, as for whether Specter is an elephant in a donkey suit, he’s clearly someone who is between the extremes of both parties. He doesn’t fit in nicely with either. And I believe now his first two votes as a Democrat have gone the other way from how the majority of Democrats voted.
14 Mik Robertson // May 3, 2009 at 10:36 pm
The switch of Arlen Specter just shows how little difference there is between the two big political parties. All Specter did was look at the polls, see he was dismally behind Pat Toomey to win the R nomination, and saw there was not strong candidate on the D side. As Pennsylvanian has a closed primary, the only choice was for him to switch parties.
He initially floated a balloon checking to see if the legislature would consider making the Pennsylvania primary an open election. When it was clear they would not, he backed off that path. This was a political move through and through, and it had absolutely nothing to do with ideas or party positions. Whether Specter is really a Republican or Democrat doesn’t matter, because they both essentially the same.
Leave a Comment