Rejoice! Arlen Specter leaves the GOP.

Arlen Specter, beloved GOP senator from Pennsylvania, announced today that he be leaving the Republican Party and join the Democratic Party. I must say that it's about time.

Mr. Specter said in a statement that he released today that:

"Since my election in 1980, as part of the Reagan Big Tent, the Republican Party has moved far to the right," Specter said in a statement released this morning. "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."[1]

The GOP has moved far to the right?



Let's pretend for a moment that Mr. Specter's real reason for moving to the Democratic side is due to the GOP moving to the right since the Reagan Era. Which issues, that he disagrees with, could have possible moved to the right since that time.

He voted for the bailouts[1], Bush's prescription drug bill[2], The Patriot Act[3], and Obama's Omnibus Bill[[4]. Perhaps the Republicans just aren't big enough spenders for Mr. Specter.

The real reason for his decision to leave the GOP has nothing to do with ideology and everything to do with being re-elected. Yes, Arlen left because he fear being unemployed. Specter, in 2004, narrowly defeated Pat Toomey in the Republican primary. Specter was expected to lose to Toomey this time around. In fact, a recent poll showed that Toomey was up by double digits on Specter[5]. However, some experts believe that the switch to a new party will most likely guarantee Specter the election in 2010. Clay Richards, assistant director for the Quinnipiac University Polling Institute, said that he "just can't see anything but a landslide for Specter at this point". Michael Barone, co-author of the Almanac of American Politics, agrees,"I think [Specter's] prospects for reelection are very good,"[6] Oh yeah, Specter switched parties for ideological reasons.

This kind of switch, to extend one's employment, is one reason why I am in favor of term limits. Arlen has been in the senate long enough and I think it's time he does this country a favor and retire. I, for one, am glad that the Arlen Specter types are leaving the Republican Party. The less fiscally liberal types that are in the GOP the better, in my humble opinion.

Specter will most likely continue to blame the social "ultra conservative" or religious part of the party (because frankly he cannot possibly mean that he is a fiscal conservative) as the election grows closer. The President even said that he will raise money and campaign for the swine[7].

I think Specter might have found his soul mate; well only if it manages to get him elected.

Hayek's Tool Bag of the Week: Al Gore

It is with great pleasure to announce that Al Gore, 45th Vice President of the United States, as the winner of my Tool Bag of the Week award.

Mr. Gore paid Washington and Congress a visit this week in order to testify before the House Energy and Commerce committee concerning the "Cap and Trade", also known as The American Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009. The former Vice President completely supports this bill and called it "one of the most important pieces of legislation ever introduced in the Congress...I believe this legislation has the moral significance equivalent to that of the civil rights legislation of the 1960's and the Marshall Plan of the late 1940's"[1]. Here are some other highlights from this testimony. Here's the transcript.

• "We cannot afford to wait any longer for this transition. Each day that we continue with the status quo sees more of our fellow Americans struggling to provide for their families."

• "Passage of this legislation will restore America's leadership of the world and begin, at long last, to solve the climate crisis. It is truly a moral imperative."

• "The United States is the world's leader. We are the only nation in the world that can. Once we find the moral courage to take on this issue, the rest of the world will come along. Now is the time to act before the world gathers in Copenhagen this December to solve the crisis. Not next year, this year."

I must admit that I personally believe that Mr. Gore is one of the smartest people on this planet and I truly mean that. The man is making a wonderful living ringing the bell of alarm concerning "Climate Change". My problem with Al is that he's going about this situation in a classic Tool bag kind of way. Let me example further.

First, the man paints those that disagree with him as "deniers". Of course the word deniers conjures up thoughts about Holocaust deniers. He also managed to tie the Civil Rights Legislation with this bill. I wonder why. Mr. Gore says that there is no debate or discussion concerning the causes of "Climate Change" when he proclaimed that "the debate is over". It's a perfect storm really. If you are on the other side you are equal to an anti-semitic, racist, who believes that the earth is flat, and that you probably molest your children (Ok, that last part wasn't Al Gore but just another lover of the planet).

Second, Mr. Gore is constantly saying that oil companies are funding researchers, researchers that dare to question the other side in any form, in order to confuse the public about man induced climate change (or warming, or what it's called this week). However, "man is killing the planet" side of the argument are funded by environmental lobbyists or are representing Clean/Green energy companies that stand to make a pretty penny if legislation like this pass.

How is that different from the oil companies?

I'm sorry, I lost my head there for a second. Mr Gore and his environmental comrades are just heroic figures trying to save lives. They just happen to be making a lot of money in the process. Oil companies are raping the earth and should be shot.

I hear you, Big Al. I feel like I am having a Bill Murray moment right now.

Anyway, you're still a giant Tool Bag, Al; albeit a very wealthy one.

By the way, check out the exchange between Prince Al and congresswoman Blackburn (R) from Tennessee. Albert is in classic form, smug look and sighs included.

5 things I hate about the Republican Party

My parents are Cuban and migrated to this country in the early 70's for political reasons. My father is a staunch anti-communist, and a die-hard member of the Republican. I have been a member of the Republican party since 1992 (I voted for Clinton that year), but I've been seriously contemplating leaving the party. The following 5 reasons are most to blame for my disgruntlement towards the GOP.

(The following list is in no particular order).

1. The George W. Bush Era:

The Republican Party has certainly changed since the Barry Goldwater/Reagan era, and President George Walker Bush will forever be the face of that change. His era of rule featured the following gems: TARP, Increased federal spending [1], Harriet Miers nomination to the Supreme court, failure to privatize social security, and a host of other hits. And no, Iraq, Gitmo, and "torture" is not on my list. My disdain for the presidency of George W. Bush is mainly due to his utter contempt toward fiscal conservatism, and his adherence to collective policies toward the end of his administration .

2. Arlen Specter:

My contempt for the tool that is Arlen Specter could not possibly grow any bigger. The senator from Pennsylvania has a long history of upsetting conservatives within the GOP on such topics as: Abortion, The Clinton Impeachment, and some health care measures [2]. While I do disagree with his stance on abortion, my disdain for Mr. RINO himself are due to the following reasons:

• His 46 % rating (lifetime) by the AFL-CIO. His rating was 64 % in 2008 [3]

• Mr. Specter is a fan of bailouts. He voted 'Yes' on The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (Obama's bailout), voted 'Yes' on The Auto Industry Financing and Restructuring Act of 2008, and voted 'Yes on The Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008 (Bush's bailout).

Need some the tax payers money? Specter is your guy, the louse.

3.Talk Radio Personalities:

Talk radio is a major influence within the conservative movement (shocking, I know). Although such "conservative" radio personalities as Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Glenn Beck, and Mark Levin are not directly affiliated with the GOP, they are as much a part of it as Moveon.org, Dailykos.com, and Air America are apart of the Democratic Party. It's a new age in politics.

Yes, my political interests are within the same spectrum as the above mentioned personalities, however my anger with them comes from their lack of venom, and fury they show the GOP (although less with Beck than the others). They do criticize the GOP from time to time but it is tame compared to how they speak of the Democratic Party. These personalities should take note of how Michael Savage does things. Mr. Savage has called congressional Republicans "gangsters", and even called President Bush "a fiscal socialist".

I may disagree with some of Michael Savage's stance on certain issues, but no one can call him a shrill for the Republican Party. Can the same be said for Hannity or Limbaugh?


4. "Cronyism, Nepotism, Rascalism":

Homer Stokes, a reform candidate running from governor of Mississippi in the movie "O Brother Where Art Thou", had a popular phrase that he would use to describe Pappy O'Daniel, the incumbent: "Four more years of cronyism! Nepotism! Rascalism! Of service to the interests". Yes, it does sound like Washington, doesn't it? The Republicans had their own issues with rascalism. Here's yet another list.


• Florida Congressman Mark Foley and his sexually explicit e-mails and instant messages with former pages[4].

• Jack Abramoff's, a former Republican lobbyist, scandal in where he was found "guilty of fraud, tax evasion and conspiracy to bribe public officials.[5]

• Randy "Duke" Cunningham, former congressman from California, plead guilty to bribery charges in 2005.[6]

And a host of others....

5. Embracing Keynesianism :

If there is anything that draws my ire these days it's the Keynesian school of economics. One of the tenets of Keynesianism is the state creates policies in order to stabilize a "bad business cycle"[7]. An obvious example of this was the wasting of over 700 billion by Bush with the first bailout.

Friedrich August von Hayek, Nobel Prize winner in economics in 1974 and a very influential figure in the Austrian School of economics was a great critic of Keynesianism. He stated that:

Keynesian policies to combat unemployment would inevitably cause inflation, and that to keep unemployment low, the central bank would have to increase the money supply faster and faster, causing inflation to get higher and higher. Hayek’s thought, which he expressed as early as 1958, is now accepted by mainstream economists[8]

Hayek also believed the Keynesian policies would lead leads to totalitarian abuses, due to the need for centralized planning. John Keynes, the creator of Keynesianism, surprisingly echoed that concern:

The theory of aggregated production, which is the point of ['The General Theory of Employment Interest and Money'], nevertheless can be much easier adapted to the conditions of a totalitarian state [eines totalen Staates] than the theory of production and distribution of a given production put forth under conditions of free competition and a large degree of laissez-faire."[9]

The fact that Republicans, specifically President Bush and his administration, would embrace such failed fiscally policies is the biggest crime, in my eyes, that they have committed against all people who believe in liberty, limited government, ,and free markets.

I wonder what Barry Goldwater would think about the current state of the GOP if he were alive today. Actually, I think that would put him back into his grave.