Arlen Specter

[bjorn_skurj]

Pennsylvania Sen. Arlen Specter will switch from the Republican to the Democratic Party, multiple sources tell CNN.

[PigSooie]

I would imagine stuff like this doesn't happen everyday, no?

[mountain bed]

Is this for real, Bjornicus?

 

I have said it before, but if more Republicans were like Specter Congress wouldn't be such a mess - I don't agree with him on everything, but he seems to be a decent sort of fellow. Even if his "banana republic" comment last week was a little off-putting.

[dondoboy]

Pennsylvania Sen. Arlen Specter will switch from the Republican to the Democratic Party, multiple sources tell CNN.

And he's going to jail for murder? That's craz..what's that? Not the same...oh, oops.

[Duck-Billed Catechist]

I would imagine stuff like this doesn't happen everyday, no?

 

 

No. James Jeffords was the last to do it (more or less). Zell Miller sort of did it. This seems like an election ploy for Specter--he wants to be a major party's nominee going in to the election possibly? He's like 30 or 40 points behind his main competitor in the Repub primary polls.

[mfwahl]

He's also more popular with the general public than Republicans in PA, so this helps him and the Dems. Lastest poll shows him 20% behind his challenger in Republican primary. Also helps Dems get closer to 60. What ever happened to Franken?

[Analogman]

Makes me think of:

 

Benjamin Nighthorse Campbell (born April 13, 1933) is an American politician. He was a U.S. Senator from Colorado from 1993 until 2005 and was for some time the only Native American serving in the U.S. Congress. Campbell was a three term U.S. Representative from 1987 to 1993, when he was sworn into office as a Senator following his election on November 3, 1992. He was only the 3rd Native American to serve in the U.S. Senate in history. Campbell also serves as one of forty-four members of the Council of Chiefs of the Northern Cheyenne Indian Tribe.

 

Originally a member of the Democratic Party, Campbell switched to the Republican Party in 1995. Reelected in 1998, Campbell announced in March 2004 that he would not run for reelection to a third term in November of that year. He expressed interest in running for Governor of Colorado in 2006. However, on January 4, 2006, he announced that he would not enter the race. His Senate seat was won by Democrat Ken Salazar in the November 2004 election.

[bleedorange]

No. James Jeffords was the last to do it (more or less). Zell Miller sort of did it. This seems like an election ploy for Specter--he wants to be a major party's nominee going in to the election possibly? He's like 30 or 40 points behind his main competitor in the Repub primary polls.

 

That's all this is. Especially since he has no shot at being the Republican nominee.

[Duck-Billed Catechist]

I mean, he could've pulled a Lieberman and ran (and probably won) as an independent. It is also possible that he feels more at home with the Democrats at this point--though I don't think his votes will change that much.

[cryptique]

What ever happened to Franken?

Waiting on the Minnesota Supreme Court.

 

As I see it, Specter's reported move, if it happens, pretty much guarantees that Coleman will appeal to SCOTUS as the GOP employs every desperate gambit it can to prevent the Dems from reaching 60 in the Senate.

 

Maybe they'll finally convince Joe Lieberman to fully cross over to the dark side.

[Duck-Billed Catechist]

Statement by Senator Arlen Specter

 

I have been a Republican since 1966. I have been working extremely hard for the Party, for its candidates and for the ideals of a Republican Party whose tent is big enough to welcome diverse points of view. While I have been comfortable being a Republican, my Party has not defined who I am. I have taken each issue one at a time and have exercised independent judgment to do what I thought was best for Pennsylvania and the nation.

 

Since my election in 1980, as part of the Reagan Big Tent, the Republican Party has moved far to the right. 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.

 

When I supported the stimulus package, I knew that it would not be popular with the Republican Party. But, I saw the stimulus as necessary to lessen the risk of a far more serious recession than we are now experiencing.

 

Since then, I have traveled the State, talked to Republican leaders and office-holders and my supporters and I have carefully examined public opinion. It has become clear to me that the stimulus vote caused a schism which makes our differences irreconcilable. On this state of the record, I am unwilling to have my twenty-nine year Senate record judged by the Pennsylvania Republican primary electorate. I have not represented the Republican Party. I have represented the people of Pennsylvania.

 

I have decided to run for re-election in 2010 in the Democratic primary.

 

I am ready, willing and anxious to take on all comers and have my candidacy for re-election determined in a general election.

 

I deeply regret that I will be disappointing many friends and supporters. I can understand their disappointment. I am also disappointed that so many in the Party I have worked for for more than four decades do not want me to be their candidate. It is very painful on both sides. I thank specially Senators McConnell and Cornyn for their forbearance.

 

I am not making this decision because there are no important and interesting opportunities outside the Senate. I take on this complicated run for re-election because I am deeply concerned about the future of our country and I believe I have a significant contribution to make on many of the key issues of the day, especially medical research. NIH funding has saved or lengthened thousands of lives, including mine, and much more needs to be done. And my seniority is very important to continue to bring important projects vital to Pennsylvania

[MattZ]

"If more republicans in Congress were like Arlen Specter..." = "If more republicans in Congress were democrats..."

 

[John Smith]

Since my election in 1980, as part of the Reagan Big Tent, the Republican Party has moved far to the right. 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.

 

 

That says it all for me. I followed a similar path except I left in the late 1990's rather than waiting for what is occuring today.

 

I also hope that this does not give the democrats a fillibuster prroof majority. I hate rubber stamp congresses and am still baffled that Bush was able to have a rubber stamp for so long with such slim margins. I'll give him and his people credit for running what I see as the tightest ship in my lifetime. Of course I watched them sail that ship into the rocks and still seek to continue on theiir course. But with Specter I hoep he is the voice of reason and can point to the possibility of a 60 vote majority but still hold out and use that, dare i say it , spectre of a solid majority to pull legislation from both sides more towards the middle than it has been. Though in all honesty I can not see the current crop of republicans moving one inch off their positions. Tiem will tell.

 

As for Frankin...they are not waiting on the MN Supreme Court. They ultimately are waiting on the US SC and will continue to appeal to stretch this out as long as possible. The republican party does not want Franken seated at all ever, and they will stretch this out until his term is up if that is possible.

[John Smith]

Michael Steele's response...

 

Some in the Republican Party are happy about this. I am not.

 

Let

[mountain bed]

Christ. To call Specter's voting record "left-wing" goes to show how far to the right the party has gone in the last 30 years. I guess anything even approaching the center is now "left-wing" to those dickweeds.

[John Smith]

Christ. To call Specter's voting record "left-wing" goes to show how far to the right the party has gone in the last 30 years. I guess anything even approaching the center is now "left-wing" to those dickweeds.

 

The people I know who are R's truely do believe that they are the mainstream middle of the country. This in spite of what I view as being a very radically right point of view.

[ZenLunatic]

What a sell-out.

[tugmoose]

Snowe: GOP Has Abandoned Principles; Specter Switch "Devastating"

 

Posted on April 28, 2009 by The Huffington Post News Team.

 

Sen. Olympia Snowe of Maine, one of the few remaining moderate Republicans in the Senate, said Tuesday that Arlen Specter

[Gobias Industries]

This Specter has seemed to be a decent guy, following his instincts and gut more than partisan. He can choose where he wants to go. Good for him, on the fact that he's going Dem. If he was going the other way I would probably say the exact opposite.

[futureage1]

So the guy who concocted the "magic bullet" theory and helped whitewash the JFK assassination is now welcomed with open arms into the Democratic party? I guess I have seen it all. It seems the public has not learned the lessons of a rubber stamp congress from Bush's presidency. The hypocrisy of the Democratic party is astounding.

[cryptique]

So the guy who concocted the "magic bullet" theory and helped whitewash the JFK assassination is now welcomed with open arms into the Democratic party? I guess I have seen it all. It seems the public has not learned the lessons of a rubber stamp congress from Bush's presidency. The hypocrisy of the Democratic party is astounding.

The assumptive leaps being made here are astounding.

[John Smith]

So the guy who concocted the "magic bullet" theory and helped whitewash the JFK assassination is now welcomed with open arms into the Democratic party? I guess I have seen it all. It seems the public has not learned the lessons of a rubber stamp congress from Bush's presidency. The hypocrisy of the Democratic party is astounding.

 

 

You are aware that scientists have proven the magic bullet theory? The problem with the way it had been traditionally explained had Connelly and Kennedy sitting perfectly in front and behind each other at the same level when in fact they were not as Kennedy was slightly higher and Connelly had turned and leaned slightly. The other problem was not knowing the nature of Connelly

[Sparky speaks]

Have fun......

 

http://www.realhistoryarchives.com/collect...jfk/basicev.htm

 

http://karws.gso.uri.edu/JFK/The_critics/F...th_Specter.html

 

ARRB's Doug Horne,

 

Who was Chief Analyst for Military Records" on the staff of the ARRB;

and played a major role in handling numerous matters pertaining to the

medical evidence and the Zapruder film. ...

 

"QUOTE FROM DOUG HORNE (as posted on Education Forum):

 

"David Lifton's thesis in his 1981 book "Best Evidence" has been

validated by the work of the ARRB staff. Our unsworn interviews and

depositions of Dallas (Parkland Hospital) medical personnel and

Bethesda autopsy participants confirm that the President's body

arrived at Bethesda Naval Hospital in a markedly different condition

than it was in when seen at Parkland for life-saving treatment. My

conclusion is that wounds were indeed altered and bullets were indeed

removed prior to the autopsy at Bethesda Naval Hospital. This

procedure altered the autopsy conclusions and presented a false

picture of how the shooting took place. In most essential details,

David Lifton "got it right" in his 1981 bestseller. (He has modified

his views since his book was published on the "when" and "where," and

I concur with his changes, which he will publish at a later date.)

END OF QUOTE"

 

The Horne Report:

 

May 15, 2006 Press Conference:

 

Prepared Remarks by Douglas P. Horne,

 

Former Chief Analyst for Military Records, Assassination Records Review

Board (ARRB)

 

I served on the staff of the Assassination Records Review Board for just

over three years, from August 1995 through September 1998. During that

period of time the Review Board granted permission for the staff to take

the depositions of 10 persons involved in the autopsy on President

Kennedy: as a result, today any American citizen can go to the "Archives

II" facility in College Park, Maryland and obtain copies of the

transcripts of the sworn testimony of the 3 autopsy pathologists; both of

the official Navy photographers; both Navy x-ray technicians; a Navy

photographer's mate who developed some of the post-mortem photography; and

both of the FBI agents who witnessed the autopsy.

 

The Review Board's charter was simply to locate and declassify

assassination records, and to ensure they were placed in the new "JFK

Records Collection" in the National Archives, where they would be freely

available to the public. Although Congress did not want the ARRB to

reinvestigate the assassination of President Kennedy, or to draw

conclusions about the assassination, the staff did hope to make a

contribution to future 'clarification' of the medical evidence in the

assassination by conducting these neutral, non-adversarial, fact-finding

depositions. All of our deposition transcripts, as well as our written

reports of numerous interviews we conducted with medical witnesses, are

now a part of that same collection of records open to the public. Because

of the Review Board's strictly neutral role in this process, all of these

materials were placed in the JFK Collection without comment.

 

I have been studying these records for 10 years now. The reason I am here

today is because contained within our deposition transcripts and interview

reports is unequivocal evidence that there was a U.S. government cover-up

of the medical evidence in the Kennedy assassination, yet most members of

the public know nothing about this. Let me sound a cautionary note here:

no single statement of any witness stands alone. Before it can be properly

evaluated, the recollections of each witness must be compared to all of

his own previous testimony, and to that of other witnesses-before the

Warren Commission, the House Select Committee on Assassinations, and even

with independent researchers-as well as all available documentary

evidence.

 

Having said this, after considerable study of all of these records, I am

firmly convinced that there is serious fraud in the medical evidence of

the Kennedy assassination in three areas:

 

(1) The autopsy report in evidence today, Warren Commission Exhibit # 387,

is the third version prepared of that report; it is not the sole version,

as was claimed for years by those who wrote it and signed it.

 

(2) The brain photographs in the National Archives that are purported to

be photographs of President Kennedy's brain are not what they are

represented to be; they are not pictures of his brain, but rather are

photographs of someone else's brain. Normally, in cases of death due to

injury to the brain, the brain is examined one or two weeks following the

autopsy on the body, and photographs are taken of the pattern of damage.

Following President Kennedy's autopsy, there were two subsequent brain

examinations, not one: the first examination was of the President's brain,

and those photographs were never introduced into the official record; the

second examination was of a fraudulent specimen, whose photographs were

subsequently introduced into the official record. The pattern of damage

displayed in these 'official' brain photographs has nothing whatsoever to

do with the assassination in Dallas, and in fact was undoubtedly used to

shore up the official conclusion that President Kennedy was killed by a

shot from above and behind.

 

(3) There is something seriously wrong with the autopsy photographs of the

body of President Kennedy. It definitely is President Kennedy in the

photographs, but the images showing the damage to the President's head do

not show the pattern of damage observed by either the medical

professionals at Parkland hospital in Dallas, or by numerous witnesses at

the military autopsy at Bethesda Naval hospital. These disparities are

real and are significant, but the reasons remain unclear. There are only

three possible explanations for this, and I will discuss these

possibilities today.

 

The Autopsy Report

 

The evidence that a draft autopsy report-as well as a first signed

version-existed prior to the report in evidence today is both easy to

understand, and undeniable.

 

The First Draft

 

On November 24, 1963 the chief pathologist at President Kennedy's autopsy,

Dr. James J. Humes, signed a typed statement he had prepared that read as

follows:

 

"I, James J. Humes, certify that I have destroyed by burning certain

preliminary draft notes relating to Naval Medical School Autopsy Report

A63-272 and have officially transmitted all other papers related to this

report to higher authority." [Author's emphasis]

 

On two occasions before the HSCA, in March of 1977 and in September of

1978, Dr. Humes maintained that he had destroyed notes. He repeated this

claim in an interview published by the Journal of the American Medical

Association in May of 1992. The reasons given in each case were that the

notes were destroyed because they had on them the blood of the President,

which Dr. Humes deemed unseemly.

 

The ARRB General Counsel, Jeremy Gunn, had reason to suspect that an early

draft of the autopsy report had also been destroyed, based upon an

analysis of inconsistencies between Dr. Humes' previous testimony about

when he wrote the draft report, and existing records documenting its

transmission to higher authority. After extremely thorough and persistent

questioning by the Review Board's General Counsel in February of 1996, Dr.

Humes admitted, under oath, that both notes from the autopsy, and a first

draft of the autopsy report (which had been prepared well after the

autopsy's conclusion and had no blood on it), had been destroyed in his

fireplace.

 

The First Signed Version

 

A simple study of the receipt trail for the transmission of the autopsy

report reveals that the first signed report is missing as well.

 

On April 26, 1965 the Secret Service transferred the autopsy photographs

and x-rays, and certain vital documents and biological materials to the

custody of the Kennedy family at the request of Robert F. Kennedy. That

receipt lists, among other things:

 

"Complete autopsy protocol of President Kennedy (orig, & 7 cc's)-Original

signed by Dr. Humes, pathologist."

 

Evelyn Lincoln, secretary to the late President Kennedy, signed for

receipt of all of the items the same day.

 

Incredibly, on October 2, 1967 the head of the Secret Service signed a

letter transferring the original of CE 387, the autopsy report placed in

evidence by the Warren Commission, to the National Archives; the National

Archives signed a receipt for CE 387 the next day, October 3, 1967.

 

Warren Commission Chief Counsel J. Lee Rankin, in a declassified

transcript of a January 27, 1964 Executive Session of the Commission,

discusses details of the content of "the autopsy report" which are not

consistent with the details of the report in evidence today, CE 387, thus

confirming that the first signed version contained different conclusions.

 

The dilemma presented here can best be summarized by the following

rhetorical question: How could the U.S. Secret Service transfer the

original JFK autopsy protocol to the National Archives (or to anyone else,

for that matter) on October 2, 1967 when they had previously given it to

the Kennedy family on April 26, 1965? The answer, of course, is that there

were two separate reports. The first smooth, or signed version, was given

to the Kennedy family at the specific request of Robert Kennedy, and has

disappeared. The second signed version is in the National Archives today.

 

Conclusion

 

The destruction of both the first draft and the first signed version of

the autopsy report are clear evidence of the ongoing malleability of the

autopsy report's specific conclusions during the initial 2 weeks following

the conclusion of the post mortem examination. Furthermore, it is clear

that when Dr. Humes testified under oath to the Review Board that there

was only one autopsy report, and that he only signed one autopsy report,

he committed perjury.

 

[For those interested in obtaining copies of the relevant documents in the

receipt trail, or in studying the likely content of the first two versions

of the autopsy protocol, I will make copies of the relevant research memo

available at the end of the press conference.]

 

Two Brain Examinations

 

My most remarkable finding while on the Review Board staff, and a totally

unexpected one, was that instead of one supplemental brain examination

being conducted following the conclusion of President Kennedy's autopsy,

as was expected, two different examinations were conducted, about a week

apart from each other. A thorough timeline analysis of available

documents, and of the testimony of autopsy witnesses taken by the ARRB,

revealed that the remains of President Kennedy's badly damaged brain were

examined on Monday morning, November 25, 1963 prior to the state funeral,

and that shortly thereafter the brain was turned over to RADM Burkley,

Military Physician to the President; a second brain examination, of a

fraudulent specimen, was conducted sometime between November 29th and

December 2nd, 1963-and it is the photographs from this second examination

that are in the National Archives today.

 

Pertinent Facts Regarding the Two Examinations are as follows:

 

First Brain Exam, Monday, November 25th, 1963

 

Attendees: Dr. Humes, Dr. Boswell, and Navy civilian photographer John

Stringer.

 

Events: John Stringer testified to the ARRB that he used both Ektachrome

E3 color positive transparency film, and B & W Portrait Pan negative film;

both were 4 by 5 inch format films exposed using duplex film holders; he

only shot superior views of the intact specimen-no inferior views; the

pathologists sectioned the brain, as is normal for death by gunshot wound,

with transverse or "coronal" incisions-sometimes called "bread loaf"

incisions-in order to trace the track of the bullet or bullets; and after

each section of tissue was cut from the brain, Stringer photographed that

section on a light box to show the damage.

 

Second Brain Exam, Between November 29th and December 2nd, 1963

 

Attendees: Dr. Humes, Dr. Boswell, Dr. Finck, and an unknown Navy

photographer.

 

Events: Per the testimony of all 3 pathologists, the brain was not

sectioned, as should have been normal procedure for any gunshot wound to

the head-that is, transverse or coronal sections were not made. The brain

looked different than it did at the autopsy on November 22nd, and Dr.

Finck wrote about this in a report to his military superior on February 1,

1965. The color slides of the brain specimen in the National Archives were

exposed on "Ansco" film, not Ektachrome E3 film; and the B & W negatives

are also on "Ansco" film, and originated in a film pack (or magazine), not

duplex holders. The brain photos in the Archives show both superior and

inferior views, contrary to what John Stringer remembers shooting, and

there are no photographs of sections among the Archives brain photographs,

which is inconsistent with Stringer's sworn testimony about what he

photographed.

 

Further indications that the brain photographs in the Archives are not

President Kennedy's brain are as follows:

 

Two ARRB medical witnesses, former FBI agent Frank O'Neill and Gawler's

funeral home mortician Tom Robinson, both recalled vividly that the major

area of tissue missing from President Kennedy's brain was in the rear of

the brain. The brain photos in the Archives do not show any tissue missing

in the rear of the brain, only in the top.

 

When former FBI agent Frank O'Neill viewed the Archives brain photographs

during his deposition, he said that the photos he was viewing could not be

President Kennedy's brain because when he viewed the removed brain at the

autopsy, the damage was so great that more than half of it was

gone-missing. He described the brain photos in the Archives as depicting a

virtually intact brain.

 

Finally, the weight of the brain recorded in the supplemental autopsy

report was 1500 grams, which exceeds the average weight of a normal,

undamaged male brain. This is entirely inconsistent with a brain which was

over half missing when observed at autopsy.

Conclusions

 

The conduct of a second brain examination on a fraudulent specimen, and

the introduction of photographs of that specimen into the official record,

was designed to do two things:

 

(1) eliminate evidence of a fatal shot from the front, which was evident

on the brain removed at autopsy and examined on Monday, November 25th,

1963; and

 

(2) place into the record photographs of a brain with damage generally

consistent with having been shot from above and behind.

 

Until I discovered that the photographs in the Archives could not be of

President Kennedy's brain, the brain photos had been used by 3 separate

investigative bodies-the Clark Panel, the Rockefeller Commission, and the

House Select Committee on Assassinations-to support the Warren

Commission's findings that President Kennedy was shot from above and

behind, and to discount the expert observations from Parkland hospital in

Dallas that President Kennedy had an exit wound in the back of his head.

 

In my opinion, the brain photographs in the National Archives, along with

Dr. Mantik's Optical Densitometry analysis of the head x-rays, are two

irrefutable examples of fraud in this case, and call into question the

official conclusions of all prior investigations.

 

[For those who wish detailed verification of this hypothesis, the 32-page

research paper on this subject that I completed in 1998 will be made

available at the end of this press conference.]

 

The Head Wound in the Autopsy Photographs

 

I would like to conclude with some brief closing remarks about the autopsy

photographs at the National Archives.

 

The images of the President's head wound are inconsistent with both the

Parkland hospital observations, and the Bethesda autopsy observations of

almost every witness present in the morgue, as follows:

 

Parkland Hospital

 

The blowout, or exit wound in the right rear of the head seen in Dallas is

not present in the autopsy images, which show the back of the head to be

intact except for a very small puncture interpreted by the HSCA as a wound

of entry. Furthermore, the autopsy photographs of the head show extensive

damage to the top of the head, and to the right side of the head, which

was not seen in Dallas during the 40 minutes that the President was

observed in trauma room one at Parkland hospital.

 

Bethesda Naval Hospital

 

Most witnesses from the autopsy also recall a very large wound at the back

of the head, which, as stated above, is not shown in the autopsy

photographs. The additional damage many autopsy witnesses recall at the

top of the head, and on the right side, is present in the photographs-but

not the damage they remember at the rear. One prominent witness, Dr.

Ebersole (the radiologist at the autopsy), testified under oath to the

HSCA Forensic Pathology Panel in 1978 that the large head wound in the

autopsy photos is more lateral and more superior than he remembered, and

said that he recalled the back of the head being missing at the autopsy.

 

Three Possible Explanations. There are 3 possible explanations for these inconsistencies:

 

(1) Photographic forgery-i.e., "special effects"-to make the rear of the

head look intact when it was not;

 

(2) Major manipulation of loose, and previously reflected scalp from

elsewhere on the head by the pathologists, so as to make it appear that

the back of the head was intact when it was not; or

 

(3) Partial reconstruction of the head by the morticians, at the direction

of the pathologists, followed by photography that created the false

impression that there was no exit defect in the back of the head.

 

Many JFK researchers have long suspected photographic forgery, but extreme

caution is warranted here because all analyses of the autopsy photographs

done to date have used "bootleg" materials, and not the original materials

in the Archives. The "bootleg" photographs do represent the actual views

of the body in the Archives collection, but they are badly degraded,

suffer from contrast buildup, and are photographic prints-whereas any true

scientific study of these images for authenticity should use the color

positive transparencies and B & W negatives in the Archives as subjects,

not multi-generational prints of uncertain provenance.

 

I personally examined magnified and enhanced images of the Archives

autopsy photographs at the Kodak lab in Rochester, New York in November of

1997, and I saw no obvious evidence of photographic forgery; but I am the

first person to admit that I am not an expert in photographic special

effects techniques circa 1963.

 

I am of the opinion that it is likely that the back of the head appears

intact in the autopsy photographs either because the loose scalp was

manipulated for photographic purposes, or because the photos in question

were taken after a partial reconstruction by the morticians. I was steered

toward this opinion by the ARRB testimony of the two FBI agents who

witnessed the autopsy. Both men found the images of the intact

back-of-the-head troubling, and inconsistent with the posterior head wound

they vividly remembered. Frank O'Neill opined under oath that the images

of the back-of-the-head appeared "doctored," by which he meant that the

head had been put back together by the doctors. James Sibert testified

that the head looked "reconstructed" in these images-he actually used the

word "reconstructed" at his deposition.

 

No final conclusions can yet be drawn about exactly why a large defect in

the rear of the head is not shown in the autopsy photographs, when one was

seen by so many witnesses. It is sufficient to say that something is

terribly wrong here, and that it is an area that requires more study with

the original materials.

 

Thank you for your attention.

 

Doug Horne

[futureage1]

You are aware that scientists have proven the magic bullet theory? The problem with the way it had been traditionally explained had Connelly and Kennedy sitting perfectly in front and behind each other at the same level when in fact they were not as Kennedy was slightly higher and Connelly had turned and leaned slightly. The other problem was not knowing the nature of Connelly

[Duck-Billed Catechist]

What in the world is the popular corporate media view on Specter joining the dems?