This past week, Arlen Specter decided that being a Republican in Pennsylvania is like having the plague (or swine flu) and he switched sides. Now he is Arlen Specter (D-Pennsylvania). To my fellow Democrats who think now we’ll have that magical filibuster-proof majority in the Senate, I wouldn’t hold my breath. He’s already said he would oppose legislation like the Employee Free Choice Act and health care reform; and even voted against the President’s budget the day after his announcement. This move was purely self-preservation on Arlen Specters part, and nobody should be duped to think otherwise-Democrats or Republicans.

But this does signal something more troubling for Republicans: they will continue to lose elections in 2010. Instead of moving towards the center of the Republican ideology, they are moving further right. And whether you believe this country is center-right or center-left, we’d all agree the collective ideology of the country is somewhere in the center. In Specter’s case, his Senate colleagues were disenchanted with his support of the President’s stimulus package, and vowed to rally around his 2010 primary challenger, Pat Toomey. While Specter was considered a moderate republican or “center-right”, Toomey is as far to the right as they come. While Toomey would have probably won the Republican primary in Pennsylvania, the election would not have fared as well for him in a state that overwhelmingly voted for President Obama. His democratic challenger would have won.

The Republican Party has become a party of absolutes. To be a part of the club, you have to be anti-abortion, anti-gay rights, anti-union, pro-business, a card-toting NRA member, and a devout Christian. If there is any slight variance in the ideology, you are out of the club. Some in the party are even requesting for John McCain to switch sides, because he doesn’t believe enough in those core principles.

If that is what the Republicans want to be, then they will only enjoy the company of 27% or so of the electorate. That won’t win elections.

To make matters worse, their arguments have become nonsensical. What is their answer to the economic crisis? To just say no on the stimulus bill, and more tax cuts for the wealthy. What is their answer to the health care crisis? To do nothing, cause then the illegal Mexicans will get free healthcare and then we’ll have a fascist socialist state. What is their reason for opposing legislation to extend hate crimes to include violent crimes against gays? To deny that violent crimes against gays exist. The majority of people can’t identify with the nonsense. They need leaders that offer solutions, or at least opposing viewpoints that make sense and quick, before the public totally quits listening to them.

As a progressive Democrat, I am somewhat reveling in their self-destruction. Yet, I also understand for the health of our Democratic Republic, we need a viable second party. Perhaps, a new party will emerge that will represent more of the people. For now, Republicans are only pushing themselves further into irrelevancy, which will only result in higher Democrat majorities.

Last week, the Department of Justice released memos from the former administration which authorized the use of “enhanced interrogation” techniques. The memos describe in horrifying detail techniques authorized by the Department of Justice on detainees in Gitmo and other black sites. Upon the release of the memos, the President said, “In releasing these memos, it is our intention to assure those who carried out their duties relying in good faith upon legal advice from the Department of Justice that they will not be subject to prosecution.” He goes on to say, “This is a time for reflection, not retribution.” In other words, we aren’t going to prosecute war criminals. With all due respect Mr. President, the last time I checked, justice is not retribution.

First off, the memos attempt to justify the acts of torture as not torture, even though our own government acknowledges these techniques as torture prior to September 11th. In the memos, they go on to say that because the interrogations do not take place in areas under US control (aka black sites), they are exempt from Geneva Conventions. In reading the memos, this infers that even if the techniques are torture (which they are) the US would be above the law because technically, the torture is taking place in others countries outside of US control. It is perfectly clear, even to someone that never had any law training; the memos were a lame attempt at justifying an illegal act as legal.

Some have said that waterboarding is not torture. Here is an account of waterboarding recipient, Ramon Navarro, as described in 1947 court proceedings in the trial of a WWII Japanese war criminal:

Col. Keeley: And then did he take you back to your room?

Drowning. You could hardly breathe.

Anti-torture legislation in the US clearly prohibits techniques that employ the “threat of imminent death” (18 USC Sections 2340 and 2340A). Simulating drowning is a threat of imminent death. But the US did not just stop at waterboarding. The Department of Justice authorized the use of sleep deprivation (up to 7 ½ days at a time) and strict liquid-only diets to be used in conjunction with the waterboarding techniques.

To those who say that is not torture, would you want any US service member to endure this? Would you want these techniques used against you if you were accused of committing a crime? Would you want any of these acts committed under your name? If we do not prosecute these acts, how then can we justify prosecuting future war crimes against us? Mr. President, by refusing to prosecute, you have gone against your oath to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States, specifically Article VI, paragraph 2.

(You can read the memos and sign the petition requesting independent prosecutor to investigate and, if warranted, prosecute individuals who authorized and used torture here.)