The Briefing Room

General Category => Politics => Topic started by: Once-Ler on March 16, 2014, 12:12:42 PM

Title:
Post by: Once-Ler on March 16, 2014, 12:12:42 PM
Title:
Post by: Oceander on March 16, 2014, 12:15:39 PM
If the SCF is so inconsequential, why is McConnell paying them any attention whatsoever?  It sounds more like personal pique than anything else, and that's just childish.
Title:
Post by: Once-Ler on March 16, 2014, 12:38:23 PM
If the SCF is so inconsequential, why is McConnell paying them any attention whatsoever?  It sounds more like personal pique than anything else, and that's just childish.

They are inconsequential in the primary against McConnell.  They are damaging in the general election against Grimes.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VKBTQhTTUnY
Title:
Post by: Gazoo on March 16, 2014, 12:50:43 PM
The entire interview is just repeating his war on the TP. With more promises things will change. I am trying to be objective in wondering how many times do they think they will be given a chance by anybody? Even if they were to be given the break McConnell asks for in the article, because Obama is so partisan... Their colors come shining through in putting forth McCains for the POTUS nominee. It is like they want to fail. Fine, that they are established moderates but they must address their move to the left. McCain was sounding like a Crist there for awhile. We can't be fooled again. Stop calling conservatives wacko birds and give them prominent positions in the old guard!
Title:
Post by: truth_seeker on March 16, 2014, 01:36:05 PM
Title:
Post by: Once-Ler on March 16, 2014, 02:04:10 PM
Title:
Post by: Right_in_Virginia on March 16, 2014, 02:23:31 PM

This country certainly wasn't built by fighting battles we knew we couldn't win.   

9999what     I seem to remember reading about a little squabble with the British empire. 

I'm guessing you'd have been right there with the political class calling for the status quo because they were convinced the US would be fighting battles they couldn't win.   **nononono*   
Title:
Post by: Howie66 on March 16, 2014, 02:30:03 PM
9999what     I seem to remember reading about a little squabble with the British empire. 

I'm guessing you'd have been right there with the political class calling for the status quo because they were convinced the US would be fighting battles they couldn't win.   **nononono*   

You got that right! Approximately 30% of the Colonies thought that taking the fight to the British Occupiers was the right thing to do.

Personally, I prefer the challenge of "fighting battles we cannot win". That's what Real Americans do best. WIN.
Title:
Post by: alicewonders on March 16, 2014, 02:40:30 PM
When you dare to stand up to the establishment, the odds are almost always against you.  We would never have revolutions if people refused to engage in battles they had a slim chance to win.

 :patriot: 
Title:
Post by: Once-Ler on March 16, 2014, 02:42:27 PM
9999what     I seem to remember reading about a little squabble with the British empire. 

I'm guessing you'd have been right there with the political class calling for the status quo because they were convinced the US would be fighting battles they couldn't win.   **nononono*   

I seem to remember Washington retreating a lot until he had sufficient force to attack.  I tried googling "General George Washington's reckless charge" but mostly came up with porn. 

Maybe the GOP should win enough seats to have a majority before they start demanding the rats relinquish control.
Title:
Post by: Once-Ler on March 16, 2014, 02:44:51 PM
When you dare to stand up to the establishment, the odds are almost always against you.  We would never have revolutions if people refused to engage in battles they had a slim chance to win.

 :patriot:

That's fine, just don't be disappointed when the Tea Party has less influence in 2014, and keep on losing those battles.
Title:
Post by: truth_seeker on March 16, 2014, 02:52:51 PM
There are several reasons for the decline of Tea Party favorable, and increases in unfavorable.  Among them:

No central organization.  Too many lousy candidates. Probably a shortage of money.

Original popular message on fiscal sanity has drifted to now instead be attacks on other Republicans, and unpopular social positions of the lousy candidates. Akins, Angle, Buck, Cuccinelli, Mourdock, O'Donnel ALL oppose abortions in cases of rape, for example. That is an extremely unpopular position, and TP candidates expressing this view will probably lose in anything but the deepest Bible Belt areas.

It is too bad such a good idea has devolved into today's cries of victimhood, conspiracies, etc. to gloss over the failures to gain traction and grow instead of shrink.

Had they picked good candidates, and stayed on message they would be more influential and successful.

Title:
Post by: DCPatriot on March 16, 2014, 03:21:16 PM
The Tea Party may lose influence as a concrete organization.

The Tea Party spirit however, will never die.  Not until America dies with them.
Title:
Post by: speekinout on March 16, 2014, 03:30:52 PM
I was initially a fan of the Tea Party. I considered myself to be part of it. But the concept of a grass roots Tea Party has not worked out all that well. There is no central leadership or control. And while it is true that America has fought many battles where there was a slim chance of winning (and won some, but lost some), there was always a general in charge with a plan and a strategy.

The Tea Party does not have a general, a plan, a strategy, or even a good definition of the battle they're fighting. There are just groups who are fighting small battles that are usually about defeating an incumbent. That's not a cause I can get all excited about.
Title:
Post by: DCPatriot on March 16, 2014, 03:43:16 PM
Anybody that simply is fed up with the status quo is suddenly one with everything the Tea Party stands for.

"Welcome to the party, pal".....indeed!
Title:
Post by: happyg on March 16, 2014, 05:15:00 PM
McConnell is Trouble

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=mWQKWv772Hw
Title:
Post by: Oceander on March 16, 2014, 05:26:18 PM
There are several reasons for the decline of Tea Party favorable, and increases in unfavorable.  Among them:

No central organization.  Too many lousy candidates. Probably a shortage of money.

Original popular message on fiscal sanity has drifted to now instead be attacks on other Republicans, and unpopular social positions of the lousy candidates. Akins, Angle, Buck, Cuccinelli, Mourdock, O'Donnel ALL oppose abortions in cases of rape, for example. That is an extremely unpopular position, and TP candidates expressing this view will probably lose in anything but the deepest Bible Belt areas.

It is too bad such a good idea has devolved into today's cries of victimhood, conspiracies, etc. to gloss over the failures to gain traction and grow instead of shrink.

Had they picked good candidates, and stayed on message they would be more influential and successful.



true enough
Title:
Post by: 240B on March 16, 2014, 05:55:55 PM
25% of all senators are 70 or older with 10% over 75.
66% or two thirds of all senators are 60 or over.
 
When is enough, enough? When are we going to clean house and get people in Congress who represent the 21st century instead of these hippies who are still stuck in the 60s?
 
Term Limits now. Age Limits now. If you are freakin' 81 years old, for Christ's sake, it is time to give it up, no matter how much money you are making. What are you going to do with millions in kick backs anyway, if you are over 80? It is not like you are going to go skiing in Aspen, or buy hookers in Vegas. Why? Why do you need more.
 
To me this represents a kind of 'pure greed'. It is just gripping on to money and power for no reason, just for the sake of it, just for the pure lust and greed of it. These people are truely evil.
 
We have to, we must find a way to get rid of them. My understanding of the founding documents is that there never was a thought of a 'professional politician', a politician 'for life', or the establishment of a permanent 'ruling class'. This is ridiculous. We have to clean house and get rid of these government parasites.
 
   
Rank
by age
[/t] Senator
 State
 Date of birth
 Date of
taking office Age at
taking office Length of Senate
term to date Current age
 Party   1 Dianne Feinstein California June 22, 1933 November 10, 1992 59 years, 141 days 21 years, 126 days 80 years, 267 days Democratic  2 Chuck Grassley Iowa September 17, 1933 January 3, 1981 47 years, 108 days 33 years, 72 days 80 years, 180 days Republican  3 Orrin Hatch Utah March 22, 1934 January 3, 1977 42 years, 287 days 37 years, 72 days 79 years, 359 days Republican  4 Richard Shelby Alabama May 6, 1934 January 3, 1987 52 years, 242 days 27 years, 72 days 79 years, 314 days Republican  5 Carl Levin Michigan June 28, 1934 January 3, 1979 44 years, 189 days 35 years, 72 days 79 years, 261 days Democratic  6 Jim Inhofe Oklahoma November 17, 1934 November 17, 1994 60 years, 0 days 19 years, 119 days 79 years, 119 days Republican  7 Pat Roberts Kansas April 20, 1936 January 3, 1997 60 years, 258 days 17 years, 72 days 77 years, 330 days Republican  8 Barbara Mikulski Maryland July 20, 1936 January 3, 1987 50 years, 167 days 27 years, 72 days 77 years, 239 days Democratic  9 John McCain Arizona August 29, 1936 January 3, 1987 50 years, 127 days 27 years, 72 days 77 years, 199 days Republican  10 Jay Rockefeller West Virginia June 18, 1937 January 15, 1985 47 years, 211 days 29 years, 60 days 76 years, 271 days Democratic  11 Thad Cochran Mississippi December 7, 1937 December 27, 1978 41 years, 20 days 35 years, 79 days 76 years, 99 days Republican  12 Tom Harkin Iowa November 19, 1939 January 3, 1985 45 years, 45 days 29 years, 72 days 74 years, 117 days Democratic  13 Harry Reid Nevada December 2, 1939 January 3, 1987 47 years, 32 days 27 years, 72 days 74 years, 104 days Democratic  14 Patrick Leahy Vermont March 31, 1940 January 3, 1975 34 years, 278 days 39 years, 72 days 73 years, 350 days Democratic  15 Lamar Alexander Tennessee July 3, 1940 January 3, 2003 62 years, 184 days 11 years, 72 days 73 years, 256 days Republican  16 Barbara Boxer California November 11, 1940 January 3, 1993 52 years, 53 days 21 years, 72 days 73 years, 125 days Democratic  17 Bernie Sanders Vermont September 8, 1941 January 3, 2007 65 years, 117 days 7 years, 72 days 72 years, 189 days Independent[1]  18 Mitch McConnell Kentucky February 20, 1942 January 3, 1985 42 years, 318 days 29 years, 72 days 72 years, 24 days Republican  19 Bill Nelson Florida September 29, 1942 January 3, 2001 58 years, 96 days 13 years, 72 days 71 years, 168 days Democratic  20 Jim Risch Idaho May 3, 1943 January 3, 2009 65 years, 245 days 5 years, 72 days 70 years, 317 days Republican  21 Dan Coats Indiana May 16, 1943 January 3, 2011 67 years, 232 days 3 years, 72 days 70 years, 304 days Republican  22 Ben Cardin Maryland October 5, 1943 January 3, 2007 63 years, 90 days 7 years, 72 days 70 years, 162 days Democratic  23 Saxby Chambliss Georgia November 10, 1943 January 3, 2003 59 years, 54 days 11 years, 72 days 70 years, 126 days Republican  24 Mike Enzi Wyoming February 1, 1944 January 3, 1997 52 years, 337 days 17 years, 72 days 70 years, 43 days Republican  25 Angus King Maine March 31, 1944 January 3, 2013 68 years, 278 days 1 year, 72 days 69 years, 350 days Independent[1]  26 Dick Durbin Illinois November 21, 1944 January 3, 1997 52 years, 43 days 17 years, 72 days 69 years, 115 days Democratic  27 Johnny Isakson Georgia December 28, 1944 January 3, 2005 60 years, 6 days 9 years, 72 days 69 years, 78 days Republican  28 Richard Blumenthal Connecticut February 13, 1946 January 3, 2011 64 years, 324 days 3 years, 72 days 68 years, 31 days Democratic  29 Ed Markey Massachusetts July 11, 1946 July 16, 2013 67 years, 5 days 0 years, 243 days 67 years, 248 days Democratic  30 Jeff Sessions Alabama December 24, 1946 January 3, 1997 50 years, 10 days 17 years, 72 days 67 years, 82 days Republican  31 Tim Johnson South Dakota December 28, 1946 January 3, 1997 50 years, 6 days 17 years, 72 days 67 years, 78 days Democratic  32 Tom Carper Delaware January 23, 1947 January 3, 2001 53 years, 346 days 13 years, 72 days 67 years, 52 days Democratic  33 Jeanne Shaheen New Hampshire January 28, 1947 January 3, 2009 61 years, 341 days 5 years, 72 days 67 years, 47 days Democratic  34 Joe Manchin West Virginia August 24, 1947 November 15, 2010 63 years, 83 days 3 years, 121 days 66 years, 204 days Democratic  35 Mazie Hirono Hawaii November 3, 1947 January 3, 2013 65 years, 61 days 1 year, 72 days 66 years, 133 days Democratic  36 Tom Coburn Oklahoma March 14, 1948 January 3, 2005 56 years, 295 days 9 years, 72 days 66 years, 2 days Republican  37 Tom Udall New Mexico May 18, 1948 January 3, 2009 60 years, 230 days 5 years, 72 days 65 years, 302 days Democratic  38 Ron Wyden Oregon May 3, 1949 February 6, 1996 46 years, 279 days 18 years, 38 days 64 years, 317 days Democratic  39 Elizabeth Warren Massachusetts June 22, 1949 January 3, 2013 63 years, 195 days 1 year, 72 days 64 years, 267 days Democratic  40 Jack Reed Rhode Island November 12, 1949 January 3, 1997 47 years, 52 days 17 years, 72 days 64 years, 124 days Democratic  41 Roy Blunt Missouri January 10, 1950 January 3, 2011 60 years, 358 days 3 years, 72 days 64 years, 65 days Republican  42 Debbie Stabenow Michigan April 29, 1950 January 3, 2001 50 years, 249 days 13 years, 72 days 63 years, 321 days Democratic  43 Mike Johanns Nebraska June 18, 1950 January 3, 2009 58 years, 199 days 5 years, 72 days 63 years, 271 days Republican  44 Mark Udall Colorado July 18, 1950 January 3, 2009 58 years, 169 days 5 years, 72 days 63 years, 241 days Democratic  45 Patty Murray Washington October 11, 1950 January 3, 1993 42 years, 84 days 21 years, 72 days 63 years, 156 days Democratic  46 Chuck Schumer New York November 23, 1950 January 3, 1999 48 years, 41 days 15 years, 72 days 63 years, 113 days Democratic  47 John Boozman Arkansas December 10, 1950 January 3, 2011 60 years, 24 days 3 years, 72 days 63 years, 96 days Republican  48 Deb Fischer Nebraska March 1, 1951 January 3, 2013 61 years, 308 days 1 year, 72 days 63 years, 15 days Republican  49 Mike Crapo Idaho May 20, 1951 January 3, 1999 47 years, 228 days 15 years, 72 days 62 years, 300 days Republican  50 Al Franken Minnesota May 21, 1951 July 7, 2009 58 years, 47 days 4 years, 252 days 62 years, 299 days Democratic  51 Roger Wicker Mississippi July 5, 1951 December 31, 2007 56 years, 179 days 6 years, 75 days 62 years, 254 days Republican  52 John Cornyn Texas February 2, 1952 December 1, 2002 50 years, 302 days 11 years, 105 days 62 years, 42 days Republican  53 John Barrasso Wyoming July 21, 1952 June 25, 2007 54 years, 339 days 6 years, 264 days 61 years, 238 days Republican  54 Bob Corker Tennessee August 24, 1952 January 3, 2007 54 years, 132 days 7 years, 72 days 61 years, 204 days Republican  55 Sherrod Brown Ohio November 9, 1952 January 3, 2007 54 years, 55 days 7 years, 72 days 61 years, 127 days Democratic  56 Susan Collins Maine December 7, 1952 January 3, 1997 44 years, 27 days 17 years, 72 days 61 years, 99 days Republican  57 Kay Hagan North Carolina May 26, 1953 January 3, 2009 55 years, 222 days 5 years, 72 days 60 years, 294 days Democratic  58 Claire McCaskill Missouri July 24, 1953 January 3, 2007 53 years, 163 days 7 years, 72 days 60 years, 235 days Democratic  59 Bob Menendez New Jersey January 1, 1954 January 18, 2006 52 years, 17 days 8 years, 57 days 60 years, 74 days Democratic  60 Jerry Moran Kansas May 29, 1954 January 3, 2011 56 years, 219 days 3 years, 72 days 59 years, 291 days Republican  61 Mark Warner Virginia December 15, 1954 January 3, 2009 54 years, 19 days 5 years, 72 days 59 years, 91 days Democratic  62 Ron Johnson Wisconsin April 8, 1955 January 3, 2011 55 years, 270 days 3 years, 72 days 58 years, 342 days Republican  63 Lindsey Graham South Carolina July 9, 1955 January 3, 2003 47 years, 178 days 11 years, 72 days 58 years, 250 days Republican  64 Joe Donnelly Indiana September 29, 1955 January 3, 2013 57 years, 96 days 1 year, 72 days 58 years, 168 days Democratic  65 Sheldon Whitehouse Rhode Island October 20, 1955 January 3, 2007 51 years, 75 days 7 years, 72 days 58 years, 147 days Democratic  66 Heidi Heitkamp North Dakota October 30, 1955 January 3, 2013 57 years, 65 days 1 year, 72 days 58 years, 137 days Democratic  67 Mary Landrieu Louisiana November 23, 1955 January 3, 1997 41 years, 41 days 17 years, 72 days 58 years, 113 days Democratic  68 Richard Burr North Carolina November 30, 1955 January 3, 2005 49 years, 34 days 9 years, 72 days 58 years, 106 days Republican  69 Rob Portman Ohio December 19, 1955 January 3, 2011 55 years, 15 days 3 years, 72 days 58 years, 87 days Republican  70 Jon Tester Montana August 21, 1956 January 3, 2007 50 years, 135 days 7 years, 72 days 57 years, 207 days Democratic  71 Jeff Merkley Oregon October 24, 1956 January 3, 2009 52 years, 71 days 5 years, 72 days 57 years, 143 days Democratic  72 John Hoeven North Dakota March 13, 1957 January 3, 2011 53 years, 296 days 3 years, 72 days 57 years, 3 days Republican  73 Lisa Murkowski Alaska May 22, 1957 December 20, 2002 45 years, 212 days 11 years, 86 days 56 years, 298 days Republican  74 Tim Kaine Virginia February 26, 1958 January 3, 2013 54 years, 312 days 1 year, 72 days 56 years, 18 days Democratic  75 Maria Cantwell Washington October 13, 1958 January 3, 2001 42 years, 82 days 13 years, 72 days 55 years, 154 days Democratic  76 Mark Kirk Illinois September 15, 1959 November 29, 2010 51 years, 75 days 3 years, 107 days 54 years, 182 days Republican  77 Bob Casey, Jr. Pennsylvania April 13, 1960 January 3, 2007 46 years, 265 days 7 years, 72 days 53 years, 337 days Democratic  78 Dean Heller Nevada May 10, 1960 May 9, 2011 50 years, 364 days 2 years, 311 days 53 years, 310 days Republican  79 Amy Klobuchar Minnesota May 25, 1960 January 3, 2007 46 years, 223 days 7 years, 72 days 53 years, 295 days Democratic  80 John Walsh Montana November 3, 1960 February 9, 2014 53 years, 98 days 0 years, 35 days 53 years, 133 days Democratic  81 John Thune South Dakota January 7, 1961 January 3, 2005 43 years, 362 days 9 years, 72 days 53 years, 68 days Republican  82 David Vitter Louisiana May 3, 1961 January 3, 2005 43 years, 245 days 9 years, 72 days 52 years, 317 days Republican  83 Pat Toomey Pennsylvania November 17, 1961 January 3, 2011 49 years, 47 days 3 years, 72 days 52 years, 119 days Republican  84 Tammy Baldwin Wisconsin February 11, 1962 January 3, 2013 50 years, 327 days 1 year, 72 days 52 years, 33 days Democratic  85 Mark Begich Alaska March 30, 1962 January 3, 2009 46 years, 279 days 5 years, 72 days 51 years, 351 days Democratic  86 Jeff Flake Arizona December 31, 1962 January 3, 2013 50 years, 3 days 1 year, 72 days 51 years, 75 days Republican  87 Rand Paul Kentucky January 7, 1963 January 3, 2011 47 years, 361 days 3 years, 72 days 51 years, 68 days Republican  88 Mark Pryor Arkansas January 10, 1963 January 3, 2003 39 years, 358 days 11 years, 72 days 51 years, 65 days Democratic  89 Chris Coons Delaware September 9, 1963 November 15, 2010 47 years, 67 days 3 years, 121 days 50 years, 188 days Democratic  90 Michael Bennet Colorado November 28, 1964 January 21, 2009 44 years, 54 days 5 years, 54 days 49 years, 108 days Democratic  91 Tim Scott South Carolina September 19, 1965 January 2, 2013 47 years, 105 days 1 year, 73 days 48 years, 178 days Republican  92 Kirsten Gillibrand New York December 9, 1966 January 26, 2009 42 years, 48 days 5 years, 49 days 47 years, 97 days Democratic  93 Kelly Ayotte New Hampshire June 27, 1968 January 3, 2011 42 years, 190 days 3 years, 72 days 45 years, 262 days Republican  94 Cory Booker New Jersey April 27, 1969 October 31, 2013 44 years, 187 days 0 years, 136 days 44 years, 323 days Democratic  95 Ted Cruz Texas December 22, 1970 January 3, 2013 42 years, 12 days 1 year, 72 days 43 years, 84 days Republican  96 Marco Rubio Florida May 28, 1971 January 3, 2011 39 years, 220 days 3 years, 72 days 42 years, 292 days Republican  97 Mike Lee Utah June 4, 1971 January 3, 2011 39 years, 213 days 3 years, 72 days 42 years, 285 days Republican  98 Martin Heinrich New Mexico October 17, 1971 January 3, 2013 41 years, 78 days 1 year, 72 days 42 years, 150 days Democratic  99 Brian Schatz Hawaii October 20, 1972 December 26, 2012 40 years, 67 days 1 year, 80 days 41 years, 147 days Democratic  100 Chris Murphy Connecticut August 3, 1973 January 3, 2013 39 years, 153 days 1 year, 72 days 40 years, 225 days Democratic
Title:
Post by: sinkspur on March 16, 2014, 06:07:37 PM
Quote
Term Limits now. Age Limits now. If you are freakin' 81 years old, for Christ's sake, it is time to give it up, no matter how much money you are making. What are you going to do with millions in kick backs anyway, if you are over 80? It is not like you are going to go skiing in Aspen, or buy hookers in Vegas. Why? Why do you need more.
 
To me this represents a kind of 'pure greed'. It is just gripping on to money and power for no reason, just for the sake of it, just for the pure lust and greed of it. These people are truely evil.

Spoken like a class-warfare Democrat. 

Who the hell are YOU to tell voters they can't have represent them the Senator they WANT to represent them?
Title:
Post by: alicewonders on March 16, 2014, 06:12:16 PM
Spoken like a class-warfare Democrat. 

Who the hell are YOU to tell voters they can't have represent them the Senator they WANT to represent them?

As long as they are "bringing home the pork" everyone loves their own Congress Critter, but you ask most people and they will agree that there should be term limits.
 
Title:
Post by: sinkspur on March 16, 2014, 06:22:59 PM
As long as they are "bringing home the pork" everyone loves their own Congress Critter, but you ask most people and they will agree that there should be term limits.
 

Good luck getting Congress to pass a Constitutional amendment advocating term limits. 

Also, a voter who says he likes his congressman but wants term limits is schizophrenic.  He gets a chance to vote the congressman out every two years.

Term limits is a big government solution to  a non-existent problem.
Title:
Post by: 240B on March 16, 2014, 06:23:59 PM
There never was the intent that all politicians in D.C. leave their office in a pine box. When is enough, enough?
 
In the words of that old hag Pelosi, they can spend time with their family, and learn to paint and write poetry. All I am saying is that it is past time to free Washington politicians from 'job-lock'.
 
I am only concerned about their welfare, that's all.
Title:
Post by: Howie66 on March 16, 2014, 06:29:57 PM
The Tea Party may lose influence as a concrete organization.

The Tea Party spirit however, will never die.  Not until America dies with them.
Hmmmm...where are the TEA PARTY Headquarters located? Who is Chairman of the TEA PARTY?  Do you have a number for the main switchboard?
Title:
Post by: happyg on March 16, 2014, 06:30:45 PM
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/BZxPldACEAEtFrX.jpg)
Title:
Post by: katzenjammer on March 16, 2014, 06:36:34 PM
25% of all senators are 70 or older with 10% over 75.
66% or two thirds of all senators are 60 or over.
 
When is enough, enough? When are we going to clean house and get people in Congress who represent the 21st century instead of these hippies who are still stuck in the 60s?
 
Term Limits now. Age Limits now. If you are freakin' 81 years old, for Christ's sake, it is time to give it up, no matter how much money you are making. What are you going to do with millions in kick backs anyway, if you are over 80? It is not like you are going to go skiing in Aspen, or buy hookers in Vegas. Why? Why do you need more.
 
To me this represents a kind of 'pure greed'. It is just gripping on to money and power for no reason, just for the sake of it, just for the pure lust and greed of it. These people are truely evil.
 
We have to, we must find a way to get rid of them. My understanding of the founding documents is that there never was a thought of a 'professional politician', a politician 'for life', or the establishment of a permanent 'ruling class'. This is ridiculous. We have to clean house and get rid of these government parasites.
 
   
Rank
by age
[/t] Senator
 State
 Date of birth
 Date of
taking office Age at
taking office Length of Senate
term to date Current age
 Party   1 Dianne Feinstein California June 22, 1933 November 10, 1992 59 years, 141 days 21 years, 126 days 80 years, 267 days Democratic  2 Chuck Grassley Iowa September 17, 1933 January 3, 1981 47 years, 108 days 33 years, 72 days 80 years, 180 days Republican  3 Orrin Hatch Utah March 22, 1934 January 3, 1977 42 years, 287 days 37 years, 72 days 79 years, 359 days Republican  4 Richard Shelby Alabama May 6, 1934 January 3, 1987 52 years, 242 days 27 years, 72 days 79 years, 314 days Republican  5 Carl Levin Michigan June 28, 1934 January 3, 1979 44 years, 189 days 35 years, 72 days 79 years, 261 days Democratic  6 Jim Inhofe Oklahoma November 17, 1934 November 17, 1994 60 years, 0 days 19 years, 119 days 79 years, 119 days Republican  7 Pat Roberts Kansas April 20, 1936 January 3, 1997 60 years, 258 days 17 years, 72 days 77 years, 330 days Republican  8 Barbara Mikulski Maryland July 20, 1936 January 3, 1987 50 years, 167 days 27 years, 72 days 77 years, 239 days Democratic  9 John McCain Arizona August 29, 1936 January 3, 1987 50 years, 127 days 27 years, 72 days 77 years, 199 days Republican  10 Jay Rockefeller West Virginia June 18, 1937 January 15, 1985 47 years, 211 days 29 years, 60 days 76 years, 271 days Democratic  11 Thad Cochran Mississippi December 7, 1937 December 27, 1978 41 years, 20 days 35 years, 79 days 76 years, 99 days Republican  12 Tom Harkin Iowa November 19, 1939 January 3, 1985 45 years, 45 days 29 years, 72 days 74 years, 117 days Democratic  13 Harry Reid Nevada December 2, 1939 January 3, 1987 47 years, 32 days 27 years, 72 days 74 years, 104 days Democratic  14 Patrick Leahy Vermont March 31, 1940 January 3, 1975 34 years, 278 days 39 years, 72 days 73 years, 350 days Democratic  15 Lamar Alexander Tennessee July 3, 1940 January 3, 2003 62 years, 184 days 11 years, 72 days 73 years, 256 days Republican  16 Barbara Boxer California November 11, 1940 January 3, 1993 52 years, 53 days 21 years, 72 days 73 years, 125 days Democratic  17 Bernie Sanders Vermont September 8, 1941 January 3, 2007 65 years, 117 days 7 years, 72 days 72 years, 189 days Independent[1]  18 Mitch McConnell Kentucky February 20, 1942 January 3, 1985 42 years, 318 days 29 years, 72 days 72 years, 24 days Republican  19 Bill Nelson Florida September 29, 1942 January 3, 2001 58 years, 96 days 13 years, 72 days 71 years, 168 days Democratic  20 Jim Risch Idaho May 3, 1943 January 3, 2009 65 years, 245 days 5 years, 72 days 70 years, 317 days Republican  21 Dan Coats Indiana May 16, 1943 January 3, 2011 67 years, 232 days 3 years, 72 days 70 years, 304 days Republican  22 Ben Cardin Maryland October 5, 1943 January 3, 2007 63 years, 90 days 7 years, 72 days 70 years, 162 days Democratic  23 Saxby Chambliss Georgia November 10, 1943 January 3, 2003 59 years, 54 days 11 years, 72 days 70 years, 126 days Republican  24 Mike Enzi Wyoming February 1, 1944 January 3, 1997 52 years, 337 days 17 years, 72 days 70 years, 43 days Republican  25 Angus King Maine March 31, 1944 January 3, 2013 68 years, 278 days 1 year, 72 days 69 years, 350 days Independent[1]  26 Dick Durbin Illinois November 21, 1944 January 3, 1997 52 years, 43 days 17 years, 72 days 69 years, 115 days Democratic  27 Johnny Isakson Georgia December 28, 1944 January 3, 2005 60 years, 6 days 9 years, 72 days 69 years, 78 days Republican  28 Richard Blumenthal Connecticut February 13, 1946 January 3, 2011 64 years, 324 days 3 years, 72 days 68 years, 31 days Democratic  29 Ed Markey Massachusetts July 11, 1946 July 16, 2013 67 years, 5 days 0 years, 243 days 67 years, 248 days Democratic  30 Jeff Sessions Alabama December 24, 1946 January 3, 1997 50 years, 10 days 17 years, 72 days 67 years, 82 days Republican  31 Tim Johnson South Dakota December 28, 1946 January 3, 1997 50 years, 6 days 17 years, 72 days 67 years, 78 days Democratic  32 Tom Carper Delaware January 23, 1947 January 3, 2001 53 years, 346 days 13 years, 72 days 67 years, 52 days Democratic  33 Jeanne Shaheen New Hampshire January 28, 1947 January 3, 2009 61 years, 341 days 5 years, 72 days 67 years, 47 days Democratic  34 Joe Manchin West Virginia August 24, 1947 November 15, 2010 63 years, 83 days 3 years, 121 days 66 years, 204 days Democratic  35 Mazie Hirono Hawaii November 3, 1947 January 3, 2013 65 years, 61 days 1 year, 72 days 66 years, 133 days Democratic  36 Tom Coburn Oklahoma March 14, 1948 January 3, 2005 56 years, 295 days 9 years, 72 days 66 years, 2 days Republican  37 Tom Udall New Mexico May 18, 1948 January 3, 2009 60 years, 230 days 5 years, 72 days 65 years, 302 days Democratic  38 Ron Wyden Oregon May 3, 1949 February 6, 1996 46 years, 279 days 18 years, 38 days 64 years, 317 days Democratic  39 Elizabeth Warren Massachusetts June 22, 1949 January 3, 2013 63 years, 195 days 1 year, 72 days 64 years, 267 days Democratic  40 Jack Reed Rhode Island November 12, 1949 January 3, 1997 47 years, 52 days 17 years, 72 days 64 years, 124 days Democratic  41 Roy Blunt Missouri January 10, 1950 January 3, 2011 60 years, 358 days 3 years, 72 days 64 years, 65 days Republican  42 Debbie Stabenow Michigan April 29, 1950 January 3, 2001 50 years, 249 days 13 years, 72 days 63 years, 321 days Democratic  43 Mike Johanns Nebraska June 18, 1950 January 3, 2009 58 years, 199 days 5 years, 72 days 63 years, 271 days Republican  44 Mark Udall Colorado July 18, 1950 January 3, 2009 58 years, 169 days 5 years, 72 days 63 years, 241 days Democratic  45 Patty Murray Washington October 11, 1950 January 3, 1993 42 years, 84 days 21 years, 72 days 63 years, 156 days Democratic  46 Chuck Schumer New York November 23, 1950 January 3, 1999 48 years, 41 days 15 years, 72 days 63 years, 113 days Democratic  47 John Boozman Arkansas December 10, 1950 January 3, 2011 60 years, 24 days 3 years, 72 days 63 years, 96 days Republican  48 Deb Fischer Nebraska March 1, 1951 January 3, 2013 61 years, 308 days 1 year, 72 days 63 years, 15 days Republican  49 Mike Crapo Idaho May 20, 1951 January 3, 1999 47 years, 228 days 15 years, 72 days 62 years, 300 days Republican  50 Al Franken Minnesota May 21, 1951 July 7, 2009 58 years, 47 days 4 years, 252 days 62 years, 299 days Democratic  51 Roger Wicker Mississippi July 5, 1951 December 31, 2007 56 years, 179 days 6 years, 75 days 62 years, 254 days Republican  52 John Cornyn Texas February 2, 1952 December 1, 2002 50 years, 302 days 11 years, 105 days 62 years, 42 days Republican  53 John Barrasso Wyoming July 21, 1952 June 25, 2007 54 years, 339 days 6 years, 264 days 61 years, 238 days Republican  54 Bob Corker Tennessee August 24, 1952 January 3, 2007 54 years, 132 days 7 years, 72 days 61 years, 204 days Republican  55 Sherrod Brown Ohio November 9, 1952 January 3, 2007 54 years, 55 days 7 years, 72 days 61 years, 127 days Democratic  56 Susan Collins Maine December 7, 1952 January 3, 1997 44 years, 27 days 17 years, 72 days 61 years, 99 days Republican  57 Kay Hagan North Carolina May 26, 1953 January 3, 2009 55 years, 222 days 5 years, 72 days 60 years, 294 days Democratic  58 Claire McCaskill Missouri July 24, 1953 January 3, 2007 53 years, 163 days 7 years, 72 days 60 years, 235 days Democratic  59 Bob Menendez New Jersey January 1, 1954 January 18, 2006 52 years, 17 days 8 years, 57 days 60 years, 74 days Democratic  60 Jerry Moran Kansas May 29, 1954 January 3, 2011 56 years, 219 days 3 years, 72 days 59 years, 291 days Republican  61 Mark Warner Virginia December 15, 1954 January 3, 2009 54 years, 19 days 5 years, 72 days 59 years, 91 days Democratic  62 Ron Johnson Wisconsin April 8, 1955 January 3, 2011 55 years, 270 days 3 years, 72 days 58 years, 342 days Republican  63 Lindsey Graham South Carolina July 9, 1955 January 3, 2003 47 years, 178 days 11 years, 72 days 58 years, 250 days Republican  64 Joe Donnelly Indiana September 29, 1955 January 3, 2013 57 years, 96 days 1 year, 72 days 58 years, 168 days Democratic  65 Sheldon Whitehouse Rhode Island October 20, 1955 January 3, 2007 51 years, 75 days 7 years, 72 days 58 years, 147 days Democratic  66 Heidi Heitkamp North Dakota October 30, 1955 January 3, 2013 57 years, 65 days 1 year, 72 days 58 years, 137 days Democratic  67 Mary Landrieu Louisiana November 23, 1955 January 3, 1997 41 years, 41 days 17 years, 72 days 58 years, 113 days Democratic  68 Richard Burr North Carolina November 30, 1955 January 3, 2005 49 years, 34 days 9 years, 72 days 58 years, 106 days Republican  69 Rob Portman Ohio December 19, 1955 January 3, 2011 55 years, 15 days 3 years, 72 days 58 years, 87 days Republican  70 Jon Tester Montana August 21, 1956 January 3, 2007 50 years, 135 days 7 years, 72 days 57 years, 207 days Democratic  71 Jeff Merkley Oregon October 24, 1956 January 3, 2009 52 years, 71 days 5 years, 72 days 57 years, 143 days Democratic  72 John Hoeven North Dakota March 13, 1957 January 3, 2011 53 years, 296 days 3 years, 72 days 57 years, 3 days Republican  73 Lisa Murkowski Alaska May 22, 1957 December 20, 2002 45 years, 212 days 11 years, 86 days 56 years, 298 days Republican  74 Tim Kaine Virginia February 26, 1958 January 3, 2013 54 years, 312 days 1 year, 72 days 56 years, 18 days Democratic  75 Maria Cantwell Washington October 13, 1958 January 3, 2001 42 years, 82 days 13 years, 72 days 55 years, 154 days Democratic  76 Mark Kirk Illinois September 15, 1959 November 29, 2010 51 years, 75 days 3 years, 107 days 54 years, 182 days Republican  77 Bob Casey, Jr. Pennsylvania April 13, 1960 January 3, 2007 46 years, 265 days 7 years, 72 days 53 years, 337 days Democratic  78 Dean Heller Nevada May 10, 1960 May 9, 2011 50 years, 364 days 2 years, 311 days 53 years, 310 days Republican  79 Amy Klobuchar Minnesota May 25, 1960 January 3, 2007 46 years, 223 days 7 years, 72 days 53 years, 295 days Democratic  80 John Walsh Montana November 3, 1960 February 9, 2014 53 years, 98 days 0 years, 35 days 53 years, 133 days Democratic  81 John Thune South Dakota January 7, 1961 January 3, 2005 43 years, 362 days 9 years, 72 days 53 years, 68 days Republican  82 David Vitter Louisiana May 3, 1961 January 3, 2005 43 years, 245 days 9 years, 72 days 52 years, 317 days Republican  83 Pat Toomey Pennsylvania November 17, 1961 January 3, 2011 49 years, 47 days 3 years, 72 days 52 years, 119 days Republican  84 Tammy Baldwin Wisconsin February 11, 1962 January 3, 2013 50 years, 327 days 1 year, 72 days 52 years, 33 days Democratic  85 Mark Begich Alaska March 30, 1962 January 3, 2009 46 years, 279 days 5 years, 72 days 51 years, 351 days Democratic  86 Jeff Flake Arizona December 31, 1962 January 3, 2013 50 years, 3 days 1 year, 72 days 51 years, 75 days Republican  87 Rand Paul Kentucky January 7, 1963 January 3, 2011 47 years, 361 days 3 years, 72 days 51 years, 68 days Republican  88 Mark Pryor Arkansas January 10, 1963 January 3, 2003 39 years, 358 days 11 years, 72 days 51 years, 65 days Democratic  89 Chris Coons Delaware September 9, 1963 November 15, 2010 47 years, 67 days 3 years, 121 days 50 years, 188 days Democratic  90 Michael Bennet Colorado November 28, 1964 January 21, 2009 44 years, 54 days 5 years, 54 days 49 years, 108 days Democratic  91 Tim Scott South Carolina September 19, 1965 January 2, 2013 47 years, 105 days 1 year, 73 days 48 years, 178 days Republican  92 Kirsten Gillibrand New York December 9, 1966 January 26, 2009 42 years, 48 days 5 years, 49 days 47 years, 97 days Democratic  93 Kelly Ayotte New Hampshire June 27, 1968 January 3, 2011 42 years, 190 days 3 years, 72 days 45 years, 262 days Republican  94 Cory Booker New Jersey April 27, 1969 October 31, 2013 44 years, 187 days 0 years, 136 days 44 years, 323 days Democratic  95 Ted Cruz Texas December 22, 1970 January 3, 2013 42 years, 12 days 1 year, 72 days 43 years, 84 days Republican  96 Marco Rubio Florida May 28, 1971 January 3, 2011 39 years, 220 days 3 years, 72 days 42 years, 292 days Republican  97 Mike Lee Utah June 4, 1971 January 3, 2011 39 years, 213 days 3 years, 72 days 42 years, 285 days Republican  98 Martin Heinrich New Mexico October 17, 1971 January 3, 2013 41 years, 78 days 1 year, 72 days 42 years, 150 days Democratic  99 Brian Schatz Hawaii October 20, 1972 December 26, 2012 40 years, 67 days 1 year, 80 days 41 years, 147 days Democratic  100 Chris Murphy Connecticut August 3, 1973 January 3, 2013 39 years, 153 days 1 year, 72 days 40 years, 225 days Democratic

It is called the Will to Power.  It is what drives many of these monsters.
Title:
Post by: Howie66 on March 16, 2014, 06:37:17 PM
As long as they are "bringing home the pork" everyone loves their own Congress Critter, but you ask most people and they will agree that there should be term limits.
 

As I said the other day, to all of those that keep hollering for TERM LIMITS, the very best time to institute TERM LIMITS is during the PRIMARY SEASON. It's really not at all that complicated.

Does anybody seriously believe that the Career Politicians that infest Congress today will ever pass legislation to limit how long they can feed off the Public Trough?  That's NOT going to happen.

Take them out with your Primary vote BEFORE the general elections. Pick them off one by one, and replace them with someone that will do the right thing.
Title:
Post by: Howie66 on March 16, 2014, 06:38:53 PM
There never was the intent that all politicians in D.C. leave their office in a pine box. When is enough, enough?
 
In the words of that old hag Pelosi, they can spend time with their family, and learn to paint and write poetry. All I am saying is that it is past time to free Washington politicians from 'job-lock'.
 
I am only concerned about their welfare, that's all.

It's not weird if it works!   :beer:
Title:
Post by: katzenjammer on March 16, 2014, 06:45:42 PM
As I said the other day, to all of those that keep hollering for TERM LIMITS, the very best time to institute TERM LIMITS is during the PRIMARY SEASON. It's really not at all that complicated.

Does anybody seriously believe that the Career Politicians that infest Congress today will ever pass legislation to limit how long they can feed off the Public Trough?  That's NOT going to happen.

Take them out with your Primary vote BEFORE the general elections. Pick them off one by one, and replace them with someone that will do the right thing.

The problem is that the process you describe requires a well informed citizenry with critical thinking skills intact.  Sadly we no longer have much of that left in most areas of the country, that's a part of why we have the mess that we do.  I think that most of us would be shocked at the minuscule amount of "thought" that goes into a majority of the voters' choices, those that even bother to show up.
Title:
Post by: happyg on March 16, 2014, 06:54:02 PM
Title:
Post by: Howie66 on March 16, 2014, 07:11:13 PM
The problem is that the process you describe requires a well informed citizenry with critical thinking skills intact.  Sadly we no longer have much of that left in most areas of the country, that's a part of why we have the mess that we do.  I think that most of us would be shocked at the minuscule amount of "thought" that goes into a majority of the voters' choices, those that even bother to show up.

Trust me, I know what you mean. If anybody doubts it, there is plenty of evidence right at hand.
Title:
Post by: Howie66 on March 16, 2014, 07:12:21 PM
http://www.redstate.com/2014/03/12/judgment-and-leadership/ (http://www.redstate.com/2014/03/12/judgment-and-leadership/)

I am all over that!

DITCH MITCH!!
Title:
Post by: speekinout on March 16, 2014, 07:54:19 PM

Take them out with your Primary vote BEFORE the general elections. Pick them off one by one, and replace them with someone that will do the right thing.

What is the right thing?

What are you looking for your Senator or Representative to do? Does it make a difference to you if he or she is a member of a key committee or maybe even the committee chairman instead of just a vote on the floor? Is there a difference between what he or she does if he or she is a member of the majority party vs. being in the minority?
Title:
Post by: Right_in_Virginia on March 16, 2014, 09:11:03 PM
I seem to remember Washington retreating a lot until he had sufficient force to attack.

Here's what you're missing:  he fought for a goal....despite the odds.  He never stopped...he  fought until total victory.

Now is not the time to retreat.  Now is not the time to sing the praises of the GOP status quo.

THIS is the time to march on.....under bold leadership....until total victory.

One is either part of the fight or part of the problem.  Now is also the time to choose.
Title:
Post by: Rapunzel on March 16, 2014, 09:12:07 PM
Here's what you're missing:  he fought despite the odds .... and fought until total victory.

Now is not the time to retreat.  Now is not the time to sing the praises of the GOP status quo.

THIS is the time to march on.....under bold leadership....until total victory.

One is either part of the fight or part of the problem.  Now is also the time to choose.

 goopo
Title:
Post by: sinkspur on March 16, 2014, 09:25:35 PM
Here's what you're missing:  he fought for a goal....despite the odds.  He never stopped...he  fought until total victory.

Now is not the time to retreat.  Now is not the time to sing the praises of the GOP status quo.

THIS is the time to march on.....under bold leadership....until total victory.

One is either part of the fight or part of the problem.  Now is also the time to choose.

Like shutting down the government because Obama wouldn't agree to defund Obamacare? 

THAT kind of bold leadership?  The kind of leadership that had no plan, no strategy, no fallback other than hope?

Fighting when there is no chance at victory is stupid and suicidal.
Title:
Post by: Rapunzel on March 16, 2014, 09:26:38 PM
Like shutting down the government because Obama wouldn't agree to defund Obamacare? 





This lie is getting really, REALLY old.
Title:
Post by: DCPatriot on March 16, 2014, 09:30:39 PM
Like shutting down the government because Obama wouldn't agree to defund Obamacare? 

THAT kind of bold leadership?  The kind of leadership that had no plan, no strategy, no fallback other than hope?

Fighting when there is no chance at victory is stupid and suicidal.

I'm still convinced that Cruz' antics served a huge purpose in keeping hope alive in many homes across America.  Somebody was out there speaking and fighting against the insanity.

It's damned well appreciated.  And it bears out in elections. 

If he ends up like Spartacus....so be it.   There's a lot of positions in a GOP administration for a person with that intensity.  It'll drive the Left nuts.
Title:
Post by: happyg on March 16, 2014, 09:35:00 PM
Obama shut down the government. Cruz merely called his bluff. Don't forget the damage Obama (not Cruz) did when he locked elderly veterans from getting in. Or the parks he closed, among the many unnecessary closures. Obama is the one who wants to damage America. Cruz is trying to fix it.
Title:
Post by: sinkspur on March 16, 2014, 09:37:38 PM
I'm still convinced that Cruz' antics served a huge purpose in keeping hope alive in many homes across America.  Somebody was out there speaking and fighting against the insanity.

It's damned well appreciated.  And it bears out in elections. 

If he ends up like Spartacus....so be it.   There's a lot of positions in a GOP administration for a person with that intensity.  It'll drive the Left nuts.

He did unbelievable damage to the GOP brand among Independents and even among some Republicans.  The only ones impressed with his stunt were the Tea Partiers, and they didn't need the shutdown to love Cruz.

Plus he delayed for half-a-month the negative reaction to Obamacare.  Republicans are STILL viewed more negatively than the Democrats, even with the Obamacare fiasco.
Title:
Post by: sinkspur on March 16, 2014, 09:38:42 PM
Obama shut down the government. Cruz merely called his bluff. Don't forget the damage Obama (not Cruz) did when he locked elderly veterans from getting in. Or the parks he closed, among the many unnecessary closures. Obama is the one who wants to damage America. Cruz is trying to fix it.

You just go right on believing that.  Most other American voters DO NOT agree with you.
Title:
Post by: happyg on March 16, 2014, 09:40:10 PM
You just go right on believing that.  Most other American voters DO NOT agree with you.

The truth about Obama is creeping up on them. I don't believe it; I know it.
Title:
Post by: katzenjammer on March 16, 2014, 09:40:33 PM
Obama shut down the government. Cruz merely called his bluff. Don't forget the damage Obama (not Cruz) did when he locked elderly veterans from getting in. Or the parks he closed, among the many unnecessary closures. Obama is the one who wants to damage America. Cruz is trying to fix it.

Yes, yes, and yes!  goopo
Title:
Post by: Oceander on March 16, 2014, 09:45:09 PM
I'm still convinced that Cruz' antics served a huge purpose in keeping hope alive in many homes across America.  Somebody was out there speaking and fighting against the insanity.

It's damned well appreciated.  And it bears out in elections. 

If he ends up like Spartacus....so be it.   There's a lot of positions in a GOP administration for a person with that intensity.  It'll drive the Left nuts.

Yes, his antics served a purpose - or rather, could have served a purpose if he and the (moderate) GOP leadership could learn to work together instead of against each other.  From what I understand, he hasn't exactly taken up the opportunities that were extended to him when he was elected.  That's dumb and it sucks out a lot of the value of his actions.  Of course, sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander and the GOP leadership needs to start realizing that he could be a useful complement to them if they took advantage of the results he causes rather than getting the deer-in-the-headlights look.
Title:
Post by: Once-Ler on March 16, 2014, 09:49:21 PM
Here's what you're missing:  he fought for a goal....despite the odds.  He never stopped...he  fought until total victory.

Now is not the time to retreat.  Now is not the time to sing the praises of the GOP status quo.

THIS is the time to march on.....under bold leadership....until total victory.

One is either part of the fight or part of the problem.  Now is also the time to choose.
Here is what you're missing: when Washington lost his first few battles he changed his attack plans to emulate American Indian guerrilla tactics.  He was able to tell that his frontal attacks sucked.
Title:
Post by: Gazoo on March 16, 2014, 09:53:04 PM
You just go right on believing that.  Most other American voters DO NOT agree with you.

Oh yes, let's please argue this for the 1239876 time. Who shut down the government? How evil the tea party and Cruz is in destroying the reputations of the great almighty Mitch and Boehner. All awhile Russia threatens to nuke our dumbasses. Nothing to see here move along. Oh and Romney has a freaking horse and Christie stopped traffic.
Title:
Post by: Once-Ler on March 16, 2014, 09:58:26 PM
Oh yes, let's please argue this for the 1239876 time. Who shut down the government? How evil the tea party and Cruz is in destroying the reputations of the great almighty Mitch and Boehner. All awhile Russia threatens to nuke our dumbasses. Nothing to see here move along. Oh and Romney has a freaking horse and Christie stopped traffic.

Romney has a horse?
Title:
Post by: happyg on March 16, 2014, 09:59:30 PM
Oh yes, let's please argue this for the 1239876 time. Who shut down the government? How evil the tea party and Cruz is in destroying the reputations of the great almighty Mitch and Boehner. All awhile Russia threatens to nuke our dumbasses. Nothing to see here move along. Oh and Romney has a freaking horse and Christie stopped traffic.

 :silly:
Title:
Post by: Gazoo on March 16, 2014, 10:01:26 PM
Romney also has an elevator just for HIS CAR!
Title:
Post by: Gazoo on March 16, 2014, 10:05:30 PM
Romney has a horse?

(http://cdn.thewire.com/media/old_wire/img/upload/2012/06/21/RTR2YT4N/lead_large.jpg)

Mitt Romney Caught On Camera Discussing His Horses With Sean Hannity
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/04/10/mitt-romney-horses_n_1415936.html (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/04/10/mitt-romney-horses_n_1415936.html)

http://www.thewire.com/politics/2012/06/ann-romneys-dressage-horse-has-great-health-care-plan/53769/ (http://www.thewire.com/politics/2012/06/ann-romneys-dressage-horse-has-great-health-care-plan/53769/)
Title:
Post by: Right_in_Virginia on March 16, 2014, 10:14:36 PM
Here is what you're missing: when Washington lost his first few battles he changed his attack plans to emulate American Indian guerrilla tactics.  He was able to tell that his frontal attacks sucked.

Washington had a goal and he had guts.  As did every man who signed the Declaration of Independence.  These times demand the same dedication to the same goal...and the same type of guts. 

Now is the time for political action, not fear.  This is the year we need to vote as though the very future of our nation hangs in the balance. The entrenched status quo is simply not good enough for the job at hand.  Our voices and our votes need to be loud and clear about this.
Title:
Post by: Right_in_Virginia on March 16, 2014, 10:21:30 PM
Like shutting down the government because Obama wouldn't agree to defund Obamacare? 

Fighting when there is no chance at victory is stupid and suicidal.

Nonsense.  Utter nonsense.  You fight when your cause is just and the time demands it.  Victory doesn't take a majority, it takes an insistent, vocal minority (who are not afraid to fight).

November will be here soon enough .... and you'll see the sleeping giants the brave souls like Cruz have woken up. 

In the meantime, get a massage, clean the garage, read a good book.....do whatever helps you relax.  You'll feel better in a few months.  Promise.

XOXO   ^-^

Title:
Post by: Oceander on March 16, 2014, 10:25:06 PM
Washington had a goal and he had guts.  As did every man who signed the Declaration of Independence.  These times demand the same dedication to the same goal...and the same type of guts. 

Now is the time for political action, not fear.  This is the year we need to vote as though the very future of our nation hangs in the balance. The entrenched status quo is simply not good enough for the job at hand.  Our voices and our votes need to be loud and clear about this.

I think you missed Once-ler's point.  Yes Geo. Washington had guts, and he had a purpose that he didn't stray from, but he also had a keen sense of both tactics and strategy and was able to change his plan of attack - change the means and methods used to attain his goals - when his first approach failed to bear fruit.  He also looked for friends and allies where they could be found, and made common cause with them even though there were a lot of issues that also separated Washington's troops from such people; a number of native american tribes fought with the colonists against the British (a large number also fought alongside the British).

As I read Once-ler's comment, his point is that this is where Cruz is failing:  he isn't seeking to make common cause with potential friends and allies, and has instead alienated a number of people whom he could have used - that's right, I said "used", as in like tools - to give his actions greater, and more lasting, effect.
Title:
Post by: Once-Ler on March 16, 2014, 10:30:18 PM
I think you missed Once-ler's point.  Yes Geo. Washington had guts, and he had a purpose that he didn't stray from, but he also had a keen sense of both tactics and strategy and was able to change his plan of attack - change the means and methods used to attain his goals - when his first approach failed to bear fruit.  He also looked for friends and allies where they could be found, and made common cause with them even though there were a lot of issues that also separated Washington's troops from such people; a number of native american tribes fought with the colonists against the British (a large number also fought alongside the British).

As I read Once-ler's comment, his point is that this is where Cruz is failing:  he isn't seeking to make common cause with potential friends and allies, and has instead alienated a number of people whom he could have used - that's right, I said "used", as in like tools - to give his actions greater, and more lasting, effect.

That is better than what I would have wrote.
Title:
Post by: Right_in_Virginia on March 16, 2014, 10:34:37 PM
I think you missed Once-ler's point.  Yes Geo. Washington had guts, and he had a purpose that he didn't stray from, but he also had a keen sense of both tactics and strategy and was able to change his plan of attack -

Here's my point:  NO ONE ELSE IS FIGHTING!  Tactics and strategy take a team .... and the entrenched GOP doesn't want to play the game.  They're afraid and clinging to their self-made status quo.  The nation be damned.

Cruz is almost alone.  And yet he soldiers on.  I am one citizen thankful for his "ilk"....and pray they continue the fight.  Cruz is one of the lights still shining in this dreadful darkness. God bless him.



Title:
Post by: Right_in_Virginia on March 16, 2014, 10:36:04 PM
That is better than what I would have wrote.

Read my reply.
Title:
Post by: sinkspur on March 16, 2014, 10:37:45 PM
Nonsense.  Utter nonsense.  You fight when your cause is just and the time demands it.  Victory doesn't take a majority, it takes an insistent, vocal minority (who are not afraid to fight).

November will be here soon enough .... and you'll see the sleeping giants the brave souls like Cruz have woken up. 

In the meantime, get a massage, clean the garage, read a good book.....do whatever helps you relax.  You'll feel better in a few months.  Promise.

XOXO   ^-^

You go ahead and die on that hill.

November will be good for the GOP, and it will be good because of the focus on Obamacare, NOT a fight picked over the debt ceiling. 
Title:
Post by: Fishrrman on March 16, 2014, 10:39:00 PM
Title:
Post by: Once-Ler on March 16, 2014, 10:39:19 PM
Here's my point:  NO ONE ELSE IS FIGHTING!  Tactics and strategy take a team .... and the entrenched GOP doesn't want to play the game.  They're afraid and clinging to their self-made status quo.  The nation be damned.

Cruz is almost alone.  And yet he soldiers on.  I am one citizen thankful for his "ilk"....and pray they continue the fight.  Cruz is one of the lights still shining in this dreadful darkness. God bless him.
Read it.  Disagree.
Title:
Post by: Oceander on March 16, 2014, 10:39:30 PM
Here's my point:  NO ONE ELSE IS FIGHTING!  Tactics and strategy take a team .... and the entrenched GOP doesn't want to play the game.  They're afraid and clinging to their self-made status quo.  The nation be damned.

Cruz is almost alone.  And yet he soldiers on.  I am one citizen thankful for his "ilk"....and pray they continue the fight.  Cruz is one of the lights still shining in this dreadful darkness. God bless him.



Martyrdom doesn't solve much of anything, and if Cruz is ignoring those opportunities offered to him and is spurning potential allies because they aren't quite as "pure" as he'd like them to be, then he's not fighting the good fight, he's aggrandizing himself as a martyr.

And as I recall - it was posted elsewhere just recently - McConnell did manage to keep the republicans in the House sufficiently in line that not a one voted for Obamacare; for the more liberal republicans it must have been a real temptation to join in that vote to look like one of the "people who care."

I'm not saying that McConnell is a great fighter, all I'm saying is that he hasn't been completely passive and that to the extent he does fight, he uses a different style of fighting.  My concerns with McConnell are that he doesn't seem to have a sufficiently strong purpose or set of principles driving, and informing, his actions, amongst others.  Cruz could certainly bring the fire of conviction to the team, and that is why I think a smart, strategic alliance between McConnell on the one hand and Cruz on the other could be fruitful, but that will not, and cannot, happen while Cruz grandstands and refuses to take up the opportunities that were offered to him when he was first elected.

The McConnell-ites and the Cruz-ites could make an unstoppable team - the ne plus ultra of good cop/bad cop - if only they could both realize that the real enemies don't have an 'R' after their names.
Title:
Post by: Oceander on March 16, 2014, 10:40:33 PM
You go ahead and die on that hill.

November will be good for the GOP, and it will be good because of the focus on Obamacare, NOT a fight picked over the debt ceiling. 

From your lips to God's ear.  I am more than a little worried that this childish bickering - from both sides - within the GOP will end up handing the democrats a miraculous set of victories in Nov.
Title:
Post by: Once-Ler on March 16, 2014, 10:43:05 PM
From your lips to God's ear.  I am more than a little worried that this childish bickering - from both sides - within the GOP will end up handing the democrats a miraculous set of victories in Nov.

Things will smooth out after the primaries.
Title:
Post by: sinkspur on March 16, 2014, 10:46:30 PM
Things will smooth out after the primaries.

Let's hope so, but I'm not as sanguine as you.  SCF and FreedomWorks still need to fund their operations, and they're not known to actually attack Democrats.
Title:
Post by: Right_in_Virginia on March 16, 2014, 10:46:45 PM
Martyrdom doesn't solve much of anything, and if Cruz is ignoring those opportunities offered to him and is spurning potential allies because they aren't quite as "pure" as he'd like them to be, then he's not fighting the good fight, he's aggrandizing himself as a martyr.

Sweetie...you've got to get past Cruz.  He's one voice ... a needed voice ... a welcomed voice.  He stirs the masses, whether you like it or not.  He is not the enemy.



Title:
Post by: Right_in_Virginia on March 16, 2014, 10:48:29 PM
Read it.  Disagree.


Thank you for your candor, John Dickinson.
Title:
Post by: Oceander on March 16, 2014, 10:50:00 PM
Sweetie...you've got to get past Cruz.  He's one voice ... a needed voice ... a welcomed voice.  He stirs the masses, whether you like it or not.  He is not the enemy.



thanks for the personal attack, and the utter failure to appreciate anything that I've posted on this conversation.  To that end, since too many seem to ignore what I actually post, I'm going to put up the graphic of mine that Once-ler is getting so tired of:

(http://i758.photobucket.com/albums/xx221/B_Oceander/Political/gop-slap-fight01.gif)


To the extent that my little graphic pisses people off, I say good, because this idiotic, incessant, childish, inane, asinine - adjectives fail me - bickering between the various factions in the GOP has thoroughly pissed me off.

Title:
Post by: happyg on March 16, 2014, 10:50:14 PM
Sweetie...you've got to get past Cruz.  He's one voice ... a needed voice ... a welcomed voice.  He stirs the masses, whether you like it or not.  He is not the enemy.

Too many want to go along to get along, which has been happening for too long! It's past time that someone takes a stand, and that we stand behind whoever has the guts to speak out. The politics of the past have gotten us into this mess today. All those involved need to be gone.
Title:
Post by: Right_in_Virginia on March 16, 2014, 10:51:45 PM
Martyrdom doesn't solve much of anything, and if Cruz is ignoring those opportunities offered to him and is spurning potential allies because they aren't quite as "pure" as he'd like them to be, then he's not fighting the good fight, he's aggrandizing himself as a martyr.


Terrific and thoughtful post.  Thanks.

Bottom line:  I don't trust McConnell (or the majority of Republican Senators).   They're part of the problem.

So I've no problem with Cruz ignoring the "opportunities" offered by the entrenched Senators.  Those Senators are not fighting for me.
Title:
Post by: Right_in_Virginia on March 16, 2014, 10:54:05 PM

thanks for the personal attack, and the utter failure to appreciate anything that I've posted on this conversation.  To that end, since too many seem to ignore what I actually post, I'm going to put up the graphic of mine that Once-ler is getting so tired of:


What personal attack?  Really.  Tell me how I attacked you. 

Title:
Post by: katzenjammer on March 16, 2014, 10:57:21 PM
Here's my point:  NO ONE ELSE IS FIGHTING!  Tactics and strategy take a team .... and the entrenched GOP doesn't want to play the game.  They're afraid and clinging to their self-made status quo.  The nation be damned.

Cruz is almost alone.  And yet he soldiers on.  I am one citizen thankful for his "ilk"....and pray they continue the fight.  Cruz is one of the lights still shining in this dreadful darkness. God bless him.

Exactly!!  They couldn't make it any clearer that they don't want to fight.  They are NOT on our side.  But some people will go to their graves before they ever get it.
Title:
Post by: Oceander on March 16, 2014, 10:59:14 PM
Terrific and thoughtful post.  Thanks.

Bottom line:  I don't trust McConnell (or the majority of Republican Senators).   They're part of the problem.

So I've no problem with Cruz ignoring the "opportunities" offered by the entrenched Senators.  Those Senators are not fighting for me.

Interesting.  Should Geo. Washington have rejected the offers of assistance in the fight against the British in the Revolutionary War because the offerors were native americans, who did have a number of other conflicts with the colonists?

Implicit in your statement is the conclusion that Cruz had to reject any and all offers because he is in fact too weak to resist the temptations he would have been faced with had he accepted those offers.  I'm not sure if that really puts Cruz in the best light possible.  After all, if the GOP moderates are as weak and rudderless as they've been accused of being, wouldn't it be easier for Cruz to have taken charge and pushed them in the direction he wanted than it was/is for the democrats to push them - the GOP moderates - around?

Success in politics is all about log-rolling, and those who refuse to participate generally do not get very far.  That is the real lesson of Reagan and his success as president - he understood that better than most people in the 20th Century, and he wasn't afraid to get in there and roll, roll, roll just so long as he got something for everything he gave up.  I rather wish that Cruz had that same ability - he has the potential, but he hasn't realized it to any great extent.
Title:
Post by: Oceander on March 16, 2014, 11:00:24 PM
What personal attack?  Really.  Tell me how I attacked you. 



using a rather dismissive, sexist epithet as the first part of an answer to someone whose views you oppose is not exactly objective, rational discourse, is it?
Title:
Post by: Right_in_Virginia on March 16, 2014, 11:00:31 PM
Exactly!!  They couldn't make it any clearer that they don't want to fight.  They are NOT on our side.  But some people will go to their graves before they ever get it.

 :beer:
Title:
Post by: Right_in_Virginia on March 16, 2014, 11:01:23 PM
using a rather dismissive, sexist epithet as the first part of an answer to someone whose views you oppose is not exactly objective, rational discourse, is it?

Please accept my most sincere apologies for having offended you.

XOXO
Title:
Post by: katzenjammer on March 16, 2014, 11:01:54 PM

thanks for the personal attack, and the utter failure to appreciate anything that I've posted on this conversation.  To that end, since too many seem to ignore what I actually post, I'm going to put up the graphic of mine that Once-ler is getting so tired of:

(http://i758.photobucket.com/albums/xx221/B_Oceander/Political/gop-slap-fight01.gif)


To the extent that my little graphic pisses people off, I say good, because this idiotic, incessant, childish, inane, asinine - adjectives fail me - bickering between the various factions in the GOP has thoroughly pissed me off.

That stupid graphic is utter HORSESHIT!!  Get it through your head: McConnell & the GOPe are NOT "Moderates" -- they are statists.  They thrive on Big Government!!  They WANT more and more Big Government -- their actions speak much louder than their mealy mouth words.  SMH
Title:
Post by: Oceander on March 16, 2014, 11:02:53 PM
That stupid graphic is utter HORSESHIT!!  Get it through your head: McConnell & the GOPe are NOT "Moderates" -- they are statists.  They thrive on Big Government!!  They WANT more and more Big Government -- their actions speak much louder than their mealy mouth words.  SMH

and thank you, too, for that riveting personal attack.
Title:
Post by: Right_in_Virginia on March 16, 2014, 11:03:43 PM
Interesting. 

We need to agree to disagree.

Thanks.
Title:
Post by: katzenjammer on March 16, 2014, 11:03:53 PM
Too many want to go along to get along, which has been happening for too long! It's past time that someone takes a stand, and that we stand behind whoever has the guts to speak out. The politics of the past have gotten us into this mess today. All those involved need to be gone.

Exactly!!  And calling them "moderates" just perpetrates the problem.  If we can't call a Spade, a Spade, then we deserve what we get from them.
Title:
Post by: Right_in_Virginia on March 16, 2014, 11:05:43 PM
That stupid graphic is utter HORSESHIT!!  Get it through your head: McConnell & the GOPe are NOT "Moderates" -- they are statists.  They thrive on Big Government!!  They WANT more and more Big Government -- their actions speak much louder than their mealy mouth words.  SMH


 :thumbsup:
Title:
Post by: katzenjammer on March 16, 2014, 11:05:59 PM
and thank you, too, for that riveting personal attack.

Why is it a personal attack??  Are "you," your graphic??  Or do you self identify as a Big Government statist??

Absent either of those, I can't see how you think it is a "personal" attack??
Title:
Post by: Oceander on March 16, 2014, 11:06:37 PM
We need to agree to disagree.

Thanks.

fair enough; I realize that not everyone will agree with me, and that's not necessarily an irrational thing to do - I will be the first to acknowledge that I may be mistaken about things; as a subjective matter, I think the odds of that are significantly less than 50%, but I cannot in good faith say that those risks don't exist at all.

:beer:
Title:
Post by: Oceander on March 16, 2014, 11:08:30 PM
Why are you your graphic??  Or do you self identify as a Big Government statist??

Absent any of those, I can't see how you think it is a "personal" attack??

because the way that both the McConnell types and the Cruz types are behaving is stupid and inane; it's a self-defeating, politically suicidal slap fight, and my graphic is intended to get my point across in a most viceral, discomfiting way.  If you find it offensive, then it's at least achieved part of its purpose.


And telling someone to "Get it through your head" is an attack on that person's intellect and understanding - which is to say, an attack on the person - and not an attack on the ideas expressed by that person.
Title:
Post by: Right_in_Virginia on March 16, 2014, 11:09:02 PM
fair enough; I realize that not everyone will agree with me, and that's not necessarily an irrational thing to do - I will be the first to acknowledge that I may be mistaken about things; as a subjective matter, I think the odds of that are significantly less than 50%, but I cannot in good faith say that those risks don't exist at all.

:beer:

Ok   :pondering:
Title:
Post by: Oceander on March 16, 2014, 11:12:05 PM
Ok   :pondering:

Because I believe that you're in good faith, even if we vehemently disagree, and I believe that at the end of the day you will step into the voting booth and vote for the republican, even if you have to superglue your political nose closed in order to do so.
Title:
Post by: Right_in_Virginia on March 16, 2014, 11:13:14 PM
Because I believe that you're in good faith, even if we vehemently disagree, and I believe that at the end of the day you will step into the voting booth and vote for the republican, even if you have to superglue your political nose closed in order to do so.

So good faith is voting for a republican because he/she is a republican?
Title:
Post by: Oceander on March 16, 2014, 11:14:06 PM
So good faith is voting for a republican because he/she is a republican?

is good faith voting for the democrat?
Title:
Post by: alicewonders on March 16, 2014, 11:14:07 PM
I'm still convinced that Cruz' antics served a huge purpose in keeping hope alive in many homes across America.  Somebody was out there speaking and fighting against the insanity.
It's damned well appreciated.  And it bears out in elections. 

If he ends up like Spartacus....so be it.   There's a lot of positions in a GOP administration for a person with that intensity.  It'll drive the Left nuts.

 goopo    :beer:
Title:
Post by: Right_in_Virginia on March 16, 2014, 11:17:15 PM
is good faith voting for the democrat?

You didn't answer my question. 
Title:
Post by: katzenjammer on March 16, 2014, 11:19:08 PM
because the way that both the McConnell types and the Cruz types are behaving is stupid and inane; it's a self-defeating, politically suicidal slap fight, and my graphic is intended to get my point across in a most viceral, discomfiting way.  If you find it offensive, then it's at least achieved part of its purpose.


And telling someone to "Get it through your head" is an attack on that person's intellect and understanding - which is to say, an attack on the person - and not an attack on the ideas expressed by that person.

You are missing my point. 

I understand your point: you don't like the intra-party fighting.  To that I say, "It is, what it is.  Not a whole heck of a lot that I can do about that."

My point is simple: You are mischaracterizing the GOPe (or what ever you want to call them) as "moderates," and you do it relentlessly here.  It is like a disinformation campaign.  I addressed this view of "moderation" here (http://www.gopbriefingroom.com/index.php/topic,132401.msg541557.html#msg541557) yesterday:

Quote
I would caution on this, don't let them dictate the terms of the debate.  What we are talking about here are not "moderates."  The better terms are Big Government Wing of the GOP, Statists, Neo-Statists (if you prefer Levin's nod to his GOP roots), Establishment Class, etc.  Leaving aside all of the "social or moral" issues (which I personally would like to see removed from government as much as possible), an honest and objective assessment of the performance of the GOP (when in control) over the past 100 years, certainly doesn't give one the impression of "moderation." 

Almost $18 Trillion in Debt (not even touching on the weight on the Trillions of unfunded liabilities), a FedGov:
- that spends $3.n Trillion per year (again, not counting the accrual for a couple Trillion in unfunded liabilities),
- that must borrow an obscene amount each day (regardless of the staggering amount of tax dollars sucked out of the private economy and private citizens),
- that now has more extra-Constitutional agencies (that takes two hands to count), and
- trots out a daily set of abuses of power (from the completely unleashed regulatory arms) that fills this forum (and others like it) with pages and pages of threads each day. 
No, this isn't the result of one party's abuses and disregard of the Constitution with another party "moderating" things.  It is the result of both parties being corrupted with (albeit different flavors of) statism, and a complete disregard for the constraints and guidance of the Constitution.

(I don't need to list all of the extra-Constitional Federal Agencies created, massive entitlement programs created or expanded, or any of the other completely un-Constitional measures established by the GOP.  Anyone paying attention over the past N years is well aware of them.  But just a peek at recent history should be representative: did you ever imagine that a GOP-controlled House would vote to not merely raise the Debt Limit, but "suspend" it, 3 times in a row now.  "Suspend" it, like it just doesn't exist.  A "blank check" delivered into the hands of the most abusive & corrupt regime ever to occupy DC.  No, these aren't "moderates.")

So no, it isn't a matter of making nice with the "moderates" so that we can all "win," link arms, and set about fixing things.  It is about removing the festering brood of statists, root and branch, from within the only party that can be salvaged at this point in time.  That's what this "debate" is all about.

If that is your view of "moderation," then perhaps we do have to agree to disagree.  (And I didn't intend "get it through your head" as an attack on your intellect or understanding, if anything it was an "attack" on your apparent stubbornness!!) 
Title:
Post by: Rapunzel on March 17, 2014, 12:11:15 AM
because the way that both the McConnell types and the Cruz types are behaving is stupid and inane; it's a self-defeating, politically suicidal slap fight, and my graphic is intended to get my point across in a most viceral, discomfiting way.  If you find it offensive, then it's at least achieved part of its purpose.


And telling someone to "Get it through your head" is an attack on that person's intellect and understanding - which is to say, an attack on the person - and not an attack on the ideas expressed by that person.

Frankly that is your opinion and you are desperate of late to shut down any debate whatsoever and this graphic is one more example of it and frankly I find that graphic a personal attack against my beliefs.... or is that the desired effect to drive all the conservatives from this board by out mocking or outshouting them.
Title:
Post by: DCPatriot on March 17, 2014, 12:49:23 AM
Frankly that is your opinion and you are desperate of late to shut down any debate whatsoever and this graphic is one more example of it and frankly I find that graphic a personal attack against my beliefs.... or is that the desired effect to drive all the conservatives from this board by out mocking or outshouting them.

Rap...that's what a good lawyer will do.  Hypnotize you with paragraphs!!  LOL!

We're all family here.  Tomorrow's another day!   :laugh:
Title:
Post by: Rapunzel on March 17, 2014, 12:55:55 AM
Rap...that's what a good lawyer will do.  Hypnotize you with paragraphs!!  LOL!

We're all family here.  Tomorrow's another day!   :laugh:

When people start posting dozens of paragraphs about personal opinion in reply to a comment I zone out... that is a lecture not a discussion...... if you have somethng to back up an alternative opinion then post the link and the article or swrite an opinion piece and post it in the opinion section for people to read or not read... and disagreeing with someone isn't a personal attack, that is getting thrown around way too much of late... we are going to have disagreements until the primaries are over - so people can either take the heat of the discussion or not.
Title:
Post by: DCPatriot on March 17, 2014, 01:07:59 AM
When people start posting dozens of paragraphs about personal opinion in reply to a comment I zone out... that is a lecture not a discussion...... if you have somethng to back up an alternative opinion then post the link and the article or swrite an opinion piece and post it in the opinion section for people to read or not read... and disagreeing with someone isn't a personal attack, that is getting thrown around way too much of late... we are going to have disagreements until the primaries are over - so people can either take the heat of the discussion or not.

Amen, sister!   :beer:
Title:
Post by: xyno on March 17, 2014, 10:12:10 AM
Too many are taking themselves too seriously, it seems to me.  Now, that is not to take sides or diminish the import of our screwed-up circumstances.  But really - furor and personal jibes because of a cartoon that essentially captures an element of the ongoing bickering?

Color me perplexed.