Looks like he's found his calling. The perpetual candidate.
Sorry that I ever donated to him. That will not happen again.
How nice, another reliable vote for the Democrats for almost everything.If 50% to me and a lot of good folks, 50% is 50%, not "almost everything."
If 50% to me and a lot of good folks, 50% is 50%, not "almost everything."
FYI in 2010 Brown had a 74% rating by ACU.
The available choices are 50% or 10% with the larger number being better.
You're posting in Tea Party territory. Scott Brown is anathema to the Tea Party because he doesn't toe the line.
Of course he'd provide another vote against Obama nominees and for GOP economic policies. THAT used to be good enough for the 2010 Tea Party.
Not anymore.
That is absolutely fine for now as far as I am concerned. First, you win. Good Lord, this purity crap can be infuriating. Control of Congress - both houses - is paramount.
That is absolutely fine for now as far as I am concerned. First, you win. Good Lord, this purity crap can be infuriating. Control of Congress - both houses - is paramount.
Right........... they did such a bang-up job the last time they were in charge of both.
If you see no difference between Republicans and Democrats then you're way out on that Tea Party limb.
One word: 2006
And how'd did the loss of both Houses of Congress work out for ya?
You're one of those who'd gladly support a third-party, just so you could wreck the Republican takeover of the Senate.
You don't want to govern. You want to destroy.
Right........... they did such a bang-up job the last time they were in charge of both.
Would not have lost it if they had not spent like drunken sailors. What proof do we have over the last 8 years they would do any different......
No wonder this country is going to hell in a handbasket. We have people who just blindly return the same old tired and corrupt politicians to office time and time again.
No wonder this country is going to hell in a handbasket. We have people who just blindly return the same old tired and corrupt politicians to office time and time again.
Republicans = Democrats in your mind.
You're beyond reason. Continue tilting at windmills.
They do not want to rock the boat so as long as it keeps their 401K high and/or they are able to continue to suck on the government teat.
We're talking primaries right now. You would not vote against an incumbent if they bit you in the rear and stomped all over you... never, ever do you ever consider someone new might be better.
You mean like Steve Stockman who failed to campaign against John Cornyn? Or Matt Bevin, who was for TARP before he was against it? Or Lee Bright, who's sitting at 8% against Lindsey Graham? Or Milt Wolf, who had some kind of necrophiliac obsession?
The quality of Tea Party candidates is getting worse, not better. Not one GOP Senator will lose his primary this year.
They do not want to rock the boat so as long as it keeps their 401K high and/or they are able to continue to suck on the government teat.
I have no problem with someone new. That is why we have primaries. But, I have a couple problems here...
No one has given me the decoder ring to figure out who is what flavor Republican around here.
I get the real sense that some around here would rather have a Democrat elected if the Republican is the wrong flavor. Am I wrong?
Look, the only thing I give a damn about is that more R's hold office than D's after November. Then we can sort it out to some extent in 2016. Otherwise, we will be inexorably screwed. Hell, we are now.
You're mixing up primaries and general elections.. This is all about primaries right now. I said months ago Scott Brown would run in NH and he stands the best chance to beat Shaheen... but do I think he will be a reliable Republican... not on your life. As I said, he is a member of No Labels .. if he was honest he would run as an independent. Frankly I don't like him... but that is just my impression of the man, he's an ass...
I have real issues with the last time the GOP held the senate, they spent and spent and spent and that is why they were summarily swept from office.... and complain about Tea Party as much as you all want, the congress is only in power because of the Tea Party - who had received ZERO respect in return.
Ted Cruz has done more to damage the reputation of the Tea Party than any other single person. He damaged that brand irreparably with non-Tea Party Republicans with his role in the government shutdown.
And now, he's decided he won't support any incumbents in primaries. The non-Tea Party Republicans are a much larger force than the Tea Party. And they are speaking loud and clear in this primary season.
Foolish.
Ted Cruz has done absolutely no harm to the Tea Party.
You really need to work on your obsession with Cruz, you've had it in for him since the day he announced he was running against Dewhurst who you swore would not lose to Cruz.
You're new here, so I'll let that one pass. There are people here who have admitted what they care about is ensuring their own financial success via the government.
Ted Cruz is the FACE of the Tea Party. Surely you know that. And he is not popular outside of Texas and the Tea Party.
I'm no more obsessed with Cruz than you are with driving Mitch Mc Connell, or Lindsey Graham, or John Cornyn from office.
How nice, another reliable vote for the Democrats for almost everything.
Maybe so, but also a warm body with an 'R' after his name who could make the difference between the GOP being the majority and getting to set committee membership and control the proceedings, or being the minority (again).
As much as I hate to admit it, as truth_seeker points out, Brown is about the best we could in terms of getting a republican out of the Northeast; at least he's not a Bloomberg. In other words, the only choices in many of these places is between a Scott Brown type Republican or a democrat.
You're new here, so I'll let that one pass. There are people here who have admitted what they care about is ensuring their own financial success via the government.
I have no problem with someone new. That is why we have primaries. But, I have a couple problems here...
No one has given me the decoder ring to figure out who is what flavor Republican around here.
I get the real sense that some around here would rather have a Democrat elected if the Republican is the wrong flavor. Am I wrong?
Look, the only thing I give a damn about is that more R's hold office than D's after November. Then we can sort it out to some extent in 2016. Otherwise, we will be inexorably screwed. Hell, we are now.
Cruz is a conservative. McConnell and Graham and Lamar Alexander are not........
I get the real sense that some around here would rather have a Democrat elected if the Republican is the wrong flavor. Am I wrong?
Look, the only thing I give a damn about is that more R's hold office than D's after November. Then we can sort it out to some extent in 2016. Otherwise, we will be inexorably screwed. Hell, we are now.
I don't think that anyone here would rather have a democrat elected if the republican on offer is unsavory (shall we say), but there are some people who are extremely dissatisfied with what they see from the average republican politician, and it is that dissatisfaction they focus on.
But when it comes to an actual vote, I think that everyone here would ultimately vote 'R', even if they had to remove their political olfactory organs to do it.
Ted Cruz has done more to damage the reputation of the Tea Party than any other single person. He damaged that brand irreparably with non-Tea Party Republicans with his role in the government shutdown.
And now, he's decided he won't support any incumbents in primaries. The non-Tea Party Republicans are a much larger force than the Tea Party. And they are speaking loud and clear in this primary season.
The posters here are just like the GOP everywhere. There are two factions. One wants to elect a GOP majority in both Houses of Congress. The other wants to purify the GOP. Those two goals are occasionally irreconcilable.
You seem to be on the same side I am. I don't think the twain will ever meet.
Horse Shit.
Pure, and unadulterated.
So put it on your lawn and leave it out of here.
I have my issues with Mr. Cruz's approach to politics, but his opposition to the make-believe "Conservatives" in Washington is not one of them. The Tea Party exists because the GOP leadership is corrupt, bought and paid for by special interest groups that, after they retire from office, they will work for as lobbyists. At least until it all comes undone.
F*** them. I will not sit idly by and await the destruction of my country by people too greedy or stupid to see what Obama and his minions are truly up to, because I don't have a Cayman Islands bank account and a plane fueled and ready to evacuate my family when Hell comes to town, like McConnell and Boehner and all of those little Pretend Patriots do. They know what's coming and have already given up, because they want to milk it for all it's worth before the intractable mathematics of economic impossibility decimates those of us powerless to escape what they have wrought.
I have seen the future and it fails. Unless we rise up and fight the Democrats and Republicans who have bankrupted America, economically and morally.
Oh, and should Scott Brown be the candidate for Senate here in NH, I will vote for him. He's no Tea Party guy. But he's better than what we've got. America won't escape what's coming. But at least we'll have a shot at a Senate - and perhaps a Presidency - controlled by the least corrupt party, with at least a few members who understand that what is at stake is more important than their personal careers.
If the twain don't meet then we'll have another in a long line of GOP twain-wrecks and this country will be so much the worse off for it. Furthermore, if moderates really just care about getting as many 'R's elected as possible, they'd start sweet-talking the conservatives and seducing them into going along with the rest rather than trying to put their backs up against the wall, which just makes them ornery and uncooperative.
Now, how does one do that? The moderates want the most electable GOP candidates, be they Tea Party or not. The Tea Party wants the ones who sound like them, be they electable or not. We would have been much better off without Angle & McDonnell for two. Esp. Angle.
The moderates also don't want to spend all of their campaign funds in primaries. Those funds are better used against dims than against other GOPers. The Tea party is happy to spend funds to eliminate RINOs.
What should the Tea Party do to heal the breach? Or do you think it's only the moderates who need to do something different?
Now, how does one do that? The moderates want the most electable GOP candidates, be they Tea Party or not. The Tea Party wants the ones who sound like them, be they electable or not. We would have been much better off without Angle & McDonnell for two. Esp. Angle.
The moderates also don't want to spend all of their campaign funds in primaries. Those funds are better used against dims than against other GOPers. The Tea party is happy to spend funds to eliminate RINOs.
What should the Tea Party do to heal the breach? Or do you think it's only the moderates who need to do something different?
Now, how does one do that? The moderates want the most electable GOP candidates, be they Tea Party or not. The Tea Party wants the ones who sound like them, be they electable or not. We would have been much better off without Angle & McDonnell for two. Esp. Angle.
The moderates also don't want to spend all of their campaign funds in primaries. Those funds are better used against dims than against other GOPers. The Tea party is happy to spend funds to eliminate RINOs.
What should the Tea Party do to heal the breach? Or do you think it's only the moderates who need to do something different?
The moderates have not been doing so well .. Like Rombry... Why are the modetates so unwilling to do what conservatives have been doing for 30 years... Why do moderates persist on looking down their noses at conservatives like we're dog pooh when the moderates are responsible for the initial spending nding spree that tankedour economy. i think its time to try conservatism for a change.
akways expecting us to go along eith your big doending, big hovernmdnt cznfiates
And this is why the democrats will pull off a miracle victory in November.
No, I don't think it's only the moderates who need to do something different, I think both sides need to do things differently, and sniping at each other as if the biggest problem this country faces was the other side of the republican party is the first thing both need to knock off.
I've taken just as much flame from the tea partiers here when I've said this as I'm likely to take from moderates.
That being said, reasonable minds would have to agree that it is the moderates who control the party and who have historically/traditionally controlled the party, and who tend to be a larger, but not overwhelming, portion of the members of the party. As such, the moderates have an obligation to reach out to the dissidents - who this time around are the tea partiers - to see what they can do, without giving in to every Sharron Angle who comes around, to get some unity and cooperation to fight against the democrats rather than against each other.
It's just like in grade school: the big kid has an obligation to not beat up on the little kid even if the little kid is making a real pest of himself.
I don't think the moderates have control of the party right now. The emotion is all with the Tea Party branch. I don't see them being willing to compromise. But I'm not sure what the compromise would be. It's a battle between gaining control of the Senate and purifying the party. Those two goals aren't often compatible. I'm sure that almost every moderate would vote for a Tea Party candidate in both the primary and general election if that candidate was the most electable GOP candidate in the state. And they would vote for that candidate in the general election if he or she won the primary. The Tea Party would only vote for their candidate in the primary, whether or not he or she had a better chance in the general than a more moderate candidate would. And they might just stay home if the moderate GOP candidate won the primary.
Cheer me up by convincing me that I'm wrong. :shrug:
Anyone can make a mistake. Don't get pensive about it. :shrug:Yeah, just don't make the same mistake over and over.
You're new here, so I'll let that one pass. There are people here who have admitted what they care about is ensuring their own financial success via the government.
I don't think the moderates have control of the party right now. The emotion is all with the Tea Party branch. I don't see them being willing to compromise. But I'm not sure what the compromise would be. It's a battle between gaining control of the Senate and purifying the party. Those two goals aren't often compatible. I'm sure that almost every moderate would vote for a Tea Party candidate in both the primary and general election if that candidate was the most electable GOP candidate in the state. And they would vote for that candidate in the general election if he or she won the primary. The Tea Party would only vote for their candidate in the primary, whether or not he or she had a better chance in the general than a more moderate candidate would. And they might just stay home if the moderate GOP candidate won the primary.
Cheer me up by convincing me that I'm wrong. :shrug:
BTW I was sober when I typed the above post - I was waiting for take out and on my cell phone.
Horse Shit.
Pure, and unadulterated.
So put it on your lawn and leave it out of here.
I have my issues with Mr. Cruz's approach to politics, but his opposition to the make-believe "Conservatives" in Washington is not one of them. The Tea Party exists because the GOP leadership is corrupt, bought and paid for by special interest groups that, after they retire from office, they will work for as lobbyists. At least until it all comes undone.
F*** them. I will not sit idly by and await the destruction of my country by people too greedy or stupid to see what Obama and his minions are truly up to, because I don't have a Cayman Islands bank account and a plane fueled and ready to evacuate my family when Hell comes to town, like McConnell and Boehner and all of those little Pretend Patriots do. They know what's coming and have already given up, because they want to milk it for all it's worth before the intractable mathematics of economic impossibility decimates those of us powerless to escape what they have wrought.
I have seen the future and it fails. Unless we rise up and fight the Democrats and Republicans who have bankrupted America, economically and morally.
Oh, and should Scott Brown be the candidate for Senate here in NH, I will vote for him. He's no Tea Party guy. But he's better than what we've got. America won't escape what's coming. But at least we'll have a shot at a Senate - and perhaps a Presidency - controlled by the least corrupt party, with at least a few members who understand that what is at stake is more important than their personal careers.
The moderates have not been doing so well .. Like Rombry... Why are the modetates so unwilling to do what conservatives have been doing for 30 years... Why do moderates persist on looking down their noses at conservatives like we're dog pooh when the moderates are responsible for the initial spending nding spree that tankedour economy. i think its time to try conservatism for a change.
akways expecting us to go along eith your big doending, big hovernmdnt cznfiates
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.Quote
:amen: You don't fix a wound by putting a band aid over a dirty wound.
Moderates control the party; there is not one of the new tea partiers who holds any real senior position of power in the GOP hierarchy.
I think also it would help if we avoided as much hyperbole and rhetoric as possible. It's not really helpful, although it's tempting, to say tea partiers want to "purify" the party; they want to push the party's political principles and goals in a much different direction than they are now and that necessarily means challenging those who set, and who maintain, those current policies.
What makes a particular candidate "electable" is a very complicated analysis I would think. For one thing, it depends on whether or not people turn out in the primaries to vote for a given candidate. Almost by definition, if a candidate cannot get enough votes in the primary, he or she is unlikely to get enough votes in the actual election. It also has a very large subjective component to it. For example, many people would consider their favorite candidate to be the most electable because he/she is their favorite candidate.
"Electability" also contains a contradiction: being "electable" in a party primary is not the same thing as being "electable" in the general election, but the candidate for the general election is the one chosen in the primary and therefore is always the one who was the most "electable" in that primary. This contradiction pops up all the time on both sides of the political divide.
Sorry for taking this in little out-of-order snippets. If I knew how to achieve the compromise, then I'd be the frontrunner for presidential candidate right about now. However, one approach that the moderates could take is to basically peel away a significant number of a tea party candidate's supporters by appealing to them directly in a way that doesn't put their beliefs and goals down, but that tries to put them into a broader context and, precisely, tries to convince them that having an 'R' win the election right now is more important than that the winning 'R' satisfy every last single desire of the voters.
I missed the memo alerting us to the fact that in a nation of 320+ million people, that only a one-term Senator from a neighboring State, Massachusetts....a carpetbagger....is the "only" viable candidate.
We're talking primaries right now. You would not vote against an incumbent if they bit you in the rear and stomped all over you... never, ever do you ever consider someone new might be better.
There is no better time to impose TERM LIMITS than during the primary season. What part of this SIMPLE FACT is so hard for some people to comprehend? Sheesh!
They're unconstitutional for Congressional offices.
Elections are the means for term limits. You want a government solution to something you and your cohorts can't do through persuasion and campaigns.
You clearly didn't understand his post.
Unfortunately, the decoder rings were on that Malaysian Airlines flight, so I don't think any of us will be getting them anytime soon! :silly:
I don't think that anyone here would rather have a democrat elected if the republican on offer is unsavory (shall we say), but there are some people who are extremely dissatisfied with what they see from the average republican politician, and it is that dissatisfaction they focus on.
But when it comes to an actual vote, I think that everyone here would ultimately vote 'R', even if they had to remove their political olfactory organs to do it.
I think I would prefer being represented by Democrats who stab me in the front, as opposed to the GOPe which stabs me in the back. At least with Democrats I know who and what I am dealing with, and can much more easily prepare myself for what they have in store.
I could hold my nose and vote for Cornyn and McConnell. As far as Alexander goes, If I lived in TN, I would probably vote democrat to replace that sorry piece of RINO.
I don't think the moderates have control of the party right now. The emotion is all with the Tea Party branch. I don't see them being willing to compromise. But I'm not sure what the compromise would be. It's a battle between gaining control of the Senate and purifying the party. Those two goals aren't often compatible. I'm sure that almost every moderate would vote for a Tea Party candidate in both the primary and general election if that candidate was the most electable GOP candidate in the state. And they would vote for that candidate in the general election if he or she won the primary. The Tea Party would only vote for their candidate in the primary, whether or not he or she had a better chance in the general than a more moderate candidate would. And they might just stay home if the moderate GOP candidate won the primary.Can't do that when you're making so much sense. I'm enjoying your post. Keep doing it. :beer:
Cheer me up by convincing me that I'm wrong. :shrug:
That being said, reasonable minds would have to agree that it is the moderates who control the party and who have historically/traditionally controlled the party, and who tend to be a larger, but not overwhelming, portion of the members of the party. As such, the moderates have an obligation to reach out to the dissidents - who this time around are the tea partiers - to see what they can do, without giving in to every Sharron Angle who comes around, to get some unity and cooperation to fight against the democrats rather than against each other.
I think you make a compelling argument for bridging the animosity between the GOPe and the Tea Party. However, from my perspective it would be better to negotiate a deal with the Tea Party after they are defeated in the primaries when the GOPe can demand unconditional surrender.
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.
Your solution is recipe for pissing off the conservatives enough to sit home like they did in 2006 - if that is your desire keep posting what you've been posting, it's working.
Your solution is recipe for pissing off the conservatives enough to sit home like they did in 2006 - if that is your desire keep posting what you've been posting, it's working.
They'd rather have a liberal Democrat than a conservative Republican any day.
The conservatives sat home in 2006 and 2012 so they could bitch and bellyache for the next two or four years.
The reason the Tea Party challengers this cycle are doing so poorly is that the other 75% of the Republican Party that is not Tea Party are tired of losing elections deferring to Sarah Palin's judgment.
Figures you would throw in Sarah Palin if it isn't Cruz that you obsess on it's Palin...... not to mention MORE Palin candidates won in 2010 and 2012 than Karl Rove candidates so your post makes no sense other than to fuel your obsession.
(https://encrypted-tbn2.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcTzjouwGMqi-NM9li3NP0vDLye5LvoPUg60r3KgLq7kD530M9BAqA)
THIS election cycle, not a single challenger to a GOP incumbent that she has endorsed will win.
Right...... says the guy who swore Cruz could NEVER defeat Dewhurst....
I never said that.
I never said that.
However, just check the polls. No incumbent is losing to a Tea Party challenger and most of those challengers are losing badly.
Up and down the ballot, Tea Party conservatives in the Lone Star State had a strong showing in Tuesday’s Republican Primary and U.S. Sen. Ted Cruz proved that his support means life or death in the GOP.
Not a single Tea Party-favored incumbent being challenged by the Republican establishment lost in Tuesday’s election. Meanwhile, one liberal Republican senator and three incumbent House members fell to tea party-backed challenges. The attempt by trial lawyers to play in the GOP primary and take out three conservative Supreme Court justices failed miserably.
Perhaps no one had a better night in Texas than Cruz, who had endorsed the three justices. Similarly, his endorsement of Fort Worth Tea Party activist-turned-senatorial candidate Konni Burton helped propel her into a run-off election.
Even his supportive words seemed to have a big effect. In statewide races, Ken Paxton and Wayne Christian — running for Attorney General and Railroad Commissioner, respectively — made extensive use of Cruz’s name, comments of support, and friendship.
The same went for Cruz’s support in two big state senate races. Incumbent State Sen. Donna Campbell of New Braunfels beat back challenges from two establishment-backed challengers. In Dallas, Don Huffines defeated a long-serving state senator who had been named the most liberal member of the GOP caucus in the chamber.
National media outlets have been stumbling over themselves in misreporting Texas’ Republican election results.
A New York Times article was dubiously headlined “Texas G.O.P. Beats Back Challengers from Right.” Unfortunately for their narrative, the right was generally ascendant — again — in the 2014 primary. Even the right-leaning National Review Online fell into the trap Tuesday night, writing that “Tea-Party Challengers Come Up Short in Texas.”
Both publications wrongly hang their narrative on Sen. John Cornyn’s easy re-election victory, inexplicably painting challenger Steve Stockman as a “Tea Party” candidate despite the fact Tea Party leaders from around the state denounced his candidacy. The national media is conveniently ignoring every other race on the ballot — most of which attracted more attention in-state than Cornyn’s bid.
More Republicans voted in the gubernatorial (1.33 million votes cast) and lieutenant governor (1.32 million) races than in the senatorial contest (1.31 million).
Incumbent Lt. Gov. David Dewhurst, who has held statewide office since 1998, ended Tuesday night’s primary with 72.6 percent of GOP voters casting ballots against him. Leading the Lt. Governor's race with 43 percent of the vote was conservative State Sen. Dan Patrick of Houston, generally perceived as the most vocal Tea Party candidate on the statewide ballot.
In every statewide race heading to a run-off, the conservative candidate closest to Tea Party and grassroots activists leads the field.
For example, Paxton commands an 11-point lead going into a run-off for Attorney General with State Rep. Dan Branch. Paxton, a Tea Party favorite, was out-spent by the liberal-leaning Branch who drew dollars from the Bush-Rove political machine.
Conservative challengers claimed three House seats from establishment incumbents with close ties to liberal-leaning House Speaker Joe Straus.
Establishment forces were only able to manage challenges to three Tea Party incumbents: Charles Perry of Lubbock, Jonathan Stickland of Bedford and Matt Schaefer of Tyler. All three of them won solidly. They each enjoyed explicit support from Cruz.
http://www.breitbart.com/Breitbart-Texas/2014/03/5/Tea-Party-Cruzing-Strong-in-Texas (http://www.breitbart.com/Breitbart-Texas/2014/03/5/Tea-Party-Cruzing-Strong-in-Texas)
Would not have lost it if they had not spent like drunken sailors. What proof do we have over the last 8 years they would do any different......I believe the loss in 2006 was due to the Iraq war more than any other factors. Bush did the GOP no favors in his conduct of the wars, or confidence with the economy.
I believe the loss in 2006 was due to the Iraq war more than any other factors. Bush did the GOP no favors in his conduct of the wars, or confidence with the economy.
In midterms, the electorate got to express the nend of the line for the GOP in general. In 2008 they finished the cleanup begun in 2006.
Can't do that when you're making so much sense. I'm enjoying your post. Keep doing it. :beer:
2006 was about the fact Republicans started acting like Democrats instead of Republicans. They jettisoned the "Contract with America" - which brought them to power in 1994 - and passed things like the Patriot Act, pork-laden bills like the bridge to nowhere which has over 6,000 pet projects and earmarks in the bill (Reagan once vetoed a highway bill because it"only" had 152 earmarks loaded in it), then they pushed things like No Child Left Behind, pushed amnesty - only backing down when it was clear the voters were in total rebellion......became embroiled in corruption and, in general, started to look more like Democrats so the people decided to go with the real thing and kicked the GOP out of both houses that November. They would still be in the wilderness were it not for the Tea Party some here love to hate.... and yes, the people were upset about Iraq, but were it not for the aforementioned the party would have weathered Iraq that November.
The Senate never learned it's lesson and continues to act more like the so-called opposition party and Congress - Boehner and Cantor and McCarthy in particular have totally forgot the people who brought them back to power and why Boehner is now the Speaker instead of Pelosi. What has always fascinated me is Boehner (and Lindsay Graham who was in congress at the time) was behind the coup against Newt in the House way back when Newt was speaker... he has never understood what the Contract was about.
They're unconstitutional for Congressional offices.
Elections are the means for term limits. You want a government solution to something you and your cohorts can't do through persuasion and campaigns.
You clearly didn't understand his post.
OMG, you're against the Patriot Act?
Name one human being who was negatively impacted due to the Patriot Act?
And the Contract with America was an election-year gimmick. Even Newt didn't make an effort to pass all the provisions of the Contract; he was too busy porking Callista.
Not a single Tea Party-favored incumbent being challenged by the Republican establishment lost in Tuesday’s election. Meanwhile, one liberal Republican senator and three incumbent House members fell to tea party-backed challenges. The attempt by trial lawyers to play in the GOP primary and take out three conservative Supreme Court justices failed miserably.Some conservatives are getting wood because incumbent tea partiers did not get defeated. The GOPe didn't threaten them with defeat. They are controllable. They just get the crappy committee assignments and inaccessible offices. Wait until Senators Cruz, Lee, and Jeff Sessions are up for re-election.
http://www.breitbart.com/Breitbart-Texas/2014/03/5/Tea-Party-Cruzing-Strong-in-Texas (http://www.breitbart.com/Breitbart-Texas/2014/03/5/Tea-Party-Cruzing-Strong-in-Texas)
Some conservatives are getting wood because
You are totally incapable of not being crude..... The contract was much more than an "election year gimic" why does it not surprise me you don't know that. Sixty-five percent of the items voted on in the Contract With America not only been passed in congress, but was passed by the U.S. Senate and signed into law by the Democrat President of the United States. Yet, you call this a gimic.......
As to the Patriot Act - I am not in favor of spying on American Citizens.
First of all to repeat - I wasn't drunk when I posted what you quoted :silly: :silly:
IT seems the moderates don't want term limits by election - all they want is power. They don't care about government spending or big government as long as their 401K remains healthy and it seems they don't really give a fig about the constitution, either... they are in the crowd who are going on "case law" vs the constitution - which has infected SCOTUS, too... IMHO..
Actually I would LOVE for the "moderates" who delight in mocking us conservatives, calling us names, marginalizing us, etc., to tell us exactly WHAT they do stand for other than they hate conservatives and will move heaven and earth to stop anyone from challenging a sitting GOPe senator no matter how bad a senator that may be,
Newt did follow through on his commitment with the Contract With America. All the items were brought before both houses of Congress for a vote. That all did not pass in both houses was not his fault or promise. But, it cannot be said that he did not follow through on his campaign promises.
The "Patriot Act" was a POS from the very beginning and I also was strident in my opposition to this worthless assault on our Constitution. The ONLY reason why it passed was because "W" caved to pressure placed on him by the RATs in Congress as well as the Media Maggots that wanted it to pass, so they could hammer him with it. Anybody who was paying any attention at all could see that coming.
Sheesh are you and sink in a contest to see who can make the crudest post of the day.
I also was against creating the DHS and TARP...... and people should never underestimate the effect of TARP on the 2008 election and the GOP loses that election.
There's just more examples of how these GOPe are not "moderate" at all, just big government statists that happen to use an "R" after their names. Too many here view it as "extreme" to want to FedGov to stay within its Constitutional bounds. It's become a "quaint and eccentric" concept.
Sheesh are you and sink in a contest to see who can make the crudest post of the day.Yes and I won!
Yes and I won!
NUMBER 1 Baby!!!
Sit down Sinkspur...you did not win.
can't be 2 number 1s when I'm #1
I'M #1 I'm the best.
Hmmmm......I don't know.....
kinda liked reading "....porking Callista!" :silly:
I also was against creating the DHS and TARP...... and people should never underestimate the effect of TARP on the 2008 election and the GOP loses that election.
Please don't take this away from me DCP. It's my only claim to fame. I never win anything.
TARP was necessary. Only knuckle-dragging neanderthals don't realize that now.
And ALL of the money put up for TARP has been paid back.
Actually it hasn't... they used a shell game same as they did for GM and it's so-called payback... but thanks for reminding me, the GOP started the GM bailout, too.. something else I was against and we took a bath over.
Thank you, happyg... if some people listened to Levin they would know this info........ government money is tax payers money any way you slice it.
You just go right on believing that the TARP bailout didn't prevent a depression. Only idiots still think TARP wasn't necessary.
The TARP bailout was not paid back, unless you consider robbing Peter to pay Paul to be the definition of payback.
For the period ending 09/30/2008, the four largest American banks (Bank of America, JP Morgan/Chase, Citigroup, and Wells Fargo) were reporting to the FDIC, Equity in the range of $500 billion with $75 billion of non-performing assets—again most in residential housing. Annualized net income for 2008, based upon third quarter FDIC figures for the four banks mentioned above was being reported as a “positive” $30 billion.
Yet despite these numbers reported to the FDIC in October 2008, our leaders told us our financial system was about to collapse and that we needed to give Bank of America $45 billion, Citigroup $45 billion, JP Morgan/Chase $25 billion, and Wells Fargo $25 billion in TARP funds just to survive. By the way, that is a total of $140 billion in TARP funds when the same banks were reporting Equity of $500 billion, non-performing assets of $75 billion, and annualized net income of $30 billion.
Read more: http://www.businessinsider.com/tarp-great-depression-2010-10#ixzz2w5YftJeH
Yep!
OMG. Happyg, you don't know what a "non-performing asset" is? Or "Equity"?
LOL!! No wonder so many have no idea why TARP was necessary!!!
Yep!As of the 2008 date those four banks were the strong ones, and they were given TARP money in connection with absorbing the troubles banks.
The goal of TARP was NOT to rescue the strong banks, but rather to prevent total collapse of the troubled banks.]The goal of TARP was NOT to rescue the strong banks, but rather to prevent total collapse of the troubled banks.
The goal of TARP was NOT to rescue the strong banks, but rather to prevent total collapse of the troubled banks.
(http://The goal of TARP was NOT to rescue the strong banks, but rather to prevent total collapse of the troubled banks.)
That wasn't a goal, but a consequence. Why would the government give them money when they were solvent, and could have bought them without TARP?
That wasn't a goal, but a consequence. Why would the government give them money when they were solvent, and could have bought them without TARP?Apparently the parties negotiated, until reaching agreement.In theory the TARP infusion was to offset the negative net worth of the acquired institutions.
Apparently the parties negotiated, until reaching agreement.In theory the TARP infusion was to offset the negative net worth of the acquired institutions.
Now you explain the reasoning for not doing TARP. Include predicted consequences, intended or not.
A majority of elected representatives, two Presidents from two parties, most economists and bankers supported doing TARP, instead of risking even more bank failures, worse instability in the economy, etc.
Apparently the parties negotiated, until reaching agreement.In theory the TARP infusion was to offset the negative net worth of the acquired institutions.
Now you explain the reasoning for not doing TARP. Include predicted consequences, intended or not.
A majority of elected representatives, two Presidents from two parties, most economists and bankers supported doing TARP, instead of risking even more bank failures, worse instability in the economy, etc.
OMG. Happyg, you don't know what a "non-performing asset" is? Or "Equity"?
LOL!! No wonder so many have no idea why TARP was necessary!!!
What would the internet discussion forums do w/o Sinkspur's rational, superior intellect?
just my opinion here....
Gazoo....why are you always poking sticks, trying to start sh*t?
Stop being a bully.
Personally, I thought happyg handled it perfectly. But I'm just a "100-post" guy.
just my opinion here....
Gazoo....why are you always poking sticks, trying to start sh*t?
Stop being a bully.
just my opinion here....
Gazoo....why are you always poking sticks, trying to start sh*t?
Stop being a bully.
Stop thinking you have to play eknight for grown-people that act like arrogant bullies and it won't be an issue. I call them as I see them and will eknight for Happy every time.
:sword: you won. Back to the threads subject please.
Oh, get a grip. Geez...
Heh. I learned a new word today!!
as did I!
Even more interesting is that it can be used as both a noun and a verb!
are there any ebishops or erooks?
Stay tuned, this will be the place to learn about them, if they do exist!
I appreciate Gazoo's posts. More often than not, she is spot on with her observations. Even when I don't agree with her, I like the way she gets her points across. Variety is the spice of life. ^-^
:silly: I have heard the kids say eBFF eBF eGF. I may even have it wrong I don't know. Whatever it is, my goofball meaning, means knighting for someone onlineWell, I think that if you use "iknight" it will have to be written as "iKnight" to fit in, but you may need to check with Apple on that!
It makes no sense it should be iknight. i e... internet knight. Maybe more tech savvy people can tell me? :shrug: ^-^
I was probably wrong in my eknighting. I just know you, you are very quiet and very smart and a damned good lady. So it ticks me off when someone talks to you like that. That is all. No more eknighting :sword:
:nometalk: :silly:
Sorry....calling like it is.
Childish bullsh*t.
Then perhaps - just once - you would chastise the person who always starts these fights.
Rap...if you look at the thread, I agreed with happyg and way she presented her rebuttal.
The thread immediately settled down to normal.
Each poster has his/her own style communicating. And up to now, there's nobody that comes close to offensive. Blunt and coarse is not a crime. In fact, it keeps the discussion 'real'.
Veterans like Sinkspur and Truth_Seeker shouldn't have to be defending themselves or called out. What you see is what you get. Again....refreshing.
I was just jarred a bit by seeing Gazoo's post out of left field.....on a sunny Sunday morning. And as usual, we worked it out.
You and I go at it all the time, Rap. And yet you know how I feel about you. I got two tickets to anywhere you want to go! LOL!
It should be the same way you and Sink and TS get along with one another.
Peace! :seeya:
You made my point for me. We are all equals here, one is no better than the other no matter how long or how short their time here.. if you are going to criticize gazoo then you have to be equally willing to criticize the other two you mentioned. :flag:
.
As far as the title of the threads popping up lately they are enhancing Sinkspur's take on Texas political matters. Don't you think?
Actually no, I don't think. His "take" totally ignores what happened in all the other primary campaigns - which has been posted here at least three times. No one seriously thought Stockman was going to beat Cornyn and I've read some things the last few days that he was actually a stalking horse candidate more than anything else... but downticket the tea party did quite well - which he and a few others totally ignore to this day because it doesn't fit their paradigm.
Actually no, I don't think. His "take" totally ignores what happened in all the other primary campaigns - which has been posted here at least three times. No one seriously thought Stockman was going to beat Cornyn and I've read some things the last few days that he was actually a stalking horse candidate more than anything else... but downticket the tea party did quite well - which he and a few others totally ignore to this day because it doesn't fit their paradigm.
Goody, you now have a few dozen plus 3 congressmen. It fits my paradigm fine. It's not that I don't recognize some open seats were won by people claiming to be Tea Party. It's just not that impressive in an open primary. Tea Party congressmen can be controlled through committee assignments and not allowing their bills to come to the floor. The message I keep trying to get understood is the Tea Party declared it was going after the leadership and they are failing.
Take a long hike off a short pier......
which is actually a coarse way to say....."we'll have to agree to disagree!" :beer: