Are Republicans to blame

[diverdog]

An op-ed and new book make the case:


. Let’s just say it: The Republicans are the problem.

By Thomas E. Mann and Norman J. Ornstein, Published: April*27

Rep. Allen West, a Florida Republican, was recently captured on video asserting that there are “78 to 81” Democrats in Congress who are members of the Communist Party. Of course, it’s not unusual for some renegade lawmaker from either side of the aisle to say something outrageous. What made West’s comment — right out of the McCarthyite playbook of the 1950s — so striking was the almost complete lack of condemnation from Republican congressional leaders or other major party figures, including the remaining presidential candidates.

It’s not that the GOP leadership agrees with West; it is that such extreme remarks and views are now taken for granted.

We have been studying Washington politics and Congress for more than 40 years, and never have we seen them this dysfunctional. In our past writings, we have criticized both parties when we believed it was warranted. Today, however, we have no choice but to acknowledge that the core of the problem lies with the Republican Party.

The GOP has become an insurgent outlier in American politics. It is ideologically extreme; scornful of compromise; unmoved by conventional understanding of facts, evidence and science; and dismissive of the legitimacy of its political opposition.

When one party moves this far from the mainstream, it makes it nearly impossible for the political system to deal constructively with the country’s challenges.

“Both sides do it” or “There is plenty of blame to go around” are the traditional refuges for an American news media intent on proving its lack of bias, while political scientists prefer generality and neutrality when discussing partisan polarization. Many self-styled bipartisan groups, in their search for common ground, propose solutions that move both sides to the center, a strategy that is simply untenable when one side is so far out of reach.

It is clear that the center of gravity in the Republican Party has shifted sharply to the right. Its once-legendary moderate and center-right legislators in the House and the Senate — think Bob Michel, Mickey Edwards, John Danforth, Chuck Hagel — are virtually extinct.

The post-McGovern Democratic Party, by contrast, while losing the bulk of its conservative Dixiecrat contingent in the decades after the civil rights revolution, has retained a more diverse base. Since the Clinton presidency, it has hewed to the center-left on issues from welfare reform to fiscal policy. While the Democrats may have moved from their 40-yard line to their 25, the Republicans have gone from their 40 to somewhere behind their goal post.

What happened? Of course, there were larger forces at work beyond the realignment of the South. They included the mobilization of social conservatives after the 1973Roe v. Wade decision, the anti-tax movement launched in 1978 by California’s Proposition 13, the rise of conservative talk radio after a congressional pay raise in 1989, and the emergence of Fox News and right-wing blogs. But the real move to the bedrock right starts with two names: Newt Gingrich and Grover Norquist.

From the day he entered Congress in 1979, Gingrich had a strategy to create a Republican majority in the House: convincing voters that the institution was so corrupt that anyone would be better than the incumbents, especially those in the Democratic majority. It took him 16 years, but by bringing ethics charges against Democratic leaders; provoking them into overreactions that enraged Republicans and united them to vote against Democratic initiatives; exploiting scandals to create even more public disgust with politicians; and then recruiting GOP candidates around the country to run against Washington, Democrats and Congress, Gingrich accomplished his goal.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/lets-just-say-it-the-republicans-are-the-problem/2012/04/27/gIQAxCVUlT_story.html

[Turd_Ferguson]

Here comes the Lib circle jerk...

[diverdog]

Here comes the Lib circle jerk...

Didn't read the article did ya?


Democrats are hardly blameless, and they have their own extreme wing and their own predilection for hardball politics.

[okie52]

An op-ed and new book make the case:



http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/lets-just-say-it-the-republicans-are-the-problem/2012/04/27/gIQAxCVUlT_story.html

These guys obviously ingested their DNC pablum shortly before writing this article.

West went too far in saying communists...now had he said socialists he would have been much more accurate unless the socialist party got it all wrong when listing it's members.

Dems the party of science? well solyndra science to be sure. The same ones that shutdown our only nuclear repository after it was approved by the national academy of science, 4 presuidents, 12 different congresses and obama's own energy secretary. The same party that passed in the house a unilateral cap and trade bill and banned drilling off both the Atlantic and pacific coasts, the Beaufort and Chukchi seas, Anwr, and parts of the gulf of mexico while we import 10,000,000 barrels of oil every day that is responsible for over 2/3 of our trade deficit.

Yep, they're real rocket scientists.

[okie52]

Mickey Edwards...a legendary moderate/center right congressman. Lol.

[diverdog]

These guys obviously ingested their DNC pablum shortly before writing this article.

West went too far in saying communists...now had he said socialists he would have been much more accurate unless the socialist party got it all wrong when listing it's members.

Dems the party of science? well solyndra science to be sure. The same ones that shutdown our only nuclear repository after it was approved by the national academy of science, 4 presuidents, 12 different congresses and obama's own energy secretary. The same party that passed in the house a unilateral cap and trade bill and banned drilling off both the Atlantic and pacific coasts, the Beaufort and Chukchi seas, Anwr, and parts of the gulf of mexico while we import 10,000,000 barrels of oil every day that is responsible for over 2/3 of our trade deficit.

Yep, they're real rocket scientists.

Okie:

I will give you the drilling part but not Cap and Trade. To make that statement flies in the face of a robust argument on man made global warming that is far from settled. Secondly, while I will agree that Solyndra was a bad investment it is not the only one that has been made by congress. Do you want me to list all the costly weapon systems that have been cancelled over the years or the many many failed efforts of star wars? The point is solar energy is something we need to develop and along the way there will be hicups. We would not have a shot at star wars defense if we did not try and fail. The same holds true with solar energy.

The point of the article is that even during the Bush Presidency the Democrats worked with him on many bills. Now both parties are so dug in we are not getting the work that is needed to be done. If you think this is a good idea wait until the Republicans come into power and the Democrats pull the same tactic. You guys will be screaming bloody murder. Both parties are setting bad precedents by not crossing the isle and working on reducing the deficit.

[diverdog]

Mickey Edwards...a legendary moderate/center right congressman. Lol.

By Oklahoma standards you are probably right.

[SCOUT]

Okie:

I will give you the drilling part but not Cap and Trade. To make that statement flies in the face of a robust argument on man made global warming that is far from settled. Secondly, while I will agree that Solyndra was a bad investment it is not the only one that has been made by congress. Do you want me to list all the costly weapon systems that have been cancelled over the years or the many many failed efforts of star wars? The point is solar energy is something we need to develop and along the way there will be hicups. We would not have a shot at star wars defense if we did not try and fail. The same holds true with solar energy.

I am not sure where in the constitution private enterprise is listed as something within the government's authority. National defense, on the other hand, is in there. We can debate the value of government expenditure all you want. However, your example crosses national defense and private industry.

[SicEmBaylor]

I am not sure where in the constitution private enterprise is listed as something within the government's authority. National defense, on the other hand, is in there. We can debate the value of government expenditure all you want. However, your example crosses national defense and private industry.

This. Although, he definitely has a point in the multi-billions that are wasted by the DoD not to mention the cost of fighting one totally unnecessary war and rebuilding project along with another war that should have been ended long ago

[sappstuf]

An op-ed and new book make the case:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/lets-just-say-it-the-republicans-are-the-problem/2012/04/27/gIQAxCVUlT_story.html

lol.. I needed a good chuckle this morning..

So the tone in Washington has never been worse.. For proof they offer one quote.. But they don't really quote him, they only quote the "78 to 81" part. Why? Because he doesn't "assert" anything as they say.. He says, "I believe". So he is pretty clearly stating his opinion.

But that is small potatoes. Lets offer up some quotes from the Dems over the years, shall we?


'Un-American' attacks can't derail health care debate

That was from Pelosi and Stoyer.. Calling debate "Un-American"


Moments later, Rep. George Miller (D-Calif.) brought GOP lawmakers to their feet as he roared, "It's a glorious day if you're a fascist."

A fascist...

What about Debbie Wasserman-Shultz?


“literally drag us back to Jim Crow days“

Classy no?

What about Maxine Waters?


Don’t ever let me see again in life those Republicans in our hall, on our screens, talking about anything. These are demons.

Demons in the hall?? I guess Maxine really does believe in the separation of church and state...

What about Jerry Brown?


It’s like Goebbels,” referring to Hitler’s notorious Minister of Propaganda. “Goebbels invented this kind of propaganda. He took control of the whole world. She wants to be president. That’s her ambition, the first woman president. That’s what this is all about.”

Comparing Meg Whitman to Goebbels.. Classy, no?

Of course, no list would be complete without Al Gore..


The Bush administration works closely with a network of rapid response digital brownshirts who work to pressure reporters and their editors for 'undermining support for our troops.'

Digital Brownshirts... Another Nazi reference.

I could go on.. But I think my point is made by now. The authors condemn Republican leadership for not speaking out against what West said. The difference is that my examples ARE the Democratic leadership...

It starts getting humorous where they say:


In our past writings, we have criticized both parties when we believed it was warranted.

I bet you can't find any article from these knuckleheads where they criticized the Dems for making remarks very similar to what Rep. West did, much less one for each of the examples above. But the gut buster was still to come in the very next paragraph..


The GOP has become an insurgent outlier in American politics.

Get it? After condemning the tone of one single quote from a Repub, they then compare all Repubs to Taliban insurgents... Comedy gold!!! They must have disconnected the irony meter, because that statement would have pegged the needle into the room next door.

And then the anti-science part...

Did you know that liberal states Washington, Vermont and Oregon along with Alaska have the highest refusal of vaccinations in the country? Talk about anti-science.. Refusal to believe in evolution doesn't really hurt anyone.. Refusal to get vaccination.. That is an entirely different level of anti-science, isn't it?

But, easier to stick with dogma....

They say:


It is clear that the center of gravity in the Republican Party has shifted sharply to the right.

But they ignore the near eradication of the Blue Dogs since 2008 when they had 50 something members.. They might be in single digits after the 2012 elections. Doesn't that mean the Democrats are moving sharper to the left or that Repubs moved to the center to capture those seats? This article seems to conveniently forget the 2010 elections where Repubs were voted into the house in a historic landslide. It isn't hard to make the case that election was a direct result of how far the Dems had moved to the left and they pulled the Blue Dogs with them. Bye bye Blue Dogs.

What about Obamacare? A plurality of Dems think it is unconstitutional and it continues to grow more unpopular every day in all political groups. What does that have to do with Repubs? Doesn't that mean Obama is far left of most Dems and the country? At least on Obamacare it does.

For 3 years now, not a single Democrat has voted for a budget... ANY BUDGET. Not the Repub's, not Obama's not one single vote. Of course, by law, a budget should be passed every year. But the Dems don't care about the law.. Or the American people.

I honestly cannot think of any single example that is any more extreme than what the Dems in the Senate are doing.. Or not doing. It is an outrage.

[diverdog]

lol.. I needed a good chuckle this morning..

So the tone in Washington has never been worse.. For proof they offer one quote.. But they don't really quote him, they only quote the "78 to 81" part. Why? Because he doesn't "assert" anything as they say.. He says, "I believe". So he is pretty clearly stating his opinion.

But that is small potatoes. Lets offer up some quotes from the Dems over the years, shall we?



That was from Pelosi and Stoyer.. Calling debate "Un-American"



A fascist...

What about Debbie Wasserman-Shultz?



Classy no?

What about Maxine Waters?



Demons in the hall?? I guess Maxine really does believe in the separation of church and state...

What about Jerry Brown?



Comparing Meg Whitman to Goebbels.. Classy, no?

Of course, no list would be complete without Al Gore..



Digital Brownshirts... Another Nazi reference.

I could go on.. But I think my point is made by now. The authors condemn Republican leadership for not speaking out against what West said. The difference is that my examples ARE the Democratic leadership...

It starts getting humorous where they say:



I bet you can't find any article from these knuckleheads where they criticized the Dems for making remarks very similar to what Rep. West did, much less one for each of the examples above. But the gut buster was still to come in the very next paragraph..



Get it? After condemning the tone of one single quote from a Repub, they then compare all Repubs to Taliban insurgents... Comedy gold!!! They must have disconnected the irony meter, because that statement would have pegged the needle into the room next door.

And then the anti-science part...

Did you know that liberal states Washington, Vermont and Oregon along with Alaska have the highest refusal of vaccinations in the country? Talk about anti-science.. Refusal to believe in evolution doesn't really hurt anyone.. Refusal to get vaccination.. That is an entirely different level of anti-science, isn't it?

But, easier to stick with dogma....

They say:



But they ignore the near eradication of the Blue Dogs since 2008 when they had 50 something members.. They might be in single digits after the 2012 elections. Doesn't that mean the Democrats are moving sharper to the left or that Repubs moved to the center to capture those seats? This article seems to conveniently forget the 2010 elections where Repubs were voted into the house in a historic landslide. It isn't hard to make the case that election was a direct result of how far the Dems had moved to the left and they pulled the Blue Dogs with them. Bye bye Blue Dogs.

What about Obamacare? A plurality of Dems think it is unconstitutional and it continues to grow more unpopular every day in all political groups. What does that have to do with Repubs? Doesn't that mean Obama is far left of most Dems and the country? At least on Obamacare it does.

For 3 years now, not a single Democrat has voted for a budget... ANY BUDGET. Not the Repub's, not Obama's not one single vote. Of course, by law, a budget should be passed every year. But the Dems don't care about the law.. Or the American people.

I honestly cannot think of any single example that is any more extreme than what the Dems in the Senate are doing.. Or not doing. It is an outrage.

Sapp you missed the entire point of the article. Name one bill the Republicans have worked on with this President and then voted for it? Name five moderate Republicans that are not under threat of the loss of their seat in the next election?

Alaska is far from liberal.

I can post the same wall of quotes from the Republicans. Hell Palin and Bachmann could fill a library. As for anti science....creationism, complete denial of global warming, faith healing, the rigid belief of the use of resources beyond capacity, stem cell research.. Both parties have problems with science but for the most part in my experience the Republicans are the worst and it did not use to be that way.

[okie52]

By Oklahoma standards you are probably right.

Mickey Edwards was run out of office in the repub primary in 1994 for his part in the congressional check kiting scheme and then he tried to sell his endorsement to a liberal dem that was in the November election...a laughable temper tantrum. Edwards was a hard right conservative until he was beaten and then journeyed to Harvard to teach and become "center right" pub. He has been a shameful excuse for a conservative.

[diverdog]

Mickey Edwards was run out of office in the repub primary in 1994 for his part in the congressional check kiting scheme and then he tried to sell his endorsement to a liberal dem that was in the November election...a laughable temper tantrum. Edwards was a hard right conservative until he was beaten and then journeyed to Harvard to teach and become "center right" pub. He has been a shameful excuse for a conservative.

You know I completely forgot about that. Did JC beat him?

[okie52]

Okie:

I will give you the drilling part but not Cap and Trade. To make that statement flies in the face of a robust argument on man made global warming that is far from settled. Secondly, while I will agree that Solyndra was a bad investment it is not the only one that has been made by congress. Do you want me to list all the costly weapon systems that have been cancelled over the years or the many many failed efforts of star wars? The point is solar energy is something we need to develop and along the way there will be hicups. We would not have a shot at star wars defense if we did not try and fail. The same holds true with solar energy.

The point of the article is that even during the Bush Presidency the Democrats worked with him on many bills. Now both parties are so dug in we are not getting the work that is needed to be done. If you think this is a good idea wait until the Republicans come into power and the Democrats pull the same tactic. You guys will be screaming bloody murder. Both parties are setting bad precedents by not crossing the isle and working on reducing the deficit.


Read closer diver...UNILATERAL cap and trade was an incredibly stupid move at the height of the recession. The US going it alone would have done nothing for global warming but it would have cost thousands of jobs and made our products noncompetitive.

If the whole world would live by a fair cap and trade I would be all for it, of course that would mean not rewarding china and India with blackmail payments for their centuries of retardedness. We should be punishing them for their overpopulations.

And, the further stupidity of cap and trade was mandating change to green energy when there weren't viable green energy alternatives...but it did mandate the inclusion and subsidization of ethanol while punishing NG which is a cleaner fuel source than ethanol.

To make matters worse the same genius that sponsored the cap and trade bill, Ed markey, recently sought to ban the export of LNG because of the US's competitive advantage in the low cost production of NG. So, let's see, he passes a bill to punish NG as a polluter and then wants to legislate that ng producers can't sell ng abroad because of our competitive advantage, yep, a rocket scientist.

I'm all for the compromise and guys like Coburn have their hands out willing to do just that for any sane dems that would do the same rather than idiotic ideologues such as waxman and markey that pursue suicidal energy policies with obama's blessing.

[okie52]

You know I completely forgot about that. Did JC beat him?

No JC was Norman area....it may have been Istook.

[sappstuf]

Sapp you missed the entire point of the article. Name one bill the Republicans have worked on with this President and then voted for it? Name five moderate Republicans that are not under threat of the loss of their seat in the next election?

I don't think I missed the point at all. I addressed the points, however illogical they were in that article. You won't address the Blue Dog issue I brought up.. I'll assume that is because you can't. Those slightly blue districts didn't suddenly become die hard red. Either the constituency became slightly red and the Repubs picked them up in a moderate way that moves the party closer to the center or Dems moved to the far left and the Blue Dogs were left hanging out to dry. Take your pick.

Why in the world would your definition of moderation be "Republicans that have worked with this President"?

Obama wanted to close Gitmo.. He signed the EO on his first day in office to make it happen. Your starting position is that the President's view is moderate and Repubs should have worked with him... That means, in your view that the bipartisan group of 90 senators that voted against closing Gitmo must be extremist... WTF?

Obviously your worldview is skewed, because the president's opinion was the extreme one and I am happy that Repubs and Dems came together to decisively end what Obama wanted to do.

Now explain why no senate Democrat have voted for any budget in 3 years and how that isn't extreme.

[soonerhubs]

It's a bit disingenuous to blame this on one side of the aisle for the bulk of the write up, only to include one courtesy sentence saying "Democrats in congress have problems too," just to make it appear balanced.

Both sides are at odds with each other, and the blame seems to fall on both sides as well. To say that republicans are disagreeable and too extreme without describing the bullying that happened with the supermajority that pushed Obama-care through is a bit silly. How many democrats were listening to the concerns of moderate republicans during that debacle of too much power given to one party? I can assure you, not many. In fact, the mantra of that time was, "We won! Them's the breaks! Get over it!" Well, the republicans won the majority in the house and have become disagreeable. "They won! Them's the breaks! Get over it!" Politicians and their hypocrisies are beyond ludicrous.

Republicans have their problems, and the party's platform of defense spending, restricting liberties, and legislating morality are points I strongly oppose. However, to say that they are any more extreme than the Democrats is a fallacy, an opinion that cannot be based on rational constructs, and what appears to be a well-timed publication during general election season. Call it for what it is at least...

[cleller]

Was it those Republicans that got this "Great Society" welfare state/crime wave rolling?

I have to admit, though, the current crop of Republicans doesn't stack up well to my idea of Republican leadership. Lots of them are old-style Democrats with conservative religious views.

[dwarthog]

They seemed to have glossed over the "blue dog" democrats exiting due to not toeing the partying line when commanded to do so.

Not at the fed level, but how about those "willing to compromise" dems who jump on the first train out of state when they don't like something.

[badger]

We have been studying Washington politics and Congress for more than 40 years, and never have we seen them this dysfunctional.

Altogether now:

Times have changed.
Our kids are getting worse.
They won't obey their parents.
They just want to fart and curse.
Should we blame the government?
Or blame society?
Or should be blame the images on TV?

:P

[cleller]

Altogether now:

Times have changed.
Our kids are getting worse.
They won't obey their parents.
They just want to fart and curse.
Should we blame the government?
Or blame society?
Or should be blame the images on TV?

:P

I'll take The Government (for making it economically possible)
and
The Parents (even though not listed as an option)

[dwarthog]

Altogether now:

Times have changed.
Our kids are getting worse.
They won't obey their parents.
They just want to fart and curse.
Should we blame the government?
Or blame society?
Or should be blame the images on TV?

:P

You said fart.. Uh huh huh Uh huh huh

[Mississippi Sooner]

Altogether now:

Times have changed.
Our kids are getting worse.
They won't obey their parents.
They just want to fart and curse.
Should we blame the government?
Or blame society?
Or should be blame the images on TV?

:P

Blame Canada!

[TAFBSooner]

Altogether now:

Times have changed.
Our kids are getting worse.
They won't obey their parents.
They just want to fart and curse.
Should we blame the government?
Or blame society?
Or should be blame the images on TV?

:P

Hey! If we don't get to blame the corporations I won't play!

[diverdog]

They seemed to have glossed over the "blue dog" democrats exiting due to not toeing the partying line when commanded to do so.

Not at the fed level, but how about those "willing to compromise" dems who jump on the first train out of state when they don't like something.

A lot of blue dog democrats jumped ship to the Republican Party.

[dwarthog]

A lot of blue dog democrats jumped ship to the Republican Party.

Or didn't run as in the case of Dan Boren.

Some argue their isn't a place for them any longer in the Dem's big tent.

[diverdog]

I don't think I missed the point at all. I addressed the points, however illogical they were in that article. You won't address the Blue Dog issue I brought up.. I'll assume that is because you can't. Those slightly blue districts didn't suddenly become die hard red. Either the constituency became slightly red and the Repubs picked them up in a moderate way that moves the party closer to the center or Dems moved to the far left and the Blue Dogs were left hanging out to dry. Take your pick.
I
Why in the world would your definition of moderation be "Republicans that have worked with this President"?

Obama wanted to close Gitmo.. He signed the EO on his first day in office to make it happen. Your starting position is that the President's view is moderate and Repubs should have worked with him... That means, in your view that the bipartisan group of 90 senators that voted against closing Gitmo must be extremist... WTF?

Obviously your worldview is skewed, because the president's opinion was the extreme one and I am happy that Repubs and Dems came together to decisively end what Obama wanted to do.

Now explain why no senate Democrat have voted for any budget in 3 years and how that isn't extreme..

How is my world viewed skewed. Americans want bipartisanship and the Republicans have said from day one they will not work with this President. Again the dems worked with Reagan, Bush and Bush. There has been zero reaching across the isle with this bunch.

[diverdog]

Or didn't run as in the case of Dan Boren.

Some argue their isn't a place for them any longer in the Dem's big tent.

Still they have not purged their moderates like the Republicans have....choosing Christine ODonnell over Mile Castle...really. Calling Lugar a liberal? The article points out the Dems have moved left and the Republicans have moved hard to the right. I don't think that is wrong.

[Curly Bill]

.

How is my world viewed skewed. Americans want bipartisanship and the Republicans have said from day one they will not work with this President. Again the dems worked with Reagan, Bush and Bush. There has been zero reaching across the isle with this bunch.

You have proof of this? Seems like a lot of these current republicans were elected because they said they would in fact work to defeat Obammy.

[sappstuf]

.

How is my world viewed skewed. Americans want bipartisanship and the Republicans have said from day one they will not work with this President. Again the dems worked with Reagan, Bush and Bush. There has been zero reaching across the isle with this bunch.

Verifiable false.

90 senators voted to keep Gitmo open against the president's wishes. How does 90 votes not count as reaching across the isle?

The Keystone pipeline is another topic that has wide bipartisan support against Obama's policy. Why doesn't that count as reaching across the isle?

To you bipartisanship seems to mean the Repubs are supposed to do whatever Obama wishes.... I don't think that is what Americans wanted when they voted Repubs into power in 2010 in historic numbers.

[diverdog]

You have proof of this? Seems like a lot of these current republicans were elected because they said they would in fact work to defeat Obammy.

Sure:

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/behind-the-numbers/2010/02/americans_spread_the_blame_whe.html

[Curly Bill]

Sure:

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/behind-the-numbers/2010/02/americans_spread_the_blame_whe.html

Ok, I'll accept that even if it does come from the Post. But I contend bipartisanship is one of those things that sounds good, that people think they want, but when it comes down to it they're still going to hold to their beliefs and forget the compromise.

Kinda along the lines of what Sapp said: bipartisanship is cool when it's the other side compromising with you, not so cool when it's your side giving in to the other.

[dwarthog]

Still they have not purged their moderates like the Republicans have....choosing Christine ODonnell over Mile Castle...really. Calling Lugar a liberal? The article points out the Dems have moved left and the Republicans have moved hard to the right. I don't think that is wrong.

I agree with both sides becoming more entrenched ideologically, but IMO it is hardly just an issue of the Republican's booting out moderated members. This has been happening in the Democratic party for sometime as well.

That they either left the party or the seat was taken over by a republican, just provides a way for the Dems to point fingers at somewhere else other than within. Something they have managed to gain a lot of traction with actually.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/10/24/opinion/24berman.html

Boot the Blue Dogs

[diverdog]

Verifiable false.

90 senators voted to keep Gitmo open against the president's wishes. How does 90 votes not count as reaching across the isle?

The Keystone pipeline is another topic that has wide bipartisan support against Obama's policy. Why doesn't that count as reaching across the isle?

To you bipartisanship seems to mean the Repubs are supposed to do whatever Obama wishes.... I don't think that is what Americans wanted when they voted Repubs into power in 2010 in historic numbers..

First of the Keystone deal is from done. I expect it will go through.
Neither Gitmo or Keystone are legislative bills. So you are just cherry picking. Nor does the article state that the Republicans have to reach across the isle all the time. The majority of Americans view Republicans as obstructionist. Sure the Dems need to do better especially Obama but the fact still remains the Republican Party of is the party of no.

As a voter I want the to start working together and addressing our problems in a grown up manor.

[diverdog]

I agree with both sides becoming more entrenched ideologically, but IMO it is hardly just an issue of the Republican's booting out moderated members. This has been happening in the Democratic party for sometime as well.

That they either left the party or the seat was taken over by a republican, just provides a way for the Dems to point fingers at somewhere else other than within. Something they have managed to gain a lot of traction with actually.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/10/24/opinion/24berman.html

Boot the Blue Dogs

Good article. I am pretty much a moderate and I am a man without a party.

[sappstuf]

.

First of the Keystone deal is from done. I expect it will go through.
Neither Gitmo or Keystone are legislative bills. So you are just cherry picking. Nor does the article state that the Republicans have to reach across the isle all the time. The majority of Americans view Republicans as obstructionist. Sure the Dems need to do better especially Obama but the fact still remains the Republican Party of is the party of no.

As a voter I want the to start working together and addressing our problems in a grown up manor.

I will repeat this again because it doesn't seem to be sinking in... The Senate Dems have not voted for a budget, ANY budget in 3 years breaking the law in the process.

How is that not the very definition of the party of no?

Do you believe the Dem's approach to voting no on every single budget presented in the Senate is addressing your problems in a grown up manner?

How do you want the Repubs to compromise with Harry and the other Dems? Do you want them to vote no against all budgets as well? Will that satisfy you that the Repubs can compromise?

[diverdog]

I will repeat this again because it doesn't seem to be sinking in... The Senate Dems have not voted for a budget, ANY budget in 3 years breaking the law in the process.

How is that not the very definition of the party of no?

Do you believe the Dem's approach to voting no on every single budget presented in the Senate is addressing your problems in a grown up manner?

How do you want the Repubs to compromise with Harry and the other Dems? Do you want them to vote no against all budgets as well? Will that satisfy you that the Repubs can compromise?

Sapp:

Do you know how s budget gets approved? If you did you would understand what is going on.

What I want from the Republicans is to give up on their tax pledge and what I want from the Democrats are honest budget cuts.

The budgets the Republicans present are for political posturing. It is childish.

[sappstuf]

Here is a great picture of Senate Budget Meeting on April 18th.

https://p.twimg.com/AqyjAOJCMAAP0rG.jpg

The far side of the table is the Republicans... The near side of the table is the De.. Err.. The chairs for the Dems.

The far right of the table is Chairman Conrad(I guess he has to be there doesn't he?)

Please tell me more of how the Republicans are the obstructionist..

[sappstuf]

Sapp:

Do you know how s budget gets approved? If you did you would understand what is going on
What I want from the Republicans is to give up on their tax pledge and what I want from the Democrats are honest budget cuts.

Annually? That is what the law says anyway. Dems don't care too much about the law though. And you don't seem to care too much about them breaking it.

Budgets take 51 votes in the senate to pass, not 60. The Dems right now have 53 members. They could pass a budget if they wanted to as required by law. They obviously don't want to.

Please tell me more of how the Repubs are the party of no..

[soonercruiser]

This. Although, he definitely has a point in the multi-billions that are wasted by the DoD not to mention the cost of fighting one totally unnecessary war and rebuilding project along with another war that should have been ended long ago

Ronald Reagan would say...."There He Goes Again!"
:miserable: WHAAAAAAAA!

[soonercruiser]

Altogether now:

Times have changed.
Our kids are getting worse.
They won't obey their parents.
They just want to fart and curse.
Should we blame the government?
Or blame society?
Or should be blame the images on TV?

:P

Badger,
The point is to blame the Repugs, no?

[soonercruiser]

It's a bit disingenuous to blame this on one side of the aisle for the bulk of the write up, only to include one courtesy sentence saying "Democrats in congress have problems too," just to make it appear balanced.

Both sides are at odds with each other, and the blame seems to fall on both sides as well. To say that republicans are disagreeable and too extreme without describing the bullying that happened with the supermajority that pushed Obama-care through is a bit silly. How many democrats were listening to the concerns of moderate republicans during that debacle of too much power given to one party? I can assure you, not many. In fact, the mantra of that time was, "We won! Them's the breaks! Get over it!" Well, the republicans won the majority in the house and have become disagreeable. "They won! Them's the breaks! Get over it!" Politicians and their hypocrisies are beyond ludicrous.

Republicans have their problems, and the party's platform of defense spending, restricting liberties, and legislating morality are points I strongly oppose. However, to say that they are any more extreme than the Democrats is a fallacy, an opinion that cannot be based on rational constructs, and what appears to be a well-timed publication during general election season. Call it for what it is at least...


THIS!!!!
I pretty much agree with.

The article/writer loses any credibility in the beginning....


The GOP has become an insurgent outlier in American politics. It is ideologically extreme; scornful of compromise; unmoved by conventional understanding of facts, evidence and science; and dismissive of the legitimacy of its political opposition.

....by not even recognizing that the Demoncrats are EXACTLY THE SAME!
I'm not agreeing that the Dems are communists.....more like most are now socialists....that is beginning to infect our society.
That is not American!


.....it is clear that the center of gravity in the Republican Party has shifted sharply to the right. Its once-legendary moderate and center-right legislators in the House and the Senate — think Bob Michel, Mickey Edwards, John Danforth, Chuck Hagel — are virtually extinct.

And, it is clear that the Dems have moved completey to the left...against the Constitution.....ACA, gay marriage, energy policies, lack of guts to address Iran effectively?


.....emergence of Fox News and right-wing blogs....
Yes the traditional print and TV media can no longer squash freedom of speech! They are "beside themselves", aren't they?
Thank GOD!
"GOD"! Oh! There's another piece of evidence in the secularization of America! Thank you extreme LEFT!

Nothing could make me happier than such a very clear distinction between the two current political parties!

So, when Americans go to the polls, they can vote for higher taxes, no growth, growing gobment dependance, no jobs for college grads, military weakness, and secret Dem legislation....
OR...
...a return to Constitutional values, Judeo-Christaian values, less gobment, and financial and international security!
We will get the gobment we deserve!

So-Called compromise has gotten us where we are today!
Better there is a stark distinction! That way when you come to the fork in the road, you will not hesitate to take it.

[SicEmBaylor]

Ronald Reagan would say...."There He Goes Again!"
:miserable: WHAAAAAAAA!
Ronald Reagan would never have invaded Iraq and, had he been a Democrat, would have been accused of "cutting and running" by today's Republicans with McCain leading the charge.

[diverdog]

Here is a great picture of Senate Budget Meeting on April 18th.

https://p.twimg.com/AqyjAOJCMAAP0rG.jpg

The far side of the table is the Republicans... The near side of the table is the De.. Err.. The chairs for the Dems.

The far right of the table is Chairman Conrad(I guess he has to be there doesn't he?)

Please tell me more of how the Republicans are the obstructionist..

Pure political theater to avoid dealing with the real issues at hand. Just more red meat to the Republican base.


Senate Republicans Engineer Rebuke on BudgetBy JONATHAN WEISMAN (http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/author/jonathan-weisman/)A daylong Senate debate over a budget plan for the fiscal year that begins in October ended the way every senator knew it would — without a budget.
Senate Republicans engineered the green-eyeshade activities, using an obscure provision in the 1974 Budget Act that gives any senator the right to bring a budget to a vote if none reaches the Senate floor by April 1. The aim was to highlight the Democratic majority’s failure for the third straight year to produce a budget blueprint — and to embarrass President Obama by bringing his budget to a vote.
Whether the president was embarrassed remains to be seen, but a procedural motion to proceed to the Obama budget failed 99-0.
There is less significance to that tally than it would appear. Not every Democrat opposes the president’s tax-and-spending plan, but a presidential budget is a different beast than a Congressional plan.
The White House’s budget funds cabinet departments, agencies and divisions line by line, program by program, in a document several feet high. A Congressional budget is a nonbinding blueprint on spending and tax policy, setting out broad parameters that are filled in later by committees that have jurisdiction in specific areas. For lawmakers to approve a presidential budget as it is presented would be to forgo Congress’s constitutional power of the purse.
But Republicans hailed the vote as a major rebuke to Mr. Obama.
“For three years, Senate Democrats have refused to produce a budget, as required by law,” Senator Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, the Senate minority leader said. “And today, they soundly rejected the president’s budget proposal which spends too much, taxes too much and borrows too much.”
Reince Priebus, chairman of the Republican National Committee, declared the unanimous vote the president’s “biggest bipartisan accomplishment to date.”
Republican budget plans did marginally better. The House-passed budget written by Representative Paul Ryan of Wisconsin failed, 41-to-58, with two of the Senate’s endangered incumbents, Scott P. Brown of Massachusetts and Dean Heller of Nevada, voting no, along with Maine’s moderate Republicans, Susan Collins and Olympia J. Snowe, and Kentucky’s Tea Party standard-bearer, Rand Paul. For Mr. Heller, that was a switch. In 2011, he voted for a similar Ryan plan twice, first as a House member, then as a senator appointed to the seat vacated by the scandal-plagued John Ensign.
Other even more conservative plans, by Mr. Paul, Senator Patrick J. Toomey of Pennsylvania, and Senator Mike Lee of Utah, failed on similar votes. There were 16 votes for Mr. Paul’s plan, which would eliminate the departments of Education, Commerce and Energy; cut the National Park Service by 30 percent and NASA by 25 percent; and end Medicare in 2014. Mr. Lee’s proposal, which fell 17-to-82, would raise the retirement age to 68, cut the size of government in half over 25 years, and end the payroll tax as well as all taxes on savings and investment and replace them with a 25 percent flat tax.
Republicans charged that Democrats have been derelict in their statutory duty to bring forward a budget. No long-term solution to the nation’s fiscal problems can be reached, they say, unless both parties are willing to agree on their visions for spending and taxes, then go to the table to negotiate. Democratic leaders have made it clear that they do not want to subject their members to the politically difficult votes Republicans would spring on them if they brought a budget to the floor.
In reality, the annual Congressional budget — which lacks the force of law — serves two immediate purposes. It sets the overall spending limit for defense and nondefense programs at Congress’s annual discretion to allow the House and Senate appropriations committees to begin drafting their 12 annual spending bills. And if lawmakers choose, it can establish rules for a later tax-and-spending bill that would operate under “reconciliation” rules, which forbid a Senate filibuster.

Democrats argued that a budget this year was simply not needed. The overall spending levels were set in law last July with the Budget Control Act, a spending law that broke the impasse over raising the nation’s statutory debt limit. And with House Republicans and Senate Democrats so far apart on budget matters, there was no way the two bodies were going to agree on reconciliation instructions. Such instructions have been used to powerful effect, to pass President George W. Bush’s tax cuts in 2001 and 2003, and to complete President Obama’s health care law. But in both cases, the chambers were controlled by one party.

[soonercoop1]

Sapp you missed the entire point of the article. Name one bill the Republicans have worked on with this President and then voted for it? Name five moderate Republicans that are not under threat of the loss of their seat in the next election?

Alaska is far from liberal.

I can post the same wall of quotes from the Republicans. Hell Palin and Bachmann could fill a library. As for anti science....creationism, complete denial of global warming, faith healing, the rigid belief of the use of resources beyond capacity, stem cell research.. Both parties have problems with science but for the most part in my experience the Republicans are the worst and it did not use to be that way.

Why would anyone with a brain, a knowledge of past congressional history, and a love for this country agree with this Pres on most anything? Compromise thankfully is long gone. Moderate = liberal = compromise on everything liberal progressive...the same thinking responsible for ALL of our problems...

[soonerhubs]

Ronald Reagan would never have invaded Iraq and, had he been a Democrat, would have been accused of "cutting and running" by today's Republicans with McCain leading the charge.

Word! The status quo of the GOP has missed the conservative mark on so many items.

[soonercruiser]

Ronald Reagan would never have invaded Iraq and, had he been a Democrat, would have been accused of "cutting and running" by today's Republicans with McCain leading the charge.

SicEm!
You been with Nancy "communicating" with Ronnie????!!!! :very_drunk:

Reagan probably wouldn't have had to invade Iraq. Kinda like he got the Carter hostages out without any real "action".

[SicEmBaylor]

SicEm!
You been with Nancy "communicating" with Ronnie????!!!! :very_drunk:

Reagan probably wouldn't have had to invade Iraq. Kinda like he got the Carter hostages out without any real "action".
He wouldn't have needed to invade Iraq because Iraq didn't need invading. I'm not clairvoyant, but I know Ronald Reagan well enough to know he would have been horrified by a decade-long economy-busting state of war.

I'm going to leave this Jack Hunter piece right here. He focuses on Rubio, but he contrasts Reagan and Bush. Ever since I discovered Jack Hunter a few months ago, I've been pretty gaga over him. Never have I found someone who reflects my own views as well while making the same arguments I've made for years. The Southern Avenger is worth subscribing to.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=zUQdD2_w23g

[diverdog]

He wouldn't have needed to invade Iraq because Iraq didn't need invading. I'm not clairvoyant, but I know Ronald Reagan well enough to know he would have been horrified by a decade-long economy-busting state of war.

I'm going to leave this Jack Hunter piece right here. He focuses on Rubio, but he contrasts Reagan and Bush. Ever since I discovered Jack Hunter a few months ago, I've been pretty gaga over him. Never have I found someone who reflects my own views as well while making the same arguments I've made for years. The Southern Avenger is worth subscribing to.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=zUQdD2_w23g

Reagan did not hate our military but I think he was uncomfortable with it. Had he had his way he would have disarmed the world of nuclear weapons. Reagan hated those weapons with a passion.

[sappstuf]

Pure political theater to avoid dealing with the real issues at hand. Just more red meat to the Republican base.

That picture was taken a month before your "political theater".

We can talk about that day though, because the omission in that article is substantial.


Democrats argued that a budget this year was simply not needed. The overall spending levels were set in law last July with the Budget Control Act, a spending law that broke the impasse over raising the nation’s statutory debt limit.

You know what? The Dems did argue that. You know what else? They lost the argument. (http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0412/74801.html) The Senate Parliamentarian, whom Harry Reid recommended for the job, ruled that Harry couldn't block the Repubs from offering budgets since the Dems refuse to do their jobs. That happened more than 30 days before that NYTimes article was written, which is a great example of willful ignorance.

Of course, this just goes to prove how absolutely easy it is to pass a budget. 51 votes.. If it isn't completed before April 1st, anyone can submit a budget, debate on budgets are limited to 50 hours so it cannot be filibustered.... The NYTimes thinks this "obscure provision" is a loophole. No, it is a tool to keep the majority from withholding budgets from being voted on. Isn't that a good thing? Only when Democrats use it apparently...

So. How is the fact that the Senate hasn't passed a budget in 3 years, in which time under Democratic control no Democratic Senator has cast a single yes vote for ANY budget not 100% the Democrats fault?

The answer is very simple without blinders on.

I'll be waiting.

[SicEmBaylor]

Reagan did not hate our military but I think he was uncomfortable with it. Had he had his way he would have disarmed the world of nuclear weapons. Reagan hated those weapons with a passion.

He certainly didn't hate the military -- quite the contrary. Reagan's love and respect for the United States military was so profound and so deep that the thought of bogging a generation of our troops down in two never ending mid-east wars with no clear objectives, no timetable for victory, at the cost of billions upon billions of taxpayer dollars, and at the cost of thousands of American lives would have left Reagan appalled.

It disgusts me that the neocons use a false idea of patriotism and a disingenuous love of the military to justify a perpetual state of war.

[Tulsa_Fireman]

To the OP...

Yes.

Armando Montelongo has spoken.

[diverdog]

He certainly didn't hate the military -- quite the contrary. Reagan's love and respect for the United States military was so profound and so deep that the thought of bogging a generation of our troops down in two never ending mid-east wars with no clear objectives, no timetable for victory, at the cost of billions upon billions of taxpayer dollars, and at the cost of thousands of American lives would have left Reagan appalled.

It disgusts me that the neocons use a false idea of patriotism and a disingenuous love of the military to justify a perpetual state of war.

Sic'em

Reagan built up the US military to gain a position of strength from which he could bargain away nuclear weapons and other weapons of mass destruction. I do not think he ever intended to use the forces in a way Bush did unless the US was really being threatened.

[diverdog]

That picture was taken a month before your "political theater".

We can talk about that day though, because the omission in that article is substantial.



You know what? The Dems did argue that. You know what else? They lost the argument. (http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0412/74801.html) The Senate Parliamentarian, whom Harry Reid recommended for the job, ruled that Harry couldn't block the Repubs from offering budgets since the Dems refuse to do their jobs. That happened more than 30 days before that NYTimes article was written, which is a great example of willful ignorance.

Of course, this just goes to prove how absolutely easy it is to pass a budget. 51 votes.. If it isn't completed before April 1st, anyone can submit a budget, debate on budgets are limited to 50 hours so it cannot be filibustered.... The NYTimes thinks this "obscure provision" is a loophole. No, it is a tool to keep the majority from withholding budgets from being voted on. Isn't that a good thing? Only when Democrats use it apparently...

So. How is the fact that the Senate hasn't passed a budget in 3 years, in which time under Democratic control no Democratic Senator has cast a single yes vote for ANY budget not 100% the Democrats fault?

The answer is very simple without blinders on.

I'll be waiting.

Again....Republican dog and pony shows. I will tell you why the Dems have not introduced a single budget bill is because the Republicans are so intent on making a political statement and not dealing with the issues at hand like putting abortion riders on budget bills or limits on greenhouse emissions or deny pay to special advisors to the President or ending funding for Planned Parenthood or......well you get the picture. Nor do they want to talk about tax increases on the rich or cuts in the military. In fact, they have acted so stupidly in opposing everything Obama does that they actually got on the wrong side of the payroll tax cut debate. Mitch McConnell's statement said a year ago that his main task in the 112th Congress was to make sure that President Obama would not be re-elected sure doesn't help.

We should have budget debates but they should be debates about spending and fixing the budget and nothing else. If it were up to me I would lock them in a room with a gun to their heads and tell them to get to work or else. Both parties are poorly led at this time. The problem with the Republicans is they have sold out their souls to Grover Norquist and his no tax pledge that they are now backed into the corner of not being able to do anything.

And Sapp I will tell you that you may root for these guys but in the end it is going to bite you in the ***. At some point they are going to have to deal with this budget and cuts are coming and the taxpayers are not going to want to see SS (something they paid for) cut. Federal pensions will be hammered......mark my words. You are young enough you will get hit.

[sappstuf]

Again....Republican dog and pony shows. I will tell you why the Dems have not introduced a single budget bill is because the Republicans are so intent on making a political statement and not dealing with the issues at hand like putting abortion riders on budget bills or limits on greenhouse emissions or deny pay to special advisors to the President or ending funding for Planned Parenthood or......well you get the picture. Nor do they want to talk about tax increases on the rich or cuts in the military. In fact, they have acted so stupidly in opposing everything Obama does that they actually got on the wrong side of the payroll tax cut debate. Mitch McConnell's statement said a year ago that his main task in the 112th Congress was to make sure that President Obama would not be re-elected sure doesn't help.

I hope you understand that nothing in this entire paragraph is a reason. There is nothing in this paragraph that doesn't equally apply to the House right now or to Congress in general for decades or even centuries. And guess what? The House has still passed a budget under Republican leadership the past two years. They let the Dems submit a budget that they voted down.. They then put a budget that was approved.. It is that simple. Nobody gets exactly what they want, even in the majority.

Your reasoning still doesn't explain a single 'yes' vote from any democratic senator on any budget in 3 years.. Only a coordinated effort from a true party of no could pull something like that off.

As far as "the wrong side of the payroll tax cut", I guess that all depends on where you stand. For my children, both parties are on the wrong side. That gimmick, which isn't doing much is going to cost my kids much, much more than what it is worth right now.


We should have budget debates but they should be debates about spending and fixing the budget and nothing else. If it were up to me I would lock them in a room with a gun to their heads and tell them to get to work or else. Both parties are poorly led at this time. The problem with the Republicans is they have sold out their souls to Grover Norquist and his no tax pledge that they are now backed into the corner of not being able to do anything.

Well, you would have to lock the door with the Dems wouldn't you? They won't even meet...

https://p.twimg.com/AqyjAOJCMAAP0rG.jpg



And Sapp I will tell you that you may root for these guys but in the end it is going to bite you in the ***. At some point they are going to have to deal with this budget and cuts are coming and the taxpayers are not going to want to see SS (something they paid for) cut. Federal pensions will be hammered......mark my words. You are young enough you will get hit.

Who is "they"? The House has passed a budget for the last couple of years.

But you are right, the longer the budget issue is put off, the worse the reckoning will be. We know what the Democrat's stance on the budget is because Timothy Geithner spelled it out for us.


You are right to say we’re not coming before you today to say ‘we have a definitive solution to that long term problem.’ What we do know is, we don’t like yours.

Now, I could say a lot of things about that quote, but this is the best that I have read.


Those two sentences speak to a mentality so bereft of intellectual vigor, so stunningly and candidly shallow, so thoroughly irresponsible, so politically myopic, selfish, and cowardly, that it should disqualify this crew from a second term in office. What a disgrace. Remember this moment the next time Democrats accuse the GOP of being the “do nothing,” intransigent, “party of no.”

That last sentence really hits the nail on the head in regards to this thread.

[diverdog]

Sapp:

I will try to get back to you later this weekend. Been up all night thinking about all the stuff I needed to gather so I can help my son finish his Eagle project today. We have a lot of work ahead of us and I am trying to help coordinate getting all the construction equipment to the location on time. Hopefully we get this behind us by 5.

[cleller]

Sapp:

I will try to get back to you later this weekend. Been up all night thinking about all the stuff I needed to gather so I can help my son finish his Eagle project today. We have a lot of work ahead of us and I am trying to help coordinate getting all the construction equipment to the location on time. Hopefully we get this behind us by 5.

Take a nap and let that Eagle scout do it.

[diverdog]

Take a nap and let that Eagle scout do it.

Are you a Scouter? True words of wisdom.

We got everything done and it turned out to be a really nice project. I am really happy for him and he is only 14. So he will have many years to enjoy his Eagle rank. He wanted to get it done before going on his high adventure trip to Northern Tier this summer.

Now I have to support my youngest. He will be a project! Lol

[soonerhubs]

Are you a Scouter? True words of wisdom.

We got everything done and it turned out to be a really nice project. I am really happy for him and he is only 14. So he will have many years to enjoy his Eagle rank. He wanted to get it done before going on his high adventure trip to Northern Tier this summer.

Now I have to support my youngest. He will be a project! Lol I put my project off, and I barely finished in time. Good for you and your son!

[diverdog]

I put my project off, and I barely finished in time. Good for you and your son!

Hubs:

At least you got it done and it is something no one can take from you. Congrats.

We moved so often as a military family that I never really had a chance to make Eagle. One of my biggest regrets. However, Scouting instilled in me a love for the outdoors and I still camp/backpack 40 plus days a year. Both my boys love camping and we have a boy run troop so they have enjoy hanging out with their peers.

[badger]

Badger,
The point is to blame the Repugs, no?

I was reminded of that song because it reminds me a lot of people claiming that the current generation is the worst ever and that earlier generations were so much better for this, that and the other thing. Ooo, times have changed, our politicians are getting sooo corrupt and evil.

Really, it's just a cycle. Discover the corruption and clear the majority party out. New party takes power and vows to end corruption and things will get better. Soon, the party in power gets too comfy in power and starts kicking back. And so on.

[soonerhubs]

Hubs:

At least you got it done and it is something no one can take from you. Congrats.

We moved so often as a military family that I never really had a chance to make Eagle. One of my biggest regrets. However, Scouting instilled in me a love for the outdoors and I still camp/backpack 40 plus days a year. Both my boys love camping and we have a boy run troop so they have enjoy hanging out with their peers.

That sounds like a lot of fun. I'll never forget the memories I made in our Scout Troop. We were great friends, and it instilled a sense of unity that I feel is valuable to developing youngsters.

[soonerhubs]

I was reminded of that song because it reminds me a lot of people claiming that the current generation is the worst ever and that earlier generations were so much better for this, that and the other thing. Ooo, times have changed, our politicians are getting sooo corrupt and evil.

Really, it's just a cycle. Discover the corruption and clear the majority party out. New party takes power and vows to end corruption and things will get better. Soon, the party in power gets too comfy in power and starts kicking back. And so on.

Similar to Animal Farm, no?

[pphilfran]

All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others

[pphilfran]

That is a terrific book...

[badger]

That is a terrific book...

One of the few required readings in high school that I actually didn't despise having to read.

It raises fun questions though --- how would a pig be able to stand on two legs?
http://www.meattruck.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/09/tumblr_lqo2t1bWIp1qzo4tr.jpg

And you have to assume that these pigs, being politicians and all, are extremely fat pigs...
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3362/3498222971_3386f0df55.jpg

So really, any chance at all that the pig in charge can walk around on his hind legs? Nah.

But, there is a very important moral to the story: No animal shall sleep in a bed with sheets. My pesky cat needs to learn this on nights when he won't leave me alone and let me sleep!

[Sooner5030]

Pubs, Dems, and the mOb <<<< the people who are to blame.

anyone who suggests otherwise can be included those three.

Note to dems/pubs - regardless of november results: 15 trillion economy, 4 trillion gubment spending, 1 - 1.15 trillion deficits, -1 to +2 % GDP growth, 2-3% inflation, 10,000 baby-boomers retiring /day, +46 million in the soup line (settled electronically thru SNAP to keep the sheeple from noticing), sickcare will continue regardless of ACA. Crony capitalism and State sanctioned kleptocracy has replaced our meritocracy.

default and reset is our only option.

suck it....OP

[pphilfran]

We are not to the point that default is the only answer...

If the economy doesn't get into gear it could be a final resort in the future....

As long as Europe stays in turmoil money will continue to flood into the dollar and interest rates should remain low....

Last one spending loses...