Hucks Army - Faith. Family. Freedom. [Grassroots] JOIN HUCKS ARMY | GET INVOLVED | FUNDRAISING | LINKS | LEADERSHIP | ABOUT
It is currently Sat Dec 07, 2019 5:06 am

All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 109 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6  Next
Author Message
PostPosted: Fri Sep 24, 2010 5:11 pm 
Offline
Site Admin

Joined: Wed Jul 30, 2008 8:03 am
Posts: 4844
Likes: 1174
Liked: 782
goalieman wrote:
justgrace, I don't think anyone here needs convincing that Coons is a looney tune. Of course we would all would vote for O'Donnell if we lived in DE. between the two of them, but DE. doesn't exactly have a track record electing good representatives/senators from that state.

I wish I had thought about the NJ. Governors contest last year at the start of this conversation. As some may recall, Christie was labled as a RINO by his conservative opponent in that primary with commercials blasting Christie as the most liberal Republican in the race. Truth is, Christie was the only one of them who could beat what's his face (name of the lib-dem former Governor escapes me at the moment). So far, Christie has done a great job in that state. So, sometimes being pragmatic can pay off big dividends.



Everyone may not be aware of who Christine O'Donnell's opponent in the Delaware senate race is. I certainly was not until I searched the web for more information. That is why I felt a need to post the information on O'Donnell's opponent, Chris Coons here. That and the fact that this thread is entitled, "Who is Christine O'Donnell, Better than Castle? Or Coons."

You are probably well-informed, goalieman, but some others here may not be. The race is between O'Donnell and Coons, now. Talking about Castle for now is probably a moot issue. I cannot vote in that election, but I want everyone to know about the danger of voting in another Marxist to the Senate. Republicans and conservatives need to identify the most radical of candidates and work to remove them. We in other states can spread the word and even donate if so inclined. We can pray. I feel it is time to put our support behind O'Donnell, a true conservative with a message we can agree with, rather than rue her election.

Maybe the Republicans made a mistake choosing O'Donnell, but that is the vote that they made in Delaware, and I think we just have to accept it for now.

_________________
Image


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
PostPosted: Fri Sep 24, 2010 5:40 pm 
Offline
***** General

Joined: Tue Feb 05, 2008 8:45 pm
Posts: 1792
Location: Pennsylvania
Likes: 208
Liked: 275
Honestly, the only difference between most Dems that are nominated today is the degree to which they are leftists. That Coons is a lefty is pretty much a given.

My preferred strategy is to fund the Conservative Republicans that show they have a good chance at winning their races. And considering that we have about a dozen races that are either solid Republican or at least 50/50 right now in take-away situations and a few others that we need to hold, that's alot of races for the NRSC to get money to. Most if not all of them are facing lefties, so by helping the strongest candidates you'll be preventing many lefties from reaching the Senate/House. As things look right now, I'd place the DE. race at no higher than 15th on my "who to fund" scale. But everyone is free to spend as they see fit. :)

_________________
Most people believe what they see, the Left see's what it believes.....


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
PostPosted: Fri Sep 24, 2010 5:43 pm 
Offline
***** General

Joined: Tue Feb 05, 2008 8:45 pm
Posts: 1792
Location: Pennsylvania
Likes: 208
Liked: 275
Southern Doc wrote:
I understand the "inside baseball" arguement that concludes that a Republican Senate majority need not be the highest goal in the 2010 cycle.

I must disagree.

45 senators is enough to block legislation. It is not enough to shape the judiciary. Increasingly the judiciary is the primary instrument for the shaping of social policy. A Republican majority in the Senate in 2010 means a Senate Judiciary committe where Republicans outnumber Democrats 10 to 9 (or 11 to 8 depending on the election results) rather than the current 12 Dems over the 7 Repubs. Only one of the current members (Graham - SC) is a moderate and I'l take him any day of the week over ANY of the 12 Dems.

A Republican judiciary means at minimum a "slow walk" process that can check the "Constitutional scholar [who never published a SINGLE article]" Obama from packing the Courts with activists. It also gives us some chance to block on the Supreme Court a fifth liberal vote or a replacement liberal should the need arise.

There are at least three levels on the chess board and the judiciary MUST NOT be ignored.

If the Senate is in reach (and it is) it will be HUGE for the causes we all hold dear.



:up

_________________
Most people believe what they see, the Left see's what it believes.....


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
PostPosted: Fri Sep 24, 2010 6:09 pm 
Offline
Site Admin

Joined: Wed Jul 30, 2008 8:03 am
Posts: 4844
Likes: 1174
Liked: 782
goalieman wrote:
Honestly, the only difference between most Dems that are nominated today is the degree to which they are leftists. That Coons is a lefty is pretty much a given.

My preferred strategy is to fund the Conservative Republicans that show they have a good chance at winning their races. And considering that we have about a dozen races that are either solid Republican or at least 50/50 right now in take-away situations and a few others that we need to hold, that's alot of races for the NRSC to get money to. Most if not all of them are facing lefties, so by helping the strongest candidates you'll be preventing many lefties from reaching the Senate/House. As things look right now, I'd place the DE. race at no higher than 15th on my "who to fund" scale. But everyone is free to spend as they see fit. :)



Agreed.

I did hear that shortly after Christine won the primary that immediately over $2 million of donations flooded in for her. This is a very emotionally charged movement. People are sick of the way Democrats are spending irresponsibly. The Delaware race would be hard for a Republican conservative to win. Not impossible, given the political climate and anger of the American people against Obamacare and how Democrats pushed through unpopular spending against the people's will, without allowing the bill to be read. The pressure tactics of the Democrats have reached the point of tyranny, not just routine politics. I do not know the mind of the Delawareans and their breaking point.

_________________
Image


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
PostPosted: Fri Sep 24, 2010 11:54 pm 
Offline
***** General

Joined: Wed Nov 14, 2007 2:19 pm
Posts: 1993
Location: Iowa
Likes: 6
Liked: 13
goalieman wrote:
Things like ACU scores can be misleading. For example, David Dreier of CA. describes himself as being pro-choice, yet he has a lifetime rating from ACU of 91.04%. Most of the votes that come up on social issues tend to be of the partial birth/abortion funding type, so even moderate Republicans will usually have a good voting record on those issues.

The ACU scoring covers the list of votes the ACU wishes to score. So, obviously its not tracking all votes. The thing one might quibble with is whether it relevant to score the vote on such and such a bill. IOW, there might be a particular vote which good conservatives might vote on other side depending upon other factors.

But, such quibbles, I think, would be at the margins. By and large, I suspect, the vast majority of scorable votes are relevant, or esle you would see growing complaining from the chattering class about the relevance.

So, I agree that there could be a person like your David Drier example (a generally excellant fighter) who might have deal-breaker issue against him, yet score high on the ACU score. But, thats ok, because there is National Right to Life scoring, NRA scoring, Family Research Council, and many others.

So, if a particular politician escapes scrutiny on one list he or she will be captured on another list and the news will eventually get out that so-and-so is weak on this issue, or that one.

So, one particular year's scoring isn't as informative as we need. Because, the scored votes that year might not be all that meaningful. Or, some of them might be controversial -- that a good person could be on either side. Or, if a particular year has an inflated score for someone, it may be that leaders were able to enforce party discipline reasonably well.

So, what you want, I think, is the long view. And, so the score that matters is the lifetime score, because it tracks a pattern of voting over the years which will capture a pretty fair indication of trends.

Now, the point is well-taken that someone might be able to inflate their score, but betray the conservative movement at ceratin key points -- and thus still look good on paper.

But, I don't think the reverse can be true. Which is to say, a non_conservative might be able to inflate their score beyond what their actual value as a conservative (at least a little bit -- John McCain might be an example).

But, a conservative is unlikely to show up in the scoring as a non_conservative. At least not likely in the lifetime scoring.

To put it more concretely, Toomey might be a moderate masquerading as a conservative. But, no way in heck is Specter a conservative masquerading as a moderate!

So, I think we can say confidently that those. like Spector, Snowe, and Castle who have a lifetime rating of below 50% -- are being exposed for the liberals they are. To get below 50% you have to vote wrong on more than the abortion related votes.

_________________
'If you drive God out of the world then you create a howling wilderness' --Peter Hitchens


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
PostPosted: Sat Sep 25, 2010 7:59 am 
Offline
Site Admin

Joined: Wed Jul 30, 2008 8:03 am
Posts: 4844
Likes: 1174
Liked: 782
This article from The Hill's Ballot Box blog is interesting because it addresses issues being made of O'Donnell's past and Coon's change in political philosophy to Marxism at college. It also speaks of how the media's involvement has made the Delaware race more broad and a more difficult campaign. Also, it mentions Castle.

http://thehill.com/blog/ballotbox/senate-races/120165-odonnel-coons-has-made-some-very-anti-american-statements
Quote:
O'Donnell: Coons has made 'some very anti-American statements'
By Shane D'Aprile - 09/21/10 09:35 PM ET

Tea Party-backed Christine O'Donnell (R) took aim at New Castle County Executive Chris Coons (D) Tuesday night during an appearance on Fox News.

O'Donnell referenced an article Coons wrote in college in which he referred to himself as "a bearded Marxist."

Prompted by host Sean Hannity about Coons' years-old comment from Coons, she said, "if the media is going to attack me for statements I made in my 20s, that's fair game. He made some very anti-American statements, apologizing for America and calling himself a bearded Marxist."

Coons said earlier Tuesday on CNN that the reference was made in jest, calling it "a tongue-in-cheek reference to how Republicans on campus" viewed his transformation from a Young Republican to a Democrat.

O'Donnell referenced Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid's comments from last week made in an interview with The Hill, where he called Coons, "my pet."

"You have to wonder what kind of strange conversations went on that led to Harry Reid calling him his pet," said O'Donnell, who again painted herself as the victim of unfair attacks from her Democratic opponents and the national media.

On her own previous statements about having "dabbled into witchcraft" when she was in high school, O'Donnell said it was just a case of "teenage rebellion."

"Who doesn't regret the 80s to some extent?" O'Donnell asked.

She also pushed back against questions about her personal finances, claiming that she got behind on her mortgage because she took on "a pro-bono client" who was unable to pay her, presumably for public relations work.

The Tea Party favorite also said she's still holding out hope for an endorsement from her primary rival, longtime Rep. Mike Castle (R-Del.). Castle did not phone her after his loss last Tuesday and the Castle campaign quickly noted that there would be no endorsement of O'Donnell.

But the candidate said Castle did call on Friday to congratulate her and said of the possibility of an endorsement, "let's give him some time and hopefully he'll come around, because we need to unite the party."

The conservative commentator also hit the national media, saying she plans on following the advice of former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin and shutting out the national press for the remainder of the campaign.

"It's interfering with my ability to campaign," O'Donnell said of the national media presence in Delaware. The candidate said her campaign is asking event organizers in Delaware to limit press access at some events, "because of the frenzy these things have become."

_________________
Image


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
PostPosted: Sat Sep 25, 2010 11:25 am 
Offline
***** General

Joined: Tue Feb 05, 2008 8:45 pm
Posts: 1792
Location: Pennsylvania
Likes: 208
Liked: 275
VertiCon wrote:
goalieman wrote:


So, I think we can say confidently that those. like Spector, Snowe, and Castle who have a lifetime rating of below 50% -- are being exposed for the liberals they are. To get below 50% you have to vote wrong on more than the abortion related votes.


Castle has a lifetime rating of 52.49, so he's above the threshold. :wink:

This all gets back to the original point that there are other factors to take into account when deciding who to vote for and back in any particular election. In the case of Toomey in 2004, O'Donnell this time around and in the NJ. GOP Governor's primary in 2009, backing the most conservative candidate wasn't in alot of conservatives final decision the best way to go. It's all about not making the impossible perfect the enemy of the doable good.

justgrace, I didn't mean to disregard the info that you posted about Coons (it just rhymes with loon.....so fitting :lol: ), only that, as I stated previously, it's a foregone conclusion anymore that the Dems will nominate a leftist. The days of the "conservative Democrat" are long gone. Maybe a few congressmen from the south like Gene Taylor of MS., but that's about it.

_________________
Most people believe what they see, the Left see's what it believes.....


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
PostPosted: Sat Sep 25, 2010 2:30 pm 
Offline
Site Admin

Joined: Wed Jul 30, 2008 8:03 am
Posts: 4844
Likes: 1174
Liked: 782
goalieman wrote:
VertiCon wrote:
goalieman wrote:


So, I think we can say confidently that those. like Spector, Snowe, and Castle who have a lifetime rating of below 50% -- are being exposed for the liberals they are. To get below 50% you have to vote wrong on more than the abortion related votes.


Castle has a lifetime rating of 52.49, so he's above the threshold. :wink:

This all gets back to the original point that there are other factors to take into account when deciding who to vote for and back in any particular election. In the case of Toomey in 2004, O'Donnell this time around and in the NJ. GOP Governor's primary in 2009, backing the most conservative candidate wasn't in alot of conservatives final decision the best way to go. It's all about not making the impossible perfect the enemy of the doable good.

justgrace, I didn't mean to disregard the info that you posted about Coons (it just rhymes with loon.....so fitting :lol: ), only that, as I stated previously, it's a foregone conclusion anymore that the Dems will nominate a leftist. The days of the "conservative Democrat" are long gone. Maybe a few congressmen from the south like Gene Taylor of MS., but that's about it.



:lol: Yes, it sounds pretty looney that Young Republicans can go to Harvard, Princeton, or Yale and come out believing America is not an exceptional nation, and that our "free enterprise and boundless opportunities" are not real. I guess Coons learned that in Nairobi, Kenya, maybe from the same people that influenced Barack Obama.

Another rhyming word that may apply is goons--those hired to terrorize or eliminate opponents. Black Panthers and ACORN and SEIC are likewise known as activists used for Marxist ends, with the approval and training from Barack Obama and other "community organizers."

Which is to say that Coons seems to be one of the most extremely leftist politically. The Democrat Party as a whole has moved sharply to the left as radicals have become successful in co-opting the party. Helping the homeless and talking of peace may sound fine, until we learn that these radical politicians like Coons really want to take our homes, our jobs, our votes, our money, and our freedom of speech and give it to the elitists who will redistribute the wealth we earn and own.

_________________
Image


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
PostPosted: Sat Sep 25, 2010 2:34 pm 
Offline
Private

Joined: Sun Feb 03, 2008 3:45 pm
Posts: 29
Likes: 1
Liked: 0
WalterCan wrote:
I actually think Coulter made a good point on Hannity tonight, and I've been thinking the same thing. Maybe we really don't want the Senate on this go-around. Having the House will be enough to ensure that anything Obama wants to do can be stopped.


Sorry, but Coulter is dead wrong. What happens come November 2 if the Democrats in the House and Senate lose big-time? Let's say the Republicans take the House but don't get a presidential veto-proof majority in the Senate.

In this scenario (BELIEVE ME!), we will not have a typical lame-duck session of Congress until mid-January. The Democrats will use this lame-duck opportunity to pass every piece of socialist garbage they can muster, and Obama will gladly sign it all in to law.

Without a presidential veto-proof majority in the Senate, there is no way anything that has been passed in the last two years or that might be passed in a Democrat lame-duck session could be repealed.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
PostPosted: Mon Sep 27, 2010 10:52 pm 
Offline
Lieutenant General
User avatar

Joined: Sun Dec 30, 2007 7:19 pm
Posts: 1044
Likes: 8
Liked: 208
Actually all you need is around 43 Senate seats to block the majority in the Senate. It takes 60 votes to close debate and proceed to a vote. If you have at least 43 votes then you can afford to lose 3 (which you almost always will with Collins and Snowe especially) who will vote with the Democrats. If Republicans have 47 or 48 Senate seats then they can for sure stop anything.

Again I'm not saying lose on purpose, and we should take our best shot, but if Dems still keep the Senate I'm not going to see it as a tragedy. Dems will still own 2/3 of Government (WH and Senate) and will be held accountable going into 2012.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
PostPosted: Mon Sep 27, 2010 11:33 pm 
Offline
General

Joined: Sat Mar 08, 2008 6:27 pm
Posts: 1165
Likes: 39
Liked: 41
The people in the U.S. saw what happens when you have the House, Senate and President from the same party. That means if the Republicans take the House and Senate now, people in the U.S. will vote Obama back in so we don't have one party with all the power.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
PostPosted: Tue Sep 28, 2010 7:58 am 
Offline
Site Admin

Joined: Wed Jul 30, 2008 8:03 am
Posts: 4844
Likes: 1174
Liked: 782
WalterCan wrote:
Actually all you need is around 43 Senate seats to block the majority in the Senate. It takes 60 votes to close debate and proceed to a vote. If you have at least 43 votes then you can afford to lose 3 (which you almost always will with Collins and Snowe especially) who will vote with the Democrats. If Republicans have 47 or 48 Senate seats then they can for sure stop anything.

Again I'm not saying lose on purpose, and we should take our best shot, but if Dems still keep the Senate I'm not going to see it as a tragedy. Dems will still own 2/3 of Government (WH and Senate) and will be held accountable going into 2012.



Good observation. I wonder how that might work in the case of a Supreme Court nomination. Usually Senators try to give the President his choice so the vote tends to be less monolithic as a party. It would probably be hard to filibuster a vote to disapprove a Supreme Court justice. Can it be done?

_________________
Image


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
PostPosted: Tue Sep 28, 2010 7:29 pm 
Offline
Private

Joined: Sun Feb 03, 2008 3:45 pm
Posts: 29
Likes: 1
Liked: 0
WalterCan wrote:
Actually all you need is around 43 Senate seats to block the majority in the Senate. It takes 60 votes to close debate and proceed to a vote. If you have at least 43 votes then you can afford to lose 3 (which you almost always will with Collins and Snowe especially) who will vote with the Democrats. If Republicans have 47 or 48 Senate seats then they can for sure stop anything.

Again I'm not saying lose on purpose, and we should take our best shot, but if Dems still keep the Senate I'm not going to see it as a tragedy. Dems will still own 2/3 of Government (WH and Senate) and will be held accountable going into 2012.


In others words, you want a House of Representatives that plays defense for the next two years, that just says no.

That doesn't address my point. I want Obamacare repealed. I want the so-called Bush-era tax cuts made permanent. I want Cap and Trade defeated. In order for this to happen, you'll need legislation introduced and passed and then sent to Obama who will surely veto it. Then you'll need a presidential veto override in place in BOTH houses of Congress to get the job done and render the President's interference irrelevant.

Article I, section 7, clause 2 of the Constitution lays out the process.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
PostPosted: Fri Oct 01, 2010 2:54 am 
Offline
Lieutenant General
User avatar

Joined: Sun Dec 30, 2007 7:19 pm
Posts: 1044
Likes: 8
Liked: 208
me4huckabee wrote:
WalterCan wrote:
Actually all you need is around 43 Senate seats to block the majority in the Senate. It takes 60 votes to close debate and proceed to a vote. If you have at least 43 votes then you can afford to lose 3 (which you almost always will with Collins and Snowe especially) who will vote with the Democrats. If Republicans have 47 or 48 Senate seats then they can for sure stop anything.

Again I'm not saying lose on purpose, and we should take our best shot, but if Dems still keep the Senate I'm not going to see it as a tragedy. Dems will still own 2/3 of Government (WH and Senate) and will be held accountable going into 2012.


In others words, you want a House of Representatives that plays defense for the next two years, that just says no.

That doesn't address my point. I want Obamacare repealed. I want the so-called Bush-era tax cuts made permanent. I want Cap and Trade defeated. In order for this to happen, you'll need legislation introduced and passed and then sent to Obama who will surely veto it. Then you'll need a presidential veto override in place in BOTH houses of Congress to get the job done and render the President's interference irrelevant.

Article I, section 7, clause 2 of the Constitution lays out the process.


I want to win as many seats as we can, but at the same time I am saying that we don't want to sell out to do it. Trying to elect someone like a Mike Castle just because you believe it will give you one more vote on some things is short-sighted in my view, and I believe it will cost conservatives more in the long-run then they will gain.

As far as the numbers go you're not going to get enough votes to over-ride a veto no matter how big a year this is for Republicans. You'd need 66 votes in the Senate, and that's not going to happen. It's still possible that Rrepublicans will win the Senate regardless of what happens in Delaware, but if they don't then as I've said I don't see it as a major tragedy. I heard major Republican Senators saying for months that they viewed taking the Senate as a Two-Cycle effort, and then all of a sudden when O'Donnell wins Delaware they all act as if they thought they were going to win it all along.

As far as the Supreme Court goes all you need is again 40 votes to block a vote on a nominee that is truly outrageous. Now some of you may not want to hear this, but it is my belief that the Constitutional Role of the Senate is to Advise and Consent, and that to me means every Supreme Court Nominee deserves an up or down vote regardless of what President nominates them. Elections have consequences, and the President has the Constitutional right to nominate someone who shares his ideology. If it is someone way outside the mainstream then Republicans can block it no matter how many seats they pick up. If they aren't outside the mainstream then they deserve a vote, and if they can get the votes then they deserve to be on the Court.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
PostPosted: Fri Oct 01, 2010 5:03 am 
Offline
Site Admin

Joined: Wed Jul 30, 2008 8:03 am
Posts: 4844
Likes: 1174
Liked: 782
It is interesting to listen to those experts who are experienced in helping with elections, like Dick Morris. He advised past President Bill Clinton and others. He thinks Republicans may gain as many as 100 new seats in the House and 10 in the Senate. That would mean that both houses would become Republican.

That is not counting Christine O'Donnell, who he said is rising in the polls in Delaware. People realize that the religious/moral accusations against her border on the silly, and that her financial problems have at least a plausible explanation. There is a surprisingly strong sentiment in the state of Delaware to get the establishment out.

Others say that Democrats will lose 50 seats in the House and narrowly keep the Senate. Many predict some sort of landslide for Republicans reminiscent of 1994.

A lot depends on us as conservatives. This is our opportunity to give to good conservatives, many of whom have arisen on the wave of the Tea Party. Perhaps today each of us could give another $5 to HuckPAC. If Huckabee has 500,000 fans on Facebook, and each were to give $5, that would make $2.5 million. Just a small donation could mean a lot. As it is, if HuckPAC gets only $100,000, that means each fan gives an average of $.25, and I think we can do much better. This is exciting, to be part of what could be a landslide victory. But it won't happen if we let up the race in the last lap around the track.

The other good news for Republicans in Delaware is that Castle apparently has decided not to run as a write-in or Independent. I am glad he has the good sense to concede.

_________________
Image


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
PostPosted: Fri Oct 01, 2010 11:17 am 
Offline
***** General

Joined: Tue Feb 05, 2008 8:45 pm
Posts: 1792
Location: Pennsylvania
Likes: 208
Liked: 275
WalterCan wrote:
me4huckabee wrote:
WalterCan wrote:


I want to win as many seats as we can, but at the same time I am saying that we don't want to sell out to do it. Trying to elect someone like a Mike Castle just because you believe it will give you one more vote on some things is short-sighted in my view, and I believe it will cost conservatives more in the long-run then they will gain.

As far as the numbers go you're not going to get enough votes to over-ride a veto no matter how big a year this is for Republicans. You'd need 66 votes in the Senate, and that's not going to happen. It's still possible that Rrepublicans will win the Senate regardless of what happens in Delaware, but if they don't then as I've said I don't see it as a major tragedy. I heard major Republican Senators saying for months that they viewed taking the Senate as a Two-Cycle effort, and then all of a sudden when O'Donnell wins Delaware they all act as if they thought they were going to win it all along.

As far as the Supreme Court goes all you need is again 40 votes to block a vote on a nominee that is truly outrageous. Now some of you may not want to hear this, but it is my belief that the Constitutional Role of the Senate is to Advise and Consent, and that to me means every Supreme Court Nominee deserves an up or down vote regardless of what President nominates them. Elections have consequences, and the President has the Constitutional right to nominate someone who shares his ideology. If it is someone way outside the mainstream then Republicans can block it no matter how many seats they pick up. If they aren't outside the mainstream then they deserve a vote, and if they can get the votes then they deserve to be on the Court.


What's short-sighted is not realizing that that one extra vote in the Senate may well be the vote that allows the GOP to take control of the Senate and head up all the Senate committee's and thus not allow bad legislation to even make it out to the Senate floor. And were not the two SCOTUS nominees by Obama (especially Kagan) not "outside the mainstream"? But by all means, lets allow Leahy, Schumer, etc. to ram thru more nonsense for another two years while we all feel good about our "I'm purer than you" politics. Great way to win the day!

_________________
Most people believe what they see, the Left see's what it believes.....


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
PostPosted: Sat Oct 02, 2010 4:59 am 
Offline
Lieutenant General
User avatar

Joined: Sun Dec 30, 2007 7:19 pm
Posts: 1044
Likes: 8
Liked: 208
I think you're misunderstanding myself and possibly others on this matter. It isn't so much a matter of purity when it comes to ideology as it is a test of whether or not they are going to be one of the good 'ole boys and vote with big business, big bank, and big money special interests which the Republican Establishment is in bed with. This is what caused all of them to support TARP. It was a bailout for the big banks like Goldman Sachs. Everything we were told about how this was going to once again make credit available was a bunch of bull. In fact I saw a report on how the banks who got bailouts lent out less money than those who didn't. This was plain and simple a matter of politicians taking care of their buddies on Wall Street. Democrats and the media accurately pointed out that Republicans were all for Capitalism on the way up, but they were for Socialism on the way down. Or at least that is how they felt about big business and big banks on Wall Street.

You see when Republicans act like that they completely destroy the credibility of the Republican brand. The next time Republicans talk about the "moral hazard" argument or letting the free markets take care of themselves they can be legitimately criticized for the fact that they didn't seem to care about these principles when it was the banks that were failing instead of the common man.

If you want the Republican party to be just a more right-wing version of the Democrat party with each just catering to their own set of special interests whenever they are in office then it really doesn't matter if we elect a lot of Establishment types. But if you want to have a party that speaks with clarity and sincerity on issues then you've got to have people who will do the same. This election cycle alone will not accomplish this. It will take 2 more cycles at least to get a majority of Republicans who are for the everyday American instead of special interests. But we're not going to get there if we start compromising already.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
PostPosted: Sat Oct 02, 2010 9:33 pm 
Offline
***** General

Joined: Tue Feb 05, 2008 8:45 pm
Posts: 1792
Location: Pennsylvania
Likes: 208
Liked: 275
WalterCan, was it only "RINO's" who supported the things you mentioned above? IIRC, even a solid conservative like Sen. Coburn of OK voted for TARP (wish he hadn't). How do you know that all of these conservatives we hope to win in this election cycle are going to be 100% pure on all of their votes once elected? The fact is that there are very few Senators or Congressmen who vote as perfectly as we would always like. To forfeit a Senate seat due to ideological purity and allow a lib-dem who will vote against you 100% of the time win that seat is the definition of a hollow victory.

We can all rail against the "good 'ol boys club" all day long (Palin does it quite well) but what is really being misunderstood by some is that you can change very little in D.C. if you're the minority party and you can't begin to change much unless you have control of it's committee's. A RINO who votes with me 50% of the time and allows me to chair important committee's will allow me to change much more than a lib-dem of the other party who votes against me 100% of the time and makes me a member of the minority party. It's not all that hard to figure out.

And with that said, I am done with beating this dead horse. :deadhorse

_________________
Most people believe what they see, the Left see's what it believes.....


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
PostPosted: Sat Oct 02, 2010 11:42 pm 
Offline
Lieutenant General
User avatar

Joined: Sun Dec 30, 2007 7:19 pm
Posts: 1044
Likes: 8
Liked: 208
I think there were two groups of Republicans who voted for TARP. The first group is in the bag for Big Business and Big Banks. It's no secret that Big Money Interests have had a lot of influence on the Repubs for quite some time. These Republicans are all about the philosophy of "I scratch your back and you do the same for me when I need it." The 2nd group was a bunch of followers who went with the pack and listened to what was being told to them by the likes of Secretary Paulson and others and refused to listen to their citizens back home. They had this elitist attitude that all those in Washington knew better than us common man types. The Congressman in my district felt this way, and it really came across on an interview he did on local talk radio. I can't tell you how furious people were first of all when he voted for Tarp and then after he gave this interview. Needless to say he was voted out in the primary.

So I guess you could sum up the two groups as one being in the bag for big money special interests, and the other not showing good judgment at the time. I do make somewhat of a distinction on the House Republicans who voted against TARP the first time and then caved on the 2nd vote because on that 2nd vote they were catching all kinds of he!! from all sides to vote for it or the economy was going to fail and make the 30's look like a roaring good time. Of course now we know that was nothing but a bunch of fear tactics so they could funnel money to the big banks who had lost a lot of money on wreck-less speculation and bad loans.

What I most want to get rid of are the people of the 1st group who you can always count on to side with special interests against the everyday people. This goes much much deeper than TARP. It's just that TARP brought to the surface what many of us had always suspected. There is a ruling class of elitists in Washington (from both parties) who only care about themselves and the privileged few who already have power and wealth. All the other things they say to the public when the cameras are on is just a facade. We hear all the time about the ones in the Democratic party who are like this, but we don't hear nearly enough about those in the Republican party who are like this as well. I think the late Ted Stevens was a good example as well as current senator from the same state Murkowski. As controversial as this will be to say, I also put Mitch McConnell in this category.

The American people are getting smarter and smarter, and they can smell insincerity and BS a lot better now than they could. We don't need more Mike Castles out there representing us when it will come across to people that they are elitist and could really care less about the average citizen. That hurts us, and it turns off the very people who are rising up in the grass roots right now. People are really missing it if they think all the anger right now is simply about ideological purity tests. It's about those who represent the people vs. those who represent themselves. It isn't just about having one more vote in the Senate or having chairmanships. It is about fundamentally changing the way Washington does business and bringing government back to the people.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
PostPosted: Sun Oct 03, 2010 2:59 am 
Offline
Site Admin

Joined: Wed Jul 30, 2008 8:03 am
Posts: 4844
Likes: 1174
Liked: 782
People have become very tired of business as usual in Washington D.C.

One of Gov. Mike Huckabee's ideas he just mentioned on this weekend's Huckabee show is for limits for Congressmen and women of two terms. Just like the President has. This should be part of the Republicans' new contract with America. Just as we have two terms for the President, limiting Congress would accomplish the same purpose. He also proposed a three year prohibition on any retired member from coming back as a lobbyist.

The cronyism of party establishment is a big part of the problem of why we can't budge the internal power grabs in Congress. There is too much buying and selling of political favors in order to gain power in committees. The incumbent generally starts with the advantage in a primary race with the money, connections, and power. But Americans are tired of the favoritism and the political self-promotion of politicians. They want public servants, not public leeches. They will not tolerate a RINO any more than they will a Democrat this go around.

Another of Huckabee's proposals is to force Congressmen and women to give up their special IRA's and health care plans and live under the same rules that the American people do. He thinks that they need to experience pay cuts of 5% for every year they do not balance the budget. The American people seem ready and eager to see this kind of discipline.

It is time to clean the oven, as Huckabee says. The people need to turn the heat up high and clean Washington D.C. Then we can brush out the ashes to make a new start in government. The beauty of our American Constitution is that we can restart with newly elected leaders. Most of the corruption in Washington D.C. comes from the corruption of too much power in the hands of people who want too much power. Like water, stagnation occurs when the stream does not keep flowing.

The Castles and the Coons and the Murkowski's may well be swept aside by a new tide in D.C.

_________________
Image


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 109 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6  Next

All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
cron
POWERED_BY