Armed Polite Society
Main Forums => Politics => Topic started by: Jamisjockey on August 11, 2009, 09:55:09 AM
-
Arlen Specter's Town hall meeting. He is getting crushed by his constituents. :laugh:
-
Arlen Specter's Town hall meeting. He is getting crushed by his constituents. :laugh:
SHOCKING! :O
I surely hope the good people of Pennsylvania vote for change next year. :laugh:
If only they'd have thrown him out 5 years ago.
-
Couldn't have happened to a
Benedict Arnold better candidate.
-
And I quote "nobody's paying me to be here, I'm not part of that Astroturf group."
:laugh:
-
The Collaborator par excellence.
-
Specter is writing alot of checks with his mouth that I bet his butt doesn't cash.....
-
He's probably looking for a new party already.
-
Where's the townhall being held?
If he's somewhere in the T zone, he's playing with fire already. In fact, I'd be very surprised if he were brave enough to set foot in a lot of the T zone given how angry some are about his becoming a Democrat.
-
[maitre'd]
Specter. Party of one.
I'm sorry, sir, but it appears the seat you wanted is going to be given to someone else.
Help yourself to a complementary breath mint on the way out.
[/maitre'd]
-
First one was in Lebanon County, PA.
Not sure where the second one is.
-
"First one was in Lebanon County, PA."
I'll be.
He DOES have the balls to hit the heart of the T zone.
Lebanon County went 58.59% McCain and 39.8% Obama.
Not exactly friendly territory.
-
Caught almost the entire thing this morning. All I can say is...
YEEEEEEEEEEHAAAAAAAAA!!!!!
Jiminy Christmas did he ever get his butt handed to him, endlessly, and on live TV no less!
Brad
-
From the local birdcage liner, the Harrisburg Patriot News, which leans distinctly left...
http://www.pennlive.com/midstate/index.ssf/2009/08/arlen_specter_hammered_by_comm.html
-
2 moro he is on tour at PSU's innovation park in State College.
I did see my Tyranny Response Team Tshirt in my closet yesterday...
maybe I will make a spartan helmet out of astroturf tonight.
-
WOW! :O
AP certainly has a MUCH more revealing take on Specter's town hall than the Patriot News (which as I said, leans quite left).
I didn't realize that Specter also had a hard time in a Philly town hall. Interesting.
"LEBANON, Pa. – Voter fears of a government takeover of health care and rampant costs were on stark display Tuesday at a longtime senator's noisy town hall, a session that underscored the challenge for President Barack Obama and Democrats in overhauling the nation's system.
Republican-turned-Democratic Sen. Arlen Specter faced hostile questions, taunts and jeers as he gamely tried to explain his positions. It was likely a moment of deja vu for the five-term lawmaker facing a tough re-election next year. Just a week ago, Specter encountered a tough crowd at a Philadelphia town hall.
At a crowded community college, Specter heard from speaker after speaker who accused him of trampling on their constitutional rights, adding to the federal deficit or allowing government bureaucrats to take over health care.
"You'll be gone, by God the bureaucrats will still be here," said one man.
"My children and grandchildren are going to pay for this," said another.
"One day God will stand before you and judge you!" shouted a third man before security guards approached and he left the room.
Specter said he wouldn't vote for a bill that adds to the deficit. He also said he wouldn't support a bill that extends coverage to illegal immigrants. None of the bills in Congress would provide health insurance to illegal immigrants.
Specter explained repeatedly that there is no single Senate bill yet for him to talk about since the Finance Committee hasn't finished writing one. That explanation was usually met by boos from the crowd. Many had read portions of a bill passed by three committees in the House and tried to get Specter to respond to that.
One woman tried to make it personal for Specter, alleging the Democrats' plan would not provide care to a man in his 70s with cancer, like Specter had.
"You're here because of the plan we have now," she said.
Specter showed some heat at that.
"Well you're just not right," he said. He called her claim a "vicious, malicious" rumor.
The passions of the crowd illustrated the problems for Democratic lawmakers around the country as they try to use the monthlong August recess to promote Obama's health care overhaul agenda. There's not a single plan to promote, which Specter later told reporters made his job harder, along with the complexity of the issue. The House bill is more than 1,000 pages long.
And, Specter said: "The objectors have gotten ahead of the curve." Asked why, he cited talk radio, among other factors.
Democrats are trying desperately to regain control of the debate, with the White House posting a new Web site designed to dispel what it called "the misinformation and baseless smears that are cropping up daily." House Democratic aides have set up a health care war room out of Majority Leader Steny Hoyer's office designed to help lawmakers answer questions about the legislation.
Though his popularity is slipping in polls, Obama himself is repeatedly trying to make the case to the public for passage of comprehensive legislation this year to bring down costs and extend coverage to many of the 50 million uninsured.
Specter said that in a long life in politics he hadn't seen anything like what he witnessed Tuesday and at a town hall last weekend that turned even uglier.
"There is more anger in America today than at any time I can remember," Specter said.
Many in the crowd said they came of their own accord, and several told Specter they objected to Democrats characterizing them as mobs or organized opposition shipped in by lobbyists or the Republican Party. National conservative groups are encouraging people to attend town halls, but liberal groups are doing the same — with less apparent success.
Several in the crowd wore T-shirts proclaiming: "Proud Member of the Mob."
-
"There is more anger in America today than at any time I can remember," Specter said.
I think that's what's scaring many of these Democrat leaders.
I know I've never seen so many people up in arms over ANYTHING in this country. I remember people getting a little worked up in 1994, but nothing like this.
People know who is responsible for this. People know what the Democrats are trying to do. As much as they dissimulate, as much as they try to camoflage and cloak their intentions, it isn't working.
They scream things like "That's not in the bill!" but people can read and realize what the implications of a "Healthcare Effectiveness Panel" and "End of Life Consultations" are.
The Democrats think people are stupid. They're not, they allow many things to get by because the cost of paying attention and getting involved is more than the cost of whatever crap Washington is doing.
The Democrats have now made not paying attention and getting involved MUCH more costly. I think they've only just begun to reap the whirlwind of their audacity and arrogance.
Obama pushed too much, too hard, too fast. Americans don't want to be like Europe or Argentina.
-
I keep hearing pundits, some of whom I often agree with (Krauthammer et al.), deploring the tenor of confrontation at town halls. What I haven't heard is a plausible strategy for dealing with your elected representatives when they stand before you, being asked polite, direct questions, and offer evasion, ignorance and condescension, as at the Philadelphia town with Specter and sebelius that seemed to get the reporting ball rolling, or the Dallas AARP meeting.
-
He also said he wouldn't support a bill that extends coverage to illegal immigrants. None of the bills in Congress would provide health insurance to illegal immigrants.
I think this is the new soundbite.
All them rednecks and constitutionalists riled up in your district? Well, then tell 'em that illegals aren't covered. That'll make 'em happy. :rolleyes:
Who cares if 30 million illegals aren't covered, if taxes or liabilities are raised to cover 300 million people? And freedom of choice in health care is eliminated?
It's the new way of deflecting the argument from "NO on healthcare" to "NO on healthcare for illegals." Beware it.
-
The riots and general mayhem in the late 60's were the last time I remember this much anger, but that was mostly perpetrated by stupid hippies. This is coming from mature members of the usually silent middle class.
Around here the supporters of the proposed health care plan are recruited from unions and other pro-Democrat groups. They're having seminars on how to attend town hall meetings. They even get t-shirts.
I thought the opponents were the ones who were "astroturf".
-
I think that's what's scaring many of these Democrat leaders.
That....and the fact that many former-organizers like Obama are now having to face public outcry and anger from the other side of the "mob"....and they realize that our "mob" can stomp out their "mob" easily....
-
My next door neighbor is a lobbyist on health care issues.
He's also fairly liberal.
It's going to be interesting to talk to him about all this .
-
someone on Arfcom has figured out that the random kid asking questions at obamas meeting today is the daughter of a Dem activist
http://www.ar15.com/forums/topic.html?b=1&f=5&t=911911&page=1
-
someone on Arfcom has figured out that the random kid asking questions at obamas meeting today is the daughter of a Dem activist
http://www.ar15.com/forums/topic.html?b=1&f=5&t=911911&page=1
Wow, you mean the president WASN'T really confronting opposition!???
You mean, he got his supporters to give him softball questions?!
I'm so shocked.
Next thing you'll tell me is he reads all his speeches off a teleprompter like an anchorman or something and he's not the silver-tongued devil the press makes him out to be.
-
OK. I just watched a Youtube clip of Spector's beat down. And I have one question.
Why in the hell, wasn't that jerk in the white shirt arrested for assault?
That made my blood boil seeing those cops talk to him and pat him on the shoulder. What the hell were they saying to him anyway. Good job?
:mad:
-
OK. I just watched a Youtube clip of Spector's beat down. And I have one question.
Why in the hell, wasn't that jerk in the white shirt arrested for assault?
That made my blood boil seeing those cops talk to him and pat him on the shoulder. What the hell were they saying to him anyway. Good job?
:mad:
Ummm... assault:
18 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 2701
Simple assault.
(a) Offense defined.--A person is guilty of assault if he:
(1) attempts to cause or intentionally, knowingly or
recklessly causes bodily injury to another;
(2) negligently causes bodily injury to another with a
deadly weapon;
(3) attempts by physical menace to put another in fear
of imminent serious bodily injury; or
(4) conceals or attempts to conceal a hypodermic needle
on his person and intentionally or knowingly penetrates a law
enforcement officer or an officer or an employee of a
correctional institution, county jail or prison, detention
facility or mental hospital during the course of an arrest or
any search of the person.
So, where was the fear of imminent serious bodily injury?
Or did he have a hypodermic needle I couldn't see?
-
Sorry, wrong legal term
Battery.
Or more specific
Simple battery.
-
Too bad the awakening is coming more than a year too late.
I hope it continues.
-
Sorry, wrong legal term
Battery.
Or more specific
Simple battery.
So, despite the fact PA doesn't have Battery as a charge, but rather Aggravated Assault, where's the battery?
Battery would require actually hitting someone. Assault is a LESSER charge.
-
Granted this is from wiki
Specific rules regarding battery depend on the relevant jurisdiction, however some elements remain constant despite jurisdiction. Battery generally requires:
1. An offensive touching or contact is made upon the victim, instigated by the actor
2. The actor intends or knows that his action will cause the offensive touching
1. In some jurisdictions, for instance under the Model Penal Code, there is a battery when the actor acts recklessly
3. The touching causes an injury, physical or otherwise
Battery is typically classified as either simple or aggravated. Although battery typically occurs in the context of physical altercations, battery also applies in other instances, such as medical cases where the doctor performs a non-consented to medical procedure.
Being shoved back into your chair forcefully I think would be "offensive touching".
I find it hard to believe that PA law doesn't recognize battery as a crime.
Spitting in some ones face, shoving = battery.
-
They scream things like "That's not in the bill!" but people can read and realize what the implications of a "Healthcare Effectiveness Panel" and "End of Life Consultations" are.
It's typical of what they do in general. Same how they claim "Obama isn't going to take your guns", because Obama's platform doesn't actually have a BAN GUNS IMMEDIATELY plank.
-
Granted this is from wiki
Being shoved back into your chair forcefully I think would be "offensive touching".
I find it hard to believe that PA law doesn't recognize battery as a crime.
Spitting in some ones face, shoving = battery.
I thought you were referring to the angry gentleman who left at the begining. I only saw what was available on foxnews.com so I cannot comment on someone getting shoved back into their chair. My apologies for misunderstanding.
-
This isn't a thread about assault and battery.
-
And, Specter said: "The objectors have gotten ahead of the curve." Asked why, he cited talk radio, among other factors.
Interesting how Specter makes "ahead of the curve" seem like it's a bad thing.
"There is more anger in America today than at any time I can remember," Specter said.
Yet he appears somewhat oblivious to the fact that he's a part of what so many people are so angry about.
-
My favorite this morning is the AP news story about how all the politicians think the angry crowds aren't indicative of what America wants. Despite flagging poll support for "reform". And, the story is accompanied with the picture of the Swastika on Congressman David Scott's office sign.
:rolleyes:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090812/ap_on_go_co/us_health_care_protests;_ylt=At6aeC7XknyGLDefwPM8z1GyFz4D;_ylu=X3oDMTJvcHBqNDMwBGFzc2V0A2FwLzIwMDkwODEyL3VzX2hlYWx0aF9jYXJlX3Byb3Rlc3RzBGNwb3MDMQRwb3MDMgRzZWMDeW5fdG9wX3N0b3J5BHNsawNzcGVjdGVycHJvdGU-
By MERRILL HARTSON, Associated Press Writer Merrill Hartson, Associated Press Writer – 44 mins ago
WASHINGTON – Sen. Arlen Specter said Wednesday he thinks people who have been angrily disrupting town hall meetings on overhauling the health care system are "not necessarily representative of America," but should be heard.
"It's more than health care," said Specter, 79, who earlier this year left the Republican Party and became a Democrat. "I think there is a mood in America of anger with so many people unemployed, with so much bickering in Washington ... with the fear of losing their health care. It all boils over."
-
"It's more than health care," said Specter, 79, who earlier this year left the Republican Party and became a Democrat. "I think there is a mood in America of anger with so many people unemployed, with so much bickering in Washington ... with the fear of losing their health care. It all boils over."
Yep. There's all these people unemployed whose jobs the stimulus package was to create or save. There's so much bickering in DC with the Divine Uniter in office. And people wouldn't be afraid of losing their health care if they'd just shut up and let Specter and the other Dem's pass the health care demolition bill.
There is none so blind as he who will not see.
-
"I think they're vocal. I don't think they're representative." [Specter said]
Not representative?
Next he'll be claiming something else, such as the protesters are just bitter and clinging to guns and religion.
-
I can't believe that they Democrats seem hell bent on handing the Republicans sucn an effect club with which to beat them in next year's mid terms.
This is starting to look more and more like 1993, when Clinton rammed through a huge tax increase and essentially told those opposed to stuff it.
What they stuffed was Democratic control of Congress.
It's looking more and more like this one issue could turn around the entire Democratic drive to power, and its incredible that so many of them just don't see it.
-
Except I don't think there are enough people at the top of the RNC that are smart enough to take advantage of it.
-
RKL beat me to it. I can easily see conservatives wasting this momentum shift to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory.
-
Back in '92 and '93 there was nobody at the top of the GOP, either. Now, as then, someone will emerge to take advantage of the situation, to further his own ambitions as well as the ambitions of the party.
-
Who says the GOP is the future?
I think a lot of people who don't like Obama realize the GOP is part of the problem. We didn't get here without the enabling of many Republicans, including some of the most influential. Even now the GOP just wants a kinder, gentler variety of Obamaism--and nice jets.
We are going to need a deep and thorough-going overhaul of the entire political process and structure, starting with things like term limits and reaching into sensitive areas like suffrage qualifications, if anything resembling America is to survive.
-
Back in '92 and '93 there was nobody at the top of the GOP, either. Now, as then, someone will emerge to take advantage of the situation, to further his own ambitions as well as the ambitions of the party.
Yep. Democrats figured that after 12 years of Republicans in the White House, with the Gipper gone, and what was seen as a general failure of the Bush presidency, that they would have no problems keeping control of the House. The Senate was iffier given the large number of open seats that had been held by Dems, but even there they were confident.
They figured the Republican base was staggered, the Democratic base was too powerful to overcome, and that the angst that had arisen in the country over Hillarycare (as one pundit called Hillary's health care commission), the huge tax increases in the budget, Gays in the Military, and a host of other smaller issues would peter out by the mid term elections.
Just a few weeks before the election Democrats were confidently predicting that they were going to add to their lead in the House.
It was an incredibly brutal shock to the Democratic party leadership when the returns started pouring in.
No one, I don't think even the Republicans, thought that they were going to pick up 54 seats in the House.
An even greater shock was the defeat of Tom Foley, the sitting speaker of the House.
-
Don't be countin' them chickens before they hatch, folks. I doubt the Repubs will pick up more than a few seats in both houses next year. There is no chance control of either house will swing the other way.
Health Care Reform will pass both houses before the end of October, Obama will sign it into law, and the electorate will put the next 13 months to good use forgetting their current angst over the issue.
-
I went by the Specter Town Hall this morning
The room was closed at 8:30 AM and there was no external feed from the facility
I talked to a cop and he said there was a line a 6:30 AM and only 400 people were let into the room
there was a milling crowd of ~150 people in the courtyard and no signs of press outside
There was a huge bus labeled Hands off my Health Care: Patients first
I saw more antis than pro universal health care people
-
Democrats were saying the same thing about the 1993 budget right up to the last few days before the election.
How did that turn out for them?
Nothing, of course, is set in stone, and it's impossible to predict the future.
But the anger levels that are brewing right now? I've not seen anything like it since the late 1970s during the end of Carter's presidency.
-
Where was it being held, Tuttle?
Penn State?
Yep, Penn State.
From the Centre Daily Times, the newspaper up there...
http://www.centredaily.com/news/local/story/1447065.html
-
Where was it being held, Tuttle?
Penn State?
Yep, Penn State.
From the Centre Daily Times, the newspaper up there...
http://www.centredaily.com/news/local/story/1447065.html
Huh, I thought that yesterday the light was beginning to dawn on him.
Instead, it appears he's been able to rationalize it away. It's all Rush Limbaugh's fault:
Specter told Democrats that the greatest difficulty in getting the health reform issues understood “is that Rush Limbaugh has the biggest audience around.”
“He’s taken over the Republican Party and now he wants to take over the country,” Specter said.
Here's the funny thing, Senator: he has that audience because of the free market. That means, he has to supply something the people want. Wonder what that says about the concerns he is voicing about healthcare?
-
Specter told Democrats that the greatest difficulty in getting the health reform issues understood “is that Rush Limbaugh has the biggest audience around.”
“He’s taken over the Republican Party and now he wants to take over the country,” Specter said.
Now he wants to take over the country? He's always said that he would retire when every single American agreed with him.
The funny thing is, after McCain was nominated, people were saying that Rush Limbaugh was over and would no longer be a significant factor. 'Course, as soon as Operation Chaos was rolled out, he was all significant again.
-
Yep. Democrats figured that after 12 years of Republicans in the White House, with the Gipper gone, and what was seen as a general failure of the Bush presidency, that they would have no problems keeping control of the House. The Senate was iffier given the large number of open seats that had been held by Dems, but even there they were confident.
They figured the Republican base was staggered, the Democratic base was too powerful to overcome, and that the angst that had arisen in the country over Hillarycare (as one pundit called Hillary's health care commission), the huge tax increases in the budget, Gays in the Military, and a host of other smaller issues would peter out by the mid term elections.
Just a few weeks before the election Democrats were confidently predicting that they were going to add to their lead in the House.
It was an incredibly brutal shock to the Democratic party leadership when the returns started pouring in.
No one, I don't think even the Republicans, thought that they were going to pick up 54 seats in the House.
An even greater shock was the defeat of Tom Foley, the sitting speaker of the House.
Don't forget the impact that the "Contract with America" had. As much as the media, libs, et al. try to down play it, many people read it and their vote said "Do It'. It was when the GOP failed to live up to their end of the contract, that the American people became disillusioned.
-
It was when the GOP failed to live up to their end of the contract, that the American people became disillusioned.
They didn't fail. They said they were going to get the issues up for a vote, which they did. People see it as a fail because all the issues didn't pass.
Brad
-
They didn't fail. They said they were going to get the issues up for a vote, which they did. People see it as a fail because all the issues didn't pass.
They've essentially given up on most of their platform, remember?
-
They didn't fail. They said they were going to get the issues up for a vote, which they did. People see it as a fail because all the issues didn't pass.
Brad
More that that.....most of the issues passed the House, but the Senate (led by Dole, McCain, and other neo-con-artists) defeated them in a spirit of "bipartisanship"....which is why I never voted for either of them in their presidential bids.... :mad:
-
They've essentially given up on most of their platform, remember?
OK, Paddy McRiley.
-
Around here the supporters of the proposed health care plan are recruited from unions and other pro-Democrat groups. They're having seminars on how to attend town hall meetings. They even get t-shirts.
The unions are going broke providing health care for their members, of course they are pimping the obama plan. They can pass off health care to the .gov and pocket the dues money.
-
The unions are going broke providing health care for their members, of course they are pimping the obama plan. They can pass off health care to the .gov and pocket the dues money.
That.
The UAW is about to get a huge chunk of cash from the carmakers to fund a trust to pay for health care for their members. If health care costs usddenly become the government's responsibility rather than the union's, then they get to keep the cash for themselves.
-
OK, Paddy McRiley.
THe Republicans controlled Congress, Senate, and the Presidency simultaneously from 2000 to 2006.
The Republicans controlled some combination of the above from 1994 to 2008.
Where is all that small government?
-
It was a goal of Reagan, and it definitely pales in comparison to the Bank Bailout of 2009, the Stimulus Plan of 2009, the Automaker's Cash Injection (aka, Cash for Clunkers) Plan of 2009, and the Socialized Medicine Plan of 2009, IMHO. I dread how much my taxes are going to climb for the 2010 year. =(
-
OK, Paddy McRiley.
Dump the Ad Hom.
-
THe Republicans controlled Congress, Senate, and the Presidency simultaneously from 2000 to 2006.
The Republicans controlled some combination of the above from 1994 to 2008.
Where is all that small government?
Congress was either mixed or Democrat for most of the 2000s, and even when the Republicans had a majority they still didn't have enough votes force bills through the Senate.
-
Congress was either mixed or Democrat for most of the 2000s, and even when the Republicans had a majority they still didn't have enough votes force bills through the Senate.
Precisely, the republicans were never even CLOSE to what the Democrats have now, and, if you'll note, even the Democrats are having problems with their agenda while having absolute total control of both houses and the presidency.
-
Precisely, the republicans were never even CLOSE to what the Democrats have now, and, if you'll note, even the Democrats are having problems with their agenda while having absolute total control of both houses and the presidency.
The 104th (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/104th_United_States_Congress) Congress was Republican controlled.
The 105th (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/105th_United_States_Congress) Congress was Republican controlled.
The 106th (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/106th_United_States_Congress) Congress was Republican controlled.
The 107th (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/107th_United_States_Congress) Congress was Republican controlled only in part (the House, whereas the Senate was evenly split)
The 108th (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/108th_United_States_Congress) Congress was Republican controlled through half the term, and the Senate was evenly split through the other.
The 109th (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/109th_United_States_Congress) Congress was Republican controlled only in part (the House, whereas the Senate was evenly split)
At no point from 1994 to 2006 was either house of Congress Democrat-controlled.
And yet you tell me that the Republican party bears no responsibility for the events in those years? True, in a large part their failure stems from the actions of moderate Republicans such as John McCain and others, but then when evaluating a party, one does so based upon the actions of the total of its mainstream membership (reasonably, a party cannot be held responsible for the actions of its more marginal members). John McCain, Sensenbrenner, and their ilk were part and parcel of the party.
If I were a liberal - which I am not - I would surely be blaming the Democrats for not getting my liberal agenda enacted. Why should people who supposedly want to see the conservative agenda enacted not blame the Republicans for not getting it done in decades?
-
Micro,
I don't understand how people such as yourself can obviously spend a great deal of time reading this board, and come away thinking that the membership here believe that the Republican Party is beyond reproach or can't be blamed for various problems. We blame it every day. We criticize it every day. Endlessly.
So when I called you Paddy McRiley, I wasn't just slinging insults. I was making the point that you have developed the same attitude. You talk about the membership here as if we were all hopelessly in love with the R party, and have total faith in the Rs to lead us to the millenium. That doesn't even remotely correspond to reality. You're fooling yourself.
What's more, it's insulting and you should stop it now.
-
Never have I implied anything of the kind about the general membership of the board. People on this very thread had argued that the GOP did not 'fail' to execute the Contract with America and could not be blamed for it not be implemented. This is the specific claim I am arguing against. I no more believe you are sheepishly following the GOP than scout26 (who also, like myself, stated the GOP was to blame), believes that. I am quite familiar with your beliefs, and oppose them on other grounds. =D
-
This what I'm talking about:
And yet you tell me that the Republican party bears no responsibility for the events in those years?
Why should people who supposedly want to see the conservative agenda enacted not blame the Republicans for not getting it done in decades?
I don't see anyone trying to absolve the Republican party of any and all guilt or responsibility. What I see is that you want to take any defense of the Republicans as a total absolution, just like some people like to take any defense of George W. Bush as a claim that he was the greatest leader in world history. These people will remain un-named. =)
-
The words "the GOP did not fail" were not my words.
It is my contention that the GOP did in fact fail to implement the Contract, and generally failed to shrink government, and that government not shrinking in these years is basically their fault. Whose fault would it be if not the people in power?
Which does not of course mean that the Democrats are nice. I do not mean this to say that the Democrats are good for America, of course they are not.
-
Oh, I see. You misunderstood Brad's words.
-
So, in essence, I am barking up the wrong tree?
-
It looked to me like Brad was saying that the 94 Republicans did indeed fulfill the contract terms, as they only promised that they could get the issues to a vote. Which in the U.S. House is an accomplishment all by itself. Since I don't remember the details, I'm just taking Brad at his word.
The rest of the apologetics from makattak, HTG, et al, are just explaining that majority control does not necessarily mean the power to pass an whole agenda, even with a friendly president.
-
It looked to me like Brad was saying that the 94 Republicans did indeed fulfill the contract terms, as they only promised that they could get the issues to a vote. Which in the U.S. House is an accomplishment all by itself. Since I don't remember the details, I'm just taking Brad at his word.
The rest of the apologetics from makattak, HTG, et al, are just explaining that majority control does not necessarily mean the power to pass an whole agenda, even with a friendly president.
Precisely. From your stats, Micro:
104th congress: Senate 53-47- not filibuster proof.
105th congress: Senate 55-45- not filibuster proof.
106th congress: Senate 55-45 (and then 54-46)- not filibuster proof.
107th congress: Senate 50-50 (and then 51-49)- not filibuster proof.
108th congress: Senate 51-49- not filibuster proof.
109th congress: Senate 55-45- not filibuster proof.
The Republicans NEVER had total control of the Senate like the Democrats. As has been pointed out, not only did they have to deal with their own squishy members opposing smaller government, they couldn't even get past Democrat objections. (E.g. Miguel Estrada).
Yes, not only did the Republicans fail to shrink government, they grew it during the past 8 years.
My point was not that the Republicans were our saviours and were foiled, but that they would have been blocked in such efforts, even if every Republican were for shrinking the government. And, as we well know, many Republicans are not for a smaller government.
-
My view is not that the Republicans would have succeeded at ramming through every single program that they tried. But they would have probably succeeded in some, and the trying was lacking.
-
Then we're all in agreement. =)
-
At no point from 1994 to 2006 was either house of Congress Democrat-controlled.
False. The Senate was Democrat controlled during the 107th Congress.
Regardless, without a filibuster proof majority (which the Republicans have never had) neither party can ram anything through. That the Democrats now have such a majority, and that they're now trying to ram through anything they want, illustrates the point.
-
False. The Senate was Democrat controlled during the 107th Congress.
Regardless, without a filibuster proof majority (which the Republicans have never had) neither party can ram anything through. That the Democrats now have such a majority, and that they're now trying to ram through anything they want, illustrates the point.
Plus, we had a President, GWB, who was not known for encouraging smaller government.
-
As a side note, I think the last time either party had a full majority in congress as well as the Presidency was when the Democrats were running the show back in the 1960's. We got the Great Society crap from that. And the last time before that, I believe, was in the 1930's when Democrats were ramming through the the New Deal programs.
-
when Democrats were ramming through the the New Deal programs.
And they saved the country from the mean rich people!!