More from Barney Frank
- Thread starter oscardeuce
- Start date
reefraff
Active Member
Originally Posted by kjr_trig
http:///forum/post/3120706
Did anyone else see that if the election were held today, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid would be demolished by his Republican opponent.....The winds of change.
Harry Reid is in a tough area for a Democrat to win. The guy is supposedly pro life and fairly old school as far as Democrats go. Being the Senate leader has made him kinda the poster child for the leftist agenda being pushed by those with the power. Reid is more of a puppet than a leader. In any case it isn't playing well in his state.
http:///forum/post/3120706
Did anyone else see that if the election were held today, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid would be demolished by his Republican opponent.....The winds of change.
Harry Reid is in a tough area for a Democrat to win. The guy is supposedly pro life and fairly old school as far as Democrats go. Being the Senate leader has made him kinda the poster child for the leftist agenda being pushed by those with the power. Reid is more of a puppet than a leader. In any case it isn't playing well in his state.
reefraff
Active Member
Originally Posted by uneverno
http:///forum/post/3120754
To paraphrase Mr. Clemens (among others),
there are lies, there are damn lies, there are statistics - and then there are polls.
Midterm elections are coming up soon. I predict a Republican Congress and no change in policy.
I bet money that Obama is rooting for a Republican take over or at least major gains. His trying to blame Republican obstruction for the failure of some of his agenda isn't flying with such strong Democrat majorities in congress. It's Bushes fault is wearing thin too.
http:///forum/post/3120754
To paraphrase Mr. Clemens (among others),
there are lies, there are damn lies, there are statistics - and then there are polls.
Midterm elections are coming up soon. I predict a Republican Congress and no change in policy.
I bet money that Obama is rooting for a Republican take over or at least major gains. His trying to blame Republican obstruction for the failure of some of his agenda isn't flying with such strong Democrat majorities in congress. It's Bushes fault is wearing thin too.
ironeagle2006
Active Member
There are also Rumblings that Here in OBAMALAND aka Illinois that a Downstater might have a chance to win in the Governor Elcetion. For one reason Blagelovich and his making Chicago look Dirter than a Sewer.
reefraff
Active Member
Some are predicting a double dip recession. If that were to happen (I don't think it will) I think the republicans would have a shot at the house but not the senate. Unless something huge comes down not even the media love affair with Obama will keep 2010 from being a Republican year.
uneverno
Active Member
Originally Posted by reefraff
http:///forum/post/3120851
I bet money that Obama is rooting for a Republican take over or at least major gains. His trying to blame Republican obstruction for the failure of some of his agenda isn't flying with such strong Democrat majorities in congress. It's Bushes fault is wearing thin too.
I cannot disagree. I'm sure Bush felt the same way.
The trouble I have as a constituent is that the blaming the other party thing is completely worn out.
I'd like to make 175k a year + full medical at Johns Hopkins, an awesome pension package and no SS deductions, simply for pointing fingers, dodging questions and towing the party line for 5 years.
Pretty sure I'm your guy.
Except for that little morality concept I can't seem to delete from my internal hard drive...
http:///forum/post/3120851
I bet money that Obama is rooting for a Republican take over or at least major gains. His trying to blame Republican obstruction for the failure of some of his agenda isn't flying with such strong Democrat majorities in congress. It's Bushes fault is wearing thin too.
I cannot disagree. I'm sure Bush felt the same way.
The trouble I have as a constituent is that the blaming the other party thing is completely worn out.
I'd like to make 175k a year + full medical at Johns Hopkins, an awesome pension package and no SS deductions, simply for pointing fingers, dodging questions and towing the party line for 5 years.
Pretty sure I'm your guy.
Except for that little morality concept I can't seem to delete from my internal hard drive...
reefraff
Active Member
Originally Posted by uneverno
http:///forum/post/3121449
P.S.
Please don't get me wrong - while we may disagree - I'm not saying my idea of morality is superior to yours or anyone else's.
I'm saying that in order to be a politician, all concepts of morality need to be abandoned.
That isn't true. There are a few successful politicians who are straight shooters. Not many but some.
http:///forum/post/3121449
P.S.
Please don't get me wrong - while we may disagree - I'm not saying my idea of morality is superior to yours or anyone else's.
I'm saying that in order to be a politician, all concepts of morality need to be abandoned.
That isn't true. There are a few successful politicians who are straight shooters. Not many but some.
uneverno
Active Member
Originally Posted by reefraff
http:///forum/post/3121546
That isn't true. There are a few successful politicians who are straight shooters. Not many but some.
OK, that is a fair statement, IMO.
I do believe that there are straight shooters on both sides, though.
The question to me is: In the overall game of politics, whether or not you or I agree with their stated policy, what difference can what we percieve to be the miniscule amount of integrity left make at this point?
I'm trying very hard not to load the question, but I don't think I'm succeeding. Do you get my point though?
http:///forum/post/3121546
That isn't true. There are a few successful politicians who are straight shooters. Not many but some.
OK, that is a fair statement, IMO.
I do believe that there are straight shooters on both sides, though.
The question to me is: In the overall game of politics, whether or not you or I agree with their stated policy, what difference can what we percieve to be the miniscule amount of integrity left make at this point?
I'm trying very hard not to load the question, but I don't think I'm succeeding. Do you get my point though?
reefraff
Active Member
Originally Posted by uneverno
http:///forum/post/3121582
OK, that is a fair statement, IMO.
I do believe that there are straight shooters on both sides, though.
The question to me is: In the overall game of politics, whether or not you or I agree with their stated policy, what difference can what we percieve to be the miniscule amount of integrity left make at this point?
I'm trying very hard not to load the question, but I don't think I'm succeeding. Do you get my point though?
If you mean "In either case we are screwed" I would agree. The reason I tend to vote for Republicans is their goal is smaller government. Not that I think they come close to living up to that goal but look what we have with 6 months of Liberals running the show. Like the Ossiah's policies or not there is no debating the fact he has exploded the size of government. This just reinforces my belief that big government liberalism is a very bad thing. That doesn't mean I think the Republicans are great, just lest damaging than the Democrats.
http:///forum/post/3121582
OK, that is a fair statement, IMO.
I do believe that there are straight shooters on both sides, though.
The question to me is: In the overall game of politics, whether or not you or I agree with their stated policy, what difference can what we percieve to be the miniscule amount of integrity left make at this point?
I'm trying very hard not to load the question, but I don't think I'm succeeding. Do you get my point though?
If you mean "In either case we are screwed" I would agree. The reason I tend to vote for Republicans is their goal is smaller government. Not that I think they come close to living up to that goal but look what we have with 6 months of Liberals running the show. Like the Ossiah's policies or not there is no debating the fact he has exploded the size of government. This just reinforces my belief that big government liberalism is a very bad thing. That doesn't mean I think the Republicans are great, just lest damaging than the Democrats.
uneverno
Active Member
Yeah, essentially that's it. I try to be pragmatic about it. I don't want one party rule on any level - look what the Dems have done to CA. Plus that can lead to other, worse disasters.
I tend to vote for the opposite party in Congress vs. the Presidency. I think the roadblock is beneficial.
I also think that, on a national level, the Democrats are slightly better at foreign policy than the Republicans are, and I consider that important.
I'd still like to see a viable third party which could force a coalition type govt., but neither the D's nor the R's will allow that, and it's they who write the rules.
In other words, we still have a representative republic as long as the representative is chosen by the party first and the people second...
I'm uncomfortable with that regardless of party affiliation.
I tend to vote for the opposite party in Congress vs. the Presidency. I think the roadblock is beneficial.
I also think that, on a national level, the Democrats are slightly better at foreign policy than the Republicans are, and I consider that important.
I'd still like to see a viable third party which could force a coalition type govt., but neither the D's nor the R's will allow that, and it's they who write the rules.
In other words, we still have a representative republic as long as the representative is chosen by the party first and the people second...
I'm uncomfortable with that regardless of party affiliation.
reefraff
Active Member
Originally Posted by uneverno
http:///forum/post/3121856
Yeah, essentially that's it. I try to be pragmatic about it. I don't want one party rule on any level - look what the Dems have done to CA. Plus that can lead to other, worse disasters.
I tend to vote for the opposite party in Congress vs. the Presidency. I think the roadblock is beneficial.
I also think that, on a national level, the Democrats are slightly better at foreign policy than the Republicans are, and I consider that important.
I'd still like to see a viable third party which could force a coalition type govt., but neither the D's nor the R's will allow that, and it's they who write the rules.
In other words, we still have a representative republic as long as the representative is chosen by the party first and the people second...
I'm uncomfortable with that regardless of party affiliation.
Hey, all the good stuff in the 90's happened when the Republicans booted the dems and did battle with Clinton. The divided government thing does seem to be the best solution however it didn't seem to do a thing for us when the Dems took congress in 06. I don't agree that Dems are better at foreign policy. For all the left's whining and moaning about Bush being a cowboy we haven't been attacked again home or abroad. You don't think Al Qeada would love to hit us outside the battlefield areas? People say the world doesn't respect us but when have they? We've been taking crap since the 50's. The Euro's loved Clinton and Hated Bush, so what? They hated Reagan too. They don't like conservatives. They hated Thatcher as well.
http:///forum/post/3121856
Yeah, essentially that's it. I try to be pragmatic about it. I don't want one party rule on any level - look what the Dems have done to CA. Plus that can lead to other, worse disasters.
I tend to vote for the opposite party in Congress vs. the Presidency. I think the roadblock is beneficial.
I also think that, on a national level, the Democrats are slightly better at foreign policy than the Republicans are, and I consider that important.
I'd still like to see a viable third party which could force a coalition type govt., but neither the D's nor the R's will allow that, and it's they who write the rules.
In other words, we still have a representative republic as long as the representative is chosen by the party first and the people second...
I'm uncomfortable with that regardless of party affiliation.
Hey, all the good stuff in the 90's happened when the Republicans booted the dems and did battle with Clinton. The divided government thing does seem to be the best solution however it didn't seem to do a thing for us when the Dems took congress in 06. I don't agree that Dems are better at foreign policy. For all the left's whining and moaning about Bush being a cowboy we haven't been attacked again home or abroad. You don't think Al Qeada would love to hit us outside the battlefield areas? People say the world doesn't respect us but when have they? We've been taking crap since the 50's. The Euro's loved Clinton and Hated Bush, so what? They hated Reagan too. They don't like conservatives. They hated Thatcher as well.
deejeff442
Active Member
amazing how countries hate the usa but when something happens to them we are the first to help them and they have no problem taking it.