Be careful what you wish for, GOP

#26
#26
lawgator1 said:
If they limited themselves to reasonable starting points on budgets and what not, they'd be far better off come '16. I am 100 % sure that the leadership will preach this, and try to keep the Cruz's and Bacchman's in line. But there is going to be an immediate surge from them to try to turn it into just an opportunity to lash out at Obama.

While perhaps personally satisfying to them, and likely to make their numbers at home at least temporarily spike, it just plays right into the Dems hands come 2016.
Click to expand...

I agree they do not need to lash out at Obama, but disagree on spending. They need to take a hard line on spending and force a veto. Take a hard line on Keystone, make him veto or HR block the vote. Force some transparency on subjects like Benghazi and the IRS without going directly at Obama. Make Obama have to step in to protect his subordinates making himself look like he's hiding something.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#27
#27
lawgator1 said:
I don't think you quite understand...

Because Obama can veto any outside pitches, there's zero risk for the Dems, and nothing but Dem upside politically, for the GOP to go off the deep end...as even diehard GOPers must confess has occasionally been their penchant.
Click to expand...

It'll only help next elections
 
#28
#28
LouderVol said:
not just coming after you but many in this thread. But i lol at how its 'obstruction' when one party refuses to budge but when the other does it it's fine. we have no idea which sides 'plans' would actually work because neither actually gets it implemented usually because of their own obtuseness.
Click to expand...

How can what the House has been doing be considered obstructionist when King Putt's idea of compromise is for them to "pass my legislation, and then we can sit down and talk about it"? Fairy Reid won't bring ANYTHING that remotely resembles controversial to his boy because he doesn't want him to have to look for his veto pen in the bottom of his golf bag.
 
#29
#29
lawgator1 said:
If they limited themselves to reasonable starting points on budgets and what not, they'd be far better off come '16. I am 100 % sure that the leadership will preach this, and try to keep the Cruz's and Bacchman's in line. But there is going to be an immediate surge from them to try to turn it into just an opportunity to lash out at Obama.

While perhaps personally satisfying to them, and likely to make their numbers at home at least temporarily spike, it just plays right into the Dems hands come 2016.
Click to expand...

Sadly this is probably true. They should just send decent, reasonable amendments to Obama's abortion of a law and have him veto them. No fuss.. just reasonable legislation. He will be an impotent lame duck in 2 weeks (hopefully), and it will be so much easier to destroy the socialist party when he comes off as looking like the head of that party that has no interest in making a crappy law less crappy.
 
#30
#30
hog88 said:
I agree they do not need to lash out at Obama, but disagree on spending. They need to take a hard line on spending and force a veto. Take a hard line on Keystone, make him veto or HR block the vote. Force some transparency on subjects like Benghazi and the IRS without going directly at Obama. Make Obama have to step in to protect his subordinates making himself look like he's hiding something.
Click to expand...


I was with you until Benghazi and IRS faux scandals. There's no way to make that not be about Obama. Their entire genesis is to try to gin up some hatred for him.

But you are right on the economic stuff. That would put the pressure on Obama and the Dems.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#31
#31
lawgator1 said:
I was with you until Benghazi and IRS faux scandals. There's no way to make that not be about Obama. Their entire genesis is to try to gin up some hatred for him.

But you are right on the economic stuff. That would put the pressure on Obama and the Dems.
Click to expand...

Easy to do it without a direct frontal assault on Obama, especially with the IRS scandal. Everyone hates the IRS and believes they're out of control, frame the hearings as an investigation into general IRS misdeeds. Offer Louis Learner complete immunity and at the onset never ask her a public question about the targeting.

Benghazi, just wait until 2016 and have a State Department security procedures hearing.
 
#32
#32
lawgator1 said:
I was with you until Benghazi and IRS faux scandals. There's no way to make that not be about Obama. Their entire genesis is to try to gin up some hatred for him.

But you are right on the economic stuff. That would put the pressure on Obama and the Dems.
Click to expand...

no need to rehash proven scandals again. The only person left in complete denial that they happened is lawgator.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#33
#33
hog88 said:
Easy to do it without a direct frontal assault on Obama, especially with the IRS scandal. Everyone hates the IRS and believes they're out of control, frame the hearings as an investigation into general IRS misdeeds. Offer Louis Learner complete immunity and at the onset never ask her a public question about the targeting.

Benghazi, just wait until 2016 and have a State Department security procedures hearing.
Click to expand...

Hopefully the Lois Lerner thing will drag out until Bumblebrain is out of office, because I am sure she is near the very top of his pardon list. If she goes in with a new president, she'll do at least 4 years... hopefully a lot longer.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#36
#36
Franklin Pierce said:
The likes of Corker, Alexander, Rubio, Rand Paul. Every one of these senators wants Amnesty for Illegal Aliens. There are many more.
Click to expand...

You consider any republican senator that is willing to sit down and work with the other side as liberals, correct?
 
#40
#40
Gramps said:
By that standard you are calling Ronald Reagan a liberal.
Click to expand...

Reagan gave amnesty to more than one million illegal aliens, and this action by Reagan began the great wave of illegal aliens into the U.S.

Reagan promised to eliminate the departments of Education and Energy, but did not even try to do so.

Reagan promised to put an end to Abortion, but he never even tried to do so.

Reagan traded Arms for hostages.

Reagan promised to decrease Entitlements, but instead he Increased those entitlements.

Reagan promised to decrease the size of the federal government, but instead that size ballooned under his watch.

Reagan and his wife consulted Astrologers, a truly conservative quirk.

Reagan promised, "...to move boldly, decisively, and quickly to control the runaway growth of federal spending". Failure.
 
#41
#41
Franklin Pierce said:
Reagan gave amnesty to more than one million illegal aliens, and this action by Reagan began the great wave of illegal aliens into the U.S.

Reagan promised to eliminate the departments of Education and Energy, but did not even try to do so.

Reagan promised to put an end to Abortion, but he never even tried to do so.

Reagan traded Arms for hostages.

Reagan promised to decrease Entitlements, but instead he Increased those entitlements.

Reagan promised to decrease the size of the federal government, but instead that size ballooned under his watch.

Reagan and his wife consulted Astrologers, a truly conservative quirk.

Reagan promised, "...to move boldly, decisively, and quickly to control the runaway growth of federal spending". Failure.
Click to expand...
What a president made promises he did not keep even the "great" Ronald Reagan I'm shocked I tell ya just shocked.
 
#42
#42
Franklin Pierce said:
Reagan gave amnesty to more than one million illegal aliens, and this action by Reagan began the great wave of illegal aliens into the U.S.

Reagan promised to eliminate the departments of Education and Energy, but did not even try to do so.

Reagan promised to put an end to Abortion, but he never even tried to do so.

Reagan traded Arms for hostages.

Reagan promised to decrease Entitlements, but instead he Increased those entitlements.

Reagan promised to decrease the size of the federal government, but instead that size ballooned under his watch.

Reagan and his wife consulted Astrologers, a truly conservative quirk.

Reagan promised, "...to move boldly, decisively, and quickly to control the runaway growth of federal spending". Failure.
Click to expand...

As bad as you say Regan was just think. Other than Ike there hasn't been a POTUS within the last 100 years who's came close to being as good.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#43
#43
Franklin Pierce said:
Reagan gave amnesty to more than one million illegal aliens, and this action by Reagan began the great wave of illegal aliens into the U.S.

Reagan promised to eliminate the departments of Education and Energy, but did not even try to do so.

Reagan promised to put an end to Abortion, but he never even tried to do so.

Reagan traded Arms for hostages.

Reagan promised to decrease Entitlements, but instead he Increased those entitlements.

Reagan promised to decrease the size of the federal government, but instead that size ballooned under his watch.

Reagan and his wife consulted Astrologers, a truly conservative quirk.

Reagan promised, "...to move boldly, decisively, and quickly to control the runaway growth of federal spending". Failure.
Click to expand...


So the bar was set pretty low to be a great president & Barry couldn't even come close.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 3 people
#48
#48
hog88 said:
You're welcome to offer a rebuttal.
Click to expand...
Well thanks for the invite. Since I was not alive for many of the presidents over the last one hundred years I can only go by the information at hand and that is how the electorate at the time of that presidency felt about that presidency and by the information I could gather Roosevelt and Eisenhower were both looked on more favorably and Clinton is right there with Reagan I did not count Kennedy since he did not finish one term.
Presidential Approval for President Roosevelt
Presidential Approval for President Eisenhower
Presidential Approval for President Reagan
Presidential Approval for President Clinton
 
#49
#49
DAVOL said:
Well thanks for the invite. Since I was not alive for many of the presidents over the last one hundred years I can only go by the information at hand and that is how the electorate at the time of that presidency felt about that presidency and by the information I could gather Roosevelt and Eisenhower were both looked on more favorably and Clinton is right there with Reagan I did not count Kennedy since he did not finish one term.
Presidential Approval for President Roosevelt
Presidential Approval for President Eisenhower
Presidential Approval for President Reagan
Presidential Approval for President Clinton
Click to expand...

I wouldn't even consider the man who gave us the "New Deal" and set the stage for WWII a great POTUS.
Clinton should have an alter devoted to Newt and thank him daily for his second term.
Kennedy came a nat's hair from starting WWIII plus he was a serial adultere.
 
#50
#50
hog88 said:
I wouldn't even consider the man who gave us the "New Deal" and set the stage for WWII a great POTUS.
Clinton should have an alter devoted to Newt and thank him daily for his second term.
Kennedy came a nat's hair from starting WWIII plus he was a serial adultere.
Click to expand...
And like I said your OPINION does not make it fact.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 3 people
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top