Charles_Main
AR15 Owner
- Jun 23, 2008
- 16,692
- 2,248
A gridlock will occur if Obama and the Senate cannot reach agreement with a House dominated by a small majority of the radical right
Good Grief man they are not all Radicals.
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
A gridlock will occur if Obama and the Senate cannot reach agreement with a House dominated by a small majority of the radical right
I agree. However ,Palin will remain a GOP/Tea Party mover and shaker for many years.They kept Bush under wraps for 2 years.
IF The Tea party officially becomes a party, Palin would run under them, and not with the GOP. She would carry lots of votes but not enough to win. Many people would recall what she did to get women in ofc, and people like me will recall she quit on her state. But if she did run, obama gets in, if not, the dnc will have to find someone else.
Oh, Palin intends to leverage the Tea Party to overthrow the current GOP leadership.
No third party.
Reagan did the same thing in the 70s.
Hmm
It took a Carter to get a Reagan.
So you think
It takes an Obama to get a Palin?
I don't think so. I truly can't see her as President.
Clinton embraced Republicans' agenda and reinvented himself.
Obama won't do anyting of the sort.
Clinton did no such thing.
HUH?.....Reagan was governor of California. He used the same methids as President to control state spending and forced an economic recovery in CA, as he used to bring about economic revival for the nation.They kept Bush under wraps for 2 years.
IF The Tea party officially becomes a party, Palin would run under them, and not with the GOP. She would carry lots of votes but not enough to win. Many people would recall what she did to get women in ofc, and people like me will recall she quit on her state. But if she did run, obama gets in, if not, the dnc will have to find someone else.
Oh, Palin intends to leverage the Tea Party to overthrow the current GOP leadership.
No third party.
Reagan did the same thing in the 70s.
Not at all. The conservative wing managed to wrest control from the moderates and liberals in the party; nothing from outside the party had anything to do with it. And, it was not in the 1970s, it was in the 1980 primaries.
Another lib who thinks democrats will be in charge for eternity.Won't happen.Gridlock doesn't go far enough. Gotta roll back everything Obama has done.
My understanding is that the DNC definitely wants Sarah Palin to run in 2012
All their problems will be solved
They kept Bush under wraps for 2 years.
IF The Tea party officially becomes a party, Palin would run under them, and not with the GOP. She would carry lots of votes but not enough to win. Many people would recall what she did to get women in ofc, and people like me will recall she quit on her state. But if she did run, obama gets in, if not, the dnc will have to find someone else.
The DNC likes Palin running as a third party candidate even better
Another lib who thinks democrats will be in charge for eternity.Won't happen.Gridlock doesn't go far enough. Gotta roll back everything Obama has done.
The Left's greed for political power is insufferable.
Clinton embraced Republicans' agenda and reinvented himself.
Obama won't do anyting of the sort.
Clinton did no such thing.
Clinton triangulated after he lost 52 seats in the house in 94. He and the R's came the closest since Eisenhauer in actually balancing the budget. Clinton was smart and knew that he had to work with the R's in order to win in 96. Heck, I'd take him back in a millisecond over the disaster that's currently presiding in the white house.
Moderates have no ruddder. They vote for whom they think will win. Moderates car not for issues unless one or more rolls up their driveway. Moderates are people who usually don't watch/listen to the news, or any other media.Sarah Palin without a doubt is legitimate to the far right. She truly can reve that base up. However, she cannot take the center, moderates, or the independents. Thus, her % will be no more than 35 to 40 of the electorate. If she would accept a Romney or a Huckabee on the ticket, she could pick up another 5%. But that is as far as it could ever possibly go.
Polls are for idiots who have no desire to do their own homework.Cenk Uygur for President, Alan Grayson for Vice President!
Haha, no really.. Obama will run again in '12, he'll win again. I've yet to see one poll where he loses to a GOP candidate. Just because his approval rating isn't sky high, doesn't mean anything. Everything's about choice.. and when faced with the choice of Sarah Palin or Barack Obama.. HAHA! It's a no-brainer. And every poll I've seen, the American public agrees.
Moderates have no ruddder. They vote for whom they think will win. Moderates car not for issues unless one or more rolls up their driveway. Moderates are people who usually don't watch/listen to the news, or any other media.Sarah Palin without a doubt is legitimate to the far right. She truly can reve that base up. However, she cannot take the center, moderates, or the independents. Thus, her % will be no more than 35 to 40 of the electorate. If she would accept a Romney or a Huckabee on the ticket, she could pick up another 5%. But that is as far as it could ever possibly go.
They live in the burbs. They pay more attention to their kid's sports than anything else.
When they are not shuffling their little cupcakes to various structured activities, they close their garage doors, lower their window blinds and don't emerge from their homes until they go back to work. They are non-participants. In fact most who call themsleves moderate have the lowest registered voter turnout pct of any demographic.
Independents always tend to lean right. These are socially conscious fiscally conservative voters who pay very close attention to kitchen table issues. They most likely eschew GOP affiliation to distance themselves from hard right Christian groups. Independents will on occasion vote for socially moderate/ fiscally conservative democrats. Independents were the deciding vote that swept Heath Shuler( NC-11) into the House. Shuler is a conservative democrat. He has been a solid conservative voice on the Democrat side of the aisle.
HUH?.....Reagan was governor of California. He used the same methids as President to control state spending and forced an economic recovery in CA, as he used to bring about economic revival for the nation.Oh, Palin intends to leverage the Tea Party to overthrow the current GOP leadership.
No third party.
Reagan did the same thing in the 70s.
Not at all. The conservative wing managed to wrest control from the moderates and liberals in the party; nothing from outside the party had anything to do with it. And, it was not in the 1970s, it was in the 1980 primaries.
"In 1973, Rosenfeld was working as a particle physicist at the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory. That September, the Democratic-controlled state legislature passed a bill creating a commission to manage Californias energy policy. Ronald Reagan, then governor, vetoed it as an intrusion on free enterprise. But after the first Arab oil embargo caused energy prices to spike, two things happened. First, Reagan switched his position. Stung by popular discontent in car-conscious California, he agreed in 1974 to create what eventually became known as the California Energy Commission. Second, Rosenfeld shifted his focus toward energy efficiency, organizing a working group (which eventually became the Center for Building Science) at the laboratory. I thought, he told me dryly, we had better do such things as learning how to turn out the lights.
Californias new commission was born with something of an identity crisis: environmentalists hoped it would promote conservation, while utilities wanted it to fast-track production (particularly of nuclear power) to close a potentially crippling shortage in electricity generation. Rosenfeld, who had initially come to the commissions attention when he critiqued its first energy-efficiency standards for residential buildings, quickly proved instrumental in setting the agencys direction. In 1976, San Diego Gas & Electric Company asked the commission to approve a nuclear-power plant called Sundesert. Jerry Brown, the eclectic Democrat who succeeded Reagan as governor, didnt want to authorize the plant, but he faced pressure to close the anticipated gap between electricity demand and supply. Rosenfeld squared the circle for him, telling Brown that if the state imposed efficiency standards on refrigerators (which then consumed about 20 percent of a typical homes power), it would save at least as much electricity as Sundesert could produce. The state went on to block the Sundesert plant, and in 1977 the commission approved aggressive efficiency standards not only for refrigerators and freezers but also for air conditioners.
Efficiency just gradually took over, Rosenfeld said. In the next decade, the Energy Commission followed with efficiency standards for furnaces, dryers, swimming-pool heaters, household cooking appliances, heat pumps, showerheads, and fluorescent-lamp ballasts, among other products. Those rules became models for use in other states and, eventually, for federal appliance standards. In 1978, using a pioneering computer program developed by Rosenfeld and his colleagues, the Energy Commission opened another front by approving more-sophisticated energy-efficiency standards for new buildings. Other states, and even other countries, followed."
You're right. Mst Americans hate their HMO/PPO and the health insurance industry as a whole. They want something to change. However as the surveys and yes those dopey polls have shown, the vast majority of Americans are absolutely opposed to any type of government insurance or socialized medicine.Listen to the loons above croak their litany of doom.
Let's unscramble their inanity with common sense.
A gridlock will occur if Obama and the Senate cannot reach agreement with a House dominated by a small majority of the radical right. So, no, the House cannot well represent the will of the people, only that of a fraction that stampeded some of the primaries.
Obama will be renominated, barring death or incapacity, regardless if the economy improves or not. If it does not, the Dems are going to campaign against the Bush policies until it does.
The American people will pay attention to a struggle between the President and the House. Newt tried that, and the American people kicked him in the ass and got rid of him. As a result of the impeachment, several GOP senators were defeated that fall. The radical right should be very cautious about walking that same trail.
The health care plan will not be repealed, replaced, or even really reformed. The majority of the people want some form of the bill; only a minority want it gone. If spoon believes differently, he is out of touch with how most Americans think.
The Dems led by BHO are eagerly waiting to have a House that does nothing so that the GOP can be blamed for everything.
How would you characterize Clinton'd decsions on leaving the economy to the epxerts and the free marketplace? Success or failure?Clinton embraced Republicans' agenda and reinvented himself.
Obama won't do anyting of the sort.
Clinton did no such thing.
Clinton did no such thing.
Clinton triangulated after he lost 52 seats in the house in 94. He and the R's came the closest since Eisenhauer in actually balancing the budget. Clinton was smart and knew that he had to work with the R's in order to win in 96. Heck, I'd take him back in a millisecond over the disaster that's currently presiding in the white house.
I wouldn't. He's an Impeached
"Jan. 20 marked the fourth anniversary of the appointment of an independent counsel to investigate Bill and Hillary Clinton's 20-year-old investment in rural Arkansas property and other subsequent matters now known as "Whitewater." After four years of intensive investigations by Starr and his predecessor, the office of the independent counsel had brought no charges of illegality against the president or first lady.
To date, Whitewater independent counsels have spent $40 million of taxpayers' money. The Republican House and Senate have each held two lengthy and expensive sets of Whitewater hearings, one deliberately extended into June 1996. Throughout that campaign year, news media in Washington and New York were abuzz with rumors that at the very least, Hillary Clinton was going to be indicted. For what? For something, was the vague answer. And still, Starr made no charges of wrongdoing by the president or first lady. Indeed, once Clinton was re-elected Starr waited three months, announced his resignation and tried to slip quietly out of town, heading for an academic post at Pepperdine University in Malibu, Calif. "Hey, it was only politics," was the message. But he reversed himself days later when a media firestorm erupted.
Today we know that Starr became even more determined to dig something up on Clinton to justify his costly investigation. Now, as the possibility of a constitutional crisis looms, an examination of just how and where the charges against the Clintons began is imperative.
The evidence shows that Whitewater began with the Bush White House's attempt to use the federal bureaucracy against Clinton in the 1992 election, and included collusion with a Republican banking investigator at the Resolution Trust Corporation, the agency created to oversee the liquidation of failed S&Ls, with a deep enmity toward Clinton.
The evidence shows further that, since his first days as Whitewater independent counsel in 1994, Starr has been using his position to cover up the improper and possibly illegal actions of high Bush White House officials and Bush's attorney general against then-Gov. Clinton in the final weeks of the 1992 presidential campaign. By virtue of his office, Starr has been able to continue that coverup while relentlessly pursuing President Clinton ever since."
You are free to take that position. I happen to disagree.The GOP leadership was in DC, not in Sacramento. Don't give credit RR for things he did not do until the 1980s.
Clinton triangulated after he lost 52 seats in the house in 94. He and the R's came the closest since Eisenhauer in actually balancing the budget. Clinton was smart and knew that he had to work with the R's in order to win in 96. Heck, I'd take him back in a millisecond over the disaster that's currently presiding in the white house.
I wouldn't. He's an Impeached.....For SEX!!!
"Jan. 20 marked the fourth anniversary of the appointment of an independent counsel to investigate Bill and Hillary Clinton's 20-year-old investment in rural Arkansas property and other subsequent matters now known as "Whitewater." After four years of intensive investigations by Starr and his predecessor, the office of the independent counsel had brought no charges of illegality against the president or first lady.
To date, Whitewater independent counsels have spent $40 million of taxpayers' money. The Republican House and Senate have each held two lengthy and expensive sets of Whitewater hearings, one deliberately extended into June 1996. Throughout that campaign year, news media in Washington and New York were abuzz with rumors that at the very least, Hillary Clinton was going to be indicted. For what? For something, was the vague answer. And still, Starr made no charges of wrongdoing by the president or first lady. Indeed, once Clinton was re-elected Starr waited three months, announced his resignation and tried to slip quietly out of town, heading for an academic post at Pepperdine University in Malibu, Calif. "Hey, it was only politics," was the message. But he reversed himself days later when a media firestorm erupted.
Today we know that Starr became even more determined to dig something up on Clinton to justify his costly investigation. Now, as the possibility of a constitutional crisis looms, an examination of just how and where the charges against the Clintons began is imperative.
The evidence shows that Whitewater began with the Bush White House's attempt to use the federal bureaucracy against Clinton in the 1992 election, and included collusion with a Republican banking investigator at the Resolution Trust Corporation, the agency created to oversee the liquidation of failed S&Ls, with a deep enmity toward Clinton.
The evidence shows further that, since his first days as Whitewater independent counsel in 1994, Starr has been using his position to cover up the improper and possibly illegal actions of high Bush White House officials and Bush's attorney general against then-Gov. Clinton in the final weeks of the 1992 presidential campaign. By virtue of his office, Starr has been able to continue that coverup while relentlessly pursuing President Clinton ever since."