Nope.The Stones have just played a RAT fundraiser.
Posted on 11/26/2006 3:57:20 PM PST by 2ndDivisionVet
Tomorrow he'll say just the opposite. A man for all reasons!
"The Republicans won't have any more of a backbone now that they are the minority than they had when they were the majority."
They might without Frist. He had zero for spine.
The nuclear option, as discussed in the Republican context, would have forced an up-or-down vote on a presidential nomination of a judge. There is zero likelihood that the Democrats will be desperate to do that in the next two years.And, historically, when the Democrats have had the majority and the WH, Republicans haven't filibustered - and I don't expect that to change in future.
The situation is asymmetrical, in that Democrats take the political tack of Big Journalism - and in consequence, they always have the propaganda wind at their backs. That's why when Reagan vetoed a budget, Reagan shut down the government - but when Clinton vetoed a budget, the Republican House "shut down the government." And the Republicans folded like a cheap camera. Frustrating, isn't it?
Frist shouldn't have allowed that to happen; that's why he failed as a leader.
lol slurp slurp!
Nope.The Stones have just played a RAT fundraiser.
Pat's only flaw is that he backed Carter. So did my parents, ONCE, but Pat still does. :-)
Liberal he may be, but he usually is a man of sense and if he was the main man the Democrats turned to for advice the Dems would have picked up more seats. Infact, they might never have dug themselves a hole to begin with.
This is very strange that Pat Caudell thinks the Rats are so scary that they will lose both houses again in 2008, yet he does not think Jimmy Carter is scary? I think Jimmah is the scariest Rat there is, and the worst President we ever had.
Well, I can't say for certain 2008 would have been assured. That is dependent on a candidate chosen to an extent in '08. But agree with the gist of what you said.
There were more Dems seats up then Rep in the Senate in states usually more favorable to Reps. More districts favorable to conservative policy and by default Republican. The Governor's houses probably would have had a drop or two, but the other two Houses should have seen gains for Republicans despite historical trends.
So what do the Reps do? Spend two years allowing McCain and Lott to sabotage them and promoting bi-patisanship with LIBERALS. Oh, yeah, that was the way to prepare for a year when the people you needed to appeal to for votes live in states/districts more favorable to conservatism.
You know, I could have a least slightly understood the calculated sense of doing that in 2008. With more Rep seats up then Dem, in states slightly more favorable to Dems/liberalism on whole. But the idiots for some reason I will NEVER understand thought being more Liberal in 2006 with states/districts favoring conservatism by majority was the way to go. Instead of gaining seats, they then lose.
I'm with you on not taking the competance of the Republicans for granted. Had they tacked right the last two years unapologetically and kept some promises (like breaking judicial filibusters) they might have been close to 60 seats in the Senate and a couple seats more in the House, at most only a couple lost in the House.
Now Coleman, Smith, etc are up in '08 in a Presidential year and it'll be hard for them to hang on. And I've NO confidence in the GOP realizing it needs to target conservative states with Dem Senatorial incumbents hard. The way they did aschle. After alll, they let half a dozen go this last go around.
We're fighting a war. Our military needs appropriations for salaries, armaments, rations, equipment, fuel, and supplies--without any poison pills, surrender mandates, or redeployment orders. I doubt that Congress will pass any military appropriations whatsoever over the next biennium that do not succumb to the Presidential veto. The consequent lack of funding will leave our fighting men and women without money to support their families and cannibalizing our arsenals, stockpiles, and reserves. It won't be pretty. We should hope for stasis over the next biennium, deferring victory to the succeeding Presidency.
And our posterity depends existentially upon the 2008 election. If the Democrats and therefore the enemies of the United States prevail, then we can stick our heads between our legs and kiss our butts goodbye as our nation falls to the insurgent hegemony of the ascendant Iranian nuclear superpower.
.
Not so long ago...
...t'was the Democrats' post-WATERGATE Congress that cutoff a then Free South Vietnam's Military & Medical funding, bringing for all to tragically see in the end:
Pictures of a vietnamese Re-Education Camp
http://www.Freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1308949/posts
Putting a deep sadness on GOD's Face.
NEVER AGAIN..!!!
Signed:
"ALOHA RONNIE" Guyer
1stCavDivisionVet 1965-66
http://www.lzxray.com/guyer_set1.htm
http://www.lzxray.com/guyer_collection.htm
.
If the Republicans Senators had any stones we would not be in this situation. Democrats have been bashing the President, House members, and Senators for over 5 years and few, if any, stood up and fought back. Republicans were seen by the electorate as having no fight in them and that is why, in my opinion, they voted in Democrats.
The last thing in the world that we need are MORE LAWS, MORE BUREAUCRACY, MORE AND BIGGER CONTROLLING/INTRUSIVE GOVERNMENT.
Gridlock? BRING IT ON!!!
The Democrats will teach us a lesson about the "Gentlemens Fillabuster" and we'll be reading out of the phone book if we have the nerve to press the issue, but I think that is good because maybe the Republicans will finally learn that no matter how they try, they will never get the Rats to love them.
Good thing is, there are only 5 RINOs left in the Senate, which means McConnell will have 44 Republicans to work to stop Democratic crap. (Far more than the 40 needed for a filibuster)
McConnel said on Face the Nation a couple weekends ago that the "Democrats will get what they gave". Which I would take as McConnell is going to stand up and fight.
2008 will likely see the Democrats picking up a 1-2 Senate Seats. As the Democrats have strong targets in CO, VA, OR, MN, NM, and NH, while the Republicans will only have weak chances in MT, SD, IA, LA, and MA and DE if Kerry and Biden run for President. As for the House, Republicans will probably pick up a couple seats, and if they are lucky, take back the House. However, it ultimatly decides on the Presidential Turnout, if the Republican is trouncing the Democrat, Republicans will do better and via versa.
Didn't he threaten to veto the fence long ago?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.