Replies

In some cases, a GOP POTUS is more dangerous than a Dem, because the Senate GOP will oppose a Dem POTUS’s amnesty.

That's such an important point, that the font deserves to be red, larger, italicized, and emboldened.

George W. Bush was one of the best examples I can think of. His relationship with the House and Senate qualify him as such.

A well meaning man that doesn't get it, is far worse than a rather devious man with little drive.

If a president on our side doesn't get it...

1. He won't push for rolling back Leftist policy
       a. when the Dems get control again, they start right where they left off...
       b. if he drives Leftist policy through, they can actually start off even further down the road to Leftist nirvana than where they left off...
       c. before we get control again, we're way farther down the road toward Leftist nirvana than when we left off, and then the process starts over again
2. He will push for at least some Leftist policy
        a. When this happens, there's no natural enemy of the policy
        b. the RINO president wants it
        c. the Republican controlled House doesn't object because his party is in charge
        d. the Republican controlled Senate doesn't object either because his party is in charge
3. Absolutely terrible legislation can be driven through with almost unanimous agreement
       a. the RINO president wants it
       b. his own party members will want to support him
       d. his natural enemies on the Left will be inclined to agree with the terrible Leftist policy because that's their bread and butter
4. The checks and balances of the two Congressional chambers will be reduced to only a few die-hard loyalists to Conservatism
       a. the vast majority of Republicans will vote for the terrible legislation
       b. the vast majority of the Democrats will vote for it
       c. even at the very best, enough RINO Republicans will support the president by peeling off to join Democrats in providing a majority in favor of the bad legislation

Absolutely abysmal national legislation supported by a Republlican President will amost certainly become law.

Look what has happened just since January 21st, 1997, with regard to our national debt. I'm going to address the national debt, because it is perhaps the most clearly definable bell-weather stat we can point to that exemplifies exactly the dynamic we're discussing here.

When Clinton was sworn in, the national debt (Statement January 31st, 1997) was $5,227,348. This was reported in millions, so that was actually $5.227 trillion dollars.
When Bush was sworn in, the national debt (Statement January 31st, 2001) was $5,636,375. This was reported in millions, so that was actually $5.636 trillion dollars.
When Bush was sworn in the second time, the national debt (Statement January 31st, 2005) was $7,567,702. This was reported in millions, so that was actually $7.568 trillion dollars.
When Obama was sworn in, the national debt (Statement January 31st, 2009) was $10,569,310. This was reported in millions, so that was actually $10.569 trillion dollars.
As of last month under Obama (Jan 2012), the national debt (Statement January 31st, 2012) was $15,313,699. This was reported in millions, so that was actually $15,314 trillion dollars.

With regard to fiscal matters, the adversarial Republican controlled House and Senate came down hard on the Clinton White House. His second term, Nation Debt grew by 7.83%.¹
You see folks, the Republicans can do much better things, when they adhere to sound principles. Above they proved that against an adversarial White House.
Then the non-adversarial Republican controlled House and Senate relaxed fiscal policy on the Bush White House. His first term, Nation Debt grew by 35.9%.¹
The non-adversarial Republican controlled House and Senate continued their relaxed fiscal policy on the Bush White House. His second term, Nation Debt grew by 38.0%.¹
Summation, Bush Presidency: The non-adversarial Republican controlled House and Senate teamed up with Bush to blow out the nation debt by 87.5% over his two terms in office.^{1 & 2}
        Some folks will look at the $4.933 trillion dollar debt growth under Bush and blame it all on the War on Terrorism. I would urge folks not to go there. Estimates I have studied, don't back this perception. See Footnote 2
Now under the Obama Presidency: The Republican controlled House continues to allow our president to accumulate debt at an alarming rate, 44.9% in just three years a/o Jan. 31st, 2012.¹

As much as I may hate to address it this way, our nation is under attack from both political parties. I gain no joy from stating this, but this is something we must face to turn things around.

We now have a time frame where we might be able to install a fiscal Conservative President, and have a House and Senate from his same party. The problem is, After the Bush term and the abysmal actions on behalf of this Republican controlled House, how do you go out to the public and ask for full control of the House and Senate. What do you base that on, the 44.9% growth the Republican majority House allowed under Obama over the last three years.

This leads me to my next big reason why a RINO at the helm is so dangerous. He destroys the Conservative brand. Speaker John Boehner and company have killed any chance we could have at claiming to be the party of fiscal Conservatives.

You take the one-two punch of a Boehner House of Representatives trailing a Bush melt-down going into another General election... and you've got one mell of a hess.

Obama has destoryed himself on the public stage. So have we. Our guys stood by and watched as he did whatever he wanted. We don't really deserve to win this fall, but by the grace of God we may. There should be absolutely no doubt about the outcome this November in a right-side up world. We don't live in a right-side up world any longer.

RINOs tag teamed to bring this upon us. Several presidents without a clue, and a Congress acting as their willing accomplice has brought us to this point.

We are adrift in a sea of political confusion, due to the actions of one man who couldn't get out of our own way.

We made one of the biggest mistakes in our nation's history, when our party solidified the nomination for president of the United States in 2000.

Look at what it led to. The debt, the declining economy, nomination of the worst candidate in Republican history, the installation of the worst president in U. S. history...

Footnotes:

1. These growth percentage figures here should be referenced with respect to their relative value compared to the total national debt accrued since our nation's inception.   This much growth took place in four or eight years, compared to the national debt accumulated since our nation's inception, some 220+ years earlier through the approximate swearing in of each president. These figures represent a staggering growth of Debt, so much so that it becomes an actual threat to our nation.
2.    2-01: Please don't be confused by trying to add 35.9% to 38.0%, to quickly find the percentage of national debt growth under Bush. 38% growth on $7.568 trillion is considerable more than 35.9% growth on $5.636 trillion.
        2-02: Some folks will look at the $4.933 trillion dollar debt growth under Bush and blame it all on the War on Terrorism. I would urge folks not to go there. Estimates I have studied, don't back this perception.
                        Reference: cost of WoT 01 cost of WoT 02 cost of WoT 03 cost of WoT 04 cost of WoT 05

01 CNN heralds a Congressional estimation that the cost of the WoT was going past the $1 trillion dollar mark
02 Congressional Research Service figures on the cost of the WoT
03 is CNN's effort to provide an estimate for costs for the War on Terrorism since it's inception, and also provides some intersting figures concerning costs as compared to GDPs
04 is the LAT effort circa 09/18/11 to address foreign and domestic spending on the WoT. Even then with what I beleive are bloated numbers, they peg the WoT as accounting for only 25% of our increased debt
05 is an interesting tool, but specifics, the validation, and how it reached it's conlusions, are not there

There are much larger estimates of the cost of the WoT, but at the end of the day most of them are clearely Leftist efforts to discredit the war. Other information inclued in some of them are startlingly anti-U.S., and I would caution folks not to get too wraped up in those figures. If so, you'll be risking a big chance of buying lock stock and barrel the propaganda of the Left.