Posted on 12/23/2012 2:02:43 AM PST by Olog-hai
Florida Rep. Allen West is suggesting the House is no longer a player in the fiscal cliff negotiations following the rejection by Republicans of Speaker John Boehner's “Plan B” tax bill, which was aimed at forcing the president into a larger deficit reduction deal.
The Republican caucus, according to some political observers, is now in chaos and unable to agree among themselves on anything.
But West insisted in an interview with Fox News’ Sean Hannity Thursday night that Republicans did the right thing in refusing to go along with Boehner’s plan to increase the tax rate on the affluent even though it would have protected the current rates for most Americans. …
(Excerpt) Read more at newsmax.com ...
I wonder what the drunken little weasel who will be taking over West’s seat thinks about the “fiscal cliff”?
Next year the R controlled house will accept and pass Obama’s terms of surrender, which will make plan B look like a dream.
This past session of the R controlled house (2011 to 2012) big accomplishment was passing 33 symbolic repeals of O-care that changed nothing. What a huge waste of a God given opportunity election 2010. Rs are the loser party.
There is the symbolism party versus the results party, Rs play silly games and Dems go to win and get what they want.
“But West insisted” the GOP did the right thing.
I’ll call your biased article and raise you one:
Not only did the GOP-dominated House accomplish nothing the past two years, but they were guilty of repeated grandstanding and self-backslapping as they tried to deceive us into thinking; 1) they’d made cuts that they hadn’t and 2) they were not capable of stopping spending because they only controlled ‘one-sixth’ of the federal government.
Of course they are the symbolism party in the House. What could they have passed that would have made it past an entrenched Democrat controlled Senate and a dictatorial president? We had our chance to control the senate in November and the voters blew it. Now all we get for the next two years from the House is more of the same.
Their agenda for America is nothing but destruction.
4 years of passing bills in the House only to have them shot down or declared ‘non-starters’ by the obsinate LEFT.
Who wouldn’t be fed up? I certainly am. Let them come to terms with their own, let me know when and if that happens. At this point, I could care less whether the whole thing shuts down. And if it does, the Left owns it lock, stock and barrel.
I wonder what the drunken little weasel who will be taking over West’s seat thinks about the “fiscal cliff”?
And as a CPA how he rationalizes “ non action” on the short /long term
Realities of medicare and SS.
The House Republicans still hold the most powerful tool: the ability to de-fund any socialist program of Obama’s they can agree on.
No more excuses, please!
“Next year the R controlled house will accept and pass Obama’s terms of surrender, which will make plan B look like a dream.”
Plan B was a SHAM, which is why the Reps revolted. It did NOTHING to reduce the deficit, and it arguably would have driven rich people further away from paying taxes and hurt the country more than it helped.
I’m not so sure the Reps will bend over and take it, like you suggest. For the past two years, they were told, time and time again, to give the president whatever he wants, and then we’ll take EVERYTHING (White House and Senate) in 2012. But if they fought back then, the media would tarnish them as extremists and they wouldn’t get anywhere. So they played nice and even nominated the most moderate person we could - all to get that positive press that Boener promised would lead to glory.
Didn’t happen - Boener didn’t keep his end of the deal. The Reps have nothing to lose now - they might as well make a stand (which actually just started last Thursday, to be exact). If the suck it up again, the base stays home in 2014, just as it did in 2006 when we gave the House to Pelosi. If they fight, maybe the base comes out in 2014. The only sure thing is that sucking up, again, hands the House back to Pelosi in 2014 - and THEY KNOW IT.
“Of course they are the symbolism party in the House. What could they have passed that would have made it past an entrenched Democrat controlled Senate and a dictatorial president? We had our chance to control the senate in November and the voters blew it. Now all we get for the next two years from the House is more of the same.”
Don’t blame the voters, blame the nutcases that ran for Senate that were able to make the 2012 election all about women, rather than the economy. We’d probably have the Senate if it wasn’t for that. And Rush didn’t help either.
“Don’t blame the voters, blame the nutcases that ran for Senate that were able to make the 2012 election all about women, rather than the economy.”
Right! Blame the “Nutty on the Right” who were “successful” in nominating the likes of Akin and Mourdock (and O’Donnell and Angle two years previous). We can’t nominate whack jobs for the Senate and get them elected. Sure, somehow they each appealed to a smaller segment of their state’s populous in previous offices. But when you run for a Senate seat, you need to be an adult with a reasoned approach to conservatism. And yet you watch, there are people here on FR who will start the “amen chorus” against what I am saying. Just wait and watch, there are a bunch of screwballs here on FR who find Akin and Mourdock “principled.” So you folks who approved of these two should tell us all why they didn’t win ( and how their loosing cost us the Senate).
The words of Akin and Mourdock were twisted all out of context by the mainstream media to fit into a pre-conceived Republican War on Women meme aimed at single women, who have become the most gullible and inane of any segment of the electorate, including the welfare Queens, who are, in fact, a subset of the single woman electorate.
We need strong pro-life candidates who know who to talk to the people without giving the utterly dishonest media and Democrats something that can run with and create a firestorm out of nothing. That’s what they do. It’s who they are.
I think if we had nominated a principled conservative for President, both Akin and Mourdock would have been elected. Look at all the principled conservatives we have elected in 2010 and 2012 — and stop anguishing to point of hysteria over the defeats of Akin, Mourdock, and Angle and O’Donnell.
Ronald Reagan did this very well. He was a principled conservative who knew how to go over the heads of the media. That approach has to be drilled into all those who run for office.
I can’t tell if you’re going after me or not, but my first blame in the Senate debacle was The Republican Establishment - that insisted on throwing RINOs at us in states where conservatives could easily win (aka, IN and MO). By doing that, they angered the base, and the base in that state can select the candidates and will select a less-polished candidate if The Establishment manages to get all of experienced conservatives to step aside for the RINO, as happens.
So we’re stuck with good conservatives that aren’t up to the task of dealing with a media ready to cut them a new one - and it showed - and we lost.
So first step - The Establishment needs to step aside in Primary races and let the candidates duke it out, and for Heaven’s sake, don’t force experienced conservatives to stay out, so that the RINO can have the nomination, because the base will not permit that.
“The words of Akin and Mourdock were twisted all out of context by the mainstream media...”
Sure, but they should have been adroit enough not to say things that could be “twisted,” that’s my point. The notion that Romney’s defeat had anything to do with Akin and Mourdock loosing is just nonsense! McCaskill was so far in the hole with her voters that it was the last thing on anyone’s mind that she could win. So she “helped” Akin, who was the weakest candidate in the field of three ( as I recall) win the Republican primary because she knew he would be the easiest one to beat. And he helped out with his intemperate remarks and then by “standing on principle” and not getting out of the race in favor of one of the other candidates who could have taken out McCaskill. But those folks for whom Akin was some sort of a “paragon of virtue,” seemingly are happy that he lost “trying to bring through their message,” whatever that was. You (they) seem content to have Harry Reid still in the position of thwarting everything. That having that situation continue is preferable to have pushed Akin out of the picture and replaced him with someone who could have won. If you were a Missouri voter, those of us who live elsewhere “thank you” for perpetuating the hell that is the US Senate. Akin is just like Boner. He’s loved in his district, but nowhere else. “It’s always the other guy’s rep that’s the problem, not mine.” Sure as hell isn’t how it is in my district. The last Republican was voted out of office fifteen years ago. So now I have a succession of POS to represent me.
“The words of Akin and Mourdock were twisted all out of context by the mainstream media”
Not when I heard them the first time, from Akin himself, unfiltered - I cringed, as it was clear as day to me that he had stepped in it. Then he stood by principle and by that he bailed out Claire.
Sure, the media didn’t help him out, but that’s not their job.
“I can’t tell if you’re going after me or not, but my first blame in the Senate debacle was The Republican Establishment “
I am not going after anyone. I am simply stating my opinion. I know that the GOPe would have preferred other candidates in the races in question, and they were quick to withdraw support when the verbal crap hit the fan. That said, they didn’t elect these guys in the primary, the voters did. So to your point, if MO and IN were easy pickings for conservatives, what happened if it wasn’t poor quality candidates?
I am a good Conservative and I have entertained changing my registration from GOP to IND. But I am not sure that that helps anything but my animus for the GOPe. I am cautiously optimistic that the “new reps” in the House are going to kick out Boner. He’s a disgrace. I am aghast that MO and IN could not find and vet solid conservatives who were skilled enough not to be mousetrapped by the media into saying stuff that can be ginned up as nonsense. It’s like the two candidates in question, were not smart enough to know what not to say. Particularly where women’s issues are concerned, because as we all know, women put Obama back in office.
If only they had revealed they were gay, they would have won in a walk, right?
They were actively opposed by the GOPe and most bed wetters here.
Some of us knew what was coming because of all the weak willie RINO freepers that told us how stupid we were.
The why don't you lay the blame where it belongs, "stupid women voters?"
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.