Posted on 12/23/2012 6:49:35 AM PST by Understand the stimulus
What the republicans and their supporters don't understand is that Obama is playing them as if they are opponents in a "playground basketball game" where intimidation, trash talking, humiliation, and below the belt blows are the predominant rap of the winning team
Nothing better demonstrates this simple analysis than the following quote:
"At one point, according to notes taken by a participant, Mr. Boehner told the president, "I put $800 billion [in tax revenue] on the table. What do I get for that?" "You get nothing," the president said. "I get that for free."
i have always believed that corporate america was insane to move jobs overseas to get an extra 1/2% of 1% improvement in earnings...dtudy how the carneige etc foundations have influenced all this...the 1900s entrepenurs wanted to lower wahes and so developed the crazy issue of diversity as a way to lower wages
remember this 40 years ago a husband alone could support a family...there are 250000 members in NOW, 4 million in NRA yet NOW gets all the attention...adding women nearly doubled the size of the labor force and drove down wages so that it TAKES two incomes to get to 250000 in many households...
FREE TRADE isnt free unless every BOX coming into this country has an axcise tax that includes what the social welfare medicaid programs eat up from personal taxes here
gunny...were dying out...today hardly anyone fights for this nation and obama wants to make sure that the USA cant enforce false narratives the way BUMBRAIN BUSH AND RAT ROVE did by claiming NUKES in IRAQ...bush had a hidden agenda to get revenge for his father before he even came into office BUT was able to attack IRAQ because no one could or would take us on militarily...obama wants to make sure this cant happen again by destroying the morale with homosexuals, closing down miliraty appropriatons, not rebuilding IRAQ equipment and running down our supples of weapons...
i think in the end it was money...she had an income that couldnt be counted on if she ran...FOX liked her because she is both beautiful and the epitome of rural independance....but she didnt have the courage, or perhaps the speaking skills and mental quickness to parry with those who questioned her...reagan wrote most of his speeches and he was always anticipating the nasty got u questions...simply said, she didnt....
i like her but shes not a leading lady...
Hardly!
Both the Speaker's and the President's words insult the memory of the Framers of America's Constitution.
Consider that Constitution's purpose, as stated in its Preamble:
"We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."
James Madison, known as the "Father" of the Constitution, in commenting on the French Declaration of Rights, said of the American philosophy:
"It will be remembered that a frequent recurrence to fundamental principles, is solemnly enjoined by most of the state constitutions, and particularly by our own, as a necessary safeguard against the danger of degeneracy to which republics are liable. . . . The authority of constitutions over governments, and of the sovereignty of the people over constitutions, are truths which are at all times necessary to be kept in mind; and at no time perhaps more necessary than at the present."
Then, we read the reported exchange between the Speaker of "the People's" House of Representatives and the President of the United States in 2012, which, instead of sounding like statesmen who took a solemn Oath to uphold the Constitution's protections for individual liberty, sound like actors in a third-rate movie about petty crime:
"At one point, according to notes taken by a participant, Mr. Boehner told the president, "I put $800 billion [in tax revenue] on the table. What do I get for that?" "You get nothing," the president said. "I get that for free."Contrast their shallow and self-centered words with the depth of thought and seriousness of national purpose exhibited by the following quotations:
"It has been urged and echoed, that the power 'to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts, and excises, to pay the debts, and provide for the common defence and general welfare of the United States,' amounts to an unlimited commission to exercise every power which may be alleged to be necessary for the common defence or general welfare...But what color can the objection have, when a specification of the objects alluded to by these general terms immediately follows, and is not even separated by a longer pause than a semicolon?...For what purpose could the enumeration of particular powers be inserted, if these and all others were meant to be included in the preceding general power? Nothing is more natural nor more common than first to use a general phrase, and then to explain and qualify it by a recital of particulars. But the idea of an enumeration of particulars which neither explain nor qualify the general meaning, and can have no other effect than to confound and mislead, is an absurdity, which...we must take the liberty of supposing had not its origin (with the authors of the Constitution)." -James Madison-Federalist No. 41"If we can prevent the government from wasting the labours of the people, under the pretense of taking care of them, they must become happy." - Thomas Jefferson
"The Utopian schemes of leveling [redistribution of wealth] and a community of goods [common ownership], are as visionary and impractical as those which vest all property in the Crown. [These ideas] are arbitrary, despotic, and, in our government, unconstitutional." - Samuel Adams
"I think myself, that we have more machinery of government than is necessary, too many parasites living on the labor of the industrious." - Thomas Jefferson
"Economy in the public expense, that labor may be lightly burdened, I deem (one of the) essential principles of our government and, consequently (one) which ought to shape its administrations." - Thomas Jefferson-First Inaugural
"I am not among those who fear the people. They...are our dependence for continued freedom. And to preserve their independence, we must not let our rulers load us with perpetual debt. We must make our election between economy and liberty, or profusion and servitude. If we run into such debts, as that we must be taxed in our meat and in our drink, in our necessaries and our comforts, in our labors and our amusements, for our callings and our creeds...our people...must come to labor sixteen hours in the twenty-four, give the earnings of fifteen of these to the government for their debts and daily expenses; and the sixteenth being insufficient to afford us bread, we must live, as they (the British) now do, on oatmeal and potatoes; have no time to think, no means of calling the mismanagers to account; but be glad to obtain subsistence by hiring ourselves to rivet their chains on the necks of our fellow-sufferers....This example reads to us the salutary lesson that private fortunes are destroyed by public, as well as by private extravagance. And this is the tendency of all human governments. A departure from the principle in one instance, becomes a precedent for a second; that second for a third; and so on, till the bulk of society is reduced to be mere automatons of misery, to have no sensibilities left but for sinning and suffering. Then begins, indeed, the 'bellum omnium in omnia,' which some philosophers...have mistaken for the natural, instead of the abusive, state of man. And the fore-horse of this frightful team is public debt. Taxation follows that, and in its train wretchedness and oppression." - Thomas Jefferson
"I go on the principle that a public debt is a public curse." - James Madison
"The principle of spending money to be paid by posterity under the name of funding is but swindling futurity on a large scale....We shall all consider ourselves unauthorized to saddle posterity with our debts, and morally bound to pay them ourselves...." - Thomas Jefferson
"The interest of the national debt [in England] is now equal to such a portion of the profits of all the land and the labor of the island, as not to leave enough for the subsistence of those who labor. Hence the owners of the land abandon it and retire to other countries, and the laborer has not enough of his earnings left to him to cover his back and to fill his belly....The landholder has nothing of his own to give; he is but the fiduciary of those who have lent him money; the lender is so taxed in his meat, drink, and clothing, that he has but a bare subsistence left." - Thomas Jefferson
"I wish it were possible to obtain a single amendment to our Constitution. I would be willing to depend on that alone for the reduction of the administration of our government to the genuine principles of its Constitution; I mean an additional article, taking from the Federal Government the power of borrowing." - Thomas Jefferson-1798
"...it is no child's play to save the principles of Jefferson from total overthrow in this nation...The principles of Jefferson are the definitions and axioms of a free society. And yet they are denied and evaded, with no small show of success." - Abraham Lincoln
“gunny...were dying out...today hardly anyone fights for this nation and obama wants to make sure that the USA cant enforce false narratives the way BUMBRAIN BUSH AND RAT ROVE did by claiming NUKES in IRAQ...bush had a hidden agenda to get revenge for his father before he even came into office BUT was able to attack IRAQ because no one could or would take us on militarily...obama wants to make sure this cant happen again by destroying the morale with homosexuals, closing down miliraty appropriatons, not rebuilding IRAQ equipment and running down our supples of weapons...”
*************************
Thank you for your response, I know the feeling well.
Yes, you are correct, but that’s not my department, my job is me and what I think and do w/o being influenced by the herd.
One and GOD= THE majority, Not the majority “The Folks” beat their gums so much about. Choose now, only two ways to go—one way is a sure loser...
THINK!
Semper Truth!
*****
Yes and Trey Gowdy (SC), Jason Chaffetz (UT) Tom Price,Paul Broun, Tom Graves (GA), Michelle Bachmann (MN) Marsha Blackburn (TN)and numerous others. Sadly they are not in the leadership. That needs to change.
“”We the People of the United States”
**************
but who are we the people?????
that preamble was signed by a fewmen, not we the joe-sixpaks of the time; nor did the people vote to ratify it....we the people in fact were the signers...
this isnt what theyre teaching anymore...now kids know more about islamic history, and how to be a sexual deviant using a banana...
Susan Combs & Greg Abbott here in Texas.
They are both playing us.
GD Republicans need to put the shitte-stain Boehner out and get someone in the Speaker’s Chair that has guts and knows how to play poker.
No, they do understand. Most of these folks are pretty politically savvy, and they generally know what is going on.
What you are not taking into account is the simple fact that the American public is with Obama. They like him. They WANT to keep liking him. No matter what goes wrong, the public wants to blame anyone but Obama. The Republicans are in a terrible position. Of course the media is against us as always, but the American public is just determined to like Obama almost no matter what. The Republicans in the House are holding no decent cards here because both sides know exactly who the public is going to blame if their taxes go up.
We have never been impressed with Boehner or how easily he could be rolled by Obama with the same ease
I agree that Boehner is kinda of pathetic, but no matter who the Republicans have as House speaker right now is going to be put in a near impossible situation.
So long as a majority of the American public still adores Obama, he is going to largely get his way. It is important to remember that while the Republicans do hold the House due to gerrymandering, the majority of the American public, by over a million votes, actually voted for Democratic House candidates.
We are in the minority of public opinion at this time and that is going to make it extremely difficult no matter who our leaders are.
I wouldn't put it quite that way.
The reason that Obama won can now be clearly attributed to the fact that the Republicans didn't get their base out. For reasons of their own -- in large part, understandable reasons -- somewhere between 4-to-7 million Republican voters stayed home.
Truth is, the USA remains a center-right nation -- but it doesn't vote that way unless the Republicans act and govern like conservatives!.
Given a chance to continue the Reagan Revolution in 1988, the GOP failed the test -- and lost the presidency in 1992.
Given a chance to continue the Republican Revolution of 1994, the GOP failed the test -- and lost the presidency in 1996. Then, even as they won the presidency with a candidate who talked conservative in 2000, they lost the Congress.
Finally, given control of all three branches of government in 2002 and re-electing a president who still talked conservative, they failed the test again in 2006 -- and lost the Congress again. Then, in 2008, lost the presidency...and were left powerless.
In 2010, they promised to do conservative things again...and won the House. They failed to accomplish much of anything...and we know all about 2012.
In short, every election in the USA since 1980 has been about the Republicans -- if they talked conservative, they won. If they acted and governed conservatively, they won re-election. When they didn't, they lost.
So, the question is: how do the Republicans win back their majority? How do they win back those who stayed home? They won't do it by rolling over and playing dead or by hiding in a corner.
I agree the situation is critical. But the Republican choice is between fighting back...and surviving...or caving in...and being totally abandoned by their base.
Midterms are not the same as presidential cycles. An entirely different set of voters turn out. We didn't accomplish anything because we did not win the Senate. Without the Senate we couldn't put anything on Obama's desk and force him to sign or veto it. We probably failed to win the Senate because we nominated some especially poor candidates - namely O'Donnell, McMahon, Buck, Angle, etc.
Truth is, the USA remains a center-right nation -- but it doesn't vote that way unless the Republicans act and govern like conservatives!.
I wish that were the truth, but it probably isn't. The real truth is, among just "adults" (who tend not to vote), Obama is even more popular than the electorate that turned out for him. Republicans do better with likely voters - nearly every poll demonstrates this. That population that sits out are majority Democrat voters, not Republicans. Did some Republicans sit out? Sure. Did lots of "adult" low information voters that when pushed vote themselves more freebies also sit out? Absolutely. I hope your not hanging your hat on some silent right of center majority, because those days are long gone.
We have 2 big problems right now. First, the country is following Europe's footsteps and is becoming more secular and socialist. Second, the American public likes Obama. A slight majority like him so much that they will excuse nearly anything he does. The man could eat a live baby on TV and the public would blame the GOP if they were given some excuse to do so. Worse, they WANT to like him and do not want to ever admit they were wrong about him. There is a reason the Democrat base threw Hillary overboard in favor of Obama even though it was her turn. They knew what a powerful politician they had in Hussein. Sadly, he is running rings around us and is fundamentally transforming the nation.
“choice is between fighting back...and surviving...or caving in....”
Until the Tea Party solidly controls state legislatures and governorships, no Republican will occupy the White House, nor will they hold the Senate. In the states the Pubbies can control the electoral precincts fraud effectively.
In order to control the Senate and win the White House- once voter fraud is defeated-it requires that the Party escape the non-Constitutional influences of the K St Llobby. The latter benefits with each degree of Federal Expnasion, and is why the 2 parties appear to look alike at the national level.
YES YES YES!
Start with this: Despite 8 years of population growth, almost exactly the same number of votes were cast in 2012 as in 2004 (121 million). That's a December count for 2012, so it's a near-final total.
In 2012, Obama ended up with 3 1/2 million more votes than Kerry got in 2004. Meanwhile, Romney ended up with the essentially the same vote total as McCain in 2008 -- which was 4 million short of Bush's vote in 2004.
I'd say that's 4 million votes that the Republicans could've had with a.) a more conservative candidate and b.) at least asking for their vote.
In fact, that brings up a largely unrecognized problem with the Republican party establishment. While they aren't bashful about outright pandering for some votes, they appear embarrassed to even ask for the votes of the so-called religious right. Meanwhile, McCain, e.g., went out of his way to insult constitutional conservatives.
No wonder 4 million stayed home.
I stand on my original contention: Republicans win when they talk, act and govern conservatively. They lose when they don't defend the conservative high ground.
The problem is simply stated: The base is ideological and anti-government. The party is non-ideological and pro-government. Meanwhile, on the left, the Democrat party and its base are both ideological and pro-government.
You know its been 8 years and a lot of those people passed away, right?
Also, your numbers are wrong. Bush got 62 million votes in 2004, Romney got 60.8 million votes in 2012. The difference was only 1.2 million votes, not 4 million. Also, Obama got 4 million more votes in 08' than he did in 12', so by your logic he left more votes on the table than did Romney. Does that mean if he ran more to the left he would have kept all his current votes and won the ones that didn't turn out. I doubt it. Additionally, while I don't have the figures at hand, I suspect the population growth is largely in demographics that are overwhelmingly Democrat (Hispanic).
While they aren't bashful about outright pandering for some votes, they appear embarrassed to even ask for the votes of the so-called religious right
Religious right candidates can win gerrymandered House districts. Those candidates tend to do poorly at the state and national level. A model that does work is Bob McDonnell of VA who is a social conservative but did not run on those issues. The country is more libertine and secular now. Social conservative, religious right candidates are going to have a harder and harder time winning statewide races and national races. Eventually the grass roots will understand that and nominate fewer of them. I know you don't want to hear that, but this is the direction the country is going.
The future Republican party is probably going to be libertarian-ish. Arguments for cuts in things like Planned Parenthood will be made on budgetary grounds, not moral ones. I'd expect bolder stands by the party and its better candidates on economic issues. The younger generations increasingly avoid the Republican brand like the plague because of the social positions. Expect the GOP to increasingly de-emphasize those issues and move in sort of a Rand Paul direction. (Rand Paul NOT Ron Paul).
I said nothing about "religious right" candidates; I spoke of "religious right" voters -- whom the GOP won't even pretend to ask for their votes.
By the way, I am myself not "religious right". But I am appalled at how the party treats that part of their base.
Abandoning the moral position and adapting a "libertarian" position risks losing the social conservatives without gaining a single additional voting bloc.
Further, I would submit that the current GOP establishment is incapable of doing that -- so afraid are they of ever standing for anything.
Why, I should ask, are so-called fiscal conservatives so leary of allying with so-called social conservatives for the purpose of achieving a common goal? Is ready access to abortion really that important?
Do the "small l" libertarians object to church-going Christians that much? Do they realize that the social conservatives probably wouldn't object to their smoking weed if they wouldn't object to their beliefs concerning the sanctity of life?
After all this, I will still contend that the Republicans win -- when they talk, act and govern conservatively. And they lose when they don't. I've yet to see any evidence to the contrary.
A conservative George H.W. Bush would've won in 1992.
A conservative candidate would've won in 1996.
A Republican House that impeached Bill Clinton held steady in 2000. A Republican Senate that shrank from convicting him lost.
A Republican House and Senate that had spent like there was no tomorrow lost their ass in 2006.
Et cetera
The Democrats didn't win any of these elections. The Republicans lost them.
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.