God William are your forearms tired? Can you switch hands while rubbin' the nubbin'? This is good I disliked Cantor anyway. And we'll see how your Brat does in a general election. Remember only the extreme party faithful vote in a one party primary.. Richmond district I gotta believe the dems are out there in droves voting in November. You may have just given the dems a seat back. Cool
Probably not they are spending it all here in NC against Kay Hagan. They felt Cantor was one of theirs. He was supposedly up by 30 points why would you give money to either candidate in a lopsided race as that was supposed to be.
Schadenfreude. Cantor has always struck me as a completely empty suit and outwardly, as a completely self centered, smarmy asshole. For a man who has accomplished so little in Washington while talking so much shit, it is a miracle that they could find someone to the right of him.
I'll probably keep an eye on this race if for no other reason than to see if educated tea party candidate isn't an oxymoron. Tactically, it's kind of like switching deck chairs on the Titanic. One farther right candidate in exchange for one who was already far right doesn't change much.
That same message, though, got Obama elected and half the electorate is losing their mind about what an absolute shitty president he is. I'm not aiming this at you or Lou, but I think way too many people in this country want to pull the lever and forget about it. They don't want to stay informed about what's going on in Washington and they don't want to get involved locally to help those less fortunate actually climb up the ladder and be self sufficient. Again, kind of back to my comment up above of, "Not my problem." We have a host of social problems we have created by choice. Simple slashing all spending, outlawing abortion and gay marriage and repealing the ACA is not going to fix anything.
When I see interviews of a guy like Steve LaTourette. who decided to quit rather than kiss the ass of whack jobs, I see a Republican who I could possible vote for. I'm frustrated too that a country that is so intrinsically blessed has been sold to the highest bidder. Philosophically, the Tea Party is not without reason. In practice, they have a vested interest in making legislating as dysfunctional as possible.
I agree with most of your points. Hot button issues which are designed to inflame the electorate seldom, of ever, are the issues we need to address. But, as you know, it is the money that decides elections as a rule, the Cantor defeat is a rare exception.
That's why we are where we are today and that's exactly why we have the dysfunction in Washington today.
The last president was horrible, matched by this president who seems to think he can rule by decree without implication. The unfortunate part is he's set a terrible standard for the next president who can do much the same. If it happens to be an R, do we all get to say, Obama did it so what's the problem? Seems that's what the D's do today with Bush did it so what. It will be interesting times.
The process of legislating requires the congress, the senate and the POTUS. What we have today is a system where EXTRAconstitutional requirement have been put in place to govern. The minority party in the senate can block anything they want by simply telling the majority leader they will filibuster it. The constitution requires only simple majority for most things to pass, but this has been negated.
In the congress, starting with Denny Hastert, we had a new requirement added wherein Republicans, when they control the house, will only pass bills that can be passed with little to no help of Democrats. In rare cases, such as the shut down, Boehnor and McConnell allowed the unthinkable to happen, they let something pass on a simple majority. This was the exception though and not the rule.
For whatever reason Lou, you and I cannot have an honest discussion on this topic because....... I'm not really sure why. I've admitted countless times it was wrong when Reid did it, but having a spit fight about whether Reid or McConnell is a bigger jagoff is about as far as we get. If congress is unhappy that King Obama is end running around them, they could quit fucking around, stopping having bitterly partisan votes like repeal of Obama care, and they could do some work. It seems like having been the least productive congress ever is a badge of honor for them just like the 10% approval rating they carry.
Interestingly, there is next to nothing that Obama has not signed.
It's not Congress that should be unhappy with the Pen boy but you the citizen as Obama chooses to enforce what he likes, change things when they don't quite suit him and of course ignore the rest. Not quote what the founders envisioned for a president. Quite a legacy.
As to Congress it's exactly what people voted for. A House that passes bills sends them to the Senate to die. A senate that passes bills sent to the House to die. And of course a president who will veto anything he doesn't like so why bother passing it. So you are left with the laughable remains for his signature. On the upside, look at the number of pens the US is saving money on.
My understanding is that it was Congresses responsibility to pass laws and the president either signs them or not. If not, congress decides how important it is with an over ride or not. Today we have the President and the Senate as one and the House opposing them. Appears that way anyway.
As a side note, there is little difference between Reid and McConnell as both are partisan hacks. Say what you want, it is wrong for a president to create, negate laws with an executive order.
The problem today is there is ZERO compromise. The left will not compromise with the right and the president refuses to compromise with congress. Clinton, Reagan both had the talent of compromise to run the country. Obama by choice or because he is who he is refuses to compromise unless it's his way. The lack of obama signing anything is by design, the people put people in the House to prevent another ACA. I doubt you will see the D's retake the house and I see the senate at risk.
As to the ACA, the people of the US do not want it then as well as today, why is that so hard to understand. If the majority do not want it why fight so hard to keep it? Could it be all about a legacy, not what's best for the country?
As to the shutdown, it was Obama who refused to compromise, Obama who shut down the government. Amazing that within 2 hours of the shutdown the signs began going up. One might think that Obama had everything ready to go as he refused to compromise. can't wait for the next R who will double down on the Obama tactics of running the government. I will be certainly appalled as it isn't the way our government is designed to work as this isn't today.
Lou above: That’s why we are where we are today and that's exactly why we have the dysfunction in Washington today.
With no axe to grind and no formal loyalty to either party I submit that we in Australia can see more clearly than you blokes who are living through the unpleasantness which comes with sewer politics.
There appears to be a tendency both in US and Aussie to fight for extreme idealism or self aggrandizement as fodder for egotistical gratification. Less and less attention is given to the nation and its welfare and no one admits to doing anything which adds to the problems.
Just a few bi partisan remarks to illustrate my point. The Moore Daily reports one Scott Esk, a Tea Party candidate for the state house advocated putting Gays to death. He also considers sacrosanct the second amendment and the credo of pro life. Here is a contradiction in terms.Pro Life means no killing of unborn children and the second means everyone has the right to own the weapon most commonly used by cowards to take a life. Mr. Esk wants it both ways and this perhaps lies at the root of his hatred of Gays! (Aussie humor)
Your President yesterday in response to a question cited Australian gun law reform as a success and lamented the fact that US is in such a mess with your own gun laws. This once more illustrates my oft expressed opinion that government of the people by the people has departed from your nation. There can be no consensus on gun law reform under your present system and even under a new system there will need to be significant change in the national character and the constitution before progress can be made. It appears to me that what you currently have is government for vested interests and these interests are prosecuted by lobbyists.
I have never been able to understand the lobby system, both here and in America. Your lobbyists were I believe first identified by Madison who used to be approached by individuals who banged his ear as he walked to the store for his lunch each day. In UK the old House of Parliament had lobbies in which members met with constituents and the industry flourished.
Seems to me that a good start would be to outlaw lobbyists and at the same time outlaw private donations to either party. Representative government would then at least have a chance to flourish once more.
Sorry to bang a bit, I have perhaps a fairly finite time span left; many of you have time enough to either go down with the ship or to start plugging holes.
That is by far the best description of US politics today. Sewer politics.
As to Scott Esk, an aberration or the norm? I would argue the aberration. As you have your less than desirables we have the same. Why is it you don't hear about the undesirables in the Democratic party, they are certainly there. You do hear on occasion about the R's who are certainly undesirable. Instead they focus on the TP.
I would certainly agree with your assertions on lobbyists. It's how the monied interest get their way with both parties. One way to negate the effect is to institute term limits. There would be no revolving door from government to lobbyist.
One assertion I will not accept is that Obama is somehow this evil, uncompromising fuckhead who bitterly sows partisanship from the moment he wakes to the moment he goes to sleep. Democrats have caved repeatedly when they acknowledged like adults that nothing would get through congress without giving up a pound a flesh they didn't want to give up.
You completely ignored my review of the 60 vote/filibuster rule and the "Hasteret rule" in congress. The Hastert rule isn't partisan politics? I will agree, however, that the congress passes bills that will go to die in the Senate and the senate does the same or is prevented from doing the same because they are not allowed to pass bills on a simple majority.
You dislike the way Obama does things, and hence, every comment will squarely place him is the fountainhead of obstruction. Maybe someday when the roles are reversed and the end result is exactly the same, folks like yourself could be in favor of genuine change rather than just the removal of the one person you are directing all your angst at. Like you said, the legislators pass the the bills for the POTUS to sign of not and in the last congress, they did very little of that. Plenty of folks blame Obama squarely for that, but I don't think that remotely holds up when you truly examine the process.
Just my 0.02, but I'm not emotionally invested in Obama one way or the other. Your results may vary
Obama is just the symptom of what's wrong with our government. If he doesn't like it, he will change it. The sad realization is that to sue the president over an issue, 1. They likely have no standing and it would be thrown out. 2. It would take years in the court system to resolve and O will be gone as well as the people filing the suit. The founders probably never considered that problem.
The never ending saga of the right against the left.
To bad we cannot return to the way it should work. Congress works together to pass laws, Obama signs them or not and enforces. Instead it's the left against the right.
All in all, we get what we deserve in Washington as we put them there. Was the Hastert rule any worse than the Reid rule to get people into appointed positions with a simple majority? Isn't the Reid rule partisan politics. Seems both parties are guilty.
Doesn't matter what party is in control sewer politics now reigns supreme.
First majority leader in history taken out in a primary.
ReplyDeleteCantor outspent Brat $22-$1
ReplyDelete53 year old Cantor has been in government since he was 28.
ReplyDeleteTime to earn an honest living Eric. Good luck.
God William are your forearms tired? Can you switch hands while rubbin' the nubbin'? This is good I disliked Cantor anyway. And we'll see how your Brat does in a general election. Remember only the extreme party faithful vote in a one party primary.. Richmond district I gotta believe the dems are out there in droves voting in November. You may have just given the dems a seat back. Cool
ReplyDeleteBoth candidates rep and dem are employed by the same college, Randy Macon. Should be a fun race.
DeleteAt least we got one career politician out of DC. And ric, I don't think one dollar of Koch money was involved.
Probably not they are spending it all here in NC against Kay Hagan. They felt Cantor was one of theirs. He was supposedly up by 30 points why would you give money to either candidate in a lopsided race as that was supposed to be.
DeleteSchadenfreude. Cantor has always struck me as a completely empty suit and outwardly, as a completely self centered, smarmy asshole. For a man who has accomplished so little in Washington while talking so much shit, it is a miracle that they could find someone to the right of him.
ReplyDeleteI'll probably keep an eye on this race if for no other reason than to see if educated tea party candidate isn't an oxymoron. Tactically, it's kind of like switching deck chairs on the Titanic. One farther right candidate in exchange for one who was already far right doesn't change much.
Sorry but that describes virtually every politicians in Washington today.
DeleteCynical as I am, even I don't believe that a blanket statement can be made that every legislator is a self centered, smarmy asshole.
DeleteMy sarcasm at it's finest.
DeleteI am hoping that this will presage a cleansing of Congress, out with the old guard. I am probably over optimistic.
ReplyDeleteIncredibly over optimistic.
DeleteI have to admit that I really don't understand the belief that if we simply throw everyone out, things will magically change.
DeleteI don't believe things would magically change, but any change at all would probably be a change fir the better.
DeleteThat same message, though, got Obama elected and half the electorate is losing their mind about what an absolute shitty president he is. I'm not aiming this at you or Lou, but I think way too many people in this country want to pull the lever and forget about it. They don't want to stay informed about what's going on in Washington and they don't want to get involved locally to help those less fortunate actually climb up the ladder and be self sufficient. Again, kind of back to my comment up above of, "Not my problem." We have a host of social problems we have created by choice. Simple slashing all spending, outlawing abortion and gay marriage and repealing the ACA is not going to fix anything.
DeleteWhen I see interviews of a guy like Steve LaTourette. who decided to quit rather than kiss the ass of whack jobs, I see a Republican who I could possible vote for. I'm frustrated too that a country that is so intrinsically blessed has been sold to the highest bidder. Philosophically, the Tea Party is not without reason. In practice, they have a vested interest in making legislating as dysfunctional as possible.
I agree with most of your points. Hot button issues which are designed to inflame the electorate seldom, of ever, are the issues we need to address. But, as you know, it is the money that decides elections as a rule, the Cantor defeat is a rare exception.
DeleteThat should be "seldom IF ever".
DeletePull the handle and forget about it?
DeleteThat's why we are where we are today and that's exactly why we have the dysfunction in Washington today.
The last president was horrible, matched by this president who seems to think he can rule by decree without implication. The unfortunate part is he's set a terrible standard for the next president who can do much the same. If it happens to be an R, do we all get to say, Obama did it so what's the problem? Seems that's what the D's do today with Bush did it so what. It will be interesting times.
This comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteThe process of legislating requires the congress, the senate and the POTUS. What we have today is a system where EXTRAconstitutional requirement have been put in place to govern. The minority party in the senate can block anything they want by simply telling the majority leader they will filibuster it. The constitution requires only simple majority for most things to pass, but this has been negated.
DeleteIn the congress, starting with Denny Hastert, we had a new requirement added wherein Republicans, when they control the house, will only pass bills that can be passed with little to no help of Democrats. In rare cases, such as the shut down, Boehnor and McConnell allowed the unthinkable to happen, they let something pass on a simple majority. This was the exception though and not the rule.
For whatever reason Lou, you and I cannot have an honest discussion on this topic because....... I'm not really sure why. I've admitted countless times it was wrong when Reid did it, but having a spit fight about whether Reid or McConnell is a bigger jagoff is about as far as we get. If congress is unhappy that King Obama is end running around them, they could quit fucking around, stopping having bitterly partisan votes like repeal of Obama care, and they could do some work. It seems like having been the least productive congress ever is a badge of honor for them just like the 10% approval rating they carry.
Interestingly, there is next to nothing that Obama has not signed.
This comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteIt's not Congress that should be unhappy with the Pen boy but you the citizen as Obama chooses to enforce what he likes, change things when they don't quite suit him and of course ignore the rest. Not quote what the founders envisioned for a president. Quite a legacy.
DeleteAs to Congress it's exactly what people voted for. A House that passes bills sends them to the Senate to die. A senate that passes bills sent to the House to die. And of course a president who will veto anything he doesn't like so why bother passing it. So you are left with the laughable remains for his signature. On the upside, look at the number of pens the US is saving money on.
My understanding is that it was Congresses responsibility to pass laws and the president either signs them or not. If not, congress decides how important it is with an over ride or not. Today we have the President and the Senate as one and the House opposing them. Appears that way anyway.
As a side note, there is little difference between Reid and McConnell as both are partisan hacks. Say what you want, it is wrong for a president to create, negate laws with an executive order.
The problem today is there is ZERO compromise. The left will not compromise with the right and the president refuses to compromise with congress. Clinton, Reagan both had the talent of compromise to run the country. Obama by choice or because he is who he is refuses to compromise unless it's his way. The lack of obama signing anything is by design, the people put people in the House to prevent another ACA. I doubt you will see the D's retake the house and I see the senate at risk.
As to the ACA, the people of the US do not want it then as well as today, why is that so hard to understand. If the majority do not want it why fight so hard to keep it? Could it be all about a legacy, not what's best for the country?
As to the shutdown, it was Obama who refused to compromise, Obama who shut down the government. Amazing that within 2 hours of the shutdown the signs began going up. One might think that Obama had everything ready to go as he refused to compromise. can't wait for the next R who will double down on the Obama tactics of running the government. I will be certainly appalled as it isn't the way our government is designed to work as this isn't today.
Lou above: That’s why we are where we are today and that's exactly why we have the dysfunction in Washington today.
DeleteWith no axe to grind and no formal loyalty to either party I submit that we in Australia can see more clearly than you blokes who are living through the unpleasantness which comes with sewer politics.
There appears to be a tendency both in US and Aussie to fight for extreme idealism or self aggrandizement as fodder for egotistical gratification. Less and less attention is given to the nation and its welfare and no one admits to doing anything which adds to the problems.
Just a few bi partisan remarks to illustrate my point. The Moore Daily reports one Scott Esk, a Tea Party candidate for the state house advocated putting Gays to death. He also considers sacrosanct the second amendment and the credo of pro life. Here is a contradiction in terms.Pro Life means no killing of unborn children and the second means everyone has the right to own the weapon most commonly used by cowards to take a life. Mr. Esk wants it both ways and this perhaps lies at the root of his hatred of Gays! (Aussie humor)
Your President yesterday in response to a question cited Australian gun law reform as a success and lamented the fact that US is in such a mess with your own gun laws. This once more illustrates my oft expressed opinion that government of the people by the people has departed from your nation. There can be no consensus on gun law reform under your present system and even under a new system there will need to be significant change in the national character and the constitution before progress can be made. It appears to me that what you currently have is government for vested interests and these interests are prosecuted by lobbyists.
I have never been able to understand the lobby system, both here and in America. Your lobbyists were I believe first identified by Madison who used to be approached by individuals who banged his ear as he walked to the store for his lunch each day. In UK the old House of Parliament had lobbies in which members met with constituents and the industry flourished.
Seems to me that a good start would be to outlaw lobbyists and at the same time outlaw private donations to either party. Representative government would then at least have a chance to flourish once more.
Sorry to bang a bit, I have perhaps a fairly finite time span left; many of you have time enough to either go down with the ship or to start plugging holes.
Cheers from Aussie
That is by far the best description of US politics today. Sewer politics.
DeleteAs to Scott Esk, an aberration or the norm? I would argue the aberration. As you have your less than desirables we have the same. Why is it you don't hear about the undesirables in the Democratic party, they are certainly there. You do hear on occasion about the R's who are certainly undesirable. Instead they focus on the TP.
I would certainly agree with your assertions on lobbyists. It's how the monied interest get their way with both parties. One way to negate the effect is to institute term limits. There would be no revolving door from government to lobbyist.
Did Esk say he would stone gay people or did he say the Old Testament called for it?
DeleteWhat exactly is the Oklahoma Tea Party? Esk was running on the republican line. The Tea ParTy is a movement not a party.
Man is the establishment worried shitless about this movement.
1773-2009
One assertion I will not accept is that Obama is somehow this evil, uncompromising fuckhead who bitterly sows partisanship from the moment he wakes to the moment he goes to sleep. Democrats have caved repeatedly when they acknowledged like adults that nothing would get through congress without giving up a pound a flesh they didn't want to give up.
DeleteYou completely ignored my review of the 60 vote/filibuster rule and the "Hasteret rule" in congress. The Hastert rule isn't partisan politics? I will agree, however, that the congress passes bills that will go to die in the Senate and the senate does the same or is prevented from doing the same because they are not allowed to pass bills on a simple majority.
You dislike the way Obama does things, and hence, every comment will squarely place him is the fountainhead of obstruction. Maybe someday when the roles are reversed and the end result is exactly the same, folks like yourself could be in favor of genuine change rather than just the removal of the one person you are directing all your angst at. Like you said, the legislators pass the the bills for the POTUS to sign of not and in the last congress, they did very little of that. Plenty of folks blame Obama squarely for that, but I don't think that remotely holds up when you truly examine the process.
Just my 0.02, but I'm not emotionally invested in Obama one way or the other. Your results may vary
Obama is just the symptom of what's wrong with our government. If he doesn't like it, he will change it. The sad realization is that to sue the president over an issue,
Delete1. They likely have no standing and it would be thrown out.
2. It would take years in the court system to resolve and O will be gone as well as the people filing the suit.
The founders probably never considered that problem.
The never ending saga of the right against the left.
To bad we cannot return to the way it should work. Congress works together to pass laws, Obama signs them or not and enforces. Instead it's the left against the right.
All in all, we get what we deserve in Washington as we put them there.
Was the Hastert rule any worse than the Reid rule to get people into appointed positions with a simple majority? Isn't the Reid rule partisan politics. Seems both parties are guilty.
Doesn't matter what party is in control sewer politics now reigns supreme.