A first(?) thread on 2008: McCain,Giuliani & the Republicans

But does she enjoy high favorables with repubs and those that claim to vote independent?

Also,none of the polls ask all voters,just those "likely to vote".
Its highly possible that when those people are factored in,she will lose the popularity you are crowing about now.

See c.i.'s point. You have a Republican President who will veto anything that doesnt fit his ideological agenda (or add 'signing statements' that allow him to ignore the legislation at will). And you have a Republican minority in the Senate that has the 40 seats in the Senate to stop legislation and uses it to habitually obstruct everything meaningful the Dems come up with - just so they can be made to look bad exactly the way you are trying to do now. As long as both are in place, the hands of the Democrats are tied.

Are you now saying that the minority party is just supposed to roll over for the majority?
Are they just supposed to go along with everything the majority wants?

Quote:

See c.i.'s point. You have a Republican President who will veto anything that doesnt fit his ideological agenda (or add 'signing statements' that allow him to ignore the legislation at will). And you have a Republican minority in the Senate that has the 40 seats in the Senate to stop legislation and uses it to habitually obstruct everything meaningful the Dems come up with - just so they can be made to look bad exactly the way you are trying to do now. As long as both are in place, the hands of the Democrats are tied.

Of course,the same thing could be said when the dems were the minority.
They tried to and did block much of what the president wanted.
They threatened filibusters,they used procedural votes,they tried to change the rules,etc.

And I have no problem with that,because thats what the minority party is supposed to do.

Are you now saying that the minority party is just supposed to roll over for the majority?
Are they just supposed to go along with everything the majority wants?

The minority party is free to obstruct, as you say, but they will be accurately painted as obstructive do-nothings in the next election; which is going to be painful for you guys anyways, let alone with added problems. So I invite you to do it. A solid Dem majority in the House and Senate, combined with a Dem president, will take care of a lot of the crap your party has caused.

Quote:

The minority party is free to obstruct, as you say, but they will be accurately painted as obstructive do-nothings in the next election; which is going to be painful for you guys anyways, let alone with added problems. So I invite you to do it. A solid Dem majority in the House and Senate, combined with a Dem president, will take care of a lot of the crap your party has caused.

You keep saying "your party", like you think I am a member of any party.
I will say this again, I am NOT a member of any political party.
I am a conservative, however.
There is a difference.

To paraphrase Groucho Marx..."I refuse to be a member of any organization that would allow someone like me to join"

But,since you believe that one party in control of Washington is what you think messed the country up, what makes you think the dems wont be just as bad?

And do you agree that the dems were "obstructive do-nothings" when the repubs were in control?

After all,they did obstruct and block much of Bush's agenda.

There are a lot of people who distance themselves from the Republican party as you do these days; it's an immaterial distinction. You are Conservative, you won't vote for the Democrat, ergo, you are Republican. It doesn't matter one bit what you choose to call yourself, for all intents and purposes, you support the Republican position 99% of the time.

Quote:

There are a lot of people who distance themselves from the Republican party as you do these days; it's an immaterial distinction. You are Conservative, you won't vote for the Democrat, ergo, you are Republican. It doesn't matter one bit what you choose to call yourself, for all intents and purposes, you support the Republican position 99% of the time.

This is a flat out lie on your part,and you know it.
I have many times stated who my choice for president is,and that person is a dem.
So your claim that I wont vote for a dem is a flat out lie.

I have also said,since the old abuzz days, that I was not a repub.
But again you choose to ignore that.
So thats at least 2 lies you have been caught in, that I know of.

mysteryman wrote:

Quote:

There are a lot of people who distance themselves from the Republican party as you do these days; it's an immaterial distinction. You are Conservative, you won't vote for the Democrat, ergo, you are Republican. It doesn't matter one bit what you choose to call yourself, for all intents and purposes, you support the Republican position 99% of the time.

This is a flat out lie on your part,and you know it.
I have many times stated who my choice for president is,and that person is a dem.
So your claim that I wont vote for a dem is a flat out lie.

I have also said,since the old abuzz days, that I was not a repub.
But again you choose to ignore that.
So thats at least 2 lies you have been caught in, that I know of.

A horse who calls himself a donkey is still a horse. You defend the Republican position constantly.

A horse and a donkey are 2 different types of animal.
They are both equine, I will grant you that.
But they are two different animals.

As for me defending the repub position constantly,again you are wrong.
I opposed the Bush plan regarding our ports, I opposed parts of the plan to privatize SS, I opposed the Harriet Miers nomination.
When the repubs and Bush are wrong in my view, I have said so.


I had forgotten that you have said you would vote for a Dem (was it Dodd? Biden?), so I apologize for saying you wouldn't vote Dem. But I haven't seen you take the Dem side of an issue, ever...

My choice for President is Evan Bayh (D-IN)
And I will take the dem side of any issue, IF I agree with them.
I have in the past and I will d so in the future.
Cycloptichorn

Cycloptichorn wrote:

mysteryman wrote:

Quote:

There are a lot of people who distance themselves from the Republican party as you do these days; it's an immaterial distinction. You are Conservative, you won't vote for the Democrat, ergo, you are Republican. It doesn't matter one bit what you choose to call yourself, for all intents and purposes, you support the Republican position 99% of the time.

This is a flat out lie on your part,and you know it.
I have many times stated who my choice for president is,and that person is a dem.
So your claim that I wont vote for a dem is a flat out lie.

I have also said,since the old abuzz days, that I was not a repub.
But again you choose to ignore that.
So thats at least 2 lies you have been caught in, that I know of.

A horse who calls himself a donkey is still a horse. You defend the Republican position constantly.

A horse and a donkey are 2 different types of animal.
They are both equine, I will grant you that.
But they are two different animals.

As for me defending the repub position constantly,again you are wrong.
I opposed the Bush plan regarding our ports, I opposed parts of the plan to privatize SS, I opposed the Harriet Miers nomination.
When the repubs and Bush are wrong in my view, I have said so.


I had forgotten that you have said you would vote for a Dem (was it Dodd? Biden?), so I apologize for saying you wouldn't vote Dem. But I haven't seen you take the Dem side of an issue, ever...

My choice for President is Evan Bayh (D-IN)
And I will take the dem side of any issue, IF I agree with them.
I have in the past and I will d so in the future.
Cycloptichorn

Quote:

See c.i.'s point. You have a Republican President who will veto anything that doesnt fit his ideological agenda (or add 'signing statements' that allow him to ignore the legislation at will). And you have a Republican minority in the Senate that has the 40 seats in the Senate to stop legislation and uses it to habitually obstruct everything meaningful the Dems come up with - just so they can be made to look bad exactly the way you are trying to do now. As long as both are in place, the hands of the Democrats are tied.

[..] Are you now saying that the minority party is just supposed to roll over for the majority?
Are they just supposed to go along with everything the majority wants?

The Republicans have used more filibusters in the first 7 months of this congress, then the Dems did in 4 years of minority status in the Senate. I think there's a fair argument to make that the Republicans are engaging in far, far greater obstructionism then the Dems ever did.

Note that Cyclo suggested a relevant tidbit on the matter:

Quote:

The Republicans have used more filibusters in the first 7 months of this congress, then the Dems did in 4 years of minority status in the Senate. I think there's a fair argument to make that the Republicans are engaging in far, far greater obstructionism then the Dems ever did.

Comment?

nimh wrote:

Note that Cyclo suggested a relevant tidbit on the matter:

Quote:

The Republicans have used more filibusters in the first 7 months of this congress, then the Dems did in 4 years of minority status in the Senate. I think there's a fair argument to make that the Republicans are engaging in far, far greater obstructionism then the Dems ever did.

Comment?

Support it or it didn't happen. Which votes have the Republicans filibustered?

* Senate Republicans have obstructed almost every bill in the Senate - even ones with wide bipartisan support.
* So far, in the first half of the first session of the 110th Congress, there have been THIRTEEN cloture votes on motions to proceed - each one wasting days of Senate time. (110th Congress, Roll Call Votes #44, 51, 53, 74, 129, 132, 133, 162, 173, 207, 208, 227, and 228)
* In comparison, in the first sessions of the 108th and 109th Congresses combined, there were a total of FOUR cloture votes on motions to proceed.

EIGHT times Republican obstruction tactics slowed critical legislation

* Fulfilling the 9/11 Commission Recommendations (Passed 97-0, Roll Call Vote #53)
* Improving security at our courts (Passed 93-3, Roll Call Vote #133)
* Water Resources Development Act (Passed 89-7, Roll Call Vote #162)
* A joint resolution to revise U.S. policy in Iraq (Passed 89-9, Roll Call Vote, #74)
* Comprehensive Immigration Reform (Passed 69-23, Roll Call Vote #173)
* Comprehensive Immigration Reform (Passed 64-35, Roll Call Vote #228)
* CLEAN Energy Act (Passed 91-0, Roll Call Vote #208)
* Funding for the Intelligence Community (Passed 94-3, Roll Call Vote #129)

FOUR times Republicans blocked legislation from being debated

* Senate Republicans blocked raising the minimum wage. (54-43, Roll Call Vote #23)
* Senate Republicans blocked ethics reforms (Rejected 51-46, Roll Call Vote #16)
* Senate Republicans blocked comprehensive immigration reform (Rejected 45-50, Roll Call Vote #206)
* Senate Republicans blocked funding for renewable energy (Rejected 57-36, Roll Call Vote #223)

FOUR times Republicans stopped bills from reaching a vote

* Senate Republicans blocked funding for the intelligence community. (Rejected 41-40, Roll Call Vote #130)
* Senate Republicans blocked raising the minimum wage. (54-43, Roll Call Vote #23)
* Senate Republicans blocked ethics reforms (Rejected 51-46, Roll Call Vote #16)
* Senate Republicans blocked funding for renewable energy (Rejected 57-36, Roll Call Vote #223)

TWICE Republicans blocked bills from going to conference

* Senate Republicans blocked appointing conferees on the 9/11 Commission Recommendations (6/26/07)
* Senate Republicans blocked appointing conferees on ethics reform (6/26/07)

Anthony Man, a political reporter for the South Florida Sun-Sentinel, suggested the lack of "top tier" candidates "may actually demonstrate the [conservative] movement's waning influence in picking the Republican nominee and the next president."

He quoted Hastings Wyman, founding editor of the Atlanta-based Southern Political Report, who said, "It reflects a decline in the influence of the conservative Christian movement and the social conservatives in the Republican Party."

"I don't think the Republican Party is going to desert that base. But I do think that the degree of influence that we may have seen in the past of the religious-political conservative coalition no longer holds true," Wyman said.

The debate at the Broward Center for the Performing Arts is produced by ValuesVoter.org, a group which says on its website "Our American values are the values that existed before time and were articulated in America's founding document on her birthday, the 4th of July, 1776." [..]

Some questions [will be] coming from well-known figures including Paul Weyrich, founder and president of the Free Congress Foundation; Phyllis Schlafly, founder and president of Eagle Forum; Don Wildmon, founder and chairman of the American Family Association; Judge Roy Moore, a WND columnist with the Foundation for Moral Law; Rick Scarborough of Vision America; and Mat Staver of Liberty Council.

Would you elect a man president of the United States who was afraid of tough questioning from Phyllis Schlafly or Star Parker?

Would you consider voting for a man who had better things to do than to talk to an audience of millions concerned about the assault on family values?

What would you say to front-running GOP presidential candidates who take your vote for granted because they think you have nowhere to go?

These are some of the questions you should be pondering today as we get ready for a Republican presidential debate next Monday in Fort Lauderdale, Fla. - a debate in which four major contenders will be conspicuously absent.

They are: Willard "Mitt" Romney, Rudolph Giuliani, John McCain and Fred Thompson. [..]

While I wasn't going to vote for Romney or Giuliani or McCain under any circumstances, I would have considered voting for Thompson vs. Hillary. I'm not so sure anymore.

Isn't it amazing how scheduling conflicts and other business kept all four of these so-called front-runners from talking directly to people like Donald Wildmon and James Dobson and Paul Weyrich and Rick Scarborough?

Isn't it amazing they all have more important things to do to get elected president than to meet face to face with Christian and Jewish leaders who represent millions and millions of votes?

I tell you it is gut-wrenching fear that kept them away.

They are scared to death of the questions. [..] So [they] have decided "to play it safe."

Playing it safe means not showing up, making excuses for their absence and hoping they really can take all those values voters for granted. Surely, they will not vote for Hillary! Surely, they won't sit on their hands.

Well, maybe they won't have to stay home in November 2008. There's still more than a year left before that election. There's still a lot of time before the Republican convention. There's still quite a bit of time left before the first primary vote.

Maybe, just maybe, there's still time for another front-runner to emerge from the pack - perhaps one of the candidates not afraid of Phyllis Schlafly and Star Parker. [..]

I want to commend those candidates who weren't afraid to show up [..]. In fact, I wish them very, very well. Our nation needs one of them - at least - to rise to the occasion and snatch this nomination away from the pretenders to the throne.

Meanwhile, I have a message for the scaredy cats who aren't showing up next Monday. You know the old saying: We'll remember in November - November 2008, that is.