Posted on 09/28/2014 1:45:05 PM PDT by Olog-hai
How much difference will it make if Republicans win the Senate majority on Nov. 4, joining the GOP-run House against a Democratic White House?
Congress’ persistent gridlock is due largely, but not entirely, to the current power split in the two chambers. But even if Republicans add Senate control to their safe House majority, big legislative roadblocks will remain.
President Barack Obama still can veto legislation.
Should Democrats lose six or more Senate seats, ceding the majority, they can use the power of the filibuster to thwart dozens of GOP initiatives. Republicans have employed this tactic from the minority side. …
(Excerpt) Read more at hosted.ap.org ...
Only for non-SCOTUS confirmations.
The legislative filibuster is still intact.
-PJ
A GOP-e senate would just be more of the same flaccid BS. I bet the fools would “power share” again. What complete idiots.
One huge problem with the tax cuts is that they were not due to reform, they were essentially the government "letting slide" a portion of the tax.
This mentality is eerily close to that that considers all money [wealth] to be property of the government and you have the privileged of using it; also note that because the tax system wasn't changed they can at-will change it back — it is a gift
.
>Successful funding for WOT to keep us on offense?
The War on Terror is terrible for the military; here's why: There is no Victory Condition
.
It is, however, a masterful work of propaganda — who wants to sit back when there's terrorism going on?
>Partial birth abortion ban?
IIUC, considering that all they have to do is not wait until the kid's being born to comply with it… yes.
Little more than feel good
legislation; that there was no further push for more restrictions on abortions you can't claim it was incrementalism.
>No value?
The GOP is all talk and no action; so, no, they are of no value.
It happens naturally because people age and die.We talk about Reagan, but there was also Tip O'Neill, Tom Foley, Bob Michel, Trent Lott, Jim Wright, etc.
Those people didn't talk of hate, enemies, crushing, etc. They fought hard for their positions, but they didn't make it a blood sport.
Take no prisoners politics didn't begin until the Clinton administration, and the take-downs of Newt Gingrich and Tom DeLay, followed by the Jim Jeffords party switch and Trent Lott's power sharing offer. I hope that Lott learned his lesson after he was driven out of the Senate after his trumped up comments about Strom Thurmon.
I hope that the entire GOP caucus learned the lesson of Trent Lott, that you cannot make good-faith gestures to today's Democrats in the expectation of receiving in-kind consideration in return.
Today's Republicans think they can mitigate Democrat intransigence. They can't. If they won't see the light, then they must go. If not sooner, time will take care of it later.
The bell will toll for 72 year old McConnell, 80 year old Hatch, 78 year old McCain, 81 year old Grassley, 78 year old Roberts, 79 year old Imhofe, 74 year old Alexander, 70 year old Enzi.
We don't have to wait 40 years... another 10 will do.
The trouble is getting the elders to step aside now so they can be seen as king-makers, grooming the next generation, instead of bitter-clingers holding onto their seats until they die and leaving the next generation to scramble for the pieces left behind.
-PJ
He can't appropriate money though. Not legally anyway.
the GOPe will find a way to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory
I guess you didn't see Boehner on This Week today, wanting to pass immigration reform after the election, before the new Senate or Congress is seated.
For an encore he is trying to persuade Jeb to run.
In my case the requirements are very few: honor and follow the Constitution, destroy (clean out) corruption, and push for responsible finances.
Is that too much for a candidate? Does that make me a purist
?
Doesn't matter how close you get if there is a toll both that you can't afford, keeping you out.
not a great deal of difference.
the libtard rinos there will be the holdouts and gum up the works. to help their friends across the aisle.
“Even if we ask you, and then you bust your butts electing us, we’re not going to do jack____, that is, anymore than we do now. Unless it busts your chops. That’s all we can promise.”
The GOP-e
Exactly. The 14 Gangsters will raise their clog up the senates heads
again. It’s only only purpose is to clog up anything conservative.
Ruth Bader Ginsburg comes to mind, courtesy of Orin Hatch and the GOPe. Some of us remember the power sharing agreement that led to Jumping Jim the GOPe traitor.
They had best start pulling their GOP-E bought and paid for by lobbyist heads out of their arses and get it together. IF the GOP takes the senate look for about one of four persons to be picked as SML, McConnell, Alexander, Corker, Cantor, etc who have long standing records of doing DEM's dirty deeds for them. That is the reality.
It's just like in the house we have Peolsi LITE meaning the Liberal One acting incompetent Boehner whom BTW was the one who engineered the GOP-E takeover of the party back in about 1996-97. He's a snake in the grass. His bungling and acting defeated is deliberate.
Boehner Speaker of the House and his GOP-E Oligarchic just like over a dozen GOP-E in the senate need to be shown the door. They make opposition to the Liberal agenda impossible. Ironically the one named in your tagline is a huge player in keeping such in office. It seems it's either His picks by his donors or the party surrenders to the DEMs by not supporting Conservatives who defeat GOP-E. This has been a ongoing issue and Rove is usually in the thick of it.
Are the gdpe and their “conservative” enablers and apologist admitting to the voters, don’t expect them to do much in stopping Obama if they should stumble into taking the senate? Say it ain’t so!
Only for non-Supreme Court appointments. Everything else can be filibustered.
Even before the next Senate session. If the R's win by any appreciable margin, be sure that the first order of business in the lame duck Senate will be to restore the previous majority rules.
Well. Your "requirements" are so general almost anyone can win your vote, so I have to assume you voted for Obama in 2008. After all, he was all about following the law, being transparent and cutting our deficit in half. He came across as responsible, an expert on the constitution since he was a constitutional law professor (to this day, I get responses from two different folks, "Well, it must be OK since Obama taught the constitution.")
Try again.
Does he honor the Constitution? Does he espouse financial responsibility and accountability?
No.
But it's funny you bring 2008 up; to my shame I voted for McCain — at the time, though, I promised myself it would be the last time I ever "voted against" somebody. And you know what? In 2012 that promise kept me from pulling the lever for Romney (who is Obama's political clone).
After all, he was all about following the law, being transparent and cutting our deficit in half. He came across as responsible, an expert on the constitution since he was a constitutional law professor (to this day, I get responses from two different folks, "Well, it must be OK since Obama taught the constitution.")
Hey, given that (and what I now know about McCain) voting Obama in 2008 doesn't sound like too bad a deal. Sure, people were suckered, but [in hindsight] it's better than McCain's projected image.
Try again.
You know, I don't have to.
You're the one saying that people are purists for not voting for the lesser of two evils (still an evil) — and then you dismiss my [reasonable] requirements as too general.
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.