GOP cautions that Senate control would have limits

Associated Press ^ | Sep 28, 2014 1:33 PM EDT | Charles Babington

[SoFloFreeper]

+1

[Dave W]

Another purist alert...yawn.

[Don Corleone]

Self-defeating - AGAIN- it is not? Or is that the intent?

They do not want to win! If they are not in charge they get no blame, have to produce no new ideas and still draw the same outrageous salary and bennies. They still go to the cheese and wine fests with their buddies and retire with perks that while we just can dream about they get forever.

[wmfights]

Also, a Republican Senate could block many, if not all, of Obama's nominations to federal courts and administration jobs that require confirmation.

That would be a good start. At least conservatives would see they really do want to undo the damage obama and the Rats have done.

Why is it that I doubt they will do that?

[Olog-hai]

2001-2007. What did the non-purists do, again?

[dowcaet]

I hate the GOPe but if getting Dingy Harry out of the majority leader spot just to spite him then I’ll hold my nose and vote for the Republicans for the senate. I’m not holding out any hope they’ll do anything and I’m sure they’ll do more than their share of caving in to the president, but I can’t stand Harry Reid, and I want to see him meltdown once he’s no longer leading the majority.

[God luvs America]

funny- the title is a lie “GOP control would have limits” and its the writer drawing conclusions and trying his best to demoralize voters. From the article:

“They have to have an agenda and have to perform,” said GOP Rep. Jack Kingston of Georgia, who is retiring after 22 years in the House. The party’s conservative base, he said, is tired of fiery rhetoric yielding scant results.

Republican senators, Kingston said, must be able to tell voters that “we did tax reform, we did welfare reform, we did spending reform, or something that shows that there were Republican fingerprints” at government’s highest levels.

Obama probably would veto such measures, Kingston acknowledged.

But making Obama do so will show the difference between the parties, Kingston said, and “that helps build the case why you need a Republican president.” If nothing else, Kingston said, Republicans must force Obama to sign or veto a bill to repeal his 2010 health care overhaul, a GOP priority that Senate Democrats have blocked for years.

Obama certainly would veto that effort, but he would be powerless to stop several other initiatives.

[okie01]

Odd, this particular report “from the GOP” (establishment - of course!)

Actually, this report is "from the AP".

Not necessarily a reliable source of GOP intentions...

[wardaddy]

EFF them

Barely better than the enemy

[butterdezillion]

The article itself is all about the optics of how the fight will pan out, with the D’s being labeled as the obstructionists while the R’s are able to finally pass politically-symbolic laws that make them appear conservative while knowing that Obama will veto it and there won’t be enough votes to override the veto.

IOW, it seems to me that the article is saying we’re going to have great kabuki theater for all the talking heads to wag their tongues over, while the country goes to Hell in a handbasket.

I’m sick of politics. I hate politics. Why doesn’t somebody have the brains and the will to finally fight for the survival of the country? This is sort of like saying it’s great that Winston Churchill took over the helm in the middle of the darkest days of WWII because then he could show that he MEANT to fight Hitler even while never actually fighting Hitler. It’s stupid. “Politics” is stupid at all times but stupid and downright dangerous when it keeps you from fighting a battle for survival. Just once I would like a politician truly GET IT and say it out loud, that the USA is in an existential war for our survival.

[FlingWingFlyer]

It’s weird that the Senate doesn’t have any “limits” when the damned communist DemocRATS are running it!

[what's up]

They didn’t do anything of lasting value back then, either

Bush tax cuts?

Successful funding for WOT to keep us on offense?

Partial birth abortion ban?

No value?

[tennmountainman]

You act as if we haven’t already been down this road before.

It wasn’t that long ago the GOP held all three branches of govt.

We ALL remember how that worked out.

[Yosemitest]

",,, stay at home on election day"

Oh, HELL NO !
The "ESTABLISHMENT REPUBLICANS" will NOT get the message unless THAD COCKROACH LOSES!

It is VITAL that Thad is removed, or the RINOs will do it again, and they may do it again, anyway.

REMEMBER
MISSISSIPPI

Chris McDaniel refuses to concede: "We're going to investigate" ( 8:40 )
Published on Jun 25, 2014

I'll take out (vote AGAINST) an "ESTABLISHMENT REPUBLICAN" every time I get an opportunity to, and that INCLUDES the GENERAL ELECTION.

You got it?

"ESTABLISHMENT REPUBLICANS"SHALL NOT PASS !


It's SIMPLE.

Vote AGAINST "ESTABLISHMENT REPUBLICANS" !
Vote FOR REAL CONSERVATIVE "Tea Party Candidates" !

[txrefugee]

Already making excuses even before being elected. Whadda bunch of milquetoasts!

[oldbill]

Republican control of the Senate, unfortunately, means that there will be an amnesty bill passed by Boehnerand McConnell and signed by Obama.

[Jane Long]

Misleading headline alert!!

I read the entire linked article. NO WHERE could I find where ONE single Republican was quoted making this claim (as per headline).

It quoted Dims as saying it. It quoted Repubs saying what WOULD be attempted, should we win the majority.

AP at it, again. Don’t fall for it, folks.

[Jane Long]

I read it. I agree with you. See my post.

[Maceman]

Another RINO enabler. Feh.

[VRWC For Truth]

I say again. Not one dime’s worth of difference. The stupid party of ‘Rat lite.