I think the word you're looking for is "stampede," as in:
(Time Magazine Cover, Nov. 21, 1994.)
Posted on 11/30/2004 8:58:23 AM PST by SwinneySwitch
Emasculating democrats sounds good!
They did?
which is Congress' primary responsibility.
It is?
The Democrats have not been emasculated enough. They still think they rule the country and its time to give them an education on who's really boss.
Time-honored? Only when the rats are behind it.
Like Snarlin' Arlen?
IMO, they ought to bring back the old "Mr. Smith Goes to Washington" style of filibuster. I would love to see Robert "KKK" Bird or Teddy "Hic" Kennedy hold the floor of the Senate for 24-hours. If they want to block a vote bad enough, step up there big guy.
Just vote it. That's how a majority-rule system is supposed to work.
I have a recollection of a television interview at that time and a democrat (I think it was Rangel but I am not certain) was complaining mightily about the treatment dems were receiving.
The reporter asked him, 'but isn't this how you've been doing it for years?' And the dem said (and I swear to you it was with a straight face and highly indignant) "Yeah, but that doesn't make it right!"
Don't you love the use of the word "overthrown?" I don't remember an overthrow that year, but I do remember a November night of free and fair elections.
"time honored?"
only when it benefits the dems... Isn't it a "bit" disingenuous, forked tongue, in-your-face, fool even themselves, twisted rhetoric that when the pubs are in the majority, they are the ones who are supposed to capitulate and reach across the isle to people who sit there, sullenly, and refuse to compromise even on things they would normally - if in charge - vote for...
who carry it even further into all out gridlock, simply to block anything and everything...who, in their corkscrew logic, believe that they should be kowtowed to, should not have to be bipartisan but be begged and cajoled and capitulated too - or the pubs are the culprits..
Not really a puzzle - it's the way of the socialist, and we must start calling them what they are, indeed, what they call themselves (tho' not openly) ...Democratic Socialists.
If we start, now, always referring to them as Democratic Socialists, (they can't complain very loud about it - for the evidence is there - separating the Socialist fraction of the party from the old-time dems, like Zell, - make the division clear - then the old time, true dems, will start to understand that their party has been hijacked by the socialists...
The old-time dems will pull away and commence to strengthen the true dem party - while the Socialists will be unmasked for who and what they are.
It seems the socialists must be put down every 2-3 generations.
But if they can be exposed again, now, the party will be neutralized for 2-3 decades before the old-time democrat party principals can regain it's party.
And that will be very late for regaining control of the country.
Either way, the socialists - and they must always be mentioned as Democrat Socialists, so the connection is clear - must be driven back into their dark, dank caves.
CC Caller Times would give my Canary the runs, (If I had a Canary)
It is a WORTHLESS RAG and basically a waste of perfectly good ink.
TT
I think the word you're looking for is "stampede," as in:
(Time Magazine Cover, Nov. 21, 1994.)
"time honored?"
Yes time honored since the 70s when Democtrats couldn't get around a similar Republican minority, so they changed the Senate rules to make a supermajority 60 votes instead of a true supermajority or 2/3rds or 67 votes.
Kinda funny the writer didn't mention that here.
Also funny he didn't mention when the Senate was tied 50/50 but the Republicans controlled the Senate with the Vice Presidents vote. Senate Majority Leader Lott put together a bipartisan power sharing deal with Democrats, but the minute Jim Jeffords became an "Independent" the new Senate Majority Leader, Tom Daschle, declared that all things "Republican" were controversial and he would not even consider them without 60 votes to do so.
Dan K. Thomasson, former editor of the Scripps Howard News Service and the rest of the old media think we don't remember these things and put forth such ridiculous scribbling.
We remember and we won't let you misinform the public anymore!
My only question is:
WHAT HAPPENED TO THAT ONCE PROMISING REVOLUTION IN 94?
The “revolution” was based on the “Contract with America” that Newt Gingrich and the GOP developed. The contract stated that if the American people elected the Republicans to a majority in the U.S. House, they would vote to pass the agenda items contained in the Contract.
All ten items in the Contract with America were brought to a vote in the U.S. House in the first 100 days as promised by the Contract. Nine of the ten items passed the House. The sole exception was Term Limits which received a plurality but required a two-thirds majority as a Constitutional Amendment.
Many of the tenets failed later tests, after facing a more liberal Senate and Clinton’s veto. In addition, the line item veto was passed, but was overturned by the Supreme Court.
The revolution can be credited with some tax cuts, bigger defense budgets, welfare reform, and tougher anti-crime laws. Most of the changes in House rules remain in effect, though the eight-year limit on the speaker's term has been rolled back.
Anybody elected to the House in 1994 is gone or has won reelection five times since then.
Bipartisanship? I remember the Republicans shoving it down XXX-42's throat three times before his advisors read the polls and told him it was politically popular and he better just swallow it. Most of the Dems just screeched about women and children starving in the street because of it.
Nah, it doesn't matter anyway. Their sexual proclivities pretty much exclude them from the gene pool in the first place.
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.