Posted on 04/23/2006 5:59:31 PM PDT by SirLinksalot
Who cares if GOP loses Congress?
By Joe Scarborough
Who really cares if Republicans lose Congress? Certainly not GOP leaders in the US House.
As the Wall Street Journal reported, the Republican pigs running Congress are wasting more money than those big-spending Democrats ever did.
Last month's deficit was the highest ever. But while Rome burns, Republicans obsess over their earmarks.
Conservative Republicans. What an oxymoron.
There is nothing conservative about the party to which I once proudly belonged. Like millions, I am disgusted by my party and their leaders.
A handful of responsible adults still understand the need for reform. But don't tell that to GOP bulls who have been trying to spend money like drunken sailors since they were empowered by the Revolution of 1994.
Some revolution.
A decade later, Republicans have given America the biggest deficit ever. The biggest debt ever. The biggest trade gap ever. The highest spending increases ever. A 110% increase in the education bureaucracy. A 100% increase in the Justice bureaucracy. An 88% increase in the Department of HHS. More pork projects than ever before. More earmarks than ever before. More reckless spending projects than ever before. A bigger, more wasteful government than ever before.
Why the hell should conservatives work to put these whores back in their perches of power?
Could Nancy Pelosi's Congress be worse?
Not on the spending level, because George W. Bush would have the courage to veto her outrageous spending bills. Sadly, he has shown no such fortitude with his own party in charge.
It is disgusting. It is also a problem I diagnosed two years ago in my book. But Republicans weren't listening then and they won't listen now.
(Excerpt) Read more at jewishworldreview.com ...
No flame here, you are absolutely right on.
It's not your fault. You did your job. They just didnt do theirs.
Fool me once shame on you. Fool me twice shame on me.
Well he didn't exactly fool me. I realized his had deep downside potential. I just thought the other side did as well. I had hoped he'd prove me wrong, but I got about what I expected, which sucks.
I don't buy that for a second. People thought the same thing back in 1992 with Bill Clinton's winning the whitehouse.
You may get a chance to see majority leader Pelosi first hand next year and I will guarantee you it will be much much worse. She may even be President after they get that little nasty business of impeachment out of the way - just noodle on that for a moment - Nancy Pelosi as President. I will renounce my citizenship and move away to some far country (perhaps to the beach in Mexico since they are taking over anyway).
I remember hearing the same thing back in 1992 from people who voted for Ross Perot. Result: 8 years of Bill Clinton.
The GOP Establishment should be taught a lesson by having REAL conservatives leave their party in droves.
The only lesson they'll learn from that is that there'd be no reason to court conservatives, because conservatives took themselves out of the picture.
I thought the Republican "lunatic fringe" were ultra-Conservatives. Silly me. They are all singing the left-winged Moonbat bark...
Well said.
Your post represents my exact feelings.
Only if you want people like Nancy Pelosi, Ted Kennedy, Howard Dean, Jesse Jackson... to call the shots.
I used to fantasize about a 3rd party (Libertarian) takeover of the federal government. I still believe in the libertarian philosophy, but the notion that they will ever come into power is a pipe dream.
Like it or not, the cold hard fact of political life is that there are only two political parties in Congress, D's and R's. If the R's lose because conservatives sat out or voted 3rd party, D's win. The winners won't care that you didn't vote for them, because they didn't have your vote anyway. And the losers won't care, because they're now out of power and have no further reason to seek your vote.
During war, what message does an impeachment procedure of the Commander-in-Chief send to our enemies, not to mention our allies?
During war, what message does an impeachment procedure of the Commander-in-Chief send to our enemies, not to mention our allies?
Wouldnt it be nice to see a republican come out and expose the dems on this by asking the American public this same question.
Oh but no...they dont want the media to accuse them of "personal attacks"... that would be terrible </sar
Thank you! I could not agree with you more.
It's really sad the people who are willing to let that happen either by sitting out the election or voting 3rd party out of spite or petulence.
It's really sad the people who are willing to let that happen either by sitting out the election or voting 3rd party out of spite or petulence
It's even more sad to see the republican party ignore its base and take our votes for granted.
That's idiotic. You don't turn around things that fast. With the exception of 1952-1954, the House DOES NOT switch that fast.
And there are other issues other then spending.
Stay home if you want, but you'll get more of what you don't want if you do.
That's not actually true if the economy keeps growing. As a percentage of GDP, neither the deficit nor the national debt are all that large in comparison to times past.
Not that I am in favor of the Republican's spendthrift ways, not at all, but it needs to be put in perspective. The doom and gloom is unwarrented.
A better question would be, why are we attempting to create a Democracy in Iraq and Afganistan if all of them are essentially alike?
The answer is that they aren't. There are good and bad muslims, good and bad people from, say, Sadi Arabia, Iran, Syria, etc.
Cutting off all immigration from those countries would essentially say "We think you are all terrorists and are all untrustworthy." That would be the only logic behind it. If this is the case, that they are all either terrorists or terrorist sympathizers, we mine as well pack up in Iraq, Afganistan, etc. because clearly we can't create a stable democracy out of a bunch of terrorists.
If you are going to buy into that logic, you have only two rational solutions: Do nothing, or committ genocide. Clearly, neither option is morally right or reasonably acceptable.
Thankfully, George Bush understands the problem in a litte more of a 3 dimentional way, and he doesn't buy into that warped logic.
The same one that didn't want us to get involved in WW2 and that didn't see Communism as a real threat? (i.e. Robert Taft)
The same ones that were anti-trade and protectionist? (Hoover's Smoot-Hawley act, which probably was a big part of what made the depression as deep as it was?)
I'll take the conservatives of today.
I'm not saying that there aren't problems in the conservative movement, but you are looking back with rose-colored glasses. There was no magical time where lines were neatly and clearly drawn and everybody fought over those lines from conservative to liberal.
And even at that, it's worth remembering that even if it was that way, they never actually could or did accomplish anything because they were slightly more the 1/3rd of Congress, and much less then half.
Oh, yeah, New Orleans would still be flooded !
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.