Posted on 12/19/2009 7:50:31 PM PST by Nachum
The Republicans gained majorities in 1994, but Clinton was president for seven more years and Republicans didn't have the votes to repeal and then override a Clinton Veto. But the Bush tax cuts in 2001 (?) did repeal Clinton and take the rates back down.
If Republicans can take back the House and/or Senate in 2010, they can put a stop to Obama's nonsense and turn some of it back with a Republican president in 2012 and later.
You seem to be totally forgetting the Tea Party, which is polling better than both Republicans and Democrats right now, and are busy getting ready to contest/back conservatives in the Republican primaries where it makes sense to do so.
The Republicans who get elected in 2010/2012, are not going to be your business as usual Republicans. Look at Rubio in Florida US Senate Republican primaries as a good example of that.
RE :”The Republicans gained majorities in 1994, but Clinton was president for seven more years and Republicans didn’t have the votes to repeal and then override a Clinton Veto. But the Bush tax cuts in 2001 (?) did repeal Clinton and take the rates back down.”
The income tax rates Clinton raised affected few voters, Republicans ran against the middle class tax increase on gasoline(with other things) . But they never wanted to repeal that, they wanted to spend that money, and did, and more.
The Republicans could not have repealed Clinton's tax increases, whether or not they wanted to. He would have vetoed any repeal. Not sure how you know exactly what Republican motives were in those years. Those are the years when they did restrain spending and almost reduce the annual deficit to zero. - The wild Republican spending started when W took office.
Economic disaster coming soon to a theatre near you.
Repealing that gasoline tax was never even talked about at the time, it is part of what reduced the debt to zero with the Republican spending reductions(and closing of cold war military bases) . Dems take credit for it all now because of Bush/republicans later history.
The Dems take credit for it because they are shameless liars and because Clinton was in the WH. Spending was restrained only because the Republicans took control of Congress, but that doesn't stop the lying.
Dem’s beat that one to death, “We handed republicans a surplus and Republicans handed us a huge deficit”.
Expect more of this when Obama talks about the deficit next year, raising our taxes, all Bush’s fault.
It will the house or both (or neither if the rats hang on to the house). The Senate is unlikely. It would take more a perfect storm of the right candidates running and a landslide on a level that would guarantee the GOP was also taking the house easily.
I think the House is a good possibility. In the Senate, Republicans would need to knock some northern senators such as Dodd and Specter, as well as Blanche Lincoln and Harry Reid, and several others. If can get back up close to 50 Republicans, that should also enable them to end Obama’s agenda and keep things static until 2012 when they should pick up more seats in the Senate.
Yup. 2012 will provide a very rich target list for the NRSC. 2014 too.
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.