Posted on 11/02/2014 12:39:31 AM PDT by Libloather
On todays CBS This Morning: Saturday, the networks political director, John Dickerson, warned Republicans that if they win the Senate on Tuesday, it will be on their shoulders to find a way to work with President Obama: Theyve run an entire campaign on the idea that this person, the President in the office, is no good; now theyre suddenly going to have to work with him....After being the opposition party, you now have to show you can actually govern.
Never mind that the White House has telegraphed Obamas plan to deliver a post-election middle finger to Republicans and the voters who support them in the form of a unilateral amnesty for illegal immigrants that excludes Congress from the lawmaking process. Its also the opposite of the spin the media employed eight years ago as Democrats prepared to assume congressional power.
Looking back at 2006, the media werent wagging their fingers at Democrats warning that, if they won Congress, it was their job to become responsible partners for then-President George W. Bush. Instead, the media were rejoicing at the idea that an all-Democratic Congress could tie up the Bush administration with subpoenas, and even impeachment. Instead of being told they had to prove they could govern by rubber-stamping a Republican Presidents priorities, gleeful journalists thought it was fantastic Bush would have to negotiate everything with newly-empowered liberals.
(Excerpt) Read more at newsbusters.org ...
If the Congress is controlled by the Republicans, I think Congress should just ignore Obama.
It really shows how Dems always want it their way even if they lose. Unfortunately one can count on the GOP caving to Dem demands even when Dems loose.
loose=lose
Obama said they have to sit in the back.
We owe obama nothing.
Justice Lewis F. Powell, Jr. |
|
The godfather of the
|
|
Ostensibly concerned with attempts of Democrat Party outsiders to wrest control from the party old-guard using netroots, powerful new means of fund-raising & connectivity centering around the internet, the author of The Argument ends up admitting that, by the 2006 mid-term elections, despite the influx of new blood, the Democrat Party was as far as ever from convincing votersor itselfthat it has any ideas or programs that make it superior to, or different from, the Republicans. Of special interest in The Argument is a PowerPoint® presentation nicknamed "The Killer Slideshow", formally titled The Conservative Message Machine's Money Matrix. Compiled over a period of about a decade by a leftist policy wonk, Clinton administration treasury official Rob Stein, the 2004 presentation used charts, diagrams and other graphic aids to detail the rise of the conservative foundation movement between the defeat of Barry Goldwater by President Lyndon Baines Johnson in 1964, and Ronald Reagan's 1976 Republican primary challenge to President Gerald R. Ford. The Killer Slideshowno one was allowed to view it without signing a non-divulgence agreementtook as its starting point the August, 1971 memorandum from future Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States, Lewis F. Powell, Jr., to Eugene B. Sydnor, Jr., Chairman, Education Committee, U.S. Chamber of Commerce. Titled "Attack on the American Free Enterprise System", the confidential memorandum was held to be the original inspiration for the system of conservative foundations, considered by Democrat Party operatives in The Argument to have locked down Republican Party domination of the Presidency for nearly thirty years between Carter and Obama, only interrupted by Clinton. The presentation's point was to exhort leftist donors into replicating the Republicans' long-term, Presidential electoral success . (Regardless of the slideshow's ultimate effect, it is worthy of note that the Obamanistas project a forty-year reign, longer than that of the Democrats during the Depression period 1933-1954. Democrat campaign strategist James Carville has argued quite persuasively that the political statistics make Democrat domination of the Presidency, the most likely outcome of the current economic and political struggles.) Now, after gaining only grudging admission to the Republicans' "big tent" for the better part of five decades, Pro-Lifersone of the most coherent voting blocks in the pivotal 1994 mid-term elections, with exit-polling showing 26% reporting Pro-Life as their most important voting issueshould now realize that from its inception, the so-called "conservative" movement was founded by those who only threw table scraps to the Cause of Life. This is conclusively proven by the behavior of one of the leading founders of the superstructure of "conservative" foundations, (fundraising apparatus such as direct-mail, training institutes, think-tanks, journals and talk-radio), Lewis F. Powell, Jr., who The Argument documents as having initiated the movement's long-term, historic success. And yet Powell, this paragon of "conservatism", ruled with the majority in Roe v. Wade and Doe v. Bolton, the Supreme Court decisions which opened the floodgates of bloodletting in the killing of more than 50 million children in the U.S. This betrayal didn't start with "conservative" Republican California Governor Ronald Reaganremarried after divorce, popular among reporters for telling "the best dirty jokes"signing into law one of the nation's first laws permitting abortion, in 1967. "Conservative" President Dwight D. Eisenhower later became converted to the false gospel of contraception and population control in the mid-1960s. By that time, there was "growing government interest in population control and the putative threat to American national security posed by a growing Third World population. '[W]orries about the Soviet Union and the possibility of Communist inspired revolutions in the Third World were widespread in government and foreign-policy circles'. Funding for population control in the Agency for International Development [USAID] began with a modest $2.1 million dollars in 1965 and quickly reached $185 million by 1980." (James R. Kelly, "Seeking a Sociologically Correct Name For Abortion Opponents", Abortion politics in the United States and Canada: Studies in public opinion, Westport, Conn. : Praeger, 1994. pp. 20-26.) President Richard Nixon, who won a 49-state "conservative" landslide in 1972, could have exercised his authentic Executive prerogative to interpret the Constitution by resisting the Supreme Court's final domination of all aspects of civic life in its 1973 decisions Roe and Doe. But Nixon favored abortion in cases of "miscegeny", unions which produce mixed "race" children. (In 1968, Samuel Frederick Yette, Washington D.C. Bureau Correspondent of Newsweek Magazine, wrote The Choice: The Issue of Black Survival in America, exposing high-level plans within the United States to use birth control and abortion as instruments of Black genocide. Despite the fact that his book was selling well, had won at least two national awards and was being used as a textbook in colleges across the country, Yette’s publisher mysteriously dropped him and took the book off the market. Immediately after this book was published, Yette was summoned to his supervisor’s office and fired. He was told that Newsweek was under pressure from the Nixon White House to get him out of Washington.) With imminent prospects for loss of our freedom at the hands of the leftists, how much longer can the Pro-Life movement afford to allow the Republican Party, and supposedly "conservative" Democrats, to shine us on? Will we have to lose our freedom completely, as with Canadawhere merely praying on the sidewalk results in imprisonment before we get serious about demanding that the Republicans authentically support our cause? Though a Democrat, Powell was economically conservative at the same time that he was socially leftist. |
It is long past time Republicans ignore the corrupt MSM. They work for the Democrats and they will never be fair nor honest. Time to move past them completely.
Yeah, and Harry Reid has bent over backwards to screw Republicans. Where was CBS?
I disagree strongly. Don’t be like Dems and shut out the opposition, let them be a total part of the process to show the world how infantile the Dems were when they were in charge by making the point every time it is raised how the Dems locked them out.
If they ever hope to win the argument that they are different, never ever, act in spite.
Nope. He is suddenly going to have to work with them
They should send bill after bill to him to force hon to veto.
These people still live in a bubble. They still believe it's 2008 and Hope and Change is all the rage
Work with the president - -impeach his sorry a$$
Yes that get along go along hands across the aisle to work with “my democrat friends” has worked so well in the past. We are past the point of compromise. Cut domestic spending, put back in place welfare requirements, and realistic changes to entitlement testerday.
Matt Bai posts often at Yahoo. He might be critical of Dems sometimes, but I think he is more of a leftist than the party.
We need a leaderto emphatically say to the Dems “Don’t worry. We will treat YOU exactly as you treated us since 2007.” That should make them choke.
Along with a nation wide FBI investigation of voter fraud.
I would go further.
I would make a big announcement how Harry Palm Reid would be “honored” by keeping his policies in place.
When the dems complain, just tell them talk to Harry Palm Reid it’s his policies.
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.