Who's to Blame for Obamacare? Two Republicans (Obama is the ultimate Republicrat legacy)

WMDs is Bush's “I didn't have sex with that woman”

Democrat Quotes on Iraq Weapons of Mass Destruction

eeeevil RINOS (such as DeMint and Palin)

I never called either one of those two RINOs.

But, you just did.

W is content to let history judge him

I agree.

I blame two Republicans too. Snowe and Collins! Without them, this would have died in committee.

Nope. The democrats didn't need their votes on the committe either.

Norm Coleman’s campaign was one of the worst-run I’ve ever seen

Gilmore's campaign here in Virginia was pretty bad.

Fair enough.

Regrettably, I believe Bush likened (and terribly misread) working with Democrats from the Texas legislature to working with establishment, DC Democrats when he rose to the White House.

In his heart, I believe he sought a convivial atmosphere for genuine bipartisan cooperation (which he became accustomed to in TX) and occasionally threw them a few bones (No Child Left Behind, bloated budgets), yet in the end, it bit him in the rear.

Moreover, as much as I like Dick Cheney, I believe the neo-cons did a great degree of disservice to his presidency and harm to the GOP. Despite that, all future maneuvering and corruption by Obama & Co. in the executive and legislative branches cannot be pinned on or attributed to President Bush and Karl Rove.

From what little I heard, I’d agree.

But Mark Warner was a former governor and at least had some credentials. His policies may have sucked but he at least had a shred of credibility.

Al Franken’s credentiials?

He was a fu**ing comedian. And a carpet-bagging one at that.

“...nor the American people who elected them”

I disagree. The American People, comfortable in their sofas, in front of their 42” screens, behind the computer, ensconced in excellent housing, recipients of fine medical care....sat back while the termites ate at the foundation, paid little attention when “their” Senators and congresscritters slowly morphed into employees of Wall St. Investment Banks...and stopped minding the store in general. The consequence of such neglect is that we are one election away from having to resort to the Second Ammendment option to clean house.

Exactly.

I couldn't agree with the author more.

Dubya and his idot Rove were the worst thing to happen to the Republican party in my lifetime.

>> Without Jorge bush there would not have been a hussein obama. <<

Get real, my FRiend, get real. Without the Bush victory in 2000, we would have been ruled for eight years by President Al Gore. Are you going to tell me that would have been a good thing?

A very narrow, and somewhat myopic view of reality.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A4563-2005Feb7.html
President Sends '06 Budget to Congress Programs Are Cut, But War Costs Are Not Included By Peter Baker Washington Post Staff Writer Tuesday, February 8, 2005;
President Bush sent Congress a $2.57 trillion federal budget yesterday that is designed to project U.S. power and priorities overseas while squeezing government programs at home but would not make a sizable dent in the nation's record deficit next year, despite politically painful cuts. While pumping more money into the Pentagon and foreign aid programs, the budget for the 2006 fiscal year would slash funding for a broad array of other government services as part of the deepest domestic reductions proposed since the Reagan era. In the long term, the fiscal plan envisions holding non-security discretionary spending flat for the next five years to fulfill Bush's promise to cut the deficit in half by 2009.

"To offset those increases (in military spending), the rest of the discretionary budget would fall almost 1 percent, with programs for health, education, the environment, farming and housing taking the biggest hits. Nine of the 15 Cabinet departments would lose funding, including Housing and Urban Development (11.5 percent), Agriculture (9.6 percent), and Transportation (6.7 percent).
The Environmental Protection Agency would be cut 5.6 percent and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention by 12.4 percent, and the White House said it would take a 1.7 percent reduction in its spending. Altogether, about 150 programs would be eliminated or drastically scaled back, one third of them education-related."

2. Media lie number 2:"the Republicans had control of the Congress and Senate and so are responsible for any problem the liberal media invents".In the Senate 60 votes are needed to pass a bill. Republicans only had 51 for 2 years and 55 for 2 years. So It was never a Republican Controlled Senate or a Republican controlled Congress. Republicans needed to make deals and compromise with Democrats to pass any bill including any spending bill as 60 votes are neeeded to pass any bill.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A4563-2005Feb7.html

1. Media lie number 1:"Republicans increased government spending". Republicans did not increase spending: Proof is below.

2. Media lie number 2:"the Republicans had control of the Congress and Senate and so are responsible for any problem the liberal media invents".In the Senate 60 votes are needed to pass a bill. Republicans only had 51 for 2 years and 55 for 2 years. So It was never a Republican Controlled Senate or a Republican controlled Congress. Republicans needed to make deals and compromise with Democrats to pass any bill including any spending bill as 60 votes are needed to pass any bill.

1. Media lie number 1:"Republicans increased government spending". Republicans did not increase spending: Proof is below.The following excerpt says that Bush held discretionary spending flat. Actually when inflation is taken into account there is a huge decrease in discretionary government spending. Furthermore, the only discretionary spending increases were for the military and the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and for national security. So the "spending increases" were just for the military and were really just inflation. So you GOP hating "Conservatives" parrot the liberal media lies. Do you oppose the wars and the military buildup by Bush and Reagan ? If you oppose military spending increases then you are not conservatives. You and the media do not make that distinction that Bush cut domestic discretionary spending while increasing the rest of the discretionary spending , the military.

Only in an article probably published once a year on page 29 will you find this truth.Otherwise every second from 1000 media outlets the media says "Republicans increased spending" conveniently not taking into account discretionary domestic spending cuts, military spending, mandatory spending and inflation. So the media spins and lies and many "conservatives" buy those lies of the media.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A4563-2005Feb7.html
President Sends '06 Budget to Congress Programs Are Cut, But War Costs Are Not Included By Peter Baker Washington Post Staff Writer Tuesday, February 8, 2005;
President Bush sent Congress a $2.57 trillion federal budget yesterday that is designed to project U.S. power and priorities overseas while squeezing government programs at home but would not make a sizable dent in the nation's record deficit next year, despite politically painful cuts. While pumping more money into the Pentagon and foreign aid programs, the budget for the 2006 fiscal year would slash funding for a broad array of other government services as part of the deepest domestic reductions proposed since the Reagan era. In the long term, the fiscal plan envisions holding non-security discretionary spending flat for the next five years to fulfill Bush's promise to cut the deficit in half by 2009.

"To offset those increases (in military spending), the rest of the discretionary budget would fall almost 1 percent, with programs for health, education, the environment, farming and housing taking the biggest hits. Nine of the 15 Cabinet departments would lose funding, including Housing and Urban Development (11.5 percent), Agriculture (9.6 percent), and Transportation (6.7 percent).
The Environmental Protection Agency would be cut 5.6 percent and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention by 12.4 percent, and the White House said it would take a 1.7 percent reduction in its spending. Altogether, about 150 programs would be eliminated or drastically scaled back, one third of them education-related."

2. Media lie number 2:"the Republicans had control of the Congress and Senate and so are responsible for any problem the liberal media invents".In the Senate 60 votes are needed to pass a bill. Republicans only had 51 for 2 years and 55 for 2 years. So It was never a Republican Controlled Senate or a Republican controlled Congress. Republicans needed to make deals and compromise with Democrats to pass any bill including any spending bill as 60 votes are neeeded to pass any bill.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A4563-2005Feb7.html

http://www.senate.gov/pagelayout/history/one_item_and_teasers/partydiv.htm

108th Congress (2003-2005) Majority Party: Republican (51 seats) Minority Party: Democrat (48 seats) Other Parties: Independent (1 seat) Total Seats: 100 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

109th Congress (2005-2007) Majority Party: Republican (55 seats) Minority Party: Democrat (44 seats) Other Parties: Independent (1 seat) Total Seats: 100

http://www.senate.gov/pagelayout/history/one_item_and_teasers/partydiv.htm

For any bill, including any spending bill, to become law it needs to get to the floor of the Senate. The only way a bill can get to the floor is for 60 out of the 100 Senators to vote for it to get to the floor. Otherwise if the bill only gets less than 60 , 59 , 58, 57 ... etc. the bill dies.

Any bill will die if it doesn't get 60 votes to get to the floor of the Senate. Republicans had only 55 Republicans in the Senate. So Republicans never had control of the Senate. Republicans needed to make deals and compromise with the Democrats to get any bill passed. All bills,including all spending bills had to also be approved by democrats. So liberal media lie number one was that the media called it the "Republican controlled Congress".It wasn't . So Republicans were not responsible for any of "spending increases" the liberal media lied about.

NOW the Democrats do control the Senate because they control 60 votes. That is a democrat controlled senate and so it is a democrat controlled Congress. Before when the Republicans held only a bare majority of 55 the senate was a Republican-Democrat Senate and so was the Congress. It was never a "Republican Controlled Congress".Plus only for a mere 4 years did the Republicans have a bare majority. NEVER did Republicans have 60 votes in the Senate therefore NEVER was there a "Republican controlled Senate nor a "Republican Controlled congress". The liberal media made it seem as if the Republicans had a dictatorship. But that's not how the U.S. government works. You "conservatives" who hate the GOP have no clue as to how the government works, economics of anything. That's why all of you fall for the lies the liberal media invents to demonize Republicans. So you all become their puppets and turn against the GOP as was the media's goal.

Bush couldn't wave his hand and pass a bill .No for any spending Bush would have to wait for the Senate to pass a bill. The Republicans needed to fund the military etc. and so they had to pass spending bills and so they had to compromise with the Democrats to get 60 votes. Even in this Republican-Democrat Congress Republicans still managed to cut hundreds of government programs and cut discretionary government spending WHEN INFLATION is taken into account. This is shown in the article reference below.

So liberal media lie number 2 was that "Republicans spent like drunken sailors".First of all Republicans never could spend a thing as Republicans never had control of the Senate. Republicans never had a dictatorship. Republicans had to make deals with the Democrats to get the Democrat party to go along with them to reach the 60 votes needed to pass any bill.

If Republicans had 60 votes then you could hold them responsible but not with 55 votes. A more accurate statement would be in spite of the media and after compromising with Democrats, Republicans with only a bare majority managed to cut a deal with Democrats to cut spending and hundreds of government programs.

Do you understand simple math?60 is greater than 55. Get it now?

The following graph shows Republicans decreased the number of government workers:

-------------

democrat_media's post omits the fact that democrats were the majority from 2006 through 2008 and they loaded defense bills with outlandish earmarks and other high priced legislation knowing that Bush had to sign it in order to fund the wars and the troops.

The blame Bush and now Rove would be laughable were it not so sick. I can see the KOS and DU believing such nonsense, but people here? Sheeeesh.

I never called either one of those two RINOs.

Aren't you the Ron Paul supporter who claimed that Sarah Palin is 'John McCain in a skirt'?

‘President Bush was far from perfect but all in all he was a very good president.’

“Sure was. /s “

Looking back on Lincoln, one thinks of one event, FDR, one event, GW, it will be the same thing - 9/11.

Let’s look at the issue from another perspective: How would Clinton respond to 9/11? We know from the Cole, from Trade Towers 1, from Khobar, etc. that he would have stood there with his pants down, watching Monica.

How would Obama respond? He’d have conferences then go to the perps’ countries and apologize for being bad enough to warrant the attack. He’d also authorize foreign aid in the billions to make their people happier then proclaim success to the U.S. and the World. “They like us better now!”

GWB was a fine President but he had warts, just like any other former President. Obama is just a wart, period.

Also tried to hang on Sarah Palin views on issues she doesn’t hold trying to divide Palin supporters.

“There is one republican we can truly blame: McCain.”

Trying to place blame is an empty exercise, instead spend your energy on how to move forward toward a better objective. We are in a war, you must keep that in mind - the opposition certainly does.

No one knows about those democrat quotes about WMDs. You know why?.. Not because just the MSM didnt report them. It is because rats didnt use them to start/sell a >7 year war war w re-construction like Bush/Cheney did.

“As I recall, the justification for the U.S. invasion of Iraq was to enforce compliance with UN inspections for “weapons of mass destruction.” Turns out there weren’t any, or at least, none of any significance—I do remember the reports that some yellowcake uranium was found, as were a couple of minor leftovers that had not been destroyed after the first Gulf War.”

I’ve always thought people with 20/20 hindsight are folks who jump on the loudest bandwagon, DIABLO’s if you will.

You can rest assured if there is a RAT on the ballot I will always vote for the person with the greatest chance of beating him.