|
Who’da thunk it ... voting for Democrats to get spending under control. Maybe that will turn out the real fiscal conservatives for the ’08 elections, of whatever party. |
| |
Written By:
MichaelW
URL:
http://
|
|
No thanks. We had enough of Dem gridlock. That’s why Daschle is a private citizen now... |
| |
Written By:
shark
URL:
http://
|
Coburn for Senate Majority Leader?
Naw, for totally different reasons he’d be as effective as Frist. Frist has no spine, Coburn would just have Republicans deliberately dissenting with their votes... too bad. |
| |
Written By:
Dave
URL:
http://
|
“Yes, the Democrats probably voted in the majority to keep the spending in place. But they’re Democrats and that’s expected of them.” “When ’06 comes around remember this phrase: "Gridlock is good".
Then make it happen.” I get your example (the 82 – 15 vote) of why “gridlock” won’t work because the Democrats will vote with the Republicans to keep spending in place. I agree. What I don’t see is how, after citing this egregious example of how the “gridlock” concept for spending is bogus, you then turn around and call for it. Call for the election of Democrats if you will, but phony slogans like “Gridlock is good” …? Gridlock on social issues, maybe. On spending? No way. |
| |
Written By:
notherbob2
URL:
http://
|
Gee Bob ... maybe you missed it ... the whole point is to vote ’em out. The Republicans in the Senate that is ...
Then, for at least two years, you have majority Democrats in the Senate trying to spend more money and the Republicans trying to hang on to their seats turning back into fiscal conservatives and, who knows, since they’ll be Democrat spending bills (which should be natually opposed by conservative, less spending Republicans), Bush might actually find it in himself to veto one or two or twelve before ’08.
As Jon pointed out, indications are those claiming to be Reps in Congress now are simply bible-thumping Democrats ... they’re certainly not conservative Republicans. So what’s the diff? |
| |
Written By:
McQ
URL:
http://www.qando.net/
|
|
Unfortunately, I don’t think I’ll have any more luck trying to vote out Mike Castle in 2006 than I did in 2004, 2002, 2000, or 1998. |
| |
Written By:
Joe R. the Unabrewer
URL:
http://unabrewer.com
|
|
Alaska Senator Ted Stevens threatened to resign if Coburns amendment passed. Man, I’m sure glad that didn’t happen! Stevens is trying to pass Robert Byrd with the amouint of pork, but old shakey has him beat every which way. |
| |
Written By:
Abu Qa’ Qa
URL:
http://
|
Gridlock helps to bring some semblance of sanity to fiscal issues as well as social ones, and I do have to agree that gridlock is probably our best bet at this time. A split executive and legislature during the Clinton era helped control the growth of spending. The first thing the Republicans did when they controlled both branches of government was to suspend the ’pay-go’ rules that helped to limit growth in the 90s. Republicans held Clinton to task for spending, but Clinton also submitted budgets that were much more fiscally responsible than anything Bush has ever submitted, even before the Republicans in the legislature got a hold of them.
I have to agree with the call for gridlock here... its really the best choice at this point.
Also I think that a blow to Republicans in the 2006 mid-terms would help to energize the more moderate and fiscally responsible portions of the party, which may give us the oppourtunity for a quality Republican Presidential candidate in 08. As the Democrats resorted to a (relative) centrist in Clinton after years of losses to the Republicans, Republicans may be forced to do the same if a Democratic comeback occurs in 06. |
| |
Written By:
Rosensteel
URL:
http://
|