John Boehner allies fret coup attempt

Fletch · Mar 1, 2015

EnigmaO01 said:
No whining here. Just telling it like it is. There was no overwhelming victory by the republicans in the midterms and it's moot point anyway. Even with a majority in both houses they can't get their act together.

And "my side" varies as I never vote straight ticket. One of the best senators Indiana ever had was Republican Senator Richard Lugar, and i voted for him in the primary which required me to vote all republican. Out of state pac money and a smear campaign got him beat by some idiot named Murdock that ending up saying rape was the will of God. That in turn was the coup de grace that got him beat in the final election by dem Donelly.

Any time one party gains the way the republicans did in the last election, its a big victory. Dems did it in 06 and it was big then. But yeah, I don't think it matters all that much. Nothing is going to get done. Nothing gets done in the senate without 60 votes, and neither party is likely to get to that level any time soon. The country wil basically be on cruise control until the next election--Obama will rule by executive order and congress will try to stop him. It is funny how the man of hope and change has now because the guardian of the status quo.

EnigmaO01 · Mar 1, 2015

Robert in Ohio said:
There actually was a massive turnover, the largest majority in the House in decades and a net gain of 9 seats in the Senate.....

Typical low turnout in off year elections, significant dissatisfaction with current administration policies and positions and a general disdain for incumbents in some states all played a role but there was a significant shift

I guess it depends on you definition of "massive turnover." I sure don't see enough new republican seats to make the kind of difference a "massive turnover" would make. Seems to me the republicans are back at square one.

Robert in Ohio · Mar 1, 2015

EnigmaO01 said:
I guess it depends on you definition of "massive turnover." I sure don't see enough new republican seats to make the kind of difference a "massive turnover" would make. Seems to me the republicans are back at square one.

So unless there is a veto proof majority in both Houses (which ahs seldom existed in history) you would not think that changes in chamber makeup and control are significant

Interesting outlook

Fletch · Mar 1, 2015

EnigmaO01 said:
So he's not a "lame duck" after all? Seems to have a lot of power for a lame duck.

Well, to his credit, he has invented something we haven't seen before--rule by executive fiat. That may be a good thing now, but I don't think you will find it all that wonderful when a republican follows the path Obama is blazing. For me, I don't want a president to rule that way.

EnigmaO01 · Mar 1, 2015

Fletch said:
Any time one party gains the way the republicans did in the last election, its a big victory. Dems did it in 06 and it was big then. But yeah, I don't think it matters all that much. Nothing is going to get done. Nothing gets done in the senate without 60 votes, and neither party is likely to get to that level any time soon. The country wil basically be on cruise control until the next election--Obama will rule by executive order and congress will try to stop him. It is funny how the man of hope and change has now because the guardian of the status quo.

Not status quo. He's finally giving the party of no some of their own medicine as God knows they wouldn't support anything he wanted.

iguanaman · Mar 1, 2015

Fletch said:
And what is the democrat message that is so resonant? But yes, republicans should rally around some sort of coherent message other than oppose Obama. But the truth is, he is not going to work with them and will veto anything they pass. They should just accept this and pass their agenda anyway and let Obama veto it. Nothing is going to get done until this guy is out of office. That's just a fact. If you think about it, nothing has gotten done since 2010. Obama is going to rule by executive fiat for the next two years. Period.

The reason they won't "pass their agenda" is they have none that they can agree on. It does not bode well for them in 2016, being incapable of governing and running yet another Bush for President does not seem like a party that can or even wants to take control. Meanwhile the Dems will march forward with their agenda of raising minimum wage, immigration reform, and more help for the middle class.

EnigmaO01 · Mar 1, 2015

Robert in Ohio said:
So unless there is a veto proof majority in both Houses (which ahs seldom existed in history) you would not think that changes in chamber makeup and control are significant

Interesting outlook

Just look at the results Rob. Are you seeing any significant advantage by the republicans now?

Fletch · Mar 1, 2015

iguanaman said:
The reason they won't "pass their agenda" is they have none that they can agree on. It does not bode well for them in 2016, being incapable of governing and running yet another Bush for President does not seem like a party that can or even wants to take control.

2016 is a ways away. We will see what they do and who the nominate. But no, I am not in favor of another Bush, but by the same token I don't want another Clinton either. One would think there would be better choices in a nation of 330,000,000 people. But it seems not.

ttwtt78640 · Mar 1, 2015

EnigmaO01 said:
Just look at the results Rob. Are you seeing any significant advantage by the republicans now?

Not as long as Obama can keep them playing only defense.

Where is that "small government" secure the border now bill? How about the "popular" replacement for PPACA?

Robert in Ohio · Mar 1, 2015

EnigmaO01 said:
Just look at the results Rob. Are you seeing any significant advantage by the republicans now?

Hum off the top of my head, presidential appointment nomination approvals, controlling agenda for legislation in both chambers, ability (not sure they will use it) to advance legislation which will actually make a difference in the country

ttwtt78640 · Mar 1, 2015

Fletch said:
2016 is a ways away. We will see what they do and who the nominate. But no, I am not in favor of another Bush, but by the same token I don't want another Clinton either. One would think there would be better choices in a nation of 330,000,000 people. But it seems not.

The choices are limited to those that can muster the (hundreds of?) millions required to become "serious" candidates. That alone leaves out about 329,500 of them.

Lutherf · Mar 1, 2015

Robert in Ohio said:
And who would you suggest would do a batter job of working with the president and moving compromise legislation from the House through the Senate and to the president's signature in order to actually get things done
Or are you satisfied with gridlock politics and nothing getting done?

What needs to be done will never be signed off on by a Democrat or big government Republican. We need a paradigm shift in this country that de-emphasizes the role of the central government and promotes the role of the states and the individual.

EnigmaO01 · Mar 1, 2015

iguanaman said:
The reason they won't "pass their agenda" is they have none that they can agree on. It does not bode well for them in 2016, being incapable of governing and running yet another Bush for President does not seem like a party that can or even wants to take control.

Bingo! Don't forget Rand Paul or Walker, neither of which has a snowballs's chance in hell of winning a general election.

Jeb has a lot of issues with true conservatives on immigration. Maybe the repubs should just forfit 2016?

OTOH I'm not convinced Clinton is a shoe in as some think. I'd vote for a moderate republican like Huntsman over Clinton any day. But the repubs loathe moderate republicans. And most of the country is moderate. Therefore due to their own bullheadedness it will be hard to take back the Whitehouse.

1750Texan · Mar 1, 2015

jamesrage said:
Nonsense.

How Republicans came to office does not change the fact that there is no mandate. The GOP increased numbers in the House and Senate...yet that does not translate to agreement within their own ranks or a force to pass legislation.

The minority that wants Boehner out as Speaker is no more powerful after this elecetion as they were in the last term.

That fact seems to be lost on them...and you.

Fletch · Mar 1, 2015

ttwtt78640 said:
The choices are limited to those that can muster the (hundreds of?) millions required to become "serious" candidates. That alone leaves out about 329,500 of them.

There is some truth to that, but it isn't a lack of money that keeps Hillary from having an opponent. Its a lack of talent on the democrat side. If Hillary doesn't run, who is out there to soak up all that money?

Robert in Ohio · Mar 1, 2015

Lutherf said:
What needs to be done will never be signed off on by a Democrat or big government Republican. We need a paradigm shift in this country that de-emphasizes the role of the central government and promotes the role of the states and the individual.

You ignored the question.
Who would you suggest replace him?

washunut · Mar 1, 2015

ttwtt78640 said:
Not as long as Obama can keep them playing only defense.

Where is that "small government" secure the border now bill? How about the "popular" replacement for PPACA?

Wow six full weeks into the session and people are shocked there is no replacement for ACA yet. Get a grip. It took the dems almost 2 years to pass ACA, and that was with 60 senators! Republicans seem to need a new formation. The circular firing squad does seem to be working.

Fletch · Mar 1, 2015

1750Texan said:
How Republicans came to office does not change the fact that there is no mandate. The GOP increased numbers in the House and Senate...yet that does not translate to agreement within their own ranks or a force to pass legislation.

The minority that wants Boehner out as Speaker is no more powerful after this elecetion as they were in the last term.

That fact seems to be lost on them...and you.

The only thin the past election allows republicans to do is have some movement in the Senate. Reid blocked anything from happening there. He will continue to try to do so without any scrutiny from the press, but bills will get debated, passed and sent to the president. Other than that, not much changed.

imagep · Mar 1, 2015

ttwtt78640 said:
The republicants do not "control" enough to override a veto or even enough to prevent a bill getting stopped in the Senate. Since Obama still has control of his pen, his phone and the press he is still very much in control. So long as Obama (with a little help from his left leaning friends) is able to keep the republicants simply trying to say no then their congressional approval rating will remain down in the road kill zone. A "TP" led coup, changing leadership in the House, will still neither "fix" the math/rule situation in the Senate nor stop Obama from having the final say with a veto, signing statement or EO (see congressional Keystone XL pipeline "victory").

That's exactly how I see it.

EnigmaO01 · Mar 1, 2015

Robert in Ohio said:
Hum off the top of my head, presidential appointment nomination approvals, controlling agenda for legislation in both chambers, ability (not sure they will use it) to advance legislation which will actually make a difference in the country

The blocking of presidentiall appointments has been occuring from the first day Obama set foot in office. Nothing new there.

Doesn't matter if the repubs control the agenda, and if they choose to advance legislation if they can't pass it.

Fletch · Mar 1, 2015

washunut said:
Wow six full weeks into the session and people are shocked there is no replacement for ACA yet. Get a grip. It took the dems almost 2 years to pass ACA, and that was with 60 senators! Republicans seem to need a new formation. The circular firing squad does seem to be working.

I don't blame them for putting little effort into a replacement for Obamacare. Obama will veto it anyway, so why bother? If it is going to be changed, it will be something the republican presidential nominee will have to put forward.

ttwtt78640 · Mar 1, 2015

Fletch said:
There is some truth to that, but it isn't a lack of money that keeps Hillary from having an opponent. Its a lack of talent on the democrat side. If Hillary doesn't run, who is out there to soak up all that money?

Why blow millions (and bash each other) when you have a huge EC advantage over the other party? The DNC sees no downside to folks remembering (constantly reinforced by the MSM) the good old days under Bubba Clinton. They are wisest to spend that money to get a RINO on the republicant ticket to help depress opposition turnout.

imagep · Mar 1, 2015

EnigmaO01 said:
So he's not a "lame duck" after all? Seems to have a lot of power for a lame duck.

Which is exactly what is frustrating republicans so much. They wish for him to be a lame duck, to be a weak president, but he is still the most powerful man on earth, and that power is certainly going to be part of his legacy. It's a republican nightmare.

EnigmaO01 · Mar 1, 2015

Fletch said:
2016 is a ways away. We will see what they do and who the nominate. But no, I am not in favor of another Bush, but by the same token I don't want another Clinton either. One would think there would be better choices in a nation of 330,000,000 people. But it seems not.

Don't look now Fletch but 2016 is only 10 months away!

Fletch · Mar 1, 2015

ttwtt78640 said:
Why blow millions (and bash each other) when you have a huge EC advantage over the other party? The DNC sees no downside to folks remembering (constantly reinforced by the MSM) the good old days under Bubba Clinton. They are wisest to spend that money to get a RINO on the republicant ticket to help depress opposition turnout.

Good luck with that. Hillary doesn't bring to mind the 'good old days' of anything. She is unlikable, unattractive and shrill. That's good enough to get 48% of the vote but I don't think it will be enough to win.

John Boehner allies fret coup attempt

Fletch

EnigmaO01

Robert in Ohio

Active member

Fletch

EnigmaO01

iguanaman

EnigmaO01

Fletch

ttwtt78640

Sometimes wrong

Robert in Ohio

Active member

ttwtt78640

Sometimes wrong

Lutherf

EnigmaO01

1750Texan

Fletch

Robert in Ohio

Active member

washunut

Fletch

imagep

Villiage Idiot

EnigmaO01

Fletch

ttwtt78640

Sometimes wrong

imagep

Villiage Idiot

EnigmaO01

Fletch

John Boehner allies fret coup attempt

Active member

Sometimes wrong

Active member

Sometimes wrong

Active member

Villiage Idiot

Sometimes wrong

Villiage Idiot

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency