2014 Battle for the Senate

I like Mitch McConnell. He's not a worthless meddling moderate. That's of
foremost importance because the GOP needs leadership who have
convictions and cochonnes to do the right thing. We don't need mealy
mouthed aisle crossers who are virtually mindless. By those I mean those
like McCain, Boehner, Graham and Snowe (although she's a babe.) A very
critical area to remember is that the hard-lined left-winged extremists of the
Democrat party don't like him which means he wants the best for the USA.

In short, the GOP needs to elect someone similar to McConnell. But he'll
be the next Majority leader if the USA pulls their heads out of their...

 

Hmm, I would prefer someone who would be willing to be inclusive and work with those across the aisle to get things done. In the past we had this in Dole and Mitchell, with Lott and Daschle, going back further with Mansfield and Dirksen. So it is possible as long as we get rid of Reid and McConnell. It should be someone who doesn't have to resort to the nuclear option or filibuster every little thing. But it takes two to tango, both sides would have to elect more of a moderate than an ideologue or a partisan hack. As for naming names, Alexander, Isakson, Gassley might be close to meeting that criteria. It would have to be someone who is willing to up hold the traditions of the senate and willing to give and take. Someone even if a bit of an ideologue is willing to take small steps, someone who does not have to have the whole enchilada right at the moment. Someone who will give the opposition party some of what they want to get most of what the one in power wants. This 100% or nothing has to end.

Now in today's political atmosphere and landscape, who I described is not going to get elected any type of leader. The terms RINO and DINO will be thrown around. I suppose we just have to hope for the best, that getting rid of devils we know does not give us two more devils we didn't.

 

I respectively disagree. Worthless meddling moderates, i.e. reaching
across the aisle, is what has got the USA in the mess it's in. We don't need
to get anything done if it's not 100% in the best interest of the USA. That
should be the only goal in mind. In this case compromise isn't an option.
We should take a look at President Ronald W. Reagan who never compromised
on anything he knew was important. Lesser things, yes. But never ever on
anything that was important for the USA.

The USA needs leadership who will take charge and not worry about reaching
across the aisle and making someone feel bad. We need a House and
Senate that has the cochonnes to do what's necessary to get the USA's feet
back on the ground.

A worthless meddling moderate

 

Perhaps, but getting nothing at all is what we are getting today. Getting a half of loaf is better than getting none. That is the point I am trying to make. It is better to take two or three steps forward to getting this country back in the right track than no steps at all if you can't get the hundred steps you wanted. Sometimes it is even better to take a couple of steps back if that means in the future you can take ten steps forward.

This all or nothing attitude is ruining this country. It is actually stopping even small steps from happening. What good does it do the Republicans in the House that they were able to pass over 200 bills that just site in a drawer in Harry Reid's desk?

 

The voters in Brownback's vaunted "Red State Model" may actually be sufficiently fed up with their default Repubs that they'll dump an entrenched dude whose complacency makes corporate-lobbyist-apprentice Cantor' last campaign appear positively whirlwind by comparison.

 

Name the wager. Seriously...any amount.

I'll bet you that Obamacare is not repealed under a GOP House and GOP Senate.

I'll bet you that Obamacare is not repealed even with a GOP House, a GOP Senate, and a GOP President in 2017 or beyond.

 

This doesn't negate the fact that obamacare needs to be repealed. The majority
of the electorate didn't want it, they don't want it and won't want it.

It's a bad law.

 

It's funny to me that they passed a poorly drafted law and then act as if all the legal challenges against it are unusual... well if it wasn't poorly drafted there would be less lawsuits! I wish they were capable of shame.

 

The reality is that the lack of a coherent healthcare system in the US, massive taxpayer subsidies going to employer-administered coverage for those thusly privileged, tens of millions uninsured whose expenses were routinely dumped on the same taxpayer, and costs continuing to soar year after year for decades, major reform was desperately needed - and further reforms will still be needed.

The only politically practicable approach, given the powerful vested interests, was individually-mandated RomneyCare for the whole country. It was the best any Republican could devise and enact, and was copied for the nation.

Until a superior approach is politically viable (i.e., a single-payer approach that would relieve private enterprises of the bureaucratic burden of administering plans, eliminate the billions in subsidies to them for doing so, and cut out the parasitic middle-man that grabs a chunk of every health care dollar, Romney's model, however flawed, is here to stay.

 

And yet we are the most powerful superpower nation ever to exist in the history of mankind.

Power talks, bullhocky walks.

 

Spartans were known to strut as well, but their vaunted military puissance hardly enhanced the quality of life of the average citizen.

However desirable you may find the financial and military preeminence achieved by Roosevelt, Truman, Eisenhower, and Kennedy, I don't see how it necessitates having what is, by far, the most expensive health care system on earth with tens of millions left uninsured.

If anything, surely, such an advanced nation should be able to achieve the most economically efficient and inclusive one.

 

ObamaCare is a lost cause that will only get worse. If the Repos were smart, they would repeal it all and punt it back to the states. Let them set up their own healthcare systems as they so choose. It is the only sane way to deal with such a complex and out-of-control system.

But I won't wager on that happening.

 

The TPs continue to snivel about nationalized WillardCare, but Repub politicians are unable to contrive a viable substitute, so it fizzles as a significant issue.

In November, more Americans will probably vote for the Democratic candidate for the House as was the case in 2012, and far more will vote for the Democratic Senate candidate, but the GOP could well control both chambers, since the GOP has successfully gerrymandered congressional districts, and sparsely-populated states are more likely to be red.

One key is whether the Koch Bros can dupe the TP types into supporting their corporatist agenda in Kentucky. My guess is that they'll succeed. The Turtle is their #1 bumboy in DC, and they'll spend whatever they have to spend to keep him there.

I'm anticipating two years of wacko birds, war mongers, bible humpers, science deniers, and oligarch toadies scratching one another's eyes out before the electorate gives its verdict on their performance in '16.

BooHoo McDaniel indicated that his tantrum over losing the Mississippi nomination would allow people to see the “ugly, ugly under belly of some element of the Republican Party,” but you ain't seen nuthin' yet!

 

I'd be willing to bet that in about 5 years most American's will not only like Obamacare, but would vote against any politician that wants to "repeal" it. Want to take that wager?

 

Why do you believe the electorate is that stupid? Seriously. The didn't
want it, they don't want it and they will never want it. Why? Because it's
not necessary.

Please tell us why you believe the electorate is that stupid.

 

Having voted for the Democratic candidate in 4 of the last 5 national elections, and highly likely to opt for the Democrat in '16, the American people are not nearly as stupid as some might wish. The best-educated states and the worst-educated states evidence a stark disparity, to be sure, but the best-educated clearly have the edge.

 

Since the nuclear option only changed the rules regarding confirmation of judicial and executive nominees, the 60 vote rule still applies in this case.

 

Why do so many misrepresent the very minor change in the 60 vote Cloture Rule under Sen Harry Reid?

This change only applies to presidential appointments and excludes Supreme Court Justice appointments that are still subject to the 60 vote Cloture Rule. It doesn't affect any other form of Senate legislative action as established by the Senate rules and precedent. The 60 vote Cloture Rule is still very much alive and well in the Senate.

This is something that annoys me from Republicans as they are often very misrepresentative of the facts far more so than Democrats are of Republican actions. Why is that? I'm not claiming that either Republicans or Democrats are pillers of integrity but the Republicans seem to have virtually no integrity when it comes to addressing issues related to the Democrats or the Obama Adminstration.

 

Since the cloture rule allowing votes to end filibusters wasn't added until 1917 and in response to a single issue, Wilson's proposal for arming merchant ships, Senate tradition may not be quite what you think it is.

 

... and the form adopted in 1975 is hardly "sacred."

In any event. it had only became fashionable as of late:

​

 

No, they are MORE stupid! We now have Obama, easily the worst President in our history! He is a lying, incompetent scumbucket! Clinton was not much better.

 

Yes, you are upset with the better-educated for voting the way they do, so you need to lash out at them thusly.

 

Why would anyone elect a president that kept the economy weak, lied
incessantly, didn't do what was necessary to lower unemployment and
never did a single thing that was in the best interest of the USA to a
second term unless they were stupid?