Republican Spinning Their Wheels

[Guest]

Here is the entire section from Article 5 of our Constitution:

Methods Of Ammendment
The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress; Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article; and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate.

The Republican Party has 55% of the seats in the House. Even if they all vote for a "Balanced Budget Amendment" it won't make it to the Senate.

They are so busy complaining about higher taxes, they don't stop to think how much tax payer money they are wasting pursuing hopeless causes.

[Guest]

Here is the entire section from Article 5 of our Constitution:

Methods Of Ammendment
The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress; Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article; and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate.

The Republican Party has 55% of the seats in the House. Even if they all vote for a "Balanced Budget Amendment" it won't make it to the Senate.

They are so busy complaining about higher taxes, they don't stop to think how much tax payer money they are wasting pursuing hopeless causes.

I know I am a broken record but if we all vote republican in 2012 and we will get a balanced budget amendment.

It is that simple.

[Guest]

I know I am a broken record but if we all vote republican in 2012 and we will get a balanced budget amendment.

It is that simple.How long will it take for the states to ratify such an amendment? History says that IF Constitutional amendments are eventually adopted, it can take a very long time for state ratification to occur. Do you realize that it took 202 years for the original Article I to be ratified?

Very few of the Constitutional amendments passed by the Congress ever get ratified. Do you realize that the Equal Rights amendment, the Child Labor Law amendment, even the original Bill of Rights have never been ratified by the required number of states?

Then there's the question of whether the required three-quarters of the states would vote for such an amendment. It would take 38 states to ratify such an amendment. Only 12 states failing to ratify would make all this sturm and drang a decade-long exercise in futility. Want to start counting the states that would almost certainly fail to ratify the amendment? Start with New York, New Jersey, Illinois, California, Florida...what's that, five already?

Wouldn't it be more effective to continue to get fiscal conservatives elected to the Congress, then nick away at the defict and debt...maybe even hack away at it...over a longer period of time, doing less damage to the economy than an ill-thought out action such as the Cut, Cap and Balance bill (which includes the requirement for a Constitutional amendment) would have?

[Guest]

I know I am a broken record but if we all vote republican in 2012 and we will get a balanced budget amendment.

It is that simple.

Yes we should all vote Republican in 2012 cause you all were so fiscally conservative the last time. I remember that!!!

[Guest]

Yes we should all vote Republican in 2012 cause you all were so fiscally conservative the last time. I remember that!!!

Everybody believed the good-looking articulate colored kid.

We goofed.

C

[Guest]

Everybody believed the good-looking articulate colored kid.

We goofed.

CYeah, but remember what the alternative was.

Where are those people now? What do I hear them saying about the current fiscal crisis? Maybe they're keeping their mouths shut so as not to say something as dumb as relying on advice from Joe the Plumber.

[Guest]

Everybody believed the good-looking articulate colored kid.

We goofed.

C

Vowed I wouldn't post here again....but "colored kid"? I can't believe anyone even uses that racist label anymore. :(

[Guest]

Vowed I wouldn't post here again....but "colored kid"? I can't believe anyone even uses that racist label anymore. :(

Why is it racist?

[Guest]

Why is it racist?

My god, if you don't know or don't think so nothing I could ever say would enlighten you.

[Guest]

My god, if you don't know or don't think so nothing I could ever say would enlighten you.
Why can't you just explain instead of insulting me?

[Guest]

Here is the entire section from Article 5 of our Constitution:

Methods Of Ammendment
The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress; Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article; and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate.

The Republican Party has 55% of the seats in the House. Even if they all vote for a "Balanced Budget Amendment" it won't make it to the Senate.

They are so busy complaining about higher taxes, they don't stop to think how much tax payer money they are wasting pursuing hopeless causes.

So are you saying if the odds are not in your favor but you know you are in the right, that you would give up your fight and give in to your adversaries?

Not a very American point of view.

[Guest]

Everybody believed the good-looking articulate colored kid.

We goofed.

C

racist or a fool. Which is it?

[Guest]

Everybody believed the good-looking articulate colored kid.

We goofed.

C

Colored kid???? What year is this???

[Guest]

Colored kid???? What year is this???

I guess it is not in vogue this year. Maybe next year. Hard to tell because political correctness is constantly changing it's vocabulary criteria.

[Guest]

I guess it is not in vogue this year. Maybe next year. Hard to tell because political correctness is constantly changing it's vocabulary criteria.

Blue Heron gets upset about the word idiot and the use of this word is ok with you? We could be using another word here.

[Guest]

I hate to be thought of as endorsing racial language, but did everyone get really upset when Joe Biden used similar verbiage?

http://politicalhumor.about.com/od/joebiden/ig/Joe-Biden-Cartoons/Obama-Picks-Biden.-j7g.htm

http://articles.cnn.com/2007-01-31/politics/biden.obama_1_braun-and-al-sharpton-african-american-presidential-candidates-delaware-democrat?_s=PM:POLITICS

[Guest]

I think you may be agreeing with me on this one, Richie.

Biden's full quote was...

"I mean, you got the first mainstream African-American who is articulate and bright and clean and a nice-looking guy," Biden said. "I mean, that's a storybook, man."

That's racist?

Biden wound up apologizing to his critics who asserted that his statement was racist. The critics were his political opponents, of course. Too bad he succumbed to political correctness. I wouldn't have.

[Guest]

I hate to be thought of as endorsing racial language, but did everyone get really upset when Joe Biden used similar verbiage?

http://politicalhumor.about.com/od/joebiden/ig/Joe-Biden-Cartoons/Obama-Picks-Biden.-j7g.htm

http://articles.cnn.com/2007-01-31/politics/biden.obama_1_braun-and-al-sharpton-african-american-presidential-candidates-delaware-democrat?_s=PM:POLITICS

Had if seen it the response would be the same....at leash from me

[Guest]

Had if seen it the response would be the same....at leash from me

If you want to split hairs. Obama is not black. Obama is not white. He is in-between.
What is your definition? Just curious, that's all.

[Guest]

Colored probably not racist but certainly derogatory and offensive which is why you wrote it. To use the term colored conjures up images of the times when there were signs pointing out "white" areas from the "colored" areas. Without the historical background it probably is not offensive but I have a feeling you used it to be offensive.

[Guest]

It is inappropriate to use the term "colored kid". It is a mild form of segregating by race.

Now I will explain something else. The guy before Obama screwed things up so bad that we may lose Medicare.

[Guest]

If you want to split hairs. Obama is not black. Obama is not white. He is in-between.
What is your definition? Just curious, that's all.

if not the most ridiculous posts I have ever read on this forum.

[Guest]

So are you saying if the odds are not in your favor but you know you are in the right, that you would give up your fight and give in to your adversaries?

Not a very American point of view.

Do you think that those politicians really believe in what they are voting for or are they just doing as they are told?

[Guest]

Andrew Cuomo of New York or Jim Webb of Virginia
vs.
some corporate stooge that is pliable and dumb

[Guest]

Yes we should all vote Republican in 2012 cause you all were so fiscally conservative the last time. I remember that!!!

I just finished "The Price of Loyalty" an audio book about Paul O'Neil Bush's first Secretary of the Treasury. Your comment sums up the book perfectly.

[Guest]

if not the most ridiculous posts I have ever read on this forum.

You criticize and mock people instead of posting anything meaningful. You sir, have some kind of deficiency that impairs you to give logical or reasonable responses. You must be real fun to live with.chilout

[Guest]

I think you may be agreeing with me on this one, Richie.

Biden's full quote was...

"I mean, you got the first mainstream African-American who is articulate and bright and clean and a nice-looking guy," Biden said. "I mean, that's a storybook, man."

That's racist?

Biden wound up apologizing to his critics who asserted that his statement was racist. The critics were his political opponents, of course. Too bad he succumbed to political correctness. I wouldn't have.

If any Republican refered to Obama as the 1st African American "Anything", he would have been excoriated. But THE FIRST nice looking articulate African American?

You're a bit screwy on this one VK. In fact, very screwy.

[Guest]

Do you think that those politicians really believe in what they are voting for or are they just doing as they are told?

Do you mean do they believe the total concept, or are they just doing what their constituents elected them to do? If that's what you call be "told" what to do, I want lots more of that.

[Guest]

I think you may be agreeing with me on this one, Richie.

Biden's full quote was...

"I mean, you got the first mainstream African-American who is articulate and bright and clean and a nice-looking guy," Biden said. "I mean, that's a storybook, man."

That's racist?

Biden wound up apologizing to his critics who asserted that his statement was racist. The critics were his political opponents, of course. Too bad he succumbed to political correctness. I wouldn't have.

Yes, that is racist. It is implying that all African-Americans are not good looking and are not articulate. You cannot see that????

[Guest]

Yes, that is racist. It is implying that all African-Americans are not good looking and are not articulate. You cannot see that????

is that what that implied? Think of the mainstream African-Americans of the time. The good-looking and articulate Jesse Jackson? The good-looking and articulate Al Sharpton?

I don't think it was meant to be racist. I think it was meant to be complementary.

[Guest]

How long will it take for the states to ratify such an amendment? History says that IF Constitutional amendments are eventually adopted, it can take a very long time for state ratification to occur. Do you realize that it took 202 years for the original Article I to be ratified?

Very few of the Constitutional amendments passed by the Congress ever get ratified. Do you realize that the Equal Rights amendment, the Child Labor Law amendment, even the original Bill of Rights have never been ratified by the required number of states?

Then there's the question of whether the required three-quarters of the states would vote for such an amendment. It would take 38 states to ratify such an amendment. Only 12 states failing to ratify would make all this sturm and drang a decade-long exercise in futility. Want to start counting the states that would almost certainly fail to ratify the amendment? Start with New York, New Jersey, Illinois, California, Florida...what's that, five already?

Wouldn't it be more effective to continue to get fiscal conservatives elected to the Congress, then nick away at the defict and debt...maybe even hack away at it...over a longer period of time, doing less damage to the economy than an ill-thought out action such as the Cut, Cap and Balance bill (which includes the requirement for a Constitutional amendment) would have?

whatever length of time it takes for the states to ratify a constitutional amendment for a balanced budget will not start until the amendment is past in Congress and signed by the president.

We might as well get started.

[Guest]

is that what that implied? Think of the mainstream African-Americans of the time. The good-looking and articulate Jesse Jackson? The good-looking and articulate Al Sharpton?

I don't think it was meant to be racist. I think it was meant to be complementary.

Biden's condescending statement about Obama showed an unlaying racism that cannot be denied. What he showed was his surprise that a black man could be so articulate.

Picture Sarah Palin saying the same thing and what the reaction of the media and of other black politicians would have been. Sheila Jackson Lee is calling people racist when they just disagree with Obama; you don't think this would have been an issue if the Biden was Republican? Keep dreaming.

Your statement is a bit racist. You can't think of any "mainstream" African-American who was "good looking" and "articulate" before Obama, either? Really? How about Clarence Thomas, Thomas Sowell, Bill Cosby, Colin Powell, etc. Think again about what you said.

[Guest]

Biden's condescending statement about Obama showed an unlaying racism that cannot be denied. What he showed was his surprise that a black man could be so articulate.

Picture Sarah Palin saying the same thing and what the reaction of the media and of other black politicians would have been. Sheila Jackson Lee is calling people racist when they just disagree with Obama; you don't think this would have been an issue if the Biden was Republican? Keep dreaming.

Your statement is a bit racist. You can't think of any "mainstream" African-American who was "good looking" and "articulate" before Obama, either? Really? How about Clarence Thomas, Thomas Sowell, Bill Cosby, Colin Powell, etc. Think again about what you said.

a little tongue in cheek please.

[Guest]

a little tongue in cheek please.

I apologize if your previous post was meant in jest. The humor, if there, was not evident to me.

[Guest]

whatever length of time it takes for the states to ratify a constitutional amendment for a balanced budget will not start until the amendment is past in Congress and signed by the president.

We might as well get started.

Take a quick look at my first post in this thread. It is directly from the Constitution. I don't think that it needs to be signed by the President since two thirds of both houses are veto proof majority.

[Guest]

whatever length of time it takes for the states to ratify a constitutional amendment for a balanced budget will not start until the amendment is past in Congress and signed by the president.

We might as well get started.

The Balanced Budget Amendment is not the end all. If passed it will be the subject of judicial review thus providing an opportunity for judges to legislate from the bench. Also there are a number of projects off budget now Fannie, Freddie, Postal Service and the Consumer financial Protection Bureau. A Balanced Budget Amendment would encourage other projects to go off budget. It would also create incentives to mislabel budget items.

We are better off without it. Do I have an alternative...No

We are in this poistion because we have elected representatives of dubious character and by hook or crook they will not be denied their due

[Guest]

The Balanced Budget Amendment is not the end all. If passed it will be the subject of judicial review thus providing an opportunity for judges to legislate from the bench. Also there are a number of projects off budget now Fannie, Freddie, Postal Service and the Consumer financial Protection Bureau. A Balanced Budget Amendment would encourage other projects to go off budget. It would also create incentives to mislabel budget items.

We are better off without it. Do I have an alternative...No

We are in this poistion because we have elected representatives of dubious character and by hook or crook they will not be denied their due

You make some interesting points. Social Security is supposed to be off budget also. Many programs that got us out of the Depression required deficit spending.

[Guest]

The Balanced Budget Amendment is not the end all. ...there are a number of projects off budget now Fannie, Freddie, Postal Service and the Consumer financial Protection Bureau. A Balanced Budget Amendment would encourage other projects to go off budget....Heck, the costs of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan were "off budget" until 2010.

[Guest]

...Social Security is supposed to be off budget also...Both Social Security and Medicare are not budgeted in the annual budgets of the U.S. because those programs are supposed to be funded separate from the annual spending budgets created by Congress. Social Security is supposed to be funded by payroll taxes paid by both employers and employees. Medicare is supposed to be funded by insurance premiums paid by participants.

That being said, both programs might as well be included as line items in the federal budget because their funding has proven inadequate for many years, the shortfall in their funding being paid by special funding bills passed by Congress each year.

[Guest]

The Balanced Budget Amendment is not the end all. If passed it will be the subject of judicial review thus providing an opportunity for judges to legislate from the bench. Also there are a number of projects off budget now Fannie, Freddie, Postal Service and the Consumer financial Protection Bureau. A Balanced Budget Amendment would encourage other projects to go off budget. It would also create incentives to mislabel budget items.

We are better off without it. Do I have an alternative...No

We are in this poistion because we have elected representatives of dubious character and by hook or crook they will not be denied their due

your alternative is to let the Congress continue to overspend. There is no place for pessimism or lack of action in this situation.

[Guest]

your alternative is to let the Congress continue to overspend. There is no place for pessimism or lack of action in this situation.

There is a member, I think billthekid who has an ingenious quote. A pessimist is an optimist with experience. Most subscribers to TOTV are retired or close to it. so they have witnessed year after year as politician over stated, underperformed or plain out lied promise after promise after promise. My assessment is not pesstimistic but unfortunately realistic. Methaporically, we would be further ahead if we burned Washington down and started over again:(

[Guest]

PS but we will recover and we will now do a better job of voting in effective and honest leaders.:D

[Guest]

PS but we will recover and we will now do a better job of voting in effective and honest leaders.:DName me a few who are running for office. So far, I haven't seen any that meet your description.

[Guest]

Name me a few who are running for office. So far, I haven't seen any that meet your description.

Michelle Bachmann and Rick Santorum

[Guest]

Michelle Bachmann and Rick SantorumNotwithstanding your suggestion, I still can't.

By the way, where's Rick Perry on the list? You were promoting him awhile back, weren't you?

[Guest]

Both Social Security and Medicare are not budgeted in the annual budgets of the U.S. because those programs are supposed to be funded separate from the annual spending budgets created by Congress. Social Security is supposed to be funded by payroll taxes paid by both employers and employees. Medicare is supposed to be funded by insurance premiums paid by participants.

That being said, both programs might as well be included as line items in the federal budget because their funding has proven inadequate for many years, the shortfall in their funding being paid by special funding bills passed by Congress each year.

VK, May I ask what your profession was before retirement?

[Guest]

Notwithstanding your suggestion, I still can't.

By the way, where's Rick Perry on the list? You were promoting him awhile back, weren't you?

I think I know how Santorum and Bachmann would vote per your query, and I believe they would vote with an eye toward austerity.

I still am a big fan of Rick Perry's ability to speak dynamically in promoting the conservative agenda that I believe the country needs, and in a way that will sway the fence sitters in a positive way, much as Reagan did. I'm just not as sure as the 2 mentioned above as to how he would legislate. Speech doesn't always indicate future action, as we all are much aware. On the campaign trail I still believe Gov. Perry would be hard to beat, at this point in time.

[Guest]

Notwithstanding your suggestion, I still can't.

By the way, where's Rick Perry on the list? You were promoting him awhile back, weren't you?

on this forum really don't get it. They live in a bubble down here, and frequently interact with like-minded people who serve to validate their right-wing opinions. However, it's a big country out there and most sane people don't support far right policies. Anyone who thinks that either Bachmann or Rick Santorum can win a general election has a few screws loose.

[Guest]

Notwithstanding your suggestion, I still can't.

By the way, where's Rick Perry on the list? You were promoting him awhile back, weren't you?

I think he is listening to God and waiting to get approval from his wife.

[Guest]

on this forum really don't get it. They live in a bubble down here, and frequently interact with like-minded people who serve to validate their right-wing opinions. However, it's a big country out there and most sane people don't support far right policies. Anyone who thinks that either Bachmann or Rick Santorum can win a general election has a few screws loose.

There are loose screws around here alright. Thank goodness they are the minority.
They called Reagan "far right." America leans to the right, always has.

[Guest]

Name me a few who are running for office. So far, I haven't seen any that meet your description.

Richielion named two. Perry is running. Palin, Cantor, Rubio. Christie, governor of Ohio, McDonnell.

[Guest]

There are loose screws around here alright. Thank goodness they are the minority.
They called Reagan "far right." America leans to the right, always has.

that have recently come out must be way off base. You know the ones that show by a wide margin, the majority of Americans still blame GWB for the nation's economic ills. And the one that came out this week, that showed a big majority blamed the Republicans for the stalemate on the debt ceiling issue. And don't forget the most recent presidential preference poll that showed Obama easily beating Bachmann.

[Guest]

Who did they poll, themselves? All the polls I have seen Obama being defeated and rightfully so. The American people want the spending to stop. Listen to the people!!!!

[Guest]

on this forum really don't get it. They live in a bubble down here, and frequently interact with like-minded people who serve to validate their right-wing opinions. However, it's a big country out there and most sane people don't support far right policies. Anyone who thinks that either Bachmann or Rick Santorum can win a general election has a few screws loose.

November 2010 midterm elections. How soon you forget. But, keep on believing. It's fine with me.

[Guest]

that have recently come out must be way off base. You know the ones that show by a wide margin, the majority of Americans still blame GWB for the nation's economic ills. And the one that came out this week, that showed a big majority blamed the Republicans for the stalemate on the debt ceiling issue. And don't forget the most recent presidential preference poll that showed Obama easily beating Bachmann.

Only the liberal media polls where they ask "adults" what they think does Obama have a chance at a lead right now. In any poll where they ask registered voters their opinion, Obama loses. The last Gallup Poll has him losing to an unnamed Republican by 8 percentage point. But, believe what you want. You'll sleep better.

[Guest]

Only the liberal media polls where they ask "adults" what they think does Obama have a chance at a lead right now. In any poll where they ask registered voters their opinion, Obama loses. The last Gallup Poll has him losing to an unnamed Republican by 8 percentage point. But, believe what you want. You'll sleep better.

much better in polling than any of the announced candidates. The minute you substitute a Bachmann or a Perry for the unnamed candidate, the polls change a lot in Obama's favor.

[Guest]

Who did they poll, themselves? All the polls I have seen Obama being defeated and rightfully so. The American people want the spending to stop. Listen to the people!!!!

check this link.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2012/president/us/general_election_bachmann_vs_obama-1941.html

[Guest]

check this link.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2012/president/us/general_election_bachmann_vs_obama-1941.html

They don't say who they're polling, as to whether they're simply people walking around the local Walmart or registered voters. But what can you expect from a "left wing rag" (last bit I'm just using your ploy)

Inconsequential poll when they don't reveal who they polled.

[Guest]

They don't say who they're polling, as to whether they're simply people walking around the local Walmart or registered voters. But what can you expect from a "left wing rag" (last bit I'm just using your ploy)

Inconsequential poll when they don't reveal who they polled.

again. They show results for all the major polling organizations, including your bible, Fox news.

[Guest]

again. They show results for all the major polling organizations, including your bible, Fox news.

All you got is FOX News to throw back when you're stumped for a intelligent response. As I've said before I rarely watch TV at all and I just as rarely watch FOX News. I may watch a news special but that's about it. If there's similar ideas it's because FOX News sounds like me, as I rarely listen to them.

I read and read and then I read some more. Try it; maybe you'll soften your biases and maybe you'll learn something you didn't know about the great love of your life. (You know the guy I'm talking about)

The limited poll you linked is only about Rep. Bachmann and she's far from being the candidate, and it's a long way to the convention and to the elections that follow. Our dreadful failure of a President is known by all and when you ask registered voters if they'll vote for him the majority say "no". That's the way it is, this day July 25th, 2011.

[Guest]

If any of you think a right wing religious fundamentalist who is openly anti-gay and thinks all immigrants are evil can get elected you are reading and watching the wrong things. Yes,Obama can be beaten but not by Bachman. We as a country tend to be a conservative lot but to the majority of Americans including Repubs she is not the answer. Her beliefs are far too conservative for most of us.

[Guest]

If any of you think a right wing religious fundamentalist who is openly anti-gay and thinks all immigrants are evil can get elected you are reading and watching the wrong things. Yes,Obama can be beaten but not by Bachman. We as a country tend to be a conservative lot but to the majority of Americans including Repubs she is not the answer. Her beliefs are far too conservative for most of us.

Bachmann is anti-gay? Funny, Obama was against gay marriage while he was campaigning. Now he flip flopped and is for gay marriage. What does that tell you?
Like I said before, the mainstream media said that Ronald Reagan was too conservative for America. He won by a landslide because America is a conservative nation. The Tea Party is America.

[Guest]

Ronald Reagan hiked taxes. He compromised with Democrats. He supported amnesty for illegal immigrants. He negotiated with our most hated enemy (the USSR).

Ronald Reagan would never get the nomination in today's GOP.

[Guest]

Ronald Reagan hiked taxes. He compromised with Democrats. He supported amnesty for illegal immigrants. He negotiated with our most hated enemy (the USSR).

Ronald Reagan would never get the nomination in today's GOP.

Why wouldn't he? He was against big government and that is the problem we face today. Government is expanding, can you not see that?

[Guest]

Ronald Reagan hiked taxes. He compromised with Democrats. He supported amnesty for illegal immigrants. He negotiated with our most hated enemy (the USSR).

Ronald Reagan would never get the nomination in today's GOP.Sadly, I agree with you on that. These days the "base" constituencies on both left and right use "litmus tests" far more often than they ever did "back in the day". They won't consider a candidate who has a platform or a personal history which doesn't completely meet all their individual tests for their qualifications. As the result we often get candidates who have only minimal experience or a record to be evaluated by the electorate. Such less-than-qualified candidates pass the litmuses of the extreme ideologists because even though they might not project to be an effective national leader they pass all the narrow litmus tests laid down to screen them, most of which have nothing to do with how they might govern. We've had examples of this in both political parties in recent elections. Yes, I too wish we could go back to the days when candidates for important offices were respected for their record and accomplishments, then took responsibility for governing and had the skills and experience to act like the statesmen they are supposed to be.

[Guest]

Why wouldn't he? He was against big government and that is the problem we face today. Government is expanding, can you not see that?

Read what I wrote.

Would the GOP throw it's money behind a person who compromised the way Regan did? No - it's all about signing pledges and towing the Party Line.

Again, Reagan hiked some taxes, signed amnesty, made deals. He stuck to his principles but didn't sit in a corner, stamp his feet and hold his breath and generally throw a temper tantrum when he didn't get his own way.

[Guest]

Sadly, I agree with you on that. These days the "base" constituencies on both left and right use "litmus tests" far more often than they ever did "back in the day". They won't consider a candidate who has a platform or a personal history which doesn't completely meet all their individual tests for their qualifications. As the result we often get candidates who have only minimal experience or a record to be evaluated by the electorate. Such less-than-qualified candidates pass the litmuses of the extreme ideologists because even though they might not project to be an effective national leader they pass all the narrow litmus tests laid down to screen them, most of which have nothing to do with how they might govern. We've had examples of this in both political parties in recent elections. Yes, I too wish we could go back to the days when candidates for important offices were respected for their record and accomplishments, then took responsibility for governing and had the skills and experience to act like the statesmen they are supposed to be.
Sounds like Obama's profile.

[Guest]

on this forum really don't get it. They live in a bubble down here, and frequently interact with like-minded people who serve to validate their right-wing opinions. However, it's a big country out there and most sane people don't support far right policies. Anyone who thinks that either Bachmann or Rick Santorum can win a general election has a few screws loose.

If the Republicans nominate a moderate, the Tea Party may be foolish enough to pull a Ralph Nader and lose the general election to Obama.

[Guest]

Sounds like Obama's profile.Did you bother to read my next sentence after the one you highlighted? Here it is again...
"We've had examples of this in both political parties in recent elections."

[Guest]

Read what I wrote.

Would the GOP throw it's money behind a person who compromised the way Regan did? No - it's all about signing pledges and towing the Party Line.

Again, Reagan hiked some taxes, signed amnesty, made deals. He stuck to his principles but didn't sit in a corner, stamp his feet and hold his breath and generally throw a temper tantrum when he didn't get his own way.

It's called leadership and that is what is missing today! Agree with you are 100% that Reagan made deals as did Bill Clinton, we have a spoiled child as our President today. He's leading from behind.