November 12, 2012
— DrewM And the rush to adopt the Democratic agenda by "conservatives" continues apace.
"The leadership of the Republican Party and the leadership of the conservative movement has to pull back, let people float new ideas. Let's have a serious debate," Kristol said on "Fox News Sunday." "Don't scream and yell if one person says 'You know what? It won't kill the country if we raise taxes a little bit on millionaires.' It really won't, I don't think."...
"I don't really understand why Republicans don't take Obama's offer to freeze taxes for everyone below $250,000, make it $500,000, make it $1 million," Kristol said. "Really? The Republican Party is going to fall on its sword to defend a bunch of millionaires, half of whom voted Democratic and half of whom live in Hollywood?"
Hey, I have an idea, why don't we throw card check in to sweeten the pot?
A few problems with this:
1- It's idiotic.
2- It's moronic.
3- It's atrocious economics. We wouldn't be conceding simply a political point but a major economic one....increasing taxes hurts the economy. Why in the world would sign on to that? What votes are we suddenly getting?
4- The federal government has more than enough revenue (assuming tax hikes raise revenue for the purpose of this discussion). What it has is a spending problem. If you think you can trade tax hikes for spending cuts with Democrats, you probably think you can trade amnesty for Hispanic votes or that Pennsylvania is in play for the GOP. History shows...otherwise.
5- It's a moronic idea.
Can we wait just a little longer before we decide to throw every conservative principle overboard?
Here's my suggestion as to what we should do...talk to average people. We spent a lot of time talking to and about "job creators". Well, not everyone is going to start their own business or even wants to. We need to speak directly to the Dirty Jobs people and not just the people who own businesses that do dirty jobs.
Yes, the people who do those jobs benefit from the impact of job creation friendly policy for "job creators" but it's a secondary effect. We should be the party that not only stands for the Joe the Plumbers of the world but also the guys he hires. Talk directly to them about what conservatism means for them. Right now we're reaching them indirectly, through a double bank-shot approach We should talk about how energy from the ground is the manufacturing of the 21st century. Not everyone wants a high tech job and people don't want to hear about how helping their boss will someday help them, talk directly to these people. Hell, we might even manage to connect with some Hispanic and even black voters in the process without sell our souls in the process.
I hate appeal to Reagan "arguments" but that's how he won the "Reagan Democrats" over.
It's important that we focus on the disaster that the Romney campaign was in every way but this election shouldn't have come down to Orca working or not on election day. People should have been camping out to vote against Obama. Clearly they weren't.
We have a lot of problems selling conservatism (policy, technical proficiency and message emphasis) but being more like the Democrats isn't one of them.
In the meantime, I remain "For Sequestration". The people voted for irresponsibility last week, let them have it.
Posted by: DrewM at
07:48 AM
| Comments (322)
Post contains 593 words, total size 4 kb.
Posted by: runninrebel at November 12, 2012 07:52 AM (J4gw3)
Posted by: Mr. Pink at November 12, 2012 07:53 AM (++kZl)
Posted by: Kevin in ABQ at November 12, 2012 07:53 AM (C3KwS)
Posted by: Jones in CO at November 12, 2012 07:54 AM (8sCoq)
***
I am amazed how many people are still pushing back on this.
Romney ran a worse campaign then McCain. I'm amazed he pulled it off but he did.
Oh...and I told you so...
Posted by: 18-1 at November 12, 2012 07:54 AM (AUeaU)
Marginal tax rates on top earners are already over 40% in many parts of the country. At what point are tax rates high enough for "the rich"? Enough already.
More to the point, if the GOP doesn't stand up to higher taxes/lower spending, then its completely worthless as a party. What the hell happened to "limited government"?
If that's not a plank (correct THE plank) of the GOP, I'm done with it.
Posted by: Looking closely at November 12, 2012 07:54 AM (+PDlV)
Posted by: Jinx the Cat at November 12, 2012 07:54 AM (1Jxa1)
Posted by: Sexypig at November 12, 2012 07:54 AM (tuE4N)
Posted by: Jones in CO at November 12, 2012 07:54 AM (8sCoq)
To Drew's point - Romney lost the election because he felt he could win with the white vote. Truth was, he could - but he would have to maximize the vote to do so. He didn't.
These people didn't vote for Obama for a reason, they don't like these policies, and thats why we shouldn't adopt them.
Amnesty would be suicide for the GOP. As bad as it is, if we must make nice with the democrats somewhere, its here. Let the suburbs reap the whirlwind.
Posted by: JollyRoger at November 12, 2012 07:54 AM (t06LC)
So yes Bill, you're right. But about a year too late.
Posted by: Mr. Moo Moo at November 12, 2012 07:55 AM (HDgX3)
Posted by: ALL_IS_LOST at November 12, 2012 07:55 AM (T/L2Z)
Could Romney's campaign been even stronger? Yes.
Did Romney make mistakes (such as ORCA)? Yes.
Was it a complete disaster? No. He lost, but he made a good run.
Posted by: Norcross at November 12, 2012 07:55 AM (THNke)
Posted by: Vic at November 12, 2012 07:55 AM (YdQQY)
Damn right we are.
Same way we're going to stand up for Freedom of Speech, even though the media uses it to lie about Republicans and embargo negative stories about the current administration.
Is "priniciple" not something that Bill Kristol is familiar with?
Posted by: Looking closely at November 12, 2012 07:56 AM (+PDlV)
They have.
Posted by: tubal at November 12, 2012 07:56 AM (BoE3Z)
Posted by: Jones in CO at November 12, 2012 07:56 AM (8sCoq)
Personally, I think the reps should simply vote present on everything now. Let the democrats have everything they want. Burn baby burn.
Posted by: thirteen28 at November 12, 2012 07:56 AM (AbmsP)
Posted by: Tony253 at November 12, 2012 07:56 AM (PryWG)
Posted by: Terry Gain at November 12, 2012 07:56 AM (Xri0e)
Posted by: Sexypig at November 12, 2012 07:56 AM (tuE4N)
==========
No. Time's a-wastin'.
Posted by: The GOP Establishment Types at November 12, 2012 07:56 AM (znT2j)
Posted by: Bill "Moderate Gun Control" Krystal at November 12, 2012 07:56 AM (/YJYi)
Why is it fair the Harvard sits on $30 billion in endowments and still raises tuition in excess of increases in the CPI? Or that the Gates Foundation sits on $37 billion to make sure the future generation that will end up stuck with our bills will be too sparsely populated to pay them off?
Posted by: NC Mountain Girl at November 12, 2012 07:56 AM (V7HuV)
Posted by: Mr. Pink at November 12, 2012 07:57 AM (++kZl)
Posted by: Tami at November 12, 2012 07:57 AM (X6akg)
Posted by: Sexypig at November 12, 2012 07:57 AM (tuE4N)
Either we believe in the rule of law (no amnesty for illegals) and the laws of economics (no tax increases) or we believe only in getting elected so that we, and not they, can be the ones dividing the spoils.
I want to win. And I'm willing to trim my sails to win where necessary. For instance, I probably could be convinced that fighting for life in the political sphere rather than the cultural sphere is a waste of time, so I might give on abortion. And I probably already am convinced that being against gay marriage isn't worth any time at all for the GOP or conservatives.
But if we start agreeing to increased taxes and amnesty, we might as well be Democrats.
Posted by: The Regular Guy at November 12, 2012 07:57 AM (qHCyt)
Posted by: Jones in CO at November 12, 2012 07:57 AM (8sCoq)
Posted by: Nevergiveup at November 12, 2012 07:57 AM (79ueO)
Quote from a European Newspaper
Some people have the vocabulary to sum up things in a way that you
can quickly understand them. This quote came from the Czech
Republic. Someone over there has it figured out. It was translated
into English from an article in the Prague newspaper Prager Zeitungon:
The danger to America is not Barack Obama, but a citizenry
capable of entrusting a man like him with the Presidency. It will
be far easier to limit and undo the follies of an Obama presidency
than to restore the necessary common sense and good judgment to a
depraved electorate willing to have such a man for their
president. The problem is much deeper and far more serious than
Mr. Obama, who is a mere symptom of what ails America. Blaming the
prince of the fools should not blind anyone to the vast
confederacy of fools that made him their prince. The Republic can
survive a Barack Obama, who is, after all, merely a fool. It is less likely to survive a multitude of fools, such as those who made him their president."
Posted by: thirteen28 at November 12, 2012 07:57 AM (AbmsP)
Posted by: Koenig Jojo at November 12, 2012 07:57 AM (Yv6gq)
Posted by: Alec Leamas at November 12, 2012 07:58 AM (mg08E)
==========
No. John Roberts.
Posted by: tubal at November 12, 2012 07:58 AM (BoE3Z)
Posted by: soothsayer at November 12, 2012 07:58 AM (b1TCv)
8 out of the 10 riches counties in the United States voted overwhelmingly for Obama. Lets find out who those people are and tax the shit out of them.
Posted by: Matt at November 12, 2012 07:58 AM (c4UpU)
As for Kristol, he is a fool and a coward.
Posted by: MCPO Airdale at November 12, 2012 07:58 AM (tYaDf)
Posted by: Sexypig at November 12, 2012 07:58 AM (tuE4N)
So the plan is to, ah, talk to people?
Talk until we win a fillibuster-proof majority of the entire government and we can make everyone do what we want without compromise. Because we're that damn good.
As soon as we get that, we can govern.
Posted by: CJ at November 12, 2012 07:58 AM (9G+G5)
Posted by: Ronin at November 12, 2012 07:59 AM (AzwZn)
Posted by: Todd W at November 12, 2012 07:59 AM (vVmp0)
Posted by: not neo just conservative at November 12, 2012 07:59 AM (MNXL5)
Posted by: Herr Shickelgruber at November 12, 2012 07:59 AM (NIZHJ)
Posted by: Tom at November 12, 2012 07:59 AM (G82cl)
Posted by: Nevergiveup at November 12, 2012 07:59 AM (79ueO)
Just target democrat constituencies.
Hollywood, for example, should get a nice hefty increase - and their account tricks that allow them to play with how they pay residuals banned.
Of course the idiots running the Republican party, and especially Mittens, should have been on this six months ago.
Posted by: 18-1 at November 12, 2012 07:59 AM (AUeaU)
Posted by: Mr. Moo Moo at November 12, 2012 07:59 AM (HDgX3)
Posted by: NCKate at November 12, 2012 07:59 AM (MsQkt)
Posted by: soothsayer at November 12, 2012 08:00 AM (b1TCv)
Have to take silly talking points away from the Dems. And let's not go out of our way to make sure the economy is humming along fine and the Dems get all the credit for it while we're at it. Obama and the Dems won by making the Republican party out to be "the party of the rich guys" in large part because of the taxes "on the rich" schtick. We should have let the rates rise two years ago. We would have taken that argument away from them (dumb as it is, the voters bought it) and it might have marginally worsened the economy on Obama's dime. It won't lower the deficit or reduce spending or create a single job. But as long as the Republican party can be painted as "the party of the rich" it will lose large turnout elections.
Posted by: jdp at November 12, 2012 08:00 AM (gfPGB)
Posted by: Kaitian at November 12, 2012 08:00 AM (1sDtj)
Let's start with Hollywood.
Then move to those who pay no tax whatsoever due to low income.
Then raise the price of FCC broadcast license by 5,000%
Increase lottery ticket sales taxes.
A 10% environmental offset tax on all newspapers and magazines printed on paper more frequently than every 35 days.
Posted by: Village Idiot's Apprentice at November 12, 2012 08:00 AM (IzkD0)
==========
He's just a garden variety neo-con, isn't he, in the literal sense?
I mean, lefty morons have been shrieking "NEOCON!!1!!" at every single conservative they see for about 15 years now, as though "neocon" means "really, REALLY conservative."
But neocons are really just liberals who went to the right on foreign policy, right? And isn't that Kristol to a tee? Or am I mistaken about that?
Posted by: Kensington at November 12, 2012 08:01 AM (znT2j)
Posted by: toby928© for TB at November 12, 2012 08:01 AM (evdj2)
Posted by: Sexypig at November 12, 2012 08:01 AM (tuE4N)
Posted by: mallfly at November 12, 2012 08:01 AM (bJm7W)
Posted by: Marie at November 12, 2012 08:01 AM (P9OJs)
This is true. In business you always have two choices, #1 increase
revenue, or #2 cut costs.
Those choices are not so limited to those with their own printing
presses. We'll call that choice #3.
Four more years of choice #3 is all we are going to see.
Posted by: Schrödinger's cat [/i] at November 12, 2012 08:01 AM (feFL6)
Posted by: notsothoreau at November 12, 2012 08:01 AM (5HBd1)
Posted by: alexthechick - SMOD. Coming not nearly soon enough. at November 12, 2012 08:01 AM (VtjlW)
Posted by: Kaitian at November 12, 2012 08:02 AM (1sDtj)
Why are we acting like we get a say anymore?
----------
Because we control the House. The Democrats controlled it for 40 years, including those where a GOP won the presidency in a landslide. Nothing, can get done with the House - unless the House cedes it willingly. Yes, at times you will have reduced leverage, but you can trade away certain things without trading away core principles.
It appears we have a pretty weak hand right now, but the fact that the House basically retained its power as is during this election debacle should mean something.
If we are going to trade away tax rates, let's get something really meaningful in return. Since I am very suspicious of that, let's just let go over the fiscal cliff and let the chips fall where they may.
Posted by: SH at November 12, 2012 08:02 AM (gmeXX)
Had House Republicans not extended the Bush tax cuts and made Obama own a big tax increase, Romney would have easily beat him.
Republicans will be blamed no matter what happens from here until eternity by the MSM, but if the average American sees a substantial tax increase after Obama and Senate Democrats were reelected, they're going to blame Democrats.
Kristol is an idiot, his advice to the Republican Party has probably done more damage than any other conservative "opinion maker" I can think of. His only interest is getting the US in as many wars in the Middle East as possible.
Posted by: McAdams at November 12, 2012 08:02 AM (aVSeo)
Speed the collapse, and you speed the subsequent reformation.
Posted by: The KGB at November 12, 2012 08:03 AM (OjrK0)
Posted by: Mick McMick at November 12, 2012 08:03 AM (l+MMl)
Posted by: Koenig Jojo at November 12, 2012 08:03 AM (Yv6gq)
Posted by: Sexypig at November 12, 2012 08:03 AM (tuE4N)
Posted by: Kaitian at November 12, 2012 08:03 AM (1sDtj)
The political class is not composed of democrats or republicans, liberals or conservatives. They are all statist. The is only the desire to expand power and reduce freedom. But they are true believers. This is what they have to do because it is fair. That it gives them status, power and money is just a gosh darn shame. What has to be done has to be done. This is the smaller part of a rant about the nature of the bureaucracy. Failure is the only option when to big to fail. It proves there was not have enough authority or money. Give them more and everything with work out right ( i.e. another failure, Unexpected!)
Raising taxes does not create more revenue. It suppresses economic activity.
Posted by: Ron at November 12, 2012 08:03 AM (6bVkc)
"Really? The Republican Party is going to fall on its sword to defend a bunch of millionaires, half of whom voted Democratic and half of whom live in Hollywood?"
Interesting, because I see it the other way around. "President Obama is willing to take the nation over a fiscal cliff and make 99% of Americans suffer in order to squeeze a few more dollars out of millionaires?"
Posted by: sydney jane at November 12, 2012 08:04 AM (WDFri)
Posted by: Flatbush Joe at November 12, 2012 08:04 AM (ZPrif)
***
Romney got out Republicans, but not enough conservatives. Obama got out Democrats.
Republicans have to appeal to conservatives. Mittens didn't - so the Republicans lost even though Obama ran a terrible campaign himself.
Posted by: 18-1 at November 12, 2012 08:04 AM (AUeaU)
They'll do whatever they think is in their best interests. And they will probably get that wrong too.
Posted by: runninrebel at November 12, 2012 08:04 AM (J4gw3)
Stupid
Party
Posted by: Mr. Moo Moo at November 12, 2012 08:04 AM (HDgX3)
Speed the collapse, and you speed the subsequent reformation.
Posted by: The KGB at November 12, 2012 12:03 PM (OjrK0)
Then we should pay for Sandy Fuck's birth control because trying to keep up with that cost will send us speeding over the fiscal cliff
Posted by: TheQuietMan at November 12, 2012 08:05 AM (1Jaio)
Posted by: Butters at November 12, 2012 08:05 AM (NIZHJ)
Posted by: Bevel Lemelisk at November 12, 2012 08:05 AM (hjRtO)
Posted by: Koenig Jojo at November 12, 2012 08:05 AM (Yv6gq)
Posted by: toby928© for TB at November 12, 2012 08:05 AM (evdj2)
1) Go back to Clinton era tax rates
2) Go back to Clinton era spending as a percentage of GDP
Do not waver from this position, go in front of the camera's and say this is the deal.
3) Go back to Clinton era blow jobs in the Oval Office
Sorry couldn't help myself.
Posted by: bobbymike at November 12, 2012 08:05 AM (wJSZn)
Posted by: Max Wedge at November 12, 2012 08:05 AM (xoSgg)
***
The Republicans control the House. Conservatives control nothing.
Posted by: 18-1 at November 12, 2012 08:05 AM (AUeaU)
Posted by: Sexypig at November 12, 2012 08:06 AM (tuE4N)
Posted by: Jay at November 12, 2012 08:06 AM (kIH56)
Just raises taxes on Hollywood and all democrats who voted for Obama.
Leave the hard working alone.
Posted by: Fresh at November 12, 2012 08:07 AM (O7ksG)
Posted by: t-bird at November 12, 2012 08:07 AM (FcR7P)
Posted by: J.J. Sefton at November 12, 2012 08:07 AM (XkWWK)
We have a lot of problems selling conservatism
Maybe it would help make the sale if we had a candidate who was a conservative instead of a big government liberal.
Posted by: Larsen E. Whipsnade at November 12, 2012 08:07 AM (6BgmB)
For example, let's tax transfer payment income at about 99% across the board.
Posted by: Tonic Dog at November 12, 2012 08:07 AM (X/+QT)
I don't buy the stayed at home line.
-------------
Well that is because you assume that just because people hate the president, it means they will vote for the other candidate. The Dems made the same mistake in 2004. Romney exceeded my expectations for him, and I grew to like him a lot more than in the primaries. But I never really liked him. And if the base doesn't like your candidate, don't expect him to do well. I'm guessing everyone on this board voted for Romney, regardless of whether they had to hold their nose a little bit. But much of the base may not have. And if you can't get too excited about your candidate good luck persuading others.
There is still much analysis to be done about who voted, who stayed home, etc. But it does appear that Romney was unable to turn out the base sufficiently. Its not the sole blame, but it is one of the pieces.
Posted by: SH at November 12, 2012 08:07 AM (gmeXX)
To do what Bush 1 did in 1989 or 1990 (sign the tax increases into law, then have the Dems say, well, lookee here, there's nothing to cut) would be imperially stupid. I hope Cantor and Ryan can get Boehner and the squishes like Lindsay Graham to understand that, although I don't think I'll bet on it.
Posted by: mallfly at November 12, 2012 08:08 AM (bJm7W)
Posted by: Flatbush Joe at November 12, 2012 08:08 AM (ZPrif)
You were just lucky to be born talented....you didn't build that. 20% tax.
Posted by: Sexypig at November 12, 2012 12:03 PM (tuE4N)
I'm gonna hope that's sarcasm
Posted by: BCochran1981 at November 12, 2012 08:08 AM (da5Wo)
Posted by: David of PA at November 12, 2012 08:08 AM (tPdIW)
Posted by: Sexypig at November 12, 2012 08:09 AM (tuE4N)
Yep. The sooner its overwhelmed, the sooner it collapses. Hunker down, burn it down.
Posted by: The KGB at November 12, 2012 08:09 AM (OjrK0)
The Clinton era tax hikes were not a panacea. They hit when the economy was booming.
Clinton ear tax hikes will kill a flailing economy.
CLINTON ERA TAX HIKES.
Posted by: Fresh at November 12, 2012 08:09 AM (O7ksG)
They have to say stuff like this. The alternative is they shut up, and they're not going to do that.
But go ahead, work yourselves into a tizzy listening to these chuckleheads.
Posted by: BurtTC at November 12, 2012 08:09 AM (BeSEI)
None, the election is over. Why compromise now that you lost?
Posted by: Fritz at November 12, 2012 08:10 AM (/ZZCn)
Posted by: Kensington at November 12, 2012 12:01 PM (znT2j)
A neocon is basically a Scoop Jackson Democrat. And yes, that is Kristol to a T.
Posted by: Vic at November 12, 2012 08:10 AM (YdQQY)
***
The Republicans decided to run an echo instead of a choice.
It was like choosing Bush 41 in 1980.
And now we will all pay the price.
Posted by: 18-1 at November 12, 2012 08:10 AM (AUeaU)
Posted by: Sexypig at November 12, 2012 08:10 AM (tuE4N)
That's was this post is about. DrewM just wrote, "In the meantime, I remain "For Sequestration"."
People do realize they are expiring December 31, 2012? The Democrats knows this and they want it to lapse so that they can fund more of their stupid bullshit while running 1.5 trillion dollar deficits every year.
The Dem's expressed strategy is to hold military cuts over keeping the lower brackets' rates and raising the upper brackets' rates.
Posted by: weft cut-loop [/i] [/b] at November 12, 2012 08:10 AM (SX6wc)
Posted by: Flatbush Joe at November 12, 2012 08:11 AM (ZPrif)
Posted by: Tonic Dog at November 12, 2012 08:11 AM (X/+QT)
==========
It's true; I go through A LOT of birth control.
Because I'm a SLUT! WHEE!
Posted by: Sandra Fluke at November 12, 2012 08:11 AM (znT2j)
Posted by: Justamom at November 12, 2012 08:11 AM (Sptt8)
Posted by: gp at November 12, 2012 08:11 AM (+Jpqc)
Posted by: Butters at November 12, 2012 08:11 AM (NIZHJ)
And Democrats have NEVER balanced a budget by raising taxes. They always increase spending by more than they raise taxes.
Posted by: Vic at November 12, 2012 08:12 AM (YdQQY)
Maybe it would help make the sale if we had a candidate who was a conservative instead of a big government liberal.
***
The last time a liberal/moderate Republican won the white house - 1972.
The last time a conservative Republican lost a presidential election - 1964.
And yet the Republicans followed McCain with Mittens.
BRILLIANT!
Posted by: 18-1 at November 12, 2012 08:12 AM (AUeaU)
I saw a number of names here on election night, people who haven't been around since Primary season.
Maybe the current regulars all voted, but there are some long-standing AoSHQers who stayed home. I guarantee it.
Posted by: BurtTC at November 12, 2012 08:12 AM (BeSEI)
Posted by: Sexypig at November 12, 2012 08:12 AM (tuE4N)
Posted by: Jay at November 12, 2012 08:12 AM (kIH56)
Socialism isn't a "phase" it's a permanent change. The ratchet effect in action.
Posted by: Flatbush Joe at November 12, 2012 12:11 PM (ZPrif)
THIS. Once begun socialism can stumble along for a long, long time. It takes a long time to destroy a great nation; the Brits just happen to be further along that curve than we are.
Posted by: joncelli at November 12, 2012 08:13 AM (RD7QR)
Posted by: t-bird at November 12, 2012 08:13 AM (FcR7P)
Marginal tax rates on top earners are already over 40% in many parts of the country. At what point are tax rates high enough for "the rich"? Enough already.
More to the point, if the GOP doesn't stand up to higher taxes/lower spending, then its completely worthless as a party. What the hell happened to "limited government"?
If that's not a plank (correct THE plank) of the GOP, I'm done with it.
Posted by: Looking closely at November 12, 2012 11:54 AM (+PDlV)
You don't raise the rates...you zap the deductions and loopholes that people who aren't wealthy enough to hire snazzy tax lawyers and accountants can't afford, but that people like Warren Leftwing Fuckhead Buffet can afford.
Posted by: davidinvirginia at November 12, 2012 08:13 AM (qEkGZ)
I mean I saw these people show up to gloat. Not to wail and moan and gnash teeth like the rest of us.
Posted by: BurtTC at November 12, 2012 08:13 AM (BeSEI)
Arrange meetings between black church leaders and very articulate and persuasive GOP representatives. Just groups of four people meeting over lunch. Convince these black church leaders that conservative policies will lead to a more prosperous future for their church attendees, the wider community and the nation as a whole.
Has that ever been done?
Posted by: Serious Cat at November 12, 2012 08:13 AM (UypUQ)
Posted by: Butters at November 12, 2012 08:13 AM (NIZHJ)
Posted by: Flatbush Joe at November 12, 2012 08:13 AM (ZPrif)
Posted by: Count de Monet at November 12, 2012 08:14 AM (BAS5M)
Posted by: blindside at November 12, 2012 08:14 AM (x7g7t)
Here is my suggestion: Get rid of old, white guy strategists and pundits like Bill Kristol and George Will.
Also, don't allow old, white guy elected pols like McCain, McConnell, Boehner etc to even appear on the TV anymore. Instead use the Young Gun types like Rubio, Ryan and Kelly Ayotte and Susan Martinez. The public will then see a new fresher face of the Repub party.
Posted by: AJ Lynch at November 12, 2012 08:14 AM (ASPsd)
"In New Hampshire we didnÂ’t have any senate races, but the same phenomenon was observable downticket, including for both GOP House seats. Statewide, Charlie Bass, whoÂ’s a classic RINO squish, and Frank Guinta, who isnÂ’t, drew about six per cent fewer votes than Mitt, and both lost. Regardless of what kind of Republican you are, the electorate was antipathetic to you.
In other words, whatever the weaknesses of a supposedly weak candidate, the party was weaker. With hindsight, that first debate performance appears to have made Mitt sufficiently likeable for a narrow slice of voters to overlook the R after his name. The candidate was less of a problem than the Republican brand."
Posted by: 80sBaby at November 12, 2012 08:14 AM (YjDyJ)
Posted by: Whatev at November 12, 2012 08:14 AM (2t6Gz)
Posted by: Jones in CO at November 12, 2012 08:14 AM (8sCoq)
Posted by: SH at November 12, 2012 08:15 AM (gmeXX)
Posted by: John Boehner and Lindsay Graham Suddenly Barge Through the Door at November 12, 2012 08:15 AM (znT2j)
Posted by: Sexypig at November 12, 2012 08:15 AM (tuE4N)
Posted by: Flatbush Joe at November 12, 2012 08:16 AM (ZPrif)
Posted by: SpongeBob Saget at November 12, 2012 08:16 AM (SDkq3)
Posted by: Redman Bluesate at November 12, 2012 08:16 AM (sRIFP)
Posted by: Redman Bluestate at November 12, 2012 08:17 AM (sRIFP)
Posted by: Fritz at November 12, 2012 08:17 AM (/ZZCn)
We should, mostly because we're for all Americans rather than just our little slice of them. Unlike Dems. But really, those days are past.
Posted by: uterus cannon at November 12, 2012 08:17 AM (RLTt1)
Posted by: Sexypig at November 12, 2012 08:17 AM (tuE4N)
Soaking the rich does nothing for revenues and actually hurts the economy, but considering we fight this ridiculous caricature every election and we had a banker as our nominee, Romney should have done something populist and intellectually dishonest like propose a huge tax increase on billionaires.
It would have probably hit about 20 people, all of them likely Obama bundlers and been completely meaningless, but it would have swung a few dumb voters who were unhappy with the economy but weren't crazy about Romney. Everytime Obama opened that line, Romney could have said he plans to make sure Warren Buffet pays way more than his secretary.
Posted by: McAdams at November 12, 2012 08:17 AM (aVSeo)
Until we see a BUDGET that tells us exactly where all of this "revenue" is going to go, I say "Screw You".
They keep saying that we need all of this extra money to pay for all of these programs - well, just what, exactly, is all of this money paying FOR?
When I go to the grocery store, the prices are there for me to see. I know how much money I have to spend, and I make my purchases accordingly. If I don't have enough money that week, then the expensive cut of meat stays at the store, and we eat hamburger.
Why aren't people willing to tell the government that they have to do the same thing?
Posted by: Teresa in Fort Worth, TX at November 12, 2012 08:17 AM (P6H+d)
They do not want increased revenue. Barky even said that. He wanted the evil rich to pay more even if it reduced revenue.
Posted by: Vic at November 12, 2012 08:18 AM (YdQQY)
We have no power or representation in government anymore. They're going to do what they want no matter what we say.
Maybe the reason why we didn't win the senate or make any gains in the House is because the repub leadership has given the average voter the impression that there's really no difference between the parties.
Secede. Let THEM burn.
Posted by: Soona at November 12, 2012 08:18 AM (00XQo)
Posted by: Nevergiveup at November 12, 2012 08:18 AM (79ueO)
Posted by: Kasper Hauser at November 12, 2012 08:19 AM (7x9pP)
Obama has a mandate to not murder people, like Romney does. To lower unemployment. To create jobs. To uphold Roe v. Wade.
Obama never got a mandate to raise taxes on all of us (via increased prices, higher health insurance, 0% interest on savings, debasement of our currency)
Until the unicorns arrive (on back order for four years), Obama has no mandate.
Posted by: Illini bill at November 12, 2012 08:19 AM (iogmr)
Posted by: Sexypig at November 12, 2012 08:19 AM (tuE4N)
The congress sets the tax code. Not the president.
Lets simplifiy the tax code to get more revenue. Tax hikes should be OFF the table.
Posted by: Fresh at November 12, 2012 08:19 AM (O7ksG)
The last time a conservative Republican lost a presidential election - 1964."
==========
*cough*
Posted by: George W. Bush at November 12, 2012 08:19 AM (znT2j)
Posted by: J.J. Sefton at November 12, 2012 08:19 AM (XkWWK)
Posted by: Bevel Lemelisk at November 12, 2012 08:19 AM (u5ozF)
Once they start hurting you will be surprised how quickly they come around to our way of thinking. Until then, the GOP can talk all they want. Fantasize about grand deals all they want. Dream of convincing hispanics to vote for them all they want.
Hurt them in the pocketbook NOW, not later. Then they'll work with us.
Posted by: TRO at November 12, 2012 08:20 AM (ad/F8)
Maybe the reason why we didn't win the senate or make any gains in the House is because the repub leadership has given the average voter the impression that there's really no difference between the parties.
This +1000
Posted by: Larsen E. Whipsnade at November 12, 2012 08:20 AM (6BgmB)
Posted by: Vic at November 12, 2012 08:21 AM (YdQQY)
Posted by: AndrewsDad at November 12, 2012 08:21 AM (C2//T)
Posted by: blindside at November 12, 2012 08:21 AM (x7g7t)
http://tinypic.com/r/2h5l55t/6"
==========
Outstanding! I will use this if the opportunity ever presents itself. Unfortunately I expect to lose MY job before any of the Obots lose theirs.
Posted by: Kensington at November 12, 2012 08:21 AM (znT2j)
Posted by: Sexypig at November 12, 2012 08:21 AM (tuE4N)
Posted by: Butters at November 12, 2012 08:22 AM (NIZHJ)
Posted by: Flatbush Joe at November 12, 2012 08:22 AM (ZPrif)
Posted by: J.J. Sefton at November 12, 2012 08:22 AM (XkWWK)
Posted by: Redman Bluestate at November 12, 2012 08:22 AM (sRIFP)
Posted by: gracepmc at November 12, 2012 08:22 AM (rznx3)
Posted by: Waterhouse at November 12, 2012 08:24 AM (XMaKL)
Posted by: AllenG (Dedicated Tenther) Channelling Breitbart at November 12, 2012 08:24 AM (8y9MW)
Posted by: George W. Bush at November 12, 2012 12:19 PM (znT2j)
***
In 1988 Bush 41 ran as Reagan term 3. In 1992 he ran on "we really needed to increase those taxes."
Posted by: 18-1 at November 12, 2012 08:24 AM (AUeaU)
Posted by: RWC at November 12, 2012 08:24 AM (fWAjv)
Pay no attention to the fact that all the alternatives were even more disastrous.
Posted by: The rest of the field at November 12, 2012 08:24 AM (A+/8k)
Posted by: J.J. Sefton at November 12, 2012 08:24 AM (XkWWK)
Maybe if someone had a blog, they could have a post explaining why they think any income tax at all is inherently tyrannical.
Posted by: AllenG (Dedicated Tenther) Channelling Breitbart at November 12, 2012 08:25 AM (8y9MW)
"It's atrocious economics"
Well, I'm tired of that being a theoretical point that most dismiss. Bring on the suffering.
The only way to defeat leftists is to encourage them te implode.
Posted by: the lone lemon at November 12, 2012 08:25 AM (xXhWA)
____
/cries
Posted by: John Boehner at November 12, 2012 08:25 AM (AUeaU)
Posted by: Nevergiveup at November 12, 2012 08:25 AM (79ueO)
The problem is 'the rich' to a Democrat means an up-and-coming entrepeneur.
They don't like can-do people. They need to die for Communism to come about. Posted by: Bevel Lemelisk
Aye. There's the rub; Voting to 'Stick it to dah rich!' gives the government a large club that the truly wealthy use to fend off competition and to secure their lots.
Posted by: weft cut-loop [/i] [/b] at November 12, 2012 08:26 AM (SX6wc)
I can't stand Bill Kyrstal, they only reason he claims to be republican is that republicans fought the wars he wanted to fight. Of course Krystal always had something else to do instead of participate in those wars. On everything else he's left of center.
I for one though am tired of defending tax cuts for millionaires even though I think republicans are right to do so economically. It isn't the 3.5% rate hike that will kill the economy though it won't help. It's the raise in captial gains to 30% that will put us back in recession.
Everybody fails to mention that Clintons booming economy happened after he cut captial gains by 29%, before that it was just a meh, average recovery after a mild recession.
Posted by: robtr at November 12, 2012 08:26 AM (rTgOf)
Posted by: Waterhouse at November 12, 2012 12:24 PM (XMaKL)
The answer is in your question......
Posted by: Tami at November 12, 2012 08:26 AM (X6akg)
Posted by: Cicero (@cicero) at November 12, 2012 08:26 AM (QKKT0)
Posted by: Waterhouse at November 12, 2012 12:24 PM (XMaKL)
Another famous Boner deal.
Posted by: Vic at November 12, 2012 08:27 AM (YdQQY)
==========
What's that got to do with me?
Posted by: George W. Bush, You Really Don't Remember ME? at November 12, 2012 08:27 AM (znT2j)
Everyone, please, listen up. Last Tues. the United States of America in the form that it was since the Constitution was ratified has ceased to exist. So many of us were more correct on that than I really want to contemplate. This is awful. Get used to awful.
The virus innoculated into this nation's system during Wilson's term has taken over. Let's face it. In order for the host (the US Constitution) to survive, there's going to have to be amputations. Start getting used to the idea.
Posted by: Soona at November 12, 2012 08:28 AM (00XQo)
Posted by: Barky O'Genius at November 12, 2012 08:28 AM (QKKT0)
Posted by: Sexypig at November 12, 2012 08:28 AM (tuE4N)
And limit spending to no more than the taxes collected during the previous year unless there is a declared war.
Posted by: Vic at November 12, 2012 08:29 AM (YdQQY)
Take a look at us here in CA for an idea of how the squishy RINO stuff is working out. The handful of remaining squishy R's have been voted out (cuz everything's been all their faults you know) and we now have our blessed utopian Democratic super-majority. We'll show you how tax and spend really works if you and the rest of the country are ready to watch.
Posted by: Clutch Cargo at November 12, 2012 08:30 AM (Qxdfp)
If House Republicans cut some deal where only millionaires get hit, 99% of the electorate is going to think Obamanomics works since it didn't hurt them.
Posted by: McAdams at November 12, 2012 08:30 AM (aVSeo)
Posted by: Sexypig at November 12, 2012 08:30 AM (tuE4N)
As long as people refuse to participate, the status quo will continue. These petulant and destructive attempts to teach "the Establishment" a lesson are unlikely to change anything. Politicians pay little heed to those who refuse to lift a finger to attempt to change their government.
Posted by: 80sBaby at November 12, 2012 08:30 AM (YjDyJ)
Posted by: Sexypig at November 12, 2012 08:31 AM (tuE4N)
Brilliant and original!
Posted by: uncleJoeandAdolf at November 12, 2012 08:31 AM (WR5xI)
Posted by: Nevergiveup at November 12, 2012 08:32 AM (79ueO)
Posted by: SH at November 12, 2012 08:33 AM (gmeXX)
Posted by: Chris at November 12, 2012 08:33 AM (/l7+K)
So we wait for Obama to put forth a plan. Assuming he does...
The line of attack must be that all the 'cuts' are all really increases in spending.
"We're spending X on program Y. In Washington the President is suggesting that we spend 2% more on X and he calls it a cut. In America the people call it an increase. They also call it Bullshit."
Posted by: Buzzsaw90 at November 12, 2012 08:34 AM (SO2Q8)
When in the Course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another
Like when "another" is batshit crazy I would guess
Posted by: T.Hunter at November 12, 2012 08:34 AM (EZl54)
***
Romney was chosen as the leader. He failed to get 51% of the electorate to follow him. He failed - and those who chose him failed.
And we will continue to fail as long as the same people who have now made the same mistake two elections in a row continue to make the same decisions.
How many elections are we going to throw away on McRomneys?
Posted by: 18-1 at November 12, 2012 08:35 AM (AUeaU)
"When you do, you will find that "average people" hate the rich and think their tax rates should be raised (and maybe all their "excess" wealth should be confiscated outright.) You will find that "average people" blame the rich for the financial panic, high unemployment and lower standard of living for the non-rich."
Drew, I agree that this outreach to the average people has to be part of the R plan going forward, but it's only a small part of the equation. I hate to say it because a host of factors played into the losses. But I do now believe that when you have one party giving fish away by the boatload to their favored friends and urging others to vote for them and become one of their favored friends, well...it's a tough sell to get someone to vote for you based on your showing them how to fish instead.
Posted by: RM at November 12, 2012 08:35 AM (TRsME)
--- I've never ignored a single vagina that i've ever met.
Posted by: Buzzsaw90 at November 12, 2012 08:35 AM (SO2Q8)
Posted by: Matt at November 12, 2012 11:58 AM (c4UpU)
I'm for this. Starve the beast. At least they won't have as much money to throw at us next election. I'm tired of picking hills to die on and getting shot in the back.
Posted by: JollyRoger at November 12, 2012 08:35 AM (t06LC)
Posted by: alexthechick - SMOD. Coming not nearly soon enough. at November 12, 2012 08:35 AM (VtjlW)
Posted by: t-bird at November 12, 2012 08:37 AM (FcR7P)
Posted by: volfan at November 12, 2012 08:37 AM (RTb48)
Posted by: JustLikeDavidHasselhoff at November 12, 2012 08:38 AM (71iUa)
And limit spending to no more than the taxes collected during the previous year unless there is a declared war.
Posted by: Vic at November 12, 2012 12:29 PM (YdQQY)
-------------------------------------------
Good luck with that. Too much of the electorate have no idea what that is or even care. FREE SHIT!
There's a growing number of states that get it, though. The power is in the states. We need to convince those repub governors to either ignore DC or separate from DC.
Ignore the liberal rulings of fed courts too. He didn't know what he did, but Barky gave us that precedent.
Posted by: Soona at November 12, 2012 08:38 AM (00XQo)
Posted by: Clutch Cargo at November 12, 2012 12:30 PM (Qxdfp)
The same thing happened in Illinois. There's not enough Republicans to do anything and it's still their fault. Or Blago but he doesn't seem to have belonged to any political party
Posted by: TheQuietMan at November 12, 2012 08:38 AM (1Jaio)
How much of a minority are 'we' compared to the rest that voted the same as us?
Related question: who are the deus ex machina god-like candidates coming up through party of Stupid's ranks which will save us?
Posted by: Tonic Dog at November 12, 2012 08:39 AM (X/+QT)
Posted by: joethefatman™ (@joethefatman1) at November 12, 2012 08:40 AM (MnSla)
If the mouth-breathing citizens of the fine country don't care about that type of behavior.....
Posted by: Tonic Dog at November 12, 2012 08:41 AM (X/+QT)
So...if you're a conservative, and if you believe in small government and balanced budsgets...and if you don't like raising taxes.
Where do you start cutting the budget? Overseas military bases? Eliminate medicare and social security? Eliminate food stamps and welfare? Eliminate federal funding of public schools? Where would YOU start? Do you slash the DHS and TSA or do you completely eliminate them? Do you stop all foreign aid? ...or do you keep giving money the programs you like (meaning that you support big government and budget deficits, no matter what you declare to the contrary), or do you only slash the programs supported by your political opponents? What about highway funds> All excpet for ['postal roads'? The Post Office? The SEIU and public employee unions? Do you eliminate all 501(c)3's and begin taxing all other not for profit tax free groups and their properties?
If you believe in true entrepreneurship, are you willing, and able, to slash all of the red tape, regulations - and even zoning laws - in order to encourage and enable the average joe to start a business, from scratch, from the ground up, w/o resorting to venture capital Angels and/or bank loans? (keeping only parts of OSHA, mebbe.) How do you go about changing or eliminating the obstacles in his/her way?
We've got a very practical problem. What you need to look at are practical and pragmatic solutions.
Right now, everyone's arguing over how many angels can dance on the head of a pin...when they can't afford to buy any pins to begin with.
Posted by: Warren Bonesteel at November 12, 2012 08:41 AM (WwR1j)
Posted by: Typical Obama Voter at November 12, 2012 08:42 AM (j2McS)
As many as it takes to facilitate the collapse. There's nothing to be saved at this point.
Posted by: The KGB at November 12, 2012 08:43 AM (OjrK0)
Posted by: avi at November 12, 2012 08:43 AM (40anC)
Posted by: JustLikeDavidHasselhoff at November 12, 2012 08:43 AM (71iUa)
Posted by: avi at November 12, 2012 08:44 AM (40anC)
Posted by: t-bird at November 12, 2012 08:45 AM (FcR7P)
***
Romney lost an easily winnable election.
Yeah, the other two probably would have won. As would Pawlenty, Cain, or hell anyone outside of Trump and Norlaup.
Posted by: 18-1 at November 12, 2012 08:46 AM (AUeaU)
Yes.. small business owners at the $250k level would struggle. So, it should be over 1 million. But high earners would not miss a dime, nor would businesses suffer as far as productivity or jobs go.
Conservatives are no different than liberals when it comes to their sacred cows.. we can never cut spending on Defense.. but we also don't really care that we have financed two wars by borrowing. It is very hypocritical.
If we are not willing to raise taxes, then we have to cut not only entitlements but defense as well. If we choose to be the policemen of the planet, we should be willing to pay for it. If we are not willing to pay for it, we need to scale back and let the rest of the planet fend for themselves.
Posted by: Chi-Town Jerry at November 12, 2012 08:47 AM (f9c2L)
Posted by: t-bird at November 12, 2012 08:49 AM (FcR7P)
McCain's campaign was truly disgusting, anyone remember him cutting an ad during telling how swell he thought Obama was during the Democrat Convention? Or trying to cancel his campaign when Lehman Brothers fell? Or not going after Rev Wright (the biggest chink in Obama's armor) Or in a debate saying he wanted the federal government to bail out homeowners that were underwater? or touting his amnesty plan? Also, McCain's entire career had been made undermining conservatives for his own political benefit, I never got that impression from Romney.
Romney played to win, and he debated Obama well in every debate. I would have liked him to have gotten "rougher" on Benghazi, but you saw the media flip out, even our own side blasted him for it. Romney also didn't want to come off as a Bush/Kristol NeoCon that was eager to engage in another meaningless war in the Middle East.
Romney lost for a lot of reasons that weren't his fault in my opinion, Akin and Mourdock were probably the two biggest reasons that made the electorate focus on the abortion issue instead of the economy, that along with Santorum wanting to have a national dialogue about the dangers of birth control dovetailed nicely with the War on Women. The auto bailouts were a gordian knot, good luck winning Ohio when 1 out of 8 jobs are in the auto industry and being opposed to the bailouts. Hurricane Sandy probably cost him at least a point as well.
Posted by: McAdams at November 12, 2012 08:49 AM (aVSeo)
Posted by: Mick McMick at November 12, 2012 08:50 AM (l+MMl)
And by the way and only slightly off topic, but was driving yesterday and listening to Larry Kudlow's radio talk show.
The topic was Immigration/Amnesty. The "New Republicans" were all about getting rid of those stupid and mean ideas from the "Pat Buchanan" wing of the party (those guys are the REAL haters!), and make all nice with the undocumented immigrants, who are really nice guys and might vote Republican someday.
Listening to this drivel, which Kudlow agreed with, based on Reagan signing the Simpson-Marzoli "amnesty" bill of 1986, is the new "winner" for Republicans. Because surprisingly (and this was NOT discussed), was there were enforcement measures that were in Simpson-Marzoli that were subsequently gutted or ignored by.........Democrats.
Because while I think that the Democrats are not particularly brighter than Republicans, they definitely know what is in their Party's best interest in getting and keeping power.
This was discussed the other day here, with numbers showing how we have permanently LOST California. And now we can permanently lose Nevada, Arizona, New Mexico, Colorado and maybe Texas.
Good luck with all that.
Posted by: Reader C.J. Burch writes..... at November 12, 2012 08:50 AM (RFeQD)
Posted by: Mick McMick at November 12, 2012 08:53 AM (l+MMl)
Posted by: Mick McMick at November 12, 2012 08:54 AM (l+MMl)
I thought he had turned that around but alas, no he didn't. But I though it would be the South that spurned him. It was VA and OH that spurned him.
Posted by: Vic at November 12, 2012 08:55 AM (YdQQY)
Posted by: JustLikeDavidHasselhoff at November 12, 2012 12:43 PM (71iUa)
----------------------------------------------------
If we can push this, we'll find out just how powerless DC is without us. A good teaching moment for everyone.
The military, even if it were inclined to side with Dear Leader, isn't big enough right now to enforce state resistance if the repub governed states hang together. This could turn into that double-edged sword that they dread.
Posted by: Soona at November 12, 2012 08:57 AM (00XQo)
That is the most sensible piece of new writing (had to qualify in order to exclude "In Flanders Fields" and "The Gods of the Copybook Headings") I've read since November 5, at least. It is positively Augustinian* in its elegant simplicity.
*St. Augustine of Hippo, not Octavian the Politician
In essentials, unity
In nonessentials, liberty
In all things, charity.
Posted by: Ken at November 12, 2012 08:58 AM (7yb9x)
- top marginal rate of 90% on income above $200K
- no mortgage deduction for any mortgage above $250K
- $2 a gallon gas tax increase
Pass it unanimously.
Posted by: Mr. Moo Moo at November 12, 2012 08:58 AM (HDgX3)
Posted by: chuckR at November 12, 2012 08:59 AM (UGxsK)
Virginia spurned Romney because of changing demographics. The northern part of Virginia is growing because of the growth of the Federal Gov. That is their rice bowl, and nobody is going to take it away.
Not sure why Ohio turned against/spurned Mitt. There were several reasons.
1) Turnout in rural counties that did support Mitt but just not enough
2) Great turnout in urban areas (hint, hint) that went heavily for Obama
3) And what will happen to that irregular voting in those "urban areas"?
4) The Public and private Unions flexed their muscles and also "turned out the vote" for Obama
5) Very, very heavy negative adds by Obama and his PACS against Romney. This is the basic fodder for the low information voter
And still, Turnout was about 500K less than expected.
Something interesting happened in Ohio last Tuesday, but the turnout was the key. And the crooked voting, with a Republican Secretary of State, no less. Heh.
Posted by: Reader C.J. Burch writes..... at November 12, 2012 09:01 AM (RFeQD)
Yes.. small business owners at the $250k level would struggle. So, it should be over 1 million. But high earners would not miss a dime, nor would businesses suffer as far as productivity or jobs go.
_____________________________________________________
This is the stupidity of liberal thinking in a nutshell. High earners would not "miss a dime"? That's not the point. Every dime earned by high earners is used to do 1 of 2 things. Spend. Or invest. So that dime confiscated by the govt is not spent or not invested. If it's not spent, then the provider of a good or service is hurt. If it's not invested, there is one less dime available out there for another business who needs to borrow money. In either case someone else - most likely a non evil rich white person - is hurt financially.
Posted by: Mr. Moo Moo at November 12, 2012 09:02 AM (HDgX3)
I would argue that the primary reason Romney lost- and barely, I might add- is because the GOP is losing the culture war. America's chief religion is moral relativism and the people of this country place instant gratification above freedom and celebrity above traditional values. As for those who feel staying home and throwing a temper tantrum is the answer to our problems, they are guilty of the sins of idolatry, pride, and apathy in the face of evil. Elections are always about a choice between the lesser of two evils, and one candidate will lose and the other win. Those "conservatives" and "Republicans" who refuse to select a choice at the ballot box are essentially endorsing the other side and their policies through their silence.
Posted by: 80sBaby at November 12, 2012 09:03 AM (YjDyJ)
Posted by: Hard Right at November 12, 2012 09:03 AM (uhftQ)
What I find amusing is, if you poll people, the "Buchanan" position is incredibly popular, far more popular than planks like being pro-life. Amnesty during 8% unemployment SHOULD be suicide, but the GOP is scared shitless to blast Democrats for it.
If you legalize 20 million illegal aliens (which is inevitable once you can longer deport them) Democrats will get 60% of 20 million new voters instead of 70% of 8 million voters. That would be the case scenario FOR US! You've just injected about 15 million new Democrat voters for life, that's like adding a new Blue State the size of Ohio.
Does the GOP understand that you win elections by getting the most votes, not by doing better with abstract percentages of certain demographics?
Posted by: McAdams at November 12, 2012 09:04 AM (aVSeo)
***
Yeah, the other two probably would have won. As would Pawlenty, Cain, or hell anyone outside of Trump and Norlaup.
Posted by: 18-1
You are either barking mad or a moby.
Posted by: cool breeze at November 12, 2012 09:05 AM (A+/8k)
What I don't understand is, why don't wealthy conservatives simply but media outlets? The Koch Brothers or Adelson could easily buy up a bunch of newspapers or local networks, that be FAR more bang for your buck than giving hundreds of millions to Karl Rove every cycle. Hell, you might even turn a profit on it.
Posted by: McAdams at November 12, 2012 09:06 AM (aVSeo)
Hey joethefatman, you and your kids are out of luck. We're $16 trillion dollars in debt, and climbing fast. We just voted the same tax and spend lefty back into office that set a record for spending. As unfortunate as it is, your children will NOT be growing up in the same America you and I enjoyed-period! Educate them and prepare them for the upcoming sh!tstorm that we're going to experience, regardless of who won the presidency.
We've deluded ourselves into thinking we could manage our national debt. It's obvious that the majority of Americans believe we're on the right course. I don't know how they've come to this conclusion. Compounding interest rates must be beyond most people, as well as, monetizing our debt. It's inconceivable[channeling my inner Vicini], that the majority of Americans don't see what's coming in our near future.
We actually believe that we can meet our energy needs with renewables(wind and solar), by bankrupting the our cheapest and most aboundant energy sources. I mean, what the fuck could go wrong?
We've cut off the water supply to one of our nation's largest agricultural region because a bait fish may go extinct.
Can you honestly say that you believe we can give your children a better life than you and I had? I wish it was true, but I think you're fooling yourself.
Posted by: echo $MEH at November 12, 2012 09:08 AM (BHM5V)
.........
This is where you are wrong.
Investing in stocks does not help businesses in any way. The only investment in stock that help a business is during the IPO.
If I were to go buy 100 shares of Apple today, how does that affect Apple? It doesn't. I have traded my $6000 for some other private investor's shares. Apple was only involved at the IPO or selling their own shares.
I will grant you that I would rather have money in the hands of private individuals than government, but not to the extent of running a deficit. All the idiots clamoring for a balanced budget amendment seem to think that means only the spending side will be cut. It won't.. taxes will necessarily be raised as well.
Posted by: Chi-Town Jerry at November 12, 2012 09:11 AM (f9c2L)
Posted by: echo $MEH at November 12, 2012 09:12 AM (BHM5V)
We are an irreconcilably divided nation. We're fighting a losing battle if we think we can convince 47% of America-hating citizens and more than 50% of an illegal foreign people of US Constitutional law.
The quicker we realize this, the quicker we can start working to salvage what is left of this nation.
Posted by: Soona at November 12, 2012 09:13 AM (00XQo)
Posted by: Mick McMick at November 12, 2012 09:18 AM (l+MMl)
Posted by: Christmasghost at November 12, 2012 09:21 AM (CkK+I)
Posted by: 80sBaby at November 12, 2012 09:25 AM (YjDyJ)
Posted by: Duhgee at November 12, 2012 09:28 AM (26gda)
Not a fucking problem.
No representation without taxation.
Posted by: sven10077 at November 12, 2012 09:31 AM (LRFds)
If the secession petitions do not take off this cycle we must have 25,000 in each state to force thematter to the surface who will be prepared to take the punishment it'll carry.
Posted by: sven10077 at November 12, 2012 09:32 AM (LRFds)
Until then, rest assured the Republican party didn't do anything wrong. (Yeah maybe some technical communication issues) but.. it's just hard to beat Santa Claus. "Free" will always win. Even though nothing is free.
This free comes at the expense of Liberty. But these days liberty is undervalued by many. That's why Obama won.
Also having a compliant media on your side, is worth at least a few million votes.
Posted by: Mikey at November 12, 2012 09:32 AM (db4pz)
Posted by: sven10077 at November 12, 2012 09:32 AM (LRFds)
Posted by: Odel Roo at November 12, 2012 09:33 AM (MSW07)
Thanks...no sincerely about as politely as you can try to nuke my "let it burn i quit" response.
They can't take it if you don't make it ma'am.
They want worker's paradise well I aim to let Alec baldwin pick up more of the bill per 10,000 earned than me.
Santa Govt is immoral and I will not strive for evil.
Posted by: sven10077 at November 12, 2012 09:35 AM (LRFds)
***
Don't worry, once you put down the mantle of defending McRomney you'll see just how bad of a choice he was.
Posted by: 18-1 at November 12, 2012 09:36 AM (AUeaU)
Posted by: Caninepundit at November 12, 2012 09:37 AM (PlKIC)
Posted by: msmulan at November 12, 2012 09:37 AM (vSWyU)
I would argue that the primary reason Romney lost- and barely, I might add- is because the GOP is losing the culture war
***
Romney ran away from the culture war. In fact, he didn't really take a stand on anything.
And yet with 16% unemployment he lost.
If the public wanted a leftist technocracy the Republicans gave them a chance to switch an incompetent technocrat for a competent one.
The public said no.
Posted by: 18-1 at November 12, 2012 09:38 AM (AUeaU)
It's Dem Politics 101: always blame the rich and the GOP, whatever happens.
Better to oppose the whole deal, go off the cliff, and say I told you so to the Dems, and the country.
Posted by: Jim Sonweed at November 12, 2012 09:38 AM (YwXwp)
As a tactical matter, we have lost this fight. If the GOP in the house sticks to its guns on this, it will lose the p.r. battle (which it already did - most of the country believes it is the GOP's fault for not being willing to compromise. I just had an eye opening weekend with my sister and brother-in-law, both of whom are fairly conservative and always vote republican. Both well educated and fairly well informed. Both believe that the GOP is at fault for not negotiating in good faith and not being willing to compromise. So, regardless of the truth, that is what most of America believes).
We simply cannot fall on the sword on this. I say agree to raising the tax rates back to pre-bush on those making over $500,000. Then challenge the Democrats to balance the budget, cut spending, reform entitlements. And, when these tax increases do not result in huge windfalls of revenue and the economy continues to not grow, we point out the failure of the dem's only answer to anything, which is raise taxes on "the rich".
The GOP, and thus conservatives, are not going to be able to win people back until we get past this one stupid issue. Yes, raising taxes is not good policy - but the people want it. Give it to them all the while pointing out that it will not solve anything and may actually do harm.
and, once we have compromised on that. Challenge the Dems to accomplish something on all of the other pressing issues.
but, if we keep fighting on this front we are not going to win. The vast majority of voters simply do not have a grasp of economics or policy and don't understand why it would be so bad to simply increase taxes on "the rich". Let's give them a lesson in why it is merely a class warfare tactic by the dems. Give them the tax increases out of a "spirit of compromise" and then point out how it accomplishes nothing - which everyone knows it will end up accomplishing nothing.
That will force the dems to be honest and come back looking for more taxes on the middle class or to actually engage in real policy proposals about reducing spending and reforming entitlements. Or else be demonstrated as the useless idiots they are.
Posted by: Monkeytoe at November 12, 2012 09:39 AM (sOx93)
again there is NOT a revenue problem....
this is a math problem indexed to wild spending and free shit army.
If the GOP caves on class wafare we are truly donk lite and I truly quit.
I will not be socialist marxist light witgh my money or effort.
I backed Romney with money and my vote despite the fact he is not what I want.
You let the Rino New England gang steal this party and in doing so allow the Blue Hispanics to steal this nation I quit....I'll either go out of country or out of politics entirely and found the "Capitalist Amish sect" of the Saint Adam Smith Church of God.
NO
Posted by: sven10077 at November 12, 2012 09:40 AM (LRFds)
damn skippy yell at him rage at him....real reform or nothing.
I won't raise rates on the poor but we need stabilization and investment oriented code or we'll just let the evil Bush tax cuts you renewed die off.
You want Clinton era taxes i want clinton Era spending barry it was a team effort.
Posted by: sven10077 at November 12, 2012 09:42 AM (LRFds)
I agree, we can spell out how this benefits everyone without pandering to specific groups. Too many buy into the zero-sum, class warfare belief that if someone profits, it's necessarily at another's expense.
Posted by: venus velvet at November 12, 2012 09:42 AM (bJOih)
Posted by: msmulan at November 12, 2012 09:58 AM (vSWyU)
I was taxed when I was 14 years old.
I paid tax as an adult starting at 15 since I was emancipated.
Frankly fuck free shit army.
You'll get it at discount but not free.
Reform it or totally repeal it but I am NOT letting ogabe shake down the rich because rich is ALWAYS defined down.
Posted by: sven10077 at November 12, 2012 10:01 AM (LRFds)
Posted by: msmulan at November 12, 2012 01:58 PM (vSWyU)
This is a great point. Look - I agree that raising taxes on "the rich" is not going to accomplish anything as it will raise to little revenue to make a dent in the deficit let alone the debt.
With that said, the tax rates proposed on those "making over $250k" were in effect during the Clinton years and did not destroy the country. At this point, we are cutting off our nose to spite our faces. do I think raising taxes is good policy? No. However, I don't think resisting increasing taxes on those making significantly more than the median or average income is the hill to die on. As I said in a comment further up, agree to this increase (while keeping the remaining tax rates as is) out of a "spirit of compromise" but continue to point out it is bad policy and will accomplish nothing.
Then fight on and try and get the dems to come to the table with real spending cuts and entitlement reform. Once you have allowed them to spend their sole bullet (raising taxes on the rich) - you can force the ball into their court to actually do something regarding spending and entitlements or else get Americans to wake up and realize that they are bankrupt of ideas. The longer we keep the focus on "tax cuts for the rich" the more we lose. As terrible as it is, class warfare demagogy works with a vast swath of the electorate (and the media).
Posted by: Monkeytoe at November 12, 2012 10:06 AM (sOx93)
Both Romney and Ryan quite forcefully addressed cultural issues on the campaign trail, especially during the homestretch, but that fact will not and does not matter to you because you always hated Romney more than you did the SCOAMT.
Posted by: 80sBaby at November 12, 2012 10:08 AM (YjDyJ)
great then since nobody was hurt by the tax rates in the "glorious beautiful bestest ever" Clinton economy we can all go back and we can nuke the credits too.
Fuck Bush...yeall it loud GOP Fuck Bush!
Who needed the higehr revenue anyway why did fucking bush just burn money on nothing it is not like there was anything that led to higher spending!
Nancy pelosi took a flow I hated and made it a fucking waterfall fuck freeshit army.
Fuck 'em...all or nothing or I quit.
Posted by: sven10077 at November 12, 2012 10:09 AM (LRFds)
Yes! What other choice do we have? If we let it go to sequestration, the GOP will be blamed.
How is that a win?
Posted by: PJ at November 12, 2012 10:09 AM (ZWaLo)
Posted by: Spike at November 12, 2012 10:12 AM (wtnmC)
Obama's deal there champ or is this is another "let's just blindly embrace the media fairytale of the week?"
Fuck Bush it's not like the Bush tax cuts did not do exactly what they were designed to do which is raise revenue....
you cede this argument they keep moving the goalposts down so that the 50.1% eat the 49.9% on a long enough timeline.
We're the party of class warfare for stupidity and lower revenue now?
"okay" well then go on ahead and follow through on the rest of the Sven 2016 GOP retard agenda....,.
1) you can marry anything you want in whatever number
2) abolish the INS
3) free shit for all!
Graham/Christy 2016 Why have a fucking GOP?
Posted by: sven10077 at November 12, 2012 10:12 AM (LRFds)
Bullshit then it'll be "you didn't close enough loopholes"
You want this answer learned everyone who works needs to feel the pain and see the failboat.
Posted by: sven10077 at November 12, 2012 10:13 AM (LRFds)
Posted by: msmulan at November 12, 2012 10:14 AM (vSWyU)
Posted by: OCBill at November 12, 2012 10:19 AM (YJvVE)
No - the point is that conservatism is not a philosophy against all taxes all the time. You have to pick the battles that will gain you ground. Standing firm on this issue right now will not help the cause but will hurt it.
We stood firm for 4 years on the tax cuts issue. And here we are. We lost seats in the Senate, lost the presidency to the most corrupt, incompetent person imaginable, and have to seek a way forward to gain ground. Keeping the fight focused on the GOP not allowing "tax cuts for the rich" to expire is not going to gain us anything and will hurt the GOP (and therefore conservatism) for the near future.
I agree that we need to hold the GOP's feet to the fire on spending, on immigration and pretty much everything else. this is one area where I think we give the public what it wants and then point out how it accomplishes nothing. But keeping the fight on this issue is not going to accomplish anything other than a likely loss of the house in 2014. Do you really think the GOP is going to gain voters between now and 2014 fighting on this issue?
And, of course, your answer is "who cares" let it all burn. Well, I prefer that it doesn't all burn, b/c the reality is that we will simply move into more socialism. there isn't going to be some abrupt cataclysmic event where everyone realizes liberalism is wrong and converts to conservatism. Instead it will be a long, slow death march toward European socialism or worse. I would rather continue to fight it where we can and attempt to reverse the progress the left has made than throw a tantrum.
We have to pick our battles and this is not a battle that will gain us anything.
Posted by: Monkeytoe at November 12, 2012 10:19 AM (sOx93)
Posted by: msmulan at November 12, 2012 10:21 AM (vSWyU)
Posted by: msmulan at November 12, 2012 02:21 PM (vSWyU)
Exactly. Obama/dems have survived the past 4 years on offering nothing but "let's increase taxes on the rich" and we have opposed that (rightfully), but allowed them their class warfare schtick. Let's take it away from them and force them to support Obamacare and explain the lack of budget, the increased defect, etc.
Look - we all know the GOP is going to cave on something. I would much rather it be this than immigration or spending.
Posted by: Monkeytoe at November 12, 2012 10:26 AM (sOx93)
Posted by: DCD-in-Indiana at November 12, 2012 10:30 AM (B0/4L)
#235 - Delusional
#243 - if R depressed turnout you would see it in every state. As noted elsewhere R performed much better than most of the R senate candidates. You point to VA and OH as evidence - don't you think O focusing all his negative advertising on these states for 6 months had an impact?
Posted by: NoBama12 at November 12, 2012 10:31 AM (ykY2u)
No they won't they'll do what they did now and say 'well the media says it's okay what's on dancing with the stars."
Politics is personal or indifferent these days.
Nuke the cuts and Bush credits rules and bring the pain
Posted by: sven10077 at November 12, 2012 10:49 AM (LRFds)
Sheer genius - about the only way to hand the House back to the Democrats in 2014.
Obama won. Give him his tax hike, get what we can, publicly state we object to the policy and don't think it will work but in the spirit of unity blah blah blah. Then the Democrats own the economy and the coming crash.
Posted by: Adjoran at November 12, 2012 10:50 AM (ZHQvg)
I'm tired cranky as hell and am not trying to flame you so please don't take offense.
You don't know what you're talking about or you don't get it.
The United States you think will wake up is a memory.
We can if the pain is wide enough likely at best get to where Canada is at right now a grown up soft socialism that uses its resources and industry for as free a market as can be had supporting a socialist model that is socialist light.
That is the BEST we can get but we will never get it if we use half measures.
This first year of this congress is literally our last chance to save this version of the US then it is done.
Let it burn b/c even if they do everything correctly they will at best have a 50% chance to save yesterday and frankly no chance.
Sorry if I was an asshole.
Posted by: sven10077 at November 12, 2012 10:53 AM (LRFds)
Right b/c the media has shown that they will be as receptive to letting us cast blame as they are to not even needing carney since they are all Barry's employees.
No hit the cliff, don't increase the ceiling and rage at them.
We are either the party o growth and increased revenue or we're not.
We're losing 2014 in all likelihood anyway.
Posted by: sven10077 at November 12, 2012 10:54 AM (LRFds)
You don't know what you're talking about or you don't get it.
The United States you think will wake up is a memory.
We can if the pain is wide enough likely at best get to where Canada is at right now a grown up soft socialism that uses its resources and industry for as free a market as can be had supporting a socialist model that is socialist light.
I posit that you don't know what you are talking about. The idea that there is going to be pain enough to bring people to their senses to be more like Canada is both a strange argument and wrongheaded.
First, you are missing the point entirely. If the GOP continues to refuse to allow taxes to be raised on those making over $250k, the GOP is going to lose big in the mid-terms. Where you think that will get us is wholly delusional. What do you think the dems are going to do then? Start taking entitlement reform seriously? Lower taxes? Decrease spending. So, in 10 years we are even more bankrupt then we are today, and what? What exactly do you think is going to happen?
You are merely throwing a tantrum with no solutions and no responsible strategic thinking. Your answer is what? Do nothing, let the dems win everything and eventually somewhere down the road what? Enough people come to understand liberalism/socialism doesn't work? how has that worked out in Greece? Italy? Ireland? Portugal? France?
You are making claims that history shows to be completely untrue. there is going to be no magical awakening where people come to grips with reality. Instead, the can will continue to be pushed down the road.
I am thinking strategically on how to fight back and try and slow and eventually stop the leviathan. You are thinking emotionally about how to piss in the soup - to what purpose is unclear. It may give you release to throw the tantrum but it accomplishes nothing and advances nothing.
If there is some strategic or tactical argument you are tying to make, you have not done so with any lucidity. Simply claiming "screw them' or "no compromise" is not an argument. It may feel good to you, but it is not helpful to anyone else. Perhaps somewhere in there you have a point, if so I'd like to see it rather than ranting.
Posted by: Monkeytoe at November 12, 2012 11:03 AM (sOx93)
Whatever you win I quit....can I sen you my bills to pay the donations I amde this cycle or at least the part outstanding?
You think this is a simple "tantrum" ok.
I gave 24 years to this party hard.
I know Canada fella b/c my Grandpa had holdings there and I watch her like a hawk.
Canada is the best economy in North America right now and POSSIBLY Mexico is second.
Barack win and I quit.
SHOW ME BARRY!
Posted by: sven10077 at November 12, 2012 11:13 AM (LRFds)
you fuck them like this you lose them because Barack is a shakedown artist risen to power with a secret police or five.
Okay I am offering no strategic vision?
Evidently i need to take a nap.
I have said repeatedly the only way to make Barry own this is to spread the pain and bombard Harry reid with the targeted cuts you say you want and a stabilized tax Code so we can avoid these every 2 year jousts.
Ok....I am without a doubt a total retard, and hey i must be i was a Perry guy who backed Mitt to the hilt from loyalty.
Fuck it show me.
Posted by: sven10077 at November 12, 2012 11:15 AM (LRFds)
Illegal immigration amnesty
passing bills to allow felons to vote
passing bills making voter ID illegal
Card-check union rules (i.e., no more secret ballot for union organizing votes)
carbon tax
cap and trade
across the board tax increases
increased spending (above what even the GOP currently allows)
And that is just off the top of my head. I'd like to prevent the Dems from winning the house in 2014. Allowing sequestration to occur because we refuse to allow tax increases on those making $250k is not good policy. It is terrible, terrible policy because it leads to so much more worse policy.
Conservatism is not based solely on the idea of low taxes. Yes, low taxes is an important part of the idea of small gov't and free markets. But it is not the end all be all of conservatism. And, there is no specific tax rate that is the magic rate that is "conservative". We believe in the Laffer curve. While I don't think raising taxes on those making more than $250k will accomplish anything or that it is good policy, it is not such an enormous principal that conceding it will destroy conservatism forever in the U.S. Particularly when we know that fighting this battle inevitably lead to significant increased gov't when the GOP loses the house in 2014. It just makes no practical sense to fight on this hill.
Posted by: Monkeytoe at November 12, 2012 11:15 AM (sOx93)
there is NO goddamned fight in this.
What logic what sense can be made of barack making a demand this hard for NO CONCESSION we get no gain when "defeat" is merely letting the fucking thing sunset out?
Whatever dude sincerely you win I am going to sleep a bit.
Have at it.
Don't count on another quarter century of 'we'll get 'em next time tiger.'
If this party is a class warfare party now I quit....I make for familuy adjusted AGI ~71,000 or so this year.
At peak I was about 145g
I aim to make it my goal to get noble and make about 54g soon and if they fire wife we will make ~24-35g.
They can't take it if you won't make it.
Posted by: sven10077 at November 12, 2012 11:21 AM (LRFds)
I don't want to fall all the way back, but you know how many toys do i really need?
In needing less toys I will add to the empl....fuck it who cares
i quit.
Posted by: sven10077 at November 12, 2012 11:23 AM (LRFds)
I need deeper think.
Posted by: Mountains Landbarons and Serfs at November 12, 2012 11:38 AM (Xx7iB)
Posted by: BuddyPC at November 12, 2012 12:11 PM (jfUIE)
Posted by: BuddyPC at November 12, 2012 12:12 PM (jfUIE)
Posted by: BuddyPC at November 12, 2012 12:14 PM (jfUIE)
Posted by: BuddyPC at November 12, 2012 12:28 PM (jfUIE)
Posted by: Looking closely at November 12, 2012 11:54 AM (+PDlV)
In case the papers are slow getting to where you live, the American people voted against "limited government" last Tuesday. They voted for higher taxes. I say, let's stand back and let the Democrats give that to them. Starting with letting the Bush Tax Cuts expire.
The problem I have with Bill Kristol is that he only wants to let Democrats raise taxes a little bit. I believe that Republicans should stand back and let Democrats raise taxes a whole lot. I believe that a political compromise can be worked out where Democrats can raise tax levels to what they were during the Eisenhower administration and Republicans will not oppose them but simply vote "present".
Posted by: Obnoxious A-hole at November 12, 2012 12:30 PM (dGtaD)
The people feel no pain. They put the pain on their children and the responsible.
The people need to feel pain or there will be no change.
Posted by: jukin at November 12, 2012 12:35 PM (WGm5T)
Except that will damn near cripple the Military
Posted by: Nevergiveup at November 12, 2012 11:57 AM (79ueO)
Sadly, a crippled military also seems to be needed to get the attention of the people who voted for four more years. Iran will get nuclear weapons which will result in the Saudis and the gulf states also getting nukes. Turkey is in the general area and has asperations of being a leading power in the Muslim world so they will get some too. Even though Greece cannot afford them, they will get some nukes. Italy certainly can't be shown up by Greece so they will get nukes as well. Switzerland can afford nukes and will make their own. At some point Germany will say, "What the hell" and assemble their own nuclear arsenal. Being abandoned by the US and in between nuclear Russia and Germany, Poland will also get nukes.
At some point one or more of those nukes is going to wind up in an American city and a whole lot of people are going to die. This may happen either before or after the folks living near the Persian Gulf use some of their nukes on each other.
Maybe, and this is only maybe, after an American city goes up in a radioactive fireball the people who voted for Obama will start taking this shit seriously.
Posted by: Obnoxious A-hole at November 12, 2012 12:46 PM (dGtaD)
If GOP doesn't stand for small government, does it stand for ANYTHING AT ALL?
Posted by: Looking closely at November 12, 2012 12:02 PM (+PDlV)
See, I'm one of those guns and abortion issue guys who thinks that the government is much too big and should be smaller but while I believe that raising taxes at this point is a remarkably stupid idea, it is not really a moral principal. For years I've watched as one part of the conservative coalition has been willing to sacrifice my principals for votes and yet I and many others have stayed loyal to the GOP because the alternative is a lot worse.
We have defended the interests of the richest people in America, despite the fact that they vote overwhelmingly for Democrats, because doing what Democrats want will cause enormous financial damage. During all that time we have been demagogued by Democrats and the cumulative effect was experienced last Tuesday.
So now let them have what they asked for and see how much they like it. It is better if it happens sooner rather than later so that Barack Obama and the Democrats get the full credit for it.
Posted by: Obnoxious A-hole at November 12, 2012 01:20 PM (dGtaD)
The left has built into law and practice lots of unfair privileges for institutions that belong to it, starting with Hollywood. Plenty of privileges are non-financial, such as immunity for sources, but only if you are an official (left-wing-educated) journalist rather than a mere blogger. But many are financial.
Instapundit would gladly slash them all, and he's correct.
It is easy to defend going after such unjust privileges, and hard to defend them. It is even harder to defend them while pretending to be neutral, and that groups like Hollywood big-wigs and official journalists are neutral and not all that connected to you. The right would be profitable for the Republican Party not only when it was won but all the time it was being fought.
Many on the right would not do it, because they act as if they were awed by big business and the wealthy, and wouldn't touch them, even though these are enemies that work every day for socialism, and can push for harsher taxes and anti-free-speech laws because they know they won't be the victims. That's foolish.
Repeal the Hollywood tax cuts. For a start.
Posted by: The Lightworker at November 12, 2012 02:14 PM (00xTL)
Posted by: skinnydipinacid at November 12, 2012 02:53 PM (WuCLB)
Bill Kristol is a liar and a bluffer. He will lie about the most high-stakes issues. The truth is not in him, and if he's saying something is a good thing, you should think it might be a terrible mistake.
Bill Kristol: it's OK to agree to higher taxes.
The Lightworker: now we know for sure the Republican Party has to hold the line on taxes.
Posted by: The Lightworker at November 12, 2012 03:52 PM (00xTL)
Posted by: someguy at November 12, 2012 04:42 PM (sEXZ/)
Look at the choice they were presented with.
Posted by: Blacque Jacques Shellacque at November 12, 2012 05:03 PM (F3HO3)
Posted by: Emily at November 12, 2012 07:32 PM (FicFv)
#321 I could not agree with you more. I tire of pretend Republicans.
Posted by: burt at November 13, 2012 07:25 AM (8kEad)
Hide Comments | Add Comment | Refresh | Top
64 queries taking 0.3016 seconds, 450 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.








Posted by: Duh! at November 12, 2012 07:52 AM (Zs83Q)