How many Democratic Senators will Lose Their Seats?

PeterZ wrote:

ksandgren wrote:
Kind of reminds you of the Highridge Government, doesn't it? I was incensed as well, but the Tea Party has been doing the same for the last several years. After screaming for a budget resolution out of the Senate, when one was finally delivered to them they threw it on the shelf for six months with no attempt to caucus or reconcile. They were more interested in impressing their base than in getting the job done.

Revenue bills start in the House. What happened to all those budgets they sent to the Senate? What compromise did the Senate offer? None as I recall. Yet the TEA Party gets blamed?



Sorry but I am not buying it.

As I clearly stated in the last submission, the Dems were indeed in the wrong and deserve the scorn you show them. However, the other side has proven they are every bit as deserving of that scorn. They were quick to adopt exactly the same tactic that they derided since they new no caucus would please there supporters. There are good reasons why many Americans have taken the "a pox on both your houses" approach and congress has a lower approval rating than used car salesmen and about as much respect as sewer workers. Obama's approval rating is deservedly low but it is three times as high as congress. It is only because Rand Paul, more of a Libertarian than a true tea party advocate, worked with the senate democrats that we got temporary closure to the shutdown.

ksandgren wrote:
Kind of reminds you of the Highridge Government, doesn't it? I was incensed as well, but the Tea Party has been doing the same for the last several years. After screaming for a budget resolution out of the Senate, when one was finally delivered to them they threw it on the shelf for six months with no attempt to caucus or reconcile. They were more interested in impressing their base than in getting the job done.

This is kind of a misleading post. I am going to add a bit onto PeterZ's post.

First the what the Senate passed was a Budget resolution. More or less a bargaining statement. Which the Democrats wouldn't even allow a way to balance the budget in the next 10 years.

The High Ridge reference would apply for the previous 3 years. The House where all budget bills are supposed to originate. The bills get to the Senate where Reid sits on them until it gets to be do or die time. Then they get to the floor all the originating words except the number are removed. The Democratic Senate then inserts whatever they wish then sends them back to the House. It is now August or later what do you do if you are in the House.

But the media counting on the fact that US public has no clue what is going on blames it all on the Republicans/Taxed Enough Already folks. "They" won't pass a budget.

Which makes things really interesting. Why did the Senate actually pass a Budget resolution last year. They hadn't done one since 2008 or 9? Curious that it was right after President Obama had received his "mandate". And it still only passed with a vote of 50 or 51 not going to look it up.

Perhaps they were actually trying to shore up the voting record of those however many Senate seats that were in red states.

No I am not all that happy with any of the power mad whatevers in Washington. Just like the Democrats waited until recently to use the so called limited nuclear option. Which much like the Fort Fizzle in Lolo Pass the media forgets about. My first response because that is about getting what they want now not the future or good governance practices for that matter.

So amazing how people forget what High Ridge House of Lords did and the really worse analogy for who stripped stuff out of a bill and put their own stuff in then shoved down people's throats.

Feel free to correct anything in here was too lazy to look up the references. But I posted too many times in one topic in one day.

You posted while I was typing. Yep, we keep kicking the can down the road until it falls off the cliff. But damn it is going to hurt when that sudden stop happens. Oh wait that 1,000 point lose in the Dow when the Fed slows the presses. That is what government meddling gets you on the back of the tiger.

84% ain't hardly a shutdown not even sure if it was a slow down to be honest.

And as I posted back when lets go with my reps idea. Just don't count anything going to Social Security Trust Fund it ain't like it is anything but an accounting trick anyway.

Enjoy,
T2M

PS If anybody wants to see what is happening on bills and such the following link will get you there and allow you to see what votes happen via email. Lets you track what and how your representatives are voting each time. Very tedious but what is it worth to you?
https://www.govtrack.us/

I understand your position but do not agree. Trying to force a review of Obamacare even at the cost of shutting down our bloated government was worth it. 6 million people lost their insurance and only 3 million of those have been able to replace what they lost.

Different compromises were offered to the Senate. None was brought to the floor.

The establishment Repubs allowed the sequester cuts to be removed in order to get a 2 year CR. Did the hated TEA Party reps and senators stop that? No. Did their baselike that? Hell no! All that vaunted compromise you cherish reaffirms the absolute indifference most repubs are to actually cutting spending. Bush was hardly fiscally conservative. He could have used passionate fiscal conservatives restraining his spendthrift ways.

That's what the TEA Party represents. A passionate block that will exact a cost for repubs who backslide into eager spending. If they believe spending is necessary, they had better be willing to persuade that block. If they can't, the spending is likely not necessary.

ksandgren wrote:
As I clearly stated in the last submission, the Dems were indeed in the wrong and deserve the scorn you show them. However, the other side has proven they are every bit as deserving of that scorn. They were quick to adopt exactly the same tactic that they derided since they new no caucus would please there supporters. There are good reasons why many Americans have taken the "a pox on both your houses" approach and congress has a lower approval rating than used car salesmen and about as much respect as sewer workers. Obama's approval rating is deservedly low but it is three times as high as congress. It is only because Rand Paul, more of a Libertarian than a true tea party advocate, worked with the senate democrats that we got temporary closure to the shutdown.

namelessfly wrote:

Annachie wrote:Um, didn't the mostly tea party leaning leadership of the Republican party get together 6 years ago and vow not to pass any bipartisan bills through congress?

That's kinda worthy of demonization right there.

Nope,

This is a myth.

The TEA party didn't really even exist as a political movement until well after the 2008 election.

The Democrats controlled both houses of Congress during the next two years so the TEA arty movement had no ability to deny them anything.

Lol, if it was a myth then certain news reporters would have had their arses sued off by now. And 2 to 3 months is not "well after"

Do you honestly believe that the 2009-2010 republicans had no ability to delay, block, or otherwise affect bills passing through the houses?


Not that it matters, the tea party pbstructionism is as blatant as the election lies of our primeminister (who was only elected in November)

Obamacare did not get 1 republican vote. It passed. Do that math. What sort of obstructions could they have put up? If impotence is still being obstructionists, then you are right.

As for our 85% leftist press, liable is very difficult to prove in a court of law and near impossible for public figures. That is the only fact that prevents law suits. Lord knows the press is the PR branch of the Democrat Party.

Annachie wrote:

namelessfly wrote:

Nope,

This is a myth.

The TEA party didn't really even exist as a political movement until well after the 2008 election.

The Democrats controlled both houses of Congress during the next two years so the TEA arty movement had no ability to deny them anything.

Lol, if it was a myth then certain news reporters would have had their arses sued off by now. And 2 to 3 months is not "well after"

Do you honestly believe that the 2009-2010 republicans had no ability to delay, block, or otherwise affect bills passing through the houses?


Not that it matters, the tea party pbstructionism is as blatant as the election lies of our primeminister (who was only elected in November)

It looks like we don't reall get your Dem biased media down here, though it was ammusing to find some news orgs listed as both Repub and Demo biased. Sometimes in the same article.

Generally though, I really doubt your 85% reference, especially given the penetration of the Murdoch press machine.

Our PM has just been banned from YouTube because of providing misleading and inaccurate information (lies), but is pressing on trying to have our national broadcaster only report news that is favourable to his government. Independent reviews here have the Murdock press extremely biased to the right (unprofessional but legal) and the national broadcaster rigorously neutral, but that's not good enough for our potential dictator.

Just referencing a 1992 study. Is it diffinitive? Likely not. Still even blatantly left leaning shows like SNL recognized the Obama bias in the 2008 primary against Hillary Clinton.

Annachie wrote:It looks like we don't reall get your Dem biased media down here, though it was ammusing to find some news orgs listed as both Repub and Demo biased. Sometimes in the same article.

Generally though, I really doubt your 85% reference, especially given the penetration of the Murdoch press machine.

Annachie wrote:
Lol, if it was a myth then certain news reporters would have had their arses sued off by now. And 2 to 3 months is not "well after"

Do you honestly believe that the 2009-2010 republicans had no ability to delay, block, or otherwise affect bills passing through the houses?


Not that it matters, the tea party pbstructionism is as blatant as the election lies of our primeminister (who was only elected in November)

I see that you continue to spew propaganda.

I took my children to a "TEA Party" rally during the summer of 2008. It was an extremely amorphous group of people with wildly disparate political positions. The TEA party only gradually settled into it's current identity of fiscal conservatism, limited government, libertarian leaning since then. The TEA party not only did not exist as a recognizable entity prior to the 2008 election, they had zero organizational ability to affect the Republican primary elections.

During the critical 2008 primaries, the precursors of the TEA party had not yet emerged so they could have had no influence in selecting the Republican candidates.

The indisputable fact remains that the Democrats controlled the Presidency, the Senate and the House of Representatives during the critical 2008 to 2010 Congressional term. Republicans had zero capability to obstruct any legislation. The only effective opposition was from the very few principled Democrats that had the integrity to oppose their own party but they were marginalized and demonized along with the Republicans.

Your post. Certainly reaffirms my belief that the US should never again sacrifice its blood and treasure to defend the freedom and security of its alleged allies.

Perceptions of media bias seem to change depending on which team you back. In Australia the conservative side (particularly government members) are convinced that our national broadcaster (ABC) is strongly biased to the left or progressive side. I will attach a link below to an exhaustive article compiling a number of independent surveys that all show it to be either neutral or slightly biased to the right.
The actual details will doubtless be boring to our US friends here, but I am including it for those who want to verify my comment, and possible some may be interested in the various methodologies.

http://www.theguardian.com/media/databl ... -australia

Incidentally our conservative party (equivalent to Republicans or Torys) call themselves Liberals. The most obvious of many lies they propagate.