I have a feeling you are going to be very disappointed.Finally will get someone who owns a pair and will stand up for what most republicans believe in.
Probably should not consider a leader of the party who cries when the pope visits
I have a feeling you are going to be very disappointed.
The next speaker of the House will come from the establishment wing of the party. The donors won't have it any other way.
The Democrats would prefer your wish came true, though. It only serves to help them if a wannabe Ted Cruz or group of wannabe Cruzes holds the House hostage or takes over. They would love for that to be driving the political debate in 2016 instead of having to run on the Middle Eastern morass and the anemic economic growth. It's the same reason they love it when Republicans try to be as anti-immigrant or anti-gay as possible.
Yep.It'll be another in the welfare/warfare camp.
Meet the new boss, same as the old boss.
And the lemmings think 'their guy' is different.
The republican party is not anti-immigrant. It is anti-illegal immigration and their is a gigantic difference.I have a feeling you are going to be very disappointed.
The next speaker of the House will come from the establishment wing of the party. The donors won't have it any other way.
The Democrats would prefer your wish came true, though. It only serves to help them if a wannabe Ted Cruz or group of wannabe Cruzes holds the House hostage or takes over. They would love for that to be driving the political debate in 2016 instead of having to run on the Middle Eastern morass and the anemic economic growth. It's the same reason they love it when Republicans try to be as anti-immigrant or anti-gay as possible.
you haven't been watching much news lately to say that about anti immigrant...numerous candidates have discussed legal immigration as being a bad thing. And coded rhetoric about Mexicans/Asians/whatever not being like us has the same effect. When Donald Trump demagogues Hispanic people, the legal ones who can vote hear the same message as the ones who cannot vote.The republican party is not anti-immigrant. It is anti-illegal immigration and their is a gigantic difference.
being anti gay only gets the republicans votes. Do you really think there are many homosexuals or lesbians in the voting population that were ever going to vote republican then suddenly switched their vote because of republicans not supporting their deviant lifestyle??
Thank goodness!
you haven't been watching much news lately to say that about anti immigrant...numerous candidates have discussed legal immigration as being a bad thing. And coded rhetoric about Mexicans/Asians/whatever not being like us has the same effect. When Donald Trump demagogues Hispanic people, the legal ones who can vote hear the same message as the ones who cannot vote.
You are deluded on being anti-gay being a vote winner for the R party. There is a reason the establishment R candidates have run away from the issue. The virulently anti-gay vote (evangelicals) is already in the bag for Rs. The position is a loser among marginal voters, especially younger marginal voters. Self-described independents and moderates are pro-gay marriage by an overwhelming margin.
The R party knows these issues only get worse for them with time. 65% of the voters under age 50 support gay marriage, and that number has risen steadily over the past decade and a half. It's nearly a push among boomers (and trending up over time.). Gay marriage is a dead issue. dead dead dead. The base may not have figured it out yet but the strategists have all moved on.
With respect to immigration and nativism, the voting population gets about 2% less white every four years. The long-term strategy for the R party cannot involve constantly speaking ill of minorities. It's untenable.
Romney won white people by more than Reagan did. He lost to Obama by multiple percentage points. Think about that. What is killing the R party is their complete inability to reach out to people who aren't white evangelicals. Having a primary campaign full of nativism is a gift to the Ds. Having a campaign to be as anti-gay and anti-immigrant as possible is a losing strategy.
To whom???Amen!
If they don't get a real conservative, they will lose the base in mass.
Or become more pragmatically ruthless and less naive. The Rs could get more of their agenda done by being less doctrinaire, especially when campaigning. The problem is there is a subset of the base that is totally unwilling and unable to grasp this.There is a lot of truth to what you say.
Stand by your convictions, even though it cost you support.
OR,
Prostitute for votes.
This is bluster. Such a 3rd party would be DOA. The big donors want no part of it.The last election there were a lot of sit outs and that number will only grow. Conservatives are ready to vote for a 3rd party rather than aid the sellouts. Losing doesn't matter if winning doesn't matter.
I wonder if he wishes he had put immigration up for a vote. I bet he does now. That could have defined his legacy. As you note, he doesn't have a major policy achievement to point to.My list of Boner's greatest accomplishments:.
1.
Never mind.
Also missed in the grand bargain.I wonder if he wishes he had put immigration up for a vote. I bet he does now. That could have defined his legacy. As you note, he doesn't have a major policy achievement to point to.
I have a feeling he is going to put up a lot of middle ground legislation for the next month to clear the deck for his successor - debt limit and export import bank come to mind.
Cow your project that needs funding is another man's pork. Just like spending on various construction jobs is a big deal foe some and pork to others. It just depends where your interests/livelyhood lie.Also missed in the grand bargain.
I'm afraid we are going to find the government from now on by CR's and continually fight on the debt limit. There are a lot of unintended consequences with running the government that way. Coming from a scientific research perspective, you can't do long term research projects (>10 years) because you can't ever count on funding from CR's. Those kinds of projects is what the government should be in the business of.
I don't think it's controversial to think the government should invest In infrastructure and science.Cow your project that needs funding is another man's pork. Just like spending on various construction jobs is a big deal foe some and pork to others. It just depends where your interests/livelyhood lie.
It is to those who just ran Boehner out of town. When you start looking at a budget what you want is considered pork by many just like infrastructure spending is. They don't care if the highways, bridges, sewer lines, water treatment plants and electrical grid need updating. They just want to cut taxes and want NO compromise on ANYTHING!I don't think it's controversial to think the government should invest In infrastructure and science.
Which real conservative?Amen!
If they don't get a real conservative, they will lose the base in mass.
I agree there are many unreasonable people in the house. A lot of people in Missouri are represented by these folks.It is to those who just ran Boehner out of town. When you start looking at a budget what you want is considered pork by many just like infrastructure spending is. They don't care if the highways, bridges, sewer lines, water treatment plants and electrical grid need updating. They just want to cut taxes and want NO compromise on ANYTHING!
America is tired of government being dysfunctional.
No you wouldn't. Missouri could not function without the federal government.Real Conservatives are tired of the Federal Government altogether .
I would be for a United State of Missouri.
If your a True Conservative 100% of the time you stay, anything else and 100% of the time your kicked out.
See,
100% Compromise is not that hard.
Leave him alone, he thinks he's on a roll.No you wouldn't. Missouri could not function without the federal government.