Evan Bayh Out!

HUH? Would that be Vietnam? War on Poverty? Other than a few leftwing and right wing nutters Obama isn't catching any flack for Iraq or Afghanistan. Indeed, he is trying to claim credit for the Iraq success. It appears the surge in Afghanistan may well be successful, if it is not he'll get credit for trying.

Now if it's reckless spending that is similar, you've got a point. Was that your point? :eek:

I don't consider trying to spend money on domestic priorities that had been dropped into a shithole for a decade as "reckless" for one thing. It's what he campaigned on and why he was elected. Unfortunately, by the end of his campaign, the entire economy came crashing down, so he had to try to balance it all out. As for the two wars, I can almost guarantee that if we aren't out of there by 2011, that problem will just add to his woes.

What balance? He tried to ram it through without any bi-partisanship, forcing the Blue Dogs to go along with an agenda that was political suicide. After Scott win, he tried to appear to hit 'balance' with Congress and opposition party, the public didn't buy it, neither did those right of Obama in his own party. Now he's going for executive fiat, we'll see how the funding on that works out. :doubt:

Ah but he didn't "force" the Blue Dogs to do his bidding now, did he? They voted the way they wanted to, just as they always do. And by "balancing," I mean he couldn't just jump right into the economic mess and say to all those people who had voted for him, "Sorry, but everything you wanted to get done won't happen."

I know you read your versions of everything, but I also read BOTH. Try it some time. You'll have a much better grasp of the severity and complexity of the whole situation.
 
careful what you wish for kee kee, you and your ilk might actually have to learn a new word other than "NO"

the repubs are just imitating what the dems did for eight years of Bush Remember? TIT FOR TAT!!!! pay backs a bitch, your promises of hopey and changey, Blame Bush and calling opponents racists isn't working!!!!
 
In the past two years, Mr. Bayh has been focused on budget and fiscal issues and frustrated some of his colleagues by balking at the Democratic budget proposals. According to analysis by The Times of Mr. Bayh’s voting history, he has voted with a majority of the Democratic caucus roughly 71 percent of the time during the 111th Congress — the lowest percentage of his career. (He has also been the Senate Democrat least likely to vote with the party this Congress.

Bayh Decides Against Re-election Bid - The Caucus Blog - NYTimes.com

sounds to me like he's tired of fighting with the members of his party who are determined to finish the job of spending us into oblivion that began under bush.

it's almost like he WANTS a republican in his seat, given the timing of his announcement and the disadvantaged position it puts any potential democratic candidate in for fundraising and name recognition.

interesting

I don't know what's on Bayh's mind, but I WANT more Republicans in the mix (sane ones). This is always, ALWAYS a problem with super majorities (warned by pundits in the know when Bush had a super majority). All it accomplishes is the majority thinking they are invincible, and acting that way, and the minority being so angry they are unwilling to compromise on anything.
 
In the past two years, Mr. Bayh has been focused on budget and fiscal issues and frustrated some of his colleagues by balking at the Democratic budget proposals. According to analysis by The Times of Mr. Bayh’s voting history, he has voted with a majority of the Democratic caucus roughly 71 percent of the time during the 111th Congress — the lowest percentage of his career. (He has also been the Senate Democrat least likely to vote with the party this Congress.

Bayh Decides Against Re-election Bid - The Caucus Blog - NYTimes.com

sounds to me like he's tired of fighting with the members of his party who are determined to finish the job of spending us into oblivion that began under bush.

it's almost like he WANTS a republican in his seat, given the timing of his announcement and the disadvantaged position it puts any potential democratic candidate in for fundraising and name recognition.

interesting

I don't know what's on Bayh's mind, but I WANT more Republicans in the mix (sane ones). This is always, ALWAYS a problem with super majorities (warned by pundits in the know when Bush had a super majority). All it accomplishes is the majority thinking they are invincible, and acting that way, and the minority being so angry they are unwilling to compromise on anything.

When did Bush have a super majority? as far as I can recall he never had 60 votes in the Senate during his presidency.
 
Last edited:
  • Thanks
Reactions: Vel
hey buger boy he isn't a paulin, he actually finishes what he starts you fucking idiot
I'm new here and unaccustomed to the freedom we have been given to say whatever we want to say on this public political forum. The moderators are certainly correct when it says you'll end up looking like a fool if you resort to this sort of commentary.

Why are you so nasty? Disagree if you must, but you should try to be a little more friendlier about it.
 
Last edited:
  • Thanks
Reactions: del
Bush and Republicans did not have a Super Majority. This President and the Democrats did though. Pelosi & Reid blew it. It really is that simple in the end. Bayh was forced out basically. There is no room in the current Democratic Party for a reasonable and somewhat Conservative Democrat. This is a very big loss for the Democratic Party no matter how they try and spin it. It is what it is.
 
Bush and Republicans did not have a Super Majority.

That's what I thought LibocalypseNow, thanks for confirming that, makes me wonder who the heck these "pundits in the know" are that MaggieMae was talking about, because clearly they weren't "in the know" at all. ;)
 
Why don't you return to playing with yours and leave politics to the adults, pond scum.

you have nothing to play with. leaving politics with you is a monkey with a stick a dynamite and a blow tourch cheeks

I know how to communicate like an adult, and not some filthy pretend veteran. Animals like you make me sick to my stomach.

and you've just been reported. chew on that one
 
Bush and Republicans did not have a Super Majority.

That's what I thought LibocalypseNow, thanks for confirming that, makes me wonder who the heck these "pundits in the know" are that MaggieMae was talking about, because clearly they weren't "in the know" at all. ;)

Look what the Democrats did to Lieberman. He went off the reservation on Iraq and they kicked him out of the party. What about Zell Miller, who ended up giving the key note speech to the GOP convention?
The current Democratic Party is the problem. They have been taken over by radicals and so cannot stand anything like compromise. It's hard to compromise when you've told everyone and yourself that your opponents are evil.
As a result the Dems will self destruct. Wait til Nov.
 
I saw this story on DRUDGE a few hours ago. Called up Heratio and asked him his opinion and yet another Dum jumping the Hopey-Changey bandwagon...........



tokyo-4-festival-p-072_3-4.jpg
 
Bush and Republicans did not have a Super Majority.

That's what I thought LibocalypseNow, thanks for confirming that, makes me wonder who the heck these "pundits in the know" are that MaggieMae was talking about, because clearly they weren't "in the know" at all. ;)

Look what the Democrats did to Lieberman. He went off the reservation on Iraq and they kicked him out of the party. What about Zell Miller, who ended up giving the key note speech to the GOP convention?
The current Democratic Party is the problem. They have been taken over by radicals and so cannot stand anything like compromise. It's hard to compromise when you've told everyone and yourself that your opponents are evil.
As a result the Dems will self destruct. Wait til Nov.

The republican track record isn't much better if you consider their treatment of moderates (e.g. Snowe) and libertarians (e.g. Paul), it appears to be getting a bit better though but we'll see when/if they take control of congress back.
 
That's what I thought LibocalypseNow, thanks for confirming that, makes me wonder who the heck these "pundits in the know" are that MaggieMae was talking about, because clearly they weren't "in the know" at all. ;)

Look what the Democrats did to Lieberman. He went off the reservation on Iraq and they kicked him out of the party. What about Zell Miller, who ended up giving the key note speech to the GOP convention?
The current Democratic Party is the problem. They have been taken over by radicals and so cannot stand anything like compromise. It's hard to compromise when you've told everyone and yourself that your opponents are evil.
As a result the Dems will self destruct. Wait til Nov.

The republican track record isn't much better if you consider their treatment of moderates (e.g. Snowe) and libertarians (e.g. Paul), it appears to be getting a bit better though but we'll see when/if they take control of congress back.

The GOP track record is a hell of a lot better, esp looking at Snowe, Collins, McCain, Spector, etc etc. When has any of them been tossed aside on policy issues? Bush actually campaigned for Spector in his tough primary and then Spector stabbed him in the back. And he still wasn't tossed out.
 
Bush and Republicans did not have a Super Majority.

That's what I thought LibocalypseNow, thanks for confirming that, makes me wonder who the heck these "pundits in the know" are that MaggieMae was talking about, because clearly they weren't "in the know" at all. ;)

Look what the Democrats did to Lieberman. He went off the reservation on Iraq and they kicked him out of the party. What about Zell Miller, who ended up giving the key note speech to the GOP convention?
The current Democratic Party is the problem. They have been taken over by radicals and so cannot stand anything like compromise. It's hard to compromise when you've told everyone and yourself that your opponents are evil.
As a result the Dems will self destruct. Wait til Nov.

You're wrong, again. The Democratic Party didn't "kick" Lieberman out. He LOST THE PRIMARY. It was the Democrats of Connecticut that kicked Lieberman out. The only reason he's still the Senator is because when he made his own party, all the Republicans in Connecticut voted for him.
 
I saw this story on DRUDGE a few hours ago. Called up Heratio and asked him his opinion and yet another Dum jumping the Hopey-Changey bandwagon...........



tokyo-4-festival-p-072_3-4.jpg

I laugh at every thing drudge since they reported on the backwards B girl as fact. They are jokes.
 
The whole idea of a 'political party' is a group of people who have common a political philosophy and goals. 'Moderate' Democrats no longer have that commonality with the rest of the Democratic party, so they should leave the party or not get the party's nomination.

The same is true of the moderate Republicans. In fact, and I think just about everyone would agree (except the political elite), that both moderate Republicans and Democrats ought to quit their respective parties and form a new middle of the road party. No doubt they'd be competitive immediately.

Look what happened with Lieberman - he not longer represented the philosophy of the Democratic party - so he lost the nomination, but he DID represent the people of Connecticut, so he won the election.

Maybe the two politcal parties are not the undefeatable monoliths that everyone seems to think they are.

The problem with Bayh is he apparently thinks that Congress is supposed to be a lovefest. It's not and never has been. The American system is based on contention - it always has been. The current political polarization is nothing new and it's been worse - we're not having a civil war just yet.

If he had the courage of his convictions, he'd run as an independant. Otherwise he's just a wimp and a quitter.
 
That's what I thought LibocalypseNow, thanks for confirming that, makes me wonder who the heck these "pundits in the know" are that MaggieMae was talking about, because clearly they weren't "in the know" at all. ;)

Look what the Democrats did to Lieberman. He went off the reservation on Iraq and they kicked him out of the party. What about Zell Miller, who ended up giving the key note speech to the GOP convention?
The current Democratic Party is the problem. They have been taken over by radicals and so cannot stand anything like compromise. It's hard to compromise when you've told everyone and yourself that your opponents are evil.
As a result the Dems will self destruct. Wait til Nov.

You're wrong, again. The Democratic Party didn't "kick" Lieberman out. He LOST THE PRIMARY. It was the Democrats of Connecticut that kicked Lieberman out. The only reason he's still the Senator is because when he made his own party, all the Republicans in Connecticut voted for him.

I'd swear you could screw up a one car funeral.
FOXNews.com - Democrats Back Lamont; Lieberman Files for Independent Run - Voting | Vote | 2006 Elections
Sen. Chris Dodd, D-Conn., a friend of Lieberman, joined other Democrats in endorsing Lamont.

“It’s moments like this that are very difficult,” Dodd said. “This isn’t just about relationships or friendships or about candidacies, it’s about the people we seek to represent.”
Other Democrat leaders, including Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid, Sens. Hillary Clinton, John Kerry and Russ Feingold endorsed Lamont. Other Democratic figures such as Rev. Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton appeared on Lamont's victory stage Tuesday night.

Reid and Sen. Charles Schumer of New York issued a joint statement in support of Lamont.

"Joe Lieberman has been an effective Democratic senator for Connecticut and for America," the statement reads. "But the perception was that he was too close to George Bush and this election was, in many respects, a referendum on the president more than anything else. The results bode well for Democratic victories in November and our efforts to take the country in a new direction."

Kerry also sent out a statement calling on Democrats to back Lamont.

"It's time for all Democrats to come together to support Ned Lamont," Kerry said. "It's time for
Quotes from article.

I would bet if you looked at the number of independentss and registered Republicans who voted in the election and added them it still would not equal the number of votes Lieberman got.
 
The reason why Joe Lieberman got reelected was that he saved the Groton sub base when Bush & Cheney wanted to move it to Virginia. That's all there is to it.

It wasn't a Liberal vs. conservative, or Democrat vs. Republican thing. It was a Connecticut thing. That base means a hell of a lot to the economy and the people of Connecticut - of all political persuations.

Sometimes congress people get elected based on their service to their constituency, not their political philosophies.
 
In the past two years, Mr. Bayh has been focused on budget and fiscal issues and frustrated some of his colleagues by balking at the Democratic budget proposals. According to analysis by The Times of Mr. Bayh’s voting history, he has voted with a majority of the Democratic caucus roughly 71 percent of the time during the 111th Congress — the lowest percentage of his career. (He has also been the Senate Democrat least likely to vote with the party this Congress.

Bayh Decides Against Re-election Bid - The Caucus Blog - NYTimes.com

sounds to me like he's tired of fighting with the members of his party who are determined to finish the job of spending us into oblivion that began under bush.

it's almost like he WANTS a republican in his seat, given the timing of his announcement and the disadvantaged position it puts any potential democratic candidate in for fundraising and name recognition.

interesting

I don't know what's on Bayh's mind, but I WANT more Republicans in the mix (sane ones). This is always, ALWAYS a problem with super majorities (warned by pundits in the know when Bush had a super majority). All it accomplishes is the majority thinking they are invincible, and acting that way, and the minority being so angry they are unwilling to compromise on anything.

The Republicans never had a super majority; the Democrats always had the power of filibuster.
 
Bush and Republicans did not have a Super Majority.

That's what I thought LibocalypseNow, thanks for confirming that, makes me wonder who the heck these "pundits in the know" are that MaggieMae was talking about, because clearly they weren't "in the know" at all. ;)

Look what the Democrats did to Lieberman. He went off the reservation on Iraq and they kicked him out of the party. What about Zell Miller, who ended up giving the key note speech to the GOP convention?
The current Democratic Party is the problem. They have been taken over by radicals and so cannot stand anything like compromise. It's hard to compromise when you've told everyone and yourself that your opponents are evil.
As a result the Dems will self destruct. Wait til Nov.
I don't mind if the Democrats lose in November, but it's a damn shame they have been taken over by radicals. The democrats I know would never agree with the crap they spew on the Daily KOS or that Democratic Underground websites. Unfortunately, because they have a "D" behind their name, too many decent democratic folks vote for them and end up regretting it later. In the meantime, the Country suffers needlessly. Maybe they will open their eyes to what the ObamaNation has in store for us and they'll return to the party of JFK and Hubert Humphrey once again.
 
Last edited:

New Topics

Forum List

Back
Top