GOP Candidates Warn Voters About Perils of One-Party Rule

[rayboyusmc]

They surely would know. For six years they had the power and they followed Bush like loving lemmings. It will take two terms of Dems in power to start to reverse the destructive course set by the current NeoCons in power of the Republican party.

What total hypocrisy on their part to worry about this now.

On the defensive across the country and staring down an election that could see them reduced to an ineffective minority in the House and the Senate, congressional Republicans are offering a new argument to voters: the danger of single-party rule in the nation's capital.

On the defensive across the country and staring down an election that could see them reduced to an ineffective minority in the House and the Senate, congressional Republicans are offering a new argument to voters: the danger of single-party rule in the nation's capital.

GOP Candidates Warn Voters About Perils of One-Party Rule - washingtonpost.com

 

[RetiredGySgt]

They surely would know. For six years they had the power and they followed Bush like loving lemmings. It will take two terms of Dems in power to start to reverse the destructive course set by the current NeoCons in power of the Republican party.

What total hypocrisy on their part to worry about this now.

On the defensive across the country and staring down an election that could see them reduced to an ineffective minority in the House and the Senate, congressional Republicans are offering a new argument to voters: the danger of single-party rule in the nation's capital.



GOP Candidates Warn Voters About Perils of One-Party Rule - washingtonpost.com

4 years not 6. You would think our Intellectual superiors could get simple facts right. Further using the excuse you have used for the last 2 years about this do nothing Congress, even the 4 that the republicans had all branches of the legislature they did not have a filibuster proof lead in the Senate, not even close.

I wonder why when the dems don't have that it is strikingly important and needs to be repeated over and over as excuses for why they failed on EVERY promise they made to get elected, But the 4 years the republicans had the same problem they had a TIGHT grip on all of the Government?

There is a word for that.

 

[Gunny]

They surely would know. For six years they had the power and they followed Bush like loving lemmings. It will take two terms of Dems in power to start to reverse the destructive course set by the current NeoCons in power of the Republican party.

What total hypocrisy on their part to worry about this now.

On the defensive across the country and staring down an election that could see them reduced to an ineffective minority in the House and the Senate, congressional Republicans are offering a new argument to voters: the danger of single-party rule in the nation's capital.



GOP Candidates Warn Voters About Perils of One-Party Rule - washingtonpost.com

The GOP never had a one party rule. Democrats in Congress always had enough numbers to kill what they wanted.

And Democrats should be warning against one-party rule as well. If you had a lick of sense that wasn't tied to that donkey's ass you'd be against it too, regardless the party.

 

[WillowTree]

Obama, Biden, Pelosi, Reid. What a frickin nightmare!

 

[Care4all]

4 years not 6. You would think our Intellectual superiors could get simple facts right. Further using the excuse you have used for the last 2 years about this do nothing Congress, even the 4 that the republicans had all branches of the legislature they did not have a filibuster proof lead in the Senate, not even close.

I wonder why when the dems don't have that it is strikingly important and needs to be repeated over and over as excuses for why they failed on EVERY promise they made to get elected, But the 4 years the republicans had the same problem they had a TIGHT grip on all of the Government?

There is a word for that.

From 2001 thru January 4th, 2007...6 years, they had FULL CONTROL with the exception of a few months early on when the democrats had a one man majority in the senate that got turned back over.

 

[del]

From 2001 thru January 4th, 2007...6 years, they had FULL CONTROL with the exception of a few months early on when the democrats had a one man majority in the senate that got turned back over.

they never had full control, unless you're willing to say that the dems have full control now.

go look at the congresses from around 1960 up until the 80's if you want to see what a congress under the full control of one party looks like.

it ain't pretty.

 

[Care4all]

they never had full control, unless you're willing to say that the dems have full control now.

go look at the congresses from around 1960 up until the 80's if you want to see what a congress under the full control of one party looks like.

it ain't pretty.

full control means a republican president with his budget, a republican majority in the house, and a republican majority in the senate.... democrats filibustered only a HANDFUL of times in the senate when republicans were in the majority....which is how it should be.

CERTAINLY you can NOT compare these HANDFULL of times to the nearing 100 filibusters i heard the republicans have done since only january of 2007 in the senate?

care

 

[Ravi]

 

[del]

full control means a republican president with his budget, a republican majority in the house, and a republican majority in the senate....

control of the presidency has nothing to do with control of the congress- that whole checks and balances thing.

democrats filibustered only a HANDFUL of times in the senate when republicans were in the majority....which is how it should be.

why is that as it should be? don't the dems have an obligation to try to block legislation that they see as harmful?

CERTAINLY you can NOT compare these HANDFULL of times to the nearing 100 filibusters i heard the republicans have done since only january of 2007 in the senate?

those dems must have big hands, they averaged about 70 fillibusters per congress; just about the same as the repubs have this time around.

Statistics on Cloture Motions - 93rd-110th Congresses - Learning About Filibuster

 

[xsited1]

The Democrats will have a blank check come January. Better hide your money and your guns.

 

[elvis]

From 2001 thru January 4th, 2007...6 years, they had FULL CONTROL with the exception of a few months early on when the democrats had a one man majority in the senate that got turned back over.

In 2001, that senator from Vermont switched to an independent, which handed the Senate over to the democrats. I believe they held the Senate from May 2001 until January 2003.

 

[elvis]

Full control by one party means (we'll use republicans as an example) a republican president, a republican House, and 60 or more republicans in the Senate.

 

[eots]

Obama, Biden, Pelosi, Reid. What a frickin nightmare!

if there is a funny part to any of this..it is all the smart ass neo-cons that had no concern over the unprecedented powers given to government through the patriot act..and soon those same powers will be in the hands of the above mentioned.. a little more concerned now perhaps ?...no wonder we have Republicans supporting the Obama....

 

[Toro]

To me, this is a pretty good reason to vote for McCain.

 

[pegwinn]

As stated, full control means control of the WH + the Congress. And, in the Congress there has to be enough to prevent a filibuster. BTW, am I the only one who noticed that both parties are corrupted to the point that they should be run out of town on a rail?

 

[elvis]

As stated, full control means control of the WH + the Congress. And, in the Congress there has to be enough to prevent a filibuster. BTW, am I the only one who noticed that both parties are corrupted to the point that they should be run out of town on a rail?

Of course they should. But since that isn't an option........

 

[Charles_Main]

They surely would know. For six years they had the power and they followed Bush like loving lemmings. It will take two terms of Dems in power to start to reverse the destructive course set by the current NeoCons in power of the Republican party.

What total hypocrisy on their part to worry about this now.

On the defensive across the country and staring down an election that could see them reduced to an ineffective minority in the House and the Senate, congressional Republicans are offering a new argument to voters: the danger of single-party rule in the nation's capital.



GOP Candidates Warn Voters About Perils of One-Party Rule - washingtonpost.com

it was 4 years not 6, and the Republicans never has anything more than a tiny majority in the congress.

The may find themselves with the white house, and super majorities in both houses of congress.

welcome tho the USARR

One party rule.

weeee.

super.

 

[DiveCon]

From 2001 thru January 4th, 2007...6 years, they had FULL CONTROL with the exception of a few months early on when the democrats had a one man majority in the senate that got turned back over.

sorry, you are wrong
the dems had the leadewrship in the senate from 2001 to 2003
so only 4 consecutive years of one party rule

btw, it was SWEET when Tom Daschel lost

 

[Kit Parker]

What harm can they do in four short years? They will receive such a trouncing in 2012 that they will be divided into two parties and a viable 3rd party will finally be born...

 

[DiveCon]

What harm can they do in four short years? They will receive such a trouncing in 2012 that they will be divided into two parties and a viable 3rd party will finally be born...

actually, 2 years
the congress has elections every 2 years