Third Party Creation Nearly Complete

[Provocateur]

We can't help what your family is. If you think all Democrats are alike, you need to read up on the Blue Dogs who, ironically, opposed the tax deal and many opposed the health care initiative as it was finally voted upon.

Laughable. Blue Dogs were told how to vote by Pelosi, and some were given passes if their votes weren't needed. You certainly can't be so naive as to not have seen the game if you watched CSPAN at all during critical votes.

If you want to see what being a Blue Dog actually means, take a look at this link.

http://www.getliberty.org/files/Blue Dogs and Moderate Democrats Voting Records.pdf

Blue Dogs do not exist.

That link would require days of research to see which bills the votes referred to. Is that all you've got?

Yes, in the final analysis, the Blue Dogs will vote the party platform as floor debates resolve for a final bill, but the debates leading up to important policy bills are a different story. And they HAVE made major differences in the context, including the health care reform bill. That's what I was talking about, not the final vote tally of all bills for the 110th Congress. Sheesh.

Days? They are listed right at the bottom.

H. Res. 5 – Rules of the House
HR 1 ‐‐ $819 billion “stimulus”
HR 1 Conf. ‐‐ $789 billion “stimulus”
HR 1106 – bankruptcy mortgage “cramdowns”
HR 1388 – national service bill w/ ACORN funding
HR 1728 – ACORN funding in “Anti‐Predatory Lending Act”
H. Res . 425 – Vote to Table Flake Resolution Against Murtha Corruption
HR 2346 ‐‐ $108 billion IMF expansion
HR 2454 – Waxman‐Markey “Cap‐and‐Tax”
HR 3962 – $2.1 trillion House “public option”
HR 2847 ‐‐ $154 billion bankrupt state‐union bailout
HR 4314 – $290 billion debt limit expansion


ETA: And if you think the Blue Dogs had anything to do with Obamacare you are just believing that there was sanity involved in the process.

Unless you are talking about Stupak, who was used and abused and thrown out with the bath water.


And to add: Pelosi controlled every Dem vote.

Here is what she said about Obamacare and the Blue Dogs:

“The Blue Dogs didn’t like it when I said I had the votes to pass it, because that was indirectly saying to them: ‘their members are going to vote for this’…I promise you that we will have a bill, it will be strong, we will have the votes for it.” – Pelosi

Guess she was right.

 

[Avorysuds]

If Ron was president and Cain was VP, that could be a bad ass ticket. I say Cain as VP because he is hard to find out what his positions are on with many things and he has no veoting record.

I say run real conservatives and let the Neocons go to the Democrat party as it better supports their Big Government and war hungry mentality.

For me it's not about winning, it's about education people and getting them involved. If Ron runs and does well I'd be happy. The people can make all the difference no matter who is in office.

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

How much you want to bet that the TP runs their own POTUS candidate, splits the GOP vote and ensures Obama's re-election?

Tea party 2012 poll favors Ga.'s Cain, Texas' Paul

.

I think your scenario is highly unlikely. Conservatives absolutely hate Obama and they won't risk his reelection by voting for a third party candidate.

 

[Avorysuds]

How much you want to bet that the TP runs their own POTUS candidate, splits the GOP vote and ensures Obama's re-election?

Tea party 2012 poll favors Ga.'s Cain, Texas' Paul

.

I think your scenario is highly unlikely. Conservatives absolutely hate Obama and they won't risk his reelection by voting for a third party candidate.

Also Cain is running as a Republican I believe and RP won't run as anything else, in the case of the poll provided.

Palin is just making money as always.

 

[Uncensored2008]

I'm talking about the bills they actually pursued, not what they're claiming was important to them.

What is the house resolution number of the bill outlawing abortion?

Leftism is the manifestation of a fundamental lack of ethics. Why you believe lying to be the means of promoting your agenda is a mystery.

 

[MaggieMae]

Laughable. Blue Dogs were told how to vote by Pelosi, and some were given passes if their votes weren't needed. You certainly can't be so naive as to not have seen the game if you watched CSPAN at all during critical votes.

If you want to see what being a Blue Dog actually means, take a look at this link.

http://www.getliberty.org/files/Blue Dogs and Moderate Democrats Voting Records.pdf

Blue Dogs do not exist.

That link would require days of research to see which bills the votes referred to. Is that all you've got?

Yes, in the final analysis, the Blue Dogs will vote the party platform as floor debates resolve for a final bill, but the debates leading up to important policy bills are a different story. And they HAVE made major differences in the context, including the health care reform bill. That's what I was talking about, not the final vote tally of all bills for the 110th Congress. Sheesh.

Days? They are listed right at the bottom.

H. Res. 5 – Rules of the House
HR 1 ‐‐ $819 billion “stimulus”
HR 1 Conf. ‐‐ $789 billion “stimulus”
HR 1106 – bankruptcy mortgage “cramdowns”
HR 1388 – national service bill w/ ACORN funding
HR 1728 – ACORN funding in “Anti‐Predatory Lending Act”
H. Res . 425 – Vote to Table Flake Resolution Against Murtha Corruption
HR 2346 ‐‐ $108 billion IMF expansion
HR 2454 – Waxman‐Markey “Cap‐and‐Tax”
HR 3962 – $2.1 trillion House “public option”
HR 2847 ‐‐ $154 billion bankrupt state‐union bailout
HR 4314 – $290 billion debt limit expansion


ETA: And if you think the Blue Dogs had anything to do with Obamacare you are just believing that there was sanity involved in the process.

Unless you are talking about Stupak, who was used and abused and thrown out with the bath water.


And to add: Pelosi controlled every Dem vote.

Here is what she said about Obamacare and the Blue Dogs:

“The Blue Dogs didn’t like it when I said I had the votes to pass it, because that was indirectly saying to them: ‘their members are going to vote for this’…I promise you that we will have a bill, it will be strong, we will have the votes for it.” – Pelosi

Guess she was right.

Pelosi's first bill bit the dust, or did you forget about that. Plus it hardly matters what she "said" about the bill--the Senate had to approve it, and it took around five drafts following multiple joint participation committee conferences before the floor votes on a final bill.

Sorry I didn't take more time with your link; I missed the bottom part, thinking it was just a spread sheet.

 

[MaggieMae]

The "Tea Party" won't run a third party candidate. It's just a rebranding of the same old "Moral Majority" crowd that's existed for decades.

You just run with that, Sparky. No doubt some of your half-witted compatriots will think you brilliant.

(For all those NOT Polk - the Tea party movement is virtually the polar opposite of the Moral Majority. The Tea party is focused almost exclusively on taxes and the market where the MM was about social values.)

Which is why the first idea on the agenda for all of the freshman Republicans they swept in it was trying to outlaw abortion.

I was just about to post that reminder myself.

 

[MaggieMae]

I'm talking about the bills they actually pursued, not what they're claiming was important to them.

What is the house resolution number of the bill outlawing abortion?

Leftism is the manifestation of a fundamental lack of ethics. Why you believe lying to be the means of promoting your agenda is a mystery.

Try doing your own research for a change instead of relying on friends. You can check the status of all bills here:

OpenCongress - 112th Congress - Track bills, votes, senators, and representatives in the U.S. Congress

 

[MaggieMae]

Republicans need to start vetting and deciding upon which candidates they're going to want to run, because the first Republican debate is scheduled for May 2, 2012 (only three months away).

First 2012 Republican debate to take place May 2 - NYPOST.com

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

Republicans need to start vetting and deciding upon which candidates they're going to want to run, because the first Republican debate is scheduled for May 2, 2012 (only three months away).

First 2012 Republican debate to take place May 2 - NYPOST.com

We're in 2012 already? I feel like I lost a whole year! What happened?

 

[MaggieMae]

Republicans need to start vetting and deciding upon which candidates they're going to want to run, because the first Republican debate is scheduled for May 2, 2012 (only three months away).

First 2012 Republican debate to take place May 2 - NYPOST.com

We're in 2012 already? I feel like I lost a whole year! What happened?

Typo. Sorry.

Former First Lady Nancy Reagan announced Monday that the first debate of the 2012 Republican primary contest will be held at the Ronald Reagan Presidential Library and Museum in Simi Valley, Calif., on May 2, 2011.

 

[Ringel05]

How much you want to bet that the TP runs their own POTUS candidate, splits the GOP vote and ensures Obama's re-election?

Tea party 2012 poll favors Ga.'s Cain, Texas' Paul

.

I've always liked these crystal ball predictions. Is Sybill Trelawney on the Washington Post's staff?

 

[Uncensored2008]

We're in 2012 already? I feel like I lost a whole year! What happened?

Waiting until October, 2012 to plan the election might be a bad idea....

 

[Provocateur]

That link would require days of research to see which bills the votes referred to. Is that all you've got?

Yes, in the final analysis, the Blue Dogs will vote the party platform as floor debates resolve for a final bill, but the debates leading up to important policy bills are a different story. And they HAVE made major differences in the context, including the health care reform bill. That's what I was talking about, not the final vote tally of all bills for the 110th Congress. Sheesh.

Days? They are listed right at the bottom.

H. Res. 5 – Rules of the House
HR 1 ‐‐ $819 billion “stimulus”
HR 1 Conf. ‐‐ $789 billion “stimulus”
HR 1106 – bankruptcy mortgage “cramdowns”
HR 1388 – national service bill w/ ACORN funding
HR 1728 – ACORN funding in “Anti‐Predatory Lending Act”
H. Res . 425 – Vote to Table Flake Resolution Against Murtha Corruption
HR 2346 ‐‐ $108 billion IMF expansion
HR 2454 – Waxman‐Markey “Cap‐and‐Tax”
HR 3962 – $2.1 trillion House “public option”
HR 2847 ‐‐ $154 billion bankrupt state‐union bailout
HR 4314 – $290 billion debt limit expansion


ETA: And if you think the Blue Dogs had anything to do with Obamacare you are just believing that there was sanity involved in the process.

Unless you are talking about Stupak, who was used and abused and thrown out with the bath water.


And to add: Pelosi controlled every Dem vote.

Here is what she said about Obamacare and the Blue Dogs:

“The Blue Dogs didn’t like it when I said I had the votes to pass it, because that was indirectly saying to them: ‘their members are going to vote for this’…I promise you that we will have a bill, it will be strong, we will have the votes for it.” – Pelosi

Guess she was right.

Pelosi's first bill bit the dust, or did you forget about that. Plus it hardly matters what she "said" about the bill--the Senate had to approve it, and it took around five drafts following multiple joint participation committee conferences before the floor votes on a final bill.

Sorry I didn't take more time with your link; I missed the bottom part, thinking it was just a spread sheet.

I think that the redrafts were simply adding more and more to the monstrous bill.

I saw Olympia Snowe interviewed around that time. She said that essentially, once they got her vote in committee, she was more or less locked out of any subsequent deliberations behind closed doors.

The Blue Dogs did not get a say in Obamacare. Their record has fully demonstrated that a great majority of time, they vote right along party lines like little minions. Now, you could say that Republicans do as well, and I would agree. However, you are the one contending that there are Moderate Democrats.

I'm saying, they don't exist, as much as that hurts the Democrats.

 

[MaggieMae]

Days? They are listed right at the bottom.

H. Res. 5 – Rules of the House
HR 1 ‐‐ $819 billion “stimulus”
HR 1 Conf. ‐‐ $789 billion “stimulus”
HR 1106 – bankruptcy mortgage “cramdowns”
HR 1388 – national service bill w/ ACORN funding
HR 1728 – ACORN funding in “Anti‐Predatory Lending Act”
H. Res . 425 – Vote to Table Flake Resolution Against Murtha Corruption
HR 2346 ‐‐ $108 billion IMF expansion
HR 2454 – Waxman‐Markey “Cap‐and‐Tax”
HR 3962 – $2.1 trillion House “public option”
HR 2847 ‐‐ $154 billion bankrupt state‐union bailout
HR 4314 – $290 billion debt limit expansion


ETA: And if you think the Blue Dogs had anything to do with Obamacare you are just believing that there was sanity involved in the process.

Unless you are talking about Stupak, who was used and abused and thrown out with the bath water.


And to add: Pelosi controlled every Dem vote.

Here is what she said about Obamacare and the Blue Dogs:




Guess she was right.

Pelosi's first bill bit the dust, or did you forget about that. Plus it hardly matters what she "said" about the bill--the Senate had to approve it, and it took around five drafts following multiple joint participation committee conferences before the floor votes on a final bill.

Sorry I didn't take more time with your link; I missed the bottom part, thinking it was just a spread sheet.

I think that the redrafts were simply adding more and more to the monstrous bill.

I saw Olympia Snowe interviewed around that time. She said that essentially, once they got her vote in committee, she was more or less locked out of any subsequent deliberations behind closed doors.

The Blue Dogs did not get a say in Obamacare. Their record has fully demonstrated that a great majority of time, they vote right along party lines like little minions. Now, you could say that Republicans do as well, and I would agree. However, you are the one contending that there are Moderate Democrats.

I'm saying, they don't exist, as much as that hurts the Democrats.

Oh they exist all right, just as the true liberals distance themselves from Obama. But as I said, when push comes to shove, they'll usually vote the party at the time of passage. And yes, so do Republicans. I remember in late 2007-08 when Bush's numbers were tanking, there were plenty of Republicans who wanted to have more of a say in policy gone bad, but didn't, and they continued to vote the way the leadership dictated. It all comes down to looking forward: To reelection. Sad, but true.

 

[midcan5]

It will depend on who the Koch brothers and other monied interests want to run. Right now no one can beat Obama, so money is looking for another 'W,' dumb enough to buy into nonsense and appealing enough to fool the couch potatoes and the comfortable. So far no one out there, guess we'll see. As for the tea party, money controls them, and if they are not good they will not get any calls from David.

"'Practical' politics, it is held, calls for policies that appeal to the fortunate. The poor do not vote; the alert politician bids for the comfortable and the rich. This would be politically foolish for the Democratic Party; those whose primary concern is to protect their income, their capital and their business interest will always vote for the party that most strongly affirms its service to their pecuniary well-being. This is and has always been the republicans. The Democrats have no future as a low grade substitute.." John Kenneth Galbraith 'The Good Society'

 

[Uncensored2008]

It will depend on who the Koch brothers and other monied interests want to run. Right now no one can beat Obama,

You stumbled with your spelling. What you meant to say was that right now ANYONE could beat Obama - but that is subject to change as time goes on.

 

[amrchaos]

Highly unlikely that the Tea Party is going to field their own candidate for the Presidentcy.

They are looking for real power--and you can only get that by taking over the Congress!
(Especially with the Dems fighting against Obama's Neo-left rhetoric:Cut spending, cut taxes, Cut waste! Hey, Did Obama join the Tea Party and forgot to tell his constituents?)

 

[Big Fitz]

How much you want to bet that the TP runs their own POTUS candidate, splits the GOP vote and ensures Obama's re-election?

Tea party 2012 poll favors Ga.'s Cain, Texas' Paul

.

Hey there Goose. LTNS.

Anyway, only way this happens is if the nominee for the GOP is some RINO like Romney (it's HIS turn now, isn't it?) Huckabee or some other mushy little lib in men's clothing.

Then there's a real chance of something crazy like that.

But it also doesn't take into account if P-BO gets his $8/gallon gas by then which will insure a trashcan could win against him if it promises to lower oil prices by domestic development.

 

[Provocateur]

It will depend on who the Koch brothers and other monied interests want to run. Right now no one can beat Obama, so money is looking for another 'W,' dumb enough to buy into nonsense and appealing enough to fool the couch potatoes and the comfortable. So far no one out there, guess we'll see. As for the tea party, money controls them, and if they are not good they will not get any calls from David.

"'Practical' politics, it is held, calls for policies that appeal to the fortunate. The poor do not vote; the alert politician bids for the comfortable and the rich. This would be politically foolish for the Democratic Party; those whose primary concern is to protect their income, their capital and their business interest will always vote for the party that most strongly affirms its service to their pecuniary well-being. This is and has always been the republicans. The Democrats have no future as a low grade substitute.." John Kenneth Galbraith 'The Good Society'

I'm guessing by your avi, you voted for Obama.

Think he is doing a good job?

Want to see a second term?