This is the kinda stuff that makes me angry and hate the GOP

[UpstateSCHokie]

Ya know, I hear people say both parties are the same. I don't think that's true, but I certainly believe there are many people within the Republican party that are no different than democrats. In fact I believe many of these people are would-be democrats, but think they can do more to advance the progressive agenda by acting as double agents and labeling themselves as "Republicans." They work within the GOP to help the democrats demonize and discredit conservatives and Tea Party people - that's their #1 goal. They would far rather do that, then fight democrats. These are the quintessential "RINOs" that we all know and "love."

I'm pretty sure we don't have to guess too many times to figure out who these POS's were that showed their asses to Senators Lee and Cruz in this closed door meeting. I wish just for once that these so-called "Republicans" would show the same amount of passion against the democrats that they show against members of their own party. If these people succeed in getting rid of Senators Lee, Cruz, or Paul, then I'm done with the GOP. They already pissed me off when they were successful in getting Allen West defeated by redrawing his district. Screw them!

==================

Mike Lee: He and Ted Cruz faced ‘demeaning’ and ‘all-out attack’ from GOP colleagues [AUDIO]
12:05 PM 10/05/2013

Senate Republicans furiously attacked Texas Sen. Ted Cruz and Utah Sen. Mike Lee behind closed doors and leaked details of an off-record meeting to the media to harm the two senators, according to Lee.

Lee divulged some of the details of a closed-door meeting on Hugh Hewitt’s radio show on Friday, since he said much of it had been leaked to the media by his own colleagues.

“[N]ormally, I don’t comment at all on closed-door meetings between Republican senators,” Lee said. “It’s a pretty strict rule we follow. But one exception I’ll make is circumstances like this, where contents of the meeting were leaked deliberately by several of my colleagues and leaked in a very one-sided way. I’m happy to tell you about it here.”

“It was an all-out attack against Ted Cruz and me,” he continued. “It was unflattering. It was unfair. It was demeaning. It was demeaning to Sen. Cruz and me, but more than anything, it was demeaning to those who engaged in the attack.”

Lee said a number of senators had rose to speak against he and Cruz — “enough that I lost count.”

“I have to ask the question — why weren’t those who leaked this and leaked it in an unflattering and unfavorable way — why were they not willing to attach their names to those quotes?” he said. “You know, Ted Cruz and I spoke after the meeting and you know, we would both be fine with the American people seeing and hearing what we said in that meeting. But we’re pretty sure most of our colleagues would be very uncomfortable and downright embarrassed if their constituents saw the way they were behaving.”

Lee added there were “not really” any in the GOP caucus who had rose to his and Cruz’s defense.

“There were a lot of people who were participating directly in the attacks, adding fuel to the fire,” Lee added. “There were a lot of others who were staring at their shoes.”

Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2013/10/05/mike- ... z2gtzHftRy

[oaktonhokie]

Yup.

[awesome guy]

Primary them out. That shows they're just big spending RINOs

[USN_Hokie]

Primary them out. That shows they're just big spending RINOs

A little of that and a lot of hubris. These old farts feel slighted because they're not in the limelight. If they don't get it from the right, they'll go to the left....just watch.

[fatman]

The divide in the GOP is going to be interesting to watch. Demographic trends are nearly all making things harder and harder for the GOP every year. Older people who trend GOP are passing away, younger people and immigrants are trending DEM.

There are people, like many on this board, who don't care about fiscal conservatism(at least they didn't when Bush was potus), but they are very anti-Obama. So they have been really focussed on spending since the day Obama was inaugurated. In some districts, they are electing some hardcore candidates who have a mandate to oppose Obama and not to negotiate/compromise.

There are congressional districts that produce candidates like Cruz. His ideas are very popular in his home district, but are very unpopular nationally. I live in a blue-ish/purple-ish state in Virginia, in a few years it will likely be solid blue as the demographic trends continue. Since this unpopular gov't shutdown has started the DEM TV commercial are showing how the Virginia GOP candidate supports Cruz and the Democratic candidate opposes him.

GOP leadership is screwed I think. They have no plan to end the shutdown, the hardcore guys like Cruz within their party won't back down and don't care about national polls or collateral damage to the party. Obama is more politician than leader, so he is loving this. He knows he has all the leverage and has no intention of letting the GOP leaders off the hook as they politically shoot themselves in the foot. What incentive does he have to offer a bargain to allow the GOP leaders to save face? I think he plans on skewering them politically and the impact to the economy is a secondary concern.

[USN_Hokie]

The divide in the GOP is going to be interesting to watch. Demographic trends are nearly all making things harder and harder for the GOP every year. Older people who trend GOP are passing away, younger people and immigrants are trending DEM.

There are people, like many on this board, who don't care about fiscal conservatism(at least they didn't when Bush was potus), but they are very anti-Obama. So they have been really focussed on spending since the day Obama was inaugurated. In some districts, they are electing some hardcore candidates who have a mandate to oppose Obama and not to negotiate/compromise.

There are congressional districts that produce candidates like Cruz. His ideas are very popular in his home district, but are very unpopular nationally. I live in a blue-ish/purple-ish state in Virginia, in a few years it will likely be solid blue as the demographic trends continue. Since this unpopular gov't shutdown has started the DEM TV commercial are showing how the Virginia GOP candidate supports Cruz and the Democratic candidate opposes him.

GOP leadership is screwed I think. They have no plan to end the shutdown, the hardcore guys like Cruz within their party won't back down and don't care about national polls or collateral damage to the party. Obama is more politician than leader, so he is loving this. He knows he has all the leverage and has no intention of letting the GOP leaders off the hook as they politically shoot themselves in the foot. What incentive does he have to offer a bargain to allow the GOP leaders to save face? I think he plans on skewering them politically and the impact to the economy is a secondary concern.

Politics have a funny way of suddenly shifting trajectory just when people think a one-party rule is inevitable. See: Republicans about 10yrs ago.

[fatman]

I agree USN. The demographic trends are very real, but sooner or later the GOP needs to blow itself up and start over. The GOP is going to broaden its appeal if it is to change its destiny. I'm not sure how they do that. They have a very small minority that wants to go hard-line with some policy that lacks a broad appeal. The leadership needs to sort that out and find some people who can generate a broader appeal to win over some moderates/independents. I see ZERO signs of that trend emerging, in fact the exact opposite trend is occurring.

[USN_Hokie]

I agree USN. The demographic trends are very real, but sooner or later the GOP needs to blow itself up and start over. The GOP is going to broaden its appeal if it is to change its destiny. I'm not sure how they do that. They have a very small minority that wants to go hard-line with some policy that lacks a broad appeal. The leadership needs to sort that out and find some people who can generate a broader appeal to win over some moderates/independents. I see ZERO signs of that trend emerging, in fact the exact opposite trend is occurring.

Either that, or a Deus ex Machina/Black Swan event occurs which shifts politics in a completely new direction.

It's really not hard to imagine. Unlike many posters here, the average American really isn't entrenched in the party they currently support.

[VoiceOfReason]

This has become an awesome thread. Love the thinking in the last 4 posts.

IMHO, history has the answer. When I was growing up, it was the Rs who dominated nationally. From 1968 - 1991, Rs won 5 prez elections (Nixon, Nixon, Reagan, Reagan, Bush) and the Ds just 1 (Carter) - which was as much a Watergate protest vote as anything else. That is some serious domination right there. And during that time, the Ds in Congress were the dysfunctional ones. Labor Unions, Racial Quotas, Programs for Every Problem. Big Lefties were WAY out there... and as a result, the Country trended R nationally. It took Bill Clinton and the concept of the "New Democrat" that tamped down the Big Lefties enough that the country felt OK voting for them. The key was the D centrists backing down the Big Lefties and moving the party towards the center. Which was fine for the Rs, because they were already vacating the center to move the party more to the right.

IMHO, this is what need to happen with the TP. The moderate Rs (the dreaded RINOs as you may call them & the old guard like Boehner) need to tamp down the TP radicals. Until that happens, the R party will be defined by the crazies, just like the D party was defined by the free spending Big Libs in the 70s and 80s.

Everything you guys learned to hate about the Ds... much of it was likely formed from watching those Big Lefties and their ruinous ideas. Today, you guys think all Ds are like that. And that's what is happening today with the Rs. People are looking at the TP wackos and thinking all you guys are like that. And they want none of it. And they will hold this over conservatives for decades until the madness is stopped.

Regardless of what you post on this board and what Faux News says about the Obama Shutdown (LOL, right!)... this craziness is forming more Ds every day. And THAT is not a good thing for the country no matter which side of the aisle you are on.

[awesome guy]

This has become an awesome thread. Love the thinking in the last 4 posts.

IMHO, history has the answer. When I was growing up, it was the Rs who dominated nationally. From 1968 - 1991, Rs won 5 prez elections (Nixon, Nixon, Reagan, Reagan, Bush) and the Ds just 1 (Carter) - which was as much a Watergate protest vote as anything else. That is some serious domination right there. And during that time, the Ds in Congress were the dysfunctional ones. Labor Unions, Racial Quotas, Programs for Every Problem. Big Lefties were WAY out there... and as a result, the Country trended R nationally. It took Bill Clinton and the concept of the "New Democrat" that tamped down the Big Lefties enough that the country felt OK voting for them. The key was the D centrists backing down the Big Lefties and moving the party towards the center. Which was fine for the Rs, because they were already vacating the center to move the party more to the right.

IMHO, this is what need to happen with the TP. The moderate Rs (the dreaded RINOs as you may call them & the old guard like Boehner) need to tamp down the TP radicals. Until that happens, the R party will be defined by the crazies, just like the D party was defined by the free spending Big Libs in the 70s and 80s.

Everything you guys learned to hate about the Ds... much of it was likely formed from watching those Big Lefties and their ruinous ideas. Today, you guys think all Ds are like that. And that's what is happening today with the Rs. People are looking at the TP wackos and thinking all you guys are like that. And they want none of it. And they will hold this over conservatives for decades until the madness is stopped.

Regardless of what you post on this board and what Faux News says about the Obama Shutdown (LOL, right!)... this craziness is forming more Ds every day. And THAT is not a good thing for the country no matter which side of the aisle you are on.

Wait, the guys socializing 1/6th of the economy are not leftist? Shutting down domestic drilling, killing the coal industry, giving GM to the unions, gay marriage, etc. That's your definition of moderate? And people against those issues are right wing radicals? It's passed time for you to reindex your political labels. What you think of a moderate may be on in the old Soviet Union, but not in America.

[VoiceOfReason]

Wait, the guys socializing 1/6th of the economy are not leftist? Shutting down domestic drilling, killing the coal industry, giving GM to the unions, gay marriage, etc. That's your definition of moderate? And people against those issues are right wing radicals? It's passed time for you to reindex your political labels. What you think of a moderate may be on in the old Soviet Union, but not in America.

A few points...
1) What is your definition of socialism? If you make the case that ACA is socialism, by the same logic Medicaid, Medicare and Social Security is socialism. Heck, the word "Social" is right in there! That would be much more than 1/6 of the economy. At the end of the day, name calling the ACA as socialism is silly. The majority of the country has recognized that there are some things that the free market is ill equipped to handle in a nation supposedly under God. Healthcare should not be available for the wealthy and the fortunate. It is a basic right, not a privilege. Call it whatever you want... but the country supports that view.

2) Drilling and coal are environmental vs. business concerns. I never said I supported either side on this board. And I won't. That is SOOOO far down on my to do list, it's not worth my brain cells.

3) Ah yes, gay marriage. Is that a fiscal issue or a social issue? Didn't I say that I am fiscal conservative and a social progressive? Again, not that I voiced an opinion on this topic... but even if I did... how does this go against my political labels?

Your track record on trying to call me out and play gotcha with my own words is abysmally poor. Likely because you either don't read my words or understand them. Feel free to disagree with any opinions of mine... but seriously, stop trying to personalize it. It only makes you look small...

[133743Hokie]

Wait, the guys socializing 1/6th of the economy are not leftist? Shutting down domestic drilling, killing the coal industry, giving GM to the unions, gay marriage, etc. That's your definition of moderate? And people against those issues are right wing radicals? It's passed time for you to reindex your political labels. What you think of a moderate may be on in the old Soviet Union, but not in America.

A few points...
1) What is your definition of socialism? If you make the case that ACA is socialism, by the same logic Medicaid, Medicare and Social Security is socialism. Heck, the word "Social" is right in there! That would be much more than 1/6 of the economy. At the end of the day, name calling the ACA as socialism is silly. The majority of the country has recognized that there are some things that the free market is ill equipped to handle in a nation supposedly under God. Healthcare should not be available for the wealthy and the fortunate. It is a basic right, not a privilege. Call it whatever you want... but the country supports that view.

2) Drilling and coal are environmental vs. business concerns. I never said I supported either side on this board. And I won't. That is SOOOO far down on my to do list, it's not worth my brain cells.

3) Ah yes, gay marriage. Is that a fiscal issue or a social issue? Didn't I say that I am fiscal conservative and a social progressive? Again, not that I voiced an opinion on this topic... but even if I did... how does this go against my political labels?

Your track record on trying to call me out and play gotcha with my own words is abysmally poor. Likely because you either don't read my words or understand them. Feel free to disagree with any opinions of mine... but seriously, stop trying to personalize it. It only makes you look small...

Healthcare may be a right (somewhat questionable), but health insurance IS NOT. And that is the problem with O'care. We have a mechanism for ALL to get healthcare when they need it and a mechanism to cover the costs for those that can't afford it.

Now if you want to reform the health insurance business model, then is that really the governments responsibility? And if it is, then aren't there just a few minor tweaks that can be done to improve the system?

O'care was a huge, huge overreach by the USG

[ip_law-hokie]

This is one of the better takes I've read on here, or elsewhere IMO. Good post.

The divide in the GOP is going to be interesting to watch. Demographic trends are nearly all making things harder and harder for the GOP every year. Older people who trend GOP are passing away, younger people and immigrants are trending DEM.

There are people, like many on this board, who don't care about fiscal conservatism(at least they didn't when Bush was potus), but they are very anti-Obama. So they have been really focussed on spending since the day Obama was inaugurated. In some districts, they are electing some hardcore candidates who have a mandate to oppose Obama and not to negotiate/compromise.

There are congressional districts that produce candidates like Cruz. His ideas are very popular in his home district, but are very unpopular nationally. I live in a blue-ish/purple-ish state in Virginia, in a few years it will likely be solid blue as the demographic trends continue. Since this unpopular gov't shutdown has started the DEM TV commercial are showing how the Virginia GOP candidate supports Cruz and the Democratic candidate opposes him.

GOP leadership is screwed I think. They have no plan to end the shutdown, the hardcore guys like Cruz within their party won't back down and don't care about national polls or collateral damage to the party. Obama is more politician than leader, so he is loving this. He knows he has all the leverage and has no intention of letting the GOP leaders off the hook as they politically shoot themselves in the foot. What incentive does he have to offer a bargain to allow the GOP leaders to save face? I think he plans on skewering them politically and the impact to the economy is a secondary concern.

[awesome guy]

Wait, the guys socializing 1/6th of the economy are not leftist? Shutting down domestic drilling, killing the coal industry, giving GM to the unions, gay marriage, etc. That's your definition of moderate? And people against those issues are right wing radicals? It's passed time for you to reindex your political labels. What you think of a moderate may be on in the old Soviet Union, but not in America.

A few points...
1) What is your definition of socialism? If you make the case that ACA is socialism, by the same logic Medicaid, Medicare and Social Security is socialism. Heck, the word "Social" is right in there! That would be much more than 1/6 of the economy. At the end of the day, name calling the ACA as socialism is silly. The majority of the country has recognized that there are some things that the free market is ill equipped to handle in a nation supposedly under God. Healthcare should not be available for the wealthy and the fortunate. It is a basic right, not a privilege. Call it whatever you want... but the country supports that view.

2) Drilling and coal are environmental vs. business concerns. I never said I supported either side on this board. And I won't. That is SOOOO far down on my to do list, it's not worth my brain cells.

3) Ah yes, gay marriage. Is that a fiscal issue or a social issue? Didn't I say that I am fiscal conservative and a social progressive? Again, not that I voiced an opinion on this topic... but even if I did... how does this go against my political labels?

Your track record on trying to call me out and play gotcha with my own words is abysmally poor. Likely because you either don't read my words or understand them. Feel free to disagree with any opinions of mine... but seriously, stop trying to personalize it. It only makes you look small...

Healthcare is a right, one which the ACA infringes. I have a right to buy whatever healthcare or insurance I want. Or not want. What you're mistaking for a right to heakthcare is yoyr imaginary right to pass the bill on to your neighbors for your healthcare. That is socialism and the American population doesn't support it as every poll shows ACA disapproval above 50%.

With environmental issues, I'm pointing out the gaping holes in your claims of moderation in the Democrats. Reading is fundamental, try and keep up.

I've blown up all of your own gotchas, falsehoods, and erroneous statements. That doesn't make me look small. But if you want a less personal mb experience, I suggest stop questioning others intelligence, reading skills, etc. They're not helping you, especially after being so wrong on so many issues. Not just opinion wise, but horribly botching basic facts and context. You can have your own opinion, but not your own facts.

[Hokey Pokey]

Then form their own party. I would love to have 3 legitimate parties out their. I believe the new republican party would be more of the moderates and pull some members from the Dems. Then the dems could be the far left party of Pelosi, Reid, etc.

[HokieJoe]

Wait, the guys socializing 1/6th of the economy are not leftist? Shutting down domestic drilling, killing the coal industry, giving GM to the unions, gay marriage, etc. That's your definition of moderate? And people against those issues are right wing radicals? It's passed time for you to reindex your political labels. What you think of a moderate may be on in the old Soviet Union, but not in America.

A few points...
1) What is your definition of socialism? If you make the case that ACA is socialism, by the same logic Medicaid, Medicare and Social Security is socialism. Heck, the word "Social" is right in there! That would be much more than 1/6 of the economy. At the end of the day, name calling the ACA as socialism is silly. The majority of the country has recognized that there are some things that the free market is ill equipped to handle in a nation supposedly under God. Healthcare should not be available for the wealthy and the fortunate. It is a basic right, not a privilege. Call it whatever you want... but the country supports that view.

Ahem, what was that about forcing your religious belief on others? The free market didn't create the mess in our healthcare market- the government did. Medicare, Medicaid, and various government mandates have distorted the market. That army of support staff in practically every doctor's office represents overhead in real dollars and is indicative of just how much the government had screwed things up already, and that's before Obamacare. I hope you're okay with USPS-level medical care because that's where we're headed.