What problem are you addressing? The transfer of tissue to research entities (state/non-profit/for profit pharma) at no profit to the abortion provider? What is that a problem? And why is the "solution" to just have this stuff go certain researchers?
The allegation was that PP was selling tissue at a profit. That has fallen apart. It is time to move on. This isnt a bipartisan "they're both wrong" issue. It is a trumped up bullsht issue.
It's not certain researchers; it's certain places that can perform the transfers. Although, the research pool is pretty shallow, which is why this more noise than substanace. Further, you there is no reason no to limit researchers if you wanted. You can put an application and approval system in place or permits, etc. Right now, not every researcher can go out and purchase bioagents for research. There is a vetting process.
You don't think Boehner should use Democratic votes to keep the government from shutting down and raise the debt ceiling? Really?
And if he does so in other situations, well, that is just a source of pressure for the FC to get rid of him and elect an actual new Speaker. I would not be surprised to see him use that tactic--for example on the Ex-IM bank and the Federal Highway Trust Fund. His mess age would be: "if you don't want someone doing that, help elect a new speaker. I am no longer interested in keeping the job, and I am no longer beholden to you."
I'm far beyond giving a rat's ass about almost anything Congress does Â
I'm just pointing out to you that what you are suggesting will be the great final seppuku of the Republican party, which is why Weepy hasn't pursued it.
Both Chaffetz and Issa said today that they would support Ryan's candidacy for speaker and withdraw their own names. Other GOP reps are also now saying (anonymously) to the press that Ryan is now seriously considering it. It's more than likely going to happen.
No I literally dont know what issue you're addressing. It is illegal to turn a profit on these tissue samples. You dont need new rules for that. So what is the "problem" your rules would address? Your post is very unclear.
RE: Homer, even accepting your premise that an investigation.... Â
If you know anything about Congressional hearings, you would know that the staffers that prepare Congresspeople for these hearings are needle sharp, and that if they wanted to do a true investigative hearing instead of a political clown show, they could have. The fact that they did not is all of the evidence of lack of seriousness I need.
Depends. The staff who work directly for a standing Committee of the Congress are often very smart people with deep subject-matter expertise on the areas within that Committee's jurisdiction. The Members, of course, also have personal staff. Now, some of these personal staff know their shit-- particularly long-time staffers for senior Reps and Senators. But a lot of them are folks who made their bones knocking on doors and answering phones in election campaigns, and whose understanding of policy doesn't go much beyond the talking-point level.
No I literally dont know what issue you're addressing. It is illegal to turn a profit on these tissue samples. You dont need new rules for that. So what is the "problem" your rules would address? Your post is very unclear.
How about potentially uncontrolled rogue places selling it for profit? Even in this case, I am totally unclear as to the need to dicker over reimbursement costs, which would be a fixed thing.
Both Chaffetz and Issa said today that they would support Ryan's candidacy for speaker and withdraw their own names. Other GOP reps are also now saying (anonymously) to the press that Ryan is now seriously considering it. It's more than likely going to happen.
Did either of them have a chance anyway? I havent seen any prognostication on who would win if Ryan doesnt run.
I also dont understand how Ryan isnt the embodiment of the establishment. Romney's running mate, vocal supporter of many of the purported sins of the right which purportedly birthed the FC in the first place.
No I literally dont know what issue you're addressing. It is illegal to turn a profit on these tissue samples. You dont need new rules for that. So what is the "problem" your rules would address? Your post is very unclear.
How about potentially uncontrolled rogue places selling it for profit? Even in this case, I am totally unclear as to the need to dicker over reimbursement costs, which would be a fixed thing.
Ok. Im not sure such places exist though. And why you need new rules rather than enforcement of the clear existing law.
As for dickering with reimbursement costs, they're not set by government. Government says dont profit. Entities look at their costs and figure out how to comply with the law.
Barring actual evidence of someone making a profit here -- and there is none -- I really dont understand why you need more lawmaking.
But he's not part of the leadership, which helps him. He's also just a pretty likeable guy from what I've read - charm never hurts.
The point is that Ryan's probably the best they're going to do.
Okie dokie. He seems beloved inside the GOP establishment as a friendly, presentable wonk type on policy issues, but his ideas on SS and Medicare are not going to play well in the 65+ set. Seems like easy fodder for Dem attack ads. Can he be sold as not deeply ideological when he is liked in the caucus because he is in fact deeply ideological without being a foaming at the mouth ideologue type?
Unless there is substantially defection from the Freedom Caucus Â
Choosing a new speaker and keeping the government open has become increasingly impossible.
The FC has a questionnaire for candidates interested in becoming speaker. Basically asking for commitment that increase in debt ceiling be linked to cuts to SS, Medicare,& Medicaid. Also, asking commitment appropriation bills will not have funding for PP, Obamacare, Iran Deal, and unconstitutional amnesty.
But he's not part of the leadership, which helps him. He's also just a pretty likeable guy from what I've read - charm never hurts.
The point is that Ryan's probably the best they're going to do.
Okie dokie. He seems beloved inside the GOP establishment as a friendly, presentable wonk type on policy issues, but his ideas on SS and Medicare are not going to play well in the 65+ set. Seems like easy fodder for Dem attack ads. Can he be sold as not deeply ideological when he is liked in the caucus because he is in fact deeply ideological without being a foaming at the mouth ideologue type?
WHy attack ads? It's Speaker, not a nationally elected position.
Keeping the government open and raising the debt ceiling... Â
may not be that difficult, for now. Boehner or a new interim Speaker will end-run the FC and use Democratic votes if necessary. What this all does is make it much more difficult to find someone to take the job more permanently.
Most of the leadership of both parties is. Are you telling me Pelosi isn't an ideologue?
No. Very liberal sure. But a deal maker through and through. Her political approach is bending elbows, not some big policy debate. There is no grand Pelosi or Boehner plan like Ryan's tax and entitlement proposal.
Most of the leadership of both parties is. Are you telling me Pelosi isn't an ideologue?
No. Very liberal sure. But a deal maker through and through. Her political approach is bending elbows, not some big policy debate. There is no grand Pelosi or Boehner plan like Ryan's tax and entitlement proposal.
I don't think it's difficult to see why government is so fractious. People just don't see the world in the same ways, so it's impossible to find even the smallest sliver of commonality.
The difference in Pelosi is that she's willing to be a part of Â
government. She's solidly in the "get something done around here" camp. She fends off the lefter wing of the Dems as needed.
That's something the Freedom Coalition has no interest in. Ryan has mostly been an ideologue lobbing rhetorical bombs from the sidelines. If he becomes the Speaker, that's an entirely different role.
and lost the house. Many of you complain about the two parties and how they are just slight variations of each other. But then when someone tries to step out of that box, they are ridiculed.
We've been 'getting things done' for the past 50 years and that is how we go into this mess.
There is no one who can accede to the Freedom Caucus demands and garner 218 votes. "Letting the process play out" won't accomplish that, so the only solution is a negotiated one between a handful of leaders of the Caucus and non-Caucus Republicans. That would most likely have to include Boehner in the negotiations.
That isn't a liberal viewpoint, it's just one that requires an IQ in triple digits.
The point isn't to do 100% of what the Freedom Caucus or the people who voted many of these guys into congress. It's at least to let those in the House have a voice and input on policy. That is what has not been happening. Boehner hand picking a successor and refusing to leave unless he can is part of the problem.
‘Vote For Paul Ryan Is Vote For Amnesty': Luis Gutierrez Endorses Paul Ryan For Speaker
As CNN is now reporting, “Democratic Rep. Luis Gutierrez on MSNBC called Ryan one of the smartest men in the GOP. ‘He would be good for the country,’ Gutierrez said. ‘He would be good for the Republican Party. Paul Ryan is the kind of individual that would work with people on the other side of the aisle and that’s what we need.'”
Gutierrez has worked tirelessly to expand immigration levels and open America’s borders up to the rest of the world. As Gutierrez once declared, “I have only one loyalty…and that’s to the immigrant community.”
Gutierrez and Paul Ryan have been longtime partners on efforts to open Americans borders. Indeed, Paul Ryan is arguably the most pro-amnesty GOP lawmaker in Congress, and even supports expanding immigration levels beyond many Democrats. Link - ( New Window )
Don't think Ryan,looking for help. He doesn't want the job. Â
there isn't any law that says Republicans can not pass things with Democratic votes
The idea that only laws and rules would brought to the floor of the House if the majority of the majority are in favor of them - in other words things will only be brought to the floor if they can be passed entirely with Republican votes.
This is a recent phenomenon called the Hassert Rule = Start by Newt and codified as an unwritten rule by Hassart .
Much like the anti tax pledge WRITTEN BY A 12 YEAR OLD that all Republicans sign . the Hassart rule merely guarantees that the crazies have a large amount of power and prevents any thoughts of compromise
The modern Republican party is unable to govern- it is simple as that.
as you wish they would govern. Do you ever think that the Dems in the house and the senate won't work with the Republicans?
This whole 'chaos' thing is a farce. It's an establishment chaos. They are desperately trying to cling to power while they have lost the support of the base and many of the members.
Meanwhile, the McCarthy rumor of an affair was started Â
The Department of Homeland Security has launched an investigation into reports that someone with a DHS IP address edited Wikipedia pages to include references to an alleged affair involving House Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy, who bowed out of the race for speaker Thursday.
The California Republican stunned the conference with his decision, saying the House needs a "fresh face" to lead and suggesting he could not unite conservatives.
But reports of infidelity on conservative websites hung over the decision, and were cited in apparent revisions to Wikipedia pages.
Washington Free Beacon reporter Lachlan Markay first noted on Twitter that "someone using a DHS IP address" made the edits to Rep. Renee Ellmers' Wikipedia page. The Daily Caller noted a similar edit was made to McCarthy's page, referencing a report by controversial conservative writer Charles Johnson on an alleged affair between the two.
DHS spokeswoman Marsha Catron told Fox News the edits are being investigated.
"DHS has immediately launched an investigation into this serious matter. If it is discovered that a DHS employee, using Government property, is responsible for these alleged actions, immediate and appropriate disciplinary action will be taken," she said in a statement.
This after the Secret Service was found to have illegally released information about Chaffetz SS application. The IRS, the EPA, all of these agencies are corrupt.
RE: The difference in Pelosi is that she's willing to be a part of Â
government. She's solidly in the "get something done around here" camp. She fends off the lefter wing of the Dems as needed.
Pelosi is a hack. She's the Democrats version of Newt Gingrich with a phoney smile. The only person I have despised more than her is Harry Reid. The both of them are god awful liars and the only thing important to either of them is getting other Democrats elected.
And that doesn't let the Republicans off the hook especially the "conservative evangelicals." That useless group has hijacked the House for the past 8 years. No wonder nobody wants the speaker job. You have the self proclaimed and pseudo intelligentsia on the left and the intolerant pseudo religious on the right. A pox on them all.
And that doesn't let the Republicans off the hook especially the "conservative evangelicals." That useless group has hijacked the House for the past 8 years. No wonder nobody wants the speaker job. You have the self proclaimed and pseudo intelligentsia on the left and the intolerant pseudo religious on the right. A pox on them all.
LIKE :)
RE: RE: RE: The difference in Pelosi is that she's willing to be a part of Â
And that doesn't let the Republicans off the hook especially the "conservative evangelicals." That useless group has hijacked the House for the past 8 years. No wonder nobody wants the speaker job. You have the self proclaimed and pseudo intelligentsia on the left and the intolerant pseudo religious on the right. A pox on them all.
LIKE :)
You'd better like the 1st part too, lying sacks of excrement.
RE: RE: RE: RE: The difference in Pelosi is that she's willing to be a part of Â
And that doesn't let the Republicans off the hook especially the "conservative evangelicals." That useless group has hijacked the House for the past 8 years. No wonder nobody wants the speaker job. You have the self proclaimed and pseudo intelligentsia on the left and the intolerant pseudo religious on the right. A pox on them all.
LIKE :)
You'd better like the 1st part too, lying sacks of excrement.
Well, I know Greg doesn't like when I make reference to my past life as a Republican, but back then I thought Pelosi and Reid were evil incarnate.
where Paul Ryan is an idealogue and Nancy Pelosi isn't.....
I think the media and the liberals think this is a disaster for the GOP (just like they though the shutdown in 2013 was). The dems have their own issues and are likely counting on the republicans imploding to save them. But I don't think that will happen, just like it didn't happen in 2014. It's more wishful thinking than actual analysis of the situation.
This is merely a result of the GOP leadership abusing their base. That is why the leaders in the primary are not GOP establishment and why Boehner, Cantor and McCarthy are out.
where Paul Ryan is an idealogue and Nancy Pelosi isn't.....
I think the media and the liberals think this is a disaster for the GOP (just like they though the shutdown in 2013 was). The dems have their own issues and are likely counting on the republicans imploding to save them. But I don't think that will happen, just like it didn't happen in 2014. It's more wishful thinking than actual analysis of the situation.
This is merely a result of the GOP leadership abusing their base. That is why the leaders in the primary are not GOP establishment and why Boehner, Cantor and McCarthy are out.
Paul Ryan is an example of someone whose ideas and philosophy I disagree with. But its a respectful disagreement, much as I may disagree with many conservative posters here. He is not one of the "wackos". And no buford, I'm not going to get into "naming the wackos".
where Paul Ryan is an idealogue and Nancy Pelosi isn't.....
I think the media and the liberals think this is a disaster for the GOP (just like they though the shutdown in 2013 was). The dems have their own issues and are likely counting on the republicans imploding to save them. But I don't think that will happen, just like it didn't happen in 2014. It's more wishful thinking than actual analysis of the situation.
This is merely a result of the GOP leadership abusing their base. That is why the leaders in the primary are not GOP establishment and why Boehner, Cantor and McCarthy are out.
Paul Ryan is an example of someone whose ideas and philosophy I disagree with. But its a respectful disagreement, much as I may disagree with many conservative posters here. He is not one of the "wackos". And no buford, I'm not going to get into "naming the wackos".
I like Ryan too. But I don't think he's right for the spot and I don't think he was right for VP either. He's a policy wonk guy, not a politician (which is why people like and respect him).
NYT articles, any Gail Collins fans out there? I lover her droll humor. Even though she's of course, not conservative, I think even conservatives might get a chuckle from her columns. Here's today's column on the GOP Speaker "crisis"... Gail Collins - ( New Window )
NYT articles, any Gail Collins fans out there? I lover her droll humor. Even though she's of course, not conservative, I think even conservatives might get a chuckle from her columns. Here's today's column on the GOP Speaker "crisis"... Gail Collins - ( New Window )
As I've discovered, humor is very subjective, lol. Haven't read her in many years. Never found her funny, still don't. I prefer the sharp wit of Maureen Dowd, even tho I can't stand her.
NYT articles, any Gail Collins fans out there? I lover her droll humor. Even though she's of course, not conservative, I think even conservatives might get a chuckle from her columns. Here's today's column on the GOP Speaker "crisis"... Gail Collins - ( New Window )
As I've discovered, humor is very subjective, lol. Haven't read her in many years. Never found her funny, still don't. I prefer the sharp wit of Maureen Dowd, even tho I can't stand her.
Yeah, she's not LOL funny, amusing would be more like it. But of course you're right, its definitely subjective.
You can argue that the SOH along senior party leadership has to much Â
power, but what a minority of the republican caucus wants in regards to rule changes will only insure that nothing will get done via compromise.
Demographically this a very diverse country. It's just not differences in political philosophy. Congress's disapproval rating is so low because it can't get anything done. Polls show, regardless of party identification, Americans want compromise to get issues/problems addressed.
FC, imo is not interested in good governess. They want what they want like children having tantrums. One of their wants is to get PP defunded. Curiously, PP has a far better favorability rating than Congress.
So imo, if you think Congress is dysfunctional now, the house will be totally ungovernable. These rule changes are just not about trying to force Republican bills through, its also about compromises between the House and Senate versions.
NYT articles, any Gail Collins fans out there? I lover her droll humor. Even though she's of course, not conservative, I think even conservatives might get a chuckle from her columns. Here's today's column on the GOP Speaker "crisis"... Gail Collins - ( New Window )
As I've discovered, humor is very subjective, lol. Haven't read her in many years. Never found her funny, still don't. I prefer the sharp wit of Maureen Dowd, even tho I can't stand her.
Yeah, she's not LOL funny, amusing would be more like it. But of course you're right, its definitely subjective.
I miss Art Buchwald and Russell Baker, both of whom directed their humor in all directions.
The allegation was that PP was selling tissue at a profit. That has fallen apart. It is time to move on. This isnt a bipartisan "they're both wrong" issue. It is a trumped up bullsht issue.
And if he does so in other situations, well, that is just a source of pressure for the FC to get rid of him and elect an actual new Speaker. I would not be surprised to see him use that tactic--for example on the Ex-IM bank and the Federal Highway Trust Fund. His mess age would be: "if you don't want someone doing that, help elect a new speaker. I am no longer interested in keeping the job, and I am no longer beholden to you."
Depends. The staff who work directly for a standing Committee of the Congress are often very smart people with deep subject-matter expertise on the areas within that Committee's jurisdiction. The Members, of course, also have personal staff. Now, some of these personal staff know their shit-- particularly long-time staffers for senior Reps and Senators. But a lot of them are folks who made their bones knocking on doors and answering phones in election campaigns, and whose understanding of policy doesn't go much beyond the talking-point level.
Did either of them have a chance anyway? I havent seen any prognostication on who would win if Ryan doesnt run.
I also dont understand how Ryan isnt the embodiment of the establishment. Romney's running mate, vocal supporter of many of the purported sins of the right which purportedly birthed the FC in the first place.
The point is that Ryan's probably the best they're going to do.
Quote:
No I literally dont know what issue you're addressing. It is illegal to turn a profit on these tissue samples. You dont need new rules for that. So what is the "problem" your rules would address? Your post is very unclear.
How about potentially uncontrolled rogue places selling it for profit? Even in this case, I am totally unclear as to the need to dicker over reimbursement costs, which would be a fixed thing.
Ok. Im not sure such places exist though. And why you need new rules rather than enforcement of the clear existing law.
As for dickering with reimbursement costs, they're not set by government. Government says dont profit. Entities look at their costs and figure out how to comply with the law.
Barring actual evidence of someone making a profit here -- and there is none -- I really dont understand why you need more lawmaking.
The point is that Ryan's probably the best they're going to do.
Okie dokie. He seems beloved inside the GOP establishment as a friendly, presentable wonk type on policy issues, but his ideas on SS and Medicare are not going to play well in the 65+ set. Seems like easy fodder for Dem attack ads. Can he be sold as not deeply ideological when he is liked in the caucus because he is in fact deeply ideological without being a foaming at the mouth ideologue type?
The FC has a questionnaire for candidates interested in becoming speaker. Basically asking for commitment that increase in debt ceiling be linked to cuts to SS, Medicare,& Medicaid. Also, asking commitment appropriation bills will not have funding for PP, Obamacare, Iran Deal, and unconstitutional amnesty.
Quote:
But he's not part of the leadership, which helps him. He's also just a pretty likeable guy from what I've read - charm never hurts.
The point is that Ryan's probably the best they're going to do.
Okie dokie. He seems beloved inside the GOP establishment as a friendly, presentable wonk type on policy issues, but his ideas on SS and Medicare are not going to play well in the 65+ set. Seems like easy fodder for Dem attack ads. Can he be sold as not deeply ideological when he is liked in the caucus because he is in fact deeply ideological without being a foaming at the mouth ideologue type?
No. Very liberal sure. But a deal maker through and through. Her political approach is bending elbows, not some big policy debate. There is no grand Pelosi or Boehner plan like Ryan's tax and entitlement proposal.
Quote:
Most of the leadership of both parties is. Are you telling me Pelosi isn't an ideologue?
No. Very liberal sure. But a deal maker through and through. Her political approach is bending elbows, not some big policy debate. There is no grand Pelosi or Boehner plan like Ryan's tax and entitlement proposal.
That's something the Freedom Coalition has no interest in. Ryan has mostly been an ideologue lobbing rhetorical bombs from the sidelines. If he becomes the Speaker, that's an entirely different role.
We've been 'getting things done' for the past 50 years and that is how we go into this mess.
That isn't a liberal viewpoint, it's just one that requires an IQ in triple digits.
The point isn't to do 100% of what the Freedom Caucus or the people who voted many of these guys into congress. It's at least to let those in the House have a voice and input on policy. That is what has not been happening. Boehner hand picking a successor and refusing to leave unless he can is part of the problem.
As CNN is now reporting, “Democratic Rep. Luis Gutierrez on MSNBC called Ryan one of the smartest men in the GOP. ‘He would be good for the country,’ Gutierrez said. ‘He would be good for the Republican Party. Paul Ryan is the kind of individual that would work with people on the other side of the aisle and that’s what we need.'”
Gutierrez has worked tirelessly to expand immigration levels and open America’s borders up to the rest of the world. As Gutierrez once declared, “I have only one loyalty…and that’s to the immigrant community.”
Gutierrez and Paul Ryan have been longtime partners on efforts to open Americans borders. Indeed, Paul Ryan is arguably the most pro-amnesty GOP lawmaker in Congress, and even supports expanding immigration levels beyond many Democrats.
Link - ( New Window )
Breitbart - Ryan support slipping. Questions arise whether he could get enough votes - ( New Window )
The idea that only laws and rules would brought to the floor of the House if the majority of the majority are in favor of them - in other words things will only be brought to the floor if they can be passed entirely with Republican votes.
This is a recent phenomenon called the Hassert Rule = Start by Newt and codified as an unwritten rule by Hassart .
Much like the anti tax pledge WRITTEN BY A 12 YEAR OLD that all Republicans sign . the Hassart rule merely guarantees that the crazies have a large amount of power and prevents any thoughts of compromise
The modern Republican party is unable to govern- it is simple as that.
This whole 'chaos' thing is a farce. It's an establishment chaos. They are desperately trying to cling to power while they have lost the support of the base and many of the members.
The California Republican stunned the conference with his decision, saying the House needs a "fresh face" to lead and suggesting he could not unite conservatives.
But reports of infidelity on conservative websites hung over the decision, and were cited in apparent revisions to Wikipedia pages.
Washington Free Beacon reporter Lachlan Markay first noted on Twitter that "someone using a DHS IP address" made the edits to Rep. Renee Ellmers' Wikipedia page. The Daily Caller noted a similar edit was made to McCarthy's page, referencing a report by controversial conservative writer Charles Johnson on an alleged affair between the two.
DHS spokeswoman Marsha Catron told Fox News the edits are being investigated.
"DHS has immediately launched an investigation into this serious matter. If it is discovered that a DHS employee, using Government property, is responsible for these alleged actions, immediate and appropriate disciplinary action will be taken," she said in a statement.
This after the Secret Service was found to have illegally released information about Chaffetz SS application. The IRS, the EPA, all of these agencies are corrupt.
Pelosi is a hack. She's the Democrats version of Newt Gingrich with a phoney smile. The only person I have despised more than her is Harry Reid. The both of them are god awful liars and the only thing important to either of them is getting other Democrats elected.
And that doesn't let the Republicans off the hook especially the "conservative evangelicals." That useless group has hijacked the House for the past 8 years. No wonder nobody wants the speaker job. You have the self proclaimed and pseudo intelligentsia on the left and the intolerant pseudo religious on the right. A pox on them all.
Quote:
And that doesn't let the Republicans off the hook especially the "conservative evangelicals." That useless group has hijacked the House for the past 8 years. No wonder nobody wants the speaker job. You have the self proclaimed and pseudo intelligentsia on the left and the intolerant pseudo religious on the right. A pox on them all.
LIKE :)
Quote:
Quote:
And that doesn't let the Republicans off the hook especially the "conservative evangelicals." That useless group has hijacked the House for the past 8 years. No wonder nobody wants the speaker job. You have the self proclaimed and pseudo intelligentsia on the left and the intolerant pseudo religious on the right. A pox on them all.
LIKE :)
You'd better like the 1st part too, lying sacks of excrement.
Quote:
In comment 12537478 section125 said:
Quote:
Quote:
And that doesn't let the Republicans off the hook especially the "conservative evangelicals." That useless group has hijacked the House for the past 8 years. No wonder nobody wants the speaker job. You have the self proclaimed and pseudo intelligentsia on the left and the intolerant pseudo religious on the right. A pox on them all.
LIKE :)
You'd better like the 1st part too, lying sacks of excrement.
Well, I know Greg doesn't like when I make reference to my past life as a Republican, but back then I thought Pelosi and Reid were evil incarnate.
In the Secret Service scandal it was many, including supervisors and we all know what happened with the IRS.
I think the media and the liberals think this is a disaster for the GOP (just like they though the shutdown in 2013 was). The dems have their own issues and are likely counting on the republicans imploding to save them. But I don't think that will happen, just like it didn't happen in 2014. It's more wishful thinking than actual analysis of the situation.
This is merely a result of the GOP leadership abusing their base. That is why the leaders in the primary are not GOP establishment and why Boehner, Cantor and McCarthy are out.
I think the media and the liberals think this is a disaster for the GOP (just like they though the shutdown in 2013 was). The dems have their own issues and are likely counting on the republicans imploding to save them. But I don't think that will happen, just like it didn't happen in 2014. It's more wishful thinking than actual analysis of the situation.
This is merely a result of the GOP leadership abusing their base. That is why the leaders in the primary are not GOP establishment and why Boehner, Cantor and McCarthy are out.
Paul Ryan is an example of someone whose ideas and philosophy I disagree with. But its a respectful disagreement, much as I may disagree with many conservative posters here. He is not one of the "wackos". And no buford, I'm not going to get into "naming the wackos".
http://nypost.com/2015/10/10/congresswoman-calls-mccarthy-affair-rumor-bats-t-crazy/ - ( New Window )
Quote:
where Paul Ryan is an idealogue and Nancy Pelosi isn't.....
I think the media and the liberals think this is a disaster for the GOP (just like they though the shutdown in 2013 was). The dems have their own issues and are likely counting on the republicans imploding to save them. But I don't think that will happen, just like it didn't happen in 2014. It's more wishful thinking than actual analysis of the situation.
This is merely a result of the GOP leadership abusing their base. That is why the leaders in the primary are not GOP establishment and why Boehner, Cantor and McCarthy are out.
Paul Ryan is an example of someone whose ideas and philosophy I disagree with. But its a respectful disagreement, much as I may disagree with many conservative posters here. He is not one of the "wackos". And no buford, I'm not going to get into "naming the wackos".
I like Ryan too. But I don't think he's right for the spot and I don't think he was right for VP either. He's a policy wonk guy, not a politician (which is why people like and respect him).
A more bottom up approach with all members having input. The ability to amend legislation. Force the Senate Dems to pass the spending bills.
I don't know but that doesn't sound like crazy stuff to me.
Link - ( New Window )
Gail Collins - ( New Window )
As I've discovered, humor is very subjective, lol. Haven't read her in many years. Never found her funny, still don't. I prefer the sharp wit of Maureen Dowd, even tho I can't stand her.
Quote:
NYT articles, any Gail Collins fans out there? I lover her droll humor. Even though she's of course, not conservative, I think even conservatives might get a chuckle from her columns. Here's today's column on the GOP Speaker "crisis"... Gail Collins - ( New Window )
As I've discovered, humor is very subjective, lol. Haven't read her in many years. Never found her funny, still don't. I prefer the sharp wit of Maureen Dowd, even tho I can't stand her.
Yeah, she's not LOL funny, amusing would be more like it. But of course you're right, its definitely subjective.
Demographically this a very diverse country. It's just not differences in political philosophy. Congress's disapproval rating is so low because it can't get anything done. Polls show, regardless of party identification, Americans want compromise to get issues/problems addressed.
FC, imo is not interested in good governess. They want what they want like children having tantrums. One of their wants is to get PP defunded. Curiously, PP has a far better favorability rating than Congress.
So imo, if you think Congress is dysfunctional now, the house will be totally ungovernable. These rule changes are just not about trying to force Republican bills through, its also about compromises between the House and Senate versions.
Quote:
In comment 12538280 River Mike said:
Quote:
NYT articles, any Gail Collins fans out there? I lover her droll humor. Even though she's of course, not conservative, I think even conservatives might get a chuckle from her columns. Here's today's column on the GOP Speaker "crisis"... Gail Collins - ( New Window )
As I've discovered, humor is very subjective, lol. Haven't read her in many years. Never found her funny, still don't. I prefer the sharp wit of Maureen Dowd, even tho I can't stand her.
Yeah, she's not LOL funny, amusing would be more like it. But of course you're right, its definitely subjective.
I miss Art Buchwald and Russell Baker, both of whom directed their humor in all directions.