"low information voters" LOL I'm sure that term applies to 99% of people who vote irrespective of who they vote for. The fact that some fat pill head says it is reserved for Obama voters and you believe him changes nothing.
The real world? Seriously? Snookums, you couldn't see the real world with a 10 m telescope. Do you really think that using cutesy insults furthers your argument in any way? I mean, come on, they don't even sound catchy - you seem to have about as much poetry in your soul as a granite boulder. And if all you can think of to support your position is childish name calling, you may as well pick up your ball and go home. You've essentially admitted that you're simply wrong, and you know it. In any event, you really think that McConnell, of all people, is a RINO? Mr. "The single most important thing we want to achieve is for President Obama to be a one-term president.? In what way is he insufficiently ideologically pure? Is it because he doesn't want to force the government into default and destroy the economy? Or perhaps because he supported realistic immigration reform instead of opening hunting season on Latinos? Or was it his failure to chime in and support those "legitimate rape" comments? Or do you just generally consider anyone with an even minimal understanding of biology, meteorology, economics or history to be a "Low Information Voter?" The fact is that actions speak louder the words. And the actions of the Republican Party the last few years have been shouting to the American people that it is letting itself be run by people who will happily blow up the economy if they don't get their way, are outright racist against Latinos and Blacks, want to disenfranchise anyone who disagrees with them, and want to roll back a century of progress on women's rights. Oh, and who want to replace the engine of the economy with their own specially designed perpetual motion machine that runs on happy thoughts. Unless the GOP gets its act together and puts its crazies on a tighter leash, it's heading the way of the Whig Party. You can deny it if you want. You can stuff your fingers in your ears and shout "Nanananana, can't hear you!" But if you do, you're just going to keep loosing election after election. Think about the consequences of that. Justices Scalia and Kennedy are both 77. If the GOP loses again in 2016, they'd have to hold out until they're 88 to have a realistic chance of being replaced by conservatives. How's a 6 - 3 solidly liberal Supreme Court strike you? Dems are very likely to pick up Senate seats in 2016, so if the GOP fails to pick up a bunch of Senate seats in 2014, the Dems could be looking at a filibuster proof majority again. As Sen Coburn (R - OK) said, shutting down the government, "is a good way for Republicans to lose the House." Now I think the chances of all those things happening is pretty slim, but the longer Republicans keep letting the inmates run the asylum over there, the likelier that sort of doomsday scenario becomes.
Wouldn't it be super awesome if conservatives in our government would quit cutting the funding that enables law enforcement to do their jobs?
I agree with your review of the tea party, but have reservations about the wisdom of fiscal conservatism... Specifically, I don't agree with the conservative 'trickle down' theory; which seems to be a cornerstone of conservative fiscal policy.
George H. W. Bush was correct when he characterized "trickle down economics" as voodoo economics. OTOH, I'm not a fan of the Democrat propensity for solving all budget problems by raising taxes.
GW may have said that, but he still passed tax cuts that primarily followed the same die-hard philosophy of providing more financial assistance to the wealthy... http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-11-28/breaking-down-the-cliff-the-bush-tax-cuts.html
You're mixing up your Bushes. George H. W. Bush is the father who was Ronald Reagan's VP and President from 1989 - 1993. George W. Bush is his son, who was President from 2001 - 2009. Bush the Elder ran against Ronald Reagan in the 1980 Republican primary, and in one of the debates of that race rather famously attacked Reagan's positions on trickle down as being "voodoo economics." In any case, I believe firmly that actions speak louder then words, and the actions of fiscal conservatives are to lower taxes, increase spending, and run up massive deficits. Personally, I'm a fiscal liberal - I believe in balanced budgets through taxes that are at an appropriate level to fund the services we are asking the government to provide.
Ooops. Good catch. I know Bush the Elder ended up having to support the Voodoo Economics policies of the Republicans, but he was against them.
The Dem Party isn't going to have to concern itself with compromise much longer. It'll be the Republicans saying "meet us half way" when they are only 75% to halfway.
They say they don't believe in increased spending, but what they actually do is increase spending. Look at the Reagan years - defense spending skyrocketed and domestic spending continued at pretty much the pace it had been beforehand. Ditto for Bush the Younger. The current crop are just out of touch with reality - they talk about how bad spending is in the abstract, but when you get down to the nitty gritty of what the money is actually spent on, suddenly it's a different story. Just look at how the House wasn't even able to pass the transportation spending bill, even though it was following the Ryan budget. Just look at how fast Congress restored FAA funding for air traffic controllers after the sequester took effect. What fiscal conservatives actually dislike is what Democrats want to spend money on - programs to help the poor and disadvantaged. Both parties like big spending, just on different things. The Dems like to spend money on food stamps and the GOP likes to spend money on aircraft carriers.
So now Ronald Reagan is a RINO? Seriously? Get real, you're just adjusting your definitions to avoid admitting I have a point.
I think conservatives do what they can. Lowering taxes usually brings in more revenue that liberals in Washington spend two or three times over. Sometime with help from Republicans and sometimes not. In Washington the pressure to spend other people's money is intense.
Oh for crying out loud, the magic pill on TV will not make you lose weight, there's no sure fire way to get rich quick, there's no free lunch, and lowering taxes does not increase revenues. We aren't above the maximum of the Laffer curve, and no amount of wishful thinking will make it so. Look at the revenue figures for yourself, both the Reagan tax cuts and the Bush tax cuts made revenues plummet, while the economy was growing. And no, it didn't just take a while to kick in. The increase in revenues years later is due to the normal economic growth. Any increases in economic growth due to the tax cuts didn't even begin to fill the massive hole in the budget the cuts themselves directly caused.
Partisan politics at it's finest. Never mind what you believe is right, just do what's profitable... And some politicians wonder why they're reviled.
I missed the "H." in the post I was replying to and defaulted to the most recent G. Bush... My bad. I am quite familiar with the history of each, thanks.
Some do, but others are simply in for the long haul. It's called "compromise". A word not in vogue in Washington, D.C. these days on either side of the aisle.
Okay. The way I see it, if one's political party doesn't support you, you'll lose the next election. We've seen that in a couple of elections this century. The compromise for Bush sr. was to go along with the Party's vision of "trickle down economics" in order to gain both their support for nomination as VP and his own run for office where he would have greater latitude in setting the agenda.
"Trickle down" actually means allowing individuals who earn the money to keep more of it instead of giving it to the government to redistribute as the politics in Washington see fit.
