Who Is The Smallest Government Spender Since Eisenhower?

[HSKR]

See what happens when you get the Tea Party controlling the House of Representatives? Guess we better elect more of them this fall.

that is a valid argument. my counter? gag me with a spoon.

 

I have no problem saying that for the most part it's better for our country when one political party doesn't control the House, Senate and White House all at the same time. You get one party in control of it all, either side IMO and the budget becomes a blank check. With balance you have compromise or at worst gridlock but I would even take gridlock over all out spending of either parties pet projects. I think the Clinton years were a good example of balance.

And if we had what used to be Republicans it actually worked. The Tea Party are not Republicans. Not really, they have high jacked the party. Republicans used to have different ideas than Democrats, but then both parties would get together, talk it out and come up with a compromise plan. Exactly the way things are supposed to work. The Tea Party is a collection of Zealots that think compromise is the same things as failure. Which only works in a dictatorship, or the way they seem to want, a theocracy.

 

I don't disagree with your assessment of the Tea Party but at the same time the Democrat party has not remained untouched by the growing far left segment of its own party. As much as people like to say Republican Party isn't what it used to be due to it's far right reaching arm, I think the same can be said with the Democrats and it's far left reaching arm. The Chuck Hagels and Ben Nelsons of the political world are becoming a thing of the past.

[sd'sker]

See what happens when you get the Tea Party controlling the House of Representatives? Guess we better elect more of them this fall.

that is a valid argument. my counter? gag me with a spoon.

 

I have no problem saying that for the most part it's better for our country when one political party doesn't control the House, Senate and White House all at the same time. You get one party in control of it all, either side IMO and the budget becomes a blank check. With balance you have compromise or at worst gridlock but I would even take gridlock over all out spending of either parties pet projects. I think the Clinton years were a good example of balance.

And if we had what used to be Republicans it actually worked. The Tea Party are not Republicans. Not really, they have high jacked the party. Republicans used to have different ideas than Democrats, but then both parties would get together, talk it out and come up with a compromise plan. Exactly the way things are supposed to work. The Tea Party is a collection of Zealots that think compromise is the same things as failure. Which only works in a dictatorship, or the way they seem to want, a theocracy.

 

I don't disagree with your assessment of the Tea Party but at the same time the Democrat party has not remained untouched by the growing far left segment of its own party. As much as people like to say Republican Party isn't what it used to be due to it's far right reaching arm, I think the same can be said with the Democrats and it's far left reaching arm. The Chuck Hagels and Ben Nelsons of the political world are becoming a thing of the past.

i think we have seen an incredible shift in the republican party. nixon would look like a pinko-commie and reagan would struggle to get nominated, forget george h.w. bush. the best example of this is the supreme court. rehnquist looked like a right-wing nut and stevens looked like a moderate when they were both placed on the bench. now rehnquist looks like a moderate and stevens looks like a leftist revolutionary. i agree it is harder to be a moderate or centrist. i will argue obama's greatest problem is that he tries too hard to be a consensus builder, i am sure people will disagree.

[HSKR]

 

i think we have seen an incredible shift in the republican party. nixon would look like a pinko-commie and reagan would struggle to get nominated, forget george h.w. bush. the best example of this is the supreme court. rehnquist looked like a right-wing nut and stevens looked like a moderate when they were both placed on the bench. now rehnquist looks like a moderate and stevens looks like a leftist revolutionary. i agree it is harder to be a moderate or centrist. i will argue obama's greatest problem is that he tries too hard to be a consensus builder, i am sure people will disagree.

 

By those standards Romney would have never got nominated, so that argument doesn't make sense. If that were truly the case, Santorum would have won the primary and Bachman would be the VP candidate right now. Now that's a scary thought, LOL.

[sd'sker]

 

i think we have seen an incredible shift in the republican party. nixon would look like a pinko-commie and reagan would struggle to get nominated, forget george h.w. bush. the best example of this is the supreme court. rehnquist looked like a right-wing nut and stevens looked like a moderate when they were both placed on the bench. now rehnquist looks like a moderate and stevens looks like a leftist revolutionary. i agree it is harder to be a moderate or centrist. i will argue obama's greatest problem is that he tries too hard to be a consensus builder, i am sure people will disagree.

 

By those standards Romney would have never got nominated, so that argument doesn't make sense. If that were truly the case, Santorum would have won the primary and Bachman would be the VP candidate right now. Now that's a scary thought, LOL.

i am not entirely sure what you are referring to in your first sentence. i guess my point was that the myth of reagan is a little different than the man himself. however, the second part of your statement does put my point into perspective and is a fair counter.

[HSKR]

 

i think we have seen an incredible shift in the republican party. nixon would look like a pinko-commie and reagan would struggle to get nominated, forget george h.w. bush. the best example of this is the supreme court. rehnquist looked like a right-wing nut and stevens looked like a moderate when they were both placed on the bench. now rehnquist looks like a moderate and stevens looks like a leftist revolutionary. i agree it is harder to be a moderate or centrist. i will argue obama's greatest problem is that he tries too hard to be a consensus builder, i am sure people will disagree.

 

By those standards Romney would have never got nominated, so that argument doesn't make sense. If that were truly the case, Santorum would have won the primary and Bachman would be the VP candidate right now. Now that's a scary thought, LOL.

i am not entirely sure what you are referring to in your first sentence. i guess my point was that the myth of reagan is a little different than the man himself. however, the second part of your statement does put my point into perspective and is a fair counter.

 

Guess, I am just saying that I don't think Romney is much different then Reagan. You said he would never get nominated today yet Romney did that very same thing unless you think Romney is hard to the right? I don't. As far as the legend of Reagan being considered ultra right by the Tea Party types and that legend growing as the years pass, yes there is definitely truth in that.

[strigori]

 

i think we have seen an incredible shift in the republican party. nixon would look like a pinko-commie and reagan would struggle to get nominated, forget george h.w. bush. the best example of this is the supreme court. rehnquist looked like a right-wing nut and stevens looked like a moderate when they were both placed on the bench. now rehnquist looks like a moderate and stevens looks like a leftist revolutionary. i agree it is harder to be a moderate or centrist. i will argue obama's greatest problem is that he tries too hard to be a consensus builder, i am sure people will disagree.

 

By those standards Romney would have never got nominated, so that argument doesn't make sense. If that were truly the case, Santorum would have won the primary and Bachman would be the VP candidate right now. Now that's a scary thought, LOL.

i am not entirely sure what you are referring to in your first sentence. i guess my point was that the myth of reagan is a little different than the man himself. however, the second part of your statement does put my point into perspective and is a fair counter.

 

Guess, I am just saying that I don't think Romney is much different then Reagan. You said he would never get nominated today yet Romney did that very same thing unless you think Romney is hard to the right? I don't. As far as the legend of Reagan being considered ultra right by the Tea Party types and that legend growing as the years pass, yes there is definitely truth in that.

Are we talking about the Romney who governed Mass? or the Romney who moved as right as possible when he started the primary campaign? The two might as well be different men.