The American people (whom you love (mis)quoting when it suits your left-leaning point of view) don't like Democrat policies. Why? They don't work!
We're stuck with 10% unemployment. Business has been so demonized they/we won't hire. The biggest new entitlement in 40 years was rammed through -- with many of its co-sponsors running from it during their recent campaigns. And you've got a President and Dem Congressional Leadership who are utterly clueless about how to turn our economy around.
The GOP's policy of "no" was exactly what was needed -- and why they've been swept to power.
Now, I (and, more importantly, they) know they won't be able to keep doing this when we finally send The Facelift back to her well-deserved back bench role. The GOP will need to introduce bill after bill (that Harry Reid's Senate will surely kill) to restore the economy: replace and repeal ObamaCare. Preserve the Bush tax cuts. Get rid of all of these unelected "czars." Swear off earmarks.
Otherwise, the American people will reject the GOP just as soundly as they've rejected the Dems.
Veep (12/02):
Whoa, time out. The GOP didn't sweep to power. They couldn't even take over the Senate in a very favorable climate for them.
Kevin Foley (12/02):
GOPleased- The GOP "swept to power"? The Democrats still contol the White House and the Senate, last time I looked.
Bill Huey, Strategic Communications, Atlanta (12/02):
"Bill after bill to restore the economy," GOP Please? What's the restore date you would choose? Is it 2007, before the bubble burst, or 2002, before Dubya got up and running on his enormous deficits, or would you go all the way back to the Clinton Administration? And if $3.1 TRILLION in Federal Reserve aid to 10 banks isn't the most massive government entitlement program in not 40, but 80 years, I don't know what is.
Joe Honick, GMA International Ltd (12/02):
To GOP, I am amused by your assertion about who whould b less predictable given your current rant. I have given balanced views on both parties in this and other pieces, dissatisfied with much of both. What triggered this aricle however was the amazing and unpatriotic demand by GOP leadershiip to sign a pledge to undermine any opposition proposals and the immedite declaration of mission to destroy the Obama administration. If you feel that is a patriotic act, then we should publicize the names of those beyond McConnell and Boehner who support such actions that smack of political sabotage.
I do appreciate your comments because we still have the First Amendment that guarantees all sorts of things to be said.
[email protected] (12/03):
To GOP etc...I don't like to get involved in partisan politic discussions. But as someone who voted for McCain (and after seeing the Palin and the "No" GOP Shows, which now makes me glad that they didn't win), I do think you're off-track on saying that the Congressional vote was a clear rejection of Democratic policies. As was stated, the Democrats, in a bad year, still retained control of the Senate.
Also, I think the total vote was not that great, typically so in an off-year election. Just as the Democrats found out by trouncing Barry Goldwater, one election does not mean a change of attitude by voters.
It's only a one day snapshot of the political scene. As you may have, I have been involved in political campaigns. I learned many years ago that elections are not a sign that voters have changed their attitudes toward the ruling parties for more than one election. In my opinion, it's a little early to crow about the GOP taking over the House. If there is a true negative change of attitude toward the Democrats, that will not even be evident if the Democrats lose the presidency and the Senate in 2012.
It will take several decades of "no Democrat votes" to acknowledge a sea change. The last true change in voter attitudes goes way back to FDR, when he won four elections in the 30s and 40s. Since then it's been a revolving door for both the Repubicans and Democrats. Yes, Eisenhower was a two-term president (but he certainly wasn't a modern day Republican in his policies), but so was Clinton, and that wasn't so long ago. And Bush was totally discredited when he left office. I'll continue this discussion, in say, 2032, by which time I hope we have a third party to give voters a true choice. Enjoy the GOP victory while you may. It might not last that long.
GOPlease give me some more worthy intellectual adversaries (12/03):
GOPlease responds to Joe, Kevin, Bill Huey and Veep:
Joe -- glad I amuse you. I aim to please. Speaking of laughable, it's quite laughable hearing you pretend to be a balanced commentator. Perfect evidence of that is how you are only excoriating the GOP. I guess you've forgotten how Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi did everything in their power to humiliate, destroy and otherwise undermine everything George W. Bush did or tried to do (other than in that very, very brief period after 9-11).
Veep and Kevin -- Of course, you're right. You still have the WH and Senate. But, thankfully, no more filibuster-proof majority (at least come January) in the Senate, am I right? It's going to take more than RINOs like Olympia Snowe and Scott Brown to pass your bloated proposals.
And, again thankfully for the GOP, you're right, we still have a President who is showing NO signs of tacking to the center (as Bill Clinton wisely did).
So at least we'll have the House to stop the ridiculous Dem priorities ("Don't Ask; Don't Tell" -- give me a break!) and a much narrower margin in the Senate.
And, Bill, is your middle name "disingenuous?" Your President has done more to create unsustainable deficits than all other presidents combined. It's tiresome and predictable that you, Chris Matthews, Keith Olbermann and the DNC would talk about the bank bailouts -- and the fact that Bush implemented them. That was "chump change" compared to the stimulus.
And, as you also conveniently fail to mention, all of the bank bailout money is being paid back -- with interest!
Bill Huey, Strategic Communications, Atlanta (12/03):
GOP: My middle name is "fact-based," and here are some facts:
The stimulus bill passed by Congress was $787 billion, as compared to $3.3 trillion in Federal Reserve aid to banks. You call $3.3 trillion chump change? Citi was the leading recipient ($2.2 trillion according to the AP), and still hasn't paid back all of its TARP aid. And the list doesn't even include the AIG bailout ($182 billion),which will never be paid back.
We wouldn't know any of this but for Dodd-Frank, because the Federal Reserve has been keeping it secret for two years.
Joe Honick, GMA International Ltd (12/03):
GOP, you are a wonderful if "disengenuous" target. I have indeed criticized both sides of the aisle. that I don't choose your targets is irrelevant. What was presented here was fact with which you are uncomfortable and can only contend with by using hyperbole and accusations. Please, if you will, cite which of my comments were inaccurate without the name calling. And, yes, I, along with others, do find you amusing having hoped for a much more competitive opponent. As to the bailouts having been paid back, I would urge you to read a piece sometime back on these titled: The Birth of Corporate Socialism, the Bailouts. Had Democrats proposed what Bush did with those bailouts, you predictably would have been here railing at them. Hang in there.
With the way they have tuned out Americans, I ask "Do we need Congress?" Take the top five issues of interest to the U.S. taxpayers and let them vote.
Congress is not voting for the interests of the people, only their own selfish agenda. The lobbyists and PACs are dictating today, not the people.
For a number of years we have had the very best Congress that money could buy.
A "For Sale" sign in front of both houses on Capitol Hill would be very appropriate. The latest example is the Simpson-Bowles Debt Commission.
The two, of opposite parties, and a bipartisan commission, came to recommendations that Congress does not want to hear.
The movie "Casino Jack" really tells it all and how hypocritical Congress has become.