So republicans would like to save money..

[awatarius]

Here is another one.. So dumb. How can this guy talk about fiscal responsibility and yet this is something he want's to spend money on? Look in the mirror Boehner if you want other people to stop pandering you need to as well. This is why people roll eyes when republicans are trying to be serious about curtailing expenses.. Instead of worrying about an upcoming debt ceiling we have to waste federal money on family values crap.

Boehner hires top lawyer for fight over marriage law, sources say – CNN Political Ticker - CNN.com Blogs

Thanks,
Matthew

 

[Fletch]

Federal budget trimming - The Denver Post

 

[dross]

Here is another one.. So dumb. How can this guy talk about fiscal responsibility and yet this is something he want's to spend money on? Look in the mirror Boehner if you want other people to stop pandering you need to as well. This is why people roll eyes when republicans are trying to be serious about curtailing expenses.. Instead of worrying about an upcoming debt ceiling we have to waste federal money on family values crap.

Boehner hires top lawyer for fight over marriage law, sources say – CNN Political Ticker - CNN.com Blogs

Thanks,
Matthew

It's the nature of our system. The Republican Party is made up of some loosely aligned groups. Only some of those groups are overly concerned with fiscal responsibility. The social conservatives also care about crap like this. What should Boehner do? If he throws the social conservatives under the bus, the Republicans can't win elections in many districts, and certainly not the Presidency.

Obama is facing the same problem from his left, though his issue is more of fundraising, because his far left are the ones who give up the most campaign money.

Boehner's doing what he has to do. And it ain't him that's the problem, it's your fellow citizens who care about the defense of marriage act more than they care about getting the fiscal house in order.

 

[Garb]

awesome picture Fletch... It is completely accurate too lol.

 

[ATOMonkey]

Federal budget trimming - The Denver Post

Awesome!

 

[Garb]

It's the nature of our system. The Republican Party is made up of some loosely aligned groups. Only some of those groups are overly concerned with fiscal responsibility. The social conservatives also care about crap like this. What should Boehner do? If he throws the social conservatives under the bus, the Republicans can't win elections in many districts, and certainly not the Presidency.

Obama is facing the same problem from his left, though his issue is more of fundraising, because his far left are the ones who give up the most campaign money.

Boehner's doing what he has to do. And it ain't him that's the problem, it's your fellow citizens who care about the defense of marriage act more than they care about getting the fiscal house in order.

I agree with your analysis, but I still say phooey on Boehner. He's supposed to be taking the lead on the budget issue, and instead he's screwing around with the defense of marriage act. Aside from that, I don't think those people who like the defense of marriage act will change their minds about cutting spending if the defense of marriage act gets repealed. They might be sore about it, but they'll get over it.

 

[dross]

I agree with your analysis, but I still say phooey on Boehner. He's supposed to be taking the lead on the budget issue, and instead he's screwing around with the defense of marriage act. Aside from that, I don't think those people who like the defense of marriage act will change their minds about cutting spending if the defense of marriage act gets repealed. They might be sore about it, but they'll get over it.

That's the political calculation Boehner must make. If you look at many of these guys' private lives you can see they don't buy into the social conservative stuff. They believe, however, that they absolutely must have the social conservatives to win, and history would bear them out on that.

You toss it off as if they'll just be "sore" about it, but you've got no skin in the game. For these guys who mainly care about getting re-elected, they think they have to pander to the social right. And again, history bears them out. When the social conservatives stay home, Republicans lose elections. When is the last time a "moderate" Republican won an election? The first Bush, riding Reagan's coattails, and he was a one termer. Before that it was Nixon. Ford, Bush, Dole, McCain, all moderates, all given crushing defeats.

 

[awatarius]

That's the political calculation Boehner must make. If you look at many of these guys' private lives you can see they don't buy into the social conservative stuff. They believe, however, that they absolutely must have the social conservatives to win, and history would bear them out on that.

You toss it off as if they'll just be "sore" about it, but you've got no skin in the game. For these guys who mainly care about getting re-elected, they think they have to pander to the social right. And again, history bears them out. When the social conservatives stay home, Republicans lose elections. When is the last time a "moderate" Republican won an election? The first Bush, riding Reagan's coattails, and he was a one termer. Before that it was Nixon. Ford, Bush, Dole, McCain, all moderates, all given crushing defeats.

Hello,

I don't know times are changing and so should republicans. I know many people my age that care about budgets, but not about family values. MCcain lost the election for a few reasons none less than it was Obama the first Black President. Hillary was a much better choice, but even her machine could not win against him at that time. Nobody could. That being said Mccain would have done better if he didn't get Palin, and if he didn't flop to the right. He showed that he is a main stage panderer and many Mccain fans soured on him for that reason. I think some Modern republicans COULD win a general election if they stuck to message, and could get many independents. The generations of old folk that care about this are dying off, and the Republicans need to find a new game besides family values.. before it stings them worse and worse.

Thanks,
Matthew

 

[dross]

Hello,

I don't know times are changing and so should republicans. I know many people my age that care about budgets, but not about family values. MCcain lost the election for a few reasons none less than it was Obama the first Black President. Hillary was a much better choice, but even her machine could not win against him at that time. Nobody could. That being said Mccain would have done better if he didn't get Palin, and if he didn't flop to the right. He showed that he is a main stage panderer and many Mccain fans soured on him for that reason. I think some Modern republicans COULD win a general election if they stuck to message, and could get many independents. The generations of old folk that care about this are dying off, and the Republicans need to find a new game besides family values.. before it stings them worse and worse.

Thanks,
Matthew

A couple of things.

Who you know and who you don't know is not a valid sample. These guys have polling down to a science. They know what people are thinking at a given time. Don't get me wrong, a good leader can educate and persuade and that changes the paradigm, but most politicians are really followers more than leaders. They are the popular kids and that's what drives them.

By "your age" I assume you're young. Your friends don't vote. Oh, maybe the ones you know vote. But statistically, they don't. So what they think doesn't matter much to a politician.

It didn't matter one bit what McCain did that year. It didn't matter who the Republicans ran, or what the message was. The public is fickle and so are the idiots - I mean, the swing voters. This was Obama's year, and nothing was going to stop tthat.

I'd like nothing more than for the Republicans to shake off the social conservatives and embrace more libertarian values. I think in the long term it would pay off for them. In fact, that's what I'm hanging my hope on in the long run. It's not something we're going to see happen quickly, though. It just doesn't work that way.

 

[Garb]

A couple of things.

Who you know and who you don't know is not a valid sample. These guys have polling down to a science. They know what people are thinking at a given time. Don't get me wrong, a good leader can educate and persuade and that changes the paradigm, but most politicians are really followers more than leaders. They are the popular kids and that's what drives them.

By "your age" I assume you're young. Your friends don't vote. Oh, maybe the ones you know vote. But statistically, they don't. So what they think doesn't matter much to a politician.

It didn't matter one bit what McCain did that year. It didn't matter who the Republicans ran, or what the message was. The public is fickle and so are the idiots - I mean, the swing voters. This was Obama's year, and nothing was going to stop tthat.

I'd like nothing more than for the Republicans to shake off the social conservatives and embrace more libertarian values. I think in the long term it would pay off for them. In fact, that's what I'm hanging my hope on in the long run. It's not something we're going to see happen quickly, though. It just doesn't work that way.

I can see it happening slowly. Did you know that Bob Barr, who initially sponsored the Defense of Marriage Act, is now speaking out against it? I was pretty happy to see that.

 

[awatarius]

A couple of things.

Who you know and who you don't know is not a valid sample. These guys have polling down to a science. They know what people are thinking at a given time. Don't get me wrong, a good leader can educate and persuade and that changes the paradigm, but most politicians are really followers more than leaders. They are the popular kids and that's what drives them.

By "your age" I assume you're young. Your friends don't vote. Oh, maybe the ones you know vote. But statistically, they don't. So what they think doesn't matter much to a politician.

It didn't matter one bit what McCain did that year. It didn't matter who the Republicans ran, or what the message was. The public is fickle and so are the idiots - I mean, the swing voters. This was Obama's year, and nothing was going to stop tthat.

I'd like nothing more than for the Republicans to shake off the social conservatives and embrace more libertarian values. I think in the long term it would pay off for them. In fact, that's what I'm hanging my hope on in the long run. It's not something we're going to see happen quickly, though. It just doesn't work that way.

As much as it depresses me I agree with you. Im almost 30, and I will predict (right or wrong) that increasing votes (in my age range) will happen as things like S&P happen. I think this climate that we live in is RIPE for change. I really feel America is starting to sense the tension.. I hope, pray, wish, and would do about anything to see the Republican Party migrate away from social politics. I agree in the long run it will be a huge payoff for them.

 

[Pocketman]

Not all, but many of the issues facing Washington do not require rocket science solutions. It's all about special interests' campaign contributions and pacifying the voter base. If politicians had life time terms, they wouldn't have to worry about being re-elected, so perhaps they would conduct business differently. Term limits could produce similar results because lame ducks don't have to worry about re-election either.

Bottom line, it's hard to cut spending when so many people are expecting a piece of the pie.

 

[chraland51]

I do not think any, but a handful are serious about seriously cutting government spending. Thirty billion here and there is absolutely nothing. Shut the government down. Nothing serious will happen. Both parties will do just as local governments do when faced with budget shortfalls. Cities generally let the garbage pile up, stop the public transportation and do not open or close early the public swimming pools. Schools always lay off teachers instead of firing some of the administrative staff. The federal government would probably delay sending out social security and medicare checks. Compromising with the liberals and worrying about a billion here and a billion there is just not going to get the necessary job done. Boehner is really a joke as far as I am concerned. He is right there with Lindsay Graham and that idiot that tried to be president.

 

[ATOMonkey]

Not all, but many of the issues facing Washington do not require rocket science solutions. It's all about special interests' campaign contributions and pacifying the voter base. If politicians had life time terms, they wouldn't have to worry about being re-elected, so perhaps they would conduct business differently. Term limits could produce similar results because lame ducks don't have to worry about re-election either.

Bottom line, it's hard to cut spending when so many people are expecting a piece of the pie.

Or it swings the other way. You don't have to worry about being re-elected if you do a bunch of unethical stuff either.

 

[Pocketman]

Or it swings the other way. You don't have to worry about being re-elected if you do a bunch of unethical stuff either.

Some unethical stuff seems to be the norm, it's the "bunch" that gets 'em in trouble.

 

[ATOMonkey]

I think lifetime appointments or even term limits would just result in a free-for-all grab as much as you can type of environment, since there is only one consequence for any behavior.