The new party of no?
 

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/40357872...-capitol_hill/

LOL. Yes the GOP is in trouble and the dems are above this stuff and really only do stuff that's in the best interest of the country...


I know the lefties will howl...


...but your party is in big trouble when they think Obama has compromised too much and leans to the right of center.

The most unpopular politician in America gets reelected to position of power by the party and vows to block compromise? Yeah that will play favorably in this political clmate? If the GOP tried to make palin a dictator they would stand a better chance than Obama getting re-elected.

Palin vs Obama.. Who you votin for? I'd ****in vote for Nascar instead of Palin.

Instead of rioting the thread with palinenvy, why not tell why you like the Pelosi strategy?

Dude.. I use my brain and vote for the best person regardless of party. Try it sometime... Right now they all suck. I don't want it to come down to Palin v Obama because we all lose..

We all lose regardless of who is nominated. I am having a little trouble believing that you are as open minded as you are saying that you are. Of course you have completely ignored the original link so far which says something, not sure what though...

Ok I read it... Are you suprised that a politician is changing course? These clowns are in it for themselves not the people they serve. They say and do whatever it takes to get them elected again while lining up a lucrative gig when they finally get the boot... Give me someone other than Palin who may be the only person in the world less qualified than that Yale Cheerleader we elected previously.

http://politicalhumor.about.com/libr...heerleader.htm

JUST SAY NO! Nancy Reagan may have known!

He should tell them that the Bush tax cuts will end for the rich. Whether they end for the Middle Class is up to the Repubics. Period. If he wants to get elected again, then he needs to get things done that people (who voted for him the first time) want done. The majority of his voters want the tax break for the rich to expire. If the Reps keep the middle from getting their tax break continued, then, it's on them. He wasn't for doing it. They were. Junior needs to grow a set, and lead. He needs to be good at exposing who's to blame for something. Clinton was very good at that, and this guy needs to get much better at it. He needs to call their bluff. Grow a set. He has tried to negotiate with ideologues. He got nowhere, and he's gunna meet with them on the 30th to do the same crap that didn't work. How many times does this guy got to be shown? Change, buddy.

either you are born w/a set or you're not. This guy throwing a baseball affiliated with a 4 fingered ballerina has displayed more than a few times he has NONE! Whether they be American or not! LMAO

SANCTIONS, TAMPONS and TITTIES for everyone!!!

Could at least get some Testosterone shots. Make them vote on whether to extend it for just the Middle Class. They say they aren't just out for the rich. Let's see about that.

Thank you for the kind and generous words.

I have to hand it to you. You have hit it right on the button when it comes to the above politicians.

Pelosi is correctly reading what her base has been saying for 8 years. For example, Nascar keeps pointing out people don't health care, but what he neglects to realize is that a good portion of those who "don't like it" wanted far more than the few reforms that were delivered (they wanted single payer)

Look at the election results. The election threw out blue dogs, leaving the Democratic party (especially in the House) and Senate far more progressively-oriented than prior to the election, and sending a clear message to the Dems from their base.

Pelosi has always been of that bent, and now she's determined to represent that base, and part of that is preventing the President from giving away more to the GOP.

That will indeed play extremely favorably among Democrats and a significant portion of independents.

The Dem governor association will also become more active (purposely), the main thrust will be to get single-payer health care established in several states (Oregon, Vermont first) before the next election.

The GOP has moved far to the right in the past 10 years, virtually eliminating their middle. Now the Dems have just moved more to the left, kicking out the blue dogs.

Yes, the GOP is very unhappy with the re-entrenchment of the Dems even more to the left, but the Dem base is thrilled. They want to make Obama stop cowtowing to the GOP, and Pelosi and Reid will both now take that stand.

I still think the GOP will end up with Romney as the GOP nominee.

The GOP will always be at a significant disadvantage in numbers in the future, as the white rural older vote (their base) is shrinking in numbers, while minority-young voters are increasing exponentially and will soon be "the majority" in this country. The GOP continues to move further and further from the largest growing voter blocks across the country. They have to recapture a significant number of "independents" to win the next election (their base is outnumbered by Dem base, but more predictably shows at elections) I doubt it will happen with the Tea Party dragging the GOP farther and farther to the right. We'll see.

And regarding your favorite girl Sarah, I do think it's Palin that is the "most unpopular" politician in the country. But hey, at least she supports the North Koreans. South Koreans. Whatever.

Pelosi after saying we can't afford to continue w/the Bush tax schedule now wants to give every senior $250 regardless if they're buying dog food or using it to pay for a bar bill before dinner.

Here ya go you old crusty biatch

..................................NO!...............................

And you are unable to understand the difference?

only if she is proposing seniors making 250K or more are NOT going to get the checks. Otherwise she's trying to pimp some senior votes.

Or do you think seniors making 250K or more or even poor seniors should get checks and have the youngsters in grades 1-5 pay for them in 20 yrs w/interest?

Wow. If she were trying to "pimp some senior votes", you'd think they would have done this, you know, before the election, when it would have resulted in some votes :rolleyes: It's been discussed for a year.

Nobody has intertwined our income tax structure with social security COLA, as you are doing above. Interesting.

Social security is fine for the next 40 years, even if we do nothing, isn't it?

If you really believe that the election results were simply about throwing out Blue dogs I just dont have much else to say because you wont get it anyway. Pelosi maintaining leadership is a great thing for the GOP regardless of how you spin it. And for someone who has written a 100 threads about the GOP being the "party of no" because their supposed lack of compromise on issues, it is interesting that the Dems becoming exactly what you complained about seems to elude you as well.

Sigh. Lissen up - I didn't say the election was about throwing out blue dogs. I said that ended up being the result, though.

The more progressive elements of the Dems are pretty happy that what is left for the Dems is the most progressive wing of the party.

"Spin it"? You're the one that brought it up. Did you not want other posters to discuss it? :D

You said, "The most unpopular politician in America gets reelected to position of power by the party and vows to block compromise?"

First, Pelosi has measurably been one of the most effective Speakers of the House - ever. The GOP didn't want to put Obama's face in their ads (his personal popularity remained higher than the Dems or the GOP) so they made their campaign anti-Pelosi. Smart for the GOP, of course.

But the vast "unpopularity" you perceive of Pelosi is certainly one-sided as to what what the GOP thinks.

Proven by that she readily held on to her leadership position, in spite of losses in the House. She's well-respected, effective and popular within her own party.

Secondly, yes, my entire post was about Pelosi (and Reid) now being more willing to not compromise a bit with the GOP, in response to what their base has been screaming for, for the past two years.

:D "Elude" me? There can hardly be "elusion" when I just spent an entire post talking about it.

There is no "supposed" lack of compromise by the GOP on the issues during the last two years, that's simple measurable fact. They have fillibustered and blocked virtually everything in the Senate.

Over 400 bills passed from the House, and are waiting for the Senate to act. It has been one of the most unproductive two years in the Senate ever measured.

The GOP have been whining for two years that Obama was a dictator, while they have blocked everything themselves - has that hasn't seemed to get them anywhere in the public popularity polls.

The GOP couldn't win several Senate seats they should have, they couldn't even defeat Harry Reid! :zz:

The GOP has been infused with more polarizing social elements of their party at the novice level (evangelicals, Tea Bags, Libertarians, etc). That is already splitting the GOP caucus. They are working hard to iron that out and appear a cohesive group. It appears they already have gotten some of the newbies in line.

The Dems are left with the more progressive of their party in power, led by two very progressive, experienced leaders. The Dems are shifting left, away from the President, in response to what their base is saying about the 2008 election and what has happened since.

It will be an interesting two years. I predict the Dem base will emerge happier than the GOP base ** - but we'll see!

(**the GOP taking up social issues, if forced to by the newbies - trying to outlaw abortion, repeal stem cell research, creationism in schools, attack the President w/impeachment investigations, etc. - would be the death of the GOP in the next election. It's the economy, stupid. The GOP election game plan of trickle down economics: cutting taxes, freeze spending - simply doesn't work. We just lost 700,000 jobs with that the last months of Bush. They have to come up with more than just those platitudes. If Pelosi & Reid does stand tall against Obama and blocks tax cut extensions to the wealthy by allowing the Bush cuts to expire, but she gets a new middle-class only cut passed in the lame duck - that's huge win for the Dems)

The DEMS want tax breaks for the Middle, and not for the Rich. The Republicans want tax breaks for everyone. So, they agree on something ( keeping the Bush tax cut in place for the Middle.) Why should they have to negotiate on something the Republicans are supposed to be for? If the Republicans were supposed to be against keeping the tax break for the middle, then this would make a lot more sense. I think forcing the Republicans to vote on this is a must. Get them on record (against keeping the tax break for the Middle.) If he wants to get elected again, he better expose the differences between the 2 choices. Start here. The only way to get Republicans to come towards the center is to threaten to expose their true beliefs. Threaten to make them take votes that expose the differences between them and independent voters.

The other thing the Dems are doing is gearing up a better PR machine. They are notoriously lousy at publicizing their successes.

Passed largest middle-class tax cut in history - Obama, Pelosi Reid

Passed largest budget-cut in history - over 1 billion to reduce the deficit in one year - Obama, Pelosi, Reid

Don't forget that the Dems want the rich to keep their Bush tax break on up to $250,000.

What the Dems do not want, and the GOP does want, is an extra tax break on income over $250,000. The GOP wants to give millionaires and billionaires an extra tax break. The Dems do not.

Edit: and public opinion is overwhelmingly, via polls, with the Dem plan, and against the GOP plan.

sure prove it witha pole thats not dem sided..im mean a real one..

Prove it? Have you not paid any attention to the news for the past few months? I've never seen a poll say differently. Do you have one? Google poll and Bush tax cuts and you'll get pages and pages of polls over the past months, pre- and post-election:

http://www.pollingreport.com/budget.htm (Fox News)

http://www.politico.com/morningscore...gscore173.html (SEIU poll, Washington Post, Politico)

http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2010/11/2...cans-want.html (McClatchy)

http://thehill.com/blogs/on-the-mone...or-the-wealthy (Gallup)

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_1...02-503544.html (CBS, NYT)

http://southcapitolstreet.com/2010/1...t-health-care/ (Opinion Research)

Here's a good synopsis of multiple polls via party, showing how even the GOP members want tax cuts eliminated in favor of fiscal conservatism
http://benjamindavidsteele.wordpress...-for-the-rich/

Here's what I think (hope) will happen: The Bush tax cuts cannot be partially arbitrarily extended (can't extend part, not extend part). So those bills will expire as scheduled - they will be gone January 1, 2011. However, the Dems in lame duck will pass a House bill providing new equivalent tax cuts for $250,000 and below, that will pass the House easily. In the lame duck Senate, the Dems will dare the GOP to vote down a Dem-sponsored bill for middle class tax cuts. They can't do it. It will pass. That will leave the new GOP, once they are in control in January, to try and pass a separate GOP tax cut bill for the top 2% of earners in the US, millionaires and billionaires only, a special tax cut for that income over $250,000/year. It's political suicide.

The above is why the new GOP Senators sent a letter to Harry Reid begging him not to address the tax cuts in lame duck (trying to control the agenda of a Senate they are not yet a part of)

I just want to know if you Dem's think that moving your party further left and allowing an extremely unpopular politician to remain the face of the party is going to workout in your favor?

I would also like an explanation on why the Dem's can now be the "party of no" (admittedly so seemingly at the expense of their former golden child) and why no one in the media (or Riot) is writing about it as being "anti-American" or "out of touch" like the GOP was characterized as?

And many of the Blue Dogs lost because the vast majority of them were running in relatively conservative districts where being a Dem (and being associated with Pelosi/Obama) hurt them, not because democrats wanted more liberal representation. That is a fairly ridiculous theory.

LOL

It is always funny when things like this are called "special", like it is somehow different than any other tax cut. It is available for anyone, all you have to do to qualify is be sucessful enough to qualify. Of course the Democrats in using class warfare to gain political favor among the lower income voters have succeeded in making sucessful people and "wall street" types public enemy number one, hence the poll numbers.

Apparently the Dems think it will work wonderfully for them. You disagree. So you should be happy about it. We'll see how it works out.

Have the Dems actually done any of that yet? No one can write about what hasn't happened.

I'm sure the first time the Dems obstruct passage of a normal-business bill (like allowing the military to continue getting paychecks) via filibuster, with a 100% vote for political reasons, requiring a 60-vote filibuster-break vote for a bill to pass, rather than the Constitutional majority of 51 votes, you'll let us know.

Good think nobody here has proposed that theory then, right? :D

I agree with your assessment, above. I'll repeat again, I was not trying to say the election was about eliminating blue dogs. It wasn't. Only that it turns out, that indeed was the result - the in-office Dems left are now the most progressive of the lot. And they are banding behind Pelosi and Reid with that in mind.

I think the "Wall Street" types have put themselves into the public enemy number one position all by themselves :tro:

You bet the Dems are using "class warfare". About time they grew a pair. If there is a tax cut for only 2% of the population, only for income levels over $250K (the first $250K getting a tax cut), that will cost $700 trillion dollars over the next 10 years, of course the Dems want the GOP name on it - not Obama's.

Did you see a few weeks ago, where Gates and Buffett publicly came out and advised Obama to let that one tax cut expire for the wealthy?

The GOP won the election promising fiscal conservation. They will have to put their money where their mouths are, all by themselves, if the Dems do it right. Granted, that may not happen - the Dems have a habit of shooting themselves in the foot.

Please answer the question. I asked what the dems HERE thought.

Pelosi's stated goal is to obstruct any compromise Obama has with the GOP. That seems to fit the bill.

There is very little progressive about being liberal. As I asked a few times, do you think the Democrats going further left will really serve them well?

No it's not. She never said that. Why don't you quote what Pelosi actually said?

Yes because Wall Street has been terrible for the average American.

About time they used class warfare? LOL! yeah the party of the people versus the party of the rich hasnt been used before...
All class warfare has resulted in is further entitlement from those which least deserve entitlements.

I dont really care what those guys publicaly said. 2 mega rich old guy Democrats who are suffering from guilty consciences. Think they got rich giving money away and asking to be taxed at a higher rate? Find me a 40 year old non-liberal billionaire that agrees.

Do you need me to decipher the code for you?

The only code I see is you misquoting what was said.

Yes. Losing 35-40% of one's investments had quite the negative effect on Wall Street's reputation with "the average American". Thank goodness Social Security didn't get privatized by Bush The Second - it would have been a blood bath.

LOL...We're all grown here. Nobody is gunna change their mind about whether those making over 250k should have their tax cut extended. I just don't see how this guy negotiating on this is gunna help him get elected again. Not many of the people who want the tax cut extended for the rich will vote for this guy. So, if he gives them some sort of extention on their tax break, wtf good does it do him? Maybe this guy doesn't really want to get elected again. If he gives the rich an extension of their tax break, do you know how many people are gunna stay home when he needs them to vote for him? He better start exposing the parts of them that people don't like, and stop doing this nice crap that hasn't worked for almost 2 years.

I often think of this and also the 24/7 trading they were touting during the DotCom bubble. Only people this would have benefited is the Hedge Funds who trade both sides and the Uber rich that can get in them providing it wasn't run by Madoff. Mom and Pop and their buy and hold mutual funds would be absolutely destroyed...

I'm fed up with these arrogant GOP losers endangering our national security just to score political points against Obama by saying "no" to everything. They've done nothing for two years.

If Jon Kyl (R Senator Arizona) continues to obstruct the START Treaty renewal just because he wants to throw a hissy fit and try and screw Obama - the exact same treaty the GOP and Reagan approved in the past, the same treaty the GOP was raving about Bush's last year in office, the same treaty plenty of other GOP say is necessary and essential to our nuclear security - WITH added funding that Kyle threw a temper tantrum and demanded and was added by Obama in a conciliatory move, then Kyl backed out again voting to approve it - un-effing- believable bunch of irresponsible babies, putting politics before this country. Can Senators be recalled?

So the trillions made by the average americans over the last 30 years not only by individual investments and retirement funds but by institutional investments such as pension funds is negated by losses? I guess you forgot that there is risk involved and no one was complaining when their nest eggs went up 500% during the boom times...

LOL. So what you are saying is that the trillions of dollars invested in mutual funds didnt benefit from the dot.com bubble?

Yeah we are in imminent danger. I'm really scared. China and India and Russia may decide to launch a first strike against us now...

I find it facinating that the original link and my question about it continues to be ignored by the Democrats here.