PDA

View Full Version : I Must Confess



Franco
10-28-2010, 04:35 PM
That I will be voting for Democrat Charles Melancon in the race for U S Senate over Republican David Vitter!;-)

I've always considered Vitter an empty suit that follows GOP orders in lock-step. I don't think he has ever had an original thought and he is in bed with the religious right.

Whereas, Charlie Melancon is is a free-thinking moderate. He is on record for opposing Obamacare, the Stimulus spending and lobbied hard against the drilling ban in the gulf. Charlie was much more involved with containment and cleanup than Vitter and I think he will accomplish more for the state. Dems accuse him of being too Conservative.

Plus, Charlie is of Cajun decent.:cool:

road kill
10-28-2010, 04:44 PM
That I will be voting for Democrat Charles Melancon in the race for U S Senate over Republican David Vitter!;-)

I've always considered Vitter an empty suit that follows GOP orders in lock-step. I don't think he has ever had an original thought and he is in bed with the religious right.

Whereas, Charlie Melancon is is a free-thinking moderate. He is on record for opposing Obamacare, the Stimulus spending and lobbied hard against the drilling ban in the gulf. Charlie was much more involved with containment and cleanup than Vitter and I think he will accomplish more for the state. Dems accuse him of being too Conservative.

Plus, Charlie is of Cajun decent.:cool:

Melancon votes the party line 92.9% of the time.
Voted FOR Obama care.


Vitter goes party line 95% of the time.
NRA endorsed.


RK

Franco
10-28-2010, 04:51 PM
Melancon votes the party line 92.9% of the time.
Voted FOR Obama care.


Vitter goes party line 95% of the time.
NRA endorsed.


RK

RK, where are you getting you info from?


America's Affordable Health Choices Act
On July 31, 2009, Melançon voted against the America’s Affordable Health Choices Act (http://retrievertraining.net/wiki/America%E2%80%99s_Affordable_Health_Choices_Act) (H.R. 3200) in the Energy and Commerce Committee (http://retrievertraining.net/wiki/Energy_and_Commerce_Committee). Melançon explained in a statement that he voted against the bill for reasons including its potential effects on small businesses, and increases in taxes. Melançon said he was concerned that “the public option, as designed, would unfairly undercut anything the private sector could offer.” Melançon also noted that the bill does not do enough to address the need for more providers in rural communities.[7] (http://retrievertraining.net/forums/#cite_note-6)
Melancon also voted against the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (http://retrievertraining.net/wiki/Patient_Protection_and_Affordable_Care_Act) in March 2010,[8] (http://retrievertraining.net/forums/#cite_note-7) because it "doesn’t work for Louisiana."

road kill
10-28-2010, 05:00 PM
Melancon:
http://www.ontheissues.org/House/Charles_Melancon.htm

Vitter:
http://www.ontheissues.org/senate/david_vitter.htm


RK

Uncle Bill
10-28-2010, 05:11 PM
That I will be voting for Democrat Charles Melancon in the race for U S Senate over Republican David Vitter!;-)

I've always considered Vitter an empty suit that follows GOP orders in lock-step. I don't think he has ever had an original thought and he is in bed with the religious right.

Whereas, Charlie Melancon is is a free-thinking moderate. He is on record for opposing Obamacare, the Stimulus spending and lobbied hard against the drilling ban in the gulf. Charlie was much more involved with containment and cleanup than Vitter and I think he will accomplish more for the state. Dems accuse him of being too Conservative.

Plus, Charlie is of Cajun decent.:cool:


It matters not HOW conservative he is seen by the Democrats, he's in the Obama camp.

You have succeded in duping yourself into believing he will vote in a manner you like. Won't happen. He either follows the liberal/socialistic crowd, or he's chastised.

FWIW...there's no such thing as a 'free-thinking moderate'. When the Democrats need his vote to pass whatever, you can bet he'll play their game.

Until there are term limits in place on the national level, I can only sit by and hope real true conservatives in that state will not follow your lead.

We in Sodak have a similar situation for our Congressional seat. The Democrat now in office who has voted with Pelosi over 90% of the time, and the 10% was when her vote wasn't needed for that bill to pass...like the Obamacare bill. That is what she is running on...like we are to believe she is against all the garbage the Democrats have shoved down the throats of the electorate, because she didn't vote for 100% of it. What a farce.

There is no way in hell you can believe in this time in history, you can expect to vote for an individual anymore. Everything is party related. You might feel good for how you voted, but when another of Obama's bills are passed through the Senate, you can take pride in having supported that by voting for your "moderate".

UB

Cody Covey
10-28-2010, 05:20 PM
Maybe I'm missing it RK but i don't see a vote for obama care on that site at all...

road kill
10-28-2010, 05:42 PM
There are 3 articles in "2The Advocate."
2 say he voted for it (Obama Care) 1 says he did not.


2 also say he voted for the bail out.

So........I don't know what he did.
But it is also not on his voting record?



RK

Franco
10-28-2010, 05:50 PM
Democrats voting against it.

Here is a list of Democrats who voted against the bill:


Rep. John Adler (D-N.J.)
Rep. Jason Altmire (D-Pa.)
Rep. Michael Arcuri (D-N.Y.)
Rep. John Barrow (D-Ga.)
Rep. Marion Berry (D-Ark.)
Rep. Dan Boren (D-Okla.)
Rep. Rick Boucher (D-Va.)
Rep. Bobby Bright (D-Ala.)
Rep. Ben Chandler (D-K.Y.)
Rep. Travis Childers(D-Miss.)
Rep. Artur Davis (D-Ala.)
Rep. Lincoln Davis (D-Tenn.)
Rep. Chet Edwards (D-Texas)
Rep. Stephanie Herseth Sandlin (D-S.D.)
Rep. Tim Holden (D-Pa.)
Rep. Larry Kissell (D-N.C.)
Rep. Frank Kratovil (D-Md.)
Rep. Daniel Lipinksi (D-Ill.)
Rep. Stephen Lynch (D-Mass.)
Rep. Jim Marshall (D-Ga.)
Rep. Jim Matheson (D-Utah)
Rep. Mike McIntyre (D-N.C.)
Rep. Mike McMahon (D-N.Y.)
Rep. Charles Melancon (D-La.)
Rep. Walt Minnick (D-Idaho)
Rep. Glenn Nye (D-Va.)

Franco
10-28-2010, 05:54 PM
There are 3 articles in "2The Advocate."
2 say he voted for it (Obama Care) 1 says he did not.


2 also say he voted for the bail out.

So........I don't know what he did.
But it is also not on his voting record?



RK

Rep David Vitter is telling voters in his TV ads that Melancon voted for it which is a lie that came out in last night's debate and Vitter mumbled and stumbled throught it when he was confronted with the facts.

Regarding the bailouts; though he voted for them, he soon apologized to the voters of La. for not taking more time to consider the bailouts. That's good enough for me that he admits his mistakes.

dnf777
10-28-2010, 05:58 PM
Vitter isn't worth a pile of dog dung piled eye-high.
Total and complete lack of morals....even for a politician!

Guys like him would push their own grandmothers down cement stairs to gain or maintain power.

Good for you, Franco. If you need to borrow my flame suit, you're welcome to it. Its been battle tested.

Franco
10-28-2010, 06:12 PM
Vitter isn't worth a pile of dog dung piled eye-high.
Total and complete lack of morals....even for a politician!

Guys like him would push their own grandmothers down cement stairs to gain or maintain power.

Good for you, Franco. If you need to borrow my flame suit, you're welcome to it. Its been battle tested.

Thanks DNF but I have plenty of experience handling adversity;-)

I live by the motto of, "Trust Your Gut Instinct"!

BonMallari
10-28-2010, 06:20 PM
Franco, I applaud you for exercising you right to vote....for the record I voted for Sharron Angle in the Nevada senate race,not only for my state but I would like to think for the country too

I am thankful that we live in a country where we are allowed to vote

Uncle Bill
10-28-2010, 06:31 PM
As an aside, I honestly believe ANY vote for a Democrat IS a vote for Obama, despite anything anyone is saying.

So, if you detest any of Obama's bills, and what he is doing to this nation, and what your dependants are subject to pay for, and you vote for a Democrat, you ARE complicit. It can't be seen in any other light.

UB

dnf777
10-28-2010, 07:44 PM
Franco, I applaud you for exercising you right to vote....for the record I voted for Sharron Angle in the Nevada senate race,not only for my state but I would like to think for the country too

I am thankful that we live in a country where we are allowed to vote


I'm glad I didn't have to make that choice. Either way would have been painful for me. (Angle vs. Reid)

In Pennsylvania we're pretty lucky in the gubernatorial and senate race. All four candidates seem like honorable men. Although I've made up my mind, I could easily accept either outcome and work with it.

I will be sending the winner of both races a congratulatory note, and offering my input as a health professional, if they want it. I have done this will all recent electees in my districts, and so far, only Jason Altmeir has called back for input. (and he voted against Obama care ;))

Franco
10-28-2010, 08:01 PM
Franco, I applaud you for exercising you right to vote....for the record I voted for Sharron Angle in the Nevada senate race,not only for my state but I would like to think for the country too

I am thankful that we live in a country where we are allowed to vote

I agree with DNF, that is one tough choice and you did go with the lesser of two incompetants. At least Angle knows how to say, "we need to reduce the size of the "Fed Gov" even though she wants to invade the privacy of some.

Franco
10-28-2010, 08:04 PM
As an aside, I honestly believe ANY vote for a Democrat IS a vote for Obama, despite anything anyone is saying.

So, if you detest any of Obama's bills, and what he is doing to this nation, and what your dependants are subject to pay for, and you vote for a Democrat, you ARE complicit. It can't be seen in any other light.

UB
UB, I couldn't disagree with you more on this one.

One of the biggest mistakes voters make is in voting along party lines. Can't you see where both parties have been a fault? The GOP has certainly been no "shinning light" over the last 15 years.

We need to start looking at the individuals and not failed political parties.

Raymond Little
10-28-2010, 09:18 PM
That I will be voting for Democrat Charles Melancon in the race for U S Senate over Republican David Vitter!;-)

I've always considered Vitter an empty suit that follows GOP orders in lock-step. I don't think he has ever had an original thought and he is in bed with the religious right.

Whereas, Charlie Melancon is is a free-thinking moderate. He is on record for opposing Obamacare, the Stimulus spending and lobbied hard against the drilling ban in the gulf. Charlie was much more involved with containment and cleanup than Vitter and I think he will accomplish more for the state. Dems accuse him of being too Conservative.

Plus, Charlie is of Cajun decent.:cool:
Charlie is a tool and will get beat like a rented Mule Tuesday night. Not high on Vitter but don't vote socialist,dems will always lean against the taxpayer and for the porch sitters.
Franco, got a spot open Tuesday morning for speckled trout if you can ride with a Vitter voter.

Franco
10-28-2010, 09:29 PM
Charlie is a tool and will get beat like a rented Mule Tuesday night. Not high on Vitter but don't vote socialist,dems will always lean against the taxpayer and for the porch sitters.
Franco, got a spot open Tuesday morning for speckled trout if you can ride with a Vitter voter.

He is 10 points behind Vitter, I just can't see myself pulling the lever for him. Besides, Charlie has run a successful business whereas Vitter has only been an attorney/politician.

I'll take my chances with the Citizen Legislator.

Tuesday sounds good, I'll call you after I put on this trial this weekend. It's Cajun Riviera time;-) come shoot some:cool:

Raymond Little
10-28-2010, 09:45 PM
Would love to BUT the shrimp are running and trout begging to be caught.
Gotta stock the freezer!!!

Eric Johnson
10-28-2010, 11:36 PM
I'll insert a ringer.....

Vitter is one of the original sponsors of the PUPS bill, a really insidious piece of HSUS legislation.

Eric

dnf777
10-29-2010, 05:32 AM
With all the moral conviction of the republican-Christian right, how can anyone vote for such a depraved man. (Vitter) I expect that from Godless democrats, but pious republicans???

Franco
10-29-2010, 06:11 AM
As much as the Republican would like to own the high grown so to speak, most open-minded thinkers realize that no political party owns that territory.

I'm not voting against Vitter because he likes prostitutes. I could care less what he does with his private time. I am looking for a good citizen legislature. One that can craft good laws and vote intelligently.

M&K's Retrievers
10-29-2010, 06:42 AM
I'm afraid in this election a vote for a Dem is a vote for Obama and should be looked at as so. I don't care if it's for Dog Catcher. Obama is that dangerous. No chance should be taken and a serious message needs to be sent. Align yourself against the will of the people and you are toast. See Pat Buchanan's Op-ed in 10/29/10 World Net Daily.

Never done it before but pulling the "R" lever regards,

YardleyLabs
10-29-2010, 06:53 AM
In this election a vote for a Dem is a vote for Obama. I don't care if it's for Dog Catcher. Obama is that dangerous. No chance should be taken and a serious message needs to be sent. Align yourself against the will of the people and you are toast.

Never done it before but pulling the "R" lever regards,
I have to admit to having a somewhat similar reaction, though in a different direction. When Republicans decided to sacrifice democracy to partisanship by launching trumped up impeachment proceedings against Clinton with strict party line votes, I decided that I would never vite for a Republican again until the party returned to its roots of smaller government, fiscal conservatism, and keeping government out of the lives of citizens to the maximum extent possible. There is no movement in that direction yet.

Franco
10-29-2010, 06:58 AM
I have to admit to having a somewhat similar reaction, though in a different direction. When Republicans decided to sacrifice democracy to partisanship by launching trumped up impeachment proceedings against Clinton with strict party line votes, I decided that I would never vite for a Republican again until the party returned to its roots of smaller government, fiscal conservatism, and keeping government out of the lives of citizens to the maximum extent possible. There is no movement in that direction yet.

Damn Jeff, you sound like a traditional Conservative and not the current conservative movement that has been hijacked by the Evangelicals. ;-)

I'm out of here, we have a Field Trial to host this weekend.

YardleyLabs
10-29-2010, 07:20 AM
Damn Jeff, you sound like a traditional Conservative and not the current conservative movement that has been hijacked by the Evangelicals. ;-)

I'm out of here, we have a Field Trial to host this weekend.
Have a great weekend. I would love to be spending the weekend at a trial but but can't with a still nursing pup.

Unfortunately, before the R's became captives of the evangelicals, they were captives of the anti-Communists and the "MIC's", as Eisenhower called them (military industrial complex). Ideology is always the enemy of freedom. If you focus on preserving freedom and democracy instead, ideology becomes a personal matter. If someone wants to live as a socialist, let them form a commune. If someone want to live in the woods as a pioneer, let them. Government only needs to be concerned when one man's pleasure is based on taking from another -- whether it be by living on the dole or my using the power of an unrestricted monopoly to pick our pockets (our forefathers recognized the importance of preventing monopolies from gaining power in our economy, as noted by Madison in correspondence with Jefferson).

Cody Covey
10-29-2010, 09:49 AM
Have a great weekend. I would love to be spending the weekend at a trial but but can't with a still nursing pup.

Unfortunately, before the R's became captives of the evangelicals, they were captives of the anti-Communists and the "MIC's", as Eisenhower called them (military industrial complex). Ideology is always the enemy of freedom. If you focus on preserving freedom and democracy instead, ideology becomes a personal matter. If someone wants to live as a socialist, let them form a commune. If someone want to live in the woods as a pioneer, let them. Government only needs to be concerned when one man's pleasure is based on taking from another -- whether it be by living on the dole or my using the power of an unrestricted monopoly to pick our pockets (our forefathers recognized the importance of preventing monopolies from gaining power in our economy, as noted by Madison in correspondence with Jefferson).
the last half of the post cant really be Jeff can it?? :)

YardleyLabs
10-29-2010, 10:35 AM
the last half of the post cant really be Jeff can it?? :)
Maybe the problem is that you are looking for pigeon holes that are too small.;-)

dnf777
10-29-2010, 12:12 PM
the last half of the post cant really be Jeff can it?? :)

That is a telling comment!

Perhaps most conservatives would realize that moderate democrats are much closer to the traditional conservative principles than the tea party actually is. Not more than the tea-party portrays itself as, but more than they really are based on corporate ownership and leadership.

If any blue-collar (or white collar for that matter) worker thinks Dick Armey supports their needs and understands their tribulations....well, lets just say the tea-party propaganda czars earned their salt!

Cody Covey
10-29-2010, 12:33 PM
That is a telling comment!

Perhaps most conservatives would realize that moderate democrats are much closer to the traditional conservative principles than the tea party actually is. Not more than the tea-party portrays itself as, but more than they really are based on corporate ownership and leadership.

If any blue-collar (or white collar for that matter) worker thinks Dick Armey supports their needs and understands their tribulations....well, lets just say the tea-party propaganda czars earned their salt!
I would agree with that but mostly just because the tea party (and probably most republicans) are only outraged by government spending when it is a hand out to others. When they are the ones receiving the government money its not an issue. There are some of us conservatives left that realize the constitution appropriated certain areas the federal government can spend and are outraged at all spending outside of that.

YardleyLabs
10-29-2010, 12:39 PM
I would agree with that but mostly just because the tea party (and probably most republicans) are only outraged by government spending when it is a hand out to others. When they are the ones receiving the government money its not an issue. There are some of us conservatives left that realize the constitution appropriated certain areas the federal government can spend and are outraged at all spending outside of that.
As a matter of interest, what part of the Constitution says what Congress may or may not spend money on? Where does it say we can spend to support a standing army?

Cody Covey
10-29-2010, 12:57 PM
Article 1 section 8

To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;

To provide and maintain a Navy;

To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;

To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

dnf777
10-29-2010, 01:06 PM
I would agree with that but mostly just because the tea party (and probably most republicans) are only outraged by government spending when it is a hand out to others. When they are the ones receiving the government money its not an issue. There are some of us conservatives left that realize the constitution appropriated certain areas the federal government can spend and are outraged at all spending outside of that.

I agree with what you say. When I arrived at the age of political maturity (18) there was a very different republican party in existence, that I was part of. Reagan still tripled the national debt under his watch, but indeed shared that blame with a democratic congress. The biggest change I can see is how the republicans have switched from pragmatists to ideologues, mostly under the Christian right's control, and in doing so, have abandoned many of their fiscal principles.

I think that Obama is engaged in overspending, but after the past decade, republicans can no longer carry the torch of fiscal restraint either! My ultra-conservative life long friend summarized it beautifully:

Democrats are the party of tax and spend. Republicans are the party of borrow and spend. Doesn't leave guys like me much of a choice.

Cody Covey
10-29-2010, 01:08 PM
I agree with what you say. When I arrived at the age of political maturity (18) there was a very different republican party in existence, that I was part of. Reagan still tripled the national debt under his watch, but indeed shared that blame with a democratic congress. The biggest change I can see is how the republicans have switched from pragmatists to ideologues, mostly under the Christian right's control, and in doing so, have abandoned many of their fiscal principles.

I think that Obama is engaged in overspending, but after the past decade, republicans can no longer carry the torch of fiscal restraint either! My ultra-conservative life long friend summarized it beautifully:

Democrats are the party of tax and spend. Republicans are the party of borrow and spend. Doesn't leave guys like me much of a choice.

I would argue that they are both all 3 unfortunately.

Julie R.
10-29-2010, 02:05 PM
As an aside, I honestly believe ANY vote for a Democrat IS a vote for Obama, despite anything anyone is saying.

So, if you detest any of Obama's bills, and what he is doing to this nation, and what your dependants are subject to pay for, and you vote for a Democrat, you ARE complicit. It can't be seen in any other light.

UB

UB, I disagree with this--and just about anyone who grew up in the South would as well. Although they've become an endangered species, there used to be plenty of conservatives Southern Dems, and many remember when the Republicans were the carpet-bagger party. Plenty of southern states including my own, Virginia, have supplied decent conservative Democrats in the past, although with the explosive growth of Northern Va. and the voting power it holds, that's much less true here than it was even 10 years ago.

I've voted for Democrats before, and would again if the right one came along. Probably never happen again though since I'm now in a rural stronghold that regularly gets moved around district to district, most recently to a gerrymandered sliver of real estate snaking from the Blue Ridge in the northwestern corner of the state (where I live) all the way down to the Hampton Roads area in the southeast, so the liberals could split the liberal, "come heres" in Northern Va. into two new districts that are democrat shoe-ins.

Marvin S
10-29-2010, 04:34 PM
UB, I disagree with this--and just about anyone who grew up in the South would as well. Although they've become an endangered species, there used to be plenty of conservatives Southern Dems, and many remember when the Republicans were the carpet-bagger party. Plenty of southern states including my own, Virginia, have supplied decent conservative Democrats in the past, although with the explosive growth of Northern Va. and the voting power it holds, that's much less true here than it was even 10 years ago.

I've voted for Democrats before, and would again if the right one came along. Probably never happen again though since I'm now in a rural stronghold that regularly gets moved around district to district, most recently to a gerrymandered sliver of real estate snaking from the Blue Ridge in the northwestern corner of the state (where I live) all the way down to the Hampton Roads area in the southeast, so the liberals could split the liberal, "come heres" in Northern Va. into two new districts that are democrat shoe-ins.

That kind of D disappeared when the Public Employees unions became politically active. I have an issue with pulling the lever for any candidate, regardless of party whose endorsements include the Police Guild, the FF union, any Teachers union or SEIU, which is the worst.

Uncle Bill
10-29-2010, 08:11 PM
UB, I disagree with this--and just about anyone who grew up in the South would as well. Although they've become an endangered species, there used to be plenty of conservatives Southern Dems, and many remember when the Republicans were the carpet-bagger party. Plenty of southern states including my own, Virginia, have supplied decent conservative Democrats in the past, although with the explosive growth of Northern Va. and the voting power it holds, that's much less true here than it was even 10 years ago.

I've voted for Democrats before, and would again if the right one came along. Probably never happen again though since I'm now in a rural stronghold that regularly gets moved around district to district, most recently to a gerrymandered sliver of real estate snaking from the Blue Ridge in the northwestern corner of the state (where I live) all the way down to the Hampton Roads area in the southeast, so the liberals could split the liberal, "come heres" in Northern Va. into two new districts that are democrat shoe-ins.


I know where you are coming from, but the last Democrat I voted for was JFK. In my view, he would be appalled at what is happening under the present Democratic control.

It's what is happening to this nation that concerns me. And any way you slice it, a GREAT Democrat that would vote your views constantly, will get steam-rolled by this oligarchy.

Look at the Sodak Rep. She was endorsed by NRA. Also Right to Life. She went, got married, had children...but still voted to not allow the abortion part of the healthcare bill to be removed. When you vote with Pelosi 90% of the time, you aren't interested in Sodak OR this nation...you are ONLY interested in receiving all the $$$$ you can get to be re-elected again, and you will throw whatever the folks in Sodak care about under the bus every time...just like Tom Daschole was doing. Took us a while, but we caught up with him.

Of course there are liberal Republicans that must be weeded out of office also, that's why I've screamed at Newt for not getting through his pledge in '94 of installing term limits. Until that is done, this will never again be a nation of the people.

A term limiter can go in with principles, and put stuff in a bill like changing the outrageous pension policy in place for those bastards. But like the auto industry in Detroit, this nation is on the path to ruin.

I'm sick about it for my kids and their children, but it's no longer a fight I can wage. I'm just hanging on to see if Nostradomus and the Mayans knew what they were prognosticating. But it's just a curiosity, as I suspect the Big Guy in the Sky has total control over when this planet will reach critical mass.

UB

depittydawg
10-29-2010, 11:11 PM
As an aside, I honestly believe ANY vote for a Democrat IS a vote for Obama, despite anything anyone is saying.

So, if you detest any of Obama's bills, and what he is doing to this nation, and what your dependants are subject to pay for, and you vote for a Democrat, you ARE complicit. It can't be seen in any other light.

UB

Not at all. You can be very disappointed with Obama, but still remember what happened the last time the Republicans were in charge of Congress. A very scary thought. Does K street ring a bell? So you have a choice of the lesser of two evils.

Cody Covey
10-29-2010, 11:46 PM
Not at all. You can be very disappointed with Obama, but still remember what happened the last time the Republicans were in charge of Congress. A very scary thought. Does K street ring a bell? So you have a choice of the lesser of two evils.
The last time Republicans controlled congress we had 5% unemployment. Job GROWTH. 13kish on the dow. Now we have 10% unemployment 11k. The largest amount of deficit spending in years. Yes even more than Bush. I'll take the republicans

depittydawg
10-30-2010, 01:38 AM
The last time Republicans controlled congress we had 5% unemployment. Job GROWTH. 13kish on the dow. Now we have 10% unemployment 11k. The largest amount of deficit spending in years. Yes even more than Bush. I'll take the republicans

That may be, but you would have a difficult time showing cause and effect to such a claim. A Republican controlled Congress, combined with a Democratic President could spark the stock markets. Here is is some information on the historical performance of the Markets under various party rule scenarios.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2010-09-20/five-aftershocks-for-stocks-if-gop-wins-congress-john-dorfman.html

A war may be in store for Republican leadership should they prevail with a majority. In years past, they have been able to maintain a very tight grip on their membership. The Tea Party movement is an unknown. In many cases Tea Party candidates were not supported and contested quite vigorously by Republican the Party. Just today Karl Rove came out with a statement that Palin is not fit to be President. As true as that may be, it does demonstrate the rift between traditional party leadership and the Tea Party populist movement. In a nut shell, the Republicans may suffer from the same disarray that has plagued the Dems for years. A very strong and vibrant fringe wing that cannot always be counted on to step in line. It should be interesting.

BonMallari
10-30-2010, 04:57 AM
That may be, but you would have a difficult time showing cause and effect to such a claim. A Republican controlled Congress, combined with a Democratic President could spark the stock markets. Here is is some information on the historical performance of the Markets under various party rule scenarios.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2010-09-20/five-aftershocks-for-stocks-if-gop-wins-congress-john-dorfman.html

A war may be in store for Republican leadership should they prevail with a majority. In years past, they have been able to maintain a very tight grip on their membership. The Tea Party movement is an unknown. In many cases Tea Party candidates were not supported and contested quite vigorously by Republican the Party. Just today Karl Rove came out with a statement that Palin is not fit to be President. As true as that may be, it does demonstrate the rift between traditional party leadership and the Tea Party populist movement. In a nut shell, the Republicans may suffer from the same disarray that has plagued the Dems for years. A very strong and vibrant fringe wing that cannot always be counted on to step in line. It should be interesting.


whoa there...lets be a little more accurate...here is his actual statement ;-)


There are high standards that the American people have for it [the presidency] and they require a certain level of gravitas, and they want to look at the candidate and say "that candidate is doing things that gives me confidence that they are up to the most demanding job in the world"... With all due candor, appearing on your own reality show on the Discovery Channel, I am not certain how that fits in the American calculus of "that helps me see you in the Oval Office."

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/compost/2010/10/karl_rove_and_sarah_palin_-_de.html

bobbyb
10-30-2010, 03:48 PM
That I will be voting for Democrat Charles Melancon in the race for U S Senate over Republican David Vitter!;-)

I've always considered Vitter an empty suit that follows GOP orders in lock-step. I don't think he has ever had an original thought and he is in bed with the religious right.

Whereas, Charlie Melancon is is a free-thinking moderate. He is on record for opposing Obamacare, the Stimulus spending and lobbied hard against the drilling ban in the gulf. Charlie was much more involved with containment and cleanup than Vitter and I think he will accomplish more for the state. Dems accuse him of being too Conservative.

Plus, Charlie is of Cajun decent.:cool:

OMG !!! and Melancon is not going to follow Obama.. conservative with a vote for the bailout... if someone was to kick charlie in the backside, his nose would break off in Obama's U NO WHAT...Just wait till he teams up with The La. Purchase you will really see something .... Geez
BobbyB
cajun