Far-Right Damaging Republicans

Recently many Tea Party republicans were ousted by establishment republicans. Essentially the far right losing to the right. However, the tea partyers had an effect by making their establishment counterparts go to the right of their positions. Making it impossible for moderate republicans to be elected. The Koch brother's Tea party candidates are losing, which is good for the Republican Party. Makes them look more like their old self.

I'm not saying the Tea Party wasn't once a grassroot movement against taxes during the economic collapse. But it's been co-opted and used to introduce far right candidates to the Republican Party. Why the republicans have gone so far to the right to get votes is beyond me. Independants, Libertarians and Moderates voted for Bush way more than for McCain and Romney.

FOX news may call Obama a socialist all they want, but in hindsight it'll be obvious how many ideas he had in common with republicans. It's no longer the left wing vs the right wing. The democrats have pushed the republicans further to the right, leaving the far left, left and moderates to vote democrat. Republicans used to challenge the left vote and fiercly compete for the moderate vote, but no longer.

When I say left wing and right wing, I'm not speaking about Democrat or Republican. I'm talking about the social and political spectrum. For example, Democrats are in the left however when compared to other countries the Democratic Party is in some cases more conservative that even the conservative parties of those countries. It's a matter of perspective when speaking of left and right.

If you look at political charts the Democratic Party is situated on the left near the center. The Republican Party is situated on the right in the middle of the center and the far right. From an outside perspective US politics tend to lean towards conservative values even with a Democratic government.

Republicans are better at winning elections in general. But the presidential election is something unique altogether and if sensible republicans keep being influenced by the far right they won't have a chance in 2016. You don't see Democrats being bullied by the far left into changing their views, then again that might be because there are less people in the far left.

Anyway the following epic quote best describes what i was trying to express:

"I call myself a republican because i am one. I believe in market solutions and I believe in common sense realities and the nessecity to defend ourselves against a dangerous world and that's about it. Problem is now I have to be homophobic, I have to count the number of times people go to church, I have to deny facts and think scientific reasearch is a long con, I have to think poor people are getting a sweet ride and I have to have such a stunning inferiority complex that I fear education and intelect in the 21st century. But most of all the biggest new requirement, really the only requirement, is that I have to hate democrats and I have to hate Chris Christie for not spitting on the president when he got off air force one."
- Jeff Daniels as Will Mcavoy

a reply to: GokuVsSuperman0

There is no such thing as right or left dem or rep, its a game and we r the losers

a reply to: DocMartigann
I forgot to add: To those of you who will go all "the game is fixed man!". I can't say for sure that the Teams aren't just pretending to play the game. But I can say that not all the players are in on it. You wanna say the Democrats and Republicans are one in the same and all that, fine. But the left and right are political views ranging from tyranny to communism and everythign in between, I assure you the political spectrum exists lol

a reply to: GokuVsSuperman0

Your being fooled and used as a tool.

The game is exactly this, god cop bad cop, bth parties participate, and switch roles every few years when the folks get uppitty about all the BS that happened after the last election cycle.

The repubs did it under bush, so the people elected big O, who just continued and even accelerated the same idiocy, now the repubs will ride in this time to save from the evil dems, and next time it will be the dems riding in to save us from the evil repubs rinse repeat, the same outcome always happens, the people lose freedom and money.

Rinse repeat to infinity, this is your eleged political spectrum.

There is no spectrum, there are 2 sides but not the 2 you think, there isn't a left and a right, it is a shell game. There is only the rulling class and the surfs.

originally posted by: GokuVsSuperman0
a reply to: DocMartigann
I forgot to add: To those of you who will go all "the game is fixed man!". I can't say for sure that the Teams aren't just pretending to play the game. But I can say that not all the players are in on it. You wanna say the Democrats and Republicans are one in the same and all that, fine. But the left and right are political views ranging from tyranny to communism and everythign in between, I assure you the political spectrum exists lol

I tend to agree on the concept of a political spectrum ( human nature ) IMHO Congress on whole cares about Congress leaving us yet again with the lesser of two evils. Thus we feel empowered when we enter the polling booth.
I asked a friend ( lawyer ) why do you vote ? Long pause ......... Civic duty I suppose pointless as it may be.
Honestly, I don't see much difference .Although they all have a propensity to completely ignore their constituents. I view congress with great contempt as well as the other branches of Government.

a reply to: GokuVsSuperman0

Nicely expressed and I'll add a visual aide.



to emphasize your point.

a reply to: oblvion
I think if that was really the truth the wealthy wouldn't give so much money for election and re-election campaigns. I do believe the left and right have different views and goals. In the end they might be close to the same, but they are different.

I have to disagree with your premise.

The "far right" is grass roots driven, it is based on disaffection with both parties. For different reasons, of course.

The flaw I see in your logic is the need to 'compromise'. We, the grass roots right, if I can speak for them, see the typical, same business as usual, republican "let's not disaffect the independents all for fear of losing their political perks within their own party hierarcy as much to blame as the Left.

Compromise has gotten us into this mess. Compromising the constitution is off the table. Compromising on ObamaCare, on "immigration reform", on private sector job creation, deficit spending on steroids, the list goes on, is not an option any longer.

"Business as usual" has gotten us into the current mess. Business as usual will not get us out of that mess in time, by our reckoning.

I do believe that there are "conservative" members of the republican Party that believe that letting Obama kill the election hopes of the democrats as the "safest" way of not disaffecting voters.

Non-action by the current Republican Elite is exactly the response Obama and Co. needs and wants to achieve whatever his personal agenda is.

Right now the republican party is campaigning against the Tea Party...NOT Obama or the democrats.

I, and many like me, will NEVER call ourselves Republicans again. This party will go the way of the Whigs.

If you don't want the party moving farther right, then I suggest you change your affiliation and call yourself as I see you.. A Rhino/Democrat...perhaps an independent.

Integrity is more important than "votes". A fact the Republican brass has forgotten in their nice little comfort zone.

A pox on them..LOL

If going back to what made America the most successful nation in history makes us "far right", then so be it. If you don't see it that way, then your as much the problem as the left is. I will leave it at that...

a reply to: GokuVsSuperman0

An interesting OP, and worth giving some thought. Thanks for writing it. This is why political advisers and managers make big bucks whether their candidates win or lose. Unfortunately, their advice is based on opinions, guesses, and hunches. That may be the best that can be done given the flow of politics and public attitudes, but you're not going to find a definite truth.

For example, some Republican strategists are saying that action on immigration will win masses of Latino votes. Others, of course say that they will lose votes. Only hindsight will tell (if even then).

That's the difficulty with the OP. The Tea Party did stir some Americans to action as they saw the corruption of government. Some (a few) candidates were elected carrying that banner, but I doubt the Republicans as a whole were moved right by the Tea Partiers.

It's just as defensible to say that the Republicans and Democrats are both moving left. Certainly the Democrats are, and the Republicans may be just going along for popularity and donations. They're certainly not aggressively trying to win Presidential elections. Neither Romney nor McCain excited anybody, and by 2012 we could all see how corrupt and incompetent Obama is, but he wasn't attacked the way he could have been.

It could be just as well argued that, seeing both parties drifting into a statist welfare society, the Tea Party said "Wait a minute, we're not surrendering the country without a fight." The ideas that the Democrats have pushed the Republicans to the right is not one I've seen expressed anywhere else. And the idea that the Democrats are near the center seems to be only expressed by Democrat supporters trying to look innocent and average.

The final quote is so full of strawmen that it would feed a Texas herd. I honestly hope you don't think that's what Republicans, conservatives, or Tea Partiers believe. If you do, I understand why the OP came out as it did.

a reply to: GokuVsSuperman0

I loved the speeches Jeff Daniels gave in that show. Sometimes you just wanted to stand up and applaud. I wish there were real people that believed in issues like Will Macavoy, and were running for office.

I have always been a registered Republican, but ever since George Bush junior became President the first time, I just vote straight Democrat because of what Bush did to this Country like ( Iraq War and the WMD's, 9/11, New Orleans, The economy to name a few) and what the Tea Party did to the Republican Party. I am embarrassed to claim to be a Republican after Romney's speeches and I was actually even elected as the Republican Precinct Committee Officer for the largest precinct in my County.I wish Jesse Ventura would run

a reply to: nwtrucker

Lots to discuss, by the by, favorite comment so far!

Compromise and pragmatism is what's required to govern in a healthy democracy. Anyway, the republican party has gone further to the right, and I believe this will lead to losing presidential elections. Seats in congress are another thing entirely, going further to the right locks the south.

Compromising the constitution is a bipartisan thing, in the legislative and judicial branches. The Affordable Care Act, aka Obamacare, is a version of a health care plan first championed by Bob Dole and implemented in the state of Massachusetts by Mitt Romney. It passed in every level government, and has withstood 50+ attempts at repealing by republicans. Sh*t's not going anywhere and is already implemented, might as well get them to compromise something. That's how governing works.

Without compromise in immigration, 13+ million people, many who pay taxes, are disenfranchised. Having those people in the system floods a legal workforce into the many unwanted farming jobs in the US. The United States controls almost half of the world's grain exports. Americans aren't taking the jobs. People always assume undocumented immigrants are latinos, forgetting the rest of the world that can arrive via air or water. One Million undocumented immigrants in the US are European.

Tea Party v. Republican Establishment. Personally rooting for the establishment. Not that I respect them, but they have less elected individuals spouting absurdities and nonsense. Like equating gay people to beasts, saying God is pro-rape, telling people vaccines cause autism(that one has caused a massive resurgence of child illnesses that were eradicated in the 60s, so Bravo!). Republicans need to start vetting their candidates better.

Oh I forgot the colossal lie that Obama is out to get your gun! When he's been rated as one of the most pro-gun presidents in modern history. Or that he's a secret muslim, or a socialist/marxist and that he'll implement his agenda along those line. Really!? When!? He's got two years to go full on Mao. People that spout this nonsense lower the level of discourse required of the electorate. Besides there is SO much more sh*t you can call Obama on than made up fairy tales.

Here's a few gotchas! :
When was it ever not Business As Usual? dates or president's terms will be fine as an answer.
You don't like the direction of the Republican Party, then at what time did you respect their decisions?Which is the most recent President you respect?

a reply to: charles1952

Democrats are most certainly closer to the center. Liberals are anti-gun, pro-immigration, anti-war, pro-environment, pro-taxes. Let's see:
Obama is considered one of the most pro-gun presidents in modern history, anti-liberal
Obama is responsible for a surge of troops in Afghanistan as well as a series of small conflicts around the world, anti-liberal
Obama kept the Bush Tax Cuts until they expired in 2013, when he re-signed it. anti-liberal
Despite the scientific evidence he hasn't done much but talk about dealing with global warming and hasn't done much of anything to reform immigration.

Thus, democrats are closer to the center. Also I've seen the charts, it's called science. Obama is the most politically attacked president in television history, problem is half the things said about him are lies which make the other half seem less credible. The idiots calling him a secret muslim socialist are drowning out the people talking about the real issues with his presidency.

As for the quote, are you gonna sit there and tell me that republicans in the far right aren't trying to curtail civil rights of homosexuals, aren't denying scientific evidence of global warming, aren't trying to instill a SINGLE religious view point of the creation of the universe into school class rooms. Cause they are, and it's embarrassing.

a reply to: GokuVsSuperman0

Ok, lets have at it.

Lets start with your entirely reasonable comment that compromise is necessary in a healthy, functioning government.

I agree! This present gov't doesn't fall into that category. It isn't healthy. It's bankrupting the nation.

Second, how long have you been a democrat? Of course you want the current Republicans to do well. They're in a near lockstep with the Democrats.

If your are, in fact, a Republican, then your response is exactly what a democrat would post and is the perfect example of why the OP and yourself should reconsider your party affiliation....and why the Tea Party came to existence. Not one whit different than the Whigs in the day.

ObamaCare and Romney? A state program instituted by a state governor that was/is popular with the Mass. people. Perfectly acceptable to me...on a state level. Well within the Constitution, and workable.

A federal program with it's constitutional violation- the tenth- enforced on states and people that never voted for it, was never a mandated issue in electoral debate/promise, is an entirely different thing than Mass.'s program. It's an enforcement on the majority of the people of this nation and will have the same result as Hillary's efforts during the Clinton administration, to wit, a republican majority in congress for the first time in forty years.

This correction will occur in the upcoming mid-term elections. (hopefully a veto proof majority)

As far as Obama being "pro-gun", you omitted an important feature....as long as it's a federal agency. 48 swat teams in various agencies. The deliberate buying up of ammunition by Federal agencies to restrict supply to the citizenry-admitted to me by a DHS official to me personally in a verbal slip-with the latest eg. being the USDA putting out tenders for 40 cal. sub-machine guns with 30 round clips! The USDA! Yep, a "pro-gun" president. LMAO.

I could care less where Obama was borne. Even though there is evidence of it being non-U.S..

Never in the history of this nation has nullification been utilized by the states as is the case now, a convention of the states being organized with multiple threats of leaving the Union by Texas and others. Lots of "support" for Obama's efforts by all levels of gov't....right.

Where the "no compromise" comes into play is the direction of this nation. Loosely, traditional or progressive. That is where we sit currently. My choice is obvious...as is yours. Whichever party your affiliated with....

There is a new party in town. The question is does the republican party adapt/correct itself and, as you say move right, or does it go the way of the Whigs that the republican party was originally created to replace?

Personally, I go as far as to say that if this correction doesn't occur, if we don't change direction and right now, this year, then this Union has run it's course. It's finished!

Dissolve it. Let the "left" form their union with the states that are so inclined and the rest can form a new, smaller union with the original dream still intact. Smaller and wiser.

You haven't begun to see an "extreme right". It hasn't been necessary...yet. Hopefully, it won't happen.

Either way, the "right" will play a huge factor in the upcoming elections and the direction this nation takes and if the Republican Party suffers for it, oh well. It was and is self-inflicted.....

a reply to: GokuVsSuperman0

Dear GokuVsSuperman,

It seems that we have different ways of viewing the same issues. May I respond to your thoughts on Obama and the Republicans?

It's hard to believe Obama is pro-gun. There is one picture of him holding a shotgun at a range. I've seen many comments to the effect that his position and handling of the shotgun indicates that he is, at the best, unfamiliar with them. After Newton, he asked the Congress to pass universal background checks and limit the size of magazines. He knows that being too anti-gun backs him into a buzz saw, so he keeps his position muted. But I cannot remember a single instance where he asked for legislation making gun ownership easier. Being too afraid to announce that he is strongly anti-gun does not mean he is pro-gun.

The surge in Afghanistan? That was in 2009. He was inaugurated that year after running on criticism of Bush. Obama said that Iraq was the wrong war and was draining away our resources. Obama said Afghanistan was the right war, the smart war. According to reports in The New York Times, Obama wanted the surge to happen as soon as humanly possible and wanted a scheduled withdrawal date of one year. Forgive me for being critical, but no leader higher than a squad leader has ever said. "We're going to battle. Whether we're winning, losing, or just a day or two from winning, we'll quit and go home a week from right now." That's not a Conservative position. He wanted to be out before the 2010 elections. It was a political decision, and Conservatives don't let armies and countries get destroyed for selfish political motives. Liberals seem to.

The Bush Tax cuts? Obama raised the taxes on incomes over $400,000 and reinstated the "Death Tax," the tax that people pay on what they leave when they die. It was part of the Fiscal Cliff compromise (?). He raised taxes and got his authority to spend even more money. That's Liberal.

He's done nothing about Global Warming? Nothing except spend over $20 Billion a year on it. He wasted at least a billion on failed investments like Solyndra, and hired an EPA administrator who said that there would never be a new coal plant in the country. EPA regulations have started shutting down existing coal plants. Further, Obama is becoming a laughing stock (again?) over his dithering on the Keystone XL. Canada is now looking to send it via pipeline to their west coast and sell it to China. That's liberal.

And finally, you mention immigration. He has released thousands and thousands of detained illegal aliens, including almost 200 who had already been convicted on murder charges. The Dream Act, encouraging the military to take more illegals so they can earn citizenship, and the current campaign in which he and his branch of Congress are pushing for legalization NOW. All Liberal.

So what do you object to about Republicans? Gay weddings and such? No Republican I know of (except maybe Uncle Jed) wants to curtail gay rights. Remember the gays are saying "We want rights we've never had before." It is perfectly legitimate to put such a demand to a vote (Where they have been overwhelmingly defeated.) But when Gay marriage is recognized, the position for Republicans is either to say, "Well, we lost that one," or "Is there some legal way we can get this reversed." Both of those reactions are perfectly American and acceptable.

Global warming? Are you serious? Scientists are denying evidence of global warming. Especially since the scientific evidence shows there hasn't been any in this century, and that the 97% figure is a fraud.

Creation in the classrooms? Sorry, once again. The only Federal set of standards for curriculum that I know of is Common Core. That's being pushed and shaped under Obama and his Education Department. It is being widely rejected by teachers and parents, and exposed as unsuitable for the children it's supposed to be teaching.

It's very possible that, at the State or Local level, there are some proposing that creationism get taught in addition to evolution. The only possible objection to that is if it is proven that the creationism taught in those schools is false. Anyone have any proof? No, I didn't think so.

Oh, it looks like I've made a mistake. You said Republicans in the far right. In that case, there may be some who believe as you describe. Just as for the Democrats in the far left, they want to reduce our population, by force if necessary, give the western part of our country to Indian tribes and Mexico, disband our military, change our system to Socialism or Communism, eliminate guns, and take all property and call it national property to be used by the government. Further, most of our wealth should be given to American Blacks and the poor people of the world. Does that embarrass you?

With respect,
Charles1952

a reply to: charles1952

Ok you don't need to be seal team 6 when holding a shotgun as President. His actions prove he's pro-gun. To give you an idea; the US's largest anti-gun lobby gave him the worst possible score in every category.
PRESIDENT OBAMA HAS SIGNED IN TO LAW MORE REPEALS OF THE FEDERAL GUN POLICIES IN HIS FIRST 2 YEARS IN OFFICE THAN PRESIDENT BUSH JR DID THROUGHOUT HIS 8 YEARS IN THE WHITE HOUSE.

Obama couldn't get out of Afganistan before 2014 no matter how much he wanted. Gotta respect contracts made by the previous administration.

Gay marriage and creationism in schools is a matter of seperation of Church and State. All marriages in the US are civil unions with benefits. A legal status in the eyes of the federal government. Religion should have nothing to do with it. Not all marriages in the US are done through religious houses and even so, without legal papers a religious marriage has no meaning in the eyes of the law. The only argument against gay marriage is a moral and ethical one based on religious views. Gay and straight couples should have the same rights. A piece of paper telling you you are legally married under US laws is something handed out by the US government and therefore should not be religously biased. And if "the sanctity of marriage" is the beef, well whether the US government supports gay marriage or not, it's not like the US government is gonna change God's mind. As for people voting for banning gay marriage in a state, that's their prerogative. However, homosexuality is a cultural perception problem like minorities before the 1960s(only no way near as bad, let's get that clear, tired to people equating gay rights to the civil rights movement lol). Curtailing any person's civil rights is simply un-american, even something like marriage which really only has personal economic ramifications for couples.
As for creationism in classrooms: there are religion classes in schools as well as Sunday school in churches. Don't see why it has to be teached in a science class. Also, imposing christian creationism in academic public schools gives favouritism to a single religion, which is quite anti-american. And why isn't anyone telling these lazy ass parents to take their kids to church on Sundays instead of blaming the school lol. There are churches with Sunday school everywhere!

Solyndra was stupid as hell, the US has no business picking a single business. I'd understand money for companies in general creating alternative fuels, but picking one out of a line won't ever work. Coal is the dirtiest form of energy as well as the biggest homegrown source of energy. It's kinda amazing the US isn't a mass of smog.

Just because they're illegal immigrants doesn't mean they're career criminals. Have you seen the US prison population!!! Besides, someone needs to work the US farms, get paid for it and pay taxes. They're here, deportation isn't an option, might as well have them legally contribute to society. 20% of international migrants are in the US, it is a country of immigrants afterall. The US has 1000s of foreign nationals in the Armed Forces, it's a common thing, and since when is adding soldiers to an already massive army liberal?

To your last comment, If I was a Democrat it would not embarrass me because people with those far left ideas don't get elected at all. Whereas 1/3 of the Republican Party was considered far right. That's changing though, establishement republicans taking their seats back.

a reply to: GokuVsSuperman0

Dear GokuVsSuperman,

I can't thank you enough for continuing this conversation. I don't know how else to lose false ideas and learn new ones other than to have my beliefs challenged. You're a big help. Your most recent post pointed out ways in which we see issues differently, allow me to explain my thinking.

You've brought up seven different issues, I'll try not to miss any, but maybe we should narrow our discussion in the future and go one or two issues at a time, but whatever you prefer. I have noticed that you've also wanted to talk about Immigration, Global Warming, The Surge, Bush Tax Cuts, etc. Then, when I explain my position, you go to something else. As fun as that may be, it doesn't get us anywhere. Could we follow something through to resolution?

Obama and guns.

Actually, Obama’s writing was on the 1996 document, which was filed when Obama was running for the Illinois state Senate. A Chicago nonprofit, Independent Voters of Illinois, had this question, and Obama took hard line:

35. Do you support state legislation to:
a. ban the manufacture, sale and possession of handguns? Yes.
b. ban assault weapons? Yes.
c. mandatory waiting periods and background checks? Yes.

www.ontheissues.org...

I believe in keeping guns out of our inner cities, and that our leaders must say so in the face of the gun manfuacturer’s lobby.

Source: The Audacity of Hope, by Barack Obama, p.215 , Oct 1, 2006

Obama however surely realises that gun control is one debate that has shifted in the GOP's favour. There was a Pew poll a while ago showing independents opposing gun control at 55%, in 1994 or so, it was 35%. Hence why the President won't pursue gun politics to the extent of his predecessors.

In the wake of a series of mass shootings -- particularly the Dec. 14 attack that killed 20 school children in Connecticut -- Obama and aides are pushing legislation that includes improved background checks for gun buyers, a renewed assault weapons ban and restrictions on the capacities of ammunition clips.

www.usatoday.com...

There's more, but that should be sufficient to show that he isn't pro-gun, however else his position might be described.

Obama and the Afghanistan withdrawal

Bush did not have a 2014 withdrawal agreement with Afghanistan, in fact, Obama created it.

On 1 December 2009, President Barack Obama therefore announced at The United States Military Academy in West Point that the U.S. will be sending 30,000 more troops to Afghanistan and set July 2011 as the date to begin pulling U.S. forces out of the country.[22][26][27]

From Wikipedia, but it was covered in several different papers including The New York Times.

Gay marriage

As you point out, marriage is strictly civil. We also know that the government decides who can get married. Marrying your mother, sister, or first cousin? Can't do it. Someone under a certain age? "Yes" in some states, "no" in others. All of these things should tell you that marriage isn't a "right," but an activity needing government approval. Also, the benefits to marriage are also a matter of government passing laws to determine the benefits. No "Rights" there either. Nobody is being deprived of a right.

There are other arguments beside the religious. The Regnerus (if I'm spelling it correctly) is considered the gold standard on homosexuality and the adult children of homosexuals. Not a religious argument at all. Besides. all ethical and moral arguments have their ultimate base in religious teaching of some sort.

Creationism

I'm not sure why you call it Christian Creationism. Don't almost all religions have a creation story? I would object if Creationism was the only thing taught in schools, but Creationism has answers to some questions which science can't answer, and neither explanation can be proven false. Why not offer them both?

Illegal immigrants

A long discussion because it's hard to find actual facts. How many, convicted of felonies, have been let go in the last couple of months? It looks like thousands, as they released nearly 200 murders, and hundreds of others. Are they a drag on society? Some say yes, others say no. That's not a very strong argument for encouraging their arrival. How many are in drug gangs? I've read that the DEA estimates that 400 cities have a functioning member of the cartels doing business. I've also wondered why the Democrats in Congress keep rejecting the idea that our first move should be to really seal the borders, then work on legalization or whatever. What we do know, is that the immigrants vote primarily for Democrats and are willing to break laws to live here. There is no end game proposed. Just as an aside, consider the sources of immigrants up to, say, 1975. Wildly different than what we have now.

Extreme Democrats

Oh, yes, they exist. I was almost giggling at the sorts of things they've said. That is, I would have giggled if I wasn't scared.

Back in 2008, Waters was lecturing oil company executives at a congressional hearing when she plainly stated her true intentions: “Guess what this liberal would be all about? This liberal would be about socializing … uh, umm. … Would be about, basically, taking over, and the government running all of your companies.”

www.humanevents.com...

Congressman John Dingell on freedom: "The harsh fact of the matter is when you're passing legislation that will cover 300 million American people in different ways, it takes a long time to do the necessary administrative steps that have to be taken to put the legislation together to control the people." (Emphasis added.)

thestir.cafemom.com...

No radical Democrats in office? In 2010 the American Socialists released the names of 70 Democrat members of Congress who were in their caucus.

www.thegatewaypundit.com...

Assume that, at the time, the House was split evenly. That means more than a quarter of the Democratic Congressmen were caucusing with the Socialists. Sorry, but if that doesn't strike you as extreme and embarrassing, I would be surprised.

With respect,
Charles1952