It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


New GOP Mantra - Dems Violate Bi-Partisan Pledge

page: 1

log in


posted on Jan, 4 2007 @ 11:12 AM
Let’s cut to the chase. That’s right. The Dems pledged that in the first 100 hours of the 110th Congress, things would be different. The Dems said they would enact a new minimum wage - politically potent but economically neutral but wisely not saying how much leaving maneuvering room - the Dems said they would change the law forbidding Medicare from negotiating lower prices with the pharmaceuticals. The Dems said they would adopt new Ethics Rules. The Dems said they would slow or stop earmarks. The Dems said they would not rubber stamp any Administration money bill. Transparency would be the Dem’s by-word, for a change long overdue.

Then, 4 days later - 100 hours - there would be a fresh breeze in the House, one not seen since the halcyon days of the Republican's Contract for America. The 100 hours of course harkening back to the First 100 Days of the New Deal.

Let’s get real. Yes, the Dems won more than the required 18 seats to get control of the House. The new breakdown is 233 to 202. A 31 seat majority. 13 seats more than expected. Not great, not a record, but good enough to keep Bush43 on his toes. Nothing like the sea change in 1932, for the Dems, or the sea change 1994, for the GOP.

But raw numbers can be misleading. The overall majority for the Dems in the popular vote was razor thin. The county was not voting socialist, but it was reprimanding Bush43 and his puppet Congress under Bill Frist and Dennis Hastert. Both natural disasters. So the Dems must “pay back” those old time Dems who voted as usual, and wanted to impress the new voters they were capable of passing desirable legislation.

So lighten up. If the GOP wants to be bi-partisan, they will have all the opportunity they will need. We’ll see how they respond. I do not get any sign from the WH or the Great Decider B43 that he has any intention of compromising or accommodating. I’ll have to wait on that. But not for long as he will fully reveal himself and his intentions either in the Iraq Fiasco Speech or the State of the Union Message.

[edit on 1/4/2007 by donwhite]

posted on Jan, 4 2007 @ 11:54 AM
They waste no time, huh?

Well, lets see what the great decider does and if there is any breech here it will be done by our president, the great uniter.

Dems have violated the terms alright as far as i'm concerned- but they're my terms. I want those ghouls out.

posted on Jan, 4 2007 @ 12:07 PM

posted by dgtempe

They waste no time, huh? Well, let’s see what the great decider does and if there is any breech here it will be done by our president, the great unite-er. [Edited by Don W]

Dems have violated the terms alright as far as I’m concerned- but they're my terms. I want those ghouls out.

November 4, 2008.

America’s future for the next generation will be settled that day. And the world will share our joy ride! We must reign in this open check book War on Terror. Qui fighting dumb and learn to fight smart. B43 is using the same strategy Reagan used in his first term. Bankrupt the welfare state.
When Iran’s #2 man threatens Israel - cost to Iran, next to nothing - we OTOH rush a 3rd supercarrier into the Indian Ocean. Cost to us, $4.8 million a day. (Admittedly only a small part is attributable to Iran.) After the Nine Eleven Event, costing OBL about $2 or $3 million, we have spend more than $300 billion and there is no end in sight. Leverage they call that on Wall Street. Whipsawing also describe how our “enemies” are plain us.

We are better than that.

posted on Jan, 5 2007 @ 07:24 PM
The Republicans will want to legitimize their recent advancement of the "tyranny of the majority" model of government by accusing the dems of doing the same thing, whether the dems really do it or not.

The Democrats will almost certainly play some hardball here and there as I've said elsewhere, and rightfully so. They believe different things than Republicans and you can't expect them not to fight for it.

That being said, if the Democrats have any true interest in establishing the importance of concensus in government, they will need to be very PR savvy and really advertise the instances in which they don't have to play hardball so that they don't end up legitimizing the office of "Decider".

top topics

log in