Is there a way to change the rules so that the cons just have to sit there, not speak, and age in quiet? Let’s shoot for that.
__________________________

BJ,

That’s called totalitarianism. Go to China or Cuba if you want that comrade.

Tom Colburn of OKLA and even our own Sam Brownback can make their case in a sound and thinking matter. But I have seen few others whom do without pointing at the other side and reverting to something similar to “You are a poo-po head!”. I am all for the GOP standing for a fair counter point to the issues.
Being the watch dogs of the purse strings as they should but to act not in the interest of the tax payers.
To simple try to make points by defeating a bill that the only problem they state is that it was a Democratic idea. SCHIPS was a good example, the Republican did not argue details of in what condition is someone making too much money to be covered. Making $150 thousand in Wichita is being well off. But making that much in L.A. is not a good wage. The cost of living and all, but they did not venture into the details such as that. The Democratic did and they argued the point to be countered by OH YEAH! Yeah Tiahrt presented such an argument of that counter.

I want the party to be one of sound and logic not school yard arguments.

I have watched republicans dismantle good bills that the dems proposed, only to reintroduce the same thing in a different way under their name. Its bogus.

The ‘gatekeeper’ is always putting bills they don’t like into committees that they know will never see the light of day.

There just needs to be a complete overhaul of the entire system. More fair and unable to be rescinded by republicans when they get the reigns and want to play dirty. And they do play dirtier and nastier. Perhaps that’s what they’re so upset about now that we’re onto their game and willing to use their own dirty tricks.

I mean look, it’s just like Sarah Palin all over the tv whining whining whining today.

Oh and Regular, you’re a douche.

“…except in the media and liberal quarters.”

Yes, that bastion of American liberalism, the American Enterprise Institute, is part of the Great Obama Socialist Conspiracy.

:::snort:::

The election was narrow in almost every state. The victory is no cry for change – except in the media and liberal quarters.

Have fun with that. Oh did you contribute to the Obama Statue yet? I’m sure you need to rename a few schools.

Never to early.

“President-elect Barack Obama has some huge assets to bring to bear as he tries to rapidly enact an enormously ambitious agenda that includes a huge stimulus package and major health care reform. His sweeping election victory has been followed by a sky-high approval rating as his inauguration approaches.”

It looks like even the “conservative” spin on the facts is taking on that pesky liberal bias…

Lucky for me, a new round of elections is a mere 22 months away. I look forward to a *real* challenge again.

:)

That is not a mandate for change (whatever that is).
Majority win yes. But if you marched one party east and one west, just about half of us would be marching in different directions.

Clearly the nation is NOT rallied behind Obama.

I didn’t answer because I don’t care. I never claimed Bush had a mandate. I never saw his election as “historic” in a positive way. In fact, he wasn’t my republican. I’d give you the same answer for the FIRST Bush election too.

But please continue to spin and turn the discussion away from my question on change.

No kidding….

We’ve just about run the wheels off the waaaaaaambulance.

And dumber….

Of course my percentages are correct. And it looks like your “source” did more than a little rounding. The margin of victory was 7.2%, not 4% as your numbers would suggest. That’s an error of 45%! A teacher would give that a big, red, F.

But then, as Stephen Colbert says, facts have a liberal bias.

You still haven’t answered my question, though. Where was the Bush mandate for the horrible decisions he and Cheney made? For eight years, we’ve had to listen to “too bad, Bush won, and he’s The Decider.” Now that we have a President-elect with a CLEAR majority, and a landslide Electoral College win, are you going to grant that Obama now has AT LEAST as much of a mandate, and is soon to be The Decider?

On another thread (I think the Open) I posted a link to the 12 bills bush vetoed as of December 2008. Each of those bills (specifically!) could be brought up again, passed again and not vetoed this time around. That seems like change from what was.

Folklore.
revisionist history.

No one seems to know what “change” is specifically.

And your percentages are correct. I had found a site that had rounded them. Regardless, my point is the same. We are nearly evenly divided.

What sways each election is not so much the beliefs of the new candidate – but how badly the incumbent ticked people off. This is because we are so divided. Independents and a few ticked off voters from either party can change an election.

I never disagreed nor tarnished Obama’s win. He won and I never said he did not.

My point was to not make something out of that win that it was not. It is not a cause to put Obama’s face on US currency.

IMHO, Obama will be the leader of a severely divided nation. Yes, democrats clearly have achieved a great victory. Yep, they will run the country.

Almost every state election was close for Congressional Seats, and even for president in many cases.

Just don’t fool yourselves into believing they are running it on behalf of the beliefs of anything more than a slim majority.

I’m sure you recall that the 2000 Presidential race was “won” by Bush, who received fewer votes than his opponent. So, by your standard of diminishing Obama’s clear and convincing win over McCain, tell me what mandate Bush had for the actions *he* took?

Oh, and the final tally last November was 52.9 to 45.7. Not 52 to 48 as you claim. (I just LOVE revisionist history!).

My two cents.

Where do you get that Maggotpunk?

The popular vote was 52-48%. America remains nearly evenly divided. There was no landslide election. There was no grand slam.

No call to “change”.

Since you used the word “change” maybe you can tell us what that means – in detail?