Republicans Discover That It Isn’t Easy Running Congress

Not so. Since Obama was elected, the right has preferred to side with America's enemies rather than support the president.

 

It only took them a few days after the 2008 election to decide that making Obama a one-term potus was their main objective.

 

Knock it off with the Liberal " Making Stuff Up " approach.
Under Bush and his control of Congress we had sustained Real Unemployment
Under 5% up until Madame Shrew Pelosi took over.
Unlike the way Newt and his New Majority in 1994 managed FOUR,count em
FOUR Consecutive Balanced Budgets.
Under Boehner, Paul Ryan was never late for a pragmatic Budget.
Nor was Rob Portman under President Bush with a bellwether 2007
budget deficit of $ 161 Billion.
Unlike Harry Reid who refused to even debate a senate budget let alone
pass one ... In all of Obama's First term.
President Obama typically offering up His Budget LATE each year
and proud of that fact,like the way he's late to EVERY news/press conference.
Obama apparently thinks it's cute to be Late for every Press/News Conference.
Like Bill Clinton was.Unlike President Bush who was seldom EVER late for a
News/Press Conference.He was johnny on the spot and johnny on the job.
No Embellishing.Said what he meant and meant what he said.
Yeah,our enemies feared us under President Bush.
That's a Good thing.

 

Because we all know on account Terry McAuliffe and Bob Shrum ran around
saying the opposite about President Bush in 2004 ... right ?.
That's it no biggie if President Bush sustains another win.
McAuliffe and Shrum busy making the Bogus case of Bush being AWOL.

 

remember the rights birther nonsense....

.

 

Really, can you post this quote in it's full context and and explain the occasion upon which it was uttered and to whom it was uttered?

Bet you won't.

 

Lol...Playing dumb and mistaking me for someone who gives a (*)(*)(*)(*).
What else you got?

 

Republicans Discover That It Isn’t Easy Running Congress

It isn't that hard if you are doing the job your oath requires you to do. It's when you are bought and paid for and working unethically to pursue the needs of the two party scam, that it gets hard.

 

Actually, it took them almost 2 years to say it out loud. The comment was made by McConnell just before the midterms of 2010.

 

The carter years were unusual, in that the tripling of energy costs put a whammy on the economy. The borrowing that started during carter to buy consumer goods picked up steam with the republicans, which made things look better, as the nation sunk into debt. The price of oil stabilized under Reagan which it would have done regardless, and the economy adjusted finally to higher energy costs.

But Reagan put us on a path that leads to today, with the hollowing out of the middle class and the greater disparity in income. That is what Reagan wrought, for he changed America, in the worst possible way. So we regressed to the environment of the Gilded Age, which of course crashed in 1929. We will have to crash again in order to relegate the conservative ways of doing thing back to where it belongs. In the 'useless and dangerous category".

 

We just didn't know how to pick our enemies under Bush. He was as likely to go off on the Fiji Islanders as al Qaeda.

 

History hardly backs up that claim. The Democrats kept control of the House, for example, for five straight decades. Not holding office isn't a big benefit.



The real reasons why the Democrats may do well is slight edges in key electoral states (FL, OH, NH, VA, CO), and the Senate map already being so red, with easy potential Democratic pickups in blue states (namely IL) and fair shots in purple states (PA, WI, etc.)

 

often it is true, there are exceptions, your chart is confusing, but looking at it, you can see the sitting president has the advantage on reelections and on midterms if often favors the party that doesn't have the Presidency -- that doesn't mean the other party can't motivate their party to get out and vote, it just means the advantage is for the party out of office

other things can play into it too, a republican controlled congress may cause the dems to vote more and visa vera as well


.

 

Yes, history does back up that that much is true with the White House, not with the Senate or the House, but with the White House. It is rare for a party to win the White House after having a two term President of their own party in, but you just said that that will benefit the Democrats.

Again, history doesn't back that up. There's no suggestion that, based on history alone, the Democrats will retake the House and/or Senate, but there is reason to believe they might take the Senate for other reasons. The White House - yeah, the midterms/two term President blahblahblah of history actually suggests that the GOP will win the White House, not the Democrats.

 

No I'm saying you are ignorant of the facts, you don't know what you are talking about, if that means dumb to you so be it.

So try again

Post this quote in it's full context and and explain the occasion upon which it was uttered and to whom it was uttered?
Bet you won't.

 

Made on the eve of the mid-term elections when it was apparent there was going to be a House victory and the poster has backed himself into a corner by spouting the MSM mythical protrayal of what he said and to whom he was speaking and occasion of that utterance.

Let's give him a



As even the Washington Post gives to those who perpetrate the myth.

 

Well there are unusual circumstances in every administration and it is a matter of how they deal with them. Had Carter done as Reagan ultimately did he could have mitigated the circumstances but he did not believe in the country and the economy and thus his "malaise" speech. Reagan deregulated energy, worked with Volker to tame inflation cut tax rates to get investments and expansions going which led to an unprecedented period of growth and opportuntity and the middle class did quite well. And know we were not borrowing for consumer spending as interest rates were through the roof, mortage rates were 14% when I bought my first home and credit and consumer rates into the 20's.g

Wrong, the only way to slow the growth and that disparity is by putting the middle class to work, but it will always grow as there is not top end to it and the fact is it should be no concern of government anyway.

[/QUOTE]

And what "conservatives ways" are you talking about.

- - - Updated - - -

Actually he was quite specific.