If you've missed it, Republicans in the House and Senate have been outraged by President Trump's lack of racism denouncing. Their interest in distancing themselves from leaders of racist groups is nothing new. David Duke, former head of the KKK, has been disavowed by various Republican candidates over the years. Conventional wisdom says that you can't get general support if you're supported by hate groups.
The Republican establishment certainly believes this. After the defeat in 2012, they had an analysis of the election performed. The lesson learned was that they should seek the votes of minorities because the white majority was dwindling and the party could not continue to expect to win if it maintained its thorough reliance on white men. This, of course, comes after the highly racial backlash against Obama's victory in 2008. The backlash saw racist dog whistle remarks from many of the leaders in Congress as well as blatant racist remarks from the citizens attending rallies against Obama. There was a strong push to delegitimize Obama's win by suggesting he wasn't a US born citizen... one that Trump would join and come to the forefront of in the years after 2008.
2016 rolled along and the Republicans actually managed to run some candidates for President that were not white men... There were quite a few candidates (17), but among the top 10 were 1 white woman, 1 black man, 1 indian-american man, and 1 man of Cuban descent. That's right, almost 1/4 of the Republican Presidential ticket were non-white-men. That's impressive given the breakdown in Congress which shows that while Democrats having a little over 80% as many seats in the two chambers of the Federal legislative branch, they have 3 times the number of women (78:26) and nearly 6 times the number of minorities (94:16). In fact, the Democrats have just about the same ratio of minorities to whites in office at the Federal level as the country has in its population. That indicates that the Republicans have a long way to go to bring their office-holders looking like the citizens they are there to represent.
So, the Republicans ran 13 angry white men, 1 angry white woman, and 3 angry minority men in 2016. That's a lot of anger in one room... too much, in fact, so they had debates of <= 10 candidates instead. As you might expect, the woman in the group was the first to be taken down by the candidate that would, throughout the campaign, disparage and demean women. Good news for Trump: white nationalists tend to also be misogamists, so the base of his support is well in hand. Trump continued to name-call and demean his opponents and serving up red meat for his fearful followers in the form of suggesting that land-based immigration from Mexico, Chinese trade, NAFTA, Obama-care, and Islamic Extremist terrorism were the biggest threats to the US and only he knew how to resolve them. Care to count the racist elements of that train of dangers? Go on, take a moment to do the math and find the percentage of issues that are race-based. Trump was calling things as he saw them, or at least how people thought he saw them, and that was a strong selling point. Based on responses at rallies, being openly racist, misogamistic, self-aggrandizing, and anti-media were the biggest winners for Trump.
Supporters ate it all up. Finally, a candidate willing to be openly part of that group that the popular culture has been so opposed to. Popular culture, for decades, has been anti-racism and anti-misogamy. Trump's supporters loved the concept that political correctness was why their leaders tempered their words and used dog whistles instead of being, what popular culture would consider, openly racist and sexist. It's stifling our discussions, they would say, to not be able to talk in terms popularly considered to be racist and sexist without being called racists and sexists. After all, how can you have an honest discussion about Mexicans being rapists, Muslims being terrorists, women being emotional wrecks, and Blacks being lost sheep, duped into voting for a party that doesn't represent them, all these topics, while being labeled as someone who believes negative things about particular races and women? How can you possibly stand up for racist beliefs when you'll be called a racist? It's hard, I'm sure.
Anyway, the point being that for decades, the Republican party leaders had welcomed the quiet racism and almost-under-the-radar sexism, using dog whistles, code words that many of us understood the true meaning of but could be denied. Now, Trump was openly saying the racist and sexist things the dog whistles had indicated in a seemingly-defensible way. Much in the same way that the anti-government undercurrent that has supported the Tea Party was fostered by the Republican establishment and right wing news and talk shows, the undercurrent of racism and sexism, while based in a culture from the past, has been nurtured and given aid and comfort by the same parties. The Tea Party has become a problem for the Republican establishment because of a lack of interest in negotiating or doing anything that could be identified as promoting government... an issue that the Republicans trying to accomplish anything in Congress, even with control of both chambers, are running into now and undoubtedly questioning their push to get to this point. Likewise, Republican leaders are looking at the support being given to the racists now and railing against it. They were the ones that helped get us here though. It's hard to take Fox News saying that the President is not treating the situation appropriately when they've been pushing us in this direction for quite some time.
So, here's the question I have: Are the Republican leaders in Congress right to think that they can't be openly supportive of white supremacists? And are labels so damaging and so upsetting to people that they would prefer to empower the worst of the racists than to recognize that maybe, just maybe, they are indeed a bit racist and maybe, just maybe, they should accept being labeled as such when they say racist things.
Dark Wind Rising
Showing posts with label Tea Party. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Tea Party. Show all posts
Tuesday, August 22, 2017
Friday, June 5, 2015
Government creation of jobs
"Government can't create jobs." Republicans are both right and wrong with this statement. It's an interesting situation in which, the only way that it might be right is if the Republicans are the ones thinking things through.... but only to a point.
"Government can't create jobs." Let's walk through the logic that gets us there. Government creates jobs ALL THE TIME... all you have to do is walk into any state legislature, any city hall, any school, go to any street repair, any public bus or train... the list goes on. Government jobs are all around us an impact us in so many ways that the statement seems ridiculous at first.... it always has to me. I think many of those that use it don't understand it and just think of it as the base statement against using government jobs to help the economy because they don't like big government.
O.k., where's the truth in the statement then, if government creates jobs all the time? Well, it comes from going back to where the money for those jobs comes from: taxes. To a conservative, this means a lot. It means we can't count those jobs because ... well.... it's hard for me to articulate because I don't believe it. Essentially.... imagine what would happen if government jobs were all there were... we'd all be getting paid from the same pool of money that we were all paying into.... or something.
Let's go a step beyond that. What makes a job a job? There are a few reasons why I strongly believe that government jobs are jobs.... for one thing, people are working and getting paid... that, to me, is a job. But that's the simplistic view that we started with. Let's go further. When the economy isn't going so well, government has a responsibility to keep things going and to spend more than it's taking in through taxes. A lot of hay has been made in the last 8 years about how when families lose their income they have to reduce their spending and therefore government should be the same way. What those who proclaim this don't understand is that government is a different type of entity from a family or a corporation. A government has the ability to be in debt perpetually because the rate is so low. It has the spending power to keep cash flowing, even in bad times. Government can give people jobs when corporations are forced to downsize because it's nowhere near a corporations responsibility to ensure the proper running of a country's economy (corporate responsibilities are to their shareholders and making a profit). So, what does a forward thinking government do when times are bad? Keep the flow of cash going into the economy so that people employed by the government keep spending money, which keeps other people employed, which means those other people can keep spending money, which keeps other people employed, which... you get the idea. Keep the economy from exponentially shutting down and you stand a chance. Shut down on government jobs and the reversal of a downward spiral is difficult and the improvement of an economy, once the downward spiral is stopped, is equally difficult. Once the economy is on good standing, you start paying off government debt and setting aside some money to offset small downturns.
So how does all this work into the idea that jobs coming from taxes aren't really economically benefitting jobs? Well, let's consider that all jobs are created from people giving an entity money for services and/or products and that entity creating a job to provide those services and/or products. Where does a corporation get the money to pay their employees? Where does the government get the money to pay theirs? In both cases, it's from people. Government does create jobs. Government, in fact, has a responsibility to create and maintain jobs when other entities are cutting them. Sure, a government can't maintain jobs for a prolonged period of time in the absence of other entities providing jobs, but that's the case for any single entity. Imagine, if you will, that Ford Motors was the only company left, would they be able to maintain jobs? Of course not. So we need a mix of many industries, whether they be corporate or government.... and each industry can create jobs.
Government does create jobs. Don't let anybody tell you otherwise... and if they do, ask them what people do with all that free time in China and North Korea. Sure these countries have a lot to improve upon, but they definitively have jobs....
Government does create jobs.
"Government can't create jobs." Let's walk through the logic that gets us there. Government creates jobs ALL THE TIME... all you have to do is walk into any state legislature, any city hall, any school, go to any street repair, any public bus or train... the list goes on. Government jobs are all around us an impact us in so many ways that the statement seems ridiculous at first.... it always has to me. I think many of those that use it don't understand it and just think of it as the base statement against using government jobs to help the economy because they don't like big government.
O.k., where's the truth in the statement then, if government creates jobs all the time? Well, it comes from going back to where the money for those jobs comes from: taxes. To a conservative, this means a lot. It means we can't count those jobs because ... well.... it's hard for me to articulate because I don't believe it. Essentially.... imagine what would happen if government jobs were all there were... we'd all be getting paid from the same pool of money that we were all paying into.... or something.
Let's go a step beyond that. What makes a job a job? There are a few reasons why I strongly believe that government jobs are jobs.... for one thing, people are working and getting paid... that, to me, is a job. But that's the simplistic view that we started with. Let's go further. When the economy isn't going so well, government has a responsibility to keep things going and to spend more than it's taking in through taxes. A lot of hay has been made in the last 8 years about how when families lose their income they have to reduce their spending and therefore government should be the same way. What those who proclaim this don't understand is that government is a different type of entity from a family or a corporation. A government has the ability to be in debt perpetually because the rate is so low. It has the spending power to keep cash flowing, even in bad times. Government can give people jobs when corporations are forced to downsize because it's nowhere near a corporations responsibility to ensure the proper running of a country's economy (corporate responsibilities are to their shareholders and making a profit). So, what does a forward thinking government do when times are bad? Keep the flow of cash going into the economy so that people employed by the government keep spending money, which keeps other people employed, which means those other people can keep spending money, which keeps other people employed, which... you get the idea. Keep the economy from exponentially shutting down and you stand a chance. Shut down on government jobs and the reversal of a downward spiral is difficult and the improvement of an economy, once the downward spiral is stopped, is equally difficult. Once the economy is on good standing, you start paying off government debt and setting aside some money to offset small downturns.
So how does all this work into the idea that jobs coming from taxes aren't really economically benefitting jobs? Well, let's consider that all jobs are created from people giving an entity money for services and/or products and that entity creating a job to provide those services and/or products. Where does a corporation get the money to pay their employees? Where does the government get the money to pay theirs? In both cases, it's from people. Government does create jobs. Government, in fact, has a responsibility to create and maintain jobs when other entities are cutting them. Sure, a government can't maintain jobs for a prolonged period of time in the absence of other entities providing jobs, but that's the case for any single entity. Imagine, if you will, that Ford Motors was the only company left, would they be able to maintain jobs? Of course not. So we need a mix of many industries, whether they be corporate or government.... and each industry can create jobs.
Government does create jobs. Don't let anybody tell you otherwise... and if they do, ask them what people do with all that free time in China and North Korea. Sure these countries have a lot to improve upon, but they definitively have jobs....
Government does create jobs.
Saturday, December 28, 2013
A New Hope for Republicans
Recent events give me hope for the Republican Party. I'm not talking about hope that Democrats will win all upcoming elections or that Republicans will see things my way. I'm talking about an opposition force to the Democrats that is at least reasonable and doesn't attempt things such as holding the government hostage.
Moderate Republicans and moderate Democrats recently passed a budget. Yes a budget, not a continuing resolution, an actual budget. The next step is to pass the omnibus bill, a large bill combining many spending bills into one. The omnibus bill is how we actually spend the money. I'll be watching anxiously to see if the moderate Republicans can maintain their self-governance and actually pass the omnibus. This could be the turn in the tide that has been leading us toward an inability of Congress to get anything done.
I know I'm further left, politically, than just about anybody in Congress, and certainly further Left than any Republican there, but this gives me hope. It's more important to me to take small steps in the right direction and keeping the government functioning than it is that the Democrats win big in small spurts. Democrats need Republicans to help keep them in line and pushing forward. What Democrats don't need is an opposition party set in stone to oppose anything Democrats put forth simply because it was put forth by Democrats. That this latter path seems to be what the Republicans are moving away from now. Not all Republicans are moving away from it, however, but the ones that are give me hope for the future. Here's to you, mainstream Republicans, may you persevere and not be beaten by another wave of Tea Party candidates.
Moderate Republicans and moderate Democrats recently passed a budget. Yes a budget, not a continuing resolution, an actual budget. The next step is to pass the omnibus bill, a large bill combining many spending bills into one. The omnibus bill is how we actually spend the money. I'll be watching anxiously to see if the moderate Republicans can maintain their self-governance and actually pass the omnibus. This could be the turn in the tide that has been leading us toward an inability of Congress to get anything done.
I know I'm further left, politically, than just about anybody in Congress, and certainly further Left than any Republican there, but this gives me hope. It's more important to me to take small steps in the right direction and keeping the government functioning than it is that the Democrats win big in small spurts. Democrats need Republicans to help keep them in line and pushing forward. What Democrats don't need is an opposition party set in stone to oppose anything Democrats put forth simply because it was put forth by Democrats. That this latter path seems to be what the Republicans are moving away from now. Not all Republicans are moving away from it, however, but the ones that are give me hope for the future. Here's to you, mainstream Republicans, may you persevere and not be beaten by another wave of Tea Party candidates.
Tuesday, October 1, 2013
"Compromise" and the Tea Party
"Compromise!" This is the current face the Tea Party Republicans are presenting to the public. That being said, their tactics were extremely public just days ago. They said, in a very public way, that they were going to hold the Federal Government hostage in order to try to do what they've been trying to do for the last 3 years: remove the Affordable Care Act (Obamacare) from law.
So, what do they mean when they say that the President, and Democrats in general, aren't willing to compromise? They mean that Democrats aren't willing to completely fold and give into the demands of the Far Right. Yep, that's compromise. Do it my way or you're not willing to talk about compromise. It falls very much in line with the origin of the Tea Party where, in reaction to Obama being elected, they gathered and called forth the standard the Massachusetts residents generated originally (yes, Massachusetts, not New Hampshire) "No taxation without representation." The Tea Party members who were asked what they meant by this stated that, since they didn't vote for Obama or some of those in Congress, they were not being represented. The problem, of course, being that we live in a representative democracy and we elect our representatives in Congress and President by popular vote, after a fashion. Even if you don't vote for the person elected, you had a vote, and you have someone representing your residential area, and you can lobby that person and vote for someone else in the next election and work to get that person not elected next time. I know I joked with some friends during W. Bush's Presidency that he wasn't elected because of the issues in Florida, but that couldn't be claimed with Obama and I wouldn't have made the same joke about Reagan or Bush senior. So, essentially, we've come to a point where we have a large group of people speaking a different language than the rest of us, and it's not Spanish, it's not French, it's English, but contorted with different definitions than those the rest of us use.
O.k., so the Republican House finally submitted a bill that "compromised" by only delaying certain aspects of the law. Too little too late in my opinion. I applaud the Democrats for not taking them up on this option. Enough is enough. While it's horrible for many many people to be sent home without pay and with no knowledge of when they will be paid again, simply because Republicans in the House can't accept a law that they have been attempting to overturn time after time for the last 2 years, this is how you stand up and say "no! no more!" to a bunch of rebellious misfits who time and again act as the tale wagging the Republican Party, er, dog. And maybe, just maybe this fight will prevent us from having the battle that is likely to come shortly over the debt ceiling.
So, what do they mean when they say that the President, and Democrats in general, aren't willing to compromise? They mean that Democrats aren't willing to completely fold and give into the demands of the Far Right. Yep, that's compromise. Do it my way or you're not willing to talk about compromise. It falls very much in line with the origin of the Tea Party where, in reaction to Obama being elected, they gathered and called forth the standard the Massachusetts residents generated originally (yes, Massachusetts, not New Hampshire) "No taxation without representation." The Tea Party members who were asked what they meant by this stated that, since they didn't vote for Obama or some of those in Congress, they were not being represented. The problem, of course, being that we live in a representative democracy and we elect our representatives in Congress and President by popular vote, after a fashion. Even if you don't vote for the person elected, you had a vote, and you have someone representing your residential area, and you can lobby that person and vote for someone else in the next election and work to get that person not elected next time. I know I joked with some friends during W. Bush's Presidency that he wasn't elected because of the issues in Florida, but that couldn't be claimed with Obama and I wouldn't have made the same joke about Reagan or Bush senior. So, essentially, we've come to a point where we have a large group of people speaking a different language than the rest of us, and it's not Spanish, it's not French, it's English, but contorted with different definitions than those the rest of us use.
O.k., so the Republican House finally submitted a bill that "compromised" by only delaying certain aspects of the law. Too little too late in my opinion. I applaud the Democrats for not taking them up on this option. Enough is enough. While it's horrible for many many people to be sent home without pay and with no knowledge of when they will be paid again, simply because Republicans in the House can't accept a law that they have been attempting to overturn time after time for the last 2 years, this is how you stand up and say "no! no more!" to a bunch of rebellious misfits who time and again act as the tale wagging the Republican Party, er, dog. And maybe, just maybe this fight will prevent us from having the battle that is likely to come shortly over the debt ceiling.
Sunday, September 1, 2013
Republicans and Democrats switched places, deal with it
The past week saw the 50th anniversary of the March on Washington, one of the great events of the civil rights push of the 1960s. I saw a Facebook meme about how the Republicans were the ones that were fighting for African American rights and Democrats were the ones arguing against them. The meme suggested that Democrats are wrong when they attack Republicans on racism grounds.
This is an interesting argument. What it doesn't take into account is that the Democrats and Republicans essentially switched sides on this issue in the early 1900's. They also switched strongholds. Democrats used to be stronger in the South and Republicans in the North. Then in the early to mid 1900's, that flipped too.
These days, Republican establishment and the Tea Party trend toward being racist and Democrats tend to be liberal. For evidence, all you have to do is look at the recent elections, the comments made by various Republican candidates, and the attendance of the 50th anniversary celebration in D.C. No Republican leader (and there were more than a few, including every member of Congress) came to the 50th anniversary celebration of the March on Washington. Yep, none, zip, zilch, zero, nada. "Well, there probably weren't that many speakers, right?" Hm, how does approximately 35 speakers, including 3 Presidents (all Democrats) sound?
Well, surely that's just because of scheduling conflicts. I wonder if we can find any other examples of the leaders of the Republican party being racist. Surprisingly, I can. Here's a couple interesting articles on this exact topic that I definitely suggest you read:
http://www.policymic.com/articles/56437/it-s-bizarre-and-ridiculous-how-racist-republicans-are
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/walker-bragman/correcting-rand-paul-on-t_b_3064617.html
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jonathan-weiler/legendary-gop-strategist-_b_2132029.html
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/leonce-gaiter/tea-partiers-battle-racis_b_564211.html
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2013/07/21/1225346/-Yes-The-Republican-Party-Is-Racist#
Seriously, though, look at Congress and tell me there's proper Republican representation by minorities. Look at what was said in response to Obama getting nominated and then elected. Look at the fact that Congress reviewed studies and confirmed that various Republican controlled states still need to be overseen when it comes to voting laws and redistricting (yes, the Supreme Court said the states don't need to be watched, but they said that the reason was because Congress hadn't changed the laws enough.... so, something hasn't been resolved and you stop trying to resolve it?)
I'm not saying Republicans are racist, I'm just saying their leaders are, both those in government as well as those in the media. O.k., I'm also saying that a vast majority of the more socially conservative Republicans are too ;-)
This is an interesting argument. What it doesn't take into account is that the Democrats and Republicans essentially switched sides on this issue in the early 1900's. They also switched strongholds. Democrats used to be stronger in the South and Republicans in the North. Then in the early to mid 1900's, that flipped too.
These days, Republican establishment and the Tea Party trend toward being racist and Democrats tend to be liberal. For evidence, all you have to do is look at the recent elections, the comments made by various Republican candidates, and the attendance of the 50th anniversary celebration in D.C. No Republican leader (and there were more than a few, including every member of Congress) came to the 50th anniversary celebration of the March on Washington. Yep, none, zip, zilch, zero, nada. "Well, there probably weren't that many speakers, right?" Hm, how does approximately 35 speakers, including 3 Presidents (all Democrats) sound?
Well, surely that's just because of scheduling conflicts. I wonder if we can find any other examples of the leaders of the Republican party being racist. Surprisingly, I can. Here's a couple interesting articles on this exact topic that I definitely suggest you read:
http://www.policymic.com/articles/56437/it-s-bizarre-and-ridiculous-how-racist-republicans-are
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/walker-bragman/correcting-rand-paul-on-t_b_3064617.html
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jonathan-weiler/legendary-gop-strategist-_b_2132029.html
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/leonce-gaiter/tea-partiers-battle-racis_b_564211.html
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2013/07/21/1225346/-Yes-The-Republican-Party-Is-Racist#
Seriously, though, look at Congress and tell me there's proper Republican representation by minorities. Look at what was said in response to Obama getting nominated and then elected. Look at the fact that Congress reviewed studies and confirmed that various Republican controlled states still need to be overseen when it comes to voting laws and redistricting (yes, the Supreme Court said the states don't need to be watched, but they said that the reason was because Congress hadn't changed the laws enough.... so, something hasn't been resolved and you stop trying to resolve it?)
I'm not saying Republicans are racist, I'm just saying their leaders are, both those in government as well as those in the media. O.k., I'm also saying that a vast majority of the more socially conservative Republicans are too ;-)
Thursday, November 8, 2012
compromise compromise, everywhere, but no sincerity in sight
O.k., election results are in, except for Florida for the Presidential race, because they've only had over 36 hours to tally up the votes and figure it out, not like they weren't expecting to be important or anything, just the state with the most electoral votes of the battleground states. But I digress. This post is not about the ridiculousness that is Florida, it's about the ridiculousness that is the Republican right.
Boehner came out and announced that "we're" eager for the President to lead, that "we" want him to succeed, and that "we're" willing to negotiate within limits. The "we" could refer to the general population of the U.S., but I think it's more likely that he's speaking for Republicans in the House. Let's take him at his word for a minute. He's saying that Republicans are eager for Obama to lead (which he's been doing) and that they'll consider tax increases, but only if the tax increases are not only on the most wealthy. I'm impressed that he actually came out and said it... the Republicans are unwilling to raise taxes unless they can raise taxes on the poor (Scott Brown admitted to this and Massachusetts kicked him out of office). That being said, fine, let's just repeal the W. Bush tax cuts. They helped the rich more than they helped the poor, but they did help the poor somewhat, so Republicans should be fine with it. Admittedly, Obama said he wouldn't raise taxes on those making less than $250k, but that's compromise for ya, sometimes you have to break your campaign promises to avoid the precipice.
That being said, Boehner negotiated with the President before in 2011 and couldn't deliver his end. That's how we got here, remember? Boehner and the President and Reed negotiated the "grand compromise", Boehner came back the next morning and said "nope, can't do it, the Republicans in the House won't accept the compromise, they insist on having it completely their way."... so, with the Tea Party backed ridiculously far right remaining in control of the House, should we really take Boehner at his word that he can negotiate for these wackos? They've just been re-elected, they'll be feeling that their constituents have affirmed their standing firm and not negotiating. They're probably looking at Romney's defeat and saying "he wasn't one of us, that's why he lost, if he had been a true conservative, he would have won." Without having learned anything, with everything the same as it was a year ago, I see no reason to believe Boehner will have any more ability to pull his side to the negotiating table with him.
Election's over, bullshit keeps flowing.
Boehner came out and announced that "we're" eager for the President to lead, that "we" want him to succeed, and that "we're" willing to negotiate within limits. The "we" could refer to the general population of the U.S., but I think it's more likely that he's speaking for Republicans in the House. Let's take him at his word for a minute. He's saying that Republicans are eager for Obama to lead (which he's been doing) and that they'll consider tax increases, but only if the tax increases are not only on the most wealthy. I'm impressed that he actually came out and said it... the Republicans are unwilling to raise taxes unless they can raise taxes on the poor (Scott Brown admitted to this and Massachusetts kicked him out of office). That being said, fine, let's just repeal the W. Bush tax cuts. They helped the rich more than they helped the poor, but they did help the poor somewhat, so Republicans should be fine with it. Admittedly, Obama said he wouldn't raise taxes on those making less than $250k, but that's compromise for ya, sometimes you have to break your campaign promises to avoid the precipice.
That being said, Boehner negotiated with the President before in 2011 and couldn't deliver his end. That's how we got here, remember? Boehner and the President and Reed negotiated the "grand compromise", Boehner came back the next morning and said "nope, can't do it, the Republicans in the House won't accept the compromise, they insist on having it completely their way."... so, with the Tea Party backed ridiculously far right remaining in control of the House, should we really take Boehner at his word that he can negotiate for these wackos? They've just been re-elected, they'll be feeling that their constituents have affirmed their standing firm and not negotiating. They're probably looking at Romney's defeat and saying "he wasn't one of us, that's why he lost, if he had been a true conservative, he would have won." Without having learned anything, with everything the same as it was a year ago, I see no reason to believe Boehner will have any more ability to pull his side to the negotiating table with him.
Election's over, bullshit keeps flowing.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)