New Hampshire Predictions for Tonight

Southern Man said:
The fact that you refer to Bush as Shrub identifies you as a partisan that you claim to hate. Every presidential candidate in modern history has run on a platform of "uniting", but once in office, after a brief honeymoon with the opposing party, all is back to back-stabbing. Republican presidents tend to have shorter honeymoons, since the Liberal press pounds on the Democrats to get down to their favorite sport as soon as possible after the innauguration.
Click to expand...



Yeah, W had it pretty rough after 9/11 with everyone in the country and the world united behind him. That was really tough. What's particularly striking, though, is your apparent ignorance of the Rovian 50-plus-one strategy that was based entirely on dividing the electorate. It's no small wonder what results from that strategy.

Oooh, and a dig at the "liberal press." Nice. You're pretty standard fare for a conservative. Where do they keep that cookie cutter that keep churning you guys out?
 
Paul is fifth again. If he manages to edge out 100 votes or so in front of Ghouliani, it still isn't going to look impressive. Honestly, Paul may as well drop out now. A third finish in NH was his best hope.
 
Watermark said:
Paul is fifth again. If he manages to edge out 100 votes or so in front of Ghouliani, it still isn't going to look impressive. Honestly, Paul may as well drop out now. A third finish in NH was his best hope.
Click to expand...
10% showing continues to get him matching funds, his supporters are hell bent on getting the "Back to the Constitution" rEVOLution going...
 
Dungheap said:
Yeah, W had it pretty rough after 9/11 with everyone in the country and the world united behind him. That was really tough. What's particularly striking, though, is your apparent ignorance of the Rovian 50-plus-one strategy that was based entirely on dividing the electorate. It's no small wonder what results from that strategy.

Oooh, and a dig at the "liberal press." Nice. You're pretty standard fare for a conservative. Where do they keep that cookie cutter that keep churning you guys out?
Click to expand...

I was referring to the 8 months prior to 9-11. How long did the Democrats drag their feet approving Bush's appointments?

You appear to be standard fare yourself. :)
 
Southern Man said:
I was referring to the 8 months prior to 9-11. How long did the Democrats drag their feet approving Bush's appointments?

You appear to be standard fare yourself. :)
Click to expand...


That's odd. As far as I recall the Republicans controlled the Senate in early 2001 until Jeezum Jim Jeffords jumped ship. Suddenly the Democrats are to blame for the Republicans failing to get Bush's nominations wrapped up by the end of May?
 
Dungheap said:
That's odd. As far as I recall the Republicans controlled the Senate in early 2001 until Jeezum Jim Jeffords jumped ship. Suddenly the Democrats are to blame for the Republicans failing to get Bush's nominations wrapped up by the end of May?
Click to expand...
Are you denying that the Democrats are not masters of delay? :p That's one thing that they do best!
 
Southern Man said:
Are you denying that the Democrats are not masters of delay? :p That's one thing that they do best!
Click to expand...


Yes, I am denying it. The Republicans, in fact, are unparalleled in their obstructionism. They just recently broke their previous record for filibustering in a single session of Congress and it only took the 11 of the full 24 months to get it done!
 
Topspin said:
wow dems crying about the filibuster is priceless.
Click to expand...
:D Wow! Just how many of Bush's judge noms have been delayed. And I'll never forget how long it took for the Dems to approve the Ambassador to the UN. Wait- they never did approve it! :p
 
Southern Man said:
:D Wow! Just how many of Bush's judge noms have been delayed. And I'll never forget how long it took for the Dems to approve the Ambassador to the UN. Wait- they never did approve it! :p
Click to expand...


Look at the stats. The Republicans are unparalleled in their use of filibuster by leaps and bounds.

Also, you may want to look into buying a new copy of the Constitution. Mine says nothing about the Senate "approving" presidential nominations.
 
Dungheap said:
Look at the stats. The Republicans are unparalleled in their use of filibuster by leaps and bounds.

Also, you may want to look into buying a new copy of the Constitution. Mine says nothing about the Senate "approving" presidential nominations.
Click to expand...
Filibuster is almost always used by the minority party. Fact is the Rs haven't controlled for much of the time.
 
Dungheap said:
Look at the stats. The Republicans are unparalleled in their use of filibuster by leaps and bounds.

Also, you may want to look into buying a new copy of the Constitution. Mine says nothing about the Senate "approving" presidential nominations.
Click to expand...

Thanks but I'll keep my old dog-eared copy. So the congress doesn't approve judicial nominations?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top