Vote Present

That's the best way to help their constituents. They weren't elected to go along with liberals, that's for sure. They aren't getting re-elected by opposing liberals, and that's for sure as well. So the best way to represent their constituents is to not take a side, and vote "present" on everything. Now back when we had bipartisan government and a two-party system, they could go out there and tell their constituents they supported this or that, or they opposed this or that, but now we have the media in cahoots with the liberals, spinning their opposition into "obstruction" and making them the bad guys. There's no way to win when you're the bad guy.

It's the legislative equivalent of picking up your marbles & going home. It's what sore losers do.

You're a terrible loser when it comes to elections - a real baby. Again, ironic given what you posted on here when you thought Romney would be the winner.
 
Nope. Please explain to me how voting "present" is obstruction?

Where did I say it's "obstruction"? It's not. A vote can paoss with one "Yea" and 98 "Presents".

It's merely stupid.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/16/opinion/16mikva.html

Although voting "Present" is considered for several reasons, including not favoring part of the bill but the overall intent of it (Obama did this several times...I'm sure you bitched about it then, huh?), the overall effect to the uneducated populace (teabaggers and republicans) will be that they opposed the tax cut.

And you better believe democratic candidates a year from now will let them know.
 
Those who know me, realize I am not the kind of person who gives up. If it's something I am passionate about and believe in, I will fight for it until the day I die, that's just my nature. So when this idea was first suggested, needless to say, I wasn't impressed. It feels an awful lot like giving up, throwing in the towel, resigning to defeat. When it comes to something as important as my country, I find it very difficult to just walk away and give up. The 2012 elections dealt a major blow to Conservatives, it sent one of our most vibrant voices running for the hills in Jim DeMint, and the jubilant liberals are almost too much to bear these days. The left-wing of American politics has been emboldened like never before in history, and with this victory under their belts, will parade into the next 4 years with all the swagger and confidence in the world. There's simply no stopping the juggernaut, they will run roughshod over any conservative who dares to stand in their way.

Jim DeMint. This Jim DeMint?

(Excerpt) Last week, (March/11) Sen. Jim DeMint (R-SC) added his voice to the chorus while being interviewed on the Family Research Council’s weekly radio show. DeMint told host Tony Perkins that the size of government and the size of God exist in an inverse relationship – “the bigger government gets, the smaller God gets”:

DeMINT: Some are trying to separate the social, cultural issues from fiscal issues, but you really can’t do that. America works, freedom works, when people have that internal gyroscope that comes from a belief in God and Biblical faith. Once we push that out, you no longer have the capacity to live as a free person without the external controls of an authoritarian government. I’ve said it often and I believe it – the bigger government gets, the smaller God gets. As people become more dependent on government, less dependent on God. (End) http://thinkprogress.org/politics/2011/03/15/150676/demint-big-govt/ There is a video at the link.


Conservatives once had faith that most of the country was conservative and would ultimately prevail over the creeping liberalism, but the recent elections demonstrated that we're apparently not as conservative as conservatives believed. Now, granted, this is largely due to the fact that conservatives fragmented their votes by running to libertarianism, while liberals consolidated support through a coalition effort of mostly special interests. But the fact remains, you can't argue with the results. Liberals rule, and conservatives drool. Liberals have used the media to successfully turn Conservatism into a pariah, and instantly tarnish anyone who is associated with Republican politics. Republican Conservatives, in ANY debate these days, is kind of like the wife-beating husband trying to compete for Man of the Year. They don't stand a chance, and there's not a thing in the world they can do about it now. They've been forever stigmatized, branded for life, and no matter what they say, think, or do, they are Republicans, so they must be wrong.

No, Dixie, the country is not as conservative as Conservatives believed. And no, Dixie, the media didn’t turn Conservatism into a pariah. The Conservatives did that all by themselves.
(Excerpt) It is nothing new for conservatives to dress their political ideology in religious language. Rep. Joe Barton (R-TX) justified his opposition to controlling greenhouse gases because “you can’t regulate God.” Sen. Jon Kyl (R-AZ) accused Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) of “disrespecting” Christians by considering keeping Congress in session in order to overcome GOP obstructionism. Rep. Steve King (R-IA) even went so far as to compare Democrats to Pontius Pilate, the ancient Roman official who sentenced Jesus to be crucified.[End] (Same link)

The Liberals are likened to the dude who sentenced Jesus to be crucified? Talk about trying to turn someone into a pariah!


So what can we do as Conservatives, to revive our message, to turn things around for Conservatism?

To start, change the message!

(Excerpt from the same link) For someone supposedly espousing Christian ideals, DeMint’s notion that God’s power can be limited by the federal government is a surprising argument. Indeed, one of the main tenets of Christian belief is that God is all-powerful – Matthew 19:26 is just one Biblical reference to God’s omnipotence. DeMint is vastly exaggerating the nominal increase in the size of government over the past two years.

DeMint then went on in the interview to make another outlandish statement: “We’ve found we can’t set up free societies around the world because they don’t have the moral underpinnings that come from Biblical faith”:
DeMINT: “You cannot have a free society that way. We’ve found we can’t set up free societies around the world because they don’t have the moral underpinnings that come from Biblical faith.”

In fact, the world’s largest democracy is India. The third most-populous democracy is Indonesia. Japan and Turkey are also high on the list. Despite not having the “moral underpinnings that come from Biblical faith” – Christians make up less than three percent of citizens in all these countries – these countries are clearly capable of maintaining free societies. (End)

See, Dix, one of those great Conservative men you admire, DeMint, that great Conservative message you praise, is……..is nuts! Wacko. Loony. Crazy. Off the wall. Bizarre. No, Dixie, thank God the American people are not as “conservative” as the Conservatives thought if conservatism means wacky, loony, crazy, off the wall and bizarre.

If you believe in the messages those buffoons put out then conservatism is dead. There will be no revival. Controlling greenhouse gases is like regulating God? Was Rep. Joe Barton on his 6th scotch and watching Monty Python when he thought of that?

I think the problem lies with the people who believe in conservatism but have never looked at the Republican Party. Republicans = conservatism so vote Republican. They’ve never actually studied the Republican Party. The actual members running for election. They couldn’t have because no one, absolutely no one, would vote for people who said things like that. It’s the ranting of mad men.

I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again, “To get along, you go along.” If the Repubs resign themselves to a passive position, which is highly unlikely to happen, they will never get votes next election.

We know the people are supportive of the ObamaCare ideal if not ObamaCare, per sé. Imagine if the Repubs spent time working on improving ObamaCare. I mean honestly and seriously improving it. I’m talking about a full government run medical system. Scrap Medicare and Medicaid and roll it all into one comprehensive plan. Maybe a little less home care but benefits starting at 60 instead of 65. Catch illnesses early. Or maybe more home care if it is less expensive than having people hospitalized (which it usually is). Or maybe government sponsored nurses aid courses so there will be people to check on the ill and infirm at home. Send a Conservative Rep to England and one to France and one to Australia and one to Sweden and one to Germany and one to Norway and one to Canada (Please, the most liberal of the lot) and have them find out what works in those countries and when they return sit down together and have a pow-wow. What politician doesn’t like sitting around and talking?

Then put their ideas forward. While Obama gets credit for ObamaCare the Repubs will get credit for fine tuning it. The Repubs save face while taking nothing away from the Dems. And, besides, as the old saying goes, “If you can’t beat them, join them.” ObamaCare is here to stay. Join the rest of the industrialized world and finally get a comprehensive medical plan. It’s going to happen so here is the chance for the Republicans to jump on board. But a serious plan. No old, tried, worn out ideas. No sneaky, little tricks. They may as well get some mileage out of something that is going to happen eventually and they will have the goodwill to bargain with on some other Democratic proposal.

This is one thing the Repubs can do and the people will back them. It just may be the spring board to a ’16 win! Show the people that the Romneys of the world have no place in the Republican Party. Show the people the Republicans really do give a damn. That's all. Just show the people that those who wish to be leaders really do give a damn about the people they want to lead. It's as easy as that.
 
Again, a "present" vote is neither a vote "for" or "against" anything. Conservatives aren't very smart if they vote "for" an increased tax on people earning over $250k, because that will be used against them come election time. Likewise, if they vote "against" the proposal, it will be spun into a "vote against a middle class tax cut" as you seem to want to do here. But a "present" vote is neither a vote "for" or "against" it is completely neutral. In other words, YOU did it, we didn't try to stop you and we didn't help you.


Sometimes logic flies over your head like the Canada Geese heading south. If the Repubs and the Dems both vote for raising taxes on the wealthy it can't be used against anyone because they both did it. If the Repubs vote "present" it means they have stood up for no one. Of course there's no surprise there. They don't give a damn about anyone anyway.
 
Well, apparently, you are all alone in your love of the idea, the rest of your butt buddies are here hurling insults and hate at me. Trying to spin "present" votes into opposition, as best they can. Sometimes, I honestly think, the ONLY thing that would truly satisfy the liberal left, is if every Republican went home and put a bullet through their head out of the sheer depression over being a Republican! Anything short of that, is not okay with liberals. We can't even vote "present" without some liberals screaming "obstruction!"

How about "To get along, you GO along." You SUPPORT legislation. You WORK together. Acting like spoiled brats, taking a passive-aggressive stance which is what voting "present" will be interpreted as, will do nothing for the Repubs.
 
How about "To get along, you GO along." You SUPPORT legislation. You WORK together. Acting like spoiled brats, taking a passive-aggressive stance which is what voting "present" will be interpreted as, will do nothing for the Repubs.

It will ensure continued losses for the GOP and eventual political extinction. :)
 
It will ensure continued losses for the GOP and eventual political extinction. :)

Exactly! It's like Thing1 wrote,
It's the legislative equivalent of picking up your marbles & going home. It's what sore losers do.

For some reason the Repubs just can't grasp it. It's like Rove during election night. He just couldn't comprehend how wrong he was.
 
Exactly! It's like Thing1 wrote,

For some reason the Repubs just can't grasp it. It's like Rove during election night. He just couldn't comprehend how wrong he was.

I don't give a shit if they never *get it*, so long as the majority of the country does. ;)
 
I agree Althea...this is a way, they think, to save face to avoid the baggers but it won't work. It doesn't matter why they do it just that they get out of the way. They don't lead, have no good ideas....lead, follow, or get the hell out of the way.

Can I ask a question, has there ever been a time when you, Althea and Bijou have ever disagreed? Just asking?
 
To start, change the message!

Nope.. WRONG thing to do. This is what Republicans have been trying to do since Reagan. Before Obama came along and blew everyone off the charts, George "Dubya" was the president who had spent more taxpayer money on social entitlement than any other president in history. John McCain did everything but sacrifice an evangelical before each campaign speech, to attract the non-evangelic vote. Mitt Romney kicked off his campaign in front of a stem cell research facility. And the more Conservatives have watered down what the message should be, the more liberals have clobbered them at the ballot box. Jim DeMint is 100% correct, core conservative principles include social conservatism, and there is no 'alternative' version of conservatism which will work.

Change the message to what? Something more LIBERAL? What purpose would that serve Conservatism? Why don't all Republicans just abandon Conservatism and the Republican party in a giant recanting, like the Democrats had over civil rights? Yeah, I guess you DO think that's what Conservatives should do, that or the bullet in the head idea I mentioned earlier.

But that's not what needs to happen here.
 
Sometimes logic flies over your head like the Canada Geese heading south. If the Repubs and the Dems both vote for raising taxes on the wealthy it can't be used against anyone because they both did it. If the Repubs vote "present" it means they have stood up for no one. Of course there's no surprise there. They don't give a damn about anyone anyway.

BINGO... Which is exactly why Republicans can't support it. If they vote "present" it means they also haven't opposed it. Good luck with spinning "present" votes into opposition. You'll look like a bunch of petulant idiots.

We can go back to the housing bubble crisis, which ultimately led to the economic calamity we are presently in. Democrats wanted too tinker with Freddy and Fanny, and they convinced enough Republicans (including Bush) to go along with them, and when it all went to shit, who got the blame? If they had simply voted "present" they could have said, "not us, we didn't have a thing to do with any of that, it was ALL the Democrats!" But the media and the liberals were successful at hanging at least some of the blame on Republicans, who capitulated to democrats and went along with the scheme.
 
I don't give a shit if they never *get it*, so long as the majority of the country does. ;)
Oh, they're going to 'get' it all right. Just as soon as they start having to garbage can dive for dinner. Which, at this rate, won't be long. ;)
 
It's the legislative equivalent of picking up your marbles & going home. It's what sore losers do.

You're a terrible loser when it comes to elections - a real baby. Again, ironic given what you posted on here when you thought Romney would be the winner.

Doesn't matter what I posted about what I thought Romney would do if he was the winner, he didn't win. Yeah, I am a sore loser, I am never going to like losing to liberals, and I'm never going to convert to being a liberal. I know that might come as a shock to many liberals, who somehow think that should happen after an election, that we should all just abandon our principles and go along with everything they want to do, but that's not going to happen with this old boy.

I had rather pick up my marbles and go home, than to sit there and be pelted in the head by my own marbles, being shot at me wit h a slingshot from punk liberals who want to have one-party government. I say, take the marbles, go home, and let the liberals see how they like playing marbles by themselves for a while.

My guess is, the animosity I am getting from the left on this, is for good reason, you don't want this at all. You know that what I am saying is the truth, and you will have to own every stinking bit of what happens, the results of your policies, whether you like it or not. You won't be able to claim Republicans obstructed you, or didn't give you what you wanted. Oh, you'll definitely try, just as you idiots are trying right now to turn "present" votes into opposition, and like you tried to blame lack of Republican support on the failure of Obamacare to give us an individual mandate. But I think the "present" votes make the "Blame Rhetoric" game go away, and it simply won't work anymore. You won't be able to blame your failures on people who voted "present." The more you try, the more ridiculous you will look to the typical voter.
 
It's amazing, isn't it? I suggest that we stand down and allow Democrats to do whatever they please, and I am bombarded by people who just can't stand not to hate and hurl insults. You'd think I had proposed erecting a statue of Hitler!



Obviously you don't comprehend the stark difference in voting "present" and voting "nay." Voting "present" is neither voting FOR or AGAINST. You say, "lead, follow, or get out of the way," well, we're getting out of the way, and letting you 'geniuses' call the shots! Whatever the hell you want to pass, go for it, we're not voting for it or against it. At the end of the day, how are you going to blame the results on us? We voted PRESENT!

You see, the days of manipulating reality are over. You can't use our votes against us if we simply vote "present" on everything. We've not taken a position of support or opposition, and you can't spin a "present" vote into "opposition" no matter how good you are.

They want the (R) vote; so that when the entire thing goes down the toilet, they can claim that it was a NON-PARTISAN VOTE and both sides are responsible for the problem.
 
That's the best way to help their constituents. They weren't elected to go along with liberals, that's for sure. They aren't getting re-elected by opposing liberals, and that's for sure as well. So the best way to represent their constituents is to not take a side, and vote "present" on everything. Now back when we had bipartisan government and a two-party system, they could go out there and tell their constituents they supported this or that, or they opposed this or that, but now we have the media in cahoots with the liberals, spinning their opposition into "obstruction" and making them the bad guys. There's no way to win when you're the bad guy.

Just wait until Obama voices his opinion on a bill and then go from there.
Then when people complain; just tell everyone that this what the majority wanted, so deal with it.
 
It's the legislative equivalent of picking up your marbles & going home. It's what sore losers do.

You're a terrible loser when it comes to elections - a real baby. Again, ironic given what you posted on here when you thought Romney would be the winner.

So that's what Obama was doing, when he voted "Present". He was being a sore loser!! Got it.
 
Looks good on paper, but I think you still lose points for not obstructing.

That would be true, if done without statements. With statements on 'the will of the people' and what one the think will happen. Not so much. Unless of course, sudden wealth creation and happy days arrive. Then yes, they will be an an extinct voice. If that happens.
 
They want the (R) vote; so that when the entire thing goes down the toilet, they can claim that it was a NON-PARTISAN VOTE and both sides are responsible for the problem.

Exactly, or worse yet, turn it around and claim it was the fault of the Republicans and not the Democrats who proposed it, like the Dodd-Frank tinkering with F&F and the housing bubble burst. If Republicans vote "present" they ostensibly wash their hands of the whole thing, they can't be blamed or credited for anything. We already know the liberal ideas will fail, they always do. So all we need to do is give them the rope they need to hang themselves, and they will oblige.

Meanwhile, smart ass libertarians, who thought they were being clever by sitting out the election or voting for Gary Johnson, will get a dose of pure unfettered liberal government. I think they need that, like a good fucking enema. Of all the people in the world who need to learn a lesson from 2012, it is the people who's ideology stood in the way of preventing this man's re-election. You couldn't stand Mitt Romney because he had an (R) by his name, fine... you get 100% liberalism 24/7/365. Maybe after you have enough of this liberal shit crammed down your throats, you'll reconsider defiantly standing on your principles and ignoring reality of the consequences? Maybe the "establishment elite" in the Republican party will get the message as well? You didn't want to listen to the Tea Party, you aren't interested in core conservatism, so fine... you'll get liberalism crammed down your throats for 4 years, and no one will lift a finger to prevent any of it. Maybe the next time a grass roots effort comes along to challenge the liberals, you'll all get on board with it, and we can win an election? If not, fine too... we'll just go down the tubes as a liberal dictatorship, and see how you like that!
 
Exactly, or worse yet, turn it around and claim it was the fault of the Republicans and not the Democrats who proposed it, like the Dodd-Frank tinkering with F&F and the housing bubble burst. If Republicans vote "present" they ostensibly wash their hands of the whole thing, they can't be blamed or credited for anything. We already know the liberal ideas will fail, they always do. So all we need to do is give them the rope they need to hang themselves, and they will oblige.

Meanwhile, smart ass libertarians, who thought they were being clever by sitting out the election or voting for Gary Johnson, will get a dose of pure unfettered liberal government. I think they need that, like a good fucking enema. Of all the people in the world who need to learn a lesson from 2012, it is the people who's ideology stood in the way of preventing this man's re-election. You couldn't stand Mitt Romney because he had an (R) by his name, fine... you get 100% liberalism 24/7/365. Maybe after you have enough of this liberal shit crammed down your throats, you'll reconsider defiantly standing on your principles and ignoring reality of the consequences? Maybe the "establishment elite" in the Republican party will get the message as well? You didn't want to listen to the Tea Party, you aren't interested in core conservatism, so fine... you'll get liberalism crammed down your throats for 4 years, and no one will lift a finger to prevent any of it. Maybe the next time a grass roots effort comes along to challenge the liberals, you'll all get on board with it, and we can win an election? If not, fine too... we'll just go down the tubes as a liberal dictatorship, and see how you like that!

I believe they actually think that by raising the taxes, on top 2%, that it's going to solve the budget problems; but once those taxes get passed on to everyone, they're going to scream and hollar.
The only reason they're for it now; is because they actuallly think that they are immune from seeing more money come out of their own paychecks.
 
Back
Top