Type to search

The GOP, An Incoherent Mess

Featured Post Memo Pad National News Politics Top News

The GOP, An Incoherent Mess

Share
Republican U.S. presidential candidate Trump points at rival candidate Cruz during a break at the U.S. Republican presidential candidates debate in Detroit

“If he was for it, we had to be against it.”

— Former U.S. Sen. George Voinovich quoted in “The New New Deal” by Michael Grunwald

The “he” is President Obama. The “we” is the Republican Party. And it is not coincidental that as the former pushes toward the end of his second term, the latter is coming apart.

The GOP is an incoherent mess. Republican-on-Republican rhetorical violence has become commonplace. Party members find themselves mulling whether to break away and form a third party or unite behind a coarse, blustering bigot whose scapegoating and strongman rhetoric has Holocaust survivors comparing him to Hitler.

The situation is so objectively and transparently grim that many on the right no longer even bother to spin it. “I’m a lifelong Republican,” tweeted historian Max Boot last week, “but (the) Trump surge proves that every bad thing Democrats have ever said about GOP is basically true.”

“It would be terrible,” wrote Wall Street Journal columnist Bret Stephens last week, “to think that the left was right about the right all these years.”

But it can be argued that Trump is less the cause than an inevitable effect of the party’s looming disintegration. It can be argued that what’s really destroying the Republican Party is the Republican Party.

The popular storyline goes that voters are seeking political outsiders this year in their frustration over a government where the legislative gears are frozen and nothing gets done. What that storyline forgets is that this gridlock was by design, that GOP leaders held a meeting on the very evening of the president’s first inauguration and explicitly decided upon a policy of non-cooperation to deny him anything approaching a bipartisan triumph.

The party followed this tactic with such lockstep discipline and cynical disregard for the national welfare that in 2010, seven Republican co-sponsors of a resolution to create a deficit reduction task force voted against their own bill because Obama came out for it. They feared its passage might make him look good.

In the book quoted above, Michael Grunwald distilled the GOP’s thinking as follows: “As long as Republicans refused to follow his lead, Americans would see partisan food fights and conclude that Obama had failed to produce change.”

Republicans and their media accomplices buttressed that strategy with a campaign of insult and disrespect designed to delegitimize Obama. With their endless birther stupidity, their death panels idiocy, their constant budget brinksmanship and their cries of, “I want my country back!” they stoked in the public nothing less than hatred for the interloper in the White House who’d had the nerve to be elected president.

And the strategy worked, hobbling and frustrating Obama. But as a bullet doesn’t care who it hits and a fire doesn’t care who it burns, the forces of ignorance and unreason, grievance and fear the Republicans calculatedly unleashed have not only wounded the president. No, it becomes more apparent every day that those forces have gravely wounded politics itself, meaning the idea that we can — or even should — reason together, compromise, form consensus.

There is a sense of just deserts in watching panicked Republicans try to stop Trump as he goose-steps toward coronation, but it is tempered by the realization that there’s far more at stake here than the GOP’s comeuppance.

This is our country we’re talking about. This is its future we choose in November. And any future presided over by “President Trump” is too apocalyptic to contemplate. Yet, the possibility is there, and that’s sobering.

It is bad enough the Republicans may have destroyed themselves. One wonders whether they will take America with them.

(Leonard Pitts is a columnist for The Miami Herald, 1 Herald Plaza, Miami, Fla., 33132. Readers may contact him via e-mail at lpitts@miamiherald.com.)

(c) 2016 THE MIAMI HERALD DISTRIBUTED BY TRIBUNE CONTENT AGENCY, LLC.

Photo: Republican U.S. presidential candidate Donald Trump points at rival candidate Ted Cruz (not pictured) during a break at the U.S. Republican presidential candidates debate in Detroit, Michigan, March 3, 2016. REUTERS/Rebecca Cook

Tags:
Leonard Pitts Jr.

Leonard Pitts Jr. is a nationally syndicated commentator, journalist, and novelist. Pitts' column for the Miami Herald deals with the intersection between race, politics, and culture, and has won him multiple awards including a Pulitzer Prize in 2004.

The highly regarded novel, Freeman (2009), is his most recent book.

  • 1

145 Comments

  1. Dominick Vila March 4, 2016

    The fact that Donald Trump has managed to destroy everything the Republican party once stood for is not even a debatable question. What remains to be seen is whether or not a man without principles, civility, or a defined ideology, manages to destroy our society, our democracy, and our freedoms.
    Our future does not depend on the ability of the GOP establishment to stop Trump. They have already demonstrated that they cannot do that. It is up to us, the majority, to stop him, and the only way we can do that is to VOTE!

    Reply
    1. RED March 4, 2016

      I gotta disagree Dominick. Trump hasn’t destroyed everything the Con Party stands for, he has simply exposed what it stands for. I don’t believe in this mythical grand old party routine about how Cons used to be a decent party. I guess if you got to back or something, then perhaps all Cons weren’t scumbags, although I’m not even sure Republican equaled Conservative back then. But in my life time the Con party has always been the party of ignorant scumbag racists devoid of any knowledge beyond their own trailer park. i promise you a large number of Cons couldn’t find the UK on a map and I suspect none of them could find Syria. The same might be said of most Democrats as well, but it’s only the Cons that worship this ignorance as virtue. Truly it’s a sickness.

      1. Dominick Vila March 4, 2016

        What is really important is not the damage that Donald Trump has inflicted on the GOP, and conservative values in general, but the fact that he has convinced a large segment of our electoral that government and conventional politics are an evil concept and the root of all evils.
        He is selling himself not only as an outsider, but as a deal maker, at a time when our political process is paralyzed by obstructionism, lack of pragmatism, unwillingness to compromise, and intense hatred towards the first black U.S. President.
        The fact that Trump’s promise to get things done, largely by cutting deals, flies in the face of the general assumption that Republicans are unwilling to compromise. Or could it be that his followers don’t understand what he is saying, and the implications or needs to achieve what he is proposing.
        Fortunately for us, the level of dissatisfaction with the establishment, and government in general, is not yet evident among Democrats and Independents. If that sentiment spreads, with us relying on two Washington insiders, we will be in deep trouble in November.

  2. I will continue to work for Sanders’ win.
    If he fails, I will hold my nose for that uninspiring mess named Hillary.
    We cannot risk Trump.

    Reply
    1. mike March 4, 2016

      I don’t like trump. What you should be watching is Pagliano’s immunity in the criminal investigation, and it is a criminal investigation, of Hillary’ server.

      1. If anything comes of the server–so what?
        Even then, Hillary will be less dangerous to American Democracy than Trump is.

        1. mike March 4, 2016

          “So what,” Really?? The server has already damaged her, what you seem to ignore is the fact the investigation has gone far beyond how information jumped from secure systems to Hillary’s server but “how and why Hillary’s server existed in the first place.” Did she use a personal server to hide information from Fed. govt and the American People? You better started warming up Biden. The fun is just beginning for November.
          I think you have backwards to the danger to Democracy.

          1. None of which truly endangers Democracy in the least.
            Placing a reckless hothead in charge of the Atomic Arsenal does .

          2. mike March 4, 2016

            Only in your fantasy world is Hillary not a danger to democracy. ?

          3. “Come, come, my conservative friend, wipe the dew off your spectacles, and see that the world is moving.”

            ~~~~~~~~Elizabeth Cady Stanton, 1895.

          4. mike March 4, 2016

            LOL!
            “Come, come, my progressive friend, wipe the dung off your spectacles, and see that the world is moving.”

          5. You switched “progressive” for “conservative”, and dung for dew–how original!

            Did you make that up all by your little lonesome, Cupcake?

          6. mike March 4, 2016

            What a great observation with the words changed. Good for you.
            What I find funny, you don’t think “her personal server” has not hurt her. Look at ther numbers from a year ago when the NYT’s disclosed her server. Her numbers keep tanking. She is been caught lying and she is now considered untrustworthy.
            End of story.

          7. Cloudherder March 7, 2016

            Personal servers are routinely used by both parties. Quit trying to make it seem nefarious in your ignorance.

          8. mike March 7, 2016

            Name past and present cabinet members using personal servers to conduct govt. business. BTW, you can’t!
            No wonder you like Hillary, you are as big a liar as Hillary.

          9. bobnstuff March 7, 2016

            Colin Powell use AOL. Because the government system is slow and out of date many people in our government have used their own email. Hillary’s server was most likely better then and more secure then the government one. How many government agencies have been hacked?

          10. mike March 7, 2016

            I see you are acting stupidly again. It’s the Server, Stupid!
            Powell’s AOL emails went through his private server, is that correct? SD found a huge 2 classified emails in Powell’s but Hillary has over 2000.
            And you know for sure her server was never hacked, is that correct? Even though Sidney Blumenthal’s, her good friend feeding her info on Libya, was hacked containing her email address.
            Sure the govt. system was hacked, a system much more sophisticated and secure, but you think an unsecured server couldn’t or wouldn’t be hacked. Talk about a delusional person I think you take the cake.

          11. bobnstuff March 7, 2016

            You don’t know much about how the internet works do you. You don’t have a server in your house you have a router that lets you connect to a server that is public. In Powell’s case AOL ran the server he used. We never saw Powell’s emails. There is no way of saying how many classified email he got. Just because someone has your Email address doesn’t mean they can hack you. The government is very bad when it come to IT. their systems are out of date and badly designed. It’s so bad the different branches can’t share data. I live in a area that is one of the computer centers of the world and run with the techies and take my word for it the government system is just like most of what the government does slow and awkward. Why do you insist that her server was unsecured, according to her IT people no one hacked her system. Just to prove how out of date the government is Hillary used a BlackBerry probably the dumbest smart phone I have ever owned.

          12. mike March 7, 2016

            What is wrong with you.
            You didn’t see Powell’s account but the State Department did and they announced they found a whopping TWO(2) classified emails sent to his personal account and 10 sent to Rice’s senior aides(none to Rice).Go read the NYT’s.
            BTW, It is against the law to have classified information outside a secure govt. account. Just another inconvenient truth for you to roll around in that vacuous head
            Here is what the SD IG said. “Information in Hillary’s emails should have been recognized as secret or confidential because of the subjects and annotations cautioning against distribution.” Hillary has over 2000.
            It is almost breathtaking how uninformed you are!! I am not surprised one bit.

          13. bobnstuff March 7, 2016

            those 2000 emails were classified after they were sent. Powell didn’t keep his emails. You are the one who live and dies on misinformation. You don’t even know what a server does or even what it is but you go on repeating the twisted lies of the fake scandal. You don’t even know what the real problem with how people in our government handle information. You and those fools in congress that are investigating the wrong thing. They don’t care about what is or isn’t classified, they will leak it anyway without fear. They just want to get Hillary. Congress is a joke as are these endless hearing on things that really don’t matter. You can keep repeating your worthless complaints and keep lying to yourself. Just for the record there is no secure government account. Ask any computer tech and they will tell you.http://www.flukenetworks.com/expertise/industry/federal-government

          14. mike March 7, 2016

            I know far more than you! You proved it for me by not knowing the facts.
            No, there were 144 that were marked top secret at origination, you dolt.
            Read and weep! Your ignorance of the facts continues.
            http://www.cnn.com/2016/02/04/politics/hillary-clinton-email-classified-colin-powell-condoleezza-rice/index.html
            I told you to go read NYT’s article but you are too lazy and by not reading it you look even more stupid.

      2. RED March 4, 2016

        You know, I’m certainly not a Hillary cheer leader, I personally believe she is nothing but Con lite, and not even that lite. But I’m always wondering who is gonna prosecute HRC? The FBI? You mean the organization headed by appointees of the current President who see HRC as the protector of his legacy? Personally, I think the idea that HRC could be prosecuted, guilty or not, is ridiculous and shows a fundamental blindness of how the United States actually works for those with money and power. Rest assured that a jay walking ticket could put you in jail and god forbid if you catch a buzz, you won’t see your kids grow up except on visitation days. But if you’re a wealthy connected politician, there’s no system that holds these people accountable. I mean, sure there are people who wanna take you down and expose scandals but it never goes to criminal charges, jails are built for the peasants, not the aristocrats and everyone in the game knows this.

        1. mike March 4, 2016

          We will see! FBI doesn’t indict, they can recommend, if DOJ doesn’t indict there will be such a backlash. If you don’t think information won’t be leaked you are living in another world.
          No blindness by me. What I do know the majority of American people know she used an unauthorized, unprotected server, deleted thousands of emails, received emails almost verbatim to that of classified documents. If she can seriously bend the rules then, what will keep her from doing much worse as president?

          1. RED March 4, 2016

            It kinda seems like you missed the point of my comment. It makes me wonder if you’re a Con? You see. I wasn’t defending Hillary, which you seem to have missed in your zeal to indict her. I simply pointed out the fact that people like Hillary Clinton don’t pay for crimes in the same way the peasants do. Its why Bob McDonald, Rick Snyder .Richard Nixon, and many other members of the aristocracy have never seen the inside of a jail. And that’s just the facts, if you believe equal justice exists in the USA, you’re a fool.

          2. mike March 4, 2016

            Far from foolish! Rick Snyder? Really! When did the trial start? Bob McDonald of the Veterans Affairs? How about Bob McDonnell from Va, and his appeal is pending. Now that’s funny. What you are missing is the fact if DOJ doesn’t indict and if the facts are there that she is guilty(and the facts will come out) all hell will break loose.
            What you seem to ignore is if the facts show she is guilty it will Obama, a dogmatic ideologue, that will be the one protecting her from jail.

          3. RED March 4, 2016

            Ok, I’m not quite certain if you’re addressing my comments or someone else’s? I don’t know where you get that someone said McDonald was from Veterans Affairs instead of Virginia, that’s certainly not anything I said or implied. But judging from your rabid defense of these particular guilty Cons and your over the top certainty that HRC has committed a crime and not be able to realize that my comments are not in defense of her, it’s quite clear you have a severe case of the Con sickness. And just for your information, genius, they way most of these criminals get away with their crimes is that there is never a trial. Are you that in the dark and brainwashed?

          4. mike March 4, 2016

            You are the one who used Bob McDonald, not seeing the inside a jail. Have you got another person with same name? Or did you mean McDonnell?
            Tell me then, when did Rick Syder take a plea? Or McDonald commit a criminal act. Come on genius you’re the one making the statement Synder, McDonald, Nixon “have never seen the inside of a jail.”
            No, you made a stupid comment, live with it.
            Obama will protect her and this country will pay.

          5. Dominick Vila March 4, 2016

            I agree with your point regarding the difference between justice for the rich and powerful; and what applies to the rest of us.
            However, when it comes to Hillary Clinton and her decision to use a private server to exchange government information, instead of the usual .gov that most civil servants and elected officials use, what we must keep in mind is that she did not violate any laws. She violated guidelines that suggest the proper way for handling government information. It is also important to point out that the e-mails she sent, and the ones she received from State Department officials, were not classified when they were sent received. The Office of the Inspector General reclassified them after this “scandal” emerged and the e-mails in question were reviewed. There is no question that she exhibited poor judgment, particularly knowing that both her and her husband have been under a microscope since Bill was the Governor of Arkansas, but poor judgment – on an isolated case – is neither reason for prosecution, nor reason to reject her candidacy.

          6. pisces63 March 4, 2016

            Plus, I work for a company, though not government, but we deal with highly sensitive information on government guiidelines. I can code my e-mails depending to whom they are sent OR request it done.

          7. pisces63 March 4, 2016

            So did Rice and Powell which they admitted to. Now what. Oh, yes, she is under the black president. They were under the white idiot who got us into the Iraq war bogusly. PLUS, there were 10+ attacks on consulates and embassy under Bush. One in a friendly, Saudi Arabia with 10 dead with a total of 100 and no hearings. Yet, they had none for Reagan and the Marines barracks bombing. Really. How facetious can you get. You’re as pathetic as those dickless wonders last night. PUN intended.

          8. mike March 4, 2016

            Get your head out of your A$$. This is about her PERSONAL SERVER. To try and compare Hilary’s 1800 classified emails on her personal server to Rice’s 10 or 12 on a govt. email system or Powell’s 2 on the govt. email system shows how delusional you are. For the record, prove that they(rice/Powell) had their own servers. It’s the server, stupid.
            Gee, you forgot to mention the hundreds of embassy deaths under Billy Boy.

          9. Joan March 6, 2016

            There are none so blind as those who refuse to see. Facts are lies if they do not confirm to a world view informed by Rush and other hate merchants. There is no reference that can not be discredited by it’s failure to be touted on Fox News. Irony and nuance are lost on them. Thanks for trying.

          10. charleo1 March 6, 2016

            Here’s how it will go. Clinton, having already been indicted, tried, and convicted of recklessly handling top secrets, by a fact inventing, conspiracy filled, insanely political, RW. Will not in fact be charged with any crimes. Due entirely to the fact that no crime was ever committed. But in fact, will be elected. Then, the same RWNJs will do what they have always do when they lose. Blame the gov. In Hillary’s case, blame the FBI, the DOJ, the liberal press, probably George Soros, and of course, Obama. Then, the whole sorted thing all goes into a box they’ll drag out and talk about for years as if the person in question was convicted back in the day. And how do I now this? Because it’s how they behave in response to any Democratic Administration. Why? It’s what they do for any number of reasons. No vision, no solutions, lazy, afraid the other Party will get the credit. A lot of reasons, all political. But bottom line, when the voters decide to go another way, they don’t help govern, they become arsonists, and insurgents. Which makes them divisive, obstructive, and worse than totally useless. But still, all things considered, less destructive than when they are in control of Congress, and have an idiot in the Oval Office signing their bills. That’s actually what the majority of Americans have been knowing about them for some time now. That’s most Americans, not you obviously. So what’s up with you? Slow reader? Still listening to Fox, and Limbaugh? Still sipping the Kool Aid are we?

          11. mike March 6, 2016

            Keep your day job because as a prognosticator you have/will strike out again.
            But thanks for another chuckle with your delusional post.
            So for the record. NYT’s is a RW paper because they broke the story of her server, Right?
            For the record, State Department giving immunity to Pagliano is a RW organization. Right? Immunity isn’t given for a “security review” as Clinton claims. This a criminal investigation.
            We will see if she is indicted but what we do know it is getting worse for her politically. What she won’t/can’t answer truthfully is why she had a server in the first place. How could Top Secret that were markded TS get on her server almost verbatim.

            You said, “Due entirely to the fact that no crime was ever committed.” I guess you ignore the numberous forms she signed on becoming Sectretary, especially form 312.
            As to the rest of your post, more ignorant rantings from you. So the 44 years the dems held the House and except for a few years the dems did not hold the Senate during the same time, the dems never opposed/obstructed a Republican president. I think the slow reader, kool aid drinker is all yours.

          12. charleo1 March 6, 2016

            If I was Pagliano I would request immunity. Because after the false allegations, and the phony charges amount to nothing, they are going to want to go after some little somebody, just like this guy in order to give the illusion there was something there, Like I said, I’ve watched them since they were going after Bill Clinton over 20 years ago. And 50 million dollars later, and what did they finally get him on? Sex. Money I’m sure they consider well spent, due to the fact it was not their money.

            As to the history of this kind of stuff, the Democrats didn’t cause Nixon’s problems, and didn’t move to impeach him. Likewise, with Reagan’s law breaking stunt of selling arms to Iran to pay for Congressionally forbidden weapons to rebels in Nicaragua. No million dollar dog and pony shows. Then, there was Bush’s paper thin justifications for invading Iraq, that President Obama demurred to launch a single investigation of. Preferring as he put it, to look forward not backward.

            So now history doesn’t agree with your position either. Now what? Again, say nothing to defend yourself, claiming you’re amused?

          13. mike March 6, 2016

            False allegations/phony charges? I see your head is where the sun doesn’t shine again. Keep trying with your silly statements. Immunity is used in Criminal Investigation and must have valuable information to receive it. He didn’t set up server all by himself.
            I see you continue to ignore the numerous forms she signed about the handling of TS, classified documents. What we learned yesterday she personally WROTE 144 classified emails on her private server. She has again been caught in another lie. Remember when she said “I did not receive or send classified information.”
            You have a terribly flawed candidate perceived as a liar, untrustworthy.
            BTW, your posts do keep me amused because your attempt of justifying her “reckless” actions all done by her own hand. No right wing conspiracy .

          14. Insinnergy March 6, 2016

            What amazes me is that, even given present developments named Trump, you can gaze into the gaping anus that is the present day GOP and exclaim how much it smells like flowers… then complain the the Democrats stuff stinks.
            Impressive avoidance there.

          15. mike March 6, 2016

            You must have looked in the mirror and realized it was you and your thoughts.

          16. Insinnergy March 6, 2016

            George Bush and Dick Cheney took us to WAR and spent upwards of 6 trillion dollars and 4,000 American lives… all based on a lie… and gave us Isis.

            …Yeah… email servers and the forms you fill in before you agree to have a government email address are totally the highest priority here.

            Moron.

            The cognitive dissonance is overwhelmingly strong in you people.

          17. mike March 6, 2016

            Still living in the past, so sad. ISIS was a JV team and now a major threat to the West. Get off your high horse. This is now and Obama hasn’t/doesn’t have a clue how to stop ISIS.
            You ignorance is breathtaking. The forms she signed HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH EMAILS AND EVERYTHING TO DO WITH HANDLING TOP SECRET/CLASSIFIED DOCUMENTS.
            “Email Servers” are you this big an idiot. Name me one other cabinet member who had their own server. You also ignore or don’t know that Obama directed all cabinet members, if you are going to have a non-govt email address, to use the federal system-NOT HER OWN SERVER SYSTEM.
            No, the cognitive dissonance is overwhelming yours.

          18. TZToronto March 6, 2016

            We can expect Vince Foster and Whitewater to be dredged up again, not to mention Benghazi. After all, Republicans never met a non-scandal they didn’t like.

          19. Cloudherder March 7, 2016

            I don’t know how they ever thought Vince Foster, who suffered from depression and was Hillary’s best friend, could be murdered by them. How did this stupid conspiracy ever come about? I know it sprang up during the stupid “Whitewater” fiasco but ? Why does the GOP keep doing this? Why haven’t other Republicans caught on to this and said STOP!

          20. TZToronto March 7, 2016

            Doin’ the same thing over and over and expecting a different result. You know what they call that: Being a Republican!

          21. plc97477 March 7, 2016

            Also makes them treasonous but that too gets a pass.

  3. I of John March 4, 2016

    This article outlines the political mess quite well but misses one more aspect of it. Our political system is not just disfunctional but coming apart at the seams. Because of excessive gerrymandering by the GOP and a lack of democratic voter turnout in off year elections, the RNC holds more elected positions at state, federal and local levels. This means that as things stand and the RNC slowly breaks apart, the whole of our system could well follow.

    Reply
    1. Dominick Vila March 4, 2016

      Money and gerrymandering are two reasons for the outcome of the last two elections, but the most important reason for those debacles is the fact that a large percentage of registered Democrats don’t bother to vote in midterm elections. We have to find a way to motivate and mobilize our base, or what happened in 2014 is bound to happen again and again, with horrendous consequences. Hopefully, the probability of a Trump presidency and a Republican controlled Congress choosing as many as three Supreme Court Justices during the next four years will be enough to convince every Democrats to get off their butts and vote.

      1. I of John March 4, 2016

        Absolutely, better turn out would help a get deal. Holding elected politicians accountable is a necessity.

      2. mike March 4, 2016

        You are expecting far too much of those who have a long history of not voting in the midterms. They are the least informed, enlightened, intelligent and definitely least motivated to know the truth. That includes both sides but your side takes the cake.
        BTW, the right feels the same as to why Hillary shouldn’t be president and picking SCOTUS. Under Hill the constitution will be scrapped.
        What is interesting the lack of enthusiasm in this election cycle on your side. Did I see participation is down 30% by dems. What choices on your side, a Liar or Socialist! We are almost as bad. ?

        1. TZToronto March 6, 2016

          It is Trump, not HRC, who is bellowing about doing becoming a dictator. His “I’ll do his” and “I’ll do that” ignore the fact that most of what he’s yelling about would need funding from Congress or would not be possible in any case. His wall is an unnecessary folly, and his approach to foreign policy assumes US control over the entire planet (which most of his supporters assume anyway). No, if any Republican wins The White House, that would mean Republican majorities in both houses and, effectively, a dictatorship of the far right.

          1. mike March 6, 2016

            Look, I don’t like Trump. I would prefer Kasich.
            Trump believes he can get things done by compromising. Good luck with that.
            Obama’s controll of the Fed. Govt. in 2009/10 wasn’t a dictatorship, is that correct? But if the Republican Party has control of Fed. Govt. it is a dictatorship. What a silly statement on your part.

          2. TZToronto March 6, 2016

            Perhaps I didn’t make my point well enough. My point was that if a President Trump has a Republican House and Senate, he’ll be able to get legislation passed that will effectively make him a dictator. (And a right-wing Supreme Court will support him.) Obama has not had a Democratic House and Senate to work with and has had to resort to executive orders to do what he can to administer the Executive branch. Just as the Legislative branch is not subject to many of the laws it passes, since the laws are administered by the Executive branch, so it is that the Executive branch is not subject, in many cases to the will of Congress. In addition, I don’t believe that Trump has an ounce of good will in his body, but I do believe that Obama is essentially a good man.

          3. mike March 6, 2016

            So Obama didn’t have controll of the legislative(House & Senate) and executive branches in 2009/10. Is that correct?
            If you think that you are delusional.

          4. TZToronto March 6, 2016

            You’ve proved my point. If he had been a dictator, the U.S. would have single-payer health insurance, and the Guantanamo prison would be closed..

          5. mike March 6, 2016

            No you imbecile, democratic leadership nixed the legislation for single payer. It still didn’t matter because the left lost the house in the 2010 mid-terms anyway.
            As to Guantanamo, again democratic leadership wouldn’t support closing.

          6. Paragryne March 6, 2016

            You have the nerve to call the Commenter, who has made reasonable and cogent compliments an imbecile? I suggest you read your own remarks and apply that term to yourself.

          7. TZToronto March 6, 2016

            Gracias, amigo.

          8. mike March 6, 2016

            LOL!! Here is his comment. “Obama has not had a Democratic House and Senate to work with and has had to resort to executive orders to do what he can to administer the Executive branch.” Actually go read the rest of his posts and see his silly and imbecilic Dictator remarks.
            Democrats in congress worried about a backlash voting for a single payer system so they settled on Obamacare but still lost their seats.
            The same for Guantanamo, you forget Durbin, Harkins, Levins, Leahy, etc.voted against the funding to closing Gitmo and bringing prisoners to U.S.
            Democrats wanted neither.

          9. Paragryne March 6, 2016

            I can read. You’re clearly in over your head for this conversation. Perhaps Redstate would be more suitable to the level of discourse you prefer.

          10. mike March 6, 2016

            Oh, you might know how to read but your comprehension is lacking.
            If you could you would refute but it was even beyond your grasp of the facts.
            Did Obama/democrats have control over two branches of Federal govt. in 2009/2010? TZ couldn’t remember.
            Nice try, but no cigar.

          11. Paragryne March 6, 2016

            Do you know what the priority was in 2009-2010?

          12. mike March 6, 2016

            Don’t change the subject! Answer the question about who controlled two branches of fed. Govt. in 2009/10.
            TZ’s stupid remark that if trump was president and republicans controlled Congress he would effectively be a dictator but when challenged when Obama/ dems controlled two branches it is not. What a stupid and ignorant statement. Now how many irepublicans voted for stimulus and Obamacare? Wasn’t Obama effectively a dictator?

          13. Paragryne March 6, 2016

            What was the priority in 2009-2010, regardless of the makeup of Congress?

          14. mike March 6, 2016

            So explain how Obamacare and stimulus was passed without one republican vote.

          15. Paragryne March 6, 2016

            Because Democrats are smarter than Republicans. It’s a scientific fact, and I can link to it if you wish.

            Here’s the explanation.

            http://www.briansussman.com/politics/how-obamacare-became-law/
            http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/03/21/AR2010032100943.html

          16. mike March 6, 2016

            Wrong again! Not Smarter just more devious.
            I guess you didn’t read the last paragraph of the sussman article. So both of the “Acts” were able to pass both houses of Congress and sent to President Obama for his signature without a single Republican vote in favor of the legislation. The American system of governance was shafted. To quote Democrat Rep. Alcee Hastings of the House Rules Committee during the bill process: “We’re making up the rules as we go along.”
            What is sad about your comment is you think they were so smart but yet both programs were built on lies and both failed to accomplish the goals of the legislation. Obamacare spiraling downward and a stagnant economy from the stimulus

            “The American system of governance was SHAFTED.” ONLY A LYING UNPRINCIPLED DEMOCRAT WOULD BE PROUD AND BRAGGING ABOUT IT.

          17. Paragryne March 6, 2016

            I’ve read a lot of articles, you’ve read maybe two.

            You’re mad because not only did I show you that Obama did not have the majority he needed (Republicans were dishonest and unprincipled and brag about it, by the way) but also how Obamacare was passed. You’re a liar or are completely stupid if you think Obamacare is on a downward spiral and the economy is stagnant. But who says you have to be either one or the other? Seeing how you’re just trolling, I’d say you’re both.

          18. mike March 6, 2016

            Why would I be mad, you couldn’t prove TZ post had any merit. All you verified was the dems would go to any length, to shaft the system for power, nothing to be proud of.

            Still having a good laugh!
            And you’re an idiot if you ignore the facts. Costs are higher no lower, this year 20 million expected to enroll only 12 million did, 1/2 exchanges gone belly up. Most if not all insurance company losing millions. Majority of Americans are against it. Did it help pre-existing? Yes! Almost everything Obama promised was a lie, shovel ready jobs in stimulus.

          19. Aaron_of_Portsmouth March 7, 2016

            Keep trying, Mike. You’re within sensor range, but still light-years away from the ballpark.

          20. mike March 7, 2016

            I don’t need to keep trying. It is you that can’t refute the facts.
            Nice try but no cigar for you.

          21. Aaron_of_Portsmouth March 7, 2016

            Sure Mikey, whatever you say. Y’all come back now, ya’ hear?

          22. mike March 7, 2016

            ?
            Can’t refute, can you? What a joke you are.

          23. plc97477 March 7, 2016

            If he lives in a red state the economy could actually be pretty stagnant. Red states have not yet gotten the memo that things are better now.

          24. mike March 6, 2016

            Still can’t answer the question, so you try a change, ignore, deflect the question.
            So sad!

          25. mike March 6, 2016

            I don’t think so.
            Now where did TZ use supermajority! Never! He said if trump is pres. and republicans controll(have majority) then trump could effectively be a dictator.
            Go look at his posts.

            No way in hell do I need to apologize to TZ.

          26. Paragryne March 6, 2016

            I didn’t think you would because your comments have shown me what kind of person you are. Small, petty and classless. Republican, perchance?

          27. mike March 6, 2016

            ROFLMAO!
            Only in your pea brain.
            Can’t prove, so you try to go personal.
            I am having a wonderful laugh again with your stupid post.

          28. Insinnergy March 6, 2016

            You are confusing Obama and Trump. They are not remotely the same.

            Based on Obama’s pre-election stated intentions it was obvious that he was not a dictator and would not act like one. Irrespective of this he was labelled a dictator by the GOP repeatedly to anger their base.

            Based on Trump’s Hitleresque pre-election stated intentions, his temper tantrums and his incredibly thin skin, I’d say it is perfectly reasonable to consider the possibility that Trump will act like a dictator BECAUSE HE HAS ACTUALLY STATED MANY DICTATOR-LIKE THINGS HE WILL DO.

            I realise, from reading your comments above, that you are too stupid to get the distinction, but I’ll post this for everyone else’s enjoyment.

          29. mike March 6, 2016

            Only in your pea brain is there any confusion. Only TZ and you are having thinking problems. I asked TZ specific questions about 2009/10 and democratic control of Congress and executive branch and his stupid assumption of what a trump presidency would be.

          30. ResqDogz March 7, 2016

            He is simply demonstrating his stereotypical, Trump-ish, petulant, insulting, obstreperous negativity: There’s no question which side of the Repugnican wall/self-divide he will fall on…

          31. plc97477 March 7, 2016

            Not to mention his small hands. Sorry I couldn’t help myself.

          32. TZToronto March 6, 2016

            You’ve proved my point again. Any respectable dictator would have shut down Congress, put all the Senators and Reps in jail–without trial– and closed the Supreme Court, too. Did Obama do those things? No! So how can you says he’s acted like a dictator? (And I don’t recall any news stories about Obama going around confiscating guns, either.) Some dictator!

          33. mike March 6, 2016

            You really are a Mental Midget.
            I never said Obama acted like a dictator. You made the point if Trump had a republican House and Senate he would effectively act like a Dictator getting legislature passed.
            Here is what I said. Read and weep you dolt. Obama’s control of the Fed. Govt. in 2009/10 wasn’t a dictatorship, is that correct? But if the Republican Party has control of Fed. Govt. it is a dictatorship. What a silly statement on your part.

          34. Independent1 March 7, 2016

            Just more of your fabrications of reality – single payer was nixed because there were numerous politicians on both sides of the aisle in the House and Senate who would not support single payer.

          35. mike March 7, 2016

            That’s what I said you dipsh_t.
            “No you imbecile, democratic leadership nixed the legislation for single payer. It still didn’t matter because the left lost the house in the 2010 mid-terms anyway.”
            Democrats contolled congress and it was the democrats who balked at a single payer. Even a Chump like you knows the right was never for it.
            Go stick your head back up where the sun doesn’t shine.

          36. Independent1 March 7, 2016

            Of course they nixed it!! What was the sense of wasting their time pushing for something that had no chance of passing?? That’s only something clueless idiots like Republican do!!

          37. Independent1 March 7, 2016

            That is correct – with Emperor Mitch using the fake filibuster since 2006, the Dems only had a Super Majority in the Senate for 3-5 months in 2009 PERIOD!! (They didn’t get a super majority until Al Franken’s election was validated in July of 2009 and Ted Kennedy died on 8/15/2009 destroying the Super Majority and it took a while for Patrick to appoint Ted’s replacement and not much was accomplished in late 2009 except for Obamacare. And then Scott Brown replaced Ted in January 2010. 3-5 Months in the past 21 year!!! That’s all the control the Dems have had.)

          38. mike March 7, 2016

            You really are laughable.
            TZ was not talking about “supermajority” Chump. Here is what he said “President Trump has a Republican House and Senate, he’ll be able to get legislation passed that will effectively make him a dictator.” Where is supermajority in his post? For you to say that a democratic majority doesn’t control the agenda is ludicrous.

          39. Independent1 March 7, 2016

            Well turkey!! When the majority leader of the minority, Emperor Mitch chooses to use the fake filibuster to control every piece of legislation that gets voted on by the Senate – then the Republicans are essentially controlling Congress!! And that’s what they’ve been doing for the past 20 years except for about 5 months in 2009.

          40. mike March 7, 2016

            More of your delusional posts. You keep ignoring TZ’s stupid remark about trump being “effectively” a dictator with a republican congress.
            What is hilarious is your inability to acknowledge democrats also use the filibuster. It’s always the right who is at fault. You are nothing more than disengenuos zealot.

          41. Independent1 March 7, 2016

            Democrats HAVE NEVER used the FAKE FILIBUSTER like Mitch has used it the past 8-9 YEAR!!! NEVER!!! MORE THAN 425 TIMES!! YOU PATHOLOGICAL LIAR!!!!!!!!!

          42. timmfr30 March 7, 2016

            sip sip lizard

          43. mike March 7, 2016

            LOL!
            Back at ya!

        2. Independent1 March 6, 2016

          Are you aware there chump that so far in the primaries that Hillary has gotten about 1/2 a million more votes than trump?? This drawback by the Democrats is nothing more than just right-wing propaganda.

          1. mike March 7, 2016

            I see you are regurgitating Hillary’s attempt to not answer a question about her email debacle last night. So what if she has a more votes than Trump. It means nothing at this point.

            What you don’t want to admit Chump is the democratic vote is down this year where the Republican vote is way up and more enthusiastic.
            The dems have two old people running, one a liar and the other a Socialist. No wonder your party has little enthusiasm.

          2. timmfr30 March 7, 2016

            sip sip

          3. Cloudherder March 7, 2016

            Trump is a con man, liar and older than Hillary.

          4. mike March 7, 2016

            LOL!
            What we do know is Hillary lied to the American people about her emails going through her private server. 2000 classified emails of which 144 were marked classified at time of origination. Unmarked Emails sent to Hillary almost verbatim from classified documents to her unsecured server but yet she said she never received or sent classified documents.
            We have insight now of how she would run her administration through lies and deception. She continues to lie about a FBI “security review” when she knows FBI do no such thing. This a criminal investigation.
            She tried to keep information from Fed. Govt. and American people and got caught and then lied about it.

          5. Billie March 9, 2016

            Baloney!!! Colin Powell and Condeleeza Rice also used private servers. How come you not jumping on them?

          6. mike March 9, 2016

            You’re an idiot! Powell had a private email address but no server. I believe Rice didn’t even have a private email address.
            I know you can provide evidence they used private servers, can’t you?

          7. Billie March 9, 2016

            Yes, they did. Your like little kids on the playground. “My daddy can beat up your daddy.”

          8. mike March 9, 2016

            No, they didn’t!
            Prove they had their own servers. If they did the left would be all over the airwaves. They didn’t and You can’t!

          9. Independent1 March 7, 2016

            Sorry chump, but all those stats you just posted are media lies. Republicans traditionally turnout in higher numbers than dems, but there’s no way that if Republicans were really turning out in the super numbers that the media is claiming that Hillary would be up by 1/2 a mil in votes over what’s supposed to be the ‘super candidate’ Trump!! It’s all a media lie about Trumps real popularity!!! Sure!! he’s dragging in big crowds at his media circuses but he’s not really drawing the votes the media is trying to sell you delusional idiots!! There are tons of people who are saying ‘Yeah, I’ll turn out to his media circuses but there’s no way that I would actually vote for him.”

          10. mike March 7, 2016

            You really are an idiot.
            Try adding up the different states and you woul see except for Nevada total votes higher.
            No, numbers are larger for republicans and they are far more enthusiastic.
            Media is right you are wrong, again.

          11. Independent1 March 7, 2016

            Hey idiot, you do realize that in most states you have to be a registered Dem or Repub to vote in a primary. And fact is clueless, registered Repubs are almost twice as many as registered Dems – 37-38% repubs to 22-23% Dems – and you can be sure that in the red states where most of the early primaries have been held that the difference in registered voters is almost 2-1 Repubs over Dems – But what Hillary getting more votes than Trump has gotten goes to show Trump from a voter standpoint is not as popular as the media would like you idiots to believe. (And don’t forget that some surveys have been made at Trump rallies and almost 50% that turn out say that it’s either definitely not likely, or probably not likely that they would vote for Trump in a national election.)

          12. mike March 7, 2016

            This just blew your post, idiot!
            https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_party_strength_in_U.S._states

            http://www.people-press.org/topics/political-party-affiliation/

            Hillary’s statement means absolutely nothing at this point.

          13. Independent1 March 7, 2016

            Those links have nothing to do with my post which IS ABOUT TODAY!! NOT SOME HISTORICAL BS!! And certainly don’t negate what I posted!! You really have a distorted sense of reality!!

          14. mike March 7, 2016

            Typical response from resident zealot. If it doesn’t fit your delusional idea of truth it is wrong! I give you a 4/15 article and it’s BS.
            What I find so interesting you give specific percentages, so where’s the facts to back it up? Where is the party registration numbers TODAY? TODAY!!

          15. mike March 7, 2016

            Try this one you stupid idiot.
            http://www.gallup.com/poll/15370/party-affiliation.aspx

            This again blows your numbers to bits.

          16. Paragryne March 7, 2016

            Never accuse anyone else of using ad-hominems again, idiot.

          17. mike March 7, 2016

            LOL!
            Prove my positions wrong, idiot!

          18. Paragryne March 7, 2016

            You have been consistently proven wrong, you’re just too big a moron to get that. Idiot.

          19. mike March 7, 2016

            My, My, another ridiculous post from you.
            Only a mental midget like you would make such a statement with no proof.
            Thanks for another good laugh for me.

          20. Billie March 9, 2016

            How do you know she is a liar? All you know is what the Republican propaganda machine is spewing daily.

          21. mike March 9, 2016

            Surely you jest!
            How does the American people know she is a liar? The IG has been announcing their results for months. They earlier found 22 classified emails that went through her private server including SAP’s and last week it was announced that Hillary WROTE 104 classified emails which contradicts her claims she never “received or sent” classified emails.
            What rock have you been under all these months?
            She did this to bypass obama’s directive in 09 and FOIA.

      3. @HawaiianTater March 4, 2016

        Maybe liberals would show up to vote every time if they had something to truly believe in. Voting for the lesser of two evils is not very inspiring.

        1. Cloudherder March 7, 2016

          I see that the Republican propaganda against Hillary has worked on you.

          1. @HawaiianTater March 7, 2016

            I see that you’re an idiot because I criticize Hillary for being TOO MUCH like a Republican. Namely, the fact that she’s a war monger and a Wall Street puppet. In those regards, she’s no better than a Rubio or a Cruz.

          2. Cloudherder March 11, 2016

            War monger? Let me guess, because she voted for the Iraq war? Well Bush and his henchmen were pretty convincing, they convinced the whole senate pretty much. “Wall Street Puppet”? In which way? Has she ever done something for the donations, or is that parroting the party line?

      4. Independent1 March 7, 2016

        There’s an interesting article that has just been added to the NM – an article which points out that during the current primaries – Hillary has garnered almost 1/2 a million more votes than Trump (actually more votes than any other candidate in the primaries : 4.1 million votes for Hillary to 3.6 million for Trump). What this really shows is two things – Dem turnout has not been as bad as the media would like everyone to believe; and Trump is clearly not as popular as the media would like everyone to believe either. (Or even 3, Republican turn out has not been as good as the media would like everyone to believe.)

      5. plc97477 March 7, 2016

        One way to make sure dems vote would be to make our election rules
        uniform over the entire country so states could not keep voters from the polls. They could make sure there was enough time for every voter to get to the polls by extended voting periods.

  4. ThinkAboutIt March 4, 2016

    “It is bad enough the Republicans may have destroyed themselves . . .”

    WRONG!!! You’re jumping to conclusions. Yes, it appears the Republican Party is badly split over picking a candidate for President, but they control the Senate and House and will retain control of the House after Nov 2016. The Republican Party is NOT destroyed until it splits.

    For six years we’ve seen a House GOP badly divided and dysfunctional, but not split. They can still vote to repeal Obamacare 50 times, even if they can’t agree on any way to replace it. And they can’t replace it because they can never unit behind one plan. They’ve some who have plans, some who want NO replacement (“health insurance is not a right.”) They can’t agree on any major reform (immigration, taxes, entitlements, etc.) but they excel at opposing Obama and hiding their differences.

    Reply
    1. FireBaron March 6, 2016

      This year could result in a top-down disaster for the GOP.

    2. plc97477 March 7, 2016

      I’m not sure a complete split isn’t happening soon. The gotp has some pretty large cracks in their facade.

  5. Otto Greif March 4, 2016

    Boot is a warmongering neocohen showing his true colors.

    Reply
    1. Insinnergy March 6, 2016

      Ahhh there it is… that pee against the comments wall.
      I’d almost missed it.
      Not.

      1. Aaron_of_Portsmouth March 7, 2016

        You can always depend on “the goat” to stamp his unique imprimatur in this forum.

    2. Aaron_of_Portsmouth March 7, 2016

      The braying of a herbivore has added his voice. Otto makes another house call.

  6. Mortalc01l March 4, 2016

    “I told you so” doesn’t even come CLOSE to being strong enough.

    The Republican party over the last 30+ years has always been the thinly disguised party of racism, intolerance, misogyny and latent fascism. All Donald Trump has done is expose what we all knew to be true.

    I work with a bunch of lifelong, diehard Republicans and to see their confusion and bewilderment at what has happened to their party is almost comical. One female Attorney I know well, cam right out and said that her only option, as far as she sees it, is to vote for Hilary..!! HILARY!!!!

    Reply
    1. ThinkAboutIt March 4, 2016

      As a former Republican, may I suggest you also point out to your Republican friends the tax plans of the Repub candidates that are absolutely reckless and irresponsible. Those plans alone should disqualify them from serious consideration for the White House:

      http://www.vox.com/2016/2/25/11109160/donald-trump-marco-rubio-tax-comparison

      http://www.mikelofgren.net/republican-deficit-hypocrisy/

      Such plans make no economic sense but disgustingly make sense as a political tactic: bidding millions in tax cuts to buy the support of a few big donors.

    2. Dominick Vila March 6, 2016

      The problem for the GOP is the dichotomy between their purported values, and the values embraced by their front runner. The fact that a plurality of Republicans support a man who supports abortion, universal healthcare, and public sector investment, makes a mockery of everything the GOP stands for. The sad truth, is that what millions of far right folks like about Donald Trump is his bigotry, to the point that they are willing to sacrifice some of their most cherished values to achieve their most hideous goals.

      1. stcroixcarp March 7, 2016

        Asked to choose between abortion and bigotry, bigotry will win every time.

  7. FireBaron March 6, 2016

    Something about “reaping the whirlwind” comes to mind.

    Reply
  8. Aaron_of_Portsmouth March 7, 2016

    The most effective way that any organism or entity can be destroyed is by an “antagonistic” agent from within. The sapping of the inner strength of Christianity, Islam, and other former major Religions wasn’t by outside enemies or other Religions, but from within by means of fracturing which was in turn due to bickering over who should hold the reins of authority after their Messengers passed on to the Next World. The movement called “The Nation of Islam” began to fall apart as a result of jealousy and division within its rank, and not by any outside agent. The Roman Empire and the disintegration of the Mongol Empire were similarly dismantled as a result of internal dissensions which facilitated a coup de grace by outside assailants.

    Partisan politics, by its very nature, is preset to split along its edges because of the inherent condition of division along party lines that is woven into the very fabric of such a system. Add the outside influences of greed, lust for power, corruption, bigotry, etc., and you have a system that’s forever ripe to implode.

    In the long run, this implosion will be a blessing for humanity. Why not have it start first with the GOP with its mean-spirited ethos that now suffuses and stinks up most of America??

    Reply
  9. Eleanore Whitaker March 7, 2016

    The Republicans allowed the Tea Party to become a cancer. That Tea Party cancer has now metasticized to terminal fatality level. The Tea Party pretended Greed was patriotism. The Tea Party pretended that autocracy and domination was partisan loyalty…it was ALL an illusion P.T. Barnum would have described as “There’s a sucker born every minute.”

    From within any cancerous lesion, there is always the depth of the most vile gene. That would be Trump.

    The joke is that right now there are TWO phonies play acting at being loyal party members…Trump pretends he’s a Republican and Sanders pretends he is a Democrat. Albeit, he invented the newest label, Democratic Socialist, to cover his historic tracks as a dyed in the wool Socialist. Two men both wearing masks to cover their true cancerous lesions.

    If illusion is what Americans want for their kids, vote for Trump or Sanders. Not that both Trump and Sanders have one commanlity? Look at the states where they picked up the most votes? The down in the mouth, conservative states barely able to put food on their tables. (When it isn’t downed with deadly water).

    These are the “hard up” people who are being led to believe that Trump and Sanders are their Saviors…That tent revivalist crappola just never does seem to leave the Corn Pones and Mutton Chops.

    Reply
    1. J.J. March 7, 2016

      I would not say Sanders “invented” the label. There have been Social Democrats throughout Europe for ages. Even before the campaign he occasionally referred to himself in that manner to reduce the confusion (or distortion) of some people (including on the left) that socialism is communism.

    2. The lucky one March 7, 2016

      There will be no saviors, certainly not your heroine Hilary. Sanders has not misled anyone. He has been consistent and claims the title socialist though it is really only accurate compared to the others. He certainly is much more socialist than HRC though she has moved her rhetoric to left to mislead voters into thinking she is not the same corporate tool as the repubs as she has always been in deed if not speech.

  10. Paul Bass March 7, 2016

    Mike, a commentator with his nonsense spewed throughout NM IS a RWNJ troll, don’t bother engaging him, you will only get the disgusting taste of a turd blossom.

    Mike, has an upvote rating of about 1/3 meaning on average only ONE person on the entire NM agrees with every third comment of his. Pathetic, really, I guess its the only way he can get jollies, is trolling on a site that hates him…

    Reply
  11. J.J. March 7, 2016

    My prayer for the late Nancy Reagan is that she did not watch the three kiddies (John Kasich was the adult) on stage Thursday night. We needed an NHL officiating crew to handle the crowd – surprised there weren’t fights.

    The destruction of the Republican Party began in 2008 when Sarah Palin was thrust upon a great American and made a mockery of his campaign. The hard-right, through their corporate sponsors, then told a black man, RNC chair Michael Steele, to do one in 2010 as the Tea Party began soiling our Congress. They continued to do so with an easily malleable Reince Preibus.

    2016 is the first time we have an opportunity to rid ourselves of some of the garbage from the Senate. It’s not just a matter of getting voters to the polls; it’s more important that DNC officials make sure there are competent candidates to give R’s and I’s a reason to cross over.

    Reply
    1. Irishgrammy March 7, 2016

      BRAVO! Last paragraph is especially relevant!!!!!!!! Have written the DNC about this very thing. Don’t know if it’s Wasserman-Schultz that is the problem, but don’t see too much movement on finding and promoting, grooming new Democratic leaders in the party. And for goodness sake, Democrats need to get as worked up for GOOD REASONS, as the Republicans do for BAD REASONS!!!! But your comment is perfectly stated!

  12. Sanity Please March 7, 2016

    Republicans should curse Ronald Reagan’s memory every single day for getting into bed with these right wing nut jobs back in the 1980s. The monster he helped create has now gone on a rampage.

    Reply
    1. Darsan54 March 7, 2016

      Saint Ronnie was beginning to suffer under the ravages of Alzheimers and his handlers loved that. He could still say the lines and didn’t put too much thought into what he was saying. Probably thought he was on a movie set. But that laid the groundwork and we have had nothing pretty empty Republican heads in the White House since.

    2. wjca March 11, 2016

      It was Nixon and the 1970s. But the cursing is still appropriate.

  13. Siegfried Heydrich March 7, 2016

    Drumpf is the revenge candidate. He’s how the base gets even with the bobbleheads, with the media, with republicans, with democrats, with immigrants, with minorities, with women, with non-christians, with Washington insiders, with everyone. He’s the ‘flipping the bird’ candidate. He’s the ‘screw you all and the horses you rode in on’ candidate. Drumpf is promising to burn down the house, and he’s bringing the marshmallows as long as you bring the kerosene. But most of all, he’s the Mikey candidate – he hates everybody. By bringing everyone else low, he will raise the base up. He promises everything by promising nothing.

    And to be quite honest, I can’t say I really blame them. The republicans have lied to them, fleeced them, bilked them, pandered to them, made outrageous promises to them that they had NO intention of ever keeping. They made empty, useless gestures and took symbolic votes designed to appease the base and fool them into thinking they were actually doing something. They talked out of both sides of their mouths, they shameless grifted and betrayed them over and over and over. They destroyed their faith and their trust in the GOP, whom the base now regards as hypocritical failures. Now? They’re nihilists out for well justified vengeance.

    They promised, above and beyond all other things to destroy Obama, to put that uppity black man back in his place. They ginned up the Tea Party specifically to take Obama a one term president, and they failed. Miserably. They promised their base that if they were given control of both chambers of congress, they’d show the country how they could govern. The base turned out, gave them what they asked for, and now the base sees how they govern. They don’t like it. At all.

    They see nothing but failure coming from the GOP. Well, that and betrayal. The party talked big, and fell flat on their faces. And worst of all, they let Obama beat them like ill-behaved children. Every empty boast they made about how they were going to beat Obama, that THIS would be Obama’s Waterloo went down to abject and humiliating failure.

    So now they’re beyond angry, they’re at the pitchforks, torches, and burning down the castle stage. If they could guillotine the RINOs, they would be streaming into the Plas de Revanche howling for blood. And Drumpf, the latter day Robespierre, is promising it to them by the bucket.

    But . . . Drumpf would do well to remember that Robespierre himself lost his head . . . and that once the blade tastes blood, its thirst becomes unquenchable.

    Reply

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.