The Crypt: The Official Thread for the 111th Congress

[The Senator]

So how 'bout that 111th Congress?

If Norm Coleman wins re-election, I'm afraid the Senate will be plagued with more *****iness.

 

[XpunkRocker]

We can start with his "I was for ____ policy but now am against it because I need to win the nomination" antics, and we can end with his "Democrats want to invoke Jihad" speech he gave when he conceded from the primaries.

As for his economic stance... well, we've been cutting taxes for quite some time, and gee, looks like the economy is in the proverbial septic tank...

well, all the candidates flip flop. which is why i pretty much hate the 2 main parties. obama and mccain flip flopped the most, because they had the most time. mccain with the drilling, obama with taxes and iraq. they all flip flopped rediculously

as for romeny. i am not talking about his "political stance." what i am refering to is his record. he has the best fiscal record. his state, which he governed, was the only one to have a surplus out of all the candidates that ran. he has a proven track record in working an economy and balancing a budget. show me one other 2008 canidate that managed a budget and economy better than him

but there are a lot of things i don't like about him. but i give credit where it is due, and he did a good job running his economy. i would probably never vote for him.

but i didn't understand why romney was being talked about when the thread is about a congress he is not in and has almost nothing to do with it. but then it was explained to me, and now i get it. it is just an inside joke. i will live.

 

[Holiday]

If I could just back to this *****e business, Romney's a great *****e but I see this Blago character as a serious challenger for biggest political *****e.

Also, his face looks plastic and weird.

 

[XpunkRocker]

blago is also a criminal and a failer

 

[The Senator]

If I could just back to this *****e business, Romney's a great *****e but I see this Blago character as a serious challenger for biggest political *****e.

No, Mitt Romney is far more of a *****e than Blagojevich. No one takes Blagojevich seriously; however, a very large number of Americans actually-- forgive me while I hold back the strange combination of vomit, laughter and tears-- admire this man and think he should be President.

The only person who admires Blagojevich is himself.

Also, his face looks plastic and weird.

There's no need to badmouth Serbian Americans, sir.

 

[Holiday]

No, Mitt Romney is far more of a *****e than Blagojevich. No one takes Blagojevich seriously; however, a very large number of Americans actually-- forgive me while I hold back the strange combination of vomit, laughter and tears-- admire this man and think he should be President.

The only person who admires Blagojevich is himself.

Obviously the number isn't too large.

There's no need to badmouth Serbian Americans, sir.

I didn't.

 

[XpunkRocker]

No, Mitt Romney is far more of a *****e than Blagojevich. No one takes Blagojevich seriously; however, a very large number of Americans actually-- forgive me while I hold back the strange combination of vomit, laughter and tears-- admire this man and think he should be President.

you still can't deny that his state was the only one to have a surplus out of the people who ran . and i saw that comment about "lowering taxes." actually, romney raised taxes. if there is anything to be disgusted about is his self proclaimed "greatest health care idea ever" bs. his plan for healthcare was bogus. his plan was trash, and he will never admit that. in his mind it is still "brilliant."

But yeah, if you knew anything about romney, his taxes were way too high. he wouldn't cut taxes for anything. and there is def room for tax cuts when your state has a $500,000,000 surplus. that is one reason i wouldn't vote for him. although he could probably fix the economy, my taxes would be insanely high. and i don't like that. i like my taxes low.

 

[The Senator]

you still can't deny that his state was the only one to have a surplus out of the people who ran . and i saw that comment about "lowering taxes." actually, romney raised taxes. if there is anything to be disgusted about is his self proclaimed "greatest health care idea ever" bs. his plan for healthcare was bogus. his plan was trash, and he will never admit that. in his mind it is still "brilliant."

But yeah, if you knew anything about romney, his taxes were way too high. he wouldn't cut taxes for anything. and there is def room for tax cuts when your state has a $500,000,000 surplus. that is one reason i wouldn't vote for him. although he could probably fix the economy, my taxes would be insanely high. and i don't like that. i like my taxes low.

Hence why Romney is a two-faced slimeball. He said that he was going to lower taxes when he became president, even though he raised taxes as governor of Massachusetts.

Moreover, taxes need to be raised if we want to fix this economic crisis. Hence why Romney's economic plan was one of the worst proposed during the election cycle.

 

[XpunkRocker]

not really. he was going to cut spending AND cut taxes. that was his plan

in Mass he raised taxes and cut spending, hence why they had a 500,000,000 surplus every year. The only thing that cost a lot was his stupid healthcare nonsense.

By acting his plan (which wouldn't happen), he would cut spending and cut taxes, which would level things out. It makes sense since before he cut spending and raised taxes that he had a surplus, so lowering taxes wont put his plan into the hole. You can't deny that he knows how to run an economy. he has done a fair job of it in mass, with having a surplus.


but if you don't like "two faced slimeballs" who want to "lower taxes" then you must really not like obama (which i don't think of obama this way. i think he is just like any other politician in the federal level). Obama first said he wanted to eliminate the bush tax cuts and start having the top people pay their fair share. But after he got the nom, he decided to KEEP the bush tax cuts and keeps taxes low for the rich. so yeah, obama changed his mind quicker than romney, and he is going to cut taxes.

btw, romney is a liar. he said he would lower taxes to appeal to the conservatives. if he was elected, he would raise taxes higher than a mofo (or try to) and i would be the first one to get pissed off.

 

[The Senator]

not really. he was going to cut spending AND cut taxes. that was his plan

in Mass he raised taxes and cut spending, hence why they had a 500,000,000 surplus every year. The only thing that cost a lot was his stupid healthcare nonsense.

By acting his plan (which wouldn't happen), he would cut spending and cut taxes, which would level things out. It makes sense since before he cut spending and raised taxes that he had a surplus, so lowering taxes wont put his plan into the hole. You can't deny that he knows how to run an economy. he has done a fair job of it in mass, with having a surplus.


but if you don't like "two faced slimeballs" who want to "lower taxes" then you must really not like obama (which i don't think of obama this way. i think he is just like any other politician in the federal level). Obama first said he wanted to eliminate the bush tax cuts and start having the top people pay their fair share. But after he got the nom, he decided to KEEP the bush tax cuts and keeps taxes low for the rich. so yeah, obama changed his mind quicker than romney, and he is going to cut taxes.

btw, romney is a liar. he said he would lower taxes to appeal to the conservatives. if he was elected, he would raise taxes higher than a mofo (or try to) and i would be the first one to get pissed off.

Obama has stated that he will raise taxes for the wealthy within his first year in office. He has yet to make any major economic decisions, considering he has yet to take office.

Moreover, the wealthy ought to have their taxes raised, considering they are the ones who can afford to pay more in taxes. Romney doesn't think that is the case at all-- or at least, that's what he said when he was running for president. And frankly, I don't care about his record as governor of Massachusetts considering he himself doesn't seem to care about that record, as he ran against everything he was for while he ran that state. So he may have been a decent governor, but I have extreme reservations about him becomimg President of the United States due to the high level of flimsiness he has demonstrated as a national politician.

The man has no conscious, no integrity... he is a power-hungry, filthy liar who will do and say anything to get elected... more so than your average politician by a LONG shot...

 

[XpunkRocker]

he said he is going to keep the bush tax cuts while we are in a recession, and he said one year minimum. this recession is going to last more than a year. one day obama says the first thing he is going to do is get rid of them, then he says that he is going to "delay" them.

It really isn't a big deal to me that he did that, other than the fact that he did flip flop and was twofaced about it. he promised one thing and then changed it to another. Although i don't like the bush tax cuts, even if he oppposed them, they are going to stay. Congress is going to keep them perminant, i am almost positive.

Yeah, you and i are quite different. Track record is really important to me. if someone can prove to me they have a pattern of success, those are the people i hire. If i hire someone who has sloppy history or no history, but has good ideas, chances are i paid them really little or not at all. I always bring on the people with the best success and history for my projects. You have to go with what works.

Sure, Romney is two faced. All the ones that ever run for president are. they will sell their principals far anything. I have seen it happen behind the scene candidates getting pushed into doing it against their will. I can give a whole list of examples on both obama and mccain, how they did a 180 right after each of them got the nom. it is remarkable that the media let them both get away with it.

 

[The Senator]

Romney sells his principles far more than any other politician. This is the first time in political history (well, maybe a bit exaggerated, but it doesn't happen often) where a presidential candidate ran against every major position he took during his previous statewide campaigns. Abortion? Was pro-choice, now is pro-life. Gay marriage? Was a 'leave-it-to-the-states' guy, now thinks homosexuality is 'immoral' and that gay marriage needs to be banned via the Constitution. Gun control? Felt it was necessary when he ran for Senate and Governor, now he adores guns as if they were his sixth poorly-named child. Ronald Reagan? Some of his policies needed to be re-examined when he ran for Senate, but now he thinks he is an excellent president and only disagrees with him on a few "minor" issues. Illegal immigration? Had a "sanctuary mansion" in Massachusetts, now thinks it is a "serious" problem which needs to be addressed.

And it goes on and on and on and on... all politicians will sacrifice some of their principles to run for office, but Romney is the only person I've seen who has sacrificed ALL of his principles...

 

[Kelly]

Again, I WILL NEVER, EVER, EVER, EVER trust ANYONE that has had dealings with the Olympic Committee in order to get the olympics to a city. EVER..............

 

[XpunkRocker]

Romney sells his principles far more than any other politician. This is the first time in political history (well, maybe a bit exaggerated, but it doesn't happen often) where a presidential candidate ran against every major position he took during his previous statewide campaigns. Abortion? Was pro-choice, now is pro-life. Gay marriage? Was a 'leave-it-to-the-states' guy, now thinks homosexuality is 'immoral' and that gay marriage needs to be banned via the Constitution. Gun control? Felt it was necessary when he ran for Senate and Governor, now he adores guns as if they were his sixth poorly-named child. Ronald Reagan? Some of his policies needed to be re-examined when he ran for Senate, but now he thinks he is an excellent president and only disagrees with him on a few "minor" issues. Illegal immigration? Had a "sanctuary mansion" in Massachusetts, now thinks it is a "serious" problem which needs to be addressed.
And it goes on and on and on and on... all politicians will sacrifice some of their principles to run for office, but Romney is the only person I've seen who has sacrificed ALL of his principles...

it is pretty average laundry list. there are so many issues, and they all flip on a ton of issues. mccain and obama got away with murder pretty much this past election. Obama was against FISA, and now hes for it. He was for more gun control, now he is against it. He wanted to change NAFTA, now he is happy with the way it is. Iraq? Before he wanted to bring the troops home immediatly, now he says we have a long ways to go to finish what we have to do there.

Mccain is the worst one of all. He was pretty awsome back in the day. But then he lost to bush in the primaries and he realized you cant be yourself and win. so he did a 180 and he won the nomination. but that is as far as it got him. he was too past his prime and he wasnt himself when he ran. out of all the politicians i have seen in my life, mccain is the one that changed his postition the most in between campaigns, in my opinion.

but they all do it. romney and obama are just average compared to mccain. but if you compare mccains first election to his 2nd election, you would never tell they are the same person.

But romeny sacrificing "all" is principals? iraq? healthcare? he kept a lot of issues the same. him and obama made about the same sacrifices.

 

[The Senator]

No, Romney and Obama are incomparable.

Romney sacrificed every single social issue stance he had so he could impress conservatives. Obama kept his stances on those issues and actually kept pretty much the same stances he had when he ran for Senate while he was running for President. If I pulled a stump speech from the 2004 Senate campaign and compared it with Obama's 2008 presidential campaign, they would be similar. If I pulled video showing a Romney speech during his 1994 Senate campaign and compared it to his 2008 presidential campaign, I would have no idea that this was the same person.

Moreover, news outlets have reported that Obama and Gates are planning on starting troop withdrawals within Obama's first year in office-- a stance he has always stood by, unless you think "immediate" means his first day in office. FISA? I was against that before I was for it, I think that is a difficult law to truly have a solid position on given its various legal questions. Gun control was not a major campaign issue, and it isn't like Obama actively sought the NRA's endorsement or tried to woo gun lovers-- like Mitt Romney did, years AFTER he had supported gun control initiatives in Massachusetts.

That's where the difference lies. To argue that Romney is just like Obama or is better than McCain is intellectually dishonest. McCain shifted his stances on several issues, but not to the radical degree that Romney did, and no politician is comparable to him in that regard. Romney changed 80% of his stances on social issues because he needed to in order to go further in politics. Obama didn't change much, if any, of his stances on the campaign trail.

So the point still remains that Mitt Romney is the biggest political *****ebag in the universe and doesn't deserve to be president any more than he deserves to be my dry cleaner...

 

[XpunkRocker]

No, Romney and Obama are incomparable.


Romney sacrificed every single social issue stance he had so he could impress conservatives. ...

Pretty much romney switched on social issues and stayed the same on non social issues. Obama stayed the same on social issues (for the most part) and switched on nonsocial issues. In the end, it all evens out. From your post, social issues are obviously more important to you. that is just a matter of opinion. If you cut it down the line, they both flipped the same amount give or take.

Obama kept his stances on those issues and actually kept pretty much the same stances he had when he ran for Senate while he was running for President. If I pulled a stump speech from the 2004 Senate campaign and compared it with Obama's 2008 presidential campaign, they would be similar.

I highly doubt it, but you can humor me and pull them up. other than the social issues, he has flipped on most of them.

If I pulled video showing a Romney speech during his 1994 Senate campaign and compared it to his 2008 presidential campaign, I would have no idea that this was the same person.

14 years is a pretty big difference. Too much has changed during that time period for anyone to stay the same.

Moreover, news outlets have reported that Obama and Gates are planning on starting troop withdrawals within Obama's first year in office-- a stance he has always stood by, unless you think "immediate" means his first day in office.

actually, the first 16 months. and it won't be a lot. it will be a very small amount. If they do have a complete withrawl, or even a major one, it will happen about 3 months before the 2011 deadline. We are going to have most of our forces over there until the iraqies throw us out. But i have a feeling that we are going to be there past 2011, reguardless of what that treaty says. but that is just speculation on my part and it doesn't mean a whole lot.

FISA? I was against that before I was for it, I think that is a difficult law to truly have a solid position on given its various legal questions.

Well, anyone that was against it, and then for it that quickly, didn't really know too much about it in the begining. Either way, i always felt it needs a lot of ammending. It hasn't done us any good and the way it is written is very vague and it makes it even more useless. but if you look at it and say it is bad, then a few months go by and you change your mind, what was so bad about it to begin with? did it go away?

Gun control was not a major campaign issue, and it isn't like Obama actively sought the NRA's endorsement or tried to woo gun lovers-- like Mitt Romney did, years AFTER he had supported gun control initiatives in Massachusetts.

I could be wrong, but that ad, to me, targets gun lovers AND the nra. The obama team event named the title "life member" based on the fact the guy talking is a life member of the NRA.

That's where the difference lies. To argue that Romney is just like Obama or is better than McCain is intellectually dishonest.

you can disagree with me all you want, but that ad right there makes it pretty obvious that i am not all that crazy. they BOTH supported gun control before, and the both flipped on it equally. if you really think that obama wasn't trying to "woo" gun owners in that ad, then who was he trying to "woo?"

McCain shifted his stances on several issues, but not to the radical degree that Romney did, and no politician is comparable to him in that regard. Romney changed 80% of his stances on social issues because he needed to in order to go further in politics. Obama didn't change much, if any, of his stances on the campaign trail.

Yeah, if you only look at social issues, fine, obama kept his stance on social issues. but not all issues. Obama flipped on the economy, fisa, nafta, gun control, iraq, and so on. It is ok if you like social issues a little more, but social issues aren't everyone's number one priority. Flipping on the economy is a lot bigger than flipping on gay marraige to a lot of people. Especially when the president has almost no power over gay marraige. To all the people who lost their jobs the past year, they are more worried about the economy. so obama flipping and keeping the bush tax cuts aint exactly something people would be proud of. Even though i already said it isn't that big of a deal to me, since i dont think obama really had a choice since congress would pass it anyway. But he did still flip on it. among other things, like NAFTA. i don't know if you know it, but nafta is an enormous issue. Sure, it isn't on cable news. Nafta doesn't bring in ratings. But nafta is huge. Especially down here. It was also big when i lived in NY.

I am not saying the economy is more imporant than gay marraige (even though the economy means more to me) but they are both important issues. And from what you say, you imply it is ok for obama to flip on the economy and bad for romney to flip on gay marraige. Why cant they both be wrong here? Do you think the bush tax cuts are a good idea? they haven't done us any good so far.

So yes, romney changed his stance on social issues. but He kept it on things like nafta and the economy and healthcare and so on. Yes, i know he changed his "idea on taxes." But those are two different things. He raised taxed in Mass because that is what was needed, and it worked. He got a surplus. when he campaigned for president, he kept his economic policy the same throughout his campaign. Running the economy of a state and running the economy of a country take two different tactics. it is like saying running a walmart is the same as running the corperate office of walmart. They take the same skills, but they need different stratagies.

So the point still remains that Mitt Romney is the biggest political *****ebag in the universe and doesn't deserve to be president any more than he deserves to be my dry cleaner...

It is all opinion, and i am fine with it. I didn't want romney either. he's a sellout and he crossed the line too much.

 

[The Senator]

I don't have the time nor the patience to continue to explain how Mitt Romney is more of a *****ebag than Obama could ever aspire to be. If you can't see it, then you are totally blind.

I'd also like to point out that Obama never sought the endorsement of the NRA, and that the ad you posted was obviously directed to gun owners in rural areas, most likely in states like Virginia, North Carolina, North Dakota and Montana. However, this was a niche ad and he never tried to woo gun lovers on a national scale. Additionally, it is really hard to see how Obama flip-flopped on the economy when he isn't even president yet and has yet to pass any major economic initiatives. It will take time and a slow process to reverse much of what Bush has done in the past eight years. Even with Iraq, so I'm not surprised that he will have to move slow there as well.

Finally, you may stick to Romney's moronic line about "issue evolution" as much as you want, but the point still remains: Up until a year before he decided to run for President, Romney was a social liberal and fiscal moderate. Then he completely switched his positions so he could run for the presidency. Never mind some of the ridiculous horse **** he said on the campaign trail, between the "gee, I love America" response he gave to his blatant lies about his father marching with MLK during the civil rights movement.

The man is the biggest political *****ebag in the United States. Period.

 

[XpunkRocker]

then i guess we have to agree to disagree.

but if obama didnt switch on issues because he isn't president yet, then i guess romney didnt switch on social issues because he isn't president yet either

 

[The Senator]

That's not my justification for Obama switching some of his positions. My justification is that our political process is slow, so it will take a while for Obama to truly deliver the change he promised. Given the state of the economy and our foreign policy disaster in Iraq, Obama has to rely on the advice of his advisers, and I'm pretty sure they have told him that immediate action may-- in some cases-- be more detrimental than positive given the dynamics of both situations.

 

[XpunkRocker]

id have to agree on that. if he follows the advice of the cabinet, he should do some good things. he has surrounded himself by some smart people, and some people with excellent experience and skills.

I still highly doubt we will see much change as people envisioned it. obama really changed his mind on iraq after he visited the middle east, so that def opened his mind on it taking a longer time than expected. I think it is going to outlast 2011 and we are going to find a way around that treaty. with osama's allies there, among others, i just don't see us leaving there. If anything, we are going to shift it to afgahn for awhile. And when iraq is in trouble we jump back in. we should have just stayed out of iraq in the first place.

 

[StorminNorman]

If Norm Coleman wins re-election, I'm afraid the Senate will be plagued with more *****iness.

Norm Coleman could be the biggest ***** in the world and he would still be a better Senator choice than Al Franken.

Also the GOP needs more leaders like Rep. Spencer Bachus (Alabama).

 

[XpunkRocker]

he has had some good success with making money on the stock market, but i really wouldn't want some one like that with too much power. they make too many risks

 

[Marx]

NY GOVERNOR: CAROLINE KENNEDY WANTS SENATE SEAT
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20081215/ap_on_re_us/ny_senate_seat

 

[Marx]

HARRY REID URGING PATTERSON TO PICK KENNEDY
http://voices.washingtonpost.com/thefix/2008/12/reid_urged_paterson_to_pick_ke.html

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (Nev.) urged New York Gov. David Paterson to appoint Caroline Kennedy to the Senate seat being vacated by Hillary Rodham Clinton, according to a Democratic strategist familiar with Reid's thinking.

Reid and Paterson spoke by phone last week, according to the source. The call was not prompted by Kennedy or anyone in her inner circle but rather was based on Reid's belief in her qualifications to serve and her ability to run for and win the seat in a 2010 special election.

The endorsement of Reid had not previously been known and carried significant weight as Paterson weighs his choices. While the decision on who to appoint remains Paterson's decision alone, the voice of Reid is a powerful one that Paterson will not take lightly.

In the 24 hours since she made her interest known, Kennedy has picked up the endorsement of Rep. Louise Slaughter as well as the New York Post.

During a taping of "Face to Face", Fix friend Jon Ralston's public affairs television show, Reid said a Kennedy appointment would be "tremendous", adding: "We have a lot of stars from New York. Bobby Kennedy. Hillary Clinton. I think Caroline Kennedy would be perfect."

 

[Marx]

BUSH WANTS JEB TO RUN FOR SENATE
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/12/16/bush-wants-jeb-to-run-for-senate/

...