Of course we were complaining between 2000 - 2006. The only difference is everyone was complaining between 2000-2006.

This, ty. All this garbage about politics being "more partisan" nowadays is just stupid. It has always been like this, especially when the economy sucks.

Welcome to Democracy.

FYP

The "bipartisanship" of years past was largely an artifact of DINOs and RINOs voting their ideology. If Jim DeMint had been a Senator 50 years ago, he would have been a Democrat, but Republicans would have been able to count his vote as evidence of "bipartisanship".

They all agreed that VISA was a great investment.

Bachmann throws a hissy fit.

this one is way too easy. When the dems achieve a majority, they go about establishing the agenda they ran on. When the reps achieve a majority they convene hearings to investigate their enemies (the ones they just beat in an election, pretty much a waste of energy)

Then there is the TP, all they have to contribute is NO NO NO NO NO.

People want those in leadership positions to actually lead, to get something done. While ideology tends to get in the way with most things, the current conservative right, that includes all the gop members ( including the TP who chose to align with them) aren't showing leadership. More like Monday morning quarterbacking, where hindsight creates their superior arguments.

Yeah.... High placed American Politicians scheming to unseat a sitting President was surely invented by the hated republitards since the 1980's and is totally unprecedented stuff. LOL..... do they teach real American history any more? You mean unprecedented stuff like like a sitting Vice President (and author of the Declaration of Independence) paying a journalist to print knowing lies about his political arch-rival and sitting President?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_T._Callender

Bloomberg/Selzer Poll for Iowa

Cain 20%
Paul 19%
Romney 18%
Gingrich 17%
Perry 7%
Bachmann 5%
Santorum 3%
Huntsman 1%

Wasn't ending our wars and repealing things such as the Patriot Act a large part of what this last crop of Dems won the majority running on, including Obama?

Politicians gonna politic.

Ending our involvement in Iraq was a large part of it, Afghanistan much less so.

Plenty of blame to go around on the Patriot Act though. Dems have been spineless.

Herman Cain doubling down on the Muslim hating:
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1111/68306.html
Something that strikes me is that you never see **** like the bolded from liberals. Trump ran that sort of thing all the time(he heard from a guy that Obama got bad grades, etc.), Bachmann's HPV vaccine theory was from "some lady", and I recently accidentally listened to some Rush Limbaugh the other day and his show was full of unnamed but important experts who emailed Rush to "say" the most outrageous ****. Like I think OWS was gonna start lynching rich people or something, but it wasn't Rush saying it, it was some SUPER SMART INSIDER guy Rush knows.

Citing anonymous sources gives you immunity if you get called out on it. Brilliant strategy.

Does anyone have access to the current betting odds? Please provide the link.
TIA

Lions +195
Christians -165

EZ money

He has made progress on the existing wars, but looks like he's about to enter a new one other than the Libya issue. The Patriot Act I think is never going to go away. Any politician that pulls it, then even a small bomb goes off somewhere, and they are the goat. No one wants to be that guy in the history books.

That's the conundrum with Obama, wrt his foreign policy actions. He has show a decisive and hawkish mentality towards aggression in the face of adversaries, on foreign soil. In a way it's a traditional view of the office of the president, attention to foreign affairs while Congress heads the domestic front.

Wow, that Paul result is kind of out of nowhere. I hope that's more than just an aberration...

So Cain is honored the press is asking about his pauses, his retort 9 9 9.

citation that providing health care is bringing down europe plz?

Not this one so much:



Obviously it's an incredibly intractable war which is much tougher to wage than the Iraq War in almost every way, and Iraq wasn't exactly easy. But no one forced President Obama to triple the troop strength there. The pentagon strongly recommended the plan, but it was the president's call alone.

It's certainly the best result for Paul...but probably not a total aberration.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epo...mary-1588.html

Interesting to see if Gingrich starts trying more as he looks to have a good chance of winning Iowa as of now. ...and likely to get better if Cain continues imploding.

It's Fox News' go-to "journalistic" technique.

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2011/11/03...after-exposed/

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2011/10/26...cupy-movement/

It's basically the level of journalism you'd expect from a middle school news program.

In defense of the strategy, versus the potus, the buildup was needed to actual wage and win/end the armed conflict. The skirmish in Afghanistan was never really a war prior to the 08 election. In name only I suppose, but based on US war doctrine there was never enough bodies on the ground. Which explains the 10 years of naval gazing in the craggy outcrop that is the garden spot of Kandahar.

So then you agree the Dems don't *necessarily* go about establishing their agenda once they earn a majority as you claimed earlier sine these are things you admit they ran on and a so motivated newly elected Dem majority and President could have accomplished?