Gingrich: Republicans need "clean break" from Bush

[Kaj]

[ QUOTE ]
Yeah, really, did the U.S. think Iran would just roll over and not take any action when it invaded and occupied it's neighbors on both sides?

[/ QUOTE ]

WHAT!?!?!?! What gives any country the right to preemptively attack Saddam Hussein's regime?!?!?!?!?!? THOSE F$%^&$$!*NG IRANIAN WARMONGERS!!!!!!!!!!! LETS NUKE THEM!

[adios]

Like it or not I think US voters are ready for the "pendulum" to start swinging back to the left. The voters in the US will tire of that too and it will swing back to the right eventually. In several ways the Republicans have mismanaged their mandate.

To believe that there aren't special interests that will benefit from Democratic control of government is being silly. One example of special interest will be the ethanol lobby. It seems like energy costs aren't a major political issue at this point. I'm amazed by that.

[adios]

[ QUOTE ]
Reminds me very much of the conundrum the Democrats faced in 1968. Hubert Humphrey could never quite decide if he was a loyal follower of the administration's Vietnam line or wanted to change course. The Dems were hopelessly divided on Vietnam, whereas the Republicans, this time, don't seem as vituperative amongst themselves, but still--very, very reminiscent.

The Iraq/Vietnam similarities continue.

[/ QUOTE ]

Even Bush is bringing out comparisons to Vietnam. Although it is actually much different IMO regarding the type of engagement and the political situation. I think the diferences in the type of engagements are clear. Perhaps that's not so with the political situation. What is the mission in Iraq anyway? It's changed so many times I've lost track of it. I fear the administrations mission is to keep it going until the next president is sworn in. Haven't seen anything that would contradict that. Maybe my memory is foggy but I think the mission in Vietnam was fairly clear as to what a favorable political outcome would be.

[adios]

[ QUOTE ]
They don't really think Bush and his policies are a problem, just the unpopularity of Bush and his policies. If he were still popular, they'd still be clinging to him like Saran wrap.

[/ QUOTE ]

Bush's policies would be more popular if the US wasn't involved in Iraq at the present time IMO. Bush bought the farm when he listened to advisors that told him post invasion Iraq would embrace the US and it's goals. If that would have happened then he would have been popular but since it didn't ... I agree that politicians react to the sentiment of the voters but that seems to be the way the system should work but maybe not.

[adios]

[ QUOTE ]
So having all 3 branches of the federal govt controlled by his own party wasn't the answer after all, huh?

[/ QUOTE ]

Highly debatable. What time period are we talking about? The Republicans gained control of Congress in 1994 but Clinton was president from 1993-2001. The Democrats were in control of the Senate from 2001-2003 and are in control of the Senate now. The Democrats are also currently in control of the House now.

As far as the judiciary is concerned, the Republican leaning members of the Supreme Court are probably in the majority but I don't think this was the case until the Alito nomination and it's still unclear to me that the Republicans are in control of the Supreme Court. Counting on Kennedy to always render a decision popular to conservative Republicans has been proven to be an erroneous assumption. Are you saying that the Republicans are in control of the lower Federal courts? If so could you back that up?

[ QUOTE ]
Also, I find the irony of the US outrage regarding Iranian supplies of insurgents to be comical. Who supplied Saddam during the '80s Iran-Iraq war so that he could kill more Iranians? Oh yeah...

[/ QUOTE ]

So you're stating that the U.S. should have remained neutral in that conflict?

[John Kilduff]

[ QUOTE ]
Like it or not I think US voters are ready for the "pendulum" to start swinging back to the left. The voters in the US will tire of that too and it will swing back to the right eventually.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think so too.

[ QUOTE ]
In several ways the Republicans have mismanaged their mandate.

[/ QUOTE ]

And quite significantly.

[ QUOTE ]
To believe that there aren't special interests that will benefit from Democratic control of government is being silly. One example of special interest will be the ethanol lobby. It seems like energy costs aren't a major political issue at this point. I'm amazed by that.

[/ QUOTE ]

It does seem surprising. If and as the price of oil continues its ascent, I would guess we'll see energy costs moving more to the fore in politics.

[ThaSaltCracka]

Bush will go down as the worst president of the past 100 years.

[adios]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Like it or not I think US voters are ready for the "pendulum" to start swinging back to the left. The voters in the US will tire of that too and it will swing back to the right eventually.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think so too.

[ QUOTE ]
In several ways the Republicans have mismanaged their mandate.

[/ QUOTE ]

And quite significantly.

[ QUOTE ]
To believe that there aren't special interests that will benefit from Democratic control of government is being silly. One example of special interest will be the ethanol lobby. It seems like energy costs aren't a major political issue at this point. I'm amazed by that.

[/ QUOTE ]

It does seem surprising. If and as the price of oil continues its ascent, I would guess we'll see energy costs moving more to the fore in politics.

[/ QUOTE ]

It hit $82 a barrel today I believe. I said to buy oil company stocks with both fists when the Democrats won control of Congress. Oil was around $60 then. I knew there wasn't a thing that Congress would do to increase supply. Evreything I read that the Democrats propose translates to higher oil prices. Higher CAFE standards might be argued but they're so weak that they'll have little effect. Anyway I'm not ready to start driving a beer can around town or pay 2 times the price I'm paying now for a car.