The Swing Is The Thing

Can there be a more demonstrable revelation of character than the President’s performance on Tuesday?

Following what passes for a bi-partisan effort to address immigration reform growing out of the Senate, including staunch supporters of the President in the person of Senators Schumer and Durbin, the President absolutely had to wade in; simply could not help himself. “Let no event or situation pass absent my speechifying”.

One can visualize the orders to staff. “Quick, I need a speech on immigration reform, I can’t let those bastards in the Senate expedite my lame duck status by getting ahead of me; we can’t actually have what we’ve been begging for; bi-partisanship, that simply won’t fly. I’m trying to kill off Republicans and Congressional Democrats are making common cause, on immigration of all things. Unacceptable, get me that speech”. Superman dons his cape and soars to the teleprompter.

People who understand leadership would have supported the effort by Congress to address the issue and pledged White House support by way of a Press Secretary, it would not be necessary to jump into the middle, having done little more than politicize the issue during the campaign. That, however, is not our Presidents modus operandi; it has to be about him. Reporting has it that Democrats begged the President not to get involved, especially at this point in time. To my Democratic friends I say again, the President is focused on ……. wait for it……. the President!

Sorry it’s not about you, it’s about him. The genesis of an Imperial presidency writ large is a question of attitude and perception and we have the seed corn for that unacceptable possibility sitting in the White House. Yesterday’s demonstration was yet another example of the President’s need for an audience, nothing new of substance to contribute: no actual legislative proposals, no newly creative thinking on how to address the issue. Just another unnecessary speech, and an excuse to hit the road!

Again, to my Democratic friends stop, think and ask yourself a simple question. What happens if the President succeeds in bending the Constitution to his will and expands the realm of executive powers? What happens to your perception of those powers when the pendulum swings and a Conservative takes the White House with the same executive powers that President Obama desires?

It’s not party or ideology, it’s the protections of the Constitution that are in all of our interests. Politics is transient, things swing both ways. Democrats demonized President Bush and his application of executive power, the President aspires to go well beyond that. Our history tells us, without question, that the political winds change, the only bulwark against overreach in either direction is a renewed understanding and embrace of Constitutional limitations.

There will never be a permanent political majority in America despite best efforts by both parties to achieve that goal; Carter to Reagan/Bush to Clinton to Bush to Obama. Quite a swing there over thirty years and there is no reason to think the swings will end with President Obama.

What looks and sounds good now could easily be in your opponents hands in the future, where it won’t look or sound so good anymore!

  • Bob

    “What looks and sounds good now could easily be in your opponents hands in the future,where it won’t look so good.”
    Landreaux “The Swing is the Thing” thread

    The republicans seem to have the strategy that we can avoid electorial hell if we have just one more dance with the devil.

    We talk of compromise but is compromising with those who always advance but never retreat really a compromise? In the past few years the right has been asked to pass Obamacare(in order to find out what is in it)raising the debt ceiling (without spending cuts)and pass an immigration policy (before adding border security)The lefts bills if it doesn’t pass Congress will try to sneak it into a less threatening sounding bill or wait for the political spectrum to shift.They settle for half measures and the republicans leave the table bragging how they won.Since all changes are liberal in nature constant granting of concessions means more movement to the left.republicans are defining victory in the increments of what is being given up or compromising our way to tyranny.

    The hear no evil,speak no evil reality in politics will always reflect the culture which is drifting left and we on the right are in a pacifacation effort imposed by our leaders.

  • Bob

    As I’ve mentioned before the republican leaders seem to be under the impression that the ill thought through statements of a few republicans the last election cycle had a rippling effect and thus wants republicans to “not say anything stupid”in the future.

    Louisana Governor Bobby Jindal is one of the more vocal spouting this theory and I can’t blame him if he is thinking about running in 2016.Why get caught having to answer or justify every dumb move by some jerk.I have the upmost respect for the Governor but my question to him is “Does that include NOT DOING anything stupid?”It seems the Governor wants to eliminate the personal and corporate income tax in Louisana.Now how is that bad you may ask? Well he would have to raise the sales tax in order to offset the $3 billion dollars in revenue raised in 2012.Although he is looking into a tax relief it is believed to be insuficient to offset the large sales tax and make the tax swap revenue neutural. This would hit the middle and lower class the hardest and lets face it the last thing republicans need is the image of protecting the rich with tax cuts.

    But shhhhh! “Don’t saying anything stupid!”

    http://www.itep.org/pdf/LATaxSwapAnalysis.pdf

  • Bill Hedges

    I keep saying & you keep ignoring:

    Bob wrote:

    “By my count there have been at least seven budget/debt battles over the past two years in which republicans have either deferred,punted or caved.While they offer excuses from shrinking from the battle at hand they always emphatically promise to fight the next one.”

    President CAN AND HAS come up with a budget. Voted DOWN by both sides. DEMO SENATE, is suppose to, come up with budget in OCT. ___ Failure TO DO ___. HOUSE could pass 1,000,000 bills. Where are all the ones PASSED ??? WIPE the dust off and SEE.

    SO tell me, what should Republicans do ? You say they “deferred,punted or caved”. Should they JUST SAY NO. NO BUDGET ? GO into default ? Republicans & Bush WERE COMPLETELY CORRECT that regulations WERE NEEDED to lessen recession seen on the horizon. TELL ME, WHO got blamed for recession ??? Barney Frank and near all demos said NO PROBLEM.

    I’ll pull a House Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R., Va.) & many, many other Republicans newest try to get THE VOTES needed to lift American’s blight ON YOU. Stalemate is getting us NOWHERE. YOU call it “deferred,punted or caved”.

    HOW BOB ARE YOU GOING TO GET THE VOTES TO clean up this mess ??? Stand by your guns with NO COMPROMISE ? No “deferred,punted or caved”… YOU GOING TO PREY COME ELECTION WE WILL CONTROL BOTH HOUSES ? Can we wait ???

    SO BOB, solve the problem. Can e-mail solution to Republican Party Headquarters. THEY are asking for HELP… DON’T YOU “deferred,punted or caved” or IGNORE…

  • Bill Hedges

    Compromise is NOW SHOWING HOPE. Limited raise in debt ceiling HAS LEAD to demo talks of long term budget & OUR DEBT.

    New hope through compromise…

  • Bob

    “PREY” is still what the liberal left is doing to the republicans

    “PRAY” is what the republicans do come every election cycle.

  • Bill Hedges

    Unresponsive answer.

    SO BOB, solve the problem. Can e-mail solution to Republican Party Headquarters. THEY are asking for HELP… DON’T YOU “deferred,punted. Compromise is NOW SHOWING HOPE. Limited raise in debt ceiling HAS LEAD to demo talks of long term budget & OUR DEBT..

    Not time to show off BIG 54 seat win in House 2010, then lossing a mere 8 in election when popular president wins second term. I uNDERSTAND you wish to change SUBJECT TO AVOID MY PRESENT COMMENT…

  • Bob

    “NOW SHOWING HOPE” doesn’t mean squat especially considering all the times I outlined the republicans folded like a cheap tent.What half measure are they going to give up and claim victory while compromising our way to tyranny?

    http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2013/01/29/Senate-Republicans-Have-a-Gang-Problem

  • Bill Hedges

    SO BOB, solve the problem. Can e-mail solution to Republican Party Headquarters. THEY are asking for HELP… DON’T YOU “deferred,punted. Compromise is NOW SHOWING HOPE. Limited raise in debt ceiling HAS LEAD to demo talks of long term budget & OUR DEBT..

  • Bill Hedges

    What are your suggestions of solving problem…

  • Bob

    In an attempt to make states electorial votes of more consequence states want to allocate them according to counties instead of a winner takes all.As I mentioned previously my home state of Virginia is a very transit area with government workers,military,lobbist etc associated with Washington only being 25 miles away.The county and the area have gone democrat for the past two presidential elections and overwhelm the rest of the state thus causing all the electorial votes to go blue.This however is being fought as the republicans “rigging the electorial votes”by the left.As the article below suggest the side that this benefits from this can change from election to election.

    http://www.politico.com/story/2013/01/gop-electoral-vote-changes-going-nowhere-86938.html?hp=l4

  • Bill Hedges

    Ok Bob. You have no answer.

    Compromise is how DC works. DON’T COMPROMISE with two Houses controlled by different Parties and NO BUDGET addressing debt AS IN PAST 3 years in Senate.

    The present HOPES may fail. NOT trying WILL FAIL as it has for past 3 straight years. Ronald Reagan, and Newt compromised, and upheld conservative value. Not winning all BUT that’s compromise…

  • Bob

    Now I’m not one of those birthers who care where the president was born…that arguement is well behind us.But is amazing how little we knew about the presidents past BEFORE HE WAS FIRST ELECTED.

    He dwells in the small issues and convienently stays away from the issues America feels most important.Like LBJ they both based their administrations on domestic issues but unlike LBJ President Obama has yet to present a major policy proposal geared toward solving any specific problem.In his recent inaugural address the president gave no mention of growth,no mention of jobs,no mention of unemployment and no mention of debt.In my lifetime we have went from JFK’s speech asking “Ask not what your country can do for you” to having our people ask just that.We went from President Reagans “Government is not the solution to the problem ,it is the problem’ back to FDR’s fairy tale of “Four Freedoms”.By President Obama using the term “collective action” in his speech it changes “We the people…..” into “It takes a village”

    His world isn’t based on any common goal as a country or people but what will advance his own image.He surrounds himself with children in order to pass gun control,he surrounds himself with chidren at Las Vagas in order to pass immigration.As columnist Ben Sharpiro said “When Jimmy Carter cited his 13 year old daughter Amy as the impetus for nuclear disarmament America laughed at him.The president attempts not to defend our freedoms from infringement through the Constitution but to give them meaning through politcs,government regulation and redistribution.

    My question here is why do we need background checks in order to own a gun but not to be “Leader of the Free World”?

  • Bob

    Below is an outstanding article from the United Kingdom newspaper “The Telegraph”(26th January 2013)entitled “Democracy Is On The Brink Of a Sea Change……Obama looked to the discredited past,Cameron to the Impossible future”by Janet Daly.In it Ms.Daly compares President Obama’s inaugural speech and where he wants to take America to a speech given by Prime Minister Cameron.Mr.Camerons speech tells of “lessons learnt of overly powerful centralized political institutions that have spent money like there is no tomorrow on programs that were benign rhetoric about social fairness.”

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/barackobama/9828438/Democracy-is-on-the-brink-of-a-sea-change.html

  • Bob

    Governor Perry of Texas might want to scale down his big invite he gave for people to move to Texas.Besides welcoming gun owners the idea of no income tax might be inviting for the 363,000 Californians who were paying taxes up the kazoo and moved to Texas over the past 5 years.These liberal Californians might not take over the state in the near future but could affect the House races and statewide races.Four of the five biggest cities in Texas have Democrat mayors with a city council dominated by liberals. Throw in the heavy Hispanic vote where the article says it’s easy for illegals to find work in Texas and well it could be trouble.

    http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/339403/purple-texas-betsy-woodruff

  • Bill Hedges

    Did you EVER consider the unhappy CA liberals leaving and going to Texas might, might, might have learned a lesson by living THEN leaving CA ? Seeing how MUCH BETTER CONSERVATISM IS by comparison…

    And why is it LIBERALS LEAVING ? CA is NOT 100 % liberal…

    FROM YOUR LINK:

    “Of course, not everyone is worried. Michael Quinn Sullivan of Empower Texans, a 501(c)4 that pushes for fiscal conservatism, says he feels little but amusement about all the handwringing. “Whatever the claptrap might be from whatever political party, at the end of the day Texas remains a conservative state. The talk that Texas will go blue is a little silly. They’re talking about it today, and they were talking about it two years ago, and two years before that, and two years before that, and two years before that.”

    http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/339403/purple-texas-betsy-woodruff

    TEXAS when I lived there had liberals in office. Just like CA…

  • Bill Hedges

    Just like CA has conservatives in office there…

  • Bob

    I refer you to my previous article about the west turning.It said Nevada is turning into another California and Arizona is turning into another Nevada etc.Also from experience I can see whats happening in my home state of Virginia where it’s turning blue over the past three or four elections.The people coming in don’t switch parties.

    You can sit back and believe that they will but look at the trends across the nation.

  • Bill Hedges

    1. Bob writes “I refer you to my previous article about the west turning.It said Nevada is turning into another California and Arizona is turning into another Nevada etc”.

    Let’s refresh our memory. Bob wrote:

    “Hearing The Hearings Bob Jan 27th, 2013 at 11:35 pm”

    “Now you will note the title of the article says “DRIFT” not taken over or dominated SO IT IS SUGGESTING A PATTERN and any numbers would be PREMATURE AT THIS TIME.”

    2. Bob writes “The people coming in don’t switch parties.”

    Now, how do you know ? I use to be demo. There is saying, Youth should be liberal and age brings on conservatism. Refer back to my comment

    3. Bob writes “You can sit back and believe that they will but look at the trends across the nation.”

    Let’s see your numbers. You previous link only had numbers proving you WRONG. NONE PROVING YOUR PROSITION. See you quote from there in (1.)…

  • Bill Hedges

    Previous referring to “Hearing The Hearings”

  • Bill Hedges

    Was Bob’s talk that had me look for this link:

    “The Not-So-Liberal American Future”

    Dec 2, 2012

    “Young Obama voters will stay Democrats all their lives. That’s the latest liberal argument—but statistics showing many maturing voters turn conservative, plus our aging population, should give Republicans hope, says Michael Medved”

    http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2012/12/02/the-not-so-liberal-american-future.html

    Forecasting trends is really a waste of time. Things NO DOUBT change. As it stands Cities & States in financial TROUBLED WATER ARE MORE LIKELY THAN NOT liberal. As one grows old one worries.

    Why with age comes __ conservatives walking __…

  • Bill Hedges

    Bob’s 2 articles says “trends”. “Trends” doesn’t mean NO NUMBERS. aS MY LINK SHOWS:

    “…The proclivities of younger voters may actually portend a full-scale sea change in American politics.” He goes on to cite a Pew survey suggesting that “Americans form a voting pattern early in their life and tend to hold to it.”

    “That conclusion, however, contradicts the evidence of 40 years of exit polls. In 11 presidential elections since 1972, voters over 65 have voted more Republican than voters under 30 in every contest but one (1988, for some reason). In none of the 11 elections did young voters tilt more Republican than the overall electorate; their levels of support for Democratic candidates in each campaign topped those of the general electorate by an average of five points”

    http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2012/12/02/the-not-so-liberal-american-future.html

  • Bill Hedges

    “Of course it’s too early to determine with any certainty whether the same maturing process will work its magic on youthful Obama cadres from 2008 and 2012, but there is some indication that the shift has already begun. As the hope-and-change candidate of four years ago, Obama swept voters between 18 and 29 by a truly stunning margin of 34 points, 66 to 32 percent. Four years later, a significant portion of those true believers had moved into the 30- to 45-year-old segment of the population, a group that chose Obama with a much more modest majority of 52 percent. It was exactly the same percentage, by the way, that he received from the same age group four years before.”

    http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2012/12/02/the-not-so-liberal-american-future.html

    FACTS & FIGURES just keep bouncing into view in each paragraph from this article concerning “trends”. Must read to see all.

    “TREND” In folks does change, with age,the WAY THEY VOTE. WITH age…….Conservatism…

  • Bill Hedges

    “Political parties are laughably anachronistic,” says Nathan Daschle, former executive director of the Democratic Governors Association and a founder of ruck.us, an online political engagement organization. “Voters are increasingly behaving like consumers, and modern-day consumers have far less brand loyalty than they did a decade ago.”

    http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2012/11/07/analysis-nation-moves-further-apart/1688031/

    Is another view of the FACE of LOYALITY TO PARTY issue. This link doesn’t address aging the way my previous one did. Thus not contracting each other AT ALL. Perhaps after a certain AGE, guessing in 30’s, brings conservatism. Say when responsibility of marriage, kids, home payment, etc., come to roast in ones life, the voting lever takes a RIGHT TURN.

    LIBERAL always LIBERAL doesn’t fly longer than the bothers first flight in their planes compared to today…

  • Bill Hedges

    roost…

  • Bob

    The way voter demographics was studied years ago NO LONGER APPLIES.There are new trends from new groups.America is no longer the America of our father or even the America we grew up in.republicans should not confuse a weariness for President Obama in 2016 with a disgust for Progressive ideas.In fact that is exactly where they made their mistake depending on that this past election.Landreaux listed how to build a “Permenent Majority’ in his essay so there is no need for me to re-hash it here.

    Our concern should be to have a CONSERVATIVE candidate who can be supported by the establishment wing and conservative wing of the party.Unfortunatly Karl Rove and the establishment wing insist on putting obstacles in the way. I refer to the new PAC named “Conservative Victory Project” which he established to finance MODERATE candidates and INCUMBENTS that they feel have a better chance of being elected.In otherwords keep the status quo as long as they have a “R” after their name……trade in principles for party.There is nothing “CONSERVATIVE VICTORY” here it should be named the “Conservative Defeat Project”.But then again Mr.Rove can hardly be the sharpest crayon in the box since he made his name by being the braintrust behind “Compassionate Conservatism”.

    http://www.nytimes.com/2013/02/03/us/politics/top-gop-donors-seek-greater-say-in-senate-races.html?pagewanted=1&_r=0&ref=politics

  • Bill Hedges

    I understand your emergency change of course from “Now you will note the title of the article says “DRIFT” not taken over or dominated SO IT IS SUGGESTING A PATTERN and any numbers would be PREMATURE AT THIS TIME.” I placed a iceberg in your path. As I have shown “numbers would be PREMATURE AT THIS TIME” is UNTRUE. As PROVED with data, LIBERALS don’t stay LIBERAL but mellow out, right, with AGE IN GREATER NUMBERS. Their view & vote changes. Refuting what Bob wrote “The people coming in don’t switch parties.” EVEN from 1st election of buma to second AGE CAUSED change.

    As far as I am concern, Karl Rove is another article and unneeded detour here & now. RATHER stay focus…

  • Bob

    Keep sitting back and ignoring trends,mood of the nation and obstacles put in the way of republicans winning elections and then you can sit back and wonder why your party became obsolete.

    I refer you to a 8th of February 2013 Quinnipiac poll which said 51% disapprove of the job the GOP is doing in Congress.The last poll taken by them in December had a 43% disapproval rating.This usually means a beating in elections.

  • Bill Hedges

    I see your rose colored glasses filtered out:

    Bill Hedges Feb 1st, 2013 at 6:02 am AND MORE.

    Answer FIRST…

    RATHER stay focus…

  • Bill Hedges

    Like:

    BOB writes “The way voter demographics was studied years ago NO LONGER APPLIES”

    Bob, not talking “years ago ”

    Bill Hedges Feb 1st, 2013 at 7:24 am

    “Of course it’s too early to determine with any certainty whether the same maturing process will work its magic on youthful Obama cadres from 2008 and 2012, but there is some indication that the shift has already begun. As the hope-and-change candidate of four years ago, Obama swept voters between 18 and 29 by a truly stunning margin of 34 points, 66 to 32 percent. Four years later, a significant portion of those true believers had moved into the 30- to 45-year-old segment of the population, a group that chose Obama with a much more modest majority of 52 percent. It was exactly the same percentage, by the way, that he received from the same age group four years before.”

    http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2012/12/02/the-not-so-liberal-american-future.html

  • Bill Hedges

    Later, when we get to it, PROVE “The way voter demographics was studied years ago NO LONGER APPLIES”

    MY LINK seems to…

  • Bob

    LMAO……..Those must be the same “rose colored glasses” that the republican party was looking through when they thought they could run any candidate against President Obama’s record and win.AND YES YOU DO TALK ABOUT YEARS AGO.You mentioned the past 11 presidential elections since 1972 in your 1st of February @6:1AM post and you constantly refer to the 2010 election.TIMES HAVE CHANGED!

    I mentioned on numerous occasions and gave links to articles that tell of trends,polls,the mood of the nation and obstacles in the way of winning over voters by the republicans.But if you refuse to believe them and think that the cause of you losing is people “saying something stupid” you just go on with that cockamamie idea.

  • Bill Hedges

    Changing SUBJECT NO LONGER WORKS.

    I am not allowing you to wiggle out of your wrong statements. Answer “Bill Hedges Feb 1st, 2013 at 6:02 am AND MORE” or our discussion is done on this article.

    1. “The people coming in don’t switch parties.”

    2. “Now you will note the title of the article says “DRIFT” not taken over or dominated SO IT IS SUGGESTING A PATTERN and any numbers would be PREMATURE AT THIS TIME.”

    Both wrong.

  • Bill Hedges

    I agree with Rove. “saying something stupid”:

    TODD OF MO said raped women would not have baby. That’s stupid. Why Rove would not back Todd…

  • Bill Hedges

    My last comment can be found in your last link..

  • Bill Hedges

    I disproved both of your links on ‘TRENDS’…

  • Bill Hedges

    i GAVE LINK with plenty of data on “trends” that you said:

    2. “Now you will note the title of the article says “DRIFT” not taken over or dominated SO IT IS SUGGESTING A PATTERN and any numbers would be PREMATURE AT THIS TIME.”

  • Bill Hedges

    Nate

    One reason I do not return NASTY FIRE to Bob was DD MAO. Although I hit REPORT BUTTON, COMPLAINED, even sent Nate a e-mail. All went by the wayside. Then I let loose IN KIND. Both of us got blamed with none of my WARNINGS meaning anything.

    Therefore the list. After EACH REMARK by Bob I print THIS GROWING LIST with no FIRE BACK:

    1. “Messaging Bob Jan 22nd, 2013 at 6:55 pm”

    Bob is ANOTHER DD Mao if not DD Mao. Name calling is his style when in trouble:

    “idiots”…

    2. “Messaging Bob Jan 25th, 2013 at 12:01 am

    “What are you babbling about? AND WHAT NAME DID I BRUISE YOUR TENDER EGO WITH NOW?”

    “UNTIL YOU GROW UP………GOOD NIGHT!”

    3. “ Hearing The Hearings Bob Jan 27th, 2013 at 4:15 pm

    “IGNORE YOUR COMMENT ? I CAN’T EVEN UNDERSTAND IT.”

    “You deal in confusion and delusion…..you try to confuse your opponent and you are delusioned by the g.o.p”

    4. “Hearing The Hearings Bob Jan 27th, 2013 at 4:29 pm

    The term is “ducks in a row” but your delusion with the g.o.p. is still quacked up (sorry folks but I couldn’t pass that one up). Bob Jan 27th, 2013 at 4:15 pm

    “IGNORE YOUR COMMENT ? I CAN’T EVEN UNDERSTAND IT.”

    “You deal in confusion and delusion…..you try to confuse your opponent and you are delusioned by the g.o.p”

    5. “Hearing The Hearings Bob Jan 27th, 2013 at 4:51 pm”

    “No,No !!!!!! You missed my best line in my 4:38PM post about “legend in your own mind” and brain cells.”

    6. “Hearing The Hearings Bob Jan 27th, 2013 at 4:58 pm”

    “It figures you’re a republican you even screwed that up !”

    “The best of Bob should read:”You’re a legend in your own mind who is a day late and a few brain cells short”

    7. “Hearing The Hearings Bob Jan 27th, 2013 at 5:05 pm”

    “Thank you!”

    8. “Hearing The Hearings Bob Jan 27th, 2013 at 5:23 pm”

    “NO FAIR ! I OBJECT! number 3 and number 4 are the same post.”

    9. “Hearing The Hearings Bob Jan 27th, 2013 at 5:35 pm”

    “OK,OK,….IF YOU INSIST! I take back the joke about “quacked up”

    10. “Hearing The Hearings Bob Jan 27th, 2013 at 5:51 pm”

  • Bill Hedges

    “you just go on with that cockamamie idea.”

  • Bob

    No wiggling is involved.If you read the articles I linked to it told you that local elections in major cities are being won because of the influx of liberal voters and immigrants in those states.

    As Mark Levin pointed out recently “Karl Rove bragged about spending $30 million dollars from his “American Crossroads” PAC on Senate Tea Party candidates and $25 million dollars on House Tea Party candidates.But American Crossroads reportly spent $400 million dollars in the 2012 election meaning $1 out of every $8 was spent on Tea party candidates.”The rest was spent no doubt on moderate and incumbent republican candidates.Clearly you see where his intentions are and it isn’t with the Tea Party as his new PAC “Conservtive Victory Project”specifies.It’s party not principle and it has nothing to do with saying anything stupid.

  • Bill Hedges

    FIRST APOLOGY then

    Changing SUBJECT NO LONGER WORKS.

    I am not allowing you to wiggle out of your wrong statements. Answer “Bill Hedges Feb 1st, 2013 at 6:02 am AND MORE” or our discussion is done on this article.

    1. “The people coming in don’t switch parties.”

    2. “Now you will note the title of the article says “DRIFT” not taken over or dominated SO IT IS SUGGESTING A PATTERN and any numbers would be PREMATURE AT THIS TIME.”

    Both wrong

  • Bob

    “Life is to short to deal with …….”you know the rest!

  • Bill Hedges

    FIRST APOLOGY then

    Changing SUBJECT NO LONGER WORKS.

    I am not allowing you to wiggle out of your wrong statements. Answer “Bill Hedges Feb 1st, 2013 at 6:02 am AND MORE” or our discussion is done on this article.

    1. “The people coming in don’t switch parties.”

    2. “Now you will note the title of the article says “DRIFT” not taken over or dominated SO IT IS SUGGESTING A PATTERN and any numbers would be PREMATURE AT THIS TIME.”

    Both wrong

  • Bill Hedges

    My last commennt ON THIS article…

    Bob wrote in “Bob Feb 9th, 2013 at 9:25 pm”

    “Unfortunatly Karl Rove and the establishment wing insist on putting obstacles in the way. I refer to the new PAC named “Conservative Victory Project” which he established to finance MODERATE candidates and INCUMBENTS that they feel have a better chance of being elected.In otherwords keep the status quo as long as they have a “R” after their name……trade in principles for party.There is nothing “CONSERVATIVE VICTORY” here it should be named the “Conservative Defeat Project”.But then again Mr.Rove can hardly be the sharpest crayon in the box since he made his name by being the braintrust behind “Compassionate Conservatism”.”

    In particular, “Conservative Victory Project” which he established to finance MODERATE candidates and INCUMBENTS that they feel have a better chance of being elected.In otherwords keep the status quo as long as they have a “R” after their name……trade in principles for party.”

    Why not take WHAT WAS SAID by Karl’s group from Bob’s links concerning “better chance of being elected” ??? I SEEM TO recall was Bob who previous wrote ON THIS. BOB AGREEING with Karl ??? NAMELY Todd:

    “Top Donors to Republicans Seek More Say in Senate Races”

    1. “ …Steven J. Law, the president of American Crossroads, the “super PAC” creating the new project. “We don’t view ourselves as being in the incumbent protection business, but we want to pick the most conservative candidate who can win…”

    2. “The Conservative Victory Project, which is backed by Karl Rove and his allies who built American Crossroads into the largest Republican super PAC of the 2012 election cycle, will start by intensely vetting prospective contenders for Congressional races to try to weed out candidates who are seen as too flawed to win general elections.”

    3. “The project is being waged with last year’s Senate contests in mind, particularly the one in Missouri, where Representative Todd Akin’s comment that “legitimate rape” rarely causes pregnancy rippled through races across the country. In Indiana, the Republican candidate, Richard E. Mourdock, lost a race after he said that when a woman became pregnant during a rape it was “something God intended.”

    4. “We’re concerned about Steve King’s Todd Akin problem,” Mr. Law said. “This is an example of candidate discipline and how it would play in a general election. All of the things he’s said are going to be hung around his neck.”

    http://www.nytimes.com/2013/02/03/us/politics/top-gop-donors-seek-greater-say-in-senate-races.html?pagewanted=1&_r=1&ref=politics&

    Todd WAS NOT “most conservative candidate who can win” & Rove groups wants to “weed out” such candidates.

    Bob assessment of “ keep the status quo as long as they have a “R” after their name……trade in principles for party” is irresponsible, INCORRECT, & BOARDERING on SLANDER. I think Bob CROSSED that line. Did Bob read with comprehension HIS OWN LINK ???

    Had YOU quoted Rove group FROM YOUR LINK besides being honest THING to DO, you couldn’t have colored ROVE BADLY. Which was you intend BY YOU WORDS. YOU HAVE complained of loss seats in other articles. Karl is SIMPLE wanting BEST CHANCE TO WIN. As said by Karl’s group, “most conservative candidate who can win”. NOT, as you wrote, “I refer to the new PAC named “Conservative Victory Project” which he established to finance MODERATE candidates and INCUMBENTS that they feel have a better chance of being elected”.

  • Bill Hedges

    Possible correction…

    Come to think about it, IT MIGHT HAVE BEEN DD not Bob that wrote on Todd. NOT SURE. Then, when DD left THEN CAME Bob. Like two peas IN A pod…

  • Bob

    I truly believe you just like to disagree with me on GENERAL PRINCIPLE OR IS IT YOUR EGO?

    Why not take Mr.Roves advice about nominating the most electable you ask? Well how can you call yourself a Tea Party member but you can accept his nominating MODERATES AND INCUMBENTS TO CONTINUE THE STATUS QUO? How can you can accept him backing financially those candidates opposed to Tea Party principles and following the Constitution? How can you support those candidates who support big government and big government spending?…..Oh! I forgot you were a G.W.B. and Karl Rove supporter of “BIG GOVERNMENT CONSERVATISM”.

    The “Buckley Principle” of electing the most electable conservative ONLY WORKS WHEN YOU HAVE CAN READ TEA LEAVES AND PREDICT IN ADVANCE WHO IS GOING TO WIN.WE HAVE BEEN ELECTING CANDIDATES WHO CAMPAIGN MODERATE AND HOPING THAT WE CAN HOLD THEIR FEET TO THE FIRE AFTER THEY GET ELECTED AND MAKE THEM SEE THE LIGHT OF CONSERVATISM.As you can see this isn’t working and see my post of 10th February @12:54 AM for why it isn’t going to work with Mr.Roves PAC.

    To answer your question……YESI DID READ MY OWN LINK AND UNLIKE YOU I DON’T BELIEVE EVERYTHING POLITICIANS SAY ANYMORE.Mr.Rove is in competition with other PAC’s such as “Club for Growth”,”Madison Project” and “Senate Conservative Fund”for Conservative donations of course he will say it’s going to candidates the doners want.

    “There is nothing sacred about the republican party.They deserve Conservative support only to the extent they are Conservative”…………………Frank S. Meyers

  • Bob
  • Bob
  • Bill Hedges

    Bob

    I disagree WITH you at times THEN I prove YOU WRONG when I so desire…

  • Bill Hedges

    I can not disprove “GENERAL PRINCIPLE OR IS IT YOUR EGO”…