Voinovich (R-Ohio) Meeting with Obama Today -- Not Good

[SSG Snuggle Bunny]

Is George Voinovich going to screw the GOP on health care? Updated
By Michelle Malkin  •  January 19, 2010 09:40 AM Scroll for updates…

Sorry, I couldn’t word it any more politely than that. But the very prospect of GOP Sen. George Voinovich of Ohio bailing on his party to cast a swan song 60th vote for the government health care takeover bill makes me want to spit nails.

http://michellemalkin.com/2010/01/19/is-george-voinovich-going-to-screw-the-gop-on-health-care/

[bkg]

no surprise. Should be further proof to many people that there is no difference between the GOP and DNC anymore.

[Eupher]

As of this writing it's been more than an hour since Georgie and Barack swapped spit.

No word on the street yet.

 

[dandi]

no surprise. Should be further proof to many people that there is no difference between the GOP and DNC anymore.

If there isn't, then why worry about who wins the MA senate seat?

[bkg]

If there isn't, then why worry about who wins the MA senate seat?

Never said I was worried about it, to be honest.

But since you asked, there's a big difference in PEOPLE. I vote for a candidate, not a party. But there are people (here) who vote based on the letter behind the candidate's name.

[Oceander]

From another conservative site: ABC News Tweets: Sen Voinovich at WH today says "I am not a vote for the health care bill, period."

[Mustang]

Never said I was worried about it, to be honest.

But since you asked, there's a big difference in PEOPLE. I vote for a candidate, not a party. But there are people (here) who vote based on the letter behind the candidate's name.

I'm sorry, but I have to give props to the Republicans. Lately they have gotten their thumbs out of their asses and organized to virtual shutdown to complying with the healthcare bill.

If 1 or 2 RINO's out of all the Republicans in congress might go with the bill, you can't just label the Republicans the same as the democrats.

Open your eyes dude, you got one party trying to jam through an arrogant act of taking over 1/6 of the economy and f*cking over our future into unpayable and unending debt, and the other party trying everything it can do to slam the brakes.

[bkg]

I'm sorry, but I have to give props to the Republicans. Lately they have gotten their thumbs out of their asses and organized to virtual shutdown to complying with the healthcare bill.

If 1 or 2 RINO's out of all the Republicans in congress might go with the bill, you can't just label the Republicans the same as the democrats.

Open your eyes dude, you got one party trying to jam through an arrogant act of taking over 1/6 of the economy and f*cking over our future into unpayable and unending debt, and the other party trying everything it can do to slam the brakes.

And your party grew gov't by 40% in < 8 years... and almost doubled the debt, passed the patriot act and Medicare part D. So don't lecture me on the Republicans being better than the DNC. 

Don't give props to the GOP... give props to the candidate who is a true conservative.

[SSG Snuggle Bunny]

Ain't nothing wrong with the Patriot Act anymore than there is anything wrong with having a standing army...it's the person calling the shots that counts.

Hell, Clenis stole 500 top secret files on political rivals BEFORE there was ever a PA so the presence or absence of a law doesn't mean diddly where crooks are concerned. At least with the PA we can use it to smoke hajjis.

[bkg]

Ain't nothing wrong with the Patriot Act anymore than there is anything wrong with having a standing army...it's the person calling the shots that counts.

Hell, Clenis stole 500 top secret files on political rivals BEFORE there was ever a PA so the presence or absence of a law doesn't mean diddly where crooks are concerned. At least with the PA we can use it to smoke hajjis.

We're going to have to agree to disagree. PA gives gov't WAY too many opportunities to stomp all over our rights... yet again.

[5412]

Never said I was worried about it, to be honest.

But since you asked, there's a big difference in PEOPLE. I vote for a candidate, not a party. But there are people (here) who vote based on the letter behind the candidate's name.

Hi,

While you might vote for a candidate, it is time someone put the truth on the table.  Since BO took over democrats no longer are practicing representative government.  They are being threatened, cajoled, whatever with Chicago style politics to the point they must follow the party line.  Does not make any difference what the candidate says when they are running, the follow the Obama agenda or they are toast.  Even those in the house who voted against health care had to get madam pelosi's permission to do so.

It is high time the republicans started preaching that message very loud.

regards,
5412

[bkg]

Hi,

While you might vote for a candidate, it is time someone put the truth on the table.  Since BO took over democrats no longer are practicing representative government.  They are being threatened, cajoled, whatever with Chicago style politics to the point they must follow the party line.  Does not make any difference what the candidate says when they are running, the follow the Obama agenda or they are toast.  Even those in the house who voted against health care had to get madam pelosi's permission to do so.

It is high time the citizens started preaching that message very loud.

regards,
5412

Now we agree. Except the highlighted sentece is incorrect. We haven't had representative gov't in decades.

[TheSarge]

Now we agree. Except the highlighted sentece is incorrect. We haven't had representative gov't in decades.

[bkg]

You disagree? Not saying this DC isn't worse, but overall, we've seen a great reduction in true representation for decades. Just because it's cool to be pissed at the current morons doesn't mean their predecessors were any better.

[5412]

Now we agree. Except the highlighted sentece is incorrect. We haven't had representative gov't in decades.

Hi,

I guess we will agree to disagree.  When the conservatives controlled congress in 1994 there were a lot of democrats that crossed over on some popular issues.  I just have never seen the pressure put on the democrat legislators like we have seen in the last several months.  i mean bribes, threats, intimidation, whatever it takes.

They threatened to get Lieberman's wife fired from her job if he did not get in line.  Like lots of this stuff, it was strongly hinted but never quite straightforward so it can be denied when it becomes public.

regards,
5412

[bkg]

Hi,

I guess we will agree to disagree.  When the conservatives controlled congress in 1994 there were a lot of democrats that crossed over on some popular issues.  I just have never seen the pressure put on the democrat legislators like we have seen in the last several months.  i mean bribes, threats, intimidation, whatever it takes.

They threatened to get Lieberman's wife fired from her job if he did not get in line.  Like lots of this stuff, it was strongly hinted but never quite straightforward so it can be denied when it becomes public.

regards,
5412

I agree with this post... but still disagree that only now we are lacking in representation. It's been an issue for years... as has corruption. Nothing has really changed.

[Eupher]

I agree with this post... but still disagree that only now we are lacking in representation. It's been an issue for years... as has corruption. Nothing has really changed.

And I agree with bkg's fundamental point - that strong-arm tactics have been employed by BOTH political parties for decades. If you, the noob Congresscritter, don't toe the party line, you won't be supported when it's time to seek reelection (which happens about Day Two after you're sworn in).

We can argue degree of coercion, threats, bribes, quid pro quo all day long, and compare all that to the current crop of Chicago thugs, but it doesn't alter the fact that Congress has long since lost the confidence of the American people. This basic distrust of government was brought about chiefly because of Watergate and it hasn't gotten a helluva lot better since then.

Nope, bkg's on target. Our form of representative government hasn't really been in play for a long, long time. Congress takes care of itself first and by that I mean the spending policies of both parties due to pork, earmarks, and the rest of the juggling have grown to the breaking point.

Whatever happened to financial restraint? It doesn't exist any more. Got paper? Time to print more money and then spend it.  

[ConservativeMobster]

And I agree with bkg's fundamental point - that strong-arm tactics have been employed by BOTH political parties for decades. If you, the noob Congresscritter, don't toe the party line, you won't be supported when it's time to seek reelection (which happens about Day Two after you're sworn in).

We can argue degree of coercion, threats, bribes, quid pro quo all day long, and compare all that to the current crop of Chicago thugs, but it doesn't alter the fact that Congress has long since lost the confidence of the American people. This basic distrust of government was brought about chiefly because of Watergate and it hasn't gotten a helluva lot better since then.

Nope, bkg's on target. Our form of representative government hasn't really been in play for a long, long time. Congress takes care of itself first and by that I mean the spending policies of both parties due to pork, earmarks, and the rest of the juggling have grown to the breaking point.

Whatever happened to financial restraint? It doesn't exist any more. Got paper? Time to print more money and then spend it.  

Now that we have that established, can we move on to the more joyous aspect of this election?  Let's understand that as ELECTED officials we can only hold ourselves responsible for the government that we get when we keep electing these imbeciles. Let's walk the walk, return to the Reagan "BOLD COLORS" and STOP putting "politicians" in office who "earmark, coerce, bribe and bully".