|This man doesn't care about you, he only cares about his own power and status.|
This morning on MSNBC's Morning Joe, Senate Minority Leader, Mitch McConnell (R-KY) admitted publicly what many on the left have been saying for the last 19 months or so. He admitted that the Republican Party has no ideas and no plan, and that the only thing on the agenda is damaging President Obama.
"The single most important thing we want to achieve is for President Obama to be a one-term president." Those words were uttered this morning on national television by the most powerful Republican in elected office. What's more important than jobs, more important than the economy, more important than education reform, more important than foreign policy, more important than health care, more important than homeland security, more important than marriage equality, more important than reducing the deficit, more important than cutting spending, more important than Middle East peace, more important than favorable trade deals with China, more important than immigration reform, and more important than tax relief for the Middle Class? According to the Republican Party, none of that matters. The most important thing to them is to play politics, and to try and undermine the President of the United States.
I'm speechless. Literally. It's one thing to privately think that, but it's another entirely to state it on television. How's that tea partiers? You say you're not merely Republicans, and that you care more about issues than politics. Well, then how are you going to support a party that openly states it does not care about you or your issues, and views sees its only objective as damaging the President of the United States. Mitch McConnell and the Republican Party, you are pathetic.
While I am not necessarily a Mitch McConnel fan, I think by going against Obama pretty much ensures that your litany of issues mentioned in your post are far better handled than the way they currently have been, sir. :)
No, it shows the pettiness and the extreme desire for power that is at the core of both the tea party "movement" and the Republican Party. They sit back and do nothing but block bill after bill, piss and moan, and do everything possible to stop progress. If McConnell believes his job as a Senate Majority leader is to try and effect an election two years in the future, then I am afraid he needs to study up on the job.
I thought the tea party was issue oriented and not merely about returning the GOP to power? I guess I was right about that phony movement after all.
Dave, when every bill put up for debate by the progressives and Obama puts the nation further in debt, erodes our liberties, or is contrary to constitutional law, I damned well hope that the GOP is the party of HELL NO!
They damned well better be blocking such "progress" and if that hurts Obama, then perhaps the President needs to re-evaluate to see if he is truly adhering to his oath to protect and defend the constitution, sir.
Nice talking points. Little short on things like facts to back them up. It used to be that a right wing talking point had to include a noun, a verb and 9/11. Now, I guess it has to be a noun, a verb, and unconstitutional.
I will say this for Freedom Works, the Koch Brothers, Glenn Beck and the rest of folks behind this "movement", they sure do know how to mislead large numbers of people into believing that by granting corporations greater rights than citizens, that somehow their own rights are realized. I thought we got past this after the 1920s?
The angry right is selling this country to the highest bidder. It is truly sad. Glad your buddies at BP, Exxon Mobil, and Citibank, will get their tax cuts and corporate welfare next year. Let's hope it doesn't slow down the pace of outsourcing for the rest of the GOP/tea party donors.
Dave, for the record, I think that corporations, unions, PAC's etc should all have their ability to donate money removed.
Only private citizens should be able to donate as they see fit, in my humble opinion.
I am not a huge fan of corporate America by any stretch, but nor am I a fan of socialistic unions who no longer serve the purpose for which they were originally intended.
And by the way, "constitutional" and it antithesis are hardly talking points. They ARE facts of which the progressives in this country seem to be completely oblivious or outright hostile towards, Splash.
Whether or not something is constitutional is determined by the Courts. It has been since Marbury v Madison in 1803. The constitutionality of a law is not determined by Glenn Beck and Michelle Bachmann.
Theoretically the courts are indeed supposed to interpret law and deem what is constitutional. Unfortunately they have not always gotten this right.
Separate but equal and Roe v. Wade are two prime examples of this.
Post a Comment