A huge difference between the Tea Party and the Dems today

Or maybe the Republicans were only able to take over Congress after the hard core liberals took over the Democrat party? Remember McGovern and the SDS?

Wayne Harrison wrote: So, the fact that Democrats controlled Congress by a 3 to 1 margin since 1945 means they were the more fiscally conservative party? Does that include Roosevelt, Truman, Kennedy and Johnson?

Nope! But they were all a lot more conservative than today and people liked that. The Democratic party left the fiscally responsible ways and so America is leaving the Democrats a lot more. In the last 34 year, Carter only 4 years, Clinton 8 years with a Republican controlled congress and only got elected because of a third party. Now Obama another 4 year President. They never last when Americans are reminded why they voted them out the last time. They tried the Democrat experiment again like the Carter years where they gave total control to the Dems in all three houses, and now they remember why they need Republicans back in office.

I think there should be checks and balances between the president and the houses of Congress.

That said, I don't think individual voters vote for a Representative or Senator based on who they want in that office -- not based on who will control Congress. And in 3 out of 4 cases, that's given the Democrats control of the House and Senate (based on the chart I linked to earlier).

AS for presidents, it's been pretty even between the two parties. As for Obama being a four-year president, the voters haven't spoken yet -- and I don't like people second-guessing the voters years or months in advance. I prefer to let the voters decide, even though some of you think they can be easily brainwashed. I give them more credit than that.

A Republican or Tea Party presidential candidate hasn't even emerged yet. It could be another John McCain.

What page is your chart on? I missed it.

http://uspolitics.about.com/od/usgovern ... sion_2.htm

The Viking wrote:

Wayne Harrison wrote: Michelle Obama. While I don't support Bennett, it's a savy move. She has the highest approval rating between the three of them (Clinton and Pres. Obama).

He chose Michelle Obama over all of the other great leaders with high approval ratings in the Democratic party? How will he afford to throw a Gala for her to come in? And can he afford the lobster and caviar to feed her? Hmmmm.......I guess he makes more than I thought to afford her expensive tastes.

Sorry, Viking. I have to call you on your bullsh*t.

You know, I'm sure, the lobster and caviar story at the Waldorf Astoria was disproved immediately after it started making the rounds on Republican blogs and chain emails during the election campaign in 2008. Even the photocopy of the "bill" was a Photoshop. Just another typical right-wing smear tactic. But you try to keep it going while bragging about how your side is always for the "truth." Repeat a lie often enough and maybe someone will believe it, right? It's the way you guys do business in politics: Discredit, Lie, Rumor monger, Fear monger.

Even NY Post retracted its erroneous Page Six blurb on the event that didn't happen (The Post is owned by ... wait for it.. Rupert Murdoch. They waited a week to admit it was not factual) Turns out she wasn't even in New York that day. You'd think a newspaper in New York would know if a candidate's wife was campaigning in their city, wouldn't you? Or maybe make a simple phone call to check and see if she was there that day.

THE source who told us last week about Michelle Obama getting lobster and caviar delivered to her room at the Waldorf-Astoria must have been under the influence of a mind-altering drug. She was not even staying at the Waldorf. We regret the mistake, and our former source is going to regret it, too. Bread and water would be too good for such disinformation.

"A lie gets halfway around the world before the truth has a chance to get its pants on." -- Winston Churchill

He was right.

Wayne..then you need to be called out on your liberal photoshop of tea party signs, you never retracted that BS photo you posted, you can see where the trees were not totally edited out of the picture behind the sign..you avoided that like the plague. So calling out someone for right wing tactics should also be addressed by you liberals, the libs are very good at it..so what's up with that!

Wayne Harrison wrote:
A Republican or Tea Party presidential candidate hasn't even emerged yet. It could be another John McCain.

Could be, or it could be someone like Chris Christie, who would win by a landslide. (I know, he has said he doesn't want to run....or rather his wife would kill him if he did).

outdoor338 wrote: Wayne..then you need to be called out on your liberal photoshop of tea party signs, you never retracted that BS photo you posted, you can see where the trees were not totally edited out of the picture behind the sign..you avoided that like the plague. So calling out someone for right wing tactics should also be addressed by you liberals, the libs are very good at it..so what's up with that!

None of the signs were photoshopped. They were actual signs at actual Tea Party events. I'm sorry if they embarrassed you. If there's a sign you think was fake, post it and prove it was photoshopped.

Look at the sign wayne, and you can see trees that someone tried to edit out..you don't have to be a genius to figure that out, three people have caught it..go look at what they said..I do plenty of work on photoshop, can you verify the authenticity of the picture?