Quote:
|
Originally Posted by balderdash111
Good point about the threat of payback when the Repubs lose the majority (not excerpted above)
Re: the quote above
I know that there are Republican senators who do not share the administrations neo-con views on various issues, but this is an administration that forces strict party discipline. Did you see Spectre's reversal of his statement yesterday about nominees? Talk about coerced speech...
(see it here: http://www.specter.senate.gov/index....h=11&Year=2004) |
I totally agree with the strict party adherence reality.
but, now the pres is in for good. and he wants to make a lasting legislation. that won't happen if he bulls through the china house. he's savvy enough to know that. prediction is he will go back to his texas and first year methods.
he wants to do something big. not sure what it is. doesn't look like tax reform to the experts, not quite sure about social security. but something. and he has to contend with the risk of fracturing the party. that's the unsaid narrative--that the republican party has been very near fracturing for some time now as the social pubs are clashing with the econ pubs.
watch this stuff closely, because while it's not rosy, it isn't catastrophic. and for someone who is disenfranchised anyway (that is, I have no stake because I'm not wedded to either side--neither one speaks for me), it's actually very facinating.
I suspect indi's and libertarians, et al may feel similar.