I'm sure that's always been the case, but I don't recall a time when an entire party decided to grab for every possible advantage, regardless of how it affects the country. Look at what the GOP did to Bill Clinton. That was completely insane. Clinton helped them out by lying under oath, but the GOP's scorched earth tactics went way beyond that. There was not even a pretense of proportionality in how they went after Clinton. The Dems are no angels, but I don't think they have adopted bad faith as a core value, which is exactly what the GOP has done. There are individual GOP members who try to do the right thing, but the same cannot be said of the party as a whole.

I don't expect anyone to agree with any of that. It's just my opinion.

I totally agree with you.

__________________
1991 560 SEC AMG, 199k <---- 300 hp 10:1 ECE euro HV ...

1995 E 420, 170k "The Red Plum" (sold)

2015 BMW 535i xdrive awd Stage 1 DINAN, 6k, <----364 hp

1967 Mercury Cougar, 49k

2013 Jaguar XF, 20k <----340 hp Supercharged, All Wheel Drive (sold)

President Clinton invited that sort of tactic by using the same himself. Remember the WH travel office fiasco? The new President always has the option to hire his own people for WH jobs. The person running the travel office had done so for several Presidents of both parties, and was well respected in that capacity. Still, Clinton could have fired him, and that would have been OK. But that wasn't what the Clintons did--they trashed the man and made many baseless accusations to destroy his reputation. It was completely over the top.
Maybe that sort of power goes to peoples' heads, and they forget all they have to do is say, " Thanks for your service, but I want my own people working for me." It was a landmark in the politics of personal destruction.

Lets get back to a more respectful tone.

__________________
1982 300SD " Wotan" ..On the road as of Jan 8, 2007 with Historic Tags

I agree for sure. What the Repo's tried to do to Clinton was a circus. They completely put our country second, similar to what they tried to do to Obama.

What the house majority does in the next 2 years is up to them. If they they hope to accomplish anything, they had better drop the nonsense radical tone or they will be thoroughly defeated in the Senate way before any legislation ever gets to the White House.

The Dems are very much still in control for the next 2 years and the Repos/Tea baggers had better compromise or face total failure. They can forget about reversing the health and financial reforms, that's just a pony show without any realistic possibility of happening.

__________________
Question Authority before it Questions you.

"In 1998 Independent Counsel Kenneth Starr exonerated President Bill Clinton of any involvement in the matter. In 2000 Independent Counsel Robert Ray issued his final report on Travelgate, stating that Hillary Clinton had made factually false statements but there was insufficient evidence her statements were either knowingly false or that she understood that her statements led to the firings."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_House_travel_office_controversy

Don't be so sure on the health care. Anthem and their 30-47% rate hike will only be the first one to raise their rates in order to cover everyone. Their proposal to us was 35% over last year's rate. We're now shopping for health insurance again and not entirely sure we'll be able to get our employees into the same pool of doctors again.

If the Democrats are lucky, the voters will blame the evil insurance companies for raising their rates willy-nilly. If they're not, the voters will blame Health Care reform, or "Obamacare," for causing the insurance companies to raise their rates to cover the additional expenses incurred.

As the economy continues to falter, more voting will be done with the wallet/pocketbook.

__________________

1980 300TD-China Blue/Blue MBTex-2nd Owner, 107K (Alt Blau) OBK #15
'06 Chevy Tahoe Z71 (for the wife & 4 kids, current mule) '03 Honda Odyssey (son #1's ride, reluctantly) '99 GMC Suburban (255K+ miles, semi-retired mule) 21' SeaRay Seville (summer escape pod)

I did not know that.

Of course, it is Wiki.....is it reliable?

__________________
1982 300SD " Wotan" ..On the road as of Jan 8, 2007 with Historic Tags

Wow. That old tale about Nancy's 'big jet' has come up again.

Here is what really took place....

When Dennis Hastert lost his position as House Speaker he also lost his aircraft, a Gulfstream III, which is considered by the Air Force to be a C-20B. Nancy asked if the trip from DC to California could be made non-stop and was told 'sometimes'. It just depended on the weather.

She asked the Air Force if they had an aircraft, any aircraft, that could make the trip non-stop and they suggested a C-21 or a C-37A. Republican controlled media sources made a 'small error' and reported she had demanded a C-32, which is a 757 so she could fly her friends and fat-cat supporters around on a 200 seat jet. In USAF trim the C-32 seats 45, so they made that part up, too.

The Sargent at Arms finally stepped in and said he would make all the travel plans for her based on what the President, who was G. W. Bush, directed and Bush said she needed an aircraft that would fly non-stop due to security reasons.

She finally settled on the C-20B as it could make the trip without refueling most of the time going west and all of the time going east. If the Air Force overruled her she would go with what they suggested, and once and only once did they suggest the C-32 since there were no other aircraft available and the Speakers C-20B was in the shop.

She also, according to AF records, make the trip once a month. The former Speaker used to go to his district twice a month, but the distance flown each month is about the same since her district is far from DC and Hastert's is close.

Republicans have also been critical of Nancy for not using the C-32 more. She used one during the five trade missions she went on with US business leaders, and Republicans have claimed that she should have made many more trips like this.

I guess some people are never happy.

I couldn't disagree more. The republican/ conservative opposition to the Obama HC is based on the principle that government doesn't belong in the HC business. As long as they insist on that, there will be opposition.

On your other points, the republican-led house needs to act on legislation regardless of what the Senate and President will do. There needs to be a clear, voting position on many issues so that the People will know for what each party stands.

__________________
1982 300SD " Wotan" ..On the road as of Jan 8, 2007 with Historic Tags

Well, you could always do you own research, like you tell others to do.

But Hillary was the Co-President in that adminsration! Don't you recall that you where sold the "two for one deal" by Bill himself!:

"Clinton himself remarked at the time that his wife would be a full partner if he became President, terming it a "two for one" deal. "

http://www.firstladies.org/biographies/firstladies.aspx?biography=43

" Abused her position "
Again she apparantly ran the helm as her Inner Sanctum and did shut interlopers out -they usually had the 18th letter of the alpabet preceeding their name--and why would anyone do any different . Their sole function was/is to throw the wrench in the works when it does not have to do with them suceeding.
As far as Nancy Pelosi's rise to being ONE OF THE MOST POWERFUL POLITICIANS IN THE HISTORY OF THE COUNTRY, it would be appropriate to say that she -no doubt incurred much much more than her "fair Share" of attacks from her opponents (if there is such a thing) on the assent , and as far as her "using her position" to make them pay....
vindictive? No I cant say she has a vindictive streak in the least.
But when one cannot get thru to almost everyone around them about showing some class and -the golden rule, Then theres no choice to dish them back the same filth they wanted to serve her--
But we are talking capitol hill so the above sentence sounds really quaint ---Thats why what she achieved is so unique .

There wasn't much reporting on the exoneration. Here's a nice little rant from back in the day: http://www.dailyhowler.com/h112398_1.shtml

"exoneration" talk about damning with some faint praise!

Bill's closest confidant and conspirator is found to have without question provided false testimony only escaping prosecution based because of indeterminate motivation or knowledge. So Bill is "exonerated" because there was no proof discovered that he knew or hard any part what Hillary unknowingly did for unknown reasons.

And the liberals still can't understand why much of America even while excusing his behavior just don't believe what comes out of his mouth or Hillary's for that matter!

Yes this distressed country of ours really needs the dark pollution clowds of greed and corruption to roll in once again-----

-----Yea sure.