1. Welcome to SportsJournalists.com, a friendly forum for discussing all things sports and journalism.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register for a free account to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Access to private conversations with other members.
    • Fewer ads.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Could the Senate be going back to the GOP?

Discussion in 'Anything goes' started by old_tony, Feb 22, 2007.

  1. Yawn

    Yawn New Member

    I'll recant.

    Actually, those influences were felt prior to the Reagan Revolution, when most good Democrats realized the nutcases of the party were taking it over, so they switched sides.

    Today's Democrap bears no resemblance at all to many of those glory years.
  2. alleyallen

    alleyallen Guest

    So because Clinton (Bill and Hillary) is so hated in Texas, you truly believe Texans would vote in just about anyone over her? And your supposed knowledge of my state is based on what? Other than election results from 2000 and 2004, which don't really go all that far in supporting your claims that anyone could get elected there.

    But by all means, keep insisting that you're right.
  3. Social Security.
    The GI Bill.
  4. Herbert Anchovy

    Herbert Anchovy Active Member

    Anwar Sadat was the last great moderate.

    To Yawn, he's another raghead.
  5. Yawn

    Yawn New Member

    Clinton was elected in 1992, dipshit. And re-elected in 1996.

    Texas voted against him both times. And voted Republican in 1968, 1972, 1980, 1984, 1988. Only the Peanut Farmer took Texas for the Socialists. And by something like .7 percent.
  6. alleyallen

    alleyallen Guest

    You gimp-headed fuck nut. I wasn't talking about Bill Clinton's election in 92 or 96. I was talking about the Shrub's elections in 2000 and 2004. You really are an asshat.
  7. Yawn

    Yawn New Member

    No, Alley, you trying to link your comments to Bush makes only for amusement. It's your state? You elected him governor didn't you? As I recall, he was one of the most popular governors ever.

    It wasn't like you elected Jim Mattox or Cullen Davis. So, in defense of a great state against a fringe Texan who reads more like he's from Massachusetts, Texas knows damn well who to put in the White House and who not to put in. It can't help that it has about a 25-30 percent liberal fringe who didn't make the shift to the right when Clements rode the Reagan revolution. The Texas Democratic Party ain't John Connally's party anymore.
  8. zeke12

    zeke12 Guest

    Lincoln was certainly middle of the road within his own party on the issue of slavery.
  9. D-Backs Hack

    D-Backs Hack Guest

    I don't know if this is currently the case, but there have been instances where provisions have been put in place at the start of a session to keep a chamber of Congress under the same party's control, regardless if membership changes affect who holds the majority of seats. It happened in the Senate from 1953-55, for starters, when (good Lord) nine guys died during the session, flipping the majority multiple times:


    But the Republicans kept majority-control status for the entire session, in part because then-minority leader Lyndon Johnson wanted the Joe McCarthy problem tagged to a Senate run by the GOP:


    When Jeffords went independent in 2001, no provision was in place, so Senate control shifted.

    I don't have the time right now to check this year's Senate record to see if a session-control provision was enacted, but it's possible that, even if Lieberman defects, Democrats will continue to run the Senate.
  10. alleyallen

    alleyallen Guest

    No, I didn't elect him. The dunderheads who support him now, did. And, despite your claim that he was a popular governor...that's true, until he used up the state's budget surplus and left the state in debt by several billion dollars and his cronies left behind gutted the state's education budget to make up for the shortfall.
  11. old_tony

    old_tony Well-Known Member

    New story updating Lieberman's thinking on a possible switch.


    Sen. Joseph I. Lieberman of Connecticut told the Politico on Thursday that he has no immediate plans to switch parties but suggested that Democratic opposition to funding the war in Iraq might change his mind.

    Lieberman, a self-styled independent who caucuses with the Democrats, has been among the strongest supporters of the war and President Bush’s plan to send an additional 21,500 combat troops into Iraq to help quell the violence there.

    "I have no desire to change parties," Lieberman said in a telephone interview. "If that ever happens, it is because I feel the majority of Democrats have gone in a direction that I don't feel comfortable with."

    Asked whether that hasn't already happened with Iraq, Lieberman said: "We will see how that plays out in the coming months," specifically how the party approaches the issue of continued funding for the war.
  12. Good. Hitch your wagon to a party headed over the cliff.
    Goodbye, Joe.
Draft saved Draft deleted

Share This Page