Originally Posted By: Derid


Maybe they would, maybe they wouldnt. My point is that instead of giving them the opportunity to do so, or to not do so - the Dems have seized on the media meme of some years back painting the GOP as obstructionist and ensured that nothing can happen either way. The epitome of passive-aggressive politics.


Yes, this is valid criticism.

Still, lets go through mental exercise of what would happen if Dems proposed functional, balanced budget. Such budget would include cuts to social spending, cuts to military spending, across-the-boards tax increases. In effect such budget would a) alienate Dem base (your average voter is not smart enough to understand necessity), energize GOP base (Tea Party and all) and all but guarantee _undeserving_ 2-house majorities to Republicans. Plus it is not even guaranteed to get passed, it can get voted down (not solving the problem) and still used to full extent as a political weapon.

Quote:
Now, if we were to get more granular and target specific Bush loving politicians during their re-election then I am all for that. Few things make me happier than seeing a Bush-flunky congresscritter get ousted during a primary by a Tea Party or Liberty candidate, even if the Dems go on to win the seat.


Something both of us can agree on. I'd go even farther, while I acknowledge that crisis-era bailouts were necessary to prevent complete meltdown, I still want to see anyone voting for them gone. I also want to see people responsible for de-regulation that lead to this crisis voted out as well.

[Linked Image]