No he wasn't but during his first four years he had some opposition in the party, namely McCain before he drank the kool-aid.

Bush was also liberal in a few ways....NCLB was a huge redistribution of wealth from affluent schools into poor schools...it just had some flawed concepts.

Now the last of the old school true republicans are being voted out in primaries by tea party people and their irrational exuberance and the party is circling the drain...

Democrats are moving more to the middle. In a few election cycles it will be middle vs. far right. As usual liberals will have nobody to vote for lol.



Bipartisan means the resolution/conclusion was produced by a consensus of individuals that are ideologically from the left and right.

This post was edited by Skinned on May 21 2012 11:59am

If you look at the worst from both parties, you'll obviously get the same result, neurotic individuals beyond compromise.

The fact that they only focus on the republican side isn't suspicious in the least?



Chosen and interpreted by a liberal-leaning news source. Classic information control

I'll agree that the big republican voting bases have ulterior motives, but that's no different in Democratic bases

Not really because many of them are republicans. If current republican leadership is the problem then why not call a spade a spade?



American Enterprise Institute? or Brookings Institution? Brookings is liberal and they don't hide it.

Or are you attacking the messenger in CNN? Why not attack me and say I'm a liberal leaning poster, it would discredit the study just as much.

This post was edited by Skinned on May 21 2012 12:03pm

Headline: Scientists discover what everyone has already known for years

Not bipartisan, I meant unbiased. I disagree that Democrats are moving towards the middle, if anything I think that both parties are being tugged (and pushed by the media) to their respective extremes.

Obama Socialist.

I'm only too happy to hold Republicans responsible too. Like Medicare part D, and doubling the money spent on the E.D. under W. Bush. That's why I am now engaging the Paul campaign, so that by helping take control of the party apparatus in my state, I can see to it that bad Republicans go away in primary elections. Why do you think you're seeing national news about long-serving Republicans biting the bullet in primaries? Because we're cleaning the house. By next election, my own US Representative should be added to the growing list of "conservatives" that find themselves on the outside looking in, because they sign off on things like PIPA, CISPA, or any other acronym for internet censorship, not to mention NDAA, various farm bills which are nothing more than corporate welfare for agri-business, etc.

Now go clean your own house.

I hate it when you're right.

+1

Do you want a replacement for the GOP or just a shift in ideology? I find myself stuck between the two.
Replace the GOP will never happen in a two party system, you'll just guarantee victories for the Democratic party. A shift in ideology will be less effective, but more *do able*.

Both are pretty shitty imo.



This post was edited by TopherJohn on May 21 2012 12:10pm

We need to get back to core principles. Self-responsibility, private property, civil liberties and the like. A new party would be political suicide, that's why we need to retake our own party from the Vichy Republicans.