[TheRealThing]

Dems are greatly relieved as a result of Kevin McCarthy's withdrawal from pursuit of the Speaker's job. They say the Republicans are fractured and dysfunctional. It's hilarious to listen to, especially for those of us who are still weary from the leadership of Harry Reid and SanFranNan. At any rate, I must admit McCarthy and Boehner's decisions have indeed given Dems some much needed political cover. I don't know about everybody else, but I'm still very upset about Benghazi and I want to know what happened.

It's true that most newly elected Congressmen are co-opted before they get moved into their office by the Capital Hill establishment. And this is the norm of which the media and the mindless (as if there were any difference) have come to expect. Constituents from conservative states don't see things quite that way. "We the people" would like to think our elected officials are sent to the Hill to govern as we tell them to govern.

The legislative process was intended to be a dysfunctional mess. Heck, some of our founding fathers took their disputes all the way to the dueling ground. Everybody seems to have lost sight of the fact that Dems lost the house and the senate back to the Republicans because the voter doesn't like what they've been seeing out of DC. I just cannot wrap my head around the fact that Dems promise more and higher taxes and still, manage to get elected by people who claim they are concerned about stretching their hard earned dollars. The voter none the less, has started to assert himself and Congress should darn well listen.

The upper and lower chambers ought to be fraught with striving and debate from both sides. The lack of it nowadays has supposedly been an example of statesmanship. I know we really need a scorecard to keep up with everything but, here is the problem in a nut shell. Dems want their way or they will get mad and shut down the government using funding. Republicans are then forced to make a choice between two options 1) be gentlemen and go along with the Dems who are bent for social reform and insane levels of deficit spending. Or 2) stake their claim of equal authority (with Dems) under the dictates of the US Constitution, and govern as they were sent to Washington to so do.

How did it get to the point where one party gets all the blame for the wrong headedness afoot in this day as it applies to governance? Just let me give you one little case in point. At the behest of our President, we Americans just spent over 500 MILLION tax dollars in an effort to "train moderate Syrian rebels" to do the fighting in Syria that we don't want to do. We're all war weary you know. What did we get for our money, largely borrowed I might add? A fighting force consisting of 4 rebel fighters. Now, if George W had made a bone headed maneuver such as that, liberals would still be screaming about it. Much less if he had given the store to Iran, in a treaty that looks more like America holding a gun to her own head than stopping any kind of nuclear proliferation.

The Republicans are doing what they're supposed to be doing. Well, some of the time anyway.

[Harry Rex Vonner]

As a lifelong Republican, I'd like to see our representatives grow a brain and a backbone. They appear to have neither.

[TheRealThing]

As a lifelong Republican, I'd like to see our representatives grow a brain and a backbone. They appear to have neither.

Yes but it would also appear they are trying to pull out of the nose dive. The Freedom Caucus, comprised of true conservatives, are challenging the establishment Republicans to think outside of their co-opted mindset for a change. They get criticized for their troubles by the rest of their own conference, with folks like Boehner and McConnell leading the charge. And of course, there are the Democrats with their own zoological coalition of earth worshipers, agnostics, and those otherwise stricken with personality disorders which keep the psychiatric community busy cataloging.

To my way of thinking, any member who could not give an adequate definition for "of the people, by the people" should be expelled from the Congress.

[RunItUpTheGut]

Some Dems are mad because there aren't going to be many debates for them.

I don't understand what the point is in having any debates.
Its going to be the liar and the socialist standing there complementing each other.
There wont be any debate, and I think that's why the DNC and Wendi Schloosssserman Schultpatrick isn't talking.

[Hoot Gibson]

Congress under the "leadership" of McConnell and Boehner and their lackeys have been very dysfunctional if the judgment is based on the gap between promises versus performance. The Freedom Caucus represents the will of far more Republicans than their numbers suggest.

Very few Republicans voted for what Boehner and McConnell have delivered. Conservatives need to move forward with the motion to vacate Boehner's position. He needs to be sent packing now so that the party can begin it's recovery.

[TheRealThing]

Congress under the "leadership" of McConnell and Boehner and their lackeys have been very dysfunctional if the judgment is based on the gap between promises versus performance. The Freedom Caucus represents the will of far more Republicans than their numbers suggest.

Very few Republicans voted for what Boehner and McConnell have delivered. Conservatives need to move forward with the motion to vacate Boehner's position. He needs to be sent packing now so that the party can begin it's recovery.

Well, I hear a lot of talk about the process of legislation being characterized by compromise, and I tend to agree with the basis for that argument. However, what we are seeing in this day is not the normal Congressional ebb and flow which we had as recently as the W administration. No, what we are seeing now is the liberal effort to terraform the US into a place they think they (liberals) will be more comfortable with. And, the method by which libs intend to reach their goal will be via the power of the legislative body of government, along with the seeded judicial and compromised executive.

In other words we conservatives, which BTW make up the vast majority of living Americans, are being legislated into submission by our own recently highjacked government. But, the irony about all of this that I would like to point to is the propaganda line that the Dems have employed so successfully in deflecting attention away from their clever scheme to transform the face of America. And the fact that they get a lot of validation from the ranks of the Republicans (other than the Freedom Caucus) and the oft repeated propaganda line mentioned above. That being the notion that we must be willing to compromise in order to legislate but, compromise only applies to Republicans not the inflexible Dems.

Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi derailed normal legislative efforts during their tenure and things as they now stand, are dysfunctional. But, getting on board the liberal "love train" is not what I send my elected representatives to DC to accomplish. The wave of new candidates who unseated the Democratic establishment were sent to stop the madness, not get co-opted into the ranks of the establishment. Frankly, if bozos like John McCain were not making fun of them I would worry. At any rate, this byline we have heard about compromise in the Congress is nothing much more than reverse psychology coming from the left to make those on the right think they need to keep that back up gear in 'turbo', in order to be statesman like. :please: Nothing could be farther from the truth in my mind.

We have to stop the madness now. God speed the hearts and minds of those in the Freedom Caucus, and let's hope and pray they can influence others to see the light.

[Hoot Gibson]

Well, I hear a lot of talk about the process of legislation being characterized by compromise, and I tend to agree with the basis for that argument. However, what we are seeing in this day is not the normal Congressional ebb and flow which we had as recently as the W administration. No, what we are seeing now is the liberal effort to terraform the US into a place they think they (liberals) will be more comfortable with. And, the method by which libs intend to reach their goal will be via the power of the legislative body of government, along with the seeded judicial and compromised executive.

In other words we conservatives, which BTW make up the vast majority of living Americans, are being legislated into submission by our own recently highjacked government. But, the irony about all of this that I would like to point to is the propaganda line that the Dems have employed so successfully in deflecting attention away from their clever scheme to transform the face of America. And the fact that they get a lot of validation from the ranks of the Republicans (other than the Freedom Caucus) and the oft repeated propaganda line mentioned above. That being the notion that we must be willing to compromise in order to legislate but, compromise only applies to Republicans not the inflexible Dems.

Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi derailed normal legislative efforts during their tenure and things as they now stand, are dysfunctional. But, getting on board the liberal "love train" is not what I send my elected representatives to DC to accomplish. The wave of new candidates who unseated the Democratic establishment were sent to stop the madness, not get co-opted into the ranks of the establishment. Frankly, if bozos like John McCain were not making fun of them I would worry. At any rate, this byline we have heard about compromise in the Congress is nothing much more than reverse psychology coming from the left to make those on the right think they need to keep that back up gear in 'turbo', in order to be statesman like. :please: Nothing could be farther from the truth in my mind.

We have to stop the madness now. God speed the hearts and minds of those in the Freedom Caucus, and let's hope and pray they can influence others to see the light.

The problem is that we have a President, Senate Majority Leader, and Speaker of the House who are all extremely bad negotiators. Congressional leaders have apparently not noticed how Obama negotiates against himself whenever he has been confronted to inflexible enemy leaders. Boehnor and McConnell do the same thing (start making concessions before negotiations have begun) when negotiating with Obama.

Congress has two primary tools in its arsenal to balance the power of the Executive Branch - the power of the purse and impeachment. When Congress lays the groundwork for budget negotiations by publicly stating that there will be no government shutdown, they might as well fly a white flag during the actual negotiating sessions.

I refuse to believe that any of these "leaders" could possibly be as bad at negotiating as they seem to be. I believe that McConnell, Boehner, and Obama agree on far more issues than they disagree. We have functionally become a one-party state in all but name. McConnell would rather see Hillary in the White House as Ted Cruz.

[TheRealThing]

The problem is that we have a President, Senate Majority Leader, and Speaker of the House who are all extremely bad negotiators. Congressional leaders have apparently not noticed how Obama negotiates against himself whenever he has been confronted to inflexible enemy leaders. Boehnor and McConnell do the same thing (start making concessions before negotiations have begun) when negotiating with Obama.

Congress has two primary tools in its arsenal to balance the power of the Executive Branch - the power of the purse and impeachment. When Congress lays the groundwork for budget negotiations by publicly stating that there will be no government shutdown, they might as well fly a white flag during the actual negotiating sessions.

I refuse to believe that any of these "leaders" could possibly be as bad at negotiating as they seem to be. I believe that McConnell, Boehner, and Obama agree on far more issues than they disagree. We have functionally become a one-party state in all but name. McConnell would rather see Hillary in the White House as Ted Cruz.

I agree with you with the exception of one extenuating circumstance as it applies to the influence of the media. It cannot be overstated IMHO the power the press has over Republicans right now. Who have watched as said press has taken the ideas Dems have come up with meant to diminish the credibility of the GOP, many of which BTW are known to be baseless, and run them for all to see on the 24/7 news loop. While at the same time as I often complain, they explain away or choose not to cover things that would cast Dems in the plain light of criticism they in some cases so richly deserve. And though there is a vast menu from which to demonstrate my point, one will do the job.

Everybody knows there has to be something to this deal with Hillary's email server. To date over 400 of those emails have proven to contain classified information. And were NOT turned over to the State Department as was her claim. The media should be howling about it like werewolves at full moon. But, what they will cover ad-nauseum, is the jostling and dodging as it were, with regard to the resignation of Boehner from Speaker and his chosen heir Kevin McCarthy. McCarthy should have picked up the phone and asked Donald how to proceed after his select committee gaffe. I would think he could have pointed out that the committee is in the process of revealing some pretty damnable facts with regard to the whole affair. Instead of standing his ground, he bailed. As the result, the media are having a field day and Hill is back up off the mat. At any rate the field is not exactly balanced, the Republican's fight is not just with Dems, but also the main stream media and that certainly includes FOX.

There is however, one candidate from among all those running who would not allow the media's power to influence and hold sway over the people, to manipulate his Presidency. Donald Trump. And frankly, if you ask me all the mocking and berating coming his way from the media is out of worry. They know he will tell them where to get off and they are nervous. The strongly supportive reaction of the people regarding Trump's campaign, suggests Trump may be media proof. I actually pay attention when anchors and their ilk try to maneuver conversation like lawyers (many of them are lawyers) in effort to extract the 'gotcha' that will give them leave to develop the preconceived story line of their intent. At least Trump can come back at them and call them out for their shenanigans, which I find has the effect of defusing the situation while at the same time outing the rat in the wood pile. In short, there are two groups of people dreading a Trump Presidency. Liberals and America's foes.

[ronald reagan]

Some Dems are mad because there aren't going to be many debates for them.

I don't understand what the point is in having any debates.
Its going to be the liar and the socialist standing there complementing each other.
There wont be any debate, and I think that's why the DNC and Wendi Schloosssserman Schultpatrick isn't talking.

They're not any debates anymore. 15 guys, giving 60 second answers to questions that as president would require hours of meetings, hundreds of advisers, and tons of data.... is not a debate. 15 guys with about 90% in common politically, pointing out their "differences" is not a debate. 15 guys arguing about who has had less scandals during their life, is not a debate. 15 guys, delivering funny one liners... again... not a debate. When 15 guys send their political hacks to a 'debate rules meetings' and demand things like: better lighting for their candidate, avian water instead of smart water, blue ties instead of red, a 6" taller podium, the ability to stand in a certain order, or be asked questions in a certain order.... thats not a debate. Its a concert rider. Its standup comedy. Its a pageant. Its a popularity contest. And just so we're clear... a debate's winner is not determined by who mentions ronald reagan the quickest, or the most.

So what is a debate then? Its when a few people spend a considerable length of time, talking like gentleman about important topics and the solutions that they may disagree upon. Lincoln-Douglas debates were benchmarks for all others that followed.

My proposal:

-3 hours of debate with about 2-3 10 minute breaks.
-The ability to directly discuss the topics with other candidates.
-No childish stuff: "I only got 58 seconds to answer... HE got 64!!"
-Only 5 or 6 questions.
-Moderator should help the candidate to dig deeper and answer more clearly.
-Candidates should be allowed to pose serious questions, and recieve serious answers from other candidates.

Thats just a basic idea. But the entire debate rules and format could be printed on an index card. Not a 30-40 page contract from an official commission on presidential debates.

With that said...

Martin O'Malley is going to jump about 10 points after this first Democratic debate. He is a brilliant speaker, a true liberal, and tough as nails. With the world getting to see him for the first time, and getting to see hillary stumble over every word as she makes up her next answer based upon the reaction from the crowd of others answers... O'Malley will SURGE.

Bernie Sanders will do well, and appeal to much of the base. He's a very solid candidate who doesn't waiver on his beliefs after seeing poor polling data. Its hard to shake someone who really believes what they are saying and fighting for.

Hillary. Will lie.


ps. I'm unsure if Lincoln Chafee or Jim Webb will be on stage, but you can best believe that Jim Webb will make a strong case for moderate democrats. He's a blue dog, southerner, decorated vet, republican appointee, wrote the post 9/11 gi bill, and a VERY fiscally responsible official. I'd love to see a solid conservative win the presidency.... a Reagan 2.0. But if the American people decide that Democrats should control the presidency in 2016.... I hope to god they pick this man to be their leader.

[TheRealThing]

They're not any debates anymore. 15 guys, giving 60 second answers to questions that as president would require hours of meetings, hundreds of advisers, and tons of data.... is not a debate. 15 guys with about 90% in common politically, pointing out their "differences" is not a debate. 15 guys arguing about who has had less scandals during their life, is not a debate. 15 guys, delivering funny one liners... again... not a debate. When 15 guys send their political hacks to a 'debate rules meetings' and demand things like: better lighting for their candidate, avian water instead of smart water, blue ties instead of red, a 6" taller podium, the ability to stand in a certain order, or be asked questions in a certain order.... thats not a debate. Its a concert rider. Its standup comedy. Its a pageant. Its a popularity contest. And just so we're clear... a debate's winner is not determined by who mentions ronald reagan the quickest, or the most.

So what is a debate then? Its when a few people spend a considerable length of time, talking like gentleman about important topics and the solutions that they may disagree upon. Lincoln-Douglas debates were benchmarks for all others that followed.

My proposal:

-3 hours of debate with about 2-3 10 minute breaks.
-The ability to directly discuss the topics with other candidates.
-No childish stuff: "I only got 58 seconds to answer... HE got 64!!"
-Only 5 or 6 questions.
-Moderator should help the candidate to dig deeper and answer more clearly.
-Candidates should be allowed to pose serious questions, and recieve serious answers from other candidates.

Thats just a basic idea. But the entire debate rules and format could be printed on an index card. Not a 30-40 page contract from an official commission on presidential debates.

With that said...

Martin O'Malley is going to jump about 10 points after this first Democratic debate. He is a brilliant speaker, a true liberal, and tough as nails. With the world getting to see him for the first time, and getting to see hillary stumble over every word as she makes up her next answer based upon the reaction from the crowd of others answers... O'Malley will SURGE.

Bernie Sanders will do well, and appeal to much of the base. He's a very solid candidate who doesn't waiver on his beliefs after seeing poor polling data. Its hard to shake someone who really believes what they are saying and fighting for.

Hillary. Will lie.


ps. I'm unsure if Lincoln Chafee or Jim Webb will be on stage, but you can best believe that Jim Webb will make a strong case for moderate democrats. He's a blue dog, southerner, decorated vet, republican appointee, wrote the post 9/11 gi bill, and a VERY fiscally responsible official. I'd love to see a solid conservative win the presidency.... a Reagan 2.0. But if the American people decide that Democrats should control the presidency in 2016.... I hope to god they pick this man to be their leader.

Even the media barely make mention of Jim Webb, only Clinton and Sanders.

The Dem's voting base is comprised of the special interest loons, those who wear their ethnicity on their sleeves and the live for today crowd. Hil-lie-ry is for sale to the special interests, sings in the choir for restless minorities, and has/will promise the moon to the live for today crowd. Jim Webb could not consciously vie with her on those fronts and therefore, the base will likely look over him.

[ronald reagan]

Great news everyone.... I just saw the line-up for the debate tonight, and it appears that both Jim Webb and Lincoln Chafee made the cut.

I truly believe that the exposure O'Malley and Webb will receive from this, will throw the democrat nomination into a tailspin. Both will get massive bumps. From around 1%, to about 5-10%. This is extremely significant, when 2 of the main candidates are pulling in about 60-70% of the vote at this point. I urge anyone who is a registered Democrat (as almost everyone in east ky is), to use their primary vote wisely --- vote for Jim Webb!! He is the closest thing we have to a centrist. He's strong on national defense, against 1000 page "free trade" agreements, against the UN, wants to "secure the border first" then deal with the immigration issue (yet is mostly against amnesty), very pro 2nd amendment... I just hope he keeps his backbone and doesn't cave to the liberal base for the purpose of having a national audience.

Anyways... I'm voting red, as always, but I just wanted to make the case for the moderate choice of the democrat lineup. Just in case.