Endgame is Here: Republicans are Breaking

[Sleeping in EQ]

By the way, anyone know how Hannity's rating have been going over that last several years? I know most of my extended family used to watch him and now no one in the family does.

I haven't looked at Hannity's ratings lately, but Fox just moved him to the 10 PM slot. That isn't a good sign (for him).

[Indy Coug]

I haven't looked at Hannity's ratings lately, but Fox just moved him to the 10 PM slot. That isn't a good sign (for him).

The first word that comes to mind when I hear Hannity's name is "vacuous".

[Sleeping in EQ]

The first word that comes to mind when I hear Hannity's name is "vacuous".

Agreed.

[TripletDaddy]

What do you mean conservative about what? Conservative fiscally and conservative socially. The establishment Republicans are progressives and no different than the Democrats.

As for Democrat leadership, what are you talking about? The Senate hasn't passed a budget since Reid became majority leader and Obama just sits on his ass (when he's not on the golf course) and bitches about the Republicans. There is absolutely no leadership by the Democrats.

Conservative fiscally and conservative socially? Ok, thank you for clarifying what that means. Perhaps you should run for office because the GOp can't agree on those definitions. And again, while they are busy infighting over how to define them and which internal party members fit that description, the Democrats will win another 4-8 years in office. If, by "conservative," you mean deport immigrants, take a hard stance on gay marriage, reference individual religious beliefs as a rational for public policy, and harp on abortion, then I like your strategy: the GOP should further entrench into that rabbit hole and kick out anyone that wants to move more towards the middle. That "conservative" agenda is absolutely going to kill in 2016.

ps You may not like the leadership coming out of DC, but there is plenty of it happening. And we are compelled to follow.

[Omaha 680]

ps You may not like the leadership coming out of DC, but there is plenty of it happening. And we are compelled to follow.

That depends on your definition of leadership. There are certainly big things being done. Like I said above, I'm not too concerned if we go back to one-party rule. Well, not any more concerned than the alternative. Neither situation will solve our structural debt problems. Democrat dominance will just get us to the day of reckoning sooner. That's not necessarily a bad thing given the disfunction in DC.

[TripletDaddy]

That depends on your definition of leadership. There are certainly big things being done. Like I said above, I'm not too concerned if we go back to one-party rule. Well, not any more concerned than the alternative. Neither situation will solve our structural debt problems. Democrat dominance will just get us to the day of reckoning sooner. That's not necessarily a bad thing given the disfunction in DC.

Pretty much under any standard definition of leadership. Pick a dictionary.

If you are defining leadership strictly as an espousal of principles with which you agree, then perhaps DC has been lacking "leadership." History is replete with leaders giving leadership, not all of it effective or productive.

[calicoug]

We should shut down baseball.

I also don't like the Dodgers.

http://hardballtalk.nbcsports.com/20...t-11-59-41-am/

[old_gregg]

Conservative fiscally and conservative socially? Ok, thank you for clarifying what that means. Perhaps you should run for office because the GOp can't agree on those definitions. And again, while they are busy infighting over how to define them and which internal party members fit that description, the Democrats will win another 4-8 years in office. If, by "conservative," you mean deport immigrants, take a hard stance on gay marriage, reference individual religious beliefs as a rational for public policy, and harp on abortion, then I like your strategy: the GOP should further entrench into that rabbit hole and kick out anyone that wants to move more towards the middle. That "conservative" agenda is absolutely going to kill in 2016.

ps You may not like the leadership coming out of DC, but there is plenty of it happening. And we are compelled to follow.

[il Padrino Ute]

Conservative fiscally and conservative socially? Ok, thank you for clarifying what that means. Perhaps you should run for office because the GOp can't agree on those definitions. And again, while they are busy infighting over how to define them and which internal party members fit that description, the Democrats will win another 4-8 years in office. If, by "conservative," you mean deport immigrants, take a hard stance on gay marriage, reference individual religious beliefs as a rational for public policy, and harp on abortion, then I like your strategy: the GOP should further entrench into that rabbit hole and kick out anyone that wants to move more towards the middle. That "conservative" agenda is absolutely going to kill in 2016.

ps You may not like the leadership coming out of DC, but there is plenty of it happening. And we are compelled to follow.

Fiscal conservatism - Get rid of waste and balance the budget.
Social conservatism = allow each state to make the decision on abortion, gay marriage, etc.

It really is that simple.

The establishment Republicans are no different than the Democrats. John McCain = Barak Obama. Lyndsey Graham = Harry Reid. John Boehner = Nancy Pelosi.

I ask again, what leadership? You claim it's there. Please provide examples.

[Jarid in Cedar]

Fiscal conservatism - Get rid of waste and balance the budget.

This sounds great ipu, but who is qualified to determine what is waste and what is not? How do you determine value, and whose opinion counts?

[il Padrino Ute]

This sounds great ipu, but who is qualified to determine what is waste and what is not? How do you determine value, and whose opinion counts?

A fair question. I'll admit that waste is in the eye of the beholder, but I think most of us can agree that the biggest waste of money is pork, something of which both parties are guilty. Perhaps we need a Constitutional Amendment that disallows any and all riders that are attached to bills. If money is earmarked in a bill for something that has nothing to do with the bill, it's gone.

I'm just tired of seeing the government do with our taxes what we could never do as individuals. We don't have a revenue problem; we have a spending problem and the progressives in both parties are to blame.

[calicoug]

Fiscal conservatism - Get rid of waste and balance the budget.
Social conservatism = allow each state to make the decision on abortion, gay marriage, etc.

It really is that simple.

The establishment Republicans are no different than the Democrats. John McCain = Barak Obama. Lyndsey Graham = Harry Reid. John Boehner = Nancy Pelosi.

I ask again, what leadership? You claim it's there. Please provide examples.

Social conservatives want states to decide gay marriage and abortion? So when you call it murder it is still less important than states rights? When conservatives argue gay marriage is destroying America and families and violating God's law that ranks lower in priority than states rights?

[TripletDaddy]

EPU wants a President that will balance the budget. in other words, EPU longs for the Bill Clinton presidency.

Im with you EPU. Looks like we are both voting for Hillary in 2016!

[Goatnapper'96]

Social conservatives want states to decide gay marriage and abortion? So when you call it murder it is still less important than states rights? When conservatives argue gay marriage is destroying America and families and violating God's law that ranks lower in priority than states rights?

I think a big part of what is creating the gridlock is the fact that not enough issues are settled at the state level. I am not entirely sure it is possible to avoid more and more authority/governing power from not migrating to federal hands, but it undoubtedly creates more to argue about and makes it infinitely more difficult to come to consensus. Buck up folks this is likely to be the way of the future.

[TripletDaddy]

Social conservatives want states to decide gay marriage and abortion? So when you call it murder it is still less important than states rights? When conservatives argue gay marriage is destroying America and families and violating God's law that ranks lower in priority than states rights?

I think what he is saying is that social conservatives are fine with gay marriage and granting amnesty to illegal aliens, as long as the state votes on the legality of such.