Letters to the Editor

Your views in 200 words or less

BRODER: Republicans challenging Democrats, as voters mandated

Letter by Don Wilbur, University Place on Nov. 23, 2010 at 11:35 am with 70 Comments »
November 23, 2010 11:35 am

Re: “Republicans playing chicken with economy, nukes” (David Broder column, 11-21).

Broder states that “Republicans are being assertive about their views and challenging Democrats.” It appears he believes the Republicans should rubber-stamp Democrats’ progressive agenda, particularly concerning the Bush tax cuts and the U.S./Russian nuclear treaty coming before a lame-duck Congress.

Liberal pundits have already started a partisan political war, that is, no compromise on the Obama agenda with, they think, uncompromising Republicans.

However, the Republicans know they got a mandate from the voters on Nov. 2. Republican deviation from that mandate will destroy the Republican Party and any voice the voters have in American policy in the short term.

The progressive establishment’s war is with the voters who on Nov. 2 expressed their views, not the Republicans’. The American voters will prevail eventually.

Sadly, The News Tribune headlined the Broder column with “Republicans playing chicken with economy, nukes” – a radical headline supporting the progressives against the will of most Americans. A neutral headline would simply state: “Republicans challenging Democrats.”

Tags:
, ,
Leave a comment Comments → 70
  1. Roncella says:

    Right On Don,

    The only way Obama or Reid or pelosi will be bi-partisan with Republicans is by Republicans changing their beliefs to match the lib/dems and ignore the voters wishes to change the direction the lib/dems and Obama are taking America.

    Isn’t it time for Broder to Think about the rocking chair, sharing time with his family ?

    Broder along with some other liberals like larry king, jimmy carter, need to enjoy their families and friends and try oil painting rather than their tired, bias old liberal opinions on current affairs.

  2. menopaws says:

    Political partisanship has NO PLACE in a serious discussion of a nuclear treaty. The attempt to diminish this President via a treaty endorsed by several serious Republican experts on foreign policy is just downright dangerous to American security. Are they so desperate for power that they place their partisan agenda ahead of nuclear security? Democrats followed President Bush’s lead in the war on terror—agree or disagree, they placed the unified front of America to the world above partisan concerns. This brand of “patriotism” is quite offensive to me as an American. James Baker, Brent Scowcroft, Chuck Hegal, Henry Kissinger–fine minds who are also Republicans. They endorse this treaty. The river rats currently in the Senate are no intellectual match for these men. We should be ashamed they represent their party.

  3. redneckbuck says:

    Totally agree, Obama must return the middle or face more bad news. The american people know what must be done.

  4. So Don….and ron…..it doesn’t really matter what the issue is as long as the Republicans oppose Obama, right?

    Who cares if opposing it will make us worse off?

  5. GHTaxPayer says:

    Thank you Don Wilbur.

    We The People don;t want Obamacare, bailouts, apologizing to our enemies, and runaway deficit spending.

  6. the3rdpigshouse says:

    Please, don’t be surprised or disappointed by the way the News Tribune presents a story to the readers – they have been a socialist democrat supportive rag for decades!! Why do you think they are almost out of business and the Monday edition isn’t sufficient to start the fireplace!!

    I’m waiting for “OH-Bummer’s” next apology for somehow causing N. Korea to shell S. Korea!!! I sure hope “OH-Bummer” doesn’t make Cuba angry or they might take Guantanamo back!!!

  7. aislander says:

    the3rdpigshouse says: “…causing N. Korea to shell S. Korea…”

    Can you believe the Trib has nothing on this story?

  8. aislander says:

    menopaws: Honest people can disagree as to whether this treaty adds to our “nuclear security.”

  9. Fibonacci says:

    “The Repuboican party knows they got a mandate from the voters on Nov.2″ You mean like the one Obama got in 2008? Are the REpublicans really that dunb? People are pissed off that government does nothing. Just let the Repubs block everything for two years and the voters will rebel again and vote them out. I think the vast majority of voters are tired of politicians caring more about the power of their own party instead of helping the American people. The Republicans are the ones that refuse to compromise on ANYTHING. Thris only goal is a Republican president. If the coury has to go down in flames to accomplish this, they are willing to do just that.

  10. the3rdpigshouse says:

    If the definition of “compromise” means to roll-over for the anti-American socialist democrat agenda – PLEASE Republicans, refuse all comproise!!!!

  11. the3rdpigshouse says:

    Fibonacci – Please to define “OH-Bummer’s” mandate issued prior to the last election – not including the undefined “Hope” & “Change” ramblings of a neo-marxist!

  12. Roncella don’t you listen to the Republicans leaders? For the last 20 years Republicans have believed bi-partisan means do it our way or we would let you do it at all.

    Red – yes Mr. Obama must step back from right of center to the middle.

    GHT – what America needs is JOBS in this country, not in China where the Republicans want them.

    Islander – honest people can disagree. But the Republicans oppose SALT II solely because Obama and the Democrat are for it.

    3pig – read my response to Roncella above. While it will be hard to live with it, I hope the Republicans do refuse to compromise. Then in 2012 the back flow that washes them out will make 2010 seem like ripples in a bathtub.

  13. the3rdpigshouse says:

    xring – STFU we won! – sound familiar??

  14. If they continue trying to make Obama a one term president rather than trying to solve our economic problems they will be swept out in 2012.

  15. aislander says:

    Making Obama a one-term president IS taking on our economic problem…

  16. aislander says:

    …and our national security problem, and our international relations problem, and our loss of freedom problem, and…

  17. xring, sorry the definition of bi-partisanship as stated by the media over the past 20 years means the Republicans have to cave and do what the Democrats want.

    If they don’t it means they are the “party of no”

  18. Bingo Ai.

    And yes, I can believe the TNT has nothing on the war brewing between North and South Korea. Maybe they, like Obama, think if they ignore it it will go away.

  19. pazzo242 says:

    The 2010 vote was a way for the voters to say we are sick of your way of doing things in DC…so here Republicans, do a better job or we’ll throw you out too. Was it a anti-Obama vote–No…….just a wake up call to him that we are not happy. That said, I think he is getting the message (at least a little bit) but with what Pelosi and Reed are saying I think they have missed the boat completely. They will be the demise of the Dems but the Repubs need to make the right steps to gain and hold positions.

  20. j – the South provoked it…….

    http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20101123/ap_on_re_as/as_koreas_clash;_ylt=Apro2..4DeIqySj.uJ8l3ZaROrgF;_ylu=X3oDMTNpbGYzbzhsBGFzc2V0Ay9zL2FwLzIwMTAxMTIzL2FwX29uX3JlX2FzL2FzX2tvcmVhc19jbGFzaARjY29kZQNtcF9lY184XzEwBGNwb3MDMQRwb3MDMQRzZWMDeW5fdG9wX3N0b3JpZXMEc2xrA25rb3JlYXRocmVhdA–

    The skirmish began when North Korea warned the South to halt military drills near their sea border, according to South Korean officials. When Seoul refused and began firing artillery into disputed waters — but away from the North Korean shore — the North retaliated by shelling the small island of Yeonpyeong, which houses South Korean military installations and a small civilian population.

  21. Roncella says:

    menopaws, You difinately have selected memory syndrom disease. The Dems. never supported Bush on fighting terrorist in Iraq. or Afg. The Dems. called for surrender many times in many different ways.

    Reid said the war was lost, many times appearing at press conferences, repeating this statement, even as our troops were fighting and dieing killing the terrorist.

    Pelosi never supported the war effort in Iraq or Afg. along with many of the dems. in the Congress, all they did was try to discourage the efforts of the many troops fighting there and encourage the enemy to keep on fighting America, double shame on all those Dems.

  22. Ron – you really should ask thewho to post all those quotes from Dems supporting the invasion that ij used to post.

    You can’t have it both ways – either the Dems supported the invasion or they didn’t.

  23. The Democrats supported the president. They voted to give him the power to wage war if necessary, which gave Saddam the incentive to comply in areas that he had not been complacent; weapons inspections.

    Then the President decided (because he was the decider) to wage war, anyway, because he could.

    The Democrats didn’t support the invasion. But what could they do, they made the mistake of giving him their support.

  24. Mr. Beerboy…..it seems like you have morphed into a sumner with the ability to google……..what is it like to have your presence here determined by trying to counter everything I write?

  25. Not quite Polago. But don’t take my word for it.

    “In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including Al Qaeda members, though there is apparently no evidence of his involvement in the terrible events of September 11, 2001. It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons. Should he succeed in that endeavor, he could alter the political and security landscape of the Middle East, which as we know all too well affects American security.”

    — Hillary Clinton, October 10, 2002

  26. “I am absolutely convinced that there are weapons…I saw evidence back in 1998 when we would see the inspectors being barred from gaining entry into a warehouse for three hours with trucks rolling up and then moving those trucks out.”

    — Clinton’s Secretary of Defense William Cohen in April of 2003

  27. “(W)e need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime. We all know the litany of his offenses. He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation. …And now he is miscalculating America’s response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction. That is why the world, through the United Nations Security Council, has spoken with one voice, demanding that Iraq disclose its weapons programs and disarm. So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real, but it is not new. It has been with us since the end of the Persian Gulf War.”

    — John F. Kerry, Jan 23, 2003

  28. menopaws says:

    I believe in the opinion of Colin Powell and James Baker–what is their “socialist agenda”?? Partisan politics and nuclear arms—yeah all you righties should ignore the sage council of these fine men mentioned above…….Obviously, they are now on the dark side…………This agenda of the Republicans will have us all speaking Chinese to survive within a decade………Patriotism should always trump politics and I trust Colin Powell’s patriotic spirit more than the pond scum currently in the Senate……….Losing this argument will diminish this nation abroad—but, a “victory” for the Republican party……You righties must be sooo proud. You stand for something sleazy and opportunistic. Check your love of country at the door.

  29. In these quotes and your previous quotes on the same subject, Jimm, I’ve not seen a word about invading Iraq. They seem to be arguments for UN weapons inspectors to re-enter Iraq, not war.

  30. aislander says:

    …and IF we make Obama a one-term President, we’ll STILL have the repairing-all-the-damage-to-the-country problem to deal with…

  31. aislander says:

    Your memory is selective, Polago. The situation came to a head BECAUSE the inspectors were being barred. At the time those statements were made, the discussion was not about the “how,” but the “when…”

  32. Do you not remember the weapons inspectors being pulled out of Iraq by Bush/Cheney in order that the invasion could begin, and what did the Democrats have to say then, aislander?

  33. Roncella says:

    You Bush haters are comical.

    Your hate for bush colors your opinions and you slice and dice history to match your opinion on what actually happened.

  34. Let’s back up.

    Arts/moderate said “you really should ask thewho to post all those quotes from Dems supporting the invasion that ij used to post.”

    Then, Polago insinuated Saddam was complying.

    I merely gave Arts what he wanted and politely corrected Polago’s faulty memory.

    If “jimm” has anything to add, maybe he could weigh in. ;)

  35. aislander says:

    Polago: I remember the inspectors’ being jacked around, ejected then allowed to return; given permission to inspect a site then not allowed on the premises. All I remember of the Dems, though, was their trying to sound tough to satisfy public opinion, and then taking it back to cover their donkeys with their base. They were acting on the subject of war the way Saddam was on the subject of inspections…

  36. Yup, the inspectors were being jacked around, aislander. That was situation normal. But we were keeping Saddam busy and out of trouble. I remember Saddam being interviewed by Dan Rather. You have to understand that Saddam didn’t possess WMD’s, as we thought, but he couldn’t let that fact be known because Iran, for one, would have invaded Iraq if they found out that Saddam was bluffing.

    But still, you have no evidence that the Democrats in general were on board with the invasion, only the saber rattling. They were willing to present a united front in order to keep Saddam honest (in a compliant sort of way).

  37. aislander says:

    The evidence is the authorization for war that Dems tripped over each other trying to sign, and then their tripping over their tongues trying to persuade their base that the authorizations said something other than it actually did…

  38. 3pig – read the 1st Amendment then you STFU!
    Islander – unless the R’s deliver JOBS. JOBS, and More JOBS expect a big outflow of R’s from Congress in 2012, and by focusing on making Mr. O a one termer that is exactly what will happen. And we will still have to fix our problems which will be worse after two years of Republican neglect and mismanagement. And it was Bush and the R’s who lied about both wars, so when the truth came out the D’s were correct in changing the opinions.
    R_O – try reading history and getting you facts from Fox, Lush, Glenn, and a tea stained coloring book. “Bob ‘let’s make a deal’ Dole” and “Bob Dole, never meet a deal he did not like” were Republican taunts as were “You don’t compromise when doing God’s work”.
    Ronc – your memory is at fault once again. Had the D’s not been duped into voting for Bush request to use force he would not have been able to start his two wars in the first place. And just because some people (me included) do not agree with either the reason for or the misconduct of the war does not me we are un-American, or anti-military. Also is your hatred of Obama colored by your opinions or by his color?

    TW that intelligence has been proving false, and Bush knew it was false when he used it to lie us into his two un-necessary, un-just, and obscenely costly wars.

  39. Palago sez – “Then the President decided (because he was the decider) to wage war, anyway, because he could.
    The Democrats didn’t support the invasion. But what could they do, they made the mistake of giving him their support.”

    A reading of the Constitution reveals that it is Congress who has the prerogative to declare war or invoke treaties. An Executive Order has a limited time frame and must conform to more stringent qualifications.

    Hans Blix could not find one of his hands because he was sitting on it.

    Then the dems began the rubber stamping line ” I voted for it before I voted against it before I voted for it before…(where am I and who am I talking to, again?)
    As you know it was the Israelis who beautifully orchestrated the demise of Saddam’s first nuke facility way back in 1981. You really think he was incapable of restarting the program. Go play with your pretty pink pony…

  40. Sorry, larsman, but the NY Times and I remember things a bit differently than you do.

    http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=940CE4D61638F93BA1575AC0A9649C8B63

  41. Thank you for all the thoughtful responses.
    Polago’s revisionist hx has been rightfully corrected.

  42. “Jobs” is a “three letter word” according to Biden.

  43. By DAVID FIRESTONE
    Published: September 28, 2002

    WASHINGTON, Sept. 27— Liberal Democrats, led by Senator Edward M. Kennedy of Massachusetts, voiced reservations today about giving President Bush a free hand to attack Iraq before a new, tougher set of United Nations inspections is put into effect.

    While their objections could influence the wording, scope and timing of a Congressional resolution, those reservations are not likely to affect the outcome of any Congressional vote. It still appears likely that there will be at least 75 or 80 votes in the Senate to give the president the authority to attack Iraq.

    At least one high-ranking Democrat, Senator Carl Levin of Michigan, said he planned to offer an amendment to the administration’s proposed resolution on Iraq that would support military action only in conjunction with a United Nations force. But Senator Trent Lott of Mississippi, the minority leader, said such a provision would never be acceptable to the Republicans.

  44. “We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction.” — Ted Kennedy, September 27, 2002
    .
    “There is no doubt that Saddam Hussein’s regime is a serious danger, that he is a tyrant, and that his pursuit of lethal weapons of mass destruction cannot be tolerated. He must be disarmed.” — Ted Kennedy, Sept 27, 2002
    .

  45. “There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years. And that may happen sooner if he can obtain access to enriched uranium from foreign sources — something that is not that difficult in the current world. We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction.” — John Rockefeller, Oct 10, 2002

    “Saddam’s existing biological and chemical weapons capabilities pose a very real threat to America, now. Saddam has used chemical weapons before, both against Iraq’s enemies and against his own people. He is working to develop delivery systems like missiles and unmanned aerial vehicles that could bring these deadly weapons against U.S. forces and U.S. facilities in the Middle East.” — John Rockefeller, Oct 10, 2002

    “Whether one agrees or disagrees with the Administration’s policy towards Iraq, I don’t think there can be any question about Saddam’s conduct. He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years, every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has refused to do. He lies and cheats; he snubs the mandate and authority of international weapons inspectors; and he games the system to keep buying time against enforcement of the just and legitimate demands of the United Nations, the Security Council, the United States and our allies. Those are simply the facts.” — Henry Waxman, Oct 10, 2002

  46. bobcat1a says:

    Can somebody explain why Saddam Hussein, who was not building a nuclear weapon, had to be removed, but Kim Jong-il, who actually was developing a real nuclear weapon, could be left alone? And why Achmedinajad, who actually was developing a real nuclear weapon, could be left alone? Flip a coin? rock paper scissors? He tried to hurt Daddy?

  47. t_w one minor point – Where were all these weapons and the faculties to make them? The truth is ONLY in the minds of a couple on petty tyrants.

  48. Meanwhile, in the reality based world, corporate profits are at the highest rate ever recorded and the uber-rich are on a spending spree on everything but jobs creation. Knowing that the Bush tax cuts did nothing to fuel jobs creation for ten years and that the rich are better off than ever before the way to stimulate jobs is…..extend the tax cuts!

    The middle class is screwed.

  49. Why am I not surprised that the right wing does not know the true meanings of common ground, cooperation, and compromise. IMO it’s because along with re-writing the history they are busy re-writing the dictionary.

  50. As usual x, 180 out of phase.

  51. Sorry Palago, but you are, in spite of yourself, making my point.
    Bobcat – You are not actually trying to say that Iraq was not informationally and (previously) functionally capable of nuclear development / delivery. So just what did the Israelis hit ? Must have happened before you were born.
    As to your “nuclear equivalency” question: NK is not underwriting our loan guarantees…..but big brother China IS
    Iran as a 12-er Shiite state that the Israelis will probably end up defending themselves against without the “help” (oxymoron) of the U.N. (help as in Hans Blix, remember the Swedish Pink Panther?)
    Another reason that we’re in Afraq: Lithium mines, big time lithium mines. That is what powers your cell phone, watch and computer for starters.
    Most of those commodities are in fact manufactured in…….China
    Leverage is expensive, but as Proverbs says “The borrower is servant to the lender”
    Maybe our real enemy is the Fed. who is firing QE2 bullets at us…

  52. That’s alot for the bedwetters to digest Lars.

  53. says who? prove me wrong if you can.

  54. aislander says:

    xring: Based on years of observation, to lefties “…common ground, cooperation, and compromise…” means we do what you want or you’ll use the power of government to FORCE us to do it. There is no such thing as a dissenting opinion, let alone a dissenting action…

  55. Islander you must not have lived in the ’50s,’60s, 70’s, or ’80s when Congress and the Country ran on common ground, cooperation, and compromise.
    It was only in the 90’s when the right decided compromise was a sin that the system failed.

  56. More misreading of the so-called mandate.

    Americans want jobs and want their houses to be worth more than their mortgages. They really don’t care how it is done. Or who does it.

  57. aislander says:

    xring writes: “It was only in the 90’s when the right decided compromise was a sin that the system failed.”

    It was only in the ’90s that there were enough conservatives in Congress to do something about the direction the country was headed. Our mistake was in thinking we had won the argument, so we didn’t bring the country along with us every step of the way. It is much easier for the left to persuade people they can have something for nothing than for us to transmit the the truth that there IS no free lunch, so we need to never stop getting the message out; especially to new voters. The sorry condition of the treasury is now making the argument for us.

    In any case, the question in the “’50s,’60s, 70’s, or ’80s when Congress and the Country ran on common ground, cooperation, and compromise” was whether we should wreck the country slowly or quickly, so compromise was possible. From the ’90s on, many of us decided we shouldn’t BE wrecking the country, so no compromise on principles is possible…

  58. Aislander writes: It is much easier for the left to persuade people they can have something for nothing than for us to transmit the the truth that there IS no free lunch, so we need to never stop getting the message out; especially to new voters.”

    Getting the message out to young voters won’t be easy given the state of affairs at our high schools, colleges and universities, ailsander. I’m seeing more and more people taking up these issues with their kids at home, and I hope that this trend continues — to counteract the brainwashing efforts of the schools. There are thousands of Ward Churchhills actively doing their thing at univesities everywhere, trust me.

  59. It occurs to me that parents, before paying tuiltion, should probably sit in on some classes their kids are considering before shelling out the dough that keeps these people actively employed.

    Colleges and universities WILL listen when the people with money speak.

  60. Sozo – As a follow-up, communicating with former graduates that have been involved with grants, beqeathments or foundation funding might be a good avenue of “fund cutting” to be used as financial leverage against the discriminatory censorship against any conservative beliefs being expressed on campus that do not “agree” with so-called “diversity”?
    That is why they are referred to as “looney-versities” today.
    My daughter’s degree from the U.W. was held hostage unless she agreed with her “theoretically socialist” professors.

  61. aislander says:

    larsman: Now that your daughter has her diploma, I would be grateful if you put her story into a guest-columnist format and let people know what’s REALLY going on. I would be fascinated to read it myself…

  62. AI, “many of us decided we shouldn’t BE wrecking the county, so no compromise on principles is possible” Bush and company did such a good job saving our economy. And I hope the RTP stand by their no compromise beliefs. After two years of mega-gridlock do nothing conservatism expect the center/progressives to come into power.

  63. aislander says:

    IF the Republicans “do nothing” about returning the country to its constitutional roots, xring, I can assure you we conservatives will go elsewhere. I am familiar with the tactic Truman used in running against Congress and we will not be caught in that same trap. THIS House will be an activist one, and the monstrous debt will be there to remind people why they voted the way they did this year…

    As for wrecking the country, Bush was mostly a caretaker President, except for the war and the prescription-drug benefit. Biden wrote the Patriot Act (under a different title) back in 1995, and it would be relatively easy to modify or reverse, but adding another “entitlement” was the real blow to the nation. Compared to Wilson, FDR, JFK, LBJ, and Obama, Bush II was relatively harmless…

  64. Oh Islander, I just love your conspiracy fantasies. Have you ever thought about writing a novel? I suggest you try alternative history genre so you can make use of your skewed version of history.

    Roncella,

    You are half right about Dems not supporting the Iraq invasion. Bush lied to the Congress (again) by telling them the authorization to use military force was to be used to bring political pressure on Saddam Hussein to allow the Inspectors back into Iraq and was not going to be used to allow an invasion.

    And both Afghanistan and Iraq were lost the minute the first American combat trooper stepped onto their soil.

  65. larsman and ai – The restriction on creative endeavors in higher education by those who are further up the ladder goes both ways: my wife dropped out of her doctoral program after completing all of the coursework when it became clear that the Chair would not allow her dissertation research that wasn’t directly supportive to his conservative, pro-military agenda.

    Perhaps, in sociology and other arts and humanities disciplines one can find a liberal bias, however, most universities are funded primarily by research grants from the military, the government, and private industry. None of those areas are “looney left” leaning.

  66. aislander says:

    You’re right, xring, I forgot to include the FIRST Roosevelt’s in the pantheon of harmful presidencies. Otherwise, I would be grateful (and surprised) if you could show me exactly where I was “fantasizing…”

  67. aislander says:

    xring: I am guessing that you believe that I thought that past administrations and congresses knew that what they were doing was bad for the country, but I believe that they either thought they were improving things or they were simply improving their own situations. I DO believe there is an animus on the left to bring the US down a notch (or several) to “even the playing field” with the rest of the world, and to punish us for past “imperialist” transgressions, and that is being played out now by the Obama administration…

  68. ai, except it is the repb’s who are destroying us by helping big business send US jobs to China and elsewhere.

  69. PS, the County managed to limp along for over 200 years using on common ground, cooperation, and compromise. The Cival War being the best example of what happens when compromise failed. It took less than 20 years for the lack of common ground, cooperation, and compromise to destroy the county.

  70. aislander says:

    xring: The common ground we shared was a vision of a free country in which one’s success was limited only by oneself and lady luck. No one expected government to referee, and certainly not to ensure equality of outcomes, also known as “fairness.” Once a faction diverged from that vision, the differences became irreconcilable. A large fraction of the population that believed in the former vision was bought off by the promise of something for virtually nothing. We can now see clearly that there is NO free lunch, which is why there are now enough conservatives in the House to do something about this unsustainable situation…

*
We welcome comments. Please keep them civil, short and to the point. ALL CAPS, spam, obscene, profane, abusive and off topic comments will be deleted. Repeat offenders will be blocked. Thanks for taking part and abiding by these simple rules.

JavaScript is required to post comments.

Follow the comments on this post with RSS 2.0