For America.
Hint*: Reference** to 2014 being potential loss of Senate for dems, then Republicans must get something done in Congress in face of potential Obama veto if not Democratic filibuster, will bode well for 2016.
* need update
** need b.s.
[EW, TC, Now]
To reads.
FORMER HOME OF BEATINGAROUNDTHEBUSH.ORG >> HOME OF Political_Progress_For_People.blogspot.com >> >> >> Political Prodding and Probing People for Progress << << << >>> [[ For those NOT...BeatingAroundTheBush See links.]] <<< [[ EMAIL: LeRoy-Rogers at comcast net ]]
Showing posts sorted by date for query Republicans 2016. Sort by relevance Show all posts
Showing posts sorted by date for query Republicans 2016. Sort by relevance Show all posts
Thursday, May 22, 2014
Thursday, November 10, 2011
Who are you going to call?
Ghost Busters!
Actually these are not the most current** or accurate links. I believe it was Halloween when the question arose. Just who are these guys trying to be? Or not to be [!] Nor Hamlet, nie* 2016.
Actually, that is one point. For Republicans it is all about 2016. Not that what happens in 2011 stays in 2011[!] But the question I beg, is who are the flavors of the month trying be? Romney is the supposed shoe in. Cain and Perry seem to be going for broke***.
* mystery googleor just(sic?) typo?
** GOP CNBC debate
*** I Ron Knee Chef [!]
[*] no there is no [bracketed asterisk] above
[the answer my friend, is blowing in the wind, not to mention what Perry forgot.]
[I mean, is it really believable that Perry could not remember the Department of Energy? After Education and Commerce(note update)]
[Actually I should remember that making light of some, may be giving them too much cred it. (speaking of credit)]
Actually these are not the most current** or accurate links. I believe it was Halloween when the question arose. Just who are these guys trying to be? Or not to be [!] Nor Hamlet, nie* 2016.
Actually, that is one point. For Republicans it is all about 2016. Not that what happens in 2011 stays in 2011[!] But the question I beg, is who are the flavors of the month trying be? Romney is the supposed shoe in. Cain and Perry seem to be going for broke***.
* mystery googleor just(sic?) typo?
** GOP CNBC debate
*** I Ron Knee Chef [!]
[*] no there is no [bracketed asterisk] above
[the answer my friend, is blowing in the wind, not to mention what Perry forgot.]
[I mean, is it really believable that Perry could not remember the Department of Energy? After Education and Commerce(note update)]
[Actually I should remember that making light of some, may be giving them too much cred it. (speaking of credit)]
Wednesday, May 19, 2010
The Obama Effect?
The Specter Effect!
The Hartmann Effect?
Bottom Line? Not Devolution.
The President is a progressive that needs pushing or convincing while it might be just a hunch that it was more than just self preservation for Specter not to run to the right. I think history should look kindly on Specter to have fought for what he believed rather than go with the flow of Republicans. While Specter was always a crafty navigator of issues, I think that he would rather lose as a moderate than run as a revolutionary.
[This opinion does not rely** on a read of the first two links, while a scroll over of the rest may suffice to get a jist.]
[** nor certainly endorse or bother read]
[Just in! Thom Hartmann predicts Sestak for President in 2016! Not to mention my ironic endorsement of my 2nd link. Ironic in that, how can one believe an NRSC ad? It makes me endorse him, although I am not a Pennsylvanian.]
The Hartmann Effect?
Bottom Line? Not Devolution.
The President is a progressive that needs pushing or convincing while it might be just a hunch that it was more than just self preservation for Specter not to run to the right. I think history should look kindly on Specter to have fought for what he believed rather than go with the flow of Republicans. While Specter was always a crafty navigator of issues, I think that he would rather lose as a moderate than run as a revolutionary.
[This opinion does not rely** on a read of the first two links, while a scroll over of the rest may suffice to get a jist.]
[** nor certainly endorse or bother read]
[Just in! Thom Hartmann predicts Sestak for President in 2016! Not to mention my ironic endorsement of my 2nd link. Ironic in that, how can one believe an NRSC ad? It makes me endorse him, although I am not a Pennsylvanian.]
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)