Eric Cantor defeated by David Brat (1 Viewer)

[oso diablo]

From watching some coverage last night they noted that one reason Cantor lost was due to negotiating with Obama on the debt ceiling. So this kind of scares me because it's sending a message that there can be no compromise whatsoever with the other side (even less than before) or you're possibly next on the chopping block.

where did you see/read this?

MSNBC Chris Hayes show special edition at 11pm. Usually they are showing reruns at that time. They had a panel on there. One was Howard Fineman. Can't recall who the others were. They said immigration was another reason and that he lost touch with his district as evidenced by the fact he wasn't even in the district on Election Day.

But since it was MSNBC I'm sure you'll kill me for that.

not really. was just curious, because i follow a lot of GOP-oriented politicos on twitter, and hadn't seen that theory mentioned at all, even in a retweet.

 

[Eephus]

I agree but gerrymandering doesn't really affect primaries

I think it does. One of the reasons Cantor lost is because his district was altered to put more conservatives in it, and it was the votes in the new areas that were the strongest against him.

Gerrymandering is a double edged sword. A Congressman is much more likely to be primaried in a "safe" district, which forces the incumbent further to the right. Cantor's problem as a party leader was that his leadership role required him to appear more open to compromise than the citizens of VA-7 wanted.

 

[NCCommish]

On a more serious note, NC is absolutely right: gerrymandering is a huge issue. The way I'm seeing the demographic shifts trending, we're going to have Democrat Presidents for the foreseeable future. And we're going to have an extremely conservative House of Representatives for the foreseeable future. The Senate will forever be up for grabs, but in the larger scheme of things that doesn't matter if the President is on one side and the House is on the other.

I agree that gerrymandering is distasteful. I kind of like those proposals to draw districts using algorithms that minimize the ratio of perimeters to areas of districts.

Eliminating gerrymandering is politically difficult for the same reason as instituting term limits, however. Reform measures must be passed by politicians who benefit from the current status quo.

It's more than distasteful it's harmful to our way of governing. And that's no matter which side does it. Personally I like the algorithm method. But yes eliminating it will be difficult because unfortunately in this case "both sides do it" is actually a legitimate point.

 

[IvanKaramazov]

On a more serious note, NC is absolutely right: gerrymandering is a huge issue. The way I'm seeing the demographic shifts trending, we're going to have Democrat Presidents for the foreseeable future. And we're going to have an extremely conservative House of Representatives for the foreseeable future. The Senate will forever be up for grabs, but in the larger scheme of things that doesn't matter if the President is on one side and the House is on the other.

I agree that gerrymandering is distasteful. I kind of like those proposals to draw districts using algorithms that minimize the ratio of perimeters to areas of districts.

Eliminating gerrymandering is politically difficult for the same reason as instituting term limits, however. Reform measures must be passed by politicians who benefit from the current status quo.

It's more than distasteful it's harmful to our way of governing. And that's no matter which side does it. Personally I like the algorithm method. But yes eliminating it will be difficult because unfortunately in this case "both sides do it" is actually a legitimate point.

I'd be completely on board with the algorithm thing. As long as district boundaries are drawn by human beings, gerrymandering is going to follow nearly automatically. Let a computer do it instead.

 

[joffer]

On a more serious note, NC is absolutely right: gerrymandering is a huge issue. The way I'm seeing the demographic shifts trending, we're going to have Democrat Presidents for the foreseeable future. And we're going to have an extremely conservative House of Representatives for the foreseeable future. The Senate will forever be up for grabs, but in the larger scheme of things that doesn't matter if the President is on one side and the House is on the other.

I agree that gerrymandering is distasteful. I kind of like those proposals to draw districts using algorithms that minimize the ratio of perimeters to areas of districts.

Eliminating gerrymandering is politically difficult for the same reason as instituting term limits, however. Reform measures must be passed by politicians who benefit from the current status quo.

It's more than distasteful it's harmful to our way of governing. And that's no matter which side does it. Personally I like the algorithm method. But yes eliminating it will be difficult because unfortunately in this case "both sides do it" is actually a legitimate point.

I'd be completely on board with the algorithm thing. As long as district boundaries are drawn by human beings, gerrymandering is going to follow nearly automatically. Let a computer do it instead.

Did you miss a "not" in there?

 

[IvanKaramazov]

On a more serious note, NC is absolutely right: gerrymandering is a huge issue. The way I'm seeing the demographic shifts trending, we're going to have Democrat Presidents for the foreseeable future. And we're going to have an extremely conservative House of Representatives for the foreseeable future. The Senate will forever be up for grabs, but in the larger scheme of things that doesn't matter if the President is on one side and the House is on the other.

I agree that gerrymandering is distasteful. I kind of like those proposals to draw districts using algorithms that minimize the ratio of perimeters to areas of districts.

Eliminating gerrymandering is politically difficult for the same reason as instituting term limits, however. Reform measures must be passed by politicians who benefit from the current status quo.

It's more than distasteful it's harmful to our way of governing. And that's no matter which side does it. Personally I like the algorithm method. But yes eliminating it will be difficult because unfortunately in this case "both sides do it" is actually a legitimate point.

I'd be completely on board with the algorithm thing. As long as district boundaries are drawn by human beings, gerrymandering is going to follow nearly automatically. Let a computer do it instead.

Did you miss a "not" in there?

I don't think so, but I've been known to completely botch posts before without being able to spot my mistake. Regardless, I'm trying to say that I like MT's algorithm method.

 

[NCCommish]

He's got a point with the term limit thing.

We have term limits, they are called elections.

Elections without term limits are the opposite of term limits.

Exactly how are term limits going to get passed when the voters consistently reelect all of the lifetime polititions the limits would be designed to get rid of?

Gerrymandering is a bigger problem than term limits. Way bigger. Only a handful of seats are truly competitive in any election.

I agree but gerrymandering doesn't really affect primaries

It affects everything about voting. It gives hardliners a beachhead in a district drawn to be very conservative or very liberal. It's likely a big part of why Cantor is going to be unemployed.

 

[NCCommish]

On a more serious note, NC is absolutely right: gerrymandering is a huge issue. The way I'm seeing the demographic shifts trending, we're going to have Democrat Presidents for the foreseeable future. And we're going to have an extremely conservative House of Representatives for the foreseeable future. The Senate will forever be up for grabs, but in the larger scheme of things that doesn't matter if the President is on one side and the House is on the other.

I agree that gerrymandering is distasteful. I kind of like those proposals to draw districts using algorithms that minimize the ratio of perimeters to areas of districts.

Eliminating gerrymandering is politically difficult for the same reason as instituting term limits, however. Reform measures must be passed by politicians who benefit from the current status quo.

It's more than distasteful it's harmful to our way of governing. And that's no matter which side does it. Personally I like the algorithm method. But yes eliminating it will be difficult because unfortunately in this case "both sides do it" is actually a legitimate point.

I'd be completely on board with the algorithm thing. As long as district boundaries are drawn by human beings, gerrymandering is going to follow nearly automatically. Let a computer do it instead.

Yep

 

[PlasmaDogPlasma]

If you put term limits on Congress, they'll do even more special interest crap in their last term as they set themselves up for their next job.

 

[NCCommish]

On a more serious note, NC is absolutely right: gerrymandering is a huge issue. The way I'm seeing the demographic shifts trending, we're going to have Democrat Presidents for the foreseeable future. And we're going to have an extremely conservative House of Representatives for the foreseeable future. The Senate will forever be up for grabs, but in the larger scheme of things that doesn't matter if the President is on one side and the House is on the other.

I agree that gerrymandering is distasteful. I kind of like those proposals to draw districts using algorithms that minimize the ratio of perimeters to areas of districts.

Eliminating gerrymandering is politically difficult for the same reason as instituting term limits, however. Reform measures must be passed by politicians who benefit from the current status quo.

It's more than distasteful it's harmful to our way of governing. And that's no matter which side does it. Personally I like the algorithm method. But yes eliminating it will be difficult because unfortunately in this case "both sides do it" is actually a legitimate point.

I'd be completely on board with the algorithm thing. As long as district boundaries are drawn by human beings, gerrymandering is going to follow nearly automatically. Let a computer do it instead.

Did you miss a "not" in there?

Ivan is a lot more moderate than he is given credit for around here. We don't agree on everything but he isn't a far right type at all IMO.

 

[Koya]

He's got a point with the term limit thing.

We have term limits, they are called elections.

Elections without term limits are the opposite of term limits.

Exactly how are term limits going to get passed when the voters consistently reelect all of the lifetime polititions the limits would be designed to get rid of?

Gerrymandering is a bigger problem than term limits. Way bigger. Only a handful of seats are truly competitive in any election.

I agree but gerrymandering doesn't really affect primaries

It affects everything about voting. It gives hardliners a beachhead in a district drawn to be very conservative or very liberal. It's likely a big part of why Cantor is going to be unemployed.

If anything, it's a conspiracy by which both parties gladly play. While there are winners and losers from time to time, the system utterly reinforces the two party system, allowing for neither party to find much middle ground nor allow for a true third party to ever take hold or even exert influence (how can you exert influence when the outcome is all but a fait accompli?

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

Term limits seem anti-democratic to me. If the people want the same guy representing them for 40 years, why shouldn't they be allowed to have him?

if the people want term limits, why shouldn't they be allowed to have them?

Because each district/state should be able to choose its representative freely instead of having their choices restricted by people on the other side of the country.

reasonable point. can a given state/district enact term limits on its own Congressional seat, or does that have to happen nationally?

A state or district wouldn't want to do that.

As Congressmen and Senators gain seniority, they gain power. The problem with the Senator Byrd was that he gained enough power to bring back tons of pork to his state. That's bad for the nation as a whole, but there was no reason for West Virginians to want it to stop.

 

[Slapdash]

If you put term limits on Congress, they'll do even more special interest crap in their last term as they set themselves up for their next job.

Hard to imagine the even more in this example.

 

[PlasmaDogPlasma]

If you put term limits on Congress, they'll do even more special interest crap in their last term as they set themselves up for their next job.

Hard to imagine the even more in this example.

It could definitely be worse.

 

[humpback]

If you put term limits on Congress, they'll do even more special interest crap in their last term as they set themselves up for their next job.

Hard to imagine the even more in this example.

Something like this.

 

[NCCommish]

If you put term limits on Congress, they'll do even more special interest crap in their last term as they set themselves up for their next job.

Hard to imagine the even more in this example.

It could definitely be worse.

We have congressmen admitting that their votes are based on who will donate more to them. And they get mad when someone they thought would donate doesn't. So it would be hard to get much worse.

 

[joffer]

On a more serious note, NC is absolutely right: gerrymandering is a huge issue. The way I'm seeing the demographic shifts trending, we're going to have Democrat Presidents for the foreseeable future. And we're going to have an extremely conservative House of Representatives for the foreseeable future. The Senate will forever be up for grabs, but in the larger scheme of things that doesn't matter if the President is on one side and the House is on the other.

I agree that gerrymandering is distasteful. I kind of like those proposals to draw districts using algorithms that minimize the ratio of perimeters to areas of districts.

Eliminating gerrymandering is politically difficult for the same reason as instituting term limits, however. Reform measures must be passed by politicians who benefit from the current status quo.

It's more than distasteful it's harmful to our way of governing. And that's no matter which side does it. Personally I like the algorithm method. But yes eliminating it will be difficult because unfortunately in this case "both sides do it" is actually a legitimate point.

I'd be completely on board with the algorithm thing. As long as district boundaries are drawn by human beings, gerrymandering is going to follow nearly automatically. Let a computer do it instead.

Did you miss a "not" in there?

Ivan is a lot more moderate than he is given credit for around here. We don't agree on everything but he isn't a far right type at all IMO.

I know. Does he want a computer to draw the lines or people?

 

[NCCommish]

If you put term limits on Congress, they'll do even more special interest crap in their last term as they set themselves up for their next job.

Hard to imagine the even more in this example.

Something like this.

Actually that would be disclosure at least.

 

[NCCommish]

On a more serious note, NC is absolutely right: gerrymandering is a huge issue. The way I'm seeing the demographic shifts trending, we're going to have Democrat Presidents for the foreseeable future. And we're going to have an extremely conservative House of Representatives for the foreseeable future. The Senate will forever be up for grabs, but in the larger scheme of things that doesn't matter if the President is on one side and the House is on the other.

I agree that gerrymandering is distasteful. I kind of like those proposals to draw districts using algorithms that minimize the ratio of perimeters to areas of districts.

Eliminating gerrymandering is politically difficult for the same reason as instituting term limits, however. Reform measures must be passed by politicians who benefit from the current status quo.

It's more than distasteful it's harmful to our way of governing. And that's no matter which side does it. Personally I like the algorithm method. But yes eliminating it will be difficult because unfortunately in this case "both sides do it" is actually a legitimate point.

I'd be completely on board with the algorithm thing. As long as district boundaries are drawn by human beings, gerrymandering is going to follow nearly automatically. Let a computer do it instead.

Did you miss a "not" in there?

Ivan is a lot more moderate than he is given credit for around here. We don't agree on everything but he isn't a far right type at all IMO.

I know. Does he want a computer to draw the lines or people?

OK. I still don't really see what you are saying though as I found what he wrote easy to understand. But then I am the king of run on sentences and misplaced punctuation. So that probably helps.

 

[joffer]

Never mind, I can't read.

 

[humpback]

If you put term limits on Congress, they'll do even more special interest crap in their last term as they set themselves up for their next job.

Hard to imagine the even more in this example.

Something like this.

Actually that would be disclosure at least.

Which wouldn't matter during their last term unfortunately.

 

[NCCommish]

If you put term limits on Congress, they'll do even more special interest crap in their last term as they set themselves up for their next job.

Hard to imagine the even more in this example.

Something like this.

Actually that would be disclosure at least.

Which wouldn't matter during their last term unfortunately.

True but it would be helpful early on.

 

[timschochet]

From watching some coverage last night they noted that one reason Cantor lost was due to negotiating with Obama on the debt ceiling. So this kind of scares me because it's sending a message that there can be no compromise whatsoever with the other side (even less than before) or you're possibly next on the chopping block.

Yep. To me this is far more disturbing than any other aspect of the Tea Party movement. Not so much their ideology (though I disagree with a lot of that), but their intransigence- it's our way or the highway. For want of a better analogy, they are to the Republican party what the Bolsheviks were to the socialist movement (though without that sort of closely knit organization.)

I dont see Obama, hillary or the rest of the morons doing any "compromising", why should the repubs?

Hillary isn't relevant to this issue.

But as to the rest of your comment, it's simply false. Obama has offered compromise after compromise. The one that would have made the most difference was in the summer of 2011, when he and Boehner had the groundwork laid out for a "grand bargain"- it would basically involve increasing revenue by 30% and cutting spending by 70%- a lopsided plan in favor of cutting spending. Anyone who is truly a fiscal conservative should have run with this plan- it was a great victory for conservatives. Reagan would have agreed in a heartbeat. Boehner wanted to agree. But the Tea Party pressured Republicans to refuse: NO compromise, NO tax increases whatsoever. A few days after that, our national credit rating was lowered. And about a week later, the Republican nominees for President were asked the question, "Would you accept a 10% tax increase in exchange for 90% spending cuts?" Not a single one dared to raise their hand, they were all terrified by the House of Representatives stand.

That was the point when I truly became concerned about the Tea Party movement.

 

[Bogeys]

Term limits seem anti-democratic to me. If the people want the same guy representing them for 40 years, why shouldn't they be allowed to have him?

if the people want term limits, why shouldn't they be allowed to have them?

Because each district/state should be able to choose its representative freely instead of having their choices restricted by people on the other side of the country.

reasonable point. can a given state/district enact term limits on its own Congressional seat, or does that have to happen nationally?

A state or district wouldn't want to do that.

As Congressmen and Senators gain seniority, they gain power. The problem with the Senator Byrd was that he gained enough power to bring back tons of pork to his state. That's bad for the nation as a whole, but there was no reason for West Virginians to want it to stop.

Actually Arkansas passed term limits back in the 90's I believe (I didn't keep up with politics too much back then) and the Supreme Court shot them down ruling that a State couldn't put more restrictions than what is spelled out in the Constitution (IE: Age).

ETA: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._Term_Limits,_Inc._v._Thornton

 

[NorvilleBarnes]

I don't know if term limits will ever get passed. But the fact that voters consistently reelect all of the lifetime politicians is proof that elections themselves don't amount to term limits, no?

Wrong thread.

 

[NCCommish]

He's got a point with the term limit thing.

We have term limits, they are called elections.

Elections without term limits are the opposite of term limits.

Exactly how are term limits going to get passed when the voters consistently reelect all of the lifetime polititions the limits would be designed to get rid of?

I don't know if term limits will ever get passed. But the fact that voters consistently reelect all of the lifetime politicians is proof that elections themselves don't amount to term limits, no?

There's no contradiction, by the way, between voters always reelecting the incumbent in their own district, on the one hand, and preferring term limits for all districts, on the other.

Again Gerrymandering has a lot to say on this. Along with the financial power of incumbency.

 

[Baloney Sandwich]

He's got a point with the term limit thing.

We have term limits, they are called elections.

Elections without term limits are the opposite of term limits.

Exactly how are term limits going to get passed when the voters consistently reelect all of the lifetime polititions the limits would be designed to get rid of?

Gerrymandering is a bigger problem than term limits. Way bigger. Only a handful of seats are truly competitive in any election.

I agree but gerrymandering doesn't really affect primaries

It affects everything about voting. It gives hardliners a beachhead in a district drawn to be very conservative or very liberal. It's likely a big part of why Cantor is going to be unemployed.

Yes, that is true. I guess I worded it poorly but to your example gerrymandering more affects which party will win a seat as opposed to generically favoring an incumbent.

 

[Dinsy Ejotuz]

Looking just at #s since 1982 (something changed in the Senate bigtime b/w 1980 and 1982), you've got an average reelection rate of 90% in the House and ~85% in the Senate.

So over 12 years you'd see about 28% of Senators replaced and around 47% of the House. Over 18 years it'd be 62% of the House and 39% of the Senate that was voted out. Really not that bad IMO.

 

[joffer]

MD-3

http://www.buzzfeed.com/qsahmed/the-10-most-gerrymandered-districts-in-america-dh45

 

[cstu]

Maybe I'm misreading, but he seems to be calling out statists and generally opposing coersion.

It appears I misread what he was saying. He didn't come right out and say he was against enforcing morality and then proceeded to call out liberals so I didn't know what to think.

 

[joffer]

http://www.americansunitedforchange.org/page/-/VA7Results61114.pdf

 

[ffldrew]

http://www.americansunitedforchange.org/page/-/VA7Results61114.pdf

Q3 is a very poorly formed question with the tainted statement that it is a bipartisan supported bill

 

[Koya]

From watching some coverage last night they noted that one reason Cantor lost was due to negotiating with Obama on the debt ceiling. So this kind of scares me because it's sending a message that there can be no compromise whatsoever with the other side (even less than before) or you're possibly next on the chopping block.

Yep. To me this is far more disturbing than any other aspect of the Tea Party movement. Not so much their ideology (though I disagree with a lot of that), but their intransigence- it's our way or the highway. For want of a better analogy, they are to the Republican party what the Bolsheviks were to the socialist movement (though without that sort of closely knit organization.)

I dont see Obama, hillary or the rest of the morons doing any "compromising", why should the repubs?

1. Obama, for all his faults (and they are a many) actually did try to reach across the aisle in his first administration. Unfortunately, in doing so, he utterly misplayed his (strong, at the time) hand, focused on the wrong issues, lost touch very quickly with the populous and then ended up in the minority because when he had the majority the Reps wouldn't bend and he wouldn't play his strong hand. As far as management and politics, he's been a disaster and a half (only one-upped by a party who couldn't defeat him when he was sucking wind).

2. More importantly, anyone who call's Hillary a "moron" is far more likely to fall under that definition than Hillary. Say what you will about her, but she's one smart cookie, and if you can't recognize that, you're an idiot.

 

[QuizGuy66]

Headline should've been: "Eric Cantor defeated by dude that looks like older-version of Eric Cantor"

-QG

 

[TwinTurbo]

He's got a point with the term limit thing.

We have term limits, they are called elections.

Elections without term limits are the opposite of term limits.

Exactly how are term limits going to get passed when the voters consistently reelect all of the lifetime polititions the limits would be designed to get rid of?

Term limits will probably never get passed, but the lifetime politicians almost always win because they get backed by the party and get all the money. As a result, some of these clowns run virtually unopposed within their own party for several election cycles and so the voters essentially only have one real choice if they live in a district that votes heavily towards one party. It is like a congressional mini-monarchy. Voters probably have more choice over cable providers than representatives. And like cable, the choices usually both suck, if there is even a choice at all. This is the first time a sitting majority leader ever lost in a primary. At least with term limits, more qualified candidates may run given they would have an actual shot to win.

 

[NREC34]

Headline should've been: "Eric Cantor defeated by dude that looks like older-version of Eric Cantor"

-QG

I was going to say Roger Ebert.

 

[joffer]

After a day of reading, I'm ok with nutjob. Well done AA.

 

[Clifford]

On a more serious note, NC is absolutely right: gerrymandering is a huge issue. The way I'm seeing the demographic shifts trending, we're going to have Democrat Presidents for the foreseeable future. And we're going to have an extremely conservative House of Representatives for the foreseeable future. The Senate will forever be up for grabs, but in the larger scheme of things that doesn't matter if the President is on one side and the House is on the other.

I think everybody agrees that we are facing a perilous future in which there are going to have to be important decisions made as to what direction we want to go in as a country. We are heading into that future with a government that may be unable to function.

 

[The Commish]

Add "properly" to the end of the statement and, in a vacuum, he's right.....we're already there

 

[timschochet]

On a more serious note, NC is absolutely right: gerrymandering is a huge issue. The way I'm seeing the demographic shifts trending, we're going to have Democrat Presidents for the foreseeable future. And we're going to have an extremely conservative House of Representatives for the foreseeable future. The Senate will forever be up for grabs, but in the larger scheme of things that doesn't matter if the President is on one side and the House is on the other.

I think everybody agrees that we are facing a perilous future in which there are going to have to be important decisions made as to what direction we want to go in as a country. We are heading into that future with a government that may be unable to function.

Well, you're not exactly helping when you see conspiracies around every corner.

 

[Soonerman]

From watching some coverage last night they noted that one reason Cantor lost was due to negotiating with Obama on the debt ceiling. So this kind of scares me because it's sending a message that there can be no compromise whatsoever with the other side (even less than before) or you're possibly next on the chopping block.

Yep. To me this is far more disturbing than any other aspect of the Tea Party movement. Not so much their ideology (though I disagree with a lot of that), but their intransigence- it's our way or the highway. For want of a better analogy, they are to the Republican party what the Bolsheviks were to the socialist movement (though without that sort of closely knit organization.)

I dont see Obama, hillary or the rest of the morons doing any "compromising", why should the repubs?

Hillary isn't relevant to this issue.

But as to the rest of your comment, it's simply false. Obama has offered compromise after compromise. The one that would have made the most difference was in the summer of 2011, when he and Boehner had the groundwork laid out for a "grand bargain"- it would basically involve increasing revenue by 30% and cutting spending by 70%- a lopsided plan in favor of cutting spending. Anyone who is truly a fiscal conservative should have run with this plan- it was a great victory for conservatives. Reagan would have agreed in a heartbeat. Boehner wanted to agree. But the Tea Party pressured Republicans to refuse: NO compromise, NO tax increases whatsoever. A few days after that, our national credit rating was lowered. And about a week later, the Republican nominees for President were asked the question, "Would you accept a 10% tax increase in exchange for 90% spending cuts?" Not a single one dared to raise their hand, they were all terrified by the House of Representatives stand.

That was the point when I truly became concerned about the Tea Party movement.

The problem with all this is that the tax increases are always immediate, and the spending cuts are in the distant future, which means they never happen. Reagan's example is instructive. He had an agreement to raise taxes and cut spending. Taxes were raised, but spending was never cut. I doubt Reagan would have fallen for that again. Not should current conservatives fall for it now.

I would like to see them insist on immediate spending cuts and distant horizon tax increases and see how well that goes down with everyone.

 

[jamny]

From watching some coverage last night they noted that one reason Cantor lost was due to negotiating with Obama on the debt ceiling. So this kind of scares me because it's sending a message that there can be no compromise whatsoever with the other side (even less than before) or you're possibly next on the chopping block.

Yep. To me this is far more disturbing than any other aspect of the Tea Party movement. Not so much their ideology (though I disagree with a lot of that), but their intransigence- it's our way or the highway. For want of a better analogy, they are to the Republican party what the Bolsheviks were to the socialist movement (though without that sort of closely knit organization.)

I dont see Obama, hillary or the rest of the morons doing any "compromising", why should the repubs?

Hillary isn't relevant to this issue.

But as to the rest of your comment, it's simply false. Obama has offered compromise after compromise. The one that would have made the most difference was in the summer of 2011, when he and Boehner had the groundwork laid out for a "grand bargain"- it would basically involve increasing revenue by 30% and cutting spending by 70%- a lopsided plan in favor of cutting spending. Anyone who is truly a fiscal conservative should have run with this plan- it was a great victory for conservatives. Reagan would have agreed in a heartbeat. Boehner wanted to agree. But the Tea Party pressured Republicans to refuse: NO compromise, NO tax increases whatsoever. A few days after that, our national credit rating was lowered. And about a week later, the Republican nominees for President were asked the question, "Would you accept a 10% tax increase in exchange for 90% spending cuts?" Not a single one dared to raise their hand, they were all terrified by the House of Representatives stand.

That was the point when I truly became concerned about the Tea Party movement.

I hate when people think the whole "grand bargain" negotiation was so cut and dry. It was a failure of leadership from both Obama and Boehner that caused that to collapse. You forget that the Senate came out with their own proposal during the negotiations that threw everything into overdrive. Obama has done a poor job cultivating many relationships and trust even within his own party, much less the opposition. A real leader would have gotten that done, unfortunately we had none on either side of the aisle.

And even if they came to an agreement, what makes you think it would have passed? Our credit rating was lowered because it was clear no one was in charge.

 

[jamny]

Obama succeeded in getting Boehner to tentatively agree to as much as $800 billion in new revenue, a major concession, only to surprise the speaker with a request for an additional $400 billion as their negotiations neared the final stages. Unable to muster support among his lieutenants for such a proposal, Boehner ducked the president’s phone calls before pulling out of the talks for good.

link

 

[Christo]

Cantor was in office for 24 years. Isn't that enough?

I wish more of these career politicians masquerading as public servants would lose to an opponent that supports term limits. I don't care which side of the aisle they sit on, nobody should be able to hold a seat for life.

Call me a crazy small "d" democrat. But I think I should be able to vote for the representative I want.

 

[Bird]

Cantor was in office for 24 years. Isn't that enough?

I wish more of these career politicians masquerading as public servants would lose to an opponent that supports term limits. I don't care which side of the aisle they sit on, nobody should be able to hold a seat for life.

Call me a crazy small "d" democrat. But I think I should be able to vote for the representative I want.

(for no other reason other than it's you)

 

[Ilov80s]

Cantor was in office for 24 years. Isn't that enough?

I wish more of these career politicians masquerading as public servants would lose to an opponent that supports term limits. I don't care which side of the aisle they sit on, nobody should be able to hold a seat for life.

Call me a crazy small "d" democrat. But I think I should be able to vote for the representative I want.

No, you are too dumb to vote for any person you want. We have to assume you will vote someone that will suck. Therefore, the only way to cover our butts is to kick the idiot you voted in out after 2 or 3 terms. That way, we aren't stuck with the same idiot that you vote for year after year and can instead get a new idiot every decade or so.

 

[Boston]

http://dailycaller.com/2014/06/11/cantor-loses-by-11-million-voters/

 

[NorvilleBarnes]

http://dailycaller.com/2014/06/11/cantor-loses-by-11-million-voters/

Very interesting.

 

[3C's]

http://dailycaller.com/2014/06/11/cantor-loses-by-11-million-voters/

Hideous beast.

 

[drummer]

Where is this district exactly and what is the area like?

Heavy Republican around Richmond I believe.

GWAR is from Richmond. Just sayin'.