The Slimy Assed Republican Representatives

  • Webster666

    Posts: 9217

    Nov 18, 2010 3:20 AM GMT
    Nearly every single Republican running for office was screaming that our government needed to slash spending. But, now, newly anointed House Speaker Boner can't get any of the loud mouth Republicans to serve on the committee that is IN CHARGE OF CUTTING SPENDING.

    Michelle Bachman, REPUBLICAN from MN
    Lynn Westmoreland, REPUBLICAN from GA
    Jim Jordan, REPUBLICAN from OH
    Steve King, REPUBLICAN from IA

    During the recent election campaigns, each of the above were screaming for our government to cut spending, but, now that they've been elected to office and have a chance to be in charge of CUTTING GOVERNMENT SPENDING, every one of these slimy assed REPUBLICANS has REFUSED to serve on the House Appropriations Committee, which is in charge of spending (and cutting spending).

    AND,
    BEFORE Election Day, Michelle Bachman and Rand Paul, were in favor of banning earmarks (extra million dollar projects for their home states, tacked onto legislation without it having to go through the legislative process).

    NOW that they've won election, they are suddenly IN FAVOR OF earmarks.

    Most of these slimy assed Teabagger REPUBLICANS are showing their true colors before they've even taken the oath of office.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 18, 2010 3:27 AM GMT
    A new repub rep from MD complained about his health insurance not starting for 28 days after he takes office. He wanted to know if he could buy gov't health insurance to him in the interim. AND HE CAMPAIGNED AGAINST GOVT HEALTH INSUR. FOR AMERICANS!

    The DEMS have written to the Repubs asking them to forego their gov't provided health insurance just like they want the rest of the country to do.

    What do you think the Repubs should do, SB?
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 18, 2010 3:39 AM GMT
    Whats amazing to me is how successfull these people you mentioned are at getting those who vote for them to go against their own interests. It seems that as long as they shout out a few key conservative talking points, that their voters back them up hook line and sinker, even though in the end the ones they vote for are taking jobs, housing opportunties, education opportunities, and safety nets for such basics as even food away from them. Do these people even think things through at all ???
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 18, 2010 12:37 PM GMT

    http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1110/45250.htmlBoehner might also choose to slash the size of the panel, which currently has 37 Democrats and 23 Republicans. Other than Hawaii Rep. Charles Djou, who lost his reelection bid, perhaps no other GOP members had formally asked to join the committee prior to the election, according to one GOP source.
    ...
    Flake said he’s selling the committee as a place to do aggressive oversight of how taxpayer dollars are spent. He’s also telling members that they can bring in as many administration officials as they would like before the appropriations panel to interrogate them on spending.
    ...
    The difficulty that GOP leaders have faced in recruiting Appropriations Committee members is a stunning reversal from the panel’s storied history, when members of both parties aggressively competed for committee slots as a way to increase their House influence.
    ...
    “If you’re going to truly effect change, you’re going to need more than one or two people,” said Rep. Jason Chaffetz (R-Utah), who also is interested in joining the panel.


    Some people don't need carrots to do the right thing:
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jason_ChaffetzChaffetz announced at the start of the Congressional term in 2009 that he would be sleeping on a cot in his office rather than renting a Washington, D.C. apartment.[9] Chaffetz said, "I'm trying to live the example that it doesn't take big dollars in order to get where we want to go. I can save my family $1,500 a month by sleeping on a cot in my office as opposed to getting a fancy place that's maybe a little bit more comfortable."[9] His family will continue to live in Alpine, a suburb of Provo. "We are now $10 trillion in debt. $10 trillion. Those are expenses that have to be paid at some point", he said. If he can tighten his belt in these tough economic times, Chaffetz said, Congress should be able to as well.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 18, 2010 3:12 PM GMT
    Webster666 saidNearly every single Republican running for office was screaming that our government needed to slash spending. But, now, newly anointed House Speaker Boner can't get any of the loud mouth Republicans to serve on the committee that is IN CHARGE OF CUTTING SPENDING.

    Michelle Bachman, REPUBLICAN from MN
    Lynn Westmoreland, REPUBLICAN from GA
    Jim Jordan, REPUBLICAN from OH
    Steve King, REPUBLICAN from IA

    During the recent election campaigns, each of the above were screaming for our government to cut spending, but, now that they've been elected to office and have a chance to be in charge of CUTTING GOVERNMENT SPENDING, every one of these slimy assed REPUBLICANS has REFUSED to serve on the House Appropriations Committee, which is in charge of spending (and cutting spending).

    AND,
    BEFORE Election Day, Michelle Bachman and Rand Paul, were in favor of banning earmarks (extra million dollar projects for their home states, tacked onto legislation without it having to go through the legislative process).

    NOW that they've won election, they are suddenly IN FAVOR OF earmarks.

    Most of these slimy assed Teabagger REPUBLICANS are showing their true colors before they've even taken the oath of office.


    So why are you upset? You LOOOOVE spending. You should be excited!
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 18, 2010 3:17 PM GMT
    realifedad said Whats amazing to me is how successfull these people you mentioned are at getting those who vote for them to go against their own interests. It seems that as long as they shout out a few key conservative talking points, that their voters back them up hook line and sinker, even though in the end the ones they vote for are taking jobs, housing opportunties, education opportunities, and safety nets for such basics as even food away from them. Do these people even think things through at all ???


    Just reading this makes me realize how pathetic some people actually are. "against their own interests"??? It's scary knowing there are so many people now with this mindset. Let's hope that the reason people voted the way they did was because they value having freedom over security -- knowing that otherwise they will have neither.

    All of the "benefits" you speak of are the result of corrupt politicians who borrow and steal from future generations to make the current generation vote for them. It has nothing to do with actual sustainable benefits that are being given or not given to people. It's all paid for with other peoples' money.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 18, 2010 3:18 PM GMT
    realifedad said Whats amazing to me is how successfull these people you mentioned are at getting those who vote for them to go against their own interests. It seems that as long as they shout out a few key conservative talking points, that their voters back them up hook line and sinker, even though in the end the ones they vote for are taking jobs, housing opportunties, education opportunities, and safety nets for such basics as even food away from them. Do these people even think things through at all ???


    NEVER underestimate the power of hate fueled stupidity. People should have known once you could be labeled an elitist for simply being college educated or just plain smart, that this whole thing was going to go down hill.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 18, 2010 3:21 PM GMT
    mocktwinkie said
    realifedad said Whats amazing to me is how successfull these people you mentioned are at getting those who vote for them to go against their own interests. It seems that as long as they shout out a few key conservative talking points, that their voters back them up hook line and sinker, even though in the end the ones they vote for are taking jobs, housing opportunties, education opportunities, and safety nets for such basics as even food away from them. Do these people even think things through at all ???


    Just reading this makes me realize how pathetic some people actually are. "against their own interests"??? Nothing personal to you, but I can't believe you even have this mindset. Let's hope that the reason people voted the way they did was because they value having freedom over security -- knowing that otherwise they will have neither.

    All of the "benefits" you speak of are the result of corrupt politicians who borrow and steal from future generations to make the current generation vote for them.


    MY-PARENTS-SENT-ME-TO-PRIVATE-SCHOOL-BEC
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 18, 2010 3:22 PM GMT
    mocktwinkie said
    Webster666 saidNearly every single Republican running for office was screaming that our government needed to slash spending. But, now, newly anointed House Speaker Boner can't get any of the loud mouth Republicans to serve on the committee that is IN CHARGE OF CUTTING SPENDING.

    Michelle Bachman, REPUBLICAN from MN
    Lynn Westmoreland, REPUBLICAN from GA
    Jim Jordan, REPUBLICAN from OH
    Steve King, REPUBLICAN from IA

    During the recent election campaigns, each of the above were screaming for our government to cut spending, but, now that they've been elected to office and have a chance to be in charge of CUTTING GOVERNMENT SPENDING, every one of these slimy assed REPUBLICANS has REFUSED to serve on the House Appropriations Committee, which is in charge of spending (and cutting spending).

    AND,
    BEFORE Election Day, Michelle Bachman and Rand Paul, were in favor of banning earmarks (extra million dollar projects for their home states, tacked onto legislation without it having to go through the legislative process).

    NOW that they've won election, they are suddenly IN FAVOR OF earmarks.

    Most of these slimy assed Teabagger REPUBLICANS are showing their true colors before they've even taken the oath of office.


    So why are you upset? You LOOOOVE spending. You should be excited!

    Does their constituency feel betrayed ? Especially right after the election. What political opponents say just gets shrugged off but you guys have cool "recall" provisions don't you.?

    how are they selling it to their own supporters?
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 18, 2010 3:27 PM GMT
    Interesting scenario:

    Some RJ conservatives want Rep.s in to slash and cut.

    Then, the Rep.s get in and decide the opposite.

    When challenged, some RJ conservatives say 'well the Dems do it, so what's the problem?'

    Er, the problem is the conservatives wanted them in to NOT to do as the Dems do.

    -Doug
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 18, 2010 3:29 PM GMT
    UpperCanadian said
    mocktwinkie said
    Webster666 saidNearly every single Republican running for office was screaming that our government needed to slash spending. But, now, newly anointed House Speaker Boner can't get any of the loud mouth Republicans to serve on the committee that is IN CHARGE OF CUTTING SPENDING.

    Michelle Bachman, REPUBLICAN from MN
    Lynn Westmoreland, REPUBLICAN from GA
    Jim Jordan, REPUBLICAN from OH
    Steve King, REPUBLICAN from IA

    During the recent election campaigns, each of the above were screaming for our government to cut spending, but, now that they've been elected to office and have a chance to be in charge of CUTTING GOVERNMENT SPENDING, every one of these slimy assed REPUBLICANS has REFUSED to serve on the House Appropriations Committee, which is in charge of spending (and cutting spending).

    AND,
    BEFORE Election Day, Michelle Bachman and Rand Paul, were in favor of banning earmarks (extra million dollar projects for their home states, tacked onto legislation without it having to go through the legislative process).

    NOW that they've won election, they are suddenly IN FAVOR OF earmarks.

    Most of these slimy assed Teabagger REPUBLICANS are showing their true colors before they've even taken the oath of office.


    So why are you upset? You LOOOOVE spending. You should be excited!

    Does their constituency feel betrayed ? Especially right after the election. What political opponents say just gets shrugged off but you guys have cool "recall" provisions don't you.?

    how are they selling it to their own supporters?


    Are you saying that by voting democrat we will have a greater chance of people interested in cutting programs, stopping government growth and balancing the budget? If not, you'd best stfu
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 18, 2010 3:31 PM GMT
    DoomsDayAlpaca said
    realifedad said Whats amazing to me is how successfull these people you mentioned are at getting those who vote for them to go against their own interests. It seems that as long as they shout out a few key conservative talking points, that their voters back them up hook line and sinker, even though in the end the ones they vote for are taking jobs, housing opportunties, education opportunities, and safety nets for such basics as even food away from them. Do these people even think things through at all ???


    NEVER underestimate the power of hate fueled stupidity. People should have known once you could be labeled an elitist for simply being college educated or just plain smart, that this whole thing was going to go down hill.
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Well buddy you got this right !!! Good point !!! Now it seems ignorance, lack of curiosity about the world around them and backwordness like writing your speach notes on your hand and "refudiating" factual debate with enuendos are being celebrated over inteligent debate. Lets all vote for "common sense solutions" from the Likes of Palin who exhibits very little of it. Ignorance from the voting public is very very frightening !!!
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 18, 2010 3:31 PM GMT
    BTW, can we have some sources from the OP rather than just some "take my word for it" blathering?
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 18, 2010 3:33 PM GMT
    lol, that's not what UpperCanadian said at all, Mock. He, like me, is wondering at the complacency of those who voted in Rep.s to slash and cut when those they voted for immediately did a huge turncoat when they got it.


    Whatever political stripe you are, turncoats are pretty reprehensible.

    -Doug
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 18, 2010 3:46 PM GMT
    http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1110/45250.html

    Ah, the power of Google.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 18, 2010 3:55 PM GMT
    mocktwinkie said
    UpperCanadian said
    mocktwinkie said
    Webster666 saidNearly every single Republican running for office was screaming that our government needed to slash spending. But, now, newly anointed House Speaker Boner can't get any of the loud mouth Republicans to serve on the committee that is IN CHARGE OF CUTTING SPENDING.

    Michelle Bachman, REPUBLICAN from MN
    Lynn Westmoreland, REPUBLICAN from GA
    Jim Jordan, REPUBLICAN from OH
    Steve King, REPUBLICAN from IA

    During the recent election campaigns, each of the above were screaming for our government to cut spending, but, now that they've been elected to office and have a chance to be in charge of CUTTING GOVERNMENT SPENDING, every one of these slimy assed REPUBLICANS has REFUSED to serve on the House Appropriations Committee, which is in charge of spending (and cutting spending).

    AND,
    BEFORE Election Day, Michelle Bachman and Rand Paul, were in favor of banning earmarks (extra million dollar projects for their home states, tacked onto legislation without it having to go through the legislative process).

    NOW that they've won election, they are suddenly IN FAVOR OF earmarks.

    Most of these slimy assed Teabagger REPUBLICANS are showing their true colors before they've even taken the oath of office.


    So why are you upset? You LOOOOVE spending. You should be excited!

    Does their constituency feel betrayed ? Especially right after the election. What political opponents say just gets shrugged off but you guys have cool "recall" provisions don't you.?



    Are you saying that by voting democrat we will have a greater chance of people interested in cutting programs, stopping government growth and balancing the budget? If not, you'd best stfu



    ??

    1. UC comments approvingly on US "recall" provision, asks one oftheir supporters, : "How are the [newly elected] selling it to [you]?"

    mockwtinkie to UC: you'd best stfu."

    icon_exclaim.gif


    Based on your posts, I thought you were actually the sensible conservative here to talk to.

    I won't bother asking you anything anymore.


    Oh, and mocktwinkie.

    fuck off.

    block.

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 18, 2010 3:56 PM GMT
    q1w2e3 saidhttp://www.politico.com/news/stories/1110/45250.html

    Ah, the power of Google.


    “Anybody who’s a Republican right now, come June, is going to be accused of hating seniors, hating education, hating children, hating clean air and probably hating the military and farmers, too,” said Jack Kingston (R-Ga.), a fiscal conservative who is lobbying to become chairman of the House Appropriations Committee. “So much of the work is going to be appropriations related. There’s going to be a lot of tough votes. So some people may want to shy away from the committee. I understand it.”

    Why? Because there will be liberals who brainwash people like "reallifedad" that all of these benefits belong to them and are being maliciously "taken away" by the evil republicans --- as though there is really a choice in the matter when it comes to balancing the budget.

    This is the reason we continue to plunge into more debt, because the left will demonize the people who actually make the tough cuts that are so necessary for the future. Liberals are willing to sell their own children into slavery in order to selfishly receive benefits now from politicians eager to secure their own fortunes and future while appearing to be fighting for the people.

    Sad day. It's even more tragic that liberals would try to use this as an opportunity to get back in power so that they can hasten their big-government expansion/spend-and-borrow agenda even faster.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 18, 2010 4:03 PM GMT
    UpperCanadian said
    mocktwinkie said
    UpperCanadian said
    mocktwinkie said
    Webster666 saidNearly every single Republican running for office was screaming that our government needed to slash spending. But, now, newly anointed House Speaker Boner can't get any of the loud mouth Republicans to serve on the committee that is IN CHARGE OF CUTTING SPENDING.

    Michelle Bachman, REPUBLICAN from MN
    Lynn Westmoreland, REPUBLICAN from GA
    Jim Jordan, REPUBLICAN from OH
    Steve King, REPUBLICAN from IA

    During the recent election campaigns, each of the above were screaming for our government to cut spending, but, now that they've been elected to office and have a chance to be in charge of CUTTING GOVERNMENT SPENDING, every one of these slimy assed REPUBLICANS has REFUSED to serve on the House Appropriations Committee, which is in charge of spending (and cutting spending).

    AND,
    BEFORE Election Day, Michelle Bachman and Rand Paul, were in favor of banning earmarks (extra million dollar projects for their home states, tacked onto legislation without it having to go through the legislative process).

    NOW that they've won election, they are suddenly IN FAVOR OF earmarks.

    Most of these slimy assed Teabagger REPUBLICANS are showing their true colors before they've even taken the oath of office.


    So why are you upset? You LOOOOVE spending. You should be excited!

    Does their constituency feel betrayed ? Especially right after the election. What political opponents say just gets shrugged off but you guys have cool "recall" provisions don't you.?



    Are you saying that by voting democrat we will have a greater chance of people interested in cutting programs, stopping government growth and balancing the budget? If not, you'd best stfu



    ??

    1. UC comments approvingly on US "recall" provision, asks one oftheir supporters, : "How are the [newly elected] selling it to [you]?"

    mockwtinkie to UC: you'd best stfu."

    icon_exclaim.gif


    Based on your posts, I thought you were actually the sensible conservative here to talk to.

    I won't bother asking you anything anymore.


    Oh, and mocktwinkie.

    fuck off.

    block.



    Blocking is a little childish, but you got exactly what you asked for. If you can't figure out the brazenness of pointing out the fact that certain republicans are not doing enough to tackle the spending and budget issues when you are a supporter of the party that lives with an insatiable appetite for spending and borrowing and then turn around and use that fact to make the democrats look like a more sensible choice in fiscal responsibility, then you are beyond hopeless.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 18, 2010 4:07 PM GMT
    Oh yikes. icon_rolleyes.gif

    Mock, he's pointing out turncoat behaviour of SOME Rep.s that just got in. You're reading too much into it.

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 18, 2010 4:46 PM GMT

    I thought I was pretty damned clear in asking what these pols are saying to any criticism they are getting from the people in their own camp. (I am sure they must be getting some).

    Childish is getting all defensive about the simplest question.


    It is not childish to refuse to waste any more time with someone who will not even respect a question.




  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 18, 2010 6:32 PM GMT
    UpperCanadian said
    I thought I was pretty damned clear in asking what these pols are saying to any criticism they are getting from the people in their own camp. (I am sure they must be getting some).

    Childish is getting all defensive about the simplest question.


    It is not childish to refuse to waste any more time with someone who will not even respect a question.






    I have no idea if they are! I didn't vote for any of them, I voted for Ron Johnson.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 18, 2010 8:19 PM GMT
    mocktwinkie said
    UpperCanadian said
    I thought I was pretty damned clear in asking what these pols are saying to any criticism they are getting from the people in their own camp. (I am sure they must be getting some).

    Childish is getting all defensive about the simplest question.


    It is not childish to refuse to waste any more time with someone who will not even respect a question.






    I have no idea if they are! I didn't vote for any of them, I voted for Ron Johnson.


    Thank you for that answer . I haven't heard any comment yet in the media I follow , but I expect we will start to hear it soon.

    Immediately post-election is when I would expect voters to really be feeling very empowered and expecting the people they voted for to start to deliver. The Democrats seemed to really leave their base feeling very betrayed and disempowered.

    The sustainability of the Tea Party movement and its ability to emerge as the third Party will be very much determined in this period, so I am really hoping to see how much pressure the tea Party voters will put on their candidates.

    I am frankly hoping they will send the message very quickly, " this is OUR movement - you will take your orders from us, not the other way around." This could be a rare opportunity for a really defining moment in shifting that mindset of accountability. I hope they don't miss it.

    I think a third Party in Congress would be a very good thing.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 18, 2010 9:13 PM GMT
    http://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/129855-ohio-tea-party-splits-with-boehner-on-ethics


    Ohio Tea Party splits with Boehner on ethics

    By Susan Crabtree - 11/18/10 06:00 AM ET

    Incoming House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) could be headed toward a conflict with his home-state Tea Party over the Office of Congressional Ethics (OCE).

    The Ohio Liberty Council, the main umbrella organization for 58 Tea Party groups in the state, supports efforts to strengthen the OCE and is warning House GOP leaders that any attempt to weaken it will upset Tea Party activists.


    “It they move in the opposite direction of transparency that this office provides, I think we will be very upset about that,” said Chris Littleton, president of the Ohio Liberty Council and the Cincinnati Tea Party. “Symbolically, it’s a huge problem for them … they should be as transparent as they can be. Any opposition to that would be inappropriate on their part.”

    Tea Party groups in Ohio first became aware of the OCE after the fiscally conservative group Taxpayers for Common Sense (TCS) made strengthening the office a priority in its transparency and reform agenda for the 112th Congress. Other planks in TCS’s platform include passing budget bills before the beginning of the fiscal year, imposing earmark reforms and abiding by pay-as-you-go, or pay-go, enforcements.

    House Republican leaders have supported many of TCS’s reform priorities in their own transparency agenda unveiled since the election. But Boehner has long opposed the ethics office, and many political observers think he will seek to dismantle or seriously weaken it with Republicans in the majority.

    The grassroots Tea Party movement helped to re-energize the Republican Party during the midterm election and deliver the GOP majority. Boehner is riding to power on this wave of enthusiasm, although many in the movement view him as part of the GOP establishment.

    When asked whether Boehner will heed the call to strengthen, not shutter, the OCE, his spokesman, Michael Steel, said the issue is still up in the air.

    “We haven’t made a decision with regard to the OCE,” he said in an e-mail. “As you know, the only group of members publicly calling for it to be shut down at this point are Democrats.”

    A spokesman for Rep. Eric Cantor (R-Va.), the incoming majority leader, echoed Steel’s statements.

    Many arriving Republican freshmen campaigned on accountability and transparency, and House GOP leaders have responded by promoting a transparency initiative that includes posting all bills to the Web 72 hours before they are voted on and bringing cameras into House Rules Committee hearings.

    Outgoing Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) pushed through legislation creating the OCE as a new independent layer of ethics scrutiny in 2008, strong-arming many in her party who feared giving an outside body the power to police members’ activities.

    All Republican leaders vigorously opposed the OCE’s creation and tried to defeat the measure in a series of parliamentary tactics Democrats beat back in March of 2008. The bill passed 207-206 after Democratic leaders pressed several reluctant members to vote in favor.

    Government watchdog groups strongly support the OCE, which has investigated more than 60 cases and referred a dozen to the House ethics committee for further review. The extent and level of ethics scrutiny the OCE has brought is unprecedented in the House, and several targets of the probes, many of them in the Congressional Black Caucus (CBC), and other critics on both sides of the aisle have complained that Pelosi created an entity that has overreached and is out of control.

    CBC members have introduced legislation that would curtail the powers of the OCE, and watchdog groups have roundly condemned the proposed modifications.

    The ethics office was not set up as a permanent fixture of the House and requires reauthorization at the beginning of each Congress, which will likely be included in a House rules package. Watchdogs fear that Republicans could try to include provisions in the rules package that supercede or gut the OCE in order to obscure or deflect attention from the underlying attempt to weaken the office.

    “I’m glad to hear that they don’t want to get rid of it right away,” said Meredith McGehee, policy director of the Campaign Legal Center, referring the comments from Boehner’s spokesman. “I think the cost of that would be pretty high politically.”

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 18, 2010 9:19 PM GMT
    It will be really interesting to see what he does in response. I imagine there is a lot suddenly at stake for him.

    He can signal willingness to listen to them, or try to show "I will not be dictated to"


  • GQjock

    Posts: 11649

    Nov 18, 2010 11:40 PM GMT
    An earmark is money that's spent .........................


    IN SOMEONE ELSE'S DISTRICT icon_cool.gif