The More Things Change

Why the Republican victory won't matter

There are lots of metaphors flying around to describe Tuesday's Republican victory. Landslide. Earthquake. Tsunami. They make for drama, but they're not really accurate. When a major natural disaster hits, it leaves the landscape visibly altered. But this event will leave most things unchanged.

Oh, the promises have been bold and far-reaching. Some 300 candidates nationally have signed the Tea Party "Contract from America" calling for a balanced budget, radical simplification of the tax code, and strict limits on federal spending. The chance that any of those will come to pass in the next two years? Zero.

Our campaigns are generally a matter of theater, not to be taken literally. We like to be the kind of people who vote for drastic change, but we don't want to be the kind of people who actually experience it. The gesture is generally enough.

One reason the status quo is so durable is that the differences between the two parties, when it comes to actual governing, are not nearly as large as they like to pretend. They expend vast amounts of cash in the indulgence of what Sigmund Freud called "the narcissism of small differences." But after the elections are over, the most polarizing and extreme positions tend to be neglected.

Republicans and tea party activists talked incessantly about the need to cut taxes. Big ideological difference, right? Well, no. Obama, after all, already cut them, and he wants to extend the Bush tax cuts for 98 percent of income earners. The party clashes take place mostly between the 40-yard lines.

Balancing the budget and shortening the tax code to a few thousand words, as the Contract from America envisions, wouldn't happen even if Republicans held all 535 seats in Congress and the presidency. They would require inflicting too much pain on voters—including tea party sympathizers, who (according to a Bloomberg poll) prefer not to cut Medicare but expand it.

Repealing ObamaCare is one demand that nearly all Republicans endorse. It's an empty pledge because they know any repeal bill—if they were ever to pass one—would be vetoed.

Rush Limbaugh says, so what? "Send Obama a repeal bill every week and make him veto it," he proposes. That's about as likely as Rush Limbaugh running a marathon every week.

Another idea is refusing to provide funds for the new health insurance program. But prospective House Budget Committee chairman Paul Ryan, a tea party favorite, regretfully admits that's not feasible, either. Come Jan. 20, 2013, the health care reform will still be in place, and everyone in the Republican Party knows it.

That brings up another reason not to take the partisan rhetoric too seriously. Candidates may vow to take quick action on major issues, somehow forgetting that our system is designed expressly to prevent quick action on major issues.

The GOP takeover of the House is far more useful as a brake than a steering wheel. The new majority can stop Obama from advancing new proposals by voting them down. But it can't force him to accept Republican ones.

Besides, history confirms, a lot of the promises will soon be forgotten. Republicans took control of Congress in 1994 partly on the appeal of a proposed constitutional amendment to limit congressional terms. It failed.

They said they would abolish three Cabinet departments. Each is still standing. A constitutional amendment to authorize "voluntary" school prayer never came close to passing the House.

The consistent failure to keep their word is not unique to Republicans. In 2006, Democrats swept to victory resolved to end the war in Iraq. Didn't happen. They promised to abolish earmarks—only to approve more than 9,000 last year alone. They were going to rein in deficits so "our children and grandchildren are not saddled with mountains of debt." That was a couple of Everests ago.

Politicians make promises like these because they are big and vivid. But the bigger the goal, the harder it is to reach. That's even more true when power is divided between a Democratic president and Senate and a Republican House. The things that are plausible, on the other hand, are usually not so exciting.

In campaigns, anything is possible, and on Election Day, a lot can change in a hurry. Afterward, not so much.

COPYRIGHT 2010 CREATORS.COM

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  • Suki||

    Good morning reason!

  • RS||

    Good morning, Suki, you insufferable ball of sunshine!

    :)

  • ||

    Good morning Suki!

  • Mr. FIFY||

    'Sup, Suk?

  • Barak Obama||

    Let me be clear - I got my ass waxed but at least I won't have to deal with Queen Nancy anymore.

  • Realist||

    Yeah, now he can deal with Queen Boner. What a fucking pussy...crying on TV because he will be House Speaker.

  • Suki||

    Who never asked for or got an earmark.

  • Fatty Bolger||

    That really is pretty impressive.

  • Nancy||

    Oh, God, I'm no longer two heartbeats away from replacing Jesus.

  • Obama||

    But you'll always be a stupid fuck!

  • Nancy||

    You are one to talk!

  • ||

    Pelosi will most likely be made House Minority Leader. Regrettably she'll be far from quiet.

  • Republicans||

    We can only hope.

  • Republicans||

    We can only hope.

  • Nancy, corporate shill-to-be||

    She won't be able to abuse that US-govt jet any longer. She will be sucking up for corporate private-jet rides for her and her family.

  • Daniel||

    So we aren't supposed to support policies that aren't likely to succeed?? Maybe you should tell this to the Libertarian party. This should be news to them.

  • Fatty Bolger||

    Is Homer Simpson a libertarian?

    "Kids, you tried your best, and you failed miserably. The lesson is, never try." - Homer Simpson

  • Chad||

    Republicans have no chance of passing their plans because they have none. They STILL won't say what the hell they are going to cut, precisely because they know that there are no serious cuts that are politically plausible, or, for that matter, sane.

  • Chad||

    I take that back: cutting the military and ag subsidies would be sane, and would actually make a difference. However, Republicans would never ever consider cutting *their* precious programs.

  • ||

    Your lack of self-awareness is astounding.

  • Rod Serling||

    Chad has Twilight Zone theme forever playing in his brain.

  • Chad Archer||

    Chad, as an ethanol-environmental-activist corporate shill, you cannot be in favor of cutting ag subsidies to Archer Daniels Midland, a "clean" company.

  • Bob||

    Bush is the one who signed the fucking ethanol mandate bill, so go fuck yourself.

  • ||

    Why would you cut the two biggest government jobs programs in These Tough Economic Times™ ?

    You should be pleased as punch the republicans took over the house, because no entitlements will be cut, and military spending will increase.

    Aren't you always claiming that sane economists say to spend more during a recession?

    Oh wait, I forgot that, just like your red counterparts, it is not about principles, but rather the little game you guys play against each other.
    Joke.

  • MNG||

    I heard a few GOPers advocate an across the board cut in spending except for defense where there will be a freeze. Hey, that is better than the status quo...

    Having said that the GOP is in a comfortable position, they will just pass things in the House that the Senate and the Prez won't allow and so the negative consequences will never be felt. Therefore they will get credit from the base without having to face any music.

  • DrC||

    Keep the GOVERNMENT off of my MEDICARE!

  • ||

    That sign was a plant, just like the racist ones. Liberals purposely went to the Tea Party rallies and did extreme things to make them all look bad.

  • ||

    Are you serious? Maybe you're local tea party chapter is filled with libertarian policy geniuses like your wonderful self. But here in flyover country, I can assure you that a substantial number of 'baggers in fact have no clue, and are completely earnest in making such statements.

  • ||

    My experience as well. Same folks want government to "Keep their damn hands off of Social Security." Actual quote from one older fellow.

  • Peace-Prize Barack||

    How will Obama continue his Mid-East adventures if the defense budget is cut?

  • Fatty Bolger||

    An across the board cut is probably the best idea, though I think it should include defense. Shared pain is easier to take. (Still, you would probably have to exempt SS and Medicare to get it passed.) Would it balance the budget? It would not. It would be a good start, though.

  • Mr. FIFY||

    I guess "cutting everything" still isn't a good-enough answer, eh, Chad...

  • Chad||

    No, it isn't. It's too simple. Keynes said it can't be done, and I believe him.

  • Contrarian P||

    Yes, because clearly his track record of success has been...what? There is no track record of success? You don't say?

  • ||

    You do know that the GOP cut farm subsidies after '94, right?

  • Bob||

    and look at all the money it saved us. The USDA is smaller, farmers are getting less money... Oh wait, they are making record profits and we are jamming money down their throats. You're pretty smart though

  • ||

    They're not politically plausible because your side has consistently spread mass hysteria when anyone has even thought about scaling back or privatizing Medicare or Social Security.

    To use a great man's metaphor, you guys drove us into a ditch with entitlements, and have been shooting anyone who touches a shovel. It's not surprising that the other side isn't interested in digging anymore.

  • Flyover Country||

    ^This^

  • MNG||

    Interesting that if you just replace "entitlements" and "Medicare and Social Security" with "defense" and "war" it would be just as true for "your side."

  • Ayn_Randian||

    Correct. And?

  • Gilbert Martin||

    The two are not equivalent.

    For one, defense is a Constitutional function of government and entitlements are not.

    And second, far more money is spent on all entitlements combined than is spent on defense.

  • ||

    Still too much money is being spent on defense. We could cut our defense budget in half and still have enough to adequately defend ourselves. Ofcourse, we'd have to stop being the policeman of the world.

  • Red Rocks Rockin||

    We'd also be forced to stop shoveling money to defense contractors for weapons systems that they overpromise and underdeliver.

    Without cuts or reforms to the Big Five--SS, Medicare, defense, Medicaid, and unemployment/other entitlements, the country simply does not get its financial house in order.

    Probably doesn't matter with Social Security, as anyone who's done the math can see that it's fuxored and will likely collapse under the weight of its own obligations, but the others can probably be reformed given a sufficient amount of political will. That's really the rub, though, as no one actually has the stones to tell Americans that the party's over.

  • asdf||

    A little over half of all the defense spending in the world is done by us. Really no cuts to be found in there anywhere?

  • Contrarian P||

    I am for cutting back the military budget and recalling troops to defend the homeland. "The common defense" to me means protecting the United States, not protecting Germany, Japan, or any of the other 130 or so countries where we have troops stationed. It most certainly does not mean fighting wars in Afghanistan and Iraq which have little or nothing to do with United States security and in fact have arguably made us less secure.

    My family has a strong tradition of military service and I am proud of those who have. I admire their sacrifice too much, though, to not oppose the skewed view that sees engaging in wars half a world away where American lives are lost for no good purpose while as somehow enhancing our security. I am confused, therefore, how my side (if indeed there is such a thing) can fulfill the boogeyman role in your scenario.

  • cynical||

    Didn't we manage to cut defense after the cold war ended?

  • ||

    Where's my frikkin slurpee!

  • ||

    A guy here at work overheard a conversation in a restrauant about the election results. One man said, "Now with the Republicans winning, who's going to pay my bills?"

  • Rhywun||

    Duh... budgets are already cut to the bone. At least that's what I heard on MSNBC the other day.

  • ||

    That is a great metaphor! MNG, is right, though, it applies equally to the GOP with war/defense.

  • ||

    The Dems even spread mass hysteria when a smaller increase in entitlements is proposed.

  • #||

    you know im getting a little tired of this meme that republicans in general are alone in that they have no plan to deal with the budget.

    Please Chad, do direct us to the democrats awesome plan for fiscal balance. Cause I have heard anything out of them either. In fact, what exactly is the democrats agenda period? As fas as I can tell their entrie campaign this year was "vote for us. They suck more." At least the republicans have Paul Ryan, even if most of them run away from his plan.

  • marlok||

    In the liberal mind, there should be two parties- Democrats who spend the wealth of the next 3 generations on massive entitlement programs and deserve boundless praise, and Republicans who lose every election promising tax increases and complete cuts to Granny's medicare.

    Yes, it's a complete joke that Democrats, even the soon-to-be-extinct Blue Dogs, have any more of a claim to fiscal responsibility than the Republicans.

  • Tony||

    Why would they need to cut anything? The "spending" bogeyman is so last season. Now that they're in charge we can go back to being afraid of terrists or something instead.

  • They?||

  • Red Rocks Rockin||

    Team Red holding one of the two houses of Congress means they're in charge now? Are the Senate Dems and Obama really that impotent?

  • Fist of Etiquette||

    They make for drama, but they're not really accurate.

    I would like to point out that those using dramatic terms tend to keep their focus on inside the beltway. The horse race and whatnot. The ruling class and their media watchdogs don't really care how things effect the electorate, just who has to move to a smaller Capitol office.

  • ||

    Anything that takes the gavel out of evil man-pig Henry Waxman's hand has to be regarded as a victory for decency and aesthetics.

  • ||

    I always thought that it would be nice if teevee producers would blur Waxman's face like a crime victim when he was on.

    You know, for the kids.

  • ||

    Or at least use a soft-focus lens like they do with Diane Sawyer. HD cameras can be so cruel.

  • ||

    No one fakes sincerity like Sawyer.

  • MNG||

    So Glenn Becks tears are not fake? Jeez, that's actually worse imo...

  • ||

    Mainer|11.4.10 @ 8:45AM|#
    No one fakes sincerity like Sawyer.

    She's the Queen of Empathy. And really, isn't that what we want in a news anchor?

  • ||

    +10^10^10

  • ||

    Or they should dress him up like an elf or a leprechaun.

  • Al Gore||

    People! We have discovered the location of Manbearpig!

  • George V||

    Does that mean Waxman had relations with a bear to produce Al Gore???

  • Barack Obama||

    It's an empty pledge because they know any repeal bill—if they were ever to pass one—would be vetoed.

    Let me be clear.

    As I have stated before, and as I will state again, I am open to compromise with my Republican colleagues. I can make a pledge, a pledge to America as it were, that I will not veto any reasonable bill that comes across my desk.

  • RG||

    Paulie Krugnuts is taking the election results pretty well.

    "We just saw An Iliad at McCarter. Fine show. But I am feeling this strange desire to slay my enemies, then throw them on a funeral pyre."

    http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.c.....he-greeks/

  • MlR||

    Considering his political and policy skill, I suspect he'd merely light himself on fire.

  • MlR||

    *Really important voice* Let Me Be Clear: That isn't to say I don't support it.

  • MNG||

    Heard on MSNBC musings about a Dean or Feingold challenge to Obama in 12. Either would be pretty sweet imo.

  • YEEEEEEEE||

    ARRRRRRRRRGH!!

    That is great news.

  • ||

    Right, because we need the Democrats to move further to the left. That makes sense.

  • Realist||

    There is no moving further to the left than Obama.

  • Spiny Norman||

    I dunno, is Gloria Estela La Riva still around?

  • Mr. FIFY||

    Um... Bernie Sanders isn't to the left of Obama?

  • Chad||

    Sanders is too far to the right.

  • PicassoIII||

    If moving further to the left is opposing Patriot Act, american Empire, the war on drugs and still having a modicum of respect for 2A, i'm game.
    http://www.issues2000.org/Sena.....ingold.htm

  • PicassoIII||

    Fiengold is about the only D i could even consider supporting.
    We've discussed it before though, a divorced Jew would be a tough sell.
    I'd also feel much more comfortable if a few more RLC members were elected to the Senate.

  • jacob||

    Interesting point about the RLC. It seems like none of their members were tea party favorites. Maybe one or two, I'm not 100% sure.

    It's funny you mention the RLC, I haven't heard that in years. Remember the "Main Street coalition" arm of the GOP?

  • Wesley||

    I know that the RLC endorsed Jim Demint and Rand Paul, and I think they endorsed Mike Lee, as well. These were all Tea Party guys. I don't know about Congressional candidates.

  • PicassoIII||

    Ahem,
    http://www.rlc.org/2010/11/03/2010-results/
    While not universal many RLC, C4L candidates were also 'tea party approved', there was crossover.
    Some like say Batshit Bachmann not so much.

  • ||

    There's also talk about Hillary challenging him. Anybody that challenges Obama in the primaries and wins will lose the general election. Most blacks will not vote for the person who defeats Obama. The Democrats can't win without the black vote.

  • jacob||

    +1000

  • ||

    +1000, for what? That was the most lamebrain analysis that I have ever read. It assumes so much as to be totally worthless.

    Jeeze.

  • ||

    Hillary vs. Sarah in 2012!

    Oh...my...god.

  • Oh, GOD||

  • ||

    You really believe blacks would vote for somebody that defeated Obama?

  • jacob||

    You really believe blacks would vote for somebody that defeated Obama?

    Hey! That's racist!

  • ||

    I do. They'll talk a good game and maybe threaten not to vote, but when push comes to shove, they'll fall in line like they always do.

  • Fatty Bolger||

    It would probably affect turnout more than the votes themselves. That would actually be worse for Democrats overall.

  • ||

    Hilary is probably counting on an R to become president in 2012 as that gives her a better chance in 2016 than if she defeated Obama for 2012 and goes up aganst anyone not named Sarah Palin...although if Hilary was against Huckabee I might vote for her (or shoot myself) just to oppose him. I can't abide social conservative + liberal spender. I just can't. Oh god, make it stop. Make the bad man go away.

  • jacob||

    It sounds like this "lamebrain analysis" touched a nerve with you? Or are you always this childish?

  • ||

    Yes, because littering a comments section with +numbers is the height of mature discourse.

  • ||

    Jesse in '12! One more time, baby!

  • ||

    As the great Marion Berry once said, "Jesse don't wanna run nuthin' but his mouth".

  • Mr. FIFY||

    Cool. If Howard Dean runs again, he can blow the dust off the unsold copies of his book You Have the Power: How to Take Back Our Country and Restore Democracy in America, then claim it's okay when he uses the phrase "take back our country".

  • shrike||

    It wasn't racist when Dean used it, you fucking Christ-fag capitalist pig.

  • Max||

    ARFARFARFARFARFARFARF!!!!!!!!

  • Born-Again Barack||

    "My Boy Lollipop" just bailed out another billionaire!

  • PicassoIII||

    Ventura?
    BRING IT!!

  • Red Rocks Rockin||

    Not sure how much stroke Feingold's going to have with the party, considering how badly he just got waxed.

    A Dean challenge would be massively entertaining for the train-wreck qualities, as the man has very little self-control and doesn't hide his contempt for his opponents at all. A couple of debates featuring Dean's Paul Begala-style of condescending engagement, and Obama might end up waving the white flag.

    I don't think it would necessarily improve our rather subterranean quality of political discourse, however. Dean's national profile is too much a creation of the 18-24 college undergraduate demographic, and any race with him is likely to devolve fairly quickly into Facebook-type insults rather than serious discussions of policy. At least if Feingold or even Hillary challenged Obama they might actually stay on topic.

  • ||

    What arguments could Hillary address against Obama when they are virtually alike?

  • Red Rocks Rockin||

    Sorry, I probably should have added that, from my perspective, Hillary nuked whatever chance she may have had to be a future President when she signed on to be Obama's SecState.

    No one would really take her seriously if she challenged him because people would be saying, "Well, why did you sign on to be his subordinate to begin with, if you had that little amount of confidence in him?" Whatever independent credibility she may have tried to establish is long gone now.

  • ChrisO||

    I think you underestimate Democrats' unhappiness with Obama. She doesn't have to come up with a good excuse for running, just a *plausible* one.

    You know, some bullshit like "I didn't realize the extent to which Obama would misgovern, and many people have told me I should run to save the country, yada yada yada."

    The issue with blacks staying home on election day is a much more serious problem for Hillary than inventing excuses to run. Despite that, she may feel that her advantages among women, Hispanics and blue-collar voters may be magnified this time, as compared to 2008. Plus, one would think she wouldn't be sandbagged in the caucus states again, like she was in 2008. She actually won most of the big states that hold primary elections.

    I'm not saying she'll run in 2012, but she would be foolish not to look into it. Things may not be so favorable for her in 2016.

  • Red Rocks Rockin||

    I do see what you're saying, but I think that, even with massive Democrat discontent, making that argument "I was stunned at his lack of ability" would be tough sledding for the left to buy. She was essentially saying the same thing back during the primaries, then apparently had no problem signing on to his administration.

    We can only speculate as to why--personally, I think she believed that she could manipulate the administration easier from the SecState perch and put her stamp on things that way--but I can't see how she could ever considered a serious contender now.

    If she had simply gone on the pundit analysis circuit (perhaps even heading the DNC), defending Democrat policies while holding Obama to a presumably objective standard ("Here's what he did right; here's what he could have improved"), she could have put herself in a position of strength PR-wise if Obama faltered, while being seen within the party itself as a stalwart.

    Regardless, I think her opportunity to achieve her lifetime dream of becoming President has come and gone. Challenging Obama in 2012 could create serious rifts in a party that's already inclined towards ethnic and political tribalism, and weaken the winner enough to lose to a more energetic Republican challenger where such issues aren't really a problem for his/her party.

    By the 2016 election, she's going to be 69 years old. Now, Pelosi didn't have a problem serving as Speaker in her mid-60s, but I'm not so sure that Americans are going to be so eager to give a woman at that age a chance at leading the whole country for 4-8 years. The baby boomers are going to start dying off, and the Gen-Xers and Gen-Yers are going to want to see some fresh blood in charge. Unless they see Hillary as some sort of moderate-left version of Reagan, I don't think she'd have a shot.

  • ||

    Apparently Chapman has never heard of the PPACA. Big things actually do get done, whether we like them or not. Is it harder with divided government? Of course, but that doesn't mean they won't find a way to impose massive something on us.

  • Mike M.||

    If they can't come to a budget agreement and the government ends up having to shut down for a while, I'll be expecting a mea culpa article from Reason's worst writer.

  • ||

    What's wrong with a shutdown?
    Hasn't the federal government done enough already?

  • ||

    I say we must plug the governmental anus that poops upon us.

  • Mr. FIFY||

    Close, Tex, but I'd add "Krazy Glue and suture it shut, then encase it in high-strength concrete and rebar and use a space shuttle for one final suicide mission to fire it into the heart of the sun" for good measure.

  • ||

    Yikes! Hit a nerve :-)

  • Mike M.||

    Nothing really, and I agree. I'm just saying that if it happens, Chapman will certainly end up looking like a fool.

  • ||

    Nah. We Americans have short...um...

    Memories. That's it.

  • CommentArrrr||

    "The chance that any of those will come to pass in the next two years? Zero."

    That's the plan, though. It'll be much easier to kiss the "Tea Party" ass in 2012 by saying, "We couldn't fulfill all the previous campaign promises due to Democrat obstruction. You must re-elect us to get it done."

    The new campaigns start yesterday.

  • nekoxgirl||

    Essentially do what the Democrats did after their wins in 2006. "Umm...we can't end the war because...umm...one of us has to be elected President. So vote Democrat in 2008! Now if you'll excuse us, we have a housing bubble/impending financial collapse to ignore."

  • ||

    As cynical as this may sound of me, I guess having a divided government bickering and doing nothing for the next two years is preferable to a unified government passing bad laws.

  • Mr. FIFY||

    To paraphrase Lewis Black, the only thing worse than Republicans and Democrats working separately, is when they work together.

  • PicassoIII||

    True dat.

  • ||

    Heh! Heh! Heh! Lewis Black may be left-wing as hell but I find him very funny.

  • nekoxgirl||

    A divided government passed the banking bailout. If they really need to screw us over, they'll find a way to work out their differences.

  • ||

    Too true...Too true....

  • Alexander Rozhenko||

    the bigger the goal, the harder it is to reach.

    The higher, the fewer!

  • ||

    I don't know why people worry about who is president, when the only important question the "peeps" can indirectly influence is, "which Fed chair do you want incessantly sucking banker's c*ck and taking bankers d*ck in their a*s???)
    Because America runs on credit - its the lifeblood...because no one actually has any cash. We cannot pay for the gubermint we have...we don't have enough money. Oh sure, we can electronically credit accounts with symbols that represent pieces of paper that have drawings of presidents on them...but they are actually worthless. At some point the people getting the paper will realize it is just..........paper.

  • André||

    I'm disappointed he said "They promised to abolish earmarks—only to approve more than 9,000 last year alone."

    He should have phrased it "...only to approve OVER 9,000 last year alone."

  • ||

    The Democratic primary I want to see is Dean v. Biden.

  • ChrisO||

    They could probably hold that on pay-per-view. I'd pay to see it.

  • Bob||

    I can't believe how many stupid R sympathizers there are here. Do you have zero memory? Do you remember Terry Schiavo, WMD, No Child, Medicare part D, ethanol mandates, Cheney telling us not to worry about deficits? You fucking retards get exactly what you deserve. Keep voting Republican.

  • ||

    I've been a Republican since IKE was president. This election was not a win for the RP. In fact, Republicans and Libertarians will not recover from this.

    Our debt, caused by VooDoo economics, will equal the GDP in a few short months.

    Remember when Progressive Republicans warned of this happening when the NEOCONs took over?

    Finally, I get my chance to shout...I TOLD YOU SO!

    ROTFLMFAO!!!

  • ||

    TO THE WEAK-KNEED REPUBLICANS AND DEMOCRAT…..TO ALL THE COMMUNIST IN THE IG,FBI,CIA,AND U.S. Senators and the left wing media outlets…..Wake up america!!!! This goverment is the most corrupt we have had in years. The good old boy network is very much in charge.Mr. obama and pelosi are the puppet masters.How many of their good friends benefited by the agreement ” what a farce. All of the u.sSenators voted for this. I am ashamed to say I voted for the these corupted self serving politicians.With good reason they picked an out of towner to be president.All u.s departments need an overhaul. We need to rid ourselves of the puppet masters and the dept heads that bow down to obama and pelosi.I am sick of the lip service I have been getting from these dummies over violations, their friends are getting away with.in the goverment . Barack Hussein Obama , threatens friends and bows to Mmslim.
    INPEACH OBAMA ,GOD OPEN YOUR EYES.///For us there are only two possiblities: either we remain american or we come under the thumb of the communist Mmslim Barack Hussein OBAMA. This latter must not occur.//////// I love communist obama.will you ,thank you,the commander.ps aka red ink obama.//////// Repost this if you agree, IS communist obama ONE , Because of its secrecy and refusal to issue news releases, the Bilderberg group is frequently accused of political conspiracies. This outlook has been popular on both extremes of the ideological spectrum, even if they disagree on what the group wants to do. Left-wingers accuse the Bilderberg group of conspiring to impose capitalist domination,[21] while some right-wing groups such as the John Birch Society have accused the group of conspiring to impose a world government and planned economy.Obama's India trip really an Emergency Bilderberger Meeting ?THE COMMADER.

  • ||

    If the USA is to continue being the world's superpower, I would suggest leaving all those warships and bases overseas -- from a geopolitical standpoint, it's why we became a superpower in the first place -- because we control the world's oceans, i.e., the shipping lanes and avenues of attack and re-supply. It's how we contained Russia and facilitated its collapse, and the only way we can remain even somewhat competitive with China. Pulling all those troops, ships and bases back home is the stupidest, most damaging action we could take as a nation.

  • ||

    Bilderberger influence ,TO THE WEAK-KNEED REPUBLICANS AND DEMOCRAT�..TO ALL THE COMMUNIST IN THE IG,FBI,CIA,AND U.S. Senators and the left wing media outlets�..Wake up america!!!! This goverment is the most corrupt we have had in years. The good old boy network is very much in charge.Mr. obama and pelosi are the puppet masters.How many of their good friends benefited by the agreement ” what a farce. All of the u.sSenators voted for this. I am ashamed to say I voted for the these corupted self serving politicians.With good reason they picked an out of towner to be president.All u.s departments need an overhaul. We need to rid ourselves of the puppet masters and the dept heads that bow down to obama and pelosi.I am sick of the lip service I have been getting from these dummies over violations, their friends are getting away with.in the goverment . Barack Hussein Obama , threatens friends and bows to Mmslim.
    INPEACH OBAMA ,GOD OPEN YOUR EYES.///For us there are only two possiblities: either we remain american or we come under the thumb of the communist Mmslim Barack Hussein OBAMA. This latter must not occur.//////// I love communist obama.will you ,thank you,the commander.ps aka red ink obama.//////// Repost this if you agree, IS communist obama ONE , Because of its secrecy and refusal to issue news releases, the Bilderberg group is frequently accused of political conspiracies. This outlook has been popular on both extremes of the ideological spectrum, even if they disagree on what the group wants to do. Left-wingers accuse the Bilderberg group of conspiring to impose capitalist domination,[21] while some right-wing groups such as the John Birch Society have accused the group of conspiring to impose a world government and planned economy.Obama's India trip really an Emergency Bilderberger Meeting ?THE COMMADER //////// .Is Barack Obama pushing forward dangerous policies that are bringing the United States closer to a socialist dictatorship. Are you even aware?

    2. What is the major proof of the Bilderberger influence over many of the world events in the last decade!

    3. Is it really true that the recent global financial collapse was engineered by the Bilderberg Group. Why was their 2010 annual meeting held in Greece?

  • ||

    Repost this if you agree,Bilderberger influence , IS communist obama ONE , Because of its secrecy and refusal to issue news releases, the Bilderberg group is frequently accused of political conspiracies. This outlook has been popular on both extremes of the ideological spectrum, even if they disagree on what the group wants to do. Left-wingers accuse the Bilderberg group of conspiring to impose capitalist domination,[21] while some right-wing groups such as the John Birch Society have accused the group of conspiring to impose a world government and planned economy.Obama's India trip really an Emergency Bilderberger Meeting ?THE COMMADER //////// 1. .Is Barack Obama pushing forward dangerous policies that are bringing the United States closer to a socialist dictatorship. Are you even aware?

    2. What is the major proof of the Bilderberger influence over many of the world events in the last decade!

    3. Is it really true that the recent global financial collapse was engineered by the Bilderberg Group. Why was their 2010 annual meeting held in Greece? 4, The Bilderberg Group, Bilderberg conference, or Bilderberg Club is an annual, unofficial, invitation-only conference of around 130 guests, most of whom are people of influence in the fields of politics, banking, business, the military and media. The conferences are closed to the public.
    5. "to install a world government that knows no borders and is not accountable to anyone but its own self."the commander

  • ||

    Bilderberger influenceTO THE WEAK-KNEED REPUBLICANS AND DEMOCRAT�..TO ALL THE COMMUNIST IN THE IG,FBI,CIA,AND U.S. Senators and the left wing media outlets�..Wake up america!!!! This goverment is the most corrupt we have had in years. The good old boy network is very much in charge.Mr. obama and pelosi are the puppet masters.How many of their good friends benefited by the agreement ” what a farce. All of the u.sSenators voted for this. I am ashamed to say I voted for the these corupted self serving politicians.With good reason they picked an out of towner to be president.All u.s departments need an overhaul. We need to rid ourselves of the puppet masters and the dept heads that bow down to obama and pelosi.I am sick of the lip service I have been getting from these dummies over violations, their friends are getting away with.in the goverment . Barack Hussein Obama , threatens friends and bows to Mmslim.
    INPEACH OBAMA ,GOD OPEN YOUR EYES.///For us there are only two possiblities: either we remain american or we come under the thumb of the communist Mmslim Barack Hussein OBAMA. This latter must not occur.//////// I love communist obama.will you ,thank you,the commander.ps aka red ink obama.//////// Repost this if you agree, IS communist obama ONE , Because of its secrecy and refusal to issue news releases, the Bilderberg group is frequently accused of political conspiracies. This outlook has been popular on both extremes of the ideological spectrum, even if they disagree on what the group wants to do. Left-wingers accuse the Bilderberg group of conspiring to impose capitalist domination,[21] while some right-wing groups such as the John Birch Society have accused the group of conspiring to impose a world government and planned economy.Obama's India trip really an Emergency Bilderberger Meeting ?THE COMMADER //////// .Is Barack Obama pushing forward dangerous policies that are bringing the United States closer to a socialist dictatorship. Are you even aware?

    2. What is the major proof of the Bilderberger influence over many of the world events in the last decade!

    3. Is it really true that the recent global financial collapse was engineered by the Bilderberg Group. Why was their 2010 annual meeting held in Greece?
    4. Bilderberger influence,president George W. Bush says he was "blindsided" by the financial crisis that shadowed his final months in office, but adds that the Democratic-controlled Congress shares some of the blame. -

    Now that the agenda for global government and a centralized world economic system is public and out in the open, the importance of the Bilderberg Group’s annual conference rests on grooming political candidates. The lion’s share of Bilderberg’s 2010 agenda has already been announced by its members weeks before – it will revolve around a potential military strike on Iran as well as the future collapse of the euro.The Bilderberger group, whose policies would pave the way for global communist conquest.

    ----- Bilderberg group in United States-------
    George W. Ball (1954, 1993),[13] Under Secretary of State 1961-1968, Ambassador to U.N. 1968
    Sandy Berger (1999),[14] National Security Advisor, 1997–2001
    Timothy Geithner(2009),[15] Treasury Secretary
    Lee H. Hamilton (1997),[1] former US Congressman
    Christian Herter,[16] (1961, 1963, 1964, 1966), 53rd United States Secretary of State
    Charles Douglas Jackson (1957, 1958, 1960),[17] Special Assistant to the President
    Joseph E. Johnson[18] (1954), President Carnegie Endowment for International Peace
    Henry Kissinger[19] (1957, 1964, 1966, 1971, 1973, 1974, 1977, 2008),[20] 56th United States Secretary of State
    Colin Powell (1997),[1] 65th United States Secretary of State
    Lawrence Summers,[15] Director of the National Economic Council
    Paul Volcker,[15] Chair of the President's Economic Recovery Advisory Board and Chairman of the Federal Reserve from 1979–1987
    Roger Altman (2009),[15] Deputy Treasury Secretary from 1993–1994, Founder and Chairman of Evercore Partners
    [edit] Presidents
    Bill Clinton (1991),[21][22] President 1993-2001
    Gerald Ford (1964, 1966),[4][23] President 1974-1977
    [edit] Senators
    John Edwards (2004),[24][25] Senator from North Carolina 1999-2005
    Chuck Hagel (1999, 2000),[26] Senator from Nebraska 1997-2009
    Sam Nunn (1996, 1997),[1] Senator from Georgia 1972-1997
    [edit] Governors
    Rick Perry (2007),[27] Governor of Texas 2000-current
    Mark Sanford (2008),[28] Governor of South Carolina , the United States closer to a socialist dictatorship. Are you even aware? === The Bilderberg Group, Bilderberg conference, or Bilderberg Club is an annual, unofficial, invitation-only conference of around 130 guests, most of whom are people of influence in the fields of politics, banking, business, the military and media. The conferences are closed to the public.== The Bilderberg Group in which he accuses them of manipulating the public "to install a world government that knows no borders and is not accountable to anyone but its own self."

    Repost this if you agree,

  • nike shoes UK||

    is good

GET REASON MAGAZINE

Get Reason's print or digital edition before it’s posted online

  • Progressive Puritans: From e-cigs to sex classifieds, the once transgressive left wants to criminalize fun.
  • Port Authoritarians: Chris Christie’s Bridgegate scandal
  • The Menace of Secret Government: Obama’s proposed intelligence reforms don’t safeguard civil liberties

SUBSCRIBE

advertisement