The Republicans won the shutdown of 1996.

The Republicans won the shutdown of 1996.

The only victory for the Democrats is that Clinton won the election bringing a few more Democrats to Congress.

But Democrats measure wins and losses by how it helps themselves.

Look at what happen after the election.
President Clinton declares the era of big Government is over.
Welfare reform is passed, as part of trying to balance the government.
The budget balance shrinks sharply in 3 years.

The objective of the shutdown was successful over the next three years.

 

You wouldn’t know that when you listen to the current leadership.

 

You make some good points, but the fact is, the republicans look at it as a near death experience. For many of them, it was terminal in the same way that gun control was for many democrats.

The fact is Clinton was deeply unpopular but managed to use the shutdown and the Oklahoma City bombing to turn the tables on Gingrich and the republicans. The republicans never got their mojo back.

 

Actually the republicans took it on the chin, but the country won. We'll see how 'patriotic" they are this time around. Do they cave and save their asses, or do they do the right thing and shut this bitch down?

 

CBS’s Schieffer Frets ‘Ultra-Conservatives’ Blocking Congress from ‘Addressing the Country’s Problems’

Read more: http://newsbusters.org/blogs/brent-...s-blocking-congress-addressing-#ixzz2gQmzygqk


1) Harry Reid is the one who keeps blocking bills from being voted on in the senate.

2) Most of our nations problems originate in congress.

 

Brit Hume: People Think Republicans to Blame for Shutdowns Because Media Keep Telling Them That

Read more: http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-s...me-shutdowns-because-media-keep#ixzz2gQomg163

 

Off to the horse races... 'Silver RINO' won back in '96... all I got was some paper coupons for cheap seats at next year's races.

They might have won, but those of us in the everyday world didn't gain a thing. Ditto if the Dems had won.


Potatoe, Potato.

 

October 1, 2013 5:00 AM
Powers, Separated on Purpose
The Constitution actually encourages gridlock.
By Charles C. W. Cooke


...Separation of powers is inefficient; it is an obstacle to substantial change; and it will not only “allow” gridlock but it is explicitly designed to encourage it. Where they are wrong is to conclude that this should change with the times. The Constitution is the product of abiding insight into politics — an insight that does not change with the wind. Rather amazingly, Yglesias claims the opposite to be the case: The problem of gridlock, he wrote in 2011, stems directly from the Founders’ having had “little in the way of experience to guide them in thinking about how political institutions would evolve.”

This is not simply untrue, it is the perfect opposite of the truth. Having watched the radical transformation of the British system during the 17th and 18th centuries — and studied undulations of the classical world, for good measure — most of the Founders were strikingly well versed in political theory. The introduction of limiting tools such as the rule of law, term restrictions, a codified constitution, a bill of rights, and divided government were intended to dispense with the presumption, famously termed “elective dictatorship” by Lord Hailsham, that the man who is voted in as leader every four or so years should have carte blanche to get things done. In other words, the Founders sought to block precisely what Yglesias and his cohorts covet. Nobody is perfect, of course, but I would wager everything I own that the architects of America were more au courant with the vagaries of human nature and the concentrating tendency of political actors than are the writers at Slate...

 

That's his job, isn't it? Stifle all who oppose DemoCrap Socialism?

America has morphed into DINO... Democracy In Name Only.