# The Dems/commies begin their purge



## Bobm (Aug 26, 2003)

The next few years are really going to be bad if Obama cannot contain the far left in congress and with his far left past I have little hope of that.

Read this WSJ article it pretty much sums up what we are in for....kiss the american car industry goodbye :eyeroll:

The champagne is barely off the ice and Democrats are already celebrating their new majorities by punishing a few heretical colleagues. In almost every sense, John Dingell and Joe Lieberman are loyal Democrats. But Mr. Dingell is holding down the party's right flank on energy, and Mr. Lieberman in foreign affairs.

*Now they're targets, and the retribution speaks volumes about the direction of liberal politics.*
California Democrat Henry Waxman kicked things off the morning after Barack Obama's victory, with an announcement that he will seek the chairmanship of the powerful House Energy and Commerce Committee. The post is currently held by Mr. Dingell, the bulldog Michigander who next year will become the longest-serving Member in U.S. history. In Congressional physics, seniority is gravity, which alone makes Mr. Waxman's challenge extraordinary.
It is even more so because it is a coup d'etat against a climate-change moderate. For environmentalists, Mr. Dingell is a wet blanket because his committee will write any global-warming legislation. The word on the Hill is that Mr. Waxman enjoys the tacit support of übergreen Speaker Nancy Pelosi, who dislikes Mr. Dingell's independence.

In media shorthand, Mr. Dingell's approach to climate change is called "industry friendly." :eyeroll: * Apparently, this is because his principles include words like "realistic" and "achievable" and "cost containment."* An ally of the Detroit auto makers, he does not pretend that putting a price on carbon will be painless and fun. He also knows that well-to-do redoubts such as Mr. Waxman's Beverly Hills won't bear the heaviest burden. It will fall instead on blue-collar, middle-American regions that rely on manufacturing or coal-fired power.
Even so, Mr. Dingell's committee has held nearly 30 hearings on climate change since his party took power. In October, he released a cap-and-trade bill that aims to reduce emissions to 80% below 2005 levels by 2050. Incredibly enough, even that huge cut counts as a liberal heresy. The greens demand 80% below 1990 levels by 2050 -- a meaningless distinction considering that four decades is a political and technological eternity.

Then again, compared to Mr. Waxman, just about anyone could be mistaken for an Exxon executive. The Congressman has spent the last year trying to dragoon the Environmental Protection Agency into imposing an economy-wide carbon clampdown under current clean-air laws, an idea Mr. Obama also backs.

But Mr. Dingell dares to point out that these laws -- passed in 1970, 1977 and 1990 -- were never written to include CO2. He should know. He wrote them.
The point is not only to humiliate a nuisance. Installing Mr. Waxman at Energy and Commerce would mean a far more aggressive push on global warming next year. It would also send a warning to the Blue Dogs and rural-state Democrats who might not fall in with the Obama-Pelosi energy agenda :eyeroll: . Think rubber truncheons and bare light bulbs (compact fluorescents, of course).

Like Mr. Dingell, Senator Lieberman may also lose his gavel. Last week, Majority Leader Harry Reid informed the Connecticut renegade that rank-and-file sentiment against him had climbed to a point where he could not stay as Homeland Security Chairman. He may also be booted from the Democratic caucus.

To hear Democrats tell it, much less the Angry Left, Mr. Lieberman is Judas, Brutus and Cassius rolled into one. They're still furious about his high-profile campaign for John McCain, including his speech at the GOP convention. They also want to exact revenge for his unstinting support of President Bush's Iraq policy.
In 2006, Mr. Lieberman was defrocked for the sole reason that as a matter of policy and conscience he refused to repudiate the war that he and so many of his party colleagues had voted for. After Mr. Lieberman lost his Senate primary race to the antiwar Greenwich millionaire Ned Lamont, nearly all Senate Democrats were happy to abandon their friend and endorse Mr. Lamont. Chris Dodd, Hillary Clinton, Mr. Obama and the rest didn't even have the courage to stay neutral, for fear of affronting the empurpled left.

Were he a vindictive man, Mr. Lieberman could have returned the favor after he won the general election as an independent. With the Senate split 50 to 49, he might have handed control back to the GOP. Instead, he caucused with the Democrats and voted with them on social and economic issues. Now that they have comfortable margins, his reward may be a complete purge.

*If a venerable New Deal liberal first elected in 1955 and a Vice Presidential nominee only two elections ago aren't fit for polite Democratic company, it shows how far left the party's center has shifted.*


----------



## hunter9494 (Jan 21, 2007)

you just may see some Blue Dog dems switch parties if things get bad enough. Obama will have a serious decision to make regarding how much sway the radical left will carry, if he can't control them or chooses not to the repercussions will be dramatic like nothing we have ever seen before.
Obama will move quickly to seize guns to prevent a revolt against such Communist rule.....we are on the brink of extinction of this country as we know it.


----------



## willythekid (Jan 21, 2008)

Obama will move quickly to seize guns to prevent a revolt against such Communist rule.....we are on the brink of extinction of this country as we know it.

Is this guy for real??? holy cow... can't believe people out there believe this stuff. You make me laugh hunter9494........ :lol:


----------



## zogman (Mar 20, 2002)

This is another view......To bad the left media kept al of this from us prior to the election :******:

WASHINGTON -- A Republican congressman from Georgia said Monday he fears that President-elect Obama will establish a Gestapo-like security force to impose a Marxist or fascist dictatorship.

"It may sound a bit crazy and off base, but the thing is, he's the one who proposed this national security force," Rep. Paul Broun said of Obama in an interview Monday with The Associated Press. "I'm just trying to bring attention to the fact that we may -- may not, I hope not -- but we may have a problem with that type of philosophy of radical socialism or Marxism."

Broun cited a July speech by Obama that has circulated on the Internet in which the then-Democratic presidential candidate called for a civilian force to take some of the national security burden off the military.

"That's exactly what Hitler did in Nazi Germany and it's exactly what the Soviet Union did," Broun said. "When he's proposing to have a national security force that's answering to him, that is as strong as the U.S. military, he's showing me signs of being Marxist."

Obama's comments about a national security force came during a speech in Colorado about building a new civil service corps. Among other things, he called for expanding the nation's foreign service and doubling the size of the Peace Corps "to renew our diplomacy."

"We cannot continue to rely only on our military in order to achieve the national security objectives that we've set," Obama said in July. "We've got to have a civilian national security force that's just as powerful, just as strong, just as well-funded."

Broun said he also believes Obama likely will move to ban gun ownership if he does build a national police force.

Obama has said he respects the Second Amendment right to bear arms and favors "common sense" gun laws. Gun rights advocates interpret that as meaning he'll at least enact curbs on ownership of assault weapons and concealed weapons. As an Illinois state lawmaker, Obama supported a ban on semiautomatic weapons and tighter restrictions on firearms generally.

"We can't be lulled into complacency," Broun said. "You have to remember that Adolf Hitler was elected in a democratic Germany. I'm not comparing him to Adolf Hitler. What I'm saying is there is the potential."

Obama's transition office did not respond immediately to Broun's remarks.


----------



## Bobm (Aug 26, 2003)

probably just another crackpot Georgian :wink:


----------



## buckseye (Dec 8, 2003)

So if Obama does nothing and no changes occur will the Dems impeach him or just make us all suffer for their short sightedness? Of course I know the answer I just would like to see if any Dems will come out to bat or if they will forfeit.


----------



## willythekid (Jan 21, 2008)

Good thing you are not like that crackpot bobm.......  here's a different take on this good ole boy...

by brownsox
Tue Nov 11, 2008 at 10:30:03 AM PST

Well, we thought Georgia Republican Paul Broun, Jr., was a bit unbalanced when it came to the issue of pornography (having made it his personal crusade to make our fighting men and women safer by removing porn from military bases).

"As a Marine, I am deeply concerned for the welfare of our troops and their mission," said Broun. "Allowing the sale of pornography on military bases has harmed military men and women by: escalating the number of violent, sexual crimes; feeding a base addiction; eroding the family as the primary building block of society; and denigrating the moral standing of our troops both here and abroad. Our troops should not see their honor sullied so that the moguls behind magazines like Playboy and Penthouse can profit. The 'Military Honor and Decency Act' will right a bureaucratic--and moral--wrong."

That Broun, a medical doctor and ex-Marine, would take up pornography as his pet military project, rather than the dozens of rather more topical issues facing our military at the moment, itself speaks volumes about his judgment.

But you ain't seen nothing yet: Broun's graduated from questionabel priorities to outright insanity:

WASHINGTON (AP) - A Republican congressman from Georgia said Monday he fears that President-elect Obama will establish a Gestapo-like security force to impose a Marxist dictatorship.

"It may sound a bit crazy and off base, but the thing is, he's the one who proposed this national security force," Rep. Paul Broun said of Obama in an interview Monday with The Associated Press. "I'm just trying to bring attention to the fact that we may - may not, I hope not - but we may have a problem with that type of philosophy of radical socialism or Marxism."

It may sound a bit crazy and off-base?

Er, I would venture to say that it sounds like the mad ravings of a certified lunatic.

"That's exactly what Hitler did in Nazi Germany and it's exactly what the Soviet Union did," Broun said. "When he's proposing to have a national security force that's answering to him, that is as strong as the U.S. military, he's showing me signs of being Marxist."

This statement makes me quite convinced that Paul Broun

1. is insane, and

2. has no idea what Marxism is.

It's becoming increasingly obvious that none of these people who keep bringing up the Dark Spectre of Marxist Socialism have ever read or comprehended a high school economics textbook, much less Das Kapital. This is the only explanation for how so many Republicans out there have such a stunning, breathtaking misunderstanding of what socialism actually is.

The way Republicans have been referring to Marx and socialism lately, it appears to not have anything to do with actual socialism; it's a catch-all phrase to describe any policy they don't like.

"Dude, I know you wanted Coors Light for the tailgate this Sunday, but I decided to get MGD instead".
"SOCIALIST!"

And we expect that from, say, Joe Not-Joe the Plumber Not-Plumber. But Paul Broun is a United States Congressman.

And oh, yes, he did indeed compare Obama to Hitler. Except he didn't really mean that...except he kinda did:

"We can't be lulled into complacency," Broun said. "You have to remember that Adolf Hitler was elected in a democratic Germany. I'm not comparing him to Adolf Hitler. What I'm saying is there is the potential of going down that road."

Paul Broun makes me long for the halcyon days when Tom Coburn, Jim Bunning and James Traficant were the craziest dudes in Washington.

* ::


----------



## KEN W (Feb 22, 2002)

I don't know about Dingall but Lieberman is getting what he deserved.Every time McCain made a speech Lieberman was there behind him.Giving a speech at the Republican convention?????come on.....iI don't think he so stupid he didn't see retribution coming.Republicans would do exactly the same if one of their did that.And they should.Lieberman doesn't deserve a chairmanship in a Democratically comtrolled Senate. :eyeroll:


----------



## Gooseguy10 (Oct 10, 2006)

But I thought this was going to be the new era of bi-partisanship? :eyeroll:


----------



## willythekid (Jan 21, 2008)

Obama said that he looks forward to working with Lieberman..... I think that its good to that our Democratic president is willing to work with a Republican like Lieberman


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

I was listening to Obama when he gave that speech about a national security force as strong or stronger than the army. Maybe he is going to let the liberals all have full auto.  
Seriously though the comment did bother me. I don't think enough people here are familiar enough with history to be bothered. It's a very disturbing statement. I don't think people are nuts to be worried, I think people with ideas like this may be a few fries short of a happy meal. Also, people who cast it aside without thought are simply to partisan to care. I think many are following Obama without question to the point of becoming cult like. Hence the connection, Jim Jones ---- Obama ---- Cool-Aid.

Who ever thought we would hear fellow sportsmen refer to other sportsmen as gun nuts. We may be our own worst enemy. Your free to give up your freedom, but I hope you don't take steps to give up my freedom.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

KEN W said:


> I don't know about Dingall but Lieberman is getting what he deserved.Every time McCain made a speech Lieberman was there behind him.Giving a speech at the Republican convention?????come on.....iI don't think he so stupid he didn't see retribution coming.Republicans would do exactly the same if one of their did that.And they should.Lieberman doesn't deserve a chairmanship in a Democratically comtrolled Senate. :eyeroll:


Ken, I can't remember what you have said about McCain, but just a year ago many liberals were very impressed with McCain because he often backed the liberals in the senate and not his own party. It leaves me wondering why those same people don't admire Dingall and Lieberman. Could it be these people only respect the ones that betray their party for the liberals. Like I say Ken I don't know if you ever said that, but wouldn't you agree it's kind of a double standard?


----------



## KEN W (Feb 22, 2002)

Gooseguy10 said:


> But I thought this was going to be the new era of bi-partisanship? :eyeroll:


Yup the same bi-partisanship as the Republican Party would have.

Plainsman.....I actually might have said that.I liked McCain before he moved way right in his campaigning to get the right leaning ultra conservative votes.

If he had stayed in the middle I would have preferred him to Obama.Unfortunately he didn't.I realize he had to placate the right in order to get their vote.Going so far as to pick Palin as a running mate.

By election time.....he sounded just like Bush,even though he might not have actually stayed over to the right after getting elected.


----------



## Bobm (Aug 26, 2003)

Ken keep in mind that Liberman is now an independent due to the Dems trying to defeat him over his stance on the War in Iraq. AS a independent standing with McCain beccause of the war was correct and his decision.

And keep in mind two other things one that the article points out,

the current Dems in congress are totally intolerant of any opposing viewpoint even within ther own party much less the republicans. The republicans however are very tolerant of differing points of view, we have many liberals and moderates in our party.

Without the support of Liberman they will have a much harder time ramming ledgislation that cannot be stopped with a filibuster

I hope they keep pissing in Libermans Cheerios.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

Ken I look at the history of Obama and McCain. Like most politicians what they say during the election is worthless. Obama will remain far left, and McCain would have been more liberal than the conservative democrats. We crapped in our own nest on this one.


----------

