Welcome to PatsFans.com

GOP House Committee Chairs - so Far All Men

Discussion in 'Political Discussion' started by IcyPatriot, Nov 28, 2012.

  1. IcyPatriot

    IcyPatriot ------------- PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    38,660
    Likes Received:
    374
    Ratings:
    +796 / 6 / -15

    #87 Jersey

    So much for change in the party - so much for change in the country IMO. Our inept Congress with the lowest approval rating ever continues to strive for a 0% approval rating ... that must be their goal. Are these chairs like the Clint Eastwood chair? They must be ... they do next to nothing.
    So far it looks like 10 white men ... with 2 spots left ... diversity ... :bricks:
    House committee chairs all men - Jake Sherman - POLITICO.com

    Last edited: Nov 28, 2012
  2. wistahpatsfan

    wistahpatsfan Rookie

    Joined:
    Jul 30, 2005
    Messages:
    15,675
    Likes Received:
    11
    Ratings:
    +13 / 0 / -1

    #75 Jersey

    It's not diversity that matters...it's who's more qualified to run the country's business, and that would be none of these jackasses. The Republican party either doesn't get it, or they don't have anyone but white men to choose from- or both.
  3. DarrylS

    DarrylS PatsFans.com Supporter PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    41,318
    Likes Received:
    131
    Ratings:
    +242 / 9 / -26

    Apparently they are all white men, when will they ever learn??.. not one qualified republican woman or minority???? One of the issues is that much of this has to do with seniority, and as women and minorities are new to the Republican Game there is not much for them to pick from.

    Where is the commentary about midterms??

    Keep it up boyz every step you take like this solidifies the democratic base..
    Last edited: Nov 28, 2012
  4. Patters

    Patters Moderator Staff Member PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    17,778
    Likes Received:
    132
    Ratings:
    +170 / 4 / -4

    Is it any surprise that Republicans think that white men are the most qualified ones to run government? It just shows how backward that party is. In their eyes the face of America is still white men. And then, LOL, they run around claiming the Democrats are the racists. These guys are nuts! Keep up this game and they might even find a way to lose the House in 2014.
  5. IcyPatriot

    IcyPatriot ------------- PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    38,660
    Likes Received:
    374
    Ratings:
    +796 / 6 / -15

    #87 Jersey

    From the same article:

    Last edited: Nov 28, 2012
  6. DarrylS

    DarrylS PatsFans.com Supporter PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    41,318
    Likes Received:
    131
    Ratings:
    +242 / 9 / -26

    Three of them are minorities.. as well.

    And of course there is Nancy Pelosi.. who was 3rd in succession previously.
  7. Harry Boy

    Harry Boy Look Up, It's Amazing PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Nov 10, 2005
    Messages:
    39,701
    Likes Received:
    157
    Ratings:
    +496 / 2 / -9

    Who gives a shlt.

    I want more Souix Indians on TV commercials, why don't we have any "blind" airline pilots.

    :confused:
  8. DarrylS

    DarrylS PatsFans.com Supporter PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    41,318
    Likes Received:
    131
    Ratings:
    +242 / 9 / -26

  9. Ilikehappyppl

    Ilikehappyppl Rookie

    Joined:
    May 9, 2010
    Messages:
    1,743
    Likes Received:
    0
    Ratings:
    +0 / 0 / -0

    Nice to know they learned from the election!

    Just wait till they lose big in 2014, that's when they will change....Cause if they don't the GOP will be done for and left for dead.:cool:
  10. PatsFanInVa

    PatsFanInVa PatsFans.com Supporter PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Mar 19, 2006
    Messages:
    20,327
    Likes Received:
    244
    Ratings:
    +392 / 6 / -9

    These are the guys that bent over backwards to pack a hearing on women's reproductive rights with only men. Then when a woman had the gall to testify, they went after her en masse as a "slut."

    Now we have the unfortunate spectacle of the whole GOP trying to crucify Rice because if Kerry becomes sec. of state, there's a Senate seat up for grabs, and Scott Brown might be able to get back in.... but with the consequence that there's just one more random uncalled-for attack on a black woman underway from the Party of White Males.

    Now then... if they really think that the person sent to sell the official story is the one they should go after, fine and dandy. But to do so, they've started down that road to say she's "not that bright" or "not qualified," when very clearly she is, based on her credentials and the consistency of how she handled her duties with how State employees are expected to handle their duties.

    If you can get 5 rankings filled by women, why couldn't the other party find 5 women "qualified" to serve as chairs? Because -- as they are presently telegraphing once again to the nation at large -- "qualified" means whatever they want it to mean, as long as it results in certain kinds of people (ahem) in certain spots.

    And this from the party that has a guy heading the science and tech committee who thinks the world is 6,000 years old.

    Feh.

    Feh feh feh.

    PFnV
  11. RI Patriots fan

    RI Patriots fan Rookie

    Joined:
    Jul 16, 2012
    Messages:
    3,869
    Likes Received:
    76
    Ratings:
    +181 / 7 / -24


    Yeah, just like the 2010 mid terms. Boy, if only the Republicans had learned from the 2008 elections. :rolleyes:
  12. PatsFanInVa

    PatsFanInVa PatsFans.com Supporter PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Mar 19, 2006
    Messages:
    20,327
    Likes Received:
    244
    Ratings:
    +392 / 6 / -9

    It's an interesting question whether continued douchebaggery of the sort we saw from the GOP from 2010-2012 will be tolerated by the electorate, or whether believing that turnout numbers will change is exactly the sort of overreach that got the GOP whipped in 2012.

    Just as now, the GOP has to understand that America is changing, and you can't win just by hoping the "wrong" Americans don't vote, the Dems can't take it for granted that they've done the work once, and now people will turn out in 2014, and link the Congress' behavior to their election chances.

    I think it's vital for 2014 for Obama not to play inside games trying to get that one Republican vote... he needs to be playing the outside game, getting people to link up their congresscritters' behavior to their own votes.

    That's how you bring the pressure implied by polls on (for example,) raising rates on the wealthiest. As of now, it seems to be working... pubbies are defecting from Grover's orbit.

    It's interesting and fun again to be outside of the crescendo of an electoral cycle. Time to see how the last results shake out. If you ask me, it's going to go the other way, and the teabaggers might just end up severed from the main body of pubbies.

    PFnV
  13. RI Patriots fan

    RI Patriots fan Rookie

    Joined:
    Jul 16, 2012
    Messages:
    3,869
    Likes Received:
    76
    Ratings:
    +181 / 7 / -24


    "Whipped".....LMAO. Yes, that 50.8% of the vote that Obama was able to garner sure is a "whipping" (thank goodness for the electoral college). Imagine if that percentage was significantly lower than the last Presidential election. Oh wait, it was significantly lower.
    And losing the House.....just awful. Oh wait, we still firmly control the House.
    But the Tea party lost all of its clout....oh wait, they still have 51 members in the House.
    From 1974 to today, voter turn out has been between 36-40 percent in the mid terms. So for almost 40 years, we have seen this consistent pattern of voters who vote in the midterms. These people also are significantly older, "caucasian", and male than voters in the general election. The last 3 mid terms......37.8%, 37.1%, 37.0% percent of the voting-age population voted. But let's ignore the absolute consistency of this voting pattern and hope somehow that it changes.
    Enjoy your delusional moment Progressives. Let your imaginations run wild and hope for a 2014 victory because clearly you didn't learn anything from 2010.
    The reality is that elections are not decided by the general population...they are decided by voters.
    Last edited: Nov 28, 2012
  14. PatsFanInVa

    PatsFanInVa PatsFans.com Supporter PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Mar 19, 2006
    Messages:
    20,327
    Likes Received:
    244
    Ratings:
    +392 / 6 / -9

    Only off by a factor of three -- pretty good by pubbie standards! The tally was a 2.5% margin:

    Who Won the Popular Vote: 9 Takeaways From Election Day 2012


    Obama likely to win popular vote by more than 3% - Philadelphia opinion polls | Examiner.com
    These guys say more than 3%... so you'd be lying by a factor of 4.

    In doing the search, I did stumble on the strange wikipedia table, which appears to have some built-in basic math flub. It had Reagan's popular vote at 50.75% in 1980, and I don't think it had any example greater than 54%. Maybe they're dividing by the entire population rather than the electorate (?)

    Yay! So Romney was right, except we forgot to tag onto it that it was a relative landslide in the popular vote! He sucked less than McCain! :confused:

    Hey you hit on something factual. Teabaggers still won districts they gerrymandered for themselves after '10. You're right -- the fossils can hold on indefinitely in their little cantons.

    But not every seat is a safe seat, as the Dems found out in '10 -- and as the establishment pubbies are starting to recognize. One pubbie even supported the President's idea to continue the tax cuts for the middle class now and worry about the tax cuts for the richest later.

    Hey, loved what your historical pole-jiggering did for you in the '12 elections. Did you have a blast at the Rmoney inaugural? Oh that's right...

    Once again, hoping and praying for a whiter, older, and smaller electorate is the "strategy" of the Republican party. Hey, maybe that'll work. Who knows.

    Ah the triumphal cry of the anti-democracy movement!

    Will the 2014 mid-term consist of the same homogeneous crowd as in 2010? We'll see. Is "older whiter people vote more" a note of clarity? Well, it tanked Rmoney's chances in 2012. You can take that as a general harbinger of things to come, or you can take it as a presidential-year phenomenon.

    I am sure that in their hearts, lots of pubbies think everything is fine, because once Obama is done, there will be "no reason" for non-whites or younger people to vote.

    Yes, yes, once the man is gone, the ideas necessarily go with him. That's how it works. We can continue to win via the re-re-re-hashed Southern Strategy... and if we can't, we can keep making it harder for black and brown people to vote. They won't notice.

    Hmmmm. Pretty clever. The only trouble is it doesn't work if people are paying attention.

    PFnV
    Last edited: Nov 28, 2012
  15. RI Patriots fan

    RI Patriots fan Rookie

    Joined:
    Jul 16, 2012
    Messages:
    3,869
    Likes Received:
    76
    Ratings:
    +181 / 7 / -24


    I think you may want to look at what I actually said....I said that Obama won 50.8% of the vote...which he did...which is significantly less than what he garnered in 2008.

    As for younger voters...they grow up. They start to think for themselves and they put aside the Progressive propaganda their college professors feed them in college.

    As for "gerrymandering":


    Gerrymanders didn't cost Democrats the House
    By Jonathan Bernstein

    Liberals are keenly aware that Democratic candidates received more votes for the House of Representatives than did Republican candidates, but of course Republicans retained a fairly healthy margin (which looks as if it will be 234-201 when all the votes are finally counted). Moreover, liberals have a likely cause: vicious partisan gerrymanders by Republicans, especially Republican majorities elected in the 2010 landslide.

    A reasonable theory… but the overall evidence apparently doesn’t support it. Political scientist Eric McGhee ran the numbers and discovered that Democrats probably would have done better, but not much better, using the old districts.

    Gerrymanders didn't cost Democrats the House - The Plum Line - The Washington Post


    "We have looked at this question several times before (here, here, and here) and concluded that redistricting is a wash. But we based this conclusion on a multi-year model with both incumbency and the partisanship of the constituency (as measured by the presidential vote in each district).
    Democrats also do worse because they are more concentrated in urban areas. They “waste” votes on huge margins there, when the party could put many of those votes to better use in marginal seats."


    Redistricting does not explain why House Democrats got a majority of the vote and a minority of the seats ? The Monkey Cage


    Darn those pesky facts.....


    Last time I checked, 2012 wasn't a mid term. :rolleyes: But you keep hoping for a miracle in 2014. I'm sure that unlike the last 10 mid terms elections with a voter turnout rate of under 40%, the 2014 election will be different....lol.
    Last edited: Nov 28, 2012
  16. Patters

    Patters Moderator Staff Member PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    17,778
    Likes Received:
    132
    Ratings:
    +170 / 4 / -4

  17. PatsFanInVa

    PatsFanInVa PatsFans.com Supporter PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Mar 19, 2006
    Messages:
    20,327
    Likes Received:
    244
    Ratings:
    +392 / 6 / -9

    Let's get a link for that "50.8%" figure, champ. I gave you two saying it's wrong. Frankly I didn't want to waste a lot of time on it because I had a doctor's appointment. However, if you would like to actually establish that Obama totaled 50.8% -- not that that was the number when his electoral total got him the win -- be my guest.

    See, it wouldn't help you much if at the moment of victory he was at 50.8%. All that could help the pubbies in the future would be if the people really did go that way by a razor-thin margin, all in.

    If there's one proposition that's a no-go here, it's that we've underestimated the "lessons of 2010." But even if the off-year did actually portend that the masses were dead set against their own wellbeing, it's two years later.

    The masks are off. Your boys have spent the last two years sabotaging their own country, and publicly hating on their own citizens. The chickens came home to roost. You managed to lose to a minority candidate presiding over 7.9% official unemployment.

    But people knew that was better than 10%. People knew things were getting better. And people damn well knew that it wasn't time to elect a plutocrat who wailed his "47% of Americans are victims" philosophy both before and after the election.

    By the way, here are some of the people the pubbies are hating on... and all of our so-clever posters complain about on a constant basis: A middle-class family who ended up in a shelter despite the fact that the dad is employed...

    Employed but still homeless, working poor say 'Homelessness can happen to anybody' - Rock Center with Brian Williams

    You guys like to pretend that there are "those people" that really don't matter except when it's election time.

    "Those people" are "us people" to most of us. AKA, We The People.

    Look into it.

    PFnV
  18. JackBauer

    JackBauer On the Roster

    Joined:
    Mar 3, 2005
    Messages:
    15,931
    Likes Received:
    232
    Ratings:
    +447 / 6 / -7

    You can keep your midterm competitiveness while we'll celebrate the 2-3 SCOTUS justices to be named by Obama and not Mitt Romney.
    Last edited: Nov 28, 2012
  19. RI Patriots fan

    RI Patriots fan Rookie

    Joined:
    Jul 16, 2012
    Messages:
    3,869
    Likes Received:
    76
    Ratings:
    +181 / 7 / -24


    Here you go, "champ":


    "According to the latest numbers tallied by David Wasserman of the Cook Political Report, President Obama has expanded his share of the popular vote to 50.8 percent, while Romney has fallen to 47.49 percent."


    Romney’s Final Share Of The Vote? 47%

    https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet...01oWE1jOFZRbnhJZkZpVFNKeVE&toomany=true#gid=0

    BTW, waste your time or don't waste your time...I could care less.

    Oh yes, we conservatives have been "exposed".....BOO!! :D......lol.
    People loved Obamacare and 2010 had nothing to do with that whatsoever. It was the masses voting against their own best interests. If only they would have listened to the Progressives who....."know better".

    And of course, Progressives are all about inclusion....just watch MSNBC for one night and you can feel the "love". No public hating going on there :rolleyes: Hypocrites.
    Last edited: Nov 28, 2012
  20. RI Patriots fan

    RI Patriots fan Rookie

    Joined:
    Jul 16, 2012
    Messages:
    3,869
    Likes Received:
    76
    Ratings:
    +181 / 7 / -24

    oh really...which ones?

Share This Page

unset ($sidebar_block_show); ?>