In response to:

GOP Rep: Senate Republicans "Must Have Been Drunk" to Vote For the Cliff Deal

csareus Wrote: Jan 01, 2013 7:21 PM
You may have the answer but do you really think they are that smart. I know some democrat senators are allowed to vote in ways that don't damage their standing with the voters in their states. But this time it makes no sense. Both my senators are Republicans and one voted for it and one voted against it. The one who voted against it is an ex-democrat RINO. Go figure.
SuperSam Wrote: Jan 01, 2013 8:24 PM

Results are what count the most, especially in the game of politics.

SuperSam Wrote: Jan 01, 2013 8:19 PM

We do have a few RINOS, and we do have a few that have constituents they need to "show" for, but the GOP in the Senate is of no real concern right now, as opposed to the GOP in the House; they need to reject Reid's toxic bill, which they most likely will.

So far the GOP has done a great job in preventing the D'bags from raising taxes on the working stiffs.

How bad do some House Republicans think the Senate bill is? Ohio Rep. Steven LaTourette thinks the only way that number of Senate Republicans could have voted for the plan was if they were drunk:

"I think our sense, at least in the House, was that a number of the Republicans that voted for it must have been drunk, because it really was a number that wasn't reflective of where we thought some of these people were going to be on a bill like this," he said after emerging from a House GOP caucus meeting.