TexasCHLforum.com

Dave2 wrote:All three of the remaining GOP candidates have abandoned that pledge.

Well, no one would expect any of the three to honor the pledge - so much for party loyalty.

In "Meet The Press" yesterday Cruz was asked many times as to whether or not he would support the Republican nominee if it were Trump but he would not give a direct answer. In case you missed it, see http://pages.suddenlink.net/daleb/index.htm

What a cast of characters we have running in both parties. Still, I am sure the Constitution and the Republic will survive.

baldeagle wrote:

Scott Farkus wrote:However, on the assumption the Trump gets the nomination, I would beseech you and others to please choke it down one more time and vote for him.

That will never happen. Millions and millions of conservatives will writein Cruz rather than vote for Trump.

Maybe, but Cruz himself will be supporting and surely voting for Trump. He took the pledge.

treadlightly wrote: Willingness to compromise is what got us where we are. We don't need more of it, we need less of it.

It's just always struck me odd that an ideologue is assumed to be a closed minded person.

Ok, what about
http://americanhistory.about.com/od/usc ... ention.htm

and
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/ideologue

Sorry to be so academic but I still think some compromise may be a good thing. Every prospective plan should be weighed on its ROI and additional short term debt or increase in revenue may not be wrong if its promises to be worthwhile in the long term. Every investment should have regular review and possible adjustment.

Did you see on 60 minutes about members of Congress "dialing for dollars"? That practice bothers me a lot more than possible compromise.

JMHO

TAM I apologize and did not intend to offend you. In fact I greatly respect your ideas and writings as can be seen in my earlier posting at
http://www.texaschlforum.com/viewtopic. ... 3#p1071903 . You appear to be well informed and I was curious what your sources were.

Before, in this thread when I referred to a "possibly bigoted dissertation" I really did mean "unwavering" - as you suggest. Note that I never called you that personally and my last reference that you are reacting to above was solely for Congress. My perception, right or not, is that there is too much ideology and unwillingness to compromise, generally, but especially in Congress.

In defense of Boehner see

http://www1.realclearpolitics.com/video ... sense.html

And Brit's list does not even include Immigration Reform which seemed pretty good and included a lot of additional border security.

Anyway the conclusion that Brit makes is that the inability to get things done is the fault of both parties and the result is a stalemate. Maybe a little less bigotry and a little more common sense would help.

Ahh, here's a recent comment from conservative columnist David Brooks:

"The Lucifer comment really resonated with a lot of people. I thought it was a nicely understated, generous comment."

Of all the commentators, Brooks is my favorite and so I think this answers my question.

Former House Speaker John Boehner is unloading on Texas Sen. Ted Cruz, calling him "Lucifer in the flesh."

"I get along with almost everyone, but I have never worked with a more miserable son of a gun in my life," Boehner tells students at Stanford University according to The Stanford Daily.