GOP agenda: Major impact may be on 2012 election

Most of this is pure bombast. Republicans know that the risk of being flamethrowers will satisfy the hard right but will alienate moderate party members and independents. That won't bode well for 2012.

Seems like the terrorists of 2001 may end up doing to the USA as the USA did to the former USSR - creating and perpetuating a crisis that compels the US to spend its treasure on war. With so much money being poured down the economic sinkhole of war - America spends more on the military than the rest of the world combined - it is foolish to ignore its impact on the national economy, especially when a failing economy is fast becoming a national security issue.

Unfortunately, foolishness seems to be the political and economic backbone of the US for the last 10 years. Good luck in 2012.

"What's the purpose of this program? Is this the best use of the taxpayers' money?"

If these questions were asked before all these government programs were passed, there wouldn't be the huge debt we now have.

Most of this is pure bombast. Republicans know that the risk of being flamethrowers will satisfy the hard right but will alienate moderate party members and independents. That won't bode well for 2012.

Actually, it mostly depends on how they go about it. Done right, it will play well with independents. This will be very good for Republicans in 2012, and depending on how Obama and the Senate Dems react, may very well end up handing Republicans the keys to everything.

"The Republican agenda for the new Congress that convenes Wednesday may have a greater impact on the 2012 elections than on the lives of Americans in the next two years."

Why is this a surprise? The GOP has never looked out for anything but itself and the rich.

The so-called rich, in the last election, voted mostly Democrat. A person can easily verify this with a check of the census results published online. It is an odd feature of the current American political landscape:Democratic legislators represent the richest and poorest districts, the best- and least- educated, and the best and the worst insured.

2009 USA Today: "The analysis found that Democrats have attracted educated, affluent whites who had tended previously to vote Republican."

I doubt it.....Republicans are more into less government interference in the business while Democrats are more likely to introduce regulations and socialize programs.

Republicans are conservatives.

Conservative is as relative and meaningless a term as liberal.(Liberal has in America the complete opposite meaning the word once held when applied to thinkers like Burke, de Tocqueville, Bastiat, etc, - classical liberals) These days you need statistics, their voting record, their spending habits and such to verify where the politicians really fall on the spectrum.

But they have been even more conservative thanks to those "Tea Party" wackos......

Conservatives are a hint that they are against anything new even if it is suppose to fix somethings (like, healthcare).

I may not agree with everything that Obama does, but I approve of him over a Republican, anyday.

If you believe the so called Tea Party is a monolithic voting block you either don't know anything about it or US politics. It varies from city to city. This article is too general if u ask me. One thing the Republican majority plans even before the SOTU later this month is a formal declaration thaat they seek to have ObamaCare repealed. It is unconstitutional. People want choice, not some top-down Soviet-style bureaucracy. Obama over-reached. Now comes the blowback.

Instead of focusing 90% of their energy on how to derail Pres. Obama's administration and regain power, the Republican party should have been trying to do what's best for the country (not just people who earn more than $250,000 per year). The only reason that the Republicans were successful in the mid-term elections was that they totally fooled an angry (and largely uneducated) American public into believing that Obama was a socialist who was hell bent on increasing taxes. In 8 years, Bush, Cheney, and their administration took the world's only superpower from being a powerful and respected country to being a semi-world power that has become one of the most hated. And Americans want to re-elect the Republican party in 2012?! God help America.

"The GOP has never looked out for anything but itself and the rich"

This is not true. However it is true that the Democrat party seeks to make everyonr dependent on them instead of themselves.

Wow, it's good that I have money invested in American funds and not the U.S. itself.

Instead of focusing 90% of their energy on how to derail Pres. Obama's administration and regain power, the Republican party should have been trying to do what's best for the country

Sorry, but to many Americans, derailing the Obama administrations neverending quest for more government power, is doing whats best for the country.

In 8 years, Bush, Cheney, and their administration took the world's only superpower from being a powerful and respected country to being a semi-world power that has become one of the most hated.

Obama conversely is well liked around the world, but his policies are a complete joke. Under Bush, people may have hated the US, but their leaders respected it, under Obama, this is not the case. As for the people in the US, do you think we really care whether people in Singapore, or France hate the US? Most people would rather they respect us instead, otherwise we simply don't care.

The EPA going after the Texas independent power plants -even trying to take away the state's right to regulate. -All this with no law to do so.

The Globalists was to consolidate the last remaining energy property holdouts.

Sorry, but to many Americans, derailing the Obama administrations neverending quest for more government power, is doing whats best for the country.

I'm sorry, but I must disagree with this. The main point almost all elected (newly and otherwise) Republican congressmen made during the past election was that Obama was completely ineffective. This reminds me of the late Clinton-era congress where it was more about persecuting the president and less about governing the country.

I'm sorry, but I must disagree with this. The main point almost all elected (newly and otherwise) Republican congressmen made during the past election was that Obama was completely ineffective. This reminds me of the late Clinton-era congress where it was more about persecuting the president and less about governing the country.

Sorry, but you've obviously not been paying attention. Very nearly every single Republican running for congress ran on opposing Obamacare, and quite a few Dems did as well. They also ran on slashing the budget deficit and reducing the size and scope of government. While Obamas incompetence certainly factors in, its what he has done legislatively that caused so many people to go out and vote Republican again. With the complete turnaround in congress, you could easily say, that Republicans have a mandate for change. Whether or not they can accomplish this, is another question, but at the very least, they can make things hard for Obama to do things, and can also defund large and important parts of his agenda.

All that conservatives from both parties need to do is to be responsible and worked towards reducing the debt and deficit by reducing spending and rolling back ObamaCare. There is no need to try to throw red-meat to the partisans and scare the public against Obama and the Dems - the huge fiscal crisis that their Socialist policies already has the nation terrified for the future.

Doesn't matter. Not much will get done either way. The Congress is divided while the President has the veto power. Nothing will get done unless it's a compromise. So forget about things getting done in a certain way or another - it'll be either no way or both ways.

Yeah, watch as they try to turn "no" into a verb.

Taka

Watch as the Republicans try and turn voters' wishes into policy. The Pelosi Congress has increased national debt 60 percent.