WHAT REPUBLICAN'S THINK ABOUT AMERICAN'S

[Pine Mt Beagles]

Republican Lt. Gov. Andre Bauer of South Carolina,-
who is seeking the Republican nomination for governor is out on the campaign trail once again, promoting his odious version of compassionate conservatism. During a debate between other Republican candidates, Bauer blamed the immigration problem in his state on lazy welfare bums. His cold-hearted rhetoric attacking the poor and the unemployed is nothing new for Bauer. In January he compared poor people on welfare to stray cats and dogs. And he advocated cutting off their food supply, “because they breed.”

Bauer’s latest tin-eared remarks came in response to a question regarding his views on Arizona’s draconian immigration law. He responded by assailing the poor once again:

“The real problem is the work force,” said Bauer. “The problem is we have a give-away system that is so strong that people would rather sit home and do nothing than do these jobs.”

“Laziness is not a disability,” said Bauer. “There are a lot of people that are flat-out lazy and they are using up the goods and services in this state.”
=
=SO WHY WOULD ANYONE VOTE FOR THESE ANTI AMERICAN HIPPOCRIT'S-

[Pine Mt Beagles]

ONCE AGAIN REPUBLICAN'S SHOW WHAT THEY THINK ABOUT AMERICAN'S =
=
=THEY FAVOR WALL STREET OVER WORKING AMERICAN'S SO MUCH THEY WANT EVEN DEBATE FINANCE REFORM==
=
The 57-41 vote marked the first Senate showdown over the issue. No Republicans voted for the motion to begin debate on the bill. Sen. Ben Nelson of Nebraska, a Democrat, joined in the opposition.

But the impasse may be short-lived because behind-the-scenes negotiations are aiming to craft a compromise that could win back Nelson and some GOP converts — perhaps by the end of the week.

Monday's vote was largely political theater. Democrats think the GOP will end up looking like obstructionist friends of Wall Street. Republicans welcomed the chance to present themselves as preventing hasty action and holding out for better protection of taxpayers against the excesses of high-flying financiers.

"A party that stands with Wall Street is a party that stands against families and fairness," said Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.), who switched his vote to "no" at the last minute in a parliamentary move that will enable him to ask for Monday's vote to be revisited, perhaps as early as Tuesday.

Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.), for his part, said the GOP was opposing the motion to begin debate because it believed the Democrats' plan did not do enough to ensure that the government would not again foot the bill for bailing out institutions deemed "too big to fail."=WHAT A JOKE=

.

[Rabbithoundjb]

PMB THERE IS A LOT OF TRUTH TO BOTH STATEMENTS. WHEN DID IT BECOME UNAMERICAN TO SPEAK THE TRUTH, YOU HAVE WENT OFF THE DEEP IN!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

AGAIN A DEMOCRAT VOTES WITH THE REPUBLICANS, SEEMS THE PARTISAN PROBLEM IS ON THE DEMOCRATS SIDE, IF THEIR LEGISLATION WAS ANY GOOD, THEY WOULD GET SOME VOTES.

WITH THE DEMS LEGISLATIVE HISTORY I AM NOT SURPRISED THAT THEY CANT EVEN GET ALL OF THEIR SIDE ON BOARD.

[Pine Mt Beagles]

THIS IS A LITTLE LESS KNOW PART OF HISTORY==THE REPUBLICAN'S SEEM TO FORGET===THEY USED TO CLAIM THEY WERE CONSERVATIVE.=????????--JOKE
=
=
Republican, Democrats, National Debt, and Fiscal Responsibility
Posted on September 4, 2008 by- Megan

I was born in Texas and raised in Oklahoma in a very conservative, Republican household. I was raised believing that Republicans are for small government and low taxes. I was raised to believe that only the Republicans shared my Christian values and they had the safety of our country well in hand. Democrats, by contrast, wanted the government to fix everything, wanted to raise everyone’s taxes, were pro-abortion, and would do nothing to protect our country.


As I got older, I began to question whether the Republican Party has lived up to what it professes. I believe in all the things they profess: I believe in having strong national security, I believe in the sanctity of life, I believe in fiscal responsibility. But what I’ve found in my research is that the Republicans don’t put these values into practice.


I’m writing articles, based on the research I’ve done, that dispel the myths of Republicans. This article focuses on the economic myths: Republicans are fiscally responsible, Republicans believe in less government spending, and Republicans are better for the economy. My references appear at the end of the article.


First, some definitions. Political economists often talk about the national debt and the federal deficit. These two terms mean different things. The national debt refers to the accumulation of all the money the US government has borrowed over all the years that we’re still paying back. By contrast, the federal deficit refers to how much money the US government is spending over and above its budget in a single year. So the deficit reverts to zero at the beginning of each fiscal year whereas the national debt does not.


Now let’s take a look at the facts. We’ll start with national debt and raw numbers. In 2000, when Bill Clinton left office, the national debt was $5.7 trillion. Today, after seven years of George W. Bush, it is $9.6 trillion. Bush has almost doubled our national debt in eight short years.

But let’s go further back and take a look at the average increases in national debt by president. It is most useful to look at the national debt as a percentage of gross domestic product (GDP). GDP is the total market value of all final goods and services produced within the country in a given period of time (usually a calendar year). Since 1945, there have been seven presidential terms held by Democrats and nine held by Republicans. During every term held by a Democratic president since this time, that president has reduced the national debt as a percentage of GDP. The Roosevelt/Truman administration made the greatest dent with a 24.3% reduction. By contrast, only three terms held by a Republican president since 1945 showed a reduction in the national debt as a percentage of GDP. Further, Eisenhower made the most significant reduction for Republicans at a 10.8% decline between 1953 and 1957. This is less than half the decline made by the Democrats Roosevelt/Truman. Even further, every single Republican president since 1973 (beginning with Nixon/Ford) has increased the national debt as a percentage of GDP. Let’s summarize: Since 1946, Democratic presidents increased the national debt an average of only 3.2% per year. The Republican presidents increased the national debt by an average of 9.7% per year. Republican presidents= out-borrowed= and out-=spent= Democratic presidents by a three-to-one ratio.= Putting that in very real terms, for every dollar a Democratic president has raised the national debt in the past 59 years, Republican presidents have raised the debt by $2.99.


Further, in the same period, Democrats increased the national debt by 4.2% whereas the Republicans increased it by 36.4%.

It is true that the Republicans held 4 terms during this time while Democrats only held 3. However, looking at each president since 1978, we see that Reagan increased the national debt by a whopping ((89.2%)) during his two terms. You read that right Looking further at federal spending, we find that between 1978 and 2005, Democrats increased federal spending by 9.9% while Republicans increased federal spending by 12.1%.

Reagan nearly doubled the national debt in 8 years.

Now, you might say, “Well, but productivity increased more during that spending.” Using GDP as a measure of productivity (which is standard procedure), you’d be dead wrong. During the years 1978 – 2005, the Democrats increased the GDP by 12.6% while the Republicans only increased it by 10.7%. The president responsible for the largest increase in GDP, or the productivity of our country, during this time was Bill Clinton, a Democrat, who increased the GDP by 28.4% during his eight years in office.

[Pine Mt Beagles]

Welfare is dwarfed by middle-class and corporate handouts
Judging from the media, you might easily think that half the gummint's budget goes to those darn poor people. Hardly.
The U.S. budget isn't organized (purposely so, one suspects) to make it easy to find out how much money goes to the poor. In 1995, however, the total was about $116 billion. That's 8% of a budget of $1519 billion.

Now, that's certainly real money, but compare it to the 33% of the budget spent on Social Security and Medicare; the 21% spent on defense; the 15% spent in interest on the national debt, or the 8% spent on handouts to business (farm subsidies, S&L and bank rescues, export/import assistance, tax credits, guaranteed loans, reimbursement for advertising, etc.). Here's how it breaks down:

Medicaid (excluding aid to aged, disabled, blind) - $32 billion
AFDC (Aid to Families with Dependent Children) - $22 billion
Food stamps - $27 billion
Housing subsidies - $22 billion
School breakfast/lunch programs - $6 billion
Head Start - $3.5 billion
Miscellanous programs - $3 billion
Folks, it's just not the case that Your Moneytm is being stolen and given to the wastrel poor. Most of Your Money (three quarters of it) is spent on defending you, supporting you in old age or unemployment, protecting the money you have in the bank, keeping farmers and big business happy, and paying interest.

AMERICA DPEND'S ALMOST A TRILLION DOLLAR'S A YEAR ON DEFENDING OTHER COUNTRIES I THINK 16 OF THEM ---WHAT ARE WE DEFENDING THEM FROM--IF THE T E A PARTY OR REPUBLICAN'S WERE INTERESTED IN THE NATIONAL DEBT THEY WOULD BE TALKING ABOUT THIS ===INSTEAD OF HOW SORRY AMERICAN'S ARE ==

[Rabbithoundjb]

CLINTON IS ALSO RESPONSIBLE FOR THE LEGISLATION THAT COLLAPSED THE ECONOMY, ALLOWED JOBS TO LEAVE THE COUNTRY, KILLED THE HOUSING INDUSTRY AND THE BANKING INDUSTRY AND IF I USE YOUR IDEOLOGY HE IS ALSO RESPONSIBLE FOR 911 SINCE IT IS OBVIOUS IN YOUR WORLD THAT A PRESIDENT IS ONLY ACCOUNTABLE FOR THE GOOD HE DOES AND THAT ONLY STARTS WHEN HE STARTS DOING GOOD, SINCE YOUR STILL BLAMING BUSH AFTER OBAMA WAS ELECTED NOV 2008. THATS WHAT 18 MONTHS AGO, 911 ONLY HAPPENED 10 MONTHS FROM BUSH BEING ELECTED SO IT HAD TO BE ALL CLINTONS FAULT. CLINTON DID THE MOST TO SELL OUT THE AVERAGE AMERICAN IN MY LIFETIME.

[Pine Mt Beagles]

SOUND'S FAIR TO ME =EXCEPT= WHAT HAS BEEN BLAMED ON BUSH IS TRUE-

[Pine Mt Beagles]

-

[Rabbithoundjb]

ONLY IN YOUR MIND=========TWILIGHT ZONE!!!!!!!!!!!

[TC]

SOUND'S FAIR TO ME =EXCEPT= WHAT HAS BEEN BLAMED ON BUSH IS TRUE-

YOU CAINT ARGUE WITH A BRICK WALL or THE MENTALLY ILL

Got yer purple card yet Rufus???

[bluemouse]

But the impasse may be short-lived because ___behind-the-scenes negotiations--are aiming to craft a compromise that could win back Nelson and some GOP converts — perhaps by the end of the week.
So PINe-NUT the dems are going to go behind closed doors again to buy votes, Nothing new here. AS for as what Baurer said, when was calling a duck a duck a crime. You think that all rep are against helping someone in need, I would bet you that every person on here rep are dem has helped people in need. You think that there is no abuse of the system, but you are wrong again. So when Obummer has you living in a card board box eating cat food I hope you do not move to SC.

[bluegrass]

Douchebag Dufus posts these rants but never posts a LINK to verify where they came from...why is that???

1. They are OPINION pieces done by morons
2. They come from Leftist sites like The Daily Kos and Huffington Post
3. They come from leftist political entities such as MOVEON.ORG

Liberals are LOSING the battle in the political arena and whats better is that they KNOW IT. Dufus probably doesn't yet though, but in time he will. Notice in the title of this thread he has seperated Republicans from Americans...just like is savior Obambi has done on a much grander scale, DouchebagDufus has attempted to DIVIDE the American people. In his mind Republicans are NOT Americans. But the illegals coming into Arizona are....wow.



Sarah Palin 2012
Long Live Rush Limbaugh and Glenn Beck

[Pine Mt Beagles]

BLACKS REMAINED LOYAL TO THE GOP -- UNTIL AFTER WORLD WAR II

For nearly a century after its founding, African-Americans were the Republican Party's most loyal voting constituency. This was, after all, the party of the "Great Emancipator." The fact that the Democratic Party was far from friendly to blacks -- especially in the Deep South, where Democrats wrote, passed and strictly enforced the region's blatantly racist "Jim Crow" segregation laws -- didn't leave African-American voters (That is, those outside the South who could vote) much of a choice.

Things began to change in 1947, when President Harry S. Truman, a Democrat, issued an executive order to desegregate the Army and introduced civil-rights legislation to Congress the following year. This resulted in conservative southern white delegates walking out of the 1948 Democratic National Convention in protest. The southerners later formed the States' Rights Party -- which came to be known as the "Dixiecrats" -- with South Carolina Senator Strom Thurmond as its presidential nominee.

By the 1960s, the Democratic Party was a house bitterly divided -- pitting northern liberals against southern conservatives -
- over civil rights for African-Americans. It took the support of Republicans in Congress, mostly northern and midwestern liberals and moderates, to pass the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Voting Rights Act of 1965.

President Lyndon Johnson, a southerner from Texas, confided to his aide, Bill Moyers (now a prominent TV newsman and commentator) after signing these two landmark bills into law, that "We've lost the South for a generation."

By "we," Johnson meant his Democratic Party. But what Johnson didn't anticipate was that the Republicans were about to lose Black America for a generation -- and longer -- when Barry Goldwater won the GOP nomination in 1964. Goldwater voted against both the Civil Rights Act and the Voting Rights Act (which he publicly regretted years later).
=
The damage to the GOP's standing with African-Americans had only just begun.

A TOTAL REVERSAL OF FORTUNE FOR BOTH MAJOR PARTIES

Enter Richard Nixon. In a bold and determined comeback bid eight years after losing his first run for the White House to John F. Kennedy in 1960, Nixon devised an electoral strategy for victory in 1968 that forever altered the character of the Republican Party -- and turned the fortunes of both major parties completely upside-down.

It was a formula best described by Kevin Phillips, a top Nixon campaign strategist, in a 1970 interview with The New York Times: "From now on, the Republicans are never going to get more than 10 to 20 percent of the [African-American] vote and they don't need any more than that... but Republicans would be shortsighted if they weakened enforcement of the Voting Rights Act.

"The more [blacks] who register as Democrats in the South," Phillips continued, "the sooner the [anti-black] whites will quit the Democrats and become Republicans. That's where the votes are. Without that prodding from the blacks, the whites will backslide into their old comfortable arrangement with the local Democrats."

NOW REPUBLICANS RISK LOSING LATINOS OVER IMMIGRATION

But after more than four decades -- and despite the election of a black man as its national chairman -- the Republicans' "Southern Strategy" is still very much alive and now threatens to alienate another entire segment of the electorate: Hispanic Americans.

Unlike blacks, however, Latinos are the fastest-growing segment of the U.S. population -- and of the electorate. A recently-released study of U.S. Census Bureau data by the University of New Hampshire predicts that non-white births will likely outpace white births sometime this year -- and that the Latino birth rate already is outpacing the white birth rate in the Southwest, particularly California.

Republicans in California have been paying a devastatingly high political price ever since they pushed through Proposition 187, a 1994 ballot initiative designed to prohibit illegal immigrants from using the state's social services, health care, and public education.
=
=I THINK THE DEMOCRAT'S SHOULD- APPOLOGIZE FOR THE YEAR'S OF SLAVERY-IT WAS A HORRABLE PART OF AMERICAN HISTORY--THEN THEY SHOULD THANK THE REPUBLICAN'S--BUT WHAT I CANNOT UNDERSTAND IS IF THE REPUBLICAN'S IS WHY THE REPUBLICAN'S TURNED AWAY FROM AMERICA-
=NOW
WHAT WAS THE CIVIL WAR REALLY ABOUT
=Slavery made up a part of the disagreement, but the main argument was that the Confederates felt that each state should be allowed to govern itself as if it were a sovereign nation. The Confederates wanted to be a part of the united states only to pool resources for military purposes to defend against foreign invaders, and to engage in free trade. The Union however, believed that the Federal government should be able to impose law on all states, as it is today. The Confederate southern states rebelled against what they felt was oppression by out of state lawmakers, and in turn sparked the civil war. Abolition of slavery was a key Federal law that sparked anti unionism amongst confederates. The South didn't like being told what to do by a bunch of Yankees living 1000 miles away in Washington. A way to sum it up in a modern day version would be if all the governors of west coast states got together under Arnold Schwarzenegger and told Washington DC that they aren't taking orders anymore, and that they'll make their own laws from now on. Then Bush sends in the Marines to restore order, the Governors of the west coast states order the local police forces to fight them, and all hell breaks loose. That's how you get a civil war.
Source(s):
6th grade history class.===THE REASON I USED THIS IS SO= BIG WORD'S= WITH HIS LIMITED COMPREHENSION SKILL'S MIGHT GET A CLUE===
=
=THE CONFEDERATE STATES HAVE A LOT IN COMMON WITH REPUBLICAN'S AND- THE SO CALLED TEA BAGGER'S OF TODAY DON'T YOU THINK===

[bluegrass]

BLACKS REMAINED LOYAL TO THE GOP -- UNTIL AFTER WORLD WAR II

For nearly a century after its founding, African-Americans were the Republican Party's most loyal voting constituency. This was, after all, the party of the "Great Emancipator." The fact that the Democratic Party was far from friendly to blacks -- especially in the Deep South, where Democrats wrote, passed and strictly enforced the region's blatantly racist "Jim Crow" segregation laws -- didn't leave African-American voters (That is, those outside the South who could vote) much of a choice.

Things began to change in 1947, when President Harry S. Truman, a Democrat, issued an executive order to desegregate the Army and introduced civil-rights legislation to Congress the following year. This resulted in conservative southern white delegates walking out of the 1948 Democratic National Convention in protest. The southerners later formed the States' Rights Party -- which came to be known as the "Dixiecrats" -- with South Carolina Senator Strom Thurmond as its presidential nominee.

By the 1960s, the Democratic Party was a house bitterly divided -- pitting northern liberals against southern conservatives -
- over civil rights for African-Americans. It took the support of Republicans in Congress, mostly northern and midwestern liberals and moderates, to pass the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Voting Rights Act of 1965.

President Lyndon Johnson, a southerner from Texas, confided to his aide, Bill Moyers (now a prominent TV newsman and commentator) after signing these two landmark bills into law, that "We've lost the South for a generation."

By "we," Johnson meant his Democratic Party. But what Johnson didn't anticipate was that the Republicans were about to lose Black America for a generation -- and longer -- when Barry Goldwater won the GOP nomination in 1964. Goldwater voted against both the Civil Rights Act and the Voting Rights Act (which he publicly regretted years later).
=
The damage to the GOP's standing with African-Americans had only just begun.

A TOTAL REVERSAL OF FORTUNE FOR BOTH MAJOR PARTIES

Enter Richard Nixon. In a bold and determined comeback bid eight years after losing his first run for the White House to John F. Kennedy in 1960, Nixon devised an electoral strategy for victory in 1968 that forever altered the character of the Republican Party -- and turned the fortunes of both major parties completely upside-down.

It was a formula best described by Kevin Phillips, a top Nixon campaign strategist, in a 1970 interview with The New York Times: "From now on, the Republicans are never going to get more than 10 to 20 percent of the [African-American] vote and they don't need any more than that... but Republicans would be shortsighted if they weakened enforcement of the Voting Rights Act.

"The more [blacks] who register as Democrats in the South," Phillips continued, "the sooner the [anti-black] whites will quit the Democrats and become Republicans. That's where the votes are. Without that prodding from the blacks, the whites will backslide into their old comfortable arrangement with the local Democrats."

NOW REPUBLICANS RISK LOSING LATINOS OVER IMMIGRATION

But after more than four decades -- and despite the election of a black man as its national chairman -- the Republicans' "Southern Strategy" is still very much alive and now threatens to alienate another entire segment of the electorate: Hispanic Americans.

Unlike blacks, however, Latinos are the fastest-growing segment of the U.S. population -- and of the electorate. A recently-released study of U.S. Census Bureau data by the University of New Hampshire predicts that non-white births will likely outpace white births sometime this year -- and that the Latino birth rate already is outpacing the white birth rate in the Southwest, particularly California.

Republicans in California have been paying a devastatingly high political price ever since they pushed through Proposition 187, a 1994 ballot initiative designed to prohibit illegal immigrants from using the state's social services, health care, and public education.
=
=I THINK THE DEMOCRAT'S SHOULD- APPOLOGIZE FOR THE YEAR'S OF SLAVERY-IT WAS A HORRABLE PART OF AMERICAN HISTORY--THEN THEY SHOULD THANK THE REPUBLICAN'S--BUT WHAT I CANNOT UNDERSTAND IS IF THE REPUBLICAN'S IS WHY THE REPUBLICAN'S TURNED AWAY FROM AMERICA-
=NOW
WHAT WAS THE CIVIL WAR REALLY ABOUT
=Slavery made up a part of the disagreement, but the main argument was that the Confederates felt that each state should be allowed to govern itself as if it were a sovereign nation. The Confederates wanted to be a part of the united states only to pool resources for military purposes to defend against foreign invaders, and to engage in free trade. The Union however, believed that the Federal government should be able to impose law on all states, as it is today. The Confederate southern states rebelled against what they felt was oppression by out of state lawmakers, and in turn sparked the civil war. Abolition of slavery was a key Federal law that sparked anti unionism amongst confederates. The South didn't like being told what to do by a bunch of Yankees living 1000 miles away in Washington. A way to sum it up in a modern day version would be if all the governors of west coast states got together under Arnold Schwarzenegger and told Washington DC that they aren't taking orders anymore, and that they'll make their own laws from now on. Then Bush sends in the Marines to restore order, the Governors of the west coast states order the local police forces to fight them, and all hell breaks loose. That's how you get a civil war.
Source(s):
6th grade history class.===THE REASON I USED THIS IS SO= BIG WORD'S= WITH HIS LIMITED COMPREHENSION SKILL'S MIGHT GET A CLUE===
=
=THE CONFEDERATE STATES HAVE A LOT IN COMMON WITH REPUBLICAN'S AND- THE SO CALLED TEA BAGGER'S OF TODAY DON'T YOU THINK===

Once again, Douchebag, you have failed to post the following...

1. A link to the original story or
2. A source, so we can all verify how stupid you are.
3. Anything relevant to TODAY!!!

OMG, you go back to the CIVIL WAR to bash Republicans??? What a douchebag existence you must lead. How it must absolutely gall you and make you vomit to even LOOK at a Republican...dude, you really need help. Mental help.

Liberalism is a Mental Disorder

[Pine Mt Beagles]

WALL STREET REFORMSA USUAL THE REPUBLICAN'S ARE DOING ANYTHING TO STOP FORWARD PROGRESS FOR AMERICA---.
The changes sought by Democrats "have not exactly been welcomed by the people who profit from the status quo – as well their allies in Washington," Obama said in his address. "This is probably why the special interests have spent a lot of time and money lobbying to kill or weaken the bill. Just the other day, in fact, the leader of the Senate Republicans and the chair of the Republican Senate campaign committee met with two dozen top Wall Street executives to talk about how to block progress on this issue.

"Lo and behold, when he returned to Washington, the Senate Republican Leader came out against the common-sense reforms we've proposed."

Asked about the meeting on CNN's State of the Union Sunday , McConnell rejected any suggestion that the meeting was used to craft ways to block financial regularly reform. Ultimately, McConnell said Cornyn was there because he will be voting on the reform legislation.

"Did the meeting take place?," CNN Chief Political Correspondent and State of the Union anchor Candy Crowley asked McConnell. "What was the conversation?"

"Well, we certainly didn't talk about blocking the bill," the Kentucky Republican replied. "I don't know anybody who's in favor of blocking this bill."

McConnell added, "I thought [the president] wanted us to have a bipartisan bill. That's what I would like to have. We are in the process of gathering information from people all across the country, from Wall Street to Main Street to try to get advice about doing this right."

McConnell also said that he met recently with bankers in his home state who oppose the current version of the financial reform bill.

Pressed by Crowley about how Cornyn's involvement, at least created the appearance that Republicans were playing politics with the issue of reform, McConnell denied Obama's accusation.
"Well, look, we were talking about financial regulation, as everybody in the country is talking about it," the top Senate Republican said. "Most of the people in New York supported the president, the vast majority of them are on his side. They supported him during the election, they still support him.
"Why was Sen. Cornyn there?," Crowley queried.
Crowley pressed McConnell again about Cornyn's attendance at the meeting. "But what did the Wall Street people tell you?"
"Let me try one more time," Crowley volleyed. "Why was Sen. Cornyn in that meeting of all of the other senators you could have taken with you?"

"Sen. Cornyn is a United States senator from Texas," McConnell explained. "He is going to be voting on this issue like all the rest of us are. Simply because we are all involved in politics, as is the president, it doesn't mean that we can't discuss issues with people that we meet around the country who are deeply involved and concerned about what we are doing."
LIKE HIS FRIENDS ON WALL STREET-MCCONNEL AND CORNYN- ARE- WALL STREET'S --KNIGHT'S IN SHINNING ARMOR.LIKE THE OTHER REPUBLICAN'S..