So, what do you Republicans have to say about...

[Anonymous]

I worked on the Hill and never forget a liberal CoS telling me In the elevator how much better Bush's Hill outreach was that O's.

Granted, the president assumed these liberals would vote with him 100% of the time. It's a relationships industry, he only has one, and they celebrated 20 years of marriage last night.

49% of Americans knew he was over his head four years ago. It's looking far more like that that percentage is rising this year, thank God.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The buck stops at the top. Obama has fostered no relationships with republicans on the hill. He thinks he is above it all.

Do you think anyone actually believes this bs?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The buck stops at the top. Obama has fostered no relationships with republicans on the hill. He thinks he is above it all.

Dog whistle racism in all its glory. If only they had been friendly to us, we would have stopped hating them and thinking he's incompetent simply because of the color of his skin!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The buck stops at the top. Obama has fostered no relationships with republicans on the hill. He thinks he is above it all.

Dog whistle racism in all its glory. If only they had been friendly to us, we would have stopped hating them and thinking he's incompetent simply because of the color of his skin!

Do you actually think its impossible to think that Obama did a poor job building hill relationships without being a racist?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The buck stops at the top. Obama has fostered no relationships with republicans on the hill. He thinks he is above it all.

Dog whistle racism in all its glory. If only they had been friendly to us, we would have stopped hating them and thinking he's incompetent simply because of the color of his skin!

I'm so tired of the erm dog whistle. It's the biggest sham to make people feel like they know what they're talking about when they're clearly do not.

The President would have been just as incompetent if he was more that 50% white, it's plain to see.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:With unfettered discretion for TWO YEARS (i.e., Obama plus majority democrats in the house and senate), Obama should have gotten a hell of a lot done.

Unfettered discretion! He could have passed anything!

Rather than just vacationing and pointing fingers, which he is still doing 4 years into it.

More like 6 months. But let's not garble up our message with FACTS! That's like poison to Republicans.

Please explain 6 months...facts please.

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:With unfettered discretion for TWO YEARS (i.e., Obama plus majority democrats in the house and senate), Obama should have gotten a hell of a lot done.

Unfettered discretion! He could have passed anything!

Rather than just vacationing and pointing fingers, which he is still doing 4 years into it.

More like 6 months. But let's not garble up our message with FACTS! That's like poison to Republicans.

Please explain 6 months...facts please.

Here are the facts:

- When the 111th Congress convened in January 2009, Democrats held 56 Senate seats. Two independents that caucused with the Democrats gave the party 58 Senate votes. Republicans held 41 seats. One seat was empty because the election outcome in Minnesota was tied up in court. 60 votes are necessary to overcome filibusters. Republicans immediately engaged in unprecedented use of the filibuster in order to prevent even routine Senate actions.

- On April 30, Arlen Specter switched from the Republican to Democratic Party, giving Democrats 59 votes.

- Al Franken was finally sworn in on July 7, 2009, giving the Democrats 60 votes.

- However, by the time Franken was sworn in, Ted Kennedy had become too sick to attend the Senate. He had not voted since April 2009. So, the Democrats only had 59 actual votes and could not break Republican filibusters which were continuing at a record pace. Kennedy died on August 25, leaving the seat vacant until September 25 when Paul Kirk was sworn in. The Democrats then had 60 votes.

- Scott Brown won the special election to replace Kennedy and was seated on Feb. 4, 2010.

So, the only period for which Democrats had enough votes to invoke cloture was from September 25, 2009 to February 4, 2010, or about 4 months. The Senate was not in session for more than 2 of those months. Because one of the votes upon which the Democrats relied was Joe Lieberman, they were always held hostage by him. He had famously not supported Obama during the 2008 election and appears to have enjoyed being an obstacle to the President.

By the time the Democrats had a filibuster-proof majority, most of the major legislative battles of the year were over. The idea that Obama had two years of "unfettered discretion" simply ignores reality. Anyone who discusses Obama's ability to pass legislation without taking into account the unprecedented use of the filibuster by the Republicans is either unfair or uninformed.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:With unfettered discretion for TWO YEARS (i.e., Obama plus majority democrats in the house and senate), Obama should have gotten a hell of a lot done.

Unfettered discretion! He could have passed anything!

Rather than just vacationing and pointing fingers, which he is still doing 4 years into it.

More like 6 months. But let's not garble up our message with FACTS! That's like poison to Republicans.

Please explain 6 months...facts please.

Ted Kennedy died August 25, 2009 and was very ill for months before that. Without his vote and influence, the Senate could not be counted on.

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:With unfettered discretion for TWO YEARS (i.e., Obama plus majority democrats in the house and senate), Obama should have gotten a hell of a lot done.

Unfettered discretion! He could have passed anything!

Rather than just vacationing and pointing fingers, which he is still doing 4 years into it.

More like 6 months. But let's not garble up our message with FACTS! That's like poison to Republicans.

Please explain 6 months...facts please.

Here are the facts:

- When the 111th Congress convened in January 2009, Democrats held 56 Senate seats. Two independents that caucused with the Democrats gave the party 58 Senate votes. Republicans held 41 seats. One seat was empty because the election outcome in Minnesota was tied up in court. 60 votes are necessary to overcome filibusters. Republicans immediately engaged in unprecedented use of the filibuster in order to prevent even routine Senate actions.

- On April 30, Arlen Specter switched from the Republican to Democratic Party, giving Democrats 59 votes.

- Al Franken was finally sworn in on July 7, 2009, giving the Democrats 60 votes.

- However, by the time Franken was sworn in, Ted Kennedy had become too sick to attend the Senate. He had not voted since April 2009. So, the Democrats only had 59 actual votes and could not break Republican filibusters which were continuing at a record pace. Kennedy died on August 25, leaving the seat vacant until September 25 when Paul Kirk was sworn in. The Democrats then had 60 votes.

- Scott Brown won the special election to replace Kennedy and was seated on Feb. 4, 2010.

So, the only period for which Democrats had enough votes to invoke cloture was from September 25, 2009 to February 4, 2010, or about 4 months. The Senate was not in session for more than 2 of those months. Because one of the votes upon which the Democrats relied was Joe Lieberman, they were always held hostage by him. He had famously not supported Obama during the 2008 election and appears to have enjoyed being an obstacle to the President.

By the time the Democrats had a filibuster-proof majority, most of the major legislative battles of the year were over. The idea that Obama had two years of "unfettered discretion" simply ignores reality. Anyone who discusses Obama's ability to pass legislation without taking into account the unprecedented use of the filibuster by the Republicans is either unfair or uninformed.

So just the potential threat of a filibuster was enough to grind things to a halt? What you're leaving out is that not all republicans and democrats always vote strictly on party lines. And blaming Joe Lieberman is, in my opinion, is not only silly but anti-Semitic.

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:
So just the potential threat of a filibuster was enough to grind things to a halt? What you're leaving out is that not all republicans and democrats always vote strictly on party lines. And blaming Joe Lieberman is, in my opinion, is not only silly but anti-Semitic.

I wish there was a nice way to say this, but there really isn't. Are you fucking insane? What are you talking about when you say "thread of a filibuster"? There was not a threat. The Republicans exercised the filibuster exponentially more than it had ever been used before.

Just look at this chart:



And, how pray tell, is correctly noting that Lieberman supported McCain and campaigned against Obama and then repeatedly opposed Obama's initiatives "anti-Semitic"? Talk about devaluing a term. I guess everyone is anti-Semitic now and it is a meaningless designation.

[Anonymous]

votes on cloture often have nothing to do with filibusters anymore. just a routine procedure. & the whole recent filibuster shit started with Dems blocking Bush's judicial appointees. Do you have any idea of what you are talking about?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:With unfettered discretion for TWO YEARS (i.e., Obama plus majority democrats in the house and senate), Obama should have gotten a hell of a lot done.

Unfettered discretion! He could have passed anything!

Rather than just vacationing and pointing fingers, which he is still doing 4 years into it.

Apparently you have forgotten how 2009 we were all talking about being tired of filibusters.

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:votes on cloture often have nothing to do with filibusters anymore. just a routine procedure. & the whole recent filibuster shit started with Dems blocking Bush's judicial appointees. Do you have any idea of what you are talking about?

You are avoiding my point. I contend that the unprecedented use of the filibuster by Republicans prevented Obama from having "two years of unfettered discretion". I have provided facts to support that contention. It doesn't matter who started the "filibuster shit." That is a different discussion and one about which I am sure I would disagree with you.

So, yes, I have an idea about what I am talking. Do you want to join that discussion or simply make irrelevant and unrelated statements?

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:votes on cloture often have nothing to do with filibusters anymore. just a routine procedure. & the whole recent filibuster shit started with Dems blocking Bush's judicial appointees. Do you have any idea of what you are talking about?

You are avoiding my point. I contend that the unprecedented use of the filibuster by Republicans prevented Obama from having "two years of unfettered discretion". I have provided facts to support that contention. It doesn't matter who started the "filibuster shit." That is a different discussion and one about which I am sure I would disagree with you.

So, yes, I have an idea about what I am talking. Do you want to join that discussion or simply make irrelevant and unrelated statements?

no you don't have any idea. there were more true threats of filibusters with a Dem congress. you are mistakenly focusing on the cloture votes - hence you are an idiot.

[Anonymous]

Care to provide some evidence, PP?