|
|
Roe is the perfect example of why legislating from the bench is a bad idea. It is one of the most poisonous decisions ever that blew a relatively minor political issue into a full blown political litmus test of the highest divisive order. You can bet that the Court will have that in mind when they hear a gay rights case for the first time.
|
On June 14 2012 08:34 xDaunt wrote:Roe is the perfect example of why legislating from the bench is a bad idea. It is one of the most poisonous decisions ever that blew a relatively minor political issue into a full blown political litmus test of the highest divisive order. You can bet that the Court will have that in mind when they hear a gay rights case for the first time.
Lawrence v. Texas?
|
On June 14 2012 08:35 BluePanther wrote:Show nested quote +On June 14 2012 08:34 xDaunt wrote:Roe is the perfect example of why legislating from the bench is a bad idea. It is one of the most poisonous decisions ever that blew a relatively minor political issue into a full blown political litmus test of the highest divisive order. You can bet that the Court will have that in mind when they hear a gay rights case for the first time. Lawrence v. Texas?
Well, gay marriage.
|
On June 14 2012 06:58 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On June 14 2012 06:29 BluePanther wrote:
The President cannot do jack about abortion. Roe v. Wade is the law of the land, and the president plays NO ROLE in the constitutional amendment process.
I'm not sure why that's even a political issue these days for presidential elections. There's too much respect for stare decisis. Landmark decisions on par with Roe v. Wade are very rarely overturned.
Let's be honest. Kennedy is the only one who gives a shit about stare decisis on the current court.
|
On June 14 2012 08:38 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On June 14 2012 08:35 BluePanther wrote:On June 14 2012 08:34 xDaunt wrote:Roe is the perfect example of why legislating from the bench is a bad idea. It is one of the most poisonous decisions ever that blew a relatively minor political issue into a full blown political litmus test of the highest divisive order. You can bet that the Court will have that in mind when they hear a gay rights case for the first time. Lawrence v. Texas? Well, gay marriage.
Dragovich v. Treasury? I think that's the next one.
I'd be shocked if they do anything beyond saying "the state can do what the state wants" with regard to that. They won't impose gay marriage for now. Heightened scrutiny is a fickle thing -- my money would be on them distinguishing Roe as an inherent quality and gay marriage as a choice that is not similar to Loving v. Virginia.
|
On June 13 2012 17:28 Defacer wrote:Show nested quote +On June 13 2012 16:36 sam!zdat wrote:
Who is it you think I'm voting for?
edit: I'll admit I don't really understand your comment. Sorry, I'm just agreeing with Saryph's comment ... When you look at all the political propaganda and hyperbole that is thrown about -- that ONE person is to blame for everything, and only I CAN SAVE IT ... it's just ridiculous. Both candidates are marketing themselves as saviours. It makes me wonder if politics in the US has always been like this, that's all.
Oh.
Yeah, it has been, probably since circa FDR. The entire idea of voting for president is an enormous joke.
|
On June 14 2012 03:51 AmorFatiAbyss wrote:
So cutting spending is "unpopular," and raising taxes is "unpopular." Of course they are. Who in their right mind wants less money? When I go into best buy and see a new HDTV that I really want to take home, I also really don't want to pay for it. Doesn't mean best buy will say "we don't want to be unpopular, please, just take the TV for free."
Democratic forms of government are unsuited to reality, because the people are unsuited to reality. They want to be lied to. They want to have their cake and eat it too. I guess the proper solution is to just pretend we are in no financial troubles at all until the shit hits the fan. That's where people like Krugman become useful.
+1 for a snarky takedown of Krugman.
|
As a US working citizen who is actually here and is seeing what is going on. I can say without a doubt that the economy is no where near recovering and the private sector is not doing well at all. Everyone is struggling with jobs to find jobs. There as been 5 factories shut down in my area recently. Most recent last month with about 6000 workers laid off from all combined.
You can't listen to what is on the news or what a presidential candidate is saying. News stations now just want ratings. Presidential candidates are going to say exactly what you want to hear. Obama is the best speaker there is he will tell you exactly what you want to hear. Just look up obamas deception a video showing everything obama promised when he was running then what he did on that subject after he became president the complete opposite. Romney is no different.
Its like both Dems and Reps are in kindergarden fighting taddle telling on each other. They did it, no they are responsible, no they are. Thats all you hear or see. I don't care who is responsible point blank is your the president now its your job to fix it not make it worse. (Our national debt going from 1-3 trillion to right at 16 trillion dollars is not Obama fixing the economy) Okay so you say 6 trillion comes from Bush well Obama has added at least 7 trillion dollars to that debt in 4 years less than bush. Imagine 8 Years they will just keep raising the national debt until the dollar is worthless. Which is going to happen. Why in the hell do you think all the congressman and political people are investing millions and billions into gold since prior to the Bush administration. This has been on a downward spiral since way before Bush was in office.
You can throw statistics out for the most part. Thats like obama claiming he fixed unemployment when that just was not true at all. Unemployment was at 24-25% actual unemployment now they accounted for about 10-12% who where receiveing benefits. Well what happens after 3 extensions of your unemployment. You cant get it any more. So no fucking duh unemployment will look like it went down. I was one of the ones collecting unemployment when this happen. I have a degree in marketing.
When that happen Obama was all over taking claim to lowering unemployment; when it just wasn't true. Most people outside of US aren't here living it so they only know what they see on tv or read about. So you can't fault them for their opinions and views.
Still all you see is more and more houses for sale and not saleing. More and more people losing their jobs. To say the private sector is doing better well that tickled my belly a bit. I see those statistics but what you see around you says a total different thing. There has been 0 new businesses open in our town and the surrounding 3 towns over the past year.
Granted that is just around me but I hear the same thing from family and friends all over the US.
These are the things that sickens us americans most. We work damn hard for our money just for the goverment to take 30% of it a check just because they are incompitent and corrupt. Then they say everything is okay well its not and its not going to be for a very long time thats something we just have to come to terms with.
I was watching the news the other day and New York Times posted that 57% of I believe it was latinos are going to vote in this election. Well thats great except the fact as the news station pointed out that only 30% are actually allowed to vote. being so many % are here for this or that reason (greencardsetc) so how is 57% voting lol. It's like when obama first took office mickey mouse voted what was it 50 times. Our voting system is so corrupt it doesnt work.
That being said I will not be voting for either one as I do not see either worthy of my vote.
Also to blame things on just the president is ridiculas. The president is a small part of the problem. Our whole 2 party system is corrupt as hell.
Until we fix the way presidents run their campaigns this will continue to happen. What happens is this said Company/union wants the president to vote for this bill or congressman not just president. If they do not well then they will not be giving them their millions of dollars for their next campaign.
You know I dont care if the president is black, white, mexican, chinese or female. I want someone who is a real american, true to every word they say, and stands up for America and its best interest quit focusing on the rest of the world when we have so many problems of our own. We are still giving billions of aid to other countries when we have millions homeless in our own country. France has always looked for France, Australia, Ireland and all the other countries do whats for their best interest which is the way it should be
How can you help others when your own country is in such turmoil.
Sorry for the long probably poorly written essay of the sorts lol. Im very sick with the flu makes it hard to concentrate.
|
I'm pretty surprised that this is even a somewhat close race.
Does anyone actually want a businessman in charge? Elect someone from the group responsible for causing the recession in the first place? Why?
Then again, the people of this country have some pretty misplaced priorities 95% of the time.
|
On June 14 2012 16:26 True_Soldier wrote:+ Show Spoiler +
As a US working citizen who is actually here and is seeing what is going on. I can say without a doubt that the economy is no where near recovering and the private sector is not doing well at all. Everyone is struggling with jobs to find jobs. There as been 5 factories shut down in my area recently. Most recent last month with about 6000 workers laid off from all combined.
You can't listen to what is on the news or what a presidential candidate is saying. News stations now just want ratings. Presidential candidates are going to say exactly what you want to hear. Obama is the best speaker there is he will tell you exactly what you want to hear. Just look up obamas deception a video showing everything obama promised when he was running then what he did on that subject after he became president the complete opposite. Romney is no different.
Its like both Dems and Reps are in kindergarden fighting taddle telling on each other. They did it, no they are responsible, no they are. Thats all you hear or see. I don't care who is responsible point blank is your the president now its your job to fix it not make it worse. (Our national debt going from 1-3 trillion to right at 16 trillion dollars is not Obama fixing the economy) Okay so you say 6 trillion comes from Bush well Obama has added at least 7 trillion dollars to that debt in 4 years less than bush. Imagine 8 Years they will just keep raising the national debt until the dollar is worthless. Which is going to happen. Why in the hell do you think all the congressman and political people are investing millions and billions into gold since prior to the Bush administration. This has been on a downward spiral since way before Bush was in office.
You can throw statistics out for the most part. Thats like obama claiming he fixed unemployment when that just was not true at all. Unemployment was at 24-25% actual unemployment now they accounted for about 10-12% who where receiveing benefits. Well what happens after 3 extensions of your unemployment. You cant get it any more. So no fucking duh unemployment will look like it went down. I was one of the ones collecting unemployment when this happen. I have a degree in marketing.
When that happen Obama was all over taking claim to lowering unemployment; when it just wasn't true. Most people outside of US aren't here living it so they only know what they see on tv or read about. So you can't fault them for their opinions and views.
Still all you see is more and more houses for sale and not saleing. More and more people losing their jobs. To say the private sector is doing better well that tickled my belly a bit. I see those statistics but what you see around you says a total different thing. There has been 0 new businesses open in our town and the surrounding 3 towns over the past year.
Granted that is just around me but I hear the same thing from family and friends all over the US.
These are the things that sickens us americans most. We work damn hard for our money just for the goverment to take 30% of it a check just because they are incompitent and corrupt. Then they say everything is okay well its not and its not going to be for a very long time thats something we just have to come to terms with.
I was watching the news the other day and New York Times posted that 57% of I believe it was latinos are going to vote in this election. Well thats great except the fact as the news station pointed out that only 30% are actually allowed to vote. being so many % are here for this or that reason (greencardsetc) so how is 57% voting lol. It's like when obama first took office mickey mouse voted what was it 50 times. Our voting system is so corrupt it doesnt work.
That being said I will not be voting for either one as I do not see either worthy of my vote.
Also to blame things on just the president is ridiculas. The president is a small part of the problem. Our whole 2 party system is corrupt as hell.
Until we fix the way presidents run their campaigns this will continue to happen. What happens is this said Company/union wants the president to vote for this bill or congressman not just president. If they do not well then they will not be giving them their millions of dollars for their next campaign.
You know I dont care if the president is black, white, mexican, chinese or female. I want someone who is a real american, true to every word they say, and stands up for America and its best interest quit focusing on the rest of the world when we have so many problems of our own. We are still giving billions of aid to other countries when we have millions homeless in our own country. France has always looked for France, Australia, Ireland and all the other countries do whats for their best interest which is the way it should be
How can you help others when your own country is in such turmoil.
Sorry for the long probably poorly written essay of the sorts lol. Im very sick with the flu makes it hard to concentrate.
Wall of text crits you for over 9000! (seriously, use paragraphs)
That said, I read the whole thing and have a simple response to your percieved holier than thou attitude:
+ Show Spoiler +"Give me your tired, your poor,
Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,
The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.
Send these, the homeless, tempest-tost to me,
I lift my lamp beside the golden door!"
As for the political election problems, it's people like you that cause the problems. Recognition that it's not Obama's sole fault is key to understanding the gridlock. It's Congress that is the problem, and Obama doesn't have control of them in an election year. You're placing the blame on the wrong entity because you listen to the special-interest pandering, inflammatory rhetoric that you claim to despise, and intend to vote based on an irrational line of logic that they have put forward to you. In other words, your rant is the exact problem you purport to hate with the system.
|
As for the political election problems, it's people like you that cause the problems. Recognition that it's not Obama's sole fault is key to understanding the gridlock. It's Congress that is the problem, and Obama doesn't have control of them in an election year. You're placing the blame on the wrong entity because you listen to the special-interest pandering, inflammatory rhetoric that you claim to despise, and intend to vote based on an irrational line of logic that they have put forward to you. In other words, your rant is the exact problem you purport to hate with the system.
You're right, it's Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi's fault too. Unstoppable control of Congress for 1 year and only the filibuster able to stop anything for another 1 and what did they accomplish on the economy? A stimulus that achieved jack and shit respectively. The rest of their time they spent on a healthcare bill that 50% of the country absolutely hates and another 25% aren't really too keen about. Obama's at fault, deal with it.
|
On June 14 2012 23:42 DeepElemBlues wrote:Show nested quote +As for the political election problems, it's people like you that cause the problems. Recognition that it's not Obama's sole fault is key to understanding the gridlock. It's Congress that is the problem, and Obama doesn't have control of them in an election year. You're placing the blame on the wrong entity because you listen to the special-interest pandering, inflammatory rhetoric that you claim to despise, and intend to vote based on an irrational line of logic that they have put forward to you. In other words, your rant is the exact problem you purport to hate with the system. You're right, it's Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi's fault too. Unstoppable control of Congress for 1 year and only the filibuster able to stop anything for another 1 and what did they accomplish on the economy? A stimulus that achieved jack and shit respectively. The rest of their time they spent on a healthcare bill that 50% of the country absolutely hates and another 25% aren't really too keen about. Obama's at fault, deal with it.
This a thousand times. Never before has a president accomplished so little with so much stacked in his favor. All he had to do was throw a few bones to republicans here and there and actually include them in the process. He could have saved himself sooooooo many problems -- the most significant of which being Obamacare.
|
On June 14 2012 15:06 FieryBalrog wrote:Show nested quote +On June 14 2012 03:51 AmorFatiAbyss wrote:
So cutting spending is "unpopular," and raising taxes is "unpopular." Of course they are. Who in their right mind wants less money? When I go into best buy and see a new HDTV that I really want to take home, I also really don't want to pay for it. Doesn't mean best buy will say "we don't want to be unpopular, please, just take the TV for free."
Democratic forms of government are unsuited to reality, because the people are unsuited to reality. They want to be lied to. They want to have their cake and eat it too. I guess the proper solution is to just pretend we are in no financial troubles at all until the shit hits the fan. That's where people like Krugman become useful. +1 for a snarky takedown of Krugman.
What has this got to do with Krugman?
People like Krugman aren't pretending there's no problem, there's a massive unemployment problem. And cutting spending, like they're doing in Europe will make the problem worse, contract the economy, this reduces tax revenue, which can make the deficit higher.
|
On June 14 2012 23:59 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On June 14 2012 23:42 DeepElemBlues wrote:As for the political election problems, it's people like you that cause the problems. Recognition that it's not Obama's sole fault is key to understanding the gridlock. It's Congress that is the problem, and Obama doesn't have control of them in an election year. You're placing the blame on the wrong entity because you listen to the special-interest pandering, inflammatory rhetoric that you claim to despise, and intend to vote based on an irrational line of logic that they have put forward to you. In other words, your rant is the exact problem you purport to hate with the system. You're right, it's Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi's fault too. Unstoppable control of Congress for 1 year and only the filibuster able to stop anything for another 1 and what did they accomplish on the economy? A stimulus that achieved jack and shit respectively. The rest of their time they spent on a healthcare bill that 50% of the country absolutely hates and another 25% aren't really too keen about. Obama's at fault, deal with it. This a thousand times. Never before has a president accomplished so little with so much stacked in his favor. All he had to do was throw a few bones to republicans here and there and actually include them in the process. He could have saved himself sooooooo many problems -- the most significant of which being Obamacare.
This post is laughable. If you seriously believe Obama has not tried to compromise as much as he could with Republicans, you're delusional. Compromise for Ryan, Cantor & co. is "we get everything, you get nothing".
|
On June 14 2012 23:42 DeepElemBlues wrote:Show nested quote +As for the political election problems, it's people like you that cause the problems. Recognition that it's not Obama's sole fault is key to understanding the gridlock. It's Congress that is the problem, and Obama doesn't have control of them in an election year. You're placing the blame on the wrong entity because you listen to the special-interest pandering, inflammatory rhetoric that you claim to despise, and intend to vote based on an irrational line of logic that they have put forward to you. In other words, your rant is the exact problem you purport to hate with the system. You're right, it's Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi's fault too. Unstoppable control of Congress for 1 year and only the filibuster able to stop anything for another 1 and what did they accomplish on the economy? A stimulus that achieved jack and shit respectively. The rest of their time they spent on a healthcare bill that 50% of the country absolutely hates and another 25% aren't really too keen about. Obama's at fault, deal with it.
The stimulus saved 3 million jobs: http://takingnote.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/06/08/c-b-o-s-take-on-the-stimulus/
In total 4.3 million private sector jobs were created under Obama, and 4.3 million were lost because of the GFC.
Also, they did not have an unstoppable congress for 1 year. Not all the Democrats voted for the stimulus, they needed some Republican votes to get it passed. If it was so unstoppable, why did it take months of bargaining and political maneuvering, and so much compromise to get healthcare passed?
|
On June 14 2012 23:59 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On June 14 2012 23:42 DeepElemBlues wrote:As for the political election problems, it's people like you that cause the problems. Recognition that it's not Obama's sole fault is key to understanding the gridlock. It's Congress that is the problem, and Obama doesn't have control of them in an election year. You're placing the blame on the wrong entity because you listen to the special-interest pandering, inflammatory rhetoric that you claim to despise, and intend to vote based on an irrational line of logic that they have put forward to you. In other words, your rant is the exact problem you purport to hate with the system. You're right, it's Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi's fault too. Unstoppable control of Congress for 1 year and only the filibuster able to stop anything for another 1 and what did they accomplish on the economy? A stimulus that achieved jack and shit respectively. The rest of their time they spent on a healthcare bill that 50% of the country absolutely hates and another 25% aren't really too keen about. Obama's at fault, deal with it. This a thousand times. Never before has a president accomplished so little with so much stacked in his favor. All he had to do was throw a few bones to republicans here and there and actually include them in the process. He could have saved himself sooooooo many problems -- the most significant of which being Obamacare.
Compromise?
Remember the debt ceiling fiasco? Bush tax cuts expiry?
There has been zero compromise from Republicans. They pretty much got everything they wanted.
Because of "compromise" the stimulus was half the size it needed to be, there has been zero tax increases, only tax cuts and spending cuts, no public option for healthcare, no additional state and local aid despite massive and continuing falls in government employment, all the Bush tax cuts got extended.
Where's the compromise?
Not surprising coming from you, since you've ignored basically all the facts and sources in this thread.
News flash: Republicans are trying to crash the economy.
If they truly believed that all Keynesian type policies are harmful, then blocking them, and in the process blocking any policy at all -- which is essentially what they are doing since they surely know their pet policies have little chance of escaping a veto -- could not be considered an act of sabotage. The policies may be quite harmful in reality, but if they truly believe they are avoiding harm by blocking stimulus policies it would be hard to accuse them of sabotaging the economy in order to make political gains. But the fact that they have flip-flopped time and again on policies they supported when Republican presidents were in office and the economy needed help leads to the strong suspicion that blocking Obama's policy initiatives is a political strategy. The strategy is justified by a story about Keynesian economics being harmful that they clearly do not believe in their heart of hearts (witness, for example, Romney worrying about the consequences of the fiscal cliff, or their knee-jerk appeal to Keynesian principles when defense cuts are proposed). They have also concocted a story where a confidence fairy can make austerity work to support their ideological pursuit of smaller government. But this is quite a departure from the stimulative polices that Republicans presidents have pursued in recent years giving it every appearance of a belief of convenience rather than of true conviction. To me, the refusal to support policies they would have supported had the president been a Republican tells me everything I need to know about whether this is strategic or a true belief.
"The single most important thing we want to achieve is for President Obama to be a one-term president."
Such words lead some to the conclusion that Republicans will do anything, including short-circuiting the economy, in order to hurt Obama politically. Considering that presidents – and rarely opposition parties – are held electorally responsible for economic calamity, it's not a bad political strategy.
Then again, it's a hard accusation to prove: after all, one person's economic sabotage is another person's principled anti-government conservatism.
Beyond McConnell's words, though, there is circumstantial evidence to make the case. Republicans have opposed a lion's share of stimulus measures that once they supported, such as a payroll tax break, which they grudgingly embraced earlier this year. Even unemployment insurance, a relatively uncontroversial tool for helping those in an economic downturn, has been consistently held up by Republicans or used as a bargaining chip for more tax cuts. Ten years ago, prominent conservatives were loudly making the case for fiscal stimulus to get the economy going; today, they treat such ideas like they're the plague.
Traditionally, during economic recessions, Republicans have been supportive of loose monetary policy. Not this time. Rather, Republicans have upbraided Ben Bernanke, head of the Federal Reserve, for even considering policies that focus on growing the economy and creating jobs.
And then, there is the fact that since the original stimulus bill passed in February of 2009, Republicans have made practically no effort to draft comprehensive job creation legislation. Instead, they continue to pursue austerity policies, which reams of historical data suggest harms economic recovery and does little to create jobs. In fact, since taking control of the House of Representatives in 2011, Republicans have proposed hardly a single major jobs bill that didn't revolve, in some way, around their one-stop solution for all the nation's economic problems: more tax cuts.
http://economistsview.typepad.com/economistsview/2012/06/did-republicans-deliberately-crash-the-us-economy.html
|
Talking about compromise....
"I certainly think that bipartisanship ought to consist of Democrats coming to the Republican point of view." —Indiana Republican Senate candidate Richard Mourdock.
|
As I have mentioned previously in these threads, Bush let democrats pen some of his biggest pieces of legislation. Obama has done no such thing, and he really should have done it with Obamacare.
|
On June 15 2012 01:08 xDaunt wrote:
As I have mentioned previously in these threads, Bush let democrats pen some of his biggest pieces of legislation. Obama has done no such thing, and he really should have done it with Obamacare.
Eh? The individual mandate itself is the Repiblicans' idea, dating back to the Heritage Foundation in the late 80s and was the GOP congress' counter-proposal to Clintoncare in the 90s. Obama campaigned on a public option with no mandate (this was the major difference between his plan and Hillary's during the 08 primary, along with her insistence on community rating for premiums). when he became president, GOP congressmen talked him into changing over to include a mandate. The public option was also dropped to appease Republicans, as were some of the cost control measures.
|
On June 14 2012 23:59 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On June 14 2012 23:42 DeepElemBlues wrote:As for the political election problems, it's people like you that cause the problems. Recognition that it's not Obama's sole fault is key to understanding the gridlock. It's Congress that is the problem, and Obama doesn't have control of them in an election year. You're placing the blame on the wrong entity because you listen to the special-interest pandering, inflammatory rhetoric that you claim to despise, and intend to vote based on an irrational line of logic that they have put forward to you. In other words, your rant is the exact problem you purport to hate with the system. You're right, it's Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi's fault too. Unstoppable control of Congress for 1 year and only the filibuster able to stop anything for another 1 and what did they accomplish on the economy? A stimulus that achieved jack and shit respectively. The rest of their time they spent on a healthcare bill that 50% of the country absolutely hates and another 25% aren't really too keen about. Obama's at fault, deal with it. This a thousand times. Never before has a president accomplished so little with so much stacked in his favor. All he had to do was throw a few bones to republicans here and there and actually include them in the process. He could have saved himself sooooooo many problems -- the most significant of which being Obamacare.
Shame on you xDaunt and your BS revisionist history.
Democrats had a supermajority for half a year, tops. During this period, the democratic congress criticized Obama extensively for seeking compromise, and inviting Republican's to the table.
A reader writes:
"'We remember the president’s own party had a super majority in both houses for his first two years.'"
"I'm not sure how Romney defines a super majority, but my recollection was that the Dems only had a filibuster-proof majority (including two independents) from the time that Al Franken was finally seated (July 7, 2009) until the point that Teddy Kennedy passed away (August 25, 2009). That's only seven weeks, not two years."
And there was never a supermajority in the House as Romney claims. The balance at the start of the Congress was 257 - 178, which is a Democratic share of only 59 percent, not 67. So again, Romney simply lied. Obama never had a super majority in both Houses, let alone for two years. In the Senate, his super-majority lasted seven weeks.
Please stay vigilant. Your eyes are as good as ours. Scan Romney's statements for factual untruths - not embellishments or exaggerations, but empirically false statements. Update from a reader:
"Not to let Mitt Romney off the hook, because his "two years supermajority" claim is still blatantly false, but there was an interim Senator from Massachusetts who was, in fact, the 60th vote for healthcare reform after Ted Kennedy died. Paul Kirk served as interim Senator from Massachusetts from September 24, 2009 to February 4, 2010. Therefore, the Democrats had a Senate supermajority for seven weeks with Kennedy and nineteen weeks with Paul Kirk, for a total of 26 weeks, or half a year."
Update from another reader:
"By the time Al Franken was sworn in on July 7, 2009, Ted Kennedy had not cast a Senate vote for about four months because he was terminally ill with brain cancer. (He died on August 25, 2009.) Robert Byrd was also hospitalized from May 18 through June 30, 2009 and may not have been well enough to attend Congress and vote for some time afterward. Thus the Democrats did not really have the 60 votes needed to break a filibuster until Kirk took office. Byrd (who died in June 2010) was also periodically too ill to attend and vote during the September 2009-February 2010 period, though I have not been able to confirm this with a quick Google."
In summary, the myth that Democrats had a supermajority for two year to do whatever they wanted is 100% false.
Quite frankly, the level of obstruction that Obama faced from Republican Congress since his presidency started has was despicable, and unpatriotic. They were filibustering EVERYTHING.
And what kills me is that you're smart enough to know this. At least you pretend to be. I hope you're just being disingenuous.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
