Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

stopbush

(24,396 posts)
Sat Nov 10, 2012, 02:48 PM Nov 2012

For Fuck's Sake: "Obama Had A Super-Majority In Congress For 2 Years" Meme Reappears

I am hearing this shit from my RW friends. It's their way of saying that President Obama won't get anything done, because "he couldn't get anything done his first two years when he had a filibuster-proof Senate and a huge majority in the House."

Well, that's a LIE, of course.

First off, Obama's first two years in office encompass the period of Jan 2009 - Jan 2011. From Jan 2009 - July 2009, Norm Coleman sat in Al Franken's Senate seat. That's the first 6-plus months of Obama's first term. No super majority there.

Ted Kennedy died in Aug, 2009. Scott Brown won his Senate seat and took office in Feb 2010. Hey, there goes the entire second year in Obama's first term! You know, the year that ran from Jan 2010-Jan 2011. Brown taking office in Feb 2010 ended the D's super majority in the Senate, both technically and realistically.

So the best one can say is that the Ds had a supermajority in the Senate from the time Al Franken was seated until the time Scott Brown took office, ie: a 7.5 month period.

But that supermajority was only a technicality, because Teddy Kennedy cast his last Senate vote in April, 2009 and never returned. The actual viable supermajority didn't exist until Paul Kirk was sworn in as Teddy's replacement in September, 2009. But the Senate went home for the holidays in October, so no effective supermajority there, either.

In fact, the Ds had an effective supermajority in the Senate for a total of 24 days between the time Paul Kirk was sworn in and the time that Scott Brown was sworn in as Kirk's replacement. That's it. A mere three-plus weeks of legislative days, NOT two years. Not even one year. Not even 7 months.

How does a meme like that keep going to where Rmoney felt comfortable using that as a talking point during the campaign? How does it happen that the talking heads on TV repeat that LIE repeatedly and never get called on it?

And this fact doesn't even address their lie that Obama didn't get anything done in his first two years. That's a whole 'nother rant.

6 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
For Fuck's Sake: "Obama Had A Super-Majority In Congress For 2 Years" Meme Reappears (Original Post) stopbush Nov 2012 OP
delusion is their middle names..... madrchsod Nov 2012 #1
Plus if you look at the list EC Nov 2012 #2
I've argued this with left-wing friends frazzled Nov 2012 #3
And Even That 24 Day "Supermajority" Wasn't Real AndyTiedye Nov 2012 #4
Yep. Forgot that one. Mr "Independent Democrat." stopbush Nov 2012 #5
They also don't consider the Nelson Twins and Holy Joe Cirque du So-What Nov 2012 #6

EC

(12,287 posts)
2. Plus if you look at the list
Sat Nov 10, 2012, 02:50 PM
Nov 2012

of everything he did get accomplished it was during those two years. Of course that's why they don't like the stimulus or saving the auto industry or Lilly Leadbetter.

frazzled

(18,402 posts)
3. I've argued this with left-wing friends
Sat Nov 10, 2012, 02:51 PM
Nov 2012

Who insist Obama had a filibuster-proof majority in the Senate for two years. These memes persist. And it seems, alas, that no amount of explaining Franken, Kennedy, et al. helps.

Cirque du So-What

(25,951 posts)
6. They also don't consider the Nelson Twins and Holy Joe
Sat Nov 10, 2012, 02:53 PM
Nov 2012

whom the repugs could rely upon to vote against any remotely progressive legislation.

Latest Discussions»General Discussion»For Fuck's Sake: "Ob...