General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsI don't understand why some DU members show support for the FACTS that ...
... when Dems controlled the federal government with a super-majority in the Senate, all we got was a Heritage Foundation health insurance give-away, and when we lost the House and that super-majority slipped but we still had a majority in the Senate and the White House we got unregulated derivatives and more dark money in elections?
Isn't the Democratic Party supposed to do us better than that? How can one be a Democrat and say that this is OK?
Shouldn't Democrats be disgusted with these FACTS?
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
But evidently we're not supposed to say so.
pnwmom
(108,980 posts)had a super-majority sufficient to pass a more progressive health plan over a Rethug filibuster; and that when Ted Kennedy died and was replaced by a Rethug, we were at the mercy of Joe Lieberman, Independent from the insurance capital of the country, CT, who refused to support any plan that included a public option.
marym625
(17,997 posts)Why anyone thinks it's okay that we didn't try. Can't say we couldn't when we didn't even try.
Maraya1969
(22,484 posts)all. I remember how hard it was to get the health care that we do have. Remember that person spitting on one of our black Senators or Member of congress? (Forgot his name) Remember Nancy Pelosi pulling all sorts of tricks to get it passed. I am not an expert in any means on how things work in congress but I did remember they had to go backward and sideways to get Obamacare.
AllyCat
(16,192 posts)Ask for more than you want, and negotiate to something reasonably close to what you want.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)Know what the other wants and/or must have ... then, ask for more than what you want, levering their need to get it.
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)None, no? Which means the bill passed with ONLY Dem support. So we DID have enough power to pass a HC Bill without Republicans. Now, why didn't they simply add a PO with all that power?
Can you answer that question?
pnwmom
(108,980 posts)when it got passed, and without whose vote we couldn't have overcome the filibuster. He objected to a public option because he was the Senator from CT, the headquarters of national insurance companies. (Sanders was the other Independent, but he voted for the ACA unconditionally. He didn't threaten to withhold his vote unless the bill satisfied him in every respect.)
If Ted Kennedy hadn't died and been replaced by a Rethug, everything wouldn't have hinged on Lieberman. But it did.
Bandit
(21,475 posts)Joe and Ben Nelson didn't matter on whit.
pasto76
(1,589 posts)which takes us back to lieberman
merrily
(45,251 posts)merrily
(45,251 posts)It only take 50 Senators plus the VP to pass. The stumbling block, if any would be the cloture rule. So the cloture rule is the key. If it applies, what would be the advantage of passing by reconciliation?
And, no matter what, I believe Reid would have had the power to require a real filibuster.
merrily
(45,251 posts)
Enthusiast
(50,983 posts)Maraya1969
(22,484 posts)remember what a stressful time that was?
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)he supported McCain/Palin, with a STANDING OVATION?
That is nonsense, Lieberman does what he is told, he wasn't pressured at all to vote for a PO.
YOU are forgetting the president stated he was not going to push for it.
So let's stop with the excuses, people are way, way smarter now than they were just a few years ago as we got to see the whole system play itself out.
We didn't get a PO because the Health Insurance Industry didn't want it. Period. And our elected officials work for Corporations far more than they work for the people.
It's better to stop trying to excuse the inexcusable, no one believes the excuses anymore anyhow, except for a few who still desperately want to believe that their team actually works for them. I was there once too, but the evidence is too overwhelming to continue to be as deluded as I was back then.
MrMickeysMom
(20,453 posts)What amnesia some people develop over this mistake.
One lesson is learned… I understand more than ever who he corporate masters are, and that doesn't leave anyone in charge of the store for how this legislation is supposed to have worked. It worked for the "industry".
pnwmom
(108,980 posts)You knew perfectly well that Lieberman was an Independent then, but you forget that fact whenever it suits your argument.
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)Those privileges were important to him. FDR would have called him into his office, told him either vote for what the voters want, or go back to your bitter, railing, one man party where you belong.'
Dems did not even TRY to pressure him.
Obama let him off the hook by telling everyone who had entrusted him with the power to do what the voters wanted, that HE wasn't going to fight for the OP.
Why did you leave that out?
pnwmom
(108,980 posts)You can't say that the Dems didn't even try to pressure him. You weren't there and don't know what was going on behind the scenes.
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)suggested from the beginning but were attacked and told how 'retarded' their ideas were, reconciliation, which means it could easily have included a PO.
No Joe necessary, not a single Republican needed, so why did Dems not do it?
I think by now we all know that answer to that which is why it's getting more and more difficult to push the excuses that are growing very, very old.
And the voters are taking matters into their own hands now.
Aside from all that, Lieberman was given MORE POWER in the Dem Party AFTER his spectacular betrayal of his party, than GOOD PROGRESSIVE DEMS like Kucinich eg.
Why was that man you just described accurately, given that much power in a party he betrayed? Did the VOTERS want that?
NO! But voters don't seem to matter much to the Dem Party Leadership and they ARE taking not of that.
pnwmom
(108,980 posts)was the Senate bill that had already been passed -- with his vote. Once the Rethugs took over the Senate, all the House could do was pass the Senate version -- the conservative one that Kennedy and Lieberman had both voted for.
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)Response to pnwmom (Reply #239)
jhart3333 This message was self-deleted by its author.
markpkessinger
(8,401 posts)AllyCat
(16,192 posts)Kelvin Mace
(17,469 posts)Who had the power to change the filibuster rules in a manner which would have required the GOP to actually do it "old school" and stand up and actually talk to filibuster a bill, but refused?
nationalize the fed
(2,169 posts)advocates arrested at a hearing. Why is that? If a Republican had done that there would have been marches on the Capitol.
Baucus’s Raucous Caucus: Doctors, Nurses and Activists Arrested Again for Protesting Exclusion of Single-Payer Advocates at Senate Hearing on Healthcare
Advocates of single-payer universal healthcare — the system favored by most Americans — continue to protest their exclusion from discussions on healthcare reform. On Tuesday, five doctors, nurses and single-payer advocates were arrested at a Senate Finance Committee hearing, bringing the total number of arrests in less than a week to thirteen. We speak with two of those arrested: Single Payer Action founder Russell Mokhiber and Dr. Margaret Flowers of Physicians for a National Health Program.
Transcript
http://www.democracynow.org/2009/5/13/baucus_raucus_caucus_doctors_nurses_and
This Baucus character is now the US Ambassador to China, being rewarded for his good "work".
bvar22
(39,909 posts)...in this shameful Kabuki Theater put on by the Obama Administration.
President Obama appointed Max as the Ambassador to China... a PLUM spot that many politicians would kill for.
Max is now filling up all those offshore accounts.
If somebody ruined your Health Care Package,
would you reward them with riches and a cushy life?
.....Or make sure they never held a responsible position again?
Watch what they do.
merrily
(45,251 posts)from the Senate or run as an Indie and he caucused with the Dems. I think a poster can be excused from repeated accusations of lying simply because she includes him in with the Dems, instead of referring to "members of the Dem Caucus" And her post did begin with specific reference to Republicans.
However, Ted Kennedy was not replaced by Brown, but by Ted's handpicked successor, who served from September 24, 2009 – February 4, 2010, when Brown succeeded Kirk.
pnwmom
(108,980 posts)his weight around.
And the poster knew it.
And you know that there was nothing Paul Kirk could have done to ensure that a more progressive bill could have passed. The bill that passed with Kennedy's vote was the one without a public option, because that's the only one they could get through the Senate.
abakan
(1,819 posts)merrily
(45,251 posts)That is not how they are typically referred to, but what the heck? Close enough for folk music.
Adrahil
(13,340 posts)The less we are like them, the better.
merrily
(45,251 posts)I deplore and grieve what they have done to the Party I love with their RW philosophies, as well as how they chose to do it, from within, like the Kochs chose to have the Tea Party work within the Republican Party. The Kochs donated to the DLC at the same time that Mayer of the New Yorker says they were conceiving of the Tea Party. I cannot help but wonder if the DLC idea inspired their methodology.
I also share your abhorrence of purity tests. By the same token, I also find loyalty oaths, repugnant and also reminiscent of the excesses of the RW, J. Edgar Hoover, Joe McCarthy, et al. Declared unconstitutional, they were, I think.
I am sorry that you don't like the term Third Wayers. However, I don't know of another term for those who espouse Third Way philosophies whose meaning is unmistakeably. Do you also dislike the terms Blue Dogs, DINOs, etc. (I was replying to a post about DINOs,, who are, IMO, close relatives of Third Wayers, but not necessarily identical, and was noting the existence of a difference between the two, as well as similarities.)
I use to used DLCers, but then the overly literal kept pointing out that the corporation had dissolved,d which I knew--but, sadly, the philosophies had survived the relatively meaningless event (in this context) of technical corporate dissolution.
Adrahil
(13,340 posts).... Setting up some standard of who is and isn't a Democrat. Last I saw, Clinton has HUGE support in the party, but many here would dismiss her as a Third Way DINO.
Argue for ideas, not labels and checklists.
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)From their own words on their position on issues of great importance to the American People.
Democrats do not support the Privatization of Public Funds such as SS and Medicaid and Education eg.
The Third Way does.
Democrats do not support draining our treasury to pour tax dollars into Forever Wars.
The Third Way does.
Democrats do not support Corporations over People.
The Third Way does.
And Democrats do not attack good Democrats who DO fight for the people like Elizabeth Warren for doing so.
The Third does and have and still are.
They are group of Wall St Investment Bankers whose policies are far more in line with Republicans than with Democrats.
They have settled in the Dem Party, since the Repubs are already owned by Wall St, with the intention of turning the Dem Party into another Corporate Party by supporting Candidates, like Baucus eg, to make sure that at least half of OUR party will be sure to support Wall St's agenda.
Enough cannot be said about this infiltration of our party at this point, before it is too late to stop them from demonizing good Dems and installing more of their Corporate Funded candidates.
Too bad we didn't know about them when they first started implementing their agenda in our party.
But we do now. They have zero connection to the People.
And the people have finally begun to figure out WHY their party had become so unresponsive to their needs.
Adrahil
(13,340 posts)will label anyone they want to discredit as a "third wayer" or DINO.
I don't like such tactics. Either the ideas succeed within the party, or they do not.
That's what the primary process is supposed to be about, right?
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)politicians to do the job they want done for the betterment of this country and its people.
The Third Way Think Tank supports candidates who will support Corporate entities.
If a candidate is supported by this Think Tank then they are rightly identified as part of the problem.
The Third Way eg, HATES Elizabeth Warren and have publicly attacked her, though they received so much backlash they are now refusing to respond to questions about that attack.
They LIKE Hillary Clinton and are pushing her as a candidate for the WH due to her Hawkish policies and to the fact that she is so Corporate/Wall St friendly.
So why do you object to people stating facts?
This organization is a Third Party within in OUR Party, they have no time for the 'Left' yet are ensconced in the Party of the Left.
If Hillary doesn't want to be identified with them, then she needs to do what Sen. Warren has done, openly criticize their policies.
So far, she has not done so. Warren has.
Those are facts, no one is making them up.
merrily
(45,251 posts)candidate's life, esp. his or her political life, is not appropriate.
In the case of Hillary, Third Way is not a guess or an approximation. She was a founding member of the DLC, a think tank that promulgated philosophies that, for reasons that I gave you in my first reply to you, I label Third Way, rather than DLC. Third Way, Progressive Policy Institute, Center for American Progress, No Labels, all think tanks emanating from the DLC, all think tanks pushing the same or very similar political philosophies.
You're saying it's somehow not only wrong, but teabagger-like to label Hillary with the political philosophies of a political organization that she helped found and whose philosophies she espoused and promoted, in the US and abroad?
Maybe someday I will do an OP on this.
merrily
(45,251 posts)Rue.
I would bet everything I own that most Americans still don't know.
merrily
(45,251 posts)Last edited Wed Jan 21, 2015, 01:30 PM - Edit history (1)
Because those are very different discussions.
Let's see. In Reply 103, , sabrina 1 wondered why Democrats did not add a public option to the ACA. In Reply 198, abakan replied to sabrina 1 "Blue Dogs and DINOs" and, in Reply 204, I pointed out, in my own way, that Third Wayers were also involved, while also pointing out that Third Wayers are similar in some ways to Blue Dogs and DINOs, but also dissimilar in other ways and therefore in their own category, not simply part of Blue Dogs and DINOs. So, to that, you replied implying that my post was comparable to being a teabagger?
By any chance, did you have some comment about the what the post you were supposedly replying to actually said and meant?
You can oppose "third wayers" without........ Setting up some standard of who is and isn't a Democrat.
Yes, thank you, I know, I have, and I do. Moreover, offhand, I don't recall posting any standard of who is and who is not a Democrat.
Did you have in mind a specific post of mine that sets up a standard for who is and who is not a Democrat? If so can you recall what it said or give me a link?
FYI, my simply using the term Third Way does not do that. There are also many subcategories of Democrats: DINO and Blue Dog, both of which were in abakan's post that I had replied to, liberal, neoliberal, (heaven help me) progressive, New Democrat, etc. Also, (and, as distinguished from New Democrat), "traditional Democrat," which is how I most like to describe my own type of Democrat.
Acknowledging that different subgroups within the party exist is reality. Using the appropriate term when relevant is not wrong and simply doing that does not that all or all of the other categories are not Democrats. If your view is otherwise we disagree.
But, before I leave that subject, are you implying that there should be no standard at all of who is and is not a Democrat, apart from perhaps having registered as a Democrat when one turned 21 or consciously switched parties? Doesn't the Democratic Party platform set up a form of standard?
Last I saw, Clinton has HUGE support in the party, but many here would dismiss her as a Third Way DINO.
I think the party has put a lot of time and effort into making sure that Hillary has as much support within the party as the party can manage to give her. However, I don't see the amount of support Hillary has relevant to whether use of "Third Wayer" is legitimate or not. That is not an issue determined by a popularity contest.
Also, calling Hillary Third Way; calling Hillary a DINO; claiming Hillary is not a Democrat; dismissing Hillary; and support for Hillary within the Party are five different discussions, not a single one of which had a thing to do with the post of mine to which you replied.
Argue for ideas, not labels and checklists.
Again, are you implying that some post of mine in which I allegedly put down discussing ideas or created some checklist?
Or is your real point in all this simply that, in your opinion, I should not call Hillary a DLCers or a Third Wayer? And, rather than begin this exchange with that, you for some reason felt a need to begin it by implying that I was behaving like a teabagger? Cause, frankly, that is what this is starting to feel like.
merrily
(45,251 posts)Depending on who is counting, there were 90 to 100 days when Kennedy or his appointee (technically Patrick's but Ted chose him) were available to vote. Ted's death was no surprise to anyone and how the hell long does it take to vote anyway, if that is what you want? Ted's death was not the issue anyway.
Brown became Senator after a special election in which the Dem candidate got precious little national support even though it was an important election and the only federal occurring anywhere in the nation at that time.
The Lieberman is also shibboleth, in my opinion. The cake was baked before any Senator and that woman who worked for the insurance industry took pen in hand and there is less than zero evidence that anyone tried to convince Lieberman, nicely or not so nicely, that he should vote.
The deal was struck during all those meetings before and after the election between members of the Obama administration and representatives of the insurance industry, the pharmaceutical industry, big health (AMA, hospital associations, etc.), etc. That's why the WH refused the FOIA request of the ACLU sued for the White House logs and why the ACLU sued for them after its request was refused.
It's not that anyone refuses to understand anything. It's that some don't buy into the memes and official stories and therefore don't interpret events the same as those of you who do buy into them. And, based on how many times I've seen exchanges like this on DU, I have to believe that DUers know that. Why it continues to be framed as a refusal to understand when it is a difference of opinion is beyond me.
Scuba
(53,475 posts)... is a way to avoid dealing with the real issue of holding elected Democrats accountable.
Fuddnik
(8,846 posts)Yes you do. Admitting it is the problem.
Something about a river in Egypt.
Hekate
(90,714 posts)Thanks for bringing up the actual facts for the thousandth time.
pa28
(6,145 posts)"Well, no. I think I got pressure from the president to be for health care reform," Lieberman said when asked by HuffPost about any pressure from the administration to support either the public option or the Medicare buy-in. "I'd have to think about this, but I didn't really have direct input from the White House on this."
Obama got the bill he wanted.
Autumn
(45,107 posts)Wait. Why do we get told all the time that we have to elect blue dogs because they aren't republicans?
KG
(28,751 posts)that one had me chuckling...
Autumn
(45,107 posts)
I don't even chuckle about it anymore, their motives are so obvious. 
SidDithers
(44,228 posts)I always find posts like yours fucking hilarious. One would think that everyone that posts at DU would think that electing more Democrats is better than electing Republicans.
Sid
whatchamacallit
(15,558 posts)They don't. Rooster says "cock a doodle doo", party loyalists say "any dem will do".
YoungDemCA
(5,714 posts)is better than any Republican.
whatchamacallit
(15,558 posts)not the percentage. Many dems have sold out on those issues.
merrily
(45,251 posts)And, how unified the Caucus is or not that 75% of the time.
You almost described Scott Brown, except that he voted with the Democrats more than 75% of the time and was a Republican
Scott Brown "voted with Obama" 78% of the time" because Republicans had no problem with it, as long as they did not need his vote. Of that 78%, his vote was almost never the deciding one. The one time it was really important, he used as a bargaining chip to make the bill much worse for Democrats. So, the Republicans did get that out of him I guess. Otherwise, he got much, much more from his caucus than he did for it. And he did nothing at all for the caucus that he voted with most of the time, which was the Dem caucus.
merrily
(45,251 posts)
BlueCaliDem
(15,438 posts)MrMickeysMom
(20,453 posts)Remember big ole Max Baucus as chair of the Senate finance committee? He was primarily responsible for drafting the health care bill. It was HE who was the major obstacle to incorporating a "public option" into the bill.
Yes, let's elect more like that.
D I N O
SidDithers
(44,228 posts)a 0% rating from the National Right to Life Association and a 7% rating from the conservative Campaign for Working Families.
The Republican who now holds his seat has numbers that are exactly the opposite, 0% from NARAL, 100% from National Right to Life, and 100% from Campaign for Working Families.
That you think Baucus is nothing more than a DINO shows just how little regard you have for women's issues.
Only a Republican, or a fucking idiot, would rather that Senate seat be occupied by someone other than a Democrat.
Only a political ideologue, or a fucking idiot, couldn't find some issue where even a conservative Democrat is better than the Republican.
Sid
whatchamacallit
(15,558 posts)Maybe the party needs more Canadians!
SidDithers
(44,228 posts)
Sid
whatchamacallit
(15,558 posts)
diS
Bobbie Jo
(14,341 posts)You have nothing in the way of an actual response to his post.
MrMickeysMom
(20,453 posts)I mean, you either think I'm a Republican or a fucking idiot. Either one is not a remark fit for this board, and frankly, you know better.
Since neither one is true, surely you're talking about someone else.
merrily
(45,251 posts)sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)I think it's hilarious when people on a Dem forum push candidates that are not Democrats.
The tide is turning, thankfully, the voters are speaking loud and clear about who and what they want running OUR PARTY.
And across the country they are taking matters into their own hands and getting what they want in their local communities, which is what they have been unable to get from DC. Finding and supporting Democrats locally and they will be the future of our Dem Party.
Action_Patrol
(845 posts)Were elected in red/'purple' districts. You can get angry about them and call them DINOs if you want but those numbers are the ones that gave us control of the chambers and committees.
Everything doesn't always go the way I would prefer it too but given the current political landscape, I for one miss those ousted Blue Dogs.
IMHO.
Jamastiene
(38,187 posts)You have to actually do something, I don't know, kinda sorta liberal, with a majority when you have it or it's pointless to have a majority. Kind of hard to do that with Blue Dogs who are going to vote with the Republicans anyhow. In that case, it is not an effective or usable majority. It is a MINO, majority in name only.
Action_Patrol
(845 posts)The ACA was passed. It never would have had a chance. Single-Payer was never ever on the table. It would never have passed and they knew it.
The fight for our Supreme Court Justices? Also a win with a Democratic Majority.
All the judicial nominees that were held up and were able to be jammed through to do a parliamentary loophole? That was the Democratic Senate Majority.
Sorry, I strongly disagree with your assertion.
daleanime
(17,796 posts)for a bed time story.
Not sure what you are replying to.
BlueCaliDem
(15,438 posts)Weird.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)Autumn
(45,107 posts)Sooner or later they will get sick of republican rule and smarten up. We can concentrate on getting more Democrats in other areas.
Action_Patrol
(845 posts)Have the ability to 'smarten up'.
Autumn
(45,107 posts) Action_Patrol
(845 posts)Insert multiple smileys to express my outrage.
There are districts that will always vote against their best interests.
They aren't going to suddenly see our way.
I am envious of your rose colored glasses.
I wish I had some.
Autumn
(45,107 posts)I'm done with conversing with you and your broad brush insults.
Action_Patrol
(845 posts)heaven05
(18,124 posts)and you run......
Autumn
(45,107 posts)
I live in those red areas and I know and offered my opinion. You have a nice day too, I prefer not to argue with silliness, when you offer nothing there is no reason to discuss anything with you.SidDithers
(44,228 posts)Sid
BlueCaliDem
(15,438 posts)LanternWaste
(37,748 posts)"I am envious of your rose colored glasses..."
Quite the petulant way to indicate disagreement over a premise.
(insert rationalization below)
Action_Patrol
(845 posts)'A disagreement over a premise'.
Being called ignorant for not seeing someone else's opinion?
A Simple Game
(9,214 posts)Republican running as a Democrat is no choice.
YoungDemCA
(5,714 posts)I'm not sure that's a good assumption to make.
A Simple Game
(9,214 posts)That's good, now name me 5 super-progressives in blue states! Don't use the Google machine.
I know polls show people in red states want many progressive programs polls show it when they are not push polled the wrong way.
YoungDemCA
(5,714 posts)Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren come to mind.
merrily
(45,251 posts)He did run against both Democrats and Republicans in Burlington and beat them both. Then, they decided to join forces against him and both back a single candidate. He still won.
merrily
(45,251 posts)hell that means, when there are so many words in the dictionary that could make it sound even more unlikely?
The word progressive seems to mean different things to different people. I doubt anyone in Western Massachusetts is trying to figure out what makes a centrist different from a progressive or a progressive different from a super progressive. But there are some realities.
Obama's ratings were heading toward 40 and the 2014 midterm election, despite all the supposedly popular centrists we ran, was the worst for Democrats since 1928. 1928. That's the year before 1929.
And the last horrific election for Democrats, despite all the allegedly "electible" centrists we ran at every level, was the midterm election of 2012. So the centrists are not doing the election trick.
Then Obama talks free junior college, lowering taxes for the middle class and raising them on the rich and his approval plummeted even further? No, they went to the 50% neighborhood. Or maybe it was lower gas prices. But, it was bread and butter issues for the majority and not for big business.
gcomeau
(5,764 posts)...but ceding Congressional or Senate seats on that basis hurts the whole country. And then they refuse to accept it's the people *they* elected who were really responsible, it was those other not-conservative-enough congress people!!!!
No. All congressional and Senate seats are seats to fight for. Always.
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)when it counted. Having Blue Damn Dog Dems only gives the perception of having control.
Action_Patrol
(845 posts)Being in charge of committees and the floor schedule is more than perception.
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)we are killing innocent people with drones, we are redistributing income from the lower classes to the wealthy, we have lost our democracy, etc. Tell me how well "being in charge of committees" is as long as we have traitor Blue Dogs.
And if you are happy with the status quo, support H. Clinton-Sachs.
Action_Patrol
(845 posts)You're damn right I will. It will still be someone more in line with my ideology being nominated for the Supreme Court.
You want to sit at home with your righteous indignation? Feel free to. Hope it helps you sleep at night.
I'll support any Dem that gets the nomination.
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)with a "D" behind their name. No thinking required. Just go to the poll and vote for the D. And some wonder why the Oligarchs have such control. All they have to do is control the Democratic Machine and some don't care. Any D will do.
I won't be sitting home, I've never sat home. But I ask more from my candidates than knowing which letter they have behind their name.
If asking my Democratic candidates to have Democratic principles is righteous, then that's me.
H. Clinton selling the Republican lies revealed she has no integrity. Did she believe the lies? Did she think helping Bush/Cheney was politically expedient? What? She made her choice.
Action_Patrol
(845 posts)So you will vote? You are saying you won't sit it out? Then you are saying what I'm saying only candy coated in outrage.
I would love for my perfect candidate to have the nomination. If that doesn't happen, I'll take who through the democratic nomination process becomes our candidate.
Is that clear enough?
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)Not sure of the motivation. I think it's those that love the status quo and are afraid progressives are going to upset the Oligarch Rulers. In my experience it isn't the progressives that stay home, it's the conservatives. On one hand progressives are labeled crazy liberals and then on the other hand lazy stay at homes.
Those that you need to build a fire under are those in the general public that don't recognize a significant difference between Corporate Democrats and Corporate Republicans. Let's get together and nominate some progressives and try for a better America instead of conservatives that are fine with the status quo.
Some call the passion from progressives as "outrage" in an apparent attempt to ridicule. I welcome the ridicule. Call me outraged. I am outraged at the state of the nation. I'd rather have a party that gets outraged than apathetic.
Action_Patrol
(845 posts)You seem to be inferring that I have a predisposed position on something.
I would love for our ranks to be packed with progressives.
It isn't the lot we have, especially in the case of our highest offices.
Scuba
(53,475 posts)rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)What can their motive be? Are they that afraid of progressive politics? I think they've been taught that they don't deserve much and not to ask for much. "I will settle for the ACA because we don't deserve Single Payer."
Scuba
(53,475 posts)rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)will trust their children to priests and coaches and scout leaders. That's why citizens will let the NSA/CIA Deep State spy on us all. That's why they hate whistle-blowers, investigative journalists and protesters, they might make the All-Mighty Authoritarian leader mad.
We have millions of children living in poverty and I plan on being outraged until we fix that. Some of the conservatives here try to ridicule the left by saying that we are overly outraged. They haven't seen nothin yet.
merrily
(45,251 posts)What about that strong public option that was supposed to be the key to controlling insurance costs when Obama ran and
shrunk (according to him) to a "sliver" by the summer of 2009, when all the town meetings were being held?
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)option. It's my opinion that some have been beaten with a newspaper so much that they don't think they deserve much. They've been told all their life that the wishes of the left are like wishing for a unicorn. They've been taught to settle for the lesser of evils even when the difference is imperceptible. They sneer when some aren't happy with their crumbs. All we deserve is cake.
merrily
(45,251 posts)Your post just happened to be the one that prompted me to ask the question. Probably should have asked someone else.
Going to the issue you were trying to address: "why some would settle for ACA instead of single payer or a public option."
Did we have a choice not to "settle?"
First, we elected the guy who said "strong public option and no individual mandate" over the woman who said "indvidual mandate."
There were demonstrations. There were marches. IIRC, one group of doctors mI arched across country, but I could be misremembering that.
There were articles galore on the net and in tangible media.. Broadcasts. Ed Shultz was doing shows about how great the need was and shows broadcasting from free clinics. Bill Moyers did quite a few of his shows. One of them was about a female doctor who asked someone inside the gate if they could pass a note to Obama. The Secret Service detained here for questioning, but no one passed the note.
Didn't a retired insurance executive get in the mix as well, blowing the whistle on his own industry?
Someone in the House even tried to pass a drug reimportation bill and, reportedly, the white House shut it down.
I sent more emails and made more phone calls to my Rep, both my Senators and the WH than I ever have before or since. At least twice a week. And my Rep and Senators were quite liberal and, in theory, should not have required any imploring. One of whom was Kennedy, who called health care "the cause of my life." (and it was). And in the White House was the man who ran on exactly what I was asking him to do (if single payer was impossible). I had donated as much as I humanly could to his campaign. In theory, I did not need to keep after any of them. I did it anyway, to make sure.
That's off the top of my head. If I did some googling, I'd probably find a lot more.
Was there something more that could have been done within the law and we citizens missed it?
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)merrily
(45,251 posts)Oh, they say they'd just love them a more liberal candidate who can win, but there isn't one. (And they sure aren't fighting for one, nor are they cheering on anyone who is. Au contraire.)
And there is no perfect candidate.
So no, what you're saying isn't clear at all, except "Vote for the nominee no matter what" bit. And the more I see posts like that, the harder I am finding to believe the other bits.
Action_Patrol
(845 posts)You don't know me or anything I've said or done.
Have a lovely evening.
merrily
(45,251 posts) Action_Patrol
(845 posts)YoungDemCA
(5,714 posts)When is 'when it counted"? Who decides what "counts", and what doesn't?
And I'm confused: I thought President Obama was to blame for not being progressive enough. Now you're telling me that it was those Blue Dogs in Congress? Which is it?
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)decision to invade Iraq. I hope that isn't in dispute. We needed our Democratic representatives to stand up to Bush and the war mongers. But some Democrats betrayed us and crawled before the King. H. Clinton not only joined Bush and Cheney in their quest for war, SHE HELPED SELL THE LIES. She shares the responsibility of the disaster. Shame on those that are willing to give her another chance to betray us. There are a lot of great Democrats why support her?
President Obama was too conservative AND the Damn Blue Dogs continually stabbed us in the back.
We need change.
Scuba
(53,475 posts)
jwirr
(39,215 posts)liberally during that short period. If all of you are suggesting that the Rs had no way of obstructing things then you are wrong. They started obstructing on inauguration day. Using every trick in the books.
Plus somewhere in the archives is a long list of things the Democrats accomplished if anyone cares to look. To say they did nothing is to show how little one knows about what has been going on.
As to the damned blue dogs. I also dislike them having lived in Iowa and Nebraska but you do not control anything in Congress without a majority. If all blue dogs states had sent Rs we would never have had control of anything.
I think that all candidates should run on a very liberal platform but I would like to see the list of states where DUers live that would now have a R instead of a blue dog.
I will start with the two I listed above since I was a very active Democrat in those states when I lived in them - got to be a damned good loser. Iowa and Nebraska. Okay Duers would your state elect a D if they supported a very liberal agenda?
BlueCaliDem
(15,438 posts)MrMickeysMom
(20,453 posts)So they could lead us WHERE, exactly?
Action_Patrol
(845 posts)Have been laid out already.
You are 100% correct that we didn't get a liberal wonderland.
Read through the thread or not. It's up to you.
Adrahil
(13,340 posts)
treestar
(82,383 posts)It's delusional to claim more liberals Democrats can be elected in blue states.
Autumn
(45,107 posts) BlueCaliDem
(15,438 posts)Only the deluded would believe that we can get a Liberal elected in deep red areas of the country. The best we can hope for is a Blue Dog, but with Blue Dogs, it will still give us the majority and the majority sets the agenda in the chamber, not the minority.
Autumn
(45,107 posts)
There are those of us who consider blue dogs to be moderate republicans, BlueCaliDem
(15,438 posts)I mean, you always are, but particularly so this morning. Why is that? Upset that President Obama's approval rating has hit 50%? That the economy is growing, unemployment is dropping, ACA is working, that there's been 58 consecutive months of positive job growth? Getting too much for you?
Autumn
(45,107 posts)Did I bring Obama up? I'm pretty sure I responded about blue dogs but nice try. I think that you out did your usual little psychic shtick.
Scuba
(53,475 posts)BlueCaliDem
(15,438 posts)Scuba
(53,475 posts)BlueCaliDem
(15,438 posts)Ad hominem: adjective: appealing to one's prejudices, emotions, or special interests rather than to one's intellect or reason.
And the post I will refer to is your OP. It's not fact. It's an attempt to appeal to some people's prejudices, emotions, and special interests rather than to their intellect or reason, as many posters under your OP have demonstrated..
I'm happy to have cleared that up for you.
Scuba
(53,475 posts)Autumn
(45,107 posts)it reeked of desperation. Obama should have high approval ratings they way he's been talking and after the SOTU they will be higher.
Autumn
(45,107 posts)to suggest all these Liberal, populist goals at the SOTU speech. I think if he does his approval rating will shoot up at the very least by 6 points. What do you think?
BlueCaliDem
(15,438 posts)Autumn
(45,107 posts)6 points or more? No answer eh? Or just not interested in discussing issues?
BlueCaliDem
(15,438 posts)
There. There's the answer. Happy now?
Autumn
(45,107 posts) BlueCaliDem
(15,438 posts) Autumn
(45,107 posts)bvar22
(39,909 posts)...to support ANY Progressive Issue,
.
.
.
.
as long as it has NO chance of passing.
That makes for good poll approval numbers and video-bytes during the next campaign.
Watch what they DO.
merrily
(45,251 posts)Autumn
(45,107 posts)republicans have kids that go to community college too.
merrily
(45,251 posts)make those more affordable did not succeed.
But, you may be right because one of the considerations is "We don't want the other side to get credit for this, so let's stall it until we can pass it, preferably with a Republican President."
Why I say that:
Kennedy admitted doing that with Nixon's plan because he wanted a Democratic President to get credit for it. Though I did not hear Kennedy admit to more, Carter claimed that Kennedy did the same to his (Carter's) health plan. So, my guess was that, at some point, Kennedy decided that he wanted to be the Democratic President who got credit for it! Still the health legislation he got through was formidable. I read the list of bills when he passed.
Anyway, I hope you are right and you well may be.
Autumn
(45,107 posts)merrily
(45,251 posts)Autumn
(45,107 posts)merrily
(45,251 posts)"To those of you who voted, I hear you. To those who didn't vote, "I hear you too."
Autumn
(45,107 posts)
merrily
(45,251 posts)
My niece: "you have to be careful what you wish for, Auntie, because the wish fairy has no return counter."
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)get rid of them', THEY were blamed for solving that problem.
Then it was the Republicans' fault, even though airc, not one Repub voted for the ACA which means Dems could have included a PO. And airc, same thing with the Bailouts. Repubs left it to Dems that time, they took care of it last time with some help from Dems.
But then we were told that the Party Leadership can't control their own party. That a PO would not have been supported by SOME Dems.
So no matter how you look at it, Dems can't win even when they win.
Maybe in the Minority the can. After all the Minority was extremely powerful over the past few years.
Autumn
(45,107 posts)anyway. Funny how Obama and Jamie worked their magic got the votes for what they wanted on the omnibus isn't it? I call that some control.
tblue
(16,350 posts)or will they pull the plug on that? And will the Dem minority even try to use it? 
Not hopeful but I can't wait to find out. I do think we are being played by both sides to some degree.
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)But had they done that, they would not have been able to use it as an excuse. Any mom knows that when your child is constantly making excuses for his/her behavior, they are most likely trying to get away with something they shouldn't get away with.
Too many excuses to believe that even with a majority, Dems appeared to be powerless.
Oilwellian
(12,647 posts)A little peek behind the curtain:
MisterP
(23,730 posts)2004: no national primaries!
2006: no complaining when they torpedo a state primary!
2009: no complaining about policies!
2010: no not voting!
2014: no not bringing 20 people to the booths!
2016: no nothing!
KG
(28,751 posts)that would be my guess.
Jamastiene
(38,187 posts)K&R
MisterP
(23,730 posts)so they can get on the frontpage
or reblogging that Canadian who said that he's foreign and therefore Americans are not ever allowed to complain about their leaders
or an OP from a site with Sanders and Obama at the top like they're pushing the same ideas but to different degrees
HughBeaumont
(24,461 posts)Multi-payer at the VERY least should have happened.
Instead, we got GOP BigInsuranceCare, thanks to Big Health ReaganDem arselickers like Baucus and Lieberturd.
Octafish
(55,745 posts)Nice to know they're thinking about the Little People, at least those who aren't, as Rahm said, "fucking retarded."
olddots
(10,237 posts)We humans waste so much time reacting that the good of all gets pushed aside .Politics is a system that will have to be replaced eventually .
If we don't have answers we should listen to questions .
hughee99
(16,113 posts)Even if it means not examining what was actually won.
world wide wally
(21,744 posts)When they are in the minority, the rule applies. When they are in the majority or the White House, it is on steroids.
Now, we'll have to ask Harry Reid why Dems are too cowardly to fight against them
merrily
(45,251 posts)Ed Suspicious
(8,879 posts)1bigdude
(91 posts)backstage.
backscatter712
(26,355 posts)
1bigdude
(91 posts)Octafish
(55,745 posts)And if you decide like Boss Tweed, you Win-Win. Every time.
A real darling. An inspiration. Made the trains run like clockwork.
kath
(10,565 posts)
tkmorris
(11,138 posts)Well done.
woo me with science
(32,139 posts)candelista
(1,986 posts)
treestar
(82,383 posts)The country just isn't. The average voter is scared regarding the ACA and that's it's too socialist. After it has been around a few years they might calm down and maybe we can make more progress. When they see it didn't turn us into a communist tyranny.
That's my take on them letting the Rs have the house, too. They are afraid Obama would do more socialistic types of things.
We haven't sold a majority on socialism, and blaming the Democrats isn't going to convince the voters.
Scuba
(53,475 posts)
NoJusticeNoPeace
(5,018 posts)want to pay their part of the bill.
tridim
(45,358 posts)But you choose to ignore it and instead highlight the Democrats who were the victims of the systematic REPUBLICAN obstruction that the Republicans announced on the day Obama was elected.
Heckuva job factboy!
Scuba
(53,475 posts)Autumn
(45,107 posts)Blue dogs are nothing more than moderate republicans.
tridim
(45,358 posts)You know they obstructed EVERYTHING with their bullshit filibusters.
How? They just did it because they are assholes and 100% regressive. Pay attention next time.
Erich Bloodaxe BSN
(14,733 posts)Democrats... until just before Republicans were handed majority status.
Action_Patrol
(845 posts)It shouldnt be done away with.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)10 of which Congress was not in session.
Stop using rightwing talking points ... Or, at least understand why they create a false image.
SidDithers
(44,228 posts)Any port in a storm for the perpetually outraged.
Sid
SunSeeker
(51,574 posts)It relies on the lie that Republicans were not filibustering everything in sight. I have yet to have anyone here refute the fact that Obama had only 24 working days of a filibuster-proof supermajority in the Senate. But there are plenty here who are happy to repeat the right wing talking point that Dems had control of Congress for the entirety of Obama's first term.
SunSeeker
(51,574 posts)BlueCaliDem
(15,438 posts)No. It would take away their reason for being perpetually outraged at this president and Democrats...and then they have the unmitigated gall to claim they support Democrats. Uneffingbelievable.
SunSeeker
(51,574 posts)Obama used those precious few days to push through the stimulus package and auto bailout, to stop the economy from cratering and to stop the massive job losses that were occurring at the time.
How many working days do you contend there was a super-majority in the Senate?
a handful of long time, well bought dems sat on their hands. prolly thinking they had plenty of time to play the game and get obama on board.
but really, filibuster city. come on.
backscatter712
(26,355 posts)You can support anything you want when it's in no danger of becoming law.
KoKo
(84,711 posts)(even with the 24 or so DINO's) that we couldn't achieve what was promised when we worked so hard to get Dems in House and Senate to vote for. Those 14 to 24 DINO's could have been whipped into shape by holding back appointments to committees and sub-committees but somehow that was never "on the table."
Yet it seems that the Repubs (when in a Minority) could do whatever they wanted ....even shutting down the Government to get what they wanted passed. In 2006 we gave "Madam Speaker" her job and worked our butts off to give a majority in the House. That was the height of our activism when Howard Dean used the "50 State Strategy." "Citizens United Decision" by the Supremes bringing in the money from everywhere (even foreign money) finished things off.
Been downhill since, imho.
pampango
(24,692 posts)enacted by a supermajority overriding his veto. It is true that the bill Romney introduced was based on a HF concept but that is not what passed the Massachusetts legislature (85% Democratic at the time).
I wish we could do Canada one better and enact a national health service like in the UK but I'll take progress where and how I can get it.
Scuba
(53,475 posts)Autumn
(45,107 posts)BlueCaliDem
(15,438 posts)Autumn
(45,107 posts)pampango
(24,692 posts)merrily
(45,251 posts)
Romney proposed a plan. He and the legislature stalemated, whereupon Kennedy intervened, telling all sides the state would lose a lot of money unless they ssed something. So it passed and Romney made a huge production of signing it. Later, Massachusetts would learn that the bill cost more than had been represented by Romney.
On April 12, 2006, Governor Mitt Romney, of Massachusetts, signed the most significant bill of his career: a law requiring every citizen in his state to buy health insurance. Romney usually held signing ceremonies in the gold-domed State House, in Boston. But this time his political team, which was preparing for his 2008 Presidential campaign, orchestrated an elaborate ceremony at Faneuil Hall, the site of some of the country’s great pre-Revolutionary War speeches. The brick building was decked in patriotic bunting, and a fife-and-drum corps led Romney inside. Two enormous signs flanked the stage, announcing, in a vaguely eighteenth-century font, “Making History in Health Care.” Aides distributed buttons with the same message. “I want to express appreciation to Cecil B. De Mille for organizing this event,” Romney said as he began his remarks.
......
Although some influential libertarians condemned Romney, most conservatives praised the plan. Robert Moffit, a policy expert at the conservative Heritage Foundation, which helped write parts of the law, spoke at the ceremony. “The real trick is to retain what is best in American health care while correcting its deficiencies and expanding upon its indisputable benefits,” he said. “Massachusetts has done just that.
Romney signed the bill at a wooden desk using fourteen different pens, which he later distributed to the dignitaries on hand. “It’s law!” he shouted after the final stroke. On cue, the sounds of the fife-and-drum corps filled the hall with Colonial-era music. Behind Romney stood the people most responsible for passing the plan, among them Senator Ted Kennedy and Salvatore DiMasi, the Speaker of the Massachusetts House of Representatives
http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2011/06/06/romneys-dilemma
BlueJazz
(25,348 posts)I think mainly because, a lot of good countries (Scandinavian) are more open with their policies. The USA hides behind this sheet of dog and pony show mixed in with deceit.
ThoughtCriminal
(14,047 posts)Would you like help?
JaneyVee
(19,877 posts)Lieberman endorsed McCain plus the blue dogs. Not much you can do without Congress, they control the checkbook.
Scuba
(53,475 posts)JaneyVee
(19,877 posts)Warren Stupidity
(48,181 posts)to vote for policies that damage working people.
JaneyVee
(19,877 posts)Warren Stupidity
(48,181 posts)merrily
(45,251 posts)government? How is getting anything passed obstructing?
Besides, the point was, other Presidents got things done without 60 Senate seats, with all 60 being in agreement with each other--which is NEVER going to happen--yet the position of DU is that it can't be done.
subterranean
(3,427 posts)He didn't get partial privatization of Social Security despite pushing hard for it at the start of his second term. And he failed in his attempt to get his friend Harriet Miers installed on the Supreme Court.
merrily
(45,251 posts)and smarter and therefore more dangerous. He also got the Iraq War and the fucking Patriot Act, parts of which even a Republican SCOTUS has struck down (so far) as unconstitutional. And torture.
Yeah, he didn't get Social Security, which he acknowledged is known as the third rail of US politics. Failure to get the third rail of US politics is not exactly the test of a President not getting everything he wants. Not sure he really expected to get it. That's the kind of thing people have to get used to. Bush tries, then Obama talks about how entitlements have to get cut, it'll happen. They know it.
zeemike
(18,998 posts)It is simple really, one just joins the party and says the words...and it is the words that count not the actions in the game...or should I say the show, because politics has become a stage production with protagonist and antagonist and full of drama that is played out on the TV right in every home...a soap opera...and no one asks what the players are actually doing.
Facts don't matter, just the show.
sendero
(28,552 posts).... the gulf between what Obama says and what he does is big enough to contain a galaxy. Bush was no different.
These guys have figured out one simple thing: Americans are too lazy, the MSM is too corrupt for anyone to know what is actually happening. So they give the legislative acts Orwellian double-speak names and they are off scot free.
Nothing is a better example than the TPP, an odious piece of excrement they are so proud of they don't even want to tell you what it is.
frazzled
(18,402 posts)that there was never a supermajority during this administration. It is a complete myth, and never happened:
He should have had 59, but Republicans contested Al Franken's election in Minnesota and he didn't get seated for seven months.
The President's cause was helped in April when Pennsylvania's Republican Senator Arlen Specter switched parties.
That gave the President 59 votes -- still a vote shy of the super majority.
But one month later, Democratic Senator Byrd of West Virginia was hospitalized and was basically out of commission.
So while the President's number on paper was 59 Senators -- he was really working with just 58 Senators.
Then in July, Minnesota Senator Al Franken was finally sworn in, giving President Obama the magic 60 -- but only in theory, because Senator Byrd was still out.
In August, Senator Ted Kennedy of Massachusetts died and the number went back down to 59 again until Paul Kirk temporarily filled Kennedy's seat in September.
Any pretense of a supermajority ended on February 4, 2010 when Republican Scott Brown was sworn into the seat Senator Kennedy once held.Do you see a two-year supermajority?
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jennifer-m-granholm/debunking-the-myth-obamas_b_1929869.html
There are sure a lot of posters here the last few days putting up posts that contain completely false premises such as this (see the post asking why Obama is just asking for tax hikes for the wealthy now, when in reality he's done so every year since elected). You have to ask why these anti-Democratic Party posts--with entirely false premises--are being posted. And there are plenty of people who fall for the false premise. I'm here to call it out.
Fred Sanders
(23,946 posts)Lieberman......
WASHINGTON — In what has become a poignant ritual during a fractious debate, Senator Robert C. Byrd, the 92-year-old Democrat from West Virginia, was pushed onto the Senate floor in his plaid wheelchair Wednesday afternoon. It was his third appearance of the week, each prompted by a vital vote.
frazzled
(18,402 posts)Condemning an entire party over a false premise, then claiming you're right because they wheeled an incontinent, aged senator out and lifted his hand once or twice for a few months before he died?
A majority of 60 for a few months is not a majority. And no reason to condemn an entire party, unless you hate that party instinctively.
This OP gets more and more pathetic as it progresses. The goal is obvious.
Scuba
(53,475 posts)WTF? Yeah it is, for a few months, during which we got a few crumbs and nothing else.
Bobbie Jo
(14,341 posts)SSDD
Same shit, different day.
Long-standing pattern at work here, complete with their own set of "facts."
Dreamer Tatum
(10,926 posts)That is by far them simplest excuse, moreso than some Blue Dog or filibuster bullshit.
Scuba,
It's like you've been reading my mind....
Burfman
frazzled
(18,402 posts)There was never a supermajority, and even if there were a brief one of exactly 50 for a month or two, you're willing to condemn the entire Democratic Party when a single senator fails to vote in line?
This entire thread is pathetic, on both logical and political grounds. So sorry you're gullible enough to buy into it. (Or willing enough to continue its false premise because you simply want to bash the Democratic Party.)
classof56
(5,376 posts)A big 
for truth.
Enthusiast
(50,983 posts)[URL=
.html][IMG]
[/IMG][/URL]
iandhr
(6,852 posts)It required surgeries. I was able to stay on my parents plan due to Obamacare. So were millions of other people. I was lucky. I only had mechanical problems with my bones. There was nothing wrong with my health. There are people who have had life saving care do to this law.
They and I have a message for all the purists bi***ing about single payer.
F*** you.
Scuba
(53,475 posts)... but shouldn't Democrats have done even better?
As for the "F*** you", I welcome your hatred.
Cha
(297,323 posts)will continue to be. Let them ***** about it 5 years later.. meanwhile, ACA is moving forward and will get even stronger if the damn SCOTUS doesn't scrap it.
Thank you Dems.. even you Dennis Kucinich for passing ACA... 219 to 212
House passes health-care reform bill without Republican votes
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/03/21/AR2010032100943.html
George II
(67,782 posts)Scuba
(53,475 posts)
hfojvt
(37,573 posts)we didn't get a stimulus bill? we didn't get General Motors rescued? We didn't get Kagan and Sotomayor? We didn't get the ending of DADT? We didn't get the Mathew Sheperd act or the Lilly Ledbetter act? We didn't get the expansion of SCHIP?
Your facts are a little light on the actual facts.
And after we lost the House it was kinda tough to pass anything positive. But the other facts would be the long list of excrement that the House passed after 2011 and which the Senate quashed.
Like, I dunno, Keystone? The Ryan budget? Stuff like that.
In another dimension that might be worth something.
Action_Patrol
(845 posts) BlueCaliDem
(15,438 posts) 
ecstatic
(32,712 posts)Johonny
(20,851 posts)The 111th Congress has been considered one of the most productive Congresses in history in terms of legislation passed since the 89th Congress, during Lyndon Johnson's Great Society.
January 29, 2009: Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act of 2009, Pub.L. 111–2
February 4, 2009: Children's Health Insurance Program Reauthorization Act (SCHIP), Pub.L. 111–3
February 17, 2009: American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (ARRA), Pub.L. 111–5
March 11, 2009: Omnibus Appropriations Act, 2009, Pub.L. 111–8
March 30, 2009: Omnibus Public Land Management Act of 2009, Pub.L. 111–11
April 21, 2009: Edward M. Kennedy Serve America Act, Pub.L. 111–13
May 20, 2009: Fraud Enforcement and Recovery Act of 2009, Pub.L. 111–21
May 20, 2009: Helping Families Save Their Homes Act of 2009, Pub.L. 111–22
May 22, 2009: Weapon Systems Acquisition Reform Act of 2009, Pub.L. 111–23
May 22, 2009: Credit CARD Act of 2009, Pub.L. 111–24
June 22, 2009: Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act, as Division A of Pub.L. 111–31
June 24, 2009: Supplemental Appropriations Act of 2009 including the Car Allowance Rebate System (Cash for Clunkers), Pub.L. 111–32
October 28, 2009: National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2010, including the Matthew Shepard and James Byrd, Jr. Hate Crimes Prevention Act, Pub.L. 111–84
November 6, 2009: Worker, Homeownership, and Business Assistance Act of 2009, Pub.L. 111–92
December 16, 2009: Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2010, Pub.L. 111–117
February 12, 2010: Statutory Pay-As-You-Go Act, as Title I of Pub.L. 111–139
March 4, 2010: Travel Promotion Act of 2009, as Section 9 of Pub.L. 111–145
March 18, 2010: Hiring Incentives to Restore Employment Act, Pub.L. 111–147
March 23, 2010: Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, Pub.L. 111–148
March 30, 2010: Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act of 2010, including the Student Aid and Fiscal Responsibility Act, Pub.L. 111–152
May 5, 2010: Caregivers and Veterans Omnibus Health Services Act of 2010, Pub.L. 111–163
July 1, 2010: Comprehensive Iran Sanctions, Accountability, and Divestment Act of 2010, Pub.L. 111–195
July 21, 2010: Dodd–Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act, Pub.L. 111–203
July 29, 2010: Tribal Law and Order Act of 2010
August 3, 2010: Fair Sentencing Act of 2010, Pub.L. 111–220
August 10, 2010: SPEECH Act, Pub.L. 111–223
September 27, 2010: Small Business Jobs and Credit Act of 2010, Pub.L. 111–240
December 8, 2010: Claims Resolution Act of 2010, Pub.L. 111–291
December 13, 2010: Healthy, Hunger-Free Kids Act of 2010, Pub.L. 111–296
December 17, 2010: Tax Relief, Unemployment Insurance Reauthorization, and Job Creation Act of 2010, Pub.L. 111–312, H.R. 4853
December 22, 2010: Don't Ask, Don't Tell Repeal Act of 2010, Pub.L. 111–321, H.R. 2965
January 2, 2011: James Zadroga 9/11 Health and Compensation Act of 2010, Pub.L. 111–347, H.R. 847
January 4, 2011: Shark Conservation Act, Pub.L. 111–348, H.R. 81
January 4, 2011: Food Safety and Modernization Act, Pub.L. 111–353, H.R. 2751
No seriously believe what you want to believe dude but the facts aren't on your side. Sure WE ALL WANT A MORE LIBERAL congress. Constantly complaining about the 111th congress and comparing it to what followed is a joke.
BainsBane
(53,035 posts)and end to discrimination against LGBT in the military, relief for the poor, a DOJ that enforced voting rights and advanced civil rights for people of color and women. None of it matters because it's not about you.
Don't fret. The GOP will soon control the presidency as well as the House and Senate, and all will be right with the universe again.
YoungDemCA
(5,714 posts)Phlem
(6,323 posts)"January 4, 2011: Shark Conservation Act, Pub.L. 111–348, H.R. 81 "
That'll get me back to work and help my family make ends meet.
Oh wait.....
Cha
(297,323 posts)not trying to tear it apart.
hfojvt
(37,573 posts)but it includes some crap too.
This
December 17, 2010: Tax Relief, Unemployment Insurance Reauthorization, and Job Creation Act of 2010, Pub.L. 111–312, H.R. 4853
We are supposed to be happy that the Bush tax cuts were not allowed to die? Really?
Oilwellian
(12,647 posts)December 13, 2010: Healthy, Hunger-Free Kids Act of 2010, Pub.L. 111–296
And then they cut food stamps.
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)of theirs has been scientifically proven. Wasted effort.
ProudProg2u
(133 posts)All the answers to these types of questions are easily answered by watching George Carlin's You-tube "Nobody Cares" Google "George Carlin Nobody cares". Everything was bought and paid for a long time ago. I call myself a liberal and progressive because at least the Dem's say the rite things the Cons actually got a majority of people to believe that helping the top 1 % was good for everyone and they still promote this despite the facts.(They hate facts)
CrispyQ
(36,478 posts)They are orchestrating a second bipartisan bankster bailout, since the first one went so well. Look for it to roll out around Oct/Nov 2016.
Temperatures are rising & gas is under $2 a gallon. We have a completely dysfunctional government & I don't see a means to get it back what with Citizens United, black box voting, gerrymandering, public apathy & a corporate owned media.
We are fucked.
raouldukelives
(5,178 posts)Every Wall St investor is trading liberty for all of us in exchange for security for themselves.
I can't say I blame them, it is a scary world. Made scarier by them of course, but they will never grasp that.
Some people are built for the fight, to stand and live for the survival, advancement & enlightenment of the human race.
Some are built to serve themselves, damn the consequences to all of us.
"Some are born to sweet delight, some are born to endless night."
Thanks to them, the endless nights are winning.
yodermon
(6,143 posts)and as mentioned, the blue-dogs, who barely resembled Democrats, and who have since LOST btw.
It is a miracle we even got the ACA passed AT ALL.
But i agree with your larger point, only about half the elected Dems are true FDR style dems any more. The rest are corporatist entities.
KingCharlemagne
(7,908 posts)state\district preferable to a Republican in that same red state\district? Or is a more ideologically consistent Democratic Party that is in the minority preferable to a hybrid Democratic Party that manages to gain majority control from time to time by including said Blue Dogs? Seems like the price of Howard Dean's so-called '50-state strategy' was a nod to the idea that the Democratic Party would have to have conservatives in it to have any chance of winning a majority. (I may be wrong on that, as I don't follow Dem Party ins-and-outs as closely as I probably should.)
merrily
(45,251 posts)IMO, it is not the real choice and things are not that simple
How about some other questions, though? (these are just intended as rhetorical, food for thought-type questions):
Do you think Landrieu lost because she was too far left? If so, how much further right could Landrieu possibly have gone without going full bore Republican? Or, did she lose because, after Katrina/Rita, people from the Democratic stronghold of NOLA were carted off to states like Texas and Massachusetts, where they were unlikely to shift the balance? How about the fact that she said she hadn't voted for Obama in 2012? Or insulted her Louisiana base, while insisting they were going to vote for her?)
Might someone who had actually delivered on say, lower taxes for the middle class, free junior college and higher taxes for the rich while Democrats held the majority in Congress have done better than Mary Landrieu did in Louisiana in 2014? Certainly could not have done worse.
Do you think her pushing for more fracking potentially helped or potentially harmed the environment, even though she is registered as a Dem? Doesn't that arm Republicans with the ability to point out, hey, even Democrats want this?
http://www.floorcharts.com/post/103202634411/last-night-the-daily-show-with-jon-stewart
Point is, the lesson to be drawn from every single election loss or victory is not that the Dem was too far left for the room--unless that is the only lesson you want to draw from every election (and/or pitch to the base to justify going even further right next time)..
KingCharlemagne
(7,908 posts)dilettante to do it justice. As a Democrratic Socialist, I prefer a hard-left Democratic Party and am willing to see us endure minority status in the interests of a far-left platform. However, I also recognize that I occupy the left fringes of the American poltiical spectrum and that some issues -- like preserving a woman's right to choose, for example -- are important enough to require me to make common cause with people who are much closer to the center than I myself am.
I did not follow the Landrieu saga as closely as it seems you did, so I am ill prepared to answer your hypothetical questions with any answer that would have the weight of plausibility behind it. Based on my limited and parochial understanding ot the Landrieu race, though, it sounds as though there was a nexus of dissatisfaction with President Obama's leadership and a reversion to the state's rightward nature. But I feel I am on shaky ground saying that and will gladly defer to your assessment.
I am eager to see whether Bernie Sanders decides to campaign as a Democrat in the primaries, b/c I think his voice might allow the members of the Dem Party to engage in the type of soul searching about its nature that this thread has so deftly illustrated. IOW, does the Democratic Party stand for the interests of the common working man and woman or does it stand for the interests of big business?
merrily
(45,251 posts)thought-type questions. (For some reason, I tend to fall into the question form when I am trying to explain something.)
I didn't follow the Landrieu race very closely. I followed some discussions about it on DU and I am a regular Daily Show viewer.
I am so sorry that we lost a Senate seat there. However, in my post to you, I was not per se trying to figure out why she lost. I was trying to say only that I am over framing election discussions in terms of whether the candidate was sufficiently far right for his or her constituents.
Nothing is that simple. But that is exactly what your original question was based on. And that is why people who want the Party to go further left may seem to you to be avoiding the question. Not avoiding. Just the wrong question and, IMO, part of taking this Party further into the wrong direction. And I think that you did get what I was trying to convey.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)50-state strategy was about ... run conservative Democrats in run districts and more liberal candidates in purplish/blue districts. The point was to win elections ... and it worked. Because of those wins we got two SC Justices and even the bluest of blue dogs, voted with the Democratic caucus in about 70% of the votes. Had Democrats followed the DU internet strategy, we wouldn't have gotten those SC Justices ... we would gotten considerable more conservative Justices and zero votes with the Democratic Caucus.
SidDithers
(44,228 posts)
The Wheel of Outrage must be spun every day, or the perpetually outraged will have nothing to post about.
Sid
NYC Liberal
(20,136 posts)or you're deliberately ignoring history.
Cryptoad
(8,254 posts)had a basic understanding how our government worked!
Sorry but there are Lesser Evils!
BainsBane
(53,035 posts)Anything? Did anyone here now complaining do anything to make it happen?
Single payer was never an issue in the 2008 campaign. No one promised it. No one proposed it. But you complain that Santa didn't bring you what you wanted. But please, tell us about your tireless efforts to work for single payer? Or is this all about complaining about something 7 years after the fact that you did nothing about at the time?
Scuba
(53,475 posts)I voted for this guy!!!
BainsBane
(53,035 posts)That you found some ancient clip means nothing. I remember the campaign. Neither Clinton nor Obama proposed single payer because of the defeat in the 90s. The entire debate was about the mandate. You voted for Obamacare, and that is what you got.
BlueCaliDem
(15,438 posts)pull out that one single video as incontrovertible truth that he campaigned on it - and he didn't. I'm certain they didn't even know that vid existed during the 2008 campaign. But they'll swear to you that they knew about it all along. Uh-huh.
What they also don't understand is, it took Canada THIRTY YEARS to implement single-payer. And the cost to implement it is astronomical. What they also don't know (because they're too busy having a tantrum) is the fact that under 1332 of the PPACA, the State Innovation Waiver, States can individually implement single-payer and the Federal Gov't will help fund it by 85%. That still doesn't seem to be enough since Vermont, the only State to apply and receive approval for the State Innovation Waiver, has decided not to go through with it yet because there's no money for it in their budget. That should tell single-payer advocates just how expensive it is if tiny Vermont is postponing implementation of single-payer in their State.
BainsBane
(53,035 posts)but I'm not going to pout because the President didn't deliver on what he didn't promise. Also I know it was difficult to pass Obamacare as it was, even with a Democratic majority.
These sorts of complaints are demonstrations of political irrelevance. They do nothing, absolutely nothing--don't even pay attention to the debates before an election, and then seven years later complain that they didn't get what they dreamed of. If they cared so much about single payer, why didn't they fight for it at the time? I think of these folks as country club liberals, who expect to be waited on and then complain because their martinis weren't made with top-shelf liquor.
BlueCaliDem
(15,438 posts)because I want affordable health care insurance now which, may I add, I have under the Enhanced Silver 94 PPO plan - an ObamaCare plan under a private insurance corporation (Molina).
States can still apply for the State Waiver if they want single-payer, so those who complain that President Obama didn't get single-payer through are wrong. It's in ObamaCare, but it's left up to individual States to do it. These single-payer advocates should be out petitioning their State government to get it. ObamaCare will fund up to 85% of implementation. Why aren't they addressing their State governments?
BainsBane
(53,035 posts)probably because what they enjoy most is complaining.
How else can one explain their persisting in claiming they voted for single payer when all evidence from the 2008 election shows it was never proposed?
BlueCaliDem
(15,438 posts)Anything to complain and bring down this president and the Democratic Party, to them, is preferable to doing something about their pet peeves if they really care about it. If they'd put half as much passion and tenacity into petitioning their State gov't to get single-payer, they'd have it by now.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)BUT the people are not ready for the disruption its implementation would cause.
Maedhros
(10,007 posts)pa28
(6,145 posts)Obama and the Democrats did exactly what they wanted. Preserved the status quo and served the interest of their donor classes.
Response to Scuba (Original post)
Name removed Message auto-removed
arcane1
(38,613 posts) LanternWaste
(37,748 posts)It can be a surprise for the dogmatic and irrational hack to realize that other people may extrapolate and interpret facts differently than they might, resulting in a different conclusion.
ann---
(1,933 posts)"Blue Dog" Dems keep getting elected to the House and Senate and prevent progress. Why voters don't kick them out of office and get REAL Dems in there is beyond me.
Rex
(65,616 posts)Some here would love to pretend that both parties are different in that respect, but they are not. Both don't give two shits about campaign reform or having a non-gerrymandered district to run in. And now they ALL have to worry about their rivals corporation donor out paying THEIR corporation donor when they run for office! The People are forgotten about, time moves on and conditions get worse for the poor.
The two parties are worlds apart in certain areas, but when it comes to money they both sell out to the highest bidder and tell you that it is just the way things work now. The real question is, how did THEY let their professional fall so low as to be for sale to the highest bidder and can we do anything about it?
I would say no, not unless you have a few billion dollars. At one time a billion would cut it, not so much anymore.
MONEY. It will destroy us.
BlueCaliDem
(15,438 posts)I don't understand how a person who claims to be a Democrat on a Democratic Party supporting board doesn't know that fact. Why is that?
YoungDemCA
(5,714 posts)I posted an OP a while back contrasting FDR's actual super-majorities to what Obama had.
Final voting share for Democrats in each house of Congress during FDR's Presidency:
1933-1935
Senate: 63%
House: 72.4%
1935-1937
Senate: 76%
House: 79.5%
1937-1939
Senate: 77.1%
House: 76.7%
1939-1941
Senate: 70.8%
House: 58.7%
1941-1943
Senate: 66.7%
House: 61.3%
1943-1945
Senate: 59.4%
House: 51%
1945-1947
Senate: 57%
House: 55.6%
Final voting share for Democrats in each house of Congress during Obama's Presidency:
2009-2011
Senate: 58%
House: 58.8%
2011-2013
Senate: 53%
House: 44.3%
2013-2015
Senate: 55%
House: 46.2%
2015-2017 (so far)
Senate; 46%
House: 43.2%
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10026067987
Notice anything?
Bobbie Jo
(14,341 posts)You can post logic and facts until your fingers turn blue.
They're having none of it.
However, it is funny to watch this thread about "facts" turn into such a grand demonstration of unintentional irony.
chowder66
(9,073 posts)snip; There is a breakdown of the timeline at the link
Summary: The Democrats only had 24 days of Super Majority between 2008 and 2010.
Discussion: The Democrats had a super majority for a total of 24 days. On top of that, the period of Super Majority was split into one 11-day period and one 13-day period. Given the glacial pace that business takes place in the Senate, this was way too little time for the Democrats pass any meaningful legislation, let alone get bills through committees and past all the obstructionistic tactics the Republicans were using to block legislation.
Further, these Super Majorities count Joe Lieberman as a Democrat even though he was by this time an Independent. Even though he was Liberal on some legislation, he was very conservative on other issues and opposed many of the key pieces of legislation the Democrats and Obama wanted to pass. For example, he was adamantly opposed to “Single Payer” health care and vowed to support a Republican Filibuster if it ever came to the floor.
Summary:
1. 1/07 – 12/08 – 51-49 – Ordinary Majority.
2. 1/09 – 7/14/09 – 59-41 – Ordinary Majority. (Coleman/Franklin Recount.)
3. 7/09 – 8/09 – 60-40 – Technical Super Majority, but since Kennedy is unable to vote, the Democrats can’t overcome a filibuster
4. 8/09 – 9/09 – 59-40 – Ordinary Majority. (Kennedy dies)
5. 9/09 – 10/09 – 60-40 – Super Majority for 11 working days.
6. 1/10 – 2/10 – 60-40 – Super Majority for 13 working days
http://mauidemocrats.org/wp/?p=2442
YarnAddict
(1,850 posts)because the Conserva-Dems wouldn't have voted for universal healthcare, and the American people would have been in the streets with torches and pitchforks if they would have.
ProudProg2u
(133 posts)I saw this man at the pechanga casino in so cali about two years before he died. Great man .(Here you go)
MrMickeysMom
(20,453 posts)Welcome to DU
Saucepan of Kerbango
(48 posts)
upaloopa
(11,417 posts)for a better past.
Spitfire of ATJ
(32,723 posts)
Response to Scuba (Original post)
Corruption Inc This message was self-deleted by its author.
IronLionZion
(45,457 posts)
Scuba
(53,475 posts)Autumn
(45,107 posts) Scuba
(53,475 posts)MisterP
(23,730 posts)at least the Inner Party was sorta interesting to talk to and was able to point out Winston Smith's real hypocrisies
Autumn
(45,107 posts) No one in that thread was interested in discussion, just twisting themselves into pretzels trying to prove DUers are claiming a 2 year Super Majority all over DU. Bad Duersvi5
(13,305 posts)All these things he's supposedly pushing for now....he could have pushed when he had a super majority. He could have pushed when we had a solid majority in the house and the Senate. He could have pushed when we still had a Senate majority, however slim it may have been.
But he pushes these things NOW. When there's no fucking chance in hell he'll be able to overcome a full Republican majority in the Senate.
And yeah, I get that maybe just maybe this is a starting point for negotiation and we'll end up somewhere in the middle. But then when he had more of a chance and fewer votes he had to peel off, why didn't he negotiate that way instead of starting in the middle and having us end up with very right of center legislation and policies?
Autumn
(45,107 posts)in trouble from their actions. Priorities. And those priorities were very clear. Even today when Jamie Dimon flashes those presidential cuff links and whips the votes for the Senate to vote the way he wants, why it just warms my heart and clears up any doubt I have ever had about priorities.
NoJusticeNoPeace
(5,018 posts)vi5
(13,305 posts)So because nobody else was electable we're just supposed to smile and take it and continue supporting this bullshit and not call it out for what it is?
I have the same response as I have when people talk about Hillary Clinton as the "only electable one".
Well great. If that's the case and that's what's become of the Democratic party they they clearly don't need folks like me any more. Good for them. I wish them the best of luck. But let them go down that road without me. I'm sure they'll be just fine. Just don't convince me that it's the party of the people or the party of progressive values that it once was.
jtuck004
(15,882 posts)Mr Favor, Wishbone, and Pete had taken a train to Philadelphia to take care of Favor's daughters, and along the way they ran into a Pawnee Chief who was taking a job in a travelling circus. Among the other drama, they saw the man they met in a cage in the back of a wagon, where he had chained and imprisoned for display to whites.
Wishbone and Pete wanted to head out the door and free him but Mr. Favor stopped them, said first they need to contact an attorney, then get the authorities involved, etc. He tells them "Can't you get it through your thick heads? This isn't Texas, this is Philadelphia".
Pete points out "Yeah, and you're beginning to fit in pretty well", then says he doesn't want to ride with him any longer.
Democrats can't be disgusted when they are more concerned about fitting in than justice.
For those of us that are, there is no need to ride with them any longer.
Fuddnik
(8,846 posts)You know, the one they ran on, and we elected them to stop. I resigned from my County DEC over that one.
The following year they voted for Telecom Immunity, for helping invade our privacy. Something most of them said they were against. I changed my voter registration from lifetime Democrat over that one to NPA.
After 6 more years of their bullshit, I may just sit out my first election.
F4lconF16
(3,747 posts)Please. Vote third party. Write someone in. Just vote. Show support for someone that actually cares. Withdrawing just makes it easier. At least voting for a 3rd party candidate makes your voice heard.
NaturalHigh
(12,778 posts)there should have been a full-court press for universal, single-payer health care.
Progressive dog
(6,905 posts)many of us would be.
I don't understand why so may DU members seem to think that gaining health care for 20 million more Americans is such a bad thing.
Scuba
(53,475 posts)Progressive dog
(6,905 posts)Democrat and say that this is OK?"
Scuba
(53,475 posts)Progressive dog
(6,905 posts)"not as good"
Scuba
(53,475 posts)
liberal_at_heart
(12,081 posts)through the roof. We must have single payer. It's that simple.
Progressive dog
(6,905 posts)those with medical insurance somehow bad?
LawDeeDah
(1,596 posts)But not at what you are.
pscot
(21,024 posts)but after 265 replies I figure everything has pretty much been said and no one will see it anyway, so why bother.
7962
(11,841 posts)whereisjustice
(2,941 posts)DeSwiss
(27,137 posts)
- Democrats are disgusted.
K&R
nikto
(3,284 posts)Conservatism/Corporatism seldom, if ever, needs to compromise.
Go figure.
joshcryer
(62,276 posts)That's including Lieberman in your "super-majority."
I'm not reading the thread or your comments unless you have, because it'd be pointless. The times it's noted to you, you don't appear to reply.
Scuba
(53,475 posts)1. 1/07 – 12/08 – 51-49 – Ordinary Majority.
2. 1/09 – 7/14/09 – 59-41 – Ordinary Majority. (Coleman/Franklin Recount.)
3. 7/09 – 8/09 - 60-40 – Technical Super Majority, but since Kennedy is unable to vote, the Democrats can’t overcome a filibuster
4. 8/09 – 9/09 - 59-40 – Ordinary Majority. (Kennedy dies)
5. 9/09 – 12/24- 60-40 – Super Majority for 47 working days.
6. 1/10 – 2/10 – 60-40 – Super Majority for 13 working days
http://factleft.com/2012/01/31/the-myth-of-democratic-super-majority/
I also find it interesting that the thread's defenders of the Democratic Party's ineffectiveness are all focused on the length of the super majority and never mention that Democrats could have changed the filibuster rules, nor ever address the CROmnibus bill that deregulated derivatives and allowed more dark money in our elections.
When the next banking bailout is needed, Republicans will be able to honestly say "Democrats did that."
joshcryer
(62,276 posts)Then following with adjournment. When he had a super-majority.
But he never ran on such a radical platform.
And wouldn't have had the votes anyway.
You are simply not accepting the reality in which Obama has governed.
Even with your numbers, that's what, of 2191 days being president? 2%? Or, 98% of the time Obama has not had a majority?
Obama did not campaign on dropping a legislative bomb that required Lieberman's vote. It's a fact.
But I have always advocated for it. Google my name "joshcryer obama adjournment"
Scuba
(53,475 posts)Nothing substantive passes under the lame duck.
Geez. Simple civics.
Please go to my Google search query. I have chastised Obama enough on this. It's just not who he was as a President and not what he campaigned on. He had the chance. He didn't use it.
Fuck, you will flame me but Hillary probably would've pulled something. Got everyone in line. Public option, for sure. Obama came in expecting bipartisanship. He even advocated it in his SOTU speech. It's a non-starter.
The Republicans don't want to govern, they want to reduce legislation, not strengthen and improve it!
Scuba
(53,475 posts)They left the 'silent filibuster' rule stand when they could have changed it.
They voted for more dark money in elections.
They voted for deregulating derivatives, knowing their actions put our economy at great risk, again.
Yeah, maybe Hillary would have rallied the Party, or rallied to people to pressure the Party where Obama did not. But to me at least, the Democratic Party failed us in 2009 and they failed us in December, 2014.
And Obama could have vetoed the CROmnibus bill and told the American people why, putting a harsh spotlight on Republicans in Congress. He didn't. So it's partially about him, yes, but Americans are waking up to the realization that our elected Democratic representatives aren't working on our behalf.
joshcryer
(62,276 posts)He is completely to blame. It took Udall and Wyden (IIRC) to weaken it with regards to nominations (since the Republicans were increasingly using them to filibuster judicial nominations and such). Reid wanted the "fast track." Let shit go through even if it was being virtually filibustered. This is or was perhaps the height of cronyism in the Senate. Senators voting on one thing while another thing is being virtually filibustered as if other senators were debating it. So fucking much for the senate being the worlds greatest debate hall.
But I understood why he did it, it just sucks.
That said, did you know, in that 98% of the time that the President, the President of the United States of America has governed, has never actually passed a budget? Oh, no, the black President? No, he had to have continuing resolutions. Not one budget that the President offered passed. Not one. Just continuing resolution after continuing resolution, with his budgets neutered every time in the process. I don't even fucking know if that has ever happened before, it's just so out there. Maybe it has with some of the one termers or unpopular Presidents, but not in modern history. Carter, Regan, GHWB, Clinton, GWB. Every single one of those guys got at least one of their proposed budgets passed (Regan and Clinton being champs at it; Clinton perhaps because he compromised a lot).
But the black man? Nah. Let's just continue Bush's fucking shit ass budget in perpetuity. Why the fuck not. Make the administration juggle various administrative budget considerations.
Gman
(24,780 posts)That it defies response. It's so dumbed down, I would have thought a teabaggger said that.
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)That is not a fact. They is an opinion.
You should learn the difference.
harun
(11,348 posts)We got institutionalized for-profit health insurance.
Fact.
McCamy Taylor
(19,240 posts)We almost had it, but almost is not good enough in the Senate.
AtomicKitten
(46,585 posts)
pansypoo53219
(20,981 posts)and lieberfuckenputz was BARELY a democrat.
Scuba
(53,475 posts)Because when the next banking bailout comes, Republicans will be on TV honestly saying "Democrats did that."
PBass
(1,537 posts)That is really sad, "original poster".
A simple civics class might be in order, where you can learn about the 3 co-equal branches of government, how Congress works, how bills become laws, etc.
Good luck to you!
Scuba
(53,475 posts)Did the Democrats not have the ability to change the filibuster rule? Do laws only originate in the Republican Party? Just what did I write that made you infer I don know about the 3 co-equal branches of government, how Congress works, how bills become laws, etc.
harun
(11,348 posts)Scuba
(53,475 posts)Running from the President.
Failing to run on the same progressive ideas that won referendums in states that then elected Republicans (e.g., minimum wage).
Pathetic.
onlyadream
(2,166 posts)I remember thinking, back then, that the dems were dragging their feet, and time was of the essence. Then Obama caved on single payer, didn't even give it a chance. Very disappointing. I do think he's a great president, but he could have been so much better.
Scuba
(53,475 posts)woo me with science
(32,139 posts)Here comes the TPP.
TPP, war, police state. Bipartisan.
United oligarchy, not divided democracy.
pa28
(6,145 posts)Let's use the ACA and the abandonment of the public option as an example.
The White House and President Obama never took the time to simply pick up the phone and ask him to support a public option.
Lieberman: Obama Never Pressed Me On Public Option
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/12/21/lieberman-obama-never-pre_n_399355.html
Obama got exactly the bill he wanted. The appearance of being obstructed by Joe Lieberman was just for convenience.
