Please don't repeat RW talking points. The MYTH of the Democratic 'Super-Majority'

[blm]

Last edited Tue Jan 20, 2015, 05:01 PM - Edit history (1)

27 working days in total (most after the ACA vote) and even that was sketchy because of Lieberman. BTW - Have some forgotten that Lieberman was a FORMER Dem at that point and ran as an Independent and said from day one he would support a GOP filibuster of single-payer?

http://factleft.com/2012/01/31/the-myth-of-democratic-super-majority/

One of the standard Republican talking points is that the Democrats had a filibuster-proof, super majority for two years between 2008 and 2010. This talking point is usually trotted out when liberals complain that the Republicans filibustered virtually every piece of legislation proposed by Obama or the Democrats during Obama’s presidency. The implication is that Democrats had ample opportunity to pass legislation and that the reason they didn’t pass more legislation doesn’t have anything to do with the Republicans.

It is also used to counter any argument that Republican legislation, (passed during the six years of total Republican control,) has anything to do with today’s problems. They claim that the Democrats had a super majority for two years and passed all kinds of legislation, (over Republican objection and filibuster,) that completely undid all Republican policies and legislation, and this absolves them from today’s problems.
>>>>>>>

And I repeat: Lieberman was NOT a Democrat, though some optimistic folks would like to fantasize that Joe could be counted on to vote with Dems on the healthcare reform.

[MohRokTah]

1. The right pushes the myth, then the left excoriates because of the myth.

Obama can't win.

[BlueCaliDem]

7. That's pretty much it, MohRokTah. But I'd be hard-pressed to call these people "left" since I have

NO proof of it other than their posts - and those are chock-full of RW talking points. Some are clearly left-leaning Independents who claim to be Democrats (of the superior kind, of course). Others...hm. Not so much.

[Proud Liberal Dem]

66. +1

Yup. President Obama, despite his overwhelming victory in 2008, got dealt a bad deck of cards (he had to deal with some bad Dems and a nasty and very unified opposition)- but he managed to achieve some impressive accomplishments nonetheless. And best of all, he didn't sit around and complain about it even though I'm sure he wishes he could've done more.

[BlueCaliDem]

2. I believe these facts will be ignored and this request will fall on deaf ears.

There is no pleasing the perpetually outraged no matter how many documented facts we put forward. Unfortunately.

[blm]

4. Sad that some here ignore actual facts and put forth RW spin as their 'facts'.

I say - show us the EVIDENCE you used to come up with your 'facts' and let the chips fall where they may.

[OKNancy]

3. one of many that float around here

thanks for the post. At least I can recommend something containing truth and logic

[truedelphi]

43. The reason that "the myth" gets attention here is because over the

Last thirty (if not forty) years, the public has witnessed the "Democratic Party" as it has has given us a group of Centrist politicians who are as much in thrall to Big Corporations as the RW is.

About the only dividing factor between the Two Corporate Owned parties is that the Democrats are more liberal on some social situations, like the rights of the LGBT crowd to marry, and the more liberal attitudes on the immigration situation. But the Obama Administation ahs failed miserably, until very recently, on the medical marijuana issue, and he let Holder destroy the state of California's medicinal marijuana clinics, and also he allowed Holder to throw many many people in jail whose only crime was helping others get med marijuana.

So over the last forty years, no matter which party is in charge, we have witnessed:

One) Out sourcing of jobs, not only manufacturing jobs, but even customer service jobs. One of the biggest travesties of the student loan situation is that the people now working to "resolve" a student's indebtedness are often sitting in an office in some third world country.

Two) Handing over the wealth of the Middle Class to the bigger Financial Forces. Why is it that under Ron Reagan, a mere eight cents out of every dollar of profit went to the Big Financial Firms? Fast forward to our time period, and 49 cents out of every dollar of profit generated in this nation goes to Big Banks.

In early October, 2008, the American public went ballistic, contacting Congress and letting its members know that they did not want to have the Big Banks and Big Finance to be bailed out.

But our Congressional Leaders, of Both Parties, are such Big Banking Puppets that they of course gave the Middle Class wealth away to Wall Street.

So 700 billions of TARP monies went to the biggest of the Big Financial people. And we are also told that some 14 to 17 trillions of dollars has also been loaned to these same firms, many of which are not even American companies. Experts tell us that some 4 trillion plus will not be paid back. (Which is why so many of our leaders, including Obama, are working so hard trying to convince us of the need to be in austerity mode - the "leaders" in this country are mere puppets who have promised to allow the Big Money People get their paws on Social Security.)

None of this gifting of our economy to Big Bankers could have occurred without Obama making the disastrous appointments that he made.

The result of all these giveaways to the likes of AIG and Go0ldman Sachs. Why, half the children in this nation are now living in poverty. The majority of people defending the Democratic Centrist leaders are those who have some ties to some industry that has been helped by this plunder!

Three) The Republicans have their crooks, while we have ours. How is Diane Feinstein considered a Democrat? She is far to the right of Ahnold Schwarzenegger. She re-wrote the laws of ethics for the US Senate, once she had a strong hold in the US Senate. She has stripped away any chance of having peace in our life time, as our perpetual war on terror has allowed herself and her hubby, Richard Blum, to garner close to if not over a billion dollars for war contracts for his company. She also had helped to destroy the Post Office, while her husband buys up the buildings and property whose actual owner was our government's Postal Service.
The historic murals alone held in those post offices will add millions to to the Feinstein/Blum fortune.

And she has never been impeached for her activities - but is held up as one of the nation's political leaders!?!

Four) The record of the Obama administration on our ecology is deplorable. Watch "Gaslands" and "Gaslands II" and then get back to me.

BTW, the nation's political structure was firmly in the hands o9f the Democrats from January 2009 to January 2011. Whether of not they could have handled the ACA in a better fashion is one thing, and we had raging controversies over whether it could have been a better dal for citizens than the friggin' mandate we have now. (I have three shitty choices on the "exchange" none of which offer me any relief health wise, here in California.

But regardless of that, when the Congress was in majority Dem mode, did they even attempt to overthrow the Dick Cheney plundering of our nation's ecological protective laws? (That Cheney had established d in 2005, with his Oil and Energy re-write of our laws.)? No sir or madam, they did not. In fact, many Democratic leaders were very happy to strip away our environment -witness Ed Rendell who while governor of his state not only tossed away the clean water in PA, but who now has a top position in one of the Biggest Energy firms in Texas, which continues to assault the air, land and water of our nation as county after county is fracked away.

[joshcryer]

5. Meme #1: why didn't Obama do this when he had power!?!

You Better Believe It!

[blm]

9. Not for even 2 months, let alone 2 years. Try applying a TIMELINE.

You also need to ASSUME that Lieberman (Independent) was also a nonissue.

You are welcome to show us the evidence against what was posted.

[Autumn]

13. Was there a post or perhaps an OP that claimed that a majority was held for "2 years" ?

Cause I haven't seen any DUers make that claim. Got a link to one? TIA

[blm]

15. The article responded to GOPs 2yr talking point

The article was posted to refute the talking point that there was a clear super majority for any significant amount of time.

There was not.

Perhaps some would like to now explain why the presence of Lieberman was a nonissue.

[Autumn]

17. I just wanted to know who on DU, as some have said stated in your thread

have said that a 2 year majority was held by the Democrats. Lieberman is and was an ass and can hardly be considered a Democrat since he campaigned for McCain over Obama. I was surprised he was allowed to keep his chairs though. That should have ended immediately after the election.
So where is this nasty talking point you are refuting posted at? And good on you for setting the record straight.

[jeff47]

22. Um....all over the fucking place.

In every ACA thread.
In every thread talking about Obama's "more forceful" attitude after the 2014 election.
And pretty much every single thread where someone is complaining about a policy.

Every single one will have someone upset that Democrats "didn't do it when they had Congress". Ignoring the 60 vote threshold, and ignoring that the 59th vote was Ben Nelson and the 60th vote was Lieberman.

[Autumn]

24. I have seen a claim of 27 days posted but have never seen the claim of 2 years posted on DU jeff.

I think DUers unlike the gop even the ones who don't like the ACA are a little too smart to claim 2 years. So I disagree, it's not all over the fucking place and in every ACA thread or every single thread complaining about a policy. To say that is patently false, DUers are smarter than that.

[jeff47]

27. That's the implication of "back when we had Congress".

The claim is there was plenty of time to pass the particular policy the poster wanted changed. Usually phrased as "back when Obama was elected". Which was long before those 27 working days.

Alternatively, it will be stated as "before the 2010 election", ignoring that Coakley had lost the special election long before that and we only had 59 Democrats in the Senate.

To say that is patently false, DUers are smarter than that.

Were smarter than that. Times change.

Now, we have DUers claiming their favorite boogeyman can travel backwards through time. That if only Obama was "more forceful" he could have gotten Lieberman to vote for single payer. That "LBJ could have done it"....ignoring that Medicare was supposed to be single-payer for all, and LBJ could not get it done.

[Autumn]

30. Implication of "back when we had Congress"? That's a bit different from a claim of 2 years.

We had a majority for 27 days which is what I have seen claimed and that is the truth and yes Kennedy was sick during that time and lieberman is and was a fucking douche. But to say DUers say that in every thread is just not true.

[jeff47]

32. Except we "had" Congress for two years. You "have" Congress with a simple majority.

We had a majority for 27 days

Seriously, you're gonna get this pedantic and get something that basic so utterly wrong?

We had a majority for two years. We (theoretically) had 60 votes in the Senate for 27 days.

But to say DUers say that in every thread is just not true.

Then find me one with a significant number of replies where they don't.

[Autumn]

39. jeff you are the one who says DUers do it in every thread so find me just a couple where they do.

We had a majority for 27 days, that's the truth. As for the claim of two years I still have never seen a DUer claim that.

[jeff47]

45. No, it's not the truth.

So you're going to enter the thread claiming DUers are super smart, and then claim 59-41 is not a majority. A second time. After the error has been pointed out to you once already.

As for the claim of two years I still have never seen a DUer claim that.

I've never seen a DUer claim that 59 out of 100 is not a majority until now.

Golly, if only it was abundantly clear you were talking about the votes required to break a filibuster instead of actually talking about a majority. Oh well, if people have to literally use the phrase "two years", then we have to take your post literally. So you must really believe that 59 is less than 50.

Or do the rules change when it's your post?

[Autumn]

46. I'm done with this. You keep pretending people say what they haven't said.

rant on jeff rant on. I'm gonna trash this thread because that's just where it belongs.

[blm]

48. People casually make the claim about Dem super majority as if it was true - it

never was given Lieberman's (NOT a Dem) refusal to budge on some crucial issues and that even being GENEROUS to Lieberman and calling him a Dem still leaves 27 actual working days, few of them even coinciding with the ACA vote.

I don't think the reality of the timeframe supports using the 'super-majority' talking point to burgeon, especially since the Republicans use it deceptively all the time.

[Bobbie Jo]

23. Let the backpedaling word games begin!

I can't imagine who would have said anything like that. blink blink.

[Autumn]

25. If you know who said it, link to it. It should be easy for you to do.

blink blink.

[Bobbie Jo]

31. Not stepping and fetching for you

I've seen more than enough dishonest arguments around here.

This is just another variation on the theme.

Like I said, let the backpedaling word games begin!

Nooobody said anything about 2 WHOLE YEARS, after all. blink blink.

[Autumn]

37. The OP warns DUers not to spread the myth of super majority for two years

you and a few of your friend say that DUers are doing it all over DU. blink blink. I say they are not. Back peddling? Look in a mirror at your dishonesty, I said that I have seen the claim of 27 days so don't play your silly games with your word twisting. blink blink. Link it or slink it, it's your accusation not mine.

[Bobbie Jo]

51. More word games

You know as well as I do that these DISHONEST posts are intended to give the distinct impression that Democrats had majorities for far longer than they actually did in reality. That is without using the exact words "TWO YEARS."

Variation on the same DISHONEST theme.

You know what you can do with your link demand. Try stomping your feet or something...

[zappaman]

61. +1

"Who me?"

[Cha]

71. "you know what you can do with your link demand.. " +!, 00000000000000!

Thank you.

[LawDeeDah]

35. I've heard it too many times, here. No links though.

I'm sure others will back me up on that, if that is good enough for you, that is.

[Autumn]

42. I did a search on DU, went back 3 pages and didn't find a post claiming we had a majority for 2

years. I found plenty of OPs where right wingers were saying that but DUers in those threads debunked it. In every single thread DUers debunked it, easily.

[LawDeeDah]

44. I suppose you searched for titles, or can you search for contents in

a thread or subthread where topics bloom into a mini-thread of their own?

I don't know if there was a thread or subthread here in the last three days, but I do know it is no stranger to this anti-Obama land and I have seen it here and other 'ahem' democratic forums. It's all over the place and it started with the ratfucking wingers, I am assuming

[Mnpaul]

57. Lieberman would not have been an issue

Had certain Dems not campaigned to reelect this jerk.

and Lieberman was still a registered Dem and was listed as an Independent Democrat:

During his re-election bid in 2006, he lost the Democratic Party primary election but won re-election in the general election as a third party candidate under the party label "Connecticut for Lieberman". Lieberman himself was never a member of the Connecticut for Lieberman party; he was a registered Democrat while he ran.[5]
Lieberman was officially listed in Senate records for the 110th and 111th Congresses as an "Independent Democrat"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joe_Lieberman

[bvar22]

10. ^^ THIS ^^^

*

[chowder66]

41. Try 11 days then 13 days

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
Add to Journal Self-delete Edit post Reply to this post

[tridim]

8. The people who repeat this myth on DU know it is a myth. nt

[bvar22]

11. If the Democrats held a Super Majority for 27 days,

then it is NOT a "myth".

[Autumn]

12. I have never seen it said that the Democrats had a Super Majority for two years.

27 days yes and that's true. But then 27 days hardly fits their narrative that we on the left "insist" it was 2 years. Just another little club to beat the left here on DU for posts that they don't like.

[Skittles]

58. they latch onto anything that fits into their HE CAN DO NO WRONG obsession

it is very childish

[unrepentant progress]

14. Isn't this like saying, "It's a myth the Democrats could ever have done anything?"

Seems to me pushing the narrative that there were only a handful of working days when the Democrats could be true to the party's base is pretty much telling people not to vote for Democrats if they ever want anything accomplished.

[blm]

16. 27 day super majority IF you assumed Lieberman as a solid Dem, I suppose.

.

[Fumesucker]

18. Of course Lieberman was a solid Democrat, he was the Dem VP candidate in 2000

It's hard to get much more solidly Democratic than running as a Democrat on the national ticket.

[blm]

19. In 2000 - later to run as an Independent, quite apart from the Dem party.

Just good to keep reality in the mix.

[YoungDemCA]

59. Eight years later, he campaigned against the Democratic nominee and for McCain

Who, if I recall correctly, is a Republican.

Oh, and that Democratic nominee? Good thing he never became President, otherwise he'd have an actual record of governance to defend against all sorts of attacks-Left, Right, and "Center."

[Fumesucker]

68. The Democratic party thought he was Democratic enough to be a heartbeat away from the Presidency

[markpkessinger]

64. In 2006, Connecticut Democrats fielded a different Senate candidate in the primary . . .

. . . instead of renominating Lieberman. Lieberman then ran as an Independent in the general election and won his seat anyway. Lieberman was royally pissed off with the party over that. And he supported John McCain over Barack Obama in the 2008 election, and campaigned for Republican Congressman Peter King of New York and Senator Susan Collins of Maine. He nearly lost his chairmanship of the Homeland Security Committee because of that. He also threatened to filibuster healthcare reform if a public option were included in it.

Steve Kornacki wrote about this in the New York Observer back in July 2009. The article is titled, "Lieberman Shows the Filibuster-Proof Majority to Be Nothing of the Sort." I recommend reading it to refresh your memory of what was going on at the time.

[Fumesucker]

67. I remember all that

It left me with the feeling that there's no such thing as a "solid Democrat", if Lieberman wasn't one then they are basically on a conceptual level with unicorns.

The Democratic party chose Lieberman to be a heartbeat away from the Presidency, then all of a sudden he's not a "solid Democrat".

[markpkessinger]

76. Yes, but the VP nomination was before Lieberman became a cheerleader for Bush's wars...

... in Iraq and AFghanistan. I think a lot of Connecticut Democrats were rightly put off by that.

[Rilgin]

75. This is the Point

The issue is not Lieberman or whether the Democrats did or will have a super-majority vs a majority or are even in the minority.

The only issue is what policies or principles the political leaders of Congress and the President will fight for even if they lose a battle.

It is clearly true if you hold a super-majority of congress and everyone says they will vote for a bill or policy, it would have been easy to pass that policy into law. However, even assuming you have some opposition to a policy within your party (like Single Payer or Public Option in the health care field), that is a static picture taken before the campaign for health care reform. Politics is about what happens at the END of a campaign not the beginning. If you just go by what people say at the beginning, Hillary would have been our candidate last time. Instead there is a campaign which leads to people changing minds.

With respect to passing laws as opposed to voting for candidates there are even further dynamics. Lawmakers have more dynamics working on them and lots of statements like "I wont vote for" get changed and people who say they wont vote a certain way end up voting for a law.

How does it work.

First (like the voting process), you can convince a law maker that they were wrong (let them evolve). However, if a president elected in a huge public wave that brought millions to the mall on his inauguration has another weapon. He can apply private pressure (ala LBJ) but more importantly. he can ask for public pressure which can also work. And if you lose a vote, you point to the obstructionists, rally your support, and put it up again for Vote. The current crop of Democrats and Obama in particular has forgotten this concept. You have to fight for progress, not just poll the politicians listen to their first position and then give up.

Is it guaranteed that such public and private pressure would have worked. No, but it seems like its the only way you will actually get something good. Fight till you win. Or you get half baked laws like the ACA which is an expensive bulky system to give a few people some benefits they didn't have before rather than just give them the benefits of health care.

Health Care reform was wildly popular as was Obama. Obama did not utilize this public pressure. Instead he chose a path of making deals with republicans, Health Insurance Companies, Drug Companies and Hospitals that prevented much that could or might have been accomplished.

Again, we are all looking through at the past at what could or could not have been. Just when people argue that the democrats did not have the votes, they are not acknowledging one way politics work and they are only looking at the beginning of a process that was abandoned at that stage rather than an actual vote at the end of a campaign.

[Lochloosa]

20. Kennedy could not vote during portions of the "Super Majority" He was gravely ill then.

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/

[mcar]

21. Thank you blm

I cannot believe we are seeing this falsehood once again here on DU.

[Scuba]

28. "I cannot believe we are seeing this falsehood once again here on DU."

Me either. I sure haven't seen it.

[mikekohr]

26. I've seen that thrown around here, Fox News does not have the market cornered on lies, falsehoods,

and misinformation.

I expect it from them. It sucks the life out of me to see it here.

[Scuba]

29. I haven't seen this two year claim here, ever, but agree it's not accurate and should be corrected.

[jeff47]

36. One doesn't have to literally use the phrase "two years" to make the claim.

It's usually phrased as something like "before 2010" or "after Obama was elected". Implying that we had all of 2009 and 2010 to pass whatever the topic at hand is. The people making the argument never restrict themselves to the window when we theoretically had 60 votes.

And again, that argument ignores that vote 59 was Ben Nelson and vote 60 was Lieberman, and there were only about 30 votes for eliminating the filibuster.

[Scuba]

50. Only 30 votes for eliminating the filibuster. Interesting.

[jeff47]

74. That's what Brown claimed around that time.

Obviously, the number went up as the Republicans abused it, since a lot of filibusters were removed by the Democrats.

[Rex]

38. People often believe what they read on the Internets. If it says it, then it must be true.

http://538refugees.wordpress.com/2011/06/22/the-democratic-super-majority-myth/
Probably got the idea from someone named Mr. Universe (LOL) that crybabied about the left and threw them in there just for good ratings. You know, that 'rainbow pony' BS the center loves to dish out when they want morale to improve.

[alp227]

33. Exactly. That zombie lie is right wing concern trolling since right wingers wouldn't like a (D)

supermajority anyway.

[LawDeeDah]

34. Thanks for this but it will fall on purposeful deaf ears.

Obama is in constant cahoots with all the evil in the world to beat down the little guy into a pulp then rob him, doncha know.

[panader0]

40. Don't forget the Blue Dog coalition

From wiki:
The Blue Dog Coalition, commonly known as the Blue Dogs or Blue Dog Democrats, is a caucus of United States Congressional Representatives from the Democratic Party who identify themselves as moderates and conservatives.

Gabrielle Giffords was one--she was my Rep. Then came Ron Barber, another Blue Dog. Now it's McSally, a repub.
But there were many who did not follow party line.

[FiveGoodMen]

47. The GOP got their way more often with minorities in both houses

than the Dems did when they were ahead.

Why is the lack of a supermajority even being discussed?

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

53. It's called a 'shiny object'.

You're supposed to focus on this (strawman argument) and ignore the fact that Dem leadership sat back and twiddled their thumbs and pretended they could do 'bipartisan' things, rather than using rules jujitsu to give themselves the power to ram things through, and then forcing through useful legislation to actually reverse upward redistribution of wealth. Mainly because most of them are just fine with the upward redistribution of wealth, since almost all of them are in the 'upward' part, getting rich off the rest of America.

[Omaha Steve]

49. I did vote his ticket once.....

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

52. Of course, they easily could have had all they needed

simply by getting rid of the filibuster in 2008. But noooo, that was just too horrible an idea.

Dems (specifically Harry Reid) CHOSE not to be able to get anything done while they were in the majority. So they spent six years showing the voters that Dem 'control' means nothing gets done, leading to repeated Republican electoral gains and finally a Republican sweep of Congress.

Good job, Harry!

[blm]

62. That still rankles me - worst decision he ever made.

.

[msanthrope]

54. Kick for facts. nt

[Number23]

55. "Please don't repeat RW talking points" THEN what will the GD "darlings" have to talk about??!

PLEASE think of the recs!! The all important recs!!

Between the "Dems didn't do anything with that supermajority they had for the better part of four weeks," "Obama hasn't raised the minimum wage" (although the guy that keeps screaming about that is already on a forced time out despite only being here for less than three months) and the braying over the president's proposal to raise taxes on the wealthy -- something that GD has been braying about FOR YEARS and now that it's finally been put on the table, suddenly it's NOT ENOUGH!!11one along with everything else -- this place is now fully back to its annoying, boring and impotent wailing and only three weeks into the new year.

Cheers, GD.

[eomer]

56. And how about raising taxes on the wealthy, which requires just 50 senators + the VP?

They had two years (all of 2009 and 2010) to get that done. Raising taxes can definitely be done in a budget reconciliation bill, which can't be filibustered.

Now that it's impossible to do, President Obama is proposing raising taxes. Clearly this is just theater. When it was possible to do it with just the simple majority in both houses that we had, they instead tried to fool us into thinking it required a super majority. And they still do try to fool us into thinking that was the case when it absolutely wasn't.

[ND-Dem]

69. +100

[Tatiana]

60. Bottom line -- at some point, there did exist a super-majority. It should have been utilized.

Democrats exhibited poor leadership from top to bottom. That includes Obama, Reid, and Pelosi. Between the President, Speaker, and Majority Leader, we should have had bills in the can and ready to go from Day 1. The reason we didn't get more progressive legislation passed... such as a robust infrastructure/jobs bill, a better health care law, or a free community college bill for all was because our leadership didn't want them passed. Harry Reid, in particular knows the rules almost as well as Senator Byrd did. Nancy "impeachment is off the table" Pelosi gave the President exactly what he wanted.

It's time for people to wake up and smell the coffee... most politicians are out for themselves and their wealthy benefactors... not you and me. There are several notable exceptions, and hopefully we will find a few more true public servants come 2016.

[blm]

73. I agree to some extent - but - Lieberman was NOT a Dem at that point and

was actively enjoying his role as spoiler.

I don't think it serves any purpose to omit context and/or limit reality when looking back.

[smokey nj]

63. The FACT is Democrats ALLOWED Republicans to obstruct. Filibuster rules aren't written in stone

and Democrats were in a position to change them. They CHOSE not to make the necessary changes.

[sendero]

65. Yeah we get it..

... when Bush is president he gets *almost* everything he wants regardless of the make up of congress. When we expected to get something we were just delusional. No matter what the makeup of congress Democrats can't shut down absurd tax cuts for the rich, can't extend UE benefits, can't, well do anything for the poor and middle class.

Sure, it's because you have to have a SUPER MAJORITY to accomplish anything as president.

[ND-Dem]

70. +100. Sick of this song Obama had a committed majority and kids that would have laid down

and died for him, they were that enthusiastic.

To see it all fizzle out into nothing is sad; worse, tragic.

[BootinUp]

72. Good point blm

and howdy from an old adversary. (Jim4Wes)