Reply #18: We needed more stimulus. She could have introduced legislation for more after we had 60 votes, [View All]

[laughingliberal]

perhaps? We had to pass that inadequate joke of a stimulus due to only having 58 in the Senate at that time. But once we had 60, there was nothing stopping any of them from calling for more.

What I know is if Bill Clinton's endorsement can't get you elected in AR, you've got more problems than just 'nutjobs.' Nutjobs are nothing new to that region. But, as you pointed out, Democrats have held that seat for a long time, nutjobs notwithstanding.

The people on my end of the political spectrum (liberal Democrat) are not lying liars. Our solutions work and the RW and center right solutions do not. If 30 years hasn't shown people that, then there's not jack I or anyone else can do about it. Until we change course, the workers will remain poor and the middle class will continue to shrink.

The lying liars are the ones who keep telling us we can keep passing Republican think tank style legislation and economic policies and expect any better results than we've gotten out of that for 30 years. Pragmatism is about doing what produces results for people, not just winning an election. If you produce results people can see and feel in their lives, the elections will take care of themselves. Results is what matters and most of us 'small people' down here have yet to see any or even see anything that will produce results for us down the road.

Clinton proved all of that. He passed his 1993 Recovery act without one Republican vote. The Repigs screamed bloody murder all over the airwaves about, 'the largest tax increase in history!' But he won reelection and he would have won a 3rd one, impeachment and all, if he could have run again. When our elected officials learn to stand up for us and quit pandering to their wealthy benefactors, people will do better and they will win their elections. Until then, I don't know that there's any hope for them.