The Filibuster rules change has passed

[malaise]

Fabulous!!!

Go Dems!!

[napkinz]

1. WOOO HOOO!

[William769]

2. Kick & recommended.

[Le Taz Hot]

3. Kick

[Cooley Hurd]

4. It was necessary, but it's nothing to celebrate, IMO...

I just hope we keep the Senate in 2014.

[malaise]

5. Elections have consequences

About freaking time.

[Dawson Leery]

9. I agree.

We have very little choice. The GOP does not recognize the legitimacy of President Obama.

[malaise]

12. That simple

Enough!!!

[YarnAddict]

14. Yup

I think the Repukes were pushing for Reid to do this because they think they can take the Senate next year and bring up the "Reid precedent" to ram through their regressive agenda.

[Myrina]

51. This scares me too.

[Cal33]

55. Do you think Reid is capable of "ramming anything through" in the coming 3 years?

[bvar22]

129. Reid is not that kinda guy.

The Democrats took the Senate in 2006, and Harry Reid was elected by the Senate Democratic Caucus to be their spokesman & leader.
He has been re-elected at the beginning every session since then.

There is a reason why the Senate Democrats keep choosing a milquetoast, indecisive, "moderate" from a conservative state with a reputation for bi-partisanship to be their spokesman and leader.
They LIKE the "job" he is doing.

[Gore1FL]

115. They could have done it themselves if they had the majority.

How would it benefit them to make it easier for Obama's nominations to go through if they won the Senate in 2016?

[YarnAddict]

123. They think they are going to take it in 2014

They will then be able to block nominations by a simple majority--and expect them to extend the nuclear option to legislation, Supreme Court Justices, etc. It will become tyranny of the majority.

[Gore1FL]

128. This event doesn't enable or prevent them from doing so anyway.

They can block judges now with a simple minority. If I had to have "tyranny," I'd rather have it by rule of the elected majority than elected minority.

[Adsos Letter]

24. Agree. This cuts both ways.

Congressional elections just became even more crucial.

[ProSense]

35. Agree to an extent.

The filibuster never worked as well for Democrats as it did for Republicans. There were always enough Democrats to screw up a Democratic filibuster attempt (think Alito).

Even here, you see Democratic defections.

This was sorely needed

168 filibusters of nominees in our history. HALF of them have occurred during Obama years!
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024069779

[demosincebirth]

91. ...and Thomas

[jeff47]

39. Because if the Republicans win they wouldn't change the rules? (nt)

[PatSeg]

74. Good point

We can't keep on like this because the Democrats might be in the minority some day. They might as well be the minority with the way the republicans abuse the filibuster rules.

[lastlib]

107. Well, hell! If the GOP ever DOES take the Senate back, we'll just change it back for 'em--

then they'll have nothing to be upset about!

But right now, we wanna get some shit done, and we need the people in place to do it--those fucks were in the way..............

[PatSeg]

122. Yep, if they want everything THEIR way,

maybe they need to win some elections. Meanwhile, they might try governing. A country can't go years with a government that does NOTHING. Well, I guess it can, but the outcome is undesirable.

[Hosnon]

71. We'll still have the White House. And demographics favor a (D) White House in the future.

It's an unfortunate occurrence, but perhaps not as risky as many think.

[quakerboy]

110. It brings us one step closer to being a democratic country

That is something to celebrate. This would be a good thing whether Democrats had a 95 vote senate margin or a 47 vote minority.

[Heathen57]

114. It won't matter

if the GOP do take the Senate in 2014 (and that is a very big if) you can bet that they would immediately change the rules themselves because they wouldn't want the Dems to pull the same junk they have been doing all this time.

The majority of the citizens know not to trust a Republican Senator to keep his own word, especially McConnell. He has a history of giving his solemn vow to let the Senate function as it is supposed to, and then going back on it faster than the government does on American Native treaties.

[Capt. Obvious]

6. Here comes the progressive wet dream

No more corporate Dino Senators!

[frazzled]

13. Wha? All it changes is the rules for Executive Branch nominations

Filibusters on legislation are still possible (and probable).

But this is great: a whole slew of Obama nominees to courts and agencies can be put in place for the last 3 years of his administration.

There was nothing to lose here: we approve Republican presidents' nominees 95% of the time anyway. They've blocked 95% of Obama's nominees.

[malaise]

18. +1,000 n/t

[BlueStreak]

81. And with Boehner as Speaker, we still can't get any bills passed, even if

there were new restrictions on fillibustering regular bills, which there aren't.

But I guess the fact that the House won't go along is pretty obvious.

This is a good move. As you said, there are few appointments that Dems have ever opposed. And clearly the GOP has perverted this whole thing, screwing up the lives and reputations of a great many very qualifies public servants completely unnecessarily.

Let's hope that this means the Dems are finally learning how important it is to opposed the manipulation of the Judiciary that has been such a high priority for the GOP since Reagan. It will take another 20 years to reverse that damage, but at least today we take the first step.

[SlimJimmy]

119. Well, I'm glad you pointed that out. I've been listening to all the progressive

shows on XM today, and a lot of folks were under the impression that the filibuster was gone for everything. Not the case. Only for judicial and cabinet appointments, and not for the Supreme Court.

I can't say that I am in favor though. This could come back to haunt us in a few years. I personally believe that the filibuster has a very defined purpose and shouldn't be abandoned as it gives the minority some power to stop the majority from running over them.

Have the repukes abused it? Absolutely. But with that said, I still wouldn't have changed the rules for some undefined short term political gains.

Be very careful what you wish for.

[jeff47]

126. Democrats do not filibuster.

Fact is Democrats did not use the filibuster to stop extreme Republican nominees.

If Democrats aren't going to use the tool anyway, there is no reason to preserve it.

[SlimJimmy]

130. There is a 200 year history of using it. It should be preserved. We'll just have to agree to

disagree on this one.

[jeff47]

131. There's justices Alito and Roberts.

The fact that it existed for 200 years does not mean Democrats actually used it to stop extreme Republican nominees.

[SlimJimmy]

132. Our party has used the filibuster many times. We used it to block many of

*bush's more extreme executive nominees. At the time, many of our liberal elites (Tribe, Sunstein) favored it and advocated strongly for its use. I find it curious that our party is now advocating for it to stop.

During the 108th Congress in which the Republicans regained control of the Senate by a 51-49 margin, the nominees that the Senate Democrats had blocked in the 107th Congress began to be moved through the now Republican Senate Judiciary Committee.[10] Subsequently Senate Democrats started to filibuster judicial nominees.

On February 12, 2003, Miguel Estrada, a nominee for the D.C. Circuit, became the first court of appeals nominee ever to be successfully filibustered.[citation needed] Later, nine other conservative court of appeals nominees were also filibustered. These nine were Priscilla Owen, Charles W. Pickering, Carolyn Kuhl, David W. McKeague, Henry Saad, Richard Allen Griffin, William H. Pryor, William Gerry Myers III and Janice Rogers Brown.[11] Three of the nominees (Estrada, Pickering and Kuhl) withdrew their nominations before the end of the 108th Congress.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_W._Bush_judicial_appointment_controversies

[jeff47]

133. Didn't read far enough, huh?

Keep reading further in your article, and discover what happened to these judicial nominees.

Hint: All but 2 of them ended up on the bench.

So, what was that you were saying about "many times?".

[SlimJimmy]

134. You said that we had *never* used the filibuster. I provided information that showed we did.

And, by the way, I *did* read the entire article and was quite aware of the outcomes. As to being used many times, I just pointed out a brief period in history where it was used 11 times, and was successful twice. My facts are still in order. Yours are still falling quite short.

I stand by my opinion and strong belief that the filibuster should not be removed as a tool of the minority in Congress in exchange for short term political gain. It's just stupid and will come back to bite us big time.

[jeff47]

135. Please point to the word "never" in my posts.

I stand by my opinion and strong belief that the filibuster should not be removed as a tool of the minority in Congress in exchange for short term political gain. It's just stupid and will come back to bite us big time.

And I merely pointed out that Democrats don't make sufficient use of the filibuster to outweigh Republican abuse of it.

You will not find a more horrifically conservative nominee than Owen, and we did not stop her even though the filibuster was available. If we will not stop nominees like her, then there's no reason to keep the filibuster.

[SlimJimmy]

136. I took that to mean that we have never used it. If you meant it another way, then

my apologies. As to the nomination of Owens, I agree. My point was, and is, that we will suffer the same fate when the next *Owens* comes up for a vote in a Republican controlled Senate.

Democrats do not filibuster.

[polichick]

21. Obviously, you're not so obvious Capt. Obvious.

[ProSense]

7. The rules have changed: Reid pulls trigger on nuclear option

The rules have changed: Reid pulls trigger on nuclear option

by Joan McCarter

Kaboom! Republicans dared Harry Reid to do it, and he just did, finally. The Senate has voted to change the filibuster rules, 52-48. Democrats Carl Levin, Joe Manchin, Mark Pryor voted against changing the rule.

The new rule that will allow just a simple majority vote for all nominees expect for the Supreme Court. For the remainder of this Congress, President Obama's nominees will only need 51 votes to be appointed. What that means immediately is that, while the Republicans continue to play games to delay action on the Defense Authorization, the nominations of Patricia Millett, Nina Pillard, and Roberts Wilkins to the D.C. Circuit can move forward. So can the nomination of Rep. Mel Watt to the federal housing agency. In other words, the Senate can start functioning again. At least on nominations.

This will likely just further enrage Republicans, making them even more obnoxious and obstructionist. So next stop, ending the filibuster on legislation. That will probably happen at the beginning of the next Congress, January, 2015.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2013/11/21/1257318/-The-rules-have-changed

Almost Anticlimactic

David Kurtz

I don't know what I expected. Maybe the phrase "nuclear option" conjured some cataclysmic moment on the Senate floor when Harry Reid presses a cartoonish red button and Mitch McConnell, tie askew and hair mussed, shouts an anguished "Noooooo" while lunging to stop him.

But there's no such dramatics on the Senate floor. Not even anyone raising a cane.

Instead, through a series of votes the Senate rules are being changed, one aye (or nay) at a time. Real anger among Republicans, don't get me wrong. Real historic changes to be sure.

But the threat of the filibuster changes, made endlessly for years, carried such implications of high drama and momentousness, that the rather mundane way it actually happens seems almost anticlimactic.

It makes you wonder why it didn't happen sooner.

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/edblog/filibuster-senate-rules-nuclear-option

[napkinz]

19. Now Mitch won't go blind ...

[Hubert Flottz]

43. Harry took Mitch's political lube and

put sand burrs in it!

[bluestate10]

30. Is Levin running for re-election?

He has been a continuous problem on principled votes. There are a lot of aggressive Democrats in Michigan that would do a much better job in his seat, 2014 would be an idea time to elect one of them, if not then 2016 will be an excellent chance. We need to get rid of Levin. Manchin and Pryor are tougher calls, given the redness of the states they represent.

[Rowdyboy]

32. Thank God the answer is no. He's retiring after 36 years.

[MyOpinion-2]

8. Yes...Yes...Yes

The way to go Dems!!

[Laelth]

10. Excellent. k&r n/t

-Laelth

[JimboBillyBubbaBob]

11. Right on,

and another right on!!!

[polichick]

15. Now things will get interesting!

[Little Star]

16. k&r

[Zorra]

17. I'm genuinely stunned. This should have been done in January 2009, but

better late than never.

Charlie Brown actually kicked a field goal. Well, I'll be darned.

[bluestate10]

20. Thank God. nt

[no_hypocrisy]

22. Republicans via the Tea Party overplayed their hand.

[malaise]

23. In every fugging area

Fill the vacancies Obama.

[tridim]

38. The GOP/teaparty is WEAK!

And getting weaker by the day.

This is awesome news!

[Ganja Ninja]

25. About time.

[HappyMe]

26. He shoots, he scores!

Well done.

[Jester Messiah]

27. I stand amazed.

Guess I owe Harry an apology, nicely done sir.

[MineralMan]

28. Outstanding! Now we can get those judges confirmed.

About time.

[Gothmog]

29. Harry Reid took his time but got the job done

Getting 51 Senate Democrats together is not easy

[backscatter712]

31. BOOYAH! SUCK IT, MITCH! n/t

[lillypaddle]

33. Great news!

Please send Senator Reid a note of support & thanks!

[badgolfer]

34. Pryor and Levin

Have these two guys ever used the filibuster?

If they have never or hardly ever used, why are they so against the change?

[wandy]

36. K&R

[kudzu22]

37. Are you sure this is a good idea?

Harry Reid was a champion of the filibuster vs. GWB's nominees. What would the government look like if they had all been confirmed? Are you ready for President Cruz's nominees to sail through over democrat objections?

Be careful what you wish for.

[jeff47]

42. And Republicans wouldn't make this same change because.........? (nt)

[kudzu22]

52. They almost did but we shamed them out it

I guess nobody here remembers Trent Lott wanting to end the filibuster for judicial nominees so W could pack the courts, and Harry Reid and Robert Byrd fighting righteously against it. Congrats, we just did their dirty work for them.

[jeff47]

53. And you think they are less radical today than they were back then?

Back then, there were still some "old school" Republicans. And the Democrats let almost every nominee through anyway. Heck, they let through people they previously filibustered as part of the deal.

[kudzu22]

64. Maybe, maybe not

The point is we won't have to find out how far they'll go. I can't wrap my head around DUers celebrating the passage of something Trent Lott wanted. I have dire fears about how this will play out.

[jeff47]

105. Trent Lott didn't get it because he did not have the votes.

What makes you think McConnell would not have the votes?

[upaloopa]

45. If there is a President Cruz we would be to fucked

of a country for it to really matter much.

[cilla4progress]

68. I agree

We have to deal in the NOW. Who knows about (if) tomorrow?

[Plucketeer]

46. So a consistently hijacked Senate

was better? The only positive thing prior to this was that the senators had more time to look for money for their next election.

[olegramps]

48. The day that Cruz is elected president will be the advent of a Theocracy.

If it happens, I will be gland that at my advanced age it wouldn't have to live very long to tolerate these absolute nitwits running the show. In fact with their End-Time beliefs they would most probably start a nuclear war to usher in the Last Days.

[quakerboy]

112. Yes

on two levels.

First, it brings us closer to democracy. The filibuster is a profoundly anti-democratic mechanism, in a body that by its very construction already is skewing the democratic voice of the people. It is an inherent win to reduce its power.

Second, chief justice Roberts. Short hand for "Filibusters don't work when it matters". They screw us when D's have the majority and fail us when we are in the minority.

[SoLeftIAmRight]

40. They say... Darkest before the dawn...

These are dark days indeed. The cold war is over. Reed had fired the open shot of what will be a frightful battle. If we do not stand together, VOTE like the future is in peril we will be crushed. We are NOT in a fight with a school yard bully that will back down when confronted. We are now in a battle with killers.

The Right and the Corporatist will now unleash there forces from hell.

Dark days indeed.

[Shrike47]

41. Hooray! At last.

May he nominate many, many judges.

[Ratty]

44. Some of the points Reid brought up in his speech were stunning

I knew the Republicans were being obstructive but the actual numbers made my jaw drop.

In the history of the Republic, there have been 168 filibusters of executive and judicial nominations. Half of them have occurred during the Obama Administration – during the last four and a half years.

Further, only 23 district court nominees have been filibustered in the entire history of this country. Twenty of them were nominated by President Obama.

In July, after obstructing dozens of executive nominees for months, and some for years, Republicans once again promised that they would end their unprecedented obstruction. One look at the Senate’s Executive Calendar shows nothing has changed since July. Republicans have continued their record obstruction as if no agreement had ever been reached.

Thanks for the transcript Capt. Obvious

[Plucketeer]

54. These points reflect what so many have forgotten

That is that the minority leader stated outright, that their primary goal was to impede and inhibit ANYTHING that the Obama administration tried to achieve. Since July, McConnell's handshake has proven to be anything BUT a gesture of contract. His handshake would more appropriately be termed a Jest-ure - as it's obvious he was only joking. Of course - listening to Grassley grovel and grouse his disapproval as I type this, I have to wonder how intensely he'll bitch about it should his side regain the leadership. Tough luck, GOP. Enjoy your Tea Party embracement. THIS is what they've delivered for you. Maybe you could try your hand at making some lemonade.

[Coolest Ranger]

47. Somewhere several angels

have received their wings.

[flamingdem]

49. Dems kickin' azzz

[Cali_Democrat]

50. FINALLY REID GOES NUCLEAR!!!!!

[ProSense]

56. Mark Pryor, tool:

Democrat Pryor: Changing Filibuster 'Could Permanently Damage' Senate
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/mark-pryor-senate-filibuster-nuclear-option

Clown.

[Pretzel_Warrior]

73. Apparently it is a requirement for Dems from Arkansas and Louisiana to act like

Republicans at least 49% of the time.

[ProdigalJunkMail]

57. the pendulum swings both ways

and one day Dems will regret this...

sP

[scheming daemons]

58. nope

Gop was going to do it the next time they took the senate, so we might as well fill the vacancies while we can.

[ProdigalJunkMail]

60. if you say so...

but it will always be the Democrats that did it... so they will take the blame. the american people are too uninformed to know and when it DOES come back (and it will) they will say, "Remember when the Democrats in the Senate moved to reduce the power of the filibuster... I bet we wish it was still there."

Mark my words...

[Cleita]

61. So according to you, the Democrats should do nothing

so they don't get the blame? Strange reasoning here.

[ProdigalJunkMail]

80. we'll see how it turns out

i will be happy to eat crow if when a republican is in power and has a narrow lead in the senate if people aren't complaining about how they wish there was a way to block those damned nominees...

sP

[scheming daemons]

83. for 200 years, minority parties never filibustered nominees

It is recent phenomenon that began during Clinton's term.

Straight up or down vote. That is what the constitution prescribed, and that's how it should be.

Elections have consequences. If and when the GOP holds the presidency and senate, they SHOULD get votes on their nominees, because the people put them in power.

The filibuster has been used as a way to nullify presidential elections, and it shouldn't.

[ProdigalJunkMail]

88. when the Democrats were filibustering the Bush judicial nominees

no one here was screaming for it to end. in fact, I recall how 'principled' the 'opposition' party was being in holding up the nominations. it took the gang of 14 to break the impasse... if you are willing to suffer the future 'elections have consequences' statements, then ok... because as I said, the pendulum swings both ways.

sP

[scheming daemons]

98. GOP has filibustered 28 Obama nominees in 5 years

Dems filibustered 7 Bush nominations in 8 years.


Nowhere near the same.

[ProdigalJunkMail]

99. not disagreeing with that at all...

but i still think it will come back to haunt us...

sP

[Gore1FL]

116. It didn't happen with every nominee

It also didn't happen with every vote.

The GOP minority have not been good stewards of the filibuster.

[scheming daemons]

65. Americans by 80-20 in polls hate the filibuster

If you think weakening the filibuster hurts at the ballot box, you don't understand politics.

[ProdigalJunkMail]

79. ok... we'll see... n/t

[Cali_Democrat]

82. LOL

They would have done it anyways.

Might as well punch the repubs in the face now and get some judges appointed.

Fuck 'em.

[jeff47]

127. Two massive problems

First, the Republicans are far more radical than they have ever been. They were going to eliminate the filibuster the moment it benefited them.

Second, Alito and Roberts: Democrats do not use the filibuster.

[Liberal_Dog]

59. K & R

The Senate's role is "advise and consent" on nominations.

It's role is not "advise and stop".

The Dems did not really have a choice but to do this and I am glad that they did.

[Uben]

62. Hey, it's a rule.....it can be changed

Dems could get all their nominees appointed then change the rule back....no? I mean, since the republicans hate the nuclear option so bad, they would never use it....would they?

Good move Harry! The republicans are eating some of the stuff they serve....but it tastes different. Hmmm?

[adavid]

63. Is it safe to..

assume that the ONLY reason the teaparty fascists abused the filibuster appointing rules of the POTUS, was out of spite?

[mountain grammy]

92. Yes, that would be safe to assume. To shut down this President and the majority of Americans

who elected him. Your point is?

[adavid]

124. Oh, I don't have a point...

I am just trying to understand this new form of a fascist teabagger mindset. Kind of like the spoiled toddler who breaks his toy, then decides to break all of the other kids' toys, just so that the others cannot play with their toys either.

[malaise]

94. I don't think it's simply spite

I think there's a heavy dose of racism

[Gore1FL]

117. It was their stated purpose.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/08/10/1118614/-Biden-Mitch-McConnell-vowed-no-cooperation-with-the-Obama-administration-from-the-get-go

[Dopers_Greed]

66. Bad move

I'm going to take heat for this post, but here goes...

-The "liberal" media is going to rip the Dems on this, making it seem like they changed the rules for their own benefit. And at a time when we and Obama are getting record bad press.

-The Repugs are on track to crush us in the next couple elections, and when that happens, we'll wish we had the filibuster.

[annabanana]

85. You call this "record bad press"?

We've gotten this press from day one.

[mountain grammy]

93. Seriously, trying to remember the last time we got "good press!"

Anyone who thinks we're worried about "bad press" at this point just walked out of his talking points cave.

[blue14u]

101. Quote: "Republicans are on track to

crush us in the next couple of elections"???? What???

I read a lot of politics, and keep up with what's going on...

I have not seen or heard this anywhere.

Where do you get this information?

As for the "RULES CHANGE"... I am thrilled. As far as I can

see, Elizabeth Warren (POTUS 2016) was very adamant in how she felt about this

obstruction being to nullify our POTUS.. I think I will go with her reasoning.. I trust her judgment on this and have no fear of the Democrats keeping office and winning many more 2014 and 2016...
2014 will be a winner for us, just like VA was a couple of weeks ago..

E. Warren is there, in real time, paying attention, and is aware of how this would affect us now, and in the future. She agreed with the change..

[cilla4progress]

67. Great strategy and timing

Just when the rethugs thought they had the Obama admin back on its heels...

[Politicub]

69. I'm just wild about Harry!

He actually did it this time!

Now it's time to get fair and impartial judges seated to blunt the effect of the conservative ideologues placed by the GOP.

[cilla4progress]

70. Funny...after all the sturm and drang

it ended up being pretty straightforward!

[indepat]

72. It's far past time for all the shit 'pukes have been creating to be shoved up their collective arses

[Blue Idaho]

75. Oh Hell Yes!!!!!!!!!

Its about time - and I think we all know the New Teabagger Confederacy would not hesitate to do this the next time they control the senate.

[MoonRiver]

76. MADE MY DAY!!

Can't wait to hear about all those good Dem judicial appointees finally being approved!

[99th_Monkey]

77. OK NOW I believe it.

I said I wouldn't believe Reid "would" do it, until he actually fucking DID it.

Harry made a believer out of me today. Woot!!

[AndyA]

78. Finally!

Now the Senate can get President Obama's nominees voted on.

[Iggo]

84. WHOA!!!

[spanone]

86. k&r...

[UCmeNdc]

87. 2014 congressional elections are even more important!

[CFLDem]

89. 'Bought time we brought the war to them!

[BlancheSplanchnik]

90. YAY!! YAY!! YAY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

HOORAY!!!!!



fuck you, horrible ugly game playing fuckwad manipulating lying hypocritical scumbag self-righteous heartless evil putrid loathsome greedy soulless repukes!!!

[mountain grammy]

95. Finally! You can't say we didn't try. This is way past due.

[spanone]

96. amen. mcconnell has already said that dems will live to regret it.

which tells me they plan on abusing the hell out of it.

so i say let's abuse it first.

[malaise]

97. He'll regret the elections next year when

he's kicked out of the Senate by a lady - can't wait

[Gore1FL]

118. I'm thinking McConnell is doing a bit of regretting at the moment

If he could be trusted to work for the good of the country, this wouldn't have been necessary.

[OnionPatch]

100. Wow. I'm stunned. But glad!

What the GOP has been doing is just inexcusable and anti-democratic.

[grahamhgreen]

102. Hopefully, now that they've got their feet wet, the can kill the rest of the filibuster too AND

it maybe just might stave off a few legislative filibusters from the R's

[pacalo]

103. Good news!

Malaise broke the news (for me, anyway)!

[gademocrat7]

104. K&R

[lastlib]

106. Hey, GOPee! Don't get so upset--

IF you ever do get the Senate back, we'll change it back for ya!

(Don't go away mad, Pukers--just go away!)

[2naSalit]

108. Long overdue

but at least they did it. And it isn't for the entire spectrum of legislative issues, this is very specific.

About f'ing time.

[Spitfire of ATJ]

109. The RW Freakout is funny.

[blkmusclmachine]

111. Now, where will the Conservatives in our Party hide?! Can't hide behind the always-obstructive GOP

as a Cover anymore. Or can they?

[ffr]

113. Can we reverse five years, getting eight years work done in three?

Imagine a world without Republis and their obstructionist backward ways.

I envision sidewalks plated in gold, where everyone has a smile on their face, and doesn't have to work like a slave, always worried about their next paycheck.

Get involved. Speak out. Get others interested. Register Democrats. GOTV! And let's put this menace out to pasture for good.

Bye-bye Mitch!

[Coyotl]

120. Sometimes it seems the USA has just one problem, Republicans

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024069512

[cprise]

121. YAY! Now I'm changing my sig to an anti-Gerrymander campaign!

[uponit7771]

125. +1