General Discussion

joshcryer

(62,536 posts)

313. Reid freaking created the virtual filibuster.

Wed Jan 21, 2015, 08:44 AM

Jan 2015

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.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

333 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

I don't understand why some DU members show support for the FACTS that ... [View all] Scuba Jan 2015 OP

Yep. marym625 Jan 2015 #1

I don't understand why the OP and other Democrats don't understand we NEVER pnwmom Jan 2015 #95

I don't understand marym625 Jan 2015 #102

You think they didn't try? If they pushed for that I bet we wouldn' have any health care program at Maraya1969 Jan 2015 #282

First rule of negotiations AllyCat Jan 2015 #314

Actually the first rule of negotiations is ... 1StrongBlackMan Jan 2015 #327

How many Republicans voted for the ACA to get it passed? sabrina 1 Jan 2015 #103

You are forgetting Joe Lieberman, again. He was the INDEPENDENT who voted for the ACA pnwmom Jan 2015 #106

ACA was passed by reconciliation and that only required 51 votes Bandit Jan 2015 #114

reconciliation only happens after both chambers vote to pass pasto76 Jan 2015 #167

Only if you buy the Lieberman meme whole. merrily Jan 2015 #203

Are you sure that a bill passed by reconciliation is subject to the 60 vote Cloture rule? merrily Jan 2015 #214

Yep. Final vote by reconciliation. merrily Jan 2015 #202

Precisely. Enthusiast Jan 2015 #311

Yea but it took a lot of time and fancy dance steps to get there. Doesn't anyone Maraya1969 Jan 2015 #283

Why were his chairs not removed for that act of treason to the party who welcomed him back AFTER sabrina 1 Jan 2015 #122

^^^^^Y.E.A.H. ^^^^^^ MrMickeysMom Jan 2015 #156

Why did you say that the ACA was passed with only Dem votes when you knew that was false? pnwmom Jan 2015 #182

Lieberman was given special privileges in order to support Dems. Why did you not point that out? sabrina 1 Jan 2015 #221

That didn't make him a Dem. It helped the Dems much of the time, but not with the ACA. pnwmom Jan 2015 #224

You've already been told, his vote wasn't needed. The ACA was passed, by what LIBERALS had sabrina 1 Jan 2015 #236

Yeah, I've already been told a LIE. His vote was needed, because the only bill that could be passed pnwmom Jan 2015 #239

When did the Republicans take over the Senate?? sabrina 1 Jan 2015 #284

This message was self-deleted by its author jhart3333 Jan 2015 #285

Not to mention that he campaigned in 2008 for Peter King and Susan Collins! n/t markpkessinger Jan 2015 #262

Yes. This. AllyCat Jan 2015 #332

Aside from the fact that the filibuster wasn't an issue Kelvin Mace Jan 2015 #131

Everyone LOVES to forget Max Baucus, the Democrat that had Single Payer nationalize the fed Jan 2015 #161

Max Baucus was well rewarded for playing his role.... bvar22 Jan 2015 #192

Lieberman was a long time Dem who had not choice but either to retire merrily Jan 2015 #201

He wasn't a Dem any longer, he was a bitter Independent who remained so he could throw pnwmom Jan 2015 #212

Blue Dog Democrats and DINO's abakan Jan 2015 #198

Third Wayers can certainly be referred to as DINOs. merrily Jan 2015 #204

I hate that term... Reminds me of the purity test tea partiers. Adrahil Jan 2015 #299

I agree that the less Dems are like the RW, the better, which is exactly why I oppose Third Wayers merrily Jan 2015 #305

You can oppose "third wayers" without.... Adrahil Jan 2015 #310

Third Way is a Think Tank and they are far from being Democrats. How do we know? sabrina 1 Jan 2015 #317

Plenty of folks here and elsewhere.... Adrahil Jan 2015 #319

I'm not following you. The process is supposed to be about the PEOPLE who hire sabrina 1 Jan 2015 #320

Wrong. Campaign rhetoric is campaign rhetoric. Amnesia as 40 to 60 years of a merrily Jan 2015 #321

"Too bad we didn't know about them when they first started implementing their agenda in our party." merrily Jan 2015 #323

So this is really about "some here" calling Hillary a Third Wayer, not the post of mine re the ACA? merrily Jan 2015 #318

When Ted Kennedy died, he was replaced by an appointee who would have voted as Ted wanted. merrily Jan 2015 #184

"Why it continues to be framed as a refusal to understand when it is a difference of opinion ..." Scuba Jan 2015 #213

"I don't understand" Fuddnik Jan 2015 #242

+1 pnwmom Hekate Jan 2015 #294

The White House never bothered contacting Joe Lieberman asking him to support the public option. pa28 Jan 2015 #330

Yeah but we only had it a short while and like the blue dogs fucked things up.... Autumn Jan 2015 #2

I like the fantasy put forth that electing more dems will make congress more liberal. KG Jan 2015 #4

Yeah and we need them because without them we can't accomplish anything. Autumn Jan 2015 #18

Are you saying electing more Democrats is a bad idea?... SidDithers Jan 2015 #87

Your naive view assumes democrats always act like democrats should whatchamacallit Jan 2015 #119

A Democrat who votes with the rest of the party 75% of the time YoungDemCA Jan 2015 #136

Agreed, but it's the votes on key democratic issues that matter whatchamacallit Jan 2015 #139

That depends on how the Caucus is voting that 75% of the time. merrily Jan 2015 #207

And sid certainly is a US Democratic party loyalist. merrily Jan 2015 #206

+ 1. Yep. That's basically what that poster is advocating. Cleverly, of course. eom BlueCaliDem Jan 2015 #129

Well, GEE� let's see if this is your idea of a Democrat... MrMickeysMom Jan 2015 #164

Max Baucas, as bad as he was, still held a 100% rating from NARAL... SidDithers Jan 2015 #196

Passionate! whatchamacallit Jan 2015 #209

I love it when you go all xenophobic... SidDithers Jan 2015 #232

I love it when you get all meddlesome... whatchamacallit Jan 2015 #273

IOW... Bobbie Jo Jan 2015 #258

Well, which am I? MrMickeysMom Jan 2015 #278

Well Max and his former associate who had become an industry representative. merrily Jan 2015 #210

Electing Democrats is a great idea. And that is what we intend to do from now on. sabrina 1 Jan 2015 #322

Because, a lot of those Blue Dogs Action_Patrol Jan 2015 #6

That control didn't help us one iota. Jamastiene Jan 2015 #12

Not one iota? Action_Patrol Jan 2015 #17

Too early in the day.... daleanime Jan 2015 #48

? Action_Patrol Jan 2015 #59

Documented truth is a bedtime story to you? BlueCaliDem Jan 2015 #146

+1. n/t 1StrongBlackMan Jan 2015 #75

They want republicans in those areas, let them have republicans. Autumn Jan 2015 #15

I don't believe some of these districts Action_Patrol Jan 2015 #20

That's just ignorant and wrong and a nasty broad brush. Autumn Jan 2015 #27

I could say the same about what you just typed Action_Patrol Jan 2015 #31

You have a nice day Autumn Jan 2015 #41

Likewise. Action_Patrol Jan 2015 #58

told the truth heaven05 Jan 2015 #83

Your truth. Not mine Autumn Jan 2015 #88

Nailed it...nt SidDithers Jan 2015 #89

Nailed it! eom BlueCaliDem Jan 2015 #132

Quite the petulant way to indicate disagreement over a premise. LanternWaste Jan 2015 #128

It was a bit more than Action_Patrol Jan 2015 #138

Why don't we give them a choice and find our? A Republican running against a A Simple Game Jan 2015 #74

You assume that most voters in red districts want a super-progressive Democrat YoungDemCA Jan 2015 #144

Super-progressives, Democrat or otherwise, in red states? A Simple Game Jan 2015 #205

Well... YoungDemCA Jan 2015 #208

Sanders has never run as a Democrat anyway. merrily Jan 2015 #228

Super duper liberal on steroids? Why stop at "super" progressive, whatever the merrily Jan 2015 #225

Agree for *local* government... gcomeau Jan 2015 #62

The progressives didn't have control. The Blue Damn Dogs voted with Repubs rhett o rick Jan 2015 #86

More than perception Action_Patrol Jan 2015 #90

You are still talking about perception. Talk about results. We are sinking into economic mire, rhett o rick Jan 2015 #92

If she gets the nomination? Action_Patrol Jan 2015 #99

What keeps me awake is knowing that there are those that will vote for anyone rhett o rick Jan 2015 #171

Outrage 101. Action_Patrol Jan 2015 #173

Interesting that some seem to continue the meme that progressives don't vote. rhett o rick Jan 2015 #197

No one (including me) is calling you anything Action_Patrol Jan 2015 #199

Issue avoidance. Scuba Jan 2015 #215

Do you understand why some "Democrats" disparage the left by claiming that they don't vote? rhett o rick Jan 2015 #219

You're not supposed to complain about the size of your crumbs, or you'll get Republicans! Scuba Jan 2015 #222

It's all about authoritarianism. People are raised to totally trust authority. That's why parents rhett o rick Jan 2015 #269

I am not clear why posts are jumping from ACA to single payer. merrily Jan 2015 #247

My point was trying to answer why some would settle for ACA instead of single payer or a public rhett o rick Jan 2015 #267

I was not faulting you or your post in any way. I'd been wondering as I was reading down the thread merrily Jan 2015 #275

I understood what you were saying and agree. nm rhett o rick Jan 2015 #287

No. Everyone who says that seems also to say no one has a chance at winning except HRC. merrily Jan 2015 #229

I don't really care what you think is 'clear'. Action_Patrol Jan 2015 #243

Clear was your word. "Is that clear enough?" Whatever. merrily Jan 2015 #246

Whatever indeed Action_Patrol Jan 2015 #253

"when it counted" YoungDemCA Jan 2015 #140

One of the most important decisions made in the last bunch of decades was the rhett o rick Jan 2015 #163

+1,000 Scuba Jan 2015 #216

Not to mention that there are tools like the filibuster and personal holds that the minority Rs used jwirr Jan 2015 #93

+ 1000 ad infinitum eom BlueCaliDem Jan 2015 #135

call them DINOs if you want but those are the ones that gave us control of chambers & committees MrMickeysMom Jan 2015 #168

The facts of exactly what we did gain Action_Patrol Jan 2015 #179

Agree. Blue dogs were better than the GOP now in those seats. n/t Adrahil Jan 2015 #300

Because of the places they come from treestar Jan 2015 #16

Is delusional the word of the week? Cause y'all sure are using it all over the place. Autumn Jan 2015 #23

In the context of his post, it's spot on and true. BlueCaliDem Jan 2015 #134

Yep, word of the week. Blue dog like electing blue dogs. Autumn Jan 2015 #137

You're particularly difficult this morning, Autumn. BlueCaliDem Jan 2015 #143

Nice. I wasn't even aware his approval rating has hit 50%, he should have a high approval rating. Autumn Jan 2015 #147

When the facts are against them, ad hominem attacks are their next tactic. Scuba Jan 2015 #153

And who would know that better than Scuba who does it all the time, eh, Scuba? eom BlueCaliDem Jan 2015 #154

Please link to any thread where I attacked another DU member. Scuba Jan 2015 #160

That's not the definition of ad hominem I was referring to. This is: BlueCaliDem Jan 2015 #183

Well, people do get emotional about being suckered, I'll give you that. Scuba Jan 2015 #188

That's true. I loved that post though, Autumn Jan 2015 #158

Oh by the way since you brought up Obamas approval rating. It has been rumored that he's going Autumn Jan 2015 #155

Not bad for a third-way, Republican-lite, right-of-center President Obama, eh? eom BlueCaliDem Jan 2015 #169

After his speech where he's going to push for these Liberal populist goals what do you think? Autumn Jan 2015 #172

He's not going to push. They're already here. Duh. BlueCaliDem Jan 2015 #175

Sure. Go with that. Autumn Jan 2015 #177

I intend to. BlueCaliDem Jan 2015 #178

Roll with it Autumn Jan 2015 #185

President Obama & the Party Establishment is happy.... bvar22 Jan 2015 #255

He has already been talking them up. January 9 was the start, I think. From Air Force 1, no less. merrily Jan 2015 #237

All he's gotta do is keep talking stuff like that up Autumn Jan 2015 #240

They do. They also need student loans. Still, Warren's attempt to merrily Jan 2015 #244

It's going to be an interesting speech that's for sure. Autumn Jan 2015 #248

He's always been good at speeches. merrily Jan 2015 #256

I think that this speech tonight will show us exactly where we are going. Autumn Jan 2015 #257

I hope it's a good one! merrily Jan 2015 #260

So do I. Here's to hope. Autumn Jan 2015 #261

mmm..........here's to positive change merrily Jan 2015 #263

Yes, we were told it was the fault of the Blue Dogs. Then when the voters said, 'okay then, let's sabrina 1 Jan 2015 #73

Everyone overlooks that pesky little fact that not one puke voted for the ACA but it was passed Autumn Jan 2015 #82

I wonder if the Rep Senate will let the Dem minority filibuster tblue Jan 2015 #109

Of course not. They will change the rules, as Dems should have done while they had the chance. sabrina 1 Jan 2015 #125

Ya think? Oilwellian Jan 2015 #151

2001: no third-party voting! MisterP Jan 2015 #195

Bingo! valerief Jan 2015 #98

because dem politicos are mostly morally corrupt political cowards? KG Jan 2015 #3

I predict a lot of scolding and blue links in your future. Jamastiene Jan 2015 #5

mostly they've moved on to just writing OPs about how "true Democrats" are okay with X and Y MisterP Jan 2015 #193

We absolutely should. HughBeaumont Jan 2015 #7

Don't forget Zeke ''Put 'Em Down @ 75'' Emanuel. Octafish Jan 2015 #49

yup the 2 party system is very flawed olddots Jan 2015 #8

Because they'd rather have a political "win" hughee99 Jan 2015 #9

Republicans always get what they want. That is Rule #1 for the past 30 years. world wide wally Jan 2015 #10

Why is Senate Dems doing what they want framed as cowardice in their part? merrily Jan 2015 #217

Amen! Ed Suspicious Jan 2015 #11

National politics in the US is akin to pro wrestling; opponents huff and puff yet share a beer... 1bigdude Jan 2015 #13

Morning, Sam. Morning, Ralph. backscatter712 Jan 2015 #22

LOL! Yep...that about sums it up...perfectly! NT 1bigdude Jan 2015 #25

That's IT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Octafish Jan 2015 #51

Oh my God, that is sooooooo freakin' PERFECT!! kath Jan 2015 #108

Points! tkmorris Jan 2015 #189

+100000000 woo me with science Jan 2015 #325

Just like prosecutors and defense attorneys. candelista Jan 2015 #101

Even the Democrats are not as liberal as we'd like treestar Jan 2015 #14

Wrong ... Scuba Jan 2015 #28

Democratic socialism drastically improves the lives of all, including the rich...but the rich dont NoJusticeNoPeace Jan 2015 #33

The fact that Republicans obstructed EVERYTHING is a fact. tridim Jan 2015 #19

How did they obstruct when we had the House, a super-majority in the Senate and the White House? Scuba Jan 2015 #30

With the help of their good friends. The blue dogs. Autumn Jan 2015 #37

I'm not going to rehash very recent history for you. tridim Jan 2015 #39

And who refused chance after chance to get rid of filibusters? Erich Bloodaxe BSN Jan 2015 #81

The filibuster is a necessary tool of the Minority Action_Patrol Jan 2015 #105

That "super-majority" was for 27, non-contiguous days ... 1StrongBlackMan Jan 2015 #77

"Stop using rightwing talking points"... SidDithers Jan 2015 #91

That whole "Dems had majority for 6 years" is a right wing talking point. SunSeeker Jan 2015 #116

Only 24 working days, actually. nt SunSeeker Jan 2015 #100

And do you think the perpetual outraged congregating under this thread care about those facts? BlueCaliDem Jan 2015 #141

We had a filibuster-proof super-majority in the Senate for all of 24 working days. SunSeeker Jan 2015 #121

^^^^this mopinko Jan 2015 #52

It's easy to be a super-liberal politician when in the minority. backscatter712 Jan 2015 #21

We aren't supposed to know that when Dems had a Majority KoKo Jan 2015 #24

.... 840high Jan 2015 #61

The ACA was based on the Massachusetts plan passed by a liberal legislature, vetoed by Romney then pampango Jan 2015 #26

The ACA had a couple good things, but is far, far short of Medicare for All. Scuba Jan 2015 #34

The ACA is short of health care, it's insurance reform. Autumn Jan 2015 #38

No. It's actually health care reform, too. I'm surprised you don't know that. eom BlueCaliDem Jan 2015 #187

Oh you like me, that doesn't surprise me at all. Obama called it insurance finance reform Autumn Jan 2015 #190

Agreed. And it is far, far, far short of a National Health Service. n/t pampango Jan 2015 #42

That's not really how I remember it. merrily Jan 2015 #268

Because a lot of other countries operate with Linux or Unix or Windows 8.1. We use Vista. BlueJazz Jan 2015 #29

It looks like you are trying to implement universal healthcare... ThoughtCriminal Jan 2015 #276

Dems had a super maj for about 40 working days. JaneyVee Jan 2015 #32

Excuses. Bush never had such control of Congress, yet he got almost everything he wanted. Scuba Jan 2015 #35

Because a pro-govt party looks to govern, not obstruct. JaneyVee Jan 2015 #40

because a corrupt shell of a labor party uses the fig leaf of "governing" Warren Stupidity Jan 2015 #50

Are you a working person? JaneyVee Jan 2015 #104

Did you have a comment on what I said? Warren Stupidity Jan 2015 #118

How on earth is passing what you ran on and voters elected you to pass obstructing and anti- merrily Jan 2015 #235

Bush didn't get everything either. subterranean Jan 2015 #115

Republicans blocked Meiers and he did get Roberts and Alito who are younger and therefore worse merrily Jan 2015 #241

"How can one be a Democrat and say that this is OK? " zeemike Jan 2015 #36

Exactly.. sendero Jan 2015 #326

I don't understand why the OP refuses to support the FACT frazzled Jan 2015 #43

My thoughts exactly. Can we let Republicans do the re-writing of history to bash Obama? Please. Fred Sanders Jan 2015 #44

Bullshit Scuba Jan 2015 #53

You're joking, right? (No, you're just out to bash Democrats come hell or high water) frazzled Jan 2015 #57

+yep tridim Jan 2015 #64

"A majority of 60 for a few months is not a majority." Scuba Jan 2015 #65

This. Bobbie Jo Jan 2015 #85

It seems to me they were simply scared to do anything truly substantial. Dreamer Tatum Jan 2015 #45

so true! burfman Jan 2015 #46

So completely false! frazzled Jan 2015 #55

Thanks. classof56 Jan 2015 #71

I'm pretty well disgusted, Scuba. Enthusiast Jan 2015 #47

I had some orthopedic problems a few years ago. iandhr Jan 2015 #54

No question that the ACA has some good things in it ... Scuba Jan 2015 #56

Exactly, iandhr.. I'm glad you were helped by having Obamacare as many many others have been and Cha Jan 2015 #70

I don't remember the Democrats having a super majority in the House in recent years George II Jan 2015 #60

There's no such thing as the House has no filibuster. Scuba Jan 2015 #66

is that really ALL we got? hfojvt Jan 2015 #63

Look at you and your facts! Show off. Action_Patrol Jan 2015 #67

Thanks. classof56 Jan 2015 #69

Oh you with your documented facts. Hush now. You're liable to burst bubbles. BlueCaliDem Jan 2015 #191

The fact is, all democrats aren't in agreement when it comes to healthcare and fiscal policy. nt ecstatic Jan 2015 #68

Perhaps your narrow reading of history is a convenient half truth for your warp view of history Johonny Jan 2015 #72

Crumbs. Scuba Jan 2015 #76

Equal pay for women BainsBane Jan 2015 #117

+1 to this: "None of it matters because it's not about you." YoungDemCA Jan 2015 #149

I'm glad they passed the Phlem Jan 2015 #78

Mahalo Johonny for the info.. Like VP Biden said about ACA.. it's a BFD. Working for our country Cha Jan 2015 #97

a much longer list than mine hfojvt Jan 2015 #107

We could pick the list to pieces Oilwellian Jan 2015 #159

This is the crowd who thinks that every opinion geek tragedy Jan 2015 #291

George Carlin ProudProg2u Jan 2015 #79

One cannot serve Wall Street & Main Street both. CrispyQ Jan 2015 #80

And that is the answer. raouldukelives Jan 2015 #124

we had a skin-of-the-teeth "supermajority" for like 2 months, which included Lieberman yodermon Jan 2015 #84

Seems to me the real question everyone dances around is this: is a Blue Dog in a red KingCharlemagne Jan 2015 #194

The way you frame the question determines the answer. merrily Jan 2015 #254

There's much of substance in your post and I'm afraid I may be too much of a KingCharlemagne Jan 2015 #279

Thank you. I was not looking for your answers. As I said, they were rhetorial, food for merrily Jan 2015 #295

That is exactly what Dean's much cheered ... 1StrongBlackMan Jan 2015 #328

Spin it!! Spin the wheel!!... SidDithers Jan 2015 #94

If that's all you think we got, you must either have been living under a rock NYC Liberal Jan 2015 #96

I use to think that most all Democrats Cryptoad Jan 2015 #110

What did you do to put single payer on the table in 2008? BainsBane Jan 2015 #111

What did I do to put single payer on the table in 2008? Scuba Jan 2015 #112

That guy never proposed single payer in 2008 BainsBane Jan 2015 #113

People who claim to dislike President Obama because he didn't push for single-payer always BlueCaliDem Jan 2015 #150

I'm for single payers myself BainsBane Jan 2015 #157

I'm for single-payer, too, but I don't want to wait 15-30 years for it to happen BlueCaliDem Jan 2015 #162

Indeed, why aren't they BainsBane Jan 2015 #165

That's my guess. BlueCaliDem Jan 2015 #176

In fact, President Obama said he would love to have single payer ... 1StrongBlackMan Jan 2015 #329

Thomas Frank covers all the lame excuses for Democratic impotence here: Maedhros Jan 2015 #120

That is an excellent article I'd recommend to anyone who is still confused. pa28 Jan 2015 #130

Post removed Post removed Jan 2015 #123

Then why keep coming back? arcane1 Jan 2015 #133

A surprise for the irrational to realize that other people may extrapolate and interpret facts... LanternWaste Jan 2015 #126

That's why the ann--- Jan 2015 #127

The fact is, money rules everything and everyone. Rex Jan 2015 #142

It's because for all but 24 days, Dems didn't have a super-majority in the Senate. BlueCaliDem Jan 2015 #145

As other posters have noted upthread, there never was a "super-majority" during Obama's term YoungDemCA Jan 2015 #148

They don't care. Bobbie Jo Jan 2015 #200

Here is another nice breakdown of the "super-majority" chowder66 Jan 2015 #211

We got the Heritage Fdn. plan YarnAddict Jan 2015 #152

The Answer ProudProg2u Jan 2015 #166

Yessssirrr� Next? MrMickeysMom Jan 2015 #170

+1 n/t Saucepan of Kerbango Jan 2015 #174

At some point you have to give up all hope upaloopa Jan 2015 #180

Tell this guy... Spitfire of ATJ Jan 2015 #181

This message was self-deleted by its author Corruption Inc Jan 2015 #186

Freepers are saying the same thing, that GOP caved in to the liberals IronLionZion Jan 2015 #218

Excellent false equivalency! Scuba Jan 2015 #220

Wow did you get things riled up Autumn Jan 2015 #223

Good. It's time DU members and other Democratic voters start holding elected Democrats accountable. Scuba Jan 2015 #226

now they're tying to say basic arithmetic is falling for RW lies MisterP Jan 2015 #234

If that's the thread I think it is I trashed it. Autumn Jan 2015 #238

Here's the thing...... vi5 Jan 2015 #227

When he was elected and we had a majority for that time the banks were Autumn Jan 2015 #230

Who would have done better from the Dem party , who was electable? NoJusticeNoPeace Jan 2015 #231

What does that have to do with anything? vi5 Jan 2015 #249

The comment in your OP reminds me of a Rawhide re-run the other day... jtuck004 Jan 2015 #233

I got thouroughly disgusted in 2007 when they voted to keep funding the Iraq War. Fuddnik Jan 2015 #245

Don't sit out. F4lconF16 Jan 2015 #272

Regarding that "Heritage Foundation health insurance give-away"... NaturalHigh Jan 2015 #250

If they were actually facts, Progressive dog Jan 2015 #251

Who said that was bad? Scuba Jan 2015 #252

You said "Isn't the Democratic Party supposed to do us better than that? How can one be a Progressive dog Jan 2015 #259

'Not as good' does not equal 'bad'. Scuba Jan 2015 #265

No it doesn't but you didn't say Progressive dog Jan 2015 #266

Nor did I say 'bad'. Scuba Jan 2015 #270

Many are still going bankrupt because of medical bills and generic prescription prices are going liberal_at_heart Jan 2015 #281

So that makes adding 20 million to Progressive dog Jan 2015 #333

As a Democrat, I'm disgusted alright. LawDeeDah Jan 2015 #264

I was going to post a comment in this thread pscot Jan 2015 #271

Actually yours is the only one i clicked on! 7962 Jan 2015 #280

Absolutely. Most of us are disgusted. The rest double-down on 3rd way trickle-down. whereisjustice Jan 2015 #274

''Shouldn't Democrats be disgusted with these FACTS?'' DeSwiss Jan 2015 #277

Sadly, in America, the rule is... nikto Jan 2015 #286

Have you ever once addressed the 27 day figure? joshcryer Jan 2015 #288

I never mentioned the length of the super majority, which, by the way, was more than 27 days ... Scuba Jan 2015 #297

I have always advocated Obama dropping a massive legislation plan. joshcryer Jan 2015 #298

Any comment on Democratic Party ineffectiveness while holding a simple majority? December 2014? Scuba Jan 2015 #301

Sure. joshcryer Jan 2015 #304

Interesting. To me this is less about Obama than the Democratic Party in Washington as a whole. Scuba Jan 2015 #308

Reid freaking created the virtual filibuster. joshcryer Jan 2015 #313

That is such a simpleton, low information way to see it Gman Jan 2015 #289

"All we got was a heritage foundation health insurance give away" geek tragedy Jan 2015 #290

Health Insurance is not equal to Health Care harun Jan 2015 #307

"Supermajority" means 60 plus real Dems in the Senate. We did not have that. McCamy Taylor Jan 2015 #292

Blue Dogs almost always vote with the GOP. AtomicKitten Jan 2015 #324

facts under obama meant we needed a filibuster proof majority + franken was not sworn in for months. pansypoo53219 Jan 2015 #293

Any comment on Democratic Party ineffectiveness while holding a simple majority? December 2014? Scuba Jan 2015 #302

Almost 43,000 posts here, but you don't understand how our system of govt. works... PBass Jan 2015 #296

Perhaps you can enlighten me. What did I get wrong? Scuba Jan 2015 #303

That's why none of us voted last election. harun Jan 2015 #306

There's no question in my mind that Democrats in DC de-motivated our base. Scuba Jan 2015 #309

My thoughts exactly. onlyadream Jan 2015 #312

They all caved on a public option, and could have had one with only 51 votes. Scuba Jan 2015 #316

K&R. Oligarchy Theater. woo me with science Jan 2015 #315

I see quite a few "but LIEBERMAN!1!!" posts here. pa28 Jan 2015 #331