Would Somebody Please Explain How When The Publicans Had The Majority

[Me.]

They got so much, usually harmful, through and why the dems don't get anything done. Why didn't they put secret holds? And if there is a single dem voting with the thuglicans, why aren't Pelosi and Reid aren't bringing big time, hardline pressure on them?

[Cessna Invesco Palin]

1. Umm...

Because the President is also a Republican? Because the Supreme Court tilts far to the right? Because the media are on bended knee to this shithat after 9/11?

[MonkeyFunk]

2. huh?

Because the President is a Republican - they gave him what he wanted with no fear of a veto.

We still don't have the presidency, and we have only the slimmest of majorities in both houses.

[fooj]

3. Reid seems to think that LIEberman "means well"...

Reid has been enabling Lieberman since he lost the primary in CT. It's disgusting. I sent Reid a letter months ago demanding an explanation as to why he continued to allow the Dems to believe that if Joe switched parties...we would lose the majority. Needless to say, I received NO response. Grrr...

http://politicalinsider.com/2007/02/lieber...

Lieberman Switch Wouldn't Flip Senate

With Sen. Joe Lieberman (I-CT) publicly stating he'd consider becoming a Republican if Democrats block new funding for the Iraq War, many Democrats worry that control of the Senate hangs in the balance. However, their fears are unfounded. Many think back to 2001 when former Sen. Jim Jeffords (I-VT) began caucusing with Democrats instead of Republicans, taking control of the Senate out of GOP hands. However, the two situations - though outwardly similar - contain one important difference.

If Lieberman were to caucus with the Republicans, they would still not take full control of the Senate, despite Vice President Dick Cheney's ability to break 50-50 ties. This is because of a little-known Senate organizing resolution, passed in January, which gives Democrats control of the Senate and committee chairmanships until the beginning of the 111th Congress.

What's the difference between now and 2001? A small but important distinction. When the 107th Congress was convened on January 3, 2001, Al Gore was still the Vice President and would be for another two-and-a-half weeks. Therefore, because of the Senate's 50-50 tie, Democrats had nominal control of the chamber when the organizing resolution came to a vote. With Dick Cheney soon to come in, however, Democrats allowed Republicans to control the Senate in return for a provision on the organizing resolution that allowed for a reorganization of the chamber if any member should switch parties, which Jeffords did five months later. There was no such clause in the current Senate's organizing resolution.
<snip>

[On the Road]

7. Ah, Thank You, Fooj

This part had become very confusing to me.

[A wise Man]

4. You are another post that resembles two or three other threads

Scan the other post.

[Me.]

5. I Know The Standard Answers

But here's the thing. For 60% we only needed 5-6 more votes, if Biden, Obama and Dodd had shown up, if they'd knuckle down on Lieberman, and then campaign for one or two more publicans to cross over we'd have had it. When do we see the 'fight as if your life depended on it' from the dems? If not now, this Congress, then when?

[wiggs]

6. Important question over the last six years. This pattern is no

different than for dozens of important votes and hearings. We are being managed, of course. Just enough hearings...just enough statements....just enough outrage to keep the pot from boiing over. Yet nothing ever gets cooked.

And this time, like all the other times, I'm still thinking: "Oh, my reps are in great position now....instead of a little vote of no confidence, they'll feel free to issue those approved subpoenas and we'll really get to the bottom of this justice disaster and then congress can impeach Gonzales and those involved. This is too important for congress to avoid. I bet Dodd and Obama stayed away to ensure that the master plan works! We can't possibly squander an opportunity like this for accountability!"