i hate DINOs.

If even one out of 60 Democrats didn't like something about the bill--too strong, too weak, too warm, too cold--it was dead in the water.

Lieberman then was an Independent, and he often chose to vote with the Repubs.

But in practice it's nearly the same thing, since Lieberman was hardly the only one who exercised the filibuster veto.

He had the votes for it through reconciliation. On this, he should have kept his promise.

.... was Harry Reid thinking that the Repuglicans would behave like civilized legislators.

If Reid had had an ounce of savvy he would have pushed through a change in the filibuster rule on the first day the Senate was in session in 2009.

To this day I don't think Reid really understands that his counterparts across the aisle will do anything to get their way.

And you can bet your bottom dollar if the Repuglicans take the Senate this election, the filibuster rule will be changed in a millisecond when they take charge in January 2013.

And you can bet your bottom dollar if the Repuglicans take the Senate this election, the filibuster rule will be changed in a millisecond when they take charge in January 2013.

President Obama and Harry Reid could have slammed a "Medicare for All" bill through Congress the first week after the inauguration, before the GOP came out of their daze and organized an united front against all Democratic legislation.

Bush required 51 votes in the Senate to jam through the most evil legislation ever, Obama needs 60 votes just to get a bill out of committee.

Does anyone see a problem here?

Why do Democratic administrations seem to spend more time planning the inauguration parties than planning the bills that will be introduced the first day of Congress?

That's why it was sooo easy to get the stimulus bill through the senate right after the inauguration.

Reconciliation could not have been used to create a public option. That's not how that procedure works. Let's deal with facts not bogus talking points.

that is a fact, and the po could have been part of it.

already been passed in the Senate and the House. A new entitlement could not be added at that point. That is a fact.

So the bill never would have gotten the 60 votes needed in the Senate to overcome the GOP filibuster.

The closest we came was 59, because Lieberman at that point had left the Democrats and become an Independent.

he didn't.

it either. It's frustrating to watch.

wanted to pass the Dream Act he could've because he had overwhelming majorities in both houses of Congress for 2 years.
David Gregory, as usual, didn't follow thru.

It is really getting on my last nerve.

By fighting for it from the other side of the aisle. the point is that the Republicans didnt simply sit back and let the Dems fight among themselves. They went out of their way to BLOCK pretty much anything that President Obama proposed using the filibuster and every other procedural maneuver they could think of.

Very bad things. But he got them done.

Results win elections.

Most Democrats are aware of this.

And some pretend its not true.

That's why I voted for Mike Strimling in the primaries. I tried to get other Democrats to do the same, but even here, they went silent and Mike got LESS than Orly Taitz!

The primary is the right place to try and remove the blue dogs, but talking about it on DU will only get you so far.

But it was the silence here in the CA group that was deafening.

Mike has pulled out because all he wanted was to challenge DiFi in the primaries, but as a good Progressive, he also doesn't want the Republican to win. So he's pulled out. For now.

And, of course, plenty of help from corporate media touting "We're at WAR!!" and "Bush is the WAR president!"

That scared ALL the Democrats to do whatever Bush wanted.

You know that never in history has the Senate minority used the power of the filibuster the way the Republicans have in the last four years.

And that the Dems under Bush were willing to compromise in order to pass legislation, while the new tea bagger gang are so unwilling to compromise that they lowered the country's credit rating.

"Somehow" Bush got things done -- because the Democrats were willing to work with him.

Sid

Thank you.

(so they said) Republicans threatened to get rid of the filibuster. Democrats have issued no similar credible threat.

They bring a gun... we bring a spork.

Its not a compromise.

Also ... the big difference between the GOP and the Dems, is that the Dems actually try to get good things done. The GOP has no interest in governing at all. They would be happy to do nothing. That is in fact what they do most of the time if given the opportunity.

As a result, Dems trying to do some good do compromise. They could of course decide to do nothing. And the GOP would be more than happy with that outcome ... as we've seen during the last three years.

Again ... many Dems know this. Some pretend to not know it.

in its drive to shrink the Federal Government to the size that can be "drowned in a bathtub."

Uses the levers of government to enrich their friends, while also doing as much as they can to weaken those parts of the government that actually help people. This is how a guy who was the head of the Arabian Horse Association becomes the head of FEMA under Bush. You pay off some friends by giving an important job to some one who has no idea how to do it. And you do this through out the government.

Then, when the GOP is out of power ... the try to find ways to shut the government down. Let's investigate the Prez over a BJ!!!! Let's scream "No war for Monica" when Clinton wants to go after OBL pre-911.

And you are also correct on the Norquist point. The only way you get the American people to hand over their Social Security money is to bankrupt the country. That's why you start 2 wars and don't pay for them while giving tax breaks to the richest people on the planet.

That's why people like Orrin Hatch and Ted Kennedy were able to be friends. Now conservatives like Hatch are losing their seats to rigid, uncompromising tea baggers.

This is a new political world and you're still looking at it through old spectacles.

I think they tried to hold a bloodless coup under Clinton.

they had a similarly contemptuous attitude toward the "first black President" as they do to the current one. And they would have kicked him out of office if they could have.

California have 40 senators. California has 2.

President Obama didn't get much love and/or support from his own party and almost no cooperation whatsoever from the Republicans with the exception of 3 Senators (1 of whom switched afterwards) in the Senate for the Stimulus and 1 in the House and 1 in the Senate for the first passage of PPACA.

Another lie that needs to die is that President Obama "got everything he wanted" policywise with the Democratic House and Senate.

Tim Johnson had been in and out of the hospital, as did Robert Byrd. And...

Joe LIEberman, Max Baucus, Blanche Lincoln, and Ben Nelson were NEVER going to give us a public option. I don't care how many DUers keep repeating the *LIE* that we "could've" had a public option if Obama was more like LBJ and FDR.

BULLSHIT!!!! It was NEVER going to happen!!

Because no one projects Democrats taking 60 seats in the Senate.

You need to have 60 votes to get any legislation passed and the republicans are all over the msm saying that President Obama had 60 votes for 2 years, when in fact he only had 60 votes for 4 (?) months - and 2 of those votes were Joe Lieberman and Ben Nelson who vote with the Republicans a majority of the time.

and I have yet to see them challenged. Michael Steele always falls back on this tired explanation as to why Obama allegedly should have accomplished something but didn't. And once again this morning, David Gregory let John McCain get away with this slogan on Meet The Press and just sat there and said nothing.

Lieberman campaigned with McCain.

Hell, he spoke at the Republican National Convention!!!

Tell them this ...

Let's imagine that Obama some how got ALL of the other bluedogs to flip. They will vote yes on public option.

Ask your deluded friends exactly how, they as President would get Lieberman to flip. That's all they have to do. We'll spot them ALL of the other blue dogs, they just need to flip Joe "Senator from Aetna" Lieberman.

He campaigned against Obama. He is not running again (cashing in really). And his wife works for the insurance industry.

So the question to ask them is HOW do they, as President flip this ONE bluedog.

They can't come up with a viable path.

use the meme "overwhelming control of congress"

every issue.

Another "free-trade" agreement is being negotiated.

Rmoney has already indicated his support for it, as has the Chamber of Commerce.

Thanks for your post.