Bong Lover said:
Here's another example of how the political debate is getting framed. How many times have you heard that the Democrats had 2 years of super majority? It's now an established 'fact' to deflect critisism against Republican obstructionism, but is it true? No, it is not. The Democrats had the majority of the house and the Senate, but never had a supermajority in both. They came very close, but have throughout the 110th - 112th congresses never been closer than 1 vote away from a supermajority in both chambers. Yet, the simple adjustment from 'majority' to 'supermajority' lets Republican apologists disregard facts and present an alternate view of reality that is completely fabricated. |
To start with, I'm not a republican.
Aside from which they had 60 members in the democratic caucus in the senate in 2009. They just couldn't even get IT to agree on just about anything Obama wanted done.
They had on their side, 58 democrats, but one guy who is an out and out socalist (IE more left then the democrats,.) and the other would of still been a registered democrat had it not been for the fact that the democrats activly kicked him out of the party but he still won back his seat and caucused with them.
As for the house. Super Majority isn't really a term talked about in the House of Represenatives as far as I know. There are no filibusters there.
So in 2009, they had a supermajority and could get a vote on anything they wanted. They spend basically all their time on that Healthcare bill to get a 60-39 vote... because it took FOREVER to reign in more fiscally conservative demcorats.
A bill so popular that in 2010 house of representative members were running ads about how they DIDN'T vote for it.
In fact, no republican voted for it. So to say the Democrats couldn't pass anything without republican support kinda rings false. When you consider... they did... and not just any bill either, but a bill that is FAR less palatable then anything the democrats have offered lately.
