Associated Press
Their majority was smaller than some remember.
It's in Republicans' interest right now to characterize the Democrats' congressional majority in 2009 and 2010 as enormous. As the argument goes, President Obama could get literally anything he wanted from Congress in his first two years, so Democrats don't have any excuses.
The stimulus wasn't big enough? Blame Dems; they had supermajorities in both chambers for two years. There's no comprehensive immigration reform? Blame Dems; they had supermajorities in both chambers for two years. There was only one big jobs bill? Blame Dems; they had supermajorities in both chambers for two years. And so on.
The right continued to push the line over the weekend.
Fox News Sunday host Chris Wallace falsely claimed Democrats had a 60-vote Senate majority for the first 2 years of his presidency.
"For the first 2 years he had a filibuster proof majority in the Senate," Wallace told LA Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa, making the case that Obama has only himself to blame for his poor economic record.
I realize memories can be short in the political world, and 2010 seems like a long time ago, but it's unnerving when professionals who presumably keep up with current events are this wrong. Even if various pundits lost track of the specific details, I'd at least expect Fox News hosts to remember Sen. Scott Brown's (R) special-election win in Massachusetts.
Since memories are short, let's take a brief stroll down memory lane, giving Wallace a hand with the recent history he's forgotten.
In January 2009, there were 56 Senate Democrats and two independents who caucused with Democrats. This combined total of 58 included Sen. Ted Kennedy (D-Mass.), whose health was failing and was unable to serve. As a practical matter, in the early months of Obama's presidency, the Senate Democratic caucus had 57 members on the floor for day-to-day legislating.
In April 2009, Pennsylvania's Arlen Specter switched parties. This meant there were 57 Democrats, and two independents who caucused with Democrats, for a caucus of 59. But with Kennedy ailing, there were still "only" 58 Democratic caucus members in the chamber.
In May 2009, Sen. Robert Byrd (D-W.Va.) was hospitalized, bringing the number of Senate Dems in the chamber down to 57.
In July 2009, Sen. Al Franken (D-Minn.) was finally seated after a lengthy recount/legal fight. At that point, the Democratic caucus reached 60, but two of its members, Kennedy and Byrd, were unavailable for votes.
In August 2009, Kennedy died, and Democratic caucus again stood at 59.
In September 2009, Sen. Paul Kirk (D-Mass.) filled Kennedy's vacancy, bringing the caucus back to 60, though Byrd's health continued to deteriorate.
In January 2010, Sen. Scott Brown (R-Mass.) replaced Kirk, bringing the Democratic caucus back to 59 again.
In June 2010, Byrd died, and the Democratic caucus fell to 58, where it stood until the midterms. [Update: Jonathan Bernstein reminds me that Byrd's replacement was a Dem. He's right, though this doesn't change the larger point.]
Wallace believes the Dems' "filibuster proof majority in the Senate" lasted 24 months. In reality, he's off by 20 months, undermining the entire thesis pushed so aggressively by Republicans.
Leave a Comment:
Not to mention that the traitors Ben Nelson and Joe Lieberman were hardly "Democrats," as is the traitor Manchin who has replaced Robert Byrd. Let us recall that it was the "Democratic senators" Nelson and Lieberman who campaigned to make the stimulus smaller, to kill the public option in Obamacare, etc., etc.
There's nothing too bad, nothing too awful, that can happen to Nelson and Lieberman, so far as I am concerned.
Also, Mr. Benen evidently hasn't notice that trolls have been pretending that "the Democrats' congressional majority in 2009 and 2010 as enormous" in this blog for a looong time.
I doubt he reads these comments religiously. Probably drops in from time to time. (Maybe even got the idea for this post from earlier comments to another post, but with the number of posts he puts up daily I doubt he has time to read all the comments.)
As for the trolls, I'm suggesting we give them assignments when they've shown their ignorance and lack of reasoning, and until they complete them, they shouldn't be taken seriously.
Disgusted- my idea is even better! As I have said before, never, EVER respond to ANYTHING they write.
They are nothing but parasites that feed upon your angry reply. Lonely little creatures, that know they will never get a green star, so they wave their arms and yell 'look at me! look at me!'
Yes, I may look, but they will never know. . .
Effectively, it's also worth remembering part of that brief filibuster proof majority was during winter recess, with dismissal on Nov 19.
Absolutely correct. Even 4 months as Benen stated is overstating it by ALOT. It's important to know when Kirk entered (9/24/09) and when Brown entered (2/4/09). All one has to do to connect the dots is view the 2009 and 2010 congressional calendar.
2009
http://www.counseling.org/publicpolicy/2009-congressional-calendar.pdf
2010
http://www.klgates.com/files/Publication/8d26786a-c157-49cf-8134-15def81cbb01/Presentation/PublicationAttachment/bb7ed6be-9dd7-4021-8ea2-1a392ab9dccf/2010_CongressionalCalendar.pdf
Carly Fiorina said the same thing on MTP. And no one corrected her.
Who would have corrected her: Brokaw - Gregory - the two journalists who should have known the FACTS?
Gregory's not a journalist. He doesn't have time because he's in full-time training to become another pair of Mitt Romney's underwear so he can feel at home when he goes to work.
Edward R. Murrow was a journalist. Gregory is a hack with a microphone.
You're over-thinking. The easy answer is, "If Obama had a filibuster-proof majority, why were there more filibusters in 2009-2010 than any previous term in history?"
That's right, Shalimari - If they were indeed filibuster proof, then surely there would have been more legislation, or perhaps better legislation - because they wouldn't have tried to compromise so much of their original ideas
Gee, it sure is a good thing that on budgetary matters the Senate only needs a simple majority. Whew.
Which is why the filibuster is important when the Dems are in power, but seldom when Republicans are. Dems are usually trying to change policy, which takes 60 votes. Republicans only want to cut taxes and spending, which they can do with 51. Another reason why, if the Dems hold the Senate and reclaim the House this fall, they should simply do away with the 60-vote rule.
mpguy, there's another question left unanswered. Benen knows a simple majority is all that's required. Why is he lying about this?
So actually Wallace was right, they really did have 60 votes for two full years because the really only needed 51 to pass budgets? Is that what you're saying? Because even by the fetid troll hole beneath a bridge standards of your usual trollery, you're not making any sense here.
Oh please. The filibuster is an excuse for inaction on financial matters. Given the way the Congress was run, virtually anything jobs, budget, or tax related, needed a only simple majority.
If I were you I'd run away from it too.
Steve,
The Blank doesn't care about making sense. All he cares about is Ideological Soundness, i.e., being a good little devil-take-the-hindmost, social Darwinist Randie.
You're assuming that Chris Wallace is a news professional with integrity, rather than a Faux News hack. Not sure upon what that assumption is based.
mpguy,
A link I believe you might find interesting.
http://www.openleft.com/diary/17296/actual-senate-supermajority-requirements-72-democrats-54-republicans
This failure of our party to counter this 2 yr majority has been driving me nuts for a long time! Keep on bringing this up, Steve, and get Rachel to follow up on air. It really is a key point to counter.
Democrats never defend themselves aggresively, competently, or effectively.
Chris Wallace is a man of very little brain.
I'm thinking that's why he works at Faux.
Chris Wallace is just another example of where the sons of remarkable men fall short!
The best answer to the ever present question, "Are you better off now than you were four years ago,?" is "when one factors in the economic crash of 2008, of course we are! When Obama took office we were losing about 800,000 jobs/month. Since then has created 4.5 million jobs. Is this great? No, but 4.5 Million jobs is still progress, and as noted above, he has had to do it over the dead bodies of the opposition. A related question is, what makes us think that Romney can do any better? Given his rather lackluster speech last week, I think the answer is obvious. Romney gave us next to nothing to go on except the same tired old solutions that were so counterproductive during the Bush years.
Thank You, Thank You, THANK YOU!!! I get irate when I here this false truth repeated over and over and over...
Facts are Facts.
Ah, but here's the rub: just as "only Nixon could go to China" perhaps only Romney can unlock the money bags and get capital moving again. Possibly. It would be, as far as I'm concerned, the only reason to vote for him. (Which I won't.) I fear though, that if Obama is re-elected, he will have to deal with the same obstreperous, obstinate obstruction from the right (which, to my mind, borders on treason, but that's a topic for another post.)
And even when it was sixty, that's including the likes of Joe Lieberman and Ben Nelson, whose only real contribution was to water down and delay progressive legislation.
The filibuster is important and we need to keep it. But we need to put in place the actual filibustering. Put in the requirement that the (singular) representative for the opposing party must speak. You know? As in yes, we expect to see Senators reading the phone book if the minority wants to filibuster. No more of this threaten nonsense. You want to filibuster every single vote? Go ahead make yourself hoarse. Show the nation how truly dedicated you are to not bringing this piece of legislation to the floor. And after your party has filled CSPAN with bewitching hours of reading fiction while on the job, maybe the Senate could get back to doing its job?
I agree. And make it 40 to continue to delay, not 60 to stop -- put the onus of producing votes (and maintaining presence on the floor) on the minority.
Given Kennedy and Byrd's health issues, there was essentially never a filibuster proof majority.
Was a single filibuster actually defeated in that time frame?
Yes. Once in November and for about a week in December. I think Democrats had a filibuster proof majority on the floor for about 6 days, total, if I figured it out correctly.
The dems need a consistent message to rebuff the "Are you better off now than 4 yrs ago?" They need to make the case that the real question is "Are we better off that Obama was elected 4 yrs ago rather than a Republican?". The answer is obviously YES! They can list the bleak realities that would have happened...U.S. auto industry - gone (Romney let it fail attitude); still in Iraq war; Medicare privatized; personhood amendment adopted; pell loans & dept of Ed eliminated; greater tax cuts for millionaires; stricter immigration laws; no wall street regulation; & as impartial experts have stated, we would be in a great recession rather than just a slowly growing economy. GOP is like the teenager with no maturity that almost ran the family car out of gas (spending recklessly) and because there was very little regulation or enforcement, drove fast and carelessly wrecked the car in the ditch. When the adults (dems) finally got the keys back and have been working on the tow truck rescue, the Republicans, acting like spoiled children, have sabotaged every attempt. Rather than paying for the needed tow truck, the Republicans have insisted on a cheap economy pick up, which has moved the wrecked car from the bottom of the ditch but not all of the way out. Now they have the nerve to suggest that they should get back the keys to the car to do the same thing all over again!
Republicans need to stop asking the question since everyone knows that Bush and a republican congress darn near destroyed us and the world. We all know how close we were to a full fledged depression thanks to the republican party and its deregulation and tax exemptions for the rich.
Here's a question for you,How much did your 401K lose under Bush?How much did your property value plummet?Who prospered under Bush, the liars and cheats willing to sink the whole world in order to rake in the cash.
When Newt made this stastement on MTP. IT WENT UNCHALENGED!
Waste of an hour on Sunday morning
Well all this bull is pretty funny but, I would hope that more details about the republican platform come out and get repeated at least weekly. They are their own worst enemy.
Read the platform but please do not throw things at your monitor!..
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra-klein/wp/2012/08/28/read-the-full-republican-platform/
Yeah well your slip means you can't explain how Dems didn't pass cap and trade. They only needed one Republican given the Senator appointed by then Gov Jim Manchin. And I mean just because he shot the cap and trade bill as a publicity stunt sure doesn't mean that no way could Manchin have appointed a Senator who would have voted for cloture to allow it to pass.
Also Lieberman. I mean one of the two independents isn't really independent as he is motivated by bitter anger at the Democrats who neglected to vote for him in the primary (and in the Presidential primaries once).
Our Vote is our Voice. In a Democratic Republic our Vote is Collective
Bargaining. Our Vote is a tool of Societal Negotiation - a Collective
Bargaining between the extreme Right and Left, between the Rich and the Middle
Class and the Poor, between the Takers and the Takers-Not…..
A Voting/Collective Bargaining Voice longing to be heard - to seek
compromises which Honor and Benefit all parties and further promote the Common
Good.
Democratic Republic Voters/Collective Bargainers don't do well with stick
in the mud Ultimatums. That's just political science 101. Perhaps a
refresher course would aid your efforts toward governance, Sir Romney.
Collective Bargaining is not an annoyance (to most folks seeking fairness
and justice within decision making processes) - a nuisance to be kicked to the
corner to be belittled, spit upon and demonized by the Republicans seeking to
strangle - to adroitly Silence the Voting/Collective Bargaining Voices of
Teachers and other Public Workers, in order to strengthen the
Voices and Powers of the National and Global Corporations, Bankers and Elitist
Few who wish to further enslave and manipulate Us All.
My Grandparents and my Mother always told me that We should never ask of
Others what We, Ourselves, are not willing to do. Especially if you are a
Leader (Mr. Romney, sir)
Sacrifice needs to come from every sector of Society - not just the already
over-burdened backs of the Middle Class and the Poor.
It is a statistical fact that for years, the Rich have been getting richer
- the Middle Class is shrinking - and the Poor are getting poorer.
The Responsibility of Sacrificing for the Common Good needs to be Shared by
All. Even those who try and desecrate and destroy something as inherently
Constitutional as every American's Right to Freedom of Speech and Right to Vote/
Societal Collective Bargaining.
The really burning question here is why does there need to be a super majority at all.
That is the reason nothing gets done. This stupid Senate "rule" is not mandated in the Constitution and it's ridiculous. We do not have a parliament. No party should be allowed to impede bills coming up for debate much less a vote.
The Founders hated the party system in England. They deliberately set up a system that would allow a simple majority to rule the country with representatives voting their conscience. The more prominent among them wrote papers and in letters to one another that they did not want parties getting in the way of the will of the voters.
But that's what we have now and it doesn't work. The gridlock is choking the process of governance and making it ineffective and incompetent.
If we are going to allow the Senate to continue in this vein, then it is imperative to change the Constitution to reflect what's going on and change to a parliamentary system. If not, closure must be dropped entirely. It's time for Senators to act like statesmen instead of spoiled children.