We know why Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) is smiling.
When Republican strategists come up with a game plan for the 2014 midterms, I suspect page one will include a rather straightforward piece of advice: "Let's not talk about rape this year."
As thing stand this morning, Senate Democrats have a 52-seat majority. If Maine's Angus King (I) caucuses with Dems -- and efforts are already well underway to make that happen -- that becomes a 53-seat majority. If Montana's Jon Tester and North Dakota's Heidi Heitkamp hang on to win their races -- and both are ahead in unofficial vote counts -- then the new Senate will have a 55-seat Democratic majority, and Dems will have earned a net gain of two seats for the cycle.
Earlier in the year, this was simply inconceivable. Democrats had 23 seats to defend, many in reliably-red states, while Republicans had only 10. Karl Rove and others had raised truckloads full of cash to crush Democratic candidates, and buy the chamber for the GOP.
And yet, it now appears Democrats will have expanded their majority in 2012. Indeed, it is now the fourth consecutive cycle in which voters have elected a Democratically-controlled Senate, despite all the cyclical and institutional reasons this seemed impossible.
And how did this happen? A variety of factors, of course, led to state-by-state victories, but the role of rape rhetoric no doubt played a meaningful part.
In Missouri, incumbent Sen. Claire McCaskill (D) handpicked right-wing Rep. Todd Akin (R) as her preferred challenger, assuming he'd be the easiest Republican to defeat, and she was right -- he sealed his fate with the legendary "forcible rape" comments. The year's most vulnerable Democratic incumbent ended up winning by 16 points.
Similarly, in Indiana, Sen. Dick Lugar was defeated in a Republican primary by Richard Mourdock, whose campaign went into a tailspin when he said rape pregnancies are "something that God intended to happen." Sen.-elect Joe Donnelly (D) won by six, even as other Republicans cruised in the state.
It may seem hyperbolic, but the truth is, we'll have a more Democratic Senate because the GOP's far-right base elected unhinged and unelectable conservatives who said ridiculous things about rape.
But we can take this one step further when looking at the larger Senate membership.
The New York Times' David Firestone raised a point that's slowly been making the rounds.
It's rarely wise to make upbeat predictions about a group of lawmakers as reliably disappointing as the United States Senate. But with President Obama winning re-election and Democrats having a strong night in several states, this is not an impossible political fantasy:
The Democratic-controlled Senate is likely to be considerably more liberal than the one it replaces. Joe Donnelly of Indiana and Angus King of Maine (nominally an independent) replace Republicans. Tim Kaine of Virginia is more liberal than Jim Webb, the Democrat who retired, just as Tammy Baldwin of Wisconsin and Chris Murphy of Connecticut are more liberal than Herb Kohl and Joe Lieberman. Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts will be one of the strongest voices in support of Mr. Obama's policies, and may even push the president leftward.
The obvious response to this -- a 55-seat majority is irrelevant if Republicans demand a 60-vote supermajority for literally every bill of consequence -- is certainly true. But the likelihood of filibuster reform is real, and with Democrats expanding their majority, the party has a new motivation to help repair the dysfunctional chamber.
Leave a Comment:
I like King, but he can kiss my ass. His vote won't get us 60, and last night he was clearly looking for favors, specifically mentioning key committee assignments. The Dems need to nip this kind off thing in the bud. Yes, there might be a few tight votes, but let those fall as they may.
He is welcome to join us in voting for progressive legislation, or answer to his constituants.
and that is the solution. The President is going to have to go to the people to leverage the House and Senate. The Republicans retained control but I suspect their margins of victory shrunk by quite a bit.
It ain't over 'til it's over.
Every public officeholder swears an oath of office. Ask yourself, 'What's the point of ANY additional pledge?' Follow the money.
Any officeholder who genuinely believes in representative government should have already publicly denounced the Teaparty/Taliban's efforts to disenfranchise Americans.
If you stood in line to vote, write your STATE legislators an invitation to the 21st century. Washington state voters had their ballots weeks before election day.
The Teaparty/Taliban are still afraid of women making decisions. (John 8:3-11)
Trickle down not only doesn't spur economic growth, it stifles it.
"Corporations are people" = "He with the most gold rules"
swapping nelson and lieberman for warren and donnelly? in my mind that's a gain of four. nelson and lieberman were democrats in name only.
Thank you thank you thank you. I congratulate myself on my accurate prediction on this site when I said many times that Obama would win in a landslide plus I'd like to thank all those who made people paranoid enough that Obama might lose that made my prediction come true (follow all that?). It will be interesting because we did not take the House back. People believe in the dem agenda but still voted tea partiers to the House???WTF. 2yrs to work on getting the House back so we can progress the nation. Thank everyone here for making this happen.
Tea-partiers in charge of redistricting in 2010. Explains why they had safe house seats.
What was wrong with the House, though? Looks like we even lost Ron Barber here in Gabby Giffords' district.
With the Republicans in control of state legislatures, gerrymandering was rampant. The Republicans were able to redraw congressional districts to protect their own seats and squeeze out the Democrats. That is why Ohio lost an excellent representative like Betty Sutton. This is why it is so important to vote in 2014 to get the Republicans out of the state governments.
That may be harder than Liberals think with even more on the welfare rolls and food stamps under this failure as he turns out to be an anvil on Liberals prospects in 2014.
Scott is clueless. Completely missed the message from last night. Please cite examples where "...this failure" has promoted a welfare state. Seems I've heard him repeatedly call for hard work and individual initiative, with assistance provided on a temporary basis. But, I guess that narrative doesn't comport with your "I hate everything Obama" ideology.
Along with the Obama phones and free government healthcare for the "non-motivated"?
Always nice to realize a wingnut moron will always be a wingnut moron, since they are the other species of hairless biped on the planet, Homo Sap, the one lacking frontal lobes and opposable thumbs.
Go wank yourself, after you fail to catch your sister again, little boy.
The only initiative that matters is the Job Creators' initiative. Everyone else only exercises "initiative" in finding more ways to suck the lifeblood from the tiny percentage that do all of the real work.
"Along with the Obama phones and free government healthcare for the "non-motivated"?"
You mean that only those who are motivated should have the opportunity to maintain good health by accessing our health care system (such as it is)? That we should just cast aside those who are poorer and have to deal with random health crises that aren't of their own making?
Wow! You're a real piece of work, Scott.
Scott get your facts straight-There is no ObamaPhone
The program you are talking about was started under a different liberal named Ronald Reagan
Does this mean "bye-bye filibuster" since Dems. should get to control the Senate rules for the next congress?
Not unless Democrats change the rules around filibustering. And if they don't, they certainly deserve all the obstruction they will continue to get.
This will be the one time I actually agree with Shooter. Because in this instance he is in fact right. If Dems do not change the rules of how a Fillerbuster is used in the Sen. Than they do in fact deserve every bit of the brick wall that would fallow.
They have one shot at changing the rules. And if they fail to take it, that's their fault, and just flat out deserve the obstruction they get.
I agree with him too ....this is turning into a very strange morning
Shooter I have a hangover! quit messing with my head!
Reid said many months ago that he regretted not changing the rules at the beginning of this Congress in January 2011. He won't make that mistake again. Let's hope that in addition to reforming the filibuster, they also get rid of anonymous holds and other impediments to getting on with the work of the people.
Boehner was sounding pretty defiant last night--let's hope it's just bluster. Otherwise it's liable to be a bumpy couple of months.
You know what you do when you have a rough road...you pave over it.
If the Republicans are sidelined it's because they did it to themselves. They as a party need to do some soul searching and decide if they want to be reduced to a shrinking group of cranky old white people or if they actually want a chance to make policy.
Let me suggest something else. If you're going to do Keysianism, do it right.
Every year Govt spends a trillion dollars more than it takes in. Rather than spending that trillion dollars on bureaucracy why not send a check to every household. That check would be $10,000.
For many that check would be a life changing event. What do you think?
Shooter
How about we just spend it right. You know cut things we don't need so much of like defence spending (we already have 20 aircraft carriers) and try building some infrastructure. Roads, bridges, schools. Those spread money out more broadly than defence spending anyway.
Which is better we give evey one $300 or we fix whats broken and give people jobs that pay a decent wage.
God, you can't even give money away properly. We spent a trillion and more on stimulus to no avail. Isn't the whole point of stimulus to get the economy going? Do you seriously think $10,000 each household won't stimulate "demand"?
Or maybe you have some animus toward regular citizens getting a break?
$10,000 and dead from tainted food is not a good exchange, we need good government which is not by definition less government (although we could quit grading all the coffe that comes into america and just inspect it for saftey)
What the hell do you mean "to no avail" GM is highering 10,000 people...but we can discuss that later.
Lets have a little thought expieriment and build a bridge it dosen't matter where.
A state asks the Federal Government for money to build a bridge. They say "Ok here" The state takes that money and hires construction companies and crews. They then buy steel, concrete, asphalt, lumber and all the other stuff they need for their bridge and people get to work. At some point they get hungry and either go to lunch at the dinner or they eat something that they made at home with the stuff they bought at the store. Then they go back to work. At some point someone bends over and splits the back seam in their jeans. This of course causes a huge bout of laughter from the guys he works with (it's a construction crew) and someone accidentally gets whacked in the head with a 2 X 4 and falls off the pile of sand bags he was standing on. That causes the guy driving the forklift to swerve and run into the side of the minivan that is waiting behind the flagman. No one is seriously hurt but the vans engine is squashed. They have to call a police man to take a report and an EMT to look at the head of the guy who got whacked in the head who needs a couple of stitches. he goes to the hospital where a receptionist takes his information, a nurse takes his vitals, and the Dr. stitches him up. The Lady driving the van calls a tow truck and her insurance company. The van gets towed to a garage where the mechanic says he can't fix it. The insurance adjuster comes looks at it takes a few photos and fills out paperwork he has to send to his regional office to be processed. The adjuster at the regional office comes back from lunch and sees the photos in his email and decides the car is totaled. They release funds to pay for the tow truck and the mechanic and to the lady who needs a new van. She decides to get a rental while she shops for one so she can drop her kids off at school and get to work herself. The rental car needs gas and she stops at a gas station after work on her way to the car dealership. The salesman at the car lot shows her a nice domestic van that she likes and decides she wants. the dealership sends it out to the detail shop down the street so that she can take it home and the lady arranges for the rental agency to send someone to pick up the car. The guy who comes to pick up the car decides he is going to go out and get something to eat after he drops it back at the lot where it will get cleaned out by the fleet garage. When he gets to the restaurant he has a nice steak dinner that the cook does really well and he tips the waitress nicely for her service. When he gets home he calls up his buddy and asks if he wants to come over and watch the game and have a few beers. He says he would love to but he has to be up early because they need to finish getting the concrete poured for the new bridge.
Don't ever tell me I don't know how to spend money properly.
I said, "give away money" not "spend" it.
Did I forget to explain that the trillion dollars is what we spend on means-tested poverty programs? It's what we already spend on welfare. The Federal Govt can still spend all it wants to on bridges, never you fear.
The FDA will continue on un-interrupted.
So, once again, why not take that trillion dollars and send a check for $10,000 to every household in the country. Wouldn't that do more for people's welfare rather than give it to Washington DC bureaucrats?
Filibuster reform is mandatory. It's time for Dems to govern like they want to stay in the majority and pass bills that will improve this country.
Conversely, the House GOP is in the hot seat. If they don't play ball, there will be a teabagger purge in 2014.
It's not hyberbolic at all. The first rule of rape culture is you don't talk about rape culture. Do that and you'll be punished. Exactly as the fungelicals were.
It certainly doesn't seem hyperbolic to me, either. I posted the following breakdown to the "Election Night" thread at about a quarter past 3 am today, when it first hit me (and if I seem a bit extra "fuzzy" today, it's in part because of all the sleep this correctly suggests I didn't get).
I find it of fascinating and very encouraging that, with only a few exceptions (and most of those in the reddest of red states), these extremists LOST at the ballot box. A detailed breakdown, as far as I'm able to sort it out for now (winning candidates highlighted in "bold-face" and using the latest available figures for races "still too close to call"):
Candidates who favor banning abortion without exception even for rape, incest or the life of the mother (4 winners, 12 losers):
Todd Akin MO
Steve King IA
Joe Walsh IL
Dick Mourdock IN
Ted Cruz TX
Tom Smith PA
John Raese WV
John MacGovern VT
Deb Fischer NB
Josh Mandel OH
Pete Hoekstra MI
Wendy Long NY
Michael Baumgartner WA
Rick Berg ND (race not yet called, but trailing by 2,994 with 93% in)
Roger Wicker MS
John Barasso WY
"Pro-life" candidates who refused to specify their positions on exceptions (and were thus, probably, ideologically consistent with the radicals above; no winners, 3 losers):
Kevin Wade DE
Daniel Bongino MD
Kurt Bills MN
Candidates willing to allow exceptions to their hoped-for ban on abortion, but only in the case of rape, incest or for the life of the mother (4 winners, 7 losers):
Jeff Flake AZ
Elizabeth Emken CA
Connie Mack FL
Denny Rehberg MT (race not yet "called", but trailing by 17,896 with 83%)
Dean Heller NV
Heather Wilson NM
George Allen VA
Tommy Thompson WI
Charles Summers ME
Bob Corker TN
Orrin Hatch UT
Candidates avowedly "pro-choice" (even here, no winners and 4 losers):
Linda McMahon CT
Linda Lingle HI
Barry Hinckley RI
Scott Brown MA (pro-choice stance in dispute by pro-choice advocates)
Candidate claiming to be "privately pro-life, publicly pro-choice" (only 1 - loser):
Joe Kyrillos NJ
Obviously a lot of factors influence any given voter's decision about a candidate, and this issue may not have been a principal consideration in some of these races (particularly those where the candidates staked out pro-choice positions). But I definitely agree that the argument may be made that even in those cases, the radicalism/insanity of the other candidates of their party helped to drag their prospects down.
Yaaaay!
Got Enraged and Engaged:
Mooched the Vote 2012!
;-)
I was surprised that King won, and by the margin of his victory. The re-districting put one of the more liberal towns in Iowa within his area. I was really pulling for Vilsack.
I know, right? That was one of the biggest disappointments from that list for me, too. But right now, I'm too happy (and tired) to be focusing so much on the "flies in the ointment".
Got Enraged and Engaged:
Mooched the Vote 2012!
;-)
DCSessions @ 32...
You mean those job creators who sit around the pool waiting for the dividend check to arrive...those "real workers". What jobs have they created huh? Or were they just responding to the 'DEMAND" in the market place for their goods or services...making a profit off of every person they have working for them depending on how many jobs are necessary to meet the "DEMAND" of consumers. So here as you should be able to see...it is DEMAND that actually creates jobs. People having money in their pockets to spend...whether it comes from food stamps or unemployment benefits or social security...money to spend which creates demand for goods and services.
Somebody needs to school ya DC. They are not job "creators" you refer to they are job "profiteers". They only do "real work" because of greed and without a middle class creating demand they would do no "real work" at all.
A supermajority is not good.
A government that goes in one direction is not a good government. It doesn't matter if its right-wing or left-wing, we need the other side of the aisle in order to be a honest government.
And you most certainly do not want extreme liberal or extreme conservatives primarily in charge. A middle of the road "purple states" government would be best foe everybody.
As I like to say, "If it's not right for everybody, it's not right for anybody"
Right now we aren't going down the middle of the road we are doing donuts in the political circle-K parking lot
It Absolutely DOES matter if it's left wing or right wing.
You are revealing either ignorance, naivety, or both, by assuming that the right wing is interested AT ALL in honesty, working across the aisle, and for the common good.
We have three branches of government, two houses of congress, and you think the filibuster is the great equalizer? I'll be happy to blame voters for electing majorities to the exec and legislative branches, but what the filibuster actually does is allow a small minority (representing as little as 10-15% of the US voters, all rural states) to impede progress. That's absurd!
I suppose if you consider doubling the numbers of Americans on the welfare rolls and food stamps "progress". You make me laugh. The Republicans will apply the brakes to this losers spending jones.
Scott really is a "one trick pony."
Jeez, I think Scott has Romnesia, he seems to have forgot it was the greatest economic catastrophe since the great depression (under republican rule, as always) that caused the welfare and food stamp rolls to swell.
Another couple of years under a democratic recovery and those numbers will go down.
Sure it was...ACTUALLY look to Fannie/Freddie as to why the crash happened and why the toll to Fannie and Freddie rescue just keeps going higher.
You may be giving Scott too much credit. He may well understand what led to the economic problems, and just consider that it would be "progress" to have more of "those people" starving in the streets (as they would be without the support of welfare and food stamps).
Scott
and who was it again that relaxed the regulations on derivatives to the point of suicidal absurdity?
And who pushed Fannie/Freddie for even more and more money as it circled the drain? Or even threatened the banks with lawsuits if they did not hand out loans to people that OBVIOUSLY had not the means to satisfy the debt a home loan brings? Remember Wall Street numbers and Employment numbers BEFORE Freddie/Fannies collapse? Record high stock market in the 14's and record low unemployment....
Fannie/Freddie
"WASHINGTON — Mortgage giant Freddie Mac earned $2.9 billion from July through September, its fourth straight profitable quarter. The government-controlled company attributed the gain to rising home prices and fewer mortgage delinquencies.
Freddie said Tuesday that it paid a dividend of $1.8 billion to the U.S. Treasury and requested no additional federal aid.
The increase compared with a loss of $4.4 billion for the same quarter of 2011. It also marked the sixth quarter in which Freddie sought no additional aid since being taken over by the government in September 2008."
next
See there is this funny thing we here in this reality like to call "Time"...
We use it to measure events in a liner fashion so that we can better understand based on cause and effect.
The deregulation of investment banks was not the doing of Democrats. The abuse of government backed loans and the FHA was the product of lobbyists from the financial sector on a power drunk Republican congress...and none of it happened under a Democratic administration.
this concludes our lesson please feel free to return to your own planet or the nearest convenient parallel dimension
Being as Fannie has gotten 187.5 BILLION second only to the financial institutions they crashed...how many months of positive growth which is not very likely... and they do not go back to the trough which is unlikely...how long will it take at 1.8 to pay that back??????? Please...get your head out of Bammy's backside.
25 years asssuming now increase in the current dividend as the housing market continues to impove - but are you complaining that it was saved at all? did you relly want a repeat of the 1930's?
And if we had elected Romney how would that situation be any different than it is.
It wouldn't except for the very great likely hood that the entire apparatus would be sent to a freshly deregulated series of investment banks that would start the whole nightmare over again while paying their CEO's $100k an hour that will automatically be sent to the caymans...
You need to get your head out of your own
Go back to chasing your sister, Scotty, and wanking yourself when you continue to fail to catch her. You're good at failing, it's what you know how to do best.
Fannie and Freddie...
This in a nutshell defines the right wing echo chamber.
Here is this guy Scott, obviously of Fux Noise and Limpballs persuasion, faced with the REALITY of his masters having been whooped, still clinging to some right wing fantasy that enables him to continue to live in denial.
It would be funny if it weren't so pathetic.
Once, JUST ONCE, I would like to have a 'boot strap pullin', 'rugged individual', 'take personal responsibility' right wing tea party republican actually admit their failure. Always a blame game. Always.
Dragoon brings up a good poinit. Who was it that provided for the deregulation- the repeal of the critical parts of Glass-Steagal. It was passed through the senate by a 90-8 margin and signed into law by Bill Clinton. I think that if either side blames the other, they are only fooling themselves. Both sides were party to the collapse. Reminded of the fact that some Republicans called for Fannie and Freddie re-vamp in the early and mid parts of the decade, and Barney Frank said they were in great shape. Dodd blcoked moves in the Senate. Then the Republicans said- "ok". Neither side was too interested in protecting against them. Too much money coming in from political donations. And sweetheart loans- Dodd even got one. Dragoon- you should check who was President in 1999.
This election shows that lying and buying does'nt win elections.Rember, voters are people to my friend.Right Mr.Romney?
Actually..it shows pandering and race baiting covers your terrible job performance in a short term fashion.
Why don't you come back with you have some comments based on reality. Pandering and race baiting was the central theme of your side of the fence. Remember the "...we aren't letting fact checkers determine our policies" statement? Too many informed people here for your drivel to carry any weight. Although, you do serve as a bit of comic relief.
Informed people? How about on the JOBS numbers?
And how did Romney do with the corporate vote? What, there wasn't any? I find that highly discriminatory to not allow certain "people" to exercise their right to vote.
Actually kind of a notch on the side of corporations not being people. Last time I checked, a living, breathing person couldn't be administratively dissolved by the state they were born (incorporated) in.
Hey scott - how many "Jobs, jobs, jobs" bills did the teaparty obstructionists vote on? None. The fact of the matter is the jobs numbers would be much better at this point if they were as interested in improving the economy as they were in making Obama look bad. Demand creates jobs; supply-side economics has been a proven failure.
Why? Because the first "jobs" bill...aka "stimulus" only went to stimulate Democrats with ties to Hussein in their bank accounts...genius. Why cost taxpayers YET MORE money on a plan with no results?
Scott - Have you done your taxes in the last few years?
Do you remember seeing a little item on your taxes called the "Making Work Pay" tax credit? The one that gave you $400 or $800 depending on whether you file singly or jointly?
That's part of the stimulus bill, genius.
And we've been getting better with jobs. We're down below 8% unemployment. We're making jobs every month. More people are entering the workforce.
So did they come up with any jobs legislation of their own, you know, the kind that wouldn't just benefit people with ties to "Hussein?" No. Were they too busy doing the important work of changing the names of Post Offices and trying to redefine rape? Why aren't you angry with them for breaking their "jobs" campaign promises; have you forgotten that they write the legislation and the President only signs it in to law? Why don't they give him something to sign?
"Jobs numbers"? You mean the "jobs numbers" that have improved fairly steadily during the President's first term, particularly after the introduction of the stimulus? Or should we suppose you were happier when the economy was hemorrhaging 750,000 to 800,000 jobs a month at the end of the Bush disaster?
Holy crap. Maybe Scott does have Romnesia! Good news - you're covered by Obamacare...
;-)
You guy's are straight out of a comic book. The reason the numbers are not in high double digits are two fold....people dropping out of the workforce completely as well as NOW counting part time employment as employment. so much for that " steady improvement" BS theory. look at the welfare rolls and food stamps as the true indicator of Hussein's job performance...so TRY living in the real world.
You can blame Obama all you want, but you still haven't answered the question as to why you don't give any of the blame to the Republican Congress. What have they done to help?
HOW if the Senate will not even TAKE UP Legislation on the REPEATED employment related bills the House has brought up....get it?
Scott - the employment numbers have stayed at under 8% because the workforce is increasing. More people are looking for and getting jobs. You're back in time.
If you want to talk about obstruction, look no further from your vaunted House. They killed jobs bills pushed by the president that would also rebuild our infrastructure. Republicans even killed jobs bills they authored. Anything to make Obama look bad.
It's unfair to engage Scott in intellectual warfare, since he's so obviously unarmed.
I would, for once, like one of these Conservative parrots to just look something up for once. Go Wiki these things, they'll find out that the talking points that they've been fed are not true. It's so annoying, cause if I hear a claim, I don't take it at face value, ever. Why don't they care about whether or not they're being duped?
If a majority support legislation in the Senate they can vote to take it up even if it's not scheduled on the rolls by the majority leader.
The idea that Harry Reid is the reason why Republican Senators can't pass legislation is just laughable. That's something that only a person unfamiliar with Senate rules believes.
The reason why it won't pass is because Republicans aren't trying to get a majority to vote for their bills. They'd rather whine to Fox News than do actual legislating.
How do I know this? Because Marko Rubio said this infamous quote on The Daily Show:
We keep filibustering the bills that we're trying to pass because Democrats won't allow us to amend them
Please talk Senate101 to me: what prevents republicans from filibustering a hypothetical filibuster reform bill?
The new Senate's first rule of business is to adopt a set of Senate rules for the next two years. That first vote is by purely majority vote. The Senate, for that first brief moment, can decide to do what the House of Representatives did a century ago -- namely, govern itself by majority rule, and ditch the filibuster, not to mention secret "holds" and the rest of the archaic claptrap that has allowed Southern conservatives to tie the hands of the government for 200 years. Let's hope.
I hope what you say is true, and that the senate can vote with it's current majority, to return to a simple majority rule.
And if this is so, I hope they do it. It's time to play hardball with the right wing extremists and the corporations that seem to think they own this country.
Thank you Mr Papanek.
Think I heard, when I was groggy, that Harry Reid has already said he's not in favor of getting rid of the filibuster. Incomprehensible.
Because as punch drunk as Liberal Harry may be...he sees the distinct possibility of his party being in the minority again in the short term in the Senate if Hussein's performance continues at the pace it has the last 4. Very astute.
Why don't you go become a "good Republican," you racist piece of something I scrape off my shoe? You're an excellent reminder that "the only 'good Republicans' are pushing up daisies," you scummy little Confederate traitor.
Riddle me this? Why do you folks think filibustering will be a heavily used tool? Multiple choice: a) well, they don't trust house republicans from holding order, b) you're right- we are stupid to think that because with a solid GOP house,the filibuster is unnecessary.
Hello from the invisible. I'm a 55 year old white southern redneck. I've never voted for a Republican in my life and I doubt I ever will. I live in Richmond, the capitol of Virginia. Eric Cantor IS NOT our Representative. We , along with Norfolk and Roanoke deliver huge numbers for Democrats. Our hometown college, VCU delivers. But according to all the pundits who claim to know Va politics, The vote here depends on young female northern Virginians, especially those of color. We are glad to have them, but Hello. I am also a gay southern redneck. I add that secondly because more of my friend aren't and yet they are as invisible as I am. As a gay man I am doubly invisible. Its a subtle bigotry that makes us stealth troops all over the country in an electorate that relies on slim margins. The right tries to dismiss us as that two percent... We are closer to ten percent and the party that can't even see us ignores and derides us at their peril. Am I claiming we are the margin of victory? No. But then no one component was. But all the others are sharing, and getting, credit. Hello.
Hi Tag! I'm one of those young, female, Northern Virginians! (Although I'm a trans-woman, also pansexual!)
And the "normal" Democrat undoubtedly.....
I am a progressive liberal, would vote for local Green party candidates, but state and president candidates usually Democrats.
Oh yea, I'm also 1/8th Pamunkey!
Thank you Tag!
Do you wear flannel? Now that'd be funny.
Flannel rocks.
Flannel is comfy.
I look forward to watching Elizabeth Warren for years to come.
and Allen Grayson.... a red hot poker in the face of Republican lies.
Hear, Hear!!! I was elated to hear that Ms. Warren took Massachusetts--while the Romney base watched in Boston. I hope her unabashed liberalness rubs off on the Dems that are currently in the Senate (and the House).
I am happy to say that I did a little bit of volunteering for EW. In a city like so many cities here, we had hundreds of volunteers. People of all ages making phone calls all day long, out knocking on doors, even bringing food to feed the volunteers. The energy was awesome. And we did it.
And Tammy Baldwin! First openly-gay person elected to the U.S. Senate! There are more women in the Senate than ever in history, and I'm excited to see what will happen in the coming session.
Indeed! Biology dictates that most women are pragmatists.
Discuss among yourselves.
I guarantee at some point in time someone is going to stand in the well of that august and stately chamber and use the word "Vagina" and all hell will break loose...
Another good thing about last night's result is that many of the trolls had their contracts expire last night.
So there's that.
Actually....as the Economy sinks and those on Hussein's welfare and breadline rolls grow...this is the first President to ACTUALLY be re-elected with these MISERABLE numbers, so I look at the Mid terms to be very kind to Republicans. Sorry to drop that nugget on you.
Some of the trolls didn't get that memo.
LOL yes expect the first time unemployment rate going up as the troll head for the line, feeling butt hurt and rejected again.
and guess they still have not notice the Economy is going UP with almost no help from one party.
So says the 46 MILLION on food stamps? What a maroon.....
Scott said: "Sorry to drop that nugget on you." Too funny! Thanks for the laugh! Guess you missed the meltdown on Fox last evening. They're your buddies, and just as clueless.
And PS.....No tax increases in the foreseeable future.
LOL at you very hard,, really i am!!
i see you are still recycling the same crap your handlers have been selling you. LOL some more did they tell you the bill was coming on Nov. 7th and it seems you own them. as all that copy and paste stuff wasnt free, you didnt really think you was getting a free ride did you?
Paying for YOUR health care and food stamps,housing and welfare check? No Sharkey...THAT doesn't feel like a "free ride" BUT... Government is going on a diet and just NOT going to come back to the trough in the usual fashion....sorry.
Bitter! Party of one!
LOL. ;-)
Really? Wall Street has reacted to this failures election in a fashion everybody knew was coming.
Scott...
You do understand that Food Stamps are a Farm subsidy program run by he department of agriculture right?
And?.....This President is an unabashed fan of the title "Food stamp President".
And you are obviously talking out your Arse about something you have no understanding of.
The food stamp program was established as a farm subsidy to benefit beautiful states full of lovely and generous people like Kansas, Missouri, and Nebraska. Which is one of the reasons it is so strongly supported by members of the house Republican caucus.
The fact that the poverty rate has gone up while wages have remained stagnant has created a situation where more people qualify for SNAP under the rules that were relaxed by President George W. Bush...which was very kind of him since he was the one who created that dynamic of increasing poverty and wage stagnation in the first place.
So when you want to talk about the "Food Stamp President" please make sure you are actually giving credit to the right guy...I would hate to think President Bush shouldn't get the credit he is so justly due.
Okay...base numbers time...23 to 47 million currently....and what is the % of Children getting fed on the government dole in their school? Did you take to heart that stupid "it takes a village" crap? You have a kid YOU raise it.
LOL
get the feeling our troll is fighting a rear guard position, while the troll troops get re-organized.
What's changed? This guy has got all of the Liberal legislation passed he is going to. He may be able to let Bammycare go forward in DEM governor States...just not in Republican states.
Scott, you and yours love to point out the rising number on food stamps Without mentioning the Bush policies that put them there.
Poor little Scotty, he lacks the basic equipment to engage in intellectual discourse. A brain, critical thinking, ability to recognize facts, ability to use logic.
Scott, are you ready for your poor little wing-nut noggin to explode? It will go forward. Even in Rape-Public-CON states. Under the terms of the Affordable Care Act, if the states decline to set up the insurance exchange pools required by the law, the Federal government is authorized to step in and do it for them. As described by a wide variety of easily accessed information sources, e.g. allvoices.com,
Bwaahaahahahahahahaha!
Got Enraged and Engaged:
Mooched the Vote 2012!
;-)
Dragoon is right again. The food stamp program, years ago, was added as an ag program in order to make the farm program was welfare for corporate farms.
This was the first Senate election in my short voting career where I actually gave a good damn about a few of the races. Though I'm not in any of the districts that had big wins, I was elated to hear that Ms. Warren was elected in Massachusetts (to the chagrin of the Romney base in Boston--extra sweet), and doubly elated that the GOP Rape Masters Akin and Mourdock were duly snuffed out. I'm hoping that the defeat of these far-right looney toons--including 2010's defeats of what's-her-face from Nevada and Witch Lady of Delaware--really does break the GOP Fever.
So do you think Harry Reid has finally figured out that the Senate rules need to change?
Imagine the next four years with simple majorities being able to run the Senate.
be nice to get you cabinet totally filled even if it is in your second term.
Harry Mitch as we know id NOT a Gentlemen of the senate. you need to deal him a body blow! and that's making it harder to filibusterer nominees think SC.
It may seem hyperbolic, but the truth is, we'll have a more Democratic Senate because the GOP's far-right base elected unhinged and unelectable conservatives who said ridiculous things about rape.
The question isn't, why did we do so well in the Senate? The question is, why didn't we take back the House?
All Dems running for office need to add this issue to their playbook. When a Republican indicates that he supports state or federal personhood amendments stating that life begins at fertilization, then he has indicated opposition to abortion in cases of rape, incest, life/health of the mother. He also indicated that he would allow in-vitro fertilization and certain forms of contraception to be outlawed. People need to know candidates positions on this issue before they head to the ballot box.
The reason the Dems do better in the Senate, is because state legislatures can't mess with state boundaries.
Gerrymandering, plain and simple. Michigan has two Democratic Senators, but less than half of our Representatives are Democrats.
We didn't "take back the House" because Democrats failed to show up in 2010, and gave the power of redistricting to The Enemy. It's going to take 10 years of hard campaigning to make up for that. Democrats need to learn that President isn't the only office one votes for or the only election one participates in.
Well, in Illinois, the house faired well for the democrats. We even re-elected Jesse Jackson jr even though he abandoned his duties and disappeared 6 months ago. The mayo clinic finally confirmed he was in their psych ward. As well, we elected a state rep that had taken a bribe (the democrats in office even found this offensive enough to remove him from office. But, he won the election. Here in Illinois, heck, we even gave Obama his start.
I am THRILLED that Akin and Mourdock said what they actually believe! Voters in Missouri and Indiana were in a much better position to decide which candidate would serve them best and I think they made the right choice. I only wish more politicians were as honest. We all need to know more about the people asking for our votes.
I'm hopeful about the "new" senate, but I won't get too excited. Republicans, especially in the House, march in lockstep. Democrats are "less disciplined". I'll wait to see what happens in the new term.
Well its still close in NV and Berkeley could still pull that off. could be plus 3
any way, we need to send a message to Harry, listen to Merkley (OR) Udal (NM) and a few others who want to change the filibusterer rules for the 113th.
we need to get that under control and make Mitch as irrelevant as possible! make it so 44 can not hold up the business of the People!
Really? If you want to cut your own tallywhacker off after the midterms reflect this losers job performance. I doubt seriously reality minded Democrats will throw the keys to the republicans after remembering the thumping they took in 2010.A Republican majority coming your way in 14 if theperformance of the economy continues as I suspect it will and Wall Street is currently reflecting, sharkey my boy......
LMAO
still eating those grapes i see.
guess We the People can not depend on your support on getting America moving Forward.
good to know, that you still have your head in your fourth point of contact.
LOL oh i hear Mitch is saying he main mission is to make the President just a 2 term one.
Scott reminds me of a line the drill sergeant used repeatedly in basic training: "I'm gonna get you trainees a plastic navel, so you can see out!"
And Chris Matthews thanking the lord for Sandy last night....gotta love Liberals.
How about this one DB..."Get your head outta your third point of contact" I'm guessing you may have heard THAT one.....repeatedly.
WallStreet has only been averaging gains since Obama took office, just as we've only been averaging job gains and not losses. What are you even talking about here?
Gee...just not enough to keep up with job losses...people dropping out of the job serch in record numbers, 46 MILLION on food stamps and RECORD unemployment. what are YOU talking about?
LOL
good morning laughter,,, provided by the sour grape committee, attached to the 2nd motorized lip service company, of the 112th clown car division of the TGOP.
whats that smell its Victory!
Gee Sharkey... didn't know you were in the army...I'm suspecting it was the salvation army?
And which service did you avoid, patriot boy? We all know you wingnut scum are ready for any war, so long as somebody else fights it, since you're a COWARD.
Scott desperately wants everyone to believe that changing the filibuster rules will come back to bite the Democrats in 2014. Changing them now will give the Democratic controlled Senate a chance to pass bills and confirm judicial and administrative positions for at least two years. If, by some chance, the Republicans were to retake the Senate in 2014 (a year in which far more Republican Senators will be facing reelection), what would stop them from just changing the rules themselves? It only takes 51 votes, and I imagine that would be the first order of business for the Republicans. Why don't the Democrats do it now, and at least have the control for the next two years?
Your initial claim was that Wall Street went down because of Obama's election even though that's not why Wall Street dropped 350 points (that has to do with a trade deal that took place in Europe and it would've happened had Romney been elected). You then made the broad generalization that Wall Street does not like Obama. I explained that Wall Street has been making gains every day since Obama took office so it's specious for you to reason that they do not like him. Maybe they do, maybe they don't. But the growth of the stock market would suggest he's pro-Wall Street.
You then rebuttaled by making an entirely different point that had nothing to do with your initial point and that had nothing to do with my point. You neither proved yourself correct or disproved the claim I made. I'm presuming this means you concede that Obama is a pro-business president. OK now stop trolling or actually back your positions with reason and facts.
The Senate hasn't passed a budget in three years, I do not have much hope the next four years will be any different. With unfunded liabilities for each tax payer being at one million dollars each I can not see how this country can survive.
We've added 5 trillion to the national debt during the past four years and I haven't heard Democrats voicing any concern. Raising taxes on the rich isn't going to solve the problem so we will need to raise taxes on everyone if we do not reduce spending. Of course we can flood the market with money to create inflation which will reduce everyone's life style.
Listen up trolls. We can only CHANGE the country if we work TOGETHER. Your bitterness does not help. This election shows people WANT change and if we can be the America we USED to be, we can do it!
Ahhh...you mean in the same fashion Liberals shoved healthcare down Americans throats with no input from the other party? stow THAT crap pal. Split election AGAIN...No bending over for this loser and his shakedown tactics...sorry.
If you bothered actually knowing anything, you would know that the the majority of individual pieces of Obamacare are overwhelmingly supported by Americans.
It is only due to the successful Frank Lutzing of the bill by right wing media hatemongers and talking point echoers such as yourself that resulted in any negative feeling about a national policy concerning healthcare.
So, EVERYBODY wants to pay for illegals and deadbeats health care on the backs of the American taxpayer? You...are a little on the "foggy" side of reality.
I am beginning to think scott is somehow connected to Rove.....or Trump or Nugent or Tag or ...talk about acting like a "maroon"...
Ah, Scotty? No input on the healthcare bill, written by the American Heritage Institute, put into service by Mitt Romney in Massachusetts. Is that the one you're talking about? You're showing your ignorance. Republicans in the House and Senate had over a year to discuss the bill, and plenty of opportunity to offer amendments. They preferred grandstanding and obstruction.
Also, where do you get the idea that the ACA is covering illegals? You must not have read any of it. And deadbeats? I seem to recall something called a "mandate", which you seem so opposed to. That means that people will be required to pay for the insurance, not have the taxpayers pay for it. All of those people getting insurance through the ACA will be buying their insurance from PRIVATE insurers, not from the government. Please try to learn something about the ACA before pontificating.
By the way, your anger is really starting to come across. Highly recommend a double Scotch and some sleeping pills. Really, it'd be good for you.
Beth: http://www.hark.com/clips/nsvdjzkfdz-what-a-maroon
Just a little punchy from lack of sleep.
......the healthcare bill was based almost entirely on the bill presented by Republicans in the early 90's and that was adopted by, enacted, and endorsed by presidential candidate Mitt Romney. It was debated in the US Congress for over 10 months with more than 10 committee hearings taking place over the bill. Saying that it was "shoved down" anyone's throats shows that you either a. are engaging in revisionist history or b. you're completely ignorant of the history you're pretending to be an expert on. The Republicans were given a myriad of opportunities to amend the legislation and they chose to filibuster and stall instead and that meant that they got a bill they didn't like. Rather than grow up and own up to it Republicans instead put the blame on Democrats like the petulant children they really are.
What the hell are you even talking about? Not a cent will go to pay for illegals or deadbeats. You do realize that you have to PAY for PRIVATE insurance to be covered by this bill, yes? The only people to whom that doesn't apply are the retired, the disabled, and children. Unless we're now deciding that 7 year olds are deadbeats??? Otherwise you have to purchase a PRIVATE plan. It's a giveaway to the insurance industry that they are drooling over. Again not sure why you'd hate that if you're supposedly against communism and socialism. This is the most anti-socialist bill a person could create.
In case no one has stated this yet...the Bush tax cuts all expire automatically at the end of the year. The senate has already passed an extension for all people making under 250k. All the President has to do is point this out and say "call your congressman" game over.
Go ahead..let Hussein hold to his guns on taxes and let's see how that one goes.
I believe you meant to Say: Go ahead..let 2nd Term President Obama hold to his guns on taxes and let's see how that one goes.
I could be wrong though.....
As successful as his first term was...I'm certain the second will be just as "Successful" LOL. All the American people have to look forward to is the repeated phrase..."Brother, can you spare a dime?"
Which is preferable to a Republican saying, "give me all your dimes". One refers to charity and sharing, and the other to theft.
And I see Wall Street is welcoming back Hussein as everybody knew they would.....
This is the second time I've noticed that Aikin's statement is labelled as the 'Forcible Rape' comment. I think the actual term he used is 'Legitimate Rape'.
Correct me if I'm wrong about that. It think Legitimate Rape is a much more telling term.
I wonder if Hussein may face impeachment over his withholding of help to the embassy in Libya and lies immediately following?
scott - you are a strange one. It is people like you who need to get out of their shacks while holding tightly to their rifles and live in the real world. There are other issues at stake here. Lets talk about Willard Myth...did you really think he was going to do something for YOU? not if you make under $250,000.
And Hussein has been SUCH a positive force on America's economy. Just because YOU are getting a "Free check"...Hussein REALLY doesn't help the rest of America. You may want to get off the playground and look at the working world's situation.
Scott is such an idiot, resorting to name calling. Does it make you feel better to call your president Hussein?
Jeez, grow the @!$%# up Scott. What are you, the spoiled frat boy college republican poster boy?
What a loser.
Scotty's your standard issue Republican racist. No surprise there.
Scotty is probably between 18-20 years old, with lifelong ADD. Every time I read one of his posts, I have to wipe the spittle off my computer screen.
Scotty, get some help. If you can't afford it, the ACA will probably cover you.
Oops..sorry I meant to say get out from under your bridge... So no one drove you to vote yesterday?
Someone eluded to the possibility of Hilary Clinton leaving Sec. of State and John Kerry stepping in, but that would create an opening in Mass. Senate seat and "you know who" would step in and say "well, here I am- a truck drivin' moderate Repub. that took (how much?) money from Wall Street.
Say it ain't so.
oh man! alluded, alluded!
Correction - Todd Akin became famous for using the phrase "legitimate rape." "Forcible rape" was the term used by the Republican party in anti-abortion bills introduced last Congress (which most Republicans signed onto).