Did republicans have a 60+ majority during the Bush years?

[boston bean]

If the answer is no, the follow on question is how the fuck did we end up with all his fucking disgusting policies, put into law?

How the hell did that fucking idiot get things he wanted done?

[Pab Sungenis]

1. We kept our powder dry.

In fact, we kept it so dry that it blew away.

[PCIntern]

2. How? Because we have Democratic Leaders exemplified by, for example, Ed Rendell

who said during the recount of 2000 that Gore should just concede, and when Rethugs won any elections, including 2010, he said in effect: well, that's what the American people want, so in the interest of democracy, we'll just give it to them.

Establishment Dems were never very good at guerilla warfare.

[HughBeaumont]

3. Filibuster Abuse: Only One Side Does It.

Democrat: SOMEtimes, They Are.

There you have it.

[hobbit709]

4. Evidently the Democratic leadership had major osteoporosis of the spinal column.

[dsc]

5. the tax cuts only needed 50 votes

since they were done by reconsiliation. the war was bi partisan and got over 60 votes. His education bill was also bi partisan. He got the same number of scotus justices through as Obama. He did do better on other judges and nominees which is where the filibuster has been a real issue.

[dawg]

17. It would have only took 40 votes to have allowed all of those cuts to expire as scheduled.

Now, I actually like tax cuts that benefit me. But I like fully funding Social Security and Medicare more.

[dsc]

18. that was under Obama by that time

I was responding to under Bush. I tend to agree, as I have argued since 2004, all the cuts should go.

[dawg]

20. My point is that numbers have never been our problem.

It is the weakness and duplicity within our coalition that causes conservative policies to pass when they have small majority but prevents liberal policies from passing when we have a similar advantage.

[dsc]

21. the fact is many liberals disagree with us on the tax cuts

I recall being a quite lonely voice back in 2003 and 2004 to be sure.

[dawg]

23. Taxes should be high enough to fund the needs of the nation ...

including a decent safety net and adequate investments in science, education, and infrastructure.

Once those things are taken care of, the lower the tax rate the better as far as I'm concerned. I don't want to use the tax code to punish rich people. I just want to adequately fund a sufficient government.

[RandiFan1290]

6. Only took him 4 short months to get his tax cuts for the rich.

Only 4 months after the closest election in history and the "dems" rolled over and gave him what he wanted and that was before 9/11

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_Growth_and_Tax_Relief_Reconciliation_Act_of_2001

[JDPriestly]

11. And don't forget the draconian changes to the bankruptcy laws that are now wreaking havoc

on families with student loans and other debt to pay off.

A corporation can easily take its creditors to bankruptcy court. A kid with unpaid student loans and no job cannot. It's a travesty of justice once again.

[tridim]

7. Democrats believe in Democracy, Republicans do not.

I can't believe I actually have to point that out.

[boston bean]

8. Issues and policies those Dems agreed with that ass on, was destructive to democracy. nt

[hobbit709]

9. 51-49 is Democracy, 40-60 is not.

[doggie breath]

24. So if...

51% of the government oppose abortion, that makes it right?
if 51% of the government believe women should not vote, that makes it right?
if 51% of the government thinks we should start another war for oil, that makes it right?

[CBHagman]

10. The short answer is that sometimes there was blocking, sometimes there were deals, sometimes...

...there was cooperation.

Moreover, the Republican Party of 2001-2008 was not yet quite the entity it is now, but that's another thread.

A little context: Republicans continued their control of the House and Senate throughout much of the two Bush terms, except for A) the Senate flipping to the Democrats in May 2001 with the defection of Vermont Senator Jim Jeffords and B) the Democrats' victories in the midterm election of 2006, when both houses went blue -- just in time for the housing bubble to start bursting and mayhem to ensue. But that's another thread.

The filibuster was an issue during the Bush years, and that brings us to the so-called nuclear option. Democrats blocked a number of Bush's judicial nominees and the Senate majority leader of the time, Bill Frist, threatened to enact changes to the rules that would have basically taken that power away.

From 2005:

[url]http://www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/05/24/filibuster.fight/[/url]

Democrats filibustered 10 of Bush's 218 nominees in his first term, saying they were too radical for a lifetime appointment to the bench.

(SNIP)

With 55 seats, Republicans have been unable to garner the 60 votes that Senate rules specify are necessary to end a filibuster -- a form of extended debate that has been part of Senate rules since the early 19th century.

[url]http://www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/05/24/filibuster.fight/

If the cloture vote were to fail, Frist would use some parliamentary maneuvering -- with help from Cheney as the body's presiding officer -- to get a vote on a procedural motion to limit debate, according to a scenario cited in The Washington Post.

Such a vote, assuming Frist was successful, would set a precedent by cutting off debate with a simple majority of 51, instead of the three-fifths supermajority required for cloture on a filibuster.

The "nuclear" aspect of the scenario is that it would effectively circumvent a Senate rule that requires a two-thirds vote of 67 to change a rule.

If the Republican majority eliminated the filibuster, Democrats threatened to use Senate rules to push their agenda and disrupt the GOP's -- effectively slowing the chamber's business to a crawl.

You will want to read a bit of the coverage from the time; any one news story is only a snapshot and may not contain all pertinent information. Attention spans are short in the news media as well as in the public at large, as I've seen with my own regular paper, The Washington Post: Sometimes the reporter gets the context, sometimes he/she doesn't or, worse yet, spins.

A little further context: At one point in the second term the Washington Monthly printed a cover that showed a sad George W. Bush sitting at a market stall filled with policies he'd failed to enact, Social Security privatization among them, and suggested that the country wasn't buying what he was selling.

[Fumesucker]

12. Ahem...

[alsame]

13. Third Way/DLC, war hawks and

cowards in the Democratic party.

[Zorra]

14. Democrats and republicans playing for the same team ~ the 1%.

It ain't rocket science.

[Nye Bevan]

15. "Bill Frist never had 60 votes. Bill Frist never cared."

Bill Frist never had 60 votes. Bill Frist never cared. Republicans ran the Senate as if they owned the place, even when enjoying razor-thin majorities.

Yet when Democrats took the chamber, the first thing Harry Reid did was complain that he couldn't do anything because he didn't have 60 votes.

Then voters delivered 59 votes. And Harry Reid whined that he still couldn't do anything. In fact, nothing would ever get accomplished unless they had 60, and to do that, they had to bring turncoat Joe Lieberman back into the fold, even though he had spent the previous year making common cause with John McCain and Sarah Palin, even speaking at the Republican National Convention in Minnesota. You see, we were told, Joe Lieberman is with us on everything except the war! So we need him for 60, and when we have 60, everyone will get ponies! And if Lieberman strays, why, Evan Bayh said Senate Democrats could punish him!

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2009/10/14/793218/-Harry-Reid-abdicates-his-leadership-role

[senseandsensibility]

16. That's the problem in a nutshell.

Thanks for posting this.

[dawg]

19. Because the problem isn't just Obama.

Third Way "compromise" thinking infects at least a third of the Democratic Party. Conservatives with D's after their names are no better than the one's with R's. Except for the fact that they are occasionally pro-choice.

But I think the Democratic Party should stand for something far better than just being the Pro-Choice Moderate Republican alternative.

[Recursion]

22. Bush passed his war, and did reconciliation for his tax cut

This myth that Bush did whatever the hell he wanted completely ignores what actually happened from about 2003-2009.