Congress approval in the toilet because of Republican obstruction. Don't vote for more obstruction!

[flpoljunkie]

That some do not understand we will get much more obstruction by giving over control of the Senate to Republicans is maddening.

How on earth do we educate voters when all the media wants to do is cheerlead for the Republicans to take control of the Senate!

[yeoman6987]

1. Honestly, the next two years are going to be

Worthless regardless. I mean even the 3 seats that they are going to get just makes the split that much closer. Ugh! I remember the two years we had 60 seats. We could have done so much. Minimum wage should have at least been done.

[1StrongBlackMan]

2. Don't you mean ...

you remember the 7 months (split into two periods) when Democrats had 60 Senators somewhat in its Caucus? Our sixty counted 2 independents and 7 on the reddest of Blue dogs.

http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/did-the-democrats-ever-really-have-60-votes-in-the-senate-and-for-how-long/

[yeoman6987]

4. Ok 7 months

That is enough time to get a ton done. It always amazes me that the majority of bills that get passed are typically before a vacation or change of guard.

[flpoljunkie]

5. Thanks for the link, 1StrongBlackMan.

[flpoljunkie]

3. We need the Senate for judicial appointments and cabinet nominees requiring Senate confirmations

It is starting to break through to the American people that taxpayers are subsidizing the wages of minimum wage workers--which pads the profits of greedy corporations. Yet, Republicans will continue to block a minimum wage increase in the Senate as long as they have 41 votes. It is who they are and who they represent--not us.

[JayhawkSD]

6. Why do Republicans obstruct and Democrats don't?

From 2006 Democrats had majorities in both houses of Congress and George W. Bush, a Republican president, got any legislation he wanted passed by the Deocratic Congress. An extension of the Patriot Act, the Military Commissions Act, innunity for the telecom industry... Democrats obstructed none of it.

But when the Republicans have a majority in only one house a Democratic president cannot get anything passed.

Why is that? What do the Republicans have that the Democrats not have? How can Republicans stop Democratic presidents, while Democrats cannot stop Republican presidents? Why? Why? Why?

[flpoljunkie]

7. Simplest answer is Dems tend to put the country before their party

Republicans have been determined to do everything in their power to make President Obama's presidency a failure. They could not do with without a feckless and complicit media--a loathsome tactic which the media would never let the Dems utilize.

I think 9/11 an exception for the Dems. Too many put their own self-interest above the interest of the country. They were afraid to stand up against Bush's rush to war in Iraq. Hillary Clinton has only recently apologized for getting it 'wrong on Iraq' in her book 'Hard Choices.' Ironic in this case, since she made the easy political choice and voted to go to war in Iraq.

[JayhawkSD]

9. Oh, please

First you say we put country before party, then you say that after 9/11 we put ourselves before country.

So, how is not even attempting to reverse the Bush tax cuts putting the country first? How is immunity for the telecoms putting the country first? How is passing the MCA putting the country first? How is passing tax cuts rather than direct stimulus putting the country first?

They passed every single item on the Bush agenda. He lost on nothing other than privatization of Social Security, and even Republicans opposed that. They gave him everything he wanted.

Come on, offer me a real answer, not pablum.

[kairos12]

8. Rethugs want to monkey wrench government institutions so they can turn over it's functions

to their corporate paymasters. Blow it up, then sell it off. Teahaddists at work.

[JayhawkSD]

10. That doesn't tell me about Democrats.

Anti Republican screeds do not answer the question. For four full years Democrats controlled Congress. Two years were under Bush and they gave him the surge, the MCA, immunity for telecoms, everything he wanted. They made no attempt to stop him on anything other than privation of Social Security, which even the Republicans opposed.

So, why did Democrats not oppose the agenda of a Republican president? Why did they give him his entire agenda? Simply calling Republicans dirty names does not answer that question.

[kairos12]

11. Republicans have titled so far to the right they perceive Democrats as ideological enemies. As a

result of this they believe compromise equals appeasement with the enemy. A leftward tit lt for the Democrats ebbed with McGovern. Democrats still had the idea today that governing means compromise. The Democrats failed to recognize the Republicans would continue to move the goalpost of policy further and further right. The Democrats were willing to give in even on bad policy. That was a huge mistake. The Democrats never operated on the same scorched earth campaign the Rethugs believe in, hence the Shrub agenda was moved forward.