General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: When I look at Obama, I see a man who is trying very hard to do right by the people [View all]TheKentuckian
(26,314 posts)Are you saying that the Republicans have never had a majority in the Senate because I remember running against one in 06.
You do know that 51/100 is a majority, right? It isn't rocket science, first grade math will probably get you through.
The phrase you seek is filibuster proof majority. Hell, we've had the ability to deal with the filibuster at the start of the last three sessions and clearly would rather flog it as an excuse in power while refusing to utilize it in the minority and allowing horrible right wing policy to become law while playing the"adults in the room" angle which sounds nice until the "adults in the room" means the fucking house is on fire and won't be put out.
Then you choose to use Lincoln and Lieberman as why Obama can't even articulate a good initiative much less inact one, when he actively campaigned for both in their last primaries. That is funny stuff. He helps lead the charge against his own reenforcements but he isn't part of the problem, no-no.
I'm thinking you are indulging in circular logic that cannot be escaped from on this one. You have to go around the President and the party with no fucking money to even shift Congress a hair, just trying to slide over to Halter from Lincoln (even with Halter with better GE polling) one must fight Presidents past and present, all the gobs of money, and the entire party.
FDR demanded and worked for a Congress that would work for him, Obama campaigns for those that hinder him or even the slimy asshole that two years later that would actually team up with McShame to defeat him and who he would welcome back to the fold with open arms.