Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
There are 100 US Senators, two from each state. Democrats had over 50 Senators during this time. In fact, they were one Independent or Republican away from the necessary 60 votes needed. If the legislation couldn't get all Democratic Party Senators and at least one Independent or Republican Senator then the problem wasn't having enough Democrats. The problem was the legislation itself.
There are 100 US Senators, two from each state. Democrats had over 50 Senators during this time. In fact, they were one Independent or Republican away from the necessary 60 votes needed. If the legislation couldn't get all Democratic Party Senators and at least one Independent or Republican Senator then the problem wasn't having enough Democrats. The problem was the legislation itself.
That's what I thought, so in sense because they never had 60 congressmen in place at any given time they really never controlled congress fully through Obama's presidency. This is ontop of the fact there were those fake blue dog democrats that voted along many republican lines
That's what I thought, so in sense because they never had 60 congressmen in place at any given time they really never controlled congress fully through Obama's presidency. This is ontop of the fact there were those fake blue dog democrats that voted along many republican lines
Darn, you got me there! Nope, Democrats didn't control the Senate even though they had 59 out of 100 senators. <sarcasm>
Which party was the Senate Majority leader? Democratic Party. So which party had the majority of the Senate? Democratic Party. Being one party member away from a 60 vote doesn't mean they didn't have control of the Senate. It means they were inept at crafting good legislation with bipartisian support and input from the minority party to garner the 60 votes needed. When you lock out the minority party from discussions on a legislation and use the excuse that the election gives them the right to do so you can't expect for there not to be some blow back.
Darn, you got me there! Nope, Democrats didn't control the Senate even though they had 59 out of 100 senators. <sarcasm>
Which party was the Senate Majority leader? Democratic Party. So which party had the majority of the Senate? Democratic Party. Being one party member away from a 60 vote doesn't mean they didn't have control of the Senate. It means they were inept at crafting good legislation with bipartisian support and input from the minority party to garner the 60 votes needed. When you lock out the minority party from discussions on a legislation and use the excuse that the election gives them the right to do so you can't expect for there not to be some blow back.
I was not talking about the Senate I was talking about the House. The dems already control the senate. Besides I guess that you did not get the memo that there would be no co-operation from the leading republicans as or 1-8-08! So in a sense if the democrats name the republicans "King for a day" the republicans were going to vote it down
I was not talking about the Senate I was talking about the House. The dems already control the senate. Besides I guess that you did not get the memo that there would be no co-operation from the leading republicans as or 1-8-08! So in a sense if the democrats name the republicans "King for a day" the republicans were going to vote it down
And you get a big fat F for fail! Re-read your very own linked article (an opinion piece by the way). It specifically speaks about the US Senate, not the House of Representatives.
And you get a big fat F for fail! Re-read your very own linked article (an opinion piece by the way). It specifically speaks about the US Senate, not the House of Representatives.
Nope, I don't see where I was talking about the Senate, please point it out to me
Not at all, because what I said was the simple truth.
Yes, during the 1990's Iraq still had WMD, but by the time Bush was in office they were long gone, and anyone who sends his country to war simply MUST know better than to rely on ten year old information. But of course he DID know better, because a lot of the "evidence" was fabricated. He knew there were no WMDs there. The setup was the lie/deception of the century, and it is quite telling you are trying to defend and justify it.
I believe Bush will go down in history as a failure. It is not me trying to make excuses.
We should have taken Saddam out in the 90's for his attempt to assassinate the president. That didn't take 10 years though.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
