Hello:

If the Democrats hold 59 seats in the senate, who's in charge?

excon

They have a majority in the Senate... so why are they blaming the republicans for everything in the Senate?

But the Senate isn't in charge of everything any more than the House is or the Whitehouse. Or the Supreme Court.

Hello smoothy:

Because it takes 60 votes to pass anything.

excon

Who's fault is that... perhaps if the Democrats actually practiced the Bipartisanship they falp their gums about rather than actling like little dictators in waiting, something that both sides were in agreement about might happen.

Hello again, smoothy:

I'm not blaming anyone. I'm just pointing out FACT. Although it LOOKS like the Democrats would be in charge, it's actually the Republicans... That's just so. Yeah, it IS crazy.

excon

The Senate is supposed to be that cooling saucer to the inflamed politics .
The truth is that the Dems are in charge . There are bills that the House has passed that sit on Harry Reid's shelf . It serves his and the President's purpose so they can campaign against the "do nothing Congress" .
Reid if he was at all an effective manager could negotiate to get the votes needed in exchange for the House bills getting a vote . But that would ruin their narrative.

Another hypothetical? There are only 51 by my count, plus a socialist and Lieberman.

Hello again, tom:

I'd argue that the Republicans blocked everything that could possibly be considered a victory for Obama.. You wouldn't. Therein lies the battle lines for the coming election.. It's an IMPORTANT one. I'd give you a 5 to 4 advantage right now. But, the OWS'rs are going to turn that around.

excon

Not really, the Republicans can't stop Harry Reid from refusing to allow those over 20 bills passed by the house Obama claims don't exist from seeing the light of day much less an up or down vote in the Senate. So they aren't in control of the Senate either.

If the republicans actually had control... Harry Reid would be history on that first day. He is a HUGE obstacle to progress.

Hello again, smoothy:

The quintessential description of gridlock. Harry Reid blocks the Republicans, and the Republicans block Obama/Reid.

It's going to continue. You may do well in the coming election, but you won't get 60 seats. The players will change sides, but the blockage will continue.

excon

Republicans as a group have that right... after all the Democrats exercised it enough over the years. That's how the system is designed to work. And has worked very well.

The Difference is ONE man deciding what can and can't take place at all... without any consulting or anything... if he was a real man, and gave a damn about respect and dignity of the position... he'd allow those to at least have an up or down vote... rather than deciding unilaterally what will be allowed to even be seen much less voted on.

If they didn't have merit, they won't pass a vote... if they do they will get passed then a veto is on Obamas hands... All Prince Harry is doing is being the fall guy to save Obama from the shame and ridicule from Vetoing a good law passed by both the house and senate.

Hello again, smoothy:

That's a great idea. Do you think McConnell will do the same thing? I don't. You don't either, do you? Dude!

excon

Any evidence this amount of obstruction of blocking MOST house bills by the majority leader of the Senate from even seeing a vote happened before under ANY other administration? By EITHER party?

I think its unprecedented in scope.

I think Harry Reid is having personal mental Health issues that should require him to resign... or its even more sinister than at face value to violate the law and constitution by intent. And it's a bit overt and obvious for a sane politician to actually be so clear he's doing it. They would try to hide in some however.

Hello again, smoothy:

Like I said, unless the filibuster rule is changed we're in for four more years of the same blockage. I know you blame one side and not the other... I'm sorry.

excon

We aren't talking about fillibusters... I'm talking about Harry Reid refusing to even allow the Senate to see the Bills passed by the house.

I have no problem with the filibuster priovisions... assuming the bills are even allowed to come up for a vote. I'm talking about one person deciding unilaterally what if anything is even pro lefty enough to even see a vote.

I remember when the left was opposed to the nuclear option.

Hello again, smoothy:

That's who YOU'RE talking about.. I'm talking about filibusters. I know you don't want to talk about that, because THAT'S where the Republicans do their blocking... The truth is, they're the same.. BOTH block the other. I'm being magnanimous about it. That's because liberals are much better people than conservatives.

excon

You can't have a fillibuster on something that's not even allowed to come up for a vote because ONE man is hiding them from the Senate.


That's not at all democratic...

Hello again, smoothy:

Let's review. One man (Reid) stops the Republicans bills. One party (Republicans) stop the Democrats bills. It's even Steven across the board. You want to keep barking up this tree?

excon

Gee, except for the fact you are comparing apples to oranges here...

Voting in agreement or disagreement on something is called the democratic process.

One man having mental delusions of grandeur, preventing a vote from happening at all is very undemocratic...

Obama isn't the Messiah and isn't entitled to everything he wants...

No previous president was or got it either... why does this guy think nobody is entitled to disagree with him ever?