He's going to keep whining about "Republican budget deficits" as long as the public is willing to accept that as an excuse... when the public tunes that argument out, he'll stop using it. It's not the classiest move on Obama's part to keep blaming Bush, but from a political perspective, it is completely understandable, as the alternative is to accept responsibility himself... and what politician wants to do that?

And something to keep in mind: when the GOP ends up winning back Congress and the White House, their efforts to balance the budget are going to be hampered by what Obama has done... and they're going to blame Obama even though they're in charge.

Bush's last two budgets had to pass with your support.

Actually, I don't think they bothered to do one his last year, which is why they had to do a retro-budget after Obama showed up. I think the Republicans did the same thing in Clinton's last year. So, in reality, "Bush's" last budget was at least 3 years ago even if you ignore the Dem takeover in '07.

Steve -

When you've got someone who's essentially trashing a house - yanking out the toilets, ripping copper piping and wiring out of the walls, stealing the light fixtures and appliances, it's appropriate (IMHO) to bitch about the folks who did it while you're repairing the damage.

But the Obama administration's taken a fixer-upper they got for cheap in the 2006 and 2008 elections, and gutted it and sold the scrap, expecting a big payday to materialize that'd let them rebuild. And now they're bitching about the condition it's in and blaming the folks who sold 'em the house because it wasn't in pristine shape.

I'm thinking if Pelosi and Co. hadn't gotten the House and Senate in 2006, we wouldn't be anywhere as bad off as we are now. But that's all alternate history - not to be confused with the reality we've GOT to deal with.

CHINA not buying our debt ought to be a severe wake-up call - but the current crop of fools aren't going to cut back and shrink the deficit. They don't dare.

I wasn't commenting on the legitimacy of Obama's tactics, but rather on the political aspects of his doing so - politicians do what works for them and Obama will continue to blame Bush as long as he can get away with it.

When you complain about Obama blaming Bush (for whatever), you in effect are opining that the American people are pretty ignorant/stupid. If they weren't, Obama wouldn't be doing what he is. But then again, if they weren't, Obama wouldn't be President.

Steve,

While I agree with you as to Obama's political motivation, when we look at the most recently published polling data, don't we need to ask who is the Obama excuse working for now? And how big of a constituency is that group?

Actually I can think of quite a few more such questions, but for now I'd settle for those.

It's working on fewer people now, so, as expected, we're seeing Obama shift to another set of excuses.

Basic human nature: when you're not doing what you're supposed to do, blame someone else. And when that doesn't work any longer, find someone else to blame. Anything to avoid having to take the blame yourself.

He's been setting the stage by blaming GOP opposition (again, ignoring the reality that the minority can't do anything on their own).. and I'm not sure yet who he'll come up with after that.

Obama may be in the drivers seat but republicans in the house and senate have gone to unprecedented lengths in obstructionism. Even non-controversial bills now require 60 votes. It's kind of hard to steer when you have a bunch of people in the back seat doing everything possible to make you crash. You may be cheering this now, but eventually a republican will be in the drivers seat and unless they are able to muster 60 votes they wont be able to get anything done. I worry about the long term effects of this. Just something to think about.

I agree with Upset. The polls show the blaming is not working.

If Obama and his administration actually had an idea on what to do to address the budget deficits, they'd explain it, implement it and take the well deserved credit for any success derived from their actions.

The constant blaming indicates they are not sure what to do, are sensitive to the criticism, and are simply trying to deflect the blame and the spotlight elsewhere.

Some may disagree with Bush economic policies, but in the aftermath of 911, they knew what they wanted to do to help the economy recover and they did so. They did not complain and whine.

Obama is suppose to be a very intelligent man.
I'm still waiting for proof.

Tina the Reps are the minority...they can't really obstruct anything. Blame your Dems for sheer ineptitude. They had 60 votes in the Senate for six months and passed no major legislation.

"But then again, if they weren't, Obama wouldn't be President."

Won't disagree with you there at all...

I prefer to think of a lot of the Obama voters as being single-issue voters. They looked at a black Democrat, noted there wasn't anything negative in the news about him, noticed the slam-fest by the media against McCain and Palin, and thought "What could possibly go wrong?" They pulled the lever based on skin-color and hype - and now they're finding out the hard way that any candidate can proclaim how compassionate they are and come out with programs to 'show' that compassion - but in the end they damn well better have RESULTS, because you can't spend rhetoric or good intentions on a loaf of bread.

And they're seeing more and more money going out, badly managed and documented - with the implicit, implied demand for much MORE money in trillion dollar deficit chunks...

It's not surprising there's Bush "Miss me yet?" billboards going up!

Tina, are you saying that 41 (until recently, 40) Republicans are MORE responsible for what's going on than the 59 Democrats (well, 57+2 "independents" who are Democrats in all but name) in the Senate, 255 Democrats in the House, and the president and vice president?

The Republicans NEVER had those kinds of numbers under Bush, but man did they get stuff done. A good chunk of it bad, but they did it anyway.

So, are the Democrats incompetent? Afraid of actually doing stuff they might be called to answer for? Incurable wimps? Just losers?

Or all of the above?

J.

This was in the Wall Street Journal...sums it up nicely...take notice Tina(time to pull your head from the sand):

"Democrats have responded by blaming "obstructionist" Republicans, who lack the votes to block anything by themselves; or a failure to communicate the right message, though President Obama is a master communicator; or even Madison's framework of checks and balances, though this system has worked better than all others for some 225 years.

John Podesta, who ran Mr. Obama's transition and heads the Center for American Progress that has supplied the Administration's ideas, summed up the liberal-media mood last week when he told the Financial Times that American governance now "sucks." If you can't blame your own ideas, blame the system."

Tina S -

If someone was intent on robbing you, and all you had to do was say 'No" to them, should you instead give them what they want in order to be 'fair'?

"republicans in the house and senate have gone to unprecedented lengths in obstructionism

It's only "unprecidented" if you are completely, totally, 100% ignorant of everything that happened in congress prior to 2006.

You may not like that fact that the Republicans are currently obstructing the harmful Marxist legislation of the democrats but that does not make that obstruction any different from when the democrats obstructed or tried to abstruct everything that would have benefited America from 1994 though 2006.

I call bull-sh** on Tina S.'s complaint.

Bush got his tax cuts passed even after he lost the Senate following Jumpin' Jeffords treachery. Obama cannot get his policies and agenda enacted even with super-majorities in Congress.

The difference? Some people know how to get things done, other are just commie jerks.

Bush got his agenda enacted because he had the support of the American people. Obama cannot get his agenda enacted because it is basically an anti-American commie agenda.

Jay #11: "A good chunk of it bad"

That was how they got the democrats to not fillibuster it.

Now if the democrats currently in charge want the Republicans to not filibuster their bills they have put a good chunk of good in them. They don't seem to be able to do that so they're not getting much done.

Tina S -

You may be cheering this now, but eventually a republican will be in the drivers seat and unless they are able to muster 60 votes they wont be able to get anything done. I worry about the long term effects of this.

You act as if you think this is a problem.

Tell me, do you worry about the long-term effects of annually adding trillion-dollar chunks to the National Debt? Of throwing out 'stimulus' bills that don't do the job? Or perhaps more 'Cash for Clunkers'-type programs that are badly managed, badly funded, and have long-term effects that damage the economy a lot more than they help?

Or do you figure the US can go the equivalent of Chapter 11 without any repercussions? We're in hock up to our eyeballs, and you want the government to BORROW and spend even MORE?

But I guess you figure it'll be okay - the Dems just raised our credit limit to $14 TRILLION to cover current spending and provide for more borrowing. It's almost like the old joke - as long as we've still got checks we're not out of money!

Tina ?

name one piece of minor legislation that got filibustered ?

Can libs like Tina be that stupid?

"The Republicans NEVER had those kinds of numbers under Bush, but man did they get stuff done."

Because the minority party at the time, the Democrats, weren't determined to derail Bush at every turn. Democrats didn't play this constant game - they pitched in and got things done even when it hurt.

Tina suggests that era of cooperation is gone. I suggest not, I suggest that the anger at Congress felt by many will manifest itself in the sweeping out of all of the old guard - Republicans and Democrats, in the 2010 election - the electorate that gave Obama a mandate for change will put into place a Congress that will help him achieve that change.

In other words, adios to Boehner's Ball and Chain team of No-sayers.

Wow, you know if you spin fast enough, well, you are spinning awfully fast. Isn't that enough?

Michael,
To be fair, ignorant can look alot like stupid. IMO, Tina is the former, Steve Green the later. Just look at their track records for having a resonable debate and to admitting mistakes. Steve has never done either. :)

greenie is actually partly right -

There will be an effort to 'throw the bums out.'

But greenie's completely wrong on Obama. The idiots that voted for the Jug-Eared Douche did so based on hype. Now they see what a treacherous, anti-US, lipstick-coated pig they bought. The new Congress brought in this year will stop JE Douche at every step and restore the checks and balances needed.

Adios to the agenda of the lying fraud that is Obama.

"Now they see what a treacherous, anti-US, lipstick-coated pig they bought."

Obama's job approval rating is still above 50%.

How much above 50% does a vote tally need to be in order to win seats?

.00001 above 50%

In fact, Obama's job approval rating right now is 52% approve, 41% disapprove.

America still loves Obama - and who exactly is the emerging love child of the right?

Not Sarah Palin, she's refused to join the party of extremists in the Tea Party movement - telling them they have to knuckle down and accept the RINOs in the GOP if they want to kiss her skirt.

little stevie ...open your eyes...new CNN poll...52% say Obama should not be re-elected. God you are stupid.

"Because the minority party at the time, the Democrats, weren't determined to derail Bush at every turn. Democrats didn't play this constant game - they pitched in and got things done even when it hurt."

Another BS. Democrats opposed Bush even before he got inaugrated (how quickly we forget Florida 2000?). Bush got his agenda enacted because it had public support. Obama cannot get his marxism enacted, even with overwhelming congressinal majorities, because his agenda is fundamentally unAmerican.

"I suggest not, I suggest that the anger at Congress felt by many will manifest itself in the sweeping out of all of the old guard - Republicans and Democrats, in the 2010 election - the electorate that gave Obama a mandate for change will put into place a Congress that will help him achieve that change.

In other words, adios to Boehner's Ball and Chain team of No-sayers."

You can suggest all you want, ain't going to happen. Republican incumbents will cruise to
re-election, Democrat incumbents will be annihilated.

Just look at the comparative election prospects of Chuck Grassley and Evan Bayh. One is cruising, the other is gone before the first vote is cast.

Book it - Reps will gain 10+ Senate seats, 65+ House seats and 10+ governosrhips in Nov.

This is what happens when know-nothing, do-nothing marxist community organizers are put in charge.

Obama may be in the drivers seat but republicans in the house and senate have gone to unprecedented lengths in obstructionism.

TinaS,
Partisanship is a two way street. Don't put the blame of partisanship solely on the shoulders of the Republicans. This is what Democrat Jim Cooper wrote in June 2009, "In the House of Representatives, meanwhile, we are explicitly told not to work with Republicans." Doesn't that qualify as partissanship?

The last time either party held complete Supermajority control of the Executive and Legislative Branches was the 95th Congress during the Jimmy Carter administration.

We are now in the 111th Congress, which means that there have been 16 Congresses and 7 Presidential terms since then that were not under Supermajority control. All of those Presidents and Congresses were able to get things passed without total control by either party.

Even George W. Bush with a 50/50 Senate and at a time when Democrats were openly saying he was not a legitimate President. Remember, "Selected Not Elected", and "Not my President"

"new CNN poll...52% say Obama should not be re-elected"

If the CNN morons can't spin better than that, JE Douche is down the tubes.

Steve Green, you keep spouting off that one poll. One poll doesn't mean much. The aggregate of the Presidential polls has Obama below 50% approval.

In fact, Obama's job approval rating right now is 52% approve, 41% disapprove.

Obama is not running for election in 2010 and Democrats stand to lose seats in both houses. Not all that unusual, but it does mean that Democrats will have to work with Republicans to get anything done. There is lots to do, but Healthcare, card check and cap and tax are likely dead. If Democrats expend all their energy trying to push those items rather than fix the economy they will be completely out of power after the 2012 elections.

Obama will still blame Bush in 2012, but if he can't fix the economy in four years then voters will feel it's time to give someone else a try.

"Because the minority party at the time, the Democrats, weren't determined to derail Bush at every turn. Democrats didn't play this constant game - they pitched in and got things done even when it hurt.

This was the attitude of the House Democrats in June 2009, "In the House of Representatives, meanwhile, we are explicitly told not to work with Republicans."

Steve Green, is this your definition of bipartisanship?

I'm pissed with both parties, actually. More with the Republicans than with the Democrats, but pissed with both nevertheless.

We've got a situation where neither side is willing to give up on its pet issues -- the Democrats on spending on favored programs, the Republicans on keeping taxes low -- so we're reaping the fruits of our political dysfunction.

For the past decade, the default compromise has been to keep taxes low to satisfy Republicans, and keep jacking up social spending (in addition to war spending) to satisfy Democrats and liberal-leaning Republicans.

Which is why we are where we are now.

"...the electorate that gave Obama a mandate for change will put into place a Congress that will help him achieve that change."

This is exactly the same kind of tone-deaf rhetoric that's got so many people so angry.

Tell us oh sage one, was Scott Brown elected to help Obama achieve his "change"? Gee, why didn't "Marcia" Coakley win that race then? How about the NJ and VA Governors? Were they elected to facillitate Obama's "change"? Or to act as a buffer? Why is it that Marco Rubio is so far ahead of Charlie Crist? Is it because he'll help Obama achieve his "change"? Or is it because he opposes it? Why is it that Boxer, Reid, and a host of other democrats (and to be fair, wishy washy Republicans leaning leftwards) are experiencing drops in their poll numbers?

I'll leave your response for others to have fun with, because I don't care what it is. That is providing, of course, you can even answer the questions.

Tell us oh sage one, was Scott Brown elected to help Obama achieve his "change"? Gee, why didn't "Marcia" Coakley win that race then? How about the NJ and VA Governors? Were they elected to facillitate Obama's "change"? Or to act as a buffer? Why is it that Marco Rubio is so far ahead of Charlie Crist? Is it because he'll help Obama achieve his "change"? Or is it because he opposes it? Why is it that Boxer, Reid, and a host of other democrats (and to be fair, wishy washy Republicans leaning leftwards) are experiencing drops in their poll numbers?

I would argue that all of these individuals were elected to effect "change," though not necessarily the change that each candidate wants to enact.

JamesH: "I would argue that all of these individuals were elected to effect "change," though not necessarily the change that each candidate wants to enact."

Uh, so let me see if I have this straight:

When Scott Brown mentioned at every stop and his campaign commercials that he was going to be the 41st vote to stop obambi's health care takeover, the Massachusetts voters heard that and said, "well, I actually want "change" that is different from Scott Brown's "change", but I'll vot for Scott Brown anyway."

Riiiiiiiiiiiiiiight............

And when Christie spent every penny and waking moment talking about how he was going break up the corrupt dem machine in NJ, cut the size of state govt, and cut taxes, all those NJ voters thought "well gee, I disagree with all that, but I'll vote for Christie anyway."

Riiiiiiiiight.........

What hogwash. Blaming the Repubs for what was/was not passed?

As a commenter at Ann Althouse's blog said:

"Blogger Florida said...

...The fact of the matter is that Democrats have had a free hand to introduce and pass any legislation they wanted to pass.

And they did.

Here's a list of things they didn't want to pass:

* Health care reform
* Cap-And-Trade
* Immigration Reform

They did spend some time passing legislation such as:

* Renewed the Patriot Act
* Funded expansionist war in Cambodia ... er, I mean Afghanistan.
* Refused to fund closing Gitmo Gulag.

Democrats have had total control of the House, Senate and White House and could have passed any legislation they wanted.

And they did."

TinaS: "Obama may be in the drivers seat but republicans in the house and senate have gone to unprecedented lengths in obstructionism."

Wow.

I see little TinaS has her talking points down "pat".

Yes TinaS, obstructionism in this congress is "unprecedented".

Except prior to Scott Brown being sworn in, the Republicans could not "obstruct" a single piece of legislation.

Not one.

You're either a moron, or simply the "better cop" version of the Steve Green "bad cop" in the pantheon of the Soros-funded trollers.

Really, it's pathetic.

Please explain how 40 Republicans could stop any legislation at all.

Idiot.

If something didn't pass, it was because the DEMOCRATS couldn't agree to pass it.
Don't blame the R's for the Dem's incompetence.

What fillibusters? lol....

"Republican strategy: Filibuster everything, win in November

WASHINGTON: Senate Republicans are using the filibuster to limit and often derail Democrats' initiatives, paralyzing the Senate and making it nearly impossible to accomplish even the most routine matters.

The filibuster strategy "makes the Senate dysfunctional," said Mark Strand, the president of the Congressional Institute, a nonpartisan research group. That, in turn, blocks the Obama administration's agenda, but it also sours public opinion on Washington, with polls showing clear public disdain for Congress in particular. Republicans think voters will reward them for that in November.

Good fricking luck with that Republicans... you ARE the Party of NO and you ARE the obstructionists that make Congress dysfunctional and you WILL pay the price in the 2010 elections.

First of all, in the interest of full disclosure, I'd like to point out that I'm a Libertarian and an independent. And, like a lot of you, I am sick of both parties, and even though the Democrats have been reckless and totally irresponsible, I hold Republicans almost equally responsible - up until last year - because I expect Republicans to act like knowledgeable adults. (I have no such expectations for Democrats).

--------

That being said, it is long overdue for Democrats, especially President Obama, Speaker Pelosi, and Senator Reid to grow up and take some personal responsibility for their actions.

TinaS and Steve Green: you need to grow up, too.

I am sick of the excuses. It is useless electing Democrats to office, because complaining is all they know how to do.

Why is it that a Republican President with a razor-thin majority in Congress, can be very effective, while a Democratic President with a hammer-lock on Congress, can't get his agenda passed?

The answer is very simple: YOUR AGENDA SUCKS! It sucks like a bilge pump. It has no popular support. And after healthcare reform, look at cap-and-trade and immigration reform and the rest. HCR was to be the easiest part of that list. Your agenda sucks so badly even Democrats are afraid to support it. HCR barely passed the House and Senate, and it only passed by openly bribing DEMOCRATS. That's right: the only way you got HCR passed was to pay Democrats to support it.

Democrats have had one solid year to ram their agenda through, and they failed. They've controlled the House, and therefore the purse strings, for three years. What accomplishments do they have?

--------

QUESTION: Why are we still at war in Iraq and Afghanistan?

Because the Democrats funded it. Even after running a national campaign screaming that they intend to end the war, they still funded it. After screaming about the conduct of the wars (e.g. Gitmo and torture), they still funded it with no stings attached. Democrats for three years have supported policies that they claim that they are against, but they routinely vote to support President Bush's policies without change.

[Of course, personally, I'm glad that they didn't.]

Why? Are they so stupid that they don't realize that for the past three years they could actually defund the wars and put restrictions on Bush policies?

Or, deep down, they argue against those policies while they secretly support them. And all of their talk is just that: talk. And a lot of this talk sends encouragement to our enemies, even to the point that when Democratic leaders talk about dead soldiers and how the wars are lost, our enemies realize that they cannot defeat our army in the field, so outlasting US resolve and killing soldiers with IEDs becomes the only winning strategy for them. And that is why politics stops at the waters edge: so that you don't undermine our soldiers.

I can't tell, because even when Democrats have total control of the Federal government, it's very hard to figure out what they are trying to do.

CONCLUSION: If Democrats cannot govern - and clearly they can't - then they need to shut up. I'm tired of listening to their whining and their excuses. They are total failures, and they need to grow up and accept the consequences of those failures.

"Obama's job approval rating is still above 50%.

How much above 50% does a vote tally need to be in order to win seats?

.00001 above 50%"......Idiot Child Green

Seriously, you have to work pretty hard to be this stupid.

"Good fricking luck with that Republicans... you ARE the Party of NO and you ARE the obstructionists that make Congress dysfunctional..." Yessir - not only NO, but HELL NO. Being obstructionist to what Obama/Pelosi/Reid are trying to shove down our throats strikes me as not only eminently sensible in its own right for the good of the country, but the 'price' they will pay will be restored majorities in congress and a (perhaps) chastened lame duck president.

"Being obstructionist to what Obama/Pelosi/Reid are trying to shove down our throats strikes me as not only eminently sensible in its own right for the good of the country...."

Americans want more from the Republicans than sitting on their hands picking their butts.

Kevino,

Damn straight. Couldn't agree more.

Right Steve. We will "pay" the price. By the way, told you about Massachussetts. Your wife stop nagging you for a few days, huh? She'll really enjoy the special election for Murtha's seat in PA.

you WILL pay the price in the 2010 elections.

Not in the 2010 election that's already been held.

Steve "moron tilting at windmills" Green: "Good fricking luck with that Republicans... you ARE the Party of NO and you ARE the obstructionists that make Congress dysfunctional and you WILL pay the price in the 2010 elections."

Again idiot, please explain how the republicans, with only 40 votes prior to Scott Browns swearing in, could have filibustered any legislation?

As for "paying the price in the 2010 elections", you mean the R's will only gain 6 Senate seats and 25 House seats instead of 8-10 Senate and 30-45 House seats?

Is that what you mean?

Come on moron! Take time out from your global warming lying to tell us NUMERICALLY what "paying the price in 2010" actually means.

Go ahead. Amaze us with your powers of prognostication!!

But you better hurry, I hear those glaciers are melting so you probably don't have much time!!!

Oh yeah: "Corpse-man"!

Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ....

Steve "delusions of grandeur" Green: "Americans want more from the Republicans than sitting on their hands picking their butts."

Wow!!

Now you're speaking for all "Americans"??!!

Really?!!

Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha!

Sure you are stevie. Sure you are!

I guess that's why the only incumbents in trouble are Dems.

Yep, get ready for it folks. Get ready to hear all about how "Americans" are angry at conservatives and Republicans, how "Americans" are upset about Washington and the "party of NO", and then watch those same Americans vote in the Republicans.

Stevie's little (in terms of capacity and ability to reason) brain is going to explode! (not that it would be a large or significant mess, if you know what I mean).

Oh Yeah: "57 States"!!

Still waiting to hear noted rocket-scientists Stevie Green or TinaS to explain how 40 Republicans were able to filibuster any legislation in the Senate for obambi's first year in office.

Waiting.

Waiting.

Waiting.

Waiting......................."Corpse-Man"!!!......waiting......

When Scott Brown mentioned at every stop and his campaign commercials that he was going to be the 41st vote to stop obambi's health care takeover, the Massachusetts voters heard that and said, "well, I actually want "change" that is different from Scott Brown's "change", but I'll vot for Scott Brown anyway."

Maybe that's exactly what some people wanted. Here's what I'm talking about:

PPP asked whether respondents had voted for Barack Obama or John McCain in the 2008 presidential election. Of those who voted for McCain, 94 percent say they'll vote for Brown -- no surprise there. But of those who voted for Obama, a significantly smaller number, 76 percent, say they'll vote for Coakley. The rest say they'll vote for Brown.

You can't tell me that those Democrats who crossed party lines to vote for Scott Brown favor of the entire Republican Party agenda. I mean, c'mon. These are MASSACHUSETTS Democrats we're talking about.

But I think the broader evidence of this lies precisely in the current backlash against the Democratic Party.

Obama was elected on basic economics issues: Jobs, the recession, jobs, Wall Street regulation, and jobs. Did I mention jobs?

But after the initial stimulus effort, Obama and the Democrats expended almost all their political capital on .... healthcare reform?

Obama's election was not a mandate to create a Democratic (not capital D) utopia. He was elected on a mandate to do something about the economy. And so far, the electorate is dissatisfied with his performance on that score.

Hence Republicans' increased political fortunes.

Still waiting to hear noted rocket-scientists Stevie Green or TinaS to explain how 40 Republicans were able to filibuster any legislation in the Senate for obambi's first year in office

Harry Reid's less than stellar performance as majority leader. Also, intensified ideological homogeneity within both parties.

"Obama's election was not a mandate to create a Democratic (not capital D) utopia. He was elected on a mandate to do something about the economy. And so far, the electorate is dissatisfied with his performance on that score."

Barry = Hope and Change = Worst President evah! = Landslide in 2012.

James "the purposely obtuse?" H: "Harry Reid's less than stellar performance as majority leader. Also, intensified ideological homogeneity within both parties."

Uh, how about it takes more than 40 senators to mount a filibuster?

Did you miss that one?

Seriously, did you miss that one?

I mean, if it takes 60 senators to vote for cloture (to end a filibuster), and their are 60 senators caucusing with the dems, leaving only 40 more senators who are repubs, then, BY DEFINITION, repubs could not, even if they wanted to, filibuster.

Seriously, did that "insight" simply elude you?

Here's an idea, when someone asks you why your feet are on the ground, don't say "well, because I'm usually strapped down in my car, or the ceilings are low in my house, etc".

Instead, simply answer: "Gee, maybe gravity has something to do with it....."

Tina, you said ......" eventually a republican will be in the drivers seat and unless they are able to muster 60 votes they wont be able to get anything done. I worry about the long term effects of this. Just something to think about."

When you are talking about government this is not a problem, it is a feature. If they spend all their time fighting and getting nothing done then they are not screwing us over. I am believer in less government, not more. In lieu of that I will take gridlock. Gridlock in Washington is GOOD!

If there is one thing that Barry and Company are good at, it's whining. The "filibuster" crap is just that, crap Barry made up on the spur of the moment. Doesn't pass muster, doesn't pass research. Just goes to show that Barry has been hanging around "Makin' shit up" Biden again.

Drago:

While you certainly grasp elementary math, you're flunking connotative meanings. Let me spell my point out for you:

1) It takes 60 votes to sustain a motion for cloture.
2) Harry Reid theoretically has 60 votes at his command.
3) If Harry Reid cannot regularly muster those 60 votes for important legislation, then he is, by definition, not leading his majority effectively.

Therefore, I blame current gridlock partly on his ineffectiveness as majority leader.

JamesH: "Drago:While you certainly grasp elementary math, you're flunking connotative meanings."

Ha ha ha ha ha ha!

No James, it is you who are emphasizing that which may or may (arguably) be implicit, while ignoring that which is EXPLICIT and of the greatest importance in the discussion.

Right now, POLITICALLY, (as evidenced by TinaS' pathetic attempt), the dems are blaming republicans and their "filibustering" and "obstructionism" as the SOLE reason why nothing is getting done, despite the fact that until Scott Brown's election Repubs didn't have the numbers to filibuster.

Get it now?

Come on down off your smug and high academic horse and smell the reality on the ground.

"flunking connotative meanings" indeed.

What are you, some High School teacher who thinks everyone will be impressed with your search for the "deeper meaning", oh erudite and learned one?

You're arguing with a functional illiterate, James.

Apparently, you have to be a functional illiterate to know that the Himalayan glaciers are not really melting.

Steve, why did you think they were?

Specifically, why did you believe they were?

Feel free to use your functional "literatness" to explain it to us.

James H -

"Therefore, I blame current gridlock partly on his ineffectiveness as majority leader."

You say that like it's a bad thing.

I don't know about you, but ANYTHING that's slowing down how fast those fiscal illiterates inside the beltway can rack up additional deficit spending is a decided feature, not a bug!

I don't know about you, but ANYTHING that's slowing down how fast those fiscal illiterates inside the beltway can rack up additional deficit spending is a decided feature, not a bug!

Errr ... who says it's going to slow things down?

Over the last century or more, Congress ceded a great deal of policy-setting power to organs in the executive branch. In situations where policy is needed, or, alternatively, where the executive branch decides policy is needed, the executive branch will use that delegated power to the greatest extent it can to fill enact those policies.

As far as deficits ... the must-pass appropriations bills, as I understand it, aren't really subject to filibuster rules.

JamesH is certainly correct about congress ceding power to executive branch agencies.

This was done primarily by the left to achieve their policy goals while simultaneously providing their elected officials "plausible deniability" for the electorate.

This is really evident in the environmental arena.

The only thing stopping these executive branch crazies from doing everything they want is some semblance of understanding on the part of the POTUS of the political impact if certain policy decisions are executed.

As far as appropriations bills are concerned, filibusters can be avoided by triggering reconciliation which is only supposed to apply to spending/taxing/debt issues.

Where the dems are going is to define ANY bill as worthy of the reconciliation process, including passage of huge new programs.

Of course, if they do this, they will suffer the consequences at the polls and then will be hoisted on their petard when the repubs use reconciliation to deflect any dem filibusters in repealing crap legislation.

Part of me hopes they do it, simply because it would provide a case-study to the American public as to how far these lefties will go.

Of course, none of the above helps explain why Steve Green was so convinced that the Himalayan glaciers were melting.

No wonder he's a sucker for any lib talking point that comes down the road.

Brain Surgeon, Brian - Drago is the Brain Surgeriest commenter here.

Steve Green is the dumbfuckiest troll around here!

Tina ?

name one piece of minor legislation that got filibustered ?

18. Posted by Jeff

I'm with you Jeff. We want "facts" from tina s.

Brain Surgeon, Brian - Drago is the Brain Surgeriest commenter here.

Steve Green and bryanD make such a cute couple, don't they? I especially like the way Steve Green pretends that he got all confused and couldn't spell bryanD's name right. It's so sweet!!

bryanD wrote:

You sure are touchy for an international financier!

Pretty sharp commentary from the biggest phony on the internet.

s green "Obama's job approval rating is still above 50%."

And so....

Show me one poll, just one... that shows any of his marquee initiatives i.e. health care, cap and trade, stimulus, job creation approach the 50 percent mark.

As far as your "proof" via the linked Miami Herald article... that's joke right?

A sad attempt to counter a losing argument on your part?

The entire article is conjecture and opinion and completely devoid of facts.

Wishfull thinking by a couple dems and a couple non partisan groups... in short

PFFFFT. it's hot air and nothing else.

stevie green you are pathetic - another slap at Palin?? You must be scared to death of her. With your mentality and political views you should be.
TEA party extremists? The silent majority decides to speak and you can't hear (Cephalic anal syndrom). Sarah Palin supports mainstream Americans, democratic, republican, or independant. Candidates who she feels will give more than lip service to the electorate. People with balls (sorry to bring that to your attention). That the majority of these candidates fall into republican or independant party should tell you something. New republicans and democrats may finally return the United States into what it is SUPPOSED to be. As in return us to lower taxes, balanced budget, strong national defense, states' rights, individual freedom, and return or elimination of the powers ceded by the ignorant current crop of politicians, back to the rightful, CONSTITUTIONAL mandated branches.

TAKE BACK AMERICA ONE ELECTION AT A TIME

Little stevie is petrified Sara is going to win in 2012..

What's She gonna do steve? Give You a purpose? Give You a paycheck with a job attached?