Believe me, it wasn't me welcoming him. I would have kicked him out of the caucus and stripped him of his committee chairmanship.

 

Republicans never forced through conservative policies? Hmmmm...tax cuts for the wealthy come to mind....

 

if it was an issue, it would have been filibustered.

 

That was pure bi-partisanship. There are as many rich Liberals in Congress as there are rich Conservatives.

 

I have to say, you guys are sure getting your nut over this Massachusetts senate thing. You'd never know you were the proud owners of a minority in the House, 41 votes in the Senate and a discredited, out-of-work president.

But by all means, crow away. We'll see what happens.

 

Us crowing? lolz.

discredited? If your guy spent half the time talking about the good his plans do that he does about "the past eight years" playing the blame game, we could get somewhere. But since help and predictions seem to be doing more immediate harm than good, I guess he's left playing the blame game.

we're the proud owner of the wrench in democrat hijack plan.

 

By the way, it appears that what really happened in Massachusetts was that the young people who came out so strongly for Obama were nowhere to be found. Those who did voted strongly for Coakley, but there were far fewer of them than there were in 2008.

*not_secure_link*www.civicyouth.org/?p=369

*not_secure_link*www.dailykos.com/s.../-Young-Voters-Were-No-Shows-in-Massachusetts

 

The crowing ain't about Scott Brown as much as it is a preview of November.

BTW, GWB will be back on the political scene in no time.

His move with Bill on setting up the aid charity for Haiti is shades of things to come.

 

Now this was some fine work here Kimi. And that's whey they have to crow about this and scream hysterically the rest of the time that the sky is falling.

It distracts from the fact they didn't just fall they failed.

Hey I'm not making any excuses. There are a lot of things the democrats did wrong here and not rallying the same youth vote was just one of them although it could have actually made the difference.

But our sky is not falling and I think President Obama and the Democrats are being fair and civil about all this.

 

Ahem, the turnout was a good as the 2008 Presidential elections, but keep trying with the denial.

 

I think there's a huge reason for that too. They were filled with hope and dreams because that's what they were promised. It's natural that the young cling to that. I think what this election showed was another rejection of "business as usual" "partisan politics" "It's gonna be transparent . . . oops."

Unfortunately, there's a whole host of promising young democrats now that have a really bad taste in their mouths.

 

I take it you didn't bother to read the linked stories. Perhaps your head was buried in the sand.

 

No I did not read them, a habit I picked up from you I guess.

Actually I did not notice them, I'll go back and read them now, Ma'am.

 

Now I read them, although I could have read just one, they were basically the same.

But, I still think you are in denial. The number of votes is what counts not the percentage of an age group.

If you have the data on how many young voters stayed home, compared to the margin of victory, you would have something to claim.

BTW, we have very little sand here. Unlike California which has an abundance of well used sand.

 

Here's another opinion piece which, as far as I'm concerned, nails it.

*not_secure_link*www.huffingtonpost.com/shannyn-moore/bad-news-good-news-coakle_b_429311.html

 

Now I can clearly see why you would like that piece. It takes denial to a new level, she is like you in that regard. Blame everything except what really caused the loss of the longest running Democratic Senate seat in history.

Yes FDR got the new deal through with less than 50 votes, there were only 48 states then, duh.

 

how she jumps to this conclusion is beyond me.

they voted in a republican (taking away the democrat supermajority), to expedite the 'change' that obama promised while obama had a supermajority.

got it.

your head isn't in the sand, it's in the clouds.

 

Bad News, Good News: Coakley Loses

"FDR passed critical aspects of New Deal legislation with less than 50 votes! The National Industrial Recovery Act passed 46-39 in 1933."

In the United States Senate, the Senate rules permit a senator, or a series of senators, to speak for as long as they wish and on any topic they choose, unless 3/5ths of the Senate (60 out of 100 Senators "duly chosen and sworn")[10] brings debate to a close by invoking cloture.
*not_secure_link*en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Filibuster

----------

During the New Deal there were 95 senators. 3/5ths of 95 is 57. During the New Deal the Republican Party was not committed to filibuster every major reform presented by Franklin Roosevelt. Currently, the Republican Party is committed to filibuster every major reform presented by President Obama.

 

Right. I won't be holding my breath for this. We are dealing with politicians after all. Ultimately they just want to get re-elected, which is why I am so thrilled with Brown's election. I expect Reid to devote much more time to his own re-election than wasting his time on a bill that will be my "worst nightmare." I kinda hope they try though, watching them fail again will be a pleasure.

 

I don't see why everyone is getting so excited by one election...It's way too soon for the Republicans to be so excited, and the Dems in Congress better watch what they do...MOO I'm beginning to think that I don't like either party...However, people do deserve the right to have health insurance...