If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Some Guy)   Americans love an underdog, and that is exactly what they got with the Lame Duck Congress   (kptv.com) divider line 46
    More: Interesting, The Lame Duck Congress, START treaty, obama, underdog, real evidence, election promise, New Start, continuing resolutions  
•       •       •

1508 clicks; posted to Politics » on 23 Dec 2010 at 2:43 PM (3 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



46 Comments   (+0 »)
   

Archived thread
 
2010-12-23 10:49:37 AM
I don't know what this headline means.
 
2010-12-23 11:12:01 AM
So basically all it takes to get the Democrats to actually do something is to vote them out of office.
 
2010-12-23 01:16:19 PM
I really don't understand why this stuff wasn't happening all year, instead of over the course of a few days. I wonder how many of the outgoing Senators and Congressmen think, "maybe I'd still have my job if I had worked this hard all along."

(Probably none of them, I don't think their brains work that way.)
 
2010-12-23 02:53:51 PM
Sybarite: So basically all it takes to get the Democrats to actually do something is to vote them out of office.

essentially yes- a lot of these were the "blue dogs" who felt politically that they had to play it cagey on some conservative hot button issues. Once it ended up that it didn't matter anymore (they were blamed no matter what) then they had no further reason to play politics.
 
2010-12-23 02:53:53 PM
Sybarite: So basically all it takes to get the Democrats to actually do something is to vote them out of office.

What does it take to get the Republicans to do something?

I'm afraid the answer is "give them total power," but the things they do will be horrible.
 
2010-12-23 02:56:35 PM
Sybarite: So basically all it takes to get the Democrats to actually do something is to vote them out of office.

It's sad really, they don't do anything for fear of getting voted out and they end up getting voted out anyway. Yet as one last "eff you" they do what they campaigned on. Weird.
 
2010-12-23 03:03:38 PM
tlchwi02: Sybarite: So basically all it takes to get the Democrats to actually do something is to vote them out of office.

essentially yes- a lot of these were the "blue dogs" who felt politically that they had to play it cagey on some conservative hot button issues. Once it ended up that it didn't matter anymore (they were blamed no matter what) then they had no further reason to play politics.


...and this thread is done.
 
2010-12-23 03:05:33 PM
"Shaken by a historic election..."

Perhaps someone will point out my error, but I fail to see how this was "historic" vs. another repeat of virtually every mid-term election in modern history? I don't understand why Republicans and their groupies/apologists are citing November as some sort of revolutionary departure from election trends.
 
2010-12-23 03:07:39 PM
There's no need to fear!
 
2010-12-23 03:13:54 PM
Bet this - I I don't a game 1 on the ice. With a mighty duck, one two for free! Old lesson / new selection. Works like a charm
 
2010-12-23 03:15:46 PM
dickfreckle: "Shaken by a historic election..."

Perhaps someone will point out my error, but I fail to see how this was "historic" vs. another repeat of virtually every mid-term election in modern history? I don't understand why Republicans and their groupies/apologists are citing November as some sort of revolutionary departure from election trends.


If you remember, they cited the 2004 elections as a revolution as well. They campaigned on, "We'll keep you safe from the terrorists!" and then used the "mandate" (their word) they received in the election to try and 'privatize' social security.

/their mandate with 50.47%
//they campaigned that Democrats are soft on terror.
///Kerry Supports Gay Marriage, so he has my vote (hehe)
 
2010-12-23 03:17:48 PM
Ted Haggard's Poop-Stained Replicock: Bet this - I I don't a game 1 on the ice. With a mighty duck, one two for free! Old lesson / new selection. Works like a charm

www.filmdope.com

approves of your frontier gibberish.
 
2010-12-23 03:18:08 PM
Sybarite: So basically all it takes to get the Democrats politicians to actually do something besides campaign is to vote them out of office.

fixed
 
2010-12-23 03:18:54 PM
Ted Haggard's Poop-Stained Replicock: Bet this - I I don't a game 1 on the ice. With a mighty duck, one two for free! Old lesson / new selection. Works like a charm

www.inquisitr.com
 
2010-12-23 03:20:37 PM
Ted Haggard's Poop-Stained Replicock: Bet this - I I don't a game 1 on the ice. With a mighty duck, one two for free! Old lesson / new selection. Works like a charm

Vodak poisoning?
 
2010-12-23 03:25:12 PM
Lame Duck Congress: football equivalent, two-minute drill.
 
2010-12-23 03:36:07 PM
dickfreckle: Perhaps someone will point out my error, but I fail to see how this was "historic" vs. another repeat of virtually every mid-term election in modern history?

Your error: Thinking Americans' actually remember things accurately -- if, at all.
 
2010-12-23 03:38:40 PM
lasershurt: What does it take to get the Republicans to do something? I'm afraid the answer is "give them total power," but the things they do will be horrible.
=========================================================

They still got shiat done with only 40 people in the senate.

Hell, Senator Coburn himself could be the only republican left and he'd probably still manage to singlehandedly get shiat done.
 
2010-12-23 03:40:07 PM
dickfreckle: "Shaken by a historic election..."

Perhaps someone will point out my error, but I fail to see how this was "historic" vs. another repeat of virtually every mid-term election in modern history? I don't understand why Republicans and their groupies/apologists are citing November as some sort of revolutionary departure from election trends.


"Historic" because the net GOP gain of 63 House seats was the highest total House victory for a single party since 1948, and the highest of any midterm election since 1938.

But obviously you're right in a sense... the current GOP majority is nothing historic, and the general trend in all midterm elections is the party in power loses seats.
 
2010-12-23 03:41:35 PM
Sybarite: So basically all it takes to get the Democrats Republicans to actually do something is to vote them out of office tell them they'll have to work Christmas break.

Yep.
 
2010-12-23 03:43:10 PM
jake3988: lasershurt: What does it take to get the Republicans to do something? I'm afraid the answer is "give them total power," but the things they do will be horrible.
=========================================================

They still got shiat done with only 40 people in the senate.

Hell, Senator Coburn himself could be the only republican left and he'd probably still manage to singlehandedly get shiat done.


Did I miss something they did, other than stopping other stuff from getting done? Or is this one of those "lack of a thing is a thing" situations, like atheism?
 
2010-12-23 03:43:25 PM
images.chron.com

vs.

dvdmedia.ign.com
 
2010-12-23 03:44:42 PM
A lot of people in washington got fooled into thinking that the things they wanted to do were unpopular, and therefore were scared to actuallu push their agenda properly.

That was a masterstroke from the GOP and the media (assuming the media's purpose was to help the gop) as what actually got people unelected was the appearance of failure and weakness. if they had achieved what they have now then the result would have been very different. hell even just dadt would have gained them a good chunk of seats.

However, the right has peaked WAY too soon and too low, as they failed to get a double majority or a supermajority in even one, and this was the high water mark for the gop.

Which is nice.
 
2010-12-23 03:47:26 PM
DarwiOdrade: Vodak poisoning?

I'm suspecting (SBS) -- short bus syndrome.
i89.photobucket.com
 
2010-12-23 03:51:37 PM
Supes: "Historic" because the net GOP gain of 63 House seats was the highest total House victory for a single party since 1948, and the highest of any midterm election since 1938.

Aaah, I knew that the gains were significant, but not "since 1948" significant. The term "historic" does seem factually appropriate, here, but given that it's just a very accentuated example of an existing trend, and that the Senate remains, I just don't see this as a wholesale rejection of Democratic policy as described by pundits.
 
2010-12-23 03:55:12 PM
dickfreckle: "Shaken by a historic election..."

Perhaps someone will point out my error


Yes, it's an historic.

/pet peeve
//and other memes
 
2010-12-23 03:58:56 PM
mediaho: dickfreckle: "Shaken by a historic election..."

Perhaps someone will point out my error

Yes, it's an historic.

/pet peeve
//and other memes


Care to guess what my pet peeve is? :)
 
2010-12-23 04:17:55 PM
gaspode: However, the right has peaked WAY too soon and too low, as they failed to get a double majority or a supermajority in even one, and this was the high water mark for the gop.

Not sure how numbers impede them. They got a lot of what they wanted from Obama by just doing nothing and facing down a president that's a wimp.

For example: watch as President Brave Sir Robin trades away the signature program of the democratic party in Social Security so that he can stave modest cuts to his half-assed insurance reform legislation.
 
2010-12-23 04:22:10 PM
Supes: "Historic" because the net GOP gain of 63 House seats was the highest total House victory for a single party since 1948, and the highest of any midterm election since 1938.

Doesn't the house have more seats than it did in 1948, or 1952, or 1956, or...?
 
2010-12-23 04:30:57 PM
bigdavediode: Supes: "Historic" because the net GOP gain of 63 House seats was the highest total House victory for a single party since 1948, and the highest of any midterm election since 1938.

Doesn't the house have more seats than it did in 1948, or 1952, or 1956, or...?


No, but the Democrats had a historically large majority. A large loss was totally expected.
 
2010-12-23 04:32:17 PM
t0.gstatic.com

Feeling the love
 
2010-12-23 04:36:56 PM
So should it really even be called a lame duck session since they actually accomplished a lot?
 
2010-12-23 04:50:35 PM
did they cut any spending?

i820.photobucket.com
 
2010-12-23 05:09:46 PM
Ted Haggard's Poop-Stained Replicock: Bet this - I I don't a game 1 on the ice. With a mighty duck, one two for free! Old lesson / new selection. Works like a charm

Has anyone really been far as decided to use even go want to do look more like?
 
2010-12-23 05:14:01 PM
winterwhile: did they cut any spending?

Not a bad 'shop, but it needs Nanzi Pelosi's croquet mallet as an added touch...
www.frugal-cafe.com
 
2010-12-23 05:14:26 PM
The reason for getting stuff done to this magnitude was a powerplay towards 2012. The Republicans have been running on two platforms: opposition to the president and kowtowing to social conservatives. With all the stuff that has been done, the Republicans' job just got harder: not only do they have to do some impressive things that go against their supporters, but they now have to play to the idea that, much like the last Congress, that Republicans do nothing at all except talk about wedge issues they create.

In 2012, Obama can talk about all the things he has done. The Republicans will play politics as usual and lose because nothing they do really makes sense anymore. Obama has done more than Bush ever did and for more people. The Republicans, if they follow their rulebook, are going to look bad by comparison because the only they can do is argue. Obama is playing a long game here and along with the Republicans sabotaging themselves, they are building themselves up to another great loss that might flip the House back to the Democrats and finally destroy them outright.
 
2010-12-23 05:29:04 PM
Sybarite: So basically all it takes to get the Democrats to actually do something is to vote them out of office.

Is it ironic that if they had behaved this way for the past two years they would not have lost in November?
 
2010-12-23 05:30:48 PM
jake3988: lasershurt: What does it take to get the Republicans to do something? I'm afraid the answer is "give them total power," but the things they do will be horrible.
=========================================================

They still got shiat done with only 40 people in the senate.

Hell, Senator Coburn himself could be the only republican left and he'd probably still manage to singlehandedly get shiat done.


"Blocking necessary legislation because your guys didn't come up with the idea first and/or the President apparently wants this particular legislation to pass" =/= "getting shiat done"


/ Zadroga Bill ring any bells?
 
2010-12-23 05:52:21 PM
Guntram Shatterhand: The reason for getting stuff done to this magnitude was a powerplay towards 2012. The Republicans have been running on two platforms: opposition to the president and kowtowing to social conservatives. With all the stuff that has been done, the Republicans' job just got harder: not only do they have to do some impressive things that go against their supporters, but they now have to play to the idea that, much like the last Congress, that Republicans do nothing at all except talk about wedge issues they create.

In 2012, Obama can talk about all the things he has done. The Republicans will play politics as usual and lose because nothing they do really makes sense anymore. Obama has done more than Bush ever did and for more people. The Republicans, if they follow their rulebook, are going to look bad by comparison because the only they can do is argue. Obama is playing a long game here and along with the Republicans sabotaging themselves, they are building themselves up to another great loss that might flip the House back to the Democrats and finally destroy them outright.


Thou hast a point...
I'm seein' a whole lotta 'buyer's remorse' come 2012 and the House flipping back to a Dem majority.

Senate...I dunno.

White House...well, unless the Republicans can field a sacrificial lamb who is REALLY good, then it's a given that Obama will be a two-term president.
I don't see ANY lambs candidates on the Republican side that one could take seriously...but it's early in the game.

Just remembering the last election cycle...we knew who was running right from the git-go.
We weren't given even ONE DAY'S RELIEF from being bombarded with campaigning propaganda.
Process went directly from midterm elections straight into Presidential campaigning with only one day's break for the actual midterm elections.
Pissed me off mightily, as I recall...
 
2010-12-23 06:26:38 PM
syzygy whizz: Just remembering the last election cycle...we knew who was running right from the git-go.
We weren't given even ONE DAY'S RELIEF from being bombarded with campaigning propaganda.
Process went directly from midterm elections straight into Presidential campaigning with only one day's break for the actual midterm elections.
Pissed me off mightily, as I recall...


Look at who are crying loudest against his recent successes.

Those are the folks gunning for the 2012 nominations.
 
2010-12-23 10:48:36 PM
From TFA:

Shaken by a historic election in which angry voters canceled Democratic control of the House, lawmakers of both parties and President Barack Obama tried something new: They consulted each other. They cooperated. And finally, they compromised.

You mean "the Democrats pulled their pants down and let the Republicans shove it all in"? The tax cuts was a fraking joke, as there were much more concessions for the top 1% wealthy than for the rest of the population. (Hell, the estate tax modification alone did more for the wealthy than the rest of the population.) Plus, the unemployment extensions didn't even do anything to the 99ers, which was the only group that really mattered in terms of unemployment extensions. And yes, it's a waste of govt money, in a time when we're thinking of raising the debt ceiling in the near future AGAIN. (These Bush tax cuts have done more damage to the national debt than even the two wars we're fighting.)

DADT would have passed, anyway, as even Republicans were realizing that it was just a bad idea to go against repelling. (All except John McCain, of course. Too bad that will become his legacy.)

"I wasn't going to go to my caucus and tell them that I was part of a deal that we were giving tax cuts to people making more than $1 million a year," Reid said in an interview late Wednesday, adding that he had excused himself from those negotiations.

In some ways, the tax cuts were as big a deal as Obama's signature health care overhaul. But this time, Biden mostly stuck to his script - without using an expletive this time. The president spoke, signed the legislation and rose to pat McConnell on the shoulder, giving the country a glimpse of how bipartisan compromise looks and sounds in the Obama era - somber, tightly choreographed and uncomfortable.


Yeah, that's right. This is what "bipartisanship" looks like: Mitch McConnell standing next to Obama without Reid next to him. I guess we know which party Obama actually listens to.

I'm sure Mitch is laughing his ass off at his new strategy of "bipartisanship" to get exactly what he wants, with a few bread crumbs to the Democrats to make it look like they won something.

This author is an idiot.
 
2010-12-23 10:50:50 PM
Also, 9/11 Responders still don't have proper healthcare, because most of the Republicans blocked the bill. How's that for "bipartisanship"?
 
2010-12-23 11:33:00 PM
SineSwiper: Also, 9/11 Responders still don't have proper healthcare, because most of the Republicans blocked the bill. How's that for "bipartisanship"?

They just don't want to lose their defensive nuclear weapons. If Detroit gets invaded, we need every chance we can get.
 
2010-12-24 09:32:37 AM
SineSwiper

Also, 9/11 Responders still don't have proper healthcare, because most of the Republicans blocked the bill. How's that for "bipartisanship"?


don't have proper healthcare? Citation please?
 
2010-12-24 11:54:05 AM
winterwhile: SineSwiper

Also, 9/11 Responders still don't have proper healthcare, because most of the Republicans blocked the bill. How's that for "bipartisanship"?

don't have proper healthcare? Citation please?


Their problems fall under worker's comp, not health insurance. As such, they have to prove their cancers are work related and not just 'natural' cancers. Same thing with their heart disease or lung problems.
 
2010-12-25 07:41:29 PM
sprawl15

winterwhile: SineSwiper

Also, 9/11 Responders still don't have proper healthcare, because most of the Republicans blocked the bill. How's that for "bipartisanship"?

don't have proper healthcare? Citation please?

Their problems fall under worker's comp, not health insurance. As such, they have to prove their cancers are work related and not just 'natural' cancers. Same thing with their heart disease or lung problems.


so, you are saying they do have healthcare insurance? I fail to see why they should be pickin my pockets then?
 
Displayed 46 of 46 comments



This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report