How the Republican Government shutdown works

[kaz]

Where did I do "math," Holmes?

You quoted $64 billion Bubba, isn't that some type of math? PROVE IT DUMBASS!

$64 billion is a number, Poindexter. Math is a field with operations and calculations

So NO Bubba, you can't give the math OR a link to show where you got this CONservative "$64" billion "math" cost! Thanks anyways Bubba

Bubba? You are an angry little guy, aren't you, Holmes?

Tell me what difference it would make to you if I show you that Obama was such an idiot he spent more money shutting down government than keeping it running. Would you criticize the dumb ass or would you not give a shit?

Still biting the ankles Bubba since you can't back up your posit. Got it!

No, I'm pointing out you don't actually give a shit. I'm not backing up anything because you tell me to, you are confirming accurate or not it makes no difference to you. If it did matter to you then I'd be glad to engage in the discussion

 

[kaz]

Republicans never had a super majority under Bush either, which means they needed to make an agreement. The Democrats were zero compromise, gimme my way

WRONG!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Republicans held the Majority in the House of Representatives and the U.S. Senate.

When bush43 was assumed office in January 2001, there were Repubican Majorities in both the House and the Senate.

Republicans Lost those majorities in 2008.

Some of us actually know the truth, your NOT one of them.

You're claiming that the GOP lost it's majority in the House in 2008? Sure you want to go with that?

My bad, 2006. Bush had Republican Majorities in both the House and in the Senate from 2001 - 2006.

Obama is the only one who ever had a super majority

In name only, as Byrd/Kennedy both were dying and it was for 4 months TOTAL AS THE DUBYA/GOP economy was crashing!

In name only? Um...no, Obama had a super majority for six months, and that's the only way he got Obamacare. You are not a bright guy, not at all

 

[kaz]

Link?

ONE, 5 Second Google search


When Fox News Shrugged Over A Military Care Scandal (Hint: Bush Was President)


When Fox News Shrugged Over A Military Care Scandal (Hint: Bush Was President)

And Obama promised he would fix it. Another lie.

Weird, did the GOP Congress work with him? MUST be on Obama's shoulders right Bubba?

I'll note you NEVER responded to Clinton shutting down (my link) the PARK SERVICE BOTH TIMES GOV'T SHUT DOWN LIKE OBAMA, Weird Bubba, BUT Bet that will not stop you from AGAIN claiming ONLY Obama did it, lol


NEXT

You forget that Obama had two years of total control, and did nothing. Also the memorials remained opened during Clinton's shut down. What's your point?

NOV 1995

1995 and 2013: Three differences between two shutdowns - CNNPolitics.com

How the National Parks Became the Biggest Battleground in the Shutdown


This time is different from 1995, thanks to new media and the post-9/11 security environment. But there are surprising similarities, too.


In fact, in 1995 and '96 there were two government shutdowns. The first lasted six days in mid-November 1995, the second from mid-December 1995 to early January 1996. For those 26 days, in addition to the national parks, the Smithsonian museums in Washington were also closed. Veterans' health and welfare services were curtailed, passport applications didn't get processed, new clinical research patients were not accepted at the National Institutes of Health, and federal contractors had to furlough employees.

How the National Parks Became the Biggest Battleground in the Shutdown



Washington parks and memorials must, by law, close during a shutdown. And as the National Park Service has to furlough the majority of its workers, there isn’t enough staff to ensure the safety and security of park visitors – hence the barricades. They were closed during both the Clinton era shutdowns of 1995 and 1996, and the brief shutdown in October 1990, during the presidency of George H.W. Bush. Whether or not the parks were accessible is another story. It appears from pictures taken at the time that some were, but it’s impossible to know if they all were. However, they were all closed.

Incidentally, the WWII veterans were able to get into the Memorial, as their visit was deemed a free speech issue, and the National Park Service let them in. And it’s true that the WWII memorial didn’t close during any previous shutdown – because it opened in 2004.

Busting Some Myths About the Shutdown


KEEP UP THE RIGHT WING LIES BUBBA, IT'S ALL YOU HAVE!

Where does the law say closed = barricaded, Holmes? When I close my office at night, I don't barricade the building

 

[Dad2three]

WRONG!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Republicans held the Majority in the House of Representatives and the U.S. Senate.

When bush43 was assumed office in January 2001, there were Repubican Majorities in both the House and the Senate.

Republicans Lost those majorities in 2008.

Some of us actually know the truth, your NOT one of them.

You're claiming that the GOP lost it's majority in the House in 2008? Sure you want to go with that?

My bad, 2006. Bush had Republican Majorities in both the House and in the Senate from 2001 - 2006.

Obama is the only one who ever had a super majority

In name only, as Byrd/Kennedy both were dying and it was for 4 months TOTAL AS THE DUBYA/GOP economy was crashing!

In name only? Um...no, Obama had a super majority for six months, and that's the only way he got Obamacare. You are not a bright guy, not at all

Weird you can't EVER be honest Bubba, and no, they didn't have a super majority when Obamacares passed!

 

[Dad2three]

ONE, 5 Second Google search


When Fox News Shrugged Over A Military Care Scandal (Hint: Bush Was President)


When Fox News Shrugged Over A Military Care Scandal (Hint: Bush Was President)

And Obama promised he would fix it. Another lie.

Weird, did the GOP Congress work with him? MUST be on Obama's shoulders right Bubba?

I'll note you NEVER responded to Clinton shutting down (my link) the PARK SERVICE BOTH TIMES GOV'T SHUT DOWN LIKE OBAMA, Weird Bubba, BUT Bet that will not stop you from AGAIN claiming ONLY Obama did it, lol


NEXT

You forget that Obama had two years of total control, and did nothing. Also the memorials remained opened during Clinton's shut down. What's your point?

NOV 1995

1995 and 2013: Three differences between two shutdowns - CNNPolitics.com

How the National Parks Became the Biggest Battleground in the Shutdown


This time is different from 1995, thanks to new media and the post-9/11 security environment. But there are surprising similarities, too.


In fact, in 1995 and '96 there were two government shutdowns. The first lasted six days in mid-November 1995, the second from mid-December 1995 to early January 1996. For those 26 days, in addition to the national parks, the Smithsonian museums in Washington were also closed. Veterans' health and welfare services were curtailed, passport applications didn't get processed, new clinical research patients were not accepted at the National Institutes of Health, and federal contractors had to furlough employees.

How the National Parks Became the Biggest Battleground in the Shutdown



Washington parks and memorials must, by law, close during a shutdown. And as the National Park Service has to furlough the majority of its workers, there isn’t enough staff to ensure the safety and security of park visitors – hence the barricades. They were closed during both the Clinton era shutdowns of 1995 and 1996, and the brief shutdown in October 1990, during the presidency of George H.W. Bush. Whether or not the parks were accessible is another story. It appears from pictures taken at the time that some were, but it’s impossible to know if they all were. However, they were all closed.

Incidentally, the WWII veterans were able to get into the Memorial, as their visit was deemed a free speech issue, and the National Park Service let them in. And it’s true that the WWII memorial didn’t close during any previous shutdown – because it opened in 2004.

Busting Some Myths About the Shutdown


KEEP UP THE RIGHT WING LIES BUBBA, IT'S ALL YOU HAVE!

Where does the law say closed = barricaded, Holmes? When I close my office at night, I don't barricade the building

How do they close the car wash you work at Bubba?

 

[rightwinger]

ONE, 5 Second Google search


When Fox News Shrugged Over A Military Care Scandal (Hint: Bush Was President)


When Fox News Shrugged Over A Military Care Scandal (Hint: Bush Was President)

And Obama promised he would fix it. Another lie.

Weird, did the GOP Congress work with him? MUST be on Obama's shoulders right Bubba?

I'll note you NEVER responded to Clinton shutting down (my link) the PARK SERVICE BOTH TIMES GOV'T SHUT DOWN LIKE OBAMA, Weird Bubba, BUT Bet that will not stop you from AGAIN claiming ONLY Obama did it, lol


NEXT

You forget that Obama had two years of total control, and did nothing. Also the memorials remained opened during Clinton's shut down. What's your point?

Got it, you''ll double down on the lie. Shocking


A fleeting, illusory supermajority

t’s in Republicans’ interest right now to characterize the Democrats’ congressional majority in 2009 and 2010 as enormous. As the argument goes, President Obama could get literally anything he wanted from Congress in his first two years, so Democrats don’t have any excuses.

The stimulus wasn’t big enough? Blame Dems; they had supermajorities in both chambers for two years. There’s no comprehensive immigration reform? Blame Dems; they had supermajorities in both chambers for two years. There was only one big jobs bill? Blame Dems; they had supermajorities in both chambers for two years. And so on.




I realize memories can be short in the political world, and 2010 seems like a long time ago, but it’s unnerving when professionals who presumably keep up with current events are this wrong. Even if various pundits lost track of the specific details, I’d at least expect Fox News hosts to remember Sen. Scott Brown’s (R) special-election win in Massachusetts.

Since memories are short, let’s take a brief stroll down memory lane, giving Wallace a hand with the recent history he’s forgotten.

In January 2009, there were 56 Senate Democrats and two independents who caucused with Democrats. This combined total of 58 included Sen. Ted Kennedy (D-Mass.), whose health was failing and was unable to serve. As a practical matter, in the early months of Obama’s presidency, the Senate Democratic caucus had 57 members on the floor for day-to-day legislating.

In April 2009, Pennsylvania’s Arlen Specter switched parties. This meant there were 57 Democrats, and two independents who caucused with Democrats, for a caucus of 59. But with Kennedy ailing, there were still “only” 58 Democratic caucus members in the chamber.

In May 2009, Sen. Robert Byrd (D-W.Va.) was hospitalized, bringing the number of Senate Dems in the chamber down to 57.

In July 2009, Sen. Al Franken (D-Minn.) was finally seated after a lengthy recount/legal fight. At that point, the Democratic caucus reached 60, but two of its members, Kennedy and Byrd, were unavailable for votes.

In August 2009, Kennedy died, and Democratic caucus again stood at 59.

In September 2009, Sen. Paul Kirk (D-Mass.) filled Kennedy’s vacancy, bringing the caucus back to 60, though Byrd’s health continued to deteriorate.

In January 2010, Sen. Scott Brown (R-Mass.) replaced Kirk, bringing the Democratic caucus back to 59 again.

In June 2010, Byrd died, and the Democratic caucus fell to 58, where it stood until the midterms. [Update: Jonathan Bernstein reminds me that Byrd’s replacement was a Dem. He’s right, though this doesn’t change the larger point.]

Wallace believes the Dems’ “filibuster proof majority in the Senate” lasted 24 months. In reality, he’s off by 20 months, undermining the entire thesis pushed so aggressively by Republicans. (as the us economy had dumped 9%+ the last quarter of 2008 and was losing 700,000+ jobs a month!)

A fleeting, illusory supermajority

Oh well then that proves Obama isn't a leader. Clinton still got things done with a republican majority. Reagan got things done with a democrat majority. Obama couldn't do anything with a democrat majority. Lol

Where have you been all summer?

Obama got plenty of things done with a Republican majority. They might be pouting about it....but he got things done

Why is it Republicans never get anything done?

 

[Dad2three]

You quoted $64 billion Bubba, isn't that some type of math? PROVE IT DUMBASS!

$64 billion is a number, Poindexter. Math is a field with operations and calculations

So NO Bubba, you can't give the math OR a link to show where you got this CONservative "$64" billion "math" cost! Thanks anyways Bubba

Bubba? You are an angry little guy, aren't you, Holmes?

Tell me what difference it would make to you if I show you that Obama was such an idiot he spent more money shutting down government than keeping it running. Would you criticize the dumb ass or would you not give a shit?

Still biting the ankles Bubba since you can't back up your posit. Got it!

No, I'm pointing out you don't actually give a shit. I'm not backing up anything because you tell me to, you are confirming accurate or not it makes no difference to you. If it did matter to you then I'd be glad to engage in the discussion

Sure Bubba, sure, YOU make a posit but can't back it up.. Typical of you Bubs, keep biting at the ankles you Randian sheeple!

 

[kaz]

And Obama promised he would fix it. Another lie.

Weird, did the GOP Congress work with him? MUST be on Obama's shoulders right Bubba?

I'll note you NEVER responded to Clinton shutting down (my link) the PARK SERVICE BOTH TIMES GOV'T SHUT DOWN LIKE OBAMA, Weird Bubba, BUT Bet that will not stop you from AGAIN claiming ONLY Obama did it, lol


NEXT

You forget that Obama had two years of total control, and did nothing. Also the memorials remained opened during Clinton's shut down. What's your point?

NOV 1995

1995 and 2013: Three differences between two shutdowns - CNNPolitics.com

How the National Parks Became the Biggest Battleground in the Shutdown


This time is different from 1995, thanks to new media and the post-9/11 security environment. But there are surprising similarities, too.


In fact, in 1995 and '96 there were two government shutdowns. The first lasted six days in mid-November 1995, the second from mid-December 1995 to early January 1996. For those 26 days, in addition to the national parks, the Smithsonian museums in Washington were also closed. Veterans' health and welfare services were curtailed, passport applications didn't get processed, new clinical research patients were not accepted at the National Institutes of Health, and federal contractors had to furlough employees.

How the National Parks Became the Biggest Battleground in the Shutdown



Washington parks and memorials must, by law, close during a shutdown. And as the National Park Service has to furlough the majority of its workers, there isn’t enough staff to ensure the safety and security of park visitors – hence the barricades. They were closed during both the Clinton era shutdowns of 1995 and 1996, and the brief shutdown in October 1990, during the presidency of George H.W. Bush. Whether or not the parks were accessible is another story. It appears from pictures taken at the time that some were, but it’s impossible to know if they all were. However, they were all closed.

Incidentally, the WWII veterans were able to get into the Memorial, as their visit was deemed a free speech issue, and the National Park Service let them in. And it’s true that the WWII memorial didn’t close during any previous shutdown – because it opened in 2004.

Busting Some Myths About the Shutdown


KEEP UP THE RIGHT WING LIES BUBBA, IT'S ALL YOU HAVE!

Where does the law say closed = barricaded, Holmes? When I close my office at night, I don't barricade the building

How do they close the car wash you work at Bubba?

I like it, go to a subject you know, harder to get trapped

 

[kaz]

$64 billion is a number, Poindexter. Math is a field with operations and calculations

So NO Bubba, you can't give the math OR a link to show where you got this CONservative "$64" billion "math" cost! Thanks anyways Bubba

Bubba? You are an angry little guy, aren't you, Holmes?

Tell me what difference it would make to you if I show you that Obama was such an idiot he spent more money shutting down government than keeping it running. Would you criticize the dumb ass or would you not give a shit?

Still biting the ankles Bubba since you can't back up your posit. Got it!

No, I'm pointing out you don't actually give a shit. I'm not backing up anything because you tell me to, you are confirming accurate or not it makes no difference to you. If it did matter to you then I'd be glad to engage in the discussion

Sure Bubba, sure, YOU make a posit but can't back it up.. Typical of you Bubs, keep biting at the ankles you Randian sheeple!

Why do you ask people questions that you admit you don't care what the answer is? Is that even supposed to make sense to you, Holmes?

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

Gee... so this is dad23's meltdown of the day?

Me thickest it must be Truthmatters reincarnated.... makes about as much sense.

 

[Dad2three]

So NO Bubba, you can't give the math OR a link to show where you got this CONservative "$64" billion "math" cost! Thanks anyways Bubba

Bubba? You are an angry little guy, aren't you, Holmes?

Tell me what difference it would make to you if I show you that Obama was such an idiot he spent more money shutting down government than keeping it running. Would you criticize the dumb ass or would you not give a shit?

Still biting the ankles Bubba since you can't back up your posit. Got it!

No, I'm pointing out you don't actually give a shit. I'm not backing up anything because you tell me to, you are confirming accurate or not it makes no difference to you. If it did matter to you then I'd be glad to engage in the discussion

Sure Bubba, sure, YOU make a posit but can't back it up.. Typical of you Bubs, keep biting at the ankles you Randian sheeple!

Why do you ask people questions that you admit you don't care what the answer is? Is that even supposed to make sense to you, Holmes?

Got your crystal ball working on me huh, because I never said that Bubs

 

[Dad2three]

Gee... so this is dad23's meltdown of the day?

Me thickest it must be Truthmatters reincarnated.... makes about as much sense.

The rights inability to back up their posits, where I do, with credible links AND logic, is noted Bubba!

 

[kaz]

Bubba? You are an angry little guy, aren't you, Holmes?

Tell me what difference it would make to you if I show you that Obama was such an idiot he spent more money shutting down government than keeping it running. Would you criticize the dumb ass or would you not give a shit?

Still biting the ankles Bubba since you can't back up your posit. Got it!

No, I'm pointing out you don't actually give a shit. I'm not backing up anything because you tell me to, you are confirming accurate or not it makes no difference to you. If it did matter to you then I'd be glad to engage in the discussion

Sure Bubba, sure, YOU make a posit but can't back it up.. Typical of you Bubs, keep biting at the ankles you Randian sheeple!

Why do you ask people questions that you admit you don't care what the answer is? Is that even supposed to make sense to you, Holmes?

Got your crystal ball working on me huh, because I never said that Bubs

I asked and you gave me no response, Holmes. OK, tell me that you care. If I show you that Obama wasted more money shutting down government than he would have operating it, would you say wow, what a boob? What difference would it make to you? If I ask you this and you don't tell me any difference it makes to you, it's a reasonable inference it makes none since you keep responding to the post

 

[Dad2three]

Still biting the ankles Bubba since you can't back up your posit. Got it!

No, I'm pointing out you don't actually give a shit. I'm not backing up anything because you tell me to, you are confirming accurate or not it makes no difference to you. If it did matter to you then I'd be glad to engage in the discussion

Sure Bubba, sure, YOU make a posit but can't back it up.. Typical of you Bubs, keep biting at the ankles you Randian sheeple!

Why do you ask people questions that you admit you don't care what the answer is? Is that even supposed to make sense to you, Holmes?

Got your crystal ball working on me huh, because I never said that Bubs

I asked and you gave me no response, Holmes. OK, tell me that you care. If I show you that Obama wasted more money shutting down government than he would have operating it, would you say wow, what a boob? What difference would it make to you? If I ask you this and you don't tell me any difference it makes to you, it's a reasonable inference it makes none since you keep responding to the post

Bubba, I care YOU made a posit you've been unable to back up when the GOP shutdown Gov't!

Boehner Says 'Clean' Funding Bill 'Not Going to Happen'

House of Representatives Speaker John Boehner said again that Republicans in the chamber will not pass a government funding bill unless it contains some concessions from Democrats on President Barack Obama's healthcare reform law. Asked if Republicans would consider a "clean" bill to keep the government funding as a midnight deadline for a shutdown draws closer, Boehner said: "That's not going to happen."


House Republicans Credit Ted Cruz As Government Shutdown Looms

House Republicans give one person the most credit for bringing Congress to its current standoff over funding for the federal government: Ted Cruz.


House Now Has The Votes To End Government Shutdown, But It Won't


Less than two days after the government shut down, there are now more than 17 Republicans who say they're ready to pass a bill to fund the government with no strings attached, giving the House the votes it needs to pass a clean funding bill.


President Obama Embarrasses Republicans for Their Government Shutdown in Epic Speech

President Obama Embarrasses Republicans for Their Government Shutdown in Epic Speech - Forward Progressives

 

[Kosh]

The far left does not want any kind of budget in place, yet they complain when others do..

 

[kaz]

Bubba, I care YOU made a posit you've been unable to back up when the GOP shutdown Gov't!

Exactly, you want to bicker over something you don't give a shit about. You admit it makes no difference to you, so why do I want to debate it? For what purpose? You don't even care, you agree you don't care. Homey don't play that game. But for a debate that does matter to you, as long as it matters to me too, you know where to go. Peace out, Holmes

 

[Dad2three]

Bubba, I care YOU made a posit you've been unable to back up when the GOP shutdown Gov't!

Exactly, you want to bicker over something you don't give a shit about. You admit it makes no difference to you, so why do I want to debate it? For what purpose? You don't even care, you agree you don't care. Homey don't play that game. But for a debate that does matter to you, as long as it matters to me too, you know where to go. Peace out, Holmes

Got it, No you can't back up your posit, again. Thanks anyways Bubba,

 

[Dad2three]

The far left does not want any kind of budget in place, yet they complain when others do..

Can't use logic and reasoning? You MUST be a CONservative

 

[bravoactual]

And Obama promised he would fix it. Another lie.

Weird, did the GOP Congress work with him? MUST be on Obama's shoulders right Bubba?

I'll note you NEVER responded to Clinton shutting down (my link) the PARK SERVICE BOTH TIMES GOV'T SHUT DOWN LIKE OBAMA, Weird Bubba, BUT Bet that will not stop you from AGAIN claiming ONLY Obama did it, lol


NEXT

You forget that Obama had two years of total control, and did nothing. Also the memorials remained opened during Clinton's shut down. What's your point?

Got it, you''ll double down on the lie. Shocking


A fleeting, illusory supermajority

t’s in Republicans’ interest right now to characterize the Democrats’ congressional majority in 2009 and 2010 as enormous. As the argument goes, President Obama could get literally anything he wanted from Congress in his first two years, so Democrats don’t have any excuses.

The stimulus wasn’t big enough? Blame Dems; they had supermajorities in both chambers for two years. There’s no comprehensive immigration reform? Blame Dems; they had supermajorities in both chambers for two years. There was only one big jobs bill? Blame Dems; they had supermajorities in both chambers for two years. And so on.




I realize memories can be short in the political world, and 2010 seems like a long time ago, but it’s unnerving when professionals who presumably keep up with current events are this wrong. Even if various pundits lost track of the specific details, I’d at least expect Fox News hosts to remember Sen. Scott Brown’s (R) special-election win in Massachusetts.

Since memories are short, let’s take a brief stroll down memory lane, giving Wallace a hand with the recent history he’s forgotten.

In January 2009, there were 56 Senate Democrats and two independents who caucused with Democrats. This combined total of 58 included Sen. Ted Kennedy (D-Mass.), whose health was failing and was unable to serve. As a practical matter, in the early months of Obama’s presidency, the Senate Democratic caucus had 57 members on the floor for day-to-day legislating.

In April 2009, Pennsylvania’s Arlen Specter switched parties. This meant there were 57 Democrats, and two independents who caucused with Democrats, for a caucus of 59. But with Kennedy ailing, there were still “only” 58 Democratic caucus members in the chamber.

In May 2009, Sen. Robert Byrd (D-W.Va.) was hospitalized, bringing the number of Senate Dems in the chamber down to 57.

In July 2009, Sen. Al Franken (D-Minn.) was finally seated after a lengthy recount/legal fight. At that point, the Democratic caucus reached 60, but two of its members, Kennedy and Byrd, were unavailable for votes.

In August 2009, Kennedy died, and Democratic caucus again stood at 59.

In September 2009, Sen. Paul Kirk (D-Mass.) filled Kennedy’s vacancy, bringing the caucus back to 60, though Byrd’s health continued to deteriorate.

In January 2010, Sen. Scott Brown (R-Mass.) replaced Kirk, bringing the Democratic caucus back to 59 again.

In June 2010, Byrd died, and the Democratic caucus fell to 58, where it stood until the midterms. [Update: Jonathan Bernstein reminds me that Byrd’s replacement was a Dem. He’s right, though this doesn’t change the larger point.]

Wallace believes the Dems’ “filibuster proof majority in the Senate” lasted 24 months. In reality, he’s off by 20 months, undermining the entire thesis pushed so aggressively by Republicans. (as the us economy had dumped 9%+ the last quarter of 2008 and was losing 700,000+ jobs a month!)

A fleeting, illusory supermajority

Oh well then that proves Obama isn't a leader. Clinton still got things done with a republican majority. Reagan got things done with a democrat majority. Obama couldn't do anything with a democrat majority. Lol

Where have you been all summer?

Obama got plenty of things done with a Republican majority. They might be pouting about it....but he got things done

Why is it Republicans never get anything done?

Being Republicans they do not know how.

 

[rightwinger]

Weird, did the GOP Congress work with him? MUST be on Obama's shoulders right Bubba?

I'll note you NEVER responded to Clinton shutting down (my link) the PARK SERVICE BOTH TIMES GOV'T SHUT DOWN LIKE OBAMA, Weird Bubba, BUT Bet that will not stop you from AGAIN claiming ONLY Obama did it, lol


NEXT

You forget that Obama had two years of total control, and did nothing. Also the memorials remained opened during Clinton's shut down. What's your point?

Got it, you''ll double down on the lie. Shocking


A fleeting, illusory supermajority

t’s in Republicans’ interest right now to characterize the Democrats’ congressional majority in 2009 and 2010 as enormous. As the argument goes, President Obama could get literally anything he wanted from Congress in his first two years, so Democrats don’t have any excuses.

The stimulus wasn’t big enough? Blame Dems; they had supermajorities in both chambers for two years. There’s no comprehensive immigration reform? Blame Dems; they had supermajorities in both chambers for two years. There was only one big jobs bill? Blame Dems; they had supermajorities in both chambers for two years. And so on.




I realize memories can be short in the political world, and 2010 seems like a long time ago, but it’s unnerving when professionals who presumably keep up with current events are this wrong. Even if various pundits lost track of the specific details, I’d at least expect Fox News hosts to remember Sen. Scott Brown’s (R) special-election win in Massachusetts.

Since memories are short, let’s take a brief stroll down memory lane, giving Wallace a hand with the recent history he’s forgotten.

In January 2009, there were 56 Senate Democrats and two independents who caucused with Democrats. This combined total of 58 included Sen. Ted Kennedy (D-Mass.), whose health was failing and was unable to serve. As a practical matter, in the early months of Obama’s presidency, the Senate Democratic caucus had 57 members on the floor for day-to-day legislating.

In April 2009, Pennsylvania’s Arlen Specter switched parties. This meant there were 57 Democrats, and two independents who caucused with Democrats, for a caucus of 59. But with Kennedy ailing, there were still “only” 58 Democratic caucus members in the chamber.

In May 2009, Sen. Robert Byrd (D-W.Va.) was hospitalized, bringing the number of Senate Dems in the chamber down to 57.

In July 2009, Sen. Al Franken (D-Minn.) was finally seated after a lengthy recount/legal fight. At that point, the Democratic caucus reached 60, but two of its members, Kennedy and Byrd, were unavailable for votes.

In August 2009, Kennedy died, and Democratic caucus again stood at 59.

In September 2009, Sen. Paul Kirk (D-Mass.) filled Kennedy’s vacancy, bringing the caucus back to 60, though Byrd’s health continued to deteriorate.

In January 2010, Sen. Scott Brown (R-Mass.) replaced Kirk, bringing the Democratic caucus back to 59 again.

In June 2010, Byrd died, and the Democratic caucus fell to 58, where it stood until the midterms. [Update: Jonathan Bernstein reminds me that Byrd’s replacement was a Dem. He’s right, though this doesn’t change the larger point.]

Wallace believes the Dems’ “filibuster proof majority in the Senate” lasted 24 months. In reality, he’s off by 20 months, undermining the entire thesis pushed so aggressively by Republicans. (as the us economy had dumped 9%+ the last quarter of 2008 and was losing 700,000+ jobs a month!)

A fleeting, illusory supermajority

Oh well then that proves Obama isn't a leader. Clinton still got things done with a republican majority. Reagan got things done with a democrat majority. Obama couldn't do anything with a democrat majority. Lol

Where have you been all summer?

Obama got plenty of things done with a Republican majority. They might be pouting about it....but he got things done

Why is it Republicans never get anything done?

Being Republicans they do not know how.

It is true

republicans no longer know how to legislate. They are so bullied by the rightwing media and extreme right that they are afraid to do anything

Doing nothing is preferred to having to deal with the Democrats to reach an agreement